Geographical differences summary

The previous two sub-sections have examined the differences in ASM features (see Section 5.4.1) and institutional arrangements (see Section 5.4.2) supported by farmers according to the geographical area in which they farm. In this sub-section the possible reasons for these preferences are outlined in more detail.

In Section 4.2.1 the interview participants’ responses to the question of whether they supported limits on the Hurunui River and its tributaries were discussed. Participants from the Pahau River area all supported limits on the waterways, while the responses from those in the Upper Hurunui and Lower Hurunui areas varied between being supportive and un-supportive. This variation in response may in part be explained by a consideration of the responses outlined in Section 4.2.2, where it can be seen that all participants from the Pahau River area were in favour of the need to manage water quality. Whereas there was a mixture of responses from participants from the Upper Hurunui area, while three respondents from the Lower Hurunui area did not see a current need to manage water quality as they thought it was as good now as it had historically been. A similar pattern was seen in Section 4.2.3, where all participants from the Pahau River area were willing to take responsibility for the management of water quality in the catchment, while in the Upper Hurunui area the majority were willing; whereas in the Lower Hurunui area the majority of respondents were willing to take responsibility if science proved there to be a problem. All participants from the Lower Hurunui area thought there was a need for more scientific understanding to prove there was a water quality problem, with three indicating the same from the Upper Hurunui area, while only one indicated this feeling from the Pahau River area (see Section 4.3.6). Similarly while all participants from the Pahau River area supported an ASM approach, in the Upper Hurunui area one did not, and in the Lower Hurunui area two did not (see Section 4.3.1). A further difference between the geographical areas was seen in Section 4.5.1, where the majority of farmers from the Pahau River area thought that any headroom that they created, through improved farming operations should be retained by them. Conversely, in both the Lower and Upper Hurunui areas

123

no farming participants thought headroom should be retained by them, rather three participants and two participants respectively thought that to pool any headroom to use for the catchment would be the best option.

There are several potential reasons as to why there is this pattern of difference in opinion between the different geographical areas, in the following paragraphs I offer my suggestions for the patterns observed. One possible reason for these patterns is that the types of farming undertaken by the farming participants was quite different between the geographical locations (see Section 4.1.1). All farmers from the Pahau River area conducted dairy or dairy support farming operations; while in the Lower Hurunui area all but one participant (a dairy farmer) were sheep and beef farmers; whereas in the Upper Hurunui area there were both dairy farmers (two participants), dairy support (one participant) and sheep and beef farmers (three participants) amongst those interviewed. This difference in farming type may help in an understanding of why there was such a variation in the farmer’s response with regard to what they thought should happen to any headroom that may be created in the catchment. While dryland farmers probably would rely on less costly mitigation measures such as nutrient management plans (see Section 2.2.6), dairy farmers run on high cost systems. For this reason they would be acutely aware that to improve their land uses would require large expenses. In fact, this sentiment was expressed by one participant who commented about profitability. Shareholders in the Amuri Irrigation Company are also aware that the irrigation company has aspirations for expansion, which could in turn relate to lower costs of irrigation water to individual irrigators. Therefore, it would make sense that farmers in the Pahau River area felt this way about the creation of headroom.

Secondly the timing of the interviews may have had an impact on the opinions expressed by interviewees. As discussed in Section 3.3.4 dryland farmers became aware of the implications of the Regional Plan and how it affected their ability to change land use and increase productivity during the months of the interviews. Therefore, the general feeling expressed through the interviews may be a natural response from land users operating different farming systems. It is perhaps not surprising therefore that farmers from the Lower Hurunui area were less supportive of several of the ASM features and institutional arrangements at this time, as all but one of the farming participants from this area are sheep and beef farmers. Therefore at the time of the interviews there was a general feeling of distrust amongst the land users in this area. Within the Upper Hurunui area, the farming participants operated a variety of farming types, with three sheep and beef farmers and three dairy farmers, or dairy support. It is therefore not surprising that the responses from this area present a mixture of opinions, lying

124

somewhere between support and non-support of the ASM features and institutional arrangements, with dairy farmers supporting, and dryland farmers not supporting some aspects.

Thirdly, as all of the farmers interviewed from the Pahau River area were supplied irrigation water from the Amuri Irrigation Company, they are used to having structure and being answerable, at least in part, to a governing organisation. Several of the farmers in this area also belonged or contributed to the Pahau Enhancement Group, so they had been involved in collective action for the maintenance of water quality in the past. Therefore some of the features of an ASM approach are not new to them, and may therefore be more readily accepted. The more positive opinions expressed may also reflect the fact that some of the dairy farmers are familiar with collective working, with an awareness of the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord for example. This may also explain the greater support amongst the Upper Hurunui participants compared to the Lower Hurunui participants.

Finally, the geographical location in which the participants farmed appears to have had a significant influence on their responses. The participants from the Lower Hurunui area are affected by the land use upstream, as all water in the catchment effectively drains past them. This combined with the realisation that the rules in the Plan had an impact on them, and the general feeling of discontent felt from low emitting dryland farmers compared to high emitting dairy farmers, probably had a large impact on their opinions, and possibly explains why it was farmers from the Lower Hurunui area who wanted to see more monitoring in the catchment, especially towards the mouth of the river and possibly in the hapua itself. Such monitoring would allow the farmers in this area to see the impact they were having on the water quality in the river, as at the time of the interviews the final reoccurring sampling point in the catchment was at the State Highway 1 Bridge. By comparing the difference in water quality results between the bridge and the hapua, an accurate measure of the impact from the farmers in this area could be calculated.

125