Recommendations

This section provides policy and industry stakeholder recommendations to deliver on the third research objective. First, a discussion on Canterbury compliance rates is benchmarked against other regions, along with a discussion on different types of milking livestock. This is followed

78

by specific recommendations for policy and industry to help ensure compliance rates continue to increase.

6.3.1 Compliance benchmarking

When compared to other regions and industries, Canterbury had the lowest percentage of full compliance at first inspection, but is still in a similar range of compliance levels with effluent consents in other regions in New Zealand (see Table 1.1 in Chapter 1). Importantly, Canterbury had one the lowest rates of significant non-compliance for effluent consents in the 2014-15 season (Bay of Plenty had the lowest at two per cent). This is important: significant noncompliance is what environmental agencies are trying to reduce, as it represents serious issues on-farm that have the potential to negatively impact the physical environment, whereas minor non-compliance relates more to administrative and minor technical issues. Significant noncompliance involves a much smaller sub-set of the population of consent holders. These are individuals generally at the top of the RR pyramid, that are more difficult to reach, and were not included in this study’s sample. Overall, Canterbury effluent consent compliance statistics are not dissimilar to other regions and regulations.

6.3.2 Livestock types

Currently, ECAN reports dairy effluent consents as a single group with emphasis placed on bovine dairy impacts. However, the survey revealed that at least one of the respondents had an effluent consent for a sheep dairy operation. Dairy goat and sheep milking operations are growing in New Zealand with successful niche market opportunities, however, most small ruminant dairies currently operate on the North Island or in Southland (Dairy Goat Cooperative, 2016; Landcorp Farming Ltd., 2016; New Zealand Sheep Milk Co., 2014).

Statistics on the number of small ruminants currently milked in New Zealand, let alone the Canterbury region, are difficult to come by likely due to the relatively small size and emerging nature of the industry. However, what is known, is that nutrient losses (like phosphorous and nitrogen) from sheep are lower than from cows, as there is less concentration in individual urine patches (Menneer, Ledgard & Gillingham, 2004). There has been interest in sheep milking documented among Canterbury farmers, as sheep milk sells for approximately four times the price of cow milk (The Agribusiness Group, 2015; FieldNotes, 2015). As the industry continues to gain attention and grow, it may be beneficial to distinguish livestock type from a reporting and regulating standpoint, given the differences in environmental impacts.

79

6.3.3 Policy recommendations

This section provides recommendations for policy makers and industry stakeholders to help ensure that compliance rates continue to increase. It will always be difficult for a region to achieve 100% compliance at first inspection, as weather and unpredictable machinery breakdowns may impact on compliance. However, there are methods to ensure that compliance rates are upheld if not increased.

6.3.3.1 Compliance rating system

Most other regulatory agencies rely on a system to evaluate compliance that expands beyond compliance, minor non-compliance and significant non-compliance. It may provide value for ECAN to develop a rating system more similar to that of Environment Southland which rates compliance on a five-point scale. A stronger emphasis on the ability to comply and a priority rating system for risk within significant non-compliance - similar to that of Waikato Regional Council could also assist those rated significantly non-compliant to move towards a compliant status (Environment Southland, 2015; Cantley, 2014).

One comment from a respondent highlights how some forms of minor non-compliance - such as those related to administrative detail rather than environmental impact - may adversely impact the reputation of consent holders when reported:

“Tendency to focus on minor issues (e.g. failure to display consent) resulting in misleading levels of published non – compliance.”

ECAN states that this example - having the consent document in a prominent place - ensures that information is, “readily accessible in the dairy shed as a constant reminder, particularly if key staff are not available when issues arise” (Environment Canterbury, 2015, p. 26). It may be more appropriate for inspectors to use their discretion so that when a consent “falls off the wall”, as one respondent reported as their reasoning for non-compliance, it is not considered an automatic failure. Further, inspectors could promote briefing of farm staff during training on consent conditions, where to find consent documents and how to manage issues as they arise and who to contact. As ECAN states, “some farms (inspected) where employees were questioned about the requirements of the consent conditions, they did not know anything about them even though this information was on the wall” (Environment Canterbury, 2015, p. 26). Some comments on, and reasons given for, non-compliance suggested that applying for new consents, rather than updating existing consents is an issue:

80

“We were non-compliant because we were irrigating more land than our consent which is good. Instead of just rewriting the consent, we had to do a whole new one that cost time and money.”

As regulations and consent conditions continue to evolve, it is recommended that a system allowing for more fluidity when updating consents is adopted, so that consent holders do not feel that the process is wasteful of their time and monetary resources or that the process is protracted, may also provide work efficiencies for ECAN.

6.3.3.2 Email contacts

As is evident from the survey distribution, ECAN head office does not possess a full list of consent holder email addresses. Approximately 72 per cent of consents had an associated email address. With perceived access to information seen as a significant variable related to compliance, it is recommended that ECAN source a complete and frequently updated list of emails and fully leverage the use of electronic media by, on a consistent basis, producing pertinent general or region specific updates respecting regulation and proposed changes. This may also help alleviate uncertainty around future regulatory impacts felt by a large percentage of respondents in this research.

Currently, ECAN is active on and leveraging the use of Twitter and Facebook (https://twitter.com/ecan; https://www.facebook.com/EnvironmentCanterbury/). However, given the age demographics of consent holders in this research and other research within the Canterbury region and as farmers are not usually known as technological enthusiasts, the use of these social media platforms as primary points of contact may not be reaching the majority of the intended audience (Murphy, 2014; Van Dalsem, 2011; Barbassa, 2010).

6.3.3.3 Enforcement action

During follow-up discussions, ECAN suggested that enforcement actions against significant non-compliant consent holders (primarily repeat offenders) may increase in future, as consent holders have, arguably, had a lot of time to ensure they consistently operate within their consent conditions (Richard Purdon, personal communication, October 18, 2016). However, Winter and May (2001) and May (2005), suggest that increasing deterrence measures, chiefly enforcement actions, may have an adverse impact on compliance. Given the profile of those surveyed and where they sit in the RR pyramid, penalisation may not be the appropriate response. Additionally, respondents voiced the view that compliance could be achieved through alternate engagement strategies:

“The approach of trying to catch farmers out with short notice inspections is very threatening. Experience from other authorities suggests that there is better engagement where inspectors are working with rather than against consent holders.”

81

The Waikato Regional Council rates significant non-compliance on a priority rating system, focused on the distance from achieving compliance. They also provided letters in advance to notify consent holders that their farm will be visited sometime within the season, providing an opportunity for consent holders to start thinking about their systems and take remedial action where required (Cantley, 2014).

Cantley (2014) suggests that Councils are restricted to only two levers of action: education and enforcement. In the Waikato, an emphasis was placed on engaging with consent holders who were significantly non-compliant, particularly during site visits. Opportunities for discussions were leveraged beyond a written compliance letter. Based on the risk rating, either a requirement for, or recommendation of, an improvement plan was specified with the understanding that the onus is on the consent holder to ensure plans are undertaken (Cantley, 2014). This strategy provides an opportunity to work with the consent holders and may provide, as Winter and May (2001) suggest, an opportunity to increase compliance without increasing enforcement action.