• Full Story

Environmentalists pleased with factory farm consents decision

Print

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 3:54p.m.

Environmentalists are happy with the decision to "call in" factory farming consents

Environmentalists are happy with the decision to "call in" factory farming consents

A decision to "call in" controversial consents sought by three companies to set up large-scale factory dairy farms in the South Island's Mackenzie Basin has been praised by environmentalists.

Southdown Holdings Ltd, Williamson Holdings Ltd and Five Rivers Ltd want to set up 16 dairy farms, which would involve thousands of cows being housed in huge sheds permanently during winter months and temporarily during summer.

The Green Party and environment campaigners are among those who have been strongly against such development because of animal welfare issues and the fact it would involve visual degradation and huge effluent discharges in what is considered a pristine environment.

Environment Minister Nick Smith today called in three effluent discharge consents being sought through local government by the companies. His decision to refer the issue to a board of inquiry removes the local authority role in deciding the consents.

"I have called in these discharge consents as they are nationally significant due to their scale, the fragile and iconic nature of the Mackenzie Basin environment, the importance of freshwater quality to the Government and the high level of public interest," Dr Smith said.

Effluent from the intensive farms, which could hold at capacity nearly 18,000 cows, would be equivalent to a city of 250,000 people, he said.

Dr Smith said the process had been complicated by the fact that it has had to be considered without the recent amendments to the Resource Management Act.

Animal welfare issues fell outside the jurisdiction of the RMA and the associated water take consents could not be called in as they dated back to 2004.

Green Party environment and water quality spokesman Russell Norman said the decision was a win for environmentalists the length of the country who were opposed to the plan.

"It's a great victory for all the people who have been campaigning on it," he told NZPA.

Dr Norman said locals were appalled when a land use consent relating to the proposal was processed through the Waitaki District Council without public notification. Environment Canterbury has been handling the other consents.

In terms of discharge concerns, Dr Norman said if the proposals went ahead effluent would be spread on to large tracts of land previously covered in tussock, and would seep through thin and stony soils and find its way into lakes and rivers.

Environmental Defence Society chairman Gary Taylor said he had seen some massive land use changes taking place in the Mackenzie Country, and the scale and intensity of the applications in question was a step too far.

He echoed calls by Dr Norman and the Green Party that the companies abandon their proposals and re-think the whole issue.

Mr Taylor said there needed to be a proper strategy for the Mackenzie Basin that could charter a long term future compatible with protecting the environment.

Dr Norman said he was pleased with the calibre of the board of inquiry, which will be chaired by Environment Court Judge Jane Borthwick and includes members Michael Bowden (water engineer), Dr Jim Cooke (scientist), Edward Ellison (Ngai Tahu) and Professor David Hamilton (lake ecologist, Waikato University).

The board will oversee a nation-wide submission process after the proposal is re-advertised.

NZPA

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

29 Jan 2010 05:02p.m.

Tim wrote:

Just because it is accepted practice in Europe and North America, doesn't mean it's a good practice. I can perhaps understand over the worse of the winter months wanting to shed cows but not for this length of time and farmers already have too much access to water, if you need to irrigate large tracts of land, perhaps dairying is not the best use of the land such as in the Mackensie basin. The people pushing these proposals are not interested in the environment or animal welfare but only the almighty dollar.

27 Jan 2010 06:49p.m.

Mark wrote:

Time for Environmental Defence Society (and the Minister) to pull their heads in.

Facts missing from the above article and the debate generally:
1. The Mackenzie Country proposals are in respect of existing farmland - there is no proposal to convert wild tussocklands (and the simple fact is that the sheds mean that the farming is less land-intensive, rather than more).
2. The water rights involved already belong to the farmers (by Act of Parliament) and so there is no issue around access to water - the farmers already own it.
3. So-called "animal welfare" issues are outside the scope of the Resource Management Act and so carry no weight in any submission under RMA processes. And the farming model is essentially no different to Western Europe and North America - where it is accepted farming practice.
4. As for effluent management, shedding gives the farmer an ability to BETTER manage effluent than the "traditional" Kiwi farming model (where a farmer may only have practical control over 15% of effluent). Shedding is therefore a no-brainer when it comes to the alternative.

Lastly, the farming model has already existed in the district for a number of years. Why the stink now?