By Sue Edmonds, a Waikato-based science and farming writer
In recent years I’ve read a number of articles which complain that, while new science from individual teams and organisations is good, the collective outcome is complex because there is little communication and sharing between them to produce rounded results and systems that farmers can relate easily to their own operations.
I feel that this has consistently got worse since science institutions were turned into Crown Entitles and expected to make profits, and where competitiveness has replaced camaraderie.
More recent news is that the decade-long research projects, such as Our Land and Water (OLW) National Science Challenge, will be ending in late June this year. Thus, when I was advised of an upcoming roadshow day at Karapiro sponsored by Landcare Research, AgResearch and others on the work that has been done by the various teams, I rang and got myself included.
This particular one was for rural professionals and attracted about 50 people, some local and some from as far away as Wanganui and Tauranga.
There were seven speakers on different topics, but it was obvious that while each team had done an enormous amount of research, and most were offering free access to apps and databases, there had been no attempt to produce, as yet, an overarching result (apart from the idea of land use change) that farmers could relate to and from which they could choose the most appropriate system for their own needs.
For instance, those looking at optimising policy to achieve environmental goals for agriculture appeared to come down firmly on the idea that Pinus radiata planted everywhere suitable would solve our gas problem through sequestration.
However, it was pointed out that this would require fewer workers, and drastically reduce the profits for animal farming, which would then go to whoever would receive the carbon credits.
The whole idea of land use change and its complexities is little understood by most of the population. Yes, we could drastically reduce our animal population and grow other foods instead, but to date our whole industrial setup is geared to milking, processing, killing and exporting substantial animal products to familiar markets. And trees don’t grow overnight.
Land use changes involve complex natural systems as well as complex considerations by farmers, communities and policymakers.
For a start, we need to bring together the social, economic, cultural and environmental impact of potential changes, to help policymakers and land stewards identify the changes with best outcomes for the wellbeing of our land, while realising that there are trade-offs, compromises and unexpected outcomes.
Another speaker took us through some novel financing solutions for land use change, the cost of which would be considerable. The problem was seen as aiming for a future “where a catchment contains mosaics of land uses that are more resilient, health and prosperous than today”.
The need for new thinking is because there is a squeeze on public funding, the alternative uses may have lower financial returns, the cost is high, and the current system would produce a challenge for whenua Māori where traditional debt funding isn’t accessible.
However, solving any of these would require discussions with a wide range of stakeholders, and a lot more engagement, research and evaluation criteria. Given the current uncertainties with the government, and the weather, it would seem there is a great deal more thinking to be done to bring a satisfactory result.
In the meantime we need to improve the way we monitor improvements in our freshwater systems. Currently monthly testing is done by local councils at scattered sites. However, this is inadequate to cope with changing weather, and farm practices.
Obviously many more sites need to be tested in every region and more often, and those who have been studying this have concluded that it will need to be done by communities (presumably voluntarily).
The research has produced three dashboards relating to different freshwater environments (rivers, lakes and groundwater), each containing modules to help design or review monitoring programmes for detecting improvements in water quality.
Richard McDowell, leader of the OLW Challenge, gave a presentation on building resilience in land and water for the next generation. This looked at whether land use change could enable us to lower our emissions, meet water quality objectives for algae and grow us a healthy diet domestically while still meeting export levels.
Nationally there are already 20 established simple actions being or able to be applied, with the list in order of most effective, least cost guidelines, and indicative uptake has been measured 1995-2015.
However, for us to begin to attempt the harder stuff, there are 26 developing actions now listed with the same criteria, focused on variable rate irrigation and effluent and nutrient use, constructed wetlands, slow-release fertilisers and additives, remote fencing etcetera.
While some areas are managing with mitigation, there are those that cannot do this low enough and these areas will have to consider land use change soon. And to achieve “good” freshwater status, we can expect to see “green shoots” within five years, but realistically it is going to take 20 if we do it right.
On a more cheerful note, one group has spent its time pulling a huge mass of data together to produce a free Data Supermarket that will give enlightened users access to a huge raft of information.
To date it covers suitability and production for crops and rotations, pasture potential production for dairy sheep and beef, and a production index for Pinus radiata, Eucalyptus fastigata and Douglas fir.
There is a section on economics, environment (giving freshwater states for N and P, E coli and sediment levels, gas trade-offs, and leaching and runoff details across the country), and another on climate change, including drought risk, heat stress, barber pole worm and fire risk. There are also Emissions Trading Scheme look-up tables.
This augurs to be an extremely useful tool, although the speaker did comment that it could be made enormously better if the research was allowed to continue for two more years.
While all of these research projects have achieved much in their area, I asked McDowell what was being done to bring it all together, so that farmers, and farm advisers could achieve a comprehensive overview to use the most useful parts for each individual farm.
He recommended that the last speaker would answer my question. She gave what seemed to be the overarching view of the decade-long project, and that was on the need for storytelling, mainly by the farming community and rural communities.
So togetherness is required where stories of successes and failures are supposedly critical for inspiring others to get cracking. Not only face to face but there are already internet platforms on a Catchment Journey Template, Healthy Waterways, and ArcGIS StoryMap.
However, I am still of the opinion that the Challenge itself should produce a document, in farmer friendly language, that ties it all together and produces workable suggestions for the individual farmer, wherever they may live in Aotearoa.
But, with our current government unsure of what it really wants to achieve, getting the time and resources for this may be difficult!
