Editorial: Nitrate emergency?
OPINION: Environment Canterbury's (ECan) decision recently to declare a so-called “nitrate emergency” is laughable.
At the heart of the issue is a claim that farmers are being invoiced for inspections even when no problems are found. That’s not just misleading, it’s wrong. Environment Southland only issues cost recovery invoices when there’s a confirmed breach of the rules. This isn’t about penalising farmers for doing the right thing, it’s about ensuring that the cost of investigating and enforcing noncompliance doesn’t fall unfairly on all ratepayers.
This winter alone, 76 intensive winter grazing sites were flagged for follow-up. Of those, only 21 resulted in cost recovery invoices and each tied directly to confirmed noncompliance. The rest have had an array of approaches from advisory letters, ongoing investigations, to no further action being needed.
There is also still 26 investigations to complete.
Our enforcement approach has remained the same for several years and is education-first, if appropriate.
Officers look at compliance history, engagement with Environment Southland staff and environmental effects of any identified noncompliance, and case-by-case, determine next steps.
Let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture. Farmers who hold winter grazing consents receive one inspection per year, and they pay based on actual costs (time/ kilometres). They then receive an invoice for annual charges, the same as other consent holders. That’s standard practice, not targeted enforcement.
There’s also been confusion around communication. Contrary to what’s been implied, farmers are always contacted if non-compliance is found. Staff discuss the inspection outcome directly, including any cost recovery. The invoice itself includes information about potential future penalties, not because they’re being applied now, but because transparency matters. Farmers deserve to know what’s at stake if issues persist.
On the nitrogen reporting front, Southland farmers have shown strong engagement with this national requirement. With 85% fully compliant and six farmers exceeding limits, the region is clearly committed to responsible nutrient management. Where limits were breached, Environment Southland took an education-first approach, working with farmers to improve understanding, not rushing to enforcement.
Yes, there were 20 farmers who received non-supply fees after repeated reminders. But even then, many responded quickly, and those who’ve now submitted their data may be eligible for remittance. Again, this isn’t about revenue, it’s about fairness and accountability.
In a time when trust and collaboration are more important than ever, it’s disappointing to see misinformation muddy the waters. Southland farmers deserve facts, not fear.
non-supply fees have been issued. When balanced against the number of farmers in the region, it seems clear that this is not the overzealous penalisation that is being painted.
We’ve seen a lot of positive change in winter grazing practices in the region in recent years. This is reflected in what Environment Southland staff are seeing on the ground, with most farmers doing the right thing.
Our staff are here to help farmers navigate their environmental responsibilities. We want to work with farmers to ensure that the best outcomes are achieved through the regulatory framework.
Nicol Horrell is chairman of Environment Southland
