6 New Zealand Aquaculture Industry Initiative: Collingwood Case Study
69
As a result, we were tasked to pursue a collaborative approach involving the
marine and terrestrial farmers, Fonterra, and the Council. There was no guarantee
of success, but the upside was that, in the event of failure, the marine farming
sector would not have unduly impacted its relationships with the community whose
goodwill it relies upon and there would have been no expensive legal bills. Cost
would be limited to staff time and the time commitment of the working group.
In fact, as things turned out, the positive benefits to the industry’s reputation and
relationships with neighbours exceeded even our most optimistic expectations.
The first stage was to contact and meet with key players. The Council was
supportive but restricted in both financial and personnel resources. We met with
the country’s principal environmental NGO, the Fish and Game Council, and they
willingly joined the initiative. The importance of that participation should never be
underestimated, as environmental groups are often opposed to marine farming on
principle. We then approached Fonterra’s Head Office and discussed the problem.
They too were supportive in principle.
In February 2005, MSQP organised a helicopter flight over the area for Fonterra’s
environmental manager, the NGO and myself. Viewing the dairy and marine farms
from the air provided a perspective that none of us could have gained from ground
level and clearly opened the door to further action.
Council and Fonterra Research and Results
The next step was to hold a public meeting. We presented the issues and explained
the impacts on the viability of the marine farms as well as recreational users of
the water space. We explained that faecal coliforms came only from the gut of
warm blooded animals and the reasons why the bacteria in the marine environment
was such an issue for us and the community. Fonterra presented their process
for implementing the Fonterra Dairy Accord. The Council presented data from
their environmental monitoring. The meeting, after some considerable discussion
and finger pointing as to who could be responsible, appointed a Working Group
consisting of representatives from dairying, the Council and the marine farming
sector, including myself.
Seven farms located along the coastal strip between the Aorere River mouth
and Puponga (and most likely to be the cause of contamination) were selected
for an initial study to be funded jointly by Fonterra and the council. This was
intended to provide a broad overview of what was happening. A subsequent survey
would address the remaining farms in the catchment. The dairy farmers were
suspicious that the marine farming sector would use the information against them
but, although still suspicious, they were persuaded to participate upon assurances
that the results would remain anonymous. They were quite justifiably irritated that
they were being asked to address these issues while complying with their discharge
consents.
69
As a result, we were tasked to pursue a collaborative approach involving the
marine and terrestrial farmers, Fonterra, and the Council. There was no guarantee
of success, but the upside was that, in the event of failure, the marine farming
sector would not have unduly impacted its relationships with the community whose
goodwill it relies upon and there would have been no expensive legal bills. Cost
would be limited to staff time and the time commitment of the working group.
In fact, as things turned out, the positive benefits to the industry’s reputation and
relationships with neighbours exceeded even our most optimistic expectations.
The first stage was to contact and meet with key players. The Council was
supportive but restricted in both financial and personnel resources. We met with
the country’s principal environmental NGO, the Fish and Game Council, and they
willingly joined the initiative. The importance of that participation should never be
underestimated, as environmental groups are often opposed to marine farming on
principle. We then approached Fonterra’s Head Office and discussed the problem.
They too were supportive in principle.
In February 2005, MSQP organised a helicopter flight over the area for Fonterra’s
environmental manager, the NGO and myself. Viewing the dairy and marine farms
from the air provided a perspective that none of us could have gained from ground
level and clearly opened the door to further action.
Council and Fonterra Research and Results
The next step was to hold a public meeting. We presented the issues and explained
the impacts on the viability of the marine farms as well as recreational users of
the water space. We explained that faecal coliforms came only from the gut of
warm blooded animals and the reasons why the bacteria in the marine environment
was such an issue for us and the community. Fonterra presented their process
for implementing the Fonterra Dairy Accord. The Council presented data from
their environmental monitoring. The meeting, after some considerable discussion
and finger pointing as to who could be responsible, appointed a Working Group
consisting of representatives from dairying, the Council and the marine farming
sector, including myself.
Seven farms located along the coastal strip between the Aorere River mouth
and Puponga (and most likely to be the cause of contamination) were selected
for an initial study to be funded jointly by Fonterra and the council. This was
intended to provide a broad overview of what was happening. A subsequent survey
would address the remaining farms in the catchment. The dairy farmers were
suspicious that the marine farming sector would use the information against them
but, although still suspicious, they were persuaded to participate upon assurances
that the results would remain anonymous. They were quite justifiably irritated that
they were being asked to address these issues while complying with their discharge
consents.