Many of the new regulations appear to go against farmers’ perceptions of what a "good farmer" and good farming practices look like.
The policy was implemented in September 2020 and has received a negative reaction from the farming community because it does not suit the diversity of all farms.
It was deemed especially unworkable in colder areas and on topographically diverse sheep and beef farms.
Lead author and University of Otago Business School management researcher Prof Sara Walton said this led researchers to interview nine Otago farmers in late 2021 and early last year about how they saw their role in relation to shifting societal expectations around environmental goals in farming.
Researchers aimed to explore the conflicts between being a good farmer and complying with the policy, and the potential unintended consequences of the policy on rural communities.
"Farmers mentioned factors such as understanding their farm environment, conservative management of resources and giving back to the communities, in their definition of good farmers.
"They also noted tensions between the impacts of the new freshwater regulations on farm practices and their identity as a good farmer."
The new regulations include mandatory fencing and destocking of all freshwater bodies, restrictions on the location and duration of winter forage crops, and caps on nitrogenous fertiliser use.
Research results showed Otago farmers disliked the blanket rules that applied to all farms, and would prefer a more targeted approach with farmers in problem areas.
"The one-size-fits-all nature of the policy has the potential to create counter-productive outcomes to the founding concept of Te Mana o Te Wai, which recognises the importance of freshwater health," Prof Walton said.
Co-author and university botanist Associate Prof Janice Lord said there was a perceived lack of appreciation by policy makers of the challenges in parts of the country.
"The new rules have a real chance of producing some negative results by effectively regulating farmers into a corner and not taking localised factors into account."
This could include conversion of previously grazed grassland-wetland systems to forestry; the possible draining of wetlands before they were classed as significant; the potential for weeds to overtake newly fenced off waterways; intensification of winter cropping and transportation of animals due to land not meeting unrealistic and impractical constraints; and increased mental health issues as farmers struggled to meet impractical regulatory standards.
Prof Walton said the concept had moved away from being purely economic, and instead conveyed a set of shared social norms and understandings.
"Complying with the changing regulations was found to be a tension in their desire to remain being seen as a good farmer."
Federated Farmers Southland president Chris Dillon said the research reflected how farmers right across New Zealand felt — not just Otago.
"There’s a lot of disconnect.
"It’s people without a full understanding of farming that are trying to make the rules.
"As part of our role with Federated Farmers, we try to engage with policy makers, but we don’t always get the results that we want.
Fellow Federated Farmers Otago president Luke Kane agreed with the statement that one size did not fit all.
"What may work in a drier more arid-type climate of Alexandra is not going to work on a flood plain in the likes of Stirling or Kaitangata.
"It should be more targeted.
"It would be best if the money was going where it was required.
"Just because you make a blanket rule, it doesn’t unnecessarily mean it’s going to have a positive outcome for the environment.
