B+LNZ continues to push for a simpler freshwater farm plans system, reflecting the extensive nature of many sheep and beef farming operations. Find out more about our policy positions and the work we’re doing on farmers’ behalf.
Why this is so important
B+LNZ has long supported integrated farm planning for individual farms, as a way for farmers to manage risk and build value.
We consistently raised concerns about the regulated freshwater farm plan proposals introduced by the previous Government. The current Government has promised to make the system more practical and we are engaging closely with them to ensure this happens.
We’re fundamentally concerned that the certification and auditing requirements of a regulatory farm plan system will change the nature of farm planning. A farm plan should be a useful farm business tool that addresses real issues, that farmers feel ownership of and which are focused on practicality. If we don’t get this system right, farm plans could become a prescriptive, costly burden, regardless of the risk a farming operation may pose on waterways.
The latest details
The Government provided more details on the system in the recent Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act 2025.
In that legislation, the Government raised the threshold at which pastoral, arable or mixed land use farms (as well as orchards and viticulture) must have a freshwater farm plan from 20 hectares to 50 hectares. That does little to help sheep and beef farmers.
It also included categories for ‘audited and certified’ and a new ‘audit-only’ category. All farms above the 50ha threshold are required to have a plan, even if their farming operation is low-risk.
The legislation currently says freshwater farm plans for a whole farm must be certified, not just relevant parts of that farm based on risk.
B+LNZ’s position on freshwater farm plans
We’ve consistently said where farms already require a resource consent to operate, replacing that costly consent process with a fit-for-purpose farm plan makes sense. Farm plans should be an alternative for a consent – not be added on top of them.
If you’re using the farm plan as an alternative to a consent then it makes sense that someone will need to check, but this check should just be of the activities that would have needed consent, not the whole plan.
Industry assurance programmes such as NZFAP+, which are audited in detail, should be recognised as equivalent to a regulated farm plan and accepted in its place.
However, for many of our sheep and beef operations that are largely extensive and low impact, costly auditing and certification is just not justified.
ECAN has an approach that has been working well whereby farmers who are operating under the permitted rules should have a farm plan, but the plans are ‘auditable’, rather than ‘audited’. This means that farmers are still managing their risks but do not have to incur the cost of regular audits.
Regulated farm plans must be risk-based, meaning the level of regulatory effort and level of detail required must reflect environmental risk.
We therefore continue to advocate for there to be another category in the legislation for low-risk farms, where either no freshwater farm plan is required or the farmer could complete a simple plan themselves with minimal third-party oversight or auditing only on request.
It is also critical the privacy of the information farmers provide is protected.
What we’re doing
We continue to discuss these issues with Ministers and officials, to ensure they understand the realities of this system on the ground, and push for better outcomes for our farmers.
There’s still some way to go on this but B+LNZ is committed to working to address the concerns and ensure that the freshwater farm plan system is simple and fit for purpose.