Streamlining the Regulatory Regime Forpestcontrol Consultation

Streamlining the regulatory regime forpestcontrol consultation

SUBMISSION FORM

About the consultation

The Government is seeking feedback on its proposal to standardise and simplify the regulatory controls on vertebrate toxic agents.

In the context of this proposal vertebrate toxic agents refer to substances used for managing or eradicating vertebrate pests(including pest fish).

Submission by the Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ Inc , 26 May 2016
This consultation document outlines this proposal.

Submissions close at 5pm on Thursday 26 May 2016.

Making a submission

You can provide feedback in three ways:

1. Use the online submission form available www.mfe.govt.nz/more/biodiversity/streamlining-regulatory-regime-pest-control. This is our preferred way to receive submissions.

2. Complete this submission form and send to us by email or post.

3. Write your own submission and send to us by email or post.

Publishing and releasing submissions

All or part of any written submission (including names of submitters), may be published on the Ministry for the Environment’s website www.mfe.govt.nz. Unless you clearly specify otherwise in your submission, we will consider that you have consented to website posting of both your submission and your name.

Contents of submissions may be released to the public under the Official Information Act 1982 following requests to the Ministry for the Environment (including via email). Please advise if you have any objection to the release of any information contained in a submission and, in particular, which part(s) you consider should be withheld, together with the reason(s) for withholding the information. We will take into account all such objections when responding to requests for copies of, and information on, submissions to this consultation under the Official Information Act.

The Privacy Act 1993 applies certain principles about the collection, use and disclosure of information about individuals by various agencies, including the Ministry for the Environment. It governs access by individuals to information about themselves held by agencies. Any personal information you supply to the Ministry in the course of making a submission will be used by the Ministry only in relation to the matters covered by this consultation. Please clearly indicate in your submission if you do not wish your name to be included in any summary of submissions that the Ministry may publish.

Submission form

These questions below are a guide only and all comments are welcome. You do not have to answer all the questions. To ensure your point of view is clearly understood, please explain your rationale and provide supporting evidence where appropriate.

Contact information

Name* / Catherine Wallace, Vice-chair, policy; Michael Pringle, Exec officer
Organisation
(if applicable) / Envrionment and Conservation Organisations of NZ Inc -
Address / P O Box 11-057, Wellington
Telephone / 04 385 7545
Email* /
Submitter type* / Individual
NGO
Business / Industry
Local government
Central government
Iwi
Other (please specify)

* Questions marked with an asterisk are mandatory.

1) Do you agree with the proposal to use a section 360(1)(h) regulation to simplify the regulatory framework for VTAs in New Zealand?

Support
Support with amendments
Oppose

Comments

We support the idea of reducing regulatory costs and duplication, but consider that there could be other means to reduce the regulatory burden that still allow some greater degree of public participation, for instance by the use of :

a) a National Environmental Standard with regional variations allowed shoud the regional council choose, OR

b) the use of provisions in regional plans for permitted or for discretionary consents;

c) the use of multi-year or decade resource consents. We agree it is a waste of time and effort to have applicants have to apply for every pest control operation, especailly when this has to be done repeatedly, as it usually does.

2) Do you agree with the scope for the proposal?

a) Part 1: any vertebrate toxic agent that has been through a full assessment under section 63 or 29 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO)

Yes
No

Comments

On your specific wording, we are concerned that your language of “any ..agent that has been through” fails to specify that the passage through the assessment was successful. Your language in the question, and that in the consultation document both need sharpening up to say that approval was gained.

ECO is the national organistion of organisations with a shared concern for conservation and the environment. As you would expect, there is a diversity of views amongst our member bodies, many of whom urge greater and easier use of vertebrate toxins and others who are particularly opposed to such, especially the aerial application of 1080.

We have agreed policy – now rather old – that tolerates the use of VTAs but on the basis that aerial application is closely controlled, that alternatives are reserached and sought , and that those that are bioaccumulative and/or persistent organic pollutants, POPs, be phased out or banned.

Our policy includes the following:

ECO believes that the benefits of using 1080 for pest control at present outweigh the negatives. Given the even less desirable alternative substances and traps currently available, ECO is satisfied that 1080 is the most suitable substance for the control of Tb and for conservation purposes – the control of pest species eg possums, rats and mustelids.

Those groups most concerned with conservation activities and predator controls are usually most tolerant of, and indeed welcoming of, the aerial use of 1080 and other VTAs and our sense is that the Parliamentary Commissioner’s review of 1080 has reassured some of our members with doubts. Some however remain opposed.

ECO does support DoC having a contingency fund for mast year predator control – and an intensification of predator control efforts.

ECO understands the huge benefits of the use of aerial applications and the relentless threats of alien species, particularly vertebrate pests (but also weeds, invasive microorganisms, insects and so on). We suspect climate change is ultimately a greater threat to indigenous biodiversity, but we will not argue the toss on that here.

b) Part 2: any vertebrate toxic agent that has been through a rapid assessment under a section 28A assessment, provided a full assessment under section 63 or 29 of HSNO has been completed for the active ingredient in the formulation

Yes
No

Comments

Our comments above about successful approval applies here too. We have some misgivings about the idea that only the active ingredient be examined and approved, since attractants and repellents may have siginficance to environmental impacts. We wonder if there should also be consideration of the various attractants, repellants, and of any product that would influence the speed and nature of the breakdown and safe decomposition of the toxins. We suggest that language to that effect be added, since these could materially affect the results and the hazards to the environment.

c) Part 3: brodifacoum use compliant with the conditions of registration placed on the relevant brodifacoum based products (Pestoff Rodent Bait 20R; AVCM registration no V009014) registered under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997(ACVM).

Yes
No

Comments

We find it peculiar that brodifacoum is so easliy available for household and lay use when unlike 1080, it bioaccumulates. We do understand how useful it is, and can live with it being used on offshore islands and as discussed in the discussion paper, and in bait stations, but we do think that controls of its use to reduce bioaccumulation are particularly important.

3) Should any of the conditions be changed? If so, how should they be changed?

Yes
No

Comments

We consider that land owners, not just land occupiers should have to give consent, since an occupier may be transitory and gone before any lingering residue or effect of a poison has gone.

We are not fully persuaded that there should be no RMA public process at least in relation to the provisions in regional plans, but we agree that there is a need to reduce duplication and to reduce the costs and difficulties of the application of these pesticides.

4) Are there conditions that should be added? Please provide information to support new conditions.

Yes
No

Comments

As above, we consider that this consultation paper and the form should explore other mechanisms for avoiding unnecessary duplication, and that in principle, there should be scope for some degree of public participation under the RMA, not simply the EPA and HASNO process.

We share concerns about the wide buffer strips often imposed in the use of aerial VTAs, since these too often create resevoirs of infestations and this in turn encourages reinvasions, reapplications and attendant costs, withholding periods for stock, losses of production and access. Reapplications mostly will be needed, but perhaps less often if pest reservoirs are lesser and fewer. Reapplications are of particular concern where the vertebrate toxin is, like brodificoum, bio-accumulative.

In the case of one private land 1080 application that we know of, a 200m boundary buffer was insisted on, so allowing large reinfestations. We recognise the rights of adjacent land owners to not be “polluted”, as they see it, but 200m wide buffer zones are a problem.

In another situation, there is opposition to allowing walking tracks to be established since these would then require a 100m buffer either side, so inhibiting pest control in large strips.

We note the proposal for no cost-recovery of monitoring of the applications. We sympathise with this given the costs of such for councils, but we also note that the proposed changes in the Resource Legislation Bill do have provisions for councils to cost-recover where there are permitted uses. The two provisions seem to be at odds. Lack of funding may mean no monitoring, violations and discrediting the regime with resultant lack of public confidence. On the other hand, having to pay for monitoring will be prohibitive for many community groups.

Specific feedback, particularly from regional councils and unitary authorities

5) Are there likely to be any unintended consequences as a result of the proposal that we have not identified? Please explain your answer.

Yes
No

Comments

6) Will the conditions ensure that you have the necessary information to allow you to undertake your general environmental protection functions? Please explain your answer.

Yes
No

Comments

7) How far in advance of an operation do you need the information to be provided?

Comments

8) How will the change affect the way you monitor and enforce general regulatory controls on pest control, or implement biosecurity functions?

Comments

Releasing submissions

Your submission may be released under the Official Information Act 1982 and may be published on the Ministry’s website. Unless you clearly specify otherwise in your submission, we will consider that you have consented to website posting of both your submission and your name.

Please check this box if you would like your name, address, and any personal details withheld.

When your submission is complete

If you are emailing your submission, send it to as a:

· PDF

· Microsoft Word document (2003 or later version).

If you are posting your submission, send it to National Direction Pest Control Consultation 2016, Ministry for the Environment, PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143.

Submissions close at 5pm on Thursday 26 May 2016.