Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« How Trump's Corporate Tax Reforms Could Make Tariffs Irrelevant & Dampen NZ Exports | Main | Canterbury Resource Consent Dilemma »

Significant Moves on 1080, & Related Issues 

Here is the content of a presser from the DoE relating to 108o, and last years consultation on the proposed regulatory regime:

Streamlining the regulatory regime for pest control

This page has information on the Government's changes to streamline the regulatory regime for pest control, which follow public consultation in 2016.

About the changes

In 2016 the Government consulted on a proposal to standardise and simplify the regulatory regime for vertebrate toxic agents (VTAs) used to control mammalian pests such as stoats, possums and rats, as well as pest fish.

A majority of submissions were in favour of the proposal. A detailed report of the submissions will be published on this website shortly.

The new regulations come into force on 1 April 2017. They exempt users of three VTAs – sodium fluoroacetate (1080), brodifacoum and rotenone – from Resource Management Act (RMA) requirements for aerial or ground application. This means that such operations will not need resource consent, nor will they be managed through regional plan rules.

Importantly, the new regulations will not change the other controls that are in place to protect people and the environment when VTAs are used.

These changes follow a report published by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in June 2011, which recommended investigating ways to simplify and standardise how 1080 and other toxins for pest control are managed under the RMA and other legislation.

RMA requirements for pest control were found to duplicate other controls, notably those in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997. This duplication was contributing to unnecessary costs and delays in pest control operations, as well as operational errors in some instances. In addition, RMA controls were not providing additional protection to human health or the environment, beyond that already provided by other legislation.

The regulations will allow operations to be more timely and effective, thereby better protecting New Zealand’s flora and fauna from pests.

Requirements for public notification and the posting of signs prior to the use of 1080, brodifacoum or rotenone will be unaffected by these changes.

That should stir up the debate once again, and may even have an effect on the upcoming WRC by-election where there are 10 candidates, including our own ex-member Clive Graf. Word on the street is that he already has a strong chance based on the support of the fanatical anti-1080 crew - they don't have to garner much extra support in order to grab the seat - 35% voting at the last election would normally translate in 20-25% at a by-election, and it would not take a great deal of huffing and puffing by Graf and his cohort to stir up the numbers required.

There is not much that we can do in the circumstances but sit back and hope like hell that common sense prevails over emotive clap-trap. Graf could swing the balance on the WRC from 8-5 to 7-6 on important environmental issues, and with Jennie Hayman from Waikato said to be showing signs of wavering under pressure, reversal of a number of a number of important issues is on the cards.  

Dirk Sieling's attempt ro subvert Waikato Plan Change 1, Wai Ora by professing to champion "a fresh approach from the bottom up," sounds like a desperate and belated attempt to undermine policy already in train, but he  reminds us that "It is not a protest meeting, it is about sharing information." That sounds ingenuous to say the least. Those who have been invited include all the landowner groups.

His claim that he had observed "different landowner groups working in isolation and in some cases pointing the finger at each other" while on the stakeholder working group for Sea Change would indicate a conflict of interest, and an attempt to undermine the democratic process set in place by Government through the Regional Councils.

Plan Change 1 is a direct result of that process, which includes obligations under the Treaty Settlement negotiations, and the recently released Policy Statement on the Freshwater Management. Plan Change 2 will be driven by similar obligations, so the outcome is largely inevitable. The outcome aimed at restoring rivers is therefore a requirement - if the WRC does not do it, then Government will come in over the top. 

Dirk claims that the meeting to take place in Tairua Hall on Thursday 16 March from 10.30am is "about land users working together with each other and the regulatory authorities." With the lineup of people he has organised to speak it should be an interesting side-show, and an opportunity for aggrieved parties to 'let off steam.' 




PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>