Pests and Weeds

 Review of the Regional Pest Management Strategy (1998) - A Discussion Document  1.49MB
 
 Canterbury Regional Pest Management Strategy (2005-2015)  5.05MB
 
 Canterbury Regional Pest Management Strategy (2005-15) - Operational Plan 2008/2009  878kB
 
 Canterbury Regional Pest Management Strategy (2005-15) - Operational Plan 2007/2008  408kB
 
 Report on Canterbury Regional Pest Management Strategy (2005-15) - Operational Plan 2006/2007  198kB
 
 Canterbury Regional Pest Management Strategy (2005-15) - Operational Plan 2006/2007  803kB
 
 Canterbury Regional Pest Management Strategy (2005-15) - Operational Plan 2005/2006  1.1MB

Your suggestions for amending the RPMS (2005-2015)

If you think you may wish to make a suggestion, you should read the discussion paper first.
 
 RPMS review, discussion paper  304kB
 
Then, please consider the key questions outlined below:

1. What new organisms should be included?
   
   Nominations of new organisms should be supported with as much of the following information as possible:
   
   • What makes the organism cause a serious adverse and unintended effect in relation to the region;
   • Why regional intervention is necessary;
   • The control techniques available to destroy or manage the organism;
   • The regional and individual costs involved;
   • Who causes the problem; and
   • Who stands to benefit from the organism's control?
      
     
2. What changes are necessary to what is done (the Objectives) and how it is done (the Principal Measures and Strategy Rules)?
    
   When making suggestions please give reasons why the change is necessary, bearing in mind that:
   
   • The RPMS Objectives where set within a 10-year time horizon;
   • The affected parties who fund the principal measures provide yearly input into the degree to which the principal measures are used. This information is contained in the Operational Plan;
   • The Objectives, Principal Measures and Strategy Rules have been subject to a full public participation and processes.
      
3. Are there changes to the procedures for dealing with persons not complying with RPMS rules that would improve fairness without compromising effectiveness?
    
   Please outline the gains and losses associated with both fairness and effectiveness when suggesting changes.
    
4. Are changes needed to enhance the purpose and arrangements of Pest Management Liaison Committees?
    
   The RPMS signals Environment Canterbury’s intention to maintain and further develop its widely accepted system of committees. What would be useful to boost the effectiveness and capacity of the committees to provide valuable advice?
    
5. Are there any other Strategy matters requiring review?
      

Making a suggestion

To make your suggestion in writing, please mail to Environment Canterbury, PO Box 345, Christchurch 8140, attention Ray Maw or email to ray.maw@ecan.govt.nz

Responses should be with Environment Canterbury by 7 August 2009.