Canterbury Regional Pest Management Plan Review
We're undertaking a full review of the Canterbury Regional Pest Management Plan, as required by the Biosecurity Act.
The review is an opportunity to ensure our plan aligns with the National Policy Direction for Pest Management and that pest management in Canterbury is future-focused, effective and efficient, better positioning ourselves to meet the future needs of the community.
Submissions on the Proposal are now closed. View the supporting documents below.
Proposal for the Canterbury Regional Pest Management Plan is separated into 3 parts.
A public notice advising of the notification of the Proposal has been inserted into the five daily newspapers in Canterbury.
An economic analysis of the proposal was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Biosecurity Act. This compares the costs and benefits of the proposed options and provides an assessment of the economic efficiency. It also considers who will benefit from each programme, whose action (or inaction) may exacerbate the problem and the administrative efficiency of alternative funding sources.
An Assessment of the Proposal for the Canterbury Regional Pest Management Plan has been undertaken against requirements in Sections 70 and 71 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Many stakeholder groups and organisations across Canterbury have been involved in developing the Proposal, including commenting on the discussion document released in 2015 and participating in stakeholder meetings where aspects of the Proposal were discussed. See Stakeholder Engagement Summary here.
|Air New Zealand|
|Christchurch City Council - Additional Submission point|
|Forest and Bird|
|Ministry for Primary Industries|
|Otago Regional Council|
|QEII National Trust|
|QEII National Trust - Additional Submission point|
- Hearing Schedule (PDF File, 114.5KB)
- Hearing Panel - Minute 1 (PDF File, 50.98KB)
- Hearing Panel - Minute 2 (PDF File, 34.95KB)
- Hearing Panel - Minute 3 (PDF File, 102.26KB)
- Questions that may assist with preparation of response - 22 September 2017 (PDF File, 65.08KB)
- Hearing Panel - Minute 4 (PDF File, 13.58KB)
- Hearing Panel - Minute 5 (PDF File, 1.15MB)
- Hearing Panel - Minute 6 (PDF File, 36.09KB)
- Hearing Panel - Minute 7 (PDF File, 22.02KB)
- Hearing Panel - Minute 8 (PDF File, 74.9KB)
- Hearing Panel - Minute 9 (PDF File, 11.03KB)
- Hearing Panel - Minute 10 (PDF File, 13.72KB)
- Kiwirail tabled statement
- Johnstone, R
- Langen, H
- Kennedy, A
- Department of Conservation
- Owen Springford
- Morgan Foundation
- Maree Goldring and Fiona McDonald
- Ashburton District Biodiversity Working Group
- David Scott
- Fraser Ross
- Rhys Taylor
- Braid, B
- Canterbury Chilean Needle Grass Pest Management Liason Committee
- Turnbull, H
- Rural Advocacy Network
- Hurunui District Council
- New Zealand Defence Force - Tabled Letter
- Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
- QEII National Trust, Smith, R
- QEII National Trust, Shanks and Giller
- Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust
- Richardson, P
Comments on Revised Interim Draft
|Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust|
|Otago Regional Council|
|Waimakariri Ecological and Landscape Restoration Alliance (WELRA)|
Comments received past deadline
- Council Response to Panel Questions in Minute 3
- Staff Opening of the Hearing RPMP (PDF File, 230.43KB)
- Council Tabled at hearing (PDF File, 53.09KB)
- Council, Recommended organisms to be included as Organisms of Interest 12 September 2017 (PDF File, 8.56KB)
- Council Exemption Register for Biosecurity Sept 2017 (PDF File, 120.18KB)
- Council Tabled - Exemption Register Rule Descriptions (PDF File, 17.22KB)
- Officer's Reply Report - 26 September (PDF File, 123.92KB)
- Interim Draft Plan (PDF File, 27.43MB)
- Narrative report to accompany interim draft plan (PDF File, 85.75KB)
- Revised Interim Draft Plan - 10 November 2017 (PDF File, 27.84MB)
- Staff Response to Minute 7 (PDF File, 141.54KB)
- Draft Plan 8 December 2017 (PDF File, 28.47MB)
- Draft Plan Staff Report 8 Dec (PDF File, 472.92KB)
- Response to Minute 9 - 11 December 2017 (PDF File, 28.45KB)
- Response to Minute 10 – 18 December 2017
- Cost-Benefit Analysis for wilding conifer pest agent provisions (PDF File, 152.35KB)
- Supplementary Staff Report - 8 February 2018
|Discussion document released||December - 2015|
|Formulation of proposed new plan||Late 2015 to early 2017|
|Ongoing engagement on particular issues||Late 2015 to early 2017|
|Public notification of proposed new plan||Mid - 2017|
|New plan operative||Mid - 2018|
Guidance around Regional Pest Management Plan requirements are outlined in the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015.
Public feedback helps determine what pests should be controlled to benefit the region as a whole.
Pests are introduced plants and animals that threaten our health, economy, Māori heritage, recreation, native plants, animals and habitats.
Under the Biosecurity Act, a review must be initiated if the plan is due to terminate in less than 12 months or the plan was last reviewed as a whole more than 10 years previously.
Because the current plan is due to expire in less than 12 months, a review is currently underway. We also want to make sure our plan is consistent with the National Policy Direction.
Organisms are assessed against criteria for inclusion required by the Biosecurity Act 1993. This includes assessing their level of harm, distribution and potential for spread both to the environment and farming.
Where there is incomplete information around a potential pest organism, regional councils have powers to gather information, keep records and undertake research so they can manage it effectively under the Act.
A cost benefit analysis is also undertaken to ensure that the benefits of managing the organism would outweigh the costs.
Environment Canterbury has an established surveillance programme to provide information about organisms and their distribution.
The Regional Pest Management Plan
Currently we are operating under the Regional Pest Management Strategy (2011-2015). The current review was initiated in 2013 to update the document and prepare for future changes to national legislation. A discussion document was publicly released in December 2015 to outline our suggested approach.
The current Regional Pest Management Strategy represents the full Biosecurity strategy. The Proposal for the Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) only focuses on the regulatory side of the programme. The proposal for the RPMP sits alongside and supports our wider Biosecurity programme.
Since the discussion document was released there have been ongoing discussions with local communities, rūnanga, central government agencies and industry to ensure that the proposed plan objectives will be achievable and reflect the aspirations of stakeholders and communities.
We want the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan to support smarter pest management for our region
The approach to the review has four key objectives:
1. Increase our focus on emerging pests
We want the plan to enable greater gains to be made with new and emerging pests. We want to be more future-focused and do more surveillance to mitigate risks from emerging pests.
2. Set the regulatory backstop for legacy pests
The proposal differs from the current strategy, in that it only provides the rules for managing identified pests, and does not contain the full Biosecurity approach. This shifts the plan to become one tool in the wider Biosecurity programme.
3. Apply focus and resources to where they are needed (site-led approach)
We are able to protect and reduce the impacts from pests in a site or ecosystem-based area. This programme can be used to support biodiversity projects (for example, projects in braided rivers and wilding conifer programmes in the hill and high country).
4. Establish rules for pest spread that apply to all land occupiers (Good Neighbour Rules)
The National Policy Direction for Pest Management (NPD) enables use of Good Neighbour Rules (GNRs) to bind the Crown to rules in the plan. There are GNRs for broom, gorse, Bennett’s wallaby, old man’s beard and nassella tussock.
The NPD requires regional councils to use consistent programmes: Exclusion, eradication, progressive containment, sustained control and site-led.
Exclusion aims to prevent the establishment of pests that are present in New Zealand but are not established in Canterbury.
Eradication aims to reduce pest infestations to zero levels in the short to medium term.
Progressive containment aims to contain or reduce the geographic distribution of pests.
Sustained control aims to provide ongoing control of pests to reduce impacts on values and spread to other properties.
Every organism listed in the plan has pest status and is subject to provisions in the Biosecurity Act preventing the communication, release, spread, sale and propagation of pests. There are also powers that Environment Canterbury Biosecurity Officers are granted under the Act to enable effective management (access to property for example). This is why there are pests listed in the proposal that do not have any specific rules.
The proposal also has an appendix outlining Organisms of Interest (OoI). These are not given pest status, but are included as future control may be necessary.