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. 

Read the proposed plan and supporting documents here.  If you have any questions please contact pestreview@ecan.govt.nz.

1. Review
The current Canterbury Regional Pest Management Strategy 2011 - 2015 remains in place during the review and submission period.  The Proposal has no effect until it becomes operative.
2. Notification

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.

Proposal for the Canterbury RPMP 2017-2037 - PART 1 (PDF File, 6.14MB)

Proposal for the Canterbury RPMP 2017-2037 - PART 2 - Maps (PDF File, 9.18MB)

Proposal for the Canterbury RPMP 2017-2037 - PART 3 - Maps cont. (PDF File, 16.15MB) 

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.

3. Submissions
Submissions
Name
Alderman, S
Apiculture New Zealand
Ashburton District Biodiversity Working Group
Ashton, J
Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust
Banks Peninsula Marine Farmers Group
Beatson, J
Bennett, C and G
Bielski, P
Bleasdale, C
BRaid - Braided River Aid
Browne, G
Canterbury Chilean Needle Grass Pest Management
Castle Hill Community Association
Chilean Needle Grass National Steering Group
Christchurch City Council
Christchurch International Airport Ltd
Conway Flat Biodiversity Group
Couch, R
Crowe, M
Davies, M
Demeter, J
DOC
Eggers, J
Federated Farmers
Forest and Bird
Frank, H
Gibson, B
Goldring, M
Heale, T
Howard, T
Hurunui District Council
Hurunui Nassella Liaison Committee
Hyde, D
Johnston, R
Kennedy, A
KiwiRail Holdings Limited (KiwiRail)
Kurow Pest Liason Committee
Land Information New Zealand (LINZ)
Langen, H
Ledgard, N
Loxton, G
Loxton, G and Scott, D
Mackenzie Basin Wilding Tree Trust
Marlborough District Council
McDonald, F
McNeill, S
Meridian Energy Limited
Ministry of Education
Morgan Foundation
Mueller, T
Neal, K
New Zealand Beekeeping Incorporated
New Zealand Defence Force
Port Hills Park Trust Board and Mt Vernon Park Management Committee
Predator Free New Zealand Trust
QEII National Trust
Ravensdown Limited
Rayonier Matariki Forests
Richardson, P
Ross, F B
Rural Advocacy Network
Seddon, C
Selwyn District Council
Seymour, P - redacted*
Simpson, D
Spencer, F
Springford, O - redacted*
Stackhouse Farm Ltd
Summit Road Society Inc.
Taylor, R
Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu
Te Tihi o Rauhea Hanmer Springs Conservation Trust
Timaru District Council
Trees for Bees
Trees for Bees and Little, R
Turnbull, H
Waiake Forestry Ltd
Waimakariri District Council
Waimakariri Ecological and Landscape Restoration Alliance (WELRA)
Wainui Station and Viewfield
*Parts of some submissions have been redacted to be made publicly available on this website. If you wish to view the full submission please request a copy from the submitter.

Review timeline

Review stageTiming
Discussion document releasedDecember - 2015
Formulation of proposed new planLate 2015 to early 2017
Ongoing engagement on particular issuesLate 2015 to early 2017
Public notification of proposed new plan Mid - 2017
New plan operativeMid - 2018

Common questions

What is the Canterbury Regional Pest Management Plan?
The Canterbury Regional Pest Management Plan is the main regulatory component of Environment Canterbury’s Biosecurity programme.  It contains the pests that are controlled to benefit the region as a whole as well as the programmes, objectives and the rules for management that must be met.

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.

How often is the Canterbury Regional Pest Management Plan reviewed?

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.

How many plants and animals are covered in the Proposal for the Canterbury Regional Pest Management Plan?
In total 4 animal species, 1 fish species and 39 plant species are included in five different programmes; Exclusion, eradication, progressive containment, sustained control and site-led.
What is the process for including pests in the Regional Pest Management Plan?

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.

When do the rules take effect?
The Regional Pest Management Plan is different from other Environment Canterbury plans developed under the Resource Management Act.  The provisions and rules in the Regional Pest Management Plan don't take effect until the Plan is adopted by Council and made operative.

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.