8. Costs and Benefits
Many submissions both supporting and opposing the introduction of RCD took issue with the cost benefit analysis (CBA) prepared by Brown Copeland and Co. Ltd in March 1996 and referred to in the application. Additional benefits and costs identified in submissions are summarised in the CVO’s report (section 8).
MAF requested Dr Nick Brown (the author of the original study) and Professor Anton Meister to assess the validity of the claimed costs and benefits and indicate how they might alter the CBA.
Dr Brown and Professor Meister stressed that it was not possible to prepare a definitive CBA with results expressed as a net present value or rate of return because many of the important factors could not be quantified.
With the emergence of a "biocide" scenario as well as the original biocontrol scenario, both were compared with the "without" scenario. Where possible, quantitative costs and benefits were assessed in order to give an impression of the order of magnitude of each factor.
One can conclude that if RCD was to act as a biocontrol agent as proposed by the Applicant Group, even very modest increases in productivity, saved control costs and improvements in soil and water values would generate benefits which justify the additional costs. There are two caveats
- benefits are dependent on RCD working as proposed;
- are significant equity implications in the distribution of the costs and benefits.
If RCD were to be used as a biocide, one would assume costs and effectiveness at least equivalent to the use of 1080 to consider it. The effectiveness of this form of use has not been demonstrated.
Peter O’Hara
Deputy Director General
(acting pursuant to delegated authority)
Contact for Enquiries
Manager, Strategic Science Team
MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0115
Fax: +64 4 894 0731
Contact this person
