3 - REGIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT
This section discusses at an overview level the way in which pests are managed regionally, the changes which have arisen as a result of the Biosecurity Act, and the initiatives which have been taken or extended by Councils in their RPMSs.
At the outset it is worth noting that all the Councils involved in this study, and indeed the majority of Regional Councils in the Country, have in place or available strong and workable pest management strategies. When compared with the progress under the RMA in formulating regional plans for a variety of matters, this in itself is a remarkable feat, and one for which Regional Councils should congratulate themselves. It is no small part attributable to the efforts of the BWOG and BTAG groups, and in particular the latter group's regular meetings, co-ordination and mutual sharing of tasks. Several smaller Councils spoken to during this study stated that they would have been in considerable difficulties without the help afforded by this arrangement. The uniformity which is apparent through the strategies from different Regional Councils is a boon to any party which has dealings with more than one of these institutions.
Pest management among those Councils surveyed here is largely based on an inspection and enforcement regime, with landholders organising and funding control on their properties. Several Councils provide for input into control of some pests, particularly those of limited distribution or for which there is a benefit to environmental values.
Possum management at the regional level has been targeted by two Councils for a joint Council/landholder approach to control. Taranaki Regional Council initiated a self help programme for Possum control in 1992 that was subsequently refined in the pest management strategy. In this programme the Council undertakes an initial control operation in an area where landholders have signed up to the programme and the associated responsibilities, and reduces the Possum populations to a low level. The responsibility for control then passes to the landholder, who must maintain bait stations and keep Possums below a 5% catch rate. This programme has been expanded, and an additional 15,000 ha per annum are expected to be included each year for the five years of the strategy. The programme is seen as a mechanism for progressively changing the Council's involvement in Possum control from one of service delivery to one of an inspection/regulation regime4.
In general, service delivery is retained as a Council function only in respect of limited distribution plants, and poison operations using 1080. Three Councils still provide service delivery for animal pest control, two of these on a limited basis using a differential rate. Only one Council provides service delivery without an associated differential rate to reflect work required in different areas.
Marlborough District developed a variation to direct invoicing in response to pressure from some landholder groups to the need to smooth out the annual costs of Rabbit control5. In this system, the Council and the individual landholder agree on an annual charge for pest control which is rated against the property and the Council undertakes control work. However over the five years of the strategy landholders will only be charged the actual costs of control on their property. Thus if the Council undertakes less work than has been paid for by the landholder, the landholder receives a credit, and vice versa. Approximately 40 of the landholders requiring Rabbit control are using this system.
Landholder involvement in pest control administration has generally been through pest liaison committees, which have been in operation in most regions for a number of years. Canterbury Regional Council has begun to devolve some responsibility to its committees in response to landholder concern over the requirement to pay an increased share of the pest inspection and monitoring rate. The Council responded to the call for greater local input in determining the levels of rate in their area by expanding the representation of the old pest liaison committees6 and widening their brief to include recommendations to the Council on resourcing in the local area. Contrary to expectations, several areas have indicated they are likely to recommend an increase in the resourcing, and by implication the rating, in their areas.
This community involvement has been taken further by some groups in Southland where, as a result of the changes to Rabbit control, a number of communities looked into setting up their own community-based pest control. Two groups have actively pursued this course7.
The Southern Pest Eradication Society (SPES) is an incorporated society and has rehired the Regional Council pest control staff who were operating in their area. Over 90% of landholders in the area have joined the society, which charges its members the equivalent of their old Regional Council pest rate (less the current rate charged for Rabbit control). In return every landholder receives an annual night shooting visit from the SPES shooters, and on more prone properties additional control operations including some patch poisoning are undertaken. The SPES undertakes the functions of the strategy's management agency in respect of inspections in its area. The Regional Council provides some administrative support to the groups, and rebates 70% of the Rabbit inspection rate collected in the groups' areas as a payment for the provision of management agency services8.
An approach which moves in the direction of increasing landholders' individual responsibility for pest management has been implemented in Canterbury. In response to potentially very high rates for Nassella tussock control in the Hurunui District, the Regional Council undertook some major rationalisation of its plant inspection programme in that area. As a result the plant pest inspection staff in the Hurunui District have reduced from around 7 to 3 permanent staff. In order to accomplish this staff reduction and still meet the strategy objectives, the landholders in the area are required to provide a written return by October each year indicating whether they have completed their Nassella control programme. A proportion of these are audited9, and where the control is found to not meet the required levels, a further control and inspection ordered. The costs of re-inspection are now charged to the landholder.
These variations illustrate that the Act contains flexibility to allow for community needs and local conditions, but are generally minor in relation to the dominant theme of inspection and enforcement. Councils do however exhibit a wider range of approaches to the way in which they choose pests for inclusion in the strategies, and to the funding of activities undertaken by the Council. These approaches are discussed in greater detail in the two sections which follow.
4 Hawke's Bay has a similar programme
where landholders are provided with bait stations and materials for Possum control at cost
and, in some cases, the Council undertakes the initial year of control before the
responsibility passes to the landholder. These programmes are seen as contributing both
environmental benefits and economic benefits from reduced risk of Possums and Tb.
5 The annual costs of Rabbit control could vary
significantly from year to year.
6 Which also only dealt with animal pest issues,
primarily Rabbit control.
7 This community approach is mirrored by similar efforts
of two groups in the Marlborough District, although these are more loosely structured, and
were initiated several years before the RPMSs were notified.
8 A second group has formed a steering committee and in
March 1997 was attempting to get underway in the Winton area. The Regional Council has set
a condition of a membership of 60% of rate assessments in the area as a necessary
threshold before it will enter into a management agency contract with the society.
9 While 50% were audited in the first year, it is
anticipated that in future only 10 - 20% will be audited annually. All landholders in the
programme who do not provide a return are automatically audited.
| © MAF 1999 | ||
| MAFnet Help | Important Disclaimer |
Contact for Enquiries
MAF Information Services
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
Fax: +64 4 894 0721
Contact this person
