9 - Summary of Recommendations
In the previous sections the analysis of individual RPMS from each of the Regional Councils and comparisons between the different approaches has highlighted some major issues. These issues require action from Central Government, from Regional Councils, or from both parties. This section discusses those issues and the actions likely to be required in respect of their resolution. It should be noted that the preparation of this report overlaps with Parliament's consideration of amendments to the BSA in the form of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 4) and an associated Supplementary Order Paper (the Amendments). The recommendations take into account the effect of the proposed legislative amendments at the time of writing (May 1997), but it should be noted that these may not necessarily carry forward into legislation. It should be further noted that we have no legal expertise, and the legislative amendments proposed here are raised for review by the appropriate professionals. The recommendations follow the format of :
- Issues - the concern which has arisen in terms of implementation of the Act.
- Reason - identified influences and reasons why the issue has arisen; and
- Recommended Action - legislative, facilitative and/or research action recommended to resolve issue in respect of the reasons it has arisen.
The discussion follows the order in which issues have been discussed in the report.
Section 72
Issue : Lack of transparency in decisions on which pests to include in strategy
Reason: Over-reliance on historical and political factors in decision making
Recommended Action:
Include in Act a requirement to show in proposed strategy reasonable grounds why the Section 72 requirements have been satisfied. Clause 44 of the Amendments refer, by amending Section 76(1)(l) to include an analysis of the benefits and costs of the strategy. It would be preferable that this amendment required the proposed strategy to :"Show reasonable grounds why the conditions of Section 72 have been
met",
Since this would harmonise the various analyses required in respect of a RPMS.
Reason: Lack of information on which to make a decision.
Recommended Action:
(a): Collection and collation of information on the costs and benefits of pest control at the farm or property level, particularly of the more extensive and common weed and animal pests included in RPMSs. This would constitute several small research projects which could be funded by Central Government, and may include work on quantifying some of the non-financial impacts of pests and pest control.(b) Development of a decision making framework for pests of limited scale distribution, and for which limited information is available on its likely effect on the region. This would constitute a small consulting project, similar to those which MAF is currently undertaking for its importation risk assessment protocols.
(c) Inclusion of greater data gathering within the monitoring programmes, including information on the actual costs of pest control, and the effectiveness of regional intervention. Central Government would have a role in encouraging this development, through sponsorship of the development of tools and trial protocols which could be adopted by Regional Councils.
Reason: Poor understanding of requirements of Act.
Recommended Action::
(a) Clarification of Section 72(b) of the Act to reflect the fact that the rationale for intervention is to prevent harm to other parties rather than to cause landholders to control pests where for reasons of their own they choose not to. A suggested rewording of Section 72(b) would be :"Regional intervention means that the control of a pest produces significant benefits to parties other than those individuals who would be considered responsible for control of the pest in the absence of a strategy."
(b) Development of a handbook which provides some guidelines to Councils and other stakeholders of the key requirements and implications of the BSA 1993. This handbook could complement work undertaken by the BTAG group and individual Regional Councils by concentrating on the interpretation of the Act in plain English and discussing some of the key implications at the regional level. MFE has undertaken similar actions with respect to the Resource Management Act.
Funding of Strategies
Issue: Lack of transparency in funding decisions
Reason: Poor understanding of the requirements of the Act, and little risk posed of challenge to funding from general rate.
Recommended Action:
Harmonise the funding requirements of the BSA with those of the Local Government Act 1974 since the Regional Councils and other stakeholders will be more familiar with these latter provisions, and there will be greater experience and case law to draw upon when making funding decisions. A suggested amendment would be to delete Section 97(2)(d),(e),(f) and (g) and replace them with :
" the matters contained in Sections 122E, 122F, 122G, 122H, and 122I of the Local Government Act 1974"
Issue: Poor relationship between Section 72 analysis and funding decisions
Reason: Decisions made in different contexts.
Recommended Action:
No action necessary, since Clause 41 of the Amendment inserts into Section 72 the requirement for the Councils to be satisfied of several matters associated with funding of the strategies. The link this establishes between the two parts of the strategy is considered sufficient, and further amendment is not considered necessary at this stage.Issue: Limited funding options available for some pests
Reason: Councils have only rating and enforcement invoicing available to them as a means of funding the strategy. Rating introduces cross subsidisation, while enforcement invoicing introduces co-ordination problems for more mobile pests such as Rabbits and Possums.
Recommended Action:
MAF investigate further the need for, and potential implications and limitations of, a funding mechanism which would allow Councils to charge a direct invoice rate which reflected the amount of work conducted on a property over the period of the strategy.
Monitoring
Issue: Monitoring of plant strategies not well developed
Reason: Lack of availability of appropriate monitoring techniques
Recommended Action:
Development of appropriate monitoring techniques in order for Councils to be better prepared for the next round of strategies. This work is largely Regional Councils' preserve, but significant savings could be made if Councils jointly commissioned this work since there are a large number of pests for which Councils have common concerns in this regard.
Other Issues
Issue: Councils limited in their ability to be proactive in respect of small scale pests
Reason: The notification of a RPMS or use of Section 100 both require a reasonably significant effort, for which there are timing and expense implications. The Act needs to restore the ability of regional Council inspectors to undertake one-off control efforts in the field as unwanted organisms arise.
Recommended Action:
Amend Act to allow Regional Councils to declare unwanted organisms in their region.Recommended Action : The Act could be amended to allow retrospective notification of a Section 100 action in respect of a pest. Alternately, Clause 59 of the Amendment, which allows for the Director- General or Secretary of Forestry to undertake control of unwanted organisms without declaring a small scale management programme, could be enlarged to include Regional Councils by including in the revised Section 100A (in the SOP):
"(e) an inspector or authorised person appointed under section 103(3):"
Issue: No provision for appeal.
Reason: It is contrary to the laws of natural justice for Regional Councils to both propose and be the final decision maker on the RPMS.
Recommended Action:
Amendments to the Act required to introduce an appeal provision. It is recommended that this appeal provision exist only in respect of the notification of strategies, not on the execution of the RPMS since the timing implications of appeals of individual notices issued under an RPMS would have the potential to render the strategy worthless in terms of achieving its objectives.
| © 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
