• Rural NZ
• Adverse Events
• People issues
• Profitability
• Research
• Rural Proofing
• SLM Hill Country Erosion Programme
• Community Irrigation Fund
• Stats & forecasts
• Sustainability
  • Best practices
  • Biodiversity
  • Climate
  • Irrigation
  • Land
  • Native forests
  • Organics
  • Resources
  • Water
• Legislation
• Media Centre
• Publications
• What's New

Future weed management needs

MAF Biosecurity's The National Surveillance Pest Plant Initiative Discussion Paper of October 2000 reviews the present system for such species and suggests five possible options for the future:

1. Abandon the initiative.
2. Maintain the status quo.
3. Prepare a national pest management strategy for national surveillance pest plants.
4. Enforcement by government departments with biosecurity responsibilities.
5. Enforcement by councils following determination of surveillance plants as 'unwanted organisms'.

MAF Biosecurity names its preferred option as No. 5. It sees MAF Biosecurity Authority taking the lead in developing and managing the initiative, with active involvement of councils and government departments. It proposes setting up a Technical Working Group whose primary function is 'to provide a mechanism for councils and other key interest groups to review and prepare comments on proposals to include plants on the national surveillance list.'. Suggested membership of the group includes:

• MAF Biosecurity Authority
• Other government departments with biosecurity responsibilities (Conservation, Health and Fisheries)
• Regional Councils and Unitary Authorities
• Interest groups like Nursery and Garden Industry Association, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, New Zealand Flower Industry Federation

The addition of one or more weed scientists to this group would benefit its deliberations. Others, including some of the respondents to our survey, have suggested a national overview of weed strategies. DoC, who as a national land-manager has a national overview, is in a position to influence regional strategies, and is pro-active in devising national weed strategies and investigating control methods. Agricultural and Forestry interests seem neglected by comparison, and leadership in this may need to come from MAF, which has traditionally been the national leader in weed administration. The Technical Working Group seems an excellent idea, but the membership suggested above could see agricultural interests being outweighed by conservation priorities.

Other matters of concern include:

• The need for better border controls, especially to prevent the continued smuggling of plants. People bringing plant material into the country should be encouraged to have it checked for any danger it poses, rather than being charged for its assessment.
• Early detection of potential problem weeds. Green⁶⁵ reported that the Department of Conservation has developed a surveillance plan⁶⁸ for early detection of new invasive weeds, but says that this had not been in operation long enough to comment on its effectiveness or what changes might be warranted. Agricultural interests, perhaps operating through MAF, could use a similar system, or even 'coat-tail' on the DoC initiative. Farmers, or perhaps rural schoolchildren, could be trained as observers, feeding information through Regional Council Biosecurity Officers.
• Tracking the progress of potentially noxious plants. Most Regional Councils already track progress in weed control, and adding additional species is easy. A centralised recording system would offer advantages to both Regional Councils and MAF Biosecurity, allowing both to follow progress of weed spread across regional boundaries and to detect rapid changes in the distribution of new problem species so that timely action can be taken. DoC already maintains databases of potential problems and of control methods. Perhaps agricultural weeds could be incorporated into their systems?
• Green⁶⁵ comments along similar lines:

There are other matters where co-operation between DOC, local government, MAF, Ministry of Fisheries, and landowners is crucial if surveillance and many weed-led programmes are going to succeed. These include: co-ordinating surveillance programmes; using other legal mechanisms under the Resource Management Act and Conservation Act to prevent the deliberate introductions of aquatic plants; public awareness initiatives; establishing weed hygiene controls; sharing of research and weed databases; declaring species to be "unwanted organisms".

• Several respondents to our survey commented on the need for better public education on weeds, how they arise (often from discarded garden rubbish) and how important they can be. Green comments on the same matter, but points out that conservation weeds in particular have received little publicity, apart from occasional useful initiatives, like Auckland Regional Council's 'Friendly Alternatives'⁷¹, suggesting environmentally friendly alternatives to pest plants.

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