Agenda of Hearings Committee - 15 February 2012

Principal Officers Report

Attachment 2

Principal Officer’s Report

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL’S

PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY HEARINGS COMMITTEE

ON SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED ON THE

PROPOSED REGIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY & PROPOSED REGIONAL PHYTOSANITARY PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

1.0 Introduction

This report to the Council Hearings Committee, provides staff comment on all submissions received on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Strategy 2011 & Proposed Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy 2011, and is to be considered by the Hearings Committee in accordance with the Biosecurity Act 1993 Section 79A.

The report provides a brief summary on the review of the Proposed Strategies, highlights the key issues that have developed as a result of the consultation process, and then provides comments on the 7 submissions received by the closing date for submissions, 27 January 2012. A list of all people who submitted on the Proposed Strategies is also provided.

2.0 Background

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) started reviewing its Regional Pest Management Strategy 9 February 2011 with the recommendation to Council from the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee that the Discussion document, approach and timeline be adopted. This timeline was subsequently revised on 17 August 2011, as a result of expected changes to the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Relevant briefing papers and the Regional Pest Management Discussion Document are available for Committee information.

The Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy has been reviewed in conjunction with the Horticultural Industry. The Regional Phytosanitary Strategy was developed following an approach to HBRC by the pip fruit industry. There is interest by the wider horticultural sector to increase the scope of this Strategy. Discussions on this are ongoing. Changes to the Biosecurity Act 1993 are expected to be legislated during 2012. Those changes are expected to include a requirement that Regional Pest Management Strategies are reviewed to meet requirements of the Biosecurity Act revisions within 2 years. Staff will continue to work with the Horticultural Industry sector to complete background work to enable the scope of this Strategy to be expanded in preparation for that review.

2.1 Consultation process

At its meeting on 9 March 2011 the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee recommended that Council approve for public release the discussion document setting out a number of key issues for consideration regarding the review and implementation of pest management in Hawke’s Bay. Council endorsed this recommendation at its meeting on 16 March 2011.

Council mailed out 167 copies of the discussion document to interested and potentially affected people and organisations.

Twenty five written comments were received on the discussion document.

Following the release of the discussion document staff attended a briefing from Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials regarding a proposed review of the Biosecurity Act 1993. This review is expected to be passed into law during the 2012 year, and have significant implications for regional pest management strategies. As a result of this information Council in August 2011 agreed with a recommendation from the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee to continue the current Regional Pest Management Strategy review but propose a substantially unchanged strategy with an accompanying publicity campaign explaining the reasons why this is being done.

Accordingly the proposed Regional Pest Management Strategy and Regional Phytosanitary Strategy are substantially unchanged from the 2006-2011 strategies.

2.2 Consultation with Iwi

As the proposed strategies are largely unchanged from the 2006-2011 strategies, extensive consultation with Iwi has not been undertaken for this review. The proposed review to be undertaken once the revisions to the Biosecurity Act are legislated will be an opportunity to undertake an extensive programme of consultation.

2.3 Proposed Regional Pest Management Strategy and Proposed Regional Phytosanitary Strategy

The reviewed strategies were notified on 3 December 2011. Submissions closed on 31 January 2012. This allowed 27 working days (excluding the period 25 December 2011 to 15 January 2012). The Biosecurity Act requires that the closing date for submissions must not be earlier than 20 working days after notification.

Over 92 copies of the Proposed Strategy were distributed by mail. All public libraries were also provided with a copy of the proposed strategy. Notification of the proposed strategy was advertised in the Hawke’s Bay Today.

A total of 7 submissions have been received, and 3 submitters have asked to be heard at the hearing scheduled for 15 February 2012.

This report analyses all submissions and the recommendations they make suggests some changes for consideration by the Hearings Committee.

3.0 Summary of major issues raised in submissions

This section summarises the major points made in submissions.

3.1 Control of road-side plant pests

The Proposed Strategy makes it a requirement for road controlling authorities (Transit for State Highways, and Territorial Authorities for local roads) to be responsible for the control of plant pests on the roadside.

3.2 Occupier responsibilities

The only change proposed to occupier responsibility within the RPMS is recognition that Kiwirail is an occupier with legal responsibility under the Biosecurity Act.

3.7 Regional surveillance plant pests

Council as part of its review process has received advice from senior MAF policy staff on how surveillance powers operate under the Biosecurity Act.

Authorised Council officers have the power to enter private property under part 6 of the Biosecurity Act for surveillance purposes provided that the organism they have good reason to suspect is present is listed as a pest in at least one pest management strategy (national or regional). This is because:

● S55 applies to management and eradication of pests via pest management strategies not to surveillance of them outside of a strategy. And

● S103 allows a principal officer of a region to appoint authorised persons for the purpose of exercising functions, powers, and duties under the Biosecurity Act in relation to ascertain the presence or distribution of any pest, pest agent, or unwanted organism, And

● S2 defines a “Pest” as an “organism specified as a pest in a pest management strategy”

So if an organism is listed in any pest management strategy, it is legally defined as a pest for surveillance purposes under the Act, and Council through its authorised officers can undertake monitoring and surveillance for it, using the applicable powers in part six of the Act.

3.8 Requests for new species to be added as pests to the Strategy.

A number of submissions request Council to include additional species as pests into the Strategy. The inclusion of a new species requires an intensive analysis of the reasons, including the costs and benefits of managing that species using regional intervention.

If Council wish to declare additional species as pests and manage them under a regional pest management strategy, then Council would need to complete a cost vs benefit analysis for each proposed additional pest.

List of submitters

No	Name		Organisation
1	Dianne Vesty	Executive Officer	HB Fruitgrowers Assoc
2	Brad Siebert	Biosecurity Manager	Kiwifruit Vine Health Inc (KVH)
3	Ru Collin	Director	Horticulture NZ
4	Kevin Collins	Programme Mgr, Natural Heritage, Biosecurity	Waikato Regional Council
5	Jim Lambie	Snr Environmental Scientist	Horizons Regional Council
6	Bruce Wills	HB Provincial President	Hawke’s Bay Federated Farms
7	Bruce Jans	Managing Director	Seafield Farm HB Ltd

Comment on each submission

Submission number: 1

Submitter: Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Association

Issue 1

The submission states that horticulture on the Heretaunga Plains is under increasing threats from invertebrate and pathenogenic pests, and the submitter believes that prevention and preparedness is the best remedy. They wish to see the mandate of HBRC widened to support this approach.

Discussion

HBRC agrees in principle that a wider role that encompasses the concerns of the fruit industry should be considered and has been working with industry to develop that through the establishment of a regional biosecurity forum. However any such initiative must complement and not duplicate existing biosecurity surveillance and national Government Industry agreements.

HBRC will continue to work with industry and central government to identify a pragmatic and effective approach to managing potential threats to the horticulture industry.

Issue 2

There is concern over increasing numbers of rabbits as a result of their immunity to Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease.

Discussion

The RPMS in 2001 changed from controlling rabbits to monitoring and facilitating land user based control. This has been in place for some time. A contractor is available to assist in advising land owners how best to meet their rabbit control needs on their property.

HBRC established a fund for the purpose of subsidising rabbit control where this is deemed to be the most appropriate approach. HBRC will fund 50% of the cost of control with the land owner meeting the balance of the cost. The subsidy is provided subject to the land owner agreeing to a plan for the ongoing management of rabbits on their property. Management plans will be developed for each property for which subsidy is provided and includes a number of expectations and an implementation plan which is required to be followed.

Information on how council can support occupiers with rabbit management has previously been circulated to HBFGA for inclusion in their growers newsletter.

Issue 3

The Fruitgrowers Association advises of its satisfaction with the Phytosanitary Strategy and its associated operational plan. It would however like to have the Strategy expanded to cover additional pests of kiwifruit and Summerfruit.

Discussion

Staff have had initial discussions with the kiwifruit and summerfruit industry groups regarding the possibility of incorporating additional pests into the Phytosanitary Strategy. Staff plan to have further meetings with these groups in the near future. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will also be invited to attend these meetings.

Staff expect that discussions will be sufficiently advanced to enable Council in conjunction with these industry sectors to work through a number of outstanding issues to enable revisions to be made to the Phytosanitary Strategy after the proposed revisions to the Biosecurity Act are passed into law.

Suggested amendments

No amendments to either the Regional Pest Management Strategy or the Regional Phytosanitary Strategy are suggested as a result of this submission, however staff will continue to work with Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers Association to review the Strategies once the proposed revisions to the Biosecurity Act are passed into law.

Recommendation

1. That there be no change to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Strategy

2. That there be no change to the Proposed Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy

Submission number: 2

Submitter: Kiwifruit Vine Health Inc (KVH)

Issue 1

Kiwifruit Vine Health Inc (KVH) is concerned about the possibility of wild Kiwifruit becoming a serious pest in Hawke’s Bay, and the potential for wild kiwifruit to harbour PSA.

Discussion

Wild kiwifruit is not currently a significant issue in the HB region although long term the HB climate is conducive to wild kiwifruit establishing so pre emptive control may be of value.

Staff understand that KVH are currently progressing a national pest management strategy (NPMS) for PSA. It may therefore be premature to include PSA or wild kiwifruit in the HB RPMS. The NPMS for PSA should discuss risk pathway management for these pests, the best approach to management of the threat, funding and the role and responsibilities of different parties in PSA management from a national perspective.

Staff do however believe that HBRC should work constructively with the industry to assist where appropriate to manage the risk. Staff suggest that this could be through a MOU or similar with KVH to explore what the best way to manage wild kiwifruit is. Staff understand that this approach has been taken between KVH and Northland Regional Council

Staff suggest that this will allow for a more flexible approach while the most effective management option is explored and developed. Staff point out that a number pest plants which are not included in the HB RPMS are currently effectively controlled through land owner agreements

Suggested amendments

No amendments to either the Regional Pest Management Strategy or the Regional Phytosanitary Strategy are suggested as a result of this submission, however staff will continue to work with KVH in support of the development of a National Pest Management Strategy for PSA, and in the development of and implementation of an agreement to control any wild kiwifruit reported to Council, and to minimise the potential for PSA to infect commercial kiwifruit orchards.

Recommendation

1. That there be no change to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Strategy

2. That there be no change to the Proposed Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy

Submission number: 3

Submitter: HorticultureNZ Ru Collin

Issue 1

Mr Collin requests the inclusion of invertebrate pests into the HB RPMS.

Discussion

HBRC agrees in principle that a wider role for HBRC that encompasses the concerns of the fruit industry should be considered. However there are a range of invertebrate pests that impact on the primary sector and public health.

The prerequisites for the inclusion of a pest into a regional pest management strategy include:

· That the benefits of inclusion in a regional strategy outweigh the costs after taking account of the likely consequences of inaction or alternative courses of action.

· The benefits and costs must be established and the benefits accruing to those funding the work proposed in the Strategy, outweigh the costs.

Staff have been working with industry to develop an understanding of the costs and benefits through the establishment of a regional biosecurity forum.

Progress has been made in early discussions with industry, MAF and the Massey disease epicentre on what the specific role of the biosecurity forum would be; what existing surveillance programmes need to be complemented; what pests might be monitored to reduce regional risks; and what existing information is available for those pests.

Any regional initiative must complement and not duplicate existing biosecurity surveillance and national Government Industry agreements and arrangements. This will need further high level discussions between regional industry reps and central government.

Suggested amendments

No amendments to either the Regional Pest Management Strategy or the Regional Phytosanitary Strategy are suggested as a result of this submission, however staff will continue to work with the horticulture industry in Hawke’s Bay to review the Strategies once the proposed revisions to the Biosecurity Act are passed into law.

Recommendation

1. That there be no change to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Strategy

2. That there be no change to the Proposed Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy

Submission number: 4

Submitter: Waikato Regional Council

Issue 1

Waikato Regional Council suggest that the Proposed RPMS should highlight some of the proposed changes expected as a result of the proposed revision of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Discussion

As possible changes cannot be guaranteed, staff believe that a detailed discussion document be prepared and consulted on prior to the next RPMS review is the most appropriate place and time to foreshadow to the public any changes that may arise from the legislation. By then changes will be enacted into law and it will be clearer what changes may be needed to the RPMS as a result.

Issue 2

Waikato Regional Council point out that Kiwirail is not considered to be a Crown agency under the Biosecurity Act and is therefore not exempt from RPMS land occupier obligations.

Discussion

Staff agree with the submitter and propose that the Strategy be amended as recommended below.

Issue 3

Waikato Regional Council:

· Supports the restrictions on the movement of soil potential contaminated by total control plant parts.

· Supports the treatment of the northern part of the region differently than the southern part for rook control

· Is interested in the approach taken to the control of possums.

Discussion

The support and interest from Waikato Regional Council is noted and appreciated. The RPMS outlines both the monitoring requirements of the possum control area programme and the compliance targets.

Suggested amendments

Staff suggest the following word changes with relation to Kiwirail in the Regional Pest Management Strategy.

Recommendation

1. That the following changes be made to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Strategy.

Amend the Subheading ‘OnTrack’ to read ‘KiwiRail’

Remove the wording in clause 2.3 Paragraph 6 subheading ‘ KiwiRail’ and add:

Kiwirail is a State owned enterprise that administers 18,000ha of railway land throughout NZ. Kiwirail is occupier of land that forms the rail corridor in Hawke’s Bay. Kiwirail has a legal responsibility under the Biosecurity Act 1993 to control pests on its land according to rules for land occupiers set out in this Strategy.

2. That there be no change to the Proposed Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy

Submission number: 5

Submitter: Horizons Regional Council

Issue 1

Horizons Regional Council (HRC) suggest that the long term objective of eradicating rooks could be reinforced with a plan to move the rook eradication line further south as rook numbers in the north of the region decline.

Discussion

Staff agree with the value of the rook clear line being moved further south within the HB region but see this being added into the next RPMS review which is likely to be triggered by the upcoming Biosecurity Act 1993 review. While staff are confident that there has been a significant reduction in rook numbers as a result of the ongoing control work, staff believe that there needs to be a more thorough review of the cost/benefit of ongoing work to achieve eradication compared with a programme of work designed to keep rooks to low numbers.

Issue 2

Horizons Regional Council suggest that surveillance monitoring, with a list of potential pests that will be watched out for, as a specific operational objective should be included in the RPMS

Discussion

We acknowledge HRC staff comments on surveillance. HBRC pest plant staff visit a range of at risk sites on an annual basis for a number of pest plants. Both field horsetail and Chilean Rhubarb are amongst the species that staff are looking for. At this stage staff do not believe that those plants should be included in the proposed reviewed RPMS as total control plants.

Suggested amendments

Staff meet with staff from neighbouring regional councils on a regular basis. Potential pest plants that are found near the common regional boundary are on the agenda for those meetings.

Staff believe that these ongoing operational meeting are valuable and more effective than any attempt to include all possible pests that have the potential to pose a threat into a RPMS.

Recommendation

1. That there be no change to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Strategy

2. That there be no change to the Proposed Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy

Submission number: 6

Submitter: Federated Farmers, HB Provisional President

Issue 1

Federated Farmers raises a number of issues associated with obligations and responsibilities of land occupiers

Discussion

The public good benefits of pest management are recognised by funding 30% or more of most biosecurity activities through general funding.

Staff believe while it is possible it is very unlikely that occupiers could be found in breach of the Central Hawke’s Bay district plan in complying with the requirements of the RPMS. The example of gorse given in the submission would require the gorse to be:

1) Within ten metres of a boundary with a neighbouring property that was clear of gorse with a complaint made by the occupier who has no gorse (as gorse is a boundary control pest plant)

2) To be on a site of high conservation value as defined by the district plan.

Across the region staff annually receive very few complaints regarding boundary control RPMS pests.

Staff will make CHB district council planners aware of this possible risk so that the district plan can be amended at its next review to specifically exclude RPMS activities.

The legislation that sets the framework that will allow HBRC to bind the Crown has not yet been passed and therefore this issue is not dealt with in this strategy. HBRC agrees that in certain circumstances the Crown should be bound and will seek to do so when the opportunity arises so that the crown is a contributor to the effective long term management of the regions pest management programmes.

Staff are satisfied that plant pest control required under the RPMS only requires a level of knowledge and equipment that is manageable to land occupiers.

HBRC employs a number of plant pest advisors who provide advice to land occupiers on the management of any plant pests on their property. A number of information brochures are available from Council or through the website.

Issue 2, 3 and 4

Federated Farmers considers that HBRC should not fund pest control on Crown land and road sides.

Discussion

HBRC pest advisors actively work with Territorial Local Authorities and other agencies with responsibilities for management of roadsides or other land areas. These staff have good relationships with most of these agencies which have programmes of work to control pests on road verges, rail corridors and other land areas to ensure work by adjacent land occupiers is not compromised by inaction.

Proposed revisions to the Biosecurity Act are expected to improve HBRC ability to work with all Crown agencies on pest control.

Issue 5

Federated Farmers seeks additional support from Council for site specific control of pests on private land.

Discussion

Council provides an incentive for qualifying site specific programmes up to 50% of costs. A number of private land occupiers have been and continue to be assisted with site specific pest control. It is intended that this programme will continue in the RPMS.

Issue 6

Federated Farmers supports the rules and penalties in the RPMS.

Discussion

This support is noted

Issue 7

Federated Farmers supports the Plant and animal pest species named in the proposed RPMS and how they are categorised.

Discussion

The support of the submitter is noted.

The defined area for Japanese honeysuckle around Lake Tutira was identified in consultation with land occupiers, iwi and other interested stakeholders in the previous RPMS and has been operating successfully for eight years.

The submitter’s comments on both nodding thistle and Ragwort are acknowledged. Both are in the strategy as boundary control plants. Ragwort flea beetle is proving to be a successful biological control in the Hawke’s Bay region and crown weevil is being spread for nodding thistle.

Issue 8

Federated Farmers are concerned at the possibility for a significant change in funding for pest management through the Annual Plan process. In addition they suggest that properties under 4 hectares in size, that do not currently pay a targeted pest rate, be levied through an alternative fixed rate on their land.

Discussion

Reviews of a RPMS have a specific deadline that must be met legislated under the Biosecurity Act. While the RPMS review is done on the basis of a current Council commitment to expenditure, the Council must, through its Long Term Plan process, weigh up all of its funding priorities and determine how those may be delivered with the funding available. Council consults widely on each draft Long Term Plan and would is required to highlight any significant change in funding or change in the method of service delivery of any activity.

The funding requirements of the RPMS are included in the Long Term Plan and may be subject to change through that process. The reader of the RPMS will need to make an assessment of the relative value of expenditure in the RPMS of its own right.

Staff acknowledge that the cost of delivering pest management work on lifestyle properties may not reflect the funding received from those properties. However it must be pointed out that more than 30% of the costs of pest management activities are met from general funding. All properties pay general rates on the basis of their land value. While no rating or taxation system is perfect, staff believe that the costs of pest activities on lifestyle properties is a reasonable reflection of the rates charged on those properties.

Suggested amendments

The submitter raises a number of issues. Many of these are in support of the current HBRC approach to pest management. Staff acknowledge that the expected revisions to the Biosecurity Act will result in a thorough review of the HBRC RPMS. As part of the development of a discussion document that will precede that review it will be appropriate that staff meet with Federated Farmer representatives and discuss a number of the issues raised in this submission.

Recommendation

1. That there be no change to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Strategy

2. That there be no change to the Proposed Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy

Submission number: 7

Submitter: B Jans, Seafield Farm HB Ltd

Issue 1

Mr Jans submits that where HBRC considers pests to be a problem for the wider community, then the wider community and not individual land occupiers should pay.

Discussion

In developing the RPMS the Biosecurity Act requires that where funding proposals for a Strategy require persons to meet directly the costs of implementing the strategy, those persons contribute to the creation, continuance, or exacerbation of the problems proposed to be resolved.

It should be noted that HBRC funds its pest management activities through a targeted rate on all properties over 4 hectares in area (70%) and general funding (30%). Where occupiers have an “occupier responsibility” total control plant pest on their land HBRC assist with the control of this through a 50% subsidy capped at $3,000 per property per annum.

This approach is widely accepted by ratepayers throughout the region. Mr Jans is the only submitter suggesting that a different approach be taken.

Issue 2

Mr Jans raises an issue regarding the attitude of staff.

Discussion

The attitude of staff is not a subject of a strategy. If Mr Jans wishes to take issue with staff the appropriate approach is through the manager of that staff member or through a Councillor.

Issue 3

Mr Jans believes that Council has a number of shortcomings and wishes to know how Council is going to address those.

Discussion

As above this is not an issue for this Strategy.

Issue 4

Mr Jans states that the strategy has been in default for 9 months.

Discussion

The Strategy review process has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements and timing set out in the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Suggested amendments

There are no amendments suggested.

Recommendation

1. That there be no change to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Strategy

2. That there be no change to the Proposed Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy

Prepared by

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

And

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

on behalf of Principal Officer, Andrew Newman

February 2012

	Proposed Date
Hearings Committee considers submissions, Principal Officers Report, and makes recommendations to Council.	15 February 2012
Council considers the Hearings Committee recommendations, and a revised Principal Officer’s report which must include reasons why a submission is accepted or rejected. Subject to any consequential alterations Council must give public notice of its decision.	29 February 2012
Concurrent with public notification Council must serve on each person who made a submission on a strategy, a copy of its decision on that strategy. Council must allow 15 working days from the serving of its decision to submitters to allow submitters to lodge a reference with the Environment Court on any of Council’s decisions, and a further 5 working days from that date point must be allowed for a submitter making reference to the Environment Court to serve a notice on Council to that effect.	Public notification 10 March 2012. Date by which notice of notification of reference to Environment Court must be served on Council 11 April 2012.
Council ‘makes’ the Strategy	The earliest date for this if there are no references to the Environment Court will be Council’s meeting schedule for 18 April 2012

1	Copy of all Submissions Received		Under Separate Cover
2 View	Principal Officers Report