|
Biosecurity and Biodiversity Working Party Tuesday 5 November 2024 at 1pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biosecurity and Biodiversity Working Party Tuesday 5 November 2024 at 1pm
|
|
|
|
|
Biosecurity and Biodiversity Working Party
5 November 2024
Biosecurity and Biodiversity Working Party Agenda
Meeting to be held in the Council Chamber
36 Water Street, Whangārei
on Tuesday 5 November 2024, commencing at 1pm
Please note: working parties and working groups carry NO formal decision-making delegations from council. The purpose of the working party/group is to carry out preparatory work and discussions prior to taking matters to the full council for formal consideration and decision-making. Working party/group meetings are open to the public to attend (unless there are specific grounds under LGOIMA for the public to be excluded).
MEMBERSHIP OF THE Biosecurity and Biodiversity Working Party
Chairperson, Councillor Jack Craw
NRC Chair Geoff Crawford
Councillor John Blackwell
Councillor Marty Robinson
TTMAC Representative, Michelle Elboz
TTMAC Representative, Mira Norris
TTMAC Representative, Niki Conrad
TTMAC Representative, Nyze Manuel
KARAKIA
RĪMITI (ITEM) Page
1.0 Ngā Mahi Whakapai/Housekeeping
2.0 Ngā Whakapahā/apologies
3.0 Ngā Whakapuakanga/declarations of conflicts of interest
4.1 Record of Actions – 14 August 2024 4
4.2 Receipt of Action Sheet 9
4.3 Review of the Regional Pest and Marine Pathways Plan 13
4.4 Biosecurity Annual Report 2023-2024 27
4.5 Biosecurity Act Amendments 152
Biosecurity and Biodiversity Working Party item: 4.1
5 November 2024
|
TITLE: |
Record of Actions – 14 August 2024 |
|
From: |
Sandra Harris, Personal Assistant - Pou Tiakai Taiao |
|
Authorised by Group Manager/s: |
Don McKenzie, Pou Tiaki Pūtaiao - GM Biosecurity, on 29 October 2024 |
Whakarāpopototanga / Executive summary
The purpose of this report is to present the Record of Actions of the last meeting (attached) held on 14 August 2024 for review by the meeting.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: Record of Actions 14
August 2024 ⇩ 
Biosecurity and Biodiversity Working Party item: 4.2
5 November 2024
|
TITLE: |
Receipt of Action Sheet |
|
From: |
Sandra Harris, Personal Assistant - Pou Tiakai Taiao |
|
Authorised by Group Manager/s: |
Don McKenzie, Pou Tiaki Pūtaiao - GM Biosecurity, on 29 October 2024 |
Whakarāpopototanga / Executive summary
The purpose of this report is to enable the meeting to receive the current action sheet.
That the action sheet be received.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: Receipt of Action Sheet ⇩
Biosecurity and Biodiversity Working Party item: 4.3
5 November 2024
|
TITLE: |
Review of the Regional Pest and Marine Pathways Plan |
|
From: |
Leon Keefer, Policy Specialist - Freshwater and April Nordstrom, Kaitātari Kaupapa Wai Māori |
|
Authorised by Group Manager/s: |
Don McKenzie, Pou Tiaki Pūtaiao - GM Biosecurity, on 29 October 2024 |
Whakarāpopototanga / Executive summary
Staff are undertaking a review of our Regional Pest Management and Marine Pathway Plan (2017-2027) pursuant to the Biosecurity Act 1991 (BSA). This is being done in collaboration with a sub-group of the Biodiversity and Biosecurity Working Party consisting of the Chair and Te Ruarangi members.
A list of candidate species for management is crucial for developing the plan as the list identifies which organisms are considered pests and require management. This helps the council to set specific goals, assess impacts (costs and benefits), allocate resources, engage stakeholders, and ensure regulatory compliance. In preparing these candidate lists, Council staff have researched neighbouring regions to understand their current priorities and pests, as well as utilised our own knowledge of new pests that have appeared in Northland since our last plan was prepared.
Staff request feedback and endorsement from the working party on the current candidate species list, classifications, and proposed management rules. Upon endorsement, the final proposed list will be submitted for a council decision on November 26, 2024.
1. That the Biodiversity and Biosecurity working Party note the contents of the report
2. That the Biodiversity and Biosecurity Working party endorse the draft candidate species list for a council decision on November 26th 2024.
Background/Tuhinga
The first step (section 70, BSA) in creating a pest management and marine pathways plan is submitting a proposal, either by the council or an individual. The proposal must include the name of the organisms to be managed as pests, their adverse effects, reasons for the plan, objectives, principal and alternative measures, cost-benefit analysis, and rationale for cost allocation. It should also address the plan’s impact on economic wellbeing, the environment, human health, and Māori cultural relationships and traditions. Coordination with other plans, proposed rules, management agency, monitoring methods, and funding details must be specified. Additionally, it should outline consultation outcomes and compliance with national policy directions.
The list of candidate species is crucial for developing the plan because it identifies which organisms are considered pests and need management. This helps in:
- Defining Objectives: Clearly identifying the species allows for setting specific goals and measures to control or eradicate them.
- Assessing Impact: Understanding the adverse effects of these species on the environment, economy, and human health helps in prioritizing actions.
- Resource Allocation: It aids in determining the necessary resources and funding required for effective management.
- Stakeholder Engagement: Involving tangata whenua, communities and stakeholders in identifying these species ensures that local knowledge and values are incorporated.
- Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring that the plan aligns with national policies and legal requirements.
Overall, it provides a focused and structured approach to pest management, ensuring that efforts are targeted and effective.
It is noted that due to our expedited approach to the RPMP review process, we are undertaking consultation with our stakeholders while preparing a new proposed plan. By doing this, we are able to also undertake concurrent cost-benefit analyses where and if needed. For the most part, we are relying on our existing cost-benefit analysis for all pests that will continue to be managed. We are also relying on neighbouring councils to share their own cost-benefit analyses where available – which has been a very reliable source to date.
Council staff have aligned (as practically able to) the current plans species list with our neighbouring councils, taking into regard Auckland Council, and their current classifications and rules. The current consultation being undertaken with tangata whenua, agencies, industries and the wider community will also support council staff with the finalisation of the proposed list.
Since 2017, there has been an increase in the number of pests that need managing in Te Taitokerau that are affecting a range of wildlife, communities, industry and economics. The inclusion of new species into the plan will have resource implications for the council which need to be considered to make sure that council are able to deliver on the management plans for each species.
Lastly , as our climate is changing, we are also seeing more extreme weather events that put our native species under further ecological pressures and new competition in the form of pests and diseases. In respect of this, we are researching some new emergent species to understand if NRC has a role in managing these through the RPMP.
Attachment 1: Proposed candidate
species list- RPMS review 2024 ⇩
Biosecurity and Biodiversity Working Party item: 4.4
5 November 2024
|
TITLE: |
Biosecurity Annual Report 2023-2024 |
|
From: |
Don McKenzie, Pou Tiaki Pūtaiao - GM Biosecurity |
|
Authorised by Group Manager/s: |
Don McKenzie, Pou Tiaki Pūtaiao - GM Biosecurity, on 29 October 2024 |
Whakarāpopototanga / Executive summary
The report seeks the support of the Biosecurity and Biodiversity Working Party to progress the adoption of the Biosecurity Annual report - 2023-2024 by council at its next meeting.
The Annual report describes what has been achieved in the previous year and council must review and consider adopting by the end of November this year to meet the legislative requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993 (BSA).
1. That the Biosecurity and Biodiversity Working party note the contents of the agenda item and attached Biosecurity Annual Report 2023-2024.
2. That the Biodiversity and Biosecurity Working Party support the adoption of the draft Biosecurity Annual Report by council as a record of the actions and results that have occurred during the 2023-2024 year.
Background/Tuhinga
The Annual Report (attached) is the sixth produced under the 10-year Pest Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and forms part of a 12-month progress report on the longer term aims and objectives of the Regional Pest and Marine Pathway Management Plan 2017-2027. The ten-year plan is a combination of the eradication or effective management of specified pests (or groups of pests) and includes a Marine Pathway Plan which is designed to prevent and manage the spread of harmful marine organisms via boat hull fouling within Northland coastal waters.
Summary of results
The Annual report describes 56 performance measures across each pest category and 88 per cent have been achieved or achieved in part. Six performance measures have not been achieved and five of these relate to pest plant activities. The remaining measure relates to production of kauri protection management plans being delayed because of bad weather. Other reasons why measures were not met include delays due to training needs or a lack of staff or contractor resources to carry out the work. The upcoming review of the regional Pest and Marine Pathways Plan will be an opportunity to address the scope of current activities and determine if they can be sustained given current resourcing or need to be scaled back in some way.
The availability of external funding plays a significant role in the ability to deliver actions on the ground and over recent years Biosecurity New Zealand, the Department of Conservation and entities such as Predator free 2050 have made significant contributions totalling more than $5M to regional biosecurity. The majority of this helped fund the response to Caulerpa and the wild deer eradication programme and other external funding helped pay for kauri protection activities, PF2050, the control of Manchurian wild rice, urban pest control and the freshwater check, clean, dry programme.
Public engagement in pest activities continues to grow and the total engagements are higher overall compared to last year with Pest Hub visitations increasing from 93018 to 119,847- up 28% on the previous year. Weed workshops continue to be popular with 164 recorded attendees – and more than 1477 people have experienced a weed workshop since they first began in 2011.
Community pest control groups continue to be very active, and staff provided over 6,585 pest devices issued to the public and attended 45 events during the year. Over six thousand hectares of new CPCAs got underway and kiwi numbers were reported to have increased from 80 in 2002 to 1185.
The marine team exceeded the annual hull inspection target of 2,000 by surveying 2049 for the year- this is more than 40% of the estimated total fleet in Northland. The team also conducted marine pest workshops and stakeholder awareness training. It is also pleasing report that no further range extensions of species like fanworm have been recorded for the last two years and there are some harbours that remain fanworm free. The report also describes the actions taken to develop new tools to combat exotic Caulerpa such as the development of a mechanical suction dredge and the results of wider surveillance for this new marine pest.
Our relations with iwi, hapū and whānau continue to grow and 29 bicultural collaborations with iwi, hapū and whānau were recorded, an increase of four compared to last year and partnerships established across marine, PF2050, kauri protection, wilding pine control, animal, and pest plant activities.
Staff have strived to develop sustaining relationships with māori as well as the wider communities of Taitokerau and it is clear than with positive, enduring community support and Te Tiriti partnerships we stand the best opportunity to create a more pest resilient Taitokerau.
Attachment 1: Annual Biosecurity Report
2024 ⇩
Biosecurity and Biodiversity Working Party item: 4.5
5 November 2024
|
TITLE: |
Biosecurity Act Amendments |
|
From: |
Leon Keefer, Policy Specialist - Freshwater; Justin Murfitt, Strategic Policy Specialist and April Nordstrom, Kaitātari Kaupapa Wai Māori |
|
Authorised by Group Manager/s: |
Don McKenzie, Pou Tiaki Pūtaiao - GM Biosecurity, on 29 October 2024 |
Whakarāpopototanga / Executive summary
The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is currently reviewing the Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act). This Act was last reviewed in 2012 and is facing a significant range of reforms with the aim of modernising the act and enabling more flexible and reactive management tools for Management Agencies. MPI has released a suite of Discussion Documents and Regulatory Impact Statements that accompany 71 proposed changes to the Act that are being considered. While the review is underway, there is no draft bill, nor are there confirmed options. The documentation provided indicates that MPI are still working through proposals and will consider feedback from Regional Councils and other management agencies.
Staff have reviewed the documents and prepared comments on the amendments, indicating support or opposition to MPI’s options. During the development of the Regional Pest Management and Marine Pathways Plan, tangata whenua and communities provided valuable insights on local context and values, helping improve pest management to protect Te Taitokerau’s unique biodiversity. These insights are reflected in staff comments, including financial and enforcement implications.
The submission is due on the 29th of November 2024. It is noted that submissions are being sought by way of answering questions posed by MPI through their notification. We propose to provide a covering letter to support the individual comments on each relevant proposal. It is also noted that the amendments discussed are still in early stages and that no draft bill has been notified.
1. That the Biodiversity and Biosecurity Working Party receive the report.
2. That the working party endorse council staff undertaking a review of the amendments.
Background/Tuhinga
The Biosecurity Act 1993 is currently undergoing a review by Government. This review commenced in the previous government prior to the COVID-19 pandemic but was placed on hold as a result of changing ministerial priorities. A notice was published in early September with a public invitation to submit on potential changes to our Biosecurity legislation, setting out a range of different options that include discussion and regulatory impact statements.
Given our emphasis on Biosecurity in Taitokerau, it is imperative that we as a Council understand the options being considered by the Government and provide our input to help direct the best outcomes for our programmes. This paper summarises the primary changes being considered and provides recommendations from staff on the contents of a submission to MPI. Submissions close on 29 November 2024. MPI indicates that final policy proposals will be considered by Cabinet in 2025.
It is worthwhile noting that there are numerous aspects to Biosecurity in Aotearoa (New Zealand). NRC’s primary roles include the management of pests that are already present in Aotearoa and that pose threats to our environment, economy, and social and cultural wellbeing in Taitokerau. We currently manage such pests through our Regional Pest Management and Marine Pathways Plan (which is undergoing a review at this time) and a range of non-statutory biosecurity programmes with communities and volunteer groups. Beyond the physical control of pests (trapping, spraying, etc.), we also have warranted biosecurity officers that have statutory powers that enable us to uphold our obligations under the Act.
As we have progressed through the review of the RPMP, key issues have been identified with the current legislation:
- Enforcement of rules can be very time consuming and resource hungry, and thus can be limited to only major rule infringements;
- There is no clear path to fine infringements, only to litigate in court;
- The preparation of a RPMP requires the completion of somewhat pedantic tasks, such as the completion of an in-depth cost-benefit analysis for each species to be managed and dozens of prescribed steps to complete (see Figures below for comparison).
Our current system:
The new proposed system:
Summary Overview
MPI has stated a range of reasons to change our existing legislation, citing primarily:
- Ongoing and significant pressures facing our biosecurity system (e.g. M. bovis outbreak starting in 2017 is ongoing and has cost approximately $1b;
- Primary sector production losses have increased from $1.5b p.a. in 2009 to $4.3b p.a. in 2020;
- Threats of diseases and outbreaks risk our access to overseas markets; and
- Extreme weather events and new temperature norms will make NZ more habitable for new pests and diseases.
The overarching policy objectives of the proposed amendments is to ensure biosecurity measures continue to protect our environment and support our economy. As a secondary measure, MPI wants to provide all users of the Act with a fit-for-purpose toolbox that is complete, effective, efficient, and future-proof.
If these objectives are delivered, MPI is of the opinion that we will see:
- Enhanced measures to prevent and manage biosecurity risks – offshore, at the border, and within New Zealand;
- The right behaviours being incentivised, and improved personal responsibility;
- Fit-for-purpose legislation with reduced compliance costs;
- Appropriate sharing of decision making;
- The facilitation of trade opportunities.
Te Uru Kahika Review Focus
Te Uru Kahika’s biosecurity steering group is progressing with its own submission. It is anticipated that the first draft of the submission will be provided to the group for comment the week of the 20th of October and will be circulated to Biomanagers for their information. A final draft for comment will be circulated on 7th of November for 7 days, and a final draft for Biomanagers and CE sign-off will be circulated on 19th of November.
The key focus areas for Te Uru Kahika are:
· Regional Council infringement powers (Proposal 8)
· Compensation (Proposal 21)
· Growing the GIA and cross-industry organisation (Proposals 36 & 37)
· Long-term management (Proposals 44-63)
o RPMP process
o Small-scale management plans
o Long-term management outcomes
o Unwanted and notifiable organisms
o Dogs and devices
· Overlap with DOC-administered legislation (Proposals 64-67 & 70)
· Decision-making
· Gaps and inaccuracies (where we identify them)
Other areas of focus will likely include:
· Purpose statements
· Proposal 29 (biofouling)
· Response decision-making and duty for risk goods (Proposals 39 & 40)
· Powers of arrest
Early NRC Opinions
Our initial review of the proposed amendments are largely in support. In general, the raft of changes seek to empower regional councils by devolving responsibilities away from Central Government. While this enables us to be more agile in our abilities to implement our own regional pest management strategies and programmes, there is also risk that additional responsibilities will ultimately fall on our Biosecurity Group without the existing support from MPI. A draft submission with a covering letter is being prepared to state this position and will be submitted to MPI before the 29th November deadline, should Council support our position.
The key points most relevant to Northland include:
- The lack of appropriate legislation to manage protected wildfowl that are causing local impacts (e.g. Black swan, Canada geese).
o There are amendments proposed to elevate the Biosecurity Act above those managed by DoC/Fish and Game, meaning Biosecurity requirements would have priority over recreational species proliferation;
- Lack of suitable legislation to manage wild animals (e.g. wild deer where our plan is being co-funded by NRC and Government). The Wild Animal Control Act is cumbersome and outdated
o The proposed amendments include new and more powerful enforcement tools for Regional Councils and police, which will improve the ability to respond to BSA offences without needing to rely on external legislation;
- A review of Part 5 of the BSA, which relates to the development of Regional Pest Management and Pathway Plans
o This is very relevant as we are undertaking our own review of the RPMP. The proposed amendments seek to streamline this process and reduce some of the more tedious steps in plan development.
- Improved provisions to devolve powers to community and Te Tiriti partners who are leading and/or supporting regional biosecurity responses
o Proposed amendments seek to include measures that will spread responsibilities around multiple management agencies (if desired) and to reduce reliance on Central Government decision-making.
o This is largely beneficial to Northland, but we are also reviewing the potential implications of Central Government reducing their biosecurity responsibilities on the whole.
A draft copy of our initial responses is provided in the attachment. There are some amendments which are not inherently relevant to NRC and we may not have any opinion on these. Those that are most relevant have been given priority and have at least our initial responses noted (support/oppose with comments).
Attachment 1: Draft NRC submission on
Biosecurity Act Amendments ⇩
