Communities seek stricter regulation of GM plants and animals

www.wdc.govt.nz/xml/ps.aspx?fn=/resources/13722/Communities-seek-stricter-regulation-of-GM-plants-and-animals.html

Communities seek stricter regulation of GM plants and animals

WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL   Media Release - (9 December 2009)

Whangarei Mayor Stan Semenoff says it’s time the Northland Regional Council woke up to the fact Northlanders have major concerns about the risks associated with genetically modified plants and animals.

The regional council refused to support or fund a poll on the issue, but the poll results show significant community concern and a demand for local government action.

Auckland and Northland residents seek stricter regulation of any genetically modified (GM) plants and animals grown in their areas. Two thirds or more favour regulation of at least a strength that would make users of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) legally responsible for any environmental or economic harm - either through local regulation or by way of changes to national legislation.

The Colmar Brunton poll carrying this finding was commissioned by the Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options. Its purpose was to gauge the degree to which communities are willing to accept risks associated with the outdoor use of GMOs, and to test options for responding to these risks. There is currently no outdoor use of GM plants or animals in Auckland and Northland.

The NRC, while a member of the working party, did not assist in commissioning or funding the survey, and Mr Semenoff says it is hugely disappointing that Northland’s so-called environmental watchdog was not interested in hearing from the community.

"The regional council has stuck its head in the sand on this issue. It is out of touch with the widespread concern within the community.

"Whangarei District and the other councils involved have been right to have had concerns on behalf of our residents, and this is shown by the poll results.

"People don’t want to accept the risks around liability, and they have given a signal to central government to set national regulations. We now have a clear mandate from our community to press the Government to do that," Mr Semenoff said.

He believes those favouring local regulation were expressing dissatisfaction that central government hadn’t addressed community concerns over GMOs.

Central government should have put a stop to any chance of the release of GMOs into the environment nationally until the issues surrounding them were resolved, but it had not had the backbone.

"Concerns about liability, economic costs and benefits, environmental risks and cultural/community concerns need to be satisfied at a national level.

"Local government can build on national ground rules, but GMOs in the field are not going to respect local government boundaries. The country needs national standards set," Mr Semenoff said.

Two thirds or more of the residents polled want local or regional councils to have a role in regulating GMOs in their areas, either by setting local rules or by a change of legislation at the national level. Support ranged from 66% to 75% for individual council areas.

The survey also showed that around half the residents (a range of 44% to 55%) want councils to have the right to prohibit GM plants and animals, either by setting local rules or allowing communities, through their councils, the right to reject use of a particular GMO in its area when the national regulator, ERMA, is processing applications.

When questioned about the extent to which councils should set rules in addition to those set by ERMA, levels of support ranged from 40% to 49% for individual council areas. Amongst those respondents who support their council setting rules, total prohibition is the most favoured level of regulation (a range of 39-57%), with strict liability provisions the next most favoured (a range of 22-32%), and prohibiting only GMOs for food production the least favoured (a range of 18-27%).

The most common reasons for supporting local regulation were that there was not enough known about the consequences of GM, that users of GMOs should be held accountable if something goes wrong, and that people shouldn’t interfere with nature. Reasons for not supporting local regulation included respondents being pro-GM, that central government should set the rules, and that ERMA should make decisions over GMOs.

Support for councils having a regulatory role is stronger in Northland than in the Auckland region, and within the Auckland region there is considerable variation between individual councils. For the Waitakere, Auckland City and Franklin communities, levels of support for local regulation were significantly higher than for not utilising local regulation while in Manukau and North Shore there was significantly higher support for not having local regulation. In Rodney and Papakura, the levels of support for and against local regulation were more evenly matched.

However, all communities strongly favour making users of GMOs legally responsible for any economic or environmental harm that may result. Around two thirds of those polled want regulation to make users of GMOs strictly liable for any harm caused, with support ranging from 63% to 72% for individual councils.

At present, the user is not liable for damage resulting from an activity carried out in accordance with an ERMA approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO). There is also no requirement for applicants to prove financial fitness in case of damage and no requirement to post bonds to cover costs should damage occur. Therefore, costs from unexpected events or ineffective national regulation will tend to lie with affected parties – neighbouring land users and local authorities.

Support for local regulation is strongest amongst Maori, particularly in the Northland region. It is also strongest amongst semi-rural and rural residents while urban views vary by region. Rural residents are more likely to favour prohibiting GMOs in both Northland and Auckland than are semi-rural or urban residents. Females are more likely to support local regulation than are males, and support is greater amongst 18-39 year olds than older age groups.

The poll also found that there is clear support from the Northland and Auckland communities for only producing food that is GM free but strong support for leaving options open for GM plants and animals in the future. Views were split over whether GM will harm the local tourism industry with Northland indicating yes and Auckland indicating no. However, both Auckland and Northland residents believe that GM will harm the local food industry. In many communities the majority view was that GM will not provide economic benefits, although the Auckland region as a whole believes it will.

Those councils that commissioned the survey through the Working Party are: Whangarei, Far North, Kaipara and Rodney District Councils, Waitakere City Council, and Auckland Regional Council.

The councils on the Working Party will now examine options for responding to community concerns regarding GMOs. These include renewed lobbying of central government to amend the national legislation governing GMOs. The changes sought include putting in place a full strict liability regime for harm caused by GMOs and/or to allow local and regional councils the right to reject GMOs in their jurisdictions when applications are made to ERMA to trial or release GMOs.

Also to be further evaluated are options for local or regional regulation by formulating draft objectives, policies and rules under the RMA. A decision on introducing rules for the Auckland region would most likely have to await the establishment of the new Greater Auckland Council in October 2010.

The collaborative approach adopted by local authorities in the Northland and Auckland regions in regard to genetic engineering is an excellent example of local government working together to address common concerns raised by their respective communities.

Given that it is communities that ultimately carry the risks arising from this technology, the councils on the Working Party have taken the view that each community should be consulted as to what level of risk they are prepared to carry. The communities have clearly responded that they want users of GM to carry the financial risks involved and want fundamental changes to the way GMOs are presently regulated to ensure this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related documents

View further information on GMO's

 

 

www.wdc.govt.nz/customerservice/?lc=reader&m=ts&i=1630

ENDS

next:

fyi-

agenda item for next Whangarei District Council meeting (full council) Wed l6 Dec 09

 

 

www.wdc.govt.nz/agendas_online/WDC_16122009/Update%20on%20GE.html

RESULTS OF COLMAR BRUNTON GE TELEPHONE POLL

please read carefully including (at the end) the analysis of the GE poll results

 

www.wdc.govt.nz/agendas_online/WDC_16122009/analysis_of_gm_poll_results_attachment_4.pdf

it shows approx 2/3rds or 709% approx have serious concerns about current national regulation, w particular concerns about lack of strict liability. cheers! xx Z elka grammer (spokesperson) 09 4322155 p.s. GE FREE NORTHLAND will release our own Press Release today... the ICWP on GMos will be putting out a PR as well...will send thru when its available.. Marty Robinson (Chairman) can also make comment

p.s. The Colmar Brunton GE telephone poll results will go to WDC meeting on 16 December and to Kaipara DC on the same day. A press release will be made on Thursday 10 December. The agenda for the council meeting is on the WDC website on Thursday 10 December also, will check for KDC's. The press release should go on WDC website the same day.

****

from Whangarei District Council website (under AGENDAS dec 09)

 

 

www.wdc.govt.nz/agendas_online/WDC_16122009/Update%20on%20GE.html

3.

Update on GE: Results of Colmar Brunton Poll

 

Reporting Officer:

Dr Kerry Grundy (Team Leader Futures Planning)

 

Date:

19 November 2009

Vision, Mission and Values

This agenda item, together with its recommendations, was written with the Whangarei District Council’s Vision, Mission and Values in mind. It is felt that the recommendations, if adopted, would contribute to the Vision, Mission and Values, particularly to the values of customer first, innovation and excellence and visionary leadership.

Local Government Act 2002 – The Four Well-Beings

Cultural:

There are a range of cultural concerns over genetic engineering, and the recommended approach would help address those concerns.

 

Economic:

There are definite economic implications with the potential release of GMOs to the environment, and the recommended approach will allow further scrutiny of those.

 

Environmental:

There are potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the release of GMOs to the environment, and the recommended approach would assist in addressing those impacts

 

Social:

There are important social considerations involved with the potential release of GMOs to the environment and the recommendations would help clarify those social issues.

 

1. Introduction

In 2003, local government sought changes to the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act (HSNO) that would allow it to meet its responsibilities under other statutes, such as the Local Government Act (LGA) and the Resource Management Act (RMA), when dealing with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). At the same time, a range of community groups submitted in respect of the bill seeking various additional safeguards and protections.

 

The role local government should take in the regulation of GMOs was a focal point of submissions to the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and a number of local authorities presented submissions to Parliament contending that, at very least, there was a lack of clarity as to the roles and responsibilities of local government with respect to GM regulation. In particular, it was argued by LGNZ that the responsibilities placed on local government were not matched by provisions that would allow local government to influence GMO activities.

 

Parliament’s Education and Science Select Committee reviewed these submissions and determined that no material change was required to the bill. The effect of the subsequent changes to HSNO was to pave the way for release of GMOs while leaving local government with no means to influence the assessment or management of GMOs at the national level. Local authorities would have no more influence on decisions by the national regulator, the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA), than any other submitter or individual with respect to a particular application (beyond assured notification of the proposed activity).

 

 

 

In the absence of reforms being enacted to meet local government’s concerns, and public disquiet remaining strong, the public has directed its dissatisfaction and anxieties over genetic modification to local government. Local authorities in the Northland and Auckland region have been subject to significant and continuous lobbying by their communities since the moratorium on general releases of GMOs to the environment was lifted in 2003. This has resulted in large numbers of submissions to Annual Plans, Long Term Council Community Plans (LTCCPs), and District Plans, together with petitions to councils, lobbying of councillors, and on-going communication with staff. This lobbying has not abated over time, but rather has increased and remains significant.

 

Local authorities in the Northland/Auckland region have responded to these community concerns by forming an Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options (the Working Party). As the name suggests, the Working Party is charged with evaluating risks to local bodies and their communities in the Northland/Auckland region from outdoor uses of genetic modification together with response options to those risks, including regulation of GMO land uses under the RMA. The Working Party is only concerned with outdoor uses of GMOs, including field trials and releases to the environment.

 

The Working Party currently comprises: Far North District Council, Kaipara District Council, Rodney District Council, Whangarei District Council, Waitakere City Council, Northland Regional Council and Auckland Regional Council. Auckland City Council and North Shore City Council are presently observers on the Working Party.

 

2. Community Management of GMOs

 

As part of its investigations the Working Party commissioned a series of reports to investigate the nature and extent of risks local authorities could expect to face from outdoor activities involving GMOs and the response options to address those risks.

 

The first report (Community Management of GMOs: Issues, Options and Partnership with Government) examined the issue of whether local government had jurisdiction under the LGA and RMA to regulate GMOs. Based upon a legal opinion from Dr Royden Somerville QC, the report found that the HSNO Act does not preclude management of activities involving GMOs in the environment by local authorities under the RMA or the LGA. In other words, local authorities do have jurisdiction to manage land uses involving GMOs in the environment under the RMA and LGA over and above the regulation prescribed nationally under the HSNO Act.

 

The report also argued that provisions in planning documents formulated under the RMA would be the most appropriate mechanism to regulate activities involving GMOs in the environment at a local or regional level. There are a range of approaches to regulating such land uses, including total prohibition, selective prohibition, spatial management areas, or case specific regulation through scrutiny of discretionary or non-complying activities.

 

The report also found that amendment of the HSNO Act to allow territorial and regional authorities to set local and/or regional controls over and above those set nationally by ERMA would provide a more direct means to achieving the desired outcomes sought by a community in regard to GMO land uses in its district or region. In addition, should HSNO be amended to put in place a strict liability regime holding the developers and/or users of GE technology liable for all subsequent damages, further amendment of the Act could be avoided.

 

The second report (Community Management of GMOs II: Risks and Response Options) examined in greater depth the risks to local government and their communities in Northland and Auckland posed by GMO releases to the environment. A series of risks to councils and their constituents were identified and can be classed under three general headings.

 

 

 

Environmental risks include:

 

· Adverse effects on non-target species, including indigenous flora and fauna;

· GM plants becoming invasive and disrupting ecosystems;

· Altered genes transferring to other organisms; and

· Development of herbicide or pesticide resistance creating ‘super-weeds’ or ‘super-pests’.

 

Economic risks include:

 

· Loss of income (and/or legal action) through contamination (or even perceived contamination) of non-GMO food products triggering market rejection of produce;

· Negative effects on marketing and branding opportunities, including damage to regional marketing initiatives such as the ‘Naturally Northland’ brand, and damage to tourism;

· Costs associated with environmental damage, such as cleanup costs for invasive weeds and pests in reserves, parks, and open space.

 

Socio-cultural risks include:

 

· Effects on Maori cultural beliefs (the concepts of whakapapa, mauri, tikanga, and kaitiakitanga, for example);

· Ethical concerns, such as mixing genes from different species and use of human genes;

· Effects or perceived effects on human health of food derived from GMOs.

 

Against these risks, important deficiencies in the national level regulation of GMOs were identified. A key gap is that there is no liability under HSNO for damage arising as a result of an activity carried out in accordance with an approval from ERMA or from a general release. Common law actions will very rarely be an effective remedy so affected parties will tend to bear any losses arising from unexpected events and ineffective regulation of GMOs. While economic damage resulting from GM contamination will in the first instance fall on individual constituents, such damage can occur across wide groupings of producers and thus become a community concern. Councils may also be exposed to damage and financial costs.

 

Further, there is no requirement under HSNO for applicants to prove financial fitness and no requirement for bonds to be posted in order to recover costs should damage occur. In consequence, parties who may cause damage but do not have sufficient resources to cover resulting costs are not held financially accountable and, once again, costs will tend to fall on affected parties (private persons, communities and local authorities).

 

Another important deficiency is that HSNO makes the exercise of precaution a matter for ERMA’s discretion. Precaution is an option, not a requirement. This results in a lack of surety of outcome for local government on two levels:

 

· Whether ERMA will agree with and act at all on specific concerns that may be held by a council and its community; and

· Whether, for the risks ERMA concurs need addressing, it will exercise the same degree of caution as would a council and its community.

 

The Report then proceeds to outline and evaluate various options that are available under the RMA to address the above risks. All options (apart from the do-nothing option) involve inserting provisions in territorial authority district plans or in regional policy statements or regional plans to address in differing ways the potential risks arising from GMO land uses.

 

 

 

Firstly, the liability issues could be addressed by way of performance standards in plans or conditions attached to resource consents that require financial accountability for environmental damage and avoidance of economic loss. Consent conditions may be able to be used to recover financial losses. The use of bonds to cover potential damage is also available under the RMA and could be made mandatory in planning documents.

 

Secondly, the risks posed by different classes of GMOs could be addressed by designating different GMO land uses as either discretionary or prohibited activities in planning documents. The Report outlines four options including making all GMO land uses discretionary activities, prohibiting all GMO land uses, along with two different combinations of discretionary and prohibited activities.

 

The Report emphasises that decisions to prohibit GMO land uses are reversible. That is, if particular GMO land uses were shown in the future to be advantageous to the district whilst not imposing substantial costs or risks those land uses could be removed from the prohibited status and deemed to be permitted or discretionary activities. On the other hand, decisions to allow GMO land uses are by and large irreversible. Once, released to the environment GMOs are most likely there for ever, irrespective of the consequences. In addition, once GMOs are released commercially, the district’s/region’s GE Free status is permanently lost, along with any marketing and branding advantages that GE Free status afforded.

 

3. Community Consultation

 

Finally, the Report recommended a joint community consultation programme as the next stage in the GE initiative. Because communities, along with councils, are the ultimate risk bearers of GMO land uses it is argued that it is a reasonable expectation to consult with them on the level of risk they are prepared to carry. In this way, councils and their communities can arrive at an acceptable level of risk they are prepared to carry, along with an appropriate management system to lower risks from GMO land uses to that agreed level.

 

The community consultation programme could consist of two approaches. Firstly, a regional telephone survey could be conducted, the results of which would be analysed at a regional level and also disaggregated enabling analysis at a district/city level. In this way the Working Party on GE would be able to gauge the level of support for local government management of GMO land uses over the whole of the Northland peninsula and also within each of the individual district or city council boundaries.

 

Secondly, a public notification/submission consultative programme could be undertaken by each district/city council. This could be structured to permit analyses at both regional and district/city levels. The aim of this procedure would be to allow interested parties, both major stakeholders (such as farmer groups, GE Free Northland, business interests, DoC, and other environmental and community groups) and members of the public, together with tangata whenua groups, to present their particular viewpoints on the proposals.

 

The two approaches would thus compliment each other. The telephone poll would gauge the level of support in the general community for local/regional management of GMO land uses. It would not favour, or be subject to capture by, any particular interest group but rather would garner response from the overall community or general public (i.e. the ‘silent majority’). Telephone polling is structured to obtain a random sample of respondents and thus responses representative of the general public or the community at large.

 

 

 

The notification/submission process, on the other hand, would specifically allow for interest groups (pro-GE, anti-GE and neutral) to express their particular views on the proposals. These groups, representing farmer lobby groups (both conventional and organic), the biotechnology industry, business groups, GE Free Northland and other environmental and community groups, DoC, and Maori groups, can be argued to have an interest in the issue perhaps greater than the general public and thus warrant specific targeting for comment. This, of course, would not exclude individual members of the public making submissions, nor having those submissions included in subsequent analyses.

 

This two-pronged approach, it was felt, would result in a robust and defensible programme of public consultation that would be valuable for both gauging community support for local/regional management of GMO land uses and for supporting any subsequent plan change should one occur as a result of the community consultation. Also, should a plan change eventuate, the results of the consultation programme would make a substantial contribution to the required section 32 analysis.

 

At its meeting on 1 February 2006 WDC passed the following resolutions:

 

‘That Council adopts a precautionary stance to the risks posed by the release of GMOs to the environment and continues to work in collaboration with other territorial authorities on the Northland Peninsula to reduce those risks to a level acceptable to the community.

 

That subject to the agreement of all or most territorial authorities on the Northland Peninsula, Council participates in and jointly funds a collaborative community consultation programme to gauge (a) the level of community support for local/regional regulation of GMO land uses (b) the level of risk the community is willing to carry in relation to those land uses, i.e. which of the options outlined in the Risks and Options Report is preferred and (c) regulation of GMO land uses by joint Central Government and local/regional government framework. The consultation programme would be structured as outlined in the Briefing Paper on GE Initiative, i.e. a joint telephone survey/submission consultation process.

 

That Council continues to lobby the Government and all other political parties to address the regulatory gaps in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and the resulting environmental, economic and liability risks which are faced by local government in respect of the field release of genetically modified organisms.’

 

All other councils on the Working Party except for the Northland Regional Council passed similar resolutions agreeing to jointly commission and finance the telephone survey. Tenders were called and received from three polling companies. Colmar Brunton was chosen as the preferred provider. After extensive consultation between members of the Technical Group of the Working Party and Colmar Brunton a survey questionnaire was developed and agreed upon. Fieldwork was undertaken between 21 July and 18 August 2009. The sample size was 400 for each participating local council and 500 for the ARC, giving a total of around 2,500 responses. The results have a maximum error of 4.9% at the 95% confidence level.

 

4. Results of Survey

 

The results of the telephone poll were finalised with Colmar Brunton in early November 2009 and were subsequently discussed at a meeting of the Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options on 17 November 2009. Each of the councils participating in the survey received a report of results for its jurisdiction and the results were aggregated to regional levels, i.e. for the Auckland region and for the Northland region. The WDC report is attached to this agenda item as Attachment 1, the Northland region report as Attachment 2, and the Auckland region report as Attachment 3. An analysis of the results for all councils and both regions is attached as Attachment 4. Reports for other councils on the Working Party are available on request. The main points arising from the results for the Whangarei district are:

 

(a) Significant levels of dissatisfaction with the existing regulatory regime for GMOs, particularly in regard to liability. The poll indicates that around 76% of residents are dissatisfied with the way GMOs are regulated and want the WDC to have a role in regulating GMOs, either directly through setting rules or when ERMA is processing GMO applications.

 

(b) Cautious support for local regulation of GMOs through WDC setting rules in the district. Forty-nine percent of residents want WDC to set rules as opposed to 37% who do not. Of those who support local regulation, prohibition is the most favoured level of regulation (57%) with strict liability provisions next favoured (25%). Support for local regulation is strongest amongst Maori (67% in favour).

 

(c) Of those who do not support local regulation, there is strong support to lobby Government to amend the legislation to make users of GMOs legally responsible for economic or environmental harm (63%) and/or allow a local or regional council to reject GMOs for its jurisdiction when ERMA is processing GMO applications (55%).

 

(d) Strong support for regulation to make users of GMOs strictly liable for economic or environmental harm. Seventy two percent of respondents favour regulation (locally or nationally) of at least the strength of making users of GMOs legally responsible for economic or environmental harm.

 

(e) Support for only producing food that is GE free (54%) but strong support for leaving options open for the future (65%). A belief that GM will harm the local food and tourism industries (50% and 41% respectively). Rejection that GMOs will provide economic benefits to the district (45%). And a strong rejection that people should be able to use GMOs if they choose (72%).

 

Generally, support for councils having a regulatory role is stronger in Northland than in the Auckland region (although Waitakere City Council is more in line with Northland results). Northland councils are also more supportive of producing GM free food, more likely to believe GM will harm the local tourism and food industries, and less likely to believe that GMOs will provide economic benefits for the region.

 

The results also show that Maori are more concerned about GM than other ethnicities, particularly in the Northland region. Maori show stronger support for councils setting rules, for prohibiting GMOs from the region, for producing GM free food, and are more likely to believe that GM will harm the local tourism and food industries.

 

Support for setting rules is strongest amongst semi-rural and rural residents in both regions while urban views vary – supportive in Northland (and Whangarei) and not in Auckland. Rural residents are more likely to favour prohibiting GMOs in both Northland and Auckland regions than are semi-rural or urban residents. Females are more likely to support setting rules than are males and support is greatest amongst 18-39 year olds than older age groups.

 

The most common reasons for supporting local regulation were that there was not enough known about the consequences of GM, that users of GMOs should be held accountable if something goes wrong, and that people shouldn’t mess with nature. Reasons for not supporting local regulation included being pro-GE, that Central Government should set rules, and that ERMA should make the final decisions over GMOs.

 

5. Where to From Here?

 

The results of the telephone survey were discussed at some length by the Working Party at its 17 November meeting, including implications for local and regional authorities on the Working Party, and implications for the present and future functions of the Working Party. Included here are the issues of further community consultation, further lobbying of Central Government, and possible regulation by local government. In light of the foregoing discussions on the results of the telephone survey, the following options and recommendations were discussed and adopted by those members of the Working Party that were present (and subsequently endorsed by the ARC and WCC):

 

Options to move forward

 

(a) That Central Government amend HSNO to address risk and liability issues, and to better provide for local community involvement in decision making.

 

The CB Survey gives further mandate to this line of enquiry. Although unsuccessful, this approach has been favoured by all councils from the outset and should be continued.

 

A minimum response would be to set in place strict liability regulation.

 

Other options extend to putting in place a moratorium or adopting a similar position to Ireland for example. Ireland has adopted a GE Free stance as a deliberate marketing strategy to allow a globally small primary producer to take advantage of high value niche markets and to assist their tourism industry.

 

(b) That councils continue investigation of the steps required to protect local community interests, including preventing or minimising risk of social, cultural, economic or environmental harm. Local regulation remains an effective potential remedy if deficiencies in national legislation are not addressed and the councils minimise risk by positioning themselves to be able to take that step.

 

After years of lobbying Central Government and developing analysis of the risks and response options, it would appear that this is the only credible option for councils to meaningfully address community concerns. It has three advantages. It places pressure on Government, responds to community concerns, and it puts in place protection for the community from risk and liability issues, in particular the potential for economic and environmental harm to the community. The disadvantages are the costs and practicalities of completing a s32 analysis and potentially the introduction of variations to at least two plans and the completion of statutory process.

 

Under this approach, councils retain the capacity to undertake pre-consultation on potential rule changes. Further consultation could assist in the selection of rules and would constitute further s32 analysis. It does however have a cost and is likely to generate the usual poles of opinion on this issue from submitters. Consideration needs to be given to undertaking a public submission process agreed to by the Working Party at its last meeting on 4 July 2008. The telephone survey was one part of this community consultation programme. The other was a public submission process which would allow interest groups and other members of the public to express their views on the questions raised in the telephone survey.

 

Within the Auckland Region, local governance reform suggests that immediate progress on advancing a regulatory option for the Auckland region is unlikely at this time. Completion of investigation of Council options, however, would support the capacity of the new Auckland Council to have robust options at its disposal if it wishes to put regulation in place.

 

Recommendations

 

(a) That the Convenor of the Working Party write to the Government to convey the Colmar Brunton findings indicating community concern in the Northland Peninsula that current national regulation is deficient (particularly in regard to liability) and does not adequately provide for local community involvement in decisions which affect their areas, and request a formal response to address the social, economic, cultural and environmental risks associated with the field trialling and release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

(b) That all Working Party councils receive and review the Colmar Brunton findings for their respective jurisdictions, and for the Northland Peninsula, and consider making a direct high level political approach to Government seeking a formal response to local concerns regarding social, economic, cultural and environmental risks associated with the field trialling and release of GMOs.

(c) That the Working Party continue the steps of investigation required to protect local community interests including preventing or minimising risk of social, economic, cultural or environmental harm. The investigation will include the option of making a community response through local regulation, including the formulation and analysis of potential rules for consideration at the regional and local level.

(d) That the Working Party continues to monitor developments and precedents, including international precedents to help ensure that all councils are well positioned to respond to applications which may have significance for their communities.

(e) That recommendations (a), (b), (c) and (d) above be reported to all Working Party councils for their consideration together with the Colmar Brunton findings.

(f) That the Working Party acknowledge and thank Kerry Grundy Convenor of the Working Party, Simon Terry of Simon Terry and Associates, and Colmar Brunton for their work and contribution in support of the Working Party.

The budgetary implications of point (c) above were discussed by the Working Party as most councils have limited funds committed to further work on this project this financial year. It is envisaged that this work stream would largely be at officer level and little budgetary commitment needed at this stage. Some consultancy fees may accrue but if jointly funded by all councils these would be minor.

6. Conclusions

The collaborative approach undertaken by local authorities in the Northland peninsula has been a cautious yet responsible way to proceed with this highly contentious issue. It is an excellent example of local government working together to address common concerns raised by their respective communities. It has also been a fiscally responsible approach to adopt. By sharing the costs of research and possible regulation amongst local authorities in the North Auckland/Northland region, the cost to individual councils and to ratepayers has been minimised.

The precautionary stance adopted by Council in its LTCCP would appear to have a wide base of community support. The results of the Colmar Brunton poll indicate significant unease in the community with the existing regulatory regime for GMOs, particularly in regard to liability for possible economic or environmental harm arising from GMO land uses in the district. There is a clear message that the users of GMOs should be made legally responsible for any harm caused.

Given the fact that it is the community (and Council) who ultimately carry the risk of this technology, the councils on the Working Party have taken the view that the community should be consulted as to what level of risk they are prepared to carry. This was the main purpose of the poll: to determine the level of risk that the community is prepared to carry and to then determine how best to manage that level of risk.

The community has clearly responded with a strong message that they are not prepared to carry the risks involved with the release of GMOs to the environment and it is the developers and users of this technology who should carry those risks. The community’s preferred level of risk can only be achieved either by changes to national legislation or by local regulation.

The options facing Council now are two-fold. Firstly, to renew lobbying of Central Government to amend the national legislation governing GMOs to put in place a full strict liability regime for any economic or environmental harm caused by GMOs and/or to allow local or regional councils the right to reject GMOs in their jurisdictions when applications are made to ERMA to trial or release GMOs.

The other option is to continue investigations on the possibility of regional and/or local regulation of GMOs including the formulation and analysis of potential rules for consideration at the regional or local level. In essence, this means advancing investigations on local/regional regulation to the point at which councils on the Working Party are able to make a decision in principle on whether to introduce rules into local or regional planning documents. Given the re-organisation of local government in the Auckland region such a decision for the whole of the Northland/Auckland region is unlikely prior to October 2010.

 

Recommendations

1. That the update on GE and results of the Colmar Brunton poll be received.

2. That the recommendations from the 17 November meeting of the Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options be adopted.

3. That the Council considers making a high level political approach to the Government, perhaps in collaboration with other councils on the Working Party, seeking a formal response to local concerns over GMOs, particularly in regard to liability.

 

Attachments:

1. Genetically Modified Organisms Survey: Results for Whangarei District Council

www.wdc.govt.nz/agendas_online/WDC_16122009/ge_attachment_1_20091204064040.pdf

2. Genetically Modified Organisms Survey: Results for Aggregated Northland Area

www.wdc.govt.nz/agendas_online/WDC_16122009/ge_attachment_2_20091204064317.pdf

3. Genetically Modified Organisms Survey: Results for Auckland Regional Council

www.wdc.govt.nz/agendas_online/WDC_16122009/ge_attachment_3_20091204064416.pdf

4. Analysis of GMO Poll Results

www.wdc.govt.nz/agendas_online/WDC_16122009/analysis_of_gm_poll_results_attachment_4.pdf