8 February 2011
GE FREE NORTHLAND submission to Environment Bay of Plenty Proposed
Regional Policy Statement (RPS)
Submission to:
ENV BOP Proposed Regional Policy Statement
Bay of Plenty Regional Council
P O Box 364
WHAKATANE 3158
Submission by: GE FREE NORTHLAND in Food & Environment
PO Box l439
Whangarei 0140
Northland
contact details: 09 4322155
email:
zlg@xnet.co.nz
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission, so that together we may
achieve sound environmental, economic and public health outcomes.
ENV BOP could provide a strong foundation in the region for healthy,
sustainable, and resilient environment, economy and communities, now and in
the future. Let’s get to work!
Who we are:
GE FREE NORTHLAND (in Food & Environment) is a non-political community
organisation committed to the protection of our biosecurity, the environment,
sustainable non GM primary production (including conventional, IPM and
organic) and the public health from adverse impacts of genetically engineered
organisms.
Our members (which include some Bay of Plenty ratepayers) are people who
care deeply about the environment and the protection of native flora and fauna,
as well as recognizing the importance of non GM primary producers
(conventional, IPM and organic) in NZ.
We want to ensure that these primary producers (including farmers, foresters and
beekeepers), natural and finite resources and unique species are protected in
Environment Bay of Plenty Region and our own region.
There has been a widespread feeling for some time in Northland and wider NZ
that central government agencies (like ERMA and MAF/Biosecurity NZ) are
failing to protect the environment and primary producers. Painted apple moth,
Varroa bee mite, Didymo, GMOs and other new organisms have highlighted the
deficiencies of the current agencies and systems.
The threats directly posed by Genetically Modified Organisms have been clearly
identified by Local Government NZ, various local authorities including ENV BOP
Regional Council, Nelson City Council and Marlborough Council and the 9
member councils of the Northland/Auckland “Inter Council Working Party on
GMO Risk Evaluation & Options” (who have commissioned a number of
independent reports and a legal opinion by leading QC Dr. Royden Somerville).
There is a high level of community concern in the Northland/Auckland region (as
reflected in last years Colmar Brunton GE poll) and in Bay of Plenty that there
continues to be a lack of strict liability for GMOs under the existing HSNO
(Hazardous Substances and New Organisms) legislation.
Ongoing problems with and further deterioration of the performance of central
government agencies including ERMA, MAF and NZ CRI’s is of huge concern to
many Northlanders.
Recent incidents involving consents for GE experiments given by ERMA (which
do not require a precautionary approach to GMOs) have shown that the
safeguards put in place are grossly inadequate.
CRI’s have repeatedly been in breach of the conditions of approval laid down by
ERMA for GE experiments, MAF has failed on at least 2 occasions to adequately
monitor NZ CRI’s Crop & Food Research and Forest Research.
See
"Lab errors leads to GE leak"
NZ HERALD
Sunday 1 August 2010
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10662711
"GE lobby goes quiet"
NZ FARMERS WEEKLY 16 August 2010
http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?magid=289098#/page6/
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10642031
“Mutant cows die in GM trial” NZ Herald, 1 May 2010
NZ CRI “Crop & Food Research” blatantly engaged in illegal activities- for
example, importing a GE cress seed into NZ (which has a Zero Tolerance policy
on GE content in imported seed) without declaring it as such.
Criminal negligence by the staff of the CRI saw the escape of the GE cress
(Arabidopsis) out of the “strict containment of the laboratory” into the
environment.
Crop & Food Research was allowed to destroy evidence and refused to talk to
MAF investigators about this.
(we can provide a Statement by Dr. Elvira Dommisse, a former genetic engineer
employee of Crop & Food Research).
At the same time, reputable information from overseas continues to grow,
documenting adverse impacts of GMOs on ecosystems, finite resources like
waterways, and on conventional and organic farmers.
In a paper published in September of this year in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, Cary Institute aquatic ecologist Dr. Emma Rosi-Marshall
and colleagues report that streams throughout the Midwestern Corn Belt are
receiving insecticidal proteins that originate from adjacent genetically modified
crops. The protein enters streams through runoff and when corn leaves, stalks,
and plant parts are washed into stream channels.
There are many published reports of GE crops impacting negatively on the
environment and on the health of cotton workers in the field (GE Bt cotton) and
causing death and illness in animal stock grazing on crop (GE cotton) stubble, as
has always been the tradition in countries like India.
All of these factors indicate a strong need for central government to rectify gaps
and flaws in the HSNO legislation.
Specific comment on the ENV BOP Proposed RPS
Provision:
Our community group strongly supports not only a strong precautionary GE
policy but prohibitive language regarding all GMO land use and GMO
aquaculture in the ENV BOP RPS
In order to protect your constituents, biosecurity and the environment from GMOs
(Genetically Modified Organisms)
Reference: 1.7 in the ENV BOP Proposed RPS
Support: the precautionary principle approach
Support: paragraph 2 regarding taking this approach concerning the release of
genetically modified organisms (or a GE field trial) into the Bay of Plenty
environment.
We would like to see ENV BOP
-
develop policy that protects ENV BOP ratepayers
engage meaningfully with central government on this and other emerging
issues like climate change and nanotechnology waste
liase with other regional councils and territorial authorities who have
expertise regarding the risks of GMOs- ie. the Northland/Auckland “Inter
Council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation & Options”
Contact: Dr. Kerry Grundy, Chairman/Coordinator of the ICWP on GMOs
Team Leader, Futures Planning (Whangarei District Council)
Email: kerryg@wdc.govt.nz
Or Freephone: 0800 932 463
We request that Environment Bay of Plenty Regional Council specifically state in
the RPS that there shall be no GE experiments or releases until the serious
liability issue is sorted out and the risks to the region are adequately identified
and addressed.
Current liability situation (under HSNO Act):
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.
(taken from:
Communities seek stricter regulation of GM plants and animals
Whangarei District Council Media Release - (9 December 2009)
see
www.wdc.govt.nz/xml/ps.aspx?fn=/resources/13722/Communities-seek-stricterregulation-of-GM-plants-and-animals.html
Any land to be used for GE field trials (or “conditional release”) must be recorded
and treated in the same way that any other potentially contaminated site is
treated by the BOPRC and waste from any existing field trials will be known
about and accounted for (as well as being appropriately treated.)
In our view, any such new proposed GE activities should be prohibited, until the
above conditions are met (a truly strict liability regime put in place- by either
territorial authorities or central government thru the HSNO Act- and the risks of
GMOs adequately identified and addressed).
The BOPRC RPS needs a strong prohibitive policy provision for all GMOs, that
directs the placement of rules/provisions in the Regional Plans or District Plans to
implement the policy ie. Regional Air Plan (discharges of GE pollen as a
contaminant) Regional Coastal Plan or in the BOPRC, Water & Land Plan,
Waste Strategy
We request that the regional council (thru the RPS) direct local authorities to put
rules in the District Plan. Such as: requiring GE containment facilities/field trials
to be a prohibited or restricted land-use in their district plans and to require a
notified resource consent process for such an activity (if permitted as a land use
at all).
ERMA and territorial authorities must convey to the Regional Council, any such
proposed GE facilities in their area.
If not outright prohibition in District Plans, then rules in the District Plans requiring
the posting of bonds, proof of financial fitness and other methods to ensure strict
liability falls on the applicant to ERMA, not council(s) or ratepayers.
More detail:
Support/oppose
We support the proposed ENV BOP precautionary GE provision in the ENV BOP
RPS draft but want it strengthened please, to include prohibitive language
regarding GMOs- ie. all GMO land use and GMO aquaculture prohibited until
such time as a truly strict liability regime is put in place (either by territorial
authorities or by improved HSNO legislation), and the risks to the regions
biosecurity, unique biodiversity, primary producers including foresters, heritage
seeds... are adequately identified and addressed
Reasons: Clearly state in summary the nature of your submission and the
reasons for it.
The nature of our submission is to encourage ENV BOP to act on its obligation to
protect its constituents and to manage natural and physical resources in a truly
sustainable manner, and the regional council to protect existing non GM primary
producers (conventional, IPM and organic)
We thank ENV BOP for making a submission expressing serious concerns about
Forest Research's (otherwise known as "Scion") current GE application to ERMA
for a risky GE field trial involving 4,000 GE pine trees.
Some reasons for our concerns about GMOs:
- central government disregard for over 7 years to local authorities and Local
Government NZ's concerns about the flaws and gaps in the HSNO legislation
regarding GMOs
GE FREE NORTHLAND is very pleased with ENV BOP for speaking out against
the risks of GMOs (in Press Releases and other documents to date, due to the
foresight of ENV BOP councillors and staff) .
Our community group is also very pleased with the innovative work of the
Northland/Auckland "Inter Council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation &
Options" (9 councils strong, Auckland- Cape Reinga). Sadly, central government
refuses to address the legitimate concerns of councils and their communities,
hence the need for local authorities to take direct action to regulate (ideally
prohibit) GMOs.
Concerns about problems with NZ Crown Research Institutes:
Scion GE pine field trial application:
ERMA "rubber stamped" this current Scion GE pine field trial application just
before Christmas during the holiday period.
See: from Scion's original GE pine application to ERMA, p. 18:
"The location of the field test is confidential to Scion, ERMA and MAF
Biosecurity."
We (and other submittors) contested this (and other) point(s) in our
submission(s):
"The activities carry acknowledged risks – including risks to FSC certified
foresters, as recognised by the applicant. Whether this is a precedent or simply
entrenches earlier consent by ERMA to withhold such information, allowing the
location of GM field work to be confidential would deny information to a far wider
group of people, including local authorities and foresters who may be put at risk
by activities that ERMA authorises. For example, should a forester believe that
the controls placed by ERMA improperly reflect the risks the trial poses to his/her
business, then knowing the location of the trial will allow him/her to take further
precautions."
- excerpt from Sustainability Council of NZ submission to ERMA
re: Scion’s GE pine application (ERMA200479).
The ERMA Hearing Committee has not adequately addressed this issue,
including at the Rotorua ERMA hearing (when a number of Northlanders
attended and made presentations to support the concerns of Bay of Plenty
ratepayers & residents).
It is an alarming development that NZ CRI's like Scion and AgResearch have
begun to apply for both GE field trials and conditional release of transgenic
animals (in the case of AgResearch) to undisclosed locations in the North Island.
It is also of concern that ERMA appears to have disregarded the legitimate
concerns expressed in ENV BOP's submission to ERMA (re: Scion's GE pine
field trial application) along with many other submittors.
Further background on the problem of Scion's GE pine field trial application to
ERMA and ERMA's decision making process which does Not adhere to the
precautionary principle
There were 234 submissions made re Scion's application to ERMA for 4,000 GE
pines (at Rotorua or undisclosed location(s)
Breakdown:
6 were in support, ll neutral, the rest (vast majority) oppposed. Environment Bay
of Plenty Regional Council made a detailed submission expressing serious
concerns about the Scion application, and demanded that ERMA use its wide
discretion under the HSNO Act to actually use the precautionary
principle/approach
and that council was concerned about the lack of strict liability under HSNO Act
and other gaps and flaws in the national legislation.
While it is a good start that Environment Bay of Plenty Regional Council (ENV
BOP) has a precautionary GE policy in its Draft Regional Policy Statement this
must be strengthened and adopted, and territorial authorities must give effect to
it, to ensure protection of the ENV BOP region and its residents
It appears that ERMA is free to disregard (given the flawed and inadequate
HSNO legislation) key points made by Regional Councils in their submission(s)
to ERMA.
There is sustained concern in Northland (and other parts of NZ) about the
proposal by Scion to experiment with 4,000 GE pine trees outdoors. Northland
Conservation Board and Bay of Plenty Regional Council joined hundreds of other
submittors opposing this risky application.
Part of the threat from GE pine trees comes from the dangers of transgenic
pollution from GE pine pollen, or horizontal gene transfer which could have
unintended adverse impacts on the environment (including harm to NZ soils).
Another risk is lowered productivity from toppling and snapping of pines that
already are prone to that problem.
GE pines could also cost a neighboring forester or property owner their hard won
Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) certification.
A prestigious global certification body, the FSC only endorses truly sustainable
forestry practices, and its position on GE is very clear- "we do not allow genetic
engineering of trees."
The FSC has identified a number of other legitimate scientific concerns about
the safety and appropriateness of planting genetically engineered trees including
asexual transfer of genes from GMO's with antibiotic resistance to pathogenic
micro-organisms, increased resistance of target insect pests, reduced
adaptability to environmental stresses, increased weediness or invasiveness in
GMO trees with new features, and the spread of herbicide resistance genes.
These hazards, and the uncertainties about them, are the reason for the
prohibition of the use of GMO's in certified forests, stated in the FSC Principles
and Criteria.
We trust you will find this information of interest, given the poor performance of
NZ CRI's (and ERMA and MAF) with GMOs to date
We also note that in Minister Nick Smiths 5 August 2010 response to the June
2010 letter from all 9 member councils of the Inter Council Working Party on
GMO RIsk Evaluation & Options the Minister clearly states that although central
government will not address the concerns of local authorities by making changes
to the HSNO legislation (on a national level), that
"However, this does not preclude a council from restricting or preventing the use
of GMOs in their region, provided that this action meets the relevant
requirements of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991".
GE Free Northland believes that a prohibitive policy approach to all GMOs is, in
the end, optimal for ENV BOP Regional Council (and Northland Regional
Council, who is currently processing submissions made to its NRC “New RPS
Discussion Document 2010” )for the following reasons (drawn from the ICWP on
GMOs commissioned report):
1.
Decisions to allow GMO land uses are likely to be irreversible. Once,
released to the environment GMOs are most likely there forever, irrespective of
the consequences.
2.
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.
Councils, particularly consent staff and decision-makers, would not be
required to develop expertise in making judgments on GMO effects on a case by
case basis.
4.
Councils will not be open to legal challenge every time a consent decision
is made.
5.
The potential costs arising from court challenge to a plan change is similar
for all four options.
6.
Flexibility as to future options is maximized under the prohibited activity
status as are marketing advantages and branding opportunities.
7.
member councils of the ICWP on GMOs can share the prohibited
approach to reduce costs and avoid litigation
8.
prohibition if successful then means there is “no more work to be done” by
council on the issue, until the planning document comes up for review
There is enough reason to use prohibitive status until more reputable information
is available to make an informed decision
All issues (economic, environmental, biosecurity, cultural etc) must be
adequately addressed and evaluated and ENV BOP'sautonomy (and farmers’
right to save their own seed, foresters right to retain and pursue FSC certification
etc) preserved.
2.
GMOs as a regionally significant resource management issue
The GMO issue is not purely a resource management issue but one of district
wide and regional significance for a range of reasons.
The ENV BOP region has an unusually high diversity of plants and animals
including many species found nowhere else. Although fragmented, the region’s
remaining areas of natural vegetation still have high biodiversity values and
contribute to the natural character of the region.
These high biodiversity values are currently at risk from the large number of pest
plants and animals that are present in ENV BOP region. These risks would be
added to by the potential introduction of GMOs, in Kaipara or elsewhere.
ENV BOP's economy is also heavily reliant on primary industries (farming,
forestry, horticulture and aquaculture) and tourism. Both of these economic
sectors could be directly (adversely) affected by the release of GMOs including:
•
loss of income 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 Northland regional marketing initiatives and to tourism.
•
Having to bear costs associated with clean-up of any environmental
damage arising from GMOs (due to the lack strict liability in the use of GMOs).
There have been community and cultural concerns raised in Northland and
elsewhere including:
•
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, and
•
effects or perceived effects on human health of food derived from GMOs.
•
Potential loss of autonomy regarding food resources (loss of pure seed,
nutritious, quality kai/Hua Parakore)
•
Section 8 of the RMA which means a commitment to all the implications of
the Treaty of Waitangi, including the protection of the taonga (treasures) of
tangata whenua
Decision: State clearly the suggested changes you are seeking to be made
in respect of the provision e.g. I would like the policy reworded to state the
following...
We would like the provision to state the following regarding GMOs:
that council has adopted a strong precautionary GE provision that contains
prohibitive language....
this means that (given the risk of GMOs to the regions biosecurity, biodiversity,
primary producers and the public health) that there will be no transgenic
agriculture, forestry or horticulture, nor any GE field trials or releases (conditional
or otherwise) until such time as a truly strict liability regime is put in place (by
territorial authorities thru rules in their District Plans, or central government
through improvements in the flawed HSNO legislation) and the risks of GMOS
are adequately identified AND addressed
Thank you. We wish to be heard- please keep us informed! 