Pest boards urged to rationalise

Press, 29 August 1986, Page 13

Pest boards urged to rationalise

The pest destruction movement is being encouraged to rationalise and form regional pest authorities as a response to a steadily declining taxpayer input that will cease altogether in 1992. The Agricultural Pest Destruction Council has released a “survival package” for discussion and encouragement for the nearly 100 individual boards to rationalise and amalgamate their staff and functions. Within the circulation area of “The Press” the A.P.D.C. proposes that three regional boards be established — North Otago-South Canterbury, North Canterbury-West-land, Marlborough-Nelson. These would bring together the nearly 20 pest boards presently operating in this upper South Island area. About a dozen regional pest authorities are proposed for the whole of New Zealand, bringing together and supervising the manpower, equipment and resources of the local boards, avoiding wasteful spending and duplication of activity. At present the A.P.D.C. plan is an encouragement for the boards to rationalise to safeguard their share of the remaining taxpayer input and to deal realistically with the shrinking funding. The traditionally obstinate pest boards are being told from several quarters that rationalisation is part of the answer for the future of pest destruction and land protection.

The Parliamentary undersecretary of agriculture with responsibility for pest control, Mr David Butcher, directed the A.P.D.C at the beginning of July that it should come up with a plan for restructuring within six months which recognised the Government’s "userpays” criteria. The chairman of the A.P.D.C., Mr Ged Foley, said that recent district conferences of pest boards had also encouraged rationalisation. Representatives from the North and South Islands had studied various options before agreeing on this proposal, which had now been put before Mr Butcher.

But nothing is ever straightforward in the pest destruction movement, which, to outsiders, often seems like the last bastion of farmer conservatism or individualism. Vigorous arguments in defence of pest boards, and taxpayer input to pest destruction, have been put forward at every meeting and conference since the movement’s influence began to decline and the rabbit menace was largely contained. The adoption of scien-tifically-validated pest control methods has been consistently opposed and the necessity to cut cloth to suit budgets, or employ the staff and the methods to suit the menace, resisted. Against this background the latest A.P.D.C. proposal is cunningly designed to encourage rationalisation from the ground up and not impose it from the council downwards, if that were legally enforceable. The prospect of broader rating bases, bringing in city and tourist money, may do more to encourage pest board coagulation than the wishes of council or Government. Pest “hot spots,” such as the high concentration of rabbits around Alexandra, could be contained or attacked using money from a region’s ratepayers as well as the beneficiaries from land protection work, such as catchment boards, local authorities, forestry groups, conservation groups and the tourist industry. Until now only farmers and major landowners have paid pest rates. The A.P.D.C. envisages that regional authorities would initially have a sole purpose — the fight against pests such as rabbits, oppossums and wallabies. But in the longer term, they would evolve into full land protection agencies, incorporating such responsibilities as weed control and soil conservation. A new national body would also evolve, believes the council, called perhaps the Land Protection Authority. The shrinking central Government funding, and consequent increase in

local rates, means the pest destruction movement has to move quickly to re-organise, according to Mr Foley. The taxpayer input (affectionately known as T.P.I. within the pest boards) is $5.4 million this financial year and programmed to reduce by $BOO,OOO annually. The total expenditure of pest boards has in recent years been up around $l2 million. Employment has been gradually reduced, to less than 400 persons currently. The A.P.D.C. would like to see the regional boards established this year and its officials and executives will spend the next few months discussing with regional authorities their new duties and responsibilities. In recent months the Committee of Management of the Tussock Grasslands and Mountain Lands Institute has also called for the abandonment of the national approach to pest control in favour of regional management. The committee chairman, Mr Michael Murchison, who is also the South Island high country delegate to the dominion council of Federated Farmers, said a new look pest management organisation should put emphasis on land protection. “Zoning of land according to rabbit proneness and rating accordingly would result in more costeffective methods of management. "Under a new regional structure there would still be a need for co-ordina-tion at national level and taxpayer funding for training, administration and extension activities,” said Mr Murchison. “The allocation of funds should be sufficiently flexible to allow for intensified rabbit management between seasons and in response to problems which may arise in any one season.” The latest A.P.D.C. initiative is three years to the month after the publication of the 1983 James Report on agricultural pest destruction which recommended a regional structure or decentralisation as the need for centralised administration and disbursement of the T.P.I. diminished.