Submission: Proposed Plan Change 18 Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Date: 3 September 2014

To: Far North District Council Attn: District Plan Department By email: Plan.Changes@fndc.govt.nz SubmitterSUBMITTER INFORMATION

Full Name of Submitter: Catherine Murupaenga-IkennPhone number of Submitter: (027) 22 55 417Email: catherinedavis@hotmail.co.nzPostal address: 162 Roma RoadAhiparaRD1 Kaitaia 0481Iwi affiliations: Te Rarawa and Ngti Kuri

I wish to be heard in the Far North, and if others make a similar submission, I will consider presenting a joint case with them at a hearing. I have no advantage to gain in trade competition through this submission. As tangata whenua with Te Tiriti and Indigenous Peoples rights and responsibilities, I am directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of the submission that adversely affects the environment.SUBMISSION POINT 11. The specific provision of Proposed Plan Change 18 GMO (the PPC) that this part of my submission relates to is: Context where it is stated, Once released into the environment, most GMOs would be very difficult to eradicate even if the funding were available for this.1.1. My submission is that the risk is more than the difficulty of eradicating GMOs: it may well be impossible to do so. We need only extrapolate from our experience with noxious pests and/or weeds that our country is struggling (or failing) to manage. And effective management of GMOs (if there is such a thing) is a much more complicated undertaking. But there are numerous examples world-wide of this level of impossibility risk.1.2. I suggest the statement be changed as follows: Once released into the environment, most GMOs would be very difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate even if the funding were available for this.SUBMISSION POINT 22. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is: Context where it is stated, Given a councils general duties of care for its financial position and that of its constituents, there is a ready justification for councils to enforce mandatory conditions to provide for both financial accountability and avoidance of economic damage.2.1. My submission is that the Councils general duties of care relate to more than merely its financial position, and includes social, cultural and environmental obligations to its constituents as well. The breadth of council duties in relation to GMOs needs to be reinforced so that all values are given sufficient consideration when designing and implementing policy. We do not want to fall into the trap that GMOs are predominantly about economics and finance, as that risks leading to perverse policy outcomes.2.2. I suggest the statement be changed as follows: Given a councils general social, cultural environmental and financial duties of care for itself financial position and that of its constituents, there is a ready justification.....SUBMISSION POINT 33. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is: 19.2 ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES EXPECTED 19.2.1 Manage risk and avoid adverse effects on people, communities, tangata whenua, the economy and the environment associated with the outdoor use of GMOs.19.2.2 Provide the framework for a unified approach to the management of the outdoor use of GMOs in the Far North to address cross-boundary effects.3.1. My submission is that, further to my Submission 1 above, the PPC needs to be fully transparent about the risk, the effective FNDC response, and speak consistently about that throughout the PPC. I.e. anything (including risks for GMO outdoor use) are manageable, but for a significant number of GMOs the adverse effects may be unavoidable and in the worst case scenario (without overstating things) catastrophic. Speaking about management of the risks in conjunction with the idea of outdoor use of GMOs may be interpreted as acceptance (almost fatalistic) that GMOs will in fact be used outdoors, and then the risks are managed after their release. The PPC needs to be clearer about its first line of defence which is keeping our District GE-free (including GMO-free).[footnoteRef:1] And theres no unequivocal statement on this until 19.4.1 in the Policy section which states To adopt a precautionary approach by prohibiting the general release of a GMO, and by making outdoor field trialling of a GMO a discretionary activity. However, this is buried further down in the PPC. [1: Several sources, including the Proposed 2nd Generation Regional Policy Statement for Northland Resource Management Issues of Significance to Tangata Whenua (2011) (at http://www.nrc.govt.nz/upload/10116/Issues%20of%20Significance%20to%20Tangata%20Whenua.pdf), and the Genetically Modified Organisms Survey Results Prepared For Far North District CouncilNovember (2009) (at http://www.fndc.govt.nz/services/environmental-policy-and-forward-planning/the-far-north-district-plan/genetically-modified-organisms-gmo/Far-North-District-Council-Report-Nov-2009-FINAL.pdf) ]

3.2. I suggest Section 19.2 be changed to include a new outcome 19.2.1 as follows:a. 19.2.1 Implement a precautionary approach regarding GMO outdoor use management whereby:i. decision-making begins from the premise of minimising (and if possible, preventing) GMO outdoor use in the district; andii. approvals may only be made in the most compelling of social, cultural, environmental and economic circumstances.3.3. I note that section 19.5 below mentions GMO prohibition. If this is acceptable phraseology, Council might consider aligning the wording of 19.2 with 19.5. SUBMISSION POINT 44. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is: 19.2 ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES EXPECTED 19.2.3 Ensure accountability by GMO operators for the full costs related to the monitoring of GMO activities, and any migration of GMOs beyond specified areas, including unintentional GM contamination. 19.2.4 Ensure accountability by GMO operators for compensation via performance bonds in the event that the activity under their operation results in adverse effects to third parties or the environment.4.1. My submission is that wording 19.2.3 and 19.2.4 as absolutes makes these outcomes unachievable when faced with the reality that the possible nature and extent of a post-outdoor use GMO disaster is potentially incalculable in either social, cultural, environmental or economic terms. In other words, there is no accounting for a worst case scenario, therefore speaking of ensuring accountability is a nonsense. 4.2. I suggest Section 19.2.3 be changed as follows:a. Ensure accountability by GMO operators:i. pay for the full costs related to the monitoring of GMO activities,; and ii. pay maximum recoverable costs for any migration of GMOs beyond specified areas, including unintentional GM contamination. 4.3. The above suggested change references an important distinction: demanding payment of monitoring costs which is within Councils control, and recovering costs of GMO migration and contamination (which may be outside Councils control, due to the costs being so high that it could potentially, say, bankrupt a company leaving no-one to recover full costs from). It is important that Council and citizens all understand this is the nature and degree of the risk were potentially facing, and we will only appreciate that risk if we speak about it honestly in real terms (I also suggest that a similar approach be taken with all statements throughout the PPC concerning what is within and outside Councils control re payment for costs).4.4. Similarly, I suggest Section 19.2.4 be changed as follows:a. Ensure accountability by GMO operators for compensation via pay performance bonds which will be used as compensation in the event that the activity under their operation results in any adverse effects to third parties or the environment.4.5. Again, this doesnt imply full accountability or full compensation just a measure of compensation. I also suggest that a similar approach be taken with all statements throughout the PPC concerning accountability.SUBMISSION POINT 55. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is: 19.3 OBJECTIVES 19.3.1 ... through the adoption of a precautionary approach, including adaptive responses, to manage uncertainty and lack of information.5.1. My submission is that it is unclear what adaptive responses means. One would hope that the response to an unacceptable degree of uncertainty and lack of information would necessarily lead to a decision based on the precautionary principle to withhold approval for any GMO outdoor use. The way this clause is worded suggests some massaging (i.e. undermining) of the precautionary principle might be acceptable.5.2. I suggest clarifying what adaptive responses means in practice, being particularly mindful of the imperative to protect the integrity and effectiveness of the precautionary principle.SUBMISSION POINT 66. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is: 19.3 OBJECTIVES 19.3.2 ... respect to the outdoor use of GMOs, a significant resource management issue identified by the community.6.1. I suggest a minor change to 19.3.2 as follows: ...respect to the outdoor use of GMOs, is a significant resource management issue identified by the community.SUBMISSION POINT 77. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is: 19.4 POLICIES 19.4.1 To adopt a precautionary approach by prohibiting the general release of a GMO, and by making outdoor field trialling of a GMO a discretionary activity.7.1. I support this policy.SUBMISSION POINT 88. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is: 19.4 POLICIES 19.4.2 To ensure that a resource consent granted for the outdoor field trialling of a GMO is subject to conditions that ensures that the consent holder is financially accountable (to the extent possible) for any adverse effects associated with the activity, including clean-up costs and remediation, including via the use of bonds.8.1. Consistent with my earlier submissions, this policy is better than the statements in the PPC 19.2 Environmental Outcomes Expected as it at least attempts to qualify the Council aspiration of achieving absolute accountability. However, the concept of accountability denotes a high degree of closure, and it is a real possibility that a consent holders maximum extent possible to pay for adverse effects will fall significantly short of the true value of the cost externalised on Far North District citizens. Therefore, it cannot be said that under such circumstances there will truly be closure, and this makes a mockery of the term accountability. 8.2. I suggest changing 19.4.2 as follows: To ensure that a resource consent granted for the outdoor field trialling of a GMO is subject to conditions that ensures that the consent holder is financially accountablepays (to the extent possible) for any adverse effects associated with the activity, including clean-up costs and remediation, including via the use of bonds.SUBMISSION POINT 99. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is: 19.4 POLICIES 19.4.3-19.4.59.1. I support these clauses.SUBMISSION POINT 1010. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is: 19.4 POLICIES 19.4.6 To adopt an adaptive approach to the management of the outdoor use, storage, cultivation, harvesting, processing or transportation of a GMO in the district through periodic reviews of these plan provisions, particularly if new information on the benefits and/or adverse effects of a GMO activity becomes available.10.1. Further to my Submission 5, I support this clause because it is clearer about what adaptive approach means, especially when read in the context of the precautionary approach and the notion of Council discretionary activity.SUBMISSION POINT 1111. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is: 19.5 METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION 19.5.1 Rules in the Plan to control GMO Field Trails and prohibit the release of GMOs in the Far North.11.1. I suggest a minor change to 19.5.1 as follows: ...to control GMO Field Traials....SUBMISSION POINT 1212. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is: 19.5 METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION - COMMENTARY The application of a precautionary approach to the outdoor use, storage, cultivation, harvesting, processing or transportation of GMOs in the district shall mean that: The release of a GMO is prohibited (this is to avoid the risk that significant adverse environmental effects will arise, including adverse effects on the economy, community and/or tangata whenua resources and values); and Outdoor field trialling of a GMO (where the proponents of such activities have prior approval of the EPA) shall be a discretionary activity. 12.1. My submission is that the PPC talks about the release of GMOs being prohibited (which would be worthwhile stating right up front!), but GMO outdoor field trialling being potentially permissible (as a discretionary activity). One wonders why entertain the possibility of GMO trialling if ultimately all GMOs are prohibited? 12.2. I suggest that the PPC:a. reconcile this apparent contradiction; andb. make the statement about GMO prohibition in 19.2 (see my submission 3 above). SUBMISSION POINT 1313. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is: 19.6.2 DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITIES(the entire section)13.1. In 2011, the United Nations endorsed its "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework"[footnoteRef:2] (the Guiding Principles). The Guiding Principles were developed on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, and recognise: [2: Copy downloadable from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.]

a. States existing obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights and fundamental freedoms;b. The requirement on business enterprises to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights; andc. The need for rights and obligations to be matched to appropriate and effective remedies when breached.13.2. My suggestion is that the PPC require all applicants for a resource consent for GMO activity to provide Council with a detailed report on how it will meet its best practice obligations as set out in the Guiding Principles. Council might also consider whether this requirement is more appropriately located under 19.8 Assessment Criteria.SUBMISSION POINT 1414. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is: 19.6.2 DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITIES...The Council may impose conditions...Council will have regard to the assessment criteria set out under Section 19.7.14.1. I suggest a minor change to 19.6.2 as follows: ...The Council may impose conditions...Council will have regard to the assessment criteria set out under Section 19.78.SUMMARY15. Overall, I applaud Councils intentions to strengthen protections of our social, cultural, environmental and economic values with the PPC. A bit of tweaking will enhance the existing PPC.

Catherine Murupaenga-IkennBl/B.Soc.Sci, LLMUnited Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Indigenous Fellow, 2005

:Catherine DavisTe Rarawa WAI 262 Taumata162 Roma Road, AhiparaRD1KAITAIA 0481From:Catherine DavisTe Rarawa WAI 262 Taumata162 Roma Road, AhiparaRD1KAITAIA 0481Date:21 August 2013To:Craig WatkinCommittee: P13901Standards New Zealand(By email:craig.watkin@standards.co.nz)Re:Submission Rongoa Tikanga Standard - Draft Number: DZ 13901Closing date for comments:23 August 2013Tn koe,From:Catherine DavisTe Rarawa WAI 262 Taumata162 Roma Road, AhiparaRD1KAITAIA 0481Date:21 August 2013To:Craig WatkinCommittee: P13901Standards New Zealand(By email:craig.watkin@standards.co.nz)Re:Submission Rongoa Tikanga Standard - Draft Number: DZ 13901Closing date for comments:23 August 2013Tn koe,