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

SUBMITTER INFORMATION

Full Name of Submitter: Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn
Phone number of Submitter: (027) 22 55 417
Email: catherinedavis@hotmail.co.nz
Postal address:
162 Roma Road
Ahipara
RD1
Kaitaia 0481
Iwi 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 1
1. 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 2
2. 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 3
3. 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).
1
And theres no unequivocal statement on this until 19.4.1 in the Policy section

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 Council
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.
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; and
ii. 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 4
4. 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.

November (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)
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 5
5. 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 6
6. 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 7
7. 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 8
8. 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 9
9. The specific provision of the PPC that this part of my submission relates to is:
19.4 POLICIES
19.4.3-19.4.5
9.1. I support these clauses.
SUBMISSION POINT 10
10. 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 11
11. 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 12
12. 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; and
b. make the statement about GMO prohibition in 19.2 (see my submission 3 above).
SUBMISSION POINT 13
13. 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"
2

(the Guiding Principles). The Guiding Principles were developed on the issue of
human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, and recognise:
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; and
c. 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 14
14. 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.

2
Copy downloadable from
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.
SUMMARY
15. 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-Ikenn
Bl/B.Soc.Sci, LLM
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Indigenous Fellow, 2005