KEY POINTS:
The Environmental Risk Management Authority's review of the use of 1080 poison to control pests was a far from enviable task. This, as the authority noted, is an issue that deeply divides New Zealanders. The poison is the most effective means of controlling possums, especially, and rats, stoats
and rabbits, all of which are threats to the environment and the economy. But that is not enough for those who see 1080's use, particularly in aerial drops, as unacceptably risky. Reconciling those views is extremely difficult if not, in some cases, impossible.
But it is a task the authority has handled quite adroitly. Essentially, it has found that the lack of reliable alternatives for pest control means 1080 must remain in use where the preservation of natural bush or farm production would otherwise be seriously threatened. But it has answered concerns about its use by imposing tighter controls. From next year, the authority will try to manage any risk to human health or the environment by more closely monitoring all aerial operations using the poison. With an eye on the longer term, it has also recommended further research into some of the effects of 1080 and into other methods of possum control.
The review was sought by the Department of Conservation and the Animal Health Board, the main users of 1080, in response to growing criticism of the poison. Opponents were given every chance to put their case, and to produce solid evidence of harm to humans or the environment. They could not. The extent of the investigation, which included working through 1400 written submissions and two weeks of public hearings, and the well-reasoned findings should cause even the most dogmatic 1080 critics to temper their views. In no way was this a rubber-stamping exercise.
But it is fair to say the authority's verdict was never really in doubt. To suggest that 1080 should be banned is to overestimate the effectiveness of trapping, shooting and other alternative means of controlling New Zealand's 40 to 70 million possums, especially in steep and inaccessible areas. Worse still, it under-estimates the catastrophic damage that would be done to native plants and wildlife, and the economic consequences of rampant bovine tuberculosis.
The authority acknowledges the concern of hunters about the indiscriminate nature of the poison, and the toll it takes on deer, pigs and hunting dogs. But, quite rightly, it concludes these are not sufficient to justify a ban on aerial drops. Indeed, on any ledger of minuses and pluses, the benefits of 1080 clearly outweigh the harm. Absolute precedence must be given to its ability to quickly kill large numbers of possums over large areas and, when used in aerial drops, in places where access is difficult.
But users of 1080 must ensure local communities are fully in the picture. This has not always happened. The authority notes that some of the concern about 1080 drops may have been the result of poor communication and consultation by users. Such negligence makes it easy for opponents of 1080 to spread alarm. It makes sense on any number of levels for users to engage local communities, and to explain the benefits of 1080.
At the top of that list must be the wakening of dawn choruses in forests that have been silent for years. Research shows that bird numbers grow rapidly after a poison drop. Farmers also need little persuading, because of 1080's ability to ease worries about bovine tuberculosis. The stricter controls on aerial drops should further allay fears. All that should be sufficiently re-assuring until a pest-control option free of 1080's downsides becomes available.
