10 March 2025
JK
By email: [FYI request #30018 email]
Dear J.K.
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (“LGOIMA”):
Request for Information
I refer to your request dated 10 February 2025 asking a series of questions related to
wilding conifer funding and the Canterbury Regional Pest Management Plan (CRPMP).
Your request has been referred to me to reply. Please find answers to each of your
questions below.
1. Have the rules under the CRPMP been enforced on and around land which
has been subject to funding under the programme? If not, why not –
particularly given the significant central investment in Canterbury?
The purpose of wilding conifer rules under the CRPMP is to maximise the
investment of central government. The rules are outlined in t
he Canterbury
Regional Pest Management Plan | Environment Canterbury specifically Plan
Objective 4 and Plan Rules 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.3.4. The rules are required to
ensure maintenance is undertaken when the intervention of the National Wilding
Conifer Control Programme (NWCCP) ends and to ensure areas that have been
cleared via central government funding are maintained.
The transition of the responsibility for long-term maintenance is only beginning in
some areas now, so more time is being given for landholders to comply. Instead,
we have focussed on responding to complaints and providing education and
advice.
We have yet to have a case where compliance action would provide reasonable
benefit to the wider programme and our ability to meet the objectives under the
CRPMP.
File Number: GOVE/INQU/OMBU/3015C
2. Is there a strategy for transition from the centrally-funded programme to use
of the CRPMP rules? I note that a ‘prioritised strategic approach’ is indicated
in the Biodiversity and Biosecurity Committee agenda of 8 November 2023;
can you please advise the details of this approach, and what is the long-term
plan once central funding expires?
Transition of the financial responsibility for long-term maintenance from the
National Wilding Conifer Control Programme (NWCCP) to private landholders
started via a pilot programme in the Godley Management Unit in 2024.
Environment Canterbury is leading this pilot with support from the NWCCP.
One of the key components of this transition process, is assessing the future costs
of maintenance and whether these are reasonable for a landholder to bear once
rules under the CRPMP are applied.
We wil continue to manage this process sensitively to ensure we get the balance
right when the time comes to apply the rules under the CRPMP. With regard to
future compliance requirements, this forms a key part of the conversations held
with landholders as part of this process.
The transition pilot is continuing in the Godley MU this year. The integration of the
rules under the CRPMP is part of this pilot and wil likely continue over several
years as we support landholders to assume the requirements of long-term
maintenance. The future success of wilding conifer control in Canterbury requires
a future-focussed wilding conifer programme fit to support the community to be
successful.
Separately, we are starting the process of reviewing our CRPMP, we are expecting
to have updated rules relating to wilding conifer included in that review.
3. I refer to a previous Biodiversity Advisory Group meeting notes in which a
‘Plant Me Instead’ guide is referred to. Can you please advised when this wil
be published?
The Wilding Pine Handbook was produced instead of a specific ‘Plant - Me –
Instead’ guide. It includes MPI’s ‘The Right Tree for Your Place’ guide.
We are now planning to prepare a Canterbury specific planting guide that wil be
online to complement what’s in the guide. We don’t have a date it wil be live yet.
The handbook can be found here
Wilding pine control handbook | Environment
Canterbury
4. I refer to a previous Biodiversity and Biosecurity Committee agenda (August
2023), in which a grazing consent application is noted. Can you please advise
the total expenditure on this, and whether it has been consented?
We are no longer pursuing a global consent for grazing. It was determined that the
diversity of variables for environmental outcomes, farming practices, and local site
conditions meant this was not the most appropriate mechanism.
File Number: GOVE/INQU/OMBU/3015C
The provisions of Mackenzie District Council Plan Change 23 under the wilding
conifer management overlay broadly achieved the same objective as the global
consent was intended to do. That being the ability to undertake 'land rehabilitation'
as a permitted activity providing the associated rules in the plan are met.
The expenditure consists of staff time and is accounted within existing budgets.
5. I note that a tender is currently on GETS for ‘Wilding Conifer Operations
Delivery Services’. I note that the incumbent is Zolve Environmental which
was incorporated in Dec 2021 and shortly thereafter contracted for
operational delivery consultancy services for this programme, which
appears to have been direct-sourced as there is no record of this in GETS.
Can you please advise:
1. If this approach was subject to legal and procurement review as per
the Council’s procurement policy;
No. As reported to Council’s Audit, Finance & Risk Committee on 1
November 2023, a review was undertaken at Environment Canterbury
affecting approval and management of external contractors over a period
of approximately three years, which included the period in your
request. The key finding from the review was that no financial loss was
considered to have been incurred by Environment Canterbury, as the
procured services provided by the external contractors were completed.
Other findings from the review related to staff adherence to Environment
Canterbury’s procurement processes, clarity around financial delegations,
and addressing conflicts of interest; whether actual or perceived.
As identified in a Deloitte Learnings Report, Environment Canterbury was
already making changes which addressed these findings at the time of
writing the report.
2. Total value of the direct-sourced contract, and
Total amount $1,295,820.73 (excluding GST) incurred over a three-year
period from January 2022 to the time of writing.
3. Whether any other consultancies were considered for this work prior
to direct-sourcing Zolve.
Refer to above answer to question 5(1)
4. I note that this direct-source approach violated Government
Procurement Rules – was this reported to Audit New Zealand
accordingly?
The matters covered in the answer to question 5(1) have been reported to
Audit New Zealand.
You wil be aware that if you are not satisfied with this response, you are able to refer
this matter to the Of ice of the Ombudsman under s27 (3) of the Local Government
Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987.
File Number: GOVE/INQU/OMBU/3015C
Should you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to
contact
[ECAN request email] in the first instance.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Hall
Director Operations
File Number: GOVE/INQU/OMBU/3015C
