1. SUBMISSION ON APP – Modified Reassessment of the insecticide Exirel to allow application by aerial methods
TE RŪNANGA O NGĀI TAHU
GERRY te kapa coates
Member, hsno komiti

2. THE NGĀI TAHU TAKIWĀ
Over 90% of the South Island
& over 40% of NZ land mass.
Extends from Kaikoura in the north to Rakiura (Stewart Island) in the south, including the West Coast, TeTai Poutini. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu constitutes 18 Rūnanga representing geographical areas, generally based around traditional settlements.
“Te Puna Waimaraarie, Te Puna Hauaitu, Te Puna Karikari” The pools of frozen water; The pools of bounty; The pools dug by the hand of humans ”
- Rakaihautu

3. Our takiwā
Kia tuohu koutou, Me he mauka teitei, Ko Aoraki anake. “If you must bow your head then let it be to the lofty mountain Aoraki”

4. NGĀI TAHU VALUES
Whanaungatanga (family) – Respect, foster and maintain mportant relationships within the organisation, within the iwi and within the community.
Manaakitanga (looking after our people) – Respect each other, iwi members and all others in accordance with our tikanga (customs).
Tohungatanga (expertise) – Pursue knowledge and ideas that will strengthen and grow Ngāi Tahu and our community.
Kaitiakitanga (stewardship) – Work actively to protect the people, environment, knowledge, culture, language and resources important to Ngāi Tahu for future generations.
Tikanga (appropriate action) – Strive to ensure that Ngāi Tahu tikanga of is actioned and acknowledged in all of our outcomes.
Rangatiratanga (leadership) – Strive to maintain a high degree of personal integrity and ethical behaviour in all actions and decisions we undertake.

5. TREATY CONSIDERATIONS
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu was statutorily recognised as the representative tribal body of Ngāi Tahu Whānui under section 6 of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act 1996.
This means we exercise kaitiakitanga over our takiwā.
The EPA must be ever mindful of its responsibilities for ‘active protection’ under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Active protection needs to operate in terms of Te Tiriti, not through general concerns about health and safety issues and mechanisms.
The EPA’s role must also include requiring testing and research to be carried out on impacts of hazardous substances and new organisms on 'down-stream' taonga native species and ecosystems, in a similar manner to that required for introduced bio-controls. The lack of , or access to any testing or research data is a continuing shortcoming in most Applications.

6. TE RŪNANGA O NGĀI TAHU HSNO KOMITI
7 Members
Responsible for monitoring new EPA applications
By way of HSNO Policy Statement 2008

7. THE POLICY Evaluate issues of importance to Ngāi Tahu
Identify and assess effects (risks and benefits), from a Ngāi Tahu perspective
Identify options to avoid or minimise adverse effects on Ngāi Tahu values
Identify outcomes important to Ngāi Tahu (e.g. environmental, cultural, health and well-being, economic).
Ngāi Tahu have a unique body of knowledge and practice relating to the environment and the relationship of people to the environment. This knowledge and practice can complement scientific knowledge, and provide better understandings of the effects of hazardous substances and new organisms on the environment and our communities.

8. SUBMISSION ON APP – Modified Reassessment of the insecticide Exirel to allow application by aerial methods
We oppose the reassessment of this insecticide for aerial application for the following reasons:
DuPont’s efforts in meeting with the Ngāi Tahu HSNO Komiti have, in general, assisted our consideration of this reassessment of Exirel. However apart from Ngāi Tahu there appear not to have been any other Māori or Te Herenga consultations.
We do not find any compelling reasons for the product to be applied from the air specifically only for uneven terrain or during wet conditions;

9. SUBMISSION ON APP202774 – cont. 1
The original application for approval of Benevia and Exirel (APP202204) was made to ERMA in December 2011 and the decision was dated June 2013 – almost 18 months after the initial submission;
Submitters needed to have ready access to documentation for the original application as that decision and its conditions is relevant to this reassessment;
Then DuPont said then ‘aquatic contamination would be minimal’ since the products ‘will be confined to application by ground hydraulic sprayers.’ This is no longer so for the current application.

10. SUBMISSION ON APP202774 – cont. 2
For example for ‘Fate and behaviour in water’ it said that ‘Hydrolysis in neutral (Ph7) water showed a DT50 of 60.7 days’ a relatively long time to degrade. Some metabolites have even longer half lives.
Under Section 5.4 in the decision it says ‘Based on the assessment for Benevia and Exirel outlined in Tables 2, 3 and 4 above, and when considering information provided relating to use and management, the staff consider that the risks to Māori culture or traditional relationships with ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna or other taonga are likely to be negligible.’
This resulted in additional controls being put in place relating to the prohibition of the use of Benevia and Exirel into, onto or over water, and in relation to restrictions on application rates, methods, frequency and timing.

11. SUBMISSION ON APP202774 – cont. 3
In Section 5.5 ‘…. there is no evidence to suggest that the use of Benevia and Exirel in accordance with controls will breach the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.’ We believe that it would now breach the principle of ‘active protection’.
Committee that decided to accept this current reassessment to extend the mode of application to aerial spraying said the proposed modifications to allow for aerial application of Exirel ‘would represent a significant change in use of the substance’.

12. SUBMISSION ON APP202774 – cont. 4
In Section 5.5 ‘…. there is no evidence to suggest that the use of Benevia and Exirel in accordance with controls will breach the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.’ We believe that it would now breach the principle of ‘active protection’.
Under 3.4 it says ‘Specifically, these include 100 m no-spray zones by helicopter, and 5 m no-spray zones by ground, a significant change in use of the substance application equipment.’ The 100 m buffer zone may need to be increase for fixed wing aircraft
unless the application is for helicopters only.

13. SUBMISSION ON APP202774 – cont. 5
For mahinga kai (or foraged foods) (see 4.5) we believe the fact that Exirel is ‘highly unlikely to affect plants’ because it is an insecticide is relevant to the deposition of toxic spray on plants collected for human consumption.
Dupont maintain that ‘The benefits/risks ….. as an insecticide have already been established, and … won't be readdressed as part of the modified reassessment.’ However we believe that this is ‘a significant change in use of the substance’.
Could aerial application then become the preferred method of application rather than just ‘when wet conditions and/or uneven terrain of the fodder brassica production sites result in a challenging or dangerous environment for application by ground-based methods’.

14. SUBMISSION ON APP202774 – Comments on Staff E & R report
For the protection of honeybees the report recommends: ‘Take all reasonable steps to ensure that flowering weeds are removed from the application area before spraying Exirel.’
A report by entomologist Dr John McLean verifies that bumble bees and native bees were prevalent on dandelion, scotch thistle and clover.
We support Ngāpuhi HSNO Komiti’s concerns about the potential effects of Exirel on New Zealand native species, especially pollinators.

15. SUBMISSION ON APP202774 – Comments on Staff E & R report – cont 1.
In 3.61 (Kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga ) it says ‘We expect that the frequency of aerial applications of Exirel will be limited by other factors, such as cost. Any impacts from aerial applications of Exirel are unlikely to be permanent.’
There are a number of other comforting statements made on behalf of Māori, that we take issue with. We have little confidence that Māori views on risk are being realistically taken into account by the EPA.

16. SUMMARY We support the Application being declined because we believe:
A persuasive case for risks and benefits to the Māori who are Treaty partners has not been made for this reassessment, despite controls being suggested.
A commitment to monitoring the compliance of operators by controls spelt out on labels should be included as a condition of any approval.
“There are some choices you can only make once. You can't go back to where you made a choice and then take the other one.”  ― Mary Hofffman