Page No. Source Quotes from Decision Documents
548 4 Agency App. G “rapid reduction to very low possum densities over very large areas is stated by the applicant as being important [because] is not economic to try and detect the small areas where foci of Tb actually occur”
579 1 Agency App. J: Cullen “The economic case for 1080 is largely based upon the assertion that aerial pest control is lower cost and more effective than is ground pest control and can be used to manage large and rugged areas. Surprisingly, given the importance of these items, no references are cited in support of these assertions..the lack of documented support is..surprising as research has been completed in New Zealand on pest control costs, and effectiveness of control methods”
580 1 Agency App. J: Cullen “The data indicate that knockdown (initial possum control)..could be completed at similar cost by aerial and ground methods”
580 2 Agency App. J: Cullen “The greater cost effectiveness [in one study] of aerial 1080 derives from its lower costs per hectare and its greater efficacy in killing possums”
580 3 Agency App. J: Cullen “The Application..fails to demonstrate evidence or understanding of economic research on use of 1080, pest control or Tb..this section of the application is unsophisticated, uses crude approaches to estimate even the largest benefits and costs associated with the use of 1080, lacks awareness of many pertinent economic research techniques, seems unaware of almost all relevant economic research”
580 4 Agency App. J: Cullen “Given the importance the HSNO Act..attaches to identifying and considering benefits and costs the Application is amateurish in the way it addresses those issues..high quality economic research [is required] to ensure that informed decisions can be reached..the Application, regrettably, does not provide quality economic analysis and fails to cite existing relevant economic research”
581 1 Agency App. J: Cullen “No evidence is provided in the Application that a current estimate of possum numbers..has been obtained”
582 1 Agency App. J: Cullen “The application states the..effect [of using 1080 to control Tb on the chance of formal restrictions access to export markets] is..Major..but provides no supporting calculations [or research, but other authors have said] ‘the chance of NZ facing a ban simultaneously in our major markets small..that it is almost non existent”.”
582 2 Agency App. J: Cullen “The Application seems completely unaware of the range of economic techniques available to provide..defensible estimates of..effects of trade restrictions”
582 3 Agency App. J: Cullen “No research is cited in the Application that studies the dollar losses occurring from the  loss of one or more export markets [due to market perceptions of NZ’s Tb status, however] Clough & Nixon (2000) conclude..a trade ban would be difficult to sustain under current international trade rules, the risk is very small and the expected value of an avoided trade ban is modest”
583 1 Agency App. J: Cullen “[the effect on tourism] could become large if New Zealand fails to maintain healthy forests and native biodiversity”
583 2 Agency App. J: Cullen “the Application..states that..’Currently the NZFSA reports that none of our trading partners are concerned about the use of 1080 in NZ’..use of the word ‘currently’ suggests that at another partners or domestic consumers might be concerned about the use of 1080..the likelihood of concern arising may be considerably larger than indicated by ‘improbable’.”
583 3 Agency App. J: Cullen “It does seem likely that the views of tourists..will be polarised on the use of toxins in NZ and research is warranted on this subject [negative perceptions of aerial operations and their impact on tourist spending]”
584 1 Agency App. J: Cullen “The likelihood of [a negative impact on hunting from by-kill] is assessed [by the applicants] as Very unlikely..however..deer numbers can be impacted by 1080..Very unlikely seems too sanguine an assessment of likelihood”
584 2 Agency App. J: Cullen “The magnitude of [the negative impact of 1080 on hunting] is understated..more recent research could have been sought to determine the magnitude in 2006 dollars [instead of 1990 dollars]”
584 3 Agency App. J: Cullen Several of the effects considered [under Social and Community]..lack evidence about [their] magnitude. No evidence is provided in the Application to show there has been a search for literature to remedy that defect”
584 4 Agency App. J: Cullen “The [Applicant’s] statement..’there is no research that specifically links the enjoyment of recreational activities with the maintenance of healthy forest habitat and biodiversity’ indicates the applicant’s unfamiliarity with social science research”
590 1 Agency App. K: Ford “The sections of the application reviewed do not reference or prove the rationale behind [the AHB’s] conditions on successful control”
590 2 Agency App. K: Ford “There appears to be little discussion around the full range of alternatives [to 1080]..the application would be strengthened by some understanding of the relative superiority of the proposed alternative in terms of cost, efficiency and effectiveness with the other alternatives considered”
590 3 Agency App. K: Ford “The AHB objective of achieving “official freedom”..from Tb is set as the prime target..there is little discussion around the desirability of this outcome”
591 1 Agency App. K: Ford “There is no apparent discussion on the robustness and reliability of this epidemiological monitoring [of Tb prevalence in the future]. There is no discussion or information provided about the risk or sensitivity parameters of the modelling carried out..achievement of the [Tb prevalence] target [may be] very difficult. Some discussion around the perceived ability to realistically achieve this target would be of value”
592 1 Agency App. K: Ford “this brings into question the value of the overall objective of the control programme..[the AHB’s] cost benefit analysis carried out in 1995 showed that farm production and non trade benefits had effectively been achieved by the previous strategy and that any likely future benefits in these two areas were outweighed by the costs of the programme..this would indicate that..the positive benefits from 1080 use hinges entirely on the trade benefits”
592 2 Agency App. K: Ford “The assumption that further funding would not be available has meant that the two scenarios are not able to be modelled with the same end result. The extra costs involved in achieving official freedom [from Tb] without 1080 are presumably greater than the restrained funding available”
592 3 Agency App. K: Ford “There is no rationale given for the choice of the magnitude values chosen for each assessment value [in the Market Economy assessment matrices]..the assessment scales all appear to be somewhat arbitrary”
593 1 Agency App. K: Ford “No overall framework of total costs and benefits has been provided in order to weigh up the overall relative merits of the with [1080] scenario”
593 2 Agency App. K: Ford “there is no ability to determine the degree of confidence that can be attributed to the assessment assumptions. It may well be that average costs [from restrictions on livestock movements] are much closer to $30,000 per farm than $200,000”
594 1 Agency App. K: Ford “It would be doubtful whether the reported assumption of rabbits displacing 2 million sheep would be an accurate assumption post RHD. This is a core assumption in the assessment of the magnitude of impacts”
595 1 Agency App. K: Ford “We would suspect that wide scale 1080 use will only be required where farmers fail to adequately enact other control techniques..therefore we would question the assessment that the greater benefit of the with 1080 scenario is very likely”
595 2 Agency App. K: Ford “Given the doubt and uncertainty over the validity of the major assumptions used in the assessment we would consider that the likelihood of improved productivity that would result from the use of 1080 for pest control within the next 10 years would neither be considered very likely or major and therefore may not justify the high significance rating given in the assessment.”
595 3 Agency App. K: Ford “This impact [reduced cost to agricultural sector and government associated with vector control] is difficult to review as the core assumptions are not made explicit in the justification is given [for the classification E, extremely likely this will occur] order for [an E classification] there should be no doubt as to the robustness of the assumption”
596 1 Agency App. K: Ford “Justification for the assessment of this impact [decreased likelihood of loss of markets due to market perceptions of NZ’s Tb status] as E is is doubtful that a combined assessment of both very likely and of a major magnitude are a credible combination”
597 1 Agency App. K: Ford “Review of the 4 significant benefits [to the market economy from using 1080] would indicate that the assumptions and methodologies are not sufficiently robust..therefore we have doubt that they should be considered as significant..and may not justify or warrant costs or risks in order to be realised..however more rigorous assessment techniques over a longer time scale of analysis may prove that some of the magnitude ratings are achieved”
776 2 Agency App. O “[costs per hectare of control]..aerial 1080 $24..traps & cyanide $18..traps only $19”
777 2 Agency App. O “[costs of different types of control in Pureora forest] aerial: $23/ha..hunter: $25/ha”
778 1 Agency App. O (costs and time were reduced, and kill rates increased, when ground control (cyanide and traps) was supplemented with dogs)
899 4 Agency App. T: Submissions “The cost vs the benefit of a Tb-clear country needs to be evaluated. A Treasury paper indicated the cost to be higher than any possible gains or loss through the shipment of contaminated meat”
914 1 Agency App. T: Submissions “We strongly support continued use of unscreened 1080 carrot baits in areas with no native birds or other issues. The cost of screening is an extra burden on landowners” (Maniototo Pest Management Ltd)
85 2 Committee Decision “The Committee acknowledges the growing value of the possum fur industry but..there is no evidence [that 1080] is having any adverse impact”
201 1 Decision App.B “[impact on fur industry]..Not assessed..most major aerial operations are on..areas that it is either impossible or very uneconomic to cover using ground control”