Pest-free plan needs teeth

Could New Zealand rid itself of predators, a task of seemingly biblical proportions? Yes, says the Government, though its plan includes important caveats. The target date is 2050, when today’s ministers will mostly be footnotes in the history books. The initial government investment is a tiny $7 million per year for four years, when experts suggest the real cost of the project will be wildly more – $9 billion or higher.

And it needs to be a ‘‘massive team effort’’, Conservation Minister Maggie Barry says, which means heavy lifting from the private sector and volunteer groups.

Together, these elements suggest a lack of seriousness. The late scientist Paul Callaghan, who got the ball rolling on a pest-free New Zealand, described it as an ‘‘Apollo programme’’ for the country. Suffice it to say, the US did not fund the Apollo programme on $7m per year.

Yet even so, Callaghan’s backing, and support from other New Zealand ecologists and conservationists, mean the idea really does deserve scrutiny.

And the Government’s decision to back it, in whatever form, also means it is now firmly on the political radar – and ought to eventually emerge as a policy with some heft.

The case for a serious attempt at killing off New Zealand’s rats, stoats and possums is surprisingly solid. The $9b price tag might seem high, but it is actually less than projections of what will be spent on simply defending against such pests for another 35 years (one estimate puts that at $15b).

University of Auckland experts argue that while ‘‘clearing predators from all of New Zealand may seem to be a fantasy ... 50 years ago, so did clearing predators from tiny, 1-hectare Maria Island’’.

In the intervening half-century, New Zealand has been able to clear offshore islands several orders of magnitude larger. It has also become a global expert – and exporter – of pest eradication technologies.

Of course there are uncertainties. New technological fixes, which the Government relies on heavily (as it does with climate change) might not work out. The cost might prove much greater than expected – some experts have projected a bill closer to $25b, a vast sum.

And then there are questions of commitment – how much more the already active volunteer sector can be asked to shoulder, and whether New Zealanders are prepared to make personal sacrifices, such as giving up their cats.

Still, apart from that latter controversial question, there can be no doubt that New Zealanders will get behind a viable, serious project.

A 2014 study showed that Kiwis rank conservation highly for public spending. There is a widespread understanding that New Zealand lost something extraordinary by the introduction of mammal pests.

The limited return of native birds to islands and mainland sanctuaries has been a thrill to most people.

The Government has taken on a worthwhile, hugely ambitious task. To prove it’s not just a stunt, it now needs to fund it properly, lay out some more ambitious short-term goals, and keep it high on the agenda.

In other words, it needs to give it some teeth.

A worthy goal that needs proper funding.