• Legislation
• Media Centre
• Publications
• What's New

The Year in Review

This section illustrates how our work and achievements over the past year have contributed towards our outcomes.

---

Overview of Achievements

Outcome 1:

Sector Development – New Zealand’s economic growth and prosperity are enhanced through high performing and innovative sectors.

Intermediate Outcome 1.1: Policies and interventions to foster innovation and growth in the sectors.

State Indicators

• Total factor productivity in the sectors.
• Skill levels in the sectors.
• Levels of business investment in physical and capital assets in the sectors.
• Levels of public and private investment in sector intangible assets (e.g. research and development, training).
• Proportion of the total sales in the sectors competing on attributes other than price.

Innovation is a key driver of the long-term performance of the sectors. The Government has expressed a willingness to enter into partnership with business to facilitate enhanced growth and innovation and MAF is working to foster this approach through a wide range of activities.

• We achieved commercially favourable returns for sales of Crown forestry assets, with a highlight being the negotiation of a forestry right for the Waipoua Forest before transfer of the land to the Treaty of Waitangi claimant. Although the Parengarenga A forest lease was tendered for sale, bids failed to meet the preferred price. We also continued work on land titles and access issues as part of the preparation of the sale of a number of other forest assets.
• Aiming to sell our forestry interests, we re-negotiated the long-term leases of Māori land on terms mutually beneficial to the Crown and Māori. We fully surrendered the Otakanini Topu lease and continued negotiations with the Pouto 2F and Te Whaiti Nui A Toi lessors over the shortening of the term or termination of their leases.
• We managed Crown Forestry assets to best practice commercial and forestry standards by implementing an internal quality management system and an external review of forest and lease management systems.
• We used an enhanced understanding of the drivers of economic growth in the sectors to develop new policy and interventions to foster innovation and per capita income growth. An example of this is our involvement in up-skilling seasonal labour. We are also developing a research programme and flagship project to better understand the drivers of economic growth in the primary sectors.
• We supported sustainable economic growth through our engagement with the food and beverage sector and the Forest Industry Development Agenda (FIDA). We co-ordinated whole-of-government input into the Food and Beverage Taskforce which aims to identify opportunities and potential barriers to the sector’s sustainable economic development. We also co-chaired the Taskforce’s Innovation Working Group and co-ordinated a whole-of-government response to the Dairy 21 (now Pastoral 21) initiative. We reviewed funded FIDA initiatives, facilitated three FIDA Steering Group meetings and negotiated further initiatives, including two sector studies and agreements for 14 market development projects.
• Our Sustainable Farming Fund encouraged sustainable economic growth in the sectors by funding programmes including internal parasite management and lamb survival work, energy efficiency in dairy sheds, and work on nitrogen management.
• Ensuring property rights policies relevant to the sectors support sustainable economic development was a specific consideration in our work on climate change, water and sustainable land use, with regard to rights to operate and rights of access to natural resources. Our Sustainable Development Framework also considers policy principles alongside private property rights.

Intermediate Outcome 1.2: Effective and efficient regulatory regimes for the sectors.

State Indicators

• Number and impact of regulatory barriers to innovation in the sectors.
• Ranking of New Zealand sectors in international benchmark comparisons of effective regulatory regimes.
• Costs to the sectors of complying with New Zealand-imposed regulatory requirements.

Regulation must be effective and contribute to public good outcomes as well as allowing businesses to be dynamic and innovative. It must also be implemented as efficiently as possible to minimise costs to businesses, consumers and taxpayers. MAF administers a number of regulatory regimes (including food through NZFSA, biosecurity and sustainable resource use) which are significant in this context.

• We ensured regulatory regimes for the sectors are “fit for purpose”, process efficient, and support innovation and productivity while minimising compliance costs through developing, reviewing and carrying out research on a number of Acts, standards, authorities and regulatory regimes. Examples include developing the Veterinarians Act and the Meat Board Amendment Bill, reviewing herd testing standards and the Horticulture Export Authority, and initiating research into both on-farm and biosecurity compliance costs.
• We managed regulatory elements to ensure effective and efficient delivery of industry good activities to the sectors. We reviewed the annual reports of commodity levy organisations (including levy spending) and submitted them to Parliament; evaluated proposals for commodity levy applications and developed Commodity Levy Orders. A significant increase in the number of levy applications in 2005/06 exposed some administrative inefficiencies in the current regulatory regime. We also developed terms of reference for a review of the Commodity Levies Act in 2006/07.
• We have ensured the food regulatory programme is reviewed with the outcomes providing effective and efficient solutions to regulatory needs. Completed work included a Government response to the independent Imported Foods Review, a Review of Wild Foods, and a policy position on the
• Export-Domestic standards. Substantially completed work included a policy position on food derived from cloned animals in New Zealand, and of a review of the regulatory arrangements for animal feeds. Work progressed on the Domestic Food Review and integrating dairy under the Animal Products Act.
• Our regulatory proposals and food-related initiatives minimised regulatory intervention and compliance costs had inbuilt flexibility and encouraged industry responsibility in meeting required outcomes. We assessed the need for regulatory intervention in all NZFSA proposals for managing risks. Non-regulatory responses were regularly considered, evident in the Wild Foods Review where a non-regulatory response was chosen at the outset. We incorporated dairy into the Animal Products Act to ensure consistency over all animal product industries. The Domestic Food Review identified a principle of “industry taking responsibility for the delivery of safe and suitable food” and confirmed “one size did not fit all”. The draft policy position for the Review has inbuilt flexibility in the proposed tools for managing risks in delivering food to New Zealanders.
• To enhance the science and risk basis of the food regulatory programme by improving risk assessment inputs and providing an outcome focus we have considerably increased our risk assessment capability. Outputs of risk assessments significantly contributed to developing new risk-based standards, including for dairy products made from unpasteurised milk, imported foods, Salmonella in all foods, meat inspection for bovine tuberculosis, levels of methylmercury in fish, and Salmonella Brandenberg in sheepmeat.

Intermediate Outcome 1.3: Enhanced prosperity for Māori engaged with, or participating in the sectors.

State Indicators

• Total factor productivity of Māori-owned agricultural, food and forestry businesses.
• Median per capita income of Māori engaged in the sectors as owners, employees or beneficiaries.

The scope for Māori to maximise the economic potential of their agribusiness and forestry resources through lifting productivity will directly influence New Zealand’s growth potential and per capita income. MAF has a crucial role in supporting Māori to optimise the economic potential of their land and forestry assets by addressing opportunities and barriers for the development of those assets. MAF also has a stewardship and transitional role in the transfer of forestry assets to Māori ownership.

• We achieved commercially favourable returns for sales of Crown forestry assets, re-negotiated the long-term leases of Māori land on terms mutually beneficial to the Crown and Māori, and managed Crown Forestry assets to best practice commercial and forestry standards.
• We helped identify and address specific impediments to Māori attaining economic benefits from their participation in the agriculture, food and forestry sectors. Although most work in this area is led by Te Puni Kōkiri, we participated in the work of the Māori Land Senior Officials Group which is responsible for identifying initiatives to maximise the economic potential of Māori land. MAF’s Sustainable Farming Fund has supported a number of projects which address impediments to Māori in the sectors and support Māori initiatives. We have been actively incorporating a Māori perspective in a number of significant projects including the Sustainable Water Programme of Action and biosecurity programmes.

Intermediate Outcome 1.4: Enhanced business environment for rural communities.

State Indicators

• Cost differentials related to infrastructure, energy and communications services for rural community-based businesses compared with non-rural counterparts.
• Deficiencies in availability and quality of infrastructure, energy and communications services for rural businesses compared with non-rural counterparts.

The sectors and rural communities provide much of the basis for New Zealand’s economic growth and innovation. They benefit substantially from a supportive business environment and efficient and effective networks of energy, transport and telecommunications infrastructure for the country’s rural communities.

• Our work has enhanced the business environment for rural communities to ensure human capital and infrastructure requirements are met effectively and efficiently and raise awareness of the sectors’ contribution to the economy and society. We played a lead role in the Agricultural/Horticultural Sector Seasonal Labour Strategy – addressing human capability needs – and were also involved in reviewing a number of sub-degree training models. We recently appointed a Rural Affairs Co-ordinator to promote public awareness of the primary sectors’ important role.

Case Study: Growing an External Focus – Costs of Compliance Reporting Our regulation must be effective, balance the need to contribute to public good outcomes with the need for businesses to be dynamic and innovative, and be implemented as efficiently as possible to minimise compliance costs. We commissioned a Biosecurity Costs of Compliance study, enabling us to quantify the costs faced by the public from MAF’s requirements when bringing goods into New Zealand. Another project focused on the impact of farming compliance costs is currently being undertaken as part of our regular farm monitoring activities. Key findings of these projects determine the drivers of compliance costs and our influence on reducing them.

Outcome 2: Safe and freer rules-based trade.

Intermediate Outcome 2.1: Maintained and enhanced market access for agricultural, food and forestry products and reduced market distortions resulting from trade rules and market interventions.

State Indicators

• Number and economic magnitude of unjustified trade barriers to New Zealand agricultural, food and forestry exports.
• Economic loss to New Zealand exporters resulting from agribusiness, food and forestry producer and export subsidies in other countries.
• Economic magnitude of new products able to be exported to existing and newly developed markets where trade barriers exist.

Reform of international agricultural trade rules is required to enable New Zealand businesses to fully utilise their comparative and competitive advantages.

• MAF has supported cross-government approaches to enhance trade liberalisation and market access to ensure agriculture, food and forestry-related issues are addressed effectively and consistently. We worked with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) and other departments to progress the WTO Doha Round negotiations to reduce the effects of trade barriers and other trade distortions on exporters and farmers. Holding the role of Chief Agricultural Negotiator within MAF meant we led the charge in the WTO agriculture negotiations, which should result in significant economic benefits. Our advice in negotiations has resulted in many of the positions New Zealand promoted becoming part of the negotiating agenda.

• In advocating for safe and freer, rules-based trade in key international negotiations and interactions we contributed to the work programmes of many agricultural and forestry international organisations to promote New Zealand’s trade liberalisation objectives and mitigate and reduce the risks of new barriers, especially non-tariff ones. We monitored the work of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and other organisations to counter the risk their analyses, recommendations and publications on agriculture may reflect the interests of protectionist members. We focused on ensuring our planted forests are accepted internationally as being sustainable by monitoring work undertaken by international agencies on topics including: subsidies, non-tariff barriers, illegal logging, biodiversity in planted forests and forest certification. We have also been showcasing New Zealand’s progress in implementing sustainable forest management through our reporting under the Criteria and Indicators of the Montreal Process.
• To support other agencies’ work in trade liberalisation and enhanced market access through our specialised expertise in agriculture, food and forestry-related fields, we worked with MFAT in multilateral negotiations. We (working with MFAT and other agencies) are also heavily involved in negotiating and implementing Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Closer Economic Partnerships (CEPs), enabling market access for agricultural and forestry products. We contributed to the recently concluded negotiations of the Thailand CEP and Trans Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (P4) and are now working towards implementing aspects of these agreements. We are currently negotiating the China, Malaysia and ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTAs.
• We promoted rules-based trade, sound science and risk-based standards, and the removal of trade barriers within relevant multilateral forums. The recognition of our standards meant New Zealand successfully gained BSE free country status. We contributed to leadership and effective representation at the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE), International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Asian Pacific Plant Protection Commission (APPPC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). New Zealand held several key positions within the OIE, IPPC and APPPC and consequently has considerable influence. Domestically, we ensured consistency with international obligations in relevant legislative frameworks and standards set by our NZFSA (and by other agencies where relevant) to ensure a consistent Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) approach. We developed priority cases for establishing the equivalence of our food controls with those of importing countries to foster New Zealand industry. We also contributed to the Codex working group in developing new generic guidelines for judging equivalence.
• We enhanced New Zealand’s input into key international negotiations and forums, such as the WTO SPS Agreement to help ensure a consistent and strategic approach to international standards and rules. We contributed leadership and effective representation of New Zealand’s views at the WTO, specifically in the SPS Agreement review. We participated in the ongoing work on gaining access to Australia for New Zealand apples. We also participated in key Codex meetings and FAO/WHO Expert Consultations which continually advance the platform for food safety standards based on internationally-agreed criteria. New Zealand also held the Chair of the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene and the Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products.
• To ensure import/export programme balance we placed Import and Export teams in our biosecurity pre-clearance directorate to enable interaction on work programmes and issues which could affect each other’s programmes. Escalation procedures were put in place to ensure issues which could affect this balance can be readily resolved. We provided the background paper Trading According to International Rules, the starting point for an organisation-wide (and whole-of-government) strategy, which provides a basis for balancing import/export requirements so trade is seen as a “two way street”.
• We enhanced New Zealand’s position as a trusted exporter of food and food-related products by having a high performing NZFSA and assurance systems. We implemented industry agreed market access strategies across the dairy, animal product and plants industries to promote New Zealand’s food export assurance systems, and we passed all trading partners’ audits of our NZFSA programmes.
• Working towards maintaining and enhancing New Zealand’s trade in food and food-related products by ensuring trading partners meet their obligations with international rules, we developed close relationships with counterpart authorities where appropriate, and maintained or enhanced these to promote access for New Zealand food from a food safety perspective.
• A major trade focus for MAF has been to maintain and expand export food markets through bilateral negotiations. Market access was expanded, notably: the acceptance of poultry into Japan, resolution of the “non integrated establishments” issue with China, progression of a Memoranda of Understanding with European Free Trade Association countries, and collaboration with the EU on market access issues. We ensured equivalency in a number of trade situations and contributed to ensuring New Zealand interests were well represented in trade with Australia. Electronic certification (E-cert) was progressed through the agreement of an EU wide E-cert trial, progressing Canada’s E-cert trial and ensuring acceptance of E-cert by Jordan. We led the development of draft SPS chapters for a number of FTAs and CEPs over the year, most notably with China, Malaysia and Mexico. We contributed to the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) FTA developments and continued implementing the Thai-New Zealand FTA. We protected and maintained our export markets by representing New Zealand’s strong opposition to Indonesia’s proposed offal ban and to the risk of meat bone meal denial, managing continued access of New Zealand meat products to Korea after the discovery of endosulphan residues in a consignment of New Zealand meat, and pursuing postponement and amendment of Thailand’s potentially damaging Regulation 11.

Intermediate Outcome 2.2: Credible and trusted animal and plant produce assurance.

State Indicators:

• Level of compliance by exporters with assurance requirements for animals, plants and their products.
• Number and cost of rejections of New Zealand animal or plant product assurances by overseas authorities as a consequence of failure of the New Zealand assurance systems.

Worldwide, consumers expect their governments to provide credible assurances covering food and food-related products at all times. Therefore the credibility of official health assurances affects market access. As a country which exports more than 80 percent of the food it produces, New Zealand recognises domestic food safety issues also impact on trading partners’ governments and their consumers’ perceptions of our products.

• We enhanced New Zealand’s input into key international negotiations and forums, such as the WTO SPS Agreement to help ensure a consistent and strategic approach to international standards and rules.
• To ensure scientifically robust and defensible export assurances, our export assurance programmes have been under continuous review and improvement to confirm their scientific validity and to ensure importing countries’ requirements are met.
• We ensured export assurances are underpinned by credible programmes by regular contact with, and regular audits of, independent verifier and authorised operator programmes. We enhanced domestic E-cert systems for animal products and milk products, with strengthened verification processes for official assurances. In conjunction with industry we also developed and maintained high level verification programmes. The policy component of the Imported Food Review which aligns NZFSA approaches to imports and exports was completed and we passed all trading partner audits of our NZFSA programmes.

Intermediate Outcome 2.3: Balanced export and import regime covering the safety and suitability of trade in animal and plant products.

State Indicator:

• Measures of any inconsistencies in New Zealand’s treatment of imports and exports.

New Zealand cannot separate its export interests from its import interests since international trade rules demand exports and imports be treated consistently. Inconsistency by New Zealand could trigger trade barriers for its products and damage our reputation as a principled trader.

• We monitored administration of the legislation relevant to imports and exports of animals, plants and their products to ensure adherence to the principles set down in the SPS Agreement. To co-ordinate and ensure cohesion across MAF and MFAT on the range of SPS issues affecting our trading relationships, regular meetings between agencies occurred at the strategic and working levels. The SPS Forum (the heads of MAF’s Policy, Biosecurity and NZFSA groups, and an MFAT Deputy Secretary) met to provide strategic direction, and at the working level the SPS Co-ordination Group met monthly – both groups chaired by MAF. We contributed to New Zealand’s brief for the WTO SPS Committee (compiled by MFAT), which meets three times a year and enabled New Zealand to pursue concerns with other countries’ implementation of the SPS Agreement and SPS issues hampering market access.
• We worked towards maintaining and enhancing New Zealand’s trade in animals, plants and their products by ensuring trading partners meet their obligations with international rules. We took part in regular discussion with trading partners to ensure their import requirements met international rules. Examples include the export of apples to Australia, potatoes to Korea and Taiwan, cattle to Mexico, cattle semen to Japan and Japan’s non-quarantine pest list. Where bilateral discussions did not achieve results, issues were escalated to the SPS Committee (e.g. apples to Australia). As a trading partner, New Zealand strives to meet our obligations under international trading rules. Specific examples of our work in this area over the past year included:
  • Ensuring WTO notification requirements are included and followed in the procedures for import health standard and import risk analysis development.
  • Supporting new or revised import health standards by risk analysis, providing an audit trail for where the level of protection has been set.
  • Participating in the development of international standards by providing technical experts for working groups and comments on draft standards.
  • Basing import and export requirements on internationally agreed standards where such standards exist and are relevant.
  • Minimising technical barriers to trade by encouraging or commissioning research into treatments and tests.
• We ensured export assurances are underpinned by credible programmes which pass third country audits.
• Working towards maintaining and enhancing New Zealand’s trade in food and food-related products by ensuring trading partners meet their obligations with international rules, we developed close relationships with counterpart authorities where appropriate and maintained or enhanced these to promote access for New Zealand food from a food safety perspective.
• We promoted rules-based trade, sound science and risk-based standards, and the removal of trade barriers within relevant multilateral forums.
• A major trade focus for MAF has been to maintain and expand export food markets through bilateral negotiations.
• We ensured import/export programme balance.

Intermediate Outcome 2.4: Protection of land-based and aquatic environments, primary production systems, trade, and human health and wellness from biosecurity pests.

State Indicators:

• Number of new incursions by harmful biosecurity pests.
• Interceptions and slippage of biosecurity pests at the border.
• The damage caused by biosecurity pests that have established in New Zealand.

New Zealand is more dependent on biosecurity than any other developed country. The country’s freedom from major pests and diseases is critical for primary productivity and freer trade. Border controls remain a critical part of protecting biosecurity as increasing numbers of tourists arrive and more goods are imported.

• We improved early detection and identification of serious pests and diseases across the biosecurity spectrum enabling early assessment of measures to prevent their establishment in New Zealand. We reviewed and enhanced surveillance programmes to improve detection of pests and diseases. The High Risk Site Surveillance programme – focusing on sea and air containers – was redesigned and a new programme implemented. The National Invasive Ant Surveillance programme now uses more intensive techniques, and we implemented marine surveillance programmes in ports and other high risk sites. We supported New Zealand’s case for BSE freedom through a national surveillance programme, testing over 1,900 cattle brains.
• We improved our response preparedness and contingency planning for new incursions to enable early and effective eradication and control of serious pests and diseases entering New Zealand. Our Incursion Systems Review project established a new high level service design which will support a single, comprehensive and scalable response system. Development of policy, procedures and tools to support the new system will be completed by November 2006. We also developed a new competency-based training system for externally contracted response personnel to improve their preparedness and our ability to ensure their level of competency. Biosecurity discussions with regional councils have improved understanding about allocation of roles and responsibilities in pest responses, the transition from national to regional management, and how councils can contribute to response preparedness.
• As part of our whole-of-system biosecurity role, we have continued to develop leadership capacity and establish a national leadership role for pest management. We established a core team to begin building capability for pest management. Five national pest management programmes were successfully transferred from the Department of Conservation (DOC) to MAF. To better co-ordinate the activities of central and regional government, we established the Central/Regional Biosecurity Co-ordination Group under the Biosecurity Central/Regional Forum. This group agreed seven whole-of-government strategic priorities for pest management and the actions needed to address these over the next five years. We also produced the Regional Pest Management Website to provide an overview of pest management by individual regional councils and we reviewed the National Pest Plant Accord.
• We enhanced the integration of border standards and the provision of quarantine services to enable greater efficiency in delivery of border inspection services. The Quarantine Services (MAFQS) restructure has provided better integration with our Biosecurity Standards group to ensure standards are able to be delivered as prescribed. The results will not be evident until revised standards have been in operation for some time.
• We enhanced compliance with biosecurity legislation through improved communication, auditing and enforcement activities. We have been developing a new compliance legal manual to provide guidance on the Biosecurity Act 1993 and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 to ensure any imposition by MAF on the public is reasonable and within the legal framework. We have also been implementing an Integrated Network for Operational Response Management for infringement notices issued at the border. We have been developing tools and models for re-prioritising compliance responses where necessary within the biosecurity system to ensure compliance effort is being used in the most appropriate circumstances and level. We undertook an external and internal stocktake to set out the necessary elements for a biosecurity system-wide compliance strategy. The project’s outcome will take into account all elements of the compliance function – education, community awareness, audit, investigation and prosecution.
• Our work toward ensuring the public has a greater understanding and appreciation of the importance of biosecurity to New Zealand through effective communication was illustrated in our public awareness programme. A key element of the programme was the “Know the enemy” campaign. As well as providing information on specific pests and diseases, the campaign also allowed the public to have their questions answered through an 0800 number and interactive website. A review of this programme is underway and recommendations will be incorporated into a revised communications approach for 2006/07.

Case Study: Promoting our Trade Advantage – New Zealand Recognised as BSE Free New Zealand enjoys preferential international market access for many animal products and pharmaceuticals as a result of being free of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”). That advantage was endorsed when, for the first time ever, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) recognised four countries – New Zealand, Australia, Uruguay and Argentina – as BSE free countries in May 2006. That recognition necessitated having comprehensive biosecurity measures in place over at least seven years to ensure negligible risk of BSE importation, effective disease control if it were ever introduced, and rigorous surveillance which would detect the disease if it were present.

Case Study: Monitoring for Disease - Avian Influenza Surveillance We conducted a survey to demonstrate our freedom from notifiable avian influenza virus in commercial layer and boiler flocks. To meet OIE requirements, New Zealand must conduct active surveillance to prove freedom from highly pathogenic avian influenza whereas it used to be able to declare freedom based on absence of clinical signs. New Zealand is also part of a global surveillance network for early detection and reporting of avian influenza virus for pandemic preparedness reasons. This round of surveillance is the start of a surveillance strategy intended to demonstrate national freedom from the highly pathogenic virus and freedom from the low pathogenic virus in commercial chickens.

Case Study: Preparing our Defences - Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Bank In July 2005, we joined the few countries to have secured a commercial supply of the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) antigen. This enables us to produce emergency vaccine in the event of an outbreak - having a greater efficacy than off-the-shelf vaccines routinely used in countries where FMD is endemic. In May 2006 documentation for the final antigen for our Vaccine Bank was received, completing a process initiated in 2003. Because of poor cross protection between the seven FMD serotypes or even within strains, a variety of antigens were selected reflecting the strains currently circulating and posing the greatest risk to New Zealand. Frozen vials of these antigens constitute New Zealand's FMD Vaccine Bank. The vaccine antigen is stored in England, and is immediately available for manufacture.

Outcome 3: People - Healthy New Zealanders.

Intermediate Outcome 3.1:  Safe and suitable food for New Zealanders.

State Indicators:

• Number, type and impact of food borne illnesses in New Zealand.
• Level of non-compliance with New Zealand food standards.

The management of public health risks associated with food and food-related products contributes not just to public health outcomes, but to New Zealand's international reputation as a safe and suitable food producer.

• We improved safety and suitability of food and food-related products by supporting a wide variety of pre-market safety assessments by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) of products for inclusion in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.
• To inform and involve consumers we developed a reviewed membership of the Consumer Forum and also an extensive communications programme including targeted communications to Pacific Island communities, vulnerable populations and Marae food preparation.
• We developed, maintained, and reviewed standards and programmes addressing food safety and suitability issues in a number of areas. We helped develop and amend the labelling and composition standards within the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code by submissions on all FSANZ preliminary and draft assessment reports, representation on standards development advisory groups and expert panels, identifying research necessary to ensure New Zealand's stance is appropriately reflected and close liaison and consultation with FSANZ. We have been incorporating the dairy sector into the Animal Products Act, developed and consulted on the Wine Act Regulations, and put into effect the Shellfish Regulatory Control Scheme. We are currently developing the draft standards and technical criteria for Food Control Plans and Food Handler Guidance under the Domestic Food Review. We reviewed the BSE Import Measure and consulted on a proposed standard. We also established projects under the Imported Food Review and drafted a high level design of the new imported food regime.
• To consistently apply the risk management framework we progressed understanding and implementation of the NZFSA risk management framework throughout the authority and participated in cross-MAF forums which harmonise organisation-wide approaches. We contributed to the FAO/WHO Manual on the Framework for Food Safety Risk Analysis, incorporating the NZFSA approach within an international document as a world resource.
• We pursued consistent compliance throughout New Zealand through our Internal Compliance Investigation Group review and dual audit process, a risk targeted internal audit and system audits, International Standards Organisation (ISO) evaluation and verified accreditation programme, targeted training and awareness activities, and further progress in the development of compliance measures.
• We reflected consumer interests in food-related activities by specifically encouraging consumer input and participation in our activities. We did this through workshops and comprehensive communication about Domestic Food Review consultation, the Consumer Forum, and consumer participation on the Food Safety Advisory Board.

Intermediate Outcome 3.2: Reduced impacts on human health and wellness from biosecurity pests and pest management activities.

State indicators:

• Incidence of disease and adverse health effects in humans caused by biosecurity pests.
• Health effects from biosecurity activities.
• Impact of harmful biosecurity pests on the quality of New Zealand's recreational and cultural use and experience of the environment.

Protecting human health, like protecting the economy and environment, is an important biosecurity outcome. Biosecurity activities contribute to human health and our enjoyment of the natural environment, but MAF also recognises the impact biosecurity actions such as aerial spraying and the use of poisons to control possums can have on people's lifestyles.

• We improved early detection and identification of serious pests and diseases across the biosecurity spectrum enabling early assessment of measures to prevent their establishment in New Zealand.
• We improved our response preparedness and contingency planning for new incursions to enable early and effective eradication and control of serious pests and diseases entering New Zealand.
• As part of our whole-of-system biosecurity role, we have continued to develop leadership capacity and establish a national leadership role for pest management to protect the health of New Zealanders from zoonotic and pest-borne diseases and from venomous species.
• We enhanced compliance with biosecurity legislation through improved communication, auditing and enforcement activities.
• Our work toward ensuring the public has a greater understanding and appreciation of the importance of biosecurity to New Zealand through effective communication was illustrated in our public awareness programme.

Case Study: Controlling our Imports - Implementing the Imported Food Review As a result of the Strategic Review of Regulatory Arrangements Controlling the Importation of Foods and Food-Related Products into New Zealand, we have been developing a substantial work programme to ensure controls on imported food and food-related products are effective and efficient, and are based on sound risk management. The work programme includes developing and assessing approaches to risk profiling of all imports, setting appropriate standards to manage identified risks, systems and controls for assuring compliance, and delivering import clearance and approval services. Implementation of the new imported food regime will begin in mid 2007.

Case Study: Co-ordinating our Approach - National Centre for Biosecurity and Infectious Disease, Wallaceville The research campus in Wallaceville, Upper Hutt has been part of MAF history for over 100 years. In mid-2006 we purchased part of the site - previously owned by CRIs - to enable development of the new National Centre for Biosecurity and Infectious Disease. The site's facilities will be shared with the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR), AgResearch and AgriQuality Ltd. It will provide a centralised co-ordination and emergency response centre for disease outbreaks, biosecurity investigations and chemical and biological threats and events. The development will enable our Investigation and Diagnostic Centre currently at the site to be linked with the lab-based biosecurity functions of the three other important groups, and will provide ESR with access to MAF's laboratories.

Outcome 4: Sustainable management of natural resources - management of natural resources to meet the sustainable economic, environmental and cultural values, aspirations and obligations of New Zealanders.

 Intermediate Outcome 4.1: Sustainability of agricultural, food and forestry-related land, biological and water resource use.

State Indicators:

• Rates of erosion and degradation of New Zealand's soil resources.
• Sustainability of New Zealand's allocation and management of freshwater resources.
• Freshwater quality.
• Sustainability of New Zealand's biological resource.

Maintaining the ability of soils, water and gene stocks to support production and maintaining community confidence are fundamental to the ongoing viability of the sectors. Achieving best practice in terms of environmental and animal welfare management is required to meet the expectations of society and of consumers in particular. Additionally, the pursuit of best practice in all aspects of the supply chain - "paddock to plate" and "forest to furniture" - will enhance New Zealand's product image, market access, market advantage and ability to earn premiums.

• Our policy initiatives aimed to maximise the shared benefits and minimise the trade-offs between economic growth, environmental management and social and cultural aspirations. Our work on climate change policy included the objective of improving the efficiency of farming systems to enhance productivity while reducing emissions. Similarly, our work on water policy under the Sustainable Water Programme of Action is directed at improving water use and minimising the detrimental impacts of land use on water quality.
• Progress was made in establishing a sustainable development framework and improving and sharing our understanding of the drivers of, and impediments to, the implementation of economically profitable sustainable development. We did this through assessing the conceptual frameworks and principles applying to sustainable development in the sectors and the sectors' relationship to the biophysical environment. This contributed to the project plan for the sustainable development flagship project, which, in part, focuses on how economic growth and environmental quality can be harmonised both in domestic policy and in international trade.
• We have positioned New Zealand internationally as a leader in sustainable development, using and contributing innovation and new technologies. Our participation in the Pastoral Green House Gas Research Consortia to research and develop technologies and systems contributed to improving the economic and environmental performance of agriculture. We have also worked with OECD to showcase New Zealand's sustainable agriculture credentials while feeding into the OECD's review of our environmental performance.
• We identified and developed responses to a range of sustainability "hot spot" issues. We convened a working group of MAF, regional council, fertiliser industry and agriculture sector interests to address issues associated with cadmium contamination of soils. We also undertook work in relation to the use of methyl bromide, hi-cane, and contaminated sheep dip sites.
• To develop national land and water quality and allocation frameworks integrating economic, environmental, cultural and social outcomes we jointly led the Water Programme of Action with the Ministry for the Environment (MfE). This work set the scene for a major engagement with the sectors, regional councils, Māori and other interest groups in relation to a regulatory and voluntary approach to improving water quality and management.

Intermediate Outcome 4.2: Protection from biosecurity pests of the economic, environmental, recreational and cultural values and benefits associated with land, biological and water environments.

State Indicators:

• Number of species, terrestrial and aquatic sites and environments threatened by biosecurity pests.
• Number of species, terrestrial and aquatic sites and environments being protected by biosecurity programmes.

MAF has the leadership, co-ordination and major operational role in safeguarding New Zealand's biologically-based economy and its biodiversity from biosecurity risks. We work with the other biosecurity agencies - DOC and the Ministry of Health (MoH) - to implement New Zealand's Biosecurity Strategy.

• We improved the effectiveness of risk analyses and accounted for economic, environmental, social and cultural values by developing a new risk analysis framework. It aims to ensure stakeholders, risk analysts and decision-makers can be confident in the development of recommendations on the level of protection required to manage risks posed by pests and diseases. We have also been developing a common, principles-based framework to support our biosecurity decision-making and an implementation plan to ensure it is applied consistently and efficiently. The framework aims to be applicable to all of our biosecurity interventions and useable by all staff and biosecurity decision-makers.
• We improved early detection and identification of serious pests and diseases across the biosecurity spectrum enabling early assessment of measures to prevent their establishment in New Zealand.
• We improved our response preparedness and contingency planning for new incursions to enable early and effective eradication and control of serious pests and diseases entering New Zealand.
• As part of our whole-of-system biosecurity role, we have continued to develop leadership capacity and establish a national leadership role for pest management.
• We enhanced compliance with biosecurity legislation through improved communication, auditing and enforcement activities.
• Our work toward ensuring the public has a greater understanding and appreciation of the importance of biosecurity to New Zealand through effective communication was illustrated in our public awareness programme.

Intermediate Outcome 4.3: Protection of Māori biologically-based economic resources.

State Indicator:

• Reduced damage to animal, plant and seafood resources of economic significance to Māori caused by biosecurity pests.

Māori own substantial biological and land-based resources in the agriculture, forestry and seafood sectors which are critical for Māori economic development. These resources are subject to biosecurity risks and MAF works with Māori to strengthen biosecurity protection for these resources. Those elements of the biosecurity programme designed to protect the primary industries also protect Māori economic interests.

• See Intermediate Outcome 4.4, below.

Intermediate Outcome 4.4: Protection of Māori biologically-based cultural resources.

State Indicator:

• Reduced damage to Māori biologically-based cultural resources caused by biosecurity pests.

The biosecurity programme needs to reflect the protection of Māori cultural values as they relate to indigenous flora and fauna of cultural, as opposed to economic, importance to Māori. The initial focus is on developing and enhancing relationships and networks to ensure the biosecurity programme is responsive to the needs of Māori and consultation processes are fully developed before major biosecurity decisions are made.

• To enhance working relationships, and ensure networks are developed, with appropriate Māori groups on issues relating to biosecurity we engaged with Māori groups on the development of a Biosecurity Science Strategy and also, when appropriate, for specific incursion responses. We have enhanced our working relationships and developed our networks on a contextual framework outlined below:
  • Education: To assist Māori in understanding biosecurity pests and risks, we met with Iwi in key regions, such as Ngati Whatua ki Orakei, to share information and provide "hands on" experience of biosecurity risks. We provided biosecurity information online and produced articles in biosecurity publications on issues affecting Māori and the "Māori World View".
  • Direct Engagement: Māori engagement has been at two levels - input into developing policy and strategies on pest management/eradication options and dealing with incursions at an operational level. These included didymo in the South Island, sea squirt in Auckland and Fire Ants in Napier. We provided follow-up engagement by mailing out progress reports to key people, particularly in the incursion affected areas. Engagement in policy work such as the Water Programme of Action and the Land Access programmes was ensured through our Māori Strategy Group's participation in this work.
  • Collaboration: Working with Iwi representation and Māori in central government agencies took place at two levels - with Iwi and Māori technical advisors and with Māori in the public sector. Māori with cultural knowledge and Māori with appropriate technical skills able to use cultural knowledge in western sciences were engaged in workshops to develop overarching biosecurity strategies. We worked collaboratively with other agencies in a number of work programmes - mainly with environmental agencies and their Māori representatives. We worked with Te Puni Kōkiri and MfE in the Water Programme of Action. Other examples included the Intellectual Property Rights Waitangi claim 262, a Biosecurity Science Strategy, and an operational marine science value mapping project.

Case Study: Maintaining our Resources - Sustainable Water Programme of Action The Sustainable Water Programme of Action aims to address the issues of declining water quality and increasing demand for water. One way it is doing this is by developing initiatives to assist regional councils to improve New Zealand's water management. The process is an interdepartmental effort, co-led by MAF and the Ministry for the Environment. Our role in the Programme has been both to ensure that the interests of the agriculture sector and its contribution to New Zealand are considered in the development of strategies, while also taking into account broader environmental and social concerns around the relationships between land-use and water. In 2005/06 we developed a Cabinet Paper with a proposed package of actions to help address the issues, and once approved in April 2006, we began working with other agencies to develop the package itself.

Case Study: Managing Incursions - Fall Webworm and Painted Apple Moth Eradications In March 2006, we successfully managed the eradication of both the fall webworm (FWW) and the painted apple moth (PAM) in Auckland. PAM was eradicated in Mt Wellington soon after its discovery there, but persisted and spread in West Auckland. While targeted aerial spraying caused a decline in numbers, in August 2002 an enlarged programme was approved to significantly intensify eradication efforts. The successful eradication avoided an economic impact estimated at between $58 million to $356 million over 20 years. Eradication of FWW was first due to be announced in February 2005, until the discovery of a male moth six weeks beforehand near where the original population had been found in March 2003. Four more male moths were trapped and were all determined to most likely be of Japanese origin. The subsequent eradication avoided an economic impact estimated at between $19 to $83 million over 20 years.

Case Study: Facilitating Maori Perspectives - Identifying Culturally Significant Plant Species We believe that incorporating Māori interests in biosecurity - the protection, sustainability, and management of taonga for present and future generations - is pivotal to any effective relationship between Māori and MAF. "Protecting Māori biologically-based economic and cultural resources from pests and diseases" is one of the key priorities for our Māori Strategy Unit. The unit and our biosecurity group have been working together to identify indigenous plant species of cultural significance to Māori and assess the impacts of introduced pests on those species. We established an external Māori Reference Group to help identify these species and encouraged them to develop their own process, to ensure a level of ownership was generated.

 

Contact for Enquiries

Strategy and Performance Group
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526, Wellington

Tel: +64 4 894 0100
Fax: +64 4 894 0738 Contact this person