7. Biosecurity
7.1 POH 040: Integrating considerations of risks to indigenous flora and fauna into biosecurity risk management decisions at the border
| Programme Title: | Integrating considerations of risks to indigenous flora and fauna into biosecurity risk management decisions at the border |
| Programme Leader: | Barbara Barratt |
| Institution: | AgResearch |
Summary
The goal was to develop procedures to enable a consistent approach to be taken to assessing risks to indigenous flora and fauna and to integrating consideration of these risks into the management of biosecurity risks at the border. This was done by characterising the types of situations where risks to indigenous flora and fauna need to be considered as part of the management of biosecurity risks at the border; documenting and evaluating current practices in New Zealand and overseas; using this information, recommending best practise procedures for New Zealand; identifying significant knowledge gaps and research to address these gaps.
Consistency in approach by departments with responsibility for IHS preparation in integrating consideration of risks to indigenous flora and fauna was found in meeting the requirements of the Biosecurity Act, but not in some aspects of the methodology by which this is implemented. Best practice recommendations emphasised the need for IPTs to determine the scale of risk analysis required (routine or non-routine), appoint technical advisory expertise when required, and to ensure that explanatory pest categorisation is documented for public input. It was strongly recommended that risk goods of non-biological origin representing pathways for unspecified pests should be treated prophylactically pre-export using effective methods to control all biological contaminants. Research objectives aimed at improving aspects of risk identification, assessments, management and communication were proposed.
Background
The goal of this project was the development of procedures, including criteria and methodologies, to enable a consistent approach to be taken to assessing risks to indigenous flora and fauna and to integrating consideration of these risks into the management of biosecurity risks at the border.
The Biosecurity Act 1993, Section 22 (5) requires that Chief Technical Officers (CTOs) have regard to "the nature and possible effect on ..... the New Zealand environment ..... of any organisms that goods of the kind or description specified in the import health standard may bring into New Zealand." CTOs demonstrate their regard to these effects by carrying out risk assessments from which import health standards are then prepared. Guidelines are required to ensure that departments take a consistent approach to assessing environmental risks, and in particular risks to indigenous flora and fauna. This area has been identified in a previous report: "A Proposed Framework for the Management of Biosecurity Risks at the New Zealand Border" as a priority for further work.
Approach & Outcomes
Situations where risk to indigenous flora and fauna needs to be considered as part of the management of biosecurity risks at the border were characterised, and current practices in considering these in New Zealand and overseas were documented. The adequacy and consistency of current practices in considering risks to indigenous flora and fauna New Zealand were evaluated using analysis of case studies and consultation with departments. Best practice procedures were recommended, significant knowledge gaps were identified, and a programme of further work to address these was proposed.
Current practices in New Zealand were consistent in areas that relate to IHS preparation and consideration of risk to indigenous flora and fauna from imported goods using public and stakeholder participation. Inconsistency between departments was found in some of the methods by which environmental risk analysis is carried out, specifically the method of environmental risk identification and assessment; the amount of information available upon which informed stakeholder and public input is based; the stages of the process where there is an opportunity for environmental risk to be debated; the degree to which expert advice is sought on risks to indigenous flora and fauna. Given the distinction between risk goods that represent pathways for pests which can be reasonably anticipated and those that cannot, it was accepted that some inconsistency in approach was justified.
Best practice recommendations were made which can be briefly summarised as follows. In planning a risk analysis or IHS, an interdepartmental project team (IPT) should determine whether a routine (technically less complex) or non-routine (potentially significant environmental risks apparent) process should be followed. Representatives from DOC and MfE should be included for specific advice when appropriate, and provision should be made for establishment of technical committees as and when appropriate. For risk goods that constitute a non-predictable pathway for pests, a database of pests that have been intercepted with similar risk goods should be available for the IPT and technical committees, to assist in the identification of potential key pests. All identified pests should be categorised according to the nature of the threat(s) they represent (environmental, economic, health etc.) and for pests of plants/plant products, the reason for their pest group categorisation should be fully documented in draft risk analyses and IHSs available for stakeholder and public comment. The IPT and appropriate technical committees should systematically analyse each risk including the probability of incursion, magnitude of impact and determination of the appropriate level of protection. If environmental risks have been identified, it is recommended that the IPT be advised by an appropriate technical committee on the effectiveness of treatments in reducing risk to acceptable levels. It was strongly recommended that risk goods of non-biological origin which represent pathways for unspecified pests should be treated prophylactically in the exporting country using methods which achieve 100 percent control of all possible biological contaminants. The IPT and technical committees should consult proactively with stakeholders and specialists in environmental science and seek peer review of their reports and recommendations. Where there is scientific doubt, a precautionary approach should be taken to risk management as far as possible.
Gaps in knowledge were identified and research objectives aimed at addressing these were proposed. Priorities for research were: improve understanding of the range, identity and origin of biosecurity pests which have, or could enter New Zealand which represent a threat to indigenous flora and fauna; development of tools to assist in risk assessment; evaluation of the efficacy of existing, and development of novel treatment measures for use pre-export and at the border for a representative range of organisms known to accompany risk goods; and optimisation of feedback from the risk communication process by investigating public and stakeholder perceptions and attitudes towards risk, especially in cases of scientific uncertainty.
Contact for Enquiries
Farm Monitoring Programme Manager
Monitoring and Evaluation
MAF Policy
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0623
Fax: +64 4 894 0741
Contact this person
