Applying for general release or release with controls
- Preparing to make an application
- Selection of a biological control agent
- Pre-application consultation
- Consultation with EPA NZ
- Consultation with Department of Conservation
- Consultation with Iwi and Maori organisations
- Consultation with other organisations
- Information required
- Taxonomy and biology
- Natural host range
- Biotypes
- Climatic/environmental suitability
- Previous use as a biological control agent, and efficacy in that use
- Performance of related agents
- Identification and assessment of risks, costs and benefits
- Risks and costs
- Benefits and cost-benefit analysis
- Release with Controls
- Completing the application forms
- Sections 1 to 4
- Section 5
- Sections 6 and 7
- Post-application processes
- References
Preparing to make an application
The following guidance is given for the development and preparation of an application to the EPA to import for release, or release from containment, or release with controls predators, parasitoids, herbivores or pathogens for the purpose of biological control of a plant, animal or disease. This advice does not apply to genetically modified new organisms, or to introduction of a new organism under emergency, or to the introduction of any material for medical or veterinary purposes.
In the course of introducing a new biological control agent, the applicant may need to import the organism into containment for further evaluation of efficacy of the biological control agent, and host range specificity testing.
In order to determine whether the organism proposed for introduction is
indeed a new organism, applicants should refer to the EPA web page
The steps in the process of applying for approval to introduce a new
biological control agent for general release (with and without controls) are as
follows:
As much as the content of the proposal is important, it is the quality of the
process by which the application is prepared that will give the EPA
confidence that the applicant has addressed all relevant factors. Gaining that
confidence is likely to reduce statutory delays and ensure the rapid evaluation of the
proposal. For that reason, it is important for applicants to be thorough, frank,
open and inclusive when assembling the information that EPA
requires. The first step in preparing an application should be to
contact an EPA New Organisms Advisor [http://www.epa.govt.nz/Contact-us/Pages/Contact-us.aspx]
and develop a dialogue.
For most applications to import a new organism the primary concern is the
risk that the organism will form an unwanted population in New Zealand, that
will have adverse environmental effects.
Clause 33 of the Methodology states:
In accordance with clause 33 of the Methodology, the Authority is likely to
be more cautious and risk averse according to the extent to which these risk
characteristics exist.
New organisms released as biological control agents will usually exhibit all
of these characteristics because that is what the applicant intends. To become
successful, the agent must establish, populations must be self-sustaining, and
biological control agents must spread to attack the host in its entire range. In
considering risks for biological control agents, the EPA
have to balance the acceptable characteristics intended for a beneficial
biological control outcome with those risks which relate to unintended outcomes.
Although it is discussed briefly
elsewhere,
it is beyond the scope of this document to review how to select
organisms to be biological control agents for pests, diseases or weeds except as
these issues influence risk assessment and the application process.
Consultation is the continuous dialogue that takes place between an applicant
and those who might have an opinion about the proposal, both for and against.
Consultation does not mean negotiating consensus or agreement, but does mean:
Public participation and consultation are key requirements of the EPA process.
An open and transparent consultation process is likely to
expedite the consideration of an application by reducing interactions between
the applicant, the EPA, and/or potential submitters.
Effective consultation before and during the application process, is likely
to reduce the level of opposition to the application, or if not, it will better
inform the process. Applicants are therefore advised to identify all those with
a significant interest in the outcome in the application at the outset, and
enter into dialogue at an early stage of project development. This should
include organisations that are expected to oppose the concept as well as likely
supporters.
The key relationship is with
EPA staff [http://www.epa.govt.nz/Contact-us/Pages/Contact-us.aspx].
Once you have confirmed that an application is pending, you will
be assigned a New Organisms Advisor who will facilitate the application process.
The EPA Maori Policy and Operations team will provide advice on consultation with Maori and developing
dialogue with Iwi and Maori organisations.
Economic analysis of the
benefits and costs
of the proposed project is vital to a successful application. However, the
nature and extent of that analysis will vary from case to case depending on the
quality of the economic data available for analysis. There is little value in
undertaking exhaustive analysis if the base data are poor or unreliable because
the conclusions will be questionable. Consult EPA staff to discuss
the level of analysis that is appropriate to the quantity and quality of the
data available.
Strong evidence of the importance of the pest and the potential impact of the
proposed biological control agents are powerful components of an application. If
adequate information does not already exist, applicants should consider
commissioning research in this area before the application is completed.
The Department of Conservation (DOC) administers legislation that has direct
relevance to the application of biological control in New Zealand. The
Conservation Act 1987 was developed to promote the conservation of New Zealand's
natural resources including management for conservation purposes of all land and
natural resources held under the Act. The National Parks Act 1980 directs to
preserve native plants and animals and remove introduced ones from National
Parks, as far as is possible, and to preserve soil, water and forest
conservation values. Similarly, the Reserves Act 1977 seeks the preservation of
representative natural ecosystems or landscapes and the survival of indigenous
species of flora and fauna, both rare and commonplace. DOC is also charged with
safe-guarding some absolutely protected wildlife throughout New Zealand under
the Wildlife Act 1953. Under these statutes DOC has an active role in protecting
New Zealand's unique biota and ecosystems, and the provision of recreational
opportunities.
Section 58 of the HSNO Act specifies that the Authority:
Consequently, DOC needs to advise the Authority so that possible impacts on
the New Zealand environment, flora or fauna (directly or indirectly) which are
likely to result from the introduction of a new organism are fully considered.
DOC is likely to have particular concerns where the biological control agent
will come into intimate contact with native ecosystems, for example when the
target is a pest of indigenous landscapes, or the biological control agents are
likely to be abundant and ubiquitous. Conversely, DOC is likely to have less
concern where agents can be shown to be restricted to modified habits such as
agricultural landscapes.
Applicants should consult with DOC as early as possible as any issues raised
may be complex.
The HSNO Act requires the EPA to make informed decisions in relation to
the interests of Maori, and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide
sufficient information to make that decision. Experience from recent
considerations suggests that most of the issues that concern Maori are the same
practical concerns as those of the wider population. However, these are often
cast in a context that is specific to Maori, and unfamiliar to the wider public.
Issues also arise that are specific to the Maori world view, and that view may
well vary from one iwi/hapu/whanau to another. In order to capture and address
these ideas to the satisfaction of the EPA it is essential to enter
into comprehensive consultation with Maori. Consultation must be carried out at
a national level unless a case can be made that the eventual distribution of the
control agent will be geographically limited.
The
Ministry for the Environment [http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/guidelines-tangata-whenua-dec03/html/page4.html]
has further useful information and discussion of what constitutes effective consultation.
As an example of how an iwi might view an application to introduce a
biological control agent, Table 3 indicates how Ngai Tahu structures
consideration of such a proposal against a series of cultural values. In
addressing these, Ngai Tahu staff would consider:
Another perspective on on consultation with Maori is
presented in the background information, along with a valuable table of
the types of issues that might arise at various stages of a project, and how to
address them.
There is no fixed method for consulting with Maori. The Te Herenga
network is a network of key contacts within the Maori community who are involved
in environmental issues and who potentially have an interest in the HSNO Act. In
earlier applications to ERMA New Zealand two distinctly different methods have
been employed. One applicant employed a consultant to convene five regional hui
nationwide to discuss the issues surrounding biological control and the proposal
at hand face to face. A wide range of iwi/hapu/whanau/organisations within the
network were invited to attend. The opinions voiced at those hui were summarised
and presented to the ERMA New Zealand as the results of a nationwide consultation
process. Several other applicants wrote to all entities of the Te Herenga
network and provided information about biological control, and about the
proposed control agents. Correspondents were invited to enter into dialogue with
the applicant within 6 weeks. Further correspondence and phone conversations
followed, and the opinions voiced were presented to ERMA New Zealand as the
product of nationwide consultation. Although fundamentally different in
approach, ERMA New Zealand considered both to be adequate methods.
Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao is the statutory Maori advisory committee to the EPA.
Kaupapa Kura Taiao is the Maori Unit within the Agency charged with providing
the Authority with Maori advice on specific applications and is also responsible
for implementing the Maori participation programmes.
The EPA staff are available to assist applicants in the design and implementation of a consultation strategy,
and applicants are advised to make contact on this at an early stage.
Applicants are advised to inform other organisations and stakeholders of their
intention to apply for the introduction of a biological control agent, and
should seek input to assist in the assessment of risks and benefits. It is
important to gain perspectives from these organisations and in particular those
that are likely to oppose an introduction. The applicant should develop a list
of such organisations and stakeholders on a case-by-case basis, but this could
include:
The EPA requires the applicant to provide comprehensive information
about the identity, biology and ecology of the biological control agent, so that
it can adequately analyse the risks, costs and benefits associated with an
application.
The EPA must be certain that the species proposed for release has been,
and can be accurately identified. This normally requires the applicant to
provide a unique and unequivocal Latin binomial (with authority and date) for
any new organism for which an application is received, and communication
confirming that the agent has been assigned to that taxon. Any known variation
within the species should be presented in the application. Formal classification
is not essential as long as the applicant can provide evidence from recognised
authorities to satisfy the EPA that the species is a unique entity. For
example, the HSNO Committee approved release of the un-described boneseed
leaf roller, Tortrix sensu lato sp. "chrysanthemoides".
Authority names for species can be found in a variety of sources, including
on the internet. For example:
New organisms alter the relationships within in food webs through herbivory,
competition, predation, parasitism. Biological control agents with a narrow host
range are likely to alter food web relationships in a new environment less than
biological control agents with a wider range, and so pose less risk of adverse
environmental effects. The first step in assessing the environmental safety of a
biological control agent is therefore to determine the range of hosts attacked
by the proposed biological control agent in its natural host range.
The sources for information about the taxonomy, biology and distribution of
species are large and diverse. There are regions of the world, such as Europe,
where the biota is well-known and well-documented. Information may be available
from published accounts and national databases. Species may be well-known in the
scientific literature, perhaps through previous use as a biological control
agent, or in other studies. Free web search engines such as
Google Scholar [http://scholar.google.com]
may access these papers. Subscriber
web search engines and specialist sources such as the 'Web of Science' or 'Web
of Knowledge' may reveal these and related references. CAB Abstracts is probably
the leading English language abstracting service for agricultural
literature.
Targets for biological control often originate from regions where the flora
and fauna are poorly known and recorded. In this case the applicant must resort
to the primary sources such as individual scientists in the region, collections,
or to undertake or contract research in the native range in order to elicit
the information that the EPA requires to make an informed
determination.
The biological characteristics of populations vary. Where variation expresses
itself as a consistent and measurable difference between populations, these can
sometimes be called biotypes � a subset of individuals that are morphologically
similar to but physiologically different from other members of the species.
Form, strain, ecotype or variant are similar terms, and the difference between a
biotype and a sub-species is not always clear.
Biological control agents introduced to a new country are normally collected
in the home range of the pest from one or a small range of source populations.
This limited gene pool becomes the founding population for a wide range of
environmental conditions in the new environment. Being aware of the variation
that exists within a species, and selecting the appropriate source of the
control agent can be important to maximising the chance that the control agent
will succeed in its new environment, and that its host range can be predicted
accurately.
In biological control, there can be biotypes for host range, environmental
limits, phenology, and even in breeding systems. A new strain of Microctonus
aethiopoides was released in New Zealand recently for the control of clover root
weevil. See
Biocontrol of clover root weevil [http://www.epa.govt.nz/new-organisms/popular-no-topics/Pages/biocontrol-of-clover-root-weevil.aspx].
A Moroccan biotype of the species had been released in New Zealand years
earlier to control the related Sitona discoideus, but this strain did not
effectively attack the clover root weevil. Other biotypes in Europe attacked the
weevil, but research showed mating between the two biotypes produced hybrids
with poor efficacy against target hosts, and given that the Moroccan biotype
attacked several native weevil genera in New Zealand, there were serious
reservations about introducing the European biotype. Concerns were overcome with
the identification of a parthenogenetic strain of European M. aethiopoides from
Ireland, which has little risk of hybridisation, and a narrower host range than
the Moroccan biotype (Goldson et al. 2003, Gerard et al. 2006, McNeill et al. 2006.
Strain differences may explain the attack of Cydia succedana (a control agent
for gorse) on Lotus when it was released in New Zealand, a phenomenon that was
not predicted by safety-testing (Fowler et al. 2003). It is now acknowledged
good practice in New Zealand to introduce control agents for weeds from a
population or biotype equivalent to that used for safety-testing research.
Knowledge about the geographic and altitudinal distribution of a control agent
in its region of origin may define the climatic limits within which the organism
can live and reproduce. Successful biological control requires the introduced
control agent to establish, and then to thrive sufficiently to control the
target pest. The likelihood of both is advanced by selecting the founding
population in the home range of the pest from a climate closely matching the
climate (temperature and rainfall patterns) into which the agent will be
released. Photoperiod may provide important cues that synchronise the life
histories of agent and target, so the latitude of the source may also be
important.
Selecting the correct source may be straight forward if the target pest
occupies a limited geographical range in New Zealand. However, if the target is
widespread then (given New Zealand's wide latitudinal range and varied climates)
selection of the correct source may be difficult. Does a single population have
a sufficient range of traits to perform at its best in a range of climates? Is
the agent sufficiently physiologically plastic to quickly adapt to a wide range
of climates? Are populations in different regions adapted to local climates? If
this is the case, then founding populations would have to be sourced from more
than one climate to succeed across the range of environments present in New
Zealand. This approach is complicated by the possibility of differing host range
between agent populations in the native range (see above).
There is little generalised theory to assist biological control practitioners
in making these decisions, and judgments about how many populations should be
sourced and from where must be made on a case by case basis, using information
sources such as those outlined above.
While temperature is probably the dominant driver in determining the size
that populations can attain, rainfall can be a determinant of initial
establishment. Gorse spider mites sourced from southern England were introduced
to New Zealand to attack gorse in 1988 (Hill et al. 1989). Following release it
was noted that mites could not establish in western and northern areas of New
Zealand, and this was attributed to poor adaptation to heavy rainfall. Further
strains of mites were introduced from the wet, northwest coast of Spain and
Portugal, and gorse spider mite subsequently established throughout New Zealand
(Hill et al. 1993).
Previous use as a control agent elsewhere in the world will be one of the best
predictors of the likely behaviour of a control agent on release in New Zealand.
A world catalogue of control agents for weeds and their targets current to 1996
has been published by Julien et al. (1999), and information about all
programmes can be accessed from this catalogue. Information about other
biological control programmes is more dispersed. A database of projects
conducted in New Zealand is under construction for this site. Literature and
unpublished material produced in the past 20 years are likely to be accessible
via web search engines, but the search results will not be comprehensive.
Information from earlier documents will need to accessed via long-term
abstracting services such as CAB Abstracts or BIOSIS (see above) or through CAB
regional reviews such as Greathead (1971), Kelleher and Hulme (1984) and
Cameron et al. (1989), or through primary published sources.
Thompson and Simmonds (1964-1965) and Herting and Simmonds (1972) have published catalogues of the
parasites and predators of the arthropods of the world.
Related organisms tend to have similar biological characteristics, although this
is not universally true. Nevertheless, the behaviour and performance of
congeneric species elsewhere may provide insights into the likely consequences
of release of a new species in New Zealand. The possible sources for such
information are discussed above.
Risk, cost and benefit analysis forms the core of the data upon which the
Authority will decide whether or not to approve an application. Risks, costs and
benefits to the environment may arise both directly from the introduction of
individuals of a new organism and indirectly from their effects on ecosystem
relationships (including human activities). The applicant must provide
sufficient evidence to enable the Authority to make a decision.
All foreseeable and reasonable effects of the proposal must be identified
systematically to ensure that nothing is left unconsidered. Those that are
considered likely to have significant effect must then be assessed. The
applicant must explain how the risk identification was conducted, and explain
the basis on which some risks were eliminated as insignificant.
Risk is assessed by combining estimates of
likelihood and consequence. Both the magnitude and probability of the adverse
effect need to be described for a risk to be properly assessed. In some cases,
the likelihood or probability may depend on a complex pathway between the source
of the risk and the adverse effect. Risks and costs should be quantified where
possible, in either monetary or non-monetary terms. However, quantitative
analysis is unlikely to be helpful if there is little data to apply to the
problem, if the effect is likely to be highly variable, or where there is
uncertainty about the likelihood of the effect occurring. On the other hand, if
the potential risk or cost is likely to be large and likely, data should be
sought to quantify that risk.
The central issue for every application to introduce a biological control
agent will be the risk, and consequences of attack on native and valued
introduced fauna and flora. Other effects directly associated with the
introduction of a population of the biological control agent might be
competition with, or displacement of, resident species, or the effect on
predators or alternate hosts. Indirect effects of introducing the biological
control agent might include changes in the populations of other species through
food webs or tri-trophic effects. Other indirect effects may result from the
suppression of the host, for example land instability following weed control.
Applicants should identify risks, cost and benefits de novo for each proposed agent.
As with risks and costs, the importance of the benefits is a function of the
magnitude of the benefits and the likelihood that those benefits will be
achieved. Monetary benefits accrue from reduction in control costs and/or
increase in productivity.
The magnitude of benefits must be a marginal estimate, in other words, what
is the value of the improvement over and above the current scenario? The
likelihood of achieving those benefits is dependent on the maximum predicted
efficacy of the biological control agent, and the frequency (spatially or
temporally) with which those benefits will accrue.
Cost-benefit analysis can be a useful way of summarising the beneficial
effects of a biological control agent over time where there is good information
about the expected effects of the biological control agent. Where cost-benefit
analysis is used, the expected benefits will commonly be discounted over time,
so that short-term benefits are given greater weight than long-term benefits.
The discount rate will have a significant effect on the present value of future
benefits of biological control agents because in most cases there will be a long
lead time before benefits are fully realised, and it may also be a long time
before any effect will be observed.
This approach is not mandatory, as a reliable analysis relies heavily on good
data and assumptions. Where these are not available, discussion of the benefits
under various scenarios is sufficient. Non-monetary benefits can also be
captured in this way.
It is advisable to consult the EPA, or submit a draft before
submitting the application to ensure that risk, cost and benefit analysis is
adequate.
The HSNO Act was amended in 2003 to include an option for applicants, where
appropriate, to apply for conditional release, or release with controls. If such an approval is given,
then the release is subject to controls which are intended to manage risk.
If an applicant is using previous applications as a guideline, be aware that
until 2003 applicants could only choose to apply for fully contained approvals
(including field trials) or full (unconditional) releases with no controls. The
release with controls approvals are intended to fill the gap between
containment and full (unconditional) release approvals by allowing controls to
be imposed on how new organisms are used.
An applicant may wish to seek a release with controls for a variety of reasons.
If the applicant chooses to propose controls in a release with controls
application for a new organism, the HSNO Committee can then impose any type of controls it
considers appropriate to manage risks (see section 38D). In making its decision the HSNO Committee will
take account of the controls it intends to impose in deciding whether the
organism:
The
duration of the controls for a conditional release [http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0030/latest/DLM383543.html]
may be finite, if the HSNO Committee considers that an expiry date is warranted. Alternatively, if
considered appropriate, an approval can be set in perpetuity. If the conditional
release approval is set to expire, which is unlikely for a biological control
agent, depending on the control it must be possible to recovery or destroy the
organisms. In this case the HSNO Committee will set conditions that ensure that all
new organisms for which a release with controls approval has been granted can be
identified and located at the time of expiry. This will include heritable
material viable at the expiry of an approval. If the EPA cannot be
assured that all organisms can be located, then no approval will be given.
In the case of a release with controls, the organism remains a "new organism" when
all controls have expired, and a new HSNO approval would be needed for its
continued use. However, it is possible to set controls 'in perpetuity'.
Here you will find information and helpful links to assist you to complete the EPA application form for the introduction and release of a new
organism as a biological control agent:
As early as possible in a biological control programme, potential applicants are strongly advised to enter into a dialogue with EPA staff to discuss the likely timeframe, the appropriate level and style of
consultation, and the type and breadth of data that will be required for a successful
application. It cannot be stressed strongly enough that early contact with the EPA will facilitate the process and avoid later delays if extra information is required.
Under
Popular new organism topics [http://www.epa.govt.nz/new-organisms/popular-no-topics/Pages/biological-control-agents.aspx]
you will find a list of biological control agents that have been approved, and the documentaion associated with them. It can be helpful to look at some examples of successful applications.
Also, information on biological control releases that have been made in the past can be found in
BCANZ [http://b3.net.nz/bcanz/]
where you can search either for species that have been introduced, or the targets of biological control introductions.
Guidance given here relates to the forms for
release applications [http://www.epa.govt.nz/new-organisms/find-application-form/all-applications/Pages/new-organism-release.aspx]
and release with controls [http://www.epa.govt.nz/new-organisms/find-application-form/all-applications/Pages/new-organism-release-with-controls.aspx]
applications as indicated.
Section 2.1 asks for a 'brief application description'. You are asked for a brief statement
about what you are applying to do. This statement will be used by the EPA as a short
stand-alone descriptor, and should be of the form "...seeks approval to import to release (or release from containment) ... for
the biological control of ...".
Section 2.2 asks for a plain English summary of what you want to do and why.
So here you would expand on the statement above and explain further about the
pest problem, current situation with management of the pest and how the introduction
of this biological control agent will improve the options for pest management.
There may be other aspects of the application that could be briefly covered here
in non-technical language.
Section 2.3 requires a more detailed and technical account of the aims of the release
in the context of the biological control programme, the environment into which it is intended to be released,
the anticipated spread of the organism and intended outcome of the release.
Section 3.1 requires the applicant to provide comprehensive information
about the identity, biology and ecology of the biological control agent, so that
it can adequately analyse the risks, costs and benefits associated with the
biological control agent.
The applicant must provide an unequivocal
identification of the biological control agent,
including the higher taxonomic description from class to genus, and specify any distinct
genotypes or strains involved.
Applicants should provide as much information as possible about the
biological characteristics of the organism, including:
Section 3.2 ask whether the organism is subject to other legislation. This is generally not applicable to biological control
organisms.
Here it is necessary to discuss whether there has been any interaction with Maori about the application
and if so, what the ourcomes of that engagement were. EPA should be consulted for advice in completing this section, but
there is useful guidance information on the EPA website
on Engaging with Maori for Applications to the EPA [http://www.epa.govt.nz/te-hautu/info-applicants/tips_engagement/Pages/default.aspx].
This is one of the most important sections of the application. In this section it is necessary to
outline the potential risks and costs of introducing the biological control agent (negative effects), and the
benefits of the release (positive effects). When considering risks, reference to
Section 36 Minimum Standards of HSNO is useful. So the applicant
needs to consider whether the biological control agent could cause significant displacement of
any native species within its natural habitat (e.g. via non-target parasitism, competition, predation,
hybridization etc.). The meaning of the word 'significant' in this context has not been defined, but
needs to be considered case-by-case.
The benefits of the proposed introduction are often not covered well by applicants, especially the
economic benefits. This is particularly difficult if the target is an environmental pest rather than
a pest in the productive sector. Benefits can include improved production, reduction in costs of
chemical control, safety to employees etc. It can be useful to consult similar successful application
that can be found on the EPA website.
When considering both risks, costs and benefits the form asks applicants to provide an indication of the
likelihood that each identified risk and benefit will be realized, and if it was, the magnitude of the
adverse/beneficial impact. This helps also to identify the costs. Also it is important to address in
this context is who will bear the risk and cost, and who will benefit.
Also to be considered are any adverse impacts on society and communities, human health issues that could result from the release
of the new organism, the cultural impacts, and NZ's international obligations (e.g. Convention on
Biological Diversity).
The full results and interpretation of any laboratory testing, such as host range testing that has
been carried out in containment should be given in this section, to support the risk assessment
in particular. Reports, publications etc. of such tests should be provided with the application along
with the results from stakeholder consultation.
Section 6B 6.4 is relevant to biological control agents. It provides for new organisms (excluding GMOs)
that can be shown to highly unlikely not to establish self-sustaining populations anywhere in
New Zealand, and that fully meet Section 36 Minimum Standards. This type of rapid assessment
has not been applied for or implemented to date for a biological control agent, but it is not inconceivable
that it could be in the future. For example, a biological control agent intended for glasshouse use, that
can be shown incapable of surviving outside of that environment, could qualify for rapid assessment,
as long as it also met all Minimum Standards.
All individual Microctonus aethiopoides being assessed for parthenogenesis should be derived
from or reared from Sitona lepidus collected in the field in Ireland. Each individual parasitoid
should be exposed to 30-40 Sitona Lepidus weevils for 48 hours in cages furnished with white
clover. All M. aethiopoides progeny derived from this exposure to S. lepidus should be female,
the gender having been determined by microscopic examination using the descriptions of
Loan 1975. Determination of parthenogenesis shall be verified for at least two consecutive
generations. Where parthenogenesis is determined in New Zealand, as opposed to overseas,
testing should be done in a containment facility registered according to the MAF/ERMA New
Zealand Standard 154.02.08.
The reason for the control relating to parthenogenesis is that previous research (Goldson et al. 2003) had shown that
hybridization between M. aethiopoides from Morocco, which was a sexually reproducing
biotype introduced to control Sitona discoideus, with other European strains, compromised
the efficacy of both biological control agents. So a parthenogenetic strain avoided this possibility. See
more information on this.
This section provides an opportunity for applicants to provide any further information that will assist with the application,
for example any ethical consideration. It is recommended that applicants discuss this with EPA staff
to see whether there is any relevant information that could be provided here.
After the application has been submitted and notified, the following steps take
place:
See the following EPA document:
What are the steps for processing an application? [http://www.epa.govt.nz/new-organisms/about/Pages/steps-processing-applications.aspx].
Cameron P.J., Hill R.L., Bain J. and Thomas W.P. (1989).
A review of biological control of invertebrate pests and weeds in New Zealand 1874-1987.
CAB International Wallingford, UK and DSIR, New Zealand.
Fowler S.V., Gourlay A.H., Hill R.L. and Withers T. (2003).
Safety in New Zealand weed biocontrol: a retrospective analysis of host-specificity testing and the predictability of impacts on non-target plants.
Pp. 265�270 in Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Canberra, Australia, 2003, J.M. Cullen, D.T. Briese, D.J. Kriticos, W.M. Lonsdale, L. Morin and J.K. Scott (Ed.).
Gerard P.J., McNeill M.R., Barratt B.I.P. and Whiteman S.A. (2006).
Rationale for release of the irish strain of Microctonus aethiopoides for biocontrol of clover root weevil.
New Zealand Plant Protection 59: 285-289.
Goldson S.L., McNeill M.R. and Proffitt J.R. (2003).
Negative effects of strain hybridisation on the biocontrol agent Microctonus aethiopoides.
New Zealand Plant Protection 57: 138-142.
Greathead D.J. (1971).
A review of biological control in the Ethiopian region.
Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control Technical Communication 5: 1-162.
Herting B. and Simmonds F.J. (1972).
A Catalogue of Parasites and Predators of Terrestrial Arthropods. Section A.
Host or prey/enemy. Vol. II. Homoptera. CIBC. 210 pp.
Hill R.L., Gourlay, A.H. and Wigley P. (1989).
The introduction of gorse spider mite Tetranychus lintearius for biological control of gorse.
Proceedings of the 42nd New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference: 137�139.
Hill R.L., Gourlay, A.H. and Winks, C.J. (1993).
Choosing gorse spider mite strains to improve establishment in different climates.
In: Proceedings of the 6th Australasian Grasslands Invertebrate Ecology Conference, R.A Prestidge (Ed.). AgResearch, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Julien, M. and Griffiths M.W. (1999).
Biological Control of Weeds. A World Catalogue of Agents and their Target Weeds.
CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 223 p.
Kelleher J.S. and Hulme M.A. (1984).
Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in Canada 1969-1980.
CAB, Farnham Common, UK. 410 pp.
McNeill M.R., Proffitt J.R., Gerard P.J. and Goldson S.L. (2006).
Collections of Microctonus aethipopoides Loan (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) from Ireland.
New Zealand Plant Protection 59: 290-296.
Thompson W.R. and Simmonds F.J. (1964-1965).
A Catalogue of the Parasites and Predators of Insect Pests.
Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Bucks, United Kingdom.
"When considering an application, the Authority must have regard to the extent
to which the following risk characteristics exist:
(a) Exposure to risk is involuntary
(b) The risk will persist overtime
(c) The risk is subject to uncontrollable spread and is likely to extend its
effects beyond the immediate location of incidence
(d) The potential adverse effects are irreversible
(e) The risk is not known or understood by the general public and there is
little experience or understanding of possible means of managing the potential
adverse effects."
Selection of a biological control agent
Pre-application consultation
Consultation with the EPA
Consultation with the Department of Conservation
"Shall consult with all departments or Crown entities notified of the
application in accordance with section 53 (4) of this Act and, where any
application is for approval to import, develop, field test, or release a new
organism, have particular regard to any submissions made by the Department of
Conservation."
Manager, Biosecurity Section
Research, Development & Improvement Division
Conservation House
PO Box 10-420, 18-32 Manners Street
Wellington 6011
Consultation with Iwi and Maori organisations
Whakapapa
How does the application affect Whakapapa? Consider the integrity of atua,
genealogical links, creation, as well as what whakapapa tells us about what is
appropriate for the species involved and who has the rights to decide on this
appropriateness.
Rangatiratanga
How does the application affect the iwi's Rangatiratanga? Has there been
adequate information provided, consultation, involvement, and/or recognition?
Does this allow the iwi to uphold its mana or the resource used/affected?
Kaitiakitanga
How does the application affect the Iwi's Kaitiakitanga? What are the
responsibilities of the iwi in regards to this application. Will the mauri of
the resource involved be affected? What effect does this have on the long term
wellbeing of the wider iwi, the land or the resources affected? Are there
alternatives?
Mahinga Kai
Does the application affect any Mahinga Kai, taonga species or valued flora,
fauna or ecosystem? What is the effect on the abundance of the mahinga kai? What
is the effect on the ability of the wider iwi to undertake mahinga kai? Does the
application affect the integrity of the mahinga kai? Also consider long term
sustainability; future concerns.
Kawa/Tikanga
What traditions, whakatauaki, tikanga and kawa apply or are affected by the
application?
Matauranga
Is M�tauranga or intellectual property of the iwi affected?
Consultation with other organisations
Information required
Taxonomy and biology
Natural host range
Biotypes
Climatic/environmental suitability
Previous use as a biological control agent, and efficacy in that use
Performance of related agents
Identification and assessment of risks, costs and benefits
Risks and costs
Benefits and cost-benefit analysis
Release with Controls
Completing the general release and release with controls application forms
Contact with the EPA
Resources
Sections of the application forms
Section 1: Applicant details
Section 2: Information about the application
Section 3: Information on the organism to be released (release and release with controls)
Section 4: Maori Engagement
Section 5: Risks, costs and benefits (release and release with controls)
Section 6: Pathway determination and rapid assessment (release; Section 8 for release with controls)
Section 6: Proposed controls (release with controls)
There are a number of reasons why an applicant might want to propose controls. These can only be
imposed if the intention is to mitigate risks which have been noted in Section 5. Controls can
include provenance of the biological control agent, so future importations will be restricted to a
particular country or region. The reason for this might be to ensure that agents will have the same
host range characteristics as those that have been tested in containment. An example of this is the
approval for the Irish biotype of Microctonus aethiopoides for biological control of Sitona obsoletus
(previously known as Sitona lepidus). Not only do the controls specify that further
imports must come from Ireland, but also that they need to be demonstrated to be parthenogenetic. The
following is taken from 'Appendix 1 Control' of the Decision document:
Section 7: Other information (release; Section 9 for release with controls)
Post-application processes
References
Previous page
Containment testing
Next page
Preparing for a public hearing
© 2007 B3 · Better Border Biosecurity