Download ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DECISION

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
DECISION
Date Signed: 18 February 2005
Application code:
NOR03001
Application category:
Import for Release or Release from Containment any
New Organism under the Hazardous Substances and New
Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996
Applicant:
Environment Canterbury
Applicant contact:
Raymond Maw
Purpose:
Import for release a South African moth, the
boneseed leafroller (Tortrix s.l. sp.
"chrysanthemoides"), which is a new organism, for
the purpose of biological control of boneseed
(Chrysanthemoides monilifera sub.sp. monilifera)
Date application received:
19 August 2004
Hearing date:
14 December 2004
Considered by:
Committee of the Authority
1
Summary of Decision
The application to import for release Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758 s.l. sp. "chrysanthemoides" is
approved, without controls, having being considered in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 (the Act) and
the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology).
2
Application Process and associated Legislative
Criteria
Application Receipt
The application was lodged pursuant to section 34(1)(a) of the Act. The application was
formally received and verified on 19 August 2004. As required under section 53(1)(b) the
application was publicly notified. Notification of receipt and a request for submissions were
sent to the Minster for the Environment, the Department of Conservation (DoC), the Ministry
of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), other government departments and agencies, local
authorities, iwi, Universities, Crown Research Institutes, industry groups, community groups,
interest groups and public individuals on the 2 September 2004 and notification was placed
on the ERMA New Zealand website on the same day. Further notification was made in the
The New Zealand Herald, The Dominion Post, The Christchurch Press and The Otago Daily
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 1 of 21
Times on 8 September 2004. Public submissions closed on the 14 of October 2004. Thirteen
submissions were received, of which six indicated that they wished to be heard in support of
their submission (a full copy of these submissions can be found in Appendix 6 of the
Evaluation and Review report).
Information Available for Consideration
The documents available for the consideration of the application were:

Application NOR03001 (Form NOR)

Scientific papers cited in the application

Evaluation and Review (E&R) report

Report from Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao

Information presented at the hearing
The Evaluation and Review (E&R) report was prepared by the Agency to assist and support
decision-making. The E&R report included complete copies of submissions and reports from
external experts as detailed in Annex 1. The contribution by external experts to the E&R
report was sought as additional information under section 58 of the HSNO Act. The hearing
was postponed under section 58(3) of the HSNO Act by 15 working days to allow this
additional information to be obtained.
The Evaluation and Review (E&R) report was circulated to parties of the hearing on the 24
November 2004.
Decision Making Committee
The application was considered by a sub-Committee of the New Organisms (Non-GMO)
Committee of the Authority. The Committee comprised the following members: Dr Max
Suckling (Chair), Associate Professor Marie Dziadek and Dr Kieran Elborough.
Hearing
A public hearing was held on 13 December 2004 in Wellington.
The following parties made presentations to the Committee:
For the applicant: Mr Ray Maw - Environment Canterbury
Mr Chris Winks - Landcare Research
Dr Simon Fowler - Landcare Research
Dr Quentin Paynter – Landcare Research
For ERMA New Zealand: Dr Sonia Whiteman
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 2 of 21
External Experts:
Dr Barbara Barratt AgResearch
Dr Ilse Breitweiser Landcare Research
For Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao: Dr Shaun Ogilvie
Submittors: Mrs Leanne Perry Meyer (Department of Conservation)1
Sequence of the Consideration
Consideration of the application began at the conclusion of the hearing on 13 December and
continued to completion on 14 December 2004.
The application was determined in accordance under section 38(1)(a) of the Act.
Consideration of the application followed the relevant provisions of the Methodology, as
specified in more detail below. Unless otherwise stated, references to clause numbers in this
decision refer to clauses of the Methodology.
Purpose of the Application
Environment Canterbury submitted the application seeking approval to import for release
Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758 s.l. sp. "chrysanthemoides" (boneseed leafroller) for the purpose of
biological control of Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera (boneseed). Boneseed
shrub is a South African native, generally 2-3 m high, with thick, leathery leaves and masses
of bright yellow daisy-like flowers, followed by clusters of black fruit that contain a single
bone coloured seed. This hardy weed can grow in a range of environments and is a prolific
seed producer.
The applicant contends that boneseed has the potential to cause substantial environmental
damage by invading plant communities on coastal cliffs and dune-lands, and inland grassland
and shrub areas. Dense thickets of boneseed can form which displace native vegetation and
shade out native seedlings. Boneseed is located mainly in coastal habitats throughout the
North Island, and in Nelson/Marlborough, around Banks Peninsula, and Anderson's Bay in
Dunedin. The Committee noted that in 2001 DoC declared boneseed an unwanted organism
under section 164(c) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and several regional councils and DoC
implement active control programmes for boneseed in their area. Biological control using
boneseed leafroller is considered the only option for managing this weed in a number of areas
as herbicide use is often impractical due to damage to native plants and/or inaccessible
terrain.
The Committee noted that while the boneseed leafroller has not yet been formally described
as a species it is considered a distinct taxon. The tribe to which it belongs is currently under
taxonomic revision and its formal description at this time could see the name reduced to a
1
Six submitters indicated that they wished to be heard at the hearing, but only one submitter appeared.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 3 of 21
synonym with the revision’s publication. The Committee was satisfied that lack of a formal
binomial would not prevent correct identification. A full description and discussion of the
biological characteristics of Tortrix s.l. sp. "chrysanthemoides" is provided in the E&R report
(section 6). In summary, the organism is a moth of the family Tortricidae and is native to
South Africa. The boneseed leafroller has the capacity to defoliate the whole plant by the
caterpillars webbing together older leaves down the stems to form a shelter within which they
feed on the foliage.
Establishment and Efficacy of the biological agent
The Committee noted that beneficial effects could only be realised if the biological control
agent was successful in establishing a self-sustaining population and had an adverse effect on
boneseed. When assessing these benefits the Committee considered the following issues as
discussed in the E&R report (section 7).
1. Climate
Climate can play a key role in the successful establishment of an organism. Although it is
noted that there are some differences in climate between the South Africa and New Zealand
the Committee considered that this is unlikely to significantly restrict its establishment or its
feeding ability. However, it may reduce the number of generations the moth produces per
year.
2. Predation and parasitism
Field observations and natural enemy exclusion studies in Australia have demonstrated that
predation by ants, mites and spiders have a significant effect on the survival and
establishment of the boneseed leafroller. In particular, predation by Argentine ants has been
identified in the biocontrol programme as a key factor limiting the establishment of the
boneseed leafroller in Australia. The Committee considered that Argentine ants were likely to
have a limited impact in New Zealand due to low co-location with boneseed leafroller.
The Committee noted that the parasitoids of tortricid species already present in New Zealand
may also affect the boneseed leafroller. As these parasitoids do not appear to have a
significant impact on the populations of tortricids already present on boneseed in New
Zealand, the Committee considered that they are unlikely to impact significantly on the
efficacy of the boneseed leafroller. The Committee also noted that correct adherence to
quarantine requirements would prevent the accidental introduction of new parasitoids
inadvertently imported with the boneseed leafroller.
3. Effect on the host plant
It was noted that in South Africa boneseed leafroller is considered to be the most damaging
insect found on boneseed, and that it has a significant influence on boneseed by causing
complete defoliation and death of plants. It is expected in New Zealand that persistent
defoliation of boneseed by the boneseed leafroller will initially reduce its vigour by lowering
seed production, and shoot and root growth rates. Repeated defoliation is expected to
eventually kill entire bushes. The reduced "fitness" and thinning of its canopy cover by
defoliation of boneseed stands are expected to facilitate the establishment of co-occurring
New Zealand native plants currently out-competed by boneseed. Although there is a very
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 4 of 21
remote potential for resistance to the boneseed leafroller to be selected for in the boneseed
population the Committee noted that the leafroller was equally likely to be subjected to
selection pressure to overcome any new resistance traits.
3
Identification and assessment of potentially
significant adverse effects (risks and costs) and
benefits
Methodology
The identification and assessment of possible effects to environment, human health, Māori
culture, society and community and the market economy were presented in the E&R report.
Assessment of potentially significant adverse effects was structured according to clause 12 of
the Methodology, including the likelihood of occurrence and the magnitude of adverse
effects, options for managing risks, and uncertainty bounds on the information. In assessing
costs and benefits the Authority considered whether or not they are monetary, their
magnitude or expected value (including uncertainty) and the distribution of costs and benefits
over time, and affected groups in the community (clause 13). Risk characteristics were
considered in terms of clause 33 of the Methodology. The degree of uncertainty attached to
evidence was taken into account, as required by clause 25 and 30.
The Committee rated the materiality and significance of uncertainty surrounding the
estimation of each of the magnitude and the likelihood for each potentially significant risk
and benefit as being either high (h), medium (m) or low (l) (clause 29). This uncertainty was
then factored into the calculation of the level of risk using a precautionary approach as
referenced in the ERMA Technical Guide to Identifying, Assessing and Evaluating Risks,
Costs and Benefits. Using Table 4 of Appendix 5 of the E&R report (included in this report
as Appendix 2) for each factor (magnitude and likelihood) the level of the descriptor was
increased in the case of adverse effects and decreased in the case of beneficial effects by one
level if uncertainty was assessed as medium and two levels if uncertainty was assessed as
high. The level of the descriptors remained unchanged if uncertainty was assessed as low.
This adjusted level of adverse effect/benefit effect was referred to as the ‘Precautionary Level
of Adverse effect/Beneficial effect’. Further, in making its assessment the Committee
determined that all adverse effects that were rated as B or greater (refer to Appendix 2) were
deemed non-negligible.
The Committee considered the information provided to it was relevant and appropriate to the
scale and significance of the risks, costs, and benefits associated with the application (clause
8).
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 5 of 21
The environment
Adverse effects
Potential impacts on non-target plants
The Committee discussed the potential for adverse effects on non-target species and noted
that this was the most important risk identified in the application. The Committee noted that a
number of submitters raised concerns about the choice of species used in the host-specificity
testing and many felt it was inadequate. In considering the issue the Committee noted the
following information.
Extensive quantitative searches for feeding activity on species other than the boneseed were
undertaken by the CSIRO Biological Control Unit based at the University of Cape Town,
South Africa, for the Australian boneseed biological control programme. Searches were
undertaken in South Africa over a 2-year period on 126 plant species growing in close
proximity to plants of C. monilifera and C. incana infested with the boneseed leafroller. It
was found that the leafroller did not attack any other plant species, even in situations where
numbers were high enough to severely defoliate or kill the nearby Chrysanthemoides hosts.
Extensive host-range testing has been conducted on the boneseed leafroller for the Australian
biological control of boneseed programme, including laboratory larval development tests
(choice and no-choice) and open-field testing in South Africa. Ninety-six plant species from
31 families were tested, including 50 species from the family Asteraceae to which boneseed
belongs.
In laboratory tests, feeding occurred on a number of non-target test-plants, a result that was
considered inconsistent with the high level of specificity observed in the field in South
Africa. Therefore the use of extensive open-field testing was done in South Africa to examine
the oviposition behaviour of adult females and the host choice behaviour of larvae. The
conclusion drawn from these field tests was that boneseed leafroller is specific to the two
species of the genus Chrysanthemoides (C. monilifera and C. incana). Non-target oviposition
and very limited survival of larvae may occur on Calendula (marigolds) in the field but only
in situations where these plants grow in very close proximity to C. monilifera (Note:
Calendula is in the same tribe (Calenduleae) as C. monilifera).
The host specificity of the boneseed leafroller was further tested during 2001, using an
oviposition field test, to determine its suitability as a biocontrol agent for boneseed in New
Zealand. New Zealand’s Landcare Research carried out this research in South Africa, in
conjunction with the CSIRO Biological Control Unit based at the University of Cape Town.
Ten species of test-plants, in addition to boneseed, were used in the host range testing done
by Landcare Research (for details refer to Table 1 of the application).
The Committee noted that the potential for a species to become a secondary host for a
biological control agent is based on its relatedness to the primary host. The Asteraceae is
divided into three subfamilies, the Barnadesoideae, Asteriodeae (includes boneseed), and
Cichorioideae. There are no representatives of the Barnadesoideae in New Zealand. For an
insect such as the boneseed leafroller, where a high degree of host specificity is expected,
testing would normally concentrate on species, whether native, agricultural/horticultural, or
ornamental, of importance in New Zealand and starting from the same tribe (Calenduleae) in
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 6 of 21
the same subfamily (Asteroideae) as boneseed. However, there are no New Zealand native
species in the Calenduleae, and the two most commonly grown ornamentals from this tribe,
Calendula officinalis (marigolds) and Osteospermum fruticosum (dimorpotheca), were both
tested for the Australian biological control programme. Consequently representative genera
from other Asteroideae tribes were selected for the New Zealand host specificity testing. The
results of this field test add to the evidence, collected from field observations in South Africa
and host specificity testing conducted for Australia, that the boneseed leafroller is expected to
feed only on boneseed in New Zealand.
The Committee discussed information provided by the applicant that no differences in
ecotype of the boneseed leafroller have been observed to occur that would result in a host
range different to that predicted. The Committee also did not consider that evolutionary
processes would result in a change in host-range in the time scale considered.
The Committee discussed the information presented by the applicant and the external experts
at the hearing, and were of the opinion that sufficient clarification as to the choice of plant
species, in particular the use of surrogate plants to represent native species not available for
testing in South Africa, had been given. The Committee noted requests from parties to the
hearing for further laboratory testing in New Zealand, however they also acknowledged the
limitations of laboratory based testing. In particular the Committee noted that laboratory
studies may result in false positives, as detailed by the applicant, and felt there was sufficient
information on which to complete an assessment of this risk.
The Committee evaluated the information on the potential for non-target effects on species
representing native/endemic plants, introduced plants with economic value and non-economic
but valued plants2. The magnitude of effect was assessed as minimal to minor with a low to
medium level of uncertainty. It was considered improbable to highly improbable that the
effect would occur, with a low degree of uncertainty regarding this assessment. Taking this
uncertainty into account (clause 12(e)) the Committee assessed the precautionary level of risk
(that is the level adjusted for uncertainty, as discussed earlier) for the four plants identified in
Table 1 to be in the range of A-B (see Table 1). Consequently the Committee concluded that
this adverse effect was non-negligible.
Other adverse effects
The Committee noted the potential for adverse effects in the form of:
2

Displacement of native invertebrate species either through loss of boneseed or
increased populations of predators in association with boneseed leafroller populations

Potential introduction of associated organisms

Potential deterioration of natural habitats due to rapid death of boneseed resulting in
erosion and increased water runoff, and a decline in water quality in affected
catchments
Information provided by the applicant and reviewed by external experts and the Project team.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 7 of 21

Loss of valuable sources of food for vertebrates

Potential for incorrect taxonomic identification
The Committee agreed with the analysis presented in the E&R report (section 9) and
considered that these adverse effects were not potentially significant and did not require
detailed assessment.
Beneficial effects
Potential for reduced herbicide use
The Committee noted that a reduction in herbicide use could reduce the associated adverse
impacts on non-target organisms, and reduce contamination of soil, air, and water. Also, as
steep terrain is a significant habitat of boneseed in New Zealand it requires manual
application of herbicide which presents a safety risks to spray operators.
Based on information provided by the applicant on the cost of herbicide application and
potential reductions in use in the Canterbury region the Committee estimated the cost saving
across New Zealand. The Committee then considered the likelihood of this benefit being
realised noting that any benefit would be gradual over time. The magnitude of effect was
assessed as moderate with a medium level of uncertainty. It was considered likely that the
effect would occur with a high degree of uncertainty regarding this assessment. Taking this
uncertainty into account (clause 12(e)), the Committee determined that the precautionary
level of benefit was rated as C (see Table 1) and was non-negligible.
Potential for increased conservation values
The Committee considered the case study, presented in the application, of the expected
conservation benefits for Banks Peninsula from releasing boneseed leafroller. The Committee
concluded that there would need to be a 40% reduction in boneseed density for a break even
point to be realised, that is where the imputed monetary value of the conservation benefit
would exceed the cost of the biocontrol release programme. The Committee noted that this
was expected to be a 10 year process with no effect in the first 5 years. Based on a 50%
reduction the magnitude of effect was assessed as moderate with a medium level of
uncertainty. It was considered likely that the effect would occur with a high degree of
uncertainty regarding this assessment. Taking this uncertainty into account (clause 12(e)), the
Committee determined that the precautionary level of benefit was rated as C (see Table 1),
and was non-negligible.
Other beneficial effects
The Committee noted the potential for other beneficial effects in the form of:

Enhancement of native biodiversity in the absence of boneseed restricting seedling
growth of other species
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 8 of 21
The Committee agreed with the analysis presented in the E&R report (section 9) and
considered that this benefit was not potentially significant and did not require detailed
assessment.
Human health
Adverse effects
The Committee noted the potential for adverse effects in the form of:

Allergic reaction to moth scales

Attacks, bites, stings, or act as a vector of human or animal pathogens
The Committee agreed with the analysis presented in the E&R report (section 9) and
considered that these adverse effects were not potentially significant and did not require
detailed assessment.
Beneficial effects
The Committee noted the potential for other beneficial health effects in the form of:

Improved health for spray operators and the general public due to reduced herbicide
use for boneseed control

Reduction in worker injuries occurring during application of herbicides to boneseed
plants growing in steep terrain

Reduction in allergic reactions to boneseed pollen
The Committee agreed with the analysis presented in the E&R report (section 9) and
considered that these benefits were not potentially significant and did not require detailed
assessment.
Māori culture
The Committee noted that the applicant had been advised by the ERMA New Zealand Māori
Unit on how to achieve national consultation according to ERMA New Zealand guidelines.
The Committee was satisfied that consultation had been conducted in accordance with these
guidelines. The Committee also noted the report prepared by Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao as
part of the consideration.
Treaty of Waitangi
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 9 of 21
The Committee noted that provided the introduction of boneseed leafroller did not adversely
affect native or valued flora and fauna, and tikanga Māori (specifically the ability of Māori to
maintain their traditional knowledge and role as kaitiaki) then the decision was likely to be
consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Adverse effects
Introduction
The Committee noted that no specifically cultural issues were raised during consultation.
However, the proposed release of the boneseed leafroller poses potential direct and indirect
adverse effects on taonga flora and fauna, and to tikanga Māori through the mechanism
identified under the environment section.
Potential impacts on taonga species
A definition of taonga is provided in the E&R report (section 9). However, the Committee
acknowledged that in relation to this application, there was a lack of clarity regarding what
might be considered taonga.
The Committee noted the potential for boneseed leafroller to have a negative impact on
taonga either directly via non-target feeding or indirectly via the accidental introduction of
pathogens and parasites and increased populations of predators such as Argentine ants.
The Committee considered the risks to potential taonga species (for example puha) in the
assessment of environmental risk noting that this risk was judged to be non-negligible. Based
on the available information the Committee assessed the magnitude of effect to be minimal
with a medium level of uncertainty. It was considered highly improbable that the effect
would occur with a low degree of uncertainty regarding this assessment. Taking this
uncertainty into account (clause 12(e)), the Committee determined that the precautionary
level of adverse effect was rated as A (see Table 1), and was negligible.
Potential impacts on kaitiakitanga
The Committee recognised the definition of kaitiakitanga as provided in the E&R report
(section 9) and considered that potential impacts could occur through unanticipated effects to
the mauri of taonga and ecosystems (taonga koiora), and to the traditional values and
practices of Māori (taonga tuku iho) in relation to those taonga. The Committee noted that the
protection of mauri is a key element of kaitiakitanga and considered the assessment of
potential impacts to be closely aligned with the assessment of environmental effects. This is
because if the physical well-being of taonga flora and fauna species is altered, so too is its
metaphysical well-being or mauri. However, the Committee acknowledged the challenges of
determining the magnitude of such an effect on metaphysical or intangible measures such as
mauri.
In attempt to overcome these difficulties and due to comments from submitters and Nga
Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao the Committee used puha as a basis for assessing magnitude of
effect on kaitiakitanga. The environmental assessment noted that potential adverse effects to
puha were highly improbable with a minimal magnitude of the effect. In addition any effect
of spillover or non-target oviposition on puha that may co-exist with boneseed will be highly
localised.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 10 of 21
Based on the available information the Committee assessed the magnitude of effect to be
minimal with a low level of uncertainty. It was considered highly improbable that the effect
would occur with a low degree of uncertainty regarding this assessment. Taking this
uncertainty into account (clause 12(e)), the Committee determined that the precautionary
level of adverse effect was rated as A (see Table 1), and was negligible.
Beneficial effects
Potential impacts on taonga, eco-systems and traditional Māori values and practices
The Committee considered that the pathways for Māori to experience beneficial cultural
effects from the release of the boneseed leafroller via enhancement of mauri relate to the
environmental effects as already discussed. The would be achieved via restoration and
enhancement of taonga and ecosystems through reduced impacts from boneseed and
improved purity of water, land, air and human health and well-being through a reduction in
herbicide use with flow-on effects to kaitiakitanga.
The Committee noted that the likelihood of these benefits being realised was closely aligned
to the conclusions drawn in the assessment on environmental benefits, in particular the
potential for reduced herbicide use and the increase in conservation values. The Committee
also noted that when calculating the magnitude any beneficial effects were likely to be
limited to certain locations based on the distribution of boneseed.
Based on the available information the Committee assessed the magnitude of effect to be
moderate with a medium level of uncertainty. It was considered likely that the beneficial
effect would occur with a high degree of uncertainty regarding this assessment. Taking this
uncertainty into account (clause 12(e)), the Committee determined that the precautionary
level of benefit was rated as C (see Table 1), and was non-negligible.
Society and community
Adverse effects
The Committee noted the potential for adverse effects in the form of:

Loss of a valued home garden plant

Loss of amenity values as defoliation of boneseed by the leafroller may result in
unsightly bushes and cliff erosion

Nuisance effects caused by boneseed leafroller
The Committee agreed with the analysis presented in the E&R report (section 9) and
considered that these adverse effects were not potentially significant and did not require
detailed assessment.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 11 of 21
Beneficial effects
The Committee noted the potential for beneficial effects in the form of:

Potential for reduction in herbicide use resulting in health and safety benefits to spray
operators and the general public

Reduction in the fire risk posed by boneseed plants
The Committee agreed with the analysis presented in the E&R report (section 9) and
considered that these beneficial effects were not potentially significant and did not require
detailed assessment.
The market economy
Adverse effects
The Committee noted the potential for adverse effects in the form of:

Loss of employment by spray operators
The Committee agreed with the analysis presented in the E&R report (section 9) and
considered that these adverse effects were not potentially significant and did not require
detailed assessment.
Beneficial effects
Potential for reduction in cost of control of boneseed
The Committee considered the potential for a reduction in control costs in terms of the case
study discussed in the environment section under conservation values. The Committee
considered this case study was valid and could be extrapolated to other regions in New
Zealand. The magnitude of effect was assessed as moderate with medium uncertainty. It was
considered ‘likely’ that the effect would occur but there was high uncertainty associated with
the likelihood. Therefore the Committee considered that, adjusted for uncertainty, the
precautionary level for the beneficial effect was ‘C’ (see Table 1), and was non-negligible.
Other potential beneficial effects
The Committee noted the potential for other beneficial effects in the form of:

Reduction in costs related to worker injuries associated with control of boneseed
The Committee agreed with the analysis presented in the E&R report (section 9) and
considered that these beneficial effects were not potentially significant and did not require
detailed assessment.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 12 of 21
4
Overall Evaluation
Approach to risk
Clause 33 of the Methodology requires the Authority to have regard for the extent to which a
specified set of risk characteristics exist when considering applications. This provides a route
for determining how cautious or risk averse the Authority should be in weighing up risks and
costs against benefits.
However, given that this application is for full release of an organism with a view to the
formation of a self-sustaining population, and therefore no controls can be imposed for the
purposes of mitigation, the Committee decided to reconsider the risks of adverse effects that
were rated as ‘B’ in light of the characteristics in clause 333. These two risks, to clover and
marigold, were considered together. The Committee concluded that for these species:
a) The risk may persist over time:
b) The risk may be expected to be subject to uncontrollable spread or to extend its
effects beyond the immediate location of incidence:
c) The potential effects are irreversible:
d) The risk is known and understood by the general public and there is experience or
understanding of possible measures for managing the potential adverse effects.
In light of these characteristics of the specific risk of adverse effects occurring, the
Committee decided that given the prior use of the precautionary approach, no further
allowance for risk averseness was required.
Summary of adverse and beneficial effects
A summary of the significant effects, the likelihood of the effect being realised, the
magnitude of that effect should it occur, the uncertainty regarding that effect and its
associated ranking as determined by the Committee is provided in Table 1.
The Committee noted that the potential for adverse or beneficial effects to be realised is
based on the establishment of a self-sustaining population of the boneseed leafroller, the
likelihood of which was discussed in section 2 of this decision.
Based on the previously described approach to risk there is one non-negligible adverse effect,
that is non-target host effects. Therefore clause 27 of the Methodology applies and the
Committee must take into account the extent to which the risks and any costs associated with
boneseed leafroller may be outweighed by benefits.
The Committee identified four beneficial effects that were non-negligible, with an associated
moderate to high level of uncertainty.
3
Clause 33(a) asks whether exposure to risk is voluntary or not and is not relevant to the risk characterisation of
host specificity effects.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 13 of 21
As required by clause 34 the Committee conducted a weighing up and determined that the
four non-negligible beneficial effects outweighed the single non- negligible adverse effect.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 14 of 21
ADVERSE EFFECTS TO:
Environment (non-target effects)
Magnitude
Likelihood
Level of
risk
Uncertainty Uncertainty Precautionary level
magnitude likelihood
of risk1
Comments
Clover
Minimal
Highly Improbable
A
M
L
B
Due to scientific
uncertainty of data
Marigold
Minor
Improbable
B
L
L
B
Carrots,
Apricots &
Sunflower
Minimal
Highly Improbable
A
L
L
A
Puha
Minimal
Highly Improbable
A
M
L
A
Scientific
uncertainty but
doesn’t affect level
Key to level of Uncertainty: L = Low, M = Medium and H = High
Māori
Magnitude
Likelihood
Level of
risk
Uncertainty
magnitude
Uncertainty
likelihood
Precautionary
level of risk
Comments
Taonga
Minimal
Highly Improbable
A
M
L
A
Scientific uncertainty
but doesn’t affect
level
Kaitiakitanga
Minimal
Highly Improbable
A
L
L
A
The level of risk/benefit level adjusted for ‘precautionary approach to risk’. That is factoring in uncertainty regarding determination of
likelihood and magnitude.
1
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 15 of 21
BENEFICIAL EFFECTS TO:
Environment
Magnitude
Likelihood
Level of benefit
Uncertainty Uncertainty Precautionary
level of benefit1
magnitude likelihood
Moderate
Likely
E
M
H
C
Increased
Moderate
conservation
value
Likely
E
M
H
C
Magnitude
Likelihood
Level of benefit
Uncertainty Uncertainty Precautionary
magnitude likelihood
level of benefit
Moderate
Likely
E
M
Magnitude
Likelihood
Level of Benefit
Uncertainty Uncertainty Precautionary
magnitude likelihood
level of benefits
Moderate
Likely
E
M
Reduced
Herbicide
Māori
Taonga
H
C
Market Economy
Reduced
cost of
control
H
C
The level of risk/benefit level adjusted for ‘precautionary approach to risk’. That is factoring in uncertainty regarding determination of
likelihood and magnitude.
1
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 16 of 21
Evaluation against statutory criteria
Sections 5 and 6 of the HSNO Act
The Committee assessed the potential adverse and beneficial effects to the sustainability
of flora and fauna; public health; the economy; social, cultural and ethical issues; the
intrinsic value of ecosystems; Maori culture and values; international obligations and the
reasonable foreseeable needs of future generations. The Committee found no reason to
decline the application on these grounds.
Minimum standards
As required by section 36 of the Act (Minimum standards) and clause 10 of the
Methodology the Committee is required to decline the application if the organism is
likely toa) cause any significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat;
or
b) cause any significant deterioration of natural habitats; or
c) cause any significant adverse effects on human health and safety; or
d) cause any significant adverse effect to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity;
or
e) cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for human, animal, or plant disease
(unless that is the purpose of the release).
The Committee were satisfied based on the information presented in the preceding risk
assessment that the organism was not likely to have any of these effects and therefore the
application should not be declined on the basis that the organism failed to meet the
minimum standards.
Undesirable self-sustaining population
As required by section 37 of the HSNO Act (Additional matters to be considered) and
clause 10 the Committee had regard to the ability of the organism to establish an
undesirable self-sustaining population taking into account the ease of eradication. The
Committee noted that the purpose of release is for the formation of a self-sustaining
population, however given the discussion regarding the fulfilment of the minimum
standards any such population would not be considered undesirable.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 17 of 21
5
Decision
1. Having considered all the possible effects in accordance with sections 38(1)(a)(ii)
of the Act, and clause 27 of the Methodology, and based on consideration and
analysis of the information provided, the view of the Committee is that the
adverse effects associated with the importation for release of Tortrix s.l. sp.
"chrysanthemoides" are outweighed by the beneficial effects.
2. In a reaching this decision the Committee, has relied in particular on the criteria
set out in the following sections of the Act:
 section 36 minimum standards
 section 37 additional matters to be considered;
 section 38 determination of application.
3. The Committee has also applied the following criteria in the Methodology:
clause 9 - equivalent of sections 5, 6 and 8;
clause 10 - equivalent of sections 36 and 37;
clause 12 – evaluation of assessment of risks;
clause 13 – evaluation of assessment of costs and benefits;
clause 15 and 16 – information from submissions;
clause 17, 18 and 19- information from experts;
clause 20 – information produced from other bodies;
clause 21 – the decision accords with the requirements of the Act and regulations;
clause 22 – the evaluation of risks, costs and benefits – relevant considerations;
clause 23 – obtaining further information;
clause 24 – the use of recognised risk identification, assessment, evaluation and
management techniques;
clause 25 – the evaluation of risks;
clause 27 – the extent to which the costs are outweighed by the benefits;
clause 29 and 32 – considering uncertainty;
clause 33 – the risk characteristics; and
clause 34 – the aggregation and comparison of risks, costs and benefits.
4. The application for importation for release of Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758 s.l. sp.
"chrysanthemoides" is thus approved without controls
5. Under section 38(3) of the HSNO Act this approval lapses 5 years after 18
February 2005 unless the organism is sooner released; or the Authority extends
the time limit.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 18 of 21
___________________________
_______________
Dr Max Suckling
Date
Chairperson of Decision-making Committee
Approval code:NOR000009
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 19 of 21
Annex 1: Information available for consideration
contained in the E&R report
Reports from external experts
Dr Barbara Barratt AgResearch
Dr Ilse Breitweiser Landcare Research
Submissions
Dave Bayly - Greater Wellington Regional Council
David Stephens - Waikato Regional Council
Anahera Herbert-Graves - Te Runanga O Te Rarawa
Iaean Cranwell Wairewa - Rūnanga
RR Scott
RM Coop
Bernadette Papa - Ngati Whatua o Orakei Corp. Ltd.
Mick Park Te Atiawa - Manawhenua Ki Te Tau Ihu Trust
Steven Wilson - Te Mana Taiao o Raukawa
Cliff Mason
Leanne Perry-Meyer - Department of Conservation
Jason Holland - Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu
Christina Vieglais - Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 20 of 21
Annex 2:
Level of risk/benefit
Calculating the level of risk
Using these qualitative descriptors for magnitude of effect and likelihood of the event
occurring, an additional two-way table representing a level of risk (combined likelihood and
measure of effect) can be constructed as shown in the Table below, where six levels of effect
are allocated: A, B, C, D, E and F. These terms have been used to emphasise that the matrix
is a device for determining which risks (benefits) require further analysis to determine their
significance in the decision making process. Avoiding labels such as ‘low’, ‘medium’, and
‘high’ removes the aspect of perception.
Calculating the level of risk/benefit
Magnitude of effect
Likelihood
Minimal Minor
Moderate Major
Massive
Highly improbable A
A
B
C
D
Improbable
A
B
C
D
E
Very unlikely
B
C
D
E
E
Unlikely
C
D
E
E
F
Likely
D
E
E
F
F
Very likely
E
E
F
F
F
Extremely likely
E
F
F
F
F
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR03001
Page 21 of 21