ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DECISION Date Signed:17 April 2007
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DECISION Date signed:17 April 2007 Application code: NOR06005 Application category: Import for Release or Release from Containment any New Organism under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 Applicant: The Californian Thistle Action Group Applicant contact: Richard Hill Purpose: The Californian Thistle Action Group (CalTAG) seek approval to import for release a weevil, Ceratapion onopordi (Brentidae) and a beetle, Cassida rubiginosa (Chrysomelidae), for the biological control of the weed Californian thistle (Cirsium arvense) under section 34(1)(a) of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the HSNO Act). Date application received: 10 November 2006 Consideration date: 2 March 2007 Considered by: Committee of the Authority 1 Summary of Decision 1.1 The application to import for release Ceratapion onopordi (Brentidae) and Cassida rubiginosa (Chrysomelidae), for the biological control of the weed Californian thistle (Cirsium arvense) 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 2.1 The application was lodged pursuant to section 34(1)(a) of the Act. The application was formally received and verified as containing sufficient information on 10 November 2006. As required under section 53(1)(b) of the Act, the application was publicly notified. Notification of receipt and a request for submissions were sent to the Minister for the Environment, 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 10 November 2006 and notification was placed on the ERMA New Zealand website on the same day. Further notification was made in The New Zealand Herald, The Dominion Post, The Press and the Otago Daily Times on 13 November 2006. Public submissions closed on 19 January 2007. 2.2 Fifty eight submissions were received, of which four submitters indicated a wish to be heard; two in support (No. 8831 and 7804) and two opposed (No. 8804 and 8832). Subsequent correspondence addressed all concerns and as a result, all submitters were satisfied that their concerns were considered within the Evaluation and Review (E&R) report and withdrew their requests to be heard. As a result, the Authority did not consider a hearing necessary and thus no hearing was held for this application. Summary of submissions can be found in Appendix 2 of the E&R report. Information available for consideration 2.3 The documents available for the consideration of the application were: Application NOR06005 including: Appendix A: Community consultation; Appendix B: The biology and weed status of Californian thistle in New Zealand; Appendix C: Host specificity of Cassida rubiginosa Müll. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and Apion onopordi Kirby (Coleoptera: Apionidae), potential biological control agents for Californian thistle (Cirsium arvense) in New Zealand. Landcare research contract report: LC0506/096 unpublished (2006); Relevant references. Public submissions Evaluation and Review (E&R) report prepared by ERMA New Zealand: The E&R report was prepared by the Agency to assist and support decision-making. Correspondence from external experts are included in the appendices of the E&R report. Decision-making committee 2.4 The application was considered by a Committee of the Authority comprising the following members: Dr Max Suckling (Chair), Helen Atkins and Dr Kieran Elborough. Sequence of the consideration 2.5 The consideration of the application took place on 02 March 2007. The application was considered under section 38 and determined in accordance with section 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06005 Page 2 of 18 HSNO Act. Consideration of the application followed the relevant provisions of the Act and the Methodology, as specified in more detail below. Unless otherwise stated, in this decision, references to Clause numbers refer to Clauses of the Methodology and references to section numbers refer to sections of the Act. 3 Submissions 3.1 The Committee agreed with the summary of submissions prepared by the project team (Appendix 2 of the E&R Report). When considering the potential beneficial and adverse effects of these organisms the Committee took into consideration all significant issues raised in the submissions. 3.2 The Committee considered the Department of Conservation’s submission regarding insufficient host range testing for Cassida rubiginosa and concluded that the host range testing of surrogates representing native species provided sufficient evidence to ensure that species outside of the Cardueae tribe were not at risk (see section 5.3.3 of the E&R report for further discussion on the use of surrogates). 4 Purpose of the Application 4.1 Californian thistle occurs throughout New Zealand and is one of the most serious and persistent weed problems of pastoral and cropping farms. The Californian Thistle Action Group (CalTAG) seek approval to import for release a weevil, Ceratapion onopordi (Brentidae) and a beetle, Cassida rubiginosa (Chrysomelidae), for the biological control of the weed Californian thistle (Cirsium arvense). Efficacy of the Biological Control Agents 4.2 The Committee considered that beneficial effects could only be realised if Ceratapion onopordi and/or Cassida rubiginosa were successful in establishing a self-sustaining population and had an adverse effect on Californian thistle (sections 5.1 and 5.2. of the E&R report). 3.5 The Committee noted that the identification and assessment of effects presented in the E&R report is based on assumptions within the application which represent an ‘expected scenario’. Under this scenario, following the initial release, benefits are predicted to occur within 10 years and will improve with further distribution and establishment of the organisms (section 7.2 of the E&R report). 5 Identification and Assessment of Potentially Significant Adverse Effects (Risks and Costs) and Benefits Methodology 5.1 The Committee reviewed the identification and assessment of possible effects to: the environment, human health, Māori culture and traditions, society and the community and the market economy as presented in the E&R report. The assessment of potentially Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06005 Page 3 of 18 significant adverse effects was structured according to Clause 12 of the Methodology, including the magnitude of adverse effects and the likelihood of occurrence, options for managing risks, and uncertainty bounds on the information. In assessing costs and benefits the Authority considered whether or not these costs and benefits 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 the evidence was taken into account, as required by Clauses 25, 29, 30 and 32. 5.2 The Committee rated the materiality and significance of uncertainty of each magnitude and the likelihood associated with each potentially significant cost and benefit (Clause 29). 5.3 The Committee considered the information provided relevant and appropriate to the scale and significance of the risks, costs and benefits associated with the application (Clause 8). 5.4 For each potentially significant effect, the level of risk or benefit was calculated using the qualitative scales from Appendix 1 of this report. 5.5 The Committee reviewed all of the potential effects identified by the applicant, submitters and the project team. The Committee identified additional effects (see section 5.38) and agreed that all potential effects had been identified. 5.6 The Committee agreed with the project team’s assessment, in the E&R report (Appendix 1), that some of the potential effects identified were not significant and therefore required no further consideration. 5.7 The Committee considered all of the potentially significant effects assessed in the E&R report. The Committee then assigned a risk, cost or benefit level (between A and F, as defined in Appendix 1 of this report) to each potentially significant effect. 5.8 The Committee confirmed that those effects rated as A or B are considered negligible. Host Specificity and Impacts on Non-Target Plants 5.9 The assessment of potential risks associated with the release of biological control agents relies on robust experiments describing the organism’s host range. This evidence can then be used to determine the extent to which native and/or valued species are at risk. 5.10 Confirmation of adequate host range testing was provided by taxonomist Dr Ilse Breitwieser an expert on the family Asteraceae, to which Californian thistle belongs. The Committee noted that the host range testing was not reviewed by an external entomologist but agreed that this was not necessary. 5.11 The Committee considered the information from host-range testing experiments conducted both overseas and in New Zealand. It was noted that laboratory tests can overestimate a host’s natural range (Gourlay and Hill,