EPA staff report

APP201517- Reassessment of approvals for new organisms in June 2013

www.epa.govt.nz 2

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Executive Summary and Recommendations

In March 2013, the and Aquarium Association (ZAA) made an application to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) seeking to reassess animals1 held in containment in zoos in . The applicant is seeking to gain clarity around the controls that govern the containment of their , as some animals have multiple approvals, some of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act (the Act) controls linked to their approvals are inconsistent, and some have deemed approvals2.

This application is for the reassessment of zoo animals approved for importation into containment under s45 of the Act. Section 63 of the Act provides for a full reassessment of approvals for new organisms.

This application also calls for a review of the controls imposed on zoo animals that were deemed approved under the transitional provisions of the Act. A review is possible under s45B of the Act, however the Act does not prescribe a review process, so the EPA is combining the review process with the reassessment, and following the process that is specified for a reassessment under s63 of the Act.

Consequently all matters considered for a new application have been considered for this application. In particular the following areas are in scope for this report, as they were identified as potential areas of concern: • the purpose for which the import of the organism is approved • on-going maintenance of containment • the containment controls that specify the conditions that the organisms must be imported and maintained under.

EPA staff have developed a set of new, outcome-based controls that we propose should be applied to existing and future zoo approvals. Having considered the organisms and their ability to escape containment, and given the controls proposed to mitigate the likelihood of their escape, it is recommended that the organisms be approved for import into containment subject to the proposed controls.

1 The reassessment application does not include butterflies, marine invertebrates or fish. 2 Deemed approvals exist for those animals that were in New Zealand zoos before the Act came into force (pre 29 July 1998).

June 2013 3

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary and Recommendations ...... 2

List of tables: ...... 4

1. The application process ...... 5

1.1. Purpose of this document ...... 5

1.2. Application process ...... 5

1.3. Submissions ...... 6

2. Consideration process ...... 7

2.1. Provisions for reassessment ...... 7

2.2. Current controls imposed on organism ...... 8

2.3. Identification of the organisms ...... 9

3. Purpose of the approvals ...... 9

3.1. Current situation ...... 9

3.2. Broadened purpose ...... 10

3.3. Proposed purpose for approvals ...... 11

4. Evaluation ...... 12

4.1. Introduction ...... 12

4.2. Adverse effects ...... 12

4.3. Beneficial effects ...... 15

4.4. Inseparable organisms ...... 16

5. Proposed controls regime ...... 17

5.1. Introduction ...... 17

5.2. Concerns with current controls ...... 18

5.3. Controls proposed by the applicant ...... 19

5.4. Proposal for new controls regime and implementation ...... 19

5.5. Assessment of the adequacy of containment ...... 23

6. Summary and recommendations ...... 24

June 2013 4

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Appendix 1: Organisms and approval numbers ...... 25

Appendix 2: Summary of Submissions Received through Public Notice ...... 32

Appendix 3: Submission from the Department of Conservation...... 33

Appendix 4: Submission from the Ministry for Primary Industries ...... 35

Appendix 5: Submission from the Ministry for Primary Industries – Animal Welfare Group ...... 39

Appendix 6: Taxonomic updates ...... 40

Appendix 7: Incidents involving new organisms in zoos ...... 41

Appendix 8: Controls proposed by ZAA, and EPA staff comments ...... 46

Appendix 9: Proposed controls and Schedule 3 of the HSNO Act ...... 50 List of tables:

Table 1:Organisms approved under section 45 ...... 25 Table 2: Deemed approved organisms ...... 28 Table 3 Summary of submissions received during public notification ...... 32 Table 4: Containment breaches (escapes) reported under the HSNO regime ...... 41 Table 5: Containment breaches (unauthorised entry) reported under the HSNO regime ...... 45 Table 6: Controls proposed by the applicant, their reasoning and the response from EPA staff...... 46 Table 7: Proposed controls in relation to Schedule 3 Part 2 ...... 50

June 2013 5

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

1. The application process 1.1. Purpose of this document

1.1.1 This document has been prepared by Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) staff; Asela Atapattu (Manager, New Organisms), Kate Bromfield (Senior Advisor, New Organisms), and Donna Noonan (Advisor, New Organisms), to advise the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Decision Making Committee (the Committee) on the application, consideration process, and our risk assessment of application APP201517. This document discusses information provided in the application, submissions and other readily available sources.

1.2. Application process

The application 1.2.1 Application APP201517 seeks the reassessment of animals classed as new organisms approved to be held in zoo containment facilities in New Zealand. A full list of animals covered is provided in Table 1 (organisms approved under section 45) and Table 2 (deemed approved organisms) in Appendix 1. The applicant has requested that consistent controls be applied to all new organisms held in zoo containment facilities. This will ensure clarity for the operation of containment facilities and for MPI enforcement agents. The applicant has also proposed 15 additional controls that they consider would assist in improving the short, medium and long term containment of zoo animals.

1.2.2 The application was lodged on 11 March 2013.

1.2.3 The applicant is the Zoo and Aquarium Association (ZAA), who represents members from the zoo and aquarium community in Australasia. Twenty-one organisations in New Zealand are ZAA members; 10 of these organisations operate zoo containment facilities. It is noted that there are 23 zoo containment facilities in New Zealand, and that this reassessment will apply to all containment facilities in New Zealand holding zoo animals in containment, not just those with ZAA membership.

Consultation with Māori 1.2.4 We (EPA staff) decided that specific engagement with Māori was not necessary for this application. This is because all of the animals are held in zoo containment facilities, and this application poses no increased risk to the relationship of Māori to the environment.

Public notification 1.2.5 Application APP201517 was publicly notified under s53 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (the Act). The 30 working day notification period began on 22 March 2013 and ended on 8 May 2013.

June 2013 6

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

1.2.6 Submitters were asked to provide information, make comments, and raise issues, with particular regard, but not limited, to the following matters: • the controls proposed by the applicant; • the controls proposed by EPA staff; • adverse effects3, especially adverse effects not identified in the application; and • positive effects4, especially positive effects not identified in the application.

1.3. Submissions

Submissions received through public notice 1.3.1 Three submissions were received during the submission period, from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC), the Greater Regional Wellington Council, and Save Animals from Exploitation (SAFE). Their comments are discussed within the text of this document, and summarised in Appendix 2. The full submissions are available on the EPA website as a separate document: “APP201517_Submissions”. One late submission was received on 15 May 2013, from the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), which comprised a document (Exotic and wild animals for public display: an unnecessary entertainment Appendix D). This document has been made available on the EPA website.

Submissions from MPI and DOC 1.3.2 As required by the Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology), the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Department of Conservation (DOC) were advised of the reassessment and provided with the opportunity to comment on the application.

1.3.3 DOC stated support for the controls proposed by the ZAA in combination with the MPI standards and EPA controls. Where DOC comments relate directly to the reassessment and the new proposed controls, we have paid particular regard to the views of the Department. Their full submission is provided in Appendix 3, and the associated document they provided “Management of Farming & Keeping Deer in Captivity” has been provided as a supporting document on the EPA website.

1.3.4 A submission was received from the MPI Verifications Services Directorate on the draft HSNO controls and the application. They consider that “as the agency responsible for enforcement of the new organism provisions of the HSNO Act, [MPI] needs to ensure that: • The EPA has taken all relevant risk matters associated with the containment of the approved organisms into account; • Controls established to manage identified risks and ensure the approved organisms are contained at all times are adequate, can be practically implemented and are enforceable.”

3 Adverse effects can include any risks and costs associated with approving the importation into containment of these organisms. 4 Positive effects can include any benefits associated with approving the importation into containment of these organisms.

June 2013 7

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

1.3.5 Their submission discusses the specific controls and their enforceability, and these are discussed in relevant sections of this document. Their full submission is provided in Appendix 4.

1.3.6 A further submission was received from the MPI Animal Welfare Group within the Animal and Animal Products Directorate, which has been incorporated into the evaluation section of this document. They note that “there is an on-going risk to animal welfare if all the welfare and containment considerations are not coordinated” but they consider that the proposed controls do not give an indication of how this coordination can be achieved, given that zoos already operate under the zoos code of welfare. The full submission is provided in Appendix 5.

2. Consideration process

2.1. Provisions for reassessment

2.1.1 There are two types of approvals for new organisms that are held in zoos: • s45 approvals for the importation of new organisms (animals) into containment (zoos)since the Act came into force (post 29 July 1998) • deemed approvals for those new organisms (animals) that were in containment (zoos) before the Act came into force (pre 29 July 1998).

2.1.2 For the purposes of this reassessment, the new organisms covered by these two types of approvals will be considered together. The provisions of the Act for reassessing or changing the conditions of the approval depend on the approval type; and where those differences are important, the variations will be highlighted in this report. The provisions for reassessing the new organisms covered by the two types of approvals are summarised below.

Zoo animals approved under s45 2.1.3 Section 63 of the Act allows for the reassessment of a new organism approved for importation into containment where that organism has previously been assessed by the Authority, and when it has been decided by the EPA that there are grounds for a reassessment under s62(2). Application ERMA200651sought to establish those grounds and was considered in May 2011. The EPA (then the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA)) decided that grounds did exist for the reassessment of all new organisms approved for containment in zoos.

2.1.4 A reassessment is required to be publicly notified and take into consideration the same matters, through the same process as the original application for approval to import into containment. This includes a provision under s45(1) to approve or decline organisms through the reassessment process, but we are not proposing that any organisms be declined. The organisms listed in Table 1: Appendix 1 are those covered through this process in this reassessment application.

June 2013 8

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Zoo animals deemed approved 2.1.5 Deemed approvals were created under the transitional provisions of s255 of the Act. Zoo animals that were new organisms and present in zoological gardens (containment) when the Act came into force were deemed to be approved under s45 of the Act. For administrative purposes ERMA, at the time, gave each species an approval number.

2.1.6 Organisms that were deemed to be approved through the transitional provisions of s255 cannot be reassessed through the provisions of s63 because those organisms were not assessed by the Authority. However, in 2003 the Act was amended to include s45B (Animals in circus or zoological garden deemed approved under s255). That section provides the EPA with the ability to: a) include controls that provide for each of the applicable matters specified in Schedule 3 b) include controls that provide for any other matters in order to give effect to the purpose of this Act c) remove or vary the conditions imposed under s255 that the organism remains at a particular place.

2.1.7 The result of this amendment is that animals deemed approved under the transitional provisions of s255 could have controls attached to them. The Act does not prescribe a process for attaching controls to deemed approvals. However there is no ability under s45B to revoke, supersede or decline an organism deemed approved under the provisions of s255.

2.1.8 Hence the scope of this application and any decision on any deemed approval must be confined to the amendment of existing conditions or attachment of new controls.

2.1.9 The deemed approved organisms to be considered in this application are listed in Table 2: Appendix 1.

Outcome of application 2.1.10 Through the combined processes, the outcome of the consideration of the application will be a new set of controls that will be imposed on all the animals subject to this application. This means that one of the major considerations is the effectiveness of the current control regime, which is outlined in the following section.

2.2. Current controls imposed on organism

Controls on s45 approved organisms 2.2.1 At present there are 17 different approvals, resulting from 17 applications for importation into containment of one or more animals under s45 of the Act. Each approval under s45 has a set of controls that are imposed on the animal(s) specified in the approval for import into containment. The full list of containment controls imposed through each application can be found in the accompanying document Applications, organisms, purpose and controls, which has been published on the EPA website.

June 2013 9

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

2.2.2 Thirteen of the 17 approvals discussed above rely on the MAF/ERMA New Zealand Standard 154.03.04: Containment Facilities for Zoo Animals (Zoo Standard) to address the matters in Part 2 of Schedule 3 of the Act, with a few additional controls added in for some organisms. We are moving away from relying on the Zoo Standard because the EPA can address the matters in Part 2 of Schedule 3 of the Act through the controls, and the Zoo Standard includes non-HSNO specific legislation.

Controls on deemed approved organisms 2.2.3 Zoo animals deemed approved under the transitional provisions of the Act had the following conditions imposed under s255: • (1)(b) Every such registration shall be deemed to be subject to a condition under 3(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act requiring the animals to remain at that place • (2)(b) Every such registration shall be deemed to be subject to a condition under 3(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act requiring the animals to remain at that circus • (3) The provisions of the Zoological Garden Regulations 1977 shall apply, with the necessary modifications, to the keeping of any animal in any zoo or circus under this section.

2.2.4 The Zoological Garden Regulations expired on 28 July 2003, and the Zoo Standard was developed with the view that it would replace the Zoological Garden Regulations. In June 2010, the Zoo Standard was applied to deemed approved organisms, and the requirement that the animals remain in the same place was removed using the provisions of s45B. No additional controls were imposed on these organisms at that time.

2.3. Identification of the organisms

2.3.1 The organisms subject to this process are listed in Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix1.

Taxonomic updates 2.3.2 Due to changes in taxonomic classification, we recommend that and African elephants be considered at genus level; Giraffa and Loxodonta (see Appendix 6 for details).

3. Purpose of the approvals 3.1. Current situation Organisms approved under section 45 3.1.1 Section 45(1)(a)(i) of the Act requires that the application be for one of the purposes specified in s39(1) in order to be approved.

June 2013 10

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

3.1.2 Seventeen applications for zoo animals have been approved. Nine5 of those applications have been approved for a single purpose – the public display of any organism including, but not limited to, display in a circus or zoological garden (s39(1)(e)), and five applications 6 were approved for a combination of purposes being public display (s39(1)(e)), conservation of genetic material (s39(1)(d)), and/or advocacy, education and research (s39(1)(h)). Three7 applications, from a facility that is not open to the public, were approved for purposes excluding public display, and the use of those approvals was limited to the applicant (Keystone Wildlife Conservancy).

3.1.3 A full list of the applications, organisms approved and purposes they were approved for can be found in the accompanying document Applications, organisms, purpose and controls.

Organisms deemed approved 3.1.4 The transitional provisions did not specify a purpose for ‘deemed approvals’ but did specify that the provisions of the now expired Zoological Gardens Regulations 1977 would apply. The Zoological Gardens Regulations define a zoo as a place where live animals are kept for the purposes of public exhibition and entertainment, and includes a circus, a marine park, an aquarium, and an oceanarium. EPA staff consider that this implies that the organisms are approved for import into containment for the purpose of public display, although the interpretation of these approvals has varied over time. Imposing a purpose on the deemed approvals will give clarity around the interpretation and provide consistency across all animal approvals.

3.2. Broadened purpose

3.2.1 Historically zoological gardens were focused on entertainment and satisfying public curiosity. In recent years zoos have become more focussed on conservation, research and education, and this is reflected in the way these collections are managed, how animals are contained, and the types of activities zoos undertake.

3.2.2 Over time, the entertainment purpose of zoos has broadened to other areas. This means that the additional purposes for importing animals into containment in s39 of the Act have become increasingly relevant. They include: • s39(1)(d) the conservation of genetic material, that reflects captive breeding to build and maintain a genetically viable (diverse) captive population and holding non-breeding populations of a species that represent future breeders or non-breeding stock (preventing over population and ensuring maximum diversity) and • s39(1)(f) such other purposes as the Authority thinks fit (being research and education reflects the education of zoo visitors about biological diversity and conservation, and about the species exhibited and their natural habitats.

5 NOC04014, NOC04020, NOC05003, NOC06006, NOC06007, NOC06011, NOC07005, NOC07010, and ERMA200908 6 NOC01001, NOC08010, ERMA200520, ERMA200909, and ERMA200924 7 NOC06010, NOC07003 and ERMA200448

June 2013 11

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Applying a purpose to deemed approvals 3.2.3 There are no specific purpose provisions applied to deemed approved organisms under the Act. However, by imposing a purpose on the deemed approvals, the EPA clarifies what is permitted for deemed approved animals and makes this consistent with zoo animals assessed under section 45.

3.2.4 We consider that zoo facilities holding animals under a deemed approval will not be prejudiced by the purpose public display of any new organism being applied to the import of those organisms, as all facilities currently holding those organisms are open for public display in some capacity. In addition, this reflects the original registration of zoo facilities under the Zoological Gardens Regulations 1977 as noted in 3.1.4 above.

3.2.5 Further, as has occurred in the past, applications for the importation of deemed approved zoo animals for purposes other than public display are likely to be approved. For example, (Ailurus fulgens) is deemed approved for importation into containment, it is also approved for importation into containment for the conservation of genetic material (s39(1)(d)), and such other purposes as the Authority thinks fit (s39(1)(f)), being research and education, through application ERMA200448.

3.2.6 Therefore it is proposed that the same purposes for importation into containment be applied to the deemed approved animals as are applied to those animals approved under s45.

3.2.7 The effect of applying a ‘purpose’ to deemed approved zoo animals will be minimal, and is not contrary to s45B.

3.3. Proposed purpose for approvals

3.3.1 It is proposed that the approved purpose for importation into containment for all zoo animals be updated. This will bring the deemed approved organisms in line with those organisms approved since the HSNO Act was introduced, and address the current activities undertaken by zoos.

3.3.2 EPA staff propose that all zoo animals (those with existing s45 approvals and those with deemed approvals) be approved for importation into containment for one or more of the following purposes: • the conservation of genetic material (s39(1)(d)) including captive breeding and/or maintaining single sex groups • the public display of any new organism (s39(1)(e)) and/or • such other purposes as the Authority thinks fit (s39(1)(f)), being research and education.

3.3.3 We consider that the three purposes are overlapping and reflect the current activities undertaken by zoos. Broadening purpose of the approvals creates consistency across the approvals, and does not create any additional risk, or prejudice the current approval users.

June 2013 12

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

4. Evaluation

4.1. Introduction

4.1.1 To ease consideration of this application, we have evaluated all the organisms together, rather than looking at the organisms with deemed approvals separately from the organisms with s45 approvals. To consider the two groups separately entails the risk of each group being given different controls, and the outcome would potentially be similar to the current situation. This means that all organisms considered in this reassessment will be evaluated as requiring s45 approval. We have used the legislative framework of s45 of the Act to describe the risks and benefits, as s63 of the Act states “A reassessment under this section shall be deemed to be an application…..” We consider that this approach will also enable consistent controls to be imposed or varied under s45B.

4.1.2 Section 45(1)(a) of the Act provides that an application for import into containment may be approved if; • the application is for one of the purposes specified in s39(1) of the Act • after taking into account all the effects of the organism and any inseparable organism, including, but not limited to, the effects on the matters in s44 of the Act (for applications to import a new organism into containment), the beneficial effects of having the organism in containment outweigh the adverse effects of the organism and any inseparable organism • the EPA is satisfied that the organism can be adequately contained.

4.1.3 The purpose of the reassessment has been considered in section 3 of this document and a recommendation for a purpose to cover all zoo animal approvals has been provided in section 3.3.2.

4.1.4 From the applicant, and during the public notification period, EPA staff found that the “take home messages” associated with the containment of zoo animals come from the social concerns being expressed around the health and safety of zoo workers after two recent deaths, and the welfare of the animals in containment. These matters are not within the scope of our HSNO responsibilities. If by chance a control imposed to ensure animals are contained happens to have a health and safety in employment or animal welfare effect this is not deliberate. We have only proposed controls that meet our obligations under the Act.

4.2. Adverse effects

4.2.1 The applicant has identified potential adverse effects, and EPA staff have assessed these in terms of effects on the environment, on society and communities and with regards to the on-going maintenance of containment, associated with holding the zoo animals that comprise this reassessment.

June 2013 13

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Adverse effects on the environment 4.2.2 All zoo containment facilities will be required to have contingency plans (as per proposed control 22), which sets out how a containment facility would locate/recapture/destroy the animal in the event of an escape (within or outside of the facility). The applicant attests that larger animals can be easily located, and those animals that require specialised dietary or environmental conditions are unlikely to survive for long without care. In the event of escape, the applicant considers that most animals are unlikely to have any adverse environmental impact due to the contingency plans in place within any zoo containment facility.

4.2.3 DOC consider “the likelihood of zoo animals escaping or being released to be low, given the MPI and EPA required containment standards for all the organisms covered by this application and the contingency measures in place”. They note that they have not assessed the comprehensiveness of the list of organisms identified by the applicant as being a potential threat to environment “as this would require an environmental impact assessment to be done for each species covered by the application”, and EPA staff agree that this would be outside the scope of the reassessment. While there is an option to decline animals being reassessed under s63, this option does not apply to animals being reassessed under s45B.

4.2.4 However, the applicant has identified some species that could have an environmental effect if they were to breach containment, and in the unlikely event that they survive or establish populations outside of the zoo. EPA staff consider that the likelihood of this is low, due to zoo populations being small, and stringent containment measures being in place. Appendix 7 lists all incidents of escape of animals from containment in zoos since 2000, and in all cases, the animal was recaptured (or killed) without any significant environment damage being incurred. The applicant has identified three species as having the potential to cause a degree of environmental harm, and these are discussed in section 5.7 (Adequacy of containment), as we consider that environmental damage could only be caused should the organism escape and form a self-sustaining population.

4.2.5 No significant effects on the environment have been identified, because these animals will be held in containment.

Adverse effects on human health 4.2.6 Of the 15 controls proposed by the applicant (see Appendix 8), six relate to staff health and safety. Staff health and safety is managed by the Health and Safety in Employment (HSE) Act (1992). We can only impose controls where they relate to our HSNO Act powers, i.e. on new organisms in containment. It is noted that under the HSE Act zoos are required to maintain a safe work environment for its employees and visitors. Therefore, no specific controls to manage the safety of zoo employees or visitors have been proposed.

4.2.7 While two deaths related to zoo animals have occurred since the introduction of the new organism provisions of the HSNO Act in 1998, neither incident resulted from a breach of containment.

June 2013 14

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Adverse effects on society and communities 4.2.8 Six of the controls proposed by the applicant relate to animal welfare. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) in its submission also raises animal welfare concerns.

4.2.9 Save Animals from Exploitation (SAFE) in its submission stated that “it is impossible for zoos to fully meet the animal’s physical and behavioural needs as required by the Animal Welfare Act (1999)”.

4.2.10 EPA staff note that all zoo facilities must comply with the requirements of the Animal Welfare (Zoos) Code of Welfare 2005 issued under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Controls have not been proposed for this reassessment to address the welfare of animals as only controls for a HSNO purpose can be imposed on HSNO approvals.

4.2.11 No adverse effects on society and communities have been identified.

On-going maintenance of containment 4.2.12 The applicant has proposed that “a business must show that it has the resources or a plan to obtain those resources, to maintain the collection”.

4.2.13 Greater Wellington Regional Council when commenting on private zoo collections and gardens “considers the potential for escape is far higher from this type of facility”. For this reason they strongly support the applicants control “n) A business must have an exit strategy that deals with dispersal of the collection plan if the business fails”.

4.2.14 MPI commented in their submission that “MPI supports the applicant’s contention that the ability to maintain containment is dependent upon adequate resourcing and planning on a long-term basis”. They consider that “surety of long term containment needs to be established because of potential difficulties in disposing of animals should the lack of resourcing, or other events, lead to cancellation of the facility approval”.

4.2.15 In 2012, Franklin Zoo closed after the death of Dr Schofield, and Zion Wildlife Gardens went into liquidation. MPI consider “non-compliance can have serious consequences, including supervisory intervention to maintain containment (possibly at the Crown’s expense)”.

4.2.16 EPA staff consider that there are high costs associated with containment in zoos, and when facilities cannot cover these they fall to the taxpayer. It is therefore vital that applications for animals in containment include evidence of the resources available to maintain containment. .

4.2.17 EPA staff have proposed control 5 requiring facilities to have a documented plan showing how containment will be provided for.

June 2013 15

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

4.3. Beneficial effects

4.3.1 The applicant has identified potential positive effects of keeping animals in containment. We have assessed these in terms of the effects on the environment and on society and communities associated with holding the organisms in containment that form this reassessment.

Beneficial effects on the environment and on society and communities 4.3.2 The applicant considers that viable populations of rare and endangered wildlife in human care can only be sustained in the long term through complex conservation breeding programmes requiring international trade in exotic species held by zoos.

4.3.3 EPA staff consider that by containing viable populations of wild animals in human care, zoos can achieve the following benefits for New Zealand society: • meeting the international commitments of the New Zealand Government • a greater understanding of animals through public display in a zoological garden • conservation, including of biodiversity.

Assisting the New Zealand Government to meet international treaty commitments 4.3.4 The applicant considers that international treaties such as the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) explicitly recognise the conservation value of wildlife populations managed by zoos. The New Zealand government is a signatory to these and other key treaties of relevance to biodiversity conservation.

Education 4.3.5 The applicant states that New Zealand zoos have followed, and often led, international trends which have seen a shift in focus from visitor entertainment through public display to visitor learning and wildlife conservation. They state that New Zealand zoos are currently visited by over 1.8 million people each year and that their importance as part of the New Zealand cultural landscape is shown by their longevity, popularity and the continued significant funding provided to zoos by local authorities, donations and Ministry of Education contracts.

4.3.6 They also state that a large part of zoo education policies revolve around the environment and sustainability. They consider that they educate visitors in ways to help the environment and thereby contribute to improving the environment. Zoos also consider that they provide invaluable education regarding sustainability and the changes everybody can achieve at home or at school.

4.3.7 By attracting visitors to zoos, the applicant considers that exotic species also contribute to the conservation of New Zealand native species in two ways. Firstly by attracting a stream of visitors that once at the zoo are exposed to important conservation advocacy messages, and secondly by providing financial resources that zoos spend on in-house or field-based projects.

June 2013 16

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Conservation, including of Biodiversity 4.3.8 The applicant considers that importing exotic species into containment may contribute to wildlife conservation in the following ways: • through their inclusion in the Population Management Programs, such as those administered by the Australasian Species Management Program (ASMP). These programmes aim to maintain high levels of genetic diversity, develop and document husbandry expertise and establish insurance populations to guard against catastrophic declines of species in the wild • by illustrating global biodiversity • by providing revenue which supports the direct financial contributions that New Zealand zoos provide to conservation projects overseas.

4.3.9 The Convention on Biological Diversity states that “the conservation of biological diversity is a common concern of humankind” and the applicant considers that all New Zealanders benefit from the conservation of biological diversity.

4.3.10 EPA staff consider that by helping government meet international obligations, educating the public and providing for conservation biodiversity, zoos are providing a significant social benefit to New Zealanders and other communities in New Zealand and internationally in the indigenous location of species both human and animal.

4.4. Inseparable organisms

4.4.1 Under s45(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, the Authority must take into account the effects of the organism and any inseparable organism. No inseparable organisms have been identified in association with the new organisms in this application, so EPA staff consider the effects to be negligible.

June 2013 17

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

5. Proposed controls regime

5.1. Introduction

5.1.1 This section outlines the current controls that zoo animals are subject to, and the concerns about them that led to the reassessment application. It also outlines a set of proposed controls, and how this set of controls can be implemented.

5.1.2 Under (s45(2)), an approval: a) must include controls that provide for applicable matters in Schedule 3; and b) may include controls that provide for any other matters in order to give effect to the purpose of the Act (to protect the environment, and the health and safety of people and communities, by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms).

Effects of Controls 5.1.3 This reassessment is considered to be an effective way to address inconsistencies and confusion around the controls in place for zoo animals; in particular the lack of specific HSNO controls for pre-HSNO Act new organisms that were deemed to be approved (under the transitional provision of s255) into containment, and controls imposed on new organisms subsequently approved under s45 of the HSNO Act.

5.1.4 These inconsistencies have led to confusion for both the zoo facilities, and the MPI inspectors who are trying to enforce compliance with HSNO and Biosecurity requirements where those respective requirements are not clearly identified.

5.1.5 MPI have commented that they are reliant on three aspects with regards to this reassessment: • “A clear understanding of the legal scope of the approval, i.e. what is legally enforceable under the approval; • Clarity of controls, so that it is clearly understood what the intent of a control is, particularly if it is worded as a performance-based outcome; and • The approval, particularly the controls, is able to be enforced within reasonable expectations and that reasonable expectation measures can be implemented to meet the intended outcome.”

5.1.6 MPI Compliance Directorate commented that they considered two points to be very important in setting the controls: • “Routine surveillance, inspection and treatment plans around the immediate vicinity of the containment facility if required i.e: not just inside and structural checks but also outside if required (this may however be encompassed in other generic areas of the document); • The need for long term and accurate record keeping of the training programme (again documentation is already mentioned generically within the document so that may cover it)”. (David Blake, Team Leader, North Investigations Team 2, Compliance Directorate, MPI. pers comm).

June 2013 18

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

5.1.7 We propose controls that align with some submissions. These include : • Control 24 To ensure containment is being achieved, containment measures must be inspected, monitored and reviewed • Controls 22 and 23 relating to the containment facilities contingency plans, require a plan of the actions to be taken to recapture or eradicate the approved organism, and may include external checks if necessary. • Control 5 The person(s) responsible for compliance with the HSNO Act controls must have a documented plan that shows that the containment facility has access to on-going resources necessary to ensure that the containment of all approved organisms held within the facility can be adequately maintained in the long term. • Control 21 Any person (including contractors, staff, students, visitors, and volunteers) entering the containment facility and/or containment areas must have received sufficient instruction on the containment regime to enable the person to meet their responsibilities in relation to containment).

5.1.8 EPA staff consider that by bringing all zoo animals in containment under one set of HSNO controls, we will provide clarification of the scope of HSNO controls for containment of zoo animals and address issues of consistency between approvals. We consider that this will benefit the EPA, MPI, and the zoo facilities.

5.2. Concerns with current controls

5.2.1 The wording of HSNO controls has varied over the years, with a variety of iterations for the same control, reflecting changes in staff and legal advice.

5.2.2 The following areas are of particular importance when imposing controls on approvals: • the effectiveness of the controls • the enforceability of the controls • the ability for facilities to comply • the practicability of the controls.

5.2.3 Our concerns about the effectiveness, practicability, enforceability and compliance of highly prescriptive controls, and a Zoo Standard that varies in the level of prescription of controls, highlights that while being prescriptive gives clarity in some areas, it can leave significant gaps if every possible scenario is not addressed. Also this kind of prescriptive control, which goes beyond stating the outcome required and delves into how to achieve compliance, transfers risk to the EPA. For example, if an incident occurs but prescriptive controls were complied with, the facility may argue non-culpability. We recommend minimising opportunities for risk transfer.

June 2013 19

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

5.2.4 The current Zoo Standard does not differentiate between HSNO Act requirements and Biosecurity Act requirements. The controls proposed for this reassessment are only for a HSNO purpose even where they may have an unintended and consequential Biosecurity Act impact.

5.3. Controls proposed by the applicant

5.3.1 For this reassessment, the applicant proposed 15 controls that they consider have been inadequately addressed under past HSNO approvals for the containment of zoo animals. These controls are listed in Appendix 8 of this document. These additional controls address the containment of new organisms. Other matters that the applicant considers should be addressed include human health and safety, and animal welfare. These matters are not within the scope of HSNO Act responsibilities, and any such control that could have a benefit for HSE or animal welfare is imposed only for a HSNO purpose, and any other benefit is consequential.

5.3.2 DOC commented that they “support the additional controls and protocols proposed by the ZAA, and consider them necessary in order to explicitly address the issues concerning containment, administration, staff training, animal welfare, human health and safety, biosecurity and exit strategies to outline the dispersal of the collection”.

5.3.3 NAWAC provided comment that they “support the intent of the application to ‘address the overlaps between containment, animal welfare, health and safety, the current zoo and aquarium standards, and biosecurity, and the applicants recognition that they have a responsibility to the welfare of animals contained in zoos and aquariums beyond the life of the containment facility”.

5.3.4 MPI commented that “while the intent of the controls is understood, many of them, as they are currently worded, are not easily enforceable and some are ‘halfway’ between a prescription and a performance based outcome”. Also, “it is not obviously apparent how some controls directly relate to maintaining containment”. SAFE also commented that while the controls are “good at face value”; they questioned “how will these controls be measured and implemented?”

5.3.5 EPA staff have evaluated these controls in relation to s45(2) of the Act, and made comments against each proposed control in the table in Appendix 8. We agree with the comment from NAWAC that some of the applicants proposed controls “need to be more explicit”, and we have revised them into outcome focused HSNO specific controls where they are relevant and fall within the scope of the Act.

5.4. Proposal for new controls regime and implementation

Proposed new controls regime 5.4.1 It is proposed that a common set of controls be imposed on all zoo animals approved under the Act, including for those organisms that have deemed approvals. The proposed controls are outcome based, looking at the desired outcome rather than specifying how that outcome should be

June 2013 20

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

achieved. This approach is commonly accepted by regulators and approval holders alike and offers a degree of risk transfer avoidance for the EPA and flexibility for approval holders.

5.4.2 An initial set of controls was developed, and outlined in the HSNO Act controls for the containment of new organisms in zoos (draft for consultation) document which was released in conjunction with the application notification. Following public notification, and an assessment of the available information, we recommend a set of 25 controls. These are listed below, and discussed in detail in the supporting document “Explanation and guidance for HSNO Act controls imposed through Application APP201517”, which has been published on the EPA website.

5.4.3 A comparison of the recommended controls with any existing controls and the current Zoo Standard can be found in the supporting document “Comparison of proposed and existing controls”, which has been published on the EPA website.

Proposed controls

Requirement for the containment of approved organisms 1. The approved organism(s) must be contained.

Requirements for accountability for compliance with controls 2. The organisation, entity or person(s) responsible for the ownership, control and management of the containment facility where the approved organisms are held (including Board members and/or directors) must ensure compliance with the controls of this approval.

Requirement to specify how controls will be met 3. Procedures that specify how all the controls will be implemented must be documented, and these must be reviewed regularly to ensure they are effective.

4. The containment facility must be operated in compliance with the documentation specified in control 3. (This does not override the imperative to comply with all the controls).

Requirement for continuity of containment 5. The person(s) responsible for compliance with the HSNO Act controls must have a documented plan that shows that the containment facility has access to on-going resources necessary to ensure that the containment of all approved organisms held within the facility can be adequately maintained in the long term.

Requirements for the containment regime 6. The containment facility and all containment area(s) where the approved organisms may be held must be clearly defined, described, and documented, including their location and boundaries.

7. The containment area(s) must be designed, constructed and maintained to prevent the approved organism from escaping.

8. Persons entering and exiting the containment facility and/or any containment areas must do so in a way that does not adversely affect containment of the approved organism(s).

June 2013 21

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

9. The approved organism(s) must be identifiable as a new organism and be able to be linked to the relevant HSNO Act approval.

Requirements for notification to the EPA and/or MPI 10. Notification must be given to the MPI Inspector of any proposed modification to the containment regime which may affect the integrity of containment of the approved organism(s), before the modifications are undertaken.

11. The EPA and MPI Inspector must be notified in writing before this HSNO Act approval is used for the first time. 12. The MPI Inspector must be notified as soon as possible, and within 24 hours, of any escape and/or breach of containment and the actions taken in response to that incident.

Requirements for moving approved organisms 13. The approved organism(s) must be contained during movement within, to, or from the containment facility.

14. When being moved outside of a containment facility, within New Zealand, the approved organism must be accompanied by documentation stating the: a) Identity of the approved organism b) Containment requirements c) Details of the sender d) Details of the receiving facility.

Requirements to limit access to the containment facility 15. Unauthorised persons must be excluded from the containment facility.

16. All containment facility entrances must be clearly identified including specifying who has the right of access.

17. The number and location of entrances to the containment facility where the approved organism(s) are held must be identified and documented.

Requirements for removing equipment and waste from the containment facility 18. Any waste (including biological material) that may harbour the approved organism(s), or heritable material from the approved organism, must be treated to ensure that the approved organism or any heritable material is killed prior to discarding. 19. Any equipment, that may harbour the approved organism(s) or heritable material from the approved organism, must be treated to ensure that the approved organism or any heritable material is killed prior to the equipment being used for another purpose or being removed from the containment area/facility.

Requirement for dealing with undesirable organisms 20. The containment facility must be secured and monitored to ensure the exclusion of undesirable organisms that might compromise the containment of the approved organism(s).

June 2013 22

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Requirement for instruction and training 21. Any person (including contractors, staff, students, visitors, and volunteers) entering the containment facility and/or containment areas must have received sufficient instruction on the containment regime to enable the person to meet their responsibilities in relation to containment.

Requirements for contingency plans 22. The containment facility must have a documented contingency plan for each approved organism held in that containment facility.

23. The contingency plan must be implemented immediately if there is any reason to believe that an approved organism has escaped or been released from the containment area or the containment facility, or any other breach of containment has occurred.

Requirements for internal inspections and monitoring 24. To ensure containment is being achieved, containment measures must be: a) Inspected, monitored and reviewed b) Inspected as soon as possible after any event that could compromise the containment regime, such as an Act of God (such as flood, earthquake) or any unauthorised attempt to enter the containment facility.

25. Any remedial requirements identified under control 24, or by any other means, must be actioned as soon as possible.

Implementation of proposed controls regime 5.4.4 To facilitate the implementation of the proposed controls regime it is recommended that: • an implementation period be imposed • a guidance document in support of the EPA decision be issued.

Implementation period 5.4.5 EPA staff consider that an implementation period of 12 months from the notification of the decision should be imposed. This will enable all facilities to review their operations and documentation to meet the new controls. It will also allow MPI to review those changes and undertake the necessary audits to ensure that all containment facilities are operating in compliance with the new controls regime.

Guidance document 5.4.6 A guidance document has been drafted in support of the decision for this application. This document will help facilitate the new controls regime by explaining what is expected of the facilities, giving guidance on how they can comply with the controls. It will also assist MPI with measuring compliance with the new controls.

5.4.7 An initial draft guidance document was released for public consultation with the reassessment application to gain feedback from the containment facilities, and begin discussions with MPI. A

June 2013 23

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

revised draft of this guidance document (Explanation and guidance for HSNO Act controls imposed through Application APP201517) has been developed in collaboration with MPI, based on the recommended controls. This guidance document will be updated to reflect the EPA decision on the reassessment application, and may be updated in the future if best practice changes, or more guidance is considered useful.

5.5. Assessment of the adequacy of containment

5.5.1 After taking into account the available information, the ability of the new organisms to escape containment, and the containment regime (controls 1-25), EPA staff conclude that it is highly improbable that new organisms would be able to escape from containment.

5.5.2 EPA staff consider that the containment regime imposed provides for all the matters specified in Schedule 3 (Part 2) of the HSNO Act. How these proposed controls specifically address the matters specified in Part 2 of Schedule 3 is shown in Appendix 8, and a list defining any HSNO specific terms that should be applied to these proposed controls is given in the guidance document (Explanation and guidance for HSNO Act controls imposed through Application APP201517).

Ability to establish an undesirable self-sustaining population and ease of eradication 5.5.3 In accordance with s44 and s37 of the Act and clause 10(e) of the Methodology, EPA staff considered the ability of the organisms to form undesirable self-sustaining populations should they escape containment, and the ease of eradication of such populations.

5.5.4 The applicant identified three species that have the potential to cause localised environmental impacts, in the event that they escaped/were released and established in the environment. The potential risks posed by those animals are outlined below.

5.5.5 EPA staff consider that it is highly likely that the zoo animals being considered under this reassessment could be recaptured or killed. In addition, we consider that in the highly improbable event that an undesirable self-sustaining population did establish in New Zealand, such a population could easily be eradicated, as the animals would be easily located and trapped or poisoned.

Florida Soft Shell Turtle 5.5.6 Apalone ferox (Schneider, 1783) is highly carnivorous and thrives in deep fresh water. The species is aquatic and only comes onto land to lay eggs. We therefore consider that a feral population would be harder to detect than some other fresh water turtle species. It is unlikely they could spread out of a single river system given the low numbers that are in New Zealand, for example only one male is currently held by any ZAA member institution, and that a gravid female would have to escape containment to be able to form a sustaining population in the wild. This species would have an impact of localised fish, crustacean, duck and invertebrate species, as these comprise its diet.

June 2013 24

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Oriental Short (small) Clawed Otter 5.5.7 Aonyx cinerea (Illiger, 1815) could cause localised predation on fish, crabs, crustaceans and molluscs. However, a recent escape resulted in 1/3 loss of body condition by the time the animal was recaptured compared to her last weight recorded before she escaped. We therefore consider that it would not have been able to survive for much longer. In addition, a male and a female, or a gravid female would have to escape and evade recapture long enough to rear babies.

African Clawed Frog 5.5.8 Xenopus laevis (Daudin, 1802) has been associated with the spread of chytrid fungus. One of the routes for chitrid fungus to be spread worldwide is believed to be by research colonies of African Clawed frogs, as this species is where the oldest records of chytrid fungus infections can be found. As chytrid fungus is already present in New Zealand, and only one native frog species is at all aquatic (Hochstetters Frog Leiopelma hochstetteri) the likelihood of this being more than a localised issue is highly unlikely.

6. Summary and recommendations

6.1.1 After consideration of the risks and the controls we have proposed to mitigate those risks, EPA staff consider that the beneficial effects outweigh the negative effects. EPA staff consider that the proposed controls ensure containment and we recommend that they be approved as part of the decision for this application.

6.1.2 Although the s45 approvals have been reassessed under s63 of the Act, and the deemed approvals have been assessed under s45B, EPA staff recommend that they all have the same set of controls applied under the new decision.

June 2013 25

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Appendix 1: Organisms and approval numbers

Table 1:Organisms approved under section 458

Species Common name Approval (s45)

Acrobates pygmaeus Shaw, 1793 feather tailed glider NOC002541

Ailuropoda melanoleuca (David, 1869) NOC100015

Ailurus fulgens (F.G. Cuvier, 1825) red panda NOC100019*

all animals of the genus Canis (excluding C. familiaris) Canis NOC002510

All species of Bovidae, excluding the subfamily Caprinae (chamois, , cattle, gazelles, NOC002511 goats, sheep, serows and relatives) and genera Bos (oxen and true pronghorn antelope NOC100023 cattle), Bubalus (water buffalo), and Syncerus (African buffalo)

NOC002511 Antidorcas marsupialis (Zimmerman, 1780) springbok NOC002494 NOC100023*

NOC002511 Antilope cervicapra (Linnaeus, 1758) blackbuck NOC002495 NOC100023*

Archispirostreptus gigas giant African millipede NOC100080

Basiliscus plumifrons plumed basilisk NOC100117

NOC002511 Boselaphus tragocamelus (Pallas, 1766) nilgai NOC002496 NOC100023*

Brachylophus vitiensis Fiji island crested iguana NOC002116

Callithrix pygmaea (Spix 1823) (syn. Cebuella pygmaea) pygmy marmoset NOC002393

Canis latrans coyote NOC002510*

Caracal caracal Schreber, 1776 (syn. Felis caracal) caracal NOC002542

Ceratotherium simum (Burchell, 1817) white NOC002497*

Chrysocyon brachyurus Illiger 1815 maned wolf NOC002481

Colobus guereza Rüppell, 1835 black and white colobus NOC002543

Crocuta crocuta Erxleben, 1777 spotted hyena NOC002544

Dama ruficollis Addra gazelle NOC002511*

green and black poison dart Dendrobates auratus (Girard 1855) NOC100094 frog

Dendrobates azureus (Hoogmoed 1969) blue poison dart frog NOC100093

Dendrobates galactonotus (Steindachner 1864) splash backed poison frog NOC100092

Dendrobates leucomelas (Steindachner 1864) yellow-banded poison dart frog NOC100096

Dendrobates reticulatus (Boulenger 1884) red backed poison frog NOC100097

Dendrobates tinctorius (Cuvier 1797) dyeing poison frog NOC100098

Diceros bicornis Linnaeus, 1758 black rhinoceros NOC002545

8 Controls to be reassessed under s63.

June 2013 26

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Species Common name Approval (s45)

Equus burchellii (Gray, 1824) NOC002498*

Eurycnema goliath Goliath stick NOC100081

Extatosoma tiaratum spiny leaf insect NOC100082

Felis margarita Loche, 1858 sand cat NOC002546

Felis nigripes Burchell, 1824 black footed cat NOC002547

Galago moholi A. Smith, 1836 Moholi bush baby NOC002548

Galago senegalensis É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 Sengal bush baby NOC002549

Giraffa camelopardalis (Linnaeus, 1758) giraffe NOC002484*

Gorilla gorilla (Savage and Wyman, 1847) gorilla NOC002550

Heterocephalus glaber naked mole rat NOC100115

Hexaprotodon liberiensis Morton, 1849 pygmy hippo NOC002551

Hierodula majuscula giant green mantid NOC100083

NOC002511 Hippotragus niger (Harris 1838) sable antelope NOC002499* NOC100023*

NOC002511 Kobus ellipsiprymnus (Ogilby, 1833) waterbuck NOC002500* NOC100023*

Lamprotornis superbus (Rueppell, 1845) superb (glossy) starling NOC002380

Lasiorhinus latifrons (Owen, 1845) southern hairy nosed wombat NOC002552

Lemur catta ring tailed lemur NOC100016*

Leopardus pardalis Linnaeus, 1758 (syn. Felis pardalis) ocelot NOC002553

Leopardus wiedii Schinz, 1821 (syn. Felis wiedii) margay NOC002554

Liocheles waigiensis rainforest scorpion NOC100084

Macropanesthia rhinoceros giant burrowing cockroach NOC100085

Macropus fuliginosus Desmarest, 1871 western grey kangaroo NOC002555

Mandrillus sphinx Linnaeus, 1758 mandrill NOC002556

Megacrania batesii stick insect NOC100086

Neofelis nebulosa Griffith, 1821 clouded NOC002557

NOC002511 Oryx dammah (Cretzschmar, 1826) scimitar horned oryx NOC002501 NOC100023*

Oryx gazella gemsbok/gemsbuck/oryx NOC002511*

brown greater galago/ greater Otolemur crassicaudatus É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812 NOC002558 bush baby

northern greater galago/ greater Otolemur garnettii Ogilby, 1838 NOC002559 bush baby

Panthera pardus leopard NOC002383*

Phalacrognathus muelleri rainbow stag beetle NOC100087

Phascolarctos cinereus Goldfuss, 1817 koala NOC002560

June 2013 27

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Species Common name Approval (s45)

Phoenicopterus roseus (Phoenicopterus ruber roseus (Pallas, 1811)) greater flamingo NOC100021*

Phyllobates terribilis (Myers, Daly and Malkin 1978) golden poison frog NOC100095

Potorous tridactylus Kerr, 1792 long nosed potoroo NOC002561

Prionailurus viverrinus Bennet 1833 fishing cat NOC002486

Saguinus imperator (Goeldi, 1907) emperor NOC002482

Saguinus oedipus (Linnaeus, 1758) cotton top tamarin NOC100018*

Saimiri boliviensis I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Blainville, 1834 Bolivian squirrel monkey NOC002562

Sarcophilus harrisii Boitard, 1841 NOC002563

Speothos venaticus bush dog NOC100114

Suricata suricatta (Schreber, 1776) NOC100020*

Tachyglossus aculeatus Shaw, 1792 short beaked echidna NOC002564

Tapirus terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758) South American tapir NOC100022*

Tectocoris diophthalmus cotton harlequin bug NOC100088

Trachypithecus francoisi Pousargues, 1898 Francois leaf-monkey NOC002565

NOC002502 Tragelaphus eurycerus (Ogilby 1837) bongo NOC100023

NOC002511 Tragelaphus spekii (Sclater 1863) sitatunga NOC002503* NOC100023*

Tragulus javanicus (Osbeck, 1765) lesser chevrotain NOC002566

Tropidoderus childrenii children’s stick insect NOC100089

Uncia uncia Schreber, 1775 snow leopard NOC002567

Urodacus yaschenkoi inland robust scorpion NOC100090

Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758 brown bear NOC002568

Varanus komodoensis komodo dragon NOC100116

Varecia variegata ruffed lemur NOC100017*

Xylotrupes ulysses rhinoceros beetle NOC100091

Note: those approvals marked * also have a deemed approval.

June 2013 28

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Table 2: Deemed approved organisms9

Species Common name Approval

Acinonyx jubatus (Schreber, 1775) PRE008902

Ailurus fulgens (F.G. Cuvier, 1825) red panda PRE008903

Alligator mississippiensis (Daudin, 1801) PRE009038

Antidorcas marsupialis (Zimmerman, 1780) springbok PRE008905

Antilope cervicapra (Linnaeus, 1758) blackbuck PRE008907

Aonyx cinerea (Illiger, 1815) (syn. Amblonyx cinereus (Illiger, 1815), Aonyx PRE008904 oriental short (small) clawed otter cinereus (Illiger, 1815), Aonyx cineria ) PRE008896

Apalone ferox Florida soft shell turtle PRE100002

Aphonopelma moderatum (Chamberlin & Ivie, 1939) Rio Grande gold tarantula (spider) PRE001042

Aphonopelma seemani (F.O.P.- Cambridge, 1897) Costa Rican zebra tarantula PRE001043

Ateles belzebuth long haired spider monkey PRE008908

black handed/Central American Ateles geoffroyi PRE008911 spider monkey

Avicularia urticans (Schmidt, 1994) Peruvian pinktoe tarantula PRE001044

Boselaphus tragocamelus (Pallas, 1766) nilgai PRE008913

Brachylophus fasciatus Fiji island banded iguana PRE100003

Brachypelma smithi (Cambridge, 1897) Mexican red-kneed tarantula PRE001045

Camelus dromedarius dromedary (Arabian camel) PRE008914

Canis latrans coyote PRE008915

Catopuma temminckii (syn. Pardofelis temminckii, Felis temmincki) Asian golden cat PRE008916

Cebus apella brown capuchin monkey PRE008918

Ceratotherium simum (Burchell, 1817) PRE008919

Cercopithecus aethiops vervet monkey PRE008920

Chamaeleo jacksonii Jacksons chameleon PRE100004

Citharischius crawshayi (Pocock, 1900) king baboon tarantula PRE001046

Crocodylus porosus (Schneider, 1801) salt water / estuarine crocodile PRE009039

Dama ruficollis Addra gazelle PRE008921

Dasyprocta aguti (syn. Dasyprocta leporina) Brazilian (golden) agouti PRE008922

Dolichotis patagonum (Zimmermann, 1780) Patagonian mara/cavy PRE008923

Elephas maximus Asiatic elephant PRE008924

Equus burchellii (Gray, 1824) zebra PRE008927

Eretmochelys imbricata Hawks billed turtle PRE100005

9 Controls to be amended under s45B

June 2013 29

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Species Common name Approval

Gehyra australis house gecko PRE100008

Gekko monarchus house gecko PRE100007

Geochelone carbonaria red-footed tortoise PRE100009

Geochelone chilensis chaco tortoise PRE100010

Geochelone denticulata yellow-footed tortoise PRE100011

Geochelone elegans star tortoise PRE100012

Geochelone nigra Galapagos tortoise PRE100013

Giraffa camelopardalis (Linnaeus, 1758) giraffe PRE008929

Gopherus agassizii desert tortoise PRE100014

Gopherus berlandieri Texas tortoise PRE100015

Grammostola pulchra (Mello-Leitao, 1921) Brazilian black tarantula PRE001048

Grammostola rosea (Walckenaer, 1837) Chilean rose tarantula PRE001047

Grus rubicunda Australian crane PRE100016

Helarctos malayanus Malayan sunbear PRE008931

Hippopotamus amphibius PRE008932

Hippotragus niger (Harris 1838) sable antelope PRE008933

Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris (Linnaeus, 1766) capybara PRE001041

Hylobates lar white-handed lar gibbon PRE008934

Hylobates leucogenys (syn. Nomascus leucogenys) white cheeked gibbon PRE008935

Hylobates muelleri Muller's Borean/grey gibbon PRE008936

Hylobates syndactylus Siamang gibbon PRE008937

Iguana iguana (Linnaeus, 1758) green iguana PRE008900

Kobus ellipsiprymnus (Ogilby, 1833) waterbuck PRE008939

Lasiodorides polycuspulatus (Schmidt & Bischoff, 1997) Peruvian blonde tarantula PRE001049

Lasiodorides striatus (Schmidt & Antonelli, 1996) Peruvian orange stripe tarantula PRE001050

Lemur catta ring tailed lemur PRE008940

Lemur macao black lemur PRE008941

Leontopithecus rosalia golden tamarin PRE008942

PRE008943 Leptailurus (Schreber, 1776) (syn. Felis serval Schreber, 1776) serval PRE008928

Litoria caerulea (White, 1790) White's tree frog PRE009037

Loxodonta africana African savannah elephant PRE100033

Loxodonta cyclotis African forest elephant PRE100034

Lycaon pictus African wild dog PRE008944

June 2013 30

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Species Common name Approval

Lynx rufus (Schreber, 1777) (syn. Felis rufus) bobcat PRE008945

Macaca irus crab eating macaque PRE008946

Macaca mulatta Rhesus macaque PRE008947

Macaca nemestrina pig tailed macaque PRE008948

Macaca radiata bonnet macaque PRE008949

Macropus giganteus Shaw 1790 great grey kangaroo PRE100018

Macropus rufus (Desmarest 1822) red kangaroo PRE100019

Ophisaurus apodus (syn. Pseudopus apodus) scheltopusik/glass lizard PRE100021

Oryx dammah (Cretzschmar, 1826) scimitar horned oryx PRE008950

Oryx gazella gemsbok/gemsbuck/oryx PRE008951

Pamphobetus antinous (Pocock, 1923) steely blue-leg -eating spider PRE001051

Pamphobetus platytomma (Mello-Leitao, 1923) Brazilian pink tarantula PRE001052

Pan troglodytes PRE008952

Panthera leo African lion PRE008953

Panthera pardus leopard PRE008955

Panthera tigris PRE008957

Papio hamadryas baboon PRE008958

Pecari tajacu (syn. Tayassu tajacu) collared peccary PRE008960

Pelecanus conspicillatus Australian pelican PRE100023

Phelsuma madagascariensis Madagascar giant day gecko PRE009032

Phoenicopterus roseus (Phoenicopterus ruber roseus (Pallas, 1811)) greater flamingo PRE100025

Pongo abelii Sumatran PRE100035

Pongo pygmaeus Bornean orangutan PRE008961

Prionailurus bengalensis (syn. Felis bengalensis) leopard cat PRE008962

Pteropus poliocephalus grey headed flying fox PRE008963

Pteropus scapulatus little red flying fox PRE008964

Puma concolor (Linnaeus 1771) (formerly Felis concolor) puma PRE008901

Rhea americana greater rhea PRE100027

Saguinus oedipus (Linnaeus, 1758) cotton top tamarin PRE008965

Saimiri sciureus (Linnaeus, 1758) common squirrel monkey PRE009036

Suricata suricatta (Schreber, 1776) meerkat PRE008966

Tapirus terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758) South American tapir PRE008967

Theraphosa blondi (Latreille, 1804) Goliath bird-eating spider PRE001053

Tragelaphus spekii (Sclater 1863) sitatunga PRE008968

June 2013 31

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Species Common name Approval

Varanus gouldii Goulds monitor PRE100031

Varanus varius lace monitor PRE009035

Varecia variegata ruffed lemur PRE008969

Vombatus ursinus Shaw 1800 common wombat PRE001035

Xenopus laevis African clawed toad PRE100032

Zalophus californianus (Lesson, 1828) Californian sealion PRE100038

June 2013 32

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Appendix 2: Summary of Submissions Received through Public Notice

Table 3 Summary of submissions received during public notification Submitter/ Submission Submitter comments organisation

102796 National Animal Welfare Support the intent to address overlaps between containment, animal Advisory Committee welfare, health and safety, the current zoo and aquarium standards, and

biosecurity.

Notes animal welfare not identified as an issue in the analysis of risk and

benefits.

Consider that while there are controls under HSNO, there must be on-

going consideration of the on-going risk to animal welfare.

102809 Greater Regional Concerns about the biosecurity risk of exotic animals held in zoos. Wellington Council Consider it is essential that containment of exotic animals follow the

proposed controls and that smaller facilities adhere to the same rules as

larger facilities.

Monitoring must occur to ensure that happens.

102810 Save Animals from The controls as they are proposed are good at face value. We fully Exploitation agree the physical, emotional, and mental needs of the animals must be

met.

SAFE’s main concern is the implementation of the proposed controls –

how will these controls be measured and implemented?

SAFE is concerned that financial insecurity faced by many zoos may

place the welfare of the animals at risk. Even facilities that are owned by

city councils make decisions for financial reasons that may negatively

affect animals.

102812 World Society for the Provided a paper prepared by WSPA for the Welfare Act review process Protection of Animals in 2012. It looks at the issues associated with exotic and wild animals for

public display and makes some recommendations. Does not specifically

address the issues identified as part of the EPA submission but may

throw up some interesting issues.

June 2013 33

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Appendix 3: Submission from the Department of Conservation

Monday, 6 May 2013 Department of Conservation comments on the application to reassess all terrestrial zoo animals and aquatic mammalian zoo animals approved for containment under the HSNO Act Application code: APP201517 Applicant: Zoo and Aquarium Association Submission deadline: Wednesday, 8 May 2013

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Zoo and Aquarium Association’s (ZAA) application to bring terrestrial zoo animals and aquatic mammalian zoo animals with deemed HSNO approval (deemed approved during the transitional period when the HSNO Act came into force), and prior HSNO approval under one set of controls.

1. In summary, the Department supports the additional controls proposed by the ZAA, in combination with standards required by MPI (MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Standard 154.03.04 Containment Facilities for Zoo Animals) and the EPA controls that govern their containment in conjunction with this standard.

2. More specifically, we note that in addition to the application content, the EPA has asked for the Department’s feedback on the ZAA New Zealand Guidelines for Containing Zoo Animals in New Zealand (2011) and the HSNO Act controls for the containment of new organisms in zoos. The Department has the following comments.

General comments 3. DOC is primarily an operational Department, with one of our main focuses being the control of vertebrate and other pests for the protection of native biodiversity purposes, rather than the containment of them. Consequently we do not have the necessary internal containment capability to evaluate the utility of the structural or operational measures proposed in the application. We ask that the Authority takes our knowledge precincts into account when deciding whether suitable assessment has been done.

4. We have limited experience with predator proof fencing in order to contain and maintain biodiversity values by excluding pests from a given area, and standards for keeping deer in captivity (because the Minister of Conservation has the legal responsibility to manage aspects of deer farming in New Zealand under the Wild Animal Control Act 1977). Accordingly, we have attached the Department’s “Management of Deer Farming and Keeping Deer in Captivity Standard Operating Procedure” which covers all aspects of keeping deer in captivity, including dealing with illegal liberations and deer escapes from farms (dme-424139). This may be of some use to the EPA when assessing ungulate containment and contingency measures.

5. Unfortunately we have not synthesised our best practice for predator proof fence development, which may have been useful for the EPA when assessing the appropriate measures for relevant species of ‘climbers’, and so we are unable to provide you with this information directly. However, two contacts who we believe may have the expertise to comment on the efficacy of the application’s structural containment measures are:

Pest proof fences: http://www.pestprooffences.co.nz/ Xcluder fences: http://www.xcluder.co.nz/

Specific comments; adverse effects on the environment 6. We consider the likelihood of zoo animals escaping or being released to be low, given the MPI and EPA required containment standards for all the organisms covered by this application and the contingency measures in place.

June 2013 34

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

7. The consequence of an escapee’s potential for adverse environmental impact obviously depends on a range of factors, including the escapee’s sex, whether the female is gravid (and likelihood/methods of other heritable material spread), the suitability of the New Zealand environment and availability of dietary requirements. The three species identified by the applicant as having the potential to cause localised adverse environmental impacts in the event of escape/release and establishment in the wild are the Florida Soft Shell Turtle, Oriental Short (small) Clawed Otter and African Clawed Frog (chytrid fungus threat). The Department has not commented on the accuracy or comprehensiveness of this list, as this would require an environmental impact assessment to be done for each species covered by the application; but more importantly, this appears to be outside the submission scope, given we understand these species already have deemed or prior EPA approval for containment.

Specific comments; proposed additional controls 8. We support the additional controls and protocols proposed by the ZAA, and consider them necessary in order to explicitly address the issues concerning containment, administration, staff training, animal welfare, human health and safety, biosecurity and exit strategies to outline the dispersal of the collection; noting the qualification outlined in 3. above.

Comments provided on behalf of DOC by:

Verity Forbes Technical Advisor – Threats (Biosecurity)

Peer review: Phil Bell – Programme Manager (Future of Predator Control)

June 2013 35

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Appendix 4: Submission from the Ministry for Primary Industries

Comments Form to the EPA for New Organism Applications

Application Code: APP201517 Applicant Name: Zoo and Aquarium Association Application Category: Notified Reassessment Application Title: The reassessment (under the HSNO Act) of terrestrial zoo animals and aquatic zoo animals EPA Applications Contact: Kate Bromfield Date: 8 May 2013 MPI Response Coordinator: Barry Wards Option to Speak in Support of this Yes Submission: Comments provided by: Barry Wards BASIS ON WHICH COMMENT IS PROVIDED

MPI submits these comments for consideration to the EPA on the following: • Clarity of information; • Information that MPI considers should be taken into consideration by the EPA; • Adequacy of the proposed containment system, including suggestions for controls and amendments to proposed controls; and • Enforceability of any proposed controls.

Matters relating to the application that are not within the scope of these comments will be provided to the EPA separately.

Comments

General . On 17 June 2011, the EPA made a decision stating that there are grounds for reassessing zoo animals approved or deemed approved for importation into containment. . It is MPI’s understanding that this decision was made after taking into account that information received showed a significant change of use of the approved organisms, in accord with s62(2)(c) of the HSNO Act. This change of use recognised that the purpose of the majority of the current approvals limited the current scope of the functions of the containment facilities (zoos) beyond that of ‘public display’. Consequently, this current application seeks to reassess zoo animals to take into account these changes of use, assess risks and benefits associated with these and develop controls that manage these accordingly. . In addition, because deemed approved zoo animals have never been assessed under the HSNO framework (pre-July 1998), the reassessment offers an opportunity to decide on whether the controls are adequate and consistent with those controls applied to animals approved after July 1998.

June 2013 36

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

. Ultimately, this application is primarily concerned with: ­ Reassessing zoo animal new organisms to determine whether purposes beyond that of public display present additional risks; ­ How those risks are best managed; and ­ Putting in place consistent and risk mitigating controls that would apply to all approved zoo animal new organisms. . Consequently, MPI has a keen interest in providing comments on the application because, as the agency responsible for enforcement of the new organism provisions of the HSNO Act, it needs to ensure that: ­ The EPA has taken all relevant risk matters associated with the containment of the approved organisms into account; ­ Controls established to manage identified risks and ensure the approved organisms are contained at all times are adequate, can be practically implemented and are enforceable. . In addition to this, and noting that aside from this current application there has been a considerable degree of interest in ensuring that decisions on applications are made within the bounds of the HSNO regulatory framework, MPI is aware that this application seeks decisions on what those boundaries are. More specifically, there is recognition that the ability to contain the approved organisms and preventing or managing the potential adverse effects if they are not contained can be significantly impacted by matters relating to (a) maintaining their welfare, and (b) the health and safety of people associated with them. The decisions made by the EPA with respect to these issues are relevant to the scope of enforcement activities and the way these are exercised. Section 4 . MPI agrees that the purpose of holding the approved organisms has significantly changed and additional purposes that are currently being employed have the potential to result in additional risks to containment. Consequently, the ability to effectively contain them can be impacted by such purposes, the way these are met and the effectiveness of how other regulatory requirements not directly related to containment are complied with. . MPIs ability to ensure containment is maintained, particularly in situations where such containment can require highly specialised expertise in animal management and welfare and where dangerous animals are presented to the public can, therefore, be impacted by the level of compliance to such other regulatory requirements. . MPI can also, therefore, understand why the applicant recognises that there are overlaps between containment, animal welfare and health and safety. It also recognises that, particularly in situations where it can be extremely difficult to separate issues relating to containment, animal welfare and health and safety, it also becomes difficult to separate enforcement activities, particularly if these are primarily focused on containment. . In addition to these considerations, MPI supports the applicant’s contention that the ability to maintain containment is dependent upon adequate resourcing and planning on a long-term basis. In some situations, surety of long-term containment needs to be established because of potential difficulties in disposing of animals should the lack of resourcing, or other events, lead to cancellation of the facility approval. This also

June 2013 37

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

recognises that some existing zoo containment facilities have reached a point of financial difficulty because activities over and above the purpose of ‘public display’ have become compromised and these were essential in maintaining business viability. Section 9 . The applicant has indicated that there are no African Forest Elephants in New Zealand as at 29 November 2012. To MPIs knowledge, this is incorrect, Franklin Zoo currently holding one female of this species. Appendix 2 . MPI is legally responsible for the enforcement of this application, if approved. Non- compliance can have serious consequences, including supervisory intervention to maintain containment (possibly at the Crown’s expense), cancellation of a zoo containment facility or its operator, prosecution of an operator and/or associated management, and disposal of approved organisms, including euthanasia. As indicated above, in order to exercise this enforcement responsibility effectively and efficiently, MPI is reliant on three aspects: ­ A clear understanding of the legal scope of the approval, ie what is legally enforceable under the approval; ­ Clarity of controls, so that it is clearly understood what the intent of a control is, particularly if it is worded as a performance-based outcome; and ­ The approval, particularly the controls, is able to be enforced within reasonable expectations and that reasonable expectation measures can be implemented to meet the intended outcome. . If all three aspects are not adequately addressed in considering this application, enforcement may be difficult. . MPI recognises that the applicant considers that there are aspects of animal welfare, health and safety, business continuity and long-term resourcing are intrinsic to not only maintaining containment but also maintaining the ability to. From an operational perspective, MPI supports this position. However, from a legal enforcement position, MPI must defer to the EPA to decide on what extent those aspects need to be incorporated into its decision and, therefore, to what extent it expects MPI to be able to enforce those controls. While MPI will continue to collaborate with the enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing animal welfare and health and safety under reactively-enforced legislation, the extent to which this can be practically achieved, as well as the obligations that may be put on those agencies, is dependent on the scope of EPA decision-making. . Depending on the scope of the application, if approved, it may be difficult for MPI to adequately report against it, particularly those aspects requiring enforcement to animal welfare and safety and health. . In light of the above, MPI makes the following comments on the proposed additional controls: ­ Those controls having a greater focus on animal welfare and/or safety and health as intrinsic to maintaining containment may be difficult to enforce proactively and to cost recover that enforcement. They may necessitate decisions that result in proactive enforcement under a primarily reactively enforced regime in order to determine that the approval has been complied with. In addition, the ability to technically resource such enforcement to the extent intended by the applicant will be beyond the current capabilities of enforcement officers and extra resourcing and/or training will be

June 2013 38

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

required. ­ While controls must take into account the ability of a species to escape, the factors that influence that ability include:

• The inherent size, strength, characteristics, intelligence, behaviour and social interactions of that species;

• Gender and social interactions and behaviour between genders; and

• Behaviour, intelligence and characteristics of individuals of a species (noting the elephant ‘Mila’ at Franklin Zoo as an example). ­ While the intent of the controls is understood, many of them, as they are currently worded, are not easily enforceable and some are ‘halfway’ between a prescription and a performance-based outcome. ­ It is not obviously apparent how some controls directly relate to maintaining containment (eg, proposed control (i)) but this must be considered against the EPA decision over the scope of the approval. ­ MPI supports the intent of controls referring to business resourcing, continuity and viability but cautions that these may be difficult to enforce and verify on an ongoing basis and may raise issues relating to confidentiality of information and potential breach of employment agreements. Additional . MPI recognises that some zoo containment facilities hold animals that are inherently considerations dangerous and, while there is little risk of establishing a viable population if they escaped, can potentially cause great harm to people and communities. The structural and operational containment of these animals can be very expensive and technically challenging, both to establish and maintain. As has been highlighted in recent years, the ability to enforce HSNO approvals under which some of these animals are held has been extraordinarily difficult. Unfortunately this has not been helped by an inherent reluctance to initiate steps which may lead to cancellation of a facility approval because of the publicly unpalatable situations that may lead to. Consequently, it may be appropriate to consider additional controls that recognise such difficult ‘risk’ situations and require an increased level of containment management. Such management may necessarily incorporate additional requirements for containment, animal welfare and safety and health in recognition of those risks and, in some cases, the inherent dependencies between them. While such controls may still be a challenge to enforce, as noted above, they may go some way towards averting situations that have arisen in the past and recognising that the management of zoo animals needs to be considered more holistically from a regulatory perspective than perhaps it is at present.

June 2013 39

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Appendix 5: Submission from the Ministry for Primary Industries – Animal Welfare Group

Submission on the reassessment of approvals for zoo animals application APP201517: the reassessment of approvals and deemed approvals for exotic animals held in zoological gardens.

This is the submission from Animal Welfare Standards, Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).

Summary We support the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee’s submission. In particular, we support the intent of linking animal welfare standards to the HSNO controls. However we feel there is an on-going risk to animal welfare if all the welfare and containment considerations are not coordinated and we do not believe that the proposed controls have provided a clear direction on how this coordination is to be achieved, particularly given there are already animal welfare standards in place in the zoos code of welfare.

Further, it is not clear how the advice of the zoo interagency working group on the scope and structure of the work required to move the management and regulation of zoos from the current situation to the desired future state, will be incorporated. The working group identified that this would likely require collective agreement between agencies around the scope and mandate of the different controls imposed on zoos and the most effective arrangements to ensure compliance across the government’s full range of interests in zoos, i.e., containment, biosecurity, animal welfare and health and safety; Controls proposed by the Applicant MPI supports the intent of the application to “address the overlaps between containment, animal welfare, health and safety, the current zoo and aquarium standards, and biosecurity”. However, the proposed additional controls do not cover all of the welfare standards required to provide for the physical, health and behavioural needs of the animals. There is a risk that the proposed, fairly prescriptive, but subset of actual requirements would then be seen as the animal welfare standards, not those provided in the zoos code of welfare.

One option would be to have a general animal welfare outcome control, and leave the details to the Code of Welfare. For example a refinement of a. in the proposed additional controls “Any animal must be kept in a physical and social environment that meets its physical, health and behavioural needs as per the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and Codes of Welfare.”

Further joint discussions are needed to determine both the framework and scope of the different controls. Reference to and linkages with for example: • HSNO controls • Zoos Code of Welfare • Guidelines for Containing Zoo Animals in New Zealand • ZAA animal welfare position statement • Other Industry standards.

Currently, these documents are either not referred to, or barely address animal welfare, and there is no framework of how they will work together to ensure the well being of the animals and compliance with all the requirements. Controls proposed by the EPA (HSNO Act controls for the containment of new organisms in zoos) The EPA draft controls only address containment issues and not animal welfare. It is therefore not clear how EPA intends to incorporate animal welfare requirements.

Beneficial and Adverse Effects Animal welfare is not identified as an issue in the analysis of adverse and beneficial effects of the application. MPI supports NAWAC position that “zoos do pose risks to animal welfare not only from the ways in which animals are managed within them but also in terms of what they say to society about what are appropriate ways to treat and handle animals.”

June 2013 40

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Appendix 6: Taxonomic updates

Over time there have been revisions of the taxonomic classification of some species held in New Zealand zoos. Relevant changes are noted below, with recommendations where approvals should be updated.

Taxonomic changes to giraffe New taxonomic information has been published which changes giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) from a single species with a number of subspecies to eight species (Groves and Grubb 2011) as follows:

• Giraffa angolensis (Angolan giraffe) • Giraffa antiquorum (Kordofan giraffe) • Giraffa camelopardalis (Nubian or Rothschild's giraffe) • Giraffa giraffa (Cape giraffe) • Giraffa peralta (West African giraffe) • Giraffa reticulata (reticulated giraffe) • Giraffa thornicrofti (Luangwa giraffe) • Giraffa tippelskirchi (Masai giraffe).

Prior to the taxonomic revision of Ungulates by Groves and Grub (2011), there was only a single species recognised for giraffe; Giraffa camelopardalis. The new taxonomic information that splits the genus into separate species does not change the nature of the approved species. The giraffes in New Zealand are either recorded as Giraffa camelopardalis or Giraffa camelopardalis rothschildii (Rothschilds giraffe), so it is not possible to determine which of newly identified species have been imported in to New Zealand in the past. Given that all giraffe have been managed as a single species and all pose an equivalent risk in our risk assessment, it is recommended that the approval for this organism should occur at genus level, Giraffa.

Taxonomic changes to African elephants Although African savannah (Loxodonta africana) and forest (Loxodonta cyclotis) elephants are recognised as distinct species (Roqa et al. 2005, Nadin et al. 2010), the risks they present when in containment in New Zealand are the same. Given that they pose an equivalent risk in our risk assessment, it is recommended that they be considered at the higher taxonomic level of genus; Loxodonta for the purpose of this reassessment.

References Groves, C and Grubb P (2011). Ungulate . The John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland. USA. 64-70.

Roca, A.L. Georgiadis, N. and O'Brien, S.J. (2005) Cytonuclear genomic dissociation in African elephant species. Nature Genetics 37, 96-100.

Rohland, N. Reich, D. Mallick, S. Meyer, M. Green, R. E. Georgiadis, N. J. Roca, A. L. and Hofreiter, M. (2010). "Genomic DNA Sequences from Mastodon and Woolly Mammoth Reveal Deep Speciation of Forest and Savanna Elephants". In Penny, D. PLoS Biology 8 (12),. e1000564.

June 2013 41

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Appendix 7: Incidents involving new organisms in zoos

This Appendix contains information about incidents that have been reported under the HSNO Act regime relating to the organisms subject to this reassessment.

Table 4: Containment breaches (escapes) reported under the HSNO regime

Where and When Event Cause category

Auckland Zoo Red panda escaped enclosure and exited the zoo. Unknown Unknown Recaptured same day.

Auckland Zoo Macaw exited the zoo during free flight training. Unknown August 2002 Recaptured two days later

Wellington Zoo Free-ranging cotton-top tamarin was unable to be located, Unknown March 2003 was not recovered, presumed dead.

Auckland Zoo used log to deactivate electric fence and Containment design and January 2004 negotiate dry moat to escape from enclosure and pushed construction over gate to exit the zoo. Was recaptured same day in adjacent park. Dry moat (in elephant enclosure) contained a build-up of detritus which aided exit

Wellington Zoo Two red pandas escaped from enclosure and one animal Containment design and March 2005 exited the zoo. Both were recaptured the same day. construction Assisted by high trees within enclosure and trees adjacent to perimeter fence of zoo.

Willowbank Wildlife Reserve Otter escaped from enclosure – a vertical plank had come Containment design and May 2005 loose from enclosure wall, otter thought to have scaled wall construction between plank and concrete backing. Recaptured after five days.

Mark Vette Rescue Zoo A disabled Capuchin monkey was taken to staff members’ Human error May 2005 home for care.

Wellington Zoo Two escaped from their night enclosure/den into the Human error July 2006 main enclosure while a keeper was in the main enclosure putting out food for the animals. Keeper failed to secure one of the internal connecting gates.

Auckland Zoo Serval cat escaped from enclosure, recaptured the same Containment design and September 2005 day. construction Extreme jumping ability noted.

Auckland Zoo Two spider monkeys escaped from moated enclosure, Containment design and November 2005 assisted by trees overhanging moat. construction Recaptured the same day.

June 2013 42

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Where and When Event Cause category

Hamilton Zoo Lemur escaped from enclosure. Recaptured same day. Containment design and December 2005 This occasion was not the first time she had escaped. Upon construction return she did not integrate into the group Behavioural factor

Auckland Zoo Lemur escaped from enclosure and exited zoo, recaptured Containment design and February 2006 after two days in a neighbouring garden. construction For several days prior other lemurs had been fighting with the Behaviour female who had a low status in the hierarchy. Possibly climbed tree inside enclosure

Hamilton Zoo Lemur escaped from enclosure, recaptured the next day. Containment design and March 2006 A broken fence wire was shorting out the electric fences. construction

Auckland Zoo Three otters escaped from enclosure and one animal exited Containment design and June 2006 the zoo. Two otters recaptured the same day and remaining construction otter ‘Jin” recaptured after 27 days (found near Rangitoto Island in the Hauraki Gulf). Nesting box reinstated into enclosure not secured properly. Otter exited the zoo boundary via stream.

Hamilton Zoo Lemur escaped from enclosure, returned to enclosure of own Containment design and June 2006 accord. construction Sagging in mesh of conventional fence and branches over- hanging enclosure.

Hamilton Zoo Red panda escaped from zoo enclosure and exited the zoo, Containment design and August 2006 was hit by vehicle on road outside zoo and died. construction Fence post within enclosure used as launch to breach barrier; vegetation within enclosure.

Hamilton Zoo Spider monkey escaped from enclosure, recaptured same Containment design and September 2006 day. The monkey had recently been under some pressure by construction the rest of the troop and may therefore have breached the Behavioural electric fence whilst being chased.

Auckland Zoo Madagascar giant day gecko eggs found in quarantine tank, Human error October 2006 no hatchlings were recovered.

Wellington Zoo Agouti escaped from a temporary enclosure, recaptured the Human error February 2007 following day. Gate had not been locked properly.

Auckland Zoo Meerkat escaped from enclosure, recaptured the same day. Containment design and March 2007 The meerkat dug hole near enclosure gate, and slipped construction under the gate when a staff member entered the enclosure to feed animals – males thought to be seeking females in different enclosure.

Franklin Zoo Gardens Capuchin monkey escaped from enclosure and exited zoo. Containment design and March 2007 Recaptured after nine days from a neighbouring property. construction

June 2013 43

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Where and When Event Cause category

Hamilton Zoo Three Sitatunga antelope escaped from enclosure and one Human error December 2007 animal exited the zoo to a neighbouring property, recaptured the following morning. The perimeter fence was being replaced, and the security of their enclosure was inadvertently compromised.

Auckland Zoo Otter escaped from enclosure, recaptured the following day. Containment design and May 2008 A maintenance inspection identified that the bottom wire of construction the electric fence was loose which may have assisted in

allowing the otter to climb under the fence and up the enclosure perimeter.

Willowbank Wildlife Reserve A group of capuchin monkeys were being relocated to their Containment design and August 2008 new monkey island enclosure when two monkeys slipped construction through gap in their old enclosure. One animal recaptured the same day within the zoo. The other animal was recovered from a reserve adjacent to the zoo three days later.

Auckland Zoo African clawed frog unable to be located – likely to have been Behavioural factor September 2008 eaten. Two separate groups of male frogs were introduced to the enclosure at the same time.

Hamilton Zoo Zoo was broken into and two Madagascar day geckos were Theft October 2008 stolen from their exhibit. Following an investigation the geckos were returned by the Wildlife Enforcement Group.

Auckland Zoo Two cotton-top escaped from their enclosure into an Containment design and October 2008 adjacent tree. Recaptured the same day. construction Thought to have climbed flax bush inside enclosure.

Hamilton Zoo Chimpanzee escaped from enclosure into an adjoining Human error March 2009 service area, recaptured the same day. Keeper failed to secure door.

Wellington Zoo Serval cat escaped from her collar and harness - startled Containment design and March 2009 when out for a walk. Recaptured the same day construction

Willowbank Wildlife Reserve Capuchin monkey escaped from enclosure and exited zoo, Unknown August 2009 recaptured ten days later at a private property adjacent to the zoo.

Wellington Zoo Pygmy marmoset escaped from enclosure. He remained Containment design and August 2009 close to his enclosure and was recaptured the same day. construction Agoutis, which were housed with the marmosets, had dug a hole under the fence. During the conversion to the exhibit for the marmosets anti-dig material below ground had been cut back

June 2013 44

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Where and When Event Cause category

Orana Wildlife Park African crested porcupine escaped enclosure, recaptured Containment design and November 2009 within the zoo grounds after seven days. construction The enclosure door had been compromised and wedged open.

Orana Wildlife Park Three swam across a moat and escaped Containment design and February 2010 enclosure, recaptured the same day. construction Hole in enclosure fence.

Wellington Zoo White cheeked gibbon escaped from island enclosure, Containment design and April 2010 recaptured the same day construction Thought to be assisted by vegetation.

Wellington Zoo White cheeked gibbon escaped from island enclosure, Containment design and April 2010 recaptured the same day. construction This was the second escape by the same animal (see directly above)

Wellington Zoo Spider monkey escaped from enclosure, recaptured the Behavioural August 2010 same day. The monkey may have been pushed of the island by the other primates as he was ill.

Auckland Zoo Spider monkey escaped from enclosure, recaptured the next Containment design and October 2010 day. construction A pump failed, resulting in the containment moat water level falling, allowing the monkey to escape

Natureland Zoo Baby capuchin monkey escaped from enclosure, recaptured Human error October 2010 the same day. A keeper failed to securely close a night pen gate.

Auckland Zoo Cotton-top tamarin escape from enclosure, returned to the Unknown November 2010 enclosure the same day.

Hamilton Zoo Two lemurs escaped from enclosure recaptured the same Containment design and November 2010 day. construction Three lemurs were being introduced to a new enclosure. Two Behavioural animals panicked, disabling electric fencing and escaping the enclosure

Auckland Zoo Cotton-top tamarin escaped from enclosure, recaptured the Containment design and December 2010 same day. construction Escape followed the re-introduction of two higher ranking Behavioural males to the group.

Wellington Zoo Red panda escaped from enclosure, recaptured the same Containment design and December 2010 day. construction It is thought that the weight of rain-water plus the weight of the panda bent the tree branches down sufficiently for the panda to jump out of the enclosure.

June 2013 45

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Where and When Event Cause category

Zion Wildlife Gardens Cheetah escaped from enclosure, animal sedated and Human error April 2011 returned to enclosure two days later. Staff had failed to secure the enclosure double doors.

Pouakai Zoo Meerkat escaped from enclosure and exited the zoo. Animal Unknown August 2011 not recovered – presumed dead.

Hamilton Zoo Rhinoceros walked out of a containment raceway into a Human error September 2011 service road area, recaptured same day. Staff failed to secure a raceway gate when moving a rhinoceros to the night feed area.

Wellington Zoo Brolga crane cleared its enclosure fence, recaptured the Containment design and September 2011 same day. construction Brolga wings were inadequately clipped.

Wellington Zoo Agouti escaped from enclosure, recaptured the same day. Containment design and November 2011 Agouti escaped through small hole in its enclosure. construction

Brooklands Zoo Capuchin monkey escaped from enclosure, recaptured the Human error January 2012 same day. Staff accidentally left door open when cleaning the den.

Natureland Zoo Capuchin monkey escaped from a carry cage when she was Containment design and June 2012 being transferred from sick back to her enclosure. construction Recaptured the same day.

Table 5: Containment breaches (unauthorised entry) reported under the HSNO regime

Where and When Event

Wellington Zoo A mentally ill man climbed into the tiger enclosure, and was mauled. February 2003 He suffered serious injuries to head, neck and back, but recovered.

Auckland Zoo Member of the public entered a restricted area and was observed by staff touching Asian September 2008 elephant. Following a warning from staff she left the enclosure and was escorted from the area.

Hamilton Zoo Zoo was broken into and two Madagascar day geckos were stolen from their exhibit. October 2008 Following an investigation the geckos were returned by the Wildlife Enforcement Group.

Auckland Zoo Two children found in meerkat enclosure. April 2009

June 2013 46

APP201517 EPA Staff Report Appendix 8: Controls proposed by ZAA, and EPA staff comments

Table 6: Controls proposed by the applicant, their reasoning and the response from EPA staff

Applicant proposed control Applicant reasoning Staff comment a) Any animal must be kept in an enclosure, and social If these needs are not met it may lead to individuals Under the Act, the relevant part of this control is that the grouping, that meets it’s physical, emotional and mental attempting to isolate themselves from conspecifics which animal must be contained. needs as per the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare could lead to breaches of containment. Increased levels of Proposed control 1 requires that the approved organism(s) Strategy. stress, from unnatural groupings or isolation, may lead to be contained. increased attempts to breach containment. Proposed control 7 requires that the containment area(s) be designed, constructed and maintained to prevent the approved organism(s) from escaping. b) Methods of population management, relevant to the If overpopulation exists within an enclosure increased This is primarily addressed by the Animal Welfare Act. individual species, must be used to prevent aggression or need for an animal to disperse from a group Proposed control 7 requires that the containment area(s) be overcrowding and to ensure a healthy and genetically may increase. These circumstances can lead to an designed, constructed and maintained to prevent the diverse collection. These can include, but are not limited increased pressure on the method of containment used. By approved organism(s) from escaping. to, building additional enclosures, moving animals to managing the population density these risks can be other approved facilities, contraception, holding single mitigated. sex groups and euthanasia. The method of management used should not compromise control a (above) c) Stocking density of an enclosure must be managed so If overpopulation exists within an enclosure increased This is primarily addressed by the Animal Welfare Act. as not to lead to either a welfare issue or increased aggression or need for an animal to disperse from a group Proposed control 7 requires that the containment area(s) be pressure leading to individuals attempting to breach may increase. These circumstances can lead to an designed, constructed and maintained to prevent the containment. increased pressure on the method of containment used. By approved organism(s) from escaping. managing the population density these risks can be mitigated. d) Enclosures must meet a minimum standard. This If enclosures are not constructed and maintained to a Control 7. The containment area(s) must be designed, standard is set out in the ZAA best practice guidelines for sufficiently high standard breaches of containment can occur constructed and maintained to prevent the approved the draft Containment Standard. An example of where more easily. organism from escaping. Modifications should be discussed containment specifications are set out in the EPA with your MPI inspector before they are undertaken. approval would be with the Giant Panda approval.

June 2013 47

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Applicant proposed control Applicant reasoning Staff comment e) Sufficient staff with relevant experience and training must Without sufficient levels of trained and experienced staff Control 5. Guidance wording around how staff must have be employed to ensure the animals within the collection breaches of containment may occur more frequently. adequate training in the behaviour characteristics of each are given a high quality of animal care and are species, and individual animals to maintain containment. contained. f) Staff must be trained in the husbandry and care of each If staff are trained in the husbandry and care of a species As for control e). species before they are allowed to work with those they will understand more about the behaviours of the animals, except when under direct supervision for the animals that they work with. This in turn can lead to reduced purpose of training. injuries to staff and reduced breaches of containment. g) Staff training must be refreshed on each species each If staff undergo regular training husbandry practices can be As for control e). year. This can take the form of reading husbandry reaffirmed thus leading to reduced breaches of containment. manuals and or practical assessments. h) Records must be kept of all staff training for each For MPI to be able to audit training, records must be kept as Control 21. Requirement for instruction and training, and species covered by these controls. These records must evidence that the training has taken place. guidance wording stating that documentation should include: be signed and dated by the staff member to validate their • Records of training; skill base annually. • Refresher training schedules; and • A list of which keepers are trained to work with which approved organisms. i) A list of all staff who can work with each species must be This list would allow an MPI audit to cross reference the As for control h). maintained. levels of training of staff with those working with any given species. j) A business must have the resources to ensure that all If more animals are held than there are resources in place for Control 5. A business plan must be in place that animals within its collection have an acceptable standard it can lead to welfare and containment issues. demonstrates the on-going resources, containment planning of welfare and care. This includes, but is not restricted to, (you must have adequate containment plans to hold future having well maintained and suitable enclosures, an animal plans), and staffing resources This plan must also appropriate diet, veterinary support and the required outline what will trigger liquidation of the facility and what the level of experienced care. exit strategies will be.

June 2013 48

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Applicant proposed control Applicant reasoning Staff comment k) A business must show that it has the resources, or a Unless a collection has the resources to maintain an As for control j) plan to obtain those resources, to maintain the collection adequate level of care and upkeep then breaches of until after the next MPI audit. If it does not the collection containment are more likely to occur. must enact its exit strategy. l) A business must maintain and display animals in safe Without written procedures different staff members may work A number of different controls require documentation. For facilities and have procedures in place that promote the with differing levels of understanding of containment and example, control 5 requires a documented business plan, safety of their staff, visitors, and community. These OHS requirements. This could lead to staff injuries or controls 22 and 23 required documented contingency plans, procedures must include, but are not limited to, daily breaches of containment. and control 21 requires documented training procedures. husbandry procedures for animals that can potentially cause harm, visitor contact with animals, emergency procedure for escaped animals and for natural disasters. All of these procedures must be documented.

m) A business must have a collection plan which shows A collection plan will allow a collection and MPI to assess the Control 5. As part of the documented plan, facilities would all current species held, number of current specimens level of resources that will be required in an upcoming need to document their species and containment plans. of each species and number of planned specimens of period. As it is a living document it allows for a collection to each species. The animal collection plan must also take advantage of opportunities as they arise, but still identify those new species that the business plans to forecast the resources they will need to make available. start holding within the next five years. This is to demonstrate that a business has the resources, facilities and staff to appropriately manage their current and planned animal collection. If a new species is planned to be acquired the business must show how their staff will be trained in managing the containment of that species before the species is obtained. A collection plan is a living document and must be updated when new plans are made. The updated collection plan must be made available to MPI.

June 2013 49

APP201517 EPA Staff Report

Applicant proposed control Applicant reasoning Staff comment

n) A business must have an exit strategy that deals with Without an exit strategy MPI and other regional collections Control 5. A plan will outline what the exit strategy will be and dispersal of the collection if the business fails. This exit may need to take on a burden they are not equipped to do at will give MPI the power to euthanize if animals cannot be strategy must have clearly defined time frames for that time. This could, potentially, lead to, as an example, new rehoused within a reasonable time. dispersal of the collection and a plan for if dispersal enclosures being built at short notice and things being cannot happen for the entire collection. A business missed leading to breaches of containment. must be able to show it can maintain the collection through the dispersal period.

o) The business must have clear financial indicators that Without clear financial indicators a business could fail prior to As for control n). would trigger the activation of their exit strategy and enacting their exit strategy, potentially, leading to, as an the dispersal of the animal collection example, new enclosures being built at short notice and things being missed leading to breaches of containment.

June 2013 50

APP201517 EPA Staff Report Appendix 9: Proposed controls and Schedule 3 of the HSNO Act

Table 7: Proposed controls in relation to Schedule 3 Part 2

Schedule 3 Part 2 Matters to be addressed by containment controls Addressed by control: for new organisms (excluding GMOs)

1 To limit the likelihood of any accidental release of any organism or any viable genetic material, the controls imposed by an approval shall specify—

1(a) Requirements for treatment and decontamination to prevent 7 The containment area(s) must be designed, constructed and maintained to prevent escape by way of expelled air, discharge of water or liquid the approved organism from escaping. waste, removal of solid waste, or breaches in facility boundary: 8 Persons entering and exiting the containment facility and/or any containment areas must do so in a way that does adversely affect containment of the approved organism(s).

15 Unauthorised persons must be excluded from the containment facility.

18 Any waste (including biological material) that may harbour the approved organism(s), or heritable material from the approved organism, must be treated to ensure that the approved organism or any heritable material is killed prior to discarding.

19 Any equipment, that may harbour the approved organism(s) or heritable material from the approved organism, must be treated to ensure that the approved organism or any heritable material is killed prior to the equipment being used for another purpose or being removed from the containment area/facility.

1(b) Equipment and requirements for facility construction to enable 7 The containment area(s) must be designed, constructed and maintained to prevent the requirements for treatment and decontamination to be the approved organism from escaping. readily met: 18 Any waste (including biological material) that may harbour the approved organism(s), or heritable material from the approved organism, must be treated to ensure that the approved organism or any heritable material is killed prior to discarding.

June 2013 51

APP201517 EPA Staff Report Schedule 3 Part 2 Matters to be addressed by containment controls Addressed by control: for new organisms (excluding GMOs)

19 Any equipment, that may harbour the approved organism(s) or heritable material from the approved organism, must be treated to ensure that the approved organism or any heritable material is killed prior to the equipment being used for another purpose or being removed from the containment area/facility.

1(c) Requirements to be complied with for the access of persons to 8 Persons entering and exiting the containment facility and/or any containment areas the facility: must do so in a way that does not adversely affect containment of the approved organism(s).

15 Unauthorised persons must be excluded from the containment facility.

21 Any person (including contractors, staff, students, visitors, and volunteers) entering the containment facility and/or containment areas must have received sufficient instruction on the containment regime to enable the person to meet their responsibilities in relation to containment.

1(d) Procedures and requirements for transport, identification, and 9 The approved organism(s) must be identifiable as a new organism and able to be packaging for all biological material to and from the facility and linked to the relevant HSNO Act approval. within the facility: 13 The approved organism(s) must be contained during movement within, to, or from the containment facility.

14 When being moved outside of a containment facility, within New Zealand, the approved organism must accompanied by documentation stating the: a) identity of the approved organism b) containment requirements c) details of the sender d) details of the receiving facility.

June 2013 52

APP201517 EPA Staff Report Schedule 3 Part 2 Matters to be addressed by containment controls Addressed by control: for new organisms (excluding GMOs)

1(e) Requirements for the disposal of any biological material: 18 Any waste (including biological material) that may harbour the approved organism(s), or heritable material from the approved organism, must be treated to ensure that the approved organism or any heritable material is killed prior to discarding.

1(f) Requirements for facility construction: 1 The approved organism(s) must be contained.

7 The containment area(s) must be designed, constructed and maintained to prevent the approved organism from escaping.

10 Notification must be given to the MPI Inspector of any proposed modification to the containment regime which may affect the integrity of containment of the approved organism(s), before the modifications are undertaken.

1(g) Requirements to secure the facility and openings, including 7 The containment area(s) must be designed, constructed and maintained to prevent securing against failure in the event of foreseeable hazards. the approved organism from escaping.

2 To exclude unauthorised people from the facility, the controls imposed by an approval shall specify—

2(a) Means of identification of all entrances to the facility: 6 The containment facility and all containment area(s) where the approved organisms may be held must be clearly defined, described, and documented, including their location and boundaries.

2(b) The numbers of entrances and access to the facility: 6 The containment facility and all containment area(s) where the approved organisms may be held must be clearly defined, described, and documented, including their location and boundaries.

2(c) Security requirements for the entrances and the facility. 15 Unauthorised persons must be excluded from the containment facility.

3 To control the effects of any accidental release or escape of an organism—

3(a) Controls imposed by an approval shall specify an eradication 22 The containment facility must have a documented contingency plan for each plan for escaped organisms: approved organism held in that containment facility.

June 2013 53

APP201517 EPA Staff Report Schedule 3 Part 2 Matters to be addressed by containment controls Addressed by control: for new organisms (excluding GMOs)

3(b) Controls imposed by an approval may specify requirements to 22 The containment facility must have a documented contingency plan for each limit the likelihood of an escaped organism spreading, surviving, approved organism held in that containment facility. and breeding, including, but not limited to,— 23 The contingency plan must be implemented immediately if there is any reason to believe that an approved organism has escaped or been released from a containment area or the containment facility, or any other breach of containment has occurred.

3(b)(i) Exclusion zones (spatial or temporal): n/a

3(b)(ii) Location of the facility outside the usual habitat range of the n/a organism.

4 Controls imposed by an approval shall specify inspection and 20 The containment facility must be secured and monitored to ensure the exclusion of monitoring requirements for containment facilities. undesirable organisms that might compromise the containment of the approved organism(s).

24 To ensure containment is being achieved, containment measures must be: a) inspected, monitored and reviewed b) inspected as soon as possible after any event that could compromise the containment regime such as an Act of God (such as flood, earthquake) or any unauthorised attempt to enter the containment facility.

5 Controls imposed by an approval may specify the qualifications 5 The person(s) responsible for compliance with the HSNO Act controls must have a required of the person responsible for implementing those documented plan that shows that the containment facility has access to on-going controls. resources necessary to ensure that the containment of all approved organisms held within the facility can be adequately maintained in the long term.

2 The organisation, entity or person(s) responsible for the ownership, control and management of the containment facility where the approved organisms are held (including Board members and/or directors) must ensure compliance with the controls of this approval.

June 2013 54

APP201517 EPA Staff Report Schedule 3 Part 2 Matters to be addressed by containment controls Addressed by control: for new organisms (excluding GMOs)

21 Any person (including contractors, staff, students, visitors, and volunteers) entering the containment facility and/or containment areas must have received sufficient instruction on the containment regime to enable the person to meet their responsibilities in relation to containment.

June 2013