Macrolophus Pygmaeus (Rambur) March 2014
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EPA report Import and release of Macrolophus pygmaeus (Rambur) March 2014 Advice to the Decision Making Committee on application APP201254: – To import and release Macrolophus pygmaeus as biocontrol agents for whitefly (Trialeurodes vaporariorum), under section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 www.epa.govt.nz 2 Application for approval to import and release Macrolophus pygmaeus (APP201254) Executive Summary and Recommendation In November 2013, Tomatoes New Zealand made an application to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) seeking to import and release Macrolophus pygmaeus for use as an augmentative biocontrol agent to control greenhouse whitefly in tomato glasshouses. Their application stems from the desire to improve the competitiveness of the New Zealand tomato industry. The applicant asserts the key to improving competitiveness is the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to manage pests in commercial glasshouses. Not only does this approach offer cost savings, it can reduce the use of harmful chemical inputs; improving people’s health, lowering environmental impacts and increasing the export potential of the product. We consider that IPM can, in the right circumstances, provide a win-win solution to both consumers and producers and we applaud this focus by the industry. Integrated Pest Management by original definition is the integration of biocontrol with chemical applications, so that the latter have least impact on natural enemies. Thus a significant aspect of this approach is the use of natural enemies to control insect pests. This use of natural enemies has a long history both overseas and in New Zealand. To this effect the tomato industry is looking to introduce a new biological control agent (BCA), Macrolophus pygmaeus, a natural predator of the greenhouse whitefly (Trialeurodes vaporariorum). We recognise the need for additional pest control measures in New Zealand to provide for a rounded management programme, and we understand that Macrolophus pygmaeus is a candidate suitable for investigation. It is widely used in Europe and is potentially more effective at lower temperatures than agents currently available in New Zealand. We have conducted a risk assessment under clause 27(1) of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology)1, and weighed all the risks, costs and benefits associated with this application. Our risk assessment suggests that the applicant underestimated the risks, and may also be underestimating the benefit of releasing Macrolophus pygmaeus. The environmental risk of the release is New Zealand wide in scale and is irreversible. On the other hand, the applicant has not demonstrated the human health benefits to glass house workers, and the ongoing economic contribution of the tomato industry to the New Zealand economy. Despite this it is worth noting the important social aspects of this application. The tomato industry, and in fact the wider horticultural sector, clearly needs and wants to increase its adoption of IPM, and we agree that new BCAs can play a valuable role in this. Furthermore, there is ongoing environmental damage occurring in New Zealand as a result of habitat modification from urban sprawl, dairying, increased infrastructure, indiscriminate agrichemical use, ongoing arthropod incursions, damage by existing vertebrate pests, and exploitation of our natural resources through fishing and mining for example. The Decision Making 1 Clause 26 of the Methodology states: Taking into account the measures available (if any) for risk management. The Authority may approve an application where a substance or organism poses negligible risks to the environment and human health and safety if it is evident that the benefits associated with that substance or organism outweigh the costs. Clause 27 states: (1) where clause 26 does not apply, the Authority must take into account the extent to which the risks and any costs associated with that substance or organism may be outweighed by the benefits. March 2014 3 Application for approval to import and release Macrolophus pygmaeus (APP201254) Committee needs to be cognisant of these facts, and to take into account whether introducing Macrolophus pygmaeus presents risks and benefits over and above those already occurring in the country. It is our recommendation that Macrolophus pygmaeus meets the Minimum Standards of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act and therefore the crux of this decision is the weighting of benefits against environmental risk. Given the level of information we have available, our recommendation to the HSNO Decision Making Committee is to decline this application. While we do not consider that the risks pose significant harm to people, the environment or the economy, we do not consider that the applicant has made a strong case for the long term benefits to be realised. If anyone has more information that can clarify these benefits we encourage them to come forward at the hearing. March 2014 4 Application for approval to import and release Macrolophus pygmaeus (APP201254) Table of Contents 1 The application process .................................................................................................................. 6 Purpose of this document .............................................................................................................. 6 The application .............................................................................................................................. 6 Submissions .................................................................................................................................. 6 Background ................................................................................................................................... 7 New Zealand Biological Control Industry ........................................................................................... 7 Industry pressure and ongoing need for Integrated Pest Management ............................................. 8 Glasshouse pests ............................................................................................................................ 10 2 The organism proposed for release ............................................................................................. 10 3 Risk and benefit assessment ........................................................................................................ 11 Minimum standards ..................................................................................................................... 12 CLIMEX Modelling ........................................................................................................................... 12 Habitat modelling ............................................................................................................................. 14 Propagule pressure ......................................................................................................................... 14 Dispersal .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Photoperiod ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Establishment potential .................................................................................................................... 17 Host range ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Plant host preferences ..................................................................................................................... 21 Conclusion on the minimum standards ....................................................................................... 22 The ability to establish an undesirable self-sustaining population and the ease of eradication . 23 Effects of any inseparable organism ........................................................................................... 23 Adverse effects ............................................................................................................................ 23 Adverse effects on fauna ................................................................................................................. 24 Adverse effects on flora ................................................................................................................... 25 Other adverse effects ...................................................................................................................... 26 Precautionary approach ................................................................................................................... 27 Conclusion on adverse effects .................................................................................................... 27 Positive effects ............................................................................................................................ 27 Human Health .................................................................................................................................. 27 Economic ......................................................................................................................................... 29 Conclusion on positive effects ....................................................................................................