Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DECISION Application code NOR99001 Application type Release from containment any New Organism under section 34(1)(b) of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. Applicant Hawke‟s Bay Pipfruit IFP Group 20 Organism Pseudaphycus maculipennis (Mercet 1923) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) Purpose To release from containment the insect Pseudaphycus maculipennis for biological control of the obscure mealybug Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret 1875) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Date application received 16 April 1999 Hearing date 09 May 2000 Considered by A Special Committee of the Authority appointed under section 19(2)(b) of the HSNO Act 1996. ERMA New Zealand Anne Rose contact Decision The application to release from containment the new organism, Pseudaphycus maculipennis (Mercet 1923) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) is granted in accordance with section 38(1)(a) of the HSNO Act. As required under section 38(2), there are no controls on this approval. Purpose of Application The application is for approval to release from containment the insect parasitoid P. maculipennis, for biological control of obscure mealybug, P. viburni. P. viburni is a polyphagous, cosmopolitan pest with a worldwide distribution. P. viburni was first identified in New Zealand in 1922 and has been a significant pest of pipfruit, particularly in Hawke‟s Bay, since the late 1960s. P. viburni is difficult for pipfruit growers to control because it is cryptic in nature, infesting the calyx of fruit, which makes it difficult to achieve adequate spray coverage. The honeydew produced by P. viburni leads to the development of sooty mould, making fruit unsaleable. Lesser levels of infestation create grading and packing difficulties for export packhouses. Organophosphate insecticides have been the basis of insect control in export apple crops for the last 30 years. These provided effective control of a wide range of insect pests including mealybugs, but since the early 1990s P. viburni has become increasingly resistant to this group of insecticides. There are no alternative insecticides for export apple crops that can be used between flowering and harvest, and this situation is unlikely to change. P. maculipennis is a minute wasp (adults are approximately 1.0-1.5 mm in length). It lays eggs in one developmental stage of the mealybug (usually the third instar, although second instars and adults are also attacked) and emerges from the next (usually the adult mealybug), killing the host at the same time. One or more progeny may emerge from a single host, depending on host size and perhaps other stimuli at oviposition. Application Process The application was formally received on 16 April 1999 and verified on 21 December 1999 following an additional information request under section 52(1) of the HSNO Act 1996. The application was publicly notified on 22 January 2000 in The Dominion, The New Zealand Herald, The Press and The Otago Daily Times. Public submissions closed on 03 March 2000. Seven submissions were received, listed in Annex 1. Two submitters requested to be heard at a public hearing in support of their submission. The documents available for the evaluation and review of the application by ERMA New Zealand included the application and appendices (including supporting documentation), public submissions, submissions and comment from other government agencies, and additional information requested by the Authority under section 58 of the HSNO Act from the applicant and other parties. The Authority appointed a Special Committee (the Committee) to determine the application in accordance with section 19(2)(b) of the HSNO Act. The Committee included five members of the Authority: Dr Oliver Sutherland (Chair), Mr Bill Falconer, Mrs Helen Hughes, Professor Colin Mantell and Dr Lindie Nelson, as well as one external member, Dr Murray Parsons (expert in Māori culture and traditions). Hearing A public hearing was held on 09 May 2000 at the ERMA New Zealand offices in Wellington. Presentations The following parties made presentations to the Committee: For the applicant: 1. Dr Ian Warrington CEO (HortResearch) 2. Dr Doug King Research & Development Manager (ENZA Ltd) 3. Mrs Diana Gillum Pipfruit grower and applicant representative 4. Dr Jim Walker Senior Scientist (HortResearch) 5. Mr John Charles Senior Scientist (HortResearch) For ERMA New Zealand: 1. Anne Rose Project Leader (ERMA New Zealand) Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR99001 Page 2 of 18 For Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao1: 1. John Hohapata-Oke Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao Submitters: 1. Clare Millar Department of Conservation Witness: Lisa Sinclair 3. Kevin Smith Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc. Further information Additional information sought after the hearing and considered by the Committee included: i. An independent appraisal of the taxonomic status of Pseudococcus zelandicus from Dr DJ Williams (The Natural History Museum, London). This information was sought from Dr Williams on 19 May 2000, to which he responded on 07 June 2000. An additional query was sent to Dr Williams on 08 June 2000, to which he responded on 28 June 2000. ii. Geographic and habitat details of Pseudococcus zelandicus, based on specimens held in the New Zealand Arthropod Collection and the Natural History Museum, London, England. This information was collated by ERMA New Zealand. The information was forwarded to parties2 to the application on 21 July 2000 for comment by 28 July 2000. Relevant Legislative Criteria The application was lodged pursuant to section 34(1)(b) of the HSNO Act. The decision was determined in accordance with section 38, taking into account minimum standards under section 36, additional matters to be considered under section 37, and matters relevant to the purpose of the Act, as specified under Part II of the HSNO Act. Consideration of the application followed the relevant provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology). Background to Biological Control Biological control, as envisaged in this application, involves the introduction of a natural enemy to control an exotic pest. The natural enemy is usually sourced from the area of origin of the pest, in an attempt to re-establish a natural association. Biological control programmes can be aimed at insect pests and weeds and can involve predators, parasites, herbivores or pathogens to control the pest organism. 1 Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao has been formally established under clause 42 of the First Schedule to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, as a Māori advisory committee, to advise the Authority on how to take account of issues of concern to Māori (particularly in relation to sections 6(d) and 8 of the Act). 2 Parties: Including submitters, the applicant and relevant Government agencies from whom comment on the application was received. Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR99001 Page 3 of 18 While not always able to bring insect or weed populations down to below threshold damage levels, biological control in combination with other cultural or pest management techniques often gives growers an opportunity to reduce reliance on pesticides. This can have benefits in relation to human health and safety, environmental pollution, development of pesticide resistance, reduction in chemical residues and improved access to premium export markets. However, besides the ability of a biological control agent to establish successfully and reduce target pest populations, a key issue is its target-specificity and the risk of undesirable attack on non-target species. To determine the host range of the potential biocontrol agent, and hence the risk to non-target species that its release might incur, host-specificity testing is undertaken, either overseas or in containment in New Zealand. The potential agent is confined with either a non-target species alone (no-choice) or with both the target and a non-target species (choice) and any attack on the non-target species is recorded and assessed. Usually a range of taxonomically closely-related native and exotic species are tested, as well as other species that are less closely-related but that are significant for their biodiversity and/or economic value. While such tests establish the likely host range of the biocontrol agent, they cannot totally preclude any risk to populations of desirable non-target species. Biological control has formed an integral part of the management of invertebrate pests and weeds in New Zealand from the very early developments of European agriculture in this country. Almost all of the crops grown are of overseas origin and their associated insect pests and weeds have established without most of their natural enemies. For this reason, the importation of natural enemies from the area of origin of these pests has been an important option for control. New Zealand‟s first biocontrol agent, a predatory ladybird beetle, was released in 1874 to control exotic pest aphids. By 1990, a total of 221 species had been deliberately introduced and released for biological control of insect pests and weeds. Seventy-five of these have become established. Several sectors of the agricultural and horticultural industries have developed integrated pest management (IPM) programmes utilising biocontrol agents together with other management techniques, and biological control can be a component of pest management in organic production. Terminology