Decision

October 2018

Date 29 October 2018

Application code APP203313

Application type To import for release and/or release from containment any new organism under section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

Applicant Horizons Regional Council

Date application received 4 July 2018

Date of Hearing 9 October 2018

Date of Consideration 9 October 2018

Considered by A decision-making committee of the Environmental Protection Authority (the Committee)1:  Dr Kerry Laing (Chair)  Dr Ngaire Phillips  Dr Derek Belton Purpose of the application To release a leaf-galling mite, Aceria vitalbae, as a biological control agent for old man’s beard (Clematis vitalba)

The new organisms approved Aceria vitalbae Canestrini 1892

1 The Committee referred to in this decision is the subcommittee that has made the decision on the application under delegated authority in accordance with section 18A of the Act. Summary of decision 1. Application APP203313 to import for release the leaf-galling mite, Aceria vitalbae, was lodged under section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 (the Act). The aim of the application is to enable the release of the mite as a biocontrol agent for the plant old man’s beard, Clematis vitalba.

2. The application was considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and of the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology). 3. The Committee has approved the application in accordance with section 38 of the Act.

Application process

Application receipt 4. The application was formally received for processing on 4 July 2018.

Purpose of the application 5. The applicant, Horizons Regional Council, applied to the Environmental Protection Authority to import for release the leaf-galling mite, Aceria vitalbae as a biological control agent for the plant old man’s beard (Clematis vitalba).

Public notification 6. Section 53(1)(ab) of the Act requires that an application under section 38 of the Act must be publicly notified by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) if the application has not been approved under section 35. 7. The application was publicly notified by placing a notice on the EPA website on 18 July 2018.

8. In accordance with section 53(4) of the Act, letters or emails were sent notifying the Minister for the Environment, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), the Department of Conservation (DOC), and other government departments, crown entities, and local authorities who have expressed an interest in being notified about applications for non-genetically modified new organisms. Māori organisations, non-government organisations and stakeholders who have expressed an interest in being notified about applications for non-genetically modified new organisms were also directly notified. All these parties had an opportunity to comment on the application in accordance with section 58(1)(c) of the Act and clause 5 of the Methodology. 9. Section 59(1)(c) of the Act requires an application to be open for the receipt of submissions for 30 working days from the date of public notification. The submission period closed on 29 August 2018.

Submissions from members of the public 10. The EPA received seven submissions during the public notification period.

11. Five submitters supported the application. Two submitters opposed the application.

Comments from MPI and DOC 12. In accordance with section 58(1)(c) of the Act, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Department of Conservation (DOC) were advised of, and provided with the opportunity to comment on, the application. 13. MPI did not make any comment or submission on the application.

2

14. DOC supported the application to release Aceria vitalbae to complement existing management methods. DOC noted that old man’s beard is a serious environmental pest for which there are limited control options especially where it is widespread. DOC acknowledged that there are some risks with the release of Aceria vitalbae from short term impacts discovered when testing the mite with native Clematis species. These impacts were relatively minor with limited mite reproduction on some native Clematis species. DOC stated a preference for greater testing on all native Clematis species to ascertain if Aceria vitalbae has high host specificity. DOC concluded that given the information available, they believed that the potential benefits outweigh possible impacts.

15. The Committee is satisfied that the submission from DOC has been considered in making this decision.

Reports providing advice to the Committee 16. The EPA Staff Assessment Report was provided under section 58(1)(a) of the Act. It was published on the EPA website and the applicant and submitters were informed of its availability on 25 September 2018. 17. Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao (NKTT) elected not to prepare a report on the application.

Hearing 18. Section 60(c) of the Act requires that a hearing be held if a person who has made a submission stated in that submission that he or she wishes to be heard. Two submitters indicated they wished to be heard. 19. Section 59(1)(d) of the Act requires that the hearing commence not more than 30 working days after the closing date for submissions. The hearing was held on 9 October 2018 at the Willeston Conference Centre, 15 Willeston Street, Wellington.

20. Mr Gerry Te Kapa Coates (Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu) and Dr Cliff Mason appeared at the hearing to speak to their individual submissions.

21. The applicant was represented by Mr Craig Davey (Horizons Regional Council), Mr Richard Hill, Mr Lindsay Smith and Dr Simon Fowler from Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research.

Information available for the consideration 22. The information available for the consideration comprised:

 the application

 the EPA Staff Assessment Report  submissions

 comments received from DOC

 information obtained during the hearing. 23. The Committee considered that it had sufficient information to assess the application, and waived any further legislative information requirements.

3

Matters for consideration 24. The Committee considered the application in accordance with section 38 of the Act, taking into account the matters specified in sections 36 and 37, relevant matters in Part 2 of the Act, and the Methodology.

25. Each point is addressed in the following sections of this decision.

26. Specific points raised by submitters (either in their submission or during the hearing) are addressed where appropriate throughout this decision.

Summary of appearances and information discussed at the hearing

Presentations from the applicant party at the hearing

Craig Davey, Horizons Regional Council 27. Craig Davey stated that old man’s beard as a pest is not at its infancy but also not at its maximum extent with the distribution continuing to expand across New Zealand. The current management and mitigation strategies are ineffective and the proposal to introduce the gall-forming mite, Aceria vitalbae is one method New Zealand needs to suppress and bring back into balance a plant within an ecosystem rather than a plant that transforms the ecosystem.

28. Mr Davey elaborated on the historical background for the spread of old man’s beard within native landscapes of the central North Island. Native plant species around Taihape such as Sophora godleyi, Olearia gardneri and Clematis paniculata are heavily impacted by old man’s beard. Mr Davey stated that there are reasons to be seriously concerned for some native plants, especially in the case of the divaricating shrub, Olearia gardneri, which, according to a 2001 study, had only 159 individual plants left in the wild.

29. Mr Davey next discussed the transformation of the local landscape as old man’s beard has dispersed by wind down the Rangitikei River and subsequently established on the cliffs. This establishment has led to this invasive species climbing the cliff face, cloaking vegetation and ultimately killing other plant species. This adverse environmental impact has had a direct negative impact on the local economy, in particular, tourism. Tourists are unable to enjoy the native vegetation and instead observe old man’s beard smother and transform the environment.

30. Mr Davey made reference to a 2000 scientific paper by New Zealand researchers (Ogle et al; Austral Ecology 25:539) who concluded that in areas where old man’s beard was present, the diversity of native plant species and the number of individual plants sharply declined as a direct result of the presence of old man’s beard. In such areas, very few individual trees remained and these individuals only persisted if they were mature, tall trees that old man’s beard could not climb and smother. In areas where old man’s beard was not present, the direct opposite results occurred with a greater diversity of native plant species and a greater distribution of individuals.

31. Mr Davey elaborated on the financial costs of attempting to manage and eradicate old man’s beard. The annual costs associated with old man’s beard are variable and difficult to quantify. Current estimates show that Horizons Regional Council spends upwards of $500,000, Tasman District Council spends $300,000 and other councils individually spend $50,000 to $100,000. He stated that the monetary figures are a combined representation of the costs associated with control programmes, time and effort of staff, supporting community groups, investing in biological control agents and eradication efforts. Mr Davey emphasised that these financial figures are not the true cost as many councils have given up on eradicating old man’s beard due to the difficulty

4

in locating the plant, the collateral damage involved when using broad-spectrum herbicides and minimal success in eradicating old man’s beard.

32. Helicopter spraying with the most suitable broadleaf weed specific herbicide, Versatill, costs $1,500 per hectare. Versatill also causes collateral adverse effects on native plant species as it can kill kahikatea and kowhai.

33. Mr Davey stated that different approaches to managing and eradicating old man’s beard had been adopted across New Zealand, for example, in Northland, local councils have adopted an approach to exclude old man’s beard from their land as much as possible. Three territorial authorities are focusing efforts on eradication while six other authorities have a progressive containment regime. This involves a large container being placed in a non-dense old man’s beard area where communities can discard old man’s beard plants that have been manually removed.

34. Mr Davey acknowledged that prior attempts to introduce biological control agents, such as the leaf miner fly and the old man’s beard fungus, were ineffective. The third biological control agent introduced against old man’s beard was the old man’s beard saw fly which only established in one region but did not persist in the long term due to inbreeding and wasps. A fourth agent, the old man’s beard bark beetle, was shown to attack native Clematis species and rejected as too risky for introduction to New Zealand.

Lindsay Smith, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research 35. Lindsay Smith presented on the biology of Aceria and the efficacy of Aceria vitalbae in host testing. Aceria are related to spiders but only have two pairs of legs. They prey solely on plants by sucking out the contents of individual cells. Aceria are often classified by the type of damage that they cause, for example, rusting, bronzing, blistering and galling. In this particular example, Aceria vitalbae is a gall-forming mite. Eriophyids are minute invertebrates, generally 0.1 to 0.2 mm in length. The majority of these species are host specific and develop close and intimate relationships with their host plant hence the galling. The galls that form on host plants as a result of Aceria act as natural protection from the environment and predators by providing shelter for the mites. The galls also allow populations of mites to build up significantly with additional adverse effects on the plant. The galls act as a resource sink whereby the plant redirects resources into the galls which reduces the plant’s capacity to flower, produce leaves, grow longer internode stems and photosynthesise. 36. Mr Smith discussed the adverse impacts that species within the Aceria genus can have on their host plants. Some eriophyids cause significant impact on their hosts such as the citrus rust mite (Phyllocoptruta oleivora) and tomato russet mite (Aculops lycopersici) and because of these adverse effects, some eriophyids have been considered and used as biological control agents for invasive plants. For example, in 2006 the broom gall mite (Aceria genistae) was introduced as a biological control agent for scotch broom. This particular species of mite has become widespread through wind dispersal with significant damage recorded to the extent that plant death has occurred in some plots of broom.

37. Mr Smith noted that while some eriophyid species can transmit viral plant diseases, only 11 species from 4,000 have shown to be associated with plant viruses. Ten of these species were identified by Oldfield and published in a 1996 paper (Oldfield and Proeseler; World Crop Pests 6:259-275) with only one further association being reported over the past 20 years. 38. Mr Smith stated that no obvious plant disease symptoms were observed with A. vitalbae infestations of Clematis in Europe or in host testing.

5

39. Mr Smith acknowledged that Mr Hill corrected his initial advice to submitter, Dr Mason, by offering the following statements:

“While many of the mites are not suspected of transmitting viruses and do not form galls, several species do in fact produce galls or leaf curls. The transmission of viruses is causal and viruses are not thought to be persistent in mites. In fact, the economically important wheat streak mosaic virus is thought to be persistent in the wheat curl mite (Aceria tosichella Keifer). Viruses are not known to be persistent in the other ten suspected vectors but these systems are notoriously difficult to work with and there remains a lot of uncertainty around these mites transmitting a virus.” 40. Mr Smith elaborated that in selecting the species to test against A. vitalbae, a test list was developed through a widely accepted protocol. The underlying hypothesis is that potential biocontrol agents would be more likely to attack more closely related plant species to its host than those plant species more distantly related. 41. Mr Smith stated that the applicant consulted representatives of the Nursery and Garden Industry Association of New Zealand who provided information on the ornamental species that were economically important to them. The proposed test list included nine native Clematis species, six exotic Clematis species and one Ranunculus species.

42. Mr Smith acknowledged that Clematis cunninghamii and C. marmoraria were not tested as the applicant had difficulty in sourcing these species. In the case of C .marmoraria, the applicant used a hybrid of two native species as a substitute to test susceptibility to the mite.

43. Mr Smith noted that the plants were tested at the University of Belgrade, Serbia, where native species from New Zealand were shipped, and some of the exotic Clematis species were sourced. Tests were performed in the laboratory on potted plants by transferring mites onto buds and then over subsequent time periods, observing for mite presence and damage. 44. Mr Smith concluded from the host range experiments that the persistence of A. vitalbae on three native Clematis species without gall damage are unlikely to lead to sustainable populations. Without the formation of galls, A. vitalbae becomes susceptible to desiccation and predation. On the basis of the test results and the host plant records in Europe, the applicant concluded that A. vitalbae is expected to effectively colonise only Clematis vitalba with only occasional galls on non- target exotic Clematis species, e.g. Clematis stans, which is in the same phylogenetic clade as Clematis vitalba.

Dr Simon Fowler, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research 45. Simon Fowler elaborated on the scoring system used in his evaluation and review of the host range testing data. Mr Fowler acknowledged that although the scoring system was based on a relatively limited dataset from New Zealand, it had remarkably good prediction. For the combined performance scores for the mite, the applicants observed a value below the threshold for which no attack on non-target plants is expected in the field.

46. Mr Fowler stated that the applicant is confident of the results and that there would be no significant damage in the field on non-target plants such as native Clematis species.

47. Furthermore, Mr Fowler stated that the applicant is confident of A. vitalbae causing damage to target host plants in the field as target plants in the laboratory tests were heavily impacted. He acknowledged that while the tests in containment showed promise, the reality is that it is extremely difficult to transfer laboratory tests to the external environment.

6

Mr Richard Hill and questions from the Decision-making Committee 48. Mr Hill answered questions by the Decision-making Committee (DMC) on virus vectors and transmission of viruses by Aceria. He elaborated that of the 11 associations of viruses and Aceria, only the wheat streak virus is suspected to persist in Aceria. For the other ten associations, the species of mite are suspected to be vectors but research has not conclusively proven the associations. Mr Hill stated that the incidence of viral transmission can be considered low given the number of eriophyid species (at least 4,000 species) and the vast number of plant diseases. Mr Hill explained that these mites are tiny and disperse by falling onto plants via wind dispersal. In terms of transmitting viruses by Aceria from one individual Clematis plant to another an individual mite would need to be wind dispersed from plant to plant. 49. Mr Hill acknowledged that it is very difficult to determine the long-term prognosis of releasing A. vitalbae as the success rate of any biocontrol agent is difficult to predict from the outset. He stated that the potential formation of galls would assist in reducing the lateral spread of old man’s beard and as a flow-on effect, potentially thin out the canopy coverage and reduce shading of the undergrowth.

50. Mr Hill stated that the main uncertainties are whether the mite will establish, reach damaging levels and if it can control old man’s beard at a population level. 51. Mr Hill answered a question about associated organisms that are essential to the viability of a species. He stated that Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research takes great care when considering microorganisms that may affect plants or adversely affect the performance of the agent. He acknowledged that their knowledge of cryptic speciation in relation to Aceria is lacking. Dr Fowler added that they had reared many generations of A. vitalbae on old man’s beard plants and they had never observed any other symptoms such as yellowing, mottling or anything else apart from galling. He remarked that observations of C. vitalba plants and their lack of viral symptoms is effectively a bioassay for organisms such as plant viruses and Phytoplasmas.

Presentation by EPA Staff

52. Dr Clark Ehlers (Senior Advisor, New Organisms) presented a summary of the EPA Staff Assessment Report focussing on the benefits, risks and costs of A. vitalbae and assessing the mite against the minimum standards in the HSNO Act. The staff assessment discussed the information provided in the application, information readily available in scientific literature, and information submitted to the EPA via public submissions. The EPA staff assessed the potential benefits and positive effects of introducing the mite, in particular the benefits to the environment and to the market economy. The report also considered potential risks and costs (adverse effects) associated with its introduction. The potential adverse effects assessed included the risk of the mite attacking non-target plants and adversely affecting food webs. The EPA also assessed the effects of the mite on the relationship Māori have with their environment. The staff assessment concluded that the benefits of releasing the mite to control old man’s beard are likely to outweigh any identified risks and costs. The staff assessment also concluded that A. vitalbae meets the minimum standards for introduction and release as stated in the Act.

Record and summary of presentations from submitters at the hearing

Gerry Te Kapa Coates, Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu

53. Gerry Te Kapa Coates presented Ngāi Tahu’s submission. Mr Coates outlined the Ngāi Tahu value system, which includes whanaungatanga (family), manaakitanga (looking after their people), kaitiakitanga (stewardship), tikanga (appropriate action), tohungatanga (expertise) and

7

rangatiratanga (leadership). Mr Coates emphasised kaitiakitanga (stewardship) and noted that Ngāi Tahu supported the application as they recognised that old man’s beard poses a serious risk to native species and that A. vitalbae is a viable alternative to using broad-spectrum herbicides which have the undesirable effect of increasing the overall chemical burden on the environment. Mr Coates stated that while old man’s beard shares whakapapa (genealogy/taxonomy) with 13 other Clematis species present in New Zealand, indications from host range testing are that A. vitalbae is not likely to put native Clematis species at significant risk. Mr Coates stated that Ngāi Tahu believes that monitoring of the establishment and possible spread of A. vitalbae should be included as a condition of the release, and Ngāi Tahu notes that there is no viable option for later eradication should risks become apparent over time. 54. Mr Coates ended his presentation by reiterating Ngāi Tahu’s support for the application because they believed a reasonable case for the benefits of this biocontrol agent was made despite three previous attempts at biocontrol.

Dr Cliff Mason

55. Dr Mason expressed concerns with the application relating to information gaps and insufficient testing to warrant a release of A. vitalbae. He noted that very little quantification or estimation on the effects of A. vitalbae on C. vitalba had been made, and, therefore, there was minimal information to support the assumption that the biocontrol agent would damage the target organism. 56. Dr Mason stated that additional information pertaining to the effects of A. vitalbae on old man’s beard during seeding would have been beneficial. He remarked that seeding is the huge advantage old man’s beard has in ecological terms that allows it to disperse and germinate rapidly. Dr Mason further noted that research should have been performed to determine the effects of A. vitalbae on the seeding behaviour of old man’s beard.

57. Furthermore, Dr Mason highlighted the lack of information on the biology of A. vitalbae such as whether or not A. vitalbae has seasonal dimorphisms similar to other species within the Aceria genus. He stated that it was his understanding that A. vitalbae has different morphological types from a vagrant to gall-forming type. He noted that there had been no discussion on how A. vitalbae reproduces and, while he believes this species is parthenogenetic, no basic information had been given or discussed on this topic. 58. With regards to classification, Dr Mason acknowledged that classification of Aceria is difficult due to their morphological similarity. He added that the similarity in morphology may have created cryptic speciation but that it could only be discovered through molecular investigation.

59. Dr Mason expressed concerns in relation to the first series of testing where four species of Clematis were excluded from further testing because there was a zero percent survival rate of A. vitalbae in the first round of testing. He believed that the variable survival of the biocontrol agent on several rounds of testing of other Clematis species should have triggered a re-investigation of those four Clematis species excluded after a single round of testing.

60. Dr Mason made reference to one of the tests which showed 30 percent of the test plants had A. vitalbae which was concerning as it showed evidence of A. vitalbae persistence and reproduction on at least three native Clematis species. Given that the tests showed the presence of the mite persisting and reproducing on native Clematis, he had concerns that this may constitute a risk that these organisms will evolve to subsequently establish on native Clematis.

8

61. Dr Mason quoted the abstract of a study by Smith et al. 2010: Effectiveness of eriophyid mites for biological control of weedy plants and challenges for future research (Experimental and Applied Acarology, 51(1-3):115-149):

“Short generation time, high intrinsic rate of increase and high mobility by aerial dispersal imply that eriophyids should have rapid rates of evolution. This raises concerns that eriophyids may be more likely to lose efficacy over time due to coevolution with the target weed or that they may be more likely to adapt to non-target host plants compared to insects, which have a longer generation time and slower population growth rate. Critical areas for future research include life history, foraging and dispersal behavior, mechanisms controlling host plant specificity, and evolutionary stability of eriophyid mites. This knowledge is critical for designing and interpreting laboratory and field experiments to measure host plant specificity and potential impact on target and non-target plants, which must be known before they can be approved for release.”

62. Dr Mason considered this study in the context of the application and stated that while evolution spans very long timeframes and may have unlikely outcomes, the accepted concepts of evolutionary biology are changing to take account of epigenetics. Dr Mason claimed epigenetics explains heritable changes across a wide proportion of a population which can affect the fitness of that population to inhabit a novel environment. Dr Mason believed that the applicant cannot dismiss the possible effects of evolutionary changes. 63. Dr Mason reiterated his concerns that, based on the evidence, A. vitalbae can reproduce on at least three native Clematis species which he believed constituted a risk that is sufficient to warrant at least further testing before any potential release of this species.

Applicant’s response to matters raised

64. Dr Fowler responded on behalf of the applicant to the concerns submitters had on rapid evolution, efficacy of A. vitalbae over time and host range testing.

65. Dr Fowler stated that the applicant had spoken with Lincoln Smith, one of the authors of the paper cited by submitter, Dr Mason. In their discussions, the applicant clarified that where Mr Smith referred to rapid evolution in his paper, a period of approximately 0.5 million years applied. In addition, Dr Fowler stated that Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research has a long history of studies which show that rapid changes in host ranges of insects and mites are very rare. He stated that very few host-specific insects suddenly expand their host range. He acknowledged that it can happen as there have been a few cases throughout history, however, the probability based on the evidence is extremely low. 66. In terms of decreasing efficacy of A. vitalbae over time, Dr Fowler stated that for this to occur, a selective pressure would need to be present to drive evolution. He provided an example of myxomatosis in rabbits in the United Kingdom where the efficacy of the disease has decreased over time. He elaborated that the reduction in the numbers of rabbits in the United Kingdom has reduced the likelihood of virus transmission which has diminished its efficacy. 67. With regards to host range testing, Dr Fowler stated that the applicant does have examples of low numbers of A. vitalbae persisting on non-host plants. Dr Fowler alluded to Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research’s previous research on the gorse thrip mite (Sericothrips staphylinus) which persisted and survived on other non-target plants for months. He provided another case study of the gorse spider mite (Tetranychus lintearius) which survived on beans for two generations in host testing experiments. Furthermore, as part of their national surveys, the applicant checked bean plants in New Zealand and found no reports or sightings of the gorse spider mite using beans as a host.

9

68. Dr Fowler stated that the applicant does not believe persistence of A. vitalbae on non-target host plants in no-choice testing is applicable because host tests are completed in optimum conditions, e.g. adequate humidity and lacking predators. Dr Fowler did not believe the persistence of individual mites on non-target plants indicated the possibility of the use of these plants as hosts in the long term. In addition, as A. vitalbae is a species of gall-mite, they are entirely reliant on forming galls for survival and, as no galls or gall symptoms were observed on non-target Clematis species, the mites would not endure on these plants.

End summary of hearing

69. The hearing was adjourned and closed on 9 October 2018.

70. The Committee would like to thank all people who submitted the information that was used in making this decision. Public submissions provide a focus for the Committee on points that need clarification, and the Committee found the submissions and the applicant’s responses very helpful in its consideration of the application.

Organism description 71. The organism approved for release is: Taxonomic Unit Classification

Class Arachnida

Order Acari

Family Eriophyidae

Genus Aceria

Species vitalbae (Canestrini, 1892)

Common name N/A

Inseparable organisms 72. No inseparable organisms associated with A. vitalbae were identified.

Assumptions for risk assessment 73. The Committee noted that there is uncertainty about whether or not A. vitalbae will successfully establish self-sustaining populations and have an impact on old man’s beard populations in the New Zealand environment. The Committee considered that if the mite fails to establish, there will not be any significant effects from its release. Conversely, if A. vitalbae successfully establishes, any effects would be at their greatest. Therefore, the Committee assessed the benefits and risks and the minimum standards associated with the release of the mite based on the establishment of self-sustaining populations in the environment.

Identification and assessment of potentially significant adverse effects 74. The Committee considered the potential risks and costs of the release of A. vitalbae including any potentially significant adverse effects on the environment, public health, people and communities, the market economy, and Māori culture, traditions, and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

10

Potential adverse effects on the environment

75. The Committee considered the potential for A. vitalbae to cause adverse effects if the actions by the gall mite damage and reduce populations of native plants and interfere with trophic webs.

Risks to non-target Clematis species 76. The Committee considered the host range experiments that had been undertaken to examine if A. vitalbae could feed and reproduce on non-target Clematis plants.

77. The Committee noted that host range tests, which were conducted in Serbia, included seven of the nine native Clematis species in addition to a cross between native C. marmoraria and C. petriei as these species are related to Clematis vitalba. The Committee noted that from the no- choice host testing, A. vitalbae had a strong preference for old man’s beard as the plants supported high populations of the biocontrol agent across the study period of 120 days. The Committee also noted that A. vitalbae spread and persisted on C. stans which is in the same phylogenetic clade as C. vitalba. The Committee took into consideration that while C. stans supported high populations of A. vitalbae, no visible damage was observed. This was unlike C. vitalba which showed leaf deformations and damaged buds. The Committee also noted that A. vitalbae did not produce any discernible damage in any other test plant and that non-target attacks on native Clematis species are highly improbable. The Committee further noted that A. vitalbae did not attack C. stans in its native environment where it co-existed with C. vitalba.

78. The Committee concluded that native New Zealand plants are not at risk of attack by A. vitalbae but spill over attacks on exotic species within the same clade as old man’s beard could occur but are very unlikely as ornamental Clematis and old man’s beard do not grow in the same areas.

Interference with ecosystem interactions and food webs 79. The Committee considered the potential of A. vitalbae to elevate pressures on mite species and insects that live on or in proximity to old man’s beard or by displacing species that depend on old man’s beard for resources.

80. The Committee noted that based on prior research in New Zealand from the early 1990s, old man’s beard populations are not a reservoir for native, host-specific or rare insects but that they hold a number of different polyphagous or oligophagous insects. The Committee noted that while the number of mites may increase on old man’s beard plants with the release of A. vitalbae, it is unlikely to adversely affect populations of invertebrates as there are no C. vitalba specific invertebrates. Furthermore, the small size of A. vitalbae would not support the development of many parasitoid offspring. 81. The Committee concluded that the release of A. vitalbae is unlikely to have adverse impacts on ecosystem interactions and food webs.

Potential adverse effects on the economy

82. The Committee considered the potential adverse effects on the market economy if A. vitalbae causes non-target damage to ornamental plants that are valued by the nursery and garden industry where it may act as a vector for disease that may damage other plant species.

83. The Committee noted that host range experiments were conducted on a number of exotic ornamental Clematis species that were selected by the nursery and garden industry as commercially important. The Committee noted that the host testing results indicated that only Clematis species such as C. stans that are phylogenetically similar i.e. in the same clade are at

11

risk to any potential attack by A. vitalbae. The Committee took into consideration that C. stans was tested as the most suitable host for A. vitalbae and, after 120 days, no adverse effects were observed on the plants from the biocontrol agent. 84. The Committee noted that A. vitalbae would be incidentally exposed to exotic Clematis species where it grows in close proximity to old man’s beard. The Committee also considered that exotic Clematis species that are cultivated and sold for the nursery trade or growing in people’s gardens would be unlikely to be exposed to old man’s beard populations and an inoculation source of A. vitalbae.

85. The Committee considered that from the testing results, A. vitalbae could persist on other Clematis species other than old man’s beard. The Committee noted that while testing showed maintenance of A. vitalbae populations on non-targets, test results are unlikely to be an accurate representation of a natural scenario as the artificial containment conditions lacked abiotic factors and other environmental stresses such as predation. 86. The Committee considered that A. vitalbae could potentially vector viruses that may damage other plants if approved for release. The Committee noted that any potential release of A. vitalbae would be dependent on the mite meeting the biosecurity requirements of an import health standard. 87. The Committee concluded that the release of A. vitalbae is very unlikely to have adverse effects on the New Zealand market economy. Potential adverse effects on Māori culture, traditions, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi

88. The Committee took into account the possible effects on the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga, and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

89. The Committee noted that the applicant engaged with Māori via regional consultation with iwi and Treaty Settlement networks in the Manawatu-Whanganui region, the Ngāpuhi and Ngāi Tahu HSNO Committees, via the EPA’s Te Herenga network and a Māori Reference Group convened in 2015 to deliberate on the key cultural principles that apply to biocontrol applications. The Committee considered the application to be broadly consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) including the principle of active protection.

90. The Committee noted that no risks to native or taonga species, ecosystems and traditional Māori values, practices, health and well-being were identified in the application. 91. The Committee noted that any potential risks from the release of A. vitalbae to Māori interests are likely to be acceptable.

92. The Committee further noted that for future monitoring programmes, the National Biocontrol Collective should utilise local iwi and hapū capability where possible so that they could take into consideration concerns relating to monitoring and efficacy of new biocontrol agents.

93. After assessing all the information, the Committee did not identify any adverse effects on the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga.

Potential adverse effects on public health and people and communities

94. The Committee did not identify any significant adverse effects on public health and people and communities from the application to release A. vitalbae.

12

Identification and assessment of potentially significant beneficial effects 95. The Committee considered the potential benefits of the release of A. vitalbae, including any potentially significant beneficial effects on the environment, public health, people and communities, the market economy, and Māori culture, traditions, and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

Potential benefits to the environment

96. The Committee considered whether A. vitalbae would reduce the size and density of old man’s beard populations, which would reduce the ability of the weed to spread within existing sites and to new habitats. 97. The Committee considered whether A. vitalbae would reduce the adverse environmental effects of old man’s beard and, therefore, as a flow-on effect, partially restore plant and animal biodiversity and ecosystems.

98. The Committee also considered whether control of the weed by the biocontrol agent will lead to significant reductions in herbicide use and incidences of non-target damage.

Limiting the risk of the spread of old man’s beard and invasion into new sites will improve biodiversity values 99. The Committee considered that through the action of A. vitalbae on old man’s beard, the future expansion of old man’s beard into unmanaged and natural habitats may be curtailed. The Committee noted that old man’s beard has not yet reached its full range in New Zealand and the use of A. vitalbae is likely to decrease its entry into and rate of invasion of ecologically sensitive habitats, e.g. conservation estates, unmodified habitats and recreationally and economically important habitats such as the Manawatu and Makuri gorges, Rangitikei River and Manawatu River. 100. The Committee noted that in host testing, A. vitalbae had a strong preference for old man’s beard over other native and exotic Clematis species.

101. The Committee concluded that it is likely the release of A. vitalbae would reduce the vigour and abundance of old man’s beard in New Zealand, thus reducing its progressive invasion of new habitats and sustaining biodiversity in sensitive habitats which may be at risk from future old man’s beard infestation. The Committee also concluded that while adverse effects on old man’s beard from any potential release of A. vitalbae would probably be gradual, potential die-back of the weed may occur especially on plants where galling is heavy.

Reductions in herbicide use 102. The Committee noted that infestations of native and unmodified areas are controlled by repeated spraying of broad-spectrum herbicides which have adverse effects on native species such as kowhai and kahikatea. The Committee noted that reductions in herbicide usage would in turn translate into environmental benefits such as reducing the collateral damage on non-target and beneficial native plants along with reducing the undesirable effects of increasing the chemical burden on the environment. 103. The Committee noted that whilst biocontrol by A. vitalbae is likely to lead to reductions in herbicide applications, they did not consider that significantly less broad-spectrum herbicides would be used once the mite is released. However, they noted that in the absence of a

13

sustainable control method, such as biocontrol, herbicide use would probably increase as a consequence of the expansion of the range of old man’s beard. 104. The Committee concluded that the release of A. vitalbae would have future beneficial environmental effects by reducing collateral damage from the use of herbicides that can kill native or other beneficial plants that support ecosystems. The release of A. vitalbae may also reduce the chemical burden on the environment where it controls or eradicates old man’s beard.

Potential benefits to the market economy

105. The Committee considered the economic benefits of the release of A. vitalbae through the reduction of costs incurred by land owners, territorial authorities, land managers and agencies on control and eradication efforts of old man’s beard. 106. The Committee considered the financial cost of controlling or eradicating old man’s beard by territorial authorities as discussed in paragraph 31, whereby some authorities have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars attempting to manage or eradicate old man’s beard through various means such as herbicides, physical removal or biocontrol agents. The Committee noted the release of the mite is likely to reduce old man’s beard in areas designated for management or eradication of the weed, reducing financial costs to authorities and land owners. 107. The Committee considered that there are likely to be benefits to the economy in the long term from the control of old man’s beard by A. vitalbae. The Committee however noted these benefits would vary across different areas, based on old man’s beard abundance and the controls that are being employed.

Potential benefits to people and communities

108. The Committee noted the large number of community groups in affected regions such as the Manawatu that are attempting to manage or eradicate old man’s beard. The Committee deemed that the release of A. vitalbae would benefit people who are impacted by the effects of old man’s beard in their community. 109. The Committee concluded that the release of A. vitalbae could reduce the community effort required to manage old man’s beard and that this would be a benefit to people and communities.

Potential beneficial effects on public health and on Māori and their relationship with the environment

110. The Committee did not identify direct benefits to public health or benefits that relate to Māori and their relationship with the environment specifically.

Weighing of beneficial and adverse effects 111. The Committee concluded that the potential risks and costs of releasing A. vitalbae are negligible while the potential benefits are non-negligible.

112. Therefore, the Committee found the benefits outweighed the risks of releasing A. vitalbae.

Minimum Standards 113. Under the provisions of Section 38 of the Act, the Committee considered whether A. vitalbae meets the minimum standards set out in section 36 of the Act; specifically whether A. vitalbae would not:

14

(a) cause any significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat; or

(b) cause any significant deterioration of natural habitats; or

(c) cause any significant adverse effects on human health and safety; or

(d) cause any significant adverse effects to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity; or (e) cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for human, animal, or plant disease, unless the purpose is to import or release an organism to cause disease, be a parasite, or a vector for disease.

Potential to cause significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat

114. The Committee considered the potential for A. vitalbae to cause significant displacement of any native species within their natural habitats.

115. The Committee noted that there are no native or valued insect species that are limited to environments where old man’s beard populations are found in New Zealand. The Committee noted that experiments conducted with A. vitalbae showed that it has a high preference for old man’s beard and any effects from the release of the biocontrol agent will be exerted in and around old man’s beard populations. 116. The Committee further noted that it is unlikely for A. vitalbae to cause devastating effects on old man’s beard populations. The Committee noted that gradual effects such as reductions in old man’s beard distribution would allow for native species that utilise old man’s beard for food or shelter to seek alternative plant hosts where old man’s beard populations decline. 117. The Committee concluded that A. vitalbae is not likely to cause significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat.

Potential to cause significant deterioration of natural habitats

118. The Committee considered the potential for A. vitalbae to cause significant deterioration of natural habitats. 119. The Committee noted the mite is specific to old man’s beard and there are no native mite species in New Zealand that utilise old man’s beard exclusively. The Committee further noted it is unlikely for A. vitalbae to have any significant indirect adverse effects on ecosystems and food webs as any effects are likely to be constrained to old man’s beard populations which do not support native biodiversity or ecosystems in New Zealand. Furthermore, A. vitalbae would cause a gradual decline of old man’s beard which would have a slow reversing of the adverse effects imposed by old man’s beard on natural habitats 120. The Committee concluded that the effects of A. vitalbae on old man’s beard biomass are unlikely to cause significant deterioration of natural habitats.

Potential to cause significant adverse effects on human health and safety

121. The Committee considered the potential for A. vitalbae to cause significant adverse effects on human health and safety. The Committee noted that there are no known mechanisms of interaction between humans and the agents.

15

122. The Committee concluded that A. vitalbae are not likely to cause any significant adverse effects on human health and safety.

Potential to cause significant adverse effects on New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity

123. The Committee considered the potential of A. vitalbae to cause adverse effects on New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity. The Committee considered that this could occur through cross-breeding with other Aceria species in New Zealand. 124. The Committee noted that there are 32 reported species of Aceria in New Zealand with all of them having a single or small host range they feed on. The Committee noted that there are no Aceria or other Eriophyoidea mites that are known to live on old man’s beard in New Zealand. 125. The Committee was satisfied that it is unlikely for A. vitalbae to encounter any Aceria on old man’s beard and, by extension, unlikely that A. vitalbae could cross-breed with other Aceria species. The Committee noted that hybridisation could occur where old man’s beard grows in proximity to host vegetation that supports other Aceria, however, these encounters would be unlikely. The Committee accepted that if an encounter did occur, in the absence of field study, it is not known if the two mites would naturally cross-breed. 126. The Committee concluded that A. vitalbae is not likely to cause any significant adverse effect to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity.

Potential to cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for disease

127. The Committee considered the potential for A. vitalbae to cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for human, animal, or plant disease, resulting in damage to species other than old man’s beard. 128. The Committee noted that this biocontrol agent is not known to cause disease or become a vector for animal, plant or human disease in their native range.

129. The Committee noted that prior to any potential release of A. vitalbae, the mite would need to meet strict biosecurity standards, be free from any pests or diseases and would not be a cause of disease other than its galling effect on old man’s beard. 130. The Committee concluded that A. vitalbae is not likely to cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for disease.

Conclusion on the minimum standards

131. The Committee was satisfied that A. vitalbae meets the minimum standards set out in section 36 of the HSNO Act.

Ability of the organisms to establish undesirable self- sustaining populations 132. In accordance with section 37 of the Act and clauses 10(e) and (f) of the Methodology, the Committee took into consideration the ability of A. vitalbae to form undesirable self-sustaining populations, and the ease of eradication of such populations. 133. The Committee noted that the intention of the importation and release of A. vitalbae is to establish and develop self-sustaining populations, in order to control old man’s beard. Further, they

16

considered that in order for a self-sustaining population of A. vitalbae to be undesirable, it would need to cause undesirable adverse effects. 134. The Committee considered that from the host testing results, A. vitalbae did not have any adverse effects on native Clematis species and, therefore, would not attack non-target valued plants. In addition, the Committee noted that any indirect adverse effects on ecosystem processes or food webs would not have significant or permanent effects and there are no native or valued species that are host-specific to old man’s beard. 135. The Committee considered that any population of A. vitalbae will be desirable since that is the foundation of a classical biological control strategy, and that this agent is not likely to cause adverse effects in the New Zealand environment. 136. The Committee concluded that it is highly improbable that A. vitalbae would form undesirable self- sustaining populations.

137. The Committee noted the value of information that can be obtained from post-release monitoring of this biocontrol agent. The Committee supported the National Biocontrol Collective national assessment protocol framework and its commitment to evaluating the target but also non-target effects of A. vitalbae when it is appropriate.

Achieving the purpose of the Act 138. The purpose of the Act is 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 (section 4 of the Act).

139. In order to achieve the purpose of the Act, when considering the application the Committee recognised and provided for the following principles (section 5) of the Act: a. the safeguarding of the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems b. the maintenance and enhancement of the capacity of people and communities to provide for their own economic, social and cultural well-being and for the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations.

140. The Committee took into account the following matters when considering the application in order to achieve the purpose of the Act (sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act): a. the sustainability of all native and valued introduced flora and fauna b. the intrinsic value of ecosystems c. public health d. the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga e. the economic and related benefits and costs of using a particular hazardous substance or new organism f. New Zealand’s international obligations g. the need for caution in managing adverse effects where there is scientific and technical uncertainty about those effects h. the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi). 141. The Committee is satisfied that this decision is consistent with the purpose of the Act and the above principles and matters. Any substantive issues arising from the legislative criteria and issues raised by submitters have been discussed in the preceding sections of this decision.

17

Decision 142. After reviewing all of the information contained in the application, the Committee was satisfied that the application met the requirements of section 34 of the Act. In any event, in accordance with section 59(3)(a)(ii), the Committee waives any information requirement that has not been met.

143. The Committee considered that the threshold for approval under section 38 of the Act has been met. It is satisfied that the organism meets the minimum standards set out in section 36 of the Act, and that the beneficial effects of the organism outweighs the adverse effects of the organism, taking into account all of the following:  all the effects of the organism and any inseparable organisms,  the matters in section 37 of the Act,  the relevant matters in Part 2 of the Act; and  the Methodology. 144. The Committee decided to exercise its discretion and approve the import for release and/or release from containment of Aceria vitalbae under section 38(1)(a) of the Act. The Committee noted that in accordance with section 38(2) of the Act, the approval has been granted without controls.

145. The Committee noted that under section 38(3) of the Act, if Aceria vitalbae has not been released within five years of the date of this decision, this approval for release will lapse. However, any person may apply before the expiry of the time limit for an extension of that time limit for a further period of up to five years.

146. The Committee has waived the requirement under section 38(4) of the Act, to notify the Authority of the release of Aceria vitalbae.

29 October 2018

Dr Kerry Laing Date Chair, Decision Making Committee Environmental Protection Authority

Organism Approval code Aceria vitalbae Canestrini 1892 NOR100168

18