A PUBLICATION OF BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND

biosecurityISSUE 75, 1 MAY 2007

FOCUS ON ANIMAL WELFARE

Post border detection of plant pests Operation Kadridri Forestry-focused national certifi cates 6 1166 2222

Biosecurity magazine Biosecurity is published six-weekly by Biosecurity New Zealand, with regular input from the Department of Conservation, Ministry of Health, contents Ministry of Fisheries and regional councils. It is of special interest to all those with a stake in the protection of New Zealand’s economic, EDITORIAL environmental and social assets from the dangers posed by pests and Animal welfare – key domestic and international diseases. Animal welfare issues are developments ...... 3 also covered. The articles in this magazine do not necessarily refl ect government policy. FRONTLINE NEWS Animal law with teeth ...... 4 For enquiries about specifi c articles, refer to the contact listed at the end of Afghanistan: Kiwis contribute to animal welfare ...... 6 each article. Identifying farms during an incursion response ...... 7 General enquiries (e.g. circulation Animal welfare during international transport ...... 8 requests or information about Post-border detection of plant pests improved ...... 9 Biosecurity New Zealand): Operation Kadridri – surveillance for invasive ants ...... 10 Biosecurity Magazine, Biosecurity Styela sea squirt response: update ...... 12 New Zealand, PO Box 2526, Pastoral House, 25 The Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand. BIOSECURITY SCIENCE Phone: 04 894 0100 Three Rs programme promoting humane science ...... 13 Shellfi sh toxin testing without using animals ...... 14 Fax: 04 894 0720 Welfare Quality® research programme ...... 16 Email: [email protected] Fish pain revisited ...... 17 Internet: www.biosecurity.govt.nz Editorial enquiries: BIOSECURITY SYSTEMS Editor: Phil Stewart National Animal Welfare Emergency Management Group ...... 18 Phone: 04 384 4688 From advice on 1080 to monitoring global trends ...... 20 Surveillance strategy: Setting the future direction ...... 21 Email: [email protected] Codes of welfare – how are they developed? ...... 22 ISSN 1174 – 4618 Forestry focus for national certifi cates ...... 24 Biosecurity New Zealand fax contacts: Policy and Business: 04 894 0731 BIOSECURITY INTERFACE Animal Welfare: 04 894 0728 Vertebrate Pests Committee ...... 25 Pre-clearance: 04 894 0733 Post-clearance: 04 894 0736 UPDATES Compliance and Enforcement: Amended import health standards: Plants ...... 25 09 300 1021 Codes of ethical conduct ...... 26 Investigation and Diagnostic Centres: Codes of welfare ...... 26 04 526 5601

DIRECTORY ...... 26

2 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75 editorial

Animal welfare – key domestic and international developments of operational

Dr A.C. David Bayvel Dr A.C. David and strategic signifi cance

nimal welfare is a fast moving developments. New Zealand maintains public policy area, both ongoing involvement with the OIE MAF’s Animal Welfare Mission: A domestically and internationally, (World Organisation for Animal Health) and a number of important developments • to support society’s expectations animal welfare initiative as outlined in and initiatives have taken place since for the welfare and humane previous issues of Biosecurity, including the last animal welfare special issue of treatment of animals input to a Michigan State University Biosecurity in August, 2005. • to support the development of e-learning programme. All these activities make an important animal welfare standards, within Liaison continues with the World contribution to New Zealand’s strategic New Zealand agriculture, which Society for the Protection of Animals approach to animal welfare, i.e., will contribute to market success (WSPA) regarding a proposed Universal incremental, science-based change and optimum product positioning Declaration on Animal Welfare. management over realistic time frames, for New Zealand animal products New Zealand remains involved in the with the active involvement of all aff ected and animals. EU Welfare Quality project, as outlined and interested parties and informed by on page 16 of this issue by Dr Lindsay the MAF animal welfare mission. established to ensure appropriate MAF/ Matthews, and this country’s further Domestic developments Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency involvement in animal welfare law is Management liaison and appropriate outlined by Dr Ian Robertson on page 4. Within the Animal Welfare Group there involvement of key stakeholders, as MAF has been working with the United have been several key appointments: outlined in the article on page 18. Kingdom Department for Environment, Dr Kate Littin to the position of Food and Rural Aff airs in collaborative Technical Adviser, Dr Roger Poland to A joint MAF/SPCA Animal Welfare animal welfare research, a proposal for the position of Senior Adviser and Inspectors Task Force has been established a NZ/EU Animal Welfare Cooperation Ms Haley Shepherd to the position and a Memorandum of Understanding Forum has been accepted and NAWAC of Team Support Offi cer. All these signed with the New Zealand Food Safety is an invited corresponding observer in appointments were funded by a successful Authority (NZFSA) Verifi cation Agency, Euro-Farm Animal Welfare Council. new initiative bid. They are designed to to ensure that issues relating to animal welfare enforcement capability and increase support to the National Animal Looking ahead Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) capacity are addressed. Discussion on animal welfare policy and and National Animal Ethics Advisory The New Zealand Three Rs programme practice and animal welfare and animal Committee (NAEAC) and to support the at Massey University has been established rights will continue into the foreseeable implementation of requirements of the to give a focus to this important policy future and MAF will continue to interact Animal Welfare Act 1999. and ethical commitment regarding the with key stakeholders. NAWAC and Responsibility for animal welfare policy use of animals in research, testing and NAEAC will continue to play key analysis and legislative amendments teaching (see article on page 13). statutory roles and provide independent has transferred from MAF Policy to NAWAC held a successful workshop advice to government. Where necessary, Biosecurity New Zealand (BNZ) Policy, on pain and pain relief during routine animal welfare change management and an Animal Welfare Committee has painful husbandry procedures in 2006 will be science-based and will require been established to better coordinate and the Proceedings are now available validation of the proposed welfare animal welfare activities within MAF and (see Biosecurity 71:16). benefi ts of alternative production or with NAWAC, NAEAC and the Ministry The New Zealand strategy on animal management systems. At an international of Foreign Aff airs and Trade. welfare and international trade has been level, MAF will continue to interact Eight codes of welfare have been revised by MAF and MFAT, for approval with key agencies and institutions to developed and received ministerial by the Ministers of Agriculture, Food consolidate and further develop New approval to date, and an additional fi ve Safety and Trade. Zealand’s reputation and leadership in codes are due to be gazetted over the next the fi eld of animal welfare. 12 months. International developments ■ Dr A.C. David Bayvel, Director Animal Welfare, The National Animal Welfare Emergency On the international front, there have [email protected] Management (NAWEM) Group has been been several particularly noteworthy ■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 3 FRONTLINE NEWS Animal law with teeth Legislative change and legal advocacy in the 21st century By Dr Ian Robertson In 1906, J Howard Moore estimated it would take up to two centuries for humans to replace “human dominion” with a view which recognises a unity and respect of life. If Moore was right, we are about halfway through that process.

The Five Freedoms 1. Freedom from hunger and thirst – by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.

2. Freedom from discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.

3. Freedom from pain, injury or disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.

4. Freedom to express normal behaviour – by providing suffi cient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.

5. Freedom from fear and distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suff ering.

4 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75 rom a historical perspective, the legal protection of animals is a relatively F recent event. Today’s focus on animal welfare is a signifi cant step forward from days not so long ago where the views of seventeenth-century philosopher Rene Descartes – who argued that all of animal behaviour could be explained in purely mechanistic terms – set the tone for widespread abuse of animals. And as recently as the 19th century, the law failed to punish a man by the name of John Cornish for ripping out a horse’s tongue. New Zealand’s Animals Protection Act Animals to all Scottish parliamentarians 1960 was replaced in 1999 with the Animal animal law as an elective course (two in on the eve of elections) Welfare Act. The diff erence between these New Zealand, about seven in Australia two Acts is arguably captured in the name. and the United Kingdom, over 60 in the • making submissions on pending The shift from “protection” of animals United States, and others in Portugal, legislation. from acts of cruelty to an emphasis on Switzerland, Israel, Canada and China). This trend is also represented in both New “welfare” maintains their protection but There are also a large number of Zealand and Australia: the Animal Rights adds to this by putting a positive duty of professional forums and conferences Legal Advocacy Network (ARLAN) in care on owners to provide for animals’ being held to examine the future of New Zealand has, as one of its stated physical and mental needs, broadly referred animal protection from a variety of legal, aims, “To enhance the welfare and status to as the “fi ve freedoms” (see box on ethical and social perspectives. The latest of animals by upholding existing statutes, page 4). conference held at Harvard Law School regulations and common law principles; There is signifi cant evidence of a global is one such example. Dr Ian Robertson, and lobbying for appropriate law reform shift acknowledging greater responsibility a lecturer in animal law at the University to allow humans to intervene and provide in respect of animal welfare. The animal of Canterbury’s School of Law (see legal protection for animals.” Voiceless, an welfare initiatives central to the current Biosecurity 73:20), was a guest speaker at animal rights/advocacy group in Australia, European Union objectives are a prime the conference. In recognition of worldwide has its own legal arm which aims to example of regional developments. trends refl ecting a current international improve legal protection for animals, Scotland and England are the latest focus on issues of animal welfare, and monitor and enforce laws and facilitate states to enact updated animal welfare globalisation of trade, he proposed that it the development of animal law. legislation, which arguably brings their is timely to develop a best-practice model Advocacy success companion animal protection standards of animal welfare legislation. Such a model Such legal or legislative advocacy can be in line with those already required for may need to consider indigenous and very successful. The Humane Society of their farm animals. With issues of BSE and cultural values that currently exist outside the United States (HSUS), that country’s avian infl uenza still fresh in many minds, traditional western concepts of animals. largest animal protection organisation, has there is increasing discussion about the It would act as a global blueprint for the a staff of 10 full-time lawyers targeting possibility of animal health and welfare future of animal welfare and serve as a corporations and individuals with the being recognised as trade criteria between benchmark for current and future animal aim of improving animal protection and states and within global organisations. welfare initiatives. welfare. In February last year, the HSUS Increasing profi le for animal New channels for animal and other organisations collectively sued welfare law advocacy the US Department of Agriculture in Animal welfare may be defi ned as the Coupled with a growing interest in animal relation to the slaughter of horses. In late legal use of animals which involves law is the increasing use of pressure and March this year, that action eff ectively duties regarding animals (diff erentiated advocacy through legal and legislative caused the closure of horse slaughter plants from concepts of animal rights which channels to bring about changes in animal in the United States through a technicality encompasses duties to them). While issues welfare and animal rights. Examples of relating to the need for pre-slaughter regarding animals have been dealt with such initiatives include: inspection of horses. It is still lobbying for a under various legal headings, animal law federal ban on horse slaughter. • collection of signatures on a petition to is a developing discipline. At a general force a referendum (such as the petition In New Zealand, ARLAN made level, animal law may be defi ned as issues to ban cages for hens in New Zealand a complaint to the Government’s of law that deal with an animal; that take in the 1990s) Regulations Review Committee about into account the unique nature of animals, the confi nement of layer hens in cages, and additionally aff ect the relationship • laying of private charges by animal on a legal technicality under the Animal between humans and animals. Animal law advocacy organisations against Welfare Act 1999. It argued that the code consequently incorporates all issues of corporations (such as the Humane of welfare for layer hens was unlawful. animal welfare. Society of the United States suing Although the action did not result in a producers of foie gras under The continued development of animal law change to the code of welfare, it did serve environmental protection legislation) as a legal discipline is evidenced by the as a reminder of the active use of due legal increasing number of animal law chapters • lobbying MPs for change (for instance, process in the development of animal within legal jurisdictions, and by the the distribution of a ‘Manifesto for protection legislation in New Zealand. Animal Welfare’ by Advocates for growing number of law schools off ering ■ www.animal-law.biz

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 5 FRONTLINE NEWS AFGHANISTAN Kiwis contribute to animal welfare in war-torn country By Dr Virginia Williams When a country is riven by decades of confl ict, it is not only the humans who suff er. Animals can also be a casualty when infrastructure has been torn apart by war. As part of their role in a civilian assistance programme in Afghanistan, New Zealand Defence Force personnel have been helping not only the local population, but also with the health and welfare of the animals that are such an important part of the rural economy.

n New Zealand, the National Animal Welfare Emergency Management I (NAWEM) Group has been formed to coordinate responses to disasters aff ecting animal welfare (see page 18 of this issue). The focus of this group is very much on the regional natural disasters – fl oods, droughts, volcanic eruptions and the like. New Zealanders are also doing their bit overseas to restore services in the face of disruption caused by war. For the New Zealand Defence Force’s Provincial Reconstruction Team (NZPRT) in the Bamyan province of Afghanistan, there has been a strong animal welfare aspect Livestock are a key part of the ‘wealth’ of many Afghani families. to this aid.

Last summer, the NZPRT took part in farming households use cattle to plough government responsibility. However, as a medical civilian assistance programme their wheat fi elds at planting time, while government employees, veterinarians (MEDCAP), organised by the American sheep and goats – for many families only were regarded with some suspicion military, which provided free health a handful of animals – represent their following the Russian invasion in 1979, clinics not only for every man, woman ‘wealth’. Animal off spring and products and many fl ed the country once the and child in the chosen areas, but also for are sold to raise cash in an emergency. Russians were gone. Veterinary training their livestock. New Zealanders helped The rural economy has therefore been has also suff ered, and subsequent confl ict the two American veterinarians who vulnerable to outbreaks of animal has prevented the rebuilding of the oversaw, in the space of a couple of days, diseases, a situation which has been all veterinary infrastructure in many areas, the marking, drenching and vaccinating too common given the breakdown in the leading to a reduction or absence in of around 3,000 horses, donkeys, cows, veterinary infrastructure caused by years preventative health programmes. sheep and goats. Many of these animals of confl ict and neglect. While the NZPRT personnel found had been brought from as much as a day’s The number of veterinarians has fallen the general health of the animals was walk away – treatment for saddle sores considerably in Afghanistan. In the past, surprisingly good, considering the almost and other wounds was also provided. all veterinarians were state employees: total lack of veterinary care, diseases such At the same time, the medical clinic saw the provision of animal health, including as anthrax, enterotoxaemia, sheep pox, more than 5,500 human patients. national disease control programmes, blackleg and haemorrhagic septicaemia Around three-quarters of Afghanistan’s food hygiene, emergency disease have become more prevalent. Foot and people depend directly or indirectly on control and vaccination and treatment mouth disease and rinderpest are also agriculture for their livelihood. Most of livestock, were all considered a threats.

6 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75 As well as the MEDCAPs provided by the American military, a number of groups are trying to address this situation, both nationally and internationally. With a mission to help return a self-reliant and sustainable life to the Afghan people, the Committee for Rehabilitation Aid to Afghanistan (CRAA) is a non- governmental, non-political and non- profi t-making organisation that works with groups like the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to foster economic development, agricultural development, and infrastructure projects in Afghanistan. Current projects include: • teaching in construction, including Promotion of humane treatment of animals is one welfare-related project currently underway animal shelters in Afghanistan. • training paraveterinarians (veterinary assistants) and equipping trainees to Afghanistan’s veterinary capacity, focusing in cattle, sheep, goats and poultry and to work as mobile independent providers on clinical veterinary services, including support veterinary fi eld clinics providing training of paraveterinarians, now the vaccinations and treatments. • promotion of humane treatment of largest group involved in provision of draft animals. Meanwhile, New Zealanders will be back animal health care services at village level. in the thick of it when the assistance of the The Afghanistan Government is also The Dutch Committee for Afghanistan NZPRT will again be enlisted for a repeat working to rebuild government veterinary (DCA) and the Food and Agriculture of last year’s programme this Northern services to address national issues such (FAO) organisation are also providing aid. summer. as foot and mouth disease control. This The DCA has been helping improve the is complemented by the work of USAID, health and productive output of the local • Virginia Williams is the Animal Welfare mentioned above, which is an independent livestock since 1988, in particular through Coordinator for the New Zealand United States federal government agency training, extension and the delivery of Veterinary Association. that supports and provides economic and animal health services at village level. The humanitarian assistance in more than 100 FAO helps the Afghanistan Government • Photographs courtesy of Committee for countries. USAID is helping to rebuild monitor and prevent outbreaks of diseases Rehabilitation Aid to Afghanistan. Identifying farms during an incursion response Access to accurate farm information is a key requirement for managing exotic disease responses. In the May 2005 response to the Waiheke The ability to use data from these three Island foot and mouth disease hoax, sources provides the most accurate and only 61 percent of farms on Waiheke up-to-date farm information to BNZ’s Island were registered in AgribaseTM, response teams. IRS enables the response New Zealand’s national register of farms team to identify and create missing owned and operated by AgriQuality Agribase farms, either as a batch process Limited. The missing data signifi cantly for an entire region, or by adding or complicated MAF’s response. maintaining farms individually, as shown in Figure 1. Biosecurity New Zealand’s (BNZ’s) Figure 1: Editing farm areas in the IRS Incursion Response System (IRS) This upgrade to IRS enables BNZ to application. application utilises Agribase data to take advantage of these three sources of support incursion responses. A recent property data, instead of relying on just upgrade to the IRS application enables one source. This, in turn, signifi cantly the initial farm data to be supplemented enhances BNZ’s ability to identify and during a response with valuation data locate farms within New Zealand. ■ Stephanie Mills, Systems Coordinator, Post- 1 from Territorial Local Authorities, 1 Privacy restrictions prevent BNZ from clearance, Biosecurity New Zealand, and land parcel data supplied by Land accessing valuation data in advance of an [email protected] Information New Zealand. incursion. However, access may be requested for the purpose of managing a response.

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 7 FRONTLINE NEWS

Animal welfare during international transport

Many live animals are transported in and out of New Zealand each year, and from our isolated corner of the globe, this can mean a long journey. In this article, Wayne Ricketts of the MAF Compliance and Enforcement Group looks at the rules and regulations that are designed to ensure the welfare of these animals is protected.

he range of animals travelling to and from New Zealand The Animal Transport Association (AATA) has produced is extensive and includes pets, production animals, a manual for the transportation of live animals. AATA is T racehorses, day-old chickens, laboratory and zoo animals. committed to the safe and humane transport of animals, Production animals and racehorses from New Zealand are whether by sea, air or land. It is a voluntary organisation, and highly sought after because of their genetic merit and our while membership is weighted towards Europe and North freedom from major exotic diseases. America, participants from many countries contribute to annual Due to our geographical isolation, animals may have to travel conferences and the production of the manual. The manual long distances, either by sea or air. Welfare during transport (now in its second edition) is applicable in any country. AATA has become a high-profi le issue, and a number of international has strong links with IATA and the OIE. organisations, such as the World Society for the Protection of The OIE is a relatively new player on the international animal Animals, Compassion in World Farming and People for the transport scene, and has recently produced guidelines for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are now campaigning against welfare of animals during land and sea transport. The guidelines long-distance transport of animals. Some airlines refuse to carry are closely aligned with the AATA manual, the Australian certain animals such as birds, and others will not carry specifi c Livestock Export Standards, the Australia Maritime Safety breeds of dogs. Authority Marine Orders and the European Convention for Ensuring the welfare of animals during transport is paramount, the Protection of Animals During International Transport. both from the animal’s point of view, and for the owners or Guidelines for air transport are due to be produced and buyers (including consumers) who want the animal to arrive fi t these will be closely associated with the IATA Live Animals and healthy. Regulations. What, then, are the rules and regulations to ensure welfare during New Zealand’s Animal Welfare Act 1999 allows for strong transport? As well as each country’s domestic standards and measures in regard to animal welfare during international legislation (such as New Zealand’s Animal Welfare Act 1999 transport. The Act requires that all animals exported from New and associated codes of welfare), a number of international Zealand, unless specifi cally exempted, must be issued with organisations have developed standards or guidelines. an animal welfare export certifi cate. The Act provides for the imposition (and therefore compliance with) any international The International Air Transport Association (IATA) produces standards and domestic requirements during the transport process. the Live Animals Regulations which are updated annually. These regulations support one of the IATA’s principal roles, which New Zealand participates in all of the above forums. While we is to develop standards and procedures to facilitate the safe are smaller players, our high animal welfare status, both from international transport of animals. Most of the world’s airlines a legislative and experiential perspective, means that we have are members of IATA, which therefore compels them to comply much to off er to the setting of worldwide standards. with the Regulations. The regulations are also adopted by a For more information about animal welfare export certifi cates: number of organisations, such as the World Organisation for ■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/codes-and-guidelines/awecs Animal Health (OIE), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and by a large number of countries. If you For more information about the IATA Live Animals want to fi nd out how to safely transport anything from earwigs Regulations: to elephants, the IATA regulations will tell you. ■ www.iata.org/ps/publications/9105.htm

8 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75 HIGH-RISK SITE SURVEILLANCE Post-border detection of plant pests improved As part of a national early warning surveillance programme for exotic plant pests, Biosecurity New Zealand (BNZ) conducts pest inspections in identifi ed high-risk sites around New Zealand. The high-risk site surveillance (HRSS) programme undertakes phytosanitary (plant health) surveys in areas that are at increased risk of introduction of pests. Typically, these are pest pathways such as ports and transitional facilities.1

new methodology and increased funding introduced in 2005 have increased the rate of signifi cant plant pests A detected, reversing a previous trend towards fewer detections recorded. Programme goals The primary goal of the HRSS programme is to provide eff ective HRSS surveyor carries out a close visual inspection of vegetation during the survey. detections of plant pests that have potentially adverse eff ects on the environment, economy or people of New Zealand. To be Field work characterised as ‘eff ective’, the detection of a pest species The fi eld work is carried out by surveyors from Target Pest and (e.g., an exotic insect or pathogen) will happen at a stage where: Forest Health Dynamics who are contracted to AgriQuality • the maximum range of management options is available; and Limited. To support the programme, AgriQuality maintains a database and geographic information system which captures • the possibility of eradication is maximised, while economic vegetation species surveyed and inspection details. and social impacts are minimised. In the fi eld, close physical inspections of vegetation in transects, The programme also monitors changes in plant pest hosts and set up in and around the identifi ed high-risk sites, form the core distributions. These secondary detections constitute an important survey method. Time is allocated to extensive and discretionary goal of the surveillance eff ort and are necessary for BNZ to meet phases to provide fl exibility. Diagnostics of suspect samples from international reporting requirements. tree species is contracted to Ensis, with BNZ’s Investigation and First year results Diagnostic Centres (IDC) covering the remaining species. In response to the introduction of the revamped HRSS While the surveyors are very experienced (an average of over programme in 2005, there has been an increase in signifi cant 20 years of experience in biosecurity plant health), AgriQuality fi nds. This has off set a trend towards reducing numbers of fi nds has worked with Forest Industries Training and Education over the previous three years. Figure 1 demonstrates this by Council (FITEC) to produce a Unit Standard (NZQA Standard totalling the number of pests found in each category during the 22984 – Carry out high-risk site surveillance in the urban forest surveillance season. environment) to ensure that surveyors can maintain and enhance their skills. Figure 1: High-risk site surveillance plant pest detections, 2002-2006. The HRSS contractors work with landowners and councils to ensure good coverage of risk sites around the country, and identify any areas of plant decline which may indicate a potential new pest presence. A recent workshop for the surveyors involved a ‘Bio-Blitz’ in the Auckland Botanic Gardens using the HRSS methodology, and a large number of pest samples were taken. ■ Paul Stevens, Senior Adviser Surveillance, Post-clearance, Biosecurity New Zealand, [email protected] 1 Transitional facilities hold, inspect, treat or destroy and dispose of uncleared risk goods imported into New Zealand. They operate under a standard which details the minimum requirements for approval and monitoring of transitional facilities functions.

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 9 FRONTLINE NEWS

OOperationperation KKadridriadridri – ssurveillanceurveillance fforor invasiveinvasive antsants WWareaarea Orapa,Orapa, SSecretariatecretariat ooff tthehe PPacifiacifi c CommunityCommunity

By Megan Sarty, Biosecurity New Zealand

Over the last month, two teams from the Fiji Quarantine and Inspection Division (FQID) have conducted surveillance for suspected invasive ants in high-risk areas in north-western Viti Levu, under ‘Operation Kadridri’. (‘Kadridri’ is the word for ‘ants’ in the local Yasawa dialect.)

he surveillance was the fi rst introduced organisms. Invasive ants, some its voyage from the Caribbean, where RIFA awareness and data collection of which are referred to as ‘tramp’ ants, is already a problem, and it sailed through T exercise to be carried out on invasive are those species that have proved to be several Pacifi c Islands including Fiji before ants in Fiji, in particular the red imported successful invaders and colonisers of novel arriving in Auckland late last year. fi re ant or RIFA (Solenopsis invicta), and environments. Their ability to hitchhike little fi re ant (Wasmannia auropunctata). on a wide range of international trade Staff trained throughout Pacifi c RIFA, in particular, has the potential to pathways is second to none. Given the The Land Resources Division of the cause serious negative socio-economic increasing levels of international trade Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community impacts. A RIFA incursion is under an through the region, the invasiveness of (SPC) helped equip and train two teams eradication programme in Hawke’s RIFA and the Pacifi c Islands’ cultural, prior to their respective missions, using Bay (see Biosecurity 74:12) and major climatic, environmental and biosecurity methodologies and training provided by incursions in the Australian cities of systems, it is inevitable that RIFA will Biosecurity New Zealand in the Pacifi c Brisbane and Gladstone are also subject eventually attempt to colonise the region. Invasive Ant Surveillance Programme to eradication attempts. The ant is well Timely and ongoing surveillance of high- (PIAS). PIAS, funded by the New Zealand established in the southern United States risk areas (such as ports and airports) is Ministry of Foreign Aff airs and Trade, and China, and is spreading in Taiwan. So critical to closely monitor the presence was initially conducted in early 2006. The far, no colonies of RIFA have been reported of invasive ants. The current emergency programme provided training to over 70 or detected anywhere in the Pacifi c Islands. ant surveillance in Fiji is in response to staff throughout the Pacifi c, and surveyed 19 high-risk sites for the presence of Island ecosystems are generally very the interception of RIFA on a yacht in invasive ants. A second round of training vulnerable to changes induced by Auckland. Apparently the yacht had begun

10 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75 and surveillance is planned for late 2007 and will cover 32 high-risk sites in 13 Pacifi c Island countries. Ant survey in high-risk area Two quarantine teams visited the Yasawa and Mamanuca groups of islands and the greater Nadi area, including Denarau Mariner, Saweni Beach Resort and the Sheraton Beachfront. The geographical location of the initial surveillance is signifi cant as it is highly popular with overseas tourists and thus a potentially high- risk area for hitch-hiking invasive ants to reach Fiji. The teams were given Singapore Ants (Monomorium GPS units, small plastic bottles with destructor) caught inside bait to catch ants, and grid maps. a protein bait trap, ready FQID supplied raincoats, caps, safety to be frozen and then shoes, gloves and torches. Ant samples identifi ed. collected from the surveys have been Prevention Programme (PAPP). PAPP is a Pacifi c Invasives Initiative based out of frozen and sent to New Zealand for regional multi-agency initiative endorsed Auckland University, Biosecurity New identifi cation. by SPC member countries and territories. Zealand and the US Department of More importantly, the teams were briefed The main objectives of the PAPP are to: Agriculture. by SPC staff on the signifi cance of the ant • increase awareness on the potential The involvement and contributions to surveillance and the need to work as a threats posed by invasive ants in Pacifi c this regional eff ort by biosecurity and team. Apart from surveillance, the teams islands conservation agencies, local communities, also investigated public awareness around agricultural producers and exporters and the risks and dangers of RIFA among rural • develop and put in place invasive the tourism and hospitality sectors would villagers and hotel workers and the need ant emergency response systems and place the Pacifi c Community in a strategic to look out for new insect pests, weeds management methods position to restrict invasive species like and diseases. Pests pose a threat to Fiji’s • develop national capacities to deal with RIFA from marching across the Pacifi c. multi-million dollar agriculture export new incursions. Everyone in the Pacifi c region, from industry as well as to island biodiversity To ensure the sustainability of activities on tourists and big exporting companies to and livelihoods. Leafl ets on invasive ants invasive ants, including surveillance and subsistence farmers, will ultimately benefi t produced by SPC were distributed as awareness, SPC has taken responsibility from preventing the spread of high-impact public awareness materials. for managing of the PAPP. However, full invasive species such as the fi re ants. Pacifi c Ant Prevention implementation of PAPP is multi-sectoral, ■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests-diseases/animals/ Programme involving many partners including the invasive-ants/invasive-ants-factsheet.pdf Samoa-based Secretariat of the Pacifi c ■ Megan Sarty, Senior Adviser, Post-clearance, The Fiji ant surveillance is part of the Regional Environment Programme, the Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0665 or regional programme, the Pacifi c Ant 029 894 0665, [email protected]

Papua New Guinea Quarantine Offi cers conducting port Secretariat of the Pacifi c surveillance as part of the Pacifi c invasive Community ant surveillance programme. The Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community or SPC is a regional intergovernmental organisation whose membership includes both nations and territories. It aims to “develop the technical, professional, scientifi c, research, planning and management capability of Pacifi c Island people and directly provide information and advice, to enable them to make informed decisions about their future development and well-being.” www.spc.int/AC/Vision.htm

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 11 FRONTLINE NEWS Styela sea squirt response: update

As part of the Styela clava Communications response, Biosecurity New Work is currently underway on new Zealand (BNZ) is running a information resources for marine users, again stressing the importance of vessel range of research projects hull cleaning. The objective will be to help aimed at understanding how prevent the further spread of Styela and other marine pests. Development of the the organism operates in the new resource involves some research into local environment, and how it the boating habits of both recreational and could be managed here. This commercial users. research will ultimately inform Population management trials the longer term management Field surveys for Styela clava (using both above water and diver searches) have plan for Styela. The long-term been completed at Lyttelton Port and management strategy for this Marina and Tutukaka Marina. Styela was marine pest will ultimately found at all three locations, but in highly contrasting densities. The population involve consultation with the within Tutukaka has remained low, while wider group of industries and the populations in Lyttelton appear to have increased considerably since the last survey stakeholders aff ected by Styela. in 2005. The survey results are currently despite the presence of reproductively being analysed and databases searched for active adults in the vicinity. Sampling and Potential Styela presence in analysis of results is ongoing. Wellington patterns of vessel movement. High-value areas of concern to each of BNZ is currently investigating the Genetic diversity of Styela in the three survey locations have been possibility of the spread of Styela into New Zealand successfully identifi ed and eff orts are Wellington Harbour. A heavily fouled An analysis of the genetic lineages in now focusing on identifying potential yacht was moored in the Port Nicholson Styela populations in New Zealand is management strategies to protect the high- Marina for more than six months; the underway. Results will be compared with value areas. fouling included mature specimens of samples from overseas, with a view to Styela. The vessel was removed from the Assessment of reproductive determining possible pathways by which water and thoroughly cleaned. activity Styela may have arrived here. Early results suggest multiple introductions, with North With the proximity of the high-value Research on the reproductive biology of Marlborough Sounds and Nelson areas, and South Island populations showing Styela clava is continuing in Auckland. slightly diff erent genetic patterns. Samples this discovery is a concern. BNZ is To date, results suggest Styela has two organising an inspection of the marina from a number of additional locations or three periods of high reproductive have recently been collected, mainly from around where the yacht was moored, to potential throughout the year, mainly check for Styela. the North Island, with emphasis on the through spring, summer and autumn. Hauraki Gulf. The vessel apparently began its journey in However, no larvae or young recruits have ■ Lesley Patston, Senior Communications Adviser, been detected in the water column or on Auckland, before heading to Wellington Biosecurity New Zealand, phone (04) 894 0163, via a couple of months’ lay-up in Napier. settlement plates in the sampling areas, (029) 894 0163, lesley [email protected] PEOPLE IN BIOSECURITY Naya Brangenberg recently joined the Suzanne Gallagher has joined the BNZ Post-clearance Directorate of Biosecurity Project Offi ce as a Project Manager. Suzanne New Zealand (BNZ) as an Adviser, Animal will initially be working in the System Design Response. Naya was in private veterinary Group in the Post-clearance Directorate, practice in Lower Hutt prior to joining managing small-to-medium projects. The BNZ. She will be working on response projects she will work on aim to increase plans for several OIE (World Animal Health operational effi ciency in this area. Organisation) listed diseases of horses, deer, Suzanne comes to BNZ from a and aquatic animals. Naya came to New telecommunications company in the United Zealand in 2004 after fi nishing veterinary Kingdom, where she worked as a Project Manager in the Product school; she has a DVM from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Development area, focusing on business process design and and undergraduate degrees in biology and wildlife biology from the implementation. Suzanne has a Bachelor of Science in Plant Biology University of Alaska-Fairbanks. and Biotechnology.

12 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75 BIOSECURITY SCIENCE Three Rs programme promoting humane science Animal use in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand is comprehensively regulated – it must be approved by animal ethics committees, and these committees in turn must act according to a code of ethical conduct. Codes are approved by MAF after consultation with the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) and are subject to regular reviews. Also, all animal users must return statistics each year to provide a public record of the numbers and types of animals used and the severity of the procedures they were used for. bove and beyond these measures, application for research, testing or there are several initiatives The Three Rs teaching is even seen by an animal ethics A and organisations involved in Replacement – replace the use of committee. improving animal welfare in research, animals in research, testing and teaching In 2007, Professor Mellor will be with non-animal alternatives, or use less testing and teaching. These each have working with key stakeholders to secure sentient animals or animal tissue. diff erent roles. further funding to achieve its aims and Reduction – if you must use animals, sponsor research into the Three Rs, and ANZCCART reduce the number needed to the to identify further collaborators in New minimum required to still achieve a ANZCCART, the Australian and New Zealand and elsewhere. Estendart, a meaningful result. Zealand Council for the Care of Animals Massey-based contract research company, in Research and Teaching, promotes the Refi nement – in your use of animals, is fi rst off the blocks to provide some responsible use of animals in research and refi ne practices to minimise suff ering fi nancial support for the programme. teaching, and fosters informed discussion (e.g. use appropriate pain relief; Other upcoming developments from the and debate within the community. euthanase when pain or distress is evident). programme include: NAEAC • a new website with links to New “Uniquely, the New Zealand Three Rs NAEAC, the National Animal Ethics Zealand sources for information to ‘lift Programme integrates scientifi c, scholarly, Advisory Committee, provides your game’ bioethical, regulatory, advisory and independent, expert advice to the • an email discussion group policy dimensions of the Three Rs with Minister of Agriculture on policy and national and international applications. • a searchable database on alternatives practices relating to the use of animals It will reinforce the deserved recognition available in New Zealand in research, testing and teaching. The New Zealand enjoys in this arena committee supports animal ethics • workshops and visiting speakers internationally,” he says. committees in their work and it, too, • best practice advice and model policies promotes excellence in animal use in While the programme is physically based • funding for research into replacement, research, testing and teaching. One way at Massey University, it is, in reality, a reduction and refi nement. it does this is through the annual ‘Three ‘virtual’ organisation with representatives Rs Award’, which recognises achievement from throughout New Zealand and Watch this space! in implementation of the Three Rs by an international links. For more information about individual or organisation. Professor Mellor stresses, “The New ANZCCART Zealand Three Rs Programme is a ■ www.rsnz.org/advisory/anzccart The New Zealand Three Rs national entity, open to all with an For more information about NAEAC Programme interest in quality Three Rs research and ■ The New Zealand Three Rs Programme scholarship.” www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/naeac ■ Dr Kate Littin, Technical Adviser Animal Welfare, is a more recent development. It was The programme’s fi rst project is an [email protected], phone 04 894 0373 established to promote the Three Rs of examination of the activity that is ■ Professor David J Mellor, research, testing and teaching in New intended to replace, reduce and refi ne [email protected], phone 06 350 4807 Zealand. It was fi rst proposed in 2005 animal use, and that occurs before an and has been developed since then by the Massey University Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre (AWSBC), with support from MAF. What does the New Zealand Three Rs Programme do? The programme is intended to The programme has four goals: complement other Three Rs centres 1. Profi le New Zealand’s Three Rs contributions throughout the world, while retaining 2. Promote understanding, application and development of the Three Rs a distinct New Zealand emphasis. Professor David Mellor is Director of the 3. Network and liaise with other Three Rs centres internationally AWSBC and co-founder of the Three Rs 4. Critically assess Three Rs developments in New Zealand and elsewhere. Programme.

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 13 BIOSECURITY SCIENCE Shellfi sh toxin testing without using animals

The freedom to enjoy a feed of shellfi sh has been an important part of New Zealanders’ culture since humans fi rst arrived here. Shellfi sh also play an important part in our economy, generating hundreds of millions of export dollars. In certain conditions, naturally occurring toxins in the sea can be picked up by shellfi sh. While not harmful to the shellfi sh, they can be poisonous to people who eat them. Testing for these toxins is therefore vitally important for the protection of human health and our export markets. Large numbers of mice have had to be used for these tests, but a New Zealand-led development could see the use of animals for shellfi sh toxin testing phased out completely.

here are several marine phytoplankton in New Zealand Shortcomings of mouse bioassay that can produce toxic compounds. These phytoplankton The mouse bioassays used to detect and quantify marine can bloom under favourable environmental conditions and T biotoxins are non-validated procedures, which are prone to the biotoxins concentrated by shellfi sh as they fi lter feed. People interferences, and entail the use of large numbers of animals. can become seriously ill if they eat shellfi sh that are suffi ciently In New Zealand, this testing is considered to fall into the ‘very contaminated with these biotoxins. severe suff ering’ category. Nearly 12,000 mice were used in this category in 2005. Of these, 77.6 percent were used for testing, Toxic terminology including shellfi sh toxin testing. Essentially, the test requires administration of a shellfi sh extract to the mice. Biotoxin: a poisonous compound produced by a living It is accepted internationally that the mouse bioassays for the thing. diarrhetic (producing diarrhoea) and paralytic (producing Phytoplankton: the microscopic plants making up some paralysis) shellfi sh poison groups (DSP and PSP) are also of the plankton in our oceans. defi cient for various reasons, animal welfare impacts Bioassay: a test that uses a living animal or animal notwithstanding. For example, the mouse bioassay for the DSP toxins is not consistently able to meet the regulated limit for organs. A mouse bioassay uses mice or a preparation of DSP toxins in shellfi sh. mouse tissue. Various types of non-animal-based methods for the detection of toxins have been developed and validated world-wide. These involve direct measurement of the level of toxin in extracts of There are eight toxin groups of concern (based on chemical shellfi sh using several new methods. In addition, monitoring for structure) and each toxin group contains multiple toxin phytoplankton levels and environmental conditions for potential analogues (chemicals with a similar structure but slightly blooms has been enhanced and is often used in concert with the diff erent composition). They produce a range of symptoms, other tests. including vomiting, headaches, diarrhoea, neurological problems and, in extreme cases, death. World fi rst In 2000 and 2001, the Cawthron Institute (Nelson, New Zealand) Biotoxin problem relatively recent developed, validated and implemented a liquid chromatography Prior to 1993, New Zealand had no recorded incidence of mass spectrometry (LCMS)-based method for the detection of shellfi sh biotoxins of public health signifi cance. Following a 17 toxins in four of the eight toxin groups. In 2001, the New signifi cant outbreak of poisoning cases in 1993, a comprehensive Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) approved the Cawthron national management plan was implemented, including the LCMS method for regulatory use in New Zealand – this was the routine monitoring of shellfi sh for marine biotoxins. fi rst such approval issued world-wide. The LCMS method has proved to be faster, more sensitive, and more specifi c than the Many other countries have adopted similar monitoring mouse bioassay. The introduction of this LCMS method in New programmes, in order to protect public health. Most of these Zealand has seen a signifi cant reduction in the number of mouse countries stipulate the use of the mouse bioassay for detecting bioassays being undertaken (see Figure 1). the presence of marine biotoxins in shellfi sh tissues. New Zealand does not require the use of the mouse bioassay for While New Zealand has developed and implemented alternative testing all marine biotoxins. In fact, New Zealand is leading the testing methods, progress in many other countries has taken a world in the adoption of improved non-mouse test methods. diff erent tack. Changes in the United Kingdom in recent years have mainly focused on reducing the number of animals used

14 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75 “New Zealand is leading the world in the adoption of improved non-mouse test methods”

for each test and the refi nement of the mouse bioassay so that International endorsement for non-animal animals suff er less (by the use of euthanasia at an earlier stage method in the test). Within the EU, only Germany has abandoned the During a recent international conference on molluscan shellfi sh mouse bioassay for testing shellfi sh. A workshop organised by safety in Blenheim, a round table discussion on international the European Commission in 2005 recommended that: “Since regulatory changes in marine biotoxin standards was held with non-animal methods providing equivalent or better public health key experts from Europe, Canada, the United States and New provision are available, these can serve as monitoring methods, Zealand. A unanimous outcome of this session was that non- which should be used by the competent authorities, thereby animal methods are validated and available for use and that leading to a signifi cant reduction in animal tests.” these should be implemented on a country-by-country basis. Figure 1: Number of mice used per year in support of the New Zealand There are several obstacles to the implementation of these marine biotoxin monitoring. Graph kindly provided by Paul McNabb, Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand. methods: • lack of harmonised validation criteria for judging method 90,000 acceptability 80,000 • 1992/3 biotoxin event • limited availability of certifi ed reference materials 70,000 • lack of cohesion between regulators and scientists 60,000 Phytoplankton monitoring introduced • lack of toxic equivalence factors (a means of comparing the 50,000 toxicity of very diff erent compounds) for calculating the 40,000 • potency of toxin analogues. Phytoplankton monitoring increased Mouse numbers 30,000 In New Zealand, the export focus of New Zealand’s shellfi sh LC-MS introduced industry requires NZFSA to ensure compliance with the 20,000 • regulations of importing nations. Nonetheless, the NZFSA has a 10,000 • Goal strong commitment to the implementation of non-animal-based 0 • testing methods. 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 ■ Dr Catherine Seamer, Senior Adviser, Science Group, New Zealand Food Safety Authority, [email protected]

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 15 BIOSECURITY SCIENCE Welfare Quality® research programme backs EU action plan By Dr Lindsay Matthews

The European Union (EU) is intensifying its activities in the animal welfare arena, partly as a result of a 2005 survey which “noted a seismic shift in consumer opinion towards promoting animal welfare” (Eurobarometer, 2005).

he survey results showed that, for an animal welfare conscious (e.g., northern EU) consumer, more than T 50 percent consider animal welfare when purchasing meat, 56–72 percent identify the production system on the label, and 70–94 percent believe animal welfare on farms can be infl uenced by purchasing behaviour. Further, the Eurobarometer report identifi ed several signifi cant barriers for consumers in exercising their choice of products, namely, lack of information, lack of availability and lack of trust in the food production systems. It was considered that labelling would be one eff ective way to overcome the lack of information and help consumers choose between “minimum” and “higher” welfare standards. In addition to the Eurobarometer studies, the EU has developed a Five Year Action Plan (2006–2010) (EU, 2006) with the broad aim of developing mechanisms to prevent diff erences in animal welfare standards internationally from undermining higher animal welfare elsewhere. One of the key actions centres on the introduction of standardised animal welfare indicators. These would: • assist consumers in making ethically based food purchases by providing them with the means to diff erentiate products based on animal welfare standards in the market place • serve as the basis for an animal welfare label • help in improving animal welfare (and its transparency to consumers) in production systems. The EU’s aspirations in animal welfare are supported by its “Welfare Quality®: Integration of Animal Welfare in the Food Quality Chain” research programme. Not including national contributions, the project has a budget of about €14 million over fi ve years. The aims of the research programme are unique internationally, in that they involve working across the supply chain (producers, processors, retailers, food service sector More than 50 percent of European consumers consider animal welfare and consumers) to promote the application of animal welfare when purchasing meat. measurement at all stages of the process, from consumption right back to production. Their success in developing the confi dence in practice. It must be reliable (have good agreement partnerships and research is described in their latest newsletter both between independent observers and with the same observer (Welfare Quality, 2007). on separate occasions) and valid (correspond with the actual welfare status of the animal). The monitoring system being developed involves assessments under four key areas: nutrition, health, housing and behaviour. Over the fi rst two years of the programme, Welfare Quality For example, in the nutrition area, proposed measurable has developed a draft set of monitoring tools and is currently indicators include body condition score and accessibility of evaluating the feasibility and reliability of using these in water (Keeling and Veissier, 2005). Where possible, the focus is commercial production systems for intensively reared cattle, pigs on outcome-based measures like body condition score, rather and poultry. The scientifi c validity of the some of the indicators than on resource-based measures (e.g., food availability) as these is likely to require further research. For example, while it is usually provide a better indication of the impacts on the animal. possible to score the body condition of livestock reliably, there is little evidence in the scientifi c literature that can be used in From a measurement perspective, several key elements must setting appropriate levels of body condition to satisfy the animal be addressed before a monitoring scheme can be used with welfare requirements of all species.

16 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75 As mentioned above, the EU and Welfare Quality aim to develop and apply a monitoring scheme that can diff erentiate between diff erent levels of welfare. Clearly, such a system will require a validated process for setting thresholds and for defi ning boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable welfare. As part of this process, Welfare Quality is holding a one-day Lindsay Matthews. workshop in Berlin this May (in conjunction with their second Welfare Quality conference) with their advisory committee and scientifi c board. The aim of the workshop is to obtain expert scientifi c opinion on the proposed welfare assessment system, weightings of welfare outcome areas, and thresholds for acceptable welfare. The Welfare Quality research programme also seeks to improve animal welfare by assessing animal management practices in FFishish current (mainly intensively housed) production systems and, where necessary, developing or recommending improved alternatives. In New Zealand, AgResearch and Dexcel are collaborating with livestock industries and international research groups to identify appropriate, validated, objective measures of welfare relevant to our pastoral production systems. pain See future issues of Biosecurity for updates on the Welfare Quality project and reports on the second Welfare Quality conference and workshop. revisited For more information on Welfare Quality: ■ www.welfarequality.net/everyone While most people would agree that oysters and ■ [email protected] mussels do not feel pain, the same cannot be said References for fi sh. EU, 2006: The Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare In a recent talk in the Biosecurity New of Animals 2006–2010 http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/ actionplan/actionplan_en.htm Zealand Science Seminar Series, entitled “Underwater, no one can hear you scream … Eurobarometer, 2005: Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/euro_ although interestingly enough …”, barometer25_en.pdf Biosecurity New Zealand’s Dr Colin Johnston summarised current thinking on, and attitudes Keeling L., Veissier I. 2005: Developing a monitoring system to assess welfare quality in cattle, pigs and chickens. In: Science and to, pain and distress in fi sh. society improving welfare, Welfare Quality Conference proceedings Colin has a background in aquaculture, and Dr Colin Johnston. (Ed A. Butterworth), 17–18 Nov, Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa. aquatic animal and fi sh disease. His talk focused on the evidence for eu/food/animal/welfare/sum_proceed_wq_conf_en.pdf and against fi sh feeling pain, and mechanisms by which it is proposed Welfare Quality. 2007: Electronic newsletter of the Welfare Quality that fi sh could be aware of pain. While there will always be a range Project FOOD-CT-2004-506508 www.welfarequality.net/ezine. of strongly expressed beliefs, there is recent evidence to support a m?id=345450 theory that fi sh are aware of, what we would consider to be, painful • Lindsay Matthews is Science Programme Leader, AgResearch experiences. Currently, the focus for debate rests more upon their Ruakura and a member of the Scientifi c Board for the EU’s ‘mental representations’ of those experiences. In terms of animal Welfare Quality® research programme. welfare, the latter might not be so important. Of this, Colin said, “I think it is fair to say that the experience does not have to be identical to that in humans to still be signifi cant to the animal.” In any case, everyone is agreed that chronic adverse stimuli cause Clarifi cation: Biosystematics article in debilitating stress responses in fi sh. Aquatic industries and regulatory Biosecurity 74: 17, 19 authorities throughout the world are taking the issue seriously and turning their attention to the development of guidelines and rules Barney Stephenson, Biosecurity New Zealand, was the to protect fi sh welfare in aquaculture. Recreational and commercial originator of the quote at the beginning of this article, and fi shing are also attracting increasing attention. not the author of the article. The article itself was written by Shaun Pennycook of Landcare Research. Our apologies ■ Dr Colin Johnston, Senior Adviser, Risk Analysis Group, Pre-clearance Directorate, Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0689, for any misunderstanding that may have been caused. [email protected]

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 17 BIOSECURITY SYSTEMS National Animal Welfare Emergency Management Group COORDINATING WELFARE RESPONSE TO NATURAL DISASTERS

Disasters can conjure up many diff erent images. One of the most notorious natural disasters in recent times was the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. While New Zealand has been fortunate to have avoided an emergency of this size and scale, it still has to cope with its own share of “nature running amok”.

vents such as the lower North working with animals on a daily basis or in Wellington on 12 April 2007. The Island fl ood of February 2004, during civil defence emergencies. purpose of the meeting was to present to E the Canterbury snow storm in NAWEM recognises the need for the audience: June 2006 and the Bay of Islands fl ood coordination and sharing of resources • international and national perspectives in March 2007 provide ample evidence during emergencies, at both the national on management of animal welfare that we are not immune from natural and regional level. It aims to: during emergencies; and disasters. And the bad news is that climate change is expected to increase the • raise awareness of the importance • the work that NAWEM has been frequency, intensity, and magnitude of of planning for animal welfare doing to advance New Zealand’s these adverse events. management during adverse events preparedness for protecting the welfare • promote animal welfare emergency of livestock and companion animals Farmed animals vulnerable management training resources during adverse events. What does this reality mean for New About 60 people attended the meeting, Zealand’s livestock industries? Farmed • coordinate responses to animal welfare from a wide range of animal welfare animals occupy close to 50 percent of our issues during adverse events. stakeholder organisations. land mass and are therefore particularly Raising awareness: at risk in major adverse events. Our economy, with 42 percent of merchandise stakeholder meeting exports derived from animal products, So, how is NAWEM going about shares this vulnerability. achieving these objectives? Regarding the fi rst goal of raising awareness, The better its state of preparedness for NAWEM hosted its fi rst public adverse events, then, the better that ‘New stakeholder meeting Zealand Inc’ can ensure both the welfare of its farmed animals, and its economic viability. This is where the National Animal Welfare Emergency Management (NAWEM) Group fi ts into the picture. NAWEM is a relatively new group, having met for the fi rst time in April 2006. Its members are representatives from: • Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) • Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM) • Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc (FF) • Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) Inc • World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) • New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA). The organisations which comprise NAWEM were selected because of their national or international scope, operational focus and expertise in PhotoNewZealand/Tony Stewart PhotoNewZealand/Tony

18 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75 The recent Northland fl oods are a reminder that New Zealand is not immune from natural disasters, with consequences for animal, as well as human, welfare. Photo: Gill Jackson. Speaking at the meeting, Agriculture support it was given by the Minister of channel its animal welfare advice through Minister Jim Anderton underlined Agriculture in his opening address to the MCDEM’s civil defence and emergency the importance of groups working in fi rst stakeholder briefi ng and discussion management infrastructure. MCDEM has partnership to care for animals when afternoon of NAWEM on 12 April. divided New Zealand into 16 civil defence there is extreme weather. “The need for and emergency management regions. coordinated work has been highlighted Training resources Each of these regions has a welfare by dramatic weather events. Few of us Concerning its second objective of advisory group (WAG), responsible for from Canterbury have forgotten last promoting training resources, NAWEM has looking after all welfare issues during an year’s snow. Back then we saw the critical applied to the Sustainable Farming Fund emergency. NAWEM will be appointing relationship between climate, feed and for a grant to host a series of stakeholder an Animal Welfare Coordinator, from animal welfare,” he said. workshops. If the bid is successful, the NZVA, to assist each WAG in the “In a country as dependent as ours on NAWEM plans to host an annual training management of its animal welfare issues. animals and weather, the welfare of our workshop, for three consecutive years, on During an emergency which is localised to animals and their care is more than an the techniques of managing animal welfare a specifi c region, the respective Regional academic or marginal issue. There are a issues during emergencies. Animal Welfare Coordinator will provide, lot of groups with a concern for animal NAWEM is also planning to send two with assistance from NAWEM members welfare in New Zealand − and the benefi ts delegates from New Zealand to a Disaster if necessary, the required animal welfare of working in partnership are so clear that Response Technical Training Course, in advice. During a national emergency, it is surprising that the national group is a November 2007, which is being provided NAWEM will convene in Wellington recent initiative.” by WSPA. Among the key objectives for to receive and coordinate information He urged all those with a stake in the the course are that each participant would: from the Regional Animal Welfare Coordinators. animal industries to ensure they have high • understand response options to diff erent standards of care and are prepared for core disasters and recommended best A work in progress “the inevitable”. practice response including veterinary While none of NAWEM’s key objectives “Our community expects a well remedial action; and have yet been met, it is a work in progress. coordinated and effi cient response to • gain an awareness of technical rescue Although animal welfare is ultimately an animal welfare issues during adverse techniques and the dangers disaster individual responsibility fi rst, NAWEM events like storms. We are vulnerable, operations pose to responders. recognises that a well-coordinated and too, to international trade repercussions, effi cient response to animal welfare unless we can demonstrate the highest It is anticipated the participants for the issues during an adverse event will standards of animal care. Consumers in course will comprise 12 WSPA disaster yield many benefi ts. It will ensure that our export markets increasingly want to staff , plus 12 delegates from key global the welfare of our animals is looked know that products have been farmed member societies including Australia and after to the maximum degree possible ethically, and they will react to poor New Zealand, as well as a delegation from under such circumstances. In addition, animal welfare stories. Negative stories China. The New Zealand delegates will be a well-executed response will improve in international media can badly damage feeding the information they have gained community resilience and ensure the long- our reputation. during this course back into NAWEM’s annual animal welfare emergency term economic viability of both individual “The more knowledge we have, the better management stakeholder workshops farmers and the wider industry. we can coordinate our responses and referred to above. For more information about NAWEM, or secure the viability of both individual to discuss how your organisation could farmers and the wider animal-based Coordinating welfare responses become involved, please contact: industries,” the Minister concluded. Regarding its third objective, of ■ Roger Poland, Senior Adviser, Animal Welfare, NAWEM Group Chair, Dr Ian Dacre, said coordinating responses to animal welfare phone 04 894 0372, [email protected] NAWEM gratefully acknowledges the issues during adverse events, NAWEM will

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 19 BIOSECURITY SYSTEMS From advice on 1080 to monitoring global trends ALL IN A DAY’S WORK FOR ANIMAL WELFARE GROUP

The Animal Welfare Group (AWG) is a specialised • Domestic and international relationship management part of Biosecurity New Zealand. The group is a The nine members of the AWG each have diff erent roles and are each responsible for managing relationships with key key player in the implementation of MAF’s Animal domestic and international stakeholders. Welfare Mission (see editorial, this issue). So what • Encouraging appropriate and adequate management of are the key roles of the Animal Welfare Group? animal welfare in emergencies • Developing and implementing animal welfare policies and Supporting the development and function of the National Animal Welfare Emergency Management Group (see page 18 standards this issue). The AWG supports society’s expectations for the welfare and humane treatment of animals and the development of • Identifying research priorities animal welfare standards (mainly codes of welfare and codes Science is the principal driver for identifying and confi rming of ethical conduct), within New Zealand agriculture, which animal welfare needs. To promote the use of science-based will contribute to market success and optimum product standards, the AWG works closely with veterinarians, animal positioning for New Zealand animal products and animals. welfare and behavioural scientists and other researchers. Where information is lacking, the group identifi es priorities • Supporting two independent ministerial advisory committees and commissions operational research aimed at clarifying The AWG provides secretariat and scientifi c support to two particular issues. independent ministerial advisory committees, the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the • Promoting the Three Rs in research, teaching and testing National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC). Working with NAEAC, ANZCCART and the New Zealand These two committees comprise members nominated by the Three Rs Programme to promote the implementation of main stakeholders (farming groups, RSPCA, New Zealand refi nement, reduction and replacement (see page 13 this issue). Veterinary Association, scientists, etc). They are responsible • Identifying emerging animal welfare issues for developing new codes of welfare and ensuring that Maintain a close eye on international issues and domestic research groups comply with the appropriate standards. developments to ensure that our policies are up to date and • Supporting the training and appointment of animal welfare fl exible enough to deal with future change. inspectors • Responding to media and public enquiries about animal welfare Animal welfare inspectors have a crucial role in ensuring Can I use a gin trap? What are the animal welfare impacts of compliance with the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and 1080? What can I tell my children about fi shing humanely? enforcement where required. Inspectors come from MAF Why are pigs kept in crates? Is barbed wire okay for cows on Compliance and Enforcement Group, the SPCA, the Animal my dairy farm? What are the animal welfare regulations about Welfare Institute of New Zealand, the New Zealand Food the commercial slaughter of eels? What are the animal welfare Safety Authority (NZFSA) Verifi cation Agency (see below), regulations for importation and use of mist nets for pest bird and every member of the Police force is an inspector. control? I’ve seen sheep and cows in a fi eld without shelter or

20 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75 water; what can be done about it? I’m doing an art project that involves dressing 12 live sheep in merino jumpers; how do I go about getting MAF approval? What are the rules for home killing chickens and cows and how do I do it humanely? Where can I get information on the Animal Welfare Act 1999? Answering queries like these or pointing people in the right direction is all in a day’s work for the group. Other groups within MAF and the NZFSA make an important contribution to the total MAF animal welfare activity. These include: • Compliance and Enforcement Group fulfi ls roles in compliance and enforcement through the provision of animal welfare inspectors and auditors. CEG also manages the Animal Welfare Complaint Hotline (0800 327 027). • Biosecurity New Zealand Policy is responsible for policy analysis and advice on proposed legislative amendments. The Animal Welfare Group: • MAF International Trade Policy provides information, Back, from left: Kate Littin (Technical Adviser), Kirsty Grant (Executive analysis and advice on animal welfare as it intersects with Coordinator), David Bayvel (Director Animal Welfare), Cheryl O’Connor (Programme Manager), Joanna Tuckwell (Policy Adviser) international trade. Front, from left: Linda Carsons (Senior Policy Adviser), Roger Poland • New Zealand Food Safety Authority Agricultural Compounds (Senior Adviser), Margaret Handscomb (Administrative Assistant). (Absent, Haley Shepherd, Team Support Offi cer.) and Veterinary Medicines Group manages animal welfare risks in relation to the manufacture, sale and use of these research providers (e.g., AgResearch, Massey University) to help compounds, which include vertebrate toxic agents (such as deliver and contribute to New Zealand’s animal welfare science vertebrate pesticides). and enforcement capability. Strong relationships and mutually • NZFSA Verifi cation Agency veterinarians have an important benefi cial partnerships are essential to achieving the group’s compliance and enforcement role in slaughterhouses and on- strategic goals. farm. For more information on the Animal Welfare Group, see the Outside MAF altogether, the AWG and CEG are reliant on group’s profi le on its website: relationships with key stakeholders (e.g., RNZSPCA, New ■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare Zealand Veterinary Association, Federated Farmers) and Surveillance strategy Setting the future direction for surveillance in New Zealand

The Biosecurity Surveillance Group has recently commenced work • develop a risk-based prioritisation system that can be used on a very exciting project to develop a strategy for a cross-sector within and across sectors, ensuring effi cient use of resources national surveillance system that will set the direction for New • develop consistent quality measures for surveillance activities, so Zealand’s future surveillance activities. An implementation plan stakeholders will have confi dence in New Zealand’s biosecurity will follow to enable the vision and recommendations of the and surveillance systems strategy to be put into operation. • defi ne the underlying principles and approaches that guide This is an ambitious project and the fi rst attempt in the world to surveillance operations develop a national surveillance strategy that covers the marine, animal, plant and environment sectors. • identify and develop an agreed model for surveillance partners to work together to improve decision-making and to increase Prime Consulting’s International Review (2002) of New Zealand’s resourcing options Biosecurity Surveillance System and the Biosecurity Strategy (2003) both identifi ed a number of key recommendations to • identify the current and future infrastructure requirements to improve New Zealand’s surveillance system. support the surveillance system, including systems and people The recent formation of the Biosecurity Surveillance Group has, • identify gaps in the knowledge and science required to support for the fi rst time, provided the resources and focus necessary to surveillance activities to ensure programmes are based on the achieve the recommendations of the Biosecurity Strategy, allowing best available science and technology. the development of New Zealand’s surveillance system into one The Surveillance Group is still fi nalising the planned approach for that will be unrivalled internationally. the strategy development. The surveillance strategy intends to: If you or your organisation are interested in receiving further • identify the future objectives of the surveillance system within information or participating in the strategy development, please New Zealand, based on the overall goals for biosecurity provide your name, organisation, phone number, postal and email address in an email to: • identify the roles, responsibilities and needs of partners and ■ contributors to the surveillance system to improve collaboration [email protected] for a more integrated approach ■ Katherine Clift, Manager Biosecurity Surveillance, Post-clearance, Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0645, [email protected]

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 21 BIOSECURITY SYSTEMS

CODES OF WELFARE – how are they developed? Codes of welfare are an integral part of the framework and philosophy of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. In this article we background the work that goes into producing a code and their role in our legal framework for protecting animal welfare.

The function of a code of welfare Codes are issued by the Minister of Agriculture on the recommendation of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) following public consultation. They may be quite detailed as they are used to establish minimum standards, promote best practice in relation to animals owned or in a person’s charge, and inform and identify future directions through research and development. Such codes cover a variety of practices and procedures both within and outside farming. While codes are primarily an expression of what we as New Zealanders fi nd acceptable, they also have a signifi cant role in telling the rest of the world about our animal welfare standards. This can, and does, facilitate successful marketing of our exports. In particular, the minimum standards that they contain have an A code of welfare covering animals in zoos is one of eight codes to have been issued under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. important status in the administration of the Act. NAWAC believes that where a specifi c Draft codes must be submitted to NAWAC NAWAC industry or animal species is represented for consideration. NAWAC determines by a particular group, their active that the draft code complies with the NAWAC is appointed by the Minister involvement in the development of a code purposes of the Act, is clearly written and of Agriculture to provide independent, is crucial. The committee prefers that the aff ected persons have been consulted. It soundly based advice on animal welfare group takes responsibility for drafting the then undertakes public consultation to law, policy and practice. NAWAC code. This ensures that codes are practical ensure the range of community views is members serve in a personal capacity, and that the ownership and ‘buy-in’ of taken into account when standards are representing particular areas of expertise stakeholders (industry, animal owners, being determined for the care of animals. including veterinary, animal and transporters, etc) continues. For example, It is usual for aspects of a draft code to be agricultural science, the commercial use Deer Industry New Zealand drafted the challenged. of animals, ethics, conservation, animal deer code, while the dog code was drafted NAWAC then considers all submissions, welfare advocacy, companion animals by the Companion Animal Council. Where and public interest. One of NAWAC’s key prepares a summary of the submissions such a group is not easily recognised, and and makes a determination about the responsibilities is the development and NAWAC believes that a code of welfare is recommendation of codes of welfare. matters raised by each submission. The desirable, it will develop such a code itself. draft code is amended in the light of Why does it take so long to The painful husbandry procedures code is these determinations and the fi nal draft is produce a code of welfare? one example of this. recommended for issue by the Minister. There are seven general steps in the However, codes or welfare do not simply Accompanying each recommended code development of codes of welfare. Each year, codify current thinking and practice. The is an analysis of issues, particularly NAWAC determines priorities for code Act requires NAWAC to have regard to those involving signifi cant diff erences development. The priorities for 2007 are scientifi c knowledge, good practice (not of opinion, and the reasons for the codes covering commercial slaughter, dairy current practice), available technology and committee’s decisions. NAWAC strives to cattle, dogs, transport in New Zealand, submissions received and consultations make its decisions by consensus but the and sheep and beef cattle. These codes are undertaken. These processes ensure that report could include diff erences of view all at varying stages of development. The improved animal welfare standards are within the committee. Update section in each issue of Biosecurity either obtained or foreshadowed. Finally, an independent policy review of magazine updates progress on these. A A dialogue between the code writing the code is undertaken before the Minister list of future codes to be developed is also group and MAF is maintained to provide recommends the issue of the code to maintained and discussed. progress reporting and ensure that those Cabinet. The Minister then issues a code The Act allows any person or organisation aff ected by a code are consulted during its by a notice published in the Gazette and to prepare a draft code of welfare. development. its release is publicised by the Minister, NAWAC, MAF and industry stakeholders.

22 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75 Thus the development of codes is a Good practice certainly takes into account long and exacting process, with each current practice, but in addition takes note step taking several months. NAWAC’s of scientifi c knowledge and the experience project management has shown that from of recognised good practitioners. PEOPLE submission to NAWAC to issue of a code Science plays a major part in defi ning takes a minimum of 63 weeks. IN BIOSECURITY animal welfare standards. Animal welfare What do codes look like? science has emerged during the past 10 to 15 years as a recognised discipline Jo Berry recently joined Biosecurity Because codes serve a number of purposes and covers nutritional, environmental, New Zealand (BNZ) (legal, advisory and educational) it is health, physiological, behavioural and important to understand how to read as Senior Adviser cognitive sciences. While there have been in the Plant Risk them. For each topic in a code there are major advances in this area, confl icting Analysis team. Jo usually four sections: interpretations of scientifi c research comes to BNZ from 1. An introduction: this backgrounds can occur, as specifi c areas are explored Landcare Research the topic and may explain some of in greater depth or in diff erent ways. New Zealand Ltd, the reasoning behind the minimum However, scientifi c knowledge is just one where she worked as a senior research scientist in the Biosystematics group. standards. input and NAWAC’s recommendations Jo has a PhD in systematic entomology 2. Minimum standards: these are the part on minimum standards are broadly-based from Australian National University in of the code that have legal eff ect. judgements of a range of inputs. As far Canberra. Her research specialities include 3. Recommended best practice: These as possible, the standards are written the biosystematics and biogeography of are practices that we hope all farmers as welfare outcomes to be achieved Australasian Hymenoptera and biological control of arthropod pests and weeds and animal owners will aspire to, rather than prescriptions of facilities or in New Zealand. She has over 20 years and which, if followed, will lead to management practices. of research experience in the biological better welfare (and often economic) To date, eight codes of welfare have been control, quarantine and biosecurity fi elds outcomes. issued under the Animal Welfare Act 1999: and has worked with regional councils, Crown research institutes, Biosecurity 4. General information: general advisory • Broiler Chickens: Fully Housed 2003 information on the topic. Australia and MAF. Most recently, Jo has • Rodeos 2003 worked with Ensis on biological control Breaching a code of welfare is not of itself • Pigs 2005 of gum leaf skeletoniser. She has made an off ence under the Act, but failure to • Layer Hens 2005 numerous contributions to MAF’s Plant meet the minimum standards of a code Pest Information Network database and • Zoos 2005 may be used in evidence in prosecution of publications on the fi rst records of exotic off ences under the Act itself (e.g., failing • Circuses 2005 insects that have established in New to meet an animal’s physical, health or • Painful Husbandry Procedures 2005 Zealand. Jo has also been involved in the behavioural needs). Only the minimum • Companion Cats 2007 invasive ant risk assessment led by MAF. standards have legal eff ect. The deer code will be issued in May this Dr Jane Rooney Since minimum standards have legal year. joined the Post-clearance eff ect, they must be legally sound, and For more information on animal welfare Directorate of the Act requires that they must be based in New Zealand: BNZ as a Senior on science, available technology and ■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare Adviser on the good practice. While there is general Animal Response consensus on the meaning of the fi rst For NAWAC’s Guideline 04: Process for team in March. two, interpretations of ‘good practice’ the Development of Codes of Welfare, Prior to joining BNZ, often vary. However, when the Act was and other guidelines: Jane was a senior staff veterinarian with the USDA, APHIS, VS, National Center for being developed, Parliament took great ■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/nawac/ pains to ensure that good practice was policies/index.htm Animal Health Emergency Management. Her duties included establishing national not necessarily the same as current or ■ Dr Cheryl O’Connor, Programme Manager Animal policies and programme objectives related established practice. Welfare, cheryl.o’[email protected] to the detection of, and response to, The Animal Welfare Act 1999 foreign and emerging animal diseases and pests. Jane’s prior experience also The Act requires that all owners and The Act does not expand on these includes directing a regional laboratory people in charge of animals have a duty of obligations: for example, it does not detail for the Virginia Department of Agriculture care to provide for their physical, health what constitutes an appropriate amount and vaccine research at the Centers for and behavioural needs and to alleviate pain of food or water for a particular species. Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and distress. The defi nitions of the physical, To do so would result in lengthy and Viral and Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch. She health and behavioural needs paraphrase unwieldy legislation. It would also reduce served as a CDC Epidemic Intelligence the “fi ve freedoms” fi rst defi ned by the UK the fl exibility to make amendments Service Offi cer (EISO) at the Virginia Farm Animal Welfare Council: as knowledge improves or society’s Department of Health, and was the State expectations change. The detailed • Adequate shelter Public Health Veterinarian at the West minimum standards of care are therefore • Adequate food and water Virginia Department of Health and Human found in the codes of welfare. Codes must • The opportunity to display normal be reviewed at least once every 10 years Resources, for several years. Jane received behaviour and can be reviewed at any time in the her BS in Medical Technology from the • The right physical handling to ensure light of new information or thinking. This Medical College of Virginia in 1984 and animals are not harmed creates the needed fl exibility in the legal her DVM from Virginia-Maryland Regional • Protection from, rapid diagnosis of and framework. College of Veterinary Medicine in 1993. treatment of injuries and disease.

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 23 BIOSECURITY SYSTEMS Forestry focus for PEOPLE national certifi cates IN BIOSECURITY The Forest Industries Training through international airports Dr Ben Reddiex and Education Council or seaports, or through the joined the Post- clearance Directorate (FITEC) has NZQA- International Mail Centre. of Biosecurity New accredited biosecurity The practice of those Zealand (BNZ) as a qualifi cations, comprising skills and the knowledge Senior Adviser in the three national certifi cates. involved is only achievable National Coordination • Surveillance of the by people, employed as Team of the Pest health of the forests is Quarantine Offi cers by the Management Group. In this role, Ben will contribute to the leadership covered by the National Ministry of Agriculture and and coordination of pest management Certifi cate in Forest Health Forestry, who are warranted to conduct such inspections. across the biosecurity system. He will Surveillance. primarily be involved in the delivery of the • Export inspection of forest products is Kate Blackstaff e, National Training pest management strategic priorities work covered by the National Certifi cate in Manager from MAF Quarantine Service programme, and will bring his expertise Forest Produce Inspection. (MAFQS) spoke to Biosecurity about the to interagency forums, for example as biosecurity qualifi cations. the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry • Border import inspection is covered by representative on the National Possum Biosecurity Magazine: Who goes through the National Certifi cate in Biosecurity Control Agency. training at MAF Quarantine Service? (Border Quarantine). Ben completed a PhD on the impacts of Kate Blackstaff e: We mainly train predation and rabbit haemorrhagic disease Quarantine Offi cers, although the National Certifi cate in Forest (RHD) on rabbit population dynamics in New Health Surveillance introduction-type training that we off er is Zealand. Prior to joining BNZ, Ben has worked This certifi cate is awarded to people for anyone who starts with MAFQS. This as a scientist at Landcare Research in the who have demonstrated competence in includes global biosecurity awareness, pest animal team, which included 18 months the surveillance of forests and trees to communication skills, OSH and aspects of based at the Department of Sustainability detect and monitor health disorders. The legislation. and Environment in Melbourne, and more recently at the Wellington Conservancy of the certifi cate recognises knowledge of the BM: What is the outcome for those who go Department of Conservation. management of forests, and of botany, through training? Sheree Christian has earth science and ecology; the skills and KB: Competence in the job. There is a been appointed Adviser knowledge of the detection and recognition component of compliance with some to the Environmental of pests and diseases of trees and forests, aspects of the training provided. The nice and Marine Response and knowledge of the overseas threats to thing about the National Certifi cate in Team, Post-clearance the health of New Zealand’s trees Biosecurity is that it adds a qualifi cation to Directorate. Previously, and forests. being competent in the job. Sheree worked as an BM: What do people get out of their Executive Coordinator to National Certifi cate in Forest the Manager, Biosecurity training? Produce Inspection Response and provided logistical support for KB: Predominantly, new skills in being a This certifi cate is awarded to people who several responses. frontline Quarantine Offi cer. In addition, have demonstrated competence in the Prior to joining BNZ, Sheree worked at they pick up general knowledge about inspection and certifi cation or otherwise the Ministry of Social Development as an MAF and MAF culture, and an awareness of forest produce for export, to ensure Executive Assistant, and as a fi eld assistant of the diversity of the work. that the produce meets the phytosanitary on three scientifi c expeditions in the Pacifi c requirements of the importing country. BM: Is all training specifi c to the jobs that Islands. Sheree holds a Master of Conservation Science Degree from Victoria University. The certifi cate covers knowledge of the they do, i.e., does the training match the international conventions and agreements, specifi c tasks that allow them to carry out Rachel Hope recently and the phytosanitary requirements of the job? joined the Post- individual importing countries. KB: There is a combination of practical clearance Directorate training taught at the worksite, and of BNZ as Executive Coordinator within National Certifi cate generic, theory-based training taught in in Biosecurity (Border the Response Team, the classroom. The idea is to give the providing support to Quarantine) Quarantine Offi cer practical skill – most Biosecurity Response This qualifi cation has strands in important when starting in the job Manager David Hayes. – and also the background knowledge to international cargo clearance, international Rachel has recently returned to New Zealand vessel clearance, international aircraft understand why certain actions need to be after living in Perth, Western Australia for clearance, and international mail clearance. taken to mitigate the biosecurity risk to the past 15 years. Her most recent role was New Zealand. as Executive Assistant with the Centre for The certifi cate is awarded to people who Sustainable Resource Processing (CSRP), a have demonstrated competence in the For more information about these qualifi cations: research company whose mission it is to skills and knowledge of the inspection, provide sustainable processing of minerals evaluation and clearance or otherwise of ■ www.fi tec.org.nz and metals. organic materials entering New Zealand ■ FITEC, phone (09) 356 7250

24 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75 INTERFACE Vertebrate Pests Committee MEETING – MARCH 2007 Biosecurity New Zealand represents New Zealand on the Vertebrate Pests Committee (VPC), an Australasian committee whose role is to provide coordinated policy and planning solutions to pest animal issues.

The committee reports to several these incorporate likely scenarios for Australian ministerial committees climate change in New Zealand and (the Natural Resources Management Australia. and Natural Resources Planning and • Review of the Australian Biodiversity Policy Committees), and is made up of Strategy – A National Task Group representatives from each Australian state was set up to undertake this review in and territory, the Australian Government, April 2006, and has released its initial New Zealand, CSIRO and the Invasive fi ndings. Animals Cooperative Research Centre. • Ornamental Fish Strategy – A strategy The VPC also convenes a number of for ornamental fi sh management in technical working groups (which may Australia has recently been approved. include VPC members) to advise it on technical matters. New Zealand • Animal welfare and the management contributes expert advice to a number of of feral pest animals – One of the key these groups – for example, Kate Littin actions under the Australian Animal from MAF’s Animal Welfare Group, Welfare Strategy is to develop/gain provides specialist advice as a member of national acceptance of Codes of the Animal Welfare Working Group. Practice and Standard Operating Procedures for animal welfare. For more information on the VPC and The VPC met in Hobart in late March Signifi cant progress has been made the next Australasian Vertebrate Pest 2007. Potential items of interest from the toward developing national Codes of Conference: March meeting include: Practice for the management of feral ■ www.feral.org.au/content/policy/VPC.cfm • Australian Pest Animal Strategy – A animals (including for cats, goats, draft strategy has been prepared and feral horses, pigs, foxes, rabbits and For a copy of the New Zealand report submitted for Ministerial approval. wild dogs). tabled at the VPC meeting, and a summary of outcomes of interest to New • National indicators – National • Increasing rabbit numbers – Australia Zealand, contact: indicators to monitor the eff ectiveness has experienced an increase in rabbit ■ of pest management activities in numbers over the last three years. philippa.griffi [email protected] Australia have been agreed, with Emerging research indicates that this For a copy of the Australian Pest Animal agencies now working to develop relates to high levels of resistance in Strategy: information systems that support rabbit populations to the Czech strain ■ www.feral.org.au/content/policy/VPCcomment. national performance reporting. of rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus. cfm • Pest management and climate change • Next Australasian Vertebrate Pest ■ Andrew Harrison (New Zealand representative – The VPC endorsed adapting current Conference – The next conference is to on VPC), Manager, Pest Management Group, Biosecurity New Zealand, risk assessment approaches to ensure be held in Darwin in June 2008. [email protected] UPDATES

Amended import health standards: Plants • updated requirements for onions (19 March 2007) from Australia Importation and clearance of fresh fruit and vegetables into New Zealand • updated section 8.7 (processed commodities) • addition of broccolini as another common name for Brassica oleracea Import health standard (IHS) 152.02 has been amended to address a from Australia number of minor editorial, formatting and technical issues. This standard has also been updated to include a number of commodity-specifi c import • updated defi nition of Consignment (as per PP47) health standards previously consulted and issued separately to this • changed scientifi c name of Zingiber zercumbet from Tonga, Samoa and standard. Niue to Zingiber zerumbet Key changes are: • administrative and typographical amendments to general requirements • addition of citrus (issued 17 March 2006) and papaya (30 May 2006) and the “processed commodity” requirements (to align with BNZ-NPP- from Vanuatu; banana (2 June 2006), papaya (18 February 2006) from HUMAN) Australia; ginger (15 February 2006) from PNG; longan (26 August 2005), • updated contact points within Biosecurity New Zealand mangosteen (15 February 2006), lychee (26 August 2005) and ginger (15 February 2006) from Thailand; squash and butternut from Tonga • addition of the date of issuance of commodity-specifi c IHS under the (19 March 2007) and cherries (5 July 2005) from the United States “Other information” section of relevant pages (Pacifi c Northwest states) • addition of weblinks to all standards with individual standalone IHS. • updated requirements for papaya (18 January 2006) and table grapes This amendment replaces the standard dated 30 September 2005 and (18 August 2005) from the United States; garlic from China (20 February can be viewed at: 2006); and zucchini from Australia (issued 29 April 2005) ■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/imports/plants/standards/152-02.pdf

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 25 DIRECTORY

ALLIUM CEPA produce from Australia • Fort Dodge New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired) MAF has reviewed the phytosanitary measures for Iris yellow spot virus (IYSV) which now requires a phytosanitary certifi cate that certifi es the • Four Rings Enterprises Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, product is sourced from an area free of IYSV, or that the consignment code expired) has been methyl-bromide fumigated for Thrips tabaci – a regulated insect • Intervet NZ Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code vector of IYSV. expired) This amendment can be viewed at: • Mason Consulting (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired) ■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/imports/plants/standards/152-02.pdf • Merial New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, ■ [email protected] code expired) Codes of ethical conduct – approvals, • Novartis New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, notifi cations and revocations since the last code expired) issue of Biosecurity • VetSouth Ltd (to use AgResearch Ltd code, Invermay animal ethics All organisations involved in the use of live animals for research, testing or committee) teaching are required to adhere to an approved code of ethical conduct. • Virbac New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired) Codes of ethical conduct approved: Codes of ethical conduct revoked or expired or • PharmVet Solutions (code expiry 3 July 2007) arrangements terminated or lapsed: Transfers of code of ethical conduct approved: Nil • Central Southland Veterinary Services Ltd Code holder name changes: Nil Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approved: Nil use of non-human hominids: Nil Notifi cations to MAF of minor amendments to codes Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research of ethical conduct: Nil or testing in the national interest: Nil Notifi cations to MAF of arrangements to use an ■ Linda Carsons, Senior Policy Adviser, Animal Welfare, phone 04 894 0370, existing code of ethical conduct: fax 04 894 0747, [email protected] • Animal Health Research Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, Codes of welfare – update on development, code expired) issue and consultation since the last issue of • Argenta Manufacturing Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, Biosecurity code expired) Codes of welfare issued 2007: • Bayer New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired) • Companion cats • BioLogic Scientifi c Consulting Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) Consultation on codes of welfare: (renewal, code expired) • Deer code: anticipated issue 17 May 2007 • Bomac Research Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code • Commercial slaughter code: submissions being reviewed by NAWAC expired) • Dairy cattle code: submissions being reviewed by NAWAC • Caledonian Holdings Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, • Dogs code: public consultation anticipated second quarter 2007 code expired) Codes of welfare under development: • Eastern Institute of Technology (to use Waikato Institute of Technology’s code) • Transport in New Zealand • Elanco Animal Health (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code • Sheep and beef cattle expired) ■ Cheryl O’Connor, Programme Manager Animal Welfare, phone 04 894 0371, fax 04 894 0747, cheryl.o’[email protected] Pest watch: 12/02/2007 – 16/03/2007 Biosecurity is about managing risks – protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases. Biosecurity New Zealand devotes much of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention, to follow up as appropriate. The tables below list new organisms that have become established, new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests. The information was collated during 12/02/2007 – 16/03/2007 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database. Wherever possible, common names have been included.

ANIMAL KINGDOM RECORDS 12/02/2007 – 16/03/2007

Validated new to New Zealand reports

Organism Host Location Submitted by Comment Euryglossina hypochroma Window ledge Auckland Landcare Research Single specimen collected. (solitary bee) New host reports

Organism Host Location Submitted by Comment

No new host records during this period.

Extension to distribution reports

Organism Host Location Submitted by Comment Radumeris tasmaniensis Trifolium repens Bay of Plenty IDC (general (Scoliid wasp, yellow fl ower wasp) (white clover) surveillance) Pheidole megacephala Ant trap Mid IDC (general First recorded in Auckland in 1942. This is the (big headed ant) Canterbury surveillance) fi rst record of this species outside Auckland. ■ Donna Butterfi eld, Team Support Offi cer, Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0320, donna.butterfi [email protected]

26 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75 DIRECTORY

PLANT KINGDOM RECORDS 12/02/2007 – 16/03/2007

Validated new to New Zealand reports

Organism Host Location Submitted by Potyvirus Apium virus Y Apium graveolens cv. Tonga Wanganui IDC (general surveillance) (apium virus Y) (celery) Potyvirus Narcissus late season yellows virus Narcissus pseudonarcissus cv. ‘Twelve gauge’ Wanganui Crop and Food Research (NLSYV) (narcissus, daff odil) Potyvirus sweet potato feathery mottle virus Ipomoea batatas Northland & Crop and Food Research (SPFMV) (kumara) Gisborne Ipomovirus sweet potato mild mottle virus Ipomoea batatas Northland & Crop and Food Research (SPMMV) (kumara) Gisborne Discula betulina Betula pendula Mid Canterbury Ensis (fungus: no common name) (silver birch) Signifi cant fi nd reports

Organism Host Location Submitted by Porotermes adamsoni Spider web Auckland IDC (general surveillance) (dampwood termite) New host reports

Organism Host Location Submitted by Phytophthora citricola Plagianthus regius Auckland IDC (general surveillance) (phytophthora collar rot) (no common name) Phytophthora cryptogea Callistemon sp. Auckland IDC (general surveillance) (phytophthora root and collar rot) (bottlebrush) Phytophthora citricola Auckland IDC (general surveillance) (phytophthora collar rot) Phytophthora cinnamomi Liquidambar styracifl ua Auckland IDC (general surveillance) (phytophthora root rot) (sweet gum) Memnoniella subsimplex Musa sp. Auckland IDC (general surveillance) (fungus: no common name) (banana) Uraba lugens Populus sp. Auckland Ensis (high risk site (insect: gum leaf skeletoniser) (aspen, cottonwood, poplar) surveillance) Essigella californica Pinus hartwegii Gisborne Ensis (high risk site (Californian pine needle aphid) (Pine) surveillance) Oemona hirta Choisya ternata Gisborne Ensis (high risk site (lemon tree borer) (Mexican orange blossom tree) surveillance) Arhopalus ferus Pinus resinosa Gisborne Ensis (high risk site (burnt pine longhorn) (red pine) surveillance) Anarsia dryinopa Acacia mearnsii Gisborne Ensis (high risk site (insect: no common name) (black wattle) surveillance) Brachycaudus helichrysi Aciphylla traversii Chatham Islands IDC (general surveillance) (leafcurl plum aphid) (Chatham Islands speargrass) Lindingaspis rossi Araucaria columnaris Gisborne Ensis (high risk site (circular, or Ross’s black scale) (no common name) surveillance) Trioza curta Waterhousea fl oribunda Dunedin Ensis (high risk site (insect: no common name) (no common name) surveillance) Liogramma zelandica Fagus sylvaticus Gisborne Ensis (high risk site (insect: no common name) (common beech) surveillance) Extension to distribution reports

Organism Host Location Submitted by Pseudocercospora coprosmae Coprosma propinqua x robusta Taranaki IDC (general surveillance) (fungus: no common name) (coprosma) Botryotinia porri Allium sativum Dunedin IDC (general surveillance) (fungus: botrytis rot, grey mould rot) (garlic) Cardiaspina fi scella Eucalyptus saligna Wairarapa Ensis (high risk site (insect: brown lace lerp) (eucalyptus, Sydney blue gum) surveillance) Phylacteophaga froggatti Eucalyptus saligna Wairarapa Ensis (high risk site (insect: eucalyptus sawfl y) (eucalyptus, Sydney blue gum) surveillance) Acrocercops laciniella Eucalyptus fraxinoides Wairarapa Ensis (exotic forest survey) (insect: black butt leaf miner) (eucalyptus, white ash) Diplodia taxi Taxus baccata Gisborne Ensis (high risk site (fungus: no common name) (yew) surveillance) Brachycaudus helichrysi Aciphylla traversii Chatham Islands IDC (general surveillance) (insect: leafcurl plum aphid) (Chatham Islands speargrass)

■ Jennifer Walker, Technical Support Offi cer, Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0551, [email protected]

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 27 Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline: 0800 809 966 Animal welfare complaint hotline: 0800 327 027 www.biosecurity.govt.nz