ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DECISION Amended Under Section 67A on 26 October 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DECISION Amended under section 67A on 26 October 2007

25 July 2006 Application code: NOR05003 Application category: Import or Release a New Organism with controls under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 Applicant: The Canterbury Broom Group Purpose: To conditionally release from containment a mite, Aceria genistae (Eriophyidae), and two insects, Agonopterix assimilella (Lepidoptera, Oecophoridae) and Gonioctena olivacea (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae), for biological control of the weed broom Date application received: 13 March 2006 Date of hearing: 3 July 2006 Date of decision: 25 July 2006 Considered by: A Committee of the Authority

1 Summary of Decision The application to import for release or to release from containment Agonopterix assimilella (Treitschke, 1832) and Gonioctena olivacea (Förster, 1771) is approved, with controls, having being considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the Act) and the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology). The broom gall mite Aceria genistae has not been considered in this decision because the organism is already present in New Zealand and therefore is not a new organism.

2 Application Process and associated Legislative Criteria Application Receipt The application was lodged pursuant to section 38A of the HSNO Act. The application was formally received and verified on 13 March 2006. The application was publicly notified as required under section 53(1)(ab) of the HSNO Act. Notification of receipt and a request for submissions were sent to the Minister for the Environment, the Department of Conservation (DoC), the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), other government departments and agencies, local authorities, iwi, Universities, Crown Research Institutes, industry groups, community groups, interest groups and individual members of the public on 21 March 2006 and notification was placed on the ERMA New Zealand website on the same day. Further notification was made in the The New Zealand Herald, The Dominion Post, The Christchurch Press and The Otago Daily Times on 29 March 2006. Public submissions closed on 5 May 2006. Thirteen submissions were received, of which three indicated that they wished to be heard in support of their submission.

Information Available for Consideration The documents available for the consideration of the application were: Application NOR05003 (Form NORC) Scientific papers cited in the application Public submissions Evaluation and Review (E&R) report Additional information as noted in the E&R Report Information presented at the hearing

The E&R report was prepared by the Agency to assist and support decision-making. The E&R report included reports from external experts. The contribution by external experts to the E&R report was sought as additional information under section 58 of the HSNO Act. The hearing was postponed under section 58(3) of the HSNO Act by 15 working days to allow this additional information to be obtained and assessed. The E&R report was circulated to parties to the hearing on 20 June 2006.

Decision Making Committee The application was considered by a Committee of the Authority comprising: Dr Max Suckling (Chair), Dr Val Orchard and Dr Kieran Elborough.

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 2 of 25

Hearing A public hearing was held on 3 July 2006 in Christchurch. The following parties made presentations to the Committee:

For the applicant: Dr Richard Hill, Supported by: Mr Simon Fowler Mr David Rutherford

For ERMA New Zealand: Mr Andrew Allen– Project Leader Supported by Dr Abdul Moeed – Senior Scientific Advisor Mrs Janet Gough – Senior Analyst Mr Zack Bishara – Acting Manager Māori

Submitter: Mr Cliff Mason

Sequence of the Consideration Consideration of the application began at the conclusion of the hearing on 3 July 2006.

The application was determined in accordance with section 38C of the HSNO Act, and followed the decision path in Appendix 8 of the E&R Report. Consideration of the application followed the relevant provisions of the HSNO Act and the Methodology, as specified in more detail below. Unless otherwise stated, references to clause numbers in this decision refer to clauses of the Methodology. Purpose of the Application The Canterbury Broom Group submitted an application for conditional release of the broom gall mite (Aceria genistae), the broom shoot moth (Agonopterix assimilella), and the broom leaf beetle (Gonioctena olivacea) as part of the biological control programme against the weed broom (Cytisus scoparius).

During the course of processing of the application it became apparent that one of the proposed biological control agents, the mite A. genistae, is already present in New Zealand outside of containment. Therefore, this species has not been considered as a new organism under this application.

The larvae of the moth A. assimilella cause feeding damage to broom. Adults and larvae of the beetle G. olivacea feed on broom. The damage caused to broom by insect feeding has the potential to reduce the growth, vigour and spread of broom and this makes these insects suitable candidates for biological control agents to control broom. Both species are found on broom throughout Europe.

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 3 of 25

Establishment and efficacy of the biological control agents

The Committee considered that beneficial effects could only be realised if A. assimilella and G. olivacea are successful in establishing self-sustaining populations and have an adverse effect on broom. The Committee noted that both organisms are found across a wide range of climatic conditions in Europe and therefore the climate in New Zealand is expected to be suitable to them. Both agents are known to use broom as their preferred host plant. It is also possible that traditional predators in the native range of the two biological control agents are not present in the New Zealand, which may assist the establishment of these biological control agents.

The Committee noted that other biological control agents for broom are already present in New Zealand and it is expected that an additional two agents will complement those already present.

Expected scenario The Committee noted that the identification and assessment of effects presented in the E&R Report is based on the following assumptions from the application which represent the ‘expected scenario’. Under this scenario, following the initial release, distribution will continue for five years and benefits will begin to accrue at a low level within three years. Establishment of self-sustaining populations may take many years and the annualised benefits used in the assessment are those that are expected to be realised 20 years after release. The estimated impact on broom is a 25% reduction in the adverse effects of broom. 3 Identification and assessment of potentially significant adverse effects (risks and costs) and benefits

Methodology The Committee reviewed the identification and assessment of possible effects to the environment, human health, Māori culture and traditions, society and the community and the market economy as presented in the E&R report. The consideration of potential effects addressed adverse and beneficial effects grouped under each of these areas in turn. The assessment of potentially significant adverse effects was structured according to clause 12 of the Methodology, including the magnitude of adverse effects and the likelihood of occurrence, options for managing risks, and uncertainty bounds on the information. In assessing costs and benefits the Authority considered whether or not these costs and benefits are monetary, their magnitude or expected value (including uncertainty) and the distribution of costs and benefits over time, and to affected groups in the community (clause 13). Risk characteristics were considered in terms of clause 33 of

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 4 of 25

the Methodology. The degree of uncertainty attached to the evidence was taken into account, as required by clauses 25, 29, 30 and 32.

The Committee rated the materiality and significance of uncertainty of each magnitude and the likelihood associated with each potentially significant cost and benefit (clause 29). For each potentially significant effect the level of risk or benefit was calculated using the qualitative scales from Appendix 9 of the E&R Report and the ERMA New Zealand Decision Making Technical Guide1.

The Committee considered the information provided to it was relevant and appropriate to the scale and significance of the risks, costs, and benefits associated with the application (clause 8).

The Committee reviewed all of the potential effects identified in Appendix 1 of the E&R Report and agreed with the project team’s assessment that all of these effects would be less than minimal and therefore are negligible. These require no further consideration. The Committee then considered all of the potential effects that may be significant and that were assessed in the E&R Report. It was agreed that there are no potential effects that have not been identified. In the following assessment, the Committee has assigned a risk, cost or benefit level (between A and F, as defined in Appendix 1) to each potentially significant effect. Those effects rated as A or B are considered to be negligible.

The environment

Adverse effects

Impacts on non-target plants The Committee discussed the potential for adverse effects on non-target plant species. The information from the plant host testing results indicated that there would probably be non-target effects on tree lucerne therefore the Committee decided to consider the potential for effects on tree lucerne (Cytisus palmensis) separately and these have been identified below as impacts on soil protection and on forest restoration (two functions for which tree lucerne is valued). One of the key matters the Committee considered was the potential for the new organisms to cause any significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat. Of particular relevance here is the potential for insect feeding to cause damage to native plants which may lead to the displacement of those

1 Decision Making: A Technical Guide to Identifying, Assessing and Evaluating Risks, Costs and Benefits. ER-TG-05-1.

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 5 of 25

plants. The potential for any significant deterioration of natural habitats has also been considered here as native plants species are important components of natural habitats.

As the plant host range testing for each insect was the key information used to assess this risk each of the two biological control agents was considered separately. In respect of A. assimilella the Committee noted that the host range testing did not test the entire genus Sophora (the native genus most closely related to broom). Consistent with the testing protocols a representative selection of two species from Sophora was tested and this is sufficient to establish that any effect would be no more than minor. The negative test results for Sophora, together with the results from the other native species tested indicates that no native plant species in New Zealand will be affected to any significant degree. The Committee considered that any effect on native plants would be temporary, localised and reversible.

The Committee considers that this potential effect is minimal to minor with the likelihood of a minor effect being improbable and a minimal effect is very unlikely. The risk of impacts on non-target plant species causing any significant displacement of native species or resulting in any significant deterioration of natural habitats is assessed as negligible (risk level B in Table 1).

In respect of G. olivacea the plant host range testing indicates that the risk of feeding damage to non-target plants, except tree lucerne, is also minimal to minor. The Committee notes that the additional testing conducted in March 2006 provided information that indicates a very low likelihood of any damage to non-target plants other than tree lucern occurring. A minor effect is considered to be highly improbable and a minimal effect is improbable. The risk of impacts on non-target plant species causing any significant displacement of native species or of causing any significant deterioration of natural habitats is considered to be negligible (risk level B in Table 1).

Impact on natural habitats or on native species

The Committee has given particular regard to the potential for the introduced biological control agents to cause any significant deterioration of natural habitats or to displace any native species within its natural habitat. The information presented satisfies the Committee that adverse effects of this type are not likely to occur.

The Committee accepted the control, proposed by the applicant, to restrict the approval to organisms that have been sourced from populations that are contiguous with those used in the host range testing. The purpose of this restriction is to reduce the likelihood of importing insects belonging to the same species that are distinct and that may have a different (especially a wider) host range. In order to manage this risk this approval is subject to the following control:

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 6 of 25

All import consignments of Agonopterix assimilella shall be held in containment until MAF has been supplied with a signed declaration from the exporter stating that the insects were collected from a naturally occurring population on broom (Cytisus scoparius) in France and England.

All import consignments of Gonioctena olivacea shall be held in containment until MAF has been supplied with a signed declaration from the exporter stating that the insects were collected from a naturally occurring population on broom (Cytisus scoparius) in England.

The Committee noted that it may be possible by future amendments to this approval to add additional locations as permitted geographical sources of the organisms where these had been subjected to appropriate plant host testing.

Proposal for further host specificity testing

The Committee considered the control suggested by DoC (that approval of A. assimilella be conditional on further plant host testing particularly of the genus Sophora). The Committee does not accept that this can be a valid control because the results of plant host range testing are a factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether to approve or decline an application therefore this information needs to be presented in the application. As a matter of good practice an approval should not be made subject to a condition that requires a future decision to be made as to whether the organism is approved or declined. In this instance the plant host testing results have been presented in, and have been taken into account in the assessment of, this application. The Committee is satisfied that this plant host testing has been adequate to support the above assessment that, for both organisms, the risk of non-target feeding damage to native plant species is not significant.

Reduced value of tree lucerne for soil protection The Committee considered the potential for both biological control agents to cause non- target damage to tree lucerne leading to a reduction in the beneficial use of this plant for soil protection. This potential adverse effect would only be realised if the introduced insects establish, attack the non-target host tree lucerne to a significant degree and this resulted in an adverse effect on soil protection. From the information presented it appeared that there would probably be some impact on tree lucerne but this could be mitigated through planting more tree lucerne and through control of the insects with pest control measures. The Committee considered that there may be some impact on soil protection but that this could be mitigated through other species replacing tree lucerne. Therefore the Committee considered this effect would be reversible and of minor impact.

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 7 of 25

The Committee considered that measurable long-term damage to soil protection is very unlikely. This risk is assessed as being a level C risk (Table 1) which is non-negligible.

Considering the characteristics of this risk as required by clause 33 of the Methodology, the Committee noted that exposure is involuntary, the risk will persist over time, it is subject to spread, and may be irreversible. However, the risk is known by those likely to be affected, and mitigation measures are available, therefore the Committee did not consider any requirement for further risk averseness.

Reduced value of tree lucerne for forest restoration The Committee considered the potential for both biological control agents to cause non- target damage to tree lucerne reducing the value of that species for acting as a nurse crop to foster the restoration of native forest. The Committee noted that there is some uncertainty about the extent to which tree lucerne is currently being used for this purpose, however, there may be localised populations that could be affected. Given the expected gradual spread of the biological control agents and the likely sub-lethal impact on tree lucerne the Committee considers that any effect on the value of tree lucerne for forest restoration would be minimal. The likelihood of such an effect is improbable. Therefore the Committee concluded that this risk is negligible (risk level A in Table 1).

Reduced food sources adversely impacting on kererū population The Committee considered the potential for the introduced insects feeding on broom and tree lucerne to reduce the availability of these plants as food sources for kererū with a resultant adverse impact on the populations of kererū. While the information presented to the Committee indicated that kererū feed on broom it was noted that these birds are able to feed on a wide range of exotic species, have a good flight range and also occur in the absence of tree lucerne. Predators (not food supply) are thought to be limiting to this species. Any effects on populations of kererū are likely to be localised and are able to be mitigated because of the adaptability of kererū and through community based restoration programmes. The Committee acknowledges the kererū restoration programmes that are taking place and wishes to advocate support for the planting of appropriate food plants to support such programmes.

On the basis of the information presented, the Committee concluded that kererū will not be affected by the release of these two biological control agents. However, the Committee encourages the applicant, and other community groups, to engage with iwi to promote kererū well-being by supporting restoration programmes.

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 8 of 25

The Committee recognised the potential for any adverse effect on kererū populations to be mitigated and this means that the potential effect may be expressed as a range of magnitudes. The potential magnitude of this adverse effect may be minimal to minor, with a minimal effect being very unlikely, and a minor effect being improbable. This results in a level of risk of B (Table 1). The Committee concluded that this risk is negligible.

Potential impacts on native food webs The Committee considered the potential for the introduced insects to adversely impact on native food webs through causing displacement of native species within their natural habitat through competition for resources, through causing any significant adverse effect to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity or by modifying the way other species in the ecosystem interact in the presence of broom. The information presented to the Committee indicated that only generalist feeding insects have been identified on broom in New Zealand. These organisms are capable of adapting to other plant hosts. Additionally, the impact of the biological control agents on broom is expected to be gradual allowing for replacement with other woody shrubs (in unmanaged habitat) which can also support generalist feeders. The Committee noted the potential for generalist parasitoids and predators to take advantage of new prey sources however, as the biological control agents would only be common where broom occurs any impact would be highly localised.

The Committee was satisfied that no displacement of native species was likely and that no significant impact from the introduction of the biological control agents on native food webs would occur. The information presented also indicated that no significant adverse effect to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity is likely to occur. Accordingly the Committee considered that this risk is negligible (risk level A in Table 1).

Release of undesirable associated organisms The Committee considered the risk of unintended importation of undesirable organisms that may be associated with the biological control agents (including pathogens and parasites). Given the quarantine procedures that are in place for all importations of live insects the Committee considered that this risk is minimal and improbable. Therefore the risk of the importation of these biological control agents causing any disease or vectoring any animal or plant disease is negligible and is not likely to occur. This risk was assessed as negligible (risk level A in Table 1).

Competition with other broom biological control agents The Committee considered the potential for the introduced agents to impact on other broom biological control agents that are already present in New Zealand through competition. On the basis of the information presented, the Committee was satisfied that any adverse effect would be minimal and that complementary activity against broom is

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 9 of 25

expected. An adverse impact resulting from competition between the existing and proposed biological control agents is considered very unlikely and therefore this risk is assessed as negligible (risk level B in Table 1).

Reduced food sources for honey bee populations The Committee considered the potential for a reduction in the abundance of broom to reduce the availability of broom pollen as a protein source for managed and wild honey bee populations. It is likely that where managed bee hives are affected beekeepers will be able to provide supplementary food supplies. These organisms are capable of adapting to other sources of pollen and, given that the effect on broom is expected to be gradual, an adverse effect on these populations would be minor and temporary. The likelihood of this effect occurring is considered to be improbable. Therefore this risk was considered to be negligible (risk level B in Table 1).

Beneficial effects

Reduced impact of broom on habitats being managed for natural values It was the Committee’s opinion that the introduced biological control agents, in conjunction with those agents already present in New Zealand, would reduce the impact that broom is having on some habitats. This effect was described by the applicant as a reduced invasion of vulnerable habitats by broom. However, the Committee considered that this may be more accurately described as a reduction in the impact of broom on habitats being managed for natural values. The impact of the biological control agents could be to reduce the rate at which broom is able to spread or to reduce the density of stands of broom or to reduce the size of the area into which broom would otherwise spread. Any one of these effects (or a combination of them) would represent a reduction of the impact that broom is currently having.

Adopting the 25% control figure used in the expected scenario for a successful introduction of these agents, the Committee considered that this beneficial effect would be within the range moderate to major with a moderate effect being likely. This range in magnitudes reflects the Committee’s view that there is some residual uncertainty about the degree of impact that the agents may have on broom. It is possible that this impact could be greater than the 25% control used in the predicted scenario. At the upper end of this range a major effect is considered to be unlikely. Therefore this benefit is assessed as significant and is rated as a level E benefit (Table 1).

Reduction in volumes of herbicide used The Committee considered the potential for the introduction of the biological control agents to reduce the volumes of herbicide applied to infestations of broom in New Zealand. This in turn could lead to potential environmental benefits in the form of

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 10 of 25

reduced herbicide drift affecting non-target plants and reduced pollution of air, water and soil. The Committee noted that there is little information on the extent of environmental damage caused by herbicide use in New Zealand. The Committee also noted that it would be a long time before such a benefit would be realised, by which stage the pattern of herbicide use could have changed considerably.

The magnitude and likelihood of the beneficial effects on the environment of reduced herbicide use was assessed as minor and very unlikely to occur. This gives a level of benefit of B (Table 1) which the Committee concluded is negligible.

Reduced cover for predators of native birds The Committee considered the potential for a reduction in broom infestations to reduce the cover available for predatory cats and mustelids and for this to lead to improved breeding success for nesting birds. This is particularly applicable to the situation of South Island braided riverbeds in which species such as wrybill and black stilt nest on the shingle riverbeds. The Committee noted that there was some uncertainty due to the incomplete information presented. Assessment of this effect could have been improved by further information about how many riverbeds are inhabited by these birds and how dominant broom is in these habitats and also about what other weedy plants (such as willow or lupin) may replace broom in providing cover for predators.

The Committee recognised that there may be a beneficial effect on the breeding success of some bird populations in these types of habitat but given the uncertainty noted above, this effect is assessed as minimal and very unlikely to be realised. This gives a level of benefit of B (Table 1) which the Committee concluded is negligible.

Human health The Committee noted the potential for the adverse and beneficial effects on human health listed in the E&R Report. The Committee was satisfied that no significant adverse effects on human health and safety are likely to be caused by these two organisms. Additionally they are not likely to cause any human disease or to parasitise humans or to vector any human disease causing organisms. The risks of all of these potential effects are considered to be negligible and are not considered further.

Māori culture and traditions The Committee was satisfied that national consultation had been conducted in accordance with ERMA New Zealand guidelines.

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 11 of 25

Adverse effects

Potential impacts on kaitiakitanga from adverse effects to kererū due to reduction in food sources The Committee recognised that kererū are a taonga species and are highly valued by Māori. The potential for an adverse effect on kererū populations due to reduced food sources as a result of less abundant broom and tree lucerne is assessed above in the section of this decision addressing potential environmental effects. There, it was concluded that kererū will not be affected by the release of these two biological control agents because the risk of this adverse effect is within the range of magnitude from minimal to minor (with a minimal effect being very unlikely, and a minor effect being improbable) and because the effect can be mitigated through appropriate planting of species chosen to provide a food source for kererū.

The Committee recognised that an adverse effect on kaitiakitanga is a different area of impact to the potential impact on kererū populations (assessed above), however, these impacts share a risk pathway that is considered to be very unlikely. A discussion of taonga and kaitiakitanga is presented in the E&R Report (section 8.6). Effects on a taonga species would impact on traditional values and practices of Māori associated with that species as well as the taonga’s mauri or life force which is a key element of kaitiakitanga. The Committee considered that any effect on kaitiakitanga resulting from adverse effects on kererū populations would be localised and would be amenable to mitigation through the inherent adaptability of kererū and through iwi and community based kererū restoration programmes. Given these factors the Committee considered this potential effect to be within the range of magnitude from minimal to minor with a minimal effect being very unlikely, and a minor effect being improbable. This risk is assessed as negligible (risk level B in Table 1).

Potential impacts on kaitiakitanga resulting from adverse effects on mauri of tree lucerne due to feeding damage The Committee considered the potential for non-target feeding damage on tree lucerne to adversely affect the mauri of that species and consequentially the kaitiaki relationships of iwi in respect of that species. The Committee considered that at most the non-target impact on tree lucerne would consist of minor browsing damage rather than any destructive impact on individual trees. While recognising the value that some iwi have clearly placed on tree lucerne for its use both as a food source for fauna and as a nursery crop for forest restoration, it is considered that if tree lucerne is attacked at all, it will be at a level which would not cause a significant impact on the mauri of the tree and the kaitiaki relationships that iwi have with it.

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 12 of 25

This potential impact is assessed as minimal and the Committee considered that it is improbable that such an adverse effect will occur. This risk is considered to be negligible (level A risk in Table 1).

Potential impacts on kaitiakitanga resulting from adverse effects to mauri due to insect feeding on kowhai The Committee recognised that kowhai are a taonga species for Ngai Tahu and are highly valued by many iwi. The potential for the introduced biological control agents to adversely affect kowhai through feeding is assessed above in the section of this decision addressing potential effects on non-target plant species. The information relating to the plant host range testing for each agent was considered separately because there is a separate series of test results for each insect. From these test results the Committee concluded that kowhai (as well as all other native plant species) will not be affected by the release of these two biological control agents to any significant degree.

The Committee recognised that an adverse effect on kaitiakitanga is a different area of impact to the potential impact on kowhai populations causing significant displacement of kowhai or significant deterioration of natural habitats in which kowhai are found (assessed above). The Committee referred to the discussion of taonga and kaitiakitanga presented in the E&R Report (section 8.6), and concluded that the magnitude of an adverse effect on kaitiakitanga resulting from non-target feeding damage to kowhai is minimal to minor for both insects. In respect of A. assimilella the likelihood of a minor impact on kaitiakitanga from damage to kowhai is improbable and the likelihood of a minimal impact is very unlikely. In respect of G. olivacea the likelihood of a minor impact on kaitikitanga resulting from feeding damage to kowhai is highly improbable and the likelihood of a minimal impact is improbable. This level of risk is assessed as a level A risk for G. olivacea and a level B risk for A. assimilella (Table 1). The Committee considered both of these risks to be negligible.

Potential impacts on kaitiakitanga resulting from adverse effects to mauri due to insect feeding on native broom species The Committee considered that a potential impact on kaitiakitanga could result from significant non-target damage to native plants. While this has been addressed in respect of Sophora (above) the potential effect could be caused by impacts on any native plant species. However, the information presented to the Committee indicates that Sophora is the most closely related native plant species to broom and is therefore more likely than other native plant species to be affected. Having assessed the risk to kaitiakitanga from non-target feeding on Sophora it follows that the same type of impact is possible if non- target feeding damage occurred on other native plants, however, the likelihood of this happening is even less.

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 13 of 25

Submitters indicated concerns about potential non-target impacts on species of native broom (the genus Carmichaelia) however, this genus has been comprehensively tested as part of the host testing and the Committee is satisfied that this risk is covered by the assessment relating to Sophora (above). In the case of native broom species the likelihood of any adverse effect is even less than that for kowhai meaning that this risk is negligible (assessed as minimal to minor in magnitude and highly improbable: risk level B in Table 1).

Beneficial effects The Committee noted that the distribution of beneficial effects (assessed elsewhere) that are accounted under the headings environment, human health and safety, society and community and the market economy will include Māori among the recipient groups in the community. No additional beneficial effects that would accrue to Māori culture and traditions were identified.

Society and community The Committee noted the potential for the adverse and beneficial effects on society and the community listed in the E&R Report. All of these were considered to be negligible and are not considered further.

The market economy

Adverse effects

Adverse effects to pastoral farming from non-target attack on tree lucerne The Committee considered the potential for the introduced biological control agents to cause non-target feeding damage to tree lucerne and for this to adversely affect pastoral farming. An adverse effect could occur where tree lucerne is used as supplementary feed for sheep and cattle. The Committee accepted that there may be some effect on tree lucerne but that this would be more likely to be minor feeding (up to 20% of foliage damaged) than a more severe level of attack. Additionally, it was considered that where tree lucerne is valued as a fodder crop, growers can protect it from insect attack through the use of appropriate pest control measures. Broom is unlikely to be present in large numbers in intensive farming systems therefore it is unlikely that the biological control agents would establish significant populations in these areas.

The magnitude of the potential effect was assessed as minor to moderate, with it being considered highly improbable that any market impact would be realised. This resulted in a level of risk of A to B (Table 1), which the Committee concluded is negligible.

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 14 of 25

Adverse effects to beekeeping from loss of broom The Committee considered the potential for a reduction in the abundance of broom (used as a source of pollen by honey bees) to result in costs to the beekeeping industry. The Committee noted that any effect on broom is expected to occur gradually and other sources of pollen can be provided to replace any loss caused by a reduction in broom. In accordance with the expected scenario of a 25% reduction in broom a cost to beekeepers can be calculated as $1.178 million annually however, the Committee considered that this figure is uncertain because alternative pollen sources may be available.

This effect was considered by the Committee to be minimal and unlikely to occur. This is a risk level of C (Table 1) which is considered to be significant.

Considering the characteristics of this risk as required by clause 33 of the Methodology, the Committee noted that exposure is involuntary, the risk will persist over time, it is subject to spread, and may be irreversible over the long term. However, the risk is known by those likely to be affected, and mitigation measures are available, therefore the Committee did not consider any requirement for further risk averseness.

Adverse effects to beekeeping from non-target attack on tree lucerne The Committee considered the potential for costs to accrue to the beekeeping industry from non-target damage to tree lucerne (a source of pollen and nectar for bees). As with the assessment of potential costs to beekeepers from an effect on broom, the effect, if any, on tree lucerne from the introduced biological control agents is expected to occur gradually over time allowing for supplementary or replacement nectar and pollen sources to be provided by the industry. The Committee also noted that there is some uncertainty associated with this assessment due to the limited information available about how much tree lucerne is actually being used by honey bees. Given these factors, and the likelihood of non-target attack on tree lucerne, the Committee considered that this cost to the beekeeping industry would be minimal and it is improbable that it would be realised. This is a risk level of A (Table 1) which the Committee concluded is negligible.

Beneficial effects

Reduction in cost of control of broom The Committee considered the potential for farmers, foresters, DoC and other land managers to reduce the monetary cost of broom control (mostly relating to the cost of herbicide) by the effective use of these biological control agents. While the costs used in the assessment presented in the application are estimates based on information obtained from farmers twenty years ago and from an informal survey of major forestry companies, the Committee is satisfied that it is reasonable to assume between $0.5-$5m is spent annually controlling broom. Based on a predicted reduction in the adverse effects of

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 15 of 25

broom of 25% this indicates that a major monetary benefit would be obtained from the successful introduction of these biological control agents. The Committee noted that this level of benefit may not be fully realised for some time and based its evaluation on the expected scenario of a low level of benefit becoming apparent after three years and full realisation of beneficial value after twenty years. The Committee accepted that this level of benefit was likely to be realised. This benefit is assessed as a level F benefit (Table 1) and is significant.

Improved pastoral agriculture and forestry productivity The Committee considered the potential for the introduction of these biological control agents to result in improved productivity in the pastoral agriculture and forestry sectors. The Committee accepted that these benefits may not be realised for twenty years, nevertheless, the predicted monetary benefit is major in magnitude. The Committee noted that this will be a particular benefit to the forestry industry. Improved productivity is considered to be likely to be realised and therefore the Committee concluded that this benefit is rated as a level F benefit (Table 1) which is significant. 4 Matters pertaining to conditional release Controls The Committee agreed with the conclusions presented in the E&R report (section 9) regarding the controls listed in section 38D (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h). The Committee is of the view that this approval does not require controls to address these matters.

With regard to section 38D(b) ‘requiring monitoring, auditing, reporting, and record- keeping’ the Committee considered that stipulating monitoring controls was not justifiable because it would not mitigate any of the risks discussed above. The Committee recognised the value of information that can be obtained from the kind of monitoring proposed by the applicant (including information related to effects of the biological control agents on target and non-target species and on environmental effects). Therefore the Committee strongly encourages the Canterbury Broom Group to undertake the proposed monitoring, and report the findings to interested parties. The Committee would also support any applications for funding to achieve this monitoring.

This is a conditional release and the organisms remain new organisms. Therefore the Committee determined to require approval users to notify ERMA New Zealand and MAF Biosecurity New Zealand of the first time that the approval is exercised. This will facilitate auditing of controls and enable the Authority to contact parties that may be affected by any future changes to the approval. Control 1 below is for this purpose.

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 16 of 25

With regard to section 38(D)(h) the Committee considered and agreed to the applicant’s proposal that the approval be restricted to A. assimilella being collected from naturalised populations on broom in France and England and G. olivacea being collected from naturalised populations on broom in England.

The reason for this restriction is to reduce the risk of unintentional importation of distinct groups of insects (from within the identified species) that may have different plant host ranges to those insects that were the subject of the host range testing. Control 2 below is for this purpose.

In order for the Authority to have confidence that Control 2 will be complied with, the importation of A. assimilella and G. olivacea for the purposes of release in accordance with this approval shall be limited to persons authorised to do so by Landcare Research (control 3 below). This restriction is made on the basis that Landcare Research has provided much of the host testing services in relation to this application to the Canterbury Broom Group and is considered by the Authority to have the necessary knowledge and expertise to ensure that the imported organisms will be sourced from populations that are contiguous with those populations that have been subjected to host range testing.

With regard to section 38D(j) ‘specifying the duration of the approval or of a control before requiring a review’, the Committee decided that no review of these controls is required.

Duration of approval Pursuant to section 38E(1) and (2) the Committee states that this approval does not expire. Overall Evaluation Precautionary approach Section 7 of the HSNO Act requires the Committee to take into account the need for caution in managing adverse effects where there is scientific and technical uncertainty about those effects. The Committee used scenarios to set upper and lower bounds on the assessment of risks and the evaluation was based on the higher value of the risk.

Clause 29 of the Methodology notes that where there is scientific and technical uncertainty the Authority must consider the materiality of the uncertainty to the decision. The Committee concluded that there was little uncertainty associated with the adverse effects that were assessed as significant and that this uncertainty was not material to the decision.

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 17 of 25

Approach to risk Clause 33 of the Methodology requires the Authority to have regard for the extent to which a specified set of risk characteristics exist when considering individual risks. In evaluating risks assessed as being significant (non-negligible) the Committee considered these characteristics and considered their impact on the magnitude of the adverse effect.

Clause 33 also provides guidance on how cautious or risk averse the Authority should be in weighing up overall adverse effects (risks and costs) and beneficial effects (benefits). The Committee noted that as this is a release approval and since the organisms will be able to spread exposure to the risks will be involuntary. While the risks may persist over time it is likely that any changes to the environment due to the biological control agents will occur gradually allowing for adaptation and for mitigation measures to be taken where necessary. The organisms are very likely to spread beyond the area of release and therefore the risks are likely to extend beyond the immediate location of incidence however, control measures may be possible to limit the spread if necessary. The potential adverse effects are not considered to be irreversible because pest control measures are available and could be used to mitigate damage caused by these insects. The Committee considered that the general public has a poor understanding of the risks involved with introducing biological control agents but experience has demonstrated that when the concepts are explained the public tend to be very receptive and supportive of biological control.

The Committee noted that the National Beekeepers Association of New Zealand will be notified of this approval and may then notify all members that the release is imminent.

Consequently the Committee determined that there was no additional need for risk averseness in making the decision.

Aggregation and comparison of risks, costs and benefits A summary of the significant effects, the magnitude of that effect should it occur, the likelihood of the effect being realised, and its associated level of adverse or beneficial effect (risk, cost or benefit), as determined by the Committee is provided in Table 1.

As there are a number of non-negligible adverse effects, clause 27 of the Methodology applies and the Committee must take into account the extent to which the risks and any costs associated with the introduction of A. assimilella and G. olivacea may be outweighed by benefits, several of which were determined to be significant or non- negligible.

Clause 34 sets out the process for evaluating the combined impact of risks, costs and benefits. The use of common units of measurement is not feasible due to the widely

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 18 of 25

differing nature of the effects. Therefore the Committee has used a ranking approach based on the level of risk/benefit matrix in Appendix 1. This matrix allows for a comparison of the significance of the risks and benefits in this application. The Committee agreed that any potential effect that was rated as A or B on this matrix was not significant. The Committee identified two significant risks which are the potential reduction in the value of tree lucerne for soil protection due to non-target feeding damage by the biological control agents on this plant species and potential costs to the beekeeping industry resulting from loss of broom as a pollen source for honey bees. As these are of a similar level neither adverse effect is dominant.

The three significant benefits identified by the Committee are a reduction in the impact of broom on habitats being managed for natural values, a reduction in costs of control of broom by farmers, foresters and other land managers and improved pastoral agriculture and forestry productivity.

The Committee concluded that overall the beneficial effects of A. assimilella and G. olivacea outweigh the adverse effects.

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 19 of 25

Table 1: Summary of overall evaluation of significant adverse and beneficial effects Significant adverse effects (risks and costs) Description Magnitude Likelihood Risk level

The environment

Reduced value of tree lucerne for soil protection Minor Very Unlikely C

The market economy

Adverse effects to beekeeping from loss of broom Minimal Unlikely C (pollen source)

Significant beneficial effects (benefits)

Description Magnitude Likelihood Benefit level

The environment

Reduced impact on habitats being managed for Moderate Likely E natural values Major Unlikely E The market economy

Reduction in cost of control of broom Major Likely F

Improved pastoral agriculture and forestry Major Likely F productivity

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 20 of 25

Other statutory criteria

Sections 5 and 6 of the HSNO Act The Committee has considered the sustainability of flora and fauna; the intrinsic value of ecosystems; public health; the relationship of Maori with their taonga; economic impacts; and New Zealand’s international obligations. The Committee considered that none raised issues requiring further discussion here.

In reaching this decision the Committee has applied the following criteria in the Methodology: clause 9 - equivalent of sections 5, 6 and 8; clause 10 - equivalent of sections 36 and 37; clause 12 – evaluation of assessment of risks; clause 13 – evaluation of assessment of costs and benefits; clause 15 and 16 – information from submissions; clause 17, 18 and 19- information from experts; clause 20 – information produced from other bodies; clause 21 – the decision accords with the requirements of the Act and regulations; clause 22 – the evaluation of risks, costs and benefits – relevant considerations; clause 23 – obtaining further information; clause 24 – the use of recognised risk identification, assessment, evaluation and management techniques; clause 25 – the evaluation of risks; clause 27 – the extent to which the costs are outweighed by the benefits; clause 29 and 32 – considering uncertainty; clause 33 – the risk characteristics; and clause 34 – the aggregation and comparison of risks, costs and benefits.

Decision The Committee is satisfied, based on all of the information presented, and with the controls to be imposed, that the organisms are not likely to- i) cause any significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat; or ii) cause any significant deterioration of natural habitats; or iii) cause any significant adverse effects on human health and safety; or iv) cause any significant adverse effect to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity; or v) cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for human, animal, or plant disease (unless that is the purpose of the release).

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 21 of 25

The Committee is satisfied that there is sufficient information to assess the potential adverse effects of the organisms. The Committee noted that the purpose of release is for the formation of a self-sustaining population and, given the conclusions above regarding the potential for adverse effects, any such population would not be considered undesirable. It is noted however, that should a population form and it became undesirable eradication may be difficult. The Committee has considered all of the potential effects of the organisms, the ability of the organisms to establish self-sustaining populations, the ease of eradication of populations of the organisms and the controls that will be imposed. On balance the beneficial effects of these two biological control agents outweigh the adverse effects.

The application for approval to import for release or to release from containment, with controls, Agonopterix assimilella (Treitschke, 1832) and Gonioctena olivacea (Förster, 1771) is approved, with controls (as specified below).

Controls:

1 Any person exercising this approval shall provide written notification to ERMA New Zealand and to the MAF Biosecurity Authority of their intention to do so when they first exercise this approval.

2a. All import consignments of Agonopterix assimilella shall be held in containment until MAF has been supplied with a signed declaration from the exporter stating that the insects were collected from a naturally occurring population on broom (Cytisus scoparius) in England or France.

2b. All import consignments of Gonioctena olivacea shall be held in containment until MAF has been supplied with a signed declaration from the exporter stating that the insects were collected from a naturally occurring population on broom (Cytisus scoparius) in England.

3 The exercise of this approval to import the approved organisms shall be limited to persons authorised by Landcare Research.

______25 July 2006 Dr Max Suckling Date Chairperson of decision-making Committee Approval codes: NOR000018 - 19

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 22 of 25

Note of Amendments under 67A

October 2007 Page 6. Paragraph 3 deleted:

Deleted text: All import consignments of Agonopterix assimilella and Gonioctena olivacea shall be held in containment until MAF has been supplied with a signed declaration from the exporter stating that the insects were collected from a naturally occurring population on broom (Cytisus scoparius) in England.

Replaced with:

Inserted text: All import consignments of Agonopterix assimilella shall be held in containment until MAF has been supplied with a signed declaration from the exporter stating that the insects were collected from a naturally occurring population on broom (Cytisus scoparius) in France and England.

Page 15. Paragraph 4 deleted:

Deleted text: With regard to section 38(D)(h) the Committee considered and agreed to the applicant’s proposal that the approval be restricted to organisms collected from naturalised populations on broom in England.

Replaced with:

Inserted text: With regard to section 38(D)(h) the Committee considered and agreed to the applicant’s proposal that the approval be restricted to A. assimilella being collected from naturalised populations on broom in France and England and G. olivacea being collected from naturalised populations on broom in England.

Page 20. Control 2 deleted:

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 23 of 25

Replaced with:

Inserted text: 2a. All import consignments of Agonopterix assimilella shall be held in containment until MAF has been supplied with a signed declaration from the exporter stating that the insects were collected from a naturally occurring population on broom (Cytisus scoparius) in England or France.

Inserted text: 2b. All import consignments of Gonioctena olivacea shall be held in containment until MAF has been supplied with a signed declaration from the exporter stating that the insects were collected from a naturally occurring population on broom (Cytisus scoparius) in England.

______26 October 2007 Dr Max Suckling Date Chairperson of decision-making Committee

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 24 of 25

Appendix 1: Level of risk/benefit

Calculating the level of risk

Using these qualitative descriptors for magnitude of effect and likelihood of the event occurring, an additional two-way table representing a level of risk (combined likelihood and measure of effect) can be constructed as shown in the Table below, where six levels of effect are allocated: A, B, C, D, E and F. These terms have been used to emphasise that the matrix is a device for determining which risks (benefits) require further analysis to determine their significance in the decision making process. Avoiding labels such as ‘low’, ‘medium’, and ‘high’ removes the aspect of perception.

Calculating the level of risk/benefit Magnitude of effect Likelihood Minimal Minor Moderate Major Massive Highly improbable A A B C D Improbable A B C D E Very unlikely B C D E E Unlikely C D E E F Likely D E E F F Very likely E E F F F Extremely likely E F F F F

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR05003 Page 25 of 25