EPA advice on application APP202039 – determination on the new organism status of Agathis silbae, Agathis dammara, Agathis borneensis, Agathis kinabaluensis and Agathis atropurpurea
February 2014
ADVICE TO THE DECISION MAKING COMMITTEE 2
EPA advice for application APP202039
Executive summary and recommendation
Application APP202039, submitted by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), seeks a determination on the new organism status of five Agathis species (Agathis silbae, Agathis dammara, Agathis borneensis, Agathis kinabaluensis and Agathis atropurpurea).
After reviewing the information, we recommend that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Decision Making Committee determines that Agathis silbae, Agathis dammara, Agathis borneensis, Agathis kinabaluensis and Agathis atropurpurea are new organisms for the purposes of the HSNO Act.
However, should new evidence be found regarding the new organism status of any of these organisms, new determinations can be sought.
February 2014 3
EPA advice for application APP202039
Table of Contents
Executive summary and recommendation ...... 2 Table of Contents ...... 3 1. Introduction ...... 4 2. Organism description...... 4 3. Summary and review of information ...... 5 4. Evaluation against statutory criteria ...... 7 5. Impact on international obligations ...... 9 6. References ...... 9 Appendix A ...... 11
February 2014 4
EPA advice for application APP202039
1. Introduction
1.1. The application from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (the applicant) was submitted under section 26 of the HSNO Act (the Act) to determine whether five species of Agathis (Agathis silbae, Agathis dammara, Agathis borneensis, Agathis kinabaluensis and Agathis atropurpurea) are new organisms for the purposes of the Act.
1.2. The applicant provided information in regards to the presence of the five Agathis species in New Zealand. We have evaluated this and other readily sourced information against the legislative criteria for determining whether the five Agathis species are new organisms.
2. Organism description
2.1. The genus Agathis includes the New Zealand Kauri Agathis australis. Members of this genus are evergreen conifers predominantly found in tropical and sub-tropical rainforests found in Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Melanesia, Australia and New Zealand (Waters 2005; Earle 2011).
2.2. The five Agathis species that are the subject of this determination are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Species that are the subject of this determination1
Species Common name Native to:
Agathis silbae de Laub. Santo Kauri Vanuatu (Espiritu Santo)
Agathis dammara (Lamb.) Rich. & A. Borneo kauri Philippines, Indonesia Rich.
Sumatra, Borneo and the Agathis borneensis Warb. Dammar minyak Malay peninsula
Agathis kinabaluensis de Laub. Kinabalu kauri Malaysia
Agathis atropurpurea B. Hyland Blue kauri Australia
1 Additional information sourced from Earle (2011) and Roskov et al (2014).
February 2014 5
EPA advice for application APP202039
3. Summary and review of information
Agathis silbae
Identification of Agathis silbae
3.1. The applicant noted that there has been speculation about whether Agathis silbae is a synonym for Agathis macrophylla (Pacific kauri) which is a species listed on the Plant Biosecurity Index (PBI) - a MPI database of organisms allowed to be imported into New Zealand. However, the applicant notes that certain scientific authorities recognise Agathis silbae as a species in its own right and that the applicant considers it is a separate species.
3.2. A review of the current scientific opinion regarding this issue is as follows.
3.3. ‘An Atlas of the World’s Conifers: an analysis of their distribution, biogeography, diversity and conservation status’ is a 2013 reference book written by Aljos Farjon (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew and long-time Chair of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Conifer Specialist Group) and Denis Filer (Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford). In this book it is stated that Agathis silbae “is a relatively unknown but distinct species (the distinction, as with most species of this difficult genus, is in the morphology of the pollen cones) occurring on Espiritu Santo, the largest island of Vanuatu.”
3.4. ‘Traditional Trees of Pacific Islands: Their Culture, Environment, and Use’ is a 2006 reference book describing 80 important Pacific Island trees. In a section on Agathus macrophylla written by Dr Lex A. J. Thomson (South Pacific Regional Initiative of Forest Genetic Resources (SPRIG) Project, SPC Forestry Program, Suva, Fiji), it is acknowledged that Agathis silbae is a similar species to Agathis macrophylla but Agathis silbae is not listed as synonym for Agathis macrophylla (Agathis obtusa and Agathis vitiensis are listed).
3.5. In the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, it is stated that Agathis silbae has previously been misidentified as Agathis macrophylla (Thomas, 2013).
3.6. Agathis silbae is also listed as a separate species in a number of internationally recognised databases including; The Conifer Database - a taxonomic and specimen database of all 619 species of conifers in the world based on herbarium specimens from many herbaria (Farjon, 2013); The International Plant Names Index - a database of the names and associated basic bibliographical details of seed plants, ferns and lycophytes that is the product of a
February 2014 6
EPA advice for application APP202039
collaboration between The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, The Harvard University Herbaria, and the Australian National Herbarium (The International Plant Names Index, 2012); The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families - a Kew Royal Botanic Gardens database (WCSP 2014); and The Missouri Botanic Garden database (Tropicos.org, 2014).
3.7. Therefore we consider that based on the currently available evidence, Agathis silbae is a distinct species and it is not a synonym of Agathis macrophylla. We evaluated the evidence regarding Agathis silbae for this determination.
Evidence
3.8. To summarise the evidence provided by the applicant; Agathis silbae is not listed on the PBI; Agathis silbae is not listed on the Landcare Research New Zealand Flora database; Agathis silbae has been found in private gardens and the Auckland Botanical Gardens; however, the applicant considers these organisms arrived in New Zealand after 29 July 1998; There are records in Scion’s tissue culture collection of an Agathis silbae culture from a sample supplied in 2006; and As Agathis silbae was listed in an unsuccessful release application submitted in 2001 (application number NOR00002, ERMA New Zealand, 2001), the applicant considers this means the expert applicants of application NOR00002 considered this species to be absent from New Zealand (and thus required a release approval).
Agathis dammara, Agathis borneensis and Agathis kinabaluensis
Evidence
3.9. To summarise the evidence provided by the applicant; Agathis dammara, Agathis borneensis and Agathis kinabaluensis are not listed on the PBI; Agathis dammara, Agathis borneensis and Agathis kinabaluensis are not listed on the Landcare Research New Zealand Flora database; There is anecdotal evidence that Agathis seeds from Malaysia were imported prior to July 29 1998. However, the applicant considers that it is not clear which species were imported; Plants purported to be Agathis dammara, Agathis borneensis and Agathis kinabaluensis are growing in private gardens and the Auckland Botanical Gardens. However, the applicant considers the origins of these plants and when they entered New Zealand is unclear, as is the formal identification of these organisms; and There are herbaria records of Agathis dammara, Agathis borneensis and Agathis kinabaluensis from specimens submitted in 2006 and 2007. However the provenance of these specimens and whether formal species identification has been undertaken is unclear.
February 2014 7
EPA advice for application APP202039
Agathis atropurpurea
Evidence
3.10. To summarise the evidence provided by the applicant; Agathis atropurpurea is not listed on the PBI; Agathis atropurpurea is not listed on the Landcare Research New Zealand Flora database; and There is anecdotal evidence of the presence of Agathis atropurpurea in New Zealand including a sample held in Scion’s National Forestry Herbarium collected in 2008. However, the applicant considers it is not clear if these trees entered New Zealand prior to July 29 1998 or if they were imported legally. The applicant also considers it is not clear whether these plants have been formally identified as Agathis atropurpurea.
Information from DOC regarding the five Agathis species
3.11. The Department of Conservation was considered to be the most likely government department or Crown entity to hold further relevant information regarding the five Agathis species (section 26(2) of the Act). DOC state that they have no records that would suggest these species are naturalised anywhere in New Zealand. They also state that they have no records to suggest these species were present in private cultivated collections before 29 July 1998; but note that any such claims would need to be verified by accurate identification and ageing.
4. Evaluation against statutory criteria
4.1. For an organism to be determined as “not new” under section 26 of the Act, the organism must be shown to lie outside the parameters of the definition of a new organism as defined in section 2A(1) of the Act: A new organism is- a) an organism belonging to a species that was not present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998: b) an organism belonging to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar prescribed as a risk species, where that organism was not present in New Zealand at the time of promulgation of the relevant regulation: c) an organism for which a containment approval has been given under this Act: ca) an organism for which a conditional release has been given: cb) a qualifying organism approved for release with controls: d) a genetically modified organism:
February 2014 8
EPA advice for application APP202039
e) an organism that belongs to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar that has been eradicated from New Zealand.
4.2. The following Act criteria were not applicable to this determination as the five Agathis species; have not been prescribed as risk species (section 2A(1)(b)); have not been approved to be held in containment or released with controls (sections 2A(1)(c) (ca) and (cb)); are not genetically modified organisms (section 2A(1) (d)); and have not been eradicated from New Zealand (section 2A(1)(e)).
4.3. We have evaluated the information regarding the five Agathis species against section 2A(1)(a) criteria as follows.
4.4. Section 2A(1)(a) of the Act states that a new organism must belong to “a species that was not present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998”.
4.5. After evaluating the evidence provided, we consider that while there is a certain evidence that trees purported to be Agathis silbae, Agathis dammara, Agathis borneensis, Agathis kinabaluensis and Agathis atropurpurea are currently growing in New Zealand, at this moment there is significant uncertainity regarding the origin of these plants, when/how they entered New Zealand, and the formal identification of these plants to species level.
4.6. In the absence of definitive evidence that these species were present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998, we recommend that Agathis silbae, Agathis dammara, Agathis borneensis, Agathis kinabaluensis and Agathis atropurpurea be considered new organisms under the Act.
4.7. However, if it can be shown that the species were present in New Zealand prior to July 29 1998 (e.g. through the age and formal identification of the Agathis plants purported to be Agathis silbae, Agathis dammara, Agathis borneensis, Agathis kinabaluensis and Agathis atropurpurea currently growing in New Zealand), new determinations can be sought under section 26(3) of the Act regarding these species.
February 2014 9
EPA advice for application APP202039
5. Conclusion
5.1. Given that section 2A(1)(a) of the Act states that a new organism must belong to “a species that was not present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998”, and as no definitive evidence has been provided that any of the five Agathis species were present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998, we recommend that Agathis silbae de Laub., Agathis dammara (Lamb.) Rich. & A. Rich., Agathis borneensis Warb., Agathis kinabaluensis de Laub. and Agathis atropurpurea B. Hyland be regarded as new organisms for the purposes of the Act.
6. Impact on international obligations
6.1. We are not aware of any international obligations that may be impacted by this determination.
7. References
Earle C 2011. Agathis. In: The Gymnosperm Database http://www.conifers.org/ar/Agathis.php - Retrieved February 2014.
Elevitch CR (ed.) 2006. Traditional Trees of Pacific Islands: Their culture, environment, and use. Permanent Agricultural Resources, Holualoa, Hawaii. pp 30,32.
ERMA New Zealand 2001. Application number NOR00002 http://www.epa.govt.nz/search- databases/Pages/applications-details.aspx?appID=NOR00002# - Retrieved February 2014.
Farjon A 2013. Conifer Database (version Jul 2011). In: Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 2013 Annual Checklist (Roskov Y, Kunze T, Paglinawan L, Orrell T, Nicolson D, Culham A, Bailly N, Kirk P, Bourgoin T, Baillargeon G, Hernandez F, De Wever A, eds). DVD; Species 2000: Reading, UK. http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2013/details/species/id/9126978 - Retrieved February 2014.
Farjon A, Filer D 2013. An Atlas of the World’s Conifers: an analysis of their distribution ,biogeography, diversity and conservation status. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. pp.421-422.
The International Plant Names Index 2012. Published on the Internet. http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do;jsessionid=54AAEE86195F9865FB783B18538512F3?id=931 799- 1&back_page=%2Fipni%2FeditSimplePlantNameSearch.do%3Bjsessionid%3D54AAEE86195F9865FB783 B18538512F3%3Ffind_wholeName%3DAgathis%2Bsilbae%26output_format%3Dnormal - Retrieved February 2014.
February 2014 10
EPA advice for application APP202039
Roskov Y, Kunze T, Paglinawan L, Abucay L, Orrell T, Nicolson D, Culham A, Bailly N, Kirk P, Bourgoin T, Baillargeon G, Decock W, De Wever A, Didžiulis V eds 2014. Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 20th January 2014. Digital resource at www.catalogueoflife.org/col. Species 2000: Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Thomas P 2013. Agathis silbae. In: IUCN 2013. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2 http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/34062/0 - Retrieved February 2014.
Tropicos.org 2014. Missouri Botanical Garden http://www.tropicos.org/Name/2300034 - Retrieved February 2014.
Waters T 2005. Systematics of Agathis http://www.agathis.info/index.php - Retrieved February 2014.
WCSP 2014. World Checklist of Selected Plant Families Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/namedetail.do?name_id=4544 - Retrieved February 2014.
February 2014 11
EPA advice for application APP202039
Appendix A
Figure 17: Decision path for applications under Section 26 for determination as to whether an organism is a new organism
Context
This decision path describes the decision-making process for applications under Section 26 for determination as to whether an organism is a new organism.
Introduction
The purpose of the decision path is to provide the HSNO decision maker2 with guidance so that all relevant matters in the HSNO Act and the Methodology have been addressed. It does not attempt to direct the weighting that the HSNO decision maker may decide to make on individual aspects of an application.
In this document ‘section’ refers to sections of the HSNO Act, and ‘clause’ refers to clauses of the Methodology.
The decision path has two parts –
Flowchart (a logic diagram showing the process prescribed in the HSNO Act and the Methodology to be followed in making a decision), and Explanatory notes (discussion of each step of the process). Of necessity the words in the boxes in the flowchart are brief, and key words are used to summarise the activity required. The explanatory notes provide a comprehensive description of each of the numbered items in the flowchart, and describe the processes that should be followed to achieve the described outcome.
For proper interpretation of the decision path it is important to work through the flowchart in conjunction with the explanatory notes.
2 The HSNO decision maker refers to either the EPA Board or any committee or persons with delegated authority from the Board.
February 2014 12
EPA advice for application APP202039
Figure 17 Flowchart: Decision path for applications under Section 26 for determination as to whether an organism is a new organism
For proper interpretation of the decision path it is important to work through the flowchart in conjunction with the explanatory notes.
February 2014 13
EPA advice for application APP202039
Figure 17 Explanatory Notes
Item 1 Review the content of the application and all relevant information Review the application, Agency advice and any relevant information held by other Agencies, and advice from experts. Determine whether further information is required.
Item 2 Is this information sufficient to proceed? Review the information and determine whether or not there is sufficient information available to make a decision.
Item 3: Seek additional information If the HSNO decision maker considers that further information is required, then this may be sought either from the applicant (if there is an external applicant) or from other sources. If the HSNO decision maker considers that the information may not be complete but that no additional information is currently available, then the HSNO decision maker may proceed to make a determination3. If the application is not approved on the basis of lack of information (or if the organism is considered new) and further information becomes available at a later time, then the HSNO decision maker may choose to revisit this determination. In these circumstances the HSNO decision maker may choose to adopt a precautionary approach under section 7 of the Act.
Item 4: Identify scope of organism description The identification of the organism must be at an appropriate taxonomic classification. For applications involving potentially genetically modified organisms, the organism should be identified by describing the host organism and the processes to which it has been subjected to (for example injection with a non-replicative, non-integrative plasmid DNA vaccine).
Item 5:
Is it a GMO? Determine whether the organism is a GMO using the definitions in Section 2 of the Act and in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Organisms Not Genetically Modified) Regulations 1998.
Item 6: Is the organism known to have been present in NZ immediately before 29 July 1998? Determine on the basis of the available information whether on balance of probabilities the organism is known to belong to a species that was present in New Zealand immediately prior to 29 July 1998. For the purposes of making a section 26 determination an organism is considered to be present in New Zealand if it can be established that the organism was permanently existing in New Zealand and was not present solely by way of being contained in a recognised safekeeping facility, immediately prior to 29 July 1998. The key phrases ‘permanently existing, ‘recognised
3 Alternatively the application may lapse for want of information.
February 2014 14
EPA advice for application APP202039
safekeeping facility’ and ‘immediately’ are defined in the Protocol Interpretations and Explanations of Key Concepts
Item 7: Is it prescribed as a risk species? Determine whether the organism has been prescribed as a risk species by regulation established under section 140(1)(h) of the Act. Note: at this point it may become apparent that the organism is an unwanted organism under the Biosecurity Act. If this is the case, then MAF BNZ and DOC may be advised (they may already have been consulted under items 1, 2 and 3).
Item 8: Was it present when prescribed? If the organism is prescribed as a risk species, determine whether it was present when it was prescribed. The organism is a new organism if it was not present in New Zealand at the time of the promulgation of the relevant regulation (Section 2A (1)(b) of the Act).
Item 9: Is it known to have been previously eradicated? Determine whether the organism is known to have been previously eradicated. Eradication does not include extinction by natural means but is considered to be the result of a deliberate act (see the interpretation in the Protocol Interpretations and Explanations of Key Concepts1.
Item 10: Has HSNO release without conditions approval been given under section 38 or 38I of the Act? If a HSNO release approval has been given under section 35 of the Act, then the organism remains a new organism. If a release approval has been given under section 38 of the Act then the organism is not a new organism. If a release approval has been given under section 38I of the Act, then if the approval has been given with controls then the organism remains a new organism, however, if this approval has been given without controls then it is not a new organism.
February 2014
215 Lambton Quay, Wellington 6140, New Zealand