DECISION

Summary of decision

Date 11 November 2011

Application Code ERMA200924

Import into Containment any New Organism under section 40(1) of Application Type the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996.

Applicant Wellington Zoo Trust

Date Application Received 28 September 2011

Consideration Date 8 November 2011

To import selected invertebrate species into containment for the Purpose of the Application purposes of public display and/or conservation through advocacy, education and research

New Organisms Approved for Archispirostreptus gigas (giant African millipede) Importation into Containment Eurycnema goliath (Goliath stick insect) Extatosoma tiaratum (spiny leaf insect) Hierodula majuscule (giant green mantid) Liocheles waigiensis (rainforest scorpion) Macropanesthia rhinoceros (giant burrowing cockroach) Megacrania batesii (peppermint stick insect) Phalacrognathus muelleri (rainbow stag beetle) Tectocoris diophthalmus (cotton harlequin bug) Tropidoderus childrenii (children’s stick insect) Urodacus yaschenkoi (inland robust scorpion) Xylotrupes ulysses (rhinoceros beetle)

Application ERMA200924 to import into containment 12 species of invertebrates (listed in control 1) for public display and/or conservation through advocacy, education and research is approved with the controls set out in Appendix 1.

The applicant withdrew Australian rainforest millipedes belonging to the family Rhinocricidae from the application following formal receipt, therefore these organisms are not considered in this decision.

www.epa.govt.nz 2

Decision ERMA200924

1. Legislative criteria for application

1.1 The application was lodged under section 40(1) of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the Act).

1.2 The application was considered by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in accordance with the relevant provisions of the HSNO Act and the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology).

2. Application Process

Application receipt

2.1 Application ERMA200924 was formally received on 28 September 2011.

Public notification

2.2 Under section 53(2) of the HSNO Act, the EPA has discretion as to whether to publicly notify an application to import into containment any new organism. In this case, the application was not publicly notified because no exceptional circumstances warranting public notification were identified, and significant public interest in this application was not anticipated.

2.3 A targeted call for comments on the application was sent to the regional authorities and selected conservation groups. Federated Farmers responded and raised concerns about biosecurity related risk, which will be addressed by the Biosecurity Act 1993 requirements. No other comments were received.

Consultation with government departments

2.4 In accordance with section 58(1)(c) of the HSNO Act and clauses 2(2)(e) and 5 of the Methodology, the Department of Conservation (DOC) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Biosecurity New Zealand were notified and provided with an opportunity to comment on the application.

2.5 DOC noted that the main food source for Megacrania batesii is the leaves of Pandanus tectorius, which is not present in New Zealand.

2.6 MAF noted that Extatosoma tiaratum (spiny leaf insect) and Tectocoris diophthalmus (cotton harlequin bug) are listed as a regulated pest on the MAF unwanted organisms register. This means that the approval user will need permission from the MAF Chief Technical Officer under section 53(2) of the Biosecurity Act to import, exhibit or breed those organisms.

3

Decision ERMA200924

3. Consideration of the application

3.1 The EPA considered the application on 8 November 2011.

3.2 The information that the EPA took into consideration included: Application ERMA200924 (on Form 121/01) prepared by the applicant. Comments received from government departments and other groups. A memorandum to assist and support the decision making.

3.3 The consideration followed the process described in the decision path for applications to import new organisms into containment under section 45 of the HSNO Act (EPA Decision Path Protocol, Figure 12).

3.4 In its consideration of the application, the EPA considered the following points as per the requirements in the HSNO Act and the Methodology: the purpose of the application; the adequacy of the containment regime, and whether the controls provide for matters specified in Schedule 3 (Part 2) of the HSNO Act; the ability of the organisms to establish undesirable self-sustaining populations, and the ease with which the organisms could be eradicated if undesirable populations established; and whether the beneficial effects outweigh the adverse effects of having the organisms in containment.

3.5 These considerations are addressed in the following sections of this decision.

3.6 Following concerns about sufficiency of information on the family Rhinocricidae, the applicant withdrew Australian rainforest millipedes following formal receipt, therefore these organisms are not considered in this decision.

4. The purpose of the application and scope of the approval

Purpose of the application

4.1 The applicant, Wellington Zoo Trust, applied to import 12 species of invertebrates (listed in Table 1 below) into containment for breeding, public display and education in a zoological garden.

4.2 In accordance with section 45(1)(a)(i) of the HSNO Act, the EPA determined that this application was for two valid purposes as specified in section 39 of the HSNO Act being: section 39(1)(e): the public display of any organism; and section 39(1)(h): such other purposes as the Authority thinks fit, being conservation through advocacy, education and research.

4.3 The EPA considered that the 12 species of invertebrates listed in Table 1 may be imported into containment, and bred, for either one or both of these purposes (Control 1).

4

Decision ERMA200924

4.4 The EPA note that this approval can be used by multiple organisations, and as such impose Control 2, requiring the person in charge of the containment facility must ensure compliance with the controls of this approval, and Control 3 requiring the containment facility to have documentation specifying how the controls will be met.

4.5 In addition, the EPA imposes Control 4 requiring the person in charge of the containment facility to notify the EPA and the Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry in writing that they intend to use this approval.

Scope of the organisms approved

4.6 The organisms approved to be imported into containment belong to the kingdom Animalia, and the phylum Arthropoda, and are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Organisms Approved for Importation into Containment Common name

Archispirostreptus gigas giant African millipede Eurycnema goliath Goliath stick insect Extatosoma tiaratum spiny leaf insect Hierodula majuscule giant green mantid Liocheles waigiensis rainforest scorpion Macropanesthia rhinoceros giant burrowing cockroach Megacrania batesii peppermint stick insect Phalacrognathus muelleri rainbow stag beetle Tectocoris diophthalmus cotton harlequin bug Tropidoderus childrenii children’s stick insect Urodacus yaschenkoi inland robust scorpion Xylotrupes ulysses rhinoceros beetle

5. Containment of the new organisms

5.1 In carrying out its consideration, the EPA considered the adequacy of containment regime for the 12 species of invertebrates (listed in Table 1) including: the biological characteristics of the new organisms relating to containment, the proposed containment regime, and potential pathways of escape from containment.

5

Decision ERMA200924

Biological characteristics of the new organisms relating to containment

5.2 The 12 species of invertebrates (listed in Table 1) range in size, with some adults growing to 250mm or more in length. All except for the giant burrowing cockroach, inland robust scorpion and rainforest scorpion, reproduce through the production of eggs, with some species able to flick their eggs.

5.3 Some of the invertebrates, such as the rhinoceros beetle, Goliath stick insect (males only), spiny leaf insects (males only) and children’s stick insect, are able to fly. Other species such as the rainforest scorpion, inland robust scorpion and giant burrowing cockroach, are good burrowers. The cotton harlequin bug is able to walk up smooth surfaces, so will be able to climb enclosure walls.

5.4 Phasmids (stick insects) use camouflage as a defence mechanism, they resemble sticks and foliage very closely, to the point of having false buds, thorns and ragged leaf-like flages. Giant green mantids may also be camouflaged as green or brown foliage or twigs.

The proposed containment regime

5.5 The EPA considered the new organisms are to be imported into containment, and must therefore be held within a defined containment facility (Controls 6 and 7). The EPA considered that within a containment facility there will be one or more containment areas (specified places and/or conditions) that will be suitable for containing the organisms. Containment areas may include public viewing areas, and conditions under which the invertebrates may be used for interactions with visitors to the facility. The EPA impose Controls 8-10 relating to containment areas. The EPA requires all reasonably practicable measures be taken to ensure that people entering and exiting containment areas do not compromise containment of the new organisms (Control 11).

5.6 The EPA noted that new organisms may be moved between containment areas within a containment facility, or be transferred between containment facilities (with appropriate approval under the Biosecurity Act 1993). Therefore the EPA imposes Controls 12 and 13, relating to moving new organisms.

5.7 Controls 14-19 relate to access to the containment facility, including requiring that all entrances be lockable, and locked when not in active use, and all reasonably practicable measure be taken to prevent unauthorised entry into the facility and accidental or deliberate release of new organisms. Control 20 requires that any waste that may contain new organisms, or heritable material from a new organism must be treated (killing new organisms and heritable material), prior to its disposal.

5.8 Control 21 requires that all persons entering the containment facility must be trained on containment practices relevant to their responsibilities. This includes members of the public who visit the facility, who may be instructed verbally or through signs about areas that they may or may not access; and

6

Decision ERMA200924

staff responsible for supervising public encounters with the new organisms, who will have a higher level of training about the specific containment requirements of those new organisms.

5.9 Contingency plans, outlining actions to be taken in the event of a breach of containment or other unexpected event, are required to be documented (Control 22), and implemented if there is reason to believe a new organism has escaped or been released from its containment area (Control 23). In addition, the containment facility must maintain the capability to eradicate any new organism in the event of escape (Control 24).

5.10 Inspection and monitoring of containment areas is important in maintaining containment, therefore regular inspections (Control 25) are required, along with ad-hoc inspections following any events that could compromise the containment regime (Control 25). Any faults must be remedied immediately to mitigate any breach of containment (Control 27).

5.11 MAF is the enforcement agency for containment facilities and HSNO Act controls. External audits are carried out by MAF, and Control 28 requires that the containment facility and all relevant documentation be accessible to MAF for those audits. The person in charge of the facility is also required to notify MAF of any breach of containment as soon as possible (Control 5).

5.12 The EPA considers that the proposed containment regime (controls) provides for the matters specified in Schedule 3 (Part 2) of the HSNO Act.

Potential pathways for escape from containment

5.13 The EPA considered the potential pathways of escape of the imported new organisms, and assessed these pathways in light of the controls outlined above.

5.14 The EPA identified and considered the potential pathways of escape from containment of the invertebrates to be: during transportation to and from the containment facility; due to accidental or deliberate removal by staff or unauthorised persons; on/in untreated equipment or waste; due to accidental or deliberate removal by zoo visitors; and following natural disaster (flood, earthquake).

5.15 The EPA noted that the proposed containment regime specifies controls addressing each of the pathways identified. The EPA therefore considered that escape from containment through any of the pathways identified is at worst very unlikely (considered only to occur in very unusual circumstances).

7

Decision ERMA200924

Conclusion on adequacy of the containment regime

5.16 The EPA considered the ability of the 12 species of invertebrates (listed in Table 1) to escape from containment, given their biological characteristics, the proposed containment regime, and the potential pathways of escape. Taking all these considerations into account, the EPA concluded that the proposed containment regime is adequate to contain the 12 species of invertebrates (listed in Table 1), and the controls address the matters specified in Schedule 3 (Part 2) of the HSNO Act.

6. Ability of the organism to establish an undesirable self-sustaining population

6.1 The EPA considered the ability of the 12 species of invertebrates (listed in Table 1) to form undesirable self-sustaining populations should they escape containment, and the ease of eradication of such populations.

6.2 The EPA noted that some female phasmid (stick insect) species are able to reproduce sexually and asexually, this means if a male is not available reproduction takes place by parthenogenesis (the development of unfertilised eggs). For the other species to establish a self-sustaining population either a gravid female, or a male and female of the same species would need to escape and survive.

6.3 The EPA noted the invertebrates come from Australia or Africa, and require temperatures above 18°C to survive and reproduce. Therefore they are unlikely to be able to survive long term in New Zealand.

6.4 The EPA considered that if an undesirable self-sustaining population of any of the new organisms imported under this approval were to establish, the ease of eradication would depend on the location and distribution of the population. If the population was localised, it could potentially be eradicated through trapping or use of insecticides. If the population was widely distributed, it would be more difficult to eradicate.

6.5 The EPA concluded that it is very unlikely that any of the new organisms could establish undesirable self-sustaining populations should they escape from containment.

7. Risk assessment

7.1 The EPA identified and assessed the potentially significant risks, costs and benefits of having the 12 species of invertebrates (listed in Table 1) in containment. The potential risks costs and benefits were divided into effects relating to the environment, human health, Māori and their culture and traditions, the market economy, and society and communities.

8

Decision ERMA200924

Potentially significant adverse effects

7.2 The EPA considered the information available and did not identify any potentially significant adverse effects relating to the environment, Māori and their culture and traditions, the market economy, or society and communities.

7.3 The EPA noted that some of the invertebrates have biological characteristics that have the potential to cause adverse effects on human health and safety. The giant burrowing cockroach is known to bite if handled incorrectly, and the spiny leaf insect is very prickly and also needs to be handled with care. When threatened the peppermint stick insect excretes a milky substance with peppermint smell, and the giant African millipede curls up in a ball and excretes a liquid that can be irritating to human skin. Rainforest scorpions rarely sting and do not have poisonous venom, but defend themselves using powerful claws.

7.4 The EPA noted that none of the invertebrates included in the application met the definition of venomous (capable of inflicting poisonous wounds harmful to human health) in Schedule 2 of the HSNO Act. In addition, the invertebrates will be maintained in containment and anyone interacting with the invertebrates will be suitably trained or supervised, thus preventing any adverse effects resulting from contact with the organisms. The EPA considered that any adverse effects on human health and safety from having the invertebrates in containment would be minimal, and very unlikely to occur, and therefore not significant.

7.5 The EPA concluded that the potential adverse effects of having the invertebrates (listed in Table 1) in containment are negligible.

Potentially significant beneficial effects

7.6 The EPA considered the information available and identified the following potentially significant beneficial effects associated with the application: public display of the new organisms; education and engagement of visitors to the zoo; and increased conservation through advocacy, education and research.

7.7 The EPA considered that these beneficial effects will be minor in magnitude, and are likely to occur; therefore the level of benefit is low. The EPA concluded that the beneficial effects of having the invertebrates in containment are non-negligible.

9

Decision ERMA200924

Conclusion on risks and benefits

7.8 The EPA concluded that the potential adverse effects of having the 12 species of invertebrates (listed in Table 1) in containment are negligible, and the potential beneficial effects are non-negligible. Therefore the EPA concluded that the benefits of the application outweigh the risks.

8. Decision

8.1 The EPA is satisfied that this application is a valid purpose, and that the new organisms (listed in Table 1) can be adequately contained.

8.2 The EPA is satisfied the beneficial effects of having the new organisms (12 species of invertebrates listed in Table 1) in containment outweigh the adverse effects.

8.3 The application (ERMA200924) is approved with the controls listed in Appendix 1 of this decision.

11 November 2011

Shaun Ogilvie Date Chair, Decision Making Committee Environmental Protection Authority

Approval Code Organism NOC100080 Archispirostreptus gigas (giant African millipede) NOC100081 Eurycnema goliath (Goliath stick insect) NOC100082 Extatosoma tiaratum (spiny leaf insect) NOC100083 Hierodula majuscule (giant green mantid) NOC100084 Liocheles waigiensis (rainforest scorpion) NOC100085 Macropanesthia rhinoceros (giant burrowing cockroach) NOC100086 Megacrania batesii (peppermint stick insect) NOC100087 Phalacrognathus muelleri (rainbow stag beetle) NOC100088 Tectocoris diophthalmus (cotton harlequin bug) NOC100089 Tropidoderus childrenii (children’s stick insect) NOC100090 Urodacus yaschenkoi (inland robust scorpion) NOC100091 Xylotrupes ulysses (rhinoceros beetle)

10

Decision ERMA200924

Appendix 1: Controls Required by the Approval

The new organisms approved for importation into containment under this approval are subject to the following controls:

1. This approval is limited to the importation into containment for the purposes of public display and/or conservation through advocacy, education and research, of the following new organisms:

Archispirostreptus gigas giant African millipede Eurycnema goliath Goliath stick insect Extatosoma tiaratum spiny leaf insect Hierodula majuscula giant green mantid Liocheles waigiensis rainforest scorpion Macropanesthia rhinoceros giant burrowing cockroach Megacrania batesii peppermint stick insect Phalacrognathus muelleri rainbow stag beetle Tectocoris diophthalmus cotton harlequin bug Tropidoderus childrenii children’s stick insect Urodacus yaschenkoi inland robust scorpion Xylotrupes ulysses rhinoceros beetle

Compliance with these controls 2. The person in charge of the containment facility is responsible for ensuring that the containment facility meets all of these controls.

3. The containment facility must have documentation specifying how the facility will comply with the controls in this approval.

Notification 4. The person in charge of the containment facility must, the first time this approval is used, notify the EPA and the MAF Inspector in writing.

5. The person in charge of the containment facility must notify MAF of any breach of containment, as soon as possible.

Defining the containment facility 6. Subject to the controls of this approval, organisms imported under this approval must be held within a containment facility.

7. The containment facility must be clearly defined in the containment facility documentation, including a map showing the location and boundaries.

11

Decision ERMA200924

Containment areas 8. The facility must have documentation, including design and maintenance plans, specifying the containment area(s) for each new organism (at individual or species level).

9. The containment area must be designed and constructed to contain the new organisms held within it under any reasonably foreseeable circumstances.

10. The containment area(s) must be maintained in order to contain all new organisms held within it (i.e. preventing escape) under reasonably foreseeable circumstances.

Entering and exiting containment areas 11. All reasonably practical measures must be taken to ensure that persons entering containment areas enter and exit the containment area in a way that does not compromise the containment of the new organisms.

Moving new organisms 12. All reasonably practicable measures must be taken to prevent the escape of new organisms during any transfers within the containment facility or outside the containment facility.

13. New organisms may only be removed from a containment area for a reasonably necessary purpose (e.g. vet treatment, transfer to another containment area).

Access to the containment facility 14. All entrances must clearly identify the facility as being a containment facility.

15. The containment facility must not have more than 20 entrances.

16. All containment facility entrances must be lockable.

17. All containment facility entrances must be locked when not in active use.

18. All reasonably practicable measures must be taken to prevent unauthorised persons gaining access to the containment facility.

19. All reasonably practicable measures must be taken to prevent the accidental or deliberate release of new organisms from the containment area, or the containment facility.

Treatment of waste 20. Any waste (including biological material) that may contain a new organism, or heritable material from a new organism, must be treated prior to its disposal.

Training 21. All persons entering the containment facility (including contractors, staff, students, visitors, and volunteers) must be trained on the containment practices of the containment facility relevant to the responsibility of the individual.

12

Decision ERMA200924

Contingency plans 22. The containment facility must have a documented contingency plan, including recapture or eradication, for each new organism or group of new organisms held within the containment facility. The contingency plan must cover any reasonably foreseeable event that could compromise containment of any new organism within the containment facility.

23. The contingency plan must be implemented if there is reason to believe that a new organism has escaped or been released from its containment area.

24. The containment facility must maintain the capability to eradicate any new organisms held within the containment facility in the event of escape.

Inspection and monitoring 25. Each containment area must be inspected at reasonable intervals given the nature of the organism(s) being contained, to ensure that containment has not been compromised and identify any remedial maintenance requirements.

26. Containment areas must be inspected as soon as possible after any event that could compromise containment, such as an Act of God (such as flood, earthquake), or an unauthorised attempt to enter the containment facility or a containment area.

27. Faults in containment must be remedied as soon as possible, including taking interim measures as are necessary to mitigate any breach of containment.

28. The person in charge of the containment facility must ensure that MAF has access to the facility and all relevant documentation for the purposes of auditing.

Interpretation of controls

In the controls, unless otherwise specified below, a word has the same meaning as it is defined in the HSNO Act (if any).

Unless the context otherwise requires:

Audit means a systematic documented review or examination and evaluation of evidence to determine to which a specific criteria are fulfilled.

Breach means escape of organism(s), unauthorised entry to the facility or containment area, and/or the structural integrity of the facility being compromised.

Containment area the specified place and/or conditions within the containment facility designated for a specified new organism.

Containment facility a defined place approved by MAF, in accordance with section 39 of the Biosecurity Act 1993, for holding new organisms.

13

Decision ERMA200924

Contingency plan mans a plan devised foe a specific situation where things could go wrongs. It contains information, tasks and procedures that are necessary for timely decision-making and response to an unexpected event, or situation where the preferred plan fails.

Documentation means written or electronic records.

EPA means the Environmental Protection Authority, established under section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act 2011.

MAF means Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Maintenance means the process of maintaining (preserving or providing for the preservation of) or continuing a state of good repair.

Person in charge of the facility means the person who is –

(a) The owner, lessee, sub-lessee, occupier, or person in possession of the containment facility or any part of it; or

(b) Any other person who, at the relevant time, is in effective control or possession of the relevant part of the containment facility.

Treat (in respect of waste) means to kill all new organisms and heritable material.

Waste means unusable or unwanted substances or materials (including water, liquids, and solids).