Regulatory issues in plant protection 281 Research on invasive pests and diseases in New Zealand and the law D.A.J. Teulon1, K.S.H. Boyd Wilson1, A. Holton1 and G.S. Ridley2 1The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited, Private Bag 4704, Christchurch, New Zealand 2Environmental Protection Authority, PO Box 131, Wellington 6140, New Zealand Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract Two New Zealand statutes have important implications for research with organisms not previously found in New Zealand and either incidentally or illegally introduced. The Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 define the legal framework and allowable activities for ‘unwanted’ and ‘new’ organisms, respectively. Aspects of these Acts that are relevant to research activities possible with plant pest and disease organisms after their discovery, in particular those organisms requiring rapid development of management strategies and tools, are summarised. The need for accurate, detailed and accessible lists of ‘unwanted’ and ‘new’ organisms, and the need for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to respond rapidly when the status of these organisms needs to be changed is highlighted. Consideration should be given to making the legislation concerning ‘new’ organisms more applicable to incidentally or illegally introduced organisms. Keywords new organisms, unwanted organisms, pest, disease, incursion. INTRODUCTION New Zealand productive (e.g. pastures, crops, Bactericera cockerelli and Candidatus Liberibacter orchards, plantation forests) and natural solanacearum (Teulon et al. 2009), the causal systems are subject to continued invasion by agent of kiwifruit bacterial canker Pseudomonas new pest and disease species from overseas (see syringae pv. actinidiae (Psa) (Everett et al. 2011a), Goldson & Suckling 2003; Kriticos et al. 2005; the Monterey pine aphid Essigella californica Froud et al. 2008), and this is likely to increase (Flynn et al. 2003), and Didymosphenia geminata with increased trade (Liebhold et al. 2012) and (Lyngbye) Schmidt (commonly known as international travel. In some cases, these new didymo) (Bickel & Closs 2008). species are known to be sufficiently damaging The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to these productive and natural ecosystems was formed on 30 April 2012 as a result of the that new pest management strategies and tools merger of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, need to be developed rapidly. Recent examples the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of include the clover root weevil Sitona lepidus Agriculture and Forestry. MPI investigates all (Eerens et al. 2005), the potato tomato psyllid suspected new pest or disease species found in New Zealand Plant Protection 65: 281-288 (2012) www.nzpps.org © 2012 New Zealand Plant Protection Society (Inc.) www.nzpps.org Refer to http://www.nzpps.org/terms_of_use.html Regulatory issues in plant protection 282 New Zealand. Its response includes establishing agencies (Biosecurity Act 1993). The Act provides the identity of the new incursion (i.e. genus/ a range of functions, powers and options for species name), determining its distribution within the management of risk organisms (MAFBNZ New Zealand, assessing its likely impact on New 2008b). The Biosecurity Act is administered by Zealand’s productive and natural ecosystems, MPI giving it considerable powers to respond undertaking a cost/benefit analysis of likely impact to new pest and disease incursions within New and management response, and the feasibility Zealand (MAFBNZ 2008a). of either eradication or long-term management The Act defines an ‘unwanted organism’ as (MAFBNZ 2008a). In many cases, where ‘any organism that a Chief Technical Officer eradication is not considered feasible, there is a believes is capable or potentially capable of need for research to support the rapid development causing unwanted harm to any natural and of new systems and tools for management of these physical resources or human health’. These new species once they are considered permanently organisms may or may not already be present in established in New Zealand. New Zealand. This definition also includes any Two New Zealand statutes have important ‘new’ organism that EPA has declined approval to implications for conducting research on new import (an unlikely scenario for most pests and pest and disease organisms that have been either diseases) and any organism specified in Schedule incidentally (a new organism that is imported 2 of the HSNO Act (no invertebrate plant pests in or on goods, with some specific exceptions) or diseases are listed there). or illegally introduced into New Zealand. These The Biosecurity Act also places a general duty are the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Hazardous on all persons in New Zealand to inform the Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 MPI (as MAF in the Act) of the presence of an (HSNO), which define the legal framework and organism not normally seen in New Zealand allowable activities for ‘unwanted’ and ‘new’ (Section 44) or a ‘notifiable’ organism (Section organisms, respectively. 46), respectively. This paper highlights some of the important The Biosecurity Act stipulates activities that issues that are pertinent to research activities cannot be carried out with ‘unwanted organisms’ carried out with pest and disease organisms (Section 52) (prohibited activities.). “No person after they have been discovered in New Zealand. shall knowingly communicate [Oxford English The aim is not to interpret the legal intention of Dictionary = transmit], cause to be communicated, these Acts, but to identify some issues that plant release [no definition within the Act but in relation protection researchers need to consider when to ‘new organisms’ this means to allow the organism working with new pest and disease incursions to move within New Zealand free of any restrictions within New Zealand, and to suggest ways to other than those imposed in accordance with the make that activity more effective with respect to Biosecurity Act 1993 or the Conservation Act 1987], the law. This paper does not concern itself with or cause to be released, or otherwise spread, the introduction of new biological control agents any pest or unwanted organism except” under into New Zealand or the development of new special circumstances largely governed by MPI. genetically modified organisms, which both have Additionally, the Act stipulates “that the owner clear status as new organisms. or person in charge of an organism which that person knows or suspects constitutes, contains, Biosecurity Act 1993 or harbours a pest or ‘unwanted’ organism” must This Biosecurity Act provides a legal basis for not “propagate, breed, or multiply the pest or excluding, eradicating and managing pests and ‘unwanted’ organism or otherwise act in such diseases and unwanted organisms, and its powers a manner as is likely to encourage or cause the can be variously used by MPI, other government propagation, breeding, or multiplication of the agencies, regional councils and pest management pest or ‘unwanted’ organism” (Section 53 (1)(c). © 2012 New Zealand Plant Protection Society (Inc.) www.nzpps.org Refer to http://www.nzpps.org/terms_of_use.html Regulatory issues in plant protection 283 Making an organism ‘unwanted’ triggers field test, or release new organisms. These terms actions to be taken to manage the organism at the are described below. border or to require any activitiy (e.g. research) • ‘Import’ relates to intentional importation of within New Zealand to be approved. In order to the organism into New Zealand and generally conduct research on an ‘unwanted’ organism, into containment. This would seem to be a permission must be obtained from MPI (see reasonable restriction in most cases. MAFBNZ 2010a) and generally needs to be carried • ‘Develop’, in relation to incidentally imported out under containment conditions. organisms, includes ‘the deliberate isolation, aggregation, multiplication, or other use of Hazardous Substances and New Organisms the organism’. This could be interpreted as Act 1996 (the ‘HSNO’ Act) prohibiting the rearing of new pest organisms The purpose of the HSNO Act is to protect the for research purposes and, it is suggested that environment, and the health and safety of people this requires further policy consideration. and communities, by preventing or managing the • ‘Field test’ means ‘the carrying on of trials on adverse effects of hazardous substances and ‘new’ the effects of the organism under conditions organisms (HSNO 1996). The Act defines what similar to those of the environment into is a ‘new organism’ (Section 2A (1)) and what which the organism is likely to be released, is not (Section 2A (2)). A pest or disease species but from which the organism, or any heritable regarded as having newly invaded New Zealand material arising from it, could be retrieved is very likely to be a ‘new organism’ because it is or destroyed at the end of the trials’. This ‘an organism belonging to a species that was not definition seems to relate to newly introduced present in New Zealand immediately before 29 biological control agents or newly developed July 1998’. It may also be a ‘new organism’ if it genetically modified organisms. It does not ‘belongs to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, explicitly rule out ‘incidentally imported variety, strain, or cultivar that has been eradicated organisms’, so its application to research on from New Zealand’ such as the white-spotted new pest and disease incursions is not clear tussock moth, Orgyia thyellina (Morgan 1998). and requires further policy consideration. The Act is not clear if this relates to organisms • ‘Release’, in relation to new organisms, first found before and/or after 29 July 1998 and is means ‘to allow the organism to move within clearly problematic where there is disagreement New Zealand free of any restrictions other over whether a newly discovered organism is the than those imposed in accordance with the result of a new introduction or merely a failed Biosecurity Act 1993 or the Conservation eradication as is the case with the Mediterranean Act 1987’.