An Independent Review of New Zealand's Biosecurity Surveillance Systems-Environmental Pests

Background & Disclaimer

Environmental Pests

Includes: An undefined range of animal species, including insects, with potential to cause damage of varying sorts to the environment within which we live, including urban areas and recreational facilities. There has not been (and still is not) any formal surveillance programme for the detection of organisms of this type beyond the border.

Conclusions:

  • The New Zealand environment is under threat from incursions of animal species which have the potential to become serious pests;
  • The performance of the current system of risk management, which is largely reliant on a combination of border control and public vigilance, is mixed.
  • Planned surveillance programmes have the potential to increase the probability of early detection of incursions and successful responses.

Risk factors specific to the sector:

  • The range of species which might be categorised as environmental pests is not defined and it will be difficult to do so. Organisms have the potential to become pests when they enter new environments even though they may not have been pests (and, indeed, they may have been valued species) within their environment in another country. (Possums, deer and goats are examples of mammalian species which fit that category.) Because of the potential differences in behaviour when species come into a new environment it is likely that some organisms detected in New Zealand will not be classified as "unwanted" or "pests" although they may, later prove to be so;
  • The HSNO Act limits the potential for organisms with the potential to become pests entering NZ through deliberate legal importations;
  • The large increases in trade volume into New Zealand have increased the potential for animal species to enter as unrecognised "passengers";
  • The large numbers of shipping containers that enter New Zealand from many countries in the world, with limited inspection, carry the potential to be carrying a variety of animal species;
  • The thorough inspection of all shipping containers is not considered practical. To attempt thorough inspection of the interior of shipping containers would require the unloading of their contents prior to release from the border and would be both extremely expensive and seriously disruptive to trade;
  • Many of the potential environmental pests are likely to be small insects which will not be seen readily unless they are present in large numbers.

Surveillance objectives:

  • There are no government funded surveillance activities for environmental pests other than those surveillance activities which are part of responses to environmental pests which have previously entered the country;
  • Although there is no specific government funding to do so, MAF staff are working to develop proposals for surveillance systems to detect potential environmental pests should they enter the country.

Surveillance processes:

  • Within the scope of surveillance as defined for this project there appears to be only two components of surveillance programmes which have realistic probabilities of detection of incursions of land-based environmental pests. Those are the MAF Public Awareness Programme which promotes of the calling of the 0800# when people find unusual "Creepy Crawlies" or the submission of such finds to either of the NPPRL sites. Where laboratory submission occurs identification follows;
  • Outside the scope of surveillance, as defined for this project, is the surveillance for Red Imported Fire Ant (RIFA). This surveillance programme is directed at a specific pest and is part of a "response" programme. This surveillance programme has, however, demonstrated the potential for programmes based on building awareness of surveillance amongst target people working in higher risk pathways. - this was demonstrated with the detection of two species of "Crazy Ants" during surveillance activities directed at RIFA.

Strengths:

  • The broad consultation process being followed as part of the current planning to develop a more structured programme. This is ensuring the contribution of people involved in the planning and operation of other surveillance programmes across all the relevant biosecurity sectors;
  • Access to others in MAF with responsibilities and experience in the planning and operation of surveillance systems;
  • The availability of the MAF 0800 number which has been given wide publicity for general surveillance purposes;
  • The expertise available at NPPRL in invertebrate taxonomy and the access NPPRL taxonomists have to other sources of expertise.

Weaknesses:

  • An absence of a dedicated funding base for such a surveillance programme;
  • Currently only one person, primarily employed for the management of responses to environmental pests, available to be committed to the development of such a programme;
  • Shortages of staff in NPPRL with good taxonomy expertise. Recruitment of such staff in New Zealand is very difficult even if funding is available;
  • The inability of many people in New Zealand to recognise normal fauna. As a result of this, given wide publicity to the desire to have exotic fauna reported to MAF results in large numbers of submissions of "everyday" species. This contributes to high workloads and lack of job satisfaction.

Performance:

  • Even in the absence of a formal surveillance programme considerable numbers of incursions of environmental pests have been detected and many of those detections have been sufficiently early to allow the environmental pests to be eradicated (Examples include snakes, Black Widow Spiders, Fire ants). Other species have entered NZ, either as deliberate introductions or by accident, and have become significant pests;
  • The recognition of two species of "Crazy ants" during surveillance activities for Fire Ants illustrates the potential for surveillance targeted at risk pathways to be effective.

Page last updated: 16 October 2008