An Independent Review of New Zealand's Biosecurity Surveillance Systems-Freshwater Flora

Background & Disclaimer

Freshwater Flora

Includes: Indigenous FW plants and FW ecosystems

Conclusions:

  • There are a number of significant risk factors for the sector;
  • Accountabilities for surveillance in the sector are confused. Who sets the objectives and how is the work to be done?
  • The basic work on developing a risk management framework has been done but not implemented in a practical system;
  • Regional council input, which is critical for this sector, is uncoordinated.

Risk factors specific to the sector [41]:

  • There are well-examined control technologies, such as pesticides, though with the new HSNO regulations there is no scope for trial use, or emergency response to a critically dangerous weed outbreak;
  • This area is not addressed in any Performance agreement with Govt [14][42];
  • Knowledge of plants is better, and risk assessment easier in experimental situations than for FW fish; weeds are somewhat less commercial than fish and there is less aquarist pressure. Identification problems are real. Smuggling is harder to detect - phenomenon of what is known as "pocket plants" - happens with fish but much harder for plants;
  • Plants are easier to establish and probably easier to control and eliminate in terms of technology;
  • The problem of unknown species being already here, unknown or unidentified, exists, as with fish;
  • Aquarium shops having plants that they are not allowed to sell because of their status under the NPPA [31]and which they label "for display only";
  • Many of the plants of concern are so easy to keep, transfer, and dump in unwanted places and no-one knows what's out there:
  • There are quite serious problems that relate to both the expertise available to identify incoming consignments, and in enforcement;
  • There is no system for determining importation non-compliance, and as with fish, the system can easily leak. How much importers and retailers comply is proportional to their respect for the system;
  • People can plant undesirable organisms in their backyard ponds etc. The NPPA results in a prohibition on possession of some species for sale, and Regional Council plant PMSs may prohibit some species on properties.

Surveillance objectives:

  • There is no clearly enunciated set of objectives for this sector.

Surveillance processes:

  • Active surveillance in some conservancies;
  • Public education campaign;
  • Programmes within regional council's pest management strategies;
  • Some information on weed questions in a MAF website, though this is not widely known;
  • NIWA operates an identification service nationally and at no cost which means that information is obtained on weed distributions by NIWA.

Strengths:

  • Aquatic weeds are of concern to major industry groups, such as hydro, irrigation, etc. and also of interest to the general public in that weeds interfere with aquatic amenities like boating and fishing - so it is easier to generate a `public attitude' with macrophytes than it is with `pest fish';
  • MAF have an on-going programme to detect and control Water Hyacinth and Salvinia [43]
  • Lists were developed with the help of the NIWA people using a risk assessment module, based on overseas information and an assessment of weediness [44][45];
  • NIWA have established a Fresh Water Macrophyte database [46];
  • There is a goal of keeping some species out of the SI [42].

Weaknesses:

  • DoC are conducting very little routine surveillance for new fresh water species [10];
  • Most of the publicity material relates to Egeria, Lagarosiphon and Elodea. There should be a wider group of plants that are seen as being of concern;
  • There is evidence that the public are losing awareness of the need to report unusual occurrences of fresh water plants, including those subject to control [47];
  • Unclear who is in charge? MAF or DOC? NIWA has been promoting a `coordinating committee' to attempt to get various agencies both informed and cooperating;
  • It is very difficult to predict performance of a weed in NZ on the basis of overseas information [44];
  • Overall goals poorly defined and no relevant KPIs;
  • MAF/DOC operational MOU is silent on surveillance [13];
  • The crown owns lake beds and this results in LINZ being responsible for aquatic macrophytes that grow on lake beds, though LINZ has neither interest nor expertise;
  • There is a lack of speciation of unwanted organisms in this sector;
  • Wide variation among regional councils on their approach to aquatic weeds - some have FW weeds in their pest management strategies and some don't.

Page last updated: 16 October 2008