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

Background & Disclaimer

Plants

Includes: Commercial horticultural and agricultural crops produced in New Zealand and the pests and diseases which are likely to impact adversely on production and access to international markets.

Conclusions

  • The Fruit Fly programme appears to be well documented and robust. It also provides a core infrastructure capability. This means the marginal cost of adding other Surveillance activities is reduced.
  • The high impact pest programme is providing the opportunity to begin the process of review and analysis of entry pathways for exotic organisms.
  • It also provides an opportunity for developing a system to set priorities and engage more industry involvement.
  • However, the Fruit Fly programme consumes a significant proportion of MAF's plant biosecurity budget, leaving other areas under-resourced.
  • The NPPRLs are also under pressure to service both the plants' sector Surveillance programmes and public requests for insect identifications for suspected exotic species.

There is a need for a strategy for this sector which:

  • Engages more industry involvement;
  • Matches priorities with resources based on an overall risk management framework;
  • Resolves conflicts of resourcing at NPPRL with regard to balancing requirements of the production sector with those related to environmental pests.

Risk factors specific to the sector:

  • Lack of resources in MAF to effectively meet the heightened expectations of politicians and the general public;
  • Ad hoc Surveillance activity demonstrates an absence of an overall strategy;
  • Increased container and used vehicle traffic into New Zealand of which only a small percentage is inspected for exotic organisms;
  • Smuggling of fruits,vegetables and plant material by passengers arriving at international airports and crews of yachts at remote harbours;
  • Exotic micro organisms becoming established well before they are intercepted in general Surveillance.

Surveillance objectives:

  • There are no overarching Surveillance objectives for this sector.

Surveillance processes:

  • Responsibility for Surveillance programmes relating to the Plants sector rests with the Director Plants Biosecurity, MAF Biosecurity Authority, who administers phytosanitary measures as defined by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC);
  • These measures include the prevention or minimising the risk of exotic pests from establishing in New Zealand. In practice, prevention relates to serious High Impact Exotic Pests and minimising risks relates to reducing the chances of hundreds of thousands of potential invading organisms from establishing in New Zealand;
  • There has been an eight-fold increase in the detection of new to New Zealand organisms in the plants sector;
  • The specific plant Surveillance activities are managed by the Plants Pest Management Team in MAF Plants Biosecurity (MAFPB), which has a staff of 2.5 full time person equivalents;
  • Operational activity is delivered by AgriQuality and laboratory diagnostic services are provided by the National Plant Pest Reference Laboratory (NPPRL) [85];
  • The NPPRL is required to respond to all 0800 telephone pest enquiries and to identify all organisms sent in by members of the general public who are encouraged to do so through the separately funded Public Awareness programme;
  • MAFPB is currently modelling an approach for the responses to new incursions. There are 3 cases which are:
    • Case 1 as with active Surveillance where an exotic pest is detected early and distribution restricted and therefore prompt containment and eradication is feasible;
    • Case 2 whereby active Surveillance or by chance, a pest has been detected when it is reasonably widespread but cost benefits of eradication action would still be positive;
    • Case 3 where a pest is well established by the time it is detected, eradication action is not feasible and non official commercial pest management principles apply.
  • Since 1999 MAFPB no longer undertakes crop surveys which included pipfruit, stonefruit, grapes, subtropicals and some agricultural crops. MAFPB concluded that the information was of limited value in detecting exotic organisms in time for pest management actions of containment and eradication. These surveys had been valuable in the past, in providing high resolution information about organisms in New Zealand crops. It is now left to the farmers, growers and their advisers to report incursions of exotic organisms eg guava moth.
  • Specific to Fruit Fly - This programme, which is the only existing active Surveillance programme operated by MAFPB, has been in operation since 1990 and is funded annually by MAF at a cost of approximately $1.0 million. Trapping and active Surveillance are carried out under contract by AgriQuality.
  • MAF is also proposing to develop, with industry, active Surveillance programmes for a further range of high impact, exotic pests. Organisms considered for feasibility studies include asparagus rust, citrus canker, Kanzawa mite, Karnal Bunt, plum pox virus, Pierce's disease, glassy winged sharpshooter, apple brown rot, ceder apple rust, ceder rust, Japanese pear rust, soil borne wheat mosaic virus, citrus black fly and yellow peach moth.
  • Pilot surveys have been undertaken with asparagus rust, citrus canker, Karnal bunt, Kanzawa mite and plum pox virus. These exotic organisms were chosen because of their possible entry pathways [86][87][88][89][90];
  • These surveys were carried out primarily to gather data about the time needed to carry out each of the various survey procedures. Preliminary time and cost estimations for a full Surveillance programme excluding confirmatory laboratory test costs ranged from $3.8 million for a 99% probability of detecting plum pox virus to $300,000 for a 95% probability of detecting citrus canker;
  • A similar resource estimation exercise is planned for the other 9 exotic organisms to be carried out in this next year;
  • Although the major focus of MAFPB with respect to Surveillance is for new to New Zealand organisms, MAFPB has a limited number of Surveillance programmes to monitor established pests and diseases including unwanted environmental pests. These include Johnson grass, Water hyacinth, Salvinia and Cape Tulip, which are included in a Pest Management Strategy [91];
  • MAFPB is working with the Vegetable industry to develop an effective Surveillance programme to monitor tomato crops for the potato tuber spindle viroid (PTSVd) which has recently been detected in New Zealand [92];
  • Zespri undertakes an independent annual Surveillance programme for organisms found and diagnosed on kiwifruit, which maintains the kiwifruit pest list and assists in determining markets for which the fruit is elegible.

Strengths:

Specific to Fruit Fly program

  • Provides experience in active Surveillance;
  • It has clearly defined performance specifications;
  • High specificity and sensitivity;
  • Targets high risk fruit fly species;
  • Targeted at higher risk areas;
  • It has been successful in rapidly intercepting incursions as in 1996;
  • The programme maintains an infrastructure upon which to implement an immediate response to not only fruit flies but also other exotic organisms;
  • Will provide the experience base for the development of additional programmes;
  • Provides the horticulture industry with the assurance that in the unlikely event of an incursion that rapid identification will minimise its spread;
  • It is acceptable to trading partners as a means of demonstrating absence of fruit fly from New Zealand and New Zealand commitment to maintain freedom.

Specific to High Impact Pest programme

  • Provides opportunities to study entry pathways;
  • Encourages industry awareness of incursion implications;
  • Enables industry involvement in simulation exercises.

Other

  • Maintains some awareness amongst general public that exotic weeds and pests are a threat to the environment;
  • Indicates that the private sector is continuing to fund its own Surveillance programmes.

Weaknesses:

Specific to Fruit Fly programme

  • It is very specific in terms of the species trapped. (i.e. will only detect those species of fruit fly at which lures are targeted);
  • It takes up a significant percentage (22%) of the MAFPB exotic pest Surveillance and response capacity leaving less funding to develop the High Impact Exotic Pest Active Surveillance programmes;
  • Could be under threat given the demands for other Surveillance priorities;
  • Lack of enthusiasm amongst "delivery" staff because of lack of perception of value of "negative" findings.

Specific to High Impact Pest programme

  • Limited MAFPB resources to implement programmes;
  • Inadequate consultation with industry leading to limited industry buy in.

Other

  • The MAFPB general Surveillance budget, capped at $1million has to fund the increasing demands for identification which is driven by the separately funded Public Awareness programme;
  • Limited interest and commitment in monitoring established pests and diseases by MAF because of limited resources and funding;
  • Industry or private sector funded programmes not recognised as being worthwhile by MAF in that the information collected is not used by MAF for market access negotiations.

Page last updated: 16 October 2008