Biosecurity May 07 NEW - University of the Western...

biosecurityA PUBLICATION OF BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND

ISSUE 75, 1 MAY 2007

FOCUS ON ANIMAL WELFARE

Post border detection of plant pestsOperation Kadridri

Forestry-focused national certifi cates

contents

66

2 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 75

22221616

Biosecurity magazine

Biosecurity is published six-weekly by Biosecurity New Zealand, with regular input from the Department of Conservation, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Fisheries and regional councils. It is of special interest to all those with a stake in the protection of New Zealand’s economic, environmental and social assets from the dangers posed by pests and diseases. Animal welfare issues are also covered. The articles in this magazine do not necessarily refl ect government policy.

For enquiries about specifi c articles, refer to the contact listed at the end of each article.

General enquiries (e.g. circulation requests or information about Biosecurity New Zealand):

Biosecurity Magazine, Biosecurity New Zealand, PO Box 2526, Pastoral House, 25 The Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand.

Phone: 04 894 0100

Fax: 04 894 0720

Email: [email protected]

Internet: www.biosecurity.govt.nz

Editorial enquiries:

Editor: Phil Stewart

Phone: 04 384 4688

Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1174 – 4618

Biosecurity New Zealand fax contacts:

Policy and Business: 04 894 0731

Animal Welfare: 04 894 0728

Pre-clearance: 04 894 0733

Post-clearance: 04 894 0736

Compliance and Enforcement: 09 300 1021

Investigation and Diagnostic Centres: 04 526 5601

EDITORIALAnimal welfare – key domestic and international developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

FRONTLINE NEWSAnimal law with teeth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Afghanistan: Kiwis contribute to animal welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Identifying farms during an incursion response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Animal welfare during international transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Post-border detection of plant pests improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Operation Kadridri – surveillance for invasive ants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Styela sea squirt response: update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

BIOSECURITY SCIENCEThree Rs programme promoting humane science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Shellfi sh toxin testing without using animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Welfare Quality® research programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Fish pain revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

BIOSECURITY SYSTEMSNational Animal Welfare Emergency Management Group . . . . . . . 18From advice on 1080 to monitoring global trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Surveillance strategy: Setting the future direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Codes of welfare – how are they developed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Forestry focus for national certifi cates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

BIOSECURITY INTERFACEVertebrate Pests Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

UPDATESAmended import health standards: Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Codes of ethical conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Codes of welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

DIRECTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

editorial

Animal welfare – key domestic and international developments of operational and strategic signifi cance

ISSUE 75 | BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 3

Dr A

.C. D

avid

Bay

vel

A nimal welfare is a fast moving public policy area, both domestically and internationally,

and a number of important developments and initiatives have taken place since the last animal welfare special issue of Biosecurity in August, 2005.

All these activities make an important contribution to New Zealand’s strategic approach to animal welfare, i.e., incremental, science-based change management over realistic time frames, with the active involvement of all aff ected and interested parties and informed by the MAF animal welfare mission.

Domestic developments Within the Animal Welfare Group there have been several key appointments: Dr Kate Littin to the position of Technical Adviser, Dr Roger Poland to the position of Senior Adviser and Ms Haley Shepherd to the position of Team Support Offi cer. All these appointments were funded by a successful new initiative bid. They are designed to increase support to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) and to support the implementation of requirements of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

Responsibility for animal welfare policy analysis and legislative amendments has transferred from MAF Policy to Biosecurity New Zealand (BNZ) Policy, and an Animal Welfare Committee has been established to better coordinate animal welfare activities within MAF and with NAWAC, NAEAC and the Ministry of Foreign Aff airs and Trade.

Eight codes of welfare have been developed and received ministerial approval to date, and an additional fi ve codes are due to be gazetted over the next 12 months.

The National Animal Welfare Emergency Management (NAWEM) Group has been

established to ensure appropriate MAF/Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management liaison and appropriate involvement of key stakeholders, as outlined in the article on page 18.

A joint MAF/SPCA Animal Welfare Inspectors Task Force has been established and a Memorandum of Understanding signed with the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) Verifi cation Agency, to ensure that issues relating to animal welfare enforcement capability and capacity are addressed.

The New Zealand Three Rs programme at Massey University has been established to give a focus to this important policy and ethical commitment regarding the use of animals in research, testing and teaching (see article on page 13).

NAWAC held a successful workshop on pain and pain relief during routine painful husbandry procedures in 2006 and the Proceedings are now available (see Biosecurity 71:16).

The New Zealand strategy on animal welfare and international trade has been revised by MAF and MFAT, for approval by the Ministers of Agriculture, Food Safety and Trade.

International developmentsOn the international front, there have been several particularly noteworthy

developments. New Zealand maintains ongoing involvement with the OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) animal welfare initiative as outlined in previous issues of Biosecurity, including input to a Michigan State University e-learning programme.

Liaison continues with the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) regarding a proposed Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare.

New Zealand remains involved in the EU Welfare Quality project, as outlined on page 16 of this issue by Dr Lindsay Matthews, and this country’s further involvement in animal welfare law is outlined by Dr Ian Robertson on page 4.

MAF has been working with the United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Aff airs in collaborative animal welfare research, a proposal for a NZ/EU Animal Welfare Cooperation Forum has been accepted and NAWAC is an invited corresponding observer in Euro-Farm Animal Welfare Council.

Looking aheadDiscussion on animal welfare policy and practice and animal welfare and animal rights will continue into the foreseeable future and MAF will continue to interact with key stakeholders. NAWAC and NAEAC will continue to play key statutory roles and provide independent advice to government. Where necessary, animal welfare change management will be science-based and will require validation of the proposed welfare benefi ts of alternative production or management systems. At an international level, MAF will continue to interact with key agencies and institutions to consolidate and further develop New Zealand’s reputation and leadership in the fi eld of animal welfare.

■ Dr A.C. David Bayvel, Director Animal Welfare, [email protected]

■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare

MAF’s Animal Welfare Mission:

• to support society’s expectations for the welfare and humane treatment of animals

• to support the development of animal welfare standards, within New Zealand agriculture, which will contribute to market success and optimum product positioning for New Zealand animal products and animals.

FRONTLINE NEWS


The Five Freedoms1. Freedom from hunger and thirst – by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain

full health and vigour.

2. Freedom from discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.

3. Freedom from pain, injury or disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.

4. Freedom to express normal behaviour – by providing suffi cient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.

5. Freedom from fear and distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suff ering.

Animal law with teethLegislative change and legal advocacy in the 21st centuryBy Dr Ian Robertson

In 1906, J Howard Moore estimated it would take up to two centuries for humans to replace “human dominion” with a view which recognises a unity and respect of life. If Moore was right, we are about halfway through that process.



F rom a historical perspective, the legal protection of animals is a relatively recent event. Today’s focus on

animal welfare is a signifi cant step forward from days not so long ago where the views of seventeenth-century philosopher Rene Descartes – who argued that all of animal behaviour could be explained in purely mechanistic terms – set the tone for widespread abuse of animals. And as recently as the 19th century, the law failed to punish a man by the name of John Cornish for ripping out a horse’s tongue.

New Zealand’s Animals Protection Act 1960 was replaced in 1999 with the Animal Welfare Act. The diff erence between these two Acts is arguably captured in the name. The shift from “protection” of animals from acts of cruelty to an emphasis on “welfare” maintains their protection but adds to this by putting a positive duty of care on owners to provide for animals’ physical and mental needs, broadly referred to as the “fi ve freedoms” (see box on page 4).

There is signifi cant evidence of a global shift acknowledging greater responsibility in respect of animal welfare. The animal welfare initiatives central to the current European Union objectives are a prime example of regional developments. Scotland and England are the latest states to enact updated animal welfare legislation, which arguably brings their companion animal protection standards in line with those already required for their farm animals. With issues of BSE and avian infl uenza still fresh in many minds, there is increasing discussion about the possibility of animal health and welfare being recognised as trade criteria between states and within global organisations.

Increasing profi le for animal welfare lawAnimal welfare may be defi ned as the legal use of animals which involves duties regarding animals (diff erentiated from concepts of animal rights which encompasses duties to them). While issues regarding animals have been dealt with under various legal headings, animal law is a developing discipline. At a general level, animal law may be defi ned as issues of law that deal with an animal; that take into account the unique nature of animals, and additionally aff ect the relationship between humans and animals. Animal law consequently incorporates all issues of animal welfare.

The continued development of animal law as a legal discipline is evidenced by the increasing number of animal law chapters within legal jurisdictions, and by the growing number of law schools off ering

animal law as an elective course (two in New Zealand, about seven in Australia and the United Kingdom, over 60 in the United States, and others in Portugal, Switzerland, Israel, Canada and China).

There are also a large number of professional forums and conferences being held to examine the future of animal protection from a variety of legal, ethical and social perspectives. The latest conference held at Harvard Law School is one such example. Dr Ian Robertson, a lecturer in animal law at the University of Canterbury’s School of Law (see Biosecurity 73:20), was a guest speaker at the conference. In recognition of worldwide trends refl ecting a current international focus on issues of animal welfare, and globalisation of trade, he proposed that it is timely to develop a best-practice model of animal welfare legislation. Such a model may need to consider indigenous and cultural values that currently exist outside traditional western concepts of animals. It would act as a global blueprint for the future of animal welfare and serve as a benchmark for current and future animal welfare initiatives.

New channels for animal advocacyCoupled with a growing interest in animal law is the increasing use of pressure and advocacy through legal and legislative channels to bring about changes in animal welfare and animal rights. Examples of such initiatives include:

• collection of signatures on a petition to force a referendum (such as the petition to ban cages for hens in New Zealand in the 1990s)

• laying of private charges by animal advocacy organisations against corporations (such as the Humane Society of the United States suing producers of foie gras under environmental protection legislation)

• lobbying MPs for change (for instance, the distribution of a ‘Manifesto for Animal Welfare’ by Advocates for

Animals to all Scottish parliamentarians on the eve of elections)

• making submissions on pending legislation.

This trend is also represented in both New Zealand and Australia: the Animal Rights Legal Advocacy Network (ARLAN) in New Zealand has, as one of its stated aims, “To enhance the welfare and status of animals by upholding existing statutes, regulations and common law principles; and lobbying for appropriate law reform to allow humans to intervene and provide legal protection for animals.” Voiceless, an animal rights/advocacy group in Australia, has its own legal arm which aims to improve legal protection for animals, monitor and enforce laws and facilitate the development of animal law.

Advocacy successSuch legal or legislative advocacy can be very successful. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), that country’s largest animal protection organisation, has a staff of 10 full-time lawyers targeting corporations and individuals with the aim of improving animal protection and welfare. In February last year, the HSUS and other organisations collectively sued the US Department of Agriculture in relation to the slaughter of horses. In late March this year, that action eff ectively caused the closure of horse slaughter plants in the United States through a technicality relating to the need for pre-slaughter inspection of horses. It is still lobbying for a federal ban on horse slaughter.

In New Zealand, ARLAN made a complaint to the Government’s Regulations Review Committee about the confi nement of layer hens in cages, on a legal technicality under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. It argued that the code of welfare for layer hens was unlawful. Although the action did not result in a change to the code of welfare, it did serve as a reminder of the active use of due legal process in the development of animal protection legislation in New Zealand.

■ www.animal-law.biz

FRONTLINE NEWS


I n New Zealand, the National Animal Welfare Emergency Management (NAWEM) Group has been formed to

coordinate responses to disasters aff ecting animal welfare (see page 18 of this issue). The focus of this group is very much on the regional natural disasters – fl oods, droughts, volcanic eruptions and the like.

New Zealanders are also doing their bit overseas to restore services in the face of disruption caused by war. For the New Zealand Defence Force’s Provincial Reconstruction Team (NZPRT) in the Bamyan province of Afghanistan, there has been a strong animal welfare aspect to this aid.

Last summer, the NZPRT took part in a medical civilian assistance programme (MEDCAP), organised by the American military, which provided free health clinics not only for every man, woman and child in the chosen areas, but also for their livestock. New Zealanders helped the two American veterinarians who oversaw, in the space of a couple of days, the marking, drenching and vaccinating of around 3,000 horses, donkeys, cows, sheep and goats. Many of these animals had been brought from as much as a day’s walk away – treatment for saddle sores and other wounds was also provided. At the same time, the medical clinic saw more than 5,500 human patients.

Around three-quarters of Afghanistan’s people depend directly or indirectly on agriculture for their livelihood. Most

farming households use cattle to plough their wheat fi elds at planting time, while sheep and goats – for many families only a handful of animals – represent their ‘wealth’. Animal off spring and products are sold to raise cash in an emergency. The rural economy has therefore been vulnerable to outbreaks of animal diseases, a situation which has been all too common given the breakdown in the veterinary infrastructure caused by years of confl ict and neglect.

The number of veterinarians has fallen considerably in Afghanistan. In the past, all veterinarians were state employees: the provision of animal health, including national disease control programmes, food hygiene, emergency disease control and vaccination and treatment of livestock, were all considered a

government responsibility. However, as government employees, veterinarians were regarded with some suspicion following the Russian invasion in 1979, and many fl ed the country once the Russians were gone. Veterinary training has also suff ered, and subsequent confl ict has prevented the rebuilding of the veterinary infrastructure in many areas, leading to a reduction or absence in preventative health programmes.

While the NZPRT personnel found the general health of the animals was surprisingly good, considering the almost total lack of veterinary care, diseases such as anthrax, enterotoxaemia, sheep pox, blackleg and haemorrhagic septicaemia have become more prevalent. Foot and mouth disease and rinderpest are also threats.

AFGHANISTANKiwis contribute to animal welfare in war-torn countryBy Dr Virginia Williams

When a country is riven by decades of confl ict, it is not only the humans who suff er. Animals can also be a casualty when infrastructure has been torn apart by war. As part of their role in a civilian assistance programme in Afghanistan, New Zealand Defence Force personnel have been helping not only the local population, but also with the health and welfare of the animals that are such an important part of the rural economy.

Livestock are a key part of the ‘wealth’ of many Afghani families.


As well as the MEDCAPs provided by the American military, a number of groups are trying to address this situation, both nationally and internationally. With a mission to help return a self-reliant and sustainable life to the Afghan people, the Committee for Rehabilitation Aid to Afghanistan (CRAA) is a non-governmental, non-political and non-profi t-making organisation that works with groups like the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to foster economic development, agricultural development, and infrastructure projects in Afghanistan. Current projects include:

• teaching in construction, including animal shelters

• training paraveterinarians (veterinary assistants) and equipping trainees to work as mobile independent providers

• promotion of humane treatment of draft animals.

The Afghanistan Government is also working to rebuild government veterinary services to address national issues such as foot and mouth disease control. This is complemented by the work of USAID, mentioned above, which is an independent United States federal government agency that supports and provides economic and humanitarian assistance in more than 100 countries. USAID is helping to rebuild

Afghanistan’s veterinary capacity, focusing on clinical veterinary services, including training of paraveterinarians, now the largest group involved in provision of animal health care services at village level.

The Dutch Committee for Afghanistan (DCA) and the Food and Agriculture (FAO) organisation are also providing aid. The DCA has been helping improve the health and productive output of the local livestock since 1988, in particular through training, extension and the delivery of animal health services at village level. The FAO helps the Afghanistan Government monitor and prevent outbreaks of diseases

in cattle, sheep, goats and poultry and to support veterinary fi eld clinics providing vaccinations and treatments.

Meanwhile, New Zealanders will be back in the thick of it when the assistance of the NZPRT will again be enlisted for a repeat of last year’s programme this Northern summer.

• Virginia Williams is the Animal Welfare Coordinator for the New Zealand Veterinary Association.

• Photographs courtesy of Committee for Rehabilitation Aid to Afghanistan.

Promotion of humane treatment of animals is one welfare-related project currently underway in Afghanistan.

Identifying farms during an incursion responseAccess to accurate farm information is a key requirement for managing exotic disease responses.

In the May 2005 response to the Waiheke Island foot and mouth disease hoax, only 61 percent of farms on Waiheke Island were registered in AgribaseTM, New Zealand’s national register of farms owned and operated by AgriQuality Limited. The missing data signifi cantly complicated MAF’s response.

Biosecurity New Zealand’s (BNZ’s) Incursion Response System (IRS) application utilises Agribase data to support incursion responses. A recent upgrade to the IRS application enables the initial farm data to be supplemented during a response with valuation data from Territorial Local Authorities,1 and land parcel data supplied by Land Information New Zealand.

The ability to use data from these three sources provides the most accurate and up-to-date farm information to BNZ’s response teams. IRS enables the response team to identify and create missing Agribase farms, either as a batch process for an entire region, or by adding or maintaining farms individually, as shown in Figure 1.

This upgrade to IRS enables BNZ to take advantage of these three sources of property data, instead of relying on just one source. This, in turn, signifi cantly enhances BNZ’s ability to identify and locate farms within New Zealand.1 Privacy restrictions prevent BNZ from accessing valuation data in advance of an incursion. However, access may be requested for the purpose of managing a response.

■ Stephanie Mills, Systems Coordinator, Post-clearance, Biosecurity New Zealand, [email protected]

Figure 1: Editing farm areas in the IRS application.

FRONTLINE NEWS


The range of animals travelling to and from New Zealand is extensive and includes pets, production animals, racehorses, day-old chickens, laboratory and zoo animals.

Production animals and racehorses from New Zealand are highly sought after because of their genetic merit and our freedom from major exotic diseases.

Due to our geographical isolation, animals may have to travel long distances, either by sea or air. Welfare during transport has become a high-profi le issue, and a number of international organisations, such as the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Compassion in World Farming and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are now campaigning against long-distance transport of animals. Some airlines refuse to carry certain animals such as birds, and others will not carry specifi c breeds of dogs.

Ensuring the welfare of animals during transport is paramount, both from the animal’s point of view, and for the owners or buyers (including consumers) who want the animal to arrive fi t and healthy.

What, then, are the rules and regulations to ensure welfare during transport? As well as each country’s domestic standards and legislation (such as New Zealand’s Animal Welfare Act 1999 and associated codes of welfare), a number of international organisations have developed standards or guidelines.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) produces the Live Animals Regulations which are updated annually. These regulations support one of the IATA’s principal roles, which is to develop standards and procedures to facilitate the safe international transport of animals. Most of the world’s airlines are members of IATA, which therefore compels them to comply with the Regulations. The regulations are also adopted by a number of organisations, such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and by a large number of countries. If you want to fi nd out how to safely transport anything from earwigs to elephants, the IATA regulations will tell you.

The Animal Transport Association (AATA) has produced a manual for the transportation of live animals. AATA is committed to the safe and humane transport of animals, whether by sea, air or land. It is a voluntary organisation, and while membership is weighted towards Europe and North America, participants from many countries contribute to annual conferences and the production of the manual. The manual (now in its second edition) is applicable in any country. AATA has strong links with IATA and the OIE.

The OIE is a relatively new player on the international animal transport scene, and has recently produced guidelines for the welfare of animals during land and sea transport. The guidelines are closely aligned with the AATA manual, the Australian Livestock Export Standards, the Australia Maritime Safety Authority Marine Orders and the European Convention for the Protection of Animals During International Transport. Guidelines for air transport are due to be produced and these will be closely associated with the IATA Live Animals Regulations.

New Zealand’s Animal Welfare Act 1999 allows for strong measures in regard to animal welfare during international transport. The Act requires that all animals exported from New Zealand, unless specifi cally exempted, must be issued with an animal welfare export certifi cate. The Act provides for the imposition (and therefore compliance with) any international standards and domestic requirements during the transport process.

New Zealand participates in all of the above forums. While we are smaller players, our high animal welfare status, both from a legislative and experiential perspective, means that we have much to off er to the setting of worldwide standards.

For more information about animal welfare export certifi cates:

■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/codes-and-guidelines/awecs

For more information about the IATA Live Animals Regulations:

■ www.iata.org/ps/publications/9105.htm

Many live animals are transported in and out of New Zealand each year, and from our isolated corner of the globe, this can mean a long journey. In this article, Wayne Ricketts of the MAF Compliance and Enforcement Group looks at the rules and regulations that are designed to ensure the welfare of these animals is protected.

Animal welfare during international transport


As part of a national early warning surveillance programme for exotic plant pests, Biosecurity New Zealand (BNZ) conducts pest inspections in identifi ed high-risk sites around New Zealand. The high-risk site surveillance (HRSS) programme undertakes phytosanitary (plant health) surveys in areas that are at increased risk of introduction of pests. Typically, these are pest pathways such as ports and transitional facilities.1

A new methodology and increased funding introduced in 2005 have increased the rate of signifi cant plant pests detected, reversing a previous trend towards fewer

detections recorded.

Programme goalsThe primary goal of the HRSS programme is to provide eff ective detections of plant pests that have potentially adverse eff ects on the environment, economy or people of New Zealand. To be characterised as ‘eff ective’, the detection of a pest species (e.g., an exotic insect or pathogen) will happen at a stage where:

• the maximum range of management options is available; and

• the possibility of eradication is maximised, while economic and social impacts are minimised.

The programme also monitors changes in plant pest hosts and distributions. These secondary detections constitute an important goal of the surveillance eff ort and are necessary for BNZ to meet international reporting requirements.

First year resultsIn response to the introduction of the revamped HRSS programme in 2005, there has been an increase in signifi cant fi nds. This has off set a trend towards reducing numbers of fi nds over the previous three years. Figure 1 demonstrates this by totalling the number of pests found in each category during the surveillance season.

Field workThe fi eld work is carried out by surveyors from Target Pest and Forest Health Dynamics who are contracted to AgriQuality Limited. To support the programme, AgriQuality maintains a database and geographic information system which captures vegetation species surveyed and inspection details.

In the fi eld, close physical inspections of vegetation in transects, set up in and around the identifi ed high-risk sites, form the core survey method. Time is allocated to extensive and discretionary phases to provide fl exibility. Diagnostics of suspect samples from tree species is contracted to Ensis, with BNZ’s Investigation and Diagnostic Centres (IDC) covering the remaining species.

While the surveyors are very experienced (an average of over 20 years of experience in biosecurity plant health), AgriQuality has worked with Forest Industries Training and Education Council (FITEC) to produce a Unit Standard (NZQA Standard 22984 – Carry out high-risk site surveillance in the urban forest environment) to ensure that surveyors can maintain and enhance their skills.

The HRSS contractors work with landowners and councils to ensure good coverage of risk sites around the country, and identify any areas of plant decline which may indicate a potential new pest presence. A recent workshop for the surveyors involved a ‘Bio-Blitz’ in the Auckland Botanic Gardens using the HRSS methodology, and a large number of pest samples were taken.

■ Paul Stevens, Senior Adviser Surveillance, Post-clearance, Biosecurity New Zealand, [email protected]

1 Transitional facilities hold, inspect, treat or destroy and dispose of uncleared risk goods imported into New Zealand. They operate under a standard which details the minimum requirements for approval and monitoring of transitional facilities functions.

HIGH-RISK SITE SURVEILLANCE

Post-border detection of plant pests improved

Figure 1: High-risk site surveillance plant pest detections, 2002-2006.

HRSS surveyor carries out a close visual inspection of vegetation during the survey.

FRONTLINE NEWS


The surveillance was the fi rst awareness and data collection exercise to be carried out on invasive

ants in Fiji, in particular the red imported fi re ant or RIFA (Solenopsis invicta), and little fi re ant (Wasmannia auropunctata).

RIFA, in particular, has the potential to cause serious negative socio-economic impacts. A RIFA incursion is under an eradication programme in Hawke’s Bay (see Biosecurity 74:12) and major incursions in the Australian cities of Brisbane and Gladstone are also subject to eradication attempts. The ant is well established in the southern United States and China, and is spreading in Taiwan. So far, no colonies of RIFA have been reported or detected anywhere in the Pacifi c Islands.

Island ecosystems are generally very vulnerable to changes induced by

introduced organisms. Invasive ants, some of which are referred to as ‘tramp’ ants, are those species that have proved to be successful invaders and colonisers of novel environments. Their ability to hitchhike on a wide range of international trade pathways is second to none. Given the increasing levels of international trade through the region, the invasiveness of RIFA and the Pacifi c Islands’ cultural, climatic, environmental and biosecurity systems, it is inevitable that RIFA will eventually attempt to colonise the region.

Timely and ongoing surveillance of high-risk areas (such as ports and airports) is critical to closely monitor the presence of invasive ants. The current emergency ant surveillance in Fiji is in response to the interception of RIFA on a yacht in Auckland. Apparently the yacht had begun

its voyage from the Caribbean, where RIFA is already a problem, and it sailed through several Pacifi c Islands including Fiji before arriving in Auckland late last year.

Staff trained throughout Pacifi cThe Land Resources Division of the Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community (SPC) helped equip and train two teams prior to their respective missions, using methodologies and training provided by Biosecurity New Zealand in the Pacifi c Invasive Ant Surveillance Programme (PIAS). PIAS, funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Aff airs and Trade, was initially conducted in early 2006. The programme provided training to over 70 staff throughout the Pacifi c, and surveyed 19 high-risk sites for the presence of invasive ants. A second round of training

Operation Kadridri – surveillance Operation Kadridri – surveillance for invasive antsfor invasive antsWarea Orapa, Secretariat of the Pacifi c CommunityWarea Orapa, Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community

Over the last month, two teams from the Fiji Quarantine and Inspection Division (FQID) have conducted surveillance for suspected invasive ants in high-risk areas in north-western Viti Levu, under ‘Operation Kadridri’. (‘Kadridri’ is the word for ‘ants’ in the local Yasawa dialect.)

By Megan Sarty, Biosecurity New Zealand


and surveillance is planned for late 2007 and will cover 32 high-risk sites in 13 Pacifi c Island countries.

Ant survey in high-risk areaTwo quarantine teams visited the Yasawa and Mamanuca groups of islands and the greater Nadi area, including Denarau Mariner, Saweni Beach Resort and the Sheraton Beachfront. The geographical location of the initial surveillance is signifi cant as it is highly popular with overseas tourists and thus a potentially high-risk area for hitch-hiking invasive ants to reach Fiji. The teams were given GPS units, small plastic bottles with bait to catch ants, and grid maps. FQID supplied raincoats, caps, safety shoes, gloves and torches. Ant samples collected from the surveys have been frozen and sent to New Zealand for identifi cation.

More importantly, the teams were briefed by SPC staff on the signifi cance of the ant surveillance and the need to work as a team. Apart from surveillance, the teams also investigated public awareness around the risks and dangers of RIFA among rural villagers and hotel workers and the need to look out for new insect pests, weeds and diseases. Pests pose a threat to Fiji’s multi-million dollar agriculture export industry as well as to island biodiversity and livelihoods. Leafl ets on invasive ants produced by SPC were distributed as public awareness materials.

Pacifi c Ant Prevention ProgrammeThe Fiji ant surveillance is part of the regional programme, the Pacifi c Ant

Prevention Programme (PAPP). PAPP is a regional multi-agency initiative endorsed by SPC member countries and territories. The main objectives of the PAPP are to:

• increase awareness on the potential threats posed by invasive ants in Pacifi c islands

• develop and put in place invasive ant emergency response systems and management methods

• develop national capacities to deal with new incursions.

To ensure the sustainability of activities on invasive ants, including surveillance and awareness, SPC has taken responsibility for managing of the PAPP. However, full implementation of PAPP is multi-sectoral, involving many partners including the Samoa-based Secretariat of the Pacifi c Regional Environment Programme, the

Pacifi c Invasives Initiative based out of Auckland University, Biosecurity New Zealand and the US Department of Agriculture.

The involvement and contributions to this regional eff ort by biosecurity and conservation agencies, local communities, agricultural producers and exporters and the tourism and hospitality sectors would place the Pacifi c Community in a strategic position to restrict invasive species like RIFA from marching across the Pacifi c. Everyone in the Pacifi c region, from tourists and big exporting companies to subsistence farmers, will ultimately benefi t from preventing the spread of high-impact invasive species such as the fi re ants.

■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests-diseases/animals/invasive-ants/invasive-ants-factsheet.pdf

■ Megan Sarty, Senior Adviser, Post-clearance, Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0665 or 029 894 0665, [email protected]

Secretariat of the Pacifi c CommunityThe Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community or SPC is a regional intergovernmental organisation whose membership includes both nations and territories. It aims to “develop the technical, professional, scientifi c, research, planning and management capability of Pacifi c Island people and directly provide information and advice, to enable them to make informed decisions about their future development and well-being.”

www.spc.int/AC/Vision.htm

Singapore Ants (Monomorium destructor) caught inside a protein bait trap, ready to be frozen and then identifi ed.

Papua New Guinea Quarantine Offi cers conducting port surveillance as part of the Pacifi c invasive

ant surveillance programme.

FRONTLINE NEWS


Naya Brangenberg recently joined the Post-clearance Directorate of Biosecurity New Zealand (BNZ) as an Adviser, Animal Response. Naya was in private veterinary practice in Lower Hutt prior to joining BNZ. She will be working on response plans for several OIE (World Animal Health Organisation) listed diseases of horses, deer, and aquatic animals. Naya came to New Zealand in 2004 after fi nishing veterinary

school; she has a DVM from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and undergraduate degrees in biology and wildlife biology from the University of Alaska-Fairbanks.

Suzanne Gallagher has joined the BNZ Project Offi ce as a Project Manager. Suzanne will initially be working in the System Design Group in the Post-clearance Directorate, managing small-to-medium projects. The projects she will work on aim to increase operational effi ciency in this area.

Suzanne comes to BNZ from a telecommunications company in the United

Kingdom, where she worked as a Project Manager in the Product Development area, focusing on business process design and implementation. Suzanne has a Bachelor of Science in Plant Biology and Biotechnology.

PEOPLEIN BIOSECURITY

As part of the Styela clava response, Biosecurity New Zealand (BNZ) is running a range of research projects aimed at understanding how the organism operates in the local environment, and how it could be managed here. This research will ultimately inform the longer term management plan for Styela. The long-term management strategy for this marine pest will ultimately involve consultation with the wider group of industries and stakeholders aff ected by Styela.

Potential Styela presence in WellingtonBNZ is currently investigating the possibility of the spread of Styela into Wellington Harbour. A heavily fouled yacht was moored in the Port Nicholson Marina for more than six months; the fouling included mature specimens of Styela. The vessel was removed from the water and thoroughly cleaned.

With the proximity of the high-value Marlborough Sounds and Nelson areas, this discovery is a concern. BNZ is organising an inspection of the marina around where the yacht was moored, to check for Styela.

The vessel apparently began its journey in Auckland, before heading to Wellington via a couple of months’ lay-up in Napier.

CommunicationsWork is currently underway on new information resources for marine users, again stressing the importance of vessel hull cleaning. The objective will be to help prevent the further spread of Styela and other marine pests. Development of the new resource involves some research into the boating habits of both recreational and commercial users.

Population management trialsField surveys for Styela clava (using both above water and diver searches) have been completed at Lyttelton Port and Marina and Tutukaka Marina. Styela was found at all three locations, but in highly contrasting densities. The population within Tutukaka has remained low, while the populations in Lyttelton appear to have increased considerably since the last survey in 2005. The survey results are currently being analysed and databases searched for patterns of vessel movement.

High-value areas of concern to each of the three survey locations have been successfully identifi ed and eff orts are now focusing on identifying potential management strategies to protect the high-value areas.

Assessment of reproductive activityResearch on the reproductive biology of Styela clava is continuing in Auckland. To date, results suggest Styela has two or three periods of high reproductive potential throughout the year, mainly through spring, summer and autumn. However, no larvae or young recruits have been detected in the water column or on settlement plates in the sampling areas,

despite the presence of reproductively active adults in the vicinity. Sampling and analysis of results is ongoing.

Genetic diversity of Styela in New ZealandAn analysis of the genetic lineages in Styela populations in New Zealand is underway. Results will be compared with samples from overseas, with a view to determining possible pathways by which Styela may have arrived here. Early results suggest multiple introductions, with North and South Island populations showing slightly diff erent genetic patterns. Samples from a number of additional locations have recently been collected, mainly from the North Island, with emphasis on the Hauraki Gulf.

■ Lesley Patston, Senior Communications Adviser, Biosecurity New Zealand, phone (04) 894 0163, (029) 894 0163, lesley [email protected]

Styela sea squirt response: update


A bove and beyond these measures, there are several initiatives and organisations involved in

improving animal welfare in research, testing and teaching. These each have diff erent roles.

ANZCCARTANZCCART, the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching, promotes the responsible use of animals in research and teaching, and fosters informed discussion and debate within the community.

NAEACNAEAC, the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee, provides independent, expert advice to the Minister of Agriculture on policy and practices relating to the use of animals in research, testing and teaching. The committee supports animal ethics committees in their work and it, too, promotes excellence in animal use in research, testing and teaching. One way it does this is through the annual ‘Three Rs Award’, which recognises achievement in implementation of the Three Rs by an individual or organisation.

The New Zealand Three Rs ProgrammeThe New Zealand Three Rs Programme is a more recent development. It was established to promote the Three Rs of research, testing and teaching in New Zealand. It was fi rst proposed in 2005 and has been developed since then by the Massey University Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre (AWSBC), with support from MAF.

The programme is intended to complement other Three Rs centres throughout the world, while retaining a distinct New Zealand emphasis. Professor David Mellor is Director of the AWSBC and co-founder of the Three Rs Programme.

“Uniquely, the New Zealand Three Rs Programme integrates scientifi c, scholarly, bioethical, regulatory, advisory and policy dimensions of the Three Rs with national and international applications. It will reinforce the deserved recognition New Zealand enjoys in this arena internationally,” he says.

While the programme is physically based at Massey University, it is, in reality, a ‘virtual’ organisation with representatives from throughout New Zealand and international links.

Professor Mellor stresses, “The New Zealand Three Rs Programme is a national entity, open to all with an interest in quality Three Rs research and scholarship.”

The programme’s fi rst project is an examination of the activity that is intended to replace, reduce and refi ne animal use, and that occurs before an

application for research, testing or teaching is even seen by an animal ethics committee.

In 2007, Professor Mellor will be working with key stakeholders to secure further funding to achieve its aims and sponsor research into the Three Rs, and to identify further collaborators in New Zealand and elsewhere. Estendart, a Massey-based contract research company, is fi rst off the blocks to provide some fi nancial support for the programme.

Other upcoming developments from the programme include:

• a new website with links to New Zealand sources for information to ‘lift your game’

• an email discussion group

• a searchable database on alternatives available in New Zealand

• workshops and visiting speakers

• best practice advice and model policies

• funding for research into replacement, reduction and refi nement.

Watch this space!

For more information about ANZCCART

■ www.rsnz.org/advisory/anzccart

For more information about NAEAC

■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/naeac

■ Dr Kate Littin, Technical Adviser Animal Welfare, [email protected], phone 04 894 0373

■ Professor David J Mellor, [email protected], phone 06 350 4807

Three Rs programme promoting humane scienceAnimal use in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand is comprehensively regulated – it must be approved by animal ethics committees, and these committees in turn must act according to a code of ethical conduct. Codes are approved by MAF after consultation with the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) and are subject to regular reviews. Also, all animal users must return statistics each year to provide a public record of the numbers and types of animals used and the severity of the procedures they were used for.

The Three RsReplacement – replace the use of animals in research, testing and teaching with non-animal alternatives, or use less sentient animals or animal tissue.

Reduction – if you must use animals, reduce the number needed to the minimum required to still achieve a meaningful result.

Refi nement – in your use of animals, refi ne practices to minimise suff ering (e.g. use appropriate pain relief; euthanase when pain or distress is evident).

What does the New Zealand Three Rs Programme do?

The programme has four goals:

1. Profi le New Zealand’s Three Rs contributions

2. Promote understanding, application and development of the Three Rs

3. Network and liaise with other Three Rs centres internationally

4. Critically assess Three Rs developments in New Zealand and elsewhere.

BIOSECURITY SCIENCE

BIOSECURITY SCIENCE


There are several marine phytoplankton in New Zealand that can produce toxic compounds. These phytoplankton can bloom under favourable environmental conditions and

the biotoxins concentrated by shellfi sh as they fi lter feed. People can become seriously ill if they eat shellfi sh that are suffi ciently contaminated with these biotoxins.

There are eight toxin groups of concern (based on chemical structure) and each toxin group contains multiple toxin analogues (chemicals with a similar structure but slightly diff erent composition). They produce a range of symptoms, including vomiting, headaches, diarrhoea, neurological problems and, in extreme cases, death.

Biotoxin problem relatively recentPrior to 1993, New Zealand had no recorded incidence of shellfi sh biotoxins of public health signifi cance. Following a signifi cant outbreak of poisoning cases in 1993, a comprehensive national management plan was implemented, including the routine monitoring of shellfi sh for marine biotoxins.

Many other countries have adopted similar monitoring programmes, in order to protect public health. Most of these countries stipulate the use of the mouse bioassay for detecting the presence of marine biotoxins in shellfi sh tissues. New Zealand does not require the use of the mouse bioassay for testing all marine biotoxins. In fact, New Zealand is leading the world in the adoption of improved non-mouse test methods.

Shortcomings of mouse bioassayThe mouse bioassays used to detect and quantify marine biotoxins are non-validated procedures, which are prone to interferences, and entail the use of large numbers of animals. In New Zealand, this testing is considered to fall into the ‘very severe suff ering’ category. Nearly 12,000 mice were used in this category in 2005. Of these, 77.6 percent were used for testing, including shellfi sh toxin testing. Essentially, the test requires administration of a shellfi sh extract to the mice.

It is accepted internationally that the mouse bioassays for the diarrhetic (producing diarrhoea) and paralytic (producing paralysis) shellfi sh poison groups (DSP and PSP) are also defi cient for various reasons, animal welfare impacts notwithstanding. For example, the mouse bioassay for the DSP toxins is not consistently able to meet the regulated limit for DSP toxins in shellfi sh.

Various types of non-animal-based methods for the detection of toxins have been developed and validated world-wide. These involve direct measurement of the level of toxin in extracts of shellfi sh using several new methods. In addition, monitoring for phytoplankton levels and environmental conditions for potential blooms has been enhanced and is often used in concert with the other tests.

World fi rstIn 2000 and 2001, the Cawthron Institute (Nelson, New Zealand) developed, validated and implemented a liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LCMS)-based method for the detection of 17 toxins in four of the eight toxin groups. In 2001, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) approved the Cawthron LCMS method for regulatory use in New Zealand – this was the fi rst such approval issued world-wide. The LCMS method has proved to be faster, more sensitive, and more specifi c than the mouse bioassay. The introduction of this LCMS method in New Zealand has seen a signifi cant reduction in the number of mouse bioassays being undertaken (see Figure 1).

While New Zealand has developed and implemented alternative testing methods, progress in many other countries has taken a diff erent tack. Changes in the United Kingdom in recent years have mainly focused on reducing the number of animals used

Toxic terminologyBiotoxin: a poisonous compound produced by a living thing.

Phytoplankton: the microscopic plants making up some of the plankton in our oceans.

Bioassay: a test that uses a living animal or animal organs. A mouse bioassay uses mice or a preparation of mouse tissue.

Shellfi sh toxin testing without using animalsThe freedom to enjoy a feed of shellfi sh has been an important part of New Zealanders’ culture since humans fi rst arrived here. Shellfi sh also play an important part in our economy, generating hundreds of millions of export dollars. In certain conditions, naturally occurring toxins in the sea can be picked up by shellfi sh. While not harmful to the shellfi sh, they can be poisonous to people who eat them. Testing for these toxins is therefore vitally important for the protection of human health and our export markets. Large numbers of mice have had to be used for these tests, but a New Zealand-led development could see the use of animals for shellfi sh toxin testing phased out completely.


for each test and the refi nement of the mouse bioassay so that animals suff er less (by the use of euthanasia at an earlier stage in the test). Within the EU, only Germany has abandoned the mouse bioassay for testing shellfi sh. A workshop organised by the European Commission in 2005 recommended that: “Since non-animal methods providing equivalent or better public health provision are available, these can serve as monitoring methods, which should be used by the competent authorities, thereby leading to a signifi cant reduction in animal tests.”

International endorsement for non-animal methodDuring a recent international conference on molluscan shellfi sh safety in Blenheim, a round table discussion on international regulatory changes in marine biotoxin standards was held with key experts from Europe, Canada, the United States and New Zealand. A unanimous outcome of this session was that non-animal methods are validated and available for use and that these should be implemented on a country-by-country basis.

There are several obstacles to the implementation of these methods:

• lack of harmonised validation criteria for judging method acceptability

• limited availability of certifi ed reference materials

• lack of cohesion between regulators and scientists

• lack of toxic equivalence factors (a means of comparing the toxicity of very diff erent compounds) for calculating the potency of toxin analogues.

In New Zealand, the export focus of New Zealand’s shellfi sh industry requires NZFSA to ensure compliance with the regulations of importing nations. Nonetheless, the NZFSA has a strong commitment to the implementation of non-animal-based testing methods.

■ Dr Catherine Seamer, Senior Adviser, Science Group, New Zealand Food Safety Authority, [email protected]

“New Zealand is leading the world

in the adoption of improved

non-mouse test methods”

Figure 1: Number of mice used per year in support of the New Zealand marine biotoxin monitoring. Graph kindly provided by Paul McNabb, Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand.

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

1992/3 biotoxin event

Phytoplankton monitoring introduced

Phytoplankton monitoring increased

LC-MS introduced

Goal

Mou

se n

umbe

rs

•

•

••

•

BIOSECURITY SCIENCE


The survey results showed that, for an animal welfare conscious (e.g., northern EU) consumer, more than 50 percent consider animal welfare when purchasing

meat, 56–72 percent identify the production system on the label, and 70–94 percent believe animal welfare on farms can be infl uenced by purchasing behaviour. Further, the Eurobarometer report identifi ed several signifi cant barriers for consumers in exercising their choice of products, namely, lack of information, lack of availability and lack of trust in the food production systems. It was considered that labelling would be one eff ective way to overcome the lack of information and help consumers choose between “minimum” and “higher” welfare standards.

In addition to the Eurobarometer studies, the EU has developed a Five Year Action Plan (2006–2010) (EU, 2006) with the broad aim of developing mechanisms to prevent diff erences in animal welfare standards internationally from undermining higher animal welfare elsewhere. One of the key actions centres on the introduction of standardised animal welfare indicators. These would:

• assist consumers in making ethically based food purchases by providing them with the means to diff erentiate products based on animal welfare standards in the market place

• serve as the basis for an animal welfare label

• help in improving animal welfare (and its transparency to consumers) in production systems.

The EU’s aspirations in animal welfare are supported by its “Welfare Quality®: Integration of Animal Welfare in the Food Quality Chain” research programme. Not including national contributions, the project has a budget of about €14 million over fi ve years.

The aims of the research programme are unique internationally, in that they involve working across the supply chain (producers, processors, retailers, food service sector and consumers) to promote the application of animal welfare measurement at all stages of the process, from consumption right back to production. Their success in developing the partnerships and research is described in their latest newsletter (Welfare Quality, 2007).

The monitoring system being developed involves assessments under four key areas: nutrition, health, housing and behaviour. For example, in the nutrition area, proposed measurable indicators include body condition score and accessibility of water (Keeling and Veissier, 2005). Where possible, the focus is on outcome-based measures like body condition score, rather than on resource-based measures (e.g., food availability) as these usually provide a better indication of the impacts on the animal.

From a measurement perspective, several key elements must be addressed before a monitoring scheme can be used with

confi dence in practice. It must be reliable (have good agreement both between independent observers and with the same observer on separate occasions) and valid (correspond with the actual welfare status of the animal).

Over the fi rst two years of the programme, Welfare Quality has developed a draft set of monitoring tools and is currently evaluating the feasibility and reliability of using these in commercial production systems for intensively reared cattle, pigs and poultry. The scientifi c validity of the some of the indicators is likely to require further research. For example, while it is possible to score the body condition of livestock reliably, there is little evidence in the scientifi c literature that can be used in setting appropriate levels of body condition to satisfy the animal welfare requirements of all species.

Welfare Quality® research programme backs EU action planBy Dr Lindsay Matthews

The European Union (EU) is intensifying its activities in the animal welfare arena, partly as a result of a 2005 survey which “noted a seismic shift in consumer opinion towards promoting animal welfare” (Eurobarometer, 2005).

More than 50 percent of European consumers consider animal welfare when purchasing meat.


As mentioned above, the EU and Welfare Quality aim to develop and apply a monitoring scheme that can diff erentiate between diff erent levels of welfare. Clearly, such a system will require a validated process for setting thresholds and for defi ning boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable welfare. As part of this process, Welfare Quality is holding a one-day workshop in Berlin this May (in conjunction with their second Welfare Quality conference) with their advisory committee and scientifi c board. The aim of the workshop is to obtain expert scientifi c opinion on the proposed welfare assessment system, weightings of welfare outcome areas, and thresholds for acceptable welfare.

The Welfare Quality research programme also seeks to improve animal welfare by assessing animal management practices in current (mainly intensively housed) production systems and, where necessary, developing or recommending improved alternatives. In New Zealand, AgResearch and Dexcel are collaborating with livestock industries and international research groups to identify appropriate, validated, objective measures of welfare relevant to our pastoral production systems.

See future issues of Biosecurity for updates on the Welfare Quality project and reports on the second Welfare Quality conference and workshop.

For more information on Welfare Quality:

■ www.welfarequality.net/everyone

■ [email protected]

References

EU, 2006: The Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006–2010 http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/actionplan_en.htm

Eurobarometer, 2005: Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_en.pdf

Keeling L., Veissier I. 2005: Developing a monitoring system to assess welfare quality in cattle, pigs and chickens. In: Science and society improving welfare, Welfare Quality Conference proceedings (Ed A. Butterworth), 17–18 Nov, Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/sum_proceed_wq_conf_en.pdf

Welfare Quality. 2007: Electronic newsletter of the Welfare Quality Project FOOD-CT-2004-506508 www.welfarequality.net/ezine.m?id=345450

• Lindsay Matthews is Science Programme Leader, AgResearch Ruakura and a member of the Scientifi c Board for the EU’s Welfare Quality® research programme.

Lindsay Matthews.

While most people would agree that oysters and mussels do not feel pain, the same cannot be said for fi sh.

In a recent talk in the Biosecurity New Zealand Science Seminar Series, entitled “Underwater, no one can hear you scream … although interestingly enough …”, Biosecurity New Zealand’s Dr Colin Johnston summarised current thinking on, and attitudes to, pain and distress in fi sh.

Colin has a background in aquaculture, and aquatic animal and fi sh disease. His talk focused on the evidence for and against fi sh feeling pain, and mechanisms by which it is proposed that fi sh could be aware of pain. While there will always be a range of strongly expressed beliefs, there is recent evidence to support a theory that fi sh are aware of, what we would consider to be, painful experiences. Currently, the focus for debate rests more upon their ‘mental representations’ of those experiences. In terms of animal welfare, the latter might not be so important. Of this, Colin said, “I think it is fair to say that the experience does not have to be identical to that in humans to still be signifi cant to the animal.”

In any case, everyone is agreed that chronic adverse stimuli cause debilitating stress responses in fi sh. Aquatic industries and regulatory authorities throughout the world are taking the issue seriously and turning their attention to the development of guidelines and rules to protect fi sh welfare in aquaculture. Recreational and commercial fi shing are also attracting increasing attention.

■ Dr Colin Johnston, Senior Adviser, Risk Analysis Group, Pre-clearance Directorate, Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0689, [email protected]

Dr Colin Johnston.

Clarifi cation: Biosystematics article in Biosecurity 74: 17, 19Barney Stephenson, Biosecurity New Zealand, was the originator of the quote at the beginning of this article, and not the author of the article. The article itself was written by Shaun Pennycook of Landcare Research. Our apologies for any misunderstanding that may have been caused.

FishFishpain

revisited

BIOSECURITY SYSTEMS


National Animal Welfare Emergency Management Group

COORDINATING WELFARE RESPONSE TO NATURAL DISASTERSDisasters can conjure up many diff erent images. One of the most notorious natural disasters in recent times was the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. While New Zealand has been fortunate to have avoided an emergency of this size and scale, it still has to cope with its own share of “nature running amok”.

E vents such as the lower North Island fl ood of February 2004, the Canterbury snow storm in

June 2006 and the Bay of Islands fl ood in March 2007 provide ample evidence that we are not immune from natural disasters. And the bad news is that climate change is expected to increase the frequency, intensity, and magnitude of these adverse events.

Farmed animals vulnerableWhat does this reality mean for New Zealand’s livestock industries? Farmed animals occupy close to 50 percent of our land mass and are therefore particularly at risk in major adverse events. Our economy, with 42 percent of merchandise exports derived from animal products, shares this vulnerability.

The better its state of preparedness for adverse events, then, the better that ‘New Zealand Inc’ can ensure both the welfare of its farmed animals, and its economic viability. This is where the National Animal Welfare Emergency Management (NAWEM) Group fi ts into the picture.

NAWEM is a relatively new group, having met for the fi rst time in April 2006. Its members are representatives from:

• Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF)

• Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM)

• Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc (FF)

• Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) Inc

• World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)

• New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA).

The organisations which comprise NAWEM were selected because of their national or international scope, operational focus and expertise in

working with animals on a daily basis or during civil defence emergencies.

NAWEM recognises the need for coordination and sharing of resources during emergencies, at both the national and regional level. It aims to:

• raise awareness of the importance of planning for animal welfare management during adverse events

• promote animal welfare emergency management training resources

• coordinate responses to animal welfare issues during adverse events.

Raising awareness: stakeholder meetingSo, how is NAWEM going about achieving these objectives? Regarding the fi rst goal of raising awareness, NAWEM hosted its fi rst public stakeholder meeting

in Wellington on 12 April 2007. The purpose of the meeting was to present to the audience:

• international and national perspectives on management of animal welfare during emergencies; and

• the work that NAWEM has been doing to advance New Zealand’s preparedness for protecting the welfare of livestock and companion animals during adverse events.

About 60 people attended the meeting, from a wide range of animal welfare stakeholder organisations.

Phot

oNew

Zeal

and/

Tony

Ste

war

t


Speaking at the meeting, Agriculture Minister Jim Anderton underlined the importance of groups working in partnership to care for animals when there is extreme weather. “The need for coordinated work has been highlighted by dramatic weather events. Few of us from Canterbury have forgotten last year’s snow. Back then we saw the critical relationship between climate, feed and animal welfare,” he said.

“In a country as dependent as ours on animals and weather, the welfare of our animals and their care is more than an academic or marginal issue. There are a lot of groups with a concern for animal welfare in New Zealand − and the benefi ts of working in partnership are so clear that it is surprising that the national group is a recent initiative.”

He urged all those with a stake in the animal industries to ensure they have high standards of care and are prepared for “the inevitable”.

“Our community expects a well coordinated and effi cient response to animal welfare issues during adverse events like storms. We are vulnerable, too, to international trade repercussions, unless we can demonstrate the highest standards of animal care. Consumers in our export markets increasingly want to know that products have been farmed ethically, and they will react to poor animal welfare stories. Negative stories in international media can badly damage our reputation.

“The more knowledge we have, the better we can coordinate our responses and secure the viability of both individual farmers and the wider animal-based industries,” the Minister concluded.

NAWEM Group Chair, Dr Ian Dacre, said NAWEM gratefully acknowledges the

support it was given by the Minister of Agriculture in his opening address to the fi rst stakeholder briefi ng and discussion afternoon of NAWEM on 12 April.

Training resourcesConcerning its second objective of promoting training resources, NAWEM has applied to the Sustainable Farming Fund for a grant to host a series of stakeholder workshops. If the bid is successful, NAWEM plans to host an annual training workshop, for three consecutive years, on the techniques of managing animal welfare issues during emergencies.

NAWEM is also planning to send two delegates from New Zealand to a Disaster Response Technical Training Course, in November 2007, which is being provided by WSPA. Among the key objectives for the course are that each participant would:

• understand response options to diff erent core disasters and recommended best practice response including veterinary remedial action; and

• gain an awareness of technical rescue techniques and the dangers disaster operations pose to responders.

It is anticipated the participants for the course will comprise 12 WSPA disaster staff , plus 12 delegates from key global member societies including Australia and New Zealand, as well as a delegation from China. The New Zealand delegates will be feeding the information they have gained during this course back into NAWEM’s annual animal welfare emergency management stakeholder workshops referred to above.

Coordinating welfare responsesRegarding its third objective, of coordinating responses to animal welfare issues during adverse events, NAWEM will

channel its animal welfare advice through MCDEM’s civil defence and emergency management infrastructure. MCDEM has divided New Zealand into 16 civil defence and emergency management regions. Each of these regions has a welfare advisory group (WAG), responsible for looking after all welfare issues during an emergency. NAWEM will be appointing an Animal Welfare Coordinator, from the NZVA, to assist each WAG in the management of its animal welfare issues.

During an emergency which is localised to a specifi c region, the respective Regional Animal Welfare Coordinator will provide, with assistance from NAWEM members if necessary, the required animal welfare advice. During a national emergency, NAWEM will convene in Wellington to receive and coordinate information from the Regional Animal Welfare Coordinators.

A work in progressWhile none of NAWEM’s key objectives have yet been met, it is a work in progress. Although animal welfare is ultimately an individual responsibility fi rst, NAWEM recognises that a well-coordinated and effi cient response to animal welfare issues during an adverse event will yield many benefi ts. It will ensure that the welfare of our animals is looked after to the maximum degree possible under such circumstances. In addition, a well-executed response will improve community resilience and ensure the long-term economic viability of both individual farmers and the wider industry.

For more information about NAWEM, or to discuss how your organisation could become involved, please contact:

■ Roger Poland, Senior Adviser, Animal Welfare, phone 04 894 0372, [email protected]

The recent Northland fl oods are a reminder that New Zealand is not immune from natural disasters, with consequences for animal, as well as human, welfare. Photo: Gill Jackson.

BIOSECURITY SYSTEMS


The Animal Welfare Group (AWG) is a specialised part of Biosecurity New Zealand. The group is a key player in the implementation of MAF’s Animal Welfare Mission (see editorial, this issue). So what are the key roles of the Animal Welfare Group?• Developing and implementing animal welfare policies and

standardsThe AWG supports society’s expectations for the welfare and humane treatment of animals and the development of animal welfare standards (mainly codes of welfare and codes of ethical conduct), within New Zealand agriculture, which will contribute to market success and optimum product positioning for New Zealand animal products and animals.

• Supporting two independent ministerial advisory committeesThe AWG provides secretariat and scientifi c support to two independent ministerial advisory committees, the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC). These two committees comprise members nominated by the main stakeholders (farming groups, RSPCA, New Zealand Veterinary Association, scientists, etc). They are responsible for developing new codes of welfare and ensuring that research groups comply with the appropriate standards.

• Supporting the training and appointment of animal welfare inspectorsAnimal welfare inspectors have a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and enforcement where required. Inspectors come from MAF Compliance and Enforcement Group, the SPCA, the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) Verifi cation Agency (see below), and every member of the Police force is an inspector.

• Domestic and international relationship managementThe nine members of the AWG each have diff erent roles and are each responsible for managing relationships with key domestic and international stakeholders.

• Encouraging appropriate and adequate management of animal welfare in emergenciesSupporting the development and function of the National Animal Welfare Emergency Management Group (see page 18 this issue).

• Identifying research prioritiesScience is the principal driver for identifying and confi rming animal welfare needs. To promote the use of science-based standards, the AWG works closely with veterinarians, animal welfare and behavioural scientists and other researchers. Where information is lacking, the group identifi es priorities and commissions operational research aimed at clarifying particular issues.

• Promoting the Three Rs in research, teaching and testingWorking with NAEAC, ANZCCART and the New Zealand Three Rs Programme to promote the implementation of refi nement, reduction and replacement (see page 13 this issue).

• Identifying emerging animal welfare issuesMaintain a close eye on international issues and domestic developments to ensure that our policies are up to date and fl exible enough to deal with future change.

• Responding to media and public enquiries about animal welfareCan I use a gin trap? What are the animal welfare impacts of 1080? What can I tell my children about fi shing humanely? Why are pigs kept in crates? Is barbed wire okay for cows on my dairy farm? What are the animal welfare regulations about the commercial slaughter of eels? What are the animal welfare regulations for importation and use of mist nets for pest bird control? I’ve seen sheep and cows in a fi eld without shelter or

From advice on 1080 to monitoring global trendsALL IN A DAY’S WORK FOR ANIMAL WELFARE GROUP


water; what can be done about it? I’m doing an art project that involves dressing 12 live sheep in merino jumpers; how do I go about getting MAF approval? What are the rules for home killing chickens and cows and how do I do it humanely? Where can I get information on the Animal Welfare Act 1999? Answering queries like these or pointing people in the right direction is all in a day’s work for the group.

Other groups within MAF and the NZFSA make an important contribution to the total MAF animal welfare activity. These include:

• Compliance and Enforcement Group fulfi ls roles in compliance and enforcement through the provision of animal welfare inspectors and auditors. CEG also manages the Animal Welfare Complaint Hotline (0800 327 027).

• Biosecurity New Zealand Policy is responsible for policy analysis and advice on proposed legislative amendments.

• MAF International Trade Policy provides information, analysis and advice on animal welfare as it intersects with international trade.

• New Zealand Food Safety Authority Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Group manages animal welfare risks in relation to the manufacture, sale and use of these compounds, which include vertebrate toxic agents (such as vertebrate pesticides).

• NZFSA Verifi cation Agency veterinarians have an important compliance and enforcement role in slaughterhouses and on-farm.

Outside MAF altogether, the AWG and CEG are reliant on relationships with key stakeholders (e.g., RNZSPCA, New Zealand Veterinary Association, Federated Farmers) and

research providers (e.g., AgResearch, Massey University) to help deliver and contribute to New Zealand’s animal welfare science and enforcement capability. Strong relationships and mutually benefi cial partnerships are essential to achieving the group’s strategic goals.

For more information on the Animal Welfare Group, see the group’s profi le on its website:


Surveillance strategySetting the future direction for surveillance in New Zealand

The Biosecurity Surveillance Group has recently commenced work on a very exciting project to develop a strategy for a cross-sector national surveillance system that will set the direction for New Zealand’s future surveillance activities. An implementation plan will follow to enable the vision and recommendations of the strategy to be put into operation.

This is an ambitious project and the fi rst attempt in the world to develop a national surveillance strategy that covers the marine, animal, plant and environment sectors.

Prime Consulting’s International Review (2002) of New Zealand’s Biosecurity Surveillance System and the Biosecurity Strategy (2003) both identifi ed a number of key recommendations to improve New Zealand’s surveillance system.

The recent formation of the Biosecurity Surveillance Group has, for the fi rst time, provided the resources and focus necessary to achieve the recommendations of the Biosecurity Strategy, allowing the development of New Zealand’s surveillance system into one that will be unrivalled internationally.

The surveillance strategy intends to:

• identify the future objectives of the surveillance system within New Zealand, based on the overall goals for biosecurity

• identify the roles, responsibilities and needs of partners and contributors to the surveillance system to improve collaboration for a more integrated approach

• develop a risk-based prioritisation system that can be used within and across sectors, ensuring effi cient use of resources

• develop consistent quality measures for surveillance activities, so stakeholders will have confi dence in New Zealand’s biosecurity and surveillance systems

• defi ne the underlying principles and approaches that guide surveillance operations

• identify and develop an agreed model for surveillance partners to work together to improve decision-making and to increase resourcing options

• identify the current and future infrastructure requirements to support the surveillance system, including systems and people

• identify gaps in the knowledge and science required to support surveillance activities to ensure programmes are based on the best available science and technology.

The Surveillance Group is still fi nalising the planned approach for the strategy development.

If you or your organisation are interested in receiving further information or participating in the strategy development, please provide your name, organisation, phone number, postal and email address in an email to:


■ Katherine Clift, Manager Biosecurity Surveillance, Post-clearance, Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0645, [email protected]

The Animal Welfare Group:Back, from left: Kate Littin (Technical Adviser), Kirsty Grant (Executive Coordinator), David Bayvel (Director Animal Welfare), Cheryl O’Connor (Programme Manager), Joanna Tuckwell (Policy Adviser)Front, from left: Linda Carsons (Senior Policy Adviser), Roger Poland (Senior Adviser), Margaret Handscomb (Administrative Assistant).(Absent, Haley Shepherd, Team Support Offi cer.)

BIOSECURITY SYSTEMS


The function of a code of welfareCodes are issued by the Minister of Agriculture on the recommendation of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) following public consultation. They may be quite detailed as they are used to establish minimum standards, promote best practice in relation to animals owned or in a person’s charge, and inform and identify future directions through research and development.

Such codes cover a variety of practices and procedures both within and outside farming. While codes are primarily an expression of what we as New Zealanders fi nd acceptable, they also have a signifi cant role in telling the rest of the world about our animal welfare standards. This can, and does, facilitate successful marketing of our exports. In particular, the minimum standards that they contain have an important status in the administration of the Act.

NAWACNAWAC is appointed by the Minister of Agriculture to provide independent, soundly based advice on animal welfare law, policy and practice. NAWAC members serve in a personal capacity, representing particular areas of expertise including veterinary, animal and agricultural science, the commercial use of animals, ethics, conservation, animal welfare advocacy, companion animals and public interest. One of NAWAC’s key responsibilities is the development and recommendation of codes of welfare.

Why does it take so long to produce a code of welfare? There are seven general steps in the development of codes of welfare. Each year, NAWAC determines priorities for code development. The priorities for 2007 are codes covering commercial slaughter, dairy cattle, dogs, transport in New Zealand, and sheep and beef cattle. These codes are all at varying stages of development. The Update section in each issue of Biosecurity magazine updates progress on these. A list of future codes to be developed is also maintained and discussed.

The Act allows any person or organisation to prepare a draft code of welfare.

NAWAC believes that where a specifi c industry or animal species is represented by a particular group, their active involvement in the development of a code is crucial. The committee prefers that the group takes responsibility for drafting the code. This ensures that codes are practical and that the ownership and ‘buy-in’ of stakeholders (industry, animal owners, transporters, etc) continues. For example, Deer Industry New Zealand drafted the deer code, while the dog code was drafted by the Companion Animal Council. Where such a group is not easily recognised, and NAWAC believes that a code of welfare is desirable, it will develop such a code itself. The painful husbandry procedures code is one example of this.

However, codes or welfare do not simply codify current thinking and practice. The Act requires NAWAC to have regard to scientifi c knowledge, good practice (not current practice), available technology and submissions received and consultations undertaken. These processes ensure that improved animal welfare standards are either obtained or foreshadowed.

A dialogue between the code writing group and MAF is maintained to provide progress reporting and ensure that those aff ected by a code are consulted during its development.

Draft codes must be submitted to NAWAC for consideration. NAWAC determines that the draft code complies with the purposes of the Act, is clearly written and aff ected persons have been consulted. It then undertakes public consultation to ensure the range of community views is taken into account when standards are being determined for the care of animals. It is usual for aspects of a draft code to be challenged.

NAWAC then considers all submissions, prepares a summary of the submissions and makes a determination about the matters raised by each submission. The draft code is amended in the light of these determinations and the fi nal draft is recommended for issue by the Minister. Accompanying each recommended code is an analysis of issues, particularly those involving signifi cant diff erences of opinion, and the reasons for the committee’s decisions. NAWAC strives to make its decisions by consensus but the report could include diff erences of view within the committee.

Finally, an independent policy review of the code is undertaken before the Minister recommends the issue of the code to Cabinet. The Minister then issues a code by a notice published in the Gazette and its release is publicised by the Minister, NAWAC, MAF and industry stakeholders.

CODES OF WELFARE – how are they developed?Codes of welfare are an integral part of the framework and philosophy of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. In this article we background the work that goes into producing a code and their role in our legal framework for protecting animal welfare.

A code of welfare covering animals in zoos is one of eight codes to have been issued under the Animal Welfare Act 1999.


Thus the development of codes is a long and exacting process, with each step taking several months. NAWAC’s project management has shown that from submission to NAWAC to issue of a code takes a minimum of 63 weeks.

What do codes look like?Because codes serve a number of purposes (legal, advisory and educational) it is important to understand how to read them. For each topic in a code there are usually four sections:

1. An introduction: this backgrounds the topic and may explain some of the reasoning behind the minimum standards.

2. Minimum standards: these are the part of the code that have legal eff ect.

3. Recommended best practice: These are practices that we hope all farmers and animal owners will aspire to, and which, if followed, will lead to better welfare (and often economic) outcomes.

4. General information: general advisory information on the topic.

Breaching a code of welfare is not of itself an off ence under the Act, but failure to meet the minimum standards of a code may be used in evidence in prosecution of off ences under the Act itself (e.g., failing to meet an animal’s physical, health or behavioural needs). Only the minimum standards have legal eff ect.

Since minimum standards have legal eff ect, they must be legally sound, and the Act requires that they must be based on science, available technology and good practice. While there is general consensus on the meaning of the fi rst two, interpretations of ‘good practice’ often vary. However, when the Act was being developed, Parliament took great pains to ensure that good practice was not necessarily the same as current or established practice.

Good practice certainly takes into account current practice, but in addition takes note of scientifi c knowledge and the experience of recognised good practitioners.

Science plays a major part in defi ning animal welfare standards. Animal welfare science has emerged during the past 10 to 15 years as a recognised discipline and covers nutritional, environmental, health, physiological, behavioural and cognitive sciences. While there have been major advances in this area, confl icting interpretations of scientifi c research can occur, as specifi c areas are explored in greater depth or in diff erent ways. However, scientifi c knowledge is just one input and NAWAC’s recommendations on minimum standards are broadly-based judgements of a range of inputs. As far as possible, the standards are written as welfare outcomes to be achieved rather than prescriptions of facilities or management practices.

To date, eight codes of welfare have been issued under the Animal Welfare Act 1999:

• Broiler Chickens: Fully Housed 2003• Rodeos 2003• Pigs 2005• Layer Hens 2005• Zoos 2005• Circuses 2005• Painful Husbandry Procedures 2005• Companion Cats 2007The deer code will be issued in May this year.

For more information on animal welfare in New Zealand:


For NAWAC’s Guideline 04: Process for the Development of Codes of Welfare, and other guidelines:

■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/nawac/policies/index.htm

■ Dr Cheryl O’Connor, Programme Manager Animal Welfare, cheryl.o’[email protected]

The Act requires that all owners and people in charge of animals have a duty of care to provide for their physical, health and behavioural needs and to alleviate pain and distress. The defi nitions of the physical, health and behavioural needs paraphrase the “fi ve freedoms” fi rst defi ned by the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council:

• Adequate shelter • Adequate food and water • The opportunity to display normal

behaviour• The right physical handling to ensure

animals are not harmed• Protection from, rapid diagnosis of and

treatment of injuries and disease.

The Act does not expand on these obligations: for example, it does not detail what constitutes an appropriate amount of food or water for a particular species. To do so would result in lengthy and unwieldy legislation. It would also reduce the fl exibility to make amendments as knowledge improves or society’s expectations change. The detailed minimum standards of care are therefore found in the codes of welfare. Codes must be reviewed at least once every 10 years and can be reviewed at any time in the light of new information or thinking. This creates the needed fl exibility in the legal framework.

Jo Berry recently joined Biosecurity New Zealand (BNZ) as Senior Adviser in the Plant Risk Analysis team. Jo comes to BNZ from Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd,

where she worked as a senior research scientist in the Biosystematics group. Jo has a PhD in systematic entomology from Australian National University in Canberra. Her research specialities include the biosystematics and biogeography of Australasian Hymenoptera and biological control of arthropod pests and weeds in New Zealand. She has over 20 years of research experience in the biological control, quarantine and biosecurity fi elds and has worked with regional councils, Crown research institutes, Biosecurity Australia and MAF. Most recently, Jo has worked with Ensis on biological control of gum leaf skeletoniser. She has made numerous contributions to MAF’s Plant Pest Information Network database and publications on the fi rst records of exotic insects that have established in New Zealand. Jo has also been involved in the invasive ant risk assessment led by MAF.

Dr Jane Rooney joined the Post-clearance Directorate of BNZ as a Senior Adviser on the Animal Response team in March. Prior to joining BNZ,

Jane was a senior staff veterinarian with the USDA, APHIS, VS, National Center for Animal Health Emergency Management. Her duties included establishing national policies and programme objectives related to the detection of, and response to, foreign and emerging animal diseases and pests. Jane’s prior experience also includes directing a regional laboratory for the Virginia Department of Agriculture and vaccine research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Viral and Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch. She served as a CDC Epidemic Intelligence Service Offi cer (EISO) at the Virginia Department of Health, and was the State Public Health Veterinarian at the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, for several years. Jane received her BS in Medical Technology from the Medical College of Virginia in 1984 and her DVM from Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine in 1993.


The Animal Welfare Act 1999

BIOSECURITY SYSTEMS


The Forest Industries Training and Education Council (FITEC) has NZQA-accredited biosecurity qualifi cations, comprising three national certifi cates.

• Surveillance of the health of the forests is covered by the National Certifi cate in Forest Health Surveillance.

• Export inspection of forest products is covered by the National Certifi cate in Forest Produce Inspection.

• Border import inspection is covered by the National Certifi cate in Biosecurity (Border Quarantine).

National Certifi cate in Forest Health Surveillance This certifi cate is awarded to people who have demonstrated competence in the surveillance of forests and trees to detect and monitor health disorders. The certifi cate recognises knowledge of the management of forests, and of botany, earth science and ecology; the skills and knowledge of the detection and recognition of pests and diseases of trees and forests, and knowledge of the overseas threats to the health of New Zealand’s trees and forests.

National Certifi cate in Forest Produce Inspection This certifi cate is awarded to people who have demonstrated competence in the inspection and certifi cation or otherwise of forest produce for export, to ensure that the produce meets the phytosanitary requirements of the importing country. The certifi cate covers knowledge of the international conventions and agreements, and the phytosanitary requirements of individual importing countries.

National Certifi cate in Biosecurity (Border Quarantine)This qualifi cation has strands in international cargo clearance, international vessel clearance, international aircraft clearance, and international mail clearance.

The certifi cate is awarded to people who have demonstrated competence in the skills and knowledge of the inspection, evaluation and clearance or otherwise of organic materials entering New Zealand

through international airports or seaports, or through the International Mail Centre. The practice of those skills and the knowledge involved is only achievable by people, employed as

Quarantine Offi cers by the Ministry of Agriculture and

Forestry, who are warranted to conduct such inspections.

Kate Blackstaff e, National Training Manager from MAF Quarantine Service (MAFQS) spoke to Biosecurity about the biosecurity qualifi cations.

Biosecurity Magazine: Who goes through training at MAF Quarantine Service?Kate Blackstaff e: We mainly train Quarantine Offi cers, although the introduction-type training that we off er is for anyone who starts with MAFQS. This includes global biosecurity awareness, communication skills, OSH and aspects of legislation.

BM: What is the outcome for those who go through training?KB: Competence in the job. There is a component of compliance with some aspects of the training provided. The nice thing about the National Certifi cate in Biosecurity is that it adds a qualifi cation to being competent in the job.

BM: What do people get out of their training? KB: Predominantly, new skills in being a frontline Quarantine Offi cer. In addition, they pick up general knowledge about MAF and MAF culture, and an awareness of the diversity of the work.

BM: Is all training specifi c to the jobs that they do, i.e., does the training match the specifi c tasks that allow them to carry out the job?KB: There is a combination of practical training taught at the worksite, and generic, theory-based training taught in the classroom. The idea is to give the Quarantine Offi cer practical skill – most important when starting in the job – and also the background knowledge to understand why certain actions need to be taken to mitigate the biosecurity risk to New Zealand.

For more information about these qualifi cations:

■ www.fi tec.org.nz

■ FITEC, phone (09) 356 7250

Forestry focus for national certifi cates

Dr Ben Reddiex joined the Post-clearance Directorate of Biosecurity New Zealand (BNZ) as a Senior Adviser in the National Coordination Team of the Pest Management Group. In

this role, Ben will contribute to the leadership and coordination of pest management across the biosecurity system. He will primarily be involved in the delivery of the pest management strategic priorities work programme, and will bring his expertise to interagency forums, for example as the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry representative on the National Possum Control Agency.

Ben completed a PhD on the impacts of predation and rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD) on rabbit population dynamics in New Zealand. Prior to joining BNZ, Ben has worked as a scientist at Landcare Research in the pest animal team, which included 18 months based at the Department of Sustainability and Environment in Melbourne, and more recently at the Wellington Conservancy of the Department of Conservation.

Sheree Christian has been appointed Adviser to the Environmental and Marine Response Team, Post-clearance Directorate. Previously, Sheree worked as an Executive Coordinator to the Manager, Biosecurity

Response and provided logistical support for several responses.

Prior to joining BNZ, Sheree worked at the Ministry of Social Development as an Executive Assistant, and as a fi eld assistant on three scientifi c expeditions in the Pacifi c Islands. Sheree holds a Master of Conservation Science Degree from Victoria University.

Rachel Hope recently joined the Post-clearance Directorate of BNZ as Executive Coordinator within the Response Team, providing support to Biosecurity Response Manager David Hayes.

Rachel has recently returned to New Zealand after living in Perth, Western Australia for the past 15 years. Her most recent role was as Executive Assistant with the Centre for Sustainable Resource Processing (CSRP), a research company whose mission it is to provide sustainable processing of minerals and metals.



The committee reports to several Australian ministerial committees (the Natural Resources Management and Natural Resources Planning and Policy Committees), and is made up of representatives from each Australian state and territory, the Australian Government, New Zealand, CSIRO and the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.

The VPC also convenes a number of technical working groups (which may include VPC members) to advise it on technical matters. New Zealand contributes expert advice to a number of these groups – for example, Kate Littin from MAF’s Animal Welfare Group, provides specialist advice as a member of the Animal Welfare Working Group.

The VPC met in Hobart in late March 2007. Potential items of interest from the March meeting include:

• Australian Pest Animal Strategy – A draft strategy has been prepared and submitted for Ministerial approval.

• National indicators – National indicators to monitor the eff ectiveness of pest management activities in Australia have been agreed, with agencies now working to develop information systems that support national performance reporting.

• Pest management and climate change – The VPC endorsed adapting current risk assessment approaches to ensure

these incorporate likely scenarios for climate change in New Zealand and Australia.

• Review of the Australian Biodiversity Strategy – A National Task Group was set up to undertake this review in April 2006, and has released its initial fi ndings.

• Ornamental Fish Strategy – A strategy for ornamental fi sh management in Australia has recently been approved.

• Animal welfare and the management of feral pest animals – One of the key actions under the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy is to develop/gain national acceptance of Codes of Practice and Standard Operating Procedures for animal welfare. Signifi cant progress has been made toward developing national Codes of Practice for the management of feral animals (including for cats, goats, feral horses, pigs, foxes, rabbits and wild dogs).

• Increasing rabbit numbers – Australia has experienced an increase in rabbit numbers over the last three years. Emerging research indicates that this relates to high levels of resistance in rabbit populations to the Czech strain of rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus.

• Next Australasian Vertebrate Pest Conference – The next conference is to be held in Darwin in June 2008.

For more information on the VPC and the next Australasian Vertebrate Pest Conference:

■ www.feral.org.au/content/policy/VPC.cfm

For a copy of the New Zealand report tabled at the VPC meeting, and a summary of outcomes of interest to New Zealand, contact:

■ philippa.griffi [email protected]

For a copy of the Australian Pest Animal Strategy:

■ www.feral.org.au/content/policy/VPCcomment.cfm

■ Andrew Harrison (New Zealand representative on VPC), Manager, Pest Management Group, Biosecurity New Zealand, [email protected]

Vertebrate Pests CommitteeMEETING – MARCH 2007

Biosecurity New Zealand represents New Zealand on the Vertebrate Pests Committee (VPC), an Australasian committee whose role is to provide coordinated policy and planning solutions to pest animal issues.

INTERFACE

Amended import health standards: PlantsImportation and clearance of fresh fruit and vegetables into New Zealand Import health standard (IHS) 152.02 has been amended to address a number of minor editorial, formatting and technical issues. This standard has also been updated to include a number of commodity-specifi c import health standards previously consulted and issued separately to this standard.

Key changes are:

• addition of citrus (issued 17 March 2006) and papaya (30 May 2006) from Vanuatu; banana (2 June 2006), papaya (18 February 2006) from Australia; ginger (15 February 2006) from PNG; longan (26 August 2005), mangosteen (15 February 2006), lychee (26 August 2005) and ginger (15 February 2006) from Thailand; squash and butternut from Tonga (19 March 2007) and cherries (5 July 2005) from the United States (Pacifi c Northwest states)

• updated requirements for papaya (18 January 2006) and table grapes (18 August 2005) from the United States; garlic from China (20 February 2006); and zucchini from Australia (issued 29 April 2005)

• updated requirements for onions (19 March 2007) from Australia

• updated section 8.7 (processed commodities)

• addition of broccolini as another common name for Brassica oleracea from Australia

• updated defi nition of Consignment (as per PP47)

• changed scientifi c name of Zingiber zercumbet from Tonga, Samoa and Niue to Zingiber zerumbet

• administrative and typographical amendments to general requirements and the “processed commodity” requirements (to align with BNZ-NPP-HUMAN)

• updated contact points within Biosecurity New Zealand

• addition of the date of issuance of commodity-specifi c IHS under the “Other information” section of relevant pages

• addition of weblinks to all standards with individual standalone IHS.

This amendment replaces the standard dated 30 September 2005 and can be viewed at:

■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/imports/plants/standards/152-02.pdf

UPDATES

DIRECTORY


Pest watch: 12/02/2007 – 16/03/2007Biosecurity is about managing risks – protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases. Biosecurity New Zealand devotes much of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention, to follow up as appropriate. The tables below list new organisms that have become established, new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests. The information was collated during 12/02/2007 – 16/03/2007 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database. Wherever possible, common names have been included.

ANIMAL KINGDOM RECORDS 12/02/2007 – 16/03/2007

Validated new to New Zealand reports

Organism Host Location Submitted by Comment

Euryglossina hypochroma(solitary bee)

Window ledge Auckland Landcare Research Single specimen collected.

New host reports


No new host records during this period.

Extension to distribution reports


Radumeris tasmaniensis(Scoliid wasp, yellow fl ower wasp)

Trifolium repens

(white clover)

Bay of Plenty IDC (general surveillance)

Pheidole megacephala(big headed ant)

Ant trap Mid Canterbury

IDC (general surveillance)

First recorded in Auckland in 1942. This is the fi rst record of this species outside Auckland.

■ Donna Butterfi eld, Team Support Offi cer, Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0320, donna.butterfi [email protected]

ALLIUM CEPA produce from AustraliaMAF has reviewed the phytosanitary measures for Iris yellow spot virus (IYSV) which now requires a phytosanitary certifi cate that certifi es the product is sourced from an area free of IYSV, or that the consignment has been methyl-bromide fumigated for Thrips tabaci – a regulated insect vector of IYSV.

This amendment can be viewed at:

■ www.biosecurity.govt.nz/imports/plants/standards/152-02.pdf


Codes of ethical conduct – approvals, notifi cations and revocations since the last issue of BiosecurityAll organisations involved in the use of live animals for research, testing or teaching are required to adhere to an approved code of ethical conduct.

Codes of ethical conduct approved:• PharmVet Solutions (code expiry 3 July 2007)

Transfers of code of ethical conduct approved: Nil

Code holder name changes: Nil

Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approved: Nil

Notifi cations to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethical conduct: Nil

Notifi cations to MAF of arrangements to use an existing code of ethical conduct:• Animal Health Research Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal,

code expired)

• Argenta Manufacturing Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Bayer New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• BioLogic Scientifi c Consulting Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Bomac Research Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Caledonian Holdings Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Eastern Institute of Technology (to use Waikato Institute of Technology’s code)

• Elanco Animal Health (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Fort Dodge New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Four Rings Enterprises Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Intervet NZ Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Mason Consulting (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Merial New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Novartis New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• VetSouth Ltd (to use AgResearch Ltd code, Invermay animal ethics committee)

• Virbac New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

Codes of ethical conduct revoked or expired or arrangements terminated or lapsed:• Central Southland Veterinary Services Ltd

Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids: Nil

Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testing in the national interest: Nil

■ Linda Carsons, Senior Policy Adviser, Animal Welfare, phone 04 894 0370, fax 04 894 0747, [email protected]

Codes of welfare – update on development, issue and consultation since the last issue of BiosecurityCodes of welfare issued 2007:• Companion cats

Consultation on codes of welfare:• Deer code: anticipated issue 17 May 2007

• Commercial slaughter code: submissions being reviewed by NAWAC

• Dairy cattle code: submissions being reviewed by NAWAC

• Dogs code: public consultation anticipated second quarter 2007

Codes of welfare under development:• Transport in New Zealand

• Sheep and beef cattle

■ Cheryl O’Connor, Programme Manager Animal Welfare, phone 04 894 0371, fax 04 894 0747, cheryl.o’[email protected]


DIRECTORY

PLANT KINGDOM RECORDS 12/02/2007 – 16/03/2007

Validated new to New Zealand reports

Organism Host Location Submitted by

Potyvirus Apium virus Y(apium virus Y)

Apium graveolens cv. Tonga(celery)

Wanganui IDC (general surveillance)

Potyvirus Narcissus late season yellows virus(NLSYV)

Narcissus pseudonarcissus cv. ‘Twelve gauge’(narcissus, daff odil)

Wanganui Crop and Food Research

Potyvirus sweet potato feathery mottle virus(SPFMV)

Ipomoea batatas(kumara)

Northland & Gisborne

Crop and Food Research

Ipomovirus sweet potato mild mottle virus(SPMMV)

Ipomoea batatas(kumara)

Northland & Gisborne

Crop and Food Research

Discula betulina(fungus: no common name)

Betula pendula(silver birch)

Mid Canterbury Ensis

Signifi cant fi nd reports


Porotermes adamsoni(dampwood termite)

Spider web Auckland IDC (general surveillance)

New host reports


Phytophthora citricola(phytophthora collar rot)

Plagianthus regius(no common name)

Auckland IDC (general surveillance)

Phytophthora cryptogea(phytophthora root and collar rot)

Callistemon sp.(bottlebrush)


Phytophthora citricola(phytophthora collar rot)


Phytophthora cinnamomi(phytophthora root rot)

Liquidambar styracifl ua(sweet gum)


Memnoniella subsimplex(fungus: no common name)

Musa sp.(banana)


Uraba lugens(insect: gum leaf skeletoniser)

Populus sp.(aspen, cottonwood, poplar)

Auckland Ensis (high risk site surveillance)

Essigella californica(Californian pine needle aphid)

Pinus hartwegii(Pine)

Gisborne Ensis (high risk site surveillance)

Oemona hirta(lemon tree borer)

Choisya ternata(Mexican orange blossom tree)


Arhopalus ferus(burnt pine longhorn)

Pinus resinosa(red pine)


Anarsia dryinopa (insect: no common name)

Acacia mearnsii(black wattle)


Brachycaudus helichrysi(leafcurl plum aphid)

Aciphylla traversii(Chatham Islands speargrass)

Chatham Islands IDC (general surveillance)

Lindingaspis rossi(circular, or Ross’s black scale)

Araucaria columnaris (no common name)


Trioza curta(insect: no common name)

Waterhousea fl oribunda (no common name)

Dunedin Ensis (high risk site surveillance)

Liogramma zelandica (insect: no common name)

Fagus sylvaticus (common beech)


Extension to distribution reports


Pseudocercospora coprosmae(fungus: no common name)

Coprosma propinqua x robusta(coprosma)

Taranaki IDC (general surveillance)

Botryotinia porri(fungus: botrytis rot, grey mould rot)

Allium sativum(garlic)

Dunedin IDC (general surveillance)

Cardiaspina fi scella(insect: brown lace lerp)

Eucalyptus saligna(eucalyptus, Sydney blue gum)

Wairarapa Ensis (high risk site surveillance)

Phylacteophaga froggatti(insect: eucalyptus sawfl y)

Eucalyptus saligna(eucalyptus, Sydney blue gum)

Wairarapa Ensis (high risk site surveillance)

Acrocercops laciniella(insect: black butt leaf miner)

Eucalyptus fraxinoides(eucalyptus, white ash)

Wairarapa Ensis (exotic forest survey)

Diplodia taxi (fungus: no common name)

Taxus baccata (yew)


Brachycaudus helichrysi(insect: leafcurl plum aphid)

Aciphylla traversii (Chatham Islands speargrass)

Chatham Islands IDC (general surveillance)

■ Jennifer Walker, Technical Support Offi cer, Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0551, [email protected]

Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline: 0800 809 966

Animal welfare complaint hotline: 0800 327 027

www.biosecurity.govt.nz

Date post:	08-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buidang
View:	217 times
Download:	2 times

Biosecurity May 07 NEW - University of the Western...

Documents