New Technologies and Approaches to Biosecurityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/Biosecurity/biosecurity-88.pdfBio-Protection Research Centre at Lincoln University, Canterbury, has earned

ISSUE 88, DECEMBER 2008

A PUBLICATION OF MAF BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND

Marine biosecurity: managing risk through regional partnerships

Experiences from the World Organisation for Animal Health

New look at the border

New Technologies and Approaches to BiosecurityNew Zealand Biosecurity Summit 2008

2 | MAF BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 88

contentsBiosecurity magazine

Biosecurity is published six-weekly by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand.

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. 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 MAF Biosecurity New Zealand):

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

Phone: 04 894 0100

Fax: 04 894 0300

Email: [email protected]

Internet: www.biosecurity.govt.nz

Editorial enquiries:

Phone 04 894 0774

ISSN 1174 – 4618

Production and printing management by City Print Communications in association with Context Public Policy Communications.

EDITORIALNew Zealand Biosecurity Summit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

BIOSECURITY SUMMITBiosecurity Summit highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Biocontrol expert wins award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5BMAC recommends more container improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Biosecurity “at the speed of commerce” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Biosecurity Science Strategy making a difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Science the key to fi ghting avian infl uenza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Searching for the perfect possum control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Tissue culture – how safe is safe? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Diagnostic technologies – complementing new advances

with old skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12How can wildlife help detect emerging diseases? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12High tech lab-to-market challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Improving sea container clearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Pacifi c port improvements pay off for NZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Shipping industry challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16“We all pay for barnacles” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18The future of pest management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

BIOSECURITY INTERFACENew look at the border . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Experiences from the World Organisation for Animal Health . . . . . .20Regional animal welfare gets a boost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

BIOSECURITY SYSTEMSMarine biosecurity: managing risk through regional partnerships .22Raising awareness in the marine area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

PEOPLEFITEC outstanding achievers announced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

People in Biosecurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

UPDATESNew MAF animal welfare magazine coming soon . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Import Health Standard consultation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Animal manipulation statistics due . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Codes of welfare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Importation of Nursery Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Import health standard work programme update . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

DIRECTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Environmental Paper Profi le

Biosecurity Magazine is printed on Sumo Gloss.

Sumo is an environmentally responsible paper manufactured under the environmental management system ISO 14001 using Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) pulp sourced from sustainable, well managed forests.

11 16 24

ISSUE 88 | MAF BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 3

editorialMur

ray

Sher

win

“Good science is right at the heart of our effi ciency and effectiveness ... good science fi lls gaps in our knowledge and helps shape our strategies.”

New Zealand Biosecurity Summit

A fter an intensive two days of listening, talking and thinking about biosecurity, both inside and

outside of the conference centre, I am confi dent that we are on the right path in terms of priorities and building strong partnerships.

Biosecurity is a system with many contributing parties. We work through many key partnerships – with industry, the science community, other government agencies, port, airport and logistics companies, international agencies and the wider public.

MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) leads the system, but cannot possibly do this alone. Long-term, robust collaboration with stakeholders is critical to successfully protecting New Zealand’s borders. Prioritisation of effort is also key, together with increasing effi ciency and effective communication.

Science and technology are at the heart of effi ciency and effectiveness, and we will continue to seek ways to access top-quality science and to make good use of this to fi ll our knowledge gaps, and shape strategies for the future.

It is fair to say that biosecurity will swallow whatever resources come our way. There will always be pressure on MAFBNZ to do more, and faster – even when we all know that good decision making needs to be based on scientifi c fact, supported by consultation and planning, and cannot always be hurried. I think we have prioritised resources reasonably successfully in recent years, but prioritisation will become even more critical with the prospect of diffi cult economic times ahead of us.

Since 2003, the Biosecurity Strategy for New Zealand has been our foundation stone for making those critical decisions. But even very good strategies like this do not last forever, and it is timely to start thinking about what comes next so we have a clear map for the future to guide us on where best to focus resources.

Each November for the past

six years, the Ministry of

Agriculture and Forestry (MAF)

has convened a summit for

biosecurity stakeholders. This

has become a highlight of the

biosecurity calendar, and offers

an important opportunity for

specialists from around the

country, and further afi eld,

to get together to exchange

ideas, share information, raise

concerns, and hopefully spark

new ideas and innovative

approaches to the challenges

we face.

There are some disadvantages for New Zealand in being a small and remote island nation, but there are also many advantages. One is the ease of communication – for example, as we move towards formalising relationships between our border agencies and start developing “one-stop-shops” at the border, and to greater collaboration on intelligence, planning and training in some areas.

For our own organisation, Biosecurity New Zealand and the Quarantine Service merged to become MAFBNZ last year to achieve a more integrated approach to our work. This has been a challenging but constructive change that has strengthened our lead agency role.

For those who were unable to make this year’s Biosecurity Summit, many of the presentations are summarised in this issue of Biosecurity and others will be included in the next edition. Thanks to the many people who helped make this year’s summit such a success, and also to those who have supported and contributed to Biosecurity magazine this year. We welcome and value your engagement and your ideas.

And, fi nally, to all our readers, best wishes for a happy and safe Christmas, and for a prosperous year ahead.

Murray Sherwin, Director-General, ■Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry


BIOSECURITY SUMMIT

Biosecurity Summit highlights“New Technologies and Approaches to Biosecurity” was the theme for this year’s New Zealand Biosecurity Summit, writes MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) Deputy Director-General Barry O’Neil.

Over the past six years MAFBNZ has convened a two-day summit for biosecurity stakeholders each

November. This year we were pleased to welcome over 206 participants in Christchurch representing a wide range of sector representatives, including many from central, regional and local government, importers and exporters, industry groups, tertiary institutes, the science community, pest management companies, community groups and more.

The 2008 Summit, held on 4 and 5 November, looked at new approaches to biosecurity and technologies that deliver effi ciencies to the supply chain while improving biosecurity. The Summit also covered aspects of risk management in both the marine and terrestrial environments, and how those approaches could benefi t not only biosecurity, but also importers, exporters and growers.

We have always been fortunate to attract a large and talented group of presenters from New Zealand and overseas, and this year was no exception.

The opening welcome and introduction was by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Director-General Murray Sherwin, who emphasised MAFBNZ cannot do everything alone. We need to prioritise our efforts, working together through partnerships to achieve the best outcomes for New Zealand.

A highlight in the programme was United States Department of Agriculture Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Bruce Knight, who shared an international perspective on the latest technologies. It was heartening to hear him express confi dence in the close and ongoing New Zealand–United States partnership on biosecurity.

Another highlight was New Zealand’s Dr Richard Webby, who has risen through the ranks at the St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr Webby is now Associate Member with the Department

of Infectious Disease and Director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Studies on the Ecology of Infl uenza in Animals and Birds. He spoke about the H5N1 infl uenza viruses and how science was key to optimal biosecurity in any system, especially in bringing new technology and approaches.

Summaries of both presentations are included in the following pages of this issue of Biosecurity, as are reports from many of our other guest speakers.

Shipping, and developments in combating the biosecurity risks of ballast water and biofouling, was a particular focus for the Summit, as was container clearance. Time was also devoted to learning about advances in research and technology, the latest developments in potential possum control, and taking technology from the lab to the supply chain.

The programme included Maori views on biosecurity – an area where I believe we

can, and will, do more – the importance of communications, trust in government, integrated pest management and the challenges New Zealand faces in meeting other countries’ requirements. Reports from these presentations will be covered in the next issue of Biosecurity in February.

It is important that we all refl ect on what presenters shared at the Summit; on the opportunities and challenges raised; and how we can best move forward in the increasingly complex world we live in. At the same time, we are already turning our minds to next year’s programme, which is scheduled to be held in Wellington. We welcome your input and ideas.

d ill d h i

6TH NEW ZEALAND BIOSECURITY SUMMITNew Technologies & Approaches to Biosecurity

4-5 November 2008 Christchurch Convention Centre, Christchurch

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Director-General Murray Sherwin at the Biosecurity Summit.

Barry O’Neil


Biocontrol expert wins awardLeadership in establishing and managing the Bio-Protection Research Centre at Lincoln University, Canterbury, has earned Professor Alison Stewart the 2008 Biosecurity Award for Excellence.

Professor Stewart, Director of the Centre, is an expert in using antagonistic micro-organisms to control plant pathogenic fungi. Her research group has successfully

commercialised three biocontrol products for fruit and vegetable diseases, based on the naturally occurring soil-borne fungus Trichoderma.

Presenting the award at last month’s Biosecurity Summit, then Agriculture Minister and Minister for Biosecurity Jim Anderton noted Professor Stewart’s broad research expertise, including integrated plant disease management, soil-borne disease control, biocontrol and microbial ecology.

The Lincoln Centre is a government-funded Centre of Research Excellence (CoRE), integrating expertise from several partners including Lincoln and Massey universities, AgResearch and Crop and Food Research.

BMAC recommends more container improvements Biosecurity Ministerial Advisory

Committee (BMAC) Chair

Mick Clout, Professor of

Conservation Ecology at the

University of Auckland, spoke at

the Biosecurity Summit about

the Committee’s role and focus.

Professor Clout said BMAC had been concerned about the sea container pathway since its fi rst meeting in

2005, but that progress had been made. More MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) resources were being devoted to it and a working group had been established involving MAFBNZ and industry. Other improvements included introducing electronic inbound messaging, updating of accredited persons training material, new transitional facility standards and revision of the sea container import health standard.

The Asia Pacifi c Plant Protection Convention (APPPC) conference had also recognised the value of having an international set of guidelines on container cleanliness, and these were currently under consultation.

However, BMAC also recommended that:• port companies be responsible for

ensuring the exterior of inbound containers were clean when leaving the port;

• high risk containers were identifi ed through profi ling and dealt with by MAFBNZ on arrival;

• low risk containers had interiors and contents checked and dealt with at transitional facilities, with the facility operator being clearly responsible;

• incentives be given for good performers and penalties for non-performance;

• all technological options be explored to reduce biosecurity risks.

Professor Clout said BMAC was also looking closely at progress in implementing the Biosecurity Strategy, lessons learned from

incursions, legislation relevant to biosecurity and the future of pest management.

• BMAC is an advisory committee that provides independent advice to the Minister for Biosecurity on the performance of the overall biosecurity system, and monitors the implementation of the Biosecurity Strategy. It replaced the Biosecurity Council, as recommended by the Biosecurity Strategy. BMAC consists of 13 committee members with expertise in key biosecurity areas including production/economy, conservation/environment, health, Maori, regional councils, science and technology, tourism, transport and public interest.

Former Minister for Biosecurity Jim Anderton with Alison Stewart, Bio-Protection Research Centre Director.

Biosecurity Ministerial Advisory Committee Chair Mick Clout.


BIOSECURITY SUMMIT

BIOSECURITY “at the speed of commerce”

New technologies would play

a major role in enhancing

biosecurity and facilitating

safe trade, United States

Department of Agriculture

(USDA) Under Secretary

Bruce Knight told delegates

at the 2008 New Zealand

Biosecurity Summit in

Christchurch last month.

“Of all the aspects of biosecurity that I work on, I have one litmus test: decisions on biosecurity have to work at the speed of commerce,” he said.

The growing number of free trade agreements, and the queue of countries that want access to United States markets, “means we are buried under a fl ood of requests for access” where, traditionally, access rules have been “one commodity, one country at a time.”

Mr Knight said the recent revision of Quarantine 56 (“Q56”) regulations restricting fruit and vegetable imports into the United States had streamlined the process for commercial fruit and vegetable consignments, with risks mitigated by one or more of fi ve designated phytosanitary measures. (Approval for any new fruits or vegetables still requires completing the full US process.)

The United States was making its system more transparent, and would launch a

searchable web-based system for people wanting to see market access rules. It was also revising Quarantine 37 (“Q37”) regulations in relation to plants, and expected to move a little closer to the New Zealand system.

Animal identifi cation

Mr Knight said individual animal identifi cation was one of the most important technological applications possible for biosecurity. The United States was collaborating closely on this with both Canada and Mexico.

The goal was to create an up-to-date response system to protect both animal health and farmers’ livelihoods by signifi cantly reducing investigation time, leading to improved control and eradication. Animal premises registration was the highest priority, with more than 488,000 of over a million premises registered so far. The next step would be to move on to individual animal identifi cation and tracing.

USDA Under Secretary Bruce Knight (left) and MAF Director-General Murray Sherwin at the Biosecurity Summit.


He said US authorities would be able to trace animal movements more quickly in future. Twenty-four identifi cation devices had been offi cially approved for use, and technology had been developed to merge 17 databases into one, with Google mapping software overlaid.

Other new technologies

Mr Knight emphasised the importance of reducing biosecurity risks while goods were still offshore, which would allow faster release of products once they arrived in the United States.

For example, he said irradiation was an extremely effective method of pest mitigation without compromising food quality, and was quietly gaining consumer acceptance. He expected it would be used more widely, particularly for high-value products. The method was tremendously signifi cant for developing countries because they could have just one pre-export processing facility at the border.

The United States now accepted irradiated mangoes from India, pineapples from Thailand and dragon fruit from Vietnam, for example, and was talking with Mexico about building a plant at the border.

Other new technologies being developed, often adapted from traditional defence use, included:

• sniffer technology – to work like sniffer dogs;

• enhanced molecular diagnostics – being able to quickly and remotely identify different species, such as immature fruit fl ies, and where they came from;

• remote sensing insect traps to work like a fi ngerprint from wing beats.

NZ–US partnership

Mr Knight said there was a long legacy of steadfast New Zealand–United States partnership on biosecurity, and he was confi dent that the direct bilateral relationship would remain close, even under diffi cult circumstances.

The lifting after just seven weeks of the US decision in September to suspend fl ower imports from New Zealand demonstrated the calibre of our trade relationship and the long-term relationship with New Zealand’s Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF).

(New Zealand’s cut fl ower and foliage exports to the United States, worth around $12 million a year, were suspended following the interception of a Light Brown Apple Moth in a fl ower

consignment. The suspension was fi rst lifted for hot/greenhouse product, then for fi eld-grown cut fl owers and greenery from 1 November.)

Mr Knight also spoke about the US’s relationship with Canada, and the importance of looking at biosecurity as a “North American perimeter approach.” He said both countries were now seeing success in this harmonisation strategy.

“The one thing I’ve learned is that when one nation in the trade community improves its biosecurity, all its trade partners benefi t,” he said.

Mr Knight said that, after just two days in New Zealand, he could see the commitment to and importance of biosecurity to the country – beginning with being greeted by a beagle at the airport, who rapidly nosed out that he normally carried his lunch to work in his bag in Washington!

He paid special tribute to MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) Deputy Director-General Barry O’Neil for his leadership in the role of President of the Administration Commission with the Offi ce International des Epizooties (OIE – World Organisation for Animal Health).

Bruce Knight was a keynote speaker ■

at the 2008 Biosecurity Summit.

He is USDA Under Secretary for

Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

Confi rmed by the Senate on 6 August

2006, Mr Knight provides leadership

and oversight for the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, the

Agricultural Marketing Service and

the Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration. These

agencies protect animals and plants

and promote fair, open and orderly

markets for US agricultural products.

Mr Knight joined the USDA after many

years helping develop agricultural

policies and programmes, both as a

congressional staff member and on

behalf of major agricultural producer

groups.

A third-generation rancher, farmer

and lifelong conservationist, Mr Knight

grew up on a small farm near the Gann

Valley, South Dakota, where he owns

a diversifi ed grain and cattle operation

using no-till and rest rotation grazing

systems.

Biosecurity Science Strategy making a differenceThe Biosecurity Science Strategy,

launched at last year’s Biosecurity

Summit, is already in everyday use

in areas including prioritising MAF

Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ)

operational research and providing

direction for contestable funding

allocation in this year’s Foundation of

Research, Science and Technology (FRST)

funding round.

MAFBNZ Strategic Science Team

Manager Naomi Parker told this

year’s Biosecurity Summit that the

strategy, developed in partnership

with the Ministry of Research, Science

and Technology (MoRST), built on

expectations for science in the

Biosecurity Strategy.

She said biosecurity science was the

science that underpinned the biosecurity

system and biosecurity decision making,

and developed the knowledge and

tools to undertake biosecurity-related

activities. Biosecurity science was

incredibly broad, and covered not just

biological disciplines but also social

sciences, matauranga Maori, physics and

chemistry. It covered all environments

(marine, freshwater, terrestrial) and all

values (environmental, social, cultural

and economic).

Next steps for the strategy were:

• Biosecurity Science System:

– fi nalise terms of reference for

advisory groups;

– establish advisory groups;

– start capturing biosecurity

research needs and issues;

– “run” the system – early 2009;

• determine baseline status of actions

and performance measures;

• keep driving the messages of the

strategy into business as usual.


BIOSECURITY SUMMIT

Science the key to fi ghting avian infl uenza

New Zealand-trained scientist Dr Richard Webby, now Associate Member with the Department of Infectious Disease at St Jude Children’s Research Hospital and Director of the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Studies on the Ecology of Infl uenza in Animals and Birds, was a key speaker at the Biosecurity Summit.

Dr Webby told summit delegates that science was key to optimal biosecurity in any system,

especially in bringing new technology and approaches.

He said integrating science into biosecurity needed a co-ordinated strategy. Given opportunities, New Zealand science would be well able to deliver technology and new approaches.

Dr Webby said the past decade had seen an increased awareness of the danger of pandemic infl uenza and a corresponding increase in containment and detection methodologies. Those increases had been driven primarily by the near-global spread of highly pathogenic H5N1 infl uenza viruses. National responses to the threat had varied in both approach and success.

He said different countries had had mixed results in tackling the viruses, although science-based policies had been most successful, as exemplifi ed by Hong Kong.

Understanding the epidemiology and ecology of the disease through basic research had lead Hong Kong authorities to adopt successful control strategies. Keys to Hong Kong’s success were also its small land mass, exceptional surveillance, proactive authorities, skilled personnel, collaboration of regulatory, health, agricultural and academic sectors, good funding and the integration of scientifi c results into biosecurity policy.

Dr Webby said that research in the years 1997–2001 found H5N1 started in aquatic birds, then spilled over to poultry. Having found the ancestral source of the virus, Hong Kong stopped the importation of aquatic birds, dramatically cutting the diversity of viruses.

Research found different viruses replicated only in some species, which led Hong Kong authorities to rule that quails could not be sold in the same markets as chickens. Another successful strategy was to introduce “clean days” in markets.

Dr Webby said there were parallels between New Zealand and Hong Kong in terms of the value of smallness and ease of collaboration in getting new technology and methods into practice.

He said the problem with H5N1 was that it had re-emerged, and a great deal of effort had been put into developing vaccines.

The WHO Collaborating Centre produced the seed strains for H5N1 viruses. Dr Webby used reverse genetics to make the fi rst such seed strain – and the vaccine was identifi ed by Time

Dr Richard Webby at the Biosecurity Summit in Christchurch, November 2008.


magazine as one of the major scientifi c achievements of 2007.

Considering the question “Can New Zealand science participate”, Dr Webby said, “the bottom line is it can, and it does.” New Zealand science benefi ted from a relatively small community, where people could speak directly to others on the phone, he said.

“Can it be improved? Everything can be improved.” What was needed was a clear research plan and clear leadership, a focused approach, and a lot of foresight to identify areas where New Zealand science could make a contribution.

Dr Webby is an Associate Member ■

with the Department of Infectious Disease at St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, and Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Studies on the Ecology of Infl uenza in Animals and Birds. He earned his BSc and PhD from the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Otago, Dunedin, and has been with St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, since 1999, where he is currently involved with a research programme focusing on infl uenza virus pathogenicity and ecology. In 2004, Dr Webby

was named by Scientifi c American magazine as its Research Leader in Public Health and Epidemiology for his work with developing H5N1 infl uenza virus vaccines, work he continues as Director of the St Jude WHO collaborating centre. Of the fi ve WHO collaborating centres, the St Jude centre is the only one that focuses on the transmission of animal viruses to humans.

Dr Webby included the above Hong Kong newspaper headlines, from May 2001, in his presentation at the Biosecurity Summit; including the market poultry and quails on the opposite page.

Below, Dr Webby presented a World Health Organization chart showing the areas in red where H5N1 has been reported in poultry, and in orange, areas where it has been reported only in wild birds.


BIOSECURITY SUMMIT

Searching for the perfect possum controlDeveloping and delivering a potential replacement for 1080 possum control was a major challenge, National Research Centre for Possum Biocontrol (NRCPB) Chair Dr John Hellstrom told the Biosecurity Summit.

Despite growing public concern about the use of 1080 to control possums and a “proceed but

with caution” review conclusion by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) last year, no alternative was close to market, Dr Hellstrom said. A Lincoln University consortium and the NRCPB were currently working on potential alternative solutions.

Dr Hellstrom said the Lincoln group had some promising new products down the line, and was working on:• refi nement through incremental

improvements of low residue and humane poisons, formulations and baiting strategy; and

• development of replacement products that are safer, less persistent and more targeted.

The NRCPB was attempting to develop novel possum-specifi c toxins, focusing on enteric toxin and immuno-contraception studies. Results were expected to be fi ve to 10 years out from market and much further out than Lincoln, he said.

The NRCPB group had the research challenge of developing a model system that “combines an inhibitory biological target molecule with a means of delivery to disrupt a specifi c physiological process in possums, which reduces fertility by 60% for at least one year or kills more than 60% of possums.”

After a review last year it abandoned work on transgenic plants and a search for viral vector, and it suspended work on a parasitic vector, further modelling studies and hormone-toxin studies.

The Centre, which was established in 2005 to bring together various strands of research into one programme, is funded mainly by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FRST). It has a governance board of end users (Animal Health Board, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, regional councils) and researchers (Landcare and AgResearch).

The Centre has until June next year to meet targets for a “go-no-go” decision point on further funding.

Dr Hellstrom said the work on enteric toxins had identifi ed some highly specifi c target proteins. It was hoped that, by February next year, the researchers would have fi ve to 10 molecules to test in vitro.

“In theory, this should be very humane, but there are real questions about how quickly we can get it through to market,” he said.

The work on suppressing reproduction was currently focused on delivery, which would probably be oral given “we obviously can’t go around injecting possums.”

Dr Hellstrom said the potential benefi ts of developing an alternative to 1080 included: • much greater specifi city for possums;

• reduced reliance on large-scale use of 1080;

• more humane effects through reduced possum suffering and reduction in overall possum numbers;

• reduced or more acceptable control costs.

The challenges of turning the research into products were “enormous”, he said. It was diffi cult to pick winners before any of the technologies had met performance targets, and there was no proven delivery technology yet. Product development and scale-up would be challenging, there were

short timelines and fragile funding, and public concern with new technologies needed to be addressed.

Dr Hellstrom is a Director of Biosecurity ■

Limited, a private New Zealand company established in 1991 providing biosecurity and quality systems consulting and advisory services. He has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in epidemiology and a Bachelor’s degree in Veterinary Science, and has been involved in designing and evaluating biosecurity programmes for the past 20 years. As New Zealand’s Chief Veterinary Offi cer 1984–89, he had primary technical responsibility for developing New Zealand’s biosecurity systems and restructuring the state veterinary service. Subsequently, as a ministerial appointee and chair of the Biosecurity Council, he led the development and publication of the Biosecurity Strategy for New Zealand, which was launched in October 2003. He currently chairs the National Research Centre for Possum Biocontrol, as well as a government–industry working group investigating issues relating to cadmium levels in pastures. He is participating in a review of New Zealand’s approach to managing biosecurity risks, and is preparing a biosecurity strategy for the Australian state of Victoria.

Female possum. Photo courtesy Nga Manu Images.


Tissue culture – how safe is safe?Tissue culture is a relatively safe way to import new plants into New Zealand, although there are still issues to consider, tree and woody tissue culture specialist Dr Jenny Aitken told delegates at the Biosecurity Summit.

The myths:• tissue cultures are pest and disease

free; • charcoal in tissue culture media masks

plant pests and diseases; • tissue cultures cannot be used for

screening disease;• tissue cultures of the same clone will

have the same diseases;• shoots or clumps within the same

vessel can have different virus, fungi and insect status.

The facts:• viruses can be present in the tissue

cultures of some species and have to be tested for;

• fungi, bacteria and insects grow well on media containing charcoal;

• tissue cultures can be used for screening diseases;

• multiple shoots from one clone are genetically identical and disease free;

• shoots, plantlets or tissues in the same vessel generally have the same properties.

Dr Aitken said tissue culture was still the safest method for plant germplasm imports of seeds, cuttings and whole plants or fruits. Further research and new technology would make the difference in answering the question “how safe is safe?”

Dr Aitken is the Managing Director ■

of her own company, The Tree

Lab, which also has a company

in South America – The Tree Lab

Chile. She worked as a scientist at

the Forest Research Institute (now

Scion) and also held the position of

Forest Genetics, Biotechnology and

Research and Development Manager

at Carter Holt Harvey. Dr Aitken was

a founding member of the science

team for ArborGen, a specialist forest

biotechnology business.

The Tree Lab is a plant tissue

culture company specialising in the

introduction of new plant germplasm

into New Zealand and globally. The

company has a Level 3 (high-security)

Post-Entry Quarantine (PEQ) plant

tissue culture quarantine facility, and

over the past six years has worked

with MAF Biosecurity New Zealand on

the introduction of new plants for use

in the horticulture, forestry and biofuel

industries.

Dr Aitken, Managing Director of The Tree Lab in Rotorua, said the development of “sterile”

tissue culture started in the early 1900s. Commercialised tissue culture for propagation began in the early 1970s, and was now used for mass propagation, breeding, safer imports and disease screening.

With a global focus on reducing biosecurity risks to farm, forestry and horticulture industries, tissue culture was considered one of the safest ways to import plants free of pathogens and pests.

Dr Aitkin said tissue culture imports were safer than seeds, cuttings or plants in soil and in soil-less substrates, but there were several myths about tissue culture.

Dr Jenny Aitken, Managing Director of The Tree Lab, shows tissue culture examples.


BIOSECURITY SUMMIT

Diagnostic technologies – complementing new advances with old skills

How can wildlife help detect emerging diseases?

Dr Karen Armstrong, Senior Research Offi cer in the Bio-Protection Research Centre (National Centre of Research Excellence) at Lincoln University, Canterbury, spoke at the Biosecurity Summit on new advances in diagnostic technologies.

Dr Armstrong said the fi rst, critical step in biosecurity was preventing the entry and

establishment of potentially harmful pests and diseases. Increasing global trade and travel, combined with climate change, contributed to a growing range of organisms, particularly in temperate areas.

The well-documented decline in taxonomic expertise, along with the need to develop ever-more rapid and sensitive diagnostic methods, gave impetus to developing technologies that were generic, more sensitive, specifi c,

reproducible, reliable, fast and cost effective – and able to complement traditional skills and methods.

The biosecurity diagnostic challenges were to quickly and effi ciently establish:• What is it? • What is its biology – is it a risk?• Is it alive or dead – is the risk

mitigated?• Has it been here long – can it be

contained or eradicated?• Where did it come from?

Dr Armstrong said that state-of-the-art examples included: • remote microscope systems at the

border; • “pocket diagnostic” pregnancy-type

pest identifi cation tests for the fi eld and potentially border;

• DNA-based technology, including bar coding to identify exotic insects;

• polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplifi cation; and

• highly sensitive electrochemical DNA biosensors with molecular diagnostic capabilities.

She said much work was going into developing micro and nano technology, which was expected to translate into

further advances through miniaturisation and increased sensitivity for diagnostics.

Biosecurity stood to gain considerably in the long term from research and development in other fi elds, but was also dependent on the development of global reference collections and ways to deal with a plethora of databases.

Dr Armstrong has worked with MAF ■

since 1994 developing diagnostic tools for border-intercepted insects. She currently leads the Emerging Technologies for Border Diagnostics project in the Bio-Protection Research Centre and the Diagnostic Toolbox project within the Better Border Biosecurity Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FRST) Outcome-Based Investment (OBI). She is also involved with several international pest diagnostic initiatives, including two projects with the Australian Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Plant Biosecurity, the United States-led Tephritid Fruit Fly barcode initiative (TBI) and the European Union’s Quarantine Barcode of Life (QBOL) programme.

Conservation medicine is an emerging fi eld focused on the intersection of the environment, human and non-human hosts, and pathogens. At its core, conservation medicine champions the integration of techniques and partnering of scientists from diverse disciplines.

About three-quarters of emerging infectious diseases originate in wildlife, Dr Richard

Jakob-Hoff, Senior Veterinarian – Conservation and Research at the Auckland Zoo-based New Zealand Centre for Conservation Medicine, told delegates at the Biosecurity Summit.

He said there was increasing recognition of wildlife’s important role in the maintenance and spread of diseases important to human and domestic animal health. This could be seen, for example, by the high media profi le given to recent outbreaks of the H5N1 strain of avian infl uenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and West Nile virus.

Wildlife acted as sentinels for human and domestic animal disease, he said. But there was insuffi cient baseline data on translocation disease risks, gaps in diagnostic capability and low level awareness of zoonotic diseases.

Dr Jakob-Hoff recommended:• development of a cross-departmental

fi ve to 10 year plan for targeted wildlife disease surveillance and monitoring;

• realistic funding to support this research;

• an evaluation framework associated with the plan from the outset;

• continued building of diagnostic and fi eld collection capability.

Dr Jakob-Hoff has been working ■

with wildlife for over 40 years,

mainly in zoos in the United

Kingdom, Australia and

New Zealand, where he has

worked as a zoo keeper, curator

and veterinarian. He has been

Senior Veterinarian at Auckland

Zoo since 1996 and established

the New Zealand Centre for

Conservation Medicine’s new

diagnostic, medical, research

and teaching facility last year.

Dr Jakob-Hoff has collaborated

closely over many years with

the Department of Conservation,

MAF Biosecurity New Zealand,

Landcare Research, universities

and others he has worked with

on wildlife disease surveillance

projects.


High tech lab-to-market challengesonly did technology need to work well, it had to fi t into supply chains and not slow down existing processes.

Mr Dyck said many technologies failed to become commercialised. There were concerns among biosecurity technology developers in New Zealand about lack of incentives for scientists, lack of commercial expertise and government bureaucracy holding them back.

Considering whether technology could help reduce sea container biosecurity risk, he said:

• X-ray “backscatter technology” was great for fi nding terrorists and bombs, but might not be the answer for biosecurity.

• Iso-Trace, developed at the University of Otago in 2004, had been proven as a successful biosecurity tool, but was now back in the lab. (Iso-trace uses the natural variations in the level of different isotopes in water in different areas to provide unique chemical fi ngerprints. For example, it was used to identify that the Painted Apple Moth caught in Auckland after MAF’s extensive eradication programme was a new arrival in the country.)

• SIFT-MS (Specifi c Ion Flow Tube) to show that mass spectrometry miniaturisation for commercial use was another University of Canterbury-related development. Branded SYFT, it is now used in Australia, Canada, Belgium, France and Germany for fast detection of minute amounts of trace gases in the air, including drugs, tobacco, explosives, bacterial infections and fumigants.

Mr Dyck said the question for SYFT in New Zealand was to prove it worked for biosecurity purposes, and whether to focus on getting it accepted here or in overseas markets.

Bill Dyck has been Chief Executive ■

Offi cer of his own company since 1999 and contracts to the New Zealand Forest Owners’ Association as their Forest Health Administrator. He was previously General Manager of Forestry for Carter Holt Harvey.

Science and technology

broker Bill Dyck spoke at the

Biosecurity Summit on the topic:

“From innovation to operation –

taking research from the lab to

the supply chain”.

Mr Dyck, who helps match end-user requirements for technology and scientifi c advice

with research and technology providers, asked summit delegates to consider these questions:

• Have we got our supply chain priorities all wrong?

• Are sea containers “sacred cows”?

• Why aren’t we making better use of available technologies?

• Why do we struggle to implement technology?

He said there were new technologies that could speed up and improve biosecurity processing in the supply chain, but incentives and motivation were required to fi nd, test and prove them.

Many research products were outstanding in their own right and worked well as pilots, but often the challenge was applying them in real operational situations. Not

Bill Dyck

Mr Dyck used the above examples to illustrate his presentation, from top, container x-ray, Iso-Trace and SIFT.


BIOSECURITY SUMMIT

Improving sea container clearance

An Australian initiative for improving sea container clearance could provide an international framework, according to David Cox, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) Acting National Manager for Import Clearance of Cargo.

AQIS is pursuing harmonisation of international quarantine management, with the support

of Asia-Pacifi c Economic Cooperation (APEC).

Mr Cox, a scientist who has worked with AQIS for almost 30 years, told delegates at the Biosecurity Summit that the Australian Fumigation Accreditation Scheme (AFAS) could provide a framework for an inter-governmental, international forum focused on quarantine administration and co-ordination.

He said moving risk offshore was important, but there were signifi cant issues around container fumigation, particularly training workers to carry out the processes properly.

“I can tell you the fumigant you think has been pumped offshore probably hasn’t been, or hasn’t been done correctly,” he said. “Do you really trust that phytosanitary certifi cate you have just received? The real answer is, many are not worth the paper they are written on.”

To combat this, Australia commenced AFAS in 2004 to improve the technical capacity of overseas fumigators, to help them maintain a high standard of

fumigation performance and to develop overseas quarantine authorities’ capacity to effectively monitor and register fumigation companies.

AFAS operates through individual bilateral arrangements with participating countries, currently India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Papua New Guinea. The Philippines is scheduled to join the list this month, and China probably next year.

Mr Cox said countries considering AFAS included New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Vietnam and Cambodia, while the United States was watching the scheme to see if it worked.

He said AFAS was a management system, including training, accreditation, registration, auditing, communication and standards. It could be adapted to manage a variety of quarantine treatments and initiatives, including: methyl bromide, heat treatment, sulfuryl fl uoride, ethylene oxide, container cleanliness, and inspection of vehicles and machinery.

The scheme led to better fumigation performance and trade facilitation through reduced pest and disease risk. It also improved occupational health and safety, reduced the use of methyl bromide, and improved communication between Australia and participating AFAS countries.

Mr Cox said a concern about the AFAS bilateral arrangement was that there were no direct benefi ts between participating countries, because the arrangement was only with Australia. Because of this, there were lower treatment standards

for countries other than Australia and commercial pressure to perform cheap, ineffective fumigations.

A multilateral AFAS, with a central secretariat, would mean more effective fumigations performed for all participating countries. This would increase the probability that higher treatment standards would be maintained, facilitating trade for all and improving quarantine dialogue.

Mr Cox said AFAS was a possible model for:• greater international quarantine

co-operation;• harmonisation of quarantine

initiatives; • enhancement of quarantine regulatory

and compliance activities;• promotion of an honest, transparent

quarantine environment;• effective networks and

communication activities.

David Cox has managed AQIS food ■

export arrangements and represented Australia at Codex food standards and APEC meetings. He also spent seven years running the AQIS Compliance and Investigation Unit. He currently works in the AQIS Quarantine Division. For the past four years he has been responsible for the development and implementation of AQIS offshore arrangements, particularly AFAS.

For more information email: [email protected] ■MAF Biosecurity New Zealand is currently reviewing AFAS and how it aligns with our treatment system and processes.

David Cox

Effective container fumigation requires proper training.


Pacifi c port improvements pay off for NZThe Pacifi c Island Equivalent Quarantine – Container Hygiene Programme (EQ2), set up as a government–industry partnership in 2006 to keep biosecurity risks offshore, has produced impressive results. Garry Hailwood, Quadrant Pacifi c Agencies Ltd National Operations Manager, spoke about the programme at the Biosecurity Summit.

Mr Hailwood said early trials to deal with the biosecurity risks found with the hundreds of

empty containers that arrived back in New Zealand from the Pacifi c each week had “failed miserably”.

The issues applied particularly to tropical conditions experienced at the Pacifi c ports. These included the risk of infestation with Giant African Snails and ants, poor ground surface conditions, repeated fl ooding, inadequate sizes or locations of container receiving and storage areas and lower levels of infrastructural spending when compared with New Zealand ports.

The fi rst system (EQ1) was set up in 2005 to manage containers from three Pacifi c ports – Honiara in Solomon Islands, and Lae and Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea – but it proved to be less effective than desirable and was redeveloped as the EQ2 system in 2006.

Under EQ2, empty containers are thoroughly cleaned inside and out and treated externally with an insecticidal paint. All containers are then held in sealed areas at the ports surrounding the container cleaning and storage zones at Honiara, Lae and Port Moresby that are specially managed by use of pest-elimination systems.

Mr Hailwood said that cleaning up the offshore wharves is a major improvement, as these had typically been covered with rubbish, were mostly unsealed, with surrounding tropical vegetation providing the ideal habitat for pests.

With EQ2 compliance, the number of containers that needed to be inspected on arrival in New Zealand has dropped consistently for all three ports and only 5 percent of containers from Port Moresby are now looked at. There are also fewer containers needed overall for the shipping company’s container fl eet because, with inspection and cleaning time being reduced, there is faster container turnaround and less wharf space is required.

Mr Hailwood said that compliance with EQ2 had led to initial annual savings to the company of more than $1 million and provided sustainable ongoing savings. Other Pacifi c Island carriers have also started operating a similar equivalent system, and he expected that in the future “EQ3” would eventually fl ow on to most Pacifi c Islands.

It was important though to realise that whatever container programmes were used, they should be seen as a stepping stone in an evolutionary progression for container management, he said.

Mr Hailwood has worked in shipping, ■

transport and logistics in New Zealand since 1978. He was involved in the development of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry-approved EQ1 and EQ2 offshore container pre-clearance process. As Quadrant Pacifi c Agencies National Operations Manager, he is responsible for the shipping co-ordination and logistics for Swire Shipping’s suite of global shipping services and for Tasman Orient Line’s Asian New Zealand services. Recent additions to these have been bulk cargo vessels and tanker cargoes. Quadrant Pacifi c Agencies’ head offi ce is in Auckland.

From left, Peter Silcock, Horticulture New Zealand; Gary Hailwood, Quadrant Pacifi c Agencies; Ben Brooksby, Australian Ship Owners’ Association; and Geoff Vazey, Ports of Auckland.

Cleaning up offshore container storage areas has contributed towards major improvements in minimising biosecurity risks.


BIOSECURITY SUMMIT

Shipping industry challenges

Ballast water and hull drag continue to pose major challenges for the shipping industry. ASP Ship Management Group Training Manager Ben Brooksby spoke about these issues at the Biosecurity Summit.

Mr Brooksby said ISO accreditation relevant to ballast water and biofouling was another important step for the industry in working towards environmental protection.

Mr Brooksby noted that biofouling would probably always be an issue for the shipping sector. Hull drag was a major concern, for both environmental and fuel effi ciency reasons. The ASA has completed work on biofouling in a number of areas. The Paint Patch Trials Project, which tested new hull paints from 2001 to 2006, was developed after the planned banning of

tributyltin (TBT) containing antifouling paints. The project was designed to measure the effectiveness of TBT-free antifouling paint in marine growth prevention.

Four ships were each painted with patches of the trial products and the results compared with TBT coatings. Mr Brooksby said that, generally, the trial products performed as well as, and in some respects better than, the TBT products in preventing marine growth on the main hull. But while ships’ hulls might be smooth and free

Speaking on behalf of the Australian Shipowners’ Association (ASA), Mr Brooksby said the industry

expected to have biosecurity issues around ballast water “sorted in the next eight years or so.”

He said the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) required ships to exchange ballast water 12 miles offshore before coming into port. But to be effective, ships needed to completely empty and refi ll ballast water, and that was currently not possible in most commercial operations.

However, the industry was now waiting on approved and commercially available large volume treatment technology, and a new International Maritime Organization (IMO) convention, if ratifi ed, would require ships to better manage ballast water to prevent the potentially devastating effects of the spread of harmful aquatic organisms.*

Applying paint patch test areas.

Example of biofouling risk areas.


Introduced marine species a major threatIntroduced marine species were one of the major threats to the world’s oceans, Australia’s ASP Ship Management Group Training Manager Ben Brooksby told last month’s Biosecurity Summit in Christchurch.

He said Australia was particularly vulnerable. For example, Port Phillip Bay in Victoria was now home to more than 160 non-indigenous species, including:

Northern Pacifi c Seastar ■

(Asterias amurensis) – a native

to the coasts of China, Korea,

Russia and Japan, introduced

to Tasmania and then Port

Phillip Bay, possibly in its larval

stage in ballast water, though

adults have also been found in

seachests. Within fi ve years of

its fi rst discovery in Port Phillip

Bay in 1995, the population had grown to nearly 100 million. Northern Pacifi c

Seastar is a voracious predator, preying on native shellfi sh, and with potential to

impact on shellfi sh farming.

Mediterranean Fan Worm ■

(Sabella spallanzanii) – a native

of the Mediterranean and East

Atlantic Coasts from North

West France to Morocco,

the species was possibly

introduced in its planktonic

form in ballast water or as

vessel fouling. It is found in

densities of approximately

1,000 per square metre on

jetty piles and 300 per square metre on the bay fl oor of Port Phillip. It is also found

in parts of Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales and

Victoria. Mediterranean Fan Worm is regarded as a pest because of its ability to

densely colonise hard surfaces and form dense beds, impacting on commercial

shellfi sh operations and likely to out-compete native species.

Japanese Kelp ■ (Undaria

pinnatifi da) – native to the

Japan Sea and northwest

Pacifi c coasts of Japan and

Korea. It is known as “Wakame”

and extensively cultivated

for food in Japan. It is likely

to have been introduced via

vessel fouling but possibly

ballast water as well. It was fi rst

reported in Tasmania in 1988, and was found in Port Phillip in 1996. Japanese Kelp

is highly invasive, grows rapidly and can exclude native species. This is particularly

problematic if the native algal eaters will not feed on the species in areas where

it has become dominant, as their normal food source will no longer be readily

available.

of biofouling, there were many niches along the underwater surface of hulls that were densely fouled with often diverse communities of marine organisms. Problem areas were sea chests and sea chest grates, seawater inlets/outlets and grates, docking support strips and rudders.

The Niche Area Biofouling Project was designed to assess fouling coverage in each niche area. Organisms found in niche areas were collected and identifi ed, and information on vessel activity was also collected. Areas prone to high biofouling were more subject to higher or lower velocity water fl ow than the main hull surface, rendering antifouling coatings in these areas ineffective. They were also more prone to paint coating defects and mechanical damage of paint.

Mr Brooksby said the niche area project outcomes and management options had been collated into the “Guidelines for the Prevention of Biofouling on Commercial Vessels” (http://www.asa.com.au click on “Research & Development”, then “Biofouling Guidelines”). It was hoped the guidelines would be taken up by many operators, in Australia and elsewhere.

He said the industry needed to know what requirements were, how to comply and practical ways to implement environmental protections.

* The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments was adopted by the IMO in 2004. It will enter into force after ratifi cation by 30 states, representing 35 percent of world merchant shipping tonnage. As of 30 September this year, 16 states had ratifi ed the convention. New Zealand is currently working through the process of accession.

Mr Brooksby began his sea career ■

with the Australian company ANL

in 1997, after completing his cadet

course at Australian Maritime

College. He spent six years at sea on

tankers, except for a brief period on a

passenger ship and coastal vessels in

the Mediterranean. He then served a

year on ASP tankers and another year

with BP International. On returning to

ASP, he was seconded to a shore post

vetting tankers, before taking up the

Group Training Manager role this year.

The ASP Group is a global third-party

ship manager providing a range of

integrated marine services through

regional fl eet management offi ces

worldwide.


BIOSECURITY SUMMIT

“We all pay for barnacles”Marine antifouling paints are in a constant state of development, Marine Technology Consultant Jerry Bohlander told delegates at the Biosecurity Summit.

Mr Bohlander, a former ocean engineer with the US Navy, said marine fouling was estimated to cost the US Navy US$10 million to US$25 million a year in fuel losses because of increased hydro-dynamic drag. It was an issue for all

ships, but there were particular issues for the Navy relating to the length of time ships spent in port and on short local operations.

He said practically everything had been tried to fi nd coatings to protect ship hulls from corrosion and marine fouling accumulation. The primary fouling control method remained copper-based antifouling paints and underwater hull cleaning by divers and cleaning machines.

Mr Bohlander said the US Navy had an aggressive testing programme to fi nd low or non-toxic paints that provided better antifouling performance and environmental compliance.

Ablative cuprous oxide antifouling paints typically provided from 18 to 40 months or more of protection from calcareous (barnacles, mussels etc) fouling attachment. Performance is related to a ship’s operational cycle, the time of year and location.

Fouling could increase fuel consumption by as much as 8–12 percent for biofi lms (the initial slime layer that fouls a vessel’s hull) and up to 24 percent and more for calcareous forms. Propellers were especially vulnerable (bare bronze had no protection from fouling), and fouled propellers could increase fuel consumption by 6–14 percent.

Mr Bohlander said efforts were underway by the US Navy to test and evaluate commercial silicon non-toxic paints, currently in use on several hundred commercial ships, on hulls and propellers. However, silicon paints required sustained speed to self-clean and might require specialised cleaning.

He said each of the underwater hull coating materials and processes being investigated had its own life cycle, cost and environmental issues that needed to be addressed. Most had biosecurity benefi ts in that they would reduce translocation risk of fouling and associated organisms, either on their own or in combination with appropriate maintenance processes.

Mr Bohlander is an ocean engineer ■

who recently retired from the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, a US Navy laboratory near Washington DC. He is now a marine technology consultant. For 35 years Mr Bohlander was involved in research and development and project management in the area of antifouling and anticorrosive coatings, shipyard preservation processes, environmental issues and underwater hull maintenance systems. He pioneered the use of remote automated underwater vehicles for ship hull evaluations and maintenance planning, and he acted as project leader for the development of advanced environmentally compliant underwater hull cleaning systems and robotic systems for the application of ship hull paints in dry dock. He is a recipient of the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Award.

The US Navy is seeking new ways to combat biofouling, testing paints and application processes, and methods for hull cleaning.


INTERFACE

New look at the border

The future of pest management

Travellers entering New Zealand will see MAF Biosecurity New Zealand’s (MAFBNZ) frontline staff in smart new uniforms.

The uniforms have been rolled out to MAFBNZ inspectors over the past couple of months, and staff are now

clad in grey and charcoal instead of the old jade green.

Even the detector dogs are in new black jackets with the MAFBNZ logo.

Signifi cantly, the new jumpers and shirts carry a government coat of arms – an addition staff are very pleased with, feeling it makes them look more professional and authoritative.

The general feeling from the northern region is that it looks very good and is a big improvement on the old uniform.

External reaction is also favourable with stakeholders interviewed saying they are now very aware of, and can easily recognise, MAFBNZ staff.

New Zealand’s pest

management system stacked

up well compared with other

jurisdictions, however, new

policies and legislative change

would be needed to position

the pest management sector

to meet future challenges, the

Biosecurity Summit was told.

David Moore, Law and Economics Consulting Group (LECG) Managing Director, outlined the

fi ndings of a think piece on the future of pest management in New Zealand that was commissioned by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) in April this year.

MAFBNZ is responsible for leading and co-ordinating pest management in New Zealand. It commissioned the think piece to stimulate discussion on the issue, and to help development of a national strategy to guide pest management activity in New Zealand.

The think piece was prepared by John Hellstrom (Biosecurity Ltd), Mr Moore and Melleny Black (LECG), with a steering group of Department of Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and regional council representatives, supported by an expert reference group.

Separately, regional councils commissioned Enfocus to prepare a report on the future of pest management in New Zealand.

Mr Moore said the challenges faced by the sector included an increasing pest burden, risks to physical controls, lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities of those involved in pest management,

policy gaps in encouraging collective action between organisations and individuals, and lack of fl exibility in some aspects of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

The report identifi es a number of options to address the issues within the current pest management system including encouraging more collective action amongst landowners for pest management outcomes and a single manager of the “pest management tool box”.

Some options could be implemented within existing legislation and others would require legislation change. The options would require further analysis and discussion with stakeholders.

The think piece is an independent report that does not purport to represent government policy or the views of central government biosecurity agencies.

Copies of both the LECG and Enfocus reports are ■on the Biosecurity New Zealand websitewww.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests/surv-mgmt/mgmt

Detector Dog Handler Fiona Byers and Piper. Jayne Parkin, Anita Lasenby, Leyton Hackney and Mike Hogg.


INTERFACE

Experiences from the World Organisation for Animal Health By Dr Rebecca Jennings

International Trade Department staff and interns outside the OIE. From left Dr Rebecca Jennings, Dr Yamoto Atagi, Dr Sophie Chartier, Dr Willem Droppers, Dr Gillian Mylrea, Dr Alice Mukakanamugire, Dr Sarah Kahn (Head of the International Trade Department), Dr Leopoldo Stuardo who is the deputy head of the international trade department was unable to be present.

In June this year I was lucky enough to undertake an internship at the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) headquarters in Paris sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). The opportunity came after I completed a special interest topic on animal welfare in my fi nal year of veterinary studies at Massey University.

My work at the OIE was in the International Trade Department and focused on animal

welfare. Most of my internship involved consolidating research on animal welfare aspects of broiler chicken production – this research will be used in the development of animal welfare guidelines for broiler chickens.

The OIE was formed in 1924 to try to prevent outbreaks of serious disease, after an outbreak of Rinderpest (an acute, usually fatal, viral disease principally of cattle) in Belgium. Member countries agreed to share information on occurrences of serious disease and to work together to develop effective control methods.

In 2000, following a unanimous decision by the 167 member countries, the OIE expanded its mandate to become the leading international organisation in the fi eld of animal welfare. The Animal Welfare Working Group (AWWG) was inaugurated in 2002 and is chaired by New Zealand’s Dr David Bayvel. The main role of the AWWG is to elaborate recommendations and guidelines covering animal welfare practices and reaffi rm animal health as a key component of animal welfare.

The OIE appoints expert groups to assist with its global animal health and welfare roles and Massey University was appointed as an OIE Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare Science and Bioethical Analysis in 2007. Dr Kevin Stafford and Dr David Mellor co-direct the collaborating centre and helped produce the animal welfare special topic offered to fi nal year veterinary students, along with Dr Craig Johnson.

The OIE develops standards based on available scientifi c data and compiles data from all fi ve OIE regions (Africa, Americas, Asia the Far East and Oceania, Europe and the Middle East). These standards and recommendations can be used by member countries as a foundation for their sanitary measures.

The World Trade Organisation recognises the OIE as the reference organisation for guaranteeing sanitary safety in world trade in animals and animal products under the agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS agreement). Animal welfare guidelines are currently not referenced by this agreement.

During my internship, I attended the AWWG meeting and helped produce the meeting report. The AWWG decided to review scientifi c information on the welfare of farmed animals, beginning with broiler chickens.

It also decided to review the relationship of affective states and animal behaviour to animal health. Both these tasks were to be completed by myself and another intern from the Trade Department, Dr Alice Mukakanamugire.

I produced a summary of published research covering broiler contact dermatitis, ascites, lameness and broiler breeders. I also produced a short paper covering the affective state of pain in cattle and fear in chickens, and linked this to behaviour and animal health. Wherever possible, the OIE aims for a global focus, and we tried to collect data from all of the OIE regions for this research.

I was very grateful for the opportunity to work with this great organisation and I would like to thank the staff at the OIE (particularly the International Trade Department) and the members of the AWWG for their guidance and warm welcoming nature during my internship. The opportunity to learn from them, attend meetings and learn about the development of OIE standards was unique and extremely valuable. I thank the New Zealand Government for making this opportunity possible, particularly Dr Bayvel (MAF Biosecurity Director of Animal Welfare), Dr Barry O’Neil (MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Deputy Director-General and President of the OIE International Committee) and Kirsty Grant.

To Massey, a big “thank you” to Professor Kevin Stafford (Applied Ethology and Animal Welfare, Director of Postgraduate Studies and Co-director of the OIE Collaborating Centre), Professor David Mellor (Applied Physiology/Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics and Co-director of the OIE Collaborating Centre) and Dr Craig Johnson (Senior Lecturer in Veterinary Neurophysiology). Professor Stafford and Dr Johnson co-ordinated an animal welfare special topic for fi nal year veterinary students – this topic took us to MAF and was a big part in the internship eventuating.

Dr Rebecca Jennings ■Former Intern with the OIE International Trade Department, [email protected] Website: www.oie.int


Regional animal welfare gets a boost

Participants in the Regional Animal Welfare Strategy Implementation Workshop.

Animal welfare education,

model legislation and

encouragement of public–

private partnerships are

among the elements of a

recently adopted regional

animal welfare strategy

implementation plan.

The 31 member countries of the Asia, Far East and Oceania (AFEO) World Organisation for Animal

Health (OIE) agreed on the plan, which also includes provision of technical assistance and “twinning” opportunities with OIE collaborating centres.

A Regional Animal Welfare Co-ordinating Committee will be established, and there will be targeted distribution and possible translation of the strategy document.

The implementation plan was agreed at a two-day workshop hosted by OIE and the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The AFEO Regional Animal Welfare Strategy was developed over the previous 12 months and approved at the 2008 OIE General Session meeting.

To maintain momentum with this important initiative, the OIE Regional Offi ce in Tokyo plans to organise a Regional Animal Welfare Workshop in mid-to-late 2009.

The workshop followed the 15th Annual Conference of the Federation of Asian Veterinary Associations (FAVA)

held in Bangkok from 27–29 October. Animal welfare was a key theme of the conference, which was formally opened by Her Royal Highness Princess Chulabhorn. The conference attracted about 800 delegates and was held in association with a FAVA/OIE Symposium on Emerging Diseases.

The FAVA conference included animal welfare presentations on the international roles of the OIE, the World Veterinary Association (WVA) and the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WPSA).

There were presentations on animal welfare in natural disasters, animal transport issues, animal welfare issues in the Thai broiler industry and a US perspective on the importance of animal welfare in veterinary education.

David Bayvel, Director Animal Welfare, ■MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ), [email protected]


BIOSECURITY SYSTEMS

Marine biosecurity: managing risk By Jim Sinner, Sustainable Business Group Manager, Cawthron Institute, and Bex Ansell, Senior Adviser, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand

What’s in the Top of the South strategic plan? The strategic plan provides a vision and principles for better co-ordination of marine biosecurity actions in the region, plus a decision-making tool for determining who is best placed to undertake each of those actions.

Proposed priority actions include:

■ appointing a regional co-ordinator; ■ using a risk management framework to identify and prioritise high

risk pathways; ■ developing joint operational plans for surveillance and pest

management; ■ preparing vector management plans; ■ developing joint communications plans.

For many years, biosecurity was primarily the domain of veterinarians, biologists, ecologists and risk analysts. Now, biosecurity work increasingly recognises the role of the wider community in preventing and managing pest incursions and spread. The skills of facilitators, communications experts and social scientists are required to bring about the co-operation of diverse stakeholder groups and meet biosecurity outcomes.

To help manage risks to New Zealand’s marine biosecurity, MAFBNZ is developing

partnerships with regional stakeholders whose co-operation is critical to effective management of invasive marine species. To date, regional partnerships are underway in the top of the South Island and Fiordland, and a partnership with stakeholders in the “Top of the North” is forming as well.

The Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership aims to protect the region from damaging pests and diseases. MAFBNZ co-ordinates the initiative with other partners including local councils (Tasman, Nelson and Marlborough), the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Fisheries, local iwi, the Marine Farming Association and port companies. The partnership is currently fi nalising a strategic plan for the region, with consultant Peter Lawless facilitating the process.

One of the next steps will be to conduct a regional risk assessment that considers biosecurity threats within the context of other risks to the marine environment, so that partners can determine where best to put their management efforts.

Cawthron has developed a risk management framework for prioritising biosecurity measures, under the Foundation for Research, Science

and Technology-funded Effective Management of Marine Biodiversity and Biosecurity Outcome Based Investment Programme.

“When there are many sources of risk, but money and resources to manage them are limited, you need a robust process to set priorities,” says Barrie Forrest, Cawthron’s team leader for marine biosecurity. “Our framework is fl exible enough to utilise a lot of information if it’s available, but it also can work with limited data and focus on a particular aspect of risk management.”

The key elements in Figure 1 were developed by Cawthron and highlight the initial risk identifi cation stage. This initial information-gathering phase is subdivided into four key steps, as shown. The framework fi rst requires that values are identifi ed and high value areas (HVAs) prioritised in a defensible way.

MAFBNZ wants stakeholders to be actively engaged in regional marine biosecurity, not least because many of these same stakeholders will have to implement the operational measures. Stakeholders can advise on practical and

Figure 1: Key elements of the risk management framework

RISK IDENTIFICATION

RISK ASSESSMENT

ANALYSIS OF RISK TREATMENT OPTIONS

RISK EVALUATION

KEY ELEMENTS

Defi ne the scales and values of interest

Develop a target list of highrisk species

Map the potential distributionof the target species

Identify values at risk andpathways of pest introduction

Source: Forrest et al (2006) Setting Priorities for the Management of Marine Pests Using a Risk-Based Decision Support Framework. Ecological Studies, vol. 186.


through regional partnerships

affordable management measures, and also help to spread the word about the importance of taking action to protect the marine environment.

Regional partnerships also provide a mechanism to support co-ordinated and rapid decision making on responses to new incursions. Local stakeholders have expressed a strong interest in how new incursions are managed, and have identifi ed the role they can play in response activities. If all goes according to plan, establishing effective regional

partnerships will help minimise the spread of invasive species and support effective and timely decisions and action when a new species does arrive in a region.

The partnership process shown in Figure 2 is a continuous cycle where partners evaluate and act adaptively according to needs and resourcing. Current activity is focused in stage 1 of the cycle, moving into stage 2 in 2009. The stages are not necessarily in fi xed time order, for example, interim advocacy activities are already underway.

Source: draft Top of the South Island marine biosecurity strategy.

Figure 2: Top of the South Partnership action wheel

Establish partnership monitoring framework

Measure & review performance

Report on performance

Establish partnership

Agree strategy

Establish regional co-ordinator

Develop risk framework

Assess & prioritise risks

Develop joint operational plan

• Vector management

• Surveillance

• Control

Develop joint communications plan

Assess regulatory options

Plan & undertake research

Manage vectors

Undertake surveillance

Control damaging pests & diseases, when feasible

Undertake advocacy, social marketing & other communications activities

Share information

Want to know more?For copies of the draft Top of the South marine biosecurity strategy or the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research review of technical information on marine biosecurity in the Top of the South region (Morrisey and Miller, 2008), please contact:

Bex Ansell of MAFBNZ [email protected] ph 04 894 0167

For further information on the Cawthron Institute’s marine biosecurity work, contact:

Jim Sinner, Sustainable Business Group Manager [email protected] ph 03 539 3208

A fouled yacht on Nelson Waterfront. Photo courtesy of The Nelson Mail.

Cawthron’s Tim Dodgsun (l) and Richard Piola (r) examine hull fouling up close. Photo courtesy of The Nelson Mail.

Private yachts, especially if used infrequently and poorly maintained, can be a signifi cant pathway for spread of invasive marine species. (Photo: Jim Sinner, Cawthron Institute.)


BIOSECURITY SYSTEMS

Raising awareness in the marine area

A sample of Styela clava sea squirts removed from a second barge before it entered Tauranga harbour.

A team effort by Environment

Bay of Plenty, MAF Biosecurity

New Zealand (MAFBNZ) and

the barge industry successfully

prevented two barges covered

with the invasive sea squirt

Styela clava from infesting

Tauranga harbour.

The initiative was highlighted at a recent “Top of the North” Marine Biosecurity Partnership meeting as

a good example of a collaborative effort to slow the spread of marine pests.

The incident happened last year following a marine biosecurity workshop held at Mount Maunganui and hosted by Environment Bay of Plenty. About 30 participants from agencies such as the Port of Tauranga, marinas, slipways, marine contractors, the Department of Conservation (DoC), district and regional councils, heard presentations from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research’s Graeme Inglis and MAFBNZ’s Brendan Gould. The key themes were marine pests already present in the Bay of Plenty and elsewhere in New Zealand as well as those that might turn up.

The presentations were based on data being collected as part of the MAFBNZ marine biosecurity surveillance

programme. Baseline surveys carried out at marinas and ports around the country, including the Port of Tauranga, had identifi ed over 120 new New Zealand marine species records and over 80 non-indigenous species.

As a result of this raised awareness of the marine pest issue, Environment Bay of Plenty’s Biosecurity Co-ordinator John Mather was alerted to a planned barge relocation from Auckland to Tauranga. The barge was reportedly heavily infested with Styela clava, an unwanted organism well-established in the Hauraki Gulf, but which was previously unrecorded in the Bay of Plenty.

MAFBNZ and Environment Bay of Plenty then contacted the barge owner, who was very co-operative, to ensure that the hull was cleaned prior to transfer.

The cleaning job was almost perfectly completed, however, a message was received while the barge was under tow


The Styela clava-infested barge chain, pictured offshore from the Bay of Plenty.

that a heavy mooring chain attached to the hull still had Styela attached.

The barge was then prevented from entering the Port of Tauranga. Divers were dispatched to check the mooring chain, and discovered that it was infested. The barge was allowed to berth as long as the chain was immediately removed from the hull and the marine environment.

While undergoing this exercise, Environment Bay of Plenty staff were alerted to a further barge that had entered the port that night. It was also found to be infested with Styela. The barge was relocated back to Auckland within 24 hours, again reducing the risk of the Styela clava sea squirt infesting Tauranga harbour.

Mr Mather says that as a result of this particular issue and when resource consents are required, wording has been placed in the Council’s resource consent conditions to the effect that “any vessel entering the Bay of Plenty marine area must be free of all unwanted organisms or other harmful marine species”.

He says these events are a good example of collaboration between those working in the marine industry, the regional council and MAFBNZ to substantially reduce the risk of an invasive marine organism spreading further.

The barge owners were willing to co-operate and play their part in preserving the marine environment, and this was at no small cost to them. As well, best practice procedures, such as

hull cleaning to prevent the spread of pests, are now becoming accepted as a standard practice in the marine industry.

These collaborative relationships are being strengthened through the establishment of regional marine biosecurity partnerships co-ordinated by MAFBNZ. The previously mentioned “Top of the North” Partnership was recently formed and includes regional and central government agencies, aquaculture industry and research institutes. The partners work together to raise awareness of marine pests and the value of maintaining a clean hull free of unwanted organisms. They also collaborate on regional biosecurity activities.

To this day, the Bay of Plenty remains a Styela clava-free zone.


PEOPLE

Laurie Meadows, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, Auckland, receives his award for “MAF Biosecurity – Trainee of the Year (Biosecurity)” pictured with MAFBNZ Training Manager Kate Blackstaffe.

FITEC outstanding achievers announced

MAF Biosecurity New Zealand

(MAFBNZ) Quarantine

Inspector Laurie Meadows was

honoured recently with a FITEC

National Training Award.

He was one of 11 people, mostly forestry and wood manufacturing trainees, who were presented

with national awards at a special event in Rotorua.

Hosted annually by FITEC (the industry training organisation for the forestry, wood manufacturing, biosecurity and furniture sectors), the awards recognise the commitment of individuals and companies to their careers and their industry. Winners were judged as the nation’s best vocational education performers in their sectors.

The 11 winners were selected from 35 fi nalists, who in turn were nominated from around 2,000 trainees who completed National Certifi cates through FITEC during the past year.

FITEC Chief Executive Ian Boyd said that being nominated as a fi nalist was an achievement in itself.

“This is from a total of about 12,000 trainees within the broader forest and wood manufacturing sector, which

consists of some 35,000 employees in total. Our 11 winners are the best of the best. They are ambassadors for their industry and role models for others who want to achieve in the same way.”

MAFBNZ’s two other fi nalists were Andrew Chan and Prabhaker Somasekharan – both from Auckland.

“FITEC believes that investing in training is one of the most important strategies an individual or company can have and the FITEC National Training Awards is one time during the year when we can celebrate the results of that investment,” Mr Boyd said.

Winners each received a certifi cate of achievement and a specially commissioned presentation box created by master carver Lyonel Grant.

Mr Meadows is based in Auckland and has 33 years of experience in biosecurity. He recently completed the Certifi cate in Biosecurity, showing that training can bring success at any age.


Ruth Griffi n has joined the Plant Health and Environment Laboratory’s Mycology and Bacteriology Team at the Investigation and Diagnostic Centre (IDC), Tamaki, as a Senior Technician. Ruth has been on a fi xed-term contract at IDC for the past year developing and validating diagnostic protocols for several fungal and bacterial high impact exotic pests. Before joining MAFBNZ, Ruth worked at CSL, York, United

Kingdom, for three years where she developed and validated new molecular assays for the detection of quarantine fungal pathogens. Ruth has a BSc (Hons) in Applied and Environmental Biology from the University of York, United Kingdom.

Mat Stone has joined the MAFBNZ Border Standards Directorate as Group Manager Animal Imports and Exports. Mat has worked for MAFBNZ since 1994, including a previous stint in animal imports and exports, and more recently in the exotic disease investigation and response programme. His immediate prior role was Incursion Investigation Manager with the Investigation and Diagnostic Centres. Mat qualifi ed as

a veterinary epidemiologist, and is the current New Zealand Veterinary Association Epidemiology Branch President.

Bryan Rose rejoined MAFBNZ in October, taking up the job of Team Manager of the Plant and Plant Products Imports Team. Bryan brings to his role experience in business management, the processing and marketing of primary produce, and the plant and animal health requirements for international trade. Some people may remember Bryan from his fi rst spell with MAF, when he worked in the Agriculture

Quarantine Service in Wellington. A highlight of that period was being seconded to assist the development of the Papua New Guinea Quarantine Service. During his time away from MAF, Bryan was responsible for US$40 million worth of construction projects in Russia, taking milk processing plants and abattoirs from the design stage through to commissioning. He then started his own company exporting milk products to Myanmar (formerly Burma) and supplying fresh produce by air to hotels in Yangon (Rangoon). Following this, Bryan was involved in a variety of short-term management contracts and consulting roles. Bryan looks forward to being part of the new generation of MAF, where the F stands for forestry rather than fi sheries. He says he is delighted to be able to catch up with former colleagues, many of whom have visited or called to wish him “welcome home”.

Dr Gerald Bills has joined the MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) Plant Health and Environment Laboratory’s Mycology and Bacteriology Team at the Investigation and Diagnostic Centre, Tamaki, as a Principal Adviser. Until October 2008, Gerald was Senior Research Fellow and Group Leader for Fungal Research at the Centro de Investigación Básica (CIBE), Merck Sharp & Dohme de España, Madrid,

Spain where he worked in antibiotic discovery from microbial metabolites. He joined Merck in 1988 and spent 13 years in natural products discovery at Merck at Rahway, New Jersey before transferring to Merck’s laboratories in Madrid in 2001. One of his primary research interests has been methods to detect and measure fungi biodiversity. He has surveyed fi lamentous fungi worldwide, including soil, dung, aquatic, and rock-associated fungi, plant pathogens, endophytes and mushrooms. He has been a signifi cant contributor to policies governing property rights to industrial applications derived from microbial diversity. Gerald graduated from West Virginia University with a Bachelor’s degree in Plant Sciences and Master’s degree in Plant Pathology; later he received his PhD in Botany from Virginia Tech. He held post-doctoral positions at the US Department of Agriculture’s National Fungus Collection and the University of Wyoming. He has published numerous articles on fungal taxonomy, ecology, biogeography and natural products. He co-authored the book Fungi on Plants and Plant Products in the United States and co-edited the book Biodiversity of Fungi: Inventory and Monitoring Methods. He is co-inventor on over 30 US and international patents and patent applications for therapeutic and agricultural applications of fungal secondary metabolites.

Dr Megan Romberg has joined the Plant Health and Environment Laboratory’s Mycology and Bacteriology Team at the Investigation and Diagnostic Centre, Tamaki, as a Scientist. For the past two years, Megan was an American Association for the Advancement of Science fellow working with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service in Virginia

on projects related to economic impacts of sanitary and phytosanitary rules and invasive species. She holds a PhD in plant pathology from the University of California, Davis, where her work focused primarily on fungal and bacterial diseases of potatoes and tomatoes. Megan has a strong quality background and was responsible for setting up a quality management system for a laboratory in Nicaragua.

PEOPLEIN BIOSECURITY

t

t

w

f s

TtA

on projects related to eco


PEOPLE

Michelle Boston, who recently joined the Border Standards Group, completed her veterinary nursing qualifi cations in Invercargill in 1999, before moving to Wellington to start work as a veterinary nurse at a local clinic. Within two years she was managing the clinic. After fi ve years there she moved to a practice in the city centre before embarking in 2006 on the exciting opportunity to help a veterinary colleague set up a

brand new practice in Crofton Downs. Here, she oversaw the construction of the practice, negotiated drug and equipment supply arrangements, developed and implemented the business’s policies and procedures, and continued on to manage the day-to-day operations. After nine years at the coal face of the veterinary industry she is looking forward to a new challenge at MAFBNZ.

Chris Denny has joined the Border Standards Directorate Operations and Facilities Group as an Adviser (marine) with an initial focus on mitigating the effects of biofouling on vessels. He previously worked as an independent consultant in Auckland and as a senior ecologist at the Cawthron Institute, Nelson, with a focus on marine biosecurity. He was also project manager for the Pacifi c

Invasives Initiative where he was involved with eradicating a range of terrestrial pests from islands in the Pacifi c. He has a PhD in marine ecology from the University of Auckland where he researched the effect of marine reserves on reef fi sh. He enjoys a variety of sports, and is currently training for the 24 hour Southern Traverse.

Brendan Gould was recently appointed Team Manager of the newly formed Plants, Environment and Marine Surveillance Team within the Post Border Directorate’s Biosecurity Surveillance Group. Brendan joined MAFBNZ in October 2004 with the transfer of marine biosecurity accountabilities from the Ministry of Fisheries to MAFBNZ. Brendan initially looked after marine investigations,

incursion responses and national surveillance programmes, as well as the development and implementation of the marine biosecurity programme within MAFBNZ. More recently he has focused on developing the marine surveillance programmes as a Senior Adviser in the Surveillance Group. Prior to working in the biosecurity area, Brendan worked in New Zealand’s salmon aquaculture industry. He holds a Master’s degree in Marine Science from the University of Otago.

John Arathimos was appointed Group Manager, Programme Development, in the MAFBNZ Border Standards Directorate (BSD) on 15 October. Programme Development is a new Group in BSD. Its primary functions are to develop strategy, programmes and improve systems and processes within the directorate. A key priority for John over the next 24 months will be leading work on the Border Systems

Review programme and moving this from the design phase to development and delivery. Prior to joining MAFBNZ, John spent three years in London project managing the creation of the Westminster Small and Minority Business Council and acting as its executive director. He has also had over 18 years’ experience in policy and project management roles in central government agencies in New Zealand, with a focus on international relations, economic development, trade and investment promotion, and research, science and innovation.

Cathy Ward has joined the Border Standards Directorate in the newly created Business Support Manager role. Cathy came to MAFBNZ from the Capital and Coast District Health Board, where she managed a wide range of non-clinical support services. With a strong background in operational, fi nancial, contracts and human resource management, Cathy looks forward to building and strengthening business support to the Border Standards Group.

Barbara Binney recently joined the Border Standards Group. She has been a veterinarian for about 20 years and has a range of experience and interests. Barbara recently completed her thesis for an MSc on the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) of the Kiwi (Apteryx spp). This thesis was motivated by an interest in epidemiology and the abilities of new DNA technologies to advance our

understanding of the susceptibility of our wildlife to diseases. Barbara has previously worked in private practice, drug registration and regulatory roles. The regulatory roles have included live animal imports and exports, and Tb control with AgriQuality.

PEOPLEIN BIOSECURITY

T

t

w

fi

v

f

t

W

sy

w

J

wJ


Import Health Standard consultation

Animal manipulation statistics due

A s part of the consultative process in the development of the import health standard for horses from Australia, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF)

has distributed the following draft documents for public consultation and comment:

• Import Health Standard for the importation into New Zealand of horses from Australia.

This document can be viewed on the MAF website at: www.biosecurity.govt.nz/biosec/consult

Requirements for equine infl uenza that included vaccination, testing, pre-export and post-arrival quarantine have been removed in the draft. These conditions will only be fi nalised after recognition of Australia’s freedom from equine infl uenza following the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines.

Submissions on these draft documents should be forwarded to MAF by close of business on Monday 22 December 2008. MAF encourages respondents to forward comments electronically to the email address below. However, should you wish to forward submissions in writing, please send them to the address that follows.

Alice OrmondMAF Biosecurity New ZealandMinistry of Agriculture and ForestryPO Box 2526WellingtonNEW ZEALAND Fax: +64 4 498 0662 Email: [email protected]

All organisations/individuals with a code of ethical conduct or who have an arrangement to use another organisation’s animal ethics committee

are reminded that their annual return of animals manipulated during 2008 is due to be submitted to MAF by 31 January 2009. Returns must be in writing and should be made on the forms provided by MAF for this purpose.

A copy of the form is posted to organisations in December each year and is also available on the MAF Biosecurity New Zealand website: http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/forms/naeac-animal-manipulation-fi gures. Please do not use old versions of the form.

Kirsty Grant, Executive Co-ordinator Animal Welfare, ■[email protected]

New MAF animal welfare magazine coming soonA new Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

(MAF) animal welfare publication will

be launched early next year, as part of

continued efforts to raise awareness and

share expert knowledge on animal welfare

issues.

New Zealand has internationally recognised expertise in animal welfare, and the new magazine will be distributed locally and

internationally three times a year.

Aimed at anyone with an interest in animal welfare issues, it will include regular contributions and articles from MAF, the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC), the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) and external stakeholders. It will cover everything from upcoming events to legislation changes, emerging issues and general articles.

A comprehensive survey of those already receiving existing MAF animal welfare publications provided very positive feedback from both domestic and international readers, said Stephen Moore, MAF Principal Adviser, Research and Evaluation.

“It was also clear there is a preference for a single, stand-alone magazine that covers a wide range of topics,” he said.

“As well as creating a regular, one stop shop for those interested in the current animal welfare scene, we expect this exciting new magazine to attract quite a large audience and create many opportunities for getting the most recent and important information to everyone who plays a part.”

Feedback received from the survey acknowledged the relevant and timely information distributed by MAF. More than two-thirds (68 percent) of the survey participants said they would prefer MAF to produce a dedicated stand-alone animal welfare publication, rather than providing contributions to other publications.

The new magazine will be launched early 2009, with limited contribution continuing to other publications like Biosecurity magazine.

UPDATES


UPDATES

ANIMAL KINGDOM RECORDS 15/09/2008 – 07/11/2008

Validated new to New Zealand reports

Organism Host Location Submitted by Comments

Cryptanusia sp. (wasp) Trap Gisborne HortResearch

Signifi cant fi nd reports

No sigifi cant fi nd records during this period.

New host reports

No new host records during this period.

New distribution reports

No new distribution records during this period.

Jennifer Walker, Technical Support Offi cer, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0752, [email protected] ■

Pest watch: 15/09/2008 – 07/11/2008Biosecurity is about managing risks – protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases. MAF 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 of existing pests. The information was collated during 15/09/2008 – 07/11/2008 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database. Wherever possible, common names have been included.

PLANT KINGDOM RECORDS 15/09/2008 – 07/11/2008

Validated new to New Zealand reports


Gonatophragmium epilobii Epilobium ciliatum Auckland IDC (general surveillance) New to science(Fungus: no common name) (fringed willow-herb) organism

Pseudocercospora ackamae Ackama rosifolia Auckland IDC (general surveillance) New to science(Fungus: no common name) (makamaka) organism

Pseudocercospora escalloniae Escallonia rubra Auckland IDC (general surveillance)(Fungus: no common name) (red escallonia)

Marafi virus grapevine asteroid mosaic-associated virus Vitis sp.Maculavirus unclassifi ed grapevine (grape) Gisborne IDC (general surveillance) red globe virus

155.02.06: Importation of Nursery StockThe import health standard was amended to include a new schedule for Wollemia nobilis plants in vitro from Australia, and a minor amendment to the schedule for Corylus to remove a non-regulated pest.

The standard is dated 10 November 2008 and replaces that dated 4 August 2008. The standard can be viewed on the website:

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/fi les/ihs/155-02-06.pd ■ f

Import health standard work programme update

MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) anticipates a small capacity for new items on the import health standard work programme for the two years starting July 2009 and is holding a round of prioritisation. The closing date for requests to be considered for prioritisation will be 30 January 2009. MAFBNZ will consider that any existing requests that have not been reconfi rmed by then are no longer required.

For more information: www.biosecurity.govt.nz/regs/imports/ihs/request

[email protected] ■

Codes of welfare – update on issues, consultation, development and review since the last issue of Biosecurity

Codes of welfare issued 2008: • None

Consultation on codes of welfare:• Commercial slaughter: NAWAC considering Minister’s

comments

• Dairy cattle: NAWAC fi nalising code

• Dogs: submissions being considered by NAWAC

• Sheep and beef cattle: public consultation closed 12 December 2008

Codes of welfare under development:• Transport in New Zealand

• Temporary housing (including boarding establishments)

Codes of welfare under review:• Broilers

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

DIRECTORY


DIRECTORY

Potyvirus narcissus degeneration virus Narcissus tazetta Mid-Canterbury IDC (general surveillance) (bunch-fl owered narcissus)

Previously undescribed Carlavirus Allium triquetrum Auckland IDC (general surveillance) New to science (three-cornered garlic) organism

Potyvirus nerine yellow stripe virus Amaryllis belladonna Auckland IDC (general surveillance) (NeYSV) (belladonna lily)

Stenella sinuosogeniculata Myrsine australis Auckland IDC (general surveillance) New to science(fungus: no common name) (mapou) organism

Ramularia hydrangeae-macrophyllae Hydrangea macrophylla Auckland IDC (general surveillance) New to science(fungus: no common name) (hydrangea) organism

Pseudocercospora virgilliae Virgilia divaricata Auckland IDC (general surveillance) New to science(fungus: no common name) (virgilia) organism

Signifi cant fi nd reports


No signifi cant fi nd records during this period.

New host reports


Stenoscelis hylastoides Populus sp. Auckland Scion (high risk site surveillance)(insect: beetle, no common name) (poplar)

Stenoscelis hylastoides (insect: beetle, no common name) Oemona hirta Phyllostachys sp. nr. aurea Auckland Scion (high risk site surveillance)(lemon tree borer) (bamboo)Phloeophagosoma dilutum(insect: beetle, no common name)

Parlatoria fulleri(insect: scale, no common name) Saissetia coffeae Buxus sempervirens Auckland Scion (high risk site surveillance)(hemispherical scale) (box)Hemiberlesia rapax(greedy scale)

Hemiberlesia rapax(greedy scale) Coleonema pulchellum Auckland Scion (high risk site surveillance)Aspidiotus nerii (pink breath of heaven) (oleander scale)

Lindingaspis rossi Pittosporum crassifolium Bay of Plenty Scion (high risk site surveillance)(Ross’s black scale) (karo)

Eutypella scoparia Robinia pseudoacacia Wanganui Scion(fungus: no common name) (black locust, false acacia)

Glyptotermes brevicornis Rhododendron sp. Auckland Scion (high risk site surveillance) (insect: termite, no common name) (rhododendron)

Xylotoles laetus Tibouchina urvilleana Auckland Scion (high risk site surveillance)(insect: longhorn beetle, (princess fl ower)no common name)

Lindingaspis rossi Pinus muricata Waikato Scion (high risk site surveillance)(Ross’s black scale) (bishop pine)

Uraba lugens Eucalyptus radiata Waikato Scion (high risk site surveillance)(gum leaf skeletoniser) (narrow-leaved peppermint gum)

Pogonorhinus opacus Pinus radiata Gisborne Scion (exotic forest survey)(insect: beetle, no common name) (radiata pine, Monterey pine)

New distribution reports


Creiis liturata Eucalyptus botryoides Wanganui Scion (ad hoc collection)(insect: psyllid, no common name) (bangalay, southern mahogany)

Eutypella scoparia Robinia pseudoacacia Wanganui Scion(fungus: no common name) (black locust, false acacia)

Pogonorhinus opacus Pinus radiata Gisborne Scion (exotic forest survey)(insect: beetle, no common name) (radiata pine, Monterey pine)

Jane Hedley-Stevens, Technical Support Offi cer, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0752, [email protected] ■

Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline: 0800 809 966

Animal welfare complaint hotline: 0800 327 027

www.biosecurity.govt.nz

Documents

New Technologies and Approaches to Biosecurityplanet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/Biosecurity/biosecurity-88.pdfBio-Protection Research Centre at Lincoln University, Canterbury, has earned