EPA staff report
APP201517- Reassessment of approvals for
new organisms in zoos
June 2013
www.epa.govt.nz
2
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Executive Summary and Recommendations
In March 2013, the Zoo and Aquarium Association (ZAA) made an application to the Environmental
1
Protection Authority (EPA) seeking to reassess animals held in containment in zoos in New Zealand. The
applicant is seeking to gain clarity around the controls that govern the containment of their animals, as some
animals have multiple approvals, some of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act (the
2
Act) controls linked to their approvals are inconsistent, and some have deemed approvals .
This application is for the reassessment of zoo animals approved for importation into containment under s45
of the Act. Section 63 of the Act provides for a full reassessment of approvals for new organisms.
This application also calls for a review of the controls imposed on zoo animals that were deemed approved
under the transitional provisions of the Act. A review is possible under s45B of the Act, however the Act does
not prescribe a review process, so the EPA is combining the review process with the reassessment, and
following the process that is specified for a reassessment under s63 of the Act.
Consequently all matters considered for a new application have been considered for this application. In
particular the following areas are in scope for this report, as they were identified as potential areas of
concern:
•
the purpose for which the import of the organism is approved
•
on-going maintenance of containment
•
the containment controls that specify the conditions that the organisms must be imported and maintained
under.
EPA staff have developed a set of new, outcome-based controls that we propose should be applied to
existing and future zoo animal approvals. Having considered the organisms and their ability to escape
containment, and given the controls proposed to mitigate the likelihood of their escape, it is recommended
that the organisms be approved for import into containment subject to the proposed controls.
1
2
The reassessment application does not include butterflies, marine invertebrates or fish.
Deemed approvals exist for those animals that were in New Zealand zoos before the Act came into force (pre 29 July 1998).
June 2013
3
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 2
List of tables: ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1. The application process ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.
Purpose of this document.............................................................................................................. 5
1.2.
Application process ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.3.
Submissions .................................................................................................................................. 6
2. Consideration process ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.
Provisions for reassessment ......................................................................................................... 7
2.2.
Current controls imposed on organism ......................................................................................... 8
2.3.
Identification of the organisms....................................................................................................... 9
3. Purpose of the approvals ..................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.
Current situation ............................................................................................................................ 9
3.2.
Broadened purpose .....................................................................................................................10
3.3.
Proposed purpose for approvals .................................................................................................11
4. Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................12
4.1.
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................12
4.2.
Adverse effects ............................................................................................................................12
4.3.
Beneficial effects .........................................................................................................................15
4.4.
Inseparable organisms ................................................................................................................16
5. Proposed controls regime..................................................................................................................17
5.1.
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................17
5.2.
Concerns with current controls ....................................................................................................18
5.3.
Controls proposed by the applicant .............................................................................................19
5.4.
Proposal for new controls regime and implementation ...............................................................19
5.5.
Assessment of the adequacy of containment .............................................................................23
6. Summary and recommendations ......................................................................................................24
June 2013
4
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Appendix 1: Organisms and approval numbers ....................................................................................25
Appendix 2: Summary of Submissions Received through Public Notice ...........................................32
Appendix 3: Submission from the Department of Conservation..........................................................33
Appendix 4: Submission from the Ministry for Primary Industries ......................................................35
Appendix 5: Submission from the Ministry for Primary Industries – Animal Welfare Group............39
Appendix 6: Taxonomic updates .............................................................................................................40
Appendix 7: Incidents involving new organisms in zoos......................................................................41
Appendix 8: Controls proposed by ZAA, and EPA staff comments ....................................................46
Appendix 9: Proposed controls and Schedule 3 of the HSNO Act ......................................................50
List of tables:
Table 1:Organisms approved under section 45 ......................................................................................... 25
Table 2: Deemed approved organisms ...................................................................................................... 28
Table 3 Summary of submissions received during public notification ........................................................ 32
Table 4: Containment breaches (escapes) reported under the HSNO regime .......................................... 41
Table 5: Containment breaches (unauthorised entry) reported under the HSNO regime .......................... 45
Table 6: Controls proposed by the applicant, their reasoning and the response from EPA staff............... 46
Table 7: Proposed controls in relation to Schedule 3 Part 2 ...................................................................... 50
June 2013
5
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
1.
The application process
1.1.
Purpose of this document
1.1.1
This document has been prepared by Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) staff; Asela
Atapattu (Manager, New Organisms), Kate Bromfield (Senior Advisor, New Organisms), and
Donna Noonan (Advisor, New Organisms), to advise the Hazardous Substances and New
Organisms (HSNO) Decision Making Committee (the Committee) on the application, consideration
process, and our risk assessment of application APP201517. This document discusses information
provided in the application, submissions and other readily available sources.
1.2.
Application process
The application
1.2.1
Application APP201517 seeks the reassessment of animals classed as new organisms approved
to be held in zoo containment facilities in New Zealand. A full list of animals covered is provided in
Table 1 (organisms approved under section 45) and Table 2 (deemed approved organisms) in
Appendix 1. The applicant has requested that consistent controls be applied to all new organisms
held in zoo containment facilities. This will ensure clarity for the operation of containment facilities
and for MPI enforcement agents. The applicant has also proposed 15 additional controls that they
consider would assist in improving the short, medium and long term containment of zoo animals.
1.2.2
The application was lodged on 11 March 2013.
1.2.3
The applicant is the Zoo and Aquarium Association (ZAA), who represents members from the zoo
and aquarium community in Australasia. Twenty-one organisations in New Zealand are ZAA
members; 10 of these organisations operate zoo containment facilities. It is noted that there are 23
zoo containment facilities in New Zealand, and that this reassessment will apply to all containment
facilities in New Zealand holding zoo animals in containment, not just those with ZAA membership.
Consultation with Māori
1.2.4
We (EPA staff) decided that specific engagement with Māori was not necessary for this application.
This is because all of the animals are held in zoo containment facilities, and this application poses
no increased risk to the relationship of Māori to the environment.
Public notification
1.2.5
Application APP201517 was publicly notified under s53 of the Hazardous Substances and New
Organisms Act (the Act). The 30 working day notification period began on 22 March 2013 and
ended on 8 May 2013.
June 2013
6
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
1.2.6
Submitters were asked to provide information, make comments, and raise issues, with particular
regard, but not limited, to the following matters:
• the controls proposed by the applicant;
• the controls proposed by EPA staff;
• adverse effects , especially adverse effects not identified in the application; and
3
• positive effects , especially positive effects not identified in the application.
4
1.3.
Submissions
Submissions received through public notice
1.3.1
Three submissions were received during the submission period, from the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC), the Greater Regional Wellington Council, and Save Animals from
Exploitation (SAFE). Their comments are discussed within the text of this document, and
summarised in Appendix 2. The full submissions are available on the EPA website as a separate
document: “APP201517_Submissions”. One late submission was received on 15 May 2013, from
the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), which comprised a document (Exotic and
wild animals for public display: an unnecessary entertainment Appendix D). This document has
been made available on the EPA website.
Submissions from MPI and DOC
1.3.2
As required by the Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Methodology) Order
1998 (the Methodology), the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Department of
Conservation (DOC) were advised of the reassessment and provided with the opportunity to
comment on the application.
1.3.3
DOC stated support for the controls proposed by the ZAA in combination with the MPI standards
and EPA controls. Where DOC comments relate directly to the reassessment and the new
proposed controls, we have paid particular regard to the views of the Department. Their full
submission is provided in Appendix 3, and the associated document they provided “Management of
Deer Farming & Keeping Deer in Captivity” has been provided as a supporting document on the
EPA website.
1.3.4
A submission was received from the MPI Verifications Services Directorate on the draft HSNO
controls and the application. They consider that “as the agency responsible for enforcement of the
new organism provisions of the HSNO Act, [MPI] needs to ensure that:
• The EPA has taken all relevant risk matters associated with the containment of the approved
organisms into account;
• Controls established to manage identified risks and ensure the approved organisms are
contained at all times are adequate, can be practically implemented and are enforceable.”
3
4
Adverse effects can include any risks and costs associated with approving the importation into containment of these organisms.
Positive effects can include any benefits associated with approving the importation into containment of these organisms.
June 2013
7
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
1.3.5
Their submission discusses the specific controls and their enforceability, and these are discussed
in relevant sections of this document. Their full submission is provided in Appendix 4.
1.3.6
A further submission was received from the MPI Animal Welfare Group within the Animal and
Animal Products Directorate, which has been incorporated into the evaluation section of this
document. They note that “there is an on-going risk to animal welfare if all the welfare and
containment considerations are not coordinated” but they consider that the proposed controls do
not give an indication of how this coordination can be achieved, given that zoos already operate
under the zoos code of welfare. The full submission is provided in Appendix 5.
2.
Consideration process
2.1.
Provisions for reassessment
2.1.1
There are two types of approvals for new organisms that are held in zoos:
• s45 approvals for the importation of new organisms (animals) into containment (zoos)since the
Act came into force (post 29 July 1998)
• deemed approvals for those new organisms (animals) that were in containment (zoos) before
the Act came into force (pre 29 July 1998).
2.1.2
For the purposes of this reassessment, the new organisms covered by these two types of
approvals will be considered together. The provisions of the Act for reassessing or changing the
conditions of the approval depend on the approval type; and where those differences are important,
the variations will be highlighted in this report. The provisions for reassessing the new organisms
covered by the two types of approvals are summarised below.
Zoo animals approved under s45
2.1.3
Section 63 of the Act allows for the reassessment of a new organism approved for importation into
containment where that organism has previously been assessed by the Authority, and when it has
been decided by the EPA that there are grounds for a reassessment under s62(2). Application
ERMA200651sought to establish those grounds and was considered in May 2011. The EPA (then
the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA)) decided that grounds did exist for the
reassessment of all new organisms approved for containment in zoos.
2.1.4
A reassessment is required to be publicly notified and take into consideration the same matters,
through the same process as the original application for approval to import into containment. This
includes a provision under s45(1) to approve or decline organisms through the reassessment
process, but we are not proposing that any organisms be declined. The organisms listed in Table 1:
Appendix 1 are those covered through this process in this reassessment application.
June 2013
8
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Zoo animals deemed approved
2.1.5
Deemed approvals were created under the transitional provisions of s255 of the Act. Zoo animals
that were new organisms and present in zoological gardens (containment) when the Act came into
force were deemed to be approved under s45 of the Act. For administrative purposes ERMA, at the
time, gave each species an approval number.
2.1.6
Organisms that were deemed to be approved through the transitional provisions of s255 cannot be
reassessed through the provisions of s63 because those organisms were not assessed by the
Authority. However, in 2003 the Act was amended to include s45B (Animals in circus or zoological
garden deemed approved under s255). That section provides the EPA with the ability to:
a)
include controls that provide for each of the applicable matters specified in Schedule 3
b)
include controls that provide for any other matters in order to give effect to the purpose of
this Act
c)
remove or vary the conditions imposed under s255 that the organism remains at a particular
place.
2.1.7
The result of this amendment is that animals deemed approved under the transitional provisions of
s255 could have controls attached to them. The Act does not prescribe a process for attaching
controls to deemed approvals. However there is no ability under s45B to revoke, supersede or
decline an organism deemed approved under the provisions of s255.
2.1.8
Hence the scope of this application and any decision on any deemed approval must be confined to
the amendment of existing conditions or attachment of new controls.
2.1.9
The deemed approved organisms to be considered in this application are listed in Table 2:
Appendix 1.
Outcome of application
2.1.10
Through the combined processes, the outcome of the consideration of the application will be a new
set of controls that will be imposed on all the animals subject to this application. This means that
one of the major considerations is the effectiveness of the current control regime, which is outlined
in the following section.
2.2.
Current controls imposed on organism
Controls on s45 approved organisms
2.2.1
At present there are 17 different approvals, resulting from 17 applications for importation into
containment of one or more animals under s45 of the Act. Each approval under s45 has a set of
controls that are imposed on the animal(s) specified in the approval for import into containment.
The full list of containment controls imposed through each application can be found in the
accompanying document Applications, organisms, purpose and controls, which has been published
on the EPA website.
June 2013
9
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
2.2.2
Thirteen of the 17 approvals discussed above rely on the MAF/ERMA New Zealand Standard
154.03.04: Containment Facilities for Zoo Animals (Zoo Standard) to address the matters in Part 2
of Schedule 3 of the Act, with a few additional controls added in for some organisms. We are
moving away from relying on the Zoo Standard because the EPA can address the matters in Part 2
of Schedule 3 of the Act through the controls, and the Zoo Standard includes non-HSNO specific
legislation.
Controls on deemed approved organisms
2.2.3
Zoo animals deemed approved under the transitional provisions of the Act had the following
conditions imposed under s255:
• (1)(b) Every such registration shall be deemed to be subject to a condition under 3(b) of Part 2
of Schedule 3 to this Act requiring the animals to remain at that place
• (2)(b) Every such registration shall be deemed to be subject to a condition under 3(b) of Part 2
of Schedule 3 to this Act requiring the animals to remain at that circus
• (3) The provisions of the Zoological Garden Regulations 1977 shall apply, with the necessary
modifications, to the keeping of any animal in any zoo or circus under this section.
2.2.4
The Zoological Garden Regulations expired on 28 July 2003, and the Zoo Standard was developed
with the view that it would replace the Zoological Garden Regulations. In June 2010, the Zoo
Standard was applied to deemed approved organisms, and the requirement that the animals
remain in the same place was removed using the provisions of s45B. No additional controls were
imposed on these organisms at that time.
2.3.
Identification of the organisms
2.3.1
The organisms subject to this process are listed in Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix1.
Taxonomic updates
2.3.2
Due to changes in taxonomic classification, we recommend that giraffe and African elephants be
considered at genus level; Giraffa and Loxodonta (see Appendix 6 for details).
3.
Purpose of the approvals
3.1.
Current situation
Organisms approved under section 45
3.1.1
Section 45(1)(a)(i) of the Act requires that the application be for one of the purposes specified in
s39(1) in order to be approved.
June 2013
10
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
3.1.2
5
Seventeen applications for zoo animals have been approved. Nine of those applications have
been approved for a single purpose – the public display of any organism including, but not limited
6
to, display in a circus or zoological garden (s39(1)(e)), and five applications were approved for a
combination of purposes being public display (s39(1)(e)), conservation of genetic material
7
(s39(1)(d)), and/or advocacy, education and research (s39(1)(h)). Three applications, from a
facility that is not open to the public, were approved for purposes excluding public display, and the
use of those approvals was limited to the applicant (Keystone Wildlife Conservancy).
3.1.3
A full list of the applications, organisms approved and purposes they were approved for can be
found in the accompanying document Applications, organisms, purpose and controls.
Organisms deemed approved
3.1.4
The transitional provisions did not specify a purpose for ‘deemed approvals’ but did specify that the
provisions of the now expired Zoological Gardens Regulations 1977 would apply. The Zoological
Gardens Regulations define a zoo as a place where live animals are kept for the purposes of public
exhibition and entertainment, and includes a circus, a marine park, an aquarium, and an
oceanarium. EPA staff consider that this implies that the organisms are approved for import into
containment for the purpose of public display, although the interpretation of these approvals has
varied over time. Imposing a purpose on the deemed approvals will give clarity around the
interpretation and provide consistency across all animal approvals.
3.2.
Broadened purpose
3.2.1
Historically zoological gardens were focused on entertainment and satisfying public curiosity. In
recent years zoos have become more focussed on conservation, research and education, and this
is reflected in the way these collections are managed, how animals are contained, and the types of
activities zoos undertake.
3.2.2
Over time, the entertainment purpose of zoos has broadened to other areas. This means that the
additional purposes for importing animals into containment in s39 of the Act have become
increasingly relevant. They include:
• s39(1)(d) the conservation of genetic material, that reflects captive breeding to build and
maintain a genetically viable (diverse) captive population and holding non-breeding populations
of a species that represent future breeders or non-breeding stock (preventing over population
and ensuring maximum diversity) and
• s39(1)(f) such other purposes as the Authority thinks fit (being research and education reflects
the education of zoo visitors about biological diversity and conservation, and about the species
exhibited and their natural habitats.
5
NOC04014, NOC04020, NOC05003, NOC06006, NOC06007, NOC06011, NOC07005, NOC07010, and ERMA200908
NOC01001, NOC08010, ERMA200520, ERMA200909, and ERMA200924
7
NOC06010, NOC07003 and ERMA200448
6
June 2013
11
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Applying a purpose to deemed approvals
3.2.3
There are no specific purpose provisions applied to deemed approved organisms under the Act.
However, by imposing a purpose on the deemed approvals, the EPA clarifies what is permitted for
deemed approved animals and makes this consistent with zoo animals assessed under section 45.
3.2.4
We consider that zoo facilities holding animals under a deemed approval will not be prejudiced by
the purpose public display of any new organism being applied to the import of those organisms, as
all facilities currently holding those organisms are open for public display in some capacity. In
addition, this reflects the original registration of zoo facilities under the Zoological Gardens
Regulations 1977 as noted in 3.1.4 above.
3.2.5
Further, as has occurred in the past, applications for the importation of deemed approved zoo
animals for purposes other than public display are likely to be approved. For example, red panda
(Ailurus fulgens) is deemed approved for importation into containment, it is also approved for
importation into containment for the conservation of genetic material (s39(1)(d)), and such other
purposes as the Authority thinks fit (s39(1)(f)), being research and education, through application
ERMA200448.
3.2.6
Therefore it is proposed that the same purposes for importation into containment be applied to the
deemed approved animals as are applied to those animals approved under s45.
3.2.7
The effect of applying a ‘purpose’ to deemed approved zoo animals will be minimal, and is not
contrary to s45B.
3.3.
Proposed purpose for approvals
3.3.1
It is proposed that the approved purpose for importation into containment for all zoo animals be
updated. This will bring the deemed approved organisms in line with those organisms approved
since the HSNO Act was introduced, and address the current activities undertaken by zoos.
3.3.2
EPA staff propose that all zoo animals (those with existing s45 approvals and those with deemed
approvals) be approved for importation into containment for one or more of the following purposes:
• the conservation of genetic material (s39(1)(d)) including captive breeding and/or maintaining
single sex groups
• the public display of any new organism (s39(1)(e)) and/or
• such other purposes as the Authority thinks fit (s39(1)(f)), being research and education.
3.3.3
We consider that the three purposes are overlapping and reflect the current activities undertaken
by zoos. Broadening purpose of the approvals creates consistency across the approvals, and does
not create any additional risk, or prejudice the current approval users.
June 2013
12
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
4.
Evaluation
4.1.
Introduction
4.1.1
To ease consideration of this application, we have evaluated all the organisms together, rather than
looking at the organisms with deemed approvals separately from the organisms with s45
approvals. To consider the two groups separately entails the risk of each group being given
different controls, and the outcome would potentially be similar to the current situation. This means
that all organisms considered in this reassessment will be evaluated as requiring s45 approval. We
have used the legislative framework of s45 of the Act to describe the risks and benefits, as s63 of
the Act states “A reassessment under this section shall be deemed to be an application…..” We
consider that this approach will also enable consistent controls to be imposed or varied under
s45B.
4.1.2
Section 45(1)(a) of the Act provides that an application for import into containment may be
approved if;
• the application is for one of the purposes specified in s39(1) of the Act
• after taking into account all the effects of the organism and any inseparable organism, including,
but not limited to, the effects on the matters in s44 of the Act (for applications to import a new
organism into containment), the beneficial effects of having the organism in containment
outweigh the adverse effects of the organism and any inseparable organism
• the EPA is satisfied that the organism can be adequately contained.
4.1.3
The purpose of the reassessment has been considered in section 3 of this document and a
recommendation for a purpose to cover all zoo animal approvals has been provided in section
3.3.2.
4.1.4
From the applicant, and during the public notification period, EPA staff found that the “take home
messages” associated with the containment of zoo animals come from the social concerns being
expressed around the health and safety of zoo workers after two recent deaths, and the welfare of
the animals in containment. These matters are not within the scope of our HSNO responsibilities. If
by chance a control imposed to ensure animals are contained happens to have a health and safety
in employment or animal welfare effect this is not deliberate. We have only proposed controls that
meet our obligations under the Act.
4.2.
Adverse effects
4.2.1
The applicant has identified potential adverse effects, and EPA staff have assessed these in terms
of effects on the environment, on society and communities and with regards to the on-going
maintenance of containment, associated with holding the zoo animals that comprise this
reassessment.
June 2013
13
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Adverse effects on the environment
4.2.2
All zoo containment facilities will be required to have contingency plans (as per proposed control
22), which sets out how a containment facility would locate/recapture/destroy the animal in the
event of an escape (within or outside of the facility). The applicant attests that larger animals can
be easily located, and those animals that require specialised dietary or environmental conditions
are unlikely to survive for long without care. In the event of escape, the applicant considers that
most animals are unlikely to have any adverse environmental impact due to the contingency plans
in place within any zoo containment facility.
4.2.3
DOC consider “the likelihood of zoo animals escaping or being released to be low, given the MPI
and EPA required containment standards for all the organisms covered by this application and the
contingency measures in place”. They note that they have not assessed the comprehensiveness of
the list of organisms identified by the applicant as being a potential threat to environment “as this
would require an environmental impact assessment to be done for each species covered by the
application”, and EPA staff agree that this would be outside the scope of the reassessment. While
there is an option to decline animals being reassessed under s63, this option does not apply to
animals being reassessed under s45B.
4.2.4
However, the applicant has identified some species that could have an environmental effect if they
were to breach containment, and in the unlikely event that they survive or establish populations
outside of the zoo. EPA staff consider that the likelihood of this is low, due to zoo populations being
small, and stringent containment measures being in place. Appendix 7 lists all incidents of escape
of animals from containment in zoos since 2000, and in all cases, the animal was recaptured (or
killed) without any significant environment damage being incurred. The applicant has identified
three species as having the potential to cause a degree of environmental harm, and these are
discussed in section 5.7 (Adequacy of containment), as we consider that environmental damage
could only be caused should the organism escape and form a self-sustaining population.
4.2.5
No significant effects on the environment have been identified, because these animals will be held
in containment.
Adverse effects on human health
4.2.6
Of the 15 controls proposed by the applicant (see Appendix 8), six relate to staff health and safety.
Staff health and safety is managed by the Health and Safety in Employment (HSE) Act (1992). We
can only impose controls where they relate to our HSNO Act powers, i.e. on new organisms in
containment. It is noted that under the HSE Act zoos are required to maintain a safe work
environment for its employees and visitors. Therefore, no specific controls to manage the safety of
zoo employees or visitors have been proposed.
4.2.7
While two deaths related to zoo animals have occurred since the introduction of the new organism
provisions of the HSNO Act in 1998, neither incident resulted from a breach of containment.
June 2013
14
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Adverse effects on society and communities
4.2.8
Six of the controls proposed by the applicant relate to animal welfare. The National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC) in its submission also raises animal welfare concerns.
4.2.9
Save Animals from Exploitation (SAFE) in its submission stated that “it is impossible for zoos to
fully meet the animal’s physical and behavioural needs as required by the Animal Welfare Act
(1999)”.
4.2.10
EPA staff note that all zoo facilities must comply with the requirements of the Animal Welfare
(Zoos) Code of Welfare 2005 issued under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Controls have not been
proposed for this reassessment to address the welfare of animals as only controls for a HSNO
purpose can be imposed on HSNO approvals.
4.2.11
No adverse effects on society and communities have been identified.
On-going maintenance of containment
4.2.12
The applicant has proposed that “a business must show that it has the resources or a plan to
obtain those resources, to maintain the collection”.
4.2.13
Greater Wellington Regional Council when commenting on private zoo collections and gardens
“considers the potential for escape is far higher from this type of facility”. For this reason they
strongly support the applicants control “n) A business must have an exit strategy that deals with
dispersal of the collection plan if the business fails”.
4.2.14
MPI commented in their submission that “MPI supports the applicant’s contention that the ability to
maintain containment is dependent upon adequate resourcing and planning on a long-term basis”.
They consider that “surety of long term containment needs to be established because of potential
difficulties in disposing of animals should the lack of resourcing, or other events, lead to
cancellation of the facility approval”.
4.2.15
In 2012, Franklin Zoo closed after the death of Dr Schofield, and Zion Wildlife Gardens went into
liquidation. MPI consider “non-compliance can have serious consequences, including supervisory
intervention to maintain containment (possibly at the Crown’s expense)”.
4.2.16
EPA staff consider that there are high costs associated with containment in zoos, and when
facilities cannot cover these they fall to the taxpayer. It is therefore vital that applications for
animals in containment include evidence of the resources available to maintain containment. .
4.2.17
EPA staff have proposed control 5 requiring facilities to have a documented plan showing how
containment will be provided for.
June 2013
15
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
4.3.
Beneficial effects
4.3.1
The applicant has identified potential positive effects of keeping animals in containment. We have
assessed these in terms of the effects on the environment and on society and communities
associated with holding the organisms in containment that form this reassessment.
Beneficial effects on the environment and on society and communities
4.3.2
The applicant considers that viable populations of rare and endangered wildlife in human care can
only be sustained in the long term through complex conservation breeding programmes requiring
international trade in exotic species held by zoos.
4.3.3
EPA staff consider that by containing viable populations of wild animals in human care, zoos can
achieve the following benefits for New Zealand society:
• meeting the international commitments of the New Zealand Government
• a greater understanding of animals through public display in a zoological garden
• conservation, including of biodiversity.
Assisting the New Zealand Government to meet international treaty commitments
4.3.4
The applicant considers that international treaties such as the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD)
and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) explicitly recognise the
conservation value of wildlife populations managed by zoos. The New Zealand government is a
signatory to these and other key treaties of relevance to biodiversity conservation.
Education
4.3.5
The applicant states that New Zealand zoos have followed, and often led, international trends
which have seen a shift in focus from visitor entertainment through public display to visitor learning
and wildlife conservation. They state that New Zealand zoos are currently visited by over 1.8 million
people each year and that their importance as part of the New Zealand cultural landscape is shown
by their longevity, popularity and the continued significant funding provided to zoos by local
authorities, donations and Ministry of Education contracts.
4.3.6
They also state that a large part of zoo education policies revolve around the environment and
sustainability. They consider that they educate visitors in ways to help the environment and thereby
contribute to improving the environment. Zoos also consider that they provide invaluable education
regarding sustainability and the changes everybody can achieve at home or at school.
4.3.7
By attracting visitors to zoos, the applicant considers that exotic species also contribute to the
conservation of New Zealand native species in two ways. Firstly by attracting a stream of visitors
that once at the zoo are exposed to important conservation advocacy messages, and secondly by
providing financial resources that zoos spend on in-house or field-based projects.
June 2013
16
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Conservation, including of Biodiversity
4.3.8
The applicant considers that importing exotic species into containment may contribute to wildlife
conservation in the following ways:
• through their inclusion in the Population Management Programs, such as those administered by
the Australasian Species Management Program (ASMP). These programmes aim to maintain
high levels of genetic diversity, develop and document husbandry expertise and establish
insurance populations to guard against catastrophic declines of species in the wild
• by illustrating global biodiversity
• by providing revenue which supports the direct financial contributions that New Zealand zoos
provide to conservation projects overseas.
4.3.9
The Convention on Biological Diversity states that “the conservation of biological diversity is a
common concern of humankind” and the applicant considers that all New Zealanders benefit from
the conservation of biological diversity.
4.3.10
EPA staff consider that by helping government meet international obligations, educating the public
and providing for conservation biodiversity, zoos are providing a significant social benefit to New
Zealanders and other communities in New Zealand and internationally in the indigenous location of
species both human and animal.
4.4.
Inseparable organisms
4.4.1
Under s45(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, the Authority must take into account the effects of the organism and
any inseparable organism. No inseparable organisms have been identified in association with the
new organisms in this application, so EPA staff consider the effects to be negligible.
June 2013
17
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
5.
Proposed controls regime
5.1.
Introduction
5.1.1
This section outlines the current controls that zoo animals are subject to, and the concerns about
them that led to the reassessment application. It also outlines a set of proposed controls, and how
this set of controls can be implemented.
5.1.2
Under (s45(2)), an approval:
a) must include controls that provide for applicable matters in Schedule 3; and
b) may include controls that provide for any other matters in order to give effect to the purpose of
the Act (to protect the environment, and the health and safety of people and communities, by
preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms).
Effects of Controls
5.1.3
This reassessment is considered to be an effective way to address inconsistencies and confusion
around the controls in place for zoo animals; in particular the lack of specific HSNO controls for
pre-HSNO Act new organisms that were deemed to be approved (under the transitional provision
of s255) into containment, and controls imposed on new organisms subsequently approved under
s45 of the HSNO Act.
5.1.4
These inconsistencies have led to confusion for both the zoo facilities, and the MPI inspectors who
are trying to enforce compliance with HSNO and Biosecurity requirements where those respective
requirements are not clearly identified.
5.1.5
MPI have commented that they are reliant on three aspects with regards to this reassessment:
• “A clear understanding of the legal scope of the approval, i.e. what is legally enforceable under
the approval;
• Clarity of controls, so that it is clearly understood what the intent of a control is, particularly if it is
worded as a performance-based outcome; and
• The approval, particularly the controls, is able to be enforced within reasonable expectations
and that reasonable expectation measures can be implemented to meet the intended outcome.”
5.1.6
MPI Compliance Directorate commented that they considered two points to be very important in
setting the controls:
• “Routine surveillance, inspection and treatment plans around the immediate vicinity of the
containment facility if required i.e: not just inside and structural checks but also outside if
required (this may however be encompassed in other generic areas of the document);
• The need for long term and accurate record keeping of the training programme (again
documentation is already mentioned generically within the document so that may cover it)”.
(David Blake, Team Leader, North Investigations Team 2, Compliance Directorate, MPI. pers
comm).
June 2013
18
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
5.1.7
We propose controls that align with some submissions. These include :
• Control 24 To ensure containment is being achieved, containment measures must be inspected,
monitored and reviewed
• Controls 22 and 23 relating to the containment facilities contingency plans, require a plan of the
actions to be taken to recapture or eradicate the approved organism, and may include external
checks if necessary.
• Control 5 The person(s) responsible for compliance with the HSNO Act controls must have a
documented plan that shows that the containment facility has access to on-going resources
necessary to ensure that the containment of all approved organisms held within the facility can
be adequately maintained in the long term.
• Control 21 Any person (including contractors, staff, students, visitors, and volunteers) entering
the containment facility and/or containment areas must have received sufficient instruction on
the containment regime to enable the person to meet their responsibilities in relation to
containment).
5.1.8
EPA staff consider that by bringing all zoo animals in containment under one set of HSNO controls,
we will provide clarification of the scope of HSNO controls for containment of zoo animals and
address issues of consistency between approvals. We consider that this will benefit the EPA, MPI,
and the zoo facilities.
5.2.
Concerns with current controls
5.2.1
The wording of HSNO controls has varied over the years, with a variety of iterations for the same
control, reflecting changes in staff and legal advice.
5.2.2
The following areas are of particular importance when imposing controls on approvals:
• the effectiveness of the controls
• the enforceability of the controls
• the ability for facilities to comply
• the practicability of the controls.
5.2.3
Our concerns about the effectiveness, practicability, enforceability and compliance of highly
prescriptive controls, and a Zoo Standard that varies in the level of prescription of controls,
highlights that while being prescriptive gives clarity in some areas, it can leave significant gaps if
every possible scenario is not addressed. Also this kind of prescriptive control, which goes beyond
stating the outcome required and delves into how to achieve compliance, transfers risk to the EPA.
For example, if an incident occurs but prescriptive controls were complied with, the facility may
argue non-culpability. We recommend minimising opportunities for risk transfer.
June 2013
19
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
5.2.4
The current Zoo Standard does not differentiate between HSNO Act requirements and Biosecurity
Act requirements. The controls proposed for this reassessment are only for a HSNO purpose even
where they may have an unintended and consequential Biosecurity Act impact.
5.3.
Controls proposed by the applicant
5.3.1
For this reassessment, the applicant proposed 15 controls that they consider have been
inadequately addressed under past HSNO approvals for the containment of zoo animals. These
controls are listed in Appendix 8 of this document. These additional controls address the
containment of new organisms. Other matters that the applicant considers should be addressed
include human health and safety, and animal welfare. These matters are not within the scope of
HSNO Act responsibilities, and any such control that could have a benefit for HSE or animal
welfare is imposed only for a HSNO purpose, and any other benefit is consequential.
5.3.2
DOC commented that they “support the additional controls and protocols proposed by the ZAA,
and consider them necessary in order to explicitly address the issues concerning containment,
administration, staff training, animal welfare, human health and safety, biosecurity and exit
strategies to outline the dispersal of the collection”.
5.3.3
NAWAC provided comment that they “support the intent of the application to ‘address the overlaps
between containment, animal welfare, health and safety, the current zoo and aquarium standards,
and biosecurity, and the applicants recognition that they have a responsibility to the welfare of
animals contained in zoos and aquariums beyond the life of the containment facility”.
5.3.4
MPI commented that “while the intent of the controls is understood, many of them, as they are
currently worded, are not easily enforceable and some are ‘halfway’ between a prescription and a
performance based outcome”. Also, “it is not obviously apparent how some controls directly relate
to maintaining containment”. SAFE also commented that while the controls are “good at face
value”; they questioned “how will these controls be measured and implemented?”
5.3.5
EPA staff have evaluated these controls in relation to s45(2) of the Act, and made comments
against each proposed control in the table in Appendix 8. We agree with the comment from
NAWAC that some of the applicants proposed controls “need to be more explicit”, and we have
revised them into outcome focused HSNO specific controls where they are relevant and fall within
the scope of the Act.
5.4.
Proposal for new controls regime and implementation
Proposed new controls regime
5.4.1
It is proposed that a common set of controls be imposed on all zoo animals approved under the
Act, including for those organisms that have deemed approvals. The proposed controls are
outcome based, looking at the desired outcome rather than specifying how that outcome should be
June 2013
20
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
achieved. This approach is commonly accepted by regulators and approval holders alike and offers
a degree of risk transfer avoidance for the EPA and flexibility for approval holders.
5.4.2
An initial set of controls was developed, and outlined in the HSNO Act controls for the containment
of new organisms in zoos (draft for consultation) document which was released in conjunction with
the application notification. Following public notification, and an assessment of the available
information, we recommend a set of 25 controls. These are listed below, and discussed in detail in
the supporting document “Explanation and guidance for HSNO Act controls imposed through
Application APP201517”, which has been published on the EPA website.
5.4.3
A comparison of the recommended controls with any existing controls and the current Zoo
Standard can be found in the supporting document “Comparison of proposed and existing
controls”, which has been published on the EPA website.
Proposed controls
Requirement for the containment of approved organisms
1.
The approved organism(s) must be contained.
Requirements for accountability for compliance with controls
2.
The organisation, entity or person(s) responsible for the ownership, control and management of
the containment facility where the approved organisms are held (including Board members and/or
directors) must ensure compliance with the controls of this approval.
Requirement to specify how controls will be met
3.
Procedures that specify how all the controls will be implemented must be documented, and these
must be reviewed regularly to ensure they are effective.
4.
The containment facility must be operated in compliance with the documentation specified in
control 3. (This does not override the imperative to comply with all the controls).
Requirement for continuity of containment
5.
The person(s) responsible for compliance with the HSNO Act controls must have a documented
plan that shows that the containment facility has access to on-going resources necessary to
ensure that the containment of all approved organisms held within the facility can be adequately
maintained in the long term.
Requirements for the containment regime
6.
The containment facility and all containment area(s) where the approved organisms may be held
must be clearly defined, described, and documented, including their location and boundaries.
7.
The containment area(s) must be designed, constructed and maintained to prevent the approved
organism from escaping.
8.
Persons entering and exiting the containment facility and/or any containment areas must do so in
a way that does not adversely affect containment of the approved organism(s).
June 2013
21
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
9.
The approved organism(s) must be identifiable as a new organism and be able to be linked to the
relevant HSNO Act approval.
Requirements for notification to the EPA and/or MPI
10.
Notification must be given to the MPI Inspector of any proposed modification to the containment
regime which may affect the integrity of containment of the approved organism(s), before the
modifications are undertaken.
11.
The EPA and MPI Inspector must be notified in writing before this HSNO Act approval is used for
the first time.
12.
The MPI Inspector must be notified as soon as possible, and within 24 hours, of any escape
and/or breach of containment and the actions taken in response to that incident.
Requirements for moving approved organisms
13.
The approved organism(s) must be contained during movement within, to, or from the
containment facility.
14.
When being moved outside of a containment facility, within New Zealand, the approved organism
must be accompanied by documentation stating the:
a)
Identity of the approved organism
b)
Containment requirements
c)
Details of the sender
d)
Details of the receiving facility.
Requirements to limit access to the containment facility
15.
Unauthorised persons must be excluded from the containment facility.
16.
All containment facility entrances must be clearly identified including specifying who has the right
of access.
17.
The number and location of entrances to the containment facility where the approved organism(s)
are held must be identified and documented.
Requirements for removing equipment and waste from the containment facility
18.
Any waste (including biological material) that may harbour the approved organism(s), or heritable
material from the approved organism, must be treated to ensure that the approved organism or
any heritable material is killed prior to discarding.
19.
Any equipment, that may harbour the approved organism(s) or heritable material from the
approved organism, must be treated to ensure that the approved organism or any heritable
material is killed prior to the equipment being used for another purpose or being removed from
the containment area/facility.
Requirement for dealing with undesirable organisms
20.
The containment facility must be secured and monitored to ensure the exclusion of undesirable
organisms that might compromise the containment of the approved organism(s).
June 2013
22
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Requirement for instruction and training
21.
Any person (including contractors, staff, students, visitors, and volunteers) entering the
containment facility and/or containment areas must have received sufficient instruction on the
containment regime to enable the person to meet their responsibilities in relation to containment.
Requirements for contingency plans
22.
The containment facility must have a documented contingency plan for each approved organism
held in that containment facility.
23.
The contingency plan must be implemented immediately if there is any reason to believe that an
approved organism has escaped or been released from the containment area or the containment
facility, or any other breach of containment has occurred.
Requirements for internal inspections and monitoring
24.
25.
To ensure containment is being achieved, containment measures must be:
a)
Inspected, monitored and reviewed
b)
Inspected as soon as possible after any event that could compromise the containment
regime, such as an Act of God (such as flood, earthquake) or any unauthorised attempt to
enter the containment facility.
Any remedial requirements identified under control 24, or by any other means, must be actioned
as soon as possible.
Implementation of proposed controls regime
5.4.4
To facilitate the implementation of the proposed controls regime it is recommended that:
• an implementation period be imposed
• a guidance document in support of the EPA decision be issued.
Implementation period
5.4.5
EPA staff consider that an implementation period of 12 months from the notification of the decision
should be imposed. This will enable all facilities to review their operations and documentation to
meet the new controls. It will also allow MPI to review those changes and undertake the necessary
audits to ensure that all containment facilities are operating in compliance with the new controls
regime.
Guidance document
5.4.6
A guidance document has been drafted in support of the decision for this application. This
document will help facilitate the new controls regime by explaining what is expected of the facilities,
giving guidance on how they can comply with the controls. It will also assist MPI with measuring
compliance with the new controls.
5.4.7
An initial draft guidance document was released for public consultation with the reassessment
application to gain feedback from the containment facilities, and begin discussions with MPI. A
June 2013
23
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
revised draft of this guidance document (Explanation and guidance for HSNO Act controls imposed
through Application APP201517) has been developed in collaboration with MPI, based on the
recommended controls. This guidance document will be updated to reflect the EPA decision on the
reassessment application, and may be updated in the future if best practice changes, or more
guidance is considered useful.
5.5.
Assessment of the adequacy of containment
5.5.1
After taking into account the available information, the ability of the new organisms to escape
containment, and the containment regime (controls 1-25), EPA staff conclude that it is highly
improbable that new organisms would be able to escape from containment.
5.5.2
EPA staff consider that the containment regime imposed provides for all the matters specified in
Schedule 3 (Part 2) of the HSNO Act. How these proposed controls specifically address the
matters specified in Part 2 of Schedule 3 is shown in Appendix 8, and a list defining any HSNO
specific terms that should be applied to these proposed controls is given in the guidance document
(Explanation and guidance for HSNO Act controls imposed through Application APP201517).
Ability to establish an undesirable self-sustaining population and ease of
eradication
5.5.3
In accordance with s44 and s37 of the Act and clause 10(e) of the Methodology, EPA staff
considered the ability of the organisms to form undesirable self-sustaining populations should they
escape containment, and the ease of eradication of such populations.
5.5.4
The applicant identified three species that have the potential to cause localised environmental
impacts, in the event that they escaped/were released and established in the environment. The
potential risks posed by those animals are outlined below.
5.5.5
EPA staff consider that it is highly likely that the zoo animals being considered under this
reassessment could be recaptured or killed. In addition, we consider that in the highly improbable
event that an undesirable self-sustaining population did establish in New Zealand, such a
population could easily be eradicated, as the animals would be easily located and trapped or
poisoned.
Florida Soft Shell Turtle
5.5.6
Apalone ferox (Schneider, 1783) is highly carnivorous and thrives in deep fresh water. The species
is aquatic and only comes onto land to lay eggs. We therefore consider that a feral population
would be harder to detect than some other fresh water turtle species. It is unlikely they could
spread out of a single river system given the low numbers that are in New Zealand, for example
only one male is currently held by any ZAA member institution, and that a gravid female would
have to escape containment to be able to form a sustaining population in the wild. This species
would have an impact of localised fish, crustacean, duck and invertebrate species, as these
comprise its diet.
June 2013
24
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Oriental Short (small) Clawed Otter
5.5.7
Aonyx cinerea (Illiger, 1815) could cause localised predation on fish, crabs, crustaceans and
molluscs. However, a recent escape resulted in 1/3 loss of body condition by the time the animal
was recaptured compared to her last weight recorded before she escaped. We therefore consider
that it would not have been able to survive for much longer. In addition, a male and a female, or a
gravid female would have to escape and evade recapture long enough to rear babies.
African Clawed Frog
5.5.8
Xenopus laevis (Daudin, 1802) has been associated with the spread of chytrid fungus. One of the
routes for chitrid fungus to be spread worldwide is believed to be by research colonies of African
Clawed frogs, as this species is where the oldest records of chytrid fungus infections can be found.
As chytrid fungus is already present in New Zealand, and only one native frog species is at all
aquatic (Hochstetters Frog Leiopelma hochstetteri) the likelihood of this being more than a
localised issue is highly unlikely.
6.
Summary and recommendations
6.1.1
After consideration of the risks and the controls we have proposed to mitigate those risks, EPA
staff consider that the beneficial effects outweigh the negative effects. EPA staff consider that the
proposed controls ensure containment and we recommend that they be approved as part of the
decision for this application.
6.1.2
Although the s45 approvals have been reassessed under s63 of the Act, and the deemed
approvals have been assessed under s45B, EPA staff recommend that they all have the same set
of controls applied under the new decision.
June 2013
25
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Appendix 1: Organisms and approval numbers
Table 1:Organisms approved under section 45 8
Species
Common name
Approval (s45)
Acrobates pygmaeus Shaw, 1793
feather tailed glider
NOC002541
Ailuropoda melanoleuca (David, 1869)
giant panda
NOC100015
Ailurus fulgens (F.G. Cuvier, 1825)
red panda
NOC100019*
all animals of the genus Canis (excluding C. familiaris)
Canis
NOC002510
antelope, cattle, gazelles,
NOC002511
pronghorn antelope
NOC100023
All species of Bovidae, excluding the subfamily Caprinae (chamois,
goats, sheep, serows and relatives) and genera Bos (oxen and true
cattle), Bubalus (water buffalo), and Syncerus (African buffalo)
NOC002511
Antidorcas marsupialis (Zimmerman, 1780)
springbok
NOC002494
NOC100023*
NOC002511
Antilope cervicapra (Linnaeus, 1758)
blackbuck
NOC002495
NOC100023*
Archispirostreptus gigas
giant African millipede
NOC100080
Basiliscus plumifrons
plumed basilisk
NOC100117
Boselaphus tragocamelus (Pallas, 1766)
nilgai
NOC002511
NOC002496
NOC100023*
Brachylophus vitiensis
Fiji island crested iguana
NOC002116
Callithrix pygmaea (Spix 1823) (syn. Cebuella pygmaea)
pygmy marmoset
NOC002393
Canis latrans
coyote
NOC002510*
Caracal caracal Schreber, 1776 (syn. Felis caracal)
caracal
NOC002542
Ceratotherium simum (Burchell, 1817)
white rhinoceros
NOC002497*
Chrysocyon brachyurus Illiger 1815
maned wolf
NOC002481
Colobus guereza Rüppell, 1835
black and white colobus
NOC002543
Crocuta crocuta Erxleben, 1777
spotted hyena
NOC002544
Dama ruficollis
Addra gazelle
NOC002511*
Dendrobates auratus (Girard 1855)
8
green and black poison dart
frog
NOC100094
Dendrobates azureus (Hoogmoed 1969)
blue poison dart frog
NOC100093
Dendrobates galactonotus (Steindachner 1864)
splash backed poison frog
NOC100092
Dendrobates leucomelas (Steindachner 1864)
yellow-banded poison dart frog
NOC100096
Dendrobates reticulatus (Boulenger 1884)
red backed poison frog
NOC100097
Dendrobates tinctorius (Cuvier 1797)
dyeing poison frog
NOC100098
Diceros bicornis Linnaeus, 1758
black rhinoceros
NOC002545
Controls to be reassessed under s63.
June 2013
26
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Species
Common name
Approval (s45)
Equus burchellii (Gray, 1824)
zebra
NOC002498*
Eurycnema goliath
Goliath stick insect
NOC100081
Extatosoma tiaratum
spiny leaf insect
NOC100082
Felis margarita Loche, 1858
sand cat
NOC002546
Felis nigripes Burchell, 1824
black footed cat
NOC002547
Galago moholi A. Smith, 1836
Moholi bush baby
NOC002548
Galago senegalensis É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796
Sengal bush baby
NOC002549
Giraffa camelopardalis (Linnaeus, 1758)
giraffe
NOC002484*
Gorilla gorilla (Savage and Wyman, 1847)
gorilla
NOC002550
Heterocephalus glaber
naked mole rat
NOC100115
Hexaprotodon liberiensis Morton, 1849
pygmy hippo
NOC002551
Hierodula majuscula
giant green mantid
NOC100083
NOC002511
Hippotragus niger (Harris 1838)
sable antelope
NOC002499*
NOC100023*
NOC002511
Kobus ellipsiprymnus (Ogilby, 1833)
waterbuck
NOC002500*
NOC100023*
Lamprotornis superbus (Rueppell, 1845)
superb (glossy) starling
NOC002380
Lasiorhinus latifrons (Owen, 1845)
southern hairy nosed wombat
NOC002552
Lemur catta
ring tailed lemur
NOC100016*
Leopardus pardalis Linnaeus, 1758 (syn. Felis pardalis)
ocelot
NOC002553
Leopardus wiedii Schinz, 1821 (syn. Felis wiedii)
margay
NOC002554
Liocheles waigiensis
rainforest scorpion
NOC100084
Macropanesthia rhinoceros
giant burrowing cockroach
NOC100085
Macropus fuliginosus Desmarest, 1871
western grey kangaroo
NOC002555
Mandrillus sphinx Linnaeus, 1758
mandrill
NOC002556
Megacrania batesii
peppermint stick insect
NOC100086
Neofelis nebulosa Griffith, 1821
clouded leopard
NOC002557
Oryx dammah (Cretzschmar, 1826)
scimitar horned oryx
NOC002511
NOC002501
NOC100023*
Oryx gazella
Otolemur crassicaudatus É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812
Otolemur garnettii Ogilby, 1838
gemsbok/gemsbuck/oryx
brown greater galago/ greater
bush baby
northern greater galago/ greater
bush baby
NOC002511*
NOC002558
NOC002559
Panthera pardus
leopard
NOC002383*
Phalacrognathus muelleri
rainbow stag beetle
NOC100087
Phascolarctos cinereus Goldfuss, 1817
koala
NOC002560
June 2013
27
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Species
Common name
Approval (s45)
Phoenicopterus roseus (Phoenicopterus ruber roseus (Pallas, 1811))
greater flamingo
NOC100021*
Phyllobates terribilis (Myers, Daly and Malkin 1978)
golden poison frog
NOC100095
Potorous tridactylus Kerr, 1792
long nosed potoroo
NOC002561
Prionailurus viverrinus Bennet 1833
fishing cat
NOC002486
Saguinus imperator (Goeldi, 1907)
emperor tamarin
NOC002482
Saguinus oedipus (Linnaeus, 1758)
cotton top tamarin
NOC100018*
Saimiri boliviensis I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Blainville, 1834
Bolivian squirrel monkey
NOC002562
Sarcophilus harrisii Boitard, 1841
Tasmanian devil
NOC002563
Speothos venaticus
bush dog
NOC100114
Suricata suricatta (Schreber, 1776)
meerkat
NOC100020*
Tachyglossus aculeatus Shaw, 1792
short beaked echidna
NOC002564
Tapirus terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758)
South American tapir
NOC100022*
Tectocoris diophthalmus
cotton harlequin bug
NOC100088
Trachypithecus francoisi Pousargues, 1898
Francois leaf-monkey
NOC002565
Tragelaphus eurycerus (Ogilby 1837)
bongo
Tragelaphus spekii (Sclater 1863)
sitatunga
NOC002502
NOC100023
NOC002511
NOC002503*
NOC100023*
Tragulus javanicus (Osbeck, 1765)
lesser chevrotain
NOC002566
Tropidoderus childrenii
children’s stick insect
NOC100089
Uncia uncia Schreber, 1775
snow leopard
NOC002567
Urodacus yaschenkoi
inland robust scorpion
NOC100090
Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758
brown bear
NOC002568
Varanus komodoensis
komodo dragon
NOC100116
Varecia variegata
ruffed lemur
NOC100017*
Xylotrupes ulysses
rhinoceros beetle
NOC100091
Note: those approvals marked * also have a deemed approval.
June 2013
28
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Table 2: Deemed approved organisms 9
Species
Common name
Approval
Acinonyx jubatus (Schreber, 1775)
cheetah
PRE008902
Ailurus fulgens (F.G. Cuvier, 1825)
red panda
PRE008903
Alligator mississippiensis (Daudin, 1801)
American alligator
PRE009038
Antidorcas marsupialis (Zimmerman, 1780)
springbok
PRE008905
Antilope cervicapra (Linnaeus, 1758)
blackbuck
PRE008907
Aonyx cinerea (Illiger, 1815) (syn. Amblonyx cinereus (Illiger, 1815), Aonyx
cinereus (Illiger, 1815), Aonyx cineria )
PRE008904
PRE008896
Apalone ferox
Florida soft shell turtle
PRE100002
Aphonopelma moderatum (Chamberlin & Ivie, 1939)
Rio Grande gold tarantula (spider)
PRE001042
Aphonopelma seemani (F.O.P.- Cambridge, 1897)
Costa Rican zebra tarantula
PRE001043
Ateles belzebuth
long haired spider monkey
PRE008908
Ateles geoffroyi
9
oriental short (small) clawed otter
black handed/Central American
spider monkey
PRE008911
Avicularia urticans (Schmidt, 1994)
Peruvian pinktoe tarantula
PRE001044
Boselaphus tragocamelus (Pallas, 1766)
nilgai
PRE008913
Brachylophus fasciatus
Fiji island banded iguana
PRE100003
Brachypelma smithi (Cambridge, 1897)
Mexican red-kneed tarantula
PRE001045
Camelus dromedarius
dromedary camel (Arabian camel)
PRE008914
Canis latrans
coyote
PRE008915
Catopuma temminckii (syn. Pardofelis temminckii, Felis temmincki)
Asian golden cat
PRE008916
Cebus apella
brown capuchin monkey
PRE008918
Ceratotherium simum (Burchell, 1817)
white rhinoceros
PRE008919
Cercopithecus aethiops
vervet monkey
PRE008920
Chamaeleo jacksonii
Jacksons chameleon
PRE100004
Citharischius crawshayi (Pocock, 1900)
king baboon tarantula
PRE001046
Crocodylus porosus (Schneider, 1801)
salt water / estuarine crocodile
PRE009039
Dama ruficollis
Addra gazelle
PRE008921
Dasyprocta aguti (syn. Dasyprocta leporina)
Brazilian (golden) agouti
PRE008922
Dolichotis patagonum (Zimmermann, 1780)
Patagonian mara/cavy
PRE008923
Elephas maximus
Asiatic elephant
PRE008924
Equus burchellii (Gray, 1824)
zebra
PRE008927
Eretmochelys imbricata
Hawks billed turtle
PRE100005
Controls to be amended under s45B
June 2013
29
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Species
Common name
Approval
Gehyra australis
house gecko
PRE100008
Gekko monarchus
house gecko
PRE100007
Geochelone carbonaria
red-footed tortoise
PRE100009
Geochelone chilensis
chaco tortoise
PRE100010
Geochelone denticulata
yellow-footed tortoise
PRE100011
Geochelone elegans
star tortoise
PRE100012
Geochelone nigra
Galapagos tortoise
PRE100013
Giraffa camelopardalis (Linnaeus, 1758)
giraffe
PRE008929
Gopherus agassizii
desert tortoise
PRE100014
Gopherus berlandieri
Texas tortoise
PRE100015
Grammostola pulchra (Mello-Leitao, 1921)
Brazilian black tarantula
PRE001048
Grammostola rosea (Walckenaer, 1837)
Chilean rose tarantula
PRE001047
Grus rubicunda
Australian crane
PRE100016
Helarctos malayanus
Malayan sunbear
PRE008931
Hippopotamus amphibius
hippopotamus
PRE008932
Hippotragus niger (Harris 1838)
sable antelope
PRE008933
Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris (Linnaeus, 1766)
capybara
PRE001041
Hylobates lar
white-handed lar gibbon
PRE008934
Hylobates leucogenys (syn. Nomascus leucogenys)
white cheeked gibbon
PRE008935
Hylobates muelleri
Muller's Borean/grey gibbon
PRE008936
Hylobates syndactylus
Siamang gibbon
PRE008937
Iguana iguana (Linnaeus, 1758)
green iguana
PRE008900
Kobus ellipsiprymnus (Ogilby, 1833)
waterbuck
PRE008939
Lasiodorides polycuspulatus (Schmidt & Bischoff, 1997)
Peruvian blonde tarantula
PRE001049
Lasiodorides striatus (Schmidt & Antonelli, 1996)
Peruvian orange stripe tarantula
PRE001050
Lemur catta
ring tailed lemur
PRE008940
Lemur macao
black lemur
PRE008941
Leontopithecus rosalia
golden lion tamarin
PRE008942
Leptailurus serval (Schreber, 1776) (syn. Felis serval Schreber, 1776)
serval
Litoria caerulea (White, 1790)
White's tree frog
PRE009037
Loxodonta africana
African savannah elephant
PRE100033
Loxodonta cyclotis
African forest elephant
PRE100034
Lycaon pictus
African wild dog
PRE008944
June 2013
PRE008943
PRE008928
30
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Species
Common name
Approval
Lynx rufus (Schreber, 1777) (syn. Felis rufus)
bobcat
PRE008945
Macaca irus
crab eating macaque
PRE008946
Macaca mulatta
Rhesus macaque
PRE008947
Macaca nemestrina
pig tailed macaque
PRE008948
Macaca radiata
bonnet macaque
PRE008949
Macropus giganteus Shaw 1790
great grey kangaroo
PRE100018
Macropus rufus (Desmarest 1822)
red kangaroo
PRE100019
Ophisaurus apodus (syn. Pseudopus apodus)
scheltopusik/glass lizard
PRE100021
Oryx dammah (Cretzschmar, 1826)
scimitar horned oryx
PRE008950
Oryx gazella
gemsbok/gemsbuck/oryx
PRE008951
Pamphobetus antinous (Pocock, 1923)
steely blue-leg bird-eating spider
PRE001051
Pamphobetus platytomma (Mello-Leitao, 1923)
Brazilian pink tarantula
PRE001052
Pan troglodytes
chimpanzee
PRE008952
Panthera leo
African lion
PRE008953
Panthera pardus
leopard
PRE008955
Panthera tigris
tiger
PRE008957
Papio hamadryas
baboon
PRE008958
Pecari tajacu (syn. Tayassu tajacu)
collared peccary
PRE008960
Pelecanus conspicillatus
Australian pelican
PRE100023
Phelsuma madagascariensis
Madagascar giant day gecko
PRE009032
Phoenicopterus roseus (Phoenicopterus ruber roseus (Pallas, 1811))
greater flamingo
PRE100025
Pongo abelii
Sumatran orangutan
PRE100035
Pongo pygmaeus
Bornean orangutan
PRE008961
Prionailurus bengalensis (syn. Felis bengalensis)
leopard cat
PRE008962
Pteropus poliocephalus
grey headed flying fox
PRE008963
Pteropus scapulatus
little red flying fox
PRE008964
Puma concolor (Linnaeus 1771) (formerly Felis concolor)
puma
PRE008901
Rhea americana
greater rhea
PRE100027
Saguinus oedipus (Linnaeus, 1758)
cotton top tamarin
PRE008965
Saimiri sciureus (Linnaeus, 1758)
common squirrel monkey
PRE009036
Suricata suricatta (Schreber, 1776)
meerkat
PRE008966
Tapirus terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758)
South American tapir
PRE008967
Theraphosa blondi (Latreille, 1804)
Goliath bird-eating spider
PRE001053
Tragelaphus spekii (Sclater 1863)
sitatunga
PRE008968
June 2013
31
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Species
Common name
Approval
Varanus gouldii
Goulds monitor
PRE100031
Varanus varius
lace monitor
PRE009035
Varecia variegata
ruffed lemur
PRE008969
Vombatus ursinus Shaw 1800
common wombat
PRE001035
Xenopus laevis
African clawed toad
PRE100032
Zalophus californianus (Lesson, 1828)
Californian sealion
PRE100038
June 2013
32
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Appendix 2: Summary of Submissions Received through Public
Notice
Table 3 Summary of submissions received during public notification
Submission
Submitter/
organisation
Submitter comments
102796
National Animal Welfare
Support the intent to address overlaps between containment, animal
Advisory Committee
welfare, health and safety, the current zoo and aquarium standards, and
biosecurity.
Notes animal welfare not identified as an issue in the analysis of risk and
benefits.
Consider that while there are controls under HSNO, there must be ongoing consideration of the on-going risk to animal welfare.
102809
Greater Regional
Wellington Council
Concerns about the biosecurity risk of exotic animals held in zoos.
Consider it is essential that containment of exotic animals follow the
proposed controls and that smaller facilities adhere to the same rules as
larger facilities.
Monitoring must occur to ensure that happens.
102810
Save Animals from
Exploitation
The controls as they are proposed are good at face value. We fully
agree the physical, emotional, and mental needs of the animals must be
met.
SAFE’s main concern is the implementation of the proposed controls –
how will these controls be measured and implemented?
SAFE is concerned that financial insecurity faced by many zoos may
place the welfare of the animals at risk. Even facilities that are owned by
city councils make decisions for financial reasons that may negatively
affect animals.
102812
World Society for the
Protection of Animals
Provided a paper prepared by WSPA for the Welfare Act review process
in 2012. It looks at the issues associated with exotic and wild animals for
public display and makes some recommendations. Does not specifically
address the issues identified as part of the EPA submission but may
throw up some interesting issues.
June 2013
33
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Appendix 3: Submission from the Department of Conservation
Monday, 6 May 2013
Department of Conservation comments on the application to reassess all
terrestrial zoo animals and aquatic mammalian zoo animals approved for
containment under the HSNO Act
Application code: APP201517
Applicant: Zoo and Aquarium Association
Submission deadline: Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Zoo and Aquarium Association’s (ZAA) application to bring terrestrial zoo
animals and aquatic mammalian zoo animals with deemed HSNO approval (deemed approved during the transitional
period when the HSNO Act came into force), and prior HSNO approval under one set of controls.
1.
In summary, the Department supports the additional controls proposed by the ZAA, in combination with
standards required by MPI (MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Standard 154.03.04 Containment Facilities for Zoo
Animals) and the EPA controls that govern their containment in conjunction with this standard.
2.
More specifically, we note that in addition to the application content, the EPA has asked for the Department’s
feedback on the ZAA New Zealand Guidelines for Containing Zoo Animals in New Zealand (2011) and the HSNO
Act controls for the containment of new organisms in zoos. The Department has the following comments.
General comments
3.
DOC is primarily an operational Department, with one of our main focuses being the control of vertebrate and
other pests for the protection of native biodiversity purposes, rather than the containment of them.
Consequently we do not have the necessary internal containment capability to evaluate the utility of the
structural or operational measures proposed in the application. We ask that the Authority takes our knowledge
precincts into account when deciding whether suitable assessment has been done.
4.
We have limited experience with predator proof fencing in order to contain and maintain biodiversity values by
excluding pests from a given area, and standards for keeping deer in captivity (because the Minister of
Conservation has the legal responsibility to manage aspects of deer farming in New Zealand under the Wild
Animal Control Act 1977). Accordingly, we have attached the Department’s “Management of Deer Farming and
Keeping Deer in Captivity Standard Operating Procedure” which covers all aspects of keeping deer in captivity,
including dealing with illegal liberations and deer escapes from farms (dme-424139). This may be of some use to
the EPA when assessing ungulate containment and contingency measures.
5.
Unfortunately we have not synthesised our best practice for predator proof fence development, which may have
been useful for the EPA when assessing the appropriate measures for relevant species of ‘climbers’, and so we
are unable to provide you with this information directly. However, two contacts who we believe may have the
expertise to comment on the efficacy of the application’s structural containment measures are:
Pest proof fences: http://www.pestprooffences.co.nz/
Xcluder fences: http://www.xcluder.co.nz/
Specific comments; adverse effects on the environment
6.
We consider the likelihood of zoo animals escaping or being released to be low, given the MPI and EPA required
containment standards for all the organisms covered by this application and the contingency measures in place.
June 2013
34
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
7.
The consequence of an escapee’s potential for adverse environmental impact obviously depends on a range of
factors, including the escapee’s sex, whether the female is gravid (and likelihood/methods of other heritable
material spread), the suitability of the New Zealand environment and availability of dietary requirements. The
three species identified by the applicant as having the potential to cause localised adverse environmental
impacts in the event of escape/release and establishment in the wild are the Florida Soft Shell Turtle, Oriental
Short (small) Clawed Otter and African Clawed Frog (chytrid fungus threat). The Department has not commented
on the accuracy or comprehensiveness of this list, as this would require an environmental impact assessment to
be done for each species covered by the application; but more importantly, this appears to be outside the
submission scope, given we understand these species already have deemed or prior EPA approval for
containment.
Specific comments; proposed additional controls
8.
We support the additional controls and protocols proposed by the ZAA, and consider them necessary in order to
explicitly address the issues concerning containment, administration, staff training, animal welfare, human
health and safety, biosecurity and exit strategies to outline the dispersal of the collection; noting the qualification
outlined in 3. above.
Comments provided on behalf of DOC by:
Verity Forbes
Technical Advisor – Threats (Biosecurity)
Peer review:
Phil Bell – Programme Manager (Future of Predator Control)
June 2013
35
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Appendix 4: Submission from the Ministry for Primary Industries
Comments Form to the EPA for New Organism Applications
Application Code:
APP201517
Applicant Name:
Zoo and Aquarium Association
Application Category:
Notified Reassessment
Application Title:
The reassessment (under the HSNO Act) of terrestrial zoo animals
and aquatic zoo animals
EPA Applications Contact:
Kate Bromfield
Date:
8 May 2013
MPI Response Coordinator:
Barry Wards
Option to Speak in Support of this
Submission:
Yes
Comments provided by:
Barry Wards
BASIS ON WHICH COMMENT IS PROVIDED
MPI submits these comments for consideration to the EPA on the following:
•
Clarity of information;
•
Information that MPI considers should be taken into consideration by the EPA;
•
Adequacy of the proposed containment system, including suggestions for controls and amendments
to proposed controls; and
•
Enforceability of any proposed controls.
Matters relating to the application that are not within the scope of these comments will be provided to the
EPA separately.
Comments
General
June 2013

On 17 June 2011, the EPA made a decision stating that there are grounds for
reassessing zoo animals approved or deemed approved for importation into
containment.

It is MPI’s understanding that this decision was made after taking into account that
information received showed a significant change of use of the approved organisms, in
accord with s62(2)(c) of the HSNO Act. This change of use recognised that the purpose
of the majority of the current approvals limited the current scope of the functions of the
containment facilities (zoos) beyond that of ‘public display’. Consequently, this current
application seeks to reassess zoo animals to take into account these changes of use,
assess risks and benefits associated with these and develop controls that manage
these accordingly.

In addition, because deemed approved zoo animals have never been assessed under
the HSNO framework (pre-July 1998), the reassessment offers an opportunity to decide
on whether the controls are adequate and consistent with those controls applied to
animals approved after July 1998.
36
APP201517 EPA Staff Report


Section 4
June 2013
Ultimately, this application is primarily concerned with:
­
Reassessing zoo animal new organisms to determine whether purposes beyond that
of public display present additional risks;
­
How those risks are best managed; and
­
Putting in place consistent and risk mitigating controls that would apply to all
approved zoo animal new organisms.
Consequently, MPI has a keen interest in providing comments on the application
because, as the agency responsible for enforcement of the new organism provisions of
the HSNO Act, it needs to ensure that:
­
The EPA has taken all relevant risk matters associated with the containment of the
approved organisms into account;
­
Controls established to manage identified risks and ensure the approved organisms
are contained at all times are adequate, can be practically implemented and are
enforceable.

In addition to this, and noting that aside from this current application there has been a
considerable degree of interest in ensuring that decisions on applications are made
within the bounds of the HSNO regulatory framework, MPI is aware that this application
seeks decisions on what those boundaries are. More specifically, there is recognition
that the ability to contain the approved organisms and preventing or managing the
potential adverse effects if they are not contained can be significantly impacted by
matters relating to (a) maintaining their welfare, and (b) the health and safety of people
associated with them. The decisions made by the EPA with respect to these issues are
relevant to the scope of enforcement activities and the way these are exercised.

MPI agrees that the purpose of holding the approved organisms has significantly
changed and additional purposes that are currently being employed have the potential
to result in additional risks to containment. Consequently, the ability to effectively
contain them can be impacted by such purposes, the way these are met and the
effectiveness of how other regulatory requirements not directly related to containment
are complied with.

MPIs ability to ensure containment is maintained, particularly in situations where such
containment can require highly specialised expertise in animal management and welfare
and where dangerous animals are presented to the public can, therefore, be impacted
by the level of compliance to such other regulatory requirements.

MPI can also, therefore, understand why the applicant recognises that there are
overlaps between containment, animal welfare and health and safety. It also recognises
that, particularly in situations where it can be extremely difficult to separate issues
relating to containment, animal welfare and health and safety, it also becomes difficult to
separate enforcement activities, particularly if these are primarily focused on
containment.

In addition to these considerations, MPI supports the applicant’s contention that the
ability to maintain containment is dependent upon adequate resourcing and planning on
a long-term basis. In some situations, surety of long-term containment needs to be
established because of potential difficulties in disposing of animals should the lack of
resourcing, or other events, lead to cancellation of the facility approval. This also
37
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
recognises that some existing zoo containment facilities have reached a point of
financial difficulty because activities over and above the purpose of ‘public display’ have
become compromised and these were essential in maintaining business viability.
Section 9

The applicant has indicated that there are no African Forest Elephants in New Zealand
as at 29 November 2012. To MPIs knowledge, this is incorrect, Franklin Zoo currently
holding one female of this species.
Appendix 2

MPI is legally responsible for the enforcement of this application, if approved. Noncompliance can have serious consequences, including supervisory intervention to
maintain containment (possibly at the Crown’s expense), cancellation of a zoo
containment facility or its operator, prosecution of an operator and/or associated
management, and disposal of approved organisms, including euthanasia. As indicated
above, in order to exercise this enforcement responsibility effectively and efficiently,
MPI is reliant on three aspects:
­
A clear understanding of the legal scope of the approval, ie what is legally
enforceable under the approval;
­
Clarity of controls, so that it is clearly understood what the intent of a control is,
particularly if it is worded as a performance-based outcome; and
­
The approval, particularly the controls, is able to be enforced within reasonable
expectations and that reasonable expectation measures can be implemented to
meet the intended outcome.

If all three aspects are not adequately addressed in considering this application,
enforcement may be difficult.

MPI recognises that the applicant considers that there are aspects of animal welfare,
health and safety, business continuity and long-term resourcing are intrinsic to not only
maintaining containment but also maintaining the ability to. From an operational
perspective, MPI supports this position. However, from a legal enforcement position,
MPI must defer to the EPA to decide on what extent those aspects need to be
incorporated into its decision and, therefore, to what extent it expects MPI to be able to
enforce those controls. While MPI will continue to collaborate with the enforcement
agencies responsible for enforcing animal welfare and health and safety under
reactively-enforced legislation, the extent to which this can be practically achieved, as
well as the obligations that may be put on those agencies, is dependent on the scope of
EPA decision-making.

Depending on the scope of the application, if approved, it may be difficult for MPI to
adequately report against it, particularly those aspects requiring enforcement to animal
welfare and safety and health.

In light of the above, MPI makes the following comments on the proposed additional
controls:
­
June 2013
Those controls having a greater focus on animal welfare and/or safety and health as
intrinsic to maintaining containment may be difficult to enforce proactively and to cost
recover that enforcement. They may necessitate decisions that result in proactive
enforcement under a primarily reactively enforced regime in order to determine that
the approval has been complied with. In addition, the ability to technically resource
such enforcement to the extent intended by the applicant will be beyond the current
capabilities of enforcement officers and extra resourcing and/or training will be
38
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
required.
­
Additional
considerations

While controls must take into account the ability of a species to escape, the factors
that influence that ability include:
•
The inherent size, strength, characteristics, intelligence, behaviour and social
interactions of that species;
•
Gender and social interactions and behaviour between genders; and
•
Behaviour, intelligence and characteristics of individuals of a species (noting the
elephant ‘Mila’ at Franklin Zoo as an example).
­
While the intent of the controls is understood, many of them, as they are currently
worded, are not easily enforceable and some are ‘halfway’ between a prescription
and a performance-based outcome.
­
It is not obviously apparent how some controls directly relate to maintaining
containment (eg, proposed control (i)) but this must be considered against the EPA
decision over the scope of the approval.
­
MPI supports the intent of controls referring to business resourcing, continuity and
viability but cautions that these may be difficult to enforce and verify on an ongoing
basis and may raise issues relating to confidentiality of information and potential
breach of employment agreements.
MPI recognises that some zoo containment facilities hold animals that are inherently
dangerous and, while there is little risk of establishing a viable population if they
escaped, can potentially cause great harm to people and communities. The structural
and operational containment of these animals can be very expensive and technically
challenging, both to establish and maintain. As has been highlighted in recent years,
the ability to enforce HSNO approvals under which some of these animals are held has
been extraordinarily difficult. Unfortunately this has not been helped by an inherent
reluctance to initiate steps which may lead to cancellation of a facility approval because
of the publicly unpalatable situations that may lead to.
Consequently, it may be appropriate to consider additional controls that recognise such
difficult ‘risk’ situations and require an increased level of containment management.
Such management may necessarily incorporate additional requirements for
containment, animal welfare and safety and health in recognition of those risks and, in
some cases, the inherent dependencies between them. While such controls may still be
a challenge to enforce, as noted above, they may go some way towards averting
situations that have arisen in the past and recognising that the management of zoo
animals needs to be considered more holistically from a regulatory perspective than
perhaps it is at present.
June 2013
39
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Appendix 5: Submission from the Ministry for Primary Industries
– Animal Welfare Group
Submission on the reassessment of approvals for zoo animals application APP201517: the
reassessment of approvals and deemed approvals for exotic animals held in zoological gardens.
This is the submission from Animal Welfare Standards, Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).
Summary
We support the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee’s submission. In particular, we support the intent of linking animal
welfare standards to the HSNO controls. However we feel there is an on-going risk to animal welfare if all the welfare and
containment considerations are not coordinated and we do not believe that the proposed controls have provided a clear direction on
how this coordination is to be achieved, particularly given there are already animal welfare standards in place in the zoos code of
welfare.
Further, it is not clear how the advice of the zoo interagency working group on the scope and structure of the work required to move
the management and regulation of zoos from the current situation to the desired future state, will be incorporated. The working group
identified that this would likely require collective agreement between agencies around the scope and mandate of the different
controls imposed on zoos and the most effective arrangements to ensure compliance across the government’s full range of interests
in zoos, i.e., containment, biosecurity, animal welfare and health and safety;
Controls proposed by the Applicant
MPI supports the intent of the application to “address the overlaps between containment, animal welfare, health and safety, the
current zoo and aquarium standards, and biosecurity”. However, the proposed additional controls do not cover all of the welfare
standards required to provide for the physical, health and behavioural needs of the animals. There is a risk that the proposed, fairly
prescriptive, but subset of actual requirements would then be seen as the animal welfare standards, not those provided in the zoos
code of welfare.
One option would be to have a general animal welfare outcome control, and leave the details to the Code of Welfare. For example a
refinement of a. in the proposed additional controls “Any animal must be kept in a physical and social environment that meets its
physical, health and behavioural needs as per the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and Codes of Welfare.”
Further joint discussions are needed to determine both the framework and scope of the different controls. Reference to and linkages
with for example:
• HSNO controls
• Zoos Code of Welfare
• Guidelines for Containing Zoo Animals in New Zealand
• ZAA animal welfare position statement
• Other Industry standards.
Currently, these documents are either not referred to, or barely address animal welfare, and there is no framework of how they will
work together to ensure the well being of the animals and compliance with all the requirements.
Controls proposed by the EPA (HSNO Act controls for the containment of new organisms in zoos)
The EPA draft controls only address containment issues and not animal welfare. It is therefore not clear how EPA intends to
incorporate animal welfare requirements.
Beneficial and Adverse Effects
Animal welfare is not identified as an issue in the analysis of adverse and beneficial effects of the application. MPI supports NAWAC
position that “zoos do pose risks to animal welfare not only from the ways in which animals are managed within them but also in
terms of what they say to society about what are appropriate ways to treat and handle animals.”
June 2013
40
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Appendix 6: Taxonomic updates
Over time there have been revisions of the taxonomic classification of some species held in New Zealand
zoos. Relevant changes are noted below, with recommendations where approvals should be updated.
Taxonomic changes to giraffe
New taxonomic information has been published which changes giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) from a
single species with a number of subspecies to eight species (Groves and Grubb 2011) as follows:
• Giraffa angolensis (Angolan giraffe)
• Giraffa antiquorum (Kordofan giraffe)
• Giraffa camelopardalis (Nubian or Rothschild's giraffe)
• Giraffa giraffa (Cape giraffe)
• Giraffa peralta (West African giraffe)
• Giraffa reticulata (reticulated giraffe)
• Giraffa thornicrofti (Luangwa giraffe)
• Giraffa tippelskirchi (Masai giraffe).
Prior to the taxonomic revision of Ungulates by Groves and Grub (2011), there was only a single species
recognised for giraffe; Giraffa camelopardalis. The new taxonomic information that splits the genus into
separate species does not change the nature of the approved species. The giraffes in New Zealand are
either recorded as Giraffa camelopardalis or Giraffa camelopardalis rothschildii (Rothschilds giraffe), so it is
not possible to determine which of newly identified species have been imported in to New Zealand in the
past. Given that all giraffe have been managed as a single species and all pose an equivalent risk in our risk
assessment, it is recommended that the approval for this organism should occur at genus level, Giraffa.
Taxonomic changes to African elephants
Although African savannah (Loxodonta africana) and forest (Loxodonta cyclotis) elephants are recognised as
distinct species (Roqa et al. 2005, Nadin et al. 2010), the risks they present when in containment in New
Zealand are the same. Given that they pose an equivalent risk in our risk assessment, it is recommended
that they be considered at the higher taxonomic level of genus; Loxodonta for the purpose of this
reassessment.
References
Groves, C and Grubb P (2011). Ungulate taxonomy. The John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore,
Maryland. USA. 64-70.
Roca, A.L. Georgiadis, N. and O'Brien, S.J. (2005) Cytonuclear genomic dissociation in African elephant
species. Nature Genetics 37, 96-100.
Rohland, N. Reich, D. Mallick, S. Meyer, M. Green, R. E. Georgiadis, N. J. Roca, A. L. and Hofreiter, M.
(2010). "Genomic DNA Sequences from Mastodon and Woolly Mammoth Reveal Deep Speciation of
Forest and Savanna Elephants". In Penny, D. PLoS Biology 8 (12),. e1000564.
June 2013
41
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Appendix 7: Incidents involving new organisms in zoos
This Appendix contains information about incidents that have been reported under the HSNO Act regime
relating to the organisms subject to this reassessment.
Table 4: Containment breaches (escapes) reported under the HSNO regime
Where and When
Event
Cause category
Auckland Zoo
Unknown
Red panda escaped enclosure and exited the zoo.
Recaptured same day.
Unknown
Auckland Zoo
August 2002
Macaw exited the zoo during free flight training.
Recaptured two days later
Unknown
Wellington Zoo
March 2003
Free-ranging cotton-top tamarin was unable to be located,
was not recovered, presumed dead.
Unknown
Auckland Zoo
January 2004
Asian Elephant used log to deactivate electric fence and
negotiate dry moat to escape from enclosure and pushed
over gate to exit the zoo.
Was recaptured same day in adjacent park.
Dry moat (in elephant enclosure) contained a build-up of
detritus which aided exit
Containment design and
construction
Wellington Zoo
March 2005
Two red pandas escaped from enclosure and one animal
exited the zoo. Both were recaptured the same day.
Assisted by high trees within enclosure and trees adjacent to
perimeter fence of zoo.
Containment design and
construction
Willowbank Wildlife Reserve
May 2005
Otter escaped from enclosure – a vertical plank had come
loose from enclosure wall, otter thought to have scaled wall
between plank and concrete backing.
Recaptured after five days.
Containment design and
construction
Mark Vette Rescue Zoo
May 2005
A disabled Capuchin monkey was taken to staff members’
home for care.
Human error
Wellington Zoo
July 2006
Two lions escaped from their night enclosure/den into the
main enclosure while a keeper was in the main enclosure
putting out food for the animals. Keeper failed to secure one
of the internal connecting gates.
Human error
Auckland Zoo
September 2005
Serval cat escaped from enclosure, recaptured the same
day.
Extreme jumping ability noted.
Containment design and
construction
Auckland Zoo
November 2005
Two spider monkeys escaped from moated enclosure,
assisted by trees overhanging moat.
Recaptured the same day.
Containment design and
construction
June 2013
42
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Where and When
Event
Cause category
Hamilton Zoo
December 2005
Lemur escaped from enclosure. Recaptured same day.
This occasion was not the first time she had escaped. Upon
return she did not integrate into the group
Containment design and
construction
Behavioural factor
Auckland Zoo
February 2006
Lemur escaped from enclosure and exited zoo, recaptured
after two days in a neighbouring garden.
For several days prior other lemurs had been fighting with the
female who had a low status in the hierarchy.
Possibly climbed tree inside enclosure
Containment design and
construction
Behaviour
Hamilton Zoo
March 2006
Lemur escaped from enclosure, recaptured the next day.
A broken fence wire was shorting out the electric fences.
Containment design and
construction
Auckland Zoo
June 2006
Three otters escaped from enclosure and one animal exited
the zoo. Two otters recaptured the same day and remaining
otter ‘Jin” recaptured after 27 days (found near Rangitoto
Island in the Hauraki Gulf).
Nesting box reinstated into enclosure not secured properly.
Otter exited the zoo boundary via stream.
Containment design and
construction
Hamilton Zoo
June 2006
Lemur escaped from enclosure, returned to enclosure of own
accord.
Sagging in mesh of conventional fence and branches overhanging enclosure.
Containment design and
construction
Hamilton Zoo
August 2006
Red panda escaped from zoo enclosure and exited the zoo,
was hit by vehicle on road outside zoo and died.
Fence post within enclosure used as launch to breach
barrier; vegetation within enclosure.
Containment design and
construction
Hamilton Zoo
September 2006
Spider monkey escaped from enclosure, recaptured same
day. The monkey had recently been under some pressure by
the rest of the troop and may therefore have breached the
electric fence whilst being chased.
Containment design and
construction
Behavioural
Auckland Zoo
October 2006
Madagascar giant day gecko eggs found in quarantine tank,
no hatchlings were recovered.
Human error
Wellington Zoo
February 2007
Agouti escaped from a temporary enclosure, recaptured the
following day. Gate had not been locked properly.
Human error
Auckland Zoo
March 2007
Meerkat escaped from enclosure, recaptured the same day.
The meerkat dug hole near enclosure gate, and slipped
under the gate when a staff member entered the enclosure to
feed animals – males thought to be seeking females in
different enclosure.
Containment design and
construction
Franklin Zoo Gardens
March 2007
Capuchin monkey escaped from enclosure and exited zoo.
Recaptured after nine days from a neighbouring property.
Containment design and
construction
June 2013
43
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Where and When
Event
Cause category
Hamilton Zoo
December 2007
Three Sitatunga antelope escaped from enclosure and one
animal exited the zoo to a neighbouring property, recaptured
the following morning.
The perimeter fence was being replaced, and the security of
their enclosure was inadvertently compromised.
Human error
Auckland Zoo
May 2008
Otter escaped from enclosure, recaptured the following day.
A maintenance inspection identified that the bottom wire of
the electric fence was loose which may have assisted in
allowing the otter to climb under the fence and up the
enclosure perimeter.
Containment design and
construction
Willowbank Wildlife Reserve
August 2008
A group of capuchin monkeys were being relocated to their
new monkey island enclosure when two monkeys slipped
through gap in their old enclosure. One animal recaptured
the same day within the zoo. The other animal was
recovered from a reserve adjacent to the zoo three days
later.
Containment design and
construction
Auckland Zoo
September 2008
African clawed frog unable to be located – likely to have been
eaten.
Two separate groups of male frogs were introduced to the
enclosure at the same time.
Behavioural factor
Hamilton Zoo
October 2008
Zoo was broken into and two Madagascar day geckos were
stolen from their exhibit. Following an investigation the
geckos were returned by the Wildlife Enforcement Group.
Theft
Auckland Zoo
October 2008
Two cotton-top tamarins escaped from their enclosure into an
adjacent tree. Recaptured the same day.
Thought to have climbed flax bush inside enclosure.
Containment design and
construction
Hamilton Zoo
March 2009
Chimpanzee escaped from enclosure into an adjoining
service area, recaptured the same day.
Keeper failed to secure door.
Human error
Wellington Zoo
March 2009
Serval cat escaped from her collar and harness - startled
when out for a walk. Recaptured the same day
Containment design and
construction
Willowbank Wildlife Reserve
August 2009
Capuchin monkey escaped from enclosure and exited zoo,
recaptured ten days later at a private property adjacent to the
zoo.
Unknown
Wellington Zoo
August 2009
Pygmy marmoset escaped from enclosure. He remained
close to his enclosure and was recaptured the same day.
Agoutis, which were housed with the marmosets, had dug a
hole under the fence. During the conversion to the exhibit for
the marmosets anti-dig material below ground had been cut
back
Containment design and
construction
June 2013
44
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Where and When
Event
Cause category
Orana Wildlife Park
November 2009
African crested porcupine escaped enclosure, recaptured
within the zoo grounds after seven days.
The enclosure door had been compromised and wedged
open.
Containment design and
construction
Orana Wildlife Park
February 2010
Three cheetahs swam across a moat and escaped
enclosure, recaptured the same day.
Hole in enclosure fence.
Containment design and
construction
Wellington Zoo
April 2010
White cheeked gibbon escaped from island enclosure,
recaptured the same day
Thought to be assisted by vegetation.
Containment design and
construction
Wellington Zoo
April 2010
White cheeked gibbon escaped from island enclosure,
recaptured the same day.
This was the second escape by the same animal (see
directly above)
Containment design and
construction
Wellington Zoo
August 2010
Spider monkey escaped from enclosure, recaptured the
same day.
The monkey may have been pushed of the island by the
other primates as he was ill.
Behavioural
Auckland Zoo
October 2010
Spider monkey escaped from enclosure, recaptured the next
day.
A pump failed, resulting in the containment moat water level
falling, allowing the monkey to escape
Containment design and
construction
Natureland Zoo
October 2010
Baby capuchin monkey escaped from enclosure, recaptured
the same day.
A keeper failed to securely close a night pen gate.
Human error
Auckland Zoo
November 2010
Cotton-top tamarin escape from enclosure, returned to the
enclosure the same day.
Unknown
Hamilton Zoo
November 2010
Two lemurs escaped from enclosure recaptured the same
day.
Three lemurs were being introduced to a new enclosure. Two
animals panicked, disabling electric fencing and escaping the
enclosure
Containment design and
construction
Behavioural
Auckland Zoo
December 2010
Cotton-top tamarin escaped from enclosure, recaptured the
same day.
Escape followed the re-introduction of two higher ranking
males to the group.
Containment design and
construction
Behavioural
Wellington Zoo
December 2010
Red panda escaped from enclosure, recaptured the same
day.
It is thought that the weight of rain-water plus the weight of
the panda bent the tree branches down sufficiently for the
panda to jump out of the enclosure.
Containment design and
construction
June 2013
45
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Where and When
Event
Cause category
Zion Wildlife Gardens
April 2011
Cheetah escaped from enclosure, animal sedated and
returned to enclosure two days later.
Staff had failed to secure the enclosure double doors.
Human error
Pouakai Zoo
August 2011
Meerkat escaped from enclosure and exited the zoo. Animal
not recovered – presumed dead.
Unknown
Hamilton Zoo
September 2011
Rhinoceros walked out of a containment raceway into a
service road area, recaptured same day.
Staff failed to secure a raceway gate when moving a
rhinoceros to the night feed area.
Human error
Wellington Zoo
September 2011
Brolga crane cleared its enclosure fence, recaptured the
same day.
Brolga wings were inadequately clipped.
Containment design and
construction
Wellington Zoo
November 2011
Agouti escaped from enclosure, recaptured the same day.
Agouti escaped through small hole in its enclosure.
Containment design and
construction
Brooklands Zoo
January 2012
Capuchin monkey escaped from enclosure, recaptured the
same day. Staff accidentally left door open when cleaning the
den.
Human error
Natureland Zoo
June 2012
Capuchin monkey escaped from a carry cage when she was
being transferred from sick back to her enclosure.
Recaptured the same day.
Containment design and
construction
Table 5: Containment breaches (unauthorised entry) reported under the HSNO regime
Where and When
Event
Wellington Zoo
February 2003
A mentally ill man climbed into the tiger enclosure, and was mauled.
He suffered serious injuries to head, neck and back, but recovered.
Auckland Zoo
September 2008
Member of the public entered a restricted area and was observed by staff touching Asian
elephant.
Following a warning from staff she left the enclosure and was escorted from the area.
Hamilton Zoo
October 2008
Zoo was broken into and two Madagascar day geckos were stolen from their exhibit.
Following an investigation the geckos were returned by the Wildlife Enforcement Group.
Auckland Zoo
April 2009
Two children found in meerkat enclosure.
June 2013
46
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Appendix 8: Controls proposed by ZAA, and EPA staff comments
Table 6: Controls proposed by the applicant, their reasoning and the response from EPA staff
Applicant proposed control
Applicant reasoning
a) Any animal must be kept in an enclosure, and social
Staff comment
If these needs are not met it may lead to individuals
Under the Act, the relevant part of this control is that the
grouping, that meets it’s physical, emotional and mental
attempting to isolate themselves from conspecifics which
animal must be contained.
needs as per the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare
could lead to breaches of containment. Increased levels of
Strategy.
stress, from unnatural groupings or isolation, may lead to
Proposed control 1 requires that the approved organism(s)
be contained.
increased attempts to breach containment.
Proposed control 7 requires that the containment area(s) be
designed, constructed and maintained to prevent the
approved organism(s) from escaping.
b) Methods of population management, relevant to the
If overpopulation exists within an enclosure increased
individual species, must be used to prevent
aggression or need for an animal to disperse from a group
overcrowding and to ensure a healthy and genetically
may increase. These circumstances can lead to an
diverse collection. These can include, but are not limited
increased pressure on the method of containment used. By
to, building additional enclosures, moving animals to
managing the population density these risks can be
other approved facilities, contraception, holding single
mitigated.
This is primarily addressed by the Animal Welfare Act.
Proposed control 7 requires that the containment area(s) be
designed, constructed and maintained to prevent the
approved organism(s) from escaping.
sex groups and euthanasia. The method of management
used should not compromise control a (above)
c) Stocking density of an enclosure must be managed so
If overpopulation exists within an enclosure increased
as not to lead to either a welfare issue or increased
aggression or need for an animal to disperse from a group
pressure leading to individuals attempting to breach
may increase. These circumstances can lead to an
containment.
increased pressure on the method of containment used. By
This is primarily addressed by the Animal Welfare Act.
Proposed control 7 requires that the containment area(s) be
designed, constructed and maintained to prevent the
approved organism(s) from escaping.
managing the population density these risks can be
mitigated.
d) Enclosures must meet a minimum standard. This
If enclosures are not constructed and maintained to a
Control 7. The containment area(s) must be designed,
standard is set out in the ZAA best practice guidelines for
sufficiently high standard breaches of containment can occur
constructed and maintained to prevent the approved
the draft Containment Standard. An example of where
more easily.
organism from escaping. Modifications should be discussed
containment specifications are set out in the EPA
approval would be with the Giant Panda approval.
June 2013
with your MPI inspector before they are undertaken.
47
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Applicant proposed control
Applicant reasoning
Staff comment
e) Sufficient staff with relevant experience and training must
Without sufficient levels of trained and experienced staff
Control 5. Guidance wording around how staff must have
breaches of containment may occur more frequently.
adequate training in the behaviour characteristics of each
be employed to ensure the animals within the collection
are given a high quality of animal care and are
species, and individual animals to maintain containment.
contained.
f)
Staff must be trained in the husbandry and care of each
If staff are trained in the husbandry and care of a species
species before they are allowed to work with those
they will understand more about the behaviours of the
animals, except when under direct supervision for the
animals that they work with. This in turn can lead to reduced
purpose of training.
injuries to staff and reduced breaches of containment.
g) Staff training must be refreshed on each species each
If staff undergo regular training husbandry practices can be
year. This can take the form of reading husbandry
reaffirmed thus leading to reduced breaches of containment.
As for control e).
As for control e).
manuals and or practical assessments.
h) Records must be kept of all staff training for each
species covered by these controls. These records must
For MPI to be able to audit training, records must be kept as
Control 21. Requirement for instruction and training, and
evidence that the training has taken place.
guidance wording stating that documentation should include:
be signed and dated by the staff member to validate their
•
Records of training;
skill base annually.
•
Refresher training schedules; and
•
A list of which keepers are trained to work with which
approved organisms.
i)
A list of all staff who can work with each species must be
This list would allow an MPI audit to cross reference the
maintained.
levels of training of staff with those working with any given
As for control h).
species.
j)
A business must have the resources to ensure that all
If more animals are held than there are resources in place for
Control 5. A business plan must be in place that
animals within its collection have an acceptable standard
it can lead to welfare and containment issues.
demonstrates the on-going resources, containment planning
of welfare and care. This includes, but is not restricted to,
(you must have adequate containment plans to hold future
having well maintained and suitable enclosures, an
animal plans), and staffing resources This plan must also
appropriate diet, veterinary support and the required
outline what will trigger liquidation of the facility and what the
level of experienced care.
exit strategies will be.
June 2013
48
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Applicant proposed control
Applicant reasoning
Staff comment
k) A business must show that it has the resources, or a
Unless a collection has the resources to maintain an
As for control j)
plan to obtain those resources, to maintain the collection
adequate level of care and upkeep then breaches of
until after the next MPI audit. If it does not the collection
containment are more likely to occur.
must enact its exit strategy.
l)
A business must maintain and display animals in safe
Without written procedures different staff members may work
A number of different controls require documentation. For
facilities and have procedures in place that promote the
with differing levels of understanding of containment and
example, control 5 requires a documented business plan,
safety of their staff, visitors, and community. These
OHS requirements. This could lead to staff injuries or
controls 22 and 23 required documented contingency plans,
procedures must include, but are not limited to, daily
breaches of containment.
and control 21 requires documented training procedures.
A business must have a collection plan which shows
A collection plan will allow a collection and MPI to assess the
Control 5. As part of the documented plan, facilities would
all current species held, number of current specimens
level of resources that will be required in an upcoming
need to document their species and containment plans.
of each species and number of planned specimens of
period. As it is a living document it allows for a collection to
each species. The animal collection plan must also
take advantage of opportunities as they arise, but still
identify those new species that the business plans to
forecast the resources they will need to make available.
husbandry procedures for animals that can potentially
cause harm, visitor contact with animals, emergency
procedure for escaped animals and for natural disasters.
All of these procedures must be documented.
m)
start holding within the next five years. This is to
demonstrate that a business has the resources,
facilities and staff to appropriately manage their current
and planned animal collection. If a new species is
planned to be acquired the business must show how
their staff will be trained in managing the containment
of that species before the species is obtained. A
collection plan is a living document and must be
updated when new plans are made. The updated
collection plan must be made available to MPI.
June 2013
49
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Applicant proposed control
n)
Applicant reasoning
Staff comment
A business must have an exit strategy that deals with
Without an exit strategy MPI and other regional collections
Control 5. A plan will outline what the exit strategy will be and
dispersal of the collection if the business fails. This exit
may need to take on a burden they are not equipped to do at
will give MPI the power to euthanize if animals cannot be
strategy must have clearly defined time frames for
that time. This could, potentially, lead to, as an example, new
rehoused within a reasonable time.
dispersal of the collection and a plan for if dispersal
enclosures being built at short notice and things being
cannot happen for the entire collection. A business
missed leading to breaches of containment.
must be able to show it can maintain the collection
through the dispersal period.
o)
The business must have clear financial indicators that
Without clear financial indicators a business could fail prior to
would trigger the activation of their exit strategy and
enacting their exit strategy, potentially, leading to, as an
the dispersal of the animal collection
example, new enclosures being built at short notice and
things being missed leading to breaches of containment.
June 2013
As for control n).
50
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Appendix 9: Proposed controls and Schedule 3 of the HSNO Act
Table 7: Proposed controls in relation to Schedule 3 Part 2
Schedule 3 Part 2 Matters to be addressed by containment controls
Addressed by control:
for new organisms (excluding GMOs)
1
To limit the likelihood of any accidental release of any organism
or any viable genetic material, the controls imposed by an
approval shall specify—
1(a)
Requirements for treatment and decontamination to prevent
escape by way of expelled air, discharge of water or liquid
waste, removal of solid waste, or breaches in facility boundary:
1(b)
Equipment and requirements for facility construction to enable
the requirements for treatment and decontamination to be
readily met:
June 2013
7
The containment area(s) must be designed, constructed and maintained to prevent
the approved organism from escaping.
8
Persons entering and exiting the containment facility and/or any containment areas
must do so in a way that does adversely affect containment of the approved
organism(s).
15
Unauthorised persons must be excluded from the containment facility.
18
Any waste (including biological material) that may harbour the approved
organism(s), or heritable material from the approved organism, must be treated to
ensure that the approved organism or any heritable material is killed prior to
discarding.
19
Any equipment, that may harbour the approved organism(s) or heritable material
from the approved organism, must be treated to ensure that the approved organism
or any heritable material is killed prior to the equipment being used for another
purpose or being removed from the containment area/facility.
7
The containment area(s) must be designed, constructed and maintained to prevent
the approved organism from escaping.
18
Any waste (including biological material) that may harbour the approved
organism(s), or heritable material from the approved organism, must be treated to
ensure that the approved organism or any heritable material is killed prior to
discarding.
51
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Schedule 3 Part 2 Matters to be addressed by containment controls
Addressed by control:
for new organisms (excluding GMOs)
1(c)
1(d)
Requirements to be complied with for the access of persons to
the facility:
Procedures and requirements for transport, identification, and
packaging for all biological material to and from the facility and
within the facility:
June 2013
19
Any equipment, that may harbour the approved organism(s) or heritable material
from the approved organism, must be treated to ensure that the approved organism
or any heritable material is killed prior to the equipment being used for another
purpose or being removed from the containment area/facility.
8
Persons entering and exiting the containment facility and/or any containment areas
must do so in a way that does not adversely affect containment of the approved
organism(s).
15
Unauthorised persons must be excluded from the containment facility.
21
Any person (including contractors, staff, students, visitors, and volunteers) entering
the containment facility and/or containment areas must have received sufficient
instruction on the containment regime to enable the person to meet their
responsibilities in relation to containment.
9
The approved organism(s) must be identifiable as a new organism and able to be
linked to the relevant HSNO Act approval.
13
The approved organism(s) must be contained during movement within, to, or from
the containment facility.
14
When being moved outside of a containment facility, within New Zealand, the
approved organism must accompanied by documentation stating the:
a)
identity of the approved organism
b)
containment requirements
c)
details of the sender
d)
details of the receiving facility.
52
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Schedule 3 Part 2 Matters to be addressed by containment controls
Addressed by control:
for new organisms (excluding GMOs)
1(e)
Requirements for the disposal of any biological material:
18
Any waste (including biological material) that may harbour the approved
organism(s), or heritable material from the approved organism, must be treated to
ensure that the approved organism or any heritable material is killed prior to
discarding.
1(f)
Requirements for facility construction:
1
The approved organism(s) must be contained.
7
The containment area(s) must be designed, constructed and maintained to prevent
the approved organism from escaping.
10
Notification must be given to the MPI Inspector of any proposed modification to the
containment regime which may affect the integrity of containment of the approved
organism(s), before the modifications are undertaken.
7
The containment area(s) must be designed, constructed and maintained to prevent
the approved organism from escaping.
1(g)
Requirements to secure the facility and openings, including
securing against failure in the event of foreseeable hazards.
2
To exclude unauthorised people from the facility, the controls
imposed by an approval shall specify—
2(a)
Means of identification of all entrances to the facility:
6
The containment facility and all containment area(s) where the approved organisms
may be held must be clearly defined, described, and documented, including their
location and boundaries.
2(b)
The numbers of entrances and access to the facility:
6
The containment facility and all containment area(s) where the approved organisms
may be held must be clearly defined, described, and documented, including their
location and boundaries.
2(c)
Security requirements for the entrances and the facility.
15
Unauthorised persons must be excluded from the containment facility.
3
To control the effects of any accidental release or escape of an
organism—
3(a)
Controls imposed by an approval shall specify an eradication
plan for escaped organisms:
22
The containment facility must have a documented contingency plan for each
approved organism held in that containment facility.
June 2013
53
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Schedule 3 Part 2 Matters to be addressed by containment controls
Addressed by control:
for new organisms (excluding GMOs)
3(b)
Controls imposed by an approval may specify requirements to
limit the likelihood of an escaped organism spreading, surviving,
and breeding, including, but not limited to,—
22
The containment facility must have a documented contingency plan for each
approved organism held in that containment facility.
23
The contingency plan must be implemented immediately if there is any reason to
believe that an approved organism has escaped or been released from a
containment area or the containment facility, or any other breach of containment
has occurred.
3(b)(i)
Exclusion zones (spatial or temporal):
n/a
3(b)(ii)
Location of the facility outside the usual habitat range of the
organism.
n/a
4
Controls imposed by an approval shall specify inspection and
monitoring requirements for containment facilities.
20
The containment facility must be secured and monitored to ensure the exclusion of
undesirable organisms that might compromise the containment of the approved
organism(s).
24
To ensure containment is being achieved, containment measures must be:
a)
inspected, monitored and reviewed
b)
inspected as soon as possible after any event that could compromise the
containment regime such as an Act of God (such as flood, earthquake) or any
unauthorised attempt to enter the containment facility.
5
Controls imposed by an approval may specify the qualifications
required of the person responsible for implementing those
controls.
June 2013
5
The person(s) responsible for compliance with the HSNO Act controls must have a
documented plan that shows that the containment facility has access to on-going
resources necessary to ensure that the containment of all approved organisms held
within the facility can be adequately maintained in the long term.
2
The organisation, entity or person(s) responsible for the ownership, control and
management of the containment facility where the approved organisms are held
(including Board members and/or directors) must ensure compliance with the
controls of this approval.
54
APP201517 EPA Staff Report
Schedule 3 Part 2 Matters to be addressed by containment controls
Addressed by control:
for new organisms (excluding GMOs)
21
June 2013
Any person (including contractors, staff, students, visitors, and volunteers) entering
the containment facility and/or containment areas must have received sufficient
instruction on the containment regime to enable the person to meet their
responsibilities in relation to containment.