DECISION
Date
23 May 2012
Application code
ERMA200908
Application type
To import into containment any new organism under section
40(1) of the Hazardous Substances and New organisms Act
1996
Applicant
Auckland Zoological Park
Date application received
4 April 2012
Consideration date
17 May 2012
Considered by
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
Purpose of the application
To import Komodo dragons, naked mole rats, plumed basilisks
and bush dogs to aid conservation and education through public
display and captive breeding
Basiliscus plumifrons (plumed basilisk)
Heterocephalus glaber (naked mole rat)
The new organisms approved
Speothos venaticus (bush dog)
Varanus komodoensis (Komodo dragon)
1. Summary of decision
1.1
Application ERMA200908 to import into containment Varanus komodoensis (Komodo dragon),
Basiliscus plumifrons (plumed basilisk), Speothos venaticus (bush dog) and Heterocephalus glaber
(naked mole rat) is approved, with controls set out in the Appendix.
1.2
The organisms approved for importation are the new organisms described in control 1.
2. Legislative criteria for application
2.1
The application was lodged under section 40(1) of the Hazardous Substances and New organisms Act
1996 (the Act).
2.2
The application was considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and of the HSNO
(Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology).
www.epa.govt.nz
2
Decision: ERMA200908
3. Application process
Application Receipt
3.1
The EPA considered that it had sufficient information to assess the application. To the extent the
application may not meet any legislative information requirements, the EPA waives these
requirements.
Notification
3.2
The EPA has discretion as to whether to publicly notify an application to import into containment any
new organism. The application was not publicly notified because no exceptional circumstances
warranting public notification were identified, and significant public interest in this application was not
anticipated.
3.3
As required by the Act and Methodology, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), now the
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Department of Conservation (DOC) were notified and
provided with the opportunity to comment on the application. DOC commented that they could not see
any major issues with this application. They feel that the containment regime should be sufficient to
prevent unwanted harm to the native environment. Comments from MAF about the proposed
containment facilities were taken into consideration (see 7.2 - 7.5).
Information available for the consideration
3.4
The information available for the consideration comprised:
The application form and references and appendices cited there-in;
Internal EPA advice and additional references; and
Comments received from MAF and DOC.
4. Sequence of the consideration
4.1
In its consideration of the application as per the requirements in the Act and the Methodology, the EPA
considered whether:
the new organisms are prohibited under schedule 2 of the Act:
the application is for one of the purposes specified in the Act:
the new organisms can be adequately contained and the controls set provide for matters specified
in Schedule 3 (Part 2) of the HSNO Act:
3
Decision: ERMA200908
the beneficial effects of having the new organisms in containment outweigh the adverse effects
(after taking into account all the effects, their ability to escape from containment, their ability to
establish undesirable self-sustaining populations and the ease with which they could be eradicated
if they established an undesirable self-sustaining population).
4.2
Each point is addressed in the following sections of this decision.
5. Schedule 2 Prohibited new organisms
5.1
The EPA notes that while Komodo dragons are “venomous”, the „venom‟ is considered extremely
primitive and very similar in nature to that produced by other closely related varanid species such as
the lace monitor Varanus varius, a species already approved for import by the EPA under the HSNO
Act, and members of the Agamidae family, like Pogona barbata, considered present in New Zealand.
5.2
The EPA considers that the role of the „venom‟ is not important in prey acquisition or immobilisation
but is instead modified saliva thought to be utilised in pre-digestion of food. It is not injurious to human
health, and is not typically present in captive animals.
5.3
The EPA therefore does not consider that Komodo dragons should be excluded from the application
under Schedule 2.
6. Purpose of the application and scope of the approval
6.1
The applicant (Auckland Zoological Park) seeks approval to import into containment Varanus
komodoensis (Komodo dragon), Basiliscus plumifrons (plumed basilisk), Speothos venaticus (bush
dog) and Heterocephalus glaber (naked mole rat) to aid conservation and education through public
display and captive breeding.
6.2
The EPA noted that the use of this approval has not been limited to the applicant. Therefore other
persons could use this approval provided that their intended imports comply with the approved
organism description (control 1) and meet the purpose of this approval (for display in a zoological
garden), and are maintained as per the containment controls placed on this approval. As this approval
is not limited to the applicant, control 4 has been imposed requiring any person using this approval for
the first time to notify the EPA and the MAF Inspector responsible for supervision of their containment
facility of their intention to do so in writing.
6.3
The EPA is satisfied that the purpose of this application falls within the scope of section 39(1)(e)of the
Act: “for public display of any organism including, but not limited to, display in a circus or zoological
garden”.
4
Decision: ERMA200908
7. Adequacy of the containment regime
7.1
To evaluate the adequacy of containment, the EPA assessed the ability of the new organisms to
escape from containment by considering:
the comments provided by MAF on containment of the new organisms;
the biological characteristics that relate to containment;
the containment regime; and
the potential pathways for the escape from the containment facility.
Comments provided by MAF on the containment of the new organisms
7.2
MAF observed that the application provides no information on how the animals are intended to be
contained, i.e. the structural and operational aspects of containment. From MAF‟s perspective, as the
enforcement agency of the new organism provisions of the HSNO Act, this is the most essential part of
the application. MAF cannot provide any comment on the adequacy of containment without inclusion
of this information in the application, and therefore would strongly advise the EPA to provide this
information to the enforcement agency before the application is considered for approval.
7.3
The EPA notes that the EPA and MAF are transitioning from including the MAF Biosecurity New
Zealand Standard 154.03.04: Containment facilities for zoo animals 29 January 2007 (Zoo Standard)
as a control, and are currently devising a new standard to cover containment of all new organisms.
While in this transition phase, the EPA suggested to the applicant that they not specify adherence to
the Zoo Standard, to avoid being bound to this standard at a later date.
7.4
The EPA notes that the applicant is already operating a MAF approved containment facility and
containment manual under the Zoo Standard. The applicant will keep the new organisms in
containment at Auckland Zoo, has an arrangement in place to be audited regularly by MAF, and the
containment manual details the containment of these organisms, with contingency plans in place.
7.5
In addition, the EPA imposes controls 2-25 to ensure that the new organisms are contained at all
times.
Biological characteristics that relate to containment
7.6
Wild Komodo dragons live in dry, open grasslands and tropical forests on some of the remote
Indonesian Islands.
7.7
Plumed basilisks are adapted to the humid, tropical environments of Central America and are
generally arboreal.
5
Decision: ERMA200908
7.8
Bush dogs are found in the tropical, wet savannahs and equatorial forests of Central and South
America.
7.9
Naked mole rats (sand puppy or desert mole rat) are found in arid east African deserts. They are well
adapted to a life of limited oxygen, being used to living in tunnels with increased CO 2.
7.10 The EPA considers the approved description of the new organisms in control 1 is defined enough to
allow people to know whether the organisms they wish to import are covered under this approval.
The proposed containment regime
7.11 The EPA noted that the applicant has an approved zoological facility (section 7, page 8 of the
application). To ensure that the new organisms are contained, the EPA imposed controls 2-25.
The potential pathways for escape of new organisms from the containment facility
7.12 The EPA looked at the likely pathways of escape (Table 1) of the imported new organisms and
assessed these pathways in light of the requirements of the Standard, the organism description
(control 1) and the proposed containment regime.
Table 1 Assessment of potential pathways of escape
Potential pathways of escape
Assessment
Escape during transport to the containment facility or
during movement s within the containment facility.
Highly improbable as controls 2 and 11 require that
the organisms must be contained at all times and all
reasonable measures must be taken to prevent the
escape of an organism during movement within or from
the containment facility.
Escape due to accidental release by authorised
personnel.
Escape due to intentional release (i.e. sabotage).
Escape from a containment facility via malfunction in
storage units (i.e. freezer thawing out).
Escape during fire, flood or natural disaster.
Highly improbable as control 19 requires that all
persons entering the containment facility are trained
relevant to their responsibility. and control 16 requires
that all reasonable measures be taken to prevent
unauthorised access to the containment facility.
Highly improbable as the applicant states they have
contingency plans in place (section 7; page 8 of the
application) and controls 20-21 require contingency
plans to be in place and to be implemented in the event
of an emergency.
Conclusion on adequacy of the containment regime
7.13 After taking into account the comments from MAF, the ability of the new organisms to escape
containment given their biological characteristics (control 1), the containment regime (Appendix) and
6
Decision: ERMA200908
the potential pathways of escape (Table 1), the EPA concludes that it is highly improbable that the
new organisms would be able to escape from containment.
7.14 The EPA considers that the containment regime imposed provides for the matters specified in
Schedule 3 (Part 2) of the HSNO Act.
8. Ability of the organisms to establish a self-sustaining population and ease
of eradication
8.1
When considering the ability of the new organisms to establish undesirable self-sustaining populations
should the organisms escape containment, and the ease of eradication of such populations, the EPA
notes that it is highly improbable that the new organisms could establish a self-sustaining population,
and that it would be highly likely that these new organisms could be eradicated in such an event.
9. Identification and assessment of potentially significant adverse and
beneficial effects (risks, costs and benefits)
9.1
The EPA identified and assessed the potentially significant risks, costs and benefits of having the new
organisms in containment in the following areas of impact: the environment, human health and safety,
Māori and their culture and traditions, the market economy, and society and the community (Table 2).
9.2
The EPA concluded that the potential adverse effects were negligible.
9.3
The EPA considered that the benefits to the environment, human health and safety, the market
economy, and society and the community were non-negligible. Therefore the benefits having the new
organisms in containment outweigh the risks.
Table 2 Assessment of potentially significant adverse and beneficial effects from the new organisms
Potentially significant effect :
Significance
Discussion
Potentially significant adverse effect on
the environment.
Significance:
negligible
In the highly improbable event that any of
these organisms escape, they would have a
very localised environmental impact, affecting
few individual members of a community of flora
or fauna, with no discernable ecosystem impact.
Control 2 requires that these animals be
contained at all times, control 3 dictates who is
responsible for that containment, and control 4
requires that the person using this approval
must provide documentation outlining how they
will contain these new organisms.
Potentially significant adverse effect on
human health and safety
Significance:
negligible
Given that these new organisms will be held in
containment at all times, and the people
responsible for their care will be adequately
7
Decision: ERMA200908
Potentially significant effect :
Significance
Discussion
trained in handling these species (control 19). It
is highly improbable that any of these species
could have an adverse effect on human health
and safety. In the event of an untrained,
encounter with any of these new organisms,
resulting in injury, the effects would be mild,
short-term and occur in a highly localised area.
Basic first aid and a course of antibiotics are
sufficient to remediate any bites that might
occur.
Potentially significant adverse effect on
Māori culture and traditions:
None identified
Potentially significant adverse effect on
the market economy:
None identified
Potentially significant adverse effect on
society and the community:
None identified
Potentially significant beneficial effects
on the environment,
None identified
Potentially significant beneficial effects
on the environment
Significance: Low
Potentially significant beneficial effects
on human health and safety:
None identified
Potentially significant beneficial effects
on Māori culture and traditions:
None identified
Potentially significant beneficial effects
on market economy
Significance: Low
Minor financial gain for the user of this approval
is likely,. This could have regional beneficial
effects with some national implications and
minor job creation opportunities.
Potentially significant beneficial effects
on society and the community :
Significance: Low
Minor public education is likely to inspire the
community to value wildlife. Thus local
community may benefit
Importation of these new organisms has minor
potential conservation value that is likely to
benefit some local animal or plant communities
overseas.
8
Decision: ERMA200908
10.
Decision
10.1 The EPA is satisfied that the application is for a valid purpose, the new organisms can be adequately
contained (Appendix), and the beneficial effects of having the new organisms in containment outweigh
the adverse effects of the new organisms.
10.2 Therefore application ERMA200908 is approved under section 45(1) a, with controls.
Manuka Henare
Chair, Decision Making Committee
Environmental Protection Authority
Approval code(s): NOC100114-NOC100117
23 May 2012
9
Decision: ERMA200908
Approval numbers for organisms in application ERMA200908
Organism
Approval code
Basiliscus plumifrons (plumed basilisk)
NOC100117
Heterocephalus glaber (naked mole rat)
NOC100115
Speothos venaticus (bush dog)
NOC100114
Varanus komodoensis (Komodo dragon)
NOC100116
10
Decision: ERMA200908
Appendix 1: Controls Required by the Approval
The new organisms approved for importation into containment under this approval are subject to
the following controls:
1. This approval is limited to the importation of Varanus komodoensis (Komodo dragon),
Basiliscus plumifrons (plumed basilisk), Speothos venaticus (bush dog) and Heterocephalus
glaber (naked mole rat) (the “approved organism”) into containment for the purpose of display
in a zoological garden.
Compliance with these controls
2.
The approved organisms must be contained.
3.
The person in charge of the containment facility must ensure that the controls in this approval
are complied with.
4.
The person in charge of the containment facility must ensure that there is documentation
specifying how the controls in this approval will be complied with.
Notification
5.
The person in charge of the containment facility must ensure that the EPA and MAF
Inspector are notified in writing when this approval is used for the first time
6.
The person in charge of the containment facility must ensure that the MAF Inspector is
notified of any containment breach within 24 hours.
Defining the containment facility
7.
The containment facility must be clearly defined in the containment facility documentation,
including a map showing the location and boundaries.
Containment areas
8.
The containment facility documentation must define the containment areas for the approved
organisms.
9.
Containment areas must be designed, constructed and maintained to contain the approved
organisms.
Entering and exiting containment areas
10. Persons entering containment areas must enter and exit the containment area in a way that
does not compromise the containment of the approved organisms.
11
Decision: ERMA200908
Moving approved organisms
11. All reasonably practicable measures must be taken to prevent the escape of approved
organisms during any movements within or from the containment facility.
12. The approved organisms may only be removed from a containment area for a reasonably
necessary purpose.
Access to the containment facility
13. All containment facility entrances must clearly identify the facility as being a containment
facility.
14. The containment facility must not have more than 20 entrances.
15. All containment facility entrances must be lockable and be locked when not in active use.
16. All reasonably practicable measures must be taken to prevent unauthorised persons gaining
access to the containment facility.
Treatment of waste
17. Any waste or biological material that may contain the approved organisms, or heritable
material from the approved organisms, must be treated to ensure that the approved
organisms or any heritable material is killed prior to disposal.
18. Any equipment that may harbour the approved organisms, or heritable material from the
approved organisms, must be treated to ensure that the approved organisms or any heritable
material is killed prior to being used for another purpose or removed from the containment
facility.
Training
19. All persons entering the containment facility (including contractors, staff, students, visitors,
and volunteers) must be instructed on the containment practices of the containment facility
relevant to the responsibility of those persons.
Contingency plans
20. The person in charge of the containment facility must ensure that there are documented
contingency plans for the recapture and/or eradication of the approved organisms outside of
the containment area and/or containment facility and that the contingency plan can be
implemented.
21. The contingency plan must be implemented if there is reason to believe that the approved
organisms have escaped or been released from containment.
12
Decision: ERMA200908
Inspection and monitoring
22. The containment facility must be inspected and monitored at reasonable intervals given the
nature of the approved organisms being contained, to ensure that containment has not been
compromised and to identify any remedial maintenance requirements.
23. Containment areas must be inspected as soon as possible after any event that could
compromise containment, such as an Act of God (such as flood, earthquake), or an
unauthorised attempt to enter the containment facility or a containment area.
24. Faults in containment must be remedied as soon as possible, including taking interim
measures as are necessary to mitigate any breach of containment.
25. The person in charge of the containment facility must ensure that the MAF Inspector has
access to the containment facility and all relevant documentation for the purpose of
inspection and monitoring.
Interpretation of controls
In the controls, unless otherwise specified below, a word has the same meaning as it is defined in
the HSNO Act (if any).
Unless the context otherwise requires:
Breach means escape of organism(s), unauthorised entry to the facility or containment area,
and/or the structural integrity of the facility being compromised.
Containment area means the specified place and/or conditions within the containment facility
designated for a specified approved organism.
Containment facility means a defined place approved by MAF, in accordance with section 39 of
the Biosecurity Act 1993, for holding approved organisms.
Contingency plan means a plan devised for a specific situation where things could go wrong. It
contains information, tasks and procedures that are necessary for timely decision-making and
response to an unexpected event, or situation where the preferred plan fails.
Documentation means written or electronic records.
EPA means the Environmental Protection Authority.
Heritable material means viable biological material, including gametes and spores, arising from
the organism that can, without human intervention, regenerate the organism or reproduce an
13
Decision: ERMA200908
approved generation of the same species of the organism.
MAF means Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
Maintenance means the process of maintaining (preserving or providing for the preservation of)
or continuing a state of good repair.
Person in charge of the containment facility means the person who has managerial and financial
delegation to ensure that the HSNO Act controls are complied with.
Treat (in respect of waste) means to kill all approved organisms and heritable material.
Waste means unusable or unwanted substances or materials (including water, liquids, and
solids).