Biosecurity Magazine - Issue 82, 15 March...

ISSUE 82, 15 March 2008

a PUBLIcaTION OF MaF BIOSEcUrITY NEW ZEaLaND

readiness and response

Southern saltmarsh mosquito: on track for eradication

Protecting and promoting

human health

Pros and cons of equine influenza

vaccination

2 | MaF BIOSEcUrITY NEW ZEaLaND | ISSUE 82

contents

4 168

Biosecurity magazine

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

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

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

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

Phone: 04 894 0100

Fax: 04 894 0720

Email: [email protected]

Internet: www.biosecurity.govt.nz

Editorial enquiries:

Editor: Phil Stewart

Phone: 04 384 4688


ISSN 1174 – 4618

MaF Biosecurity New Zealand fax contacts:

Policy and risk: 04 894 0731animal Welfare: 04 894 0728Border Standards: 04 894 0733Post Border: 04 894 0736Enforcement and audit: 09 300 1021Investigation and Diagnostic centres: 04 526 5601

EDITOrIaLBetter incursion responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

FrONTLINE NEWSBiosecurity integral to long-term planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4avian and pandemic influenza preparedness activities: 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . .6hands across the Tasman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Update: Southern saltmarsh mosquito eradication programme . . . . . . . . . .8Marks & Spencer tops welfare awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Protecting and promoting human health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10australian termites in New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Soil solarisation to eradicate boil smut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Pre-inspection of australian grapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Biosecurity border inspection history project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

BIOSEcUrITY ScIENcEEquine influenza vaccination – a complex issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Expat plant communities useful biosecurity sentinels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Pests and Diseases Image Library workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Phytophthora kernoviae: Past investigation throws up

new answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

BIOSEcUrITY SYSTEMSa smarter way of managing biosecurity responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

BIOSEcUrITY INTErFacENew Zealand hosts OIE regional conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23regional implementation of OIE animal welfare guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24OIE commences work on laboratory animal welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

UPDaTEScodes of ethical conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26codes of welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26amendment to Deer code planned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

DIrEcTOrY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

cover: readiness and response: In this issue of Biosecurity we look at MaF Biosecurity New Zealand’s development of new, more robust systems for responding to biosecurity incursions (pages 3 and 22). We also focus on our readiness for avian and pandemic influenza (page 6) and the pros and cons of vaccinating horses against equine influenza (page 16). On page 7 we look at our membership of the International animal health Emergency reserve and how this would work in the event of an animal disease emergency. Photo montage: Words & Pictures.

ISSUE 82 | MaF BIOSEcUrITY NEW ZEaLaND | 3

editorial

Better systems + better communications = better incursion responsesMaF Biosecurity New Zealand’s raison d’être is

Incursions take many forms, from unseen diseases, hitchhiker bugs, invasive plants and destructive fungi. Each poses their own unique response challenges. For the past 18 months MaFBNZ has taken a systematic approach to improving the robustness of its incursion responses to get the best outcomes.

The new way of working will give stakeholders a clearer idea of MaFBNZ’s role and responsibilities, what they can expect and where they will play a part. It mirrors many aspects of the whole-of-government approach of the coordinated Incident Management response System (cIMS) used successfully by various government agencies for emergency responses. (There is further detail on our response change programme in a smarter way of managing biosecurity responses on page 22 of this issue.)

The new system is based on a generic management model that can be scaled up or down as appropriate for almost any situation. The justification for this approach comes from the experience we have gained from past incursions. There is always a core of work that remains fairly stable no matter the size or length of a response. Take for example the fact that there are consistent stages of a response such as investigation, initial response, ongoing response and long-term management.

This staged management approach has a high degree of portability for most incursions. There are likely to be ‘clip-on’

activities required for some incursions such as public consultation, treatments and vaccinations or special studies, but these can be added seamlessly with the new approach.

The new system will involve stakeholders as early as possible and it will allow MaFBNZ to better assess resourcing needs at a much earlier stage. Some elements of the new approach were trialled during the recent equine influenza incursion in australia. The New Zealand equine industry participated in the response team immediately after australia reported cases of the disease. The result was that MaFBNZ and industry

successfully mobilised to ensure the virus did not reach our shores and the appropriate preparedness work was undertaken.

For stakeholders – including other government agencies, industry organisations and other affected parties – the new system will mean:

• greater opportunities for earlier involvement in responses, such as being part of advisory or liaison groups

• greater emphasis on communication and liaison

• earlier certainty about responses• greater transparency about decision-

making processes including criteria and timelines.

For some participants, such as regional councils and industry, it will mean early involvement in planning and decision making where long-term management is

needed.

a good example of this is the partnership arrangement that MaFBNZ has set up with the Department of conservation, regional councils, Fish and Game and others, for the long-term management of didymo.

Like all good management systems the performance of future incursion responses will be better measured by:• greater transparency• defined objectives and measures• stakeholder confidence and support;

and of course• continually looking to improve on what

we do.

The new system is currently being phased in and has been piloted with a recent incursion of brown mussels on a visiting oil rig and seed-contaminated coir fibre used in potting mix.

all responses will be managed under the new system by June 2008.

David hayes Biosecurity response Manager Post Border Directorate MaF Biosecurity New Zealand

■

Dav

id h

ayes

.

to provide leadership in making and implementing timely and informed risk management decisions for the biosecurity system.

While MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ) is charged with leading biosecurity responses to new organisms, success will only come from ensuring that stakeholders are actively engaged and understand the decisions made during responses. To that end, MaFBNZ remains committed to clear and timely communication, consultation and liaison with stakeholders.

“MaFBNZ and industry successfully mobilised to ensure the virus did not reach our shores”


FrONTLINE NEWS

For regional authorities nationwide, biosecurity and biodiversity make up an integral part of policy and planning. recently, this has been reflected in new council-wide long-term plans established to present and support strategic directions and programmes at a regional level.

These 10-year, Long Term council community Plans (LTccP) were implemented at regional councils

nation-wide from 2004 as a requirement under the Local Government act 2002.

reviewed every three years, with annual plans in the intervening years, the LTccP gives an all-encompassing outline of a council’s activities within a longer-term context. With a community outcomes-focus, they are developed through a public consultation process and have strict reporting requirements. Outcomes are reviewed every six years and progress towards achieving them is reported on every three years.

rob Phillips is Director of Operations at Taranaki regional council (Trc) and his work programme is guided by the plans. “The LTccP starts by setting context – it gives an overview,” he explains.

reflecting the importance of biodiversity and biosecurity matters, five-year regional Pest Management Strategies (rPMSs) have been incorporated into the LTccPs.

“This integrates the strategies with other council activities,” says rob.

Managing pestsThe council may adopt strategies that identify pests, specify objectives, set out management or control obligations and identify funding sources and levels. The Trc’s Pest Management Officers work with contractors and landowners to manage the region’s animal and plant pests.

In Taranaki, two separate strategies, the Pest animal Management Strategy and the Pest Plant Management Strategy have been incorporated into the LTccP.

The Trc takes a species-led approach to pest management across the region, working on a “suite of pests” as they affect particular areas, says rob.

“We are increasingly moving towards a site-led approach.”

The possum is the region’s most significant declared pest and a substantial focus of the Pest animal Management Strategy.

The key methodology for the control of possums is the council’s self-help possum control programme. The council largely

funds and implements initial control operations to reduce possum numbers. Land occupiers are then required to keep possum numbers below a 10 percent residual trap count threshold. The Trc provides training and advice where necessary.

This programme helps dairy farmers protect their herds against bovine tuberculosis, rob explains.

according to the Trc’s LTccP, by 2016 this programme will be extended to incorporate about 5,000 properties and 300,000 hectares, or 90 percent of the Taranaki ring plain and northern and southern coastal terraces. By June 2007, the programme had strong support from the 3,723 properties already involved in the scheme.

Possums are just one animal pest threat to the region, rob says. “We also target mustelids and other animal threats to biodiversity at high-value sites. There is a lot of bush in eastern Taranaki which requires pest control work.”

Battling pest plantsThe Trc has a team of officers working on battling pest plants under the Pest Plant Management Strategy. In Taranaki, this mainly means agricultural pests like ragwort, gorse and giant buttercup.

Plant pest management involves a range of methods, including some compliance work with landowners.

While regional councils are responsible for controlling pests inside their geographical borders, coordination with government agencies is important. The Department of conservation (DOc) manages pests on

conservation estates, and MaF leads management of pests that are considered a national priority.

“We make sure our programmes complement each other with minimum overlap. We coordinate resources,” rob says.

he adds that there is plenty of dialogue with central government through the central/regional Government Biosecurity Forums, which involve senior managers from government departments and regional councils liaising on pest management and biosecurity issues.

“It’s not just determined by MaF, it’s collective,” says John Sanson, National coordination Team Manager for the MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ) Pest Management Group.

This partnership and guidance from

central government is invaluable to

Biosecurity integral to long-term planning

The Taranaki regional council is responsible for a geographically diverse environment.


The Taranaki regional council (Trc) allocates a significant 15 percent chunk of its annual expenditure to the management of pest plants and animals.

Possums are the most significant animal pest in the region, with the Trc implementing a self-help possum control programme in keeping with other regions throughout the country. The programme, which now covers the entire intensively farmed ring plain, was progressively extended by taking initial control measures on an additional 12,000 hectares each year. Similarly, rabbits are also declared pests, with landowners obliged to control rabbits to below defined infestation levels.

In addition to possums and rabbits, the region also battles with unwanted mustelids, feral deer, goats, cats and pigs, along with magpies and rooks. No control obligations for these pests are imposed on land occupiers, but the council monitors the animals, engaging control if necessary. This comes in a variety of forms, such as traps for mustelids and, in the case of pigs and goats, shooting. Magpies, often considered more of a nuisance than a pest due to their aggressive behaviour

during nesting, are controlled by traps or shooting. The council lends traps to groups such as kindergartens, as the magpies’ swooping can be especially frightening to young children.

The Trc puts pest plants into either of two categories:

• eradication or containment

• surveillance.

Plants that are a significant threat to agricultural production and the environment are considered eradication/containment pest plants. The focus in Taranaki is on regulation to require land holders to carry out control work. In the region, some of the most problematic of these are Darwin’s barberry, Senegal tea, mignonette vine, gorse and old man’s beard. Plants in this category that are limited in distribution or density are targeted for eradication. Where they are more abundant and eradication is not feasible, the goal is containment – preventing their spread to new areas and reducing numbers where possible. control measures for eradication and containment usually involve cutting out and/or spraying

the offending plants.

In addition to these more traditional control methods, the Trc is applying biological control measures to several containment/eradication pest plants, including old man’s beard, giant buttercup, ragwort, gorse, blackberry, mistflower and nodding and Scotch thistles. This involves the release of organisms (insects or fungi, for example) that damage the target plant but won’t affect non-target species.

Some control agents have been self-released – blackberry rust and mistflower fungus simply blew into the region – while other biological controls have been actively

released, supplied by Landcare research and agresearch.

While some biological controls thrive and are effective – such as the cinnabar moth and the flea beetle on ragwort, which need no hand in spreading – others are slower to take effect. In the case of the troublesome vine old man’s beard, actual control effects have been poor. Nonetheless, the released old man’s beard leaf miner and leaf fungus have spread throughout the region.

Surveillance pest plants, such as woolly nightshade and Japanese walnut, are banned from sale, propagation and distribution. In keeping with the National Pest Plant accord, council representatives visit plant nurseries and retail outlets to ensure none of these plants are being sold, propagated or distributed.

The Trc also raises public awareness through pamphlets and website materials detailing surveillance pest plants and how to control them. Land occupiers are not required to do so, however, as their control is voluntary. Other materials are produced to educate the public on eradication and containment pest plants. This information is distributed by the council during visits to properties and at field days, and is always available at the Trc offices.

www.trc.govt.nz/■

effectively run pest control, adds rob.

“We want MaFBNZ to show leadership, especially where pests of national interest are concerned.”

National interest programmesEleven national interest pest programmes are underway. regional councils and other agencies (particularly DOc) undertake work as planned by MaFBNZ, which works out the objectives and planning and provide funding. “It’s an efficient way of running those programmes – leveraging off their capability and local knowledge,” says John Sanson. “We achieve some synergy there.”

While pests are an urgent concern, maintaining biodiversity in the unique Taranaki region is also a high priority to the council.

Dominated by Egmont National Park and Mount Taranaki, the Taranaki region is a geographically diverse area. Keeping the balance of fertile plains, rocky mountain slopes and lush indigenous forest is essential to the wellbeing of all locals, from native birds to dairy farmers.

“as part of the biodiversity programme we have identified the valuable areas, such as forest remnants and wetlands, and set up biodiversity work programmes for them,”

rob says.

Supporting this is a riparian management programme along the region’s 17,000km of rivers and streams, to protect water quality and to provide a series of uninterrupted biodiversity ‘corridors’ from Mount Taranaki to inland areas and to the sea.

www.trc.govt.nz/■

Biological controls supplement traditional methods

Gorse and mignonette vine are


FrONTLINE NEWS

Many countries continued to experience outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (hPaI) h5N1 during 2007. although New Zealand is considered well prepared to respond to an outbreak of avian or pandemic influenza, with comprehensive response plans and policies, we must remain vigilant and not become complacent about this ever-present threat.

MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ) participated in a number of avian and pandemic influenza preparedness activities in 2007, including continuing involvement in the Interagency Pandemic Group (IPG), and two interagency exercises led by the Ministry of health and the Department of conservation. New Zealand also hosted the annual QUaDS1 meeting, which provided an opportunity for hPaI preparedness to be discussed by the chief Veterinary Officers and working group members from the member countries. MaFBNZ avian influenza surveillance programme and response preparedness activities also continued throughout the year.

Interagency Pandemic GroupMaFBNZ played an active role throughout the year in the IPG, which is led by the Ministry of health (Moh) and includes all relevant government agencies. The IPG was integral in the production of the New Zealand Influenza Pandemic action Plan 20062 (NZIPaP). MaFBNZ, as part of the IPG, assisted with the development of Exercise cruickshank.

Exercise cruickshankExercise cruickshank was a whole-of-government influenza pandemic exercise, led by Moh. The main objectives of the exercise were to practise specific aspects of the NZIPaP and test intersectoral responses during the four phases of a pandemic.3

The exercise ran over five full days in May–June 2007, and included 40 government agencies at local, regional and national levels. The exercise scenario

1 Signatories of the animal health Quadrilateral agreement are australia, canada, New Zealand and the United States.

2 http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/nz-influenza-pandemic-action-plan-2006

3 Keep it out (border management), stamp it out (cluster control), manage it (pandemic management) and recover from it (recovery).

was based on an influenza pandemic with sustained human-to-human transmission.4 MaF mainly provided assistance in an observer and reviewer capacity, as this was seen primarily as an Moh-led initiative. however, MaF border staff at christchurch and auckland airports were involved on Day 1 of the exercise “Keep it out” (border management).

The scenario did not test animal-related infection, which would be a biosecurity response that MaF would lead5 in accordance with its Technical response Policies for avian Influenza Viruses of regulatory concern.

Exercise cruickshank helped participating agencies to develop and improve networks and working relationships across government sectors that will enhance normal day-to-day activities. It also gave Moh and other agencies the opportunity to identify key issues and priority areas in their individual plans that need to be addressed to improve their operational application.6

Operation GallusThe Department of conservation (DOc) conducted a two-day coordinated Incident Management System (cIMS) Exercise – Operation Gallus – for the North Island conservancies in June 2007. This was to test the department’s biosecurity capability in the event of an incursion of hPaI. It was also an opportunity to exercise the DOc Draft avian Influenza response Plan and the Biosecurity Standard Operating Procedure. MaFBNZ staff gave presentations on the MaF Biosecurity Strategy, hPaI Technical response Policy and disease control measures, as well as providing technical liaison during both days of the exercise. a similar South Island-based exercise – Operation avis – was completed in late February, 2008.

QUaDS response policy

4 To date there have been no reported cases of sustained human-to-human transmission of hPaI h5N1. all human cases of h5N1, reported by the World health Organization (WhO), have occurred either by direct contact with infected birds, or very close contact with infected persons.

5 The Ministry of agriculture and Forestry (MaF) is the lead agency for planning and responding to an outbreak of hPaI in animal species, including birds. MaF will continue as lead agency in the event of a confirmed case of hPaI identified within the New Zealand human population in the absence of human-to-human transmission. MaF will work closely with Moh on the risks associated with human cases. Where human-to-human transmission occurs, Moh will become the lead agency for managing the pandemic, but MaF will retain responsibility for animal response.

6 Ministry of health, 2007. report on Exercise cruickshank. Wellington: Ministry of health.

comparisonNew Zealand hosted the QUaDS meeting held in March 2007. at this meeting, the Emergency Management Working Group proposed that a comparison review of each country’s Notifiable avian Influenza (NaI) response strategies and policies should be undertaken. The comparison will allow the exchange of information on unique methods, better understanding of each country’s response process, and identification of policy gaps. MaFBNZ has undertaken responsibility for the comparison project and expects completion by the 2009 QUaDS meeting.

aI Surveillance and response Preparedness activitiesSurveillance is a key tool for preparedness and early recognition of introduction of new or unwanted organisms into the country. New Zealand’s avian influenza surveillance programme is multifaceted, incorporating active surveillance of poultry, active surveillance of resident and migratory wild birds and enhanced passive surveillance. Survey findings to date have found no hPaI in New Zealand. The most recent reports may be found in Surveillance Magazine at:

http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/publications/surveillance/issue-34-2/surveillance-34-2.pdf, p.11-13

http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/publications/surveillance/issue-34-3/surveillance-34-3.pdf, p.14-17.

Members of the MaF aI response Preparedness Team7 met in 2007 to review and update MaF aI response policy and operational plans. The team also provided feedback to DOc on their response policy, in preparation for Operation Gallus.

MaFBNZ will continue careful monitoring of the world hPaI h5N1 situation and preparedness activities here at home to ensure New Zealand is ready to respond if it arrives in the country.

Jane rooney, Senior adviser animal response, Post Border Directorate, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand, [email protected]

7 The MaF aI response Preparedness Team mirrors MaFBNZ’s infrastructure under the National response centre framework, and coordinates contingency plans to manage the risks associated with aI and activities around disease response.

■

■

■

avian and pandemic influenza preparedness activities: 2007


During the recent outbreak of equine influenza (EI) in australia, australia requested bilateral assistance from New Zealand under the principles of the International animal health Emergency reserve (IahEr) agreement. MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ) staff were rapidly deployed to australia from a number of directorates, including response and Surveillance groups (Post Border), Incursion Investigation and the animal health Laboratory at Wallaceville (see Biosecurity 81 for articles on the experience of MaFBNZ staff in australia). assistance was provided over a period of three months for secondment periods averaging two weeks per person.

The IahEr is a multilateral agreement between australia, canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, United States and New Zealand. The agreement was established to provide

support and assistance to member countries during exotic disease outbreaks, where an affected country’s resources and expertise are overwhelmed by the demands of the incursion. The IahEr outlines the procedures that a recipient country must follow when requesting assistance from the donor countries. Because these procedures have been pre-agreed, the IahEr can be implemented quickly and efficiently in the event of a disease outbreak – important when time is so critical.

Our resources could be exhaustedMaFBNZ is a signatory to the IahEr because any larger-scale disease outbreak may soon exhaust our resources and expertise, and we would then require assistance from overseas. In addition, valuable expertise can be utilised from countries that have recently had similar outbreaks. For example, the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in England have created a large pool of technical expertise and wide array of FMD response policies and plans that would be extremely valuable to any of the other signatory countries should they experience an outbreak within their own borders.

The experience gained by participants in the australian EI outbreak has been invaluable to MaFBNZ at several levels. The laboratory managers and technicians were stationed at laboratories in New South Wales and Queensland. Not only were they able to provide valuable help to the australians, but they also brought back ideas and methods to improve the capacity of MaBNZ’s animal health Laboratory to deal with large numbers of horse blood and nasal swab samples, while maintaining routine day-to-day animal tests for both export and import.

Several members of the Incursion Investigation team were deployed in the field with australian epidemiologists in Queensland and New South Wales to collect and analyse information to assist in the response to EI, or were stationed at disease control centres where they provided epidemiological assistance. They are now using the insights gained in australia to review and improve the MaFBNZ EI response operational plans.

Knowledge applied to New Zealand plansMembers of the animals response team were stationed at local disease control centres or at disease control headquarters

of the Queensland State Department of Primary Industries or at Department of agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries offices in canberra. The team members helped draft the policies and plans for response activities, including those relating to movement controls, zoning and premises controls and surveillance. The knowledge and experience gained has been used to draft response policies and review overall response preparedness in New Zealand, to enhance MaFBNZ’s state of preparedness for an EI response.

The assistance provided to australia has generated significant goodwill, and the role played by this group has been gratefully acknowledged. The experience has also benefited New Zealand, as the participants have returned with a fresh perspective on what needs to be done to improve MaFBNZ’s response preparedness, as well as a greater realisation of the complexities of a large disease response operation.

all participants in this EI response, and those involved in the broader IahEr arrangements, have forged valuable links with overseas colleagues that will be valuable in the future. The contacts made and links to other government organisations reinforce a sense of community and provide security in the knowledge that help is only an e-mail or a phone call away.

Naya Brangenberg, Senior adviser animal response, Post Border Directorate, [email protected]

andre van halderen, Team Manager animal response, Post Border Directorate, [email protected]

■

■

hands across the Tasman:how the International animal health Emergency reserve would work

Laboratory staff from New Zealand were deployed to australia under the principles of the International animal health Emergency reserve (IahEr) agreement.


FrONTLINE NEWS

SSM is a vicious day-time biter and can transmit the debilitating human disease, ross river Virus. In the

absence of government intervention, this disease is predicted to have significant public health impacts.

If the final regional elimination is completed as planned in 2010, it is estimated that the programme will have cost around $70 million over an 11-year period.

In Biosecurity issue 72 (December 2006) it was noted that the programme had been transferred from the Ministry of health to MaF as part of the wider government decision to put all biosecurity management under the control of MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ).

In mid 2007, the delivery of the eradication programme was tendered out and the contract let to Flybusters, an auckland-based insect control company. Staff

engaged on the programme operate out of three bases in the eradication zones at Kaipara, coromandel and Blenheim, and at a laboratory in auckland for the identification of specimens collected during field surveillance.

Eradication programme components

Science support

a technical advisory group provides independent technical advice to MaF, which is supported by a science programme. currently a number of science projects are underway looking at egg survival and adult trapping efficiency in particular.

Surveillance and monitoring

Surveillance and monitoring of suitable habitat within the identified eradication zones is carried out to detect the presence of SSM larvae or adults. This is achieved by trained personnel walking the habitat (such as drainage ditches and saltmarshes) and dipping with ladles to extract any mosquito larvae found. In addition, each zone has an array of traps for adult mosquitoes. capture of an adult potentially indicates either a treatment failure or a cryptic site that has yet to be located.

Treatment

Identified habitat within the eradication zones is treated with an insecticide-coated sand granule (s-methoprene) which is applied by helicopter at 21-day intervals. This is backed up by hand dosing of any ditches which the helicopter cannot reach. The methoprene does not directly kill the mosquito larvae, but prevents them from developing to adults and reproducing.

Eradication zones

Kaipara

In the southern Kaipara eradication zone, no larvae or adults have been located since July 2006, despite intensive surveillance since then. Methoprene treatment has also been ongoing since those finds. Subject to there being no further finds in this area, declaration of local elimination of SSM is on track for august 2008. This will be a significant achievement because, at the height of the infestation, SSM covered a very large area in the Kaipara.

coromandel

In coromandel, a similar situation exists; there have been no finds since april 2007.

Update: Southern saltmarsh mosquito eradication programme

On track for eradication

a programme to eradicate the southern saltmarsh mosquito (aedes camptorhynchus; SSM) from New Zealand has been in place since 1999 when it was first discovered in Napier. Since that time, the mosquito has been identified at 12 separate sites in New Zealand and the programme has successfully eliminated the mosquito from all but three of these places. The programme is on track to declare elimination of the mosquito from all known sites in New Zealand by 2010.


In this area, in addition to the application of methoprene, other methods of eliminating SSM have been tried. In the area where the last finds were made, MaFBNZ and Environment Waikato have fenced off the salt marsh area to prevent stock access. This prevents the pugging effect which leaves hoof prints in the mud and allows SSM larvae to develop. There are also ecological benefits from preventing stock access to these sites.

Blenheim

There continues to be isolated finds of SSM larvae in a confined area of the Blenheim eradication zone. The most recent find was in December 2007. While the numbers of SSM found continues to fall, it is clear that there are still unhatched egg banks in the area. It is thus vital that intensive surveillance continues and that treatments are accurately applied to all SSM habitat. In keeping with the ‘eradication rules’ set by the technical advisory group, it will be at least another two years before elimination of SSM from the Blenheim area can be confirmed, assuming no further finds. In the meantime, surveillance and trapping in the area around the more recent finds have been intensified. all these areas have also been treated with Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) insecticide, which kills any mosquito larvae present.

In order to determine if there are further incursions (or further spread within New Zealand) of SSM, the Ministry of health operates a national surveillance programme seeking the early detection

of any SSM or other exotic salt marsh mosquito species outside the identified eradication zones. The surveillance provides vital support to the SSM eradication programme and will help determine when national eradication can be declared.

While there is still a long way to go and a lot of work to be done, all staff associated with the project remain confident that SSM can be eradicated from New Zealand.

Flybusters/antiants Insect control (NZ) Ltd, PO Box 100-287, NSMc, auckland, phone 09 440 9994, fax 09 489 7091

www.flybusters.co.nz

For further information about the southern salt marsh mosquito programme:

David Yard, Incursion Manager, Post Border, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand, [email protected]

■

■

■

Marks & Spencer tops welfare awardsUnited Kingdom supermarket chain Marks & Spencer recently received the top prize in the compassion in World Farming (cIWF) Fourth compassionate Supermarket awards. The award was made for being the top achiever in cIWF’s biennial survey of supermarket performance in animal welfare.

Marks & Spencer was ahead of all other participating supermarkets on the welfare of laying hens,

broiler chickens, dairy cattle and veal calves, and is cited by cIWF as continuing “to take ownership of ethical decisions affecting animals in its supply chain, rather than placing the responsibility on its customers”.

The award was presented at the compassion in World Farming 40th anniversary Fundraising Dinner. Guests at the black tie event included celebrities Joanna Lumley and andrew Sachs (Manuel in Fawlty Towers). Lumley, a Patron of cIWF, was given a special tribute for her longstanding support for the organisation and farm animal welfare. hrh The Prince of Wales also received a tribute for his contribution to organic farming.

Supermarket chain Sainsbury also received awards on the night for Best Volume retailer and Most Improved Supermarket.

www.ciwf.org/supermarkets/■

hand application of Bti following a larval find. Photo: Flybusters.

Dipping for aedes camptorhynchus larvae. Photo: Gene Browne.


FrONTLINE NEWS

Protecting and promoting human health While much biosecurity effort is focused on primary production and the health of our environment, the health of the human population is also a key consideration that is woven throughout our biosecurity system. achieving


positive outcomes for human health requires, among other things, MaF to provide leadership while collaborating effectively with partner organisations. In the following article, Doug Lush, Principal adviser human health with the MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ) Post Border Directorate, looks at human health from a biosecurity perspective.

The determinants of human healthThe health and wellbeing of people is determined in large part by the social, economic, cultural and environmental contexts in which they live, work and play. Most of the determinants of health (diet, income, housing, education, employment) lie outside the direct influence of health services and “lifestyle” choices. Optimising human health outcomes requires the combined efforts of many agencies, including central and local government.

agriculture and healthThe agricultural sector has an important influence on the health of New Zealanders, including its contribution to our food supply, our economy and via its numerous contributions to our physical and social environment. awareness and understanding of the links between our agricultural base and the health of our population can assist in developing policies that protect and promote health while enhancing the long-term sustainability of the primary production sector. Many of the links between health and agricultural occur via complex pathways that are poorly understood. To understand such interactions we need to consider evidence from many different disciplines and perspectives.

an ecosystem approach to human healthhuman health relies on intact ecosystems to provide goods (water, food etc) and services (purification of air, water, soil, waste disposal). changes in the pattern of land use, technology, and the intensity of human activities can impact on the ecosystems that are essential for the delivery and maintenance of our health and wellbeing.

an ecosystem approach to health within an agricultural context for example, challenges us to consider the impacts of the agricultural sector on the ecosystems that support human health.

climate change: an example of ecosystem degradationclimate change is a pressing example of the consequences of human activities on global ecosystem integrity. The greatest contributor to climate change has been

greenhouse gas emissions from the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels (56 percent) with deforestation responsible for 18 percent of global emissions. climate change poses many practical and strategic challenges for both the health and the agricultural sectors. The New Zealand response to climate change requires both adapting to the projected changes, mitigation to reduce further greenhouse gas emissions and capturing business opportunities associated with climate change.

In the context of MaFBNZ biosecurity practices and policies need to adapt to the projected changes in climate. These include the increased range of human, animal and plant pests and diseases that might arrive and become established in New Zealand, and the expanded range of existing plants and diseases. coordination of the planning for extreme climatic events (reduction,

readiness, response and recovery) across sectors can enhance the resilience of rural communities, including protecting and promoting animal and human health.

climate change mitigation measures introduced within the agricultural sector over the next decade will have important economic impacts (including the costs of emissions trading and the benefits of market access) as well as direct impacts on health and wellbeing (such as improved water quality as a result of afforestation and nitrogen management). consideration of the potential benefits for human health and increased community resilience should be factored into the policy process.

human health and biosecurityMaFBNZ is responsible for leading, coordinating and implementing New Zealand’s biosecurity system while balancing the social, economic and cultural costs and benefits. Understanding the human-health impacts of all biosecurity activities is essential in delivering on this responsibility. human health issues and impacts need to be considered across the full spectrum of MaFBNZ activities including policy, risk analysis, science strategy, import health standards, surveillance, preparedness, incursion response and pest management.

Partnerships with the health sectorThe health sector is an important partner in delivering biosecurity outcomes. It is important that MaFBNZ collaborate efficiently with our colleagues from health at the central, regional and local level. collaboration requires agreement on how agencies work together where there are areas of overlapping responsibility. Good processes are essential when we are communicating with the public on issues that affect public health, to ensure that our messages are consistent and evidence based.

Starting in our own back yardThe health and wellbeing of the MaF workforce is critically important to the efficient and effective achievement of outcomes. as well as being a safe place to work, MaF can help promote the health of employees wherever possible. Policies and cultures that support staff wellbeing can also reduce the organisation’s environmental impact, operating costs and carbon footprint.

Doug Lush, Principal adviser human health, Post Border Directorate, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand, [email protected]

■


FrONTLINE NEWS

australian termites pose a potentially significant biosecurity risk for New Zealand. although current import health standards for timber mitigate the risk of new introductions, historically introduced colonies are still being discovered in this country.

BiologyTermites are social insects that live in colonies consisting of a queen and king, workers and soldiers. Winged reproductives are produced seasonally and fly from the parent colony. Only a very small proportion of them successfully mate and set up new colonies.

Termites feed on wood and other sources of cellulose, and can attack living trees, logs, posts, and landscaping and building timber.

New Zealand has three species of native termite, but they do not form large colonies and are not considered destructive.

Invasive termites in New ZealandIncursions of five different species of australian termites have been reported in New Zealand. There have been numerous (mostly historical) interceptions of termites at the border in imported australian hardwood timber. Between 1940 and 1980, about 50,000 North Island sites were inspected for invasive termites, with around 110 infestations detected and successfully treated. Due to the number of termite interceptions and incursions, stricter border controls for imported timber were imposed, including compulsory fumigation.

however, because colonies can live undetected for many years in the timber in which they were imported, new post-border detections of australian termites are still occurring, decades since they entered the country. Because these infestations are generally still localised at the time they are detected,

response options remain available.

colonies of two species of australian termite, coptotermes acinaciformis and Porotermes adamsoni are currently known to exist in New Zealand, and are the subject of MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ) responses. Unlike native termites, these species have the potential to cause considerable harm to New Zealand’s economy, environment and social and cultural values.

Detection and treatment of invasive termite coloniesTermite colonies are often difficult to detect visually. In many cases they are only found when winged reproductives leave the nest or when considerable feeding damage has occurred. Traditional treatments, such as destruction of host timber, trenching or ground spraying with broad-spectrum insecticides like dieldrin and dusting active termites with arsenic are not always practical and effective, or are now considered environmentally unacceptable.

Tools developed in recent years are making it easier to detect and treat termite infestations. Thermal and microwave imaging can be used to detect the heat or movement of termites inside wood. More selective insecticides and targeted delivery systems have resulted in more effective and environmentally acceptable eradication. In particular, insect growth regulators such as hexaflumuron, administered in targeted bait stations, have proved very successful against termites that forage for food away from the parent colony. hexaflumuron is slow acting (it takes effect when the

termites moult) and is spread through the colony by the practice of shared feeding. This makes it possible to eliminate even large infestations covering wide areas with minimal intervention.

For example, a large infestation of the destructive subterranean termite coptotermes acinaciformis was detected at Otorohanga in 1990. Eradication programmes through the 1990s using traditional techniques were unsuccessful. In 1999 (when the infestation covered 1.4 hectares) hexaflumuron baits were deployed and, within three months, the termites had been eliminated.

current incursions and MaFBNZ responses

coptotermes acinaciformis

c. acinaciformis is a subterranean termite that forms nests in timber that is in contact with the ground. Of all species in australia, it is considered to have the most destructive impact on buildings and other wooden structures. They will also feed on living trees. They form large colonies and tunnel up to 50 metres from the nest to forage for food. They tunnel underground and, where necessary, form mud runways above ground.

There are two current MaFBNZ responses to this termite:

• Nelson, 2006: Termite damage and activity was detected in the wall timber of a house, in railway sleepers in the garden and a tree stump at a neighbouring property.

australian termites in New Zealand

coptotermes acinaciformis damage to Douglas fir


• North of auckland, January 2007: Termite damage and activity was detected in the wall of a dwelling, followed a few days later by winged reproductives swarming out of a nearby planter box constructed of australian railway sleepers.

Both infestations were treated with hexaflumuron baits and termite activity has ceased. The sites will be monitored for five years before eradication is officially declared.

Porotermes adamsoni

P. adamsoni is a dampwood termite that attacks dead wood and living trees (principally eucalypts, but also other species including Pinus radiata). It gains entry to living trees through points of damage or decay, and can then move into sounder timber. It is considered a forest pest in southern New South Wales and Victoria. P. adamsoni is not a serious pest

of houses in australia, but may attack house timbers where decay allows access. colonies are relatively small and are slow to grow and spread. It is considered a ‘cool climate’ termite, and can survive cold conditions, even under snow, by producing an anti-freeze.

P. adamsoni is not susceptible to hexaflumuron baiting as workers do not forage outside of the wood occupied by the colony, and the destruction of host timber is the most commonly used eradication tool.

There are three current MaFBNZ responses to this termite in New Zealand:• Lyttelton wharf, 1963: Because of

inaccessibility of the wharf timbers, eradication has not been considered feasible during this long-standing response. however, the termites are considered contained within the wharf area, and are actively managed by visual inspections and by removing and destroying infested timber.

• Kaipara, February 2007: a reproductive was found in a spider web.

• auckland, February 2008: Several reproductives were caught in a private residence.

Surveillance is underway in an effort to locate the Kaipara and auckland colonies.

Detecting the presence of invasive termitesInvasive termites are most likely to be associated with historically imported timber such as railway sleepers, now commonly used for landscaping, and utility poles used for power and telephone lines. Subterranean termites are likely to extend their activities from this material into nearby trees, buildings or other wooden structures.

as termites excavate timber internally and leave a thin external layer, damage is often not obvious, although it may result in the bubbling of timber surfaces. With subterranean termites, the most obvious signs are mud leads across open surfaces and mud packing between layers of landscaping timber or inside wall cavities. Their subterranean tunnels are usually found in the top 20 centimetres of soil.

Winged reproductives fly from their parent colonies en masse on hot, humid summer evenings. They are attracted to light and may enter houses or become caught in spider webs close to light sources. however, native termite reproductives will also be flying in the same conditions.

colonies inside living timber could also be found while cutting down trees or splitting wood.

If you think you have found invasive termites DO NOT disturb their activity or the surrounding area. If possible, collect some individuals, preferably soldiers (larger, darker head with mandibles) and place the container in the freezer. call the MaFBNZ disease and pest hotline on 0800 80 99 66.

Bruce Philip, adviser Plant response, Post Border Directorate, [email protected]

heather Pearson, Incursion Investigator, Investigation and Diagnostic centre – Tamaki, [email protected]

Shaun Bennett, Entomologist – Entomology, Investigation and Diagnostic centre – Tamaki, [email protected]

■

■

■

coptotermes acinaciformis sleeper damage, north of auckland. Photo: heather Pearson.

coptotermes acinaciformis, planter box mudding old and new, north of auckland. Photo: heather Pearson.


FrONTLINE NEWS

In early 2006, industry alerted MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ) to the potential occurrence of boil smut in a crop of corn/maize in the Gisborne region. Boil smut is caused by the fungus Ustilago maydis. It only attacks corn (Zea mays) and another closely related species not known to occur in New Zealand.

Upon confirmation of the identification, MaFBNZ issued a restricted place notice on the

property to prevent further spread of the disease, and started planning for an eradication programme.

Eradication was considered to be feasible in this instance for several reasons:• the disease was confined to a portion

of a single field• the maturity of the galls was such that

spore release was unlikely to have occurred

• technology was available that gave a high probability for success.

In addition, the pattern of disease expression in the field indicated a seed-borne, rather than a wind-borne infection. MaFBNZ informed industry stakeholders and asked that crop scouts report the suspected presence of the disease. Thus far, the disease has not been detected in any other corn-growing area of New Zealand. Surveillance is assisted by the fact that only corn is affected by the disease and symptoms are distinctive (Figure 1).

While the boil smut spores can survive up to eight years in cool dry conditions, they are killed within 15 minutes in water at 52°c. This apparent susceptibility led to MaFBNZ using a process known as soil solarisation to attempt eradication. Soil solarisation was considered the most appropriate method of eradication over such an area, as it minimised the chance of spore dispersal through soil disturbance and was considered to be a more environmentally friendly alternative to fumigation.

This process required the removal of all identified infected corn plants from the property for incineration, and the composting of all remaining plants from the affected area and buffer zone in a compost

heap specially designed to prevent any

spores escaping. Following removal of the crop, MaFBNZ’s contractor asureQuality secured 200-micron plastic sheeting over the affected area and left it in place over the 2006–2007 spring/summer period (Figure 2). While not all temperature data are available, average temperatures of 34°c (maximum 46°c) and 35°c (maximum 38°c) at depths of 10 and 20 cm respectively, were recorded over late spring and early summer 2007–2008 in the field.

MaFBNZ is confident that solarisation provides the best chance to eradicate boil smut and return to New Zealand’s pest free status for this disease.

George Gill Senior adviser Plant response Post Border Directorate [email protected],nz

■

Soil solarisation to eradicate boil smut

Taste treatWhile the boil smut galls were an unwelcome sight in New Zealand, they are considered a delicacy in Mexico, and are said to impart a mushroom and corn flavour. The galls are used in a dish called “sopa de huitlacoche”, combining the corn with onion, garlic, chillies, chicken stock and cilantro. Soup, anyone?

Figure 2: asureQuality staff removing plastic solarisation


The australian outback is an unlikely destination for New Zealand quarantine inspectors in their daily work, but that’s where Gary higgins ended up on a pre-inspection tour.

Imports of produce to New Zealand can be streamlined through inspections being carried out before

the consignments leave their country of origin. When MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ) Quarantine Inspector Gary higgins was asked by his manager if he would be interested in doing pre-inspection of australian grapes, he jumped at the chance.

This decision took him first to Mildura, one of australia’s prime grape growing and exporting areas. Situated in Victoria, on the banks of the Murray river, Mildura is close to the borders of New South Wales and South australia.

Bestfresh holds a Service agreement with MaFBNZ, and arranges the pre-inspection of grapes for all the operators before they

are consigned to New Zealand.

Gary covered many kilometres of red dusty roads, and passed more than a few dead kangaroos on the roadside, on his journey to the Grapehouse to inspect the first consignment of grapes.

he inspected a representative 600-unit sample of the grapes, which had already been given the once-over by inspectors from the australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (aQIS). With no weed seeds or pests found, Gary issued the packhouse with MaFBNZ documentation clearing the consignment for export.

This was the first of seven such inspections carried out over the next five days, each visit separated by long stretches on the road. Included on the rounds was Western and Sons Vineyards at Loxton in South australia, where a sea container of just one variety of grapes was being prepared for export to New Zealand. Gary explains that in cases such as this, where the container is not physically present, the growers are authorised by aQIS to attach seals and guarantee the product is the same line inspected by MaFBNZ.

crossing back to Nangiloc coligan Farms in Victoria, Gary passed desolate salt pans that once were lakes. he says there was a severe water restriction in the Sunraysia region. “Even the irrigation for the oranges had been stopped and they were dying.”

The pre-inspection tour took Gary to parts of australia not seen by the average tourist. “The people were all very helpful, especially the three inspectors at the aQIS office who travel these distances every day to carry out their inspections.”

his fondest memory was of the man at

the fruit fly checkpoint going into South australia who leaned in the car window to ask if Gary had any fruit.

“he recognised the uniform and exclaimed ‘Of course you don’t! What the hell are you doing way out here?’ I explained our pre-clearance procedure and wished him well with his inspections.”

So where the bloody hell are the grapes?

consignment of grapes awaiting inspection prior to

Gary higgins scrutinises a sample from an export consignment.

Dr Barry O’Neil, Deputy Director-General, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ), is inviting anyone involved in biosecurity border inspection – past and present – to join in marking an important milestone.

In 2010, MaFBNZ border inspection will celebrate 50 years of operation.

Beginning in 1960, the then Port agriculture Inspection Service brought together New Zealand’s animal and plant health inspectorial operations in the battle

to keep out unwanted foreign pests and diseases.

a project is planned in collaboration with the Ministry for culture and heritage to detail the history of the service.

This will involve gathering oral histories, the writing of a manuscript with the view to

Biosecurity border inspection history project

All contributions are welcome and, if suitable, may be used in one of the phases of this project. Care will be taken to identify contributors, label, preserve and care for material submitted. Submission guidelines and forms are available on request by emailing [email protected] or by visiting our website www.biosecurity.govt.nz/history.The postal address is:

MAFBNZ History ProjectMinistry of Agriculture & ForestryPO Box 2526Wellington, NZ.

Please include my details in the MAFBNZ

History Project Database and keep me

informed of progress

Name:

Email:

Address:

Associated with Border Inspection:When:

Where:

What positions(s):

In addition, I invite those interested to register your personal details either by using the slip attached or by visiting our website and downloading the form.

The website will also provide on-going information about the project and contact details for project members. Those who register will be added to a database of participants and will be kept informed of progress.

May I take this opportunity to personally thank you in advance for your support and for your contribution.

Dr Barry O’NeilDeputy Director-General, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry

THE

HisT

ory

oF

MAFBNZ History ProjectMinistry of Agriculture & Forestry

PO Box 2526, Wellington, NZ.

a Personal Invitation

producing a coffee table book and website, production of an interactive DVD and the establishment of a small museum.

The history project will be brought to life by the sharing of anecdotes and memorabilia by those connected to border inspection in the last 50 years.

Submissions are welcome. Information, including submission guidelines and forms, is available through:


Internet: www.biosecurity.govt.nz/history

Postal address:MaFBNZ history Project, Ministry of agriculture and Forestry, PO Box 2526, Wellington, New Zealand

■

■

■


BIOSEcUrITY ScIENcE

– a complex issueThe use and timing of vaccination in an equine influenza (EI) outbreak is a controversial issue. There are strong arguments both for and against, and decisions around vaccination need to be kept under constant review. Vaccination strategies and decision making where EI is endemic are significantly different to strategies applicable to the control of an outbreak. New Zealand’s unique disease-free status makes the extrapolation of many of the strategies used elsewhere inappropriate. Vaccination alone is insufficient to control an outbreak. It needs to be combined with strict movement control, quarantine and biosecurity precautions.

Vaccine types

There are three types of equine influenza vaccine available:

Inactivated vaccines contain virus that is rendered incapable of replication (usually by chemicals). These vaccines frequently include a number of immunologically distinct strains of the EI virus. The main advantage of these vaccines is their safety. They are administered by injection and usually require two injections four-to-six weeks apart. Vaccinated animals usually only become fully immune 7–14 days after the second dose. For ongoing protection from disease, a booster vaccination is given at six months, and thereafter yearly or more frequently, depending on the likely exposure of the horse to EI.

Live modified vaccines contain live, attenuated cold-adapted EI virus that has been adapted to multiply at the lower temperatures of the sinus and nasal passages but not at normal body temperature. Because this is live virus that actually multiplies in its host, there is a risk of viral spread between horses as well as the possibility that the adapted virus could regain its ability to cause disease. This type of vaccine is usually administered into the nose of the animal. a single dose is followed by boosters at six-month intervals. There is evidence of early protection (as early as seven days) following vaccination, though full immunity is claimed to occur later than this. These vaccines cannot be used in pregnant mares.

Modified vaccines. These are another form

of ‘live’ vaccine. They include genetically modified strains of virus and are treated as a separate type of vaccine. The virus, because it has been modified, is not able to spread from horse to horse. The vaccine is given by injection and two initial doses are recommended with boosters at a six-month interval. Immunity has been documented at 14 days after administration of the first dose. This is the type of vaccine used in the australian outbreak.

Which vaccine to use?Like the human influenza virus, the EI virus is constantly changing. This is why horses can catch influenza more than once, or become infected even if they are vaccinated.

It is important to use the correct vaccine for the type of influenza virus you want to protect against (i.e., that the vaccine contains the correct virus types). Vaccine manufacturers update their vaccines in response to newer subtypes. When there is a new outbreak it is important to know the virus type you are dealing with, to be able to select the most appropriate vaccine. Most influenza vaccines have at least two subtypes and generally include american and European strains. Generally, horses that have been vaccinated correctly shed less virus for shorter periods and show fewer or no detectable clinical signs than horses that have not been vaccinated.

Equine influenza vaccination


Immunity is short lived and costlyThe immunity to EI in horses following vaccination is relatively short lived and therefore revaccination is important. It is generally accepted that for vaccination to limit the spread of EI, it is necessary to have a strict vaccination programme that ensures that at least 70 percent of the horse population is effectively vaccinated.

New Zealand has a horse population of about 120,000, which means we would need to vaccinate 84,000 horses. at a cost of about $375 plus GST for an initial three-dose course of inactivated vaccine per horse, the first year cost would be about $30 million.

If a vaccination programme is not maintained, then the horse population will become increasingly susceptible to EI again. This is one of the reasons why, in countries where vaccination is practised, there are still outbreaks of the disease.

Vaccinated horses can spread infection Vaccinated horses may still become infected, but will show few or no clinical signs because they have some protection. horses that have had EI or that have been exposed to the virus (even if vaccinated) can carry and shed the virus for up to 14 days and infect other animals. Therefore, the infection can be spread as horses that are not obviously ill are moved to different locations. This is often how the infection enters a country – in horses with immunity that are carrying and shedding the virus. Vaccination also makes confirming the presence of EI more difficult and more expensive.

Why use vaccines in an outbreak?If used correctly in an outbreak, vaccines can slow the spread of the infection and reduce or minimise the severity of the disease in horses. In australia, vaccination was used effectively to create buffer zones around areas where disease occurred, to minimise the chance of infection spreading outside these areas. however, it is important that the use of vaccines is strictly controlled, so that it is known which horses have been vaccinated and when. This ensures that vaccinated horses can be prevented from spreading infection and also ensures effective implementation of other response activities.

Vaccination was only one of the tools used in the australian response. Other measures such as a movement ban and strict biosecurity procedures (e.g., cleaning and disinfection) to prevent the spread from property to property played a significant role in ensuring that the outbreak was

brought under control.

Vaccination in non-emergency situations (where the infection is not present)Following australia’s decision to use the EI vaccine in response to the outbreak, the issue of whether New Zealand should or should not vaccinate has resulted in vigorous debate.

There are a number of reasons why the vaccine is strictly controlled, and why using it preventatively in the absence of disease needs to be very carefully considered.

Possible uses for the vaccine in the absence of EI in New Zealand could include:• targeted vaccination of high-risk

populations within New Zealand (e.g., horses that travel frequently out of the country)

• pre-emptive vaccination of the country’s horse population to reduce the impact of disease and to reduce the likelihood of spread should it enter New Zealand. If pre-emptive vaccination is used in New Zealand, at least 70 percent of the horse population needs to be immune, so that the virus does not spread should it enter the country. If lower percentages of horses are vaccinated, then this may not prevent outbreaks. Even with high vaccination rates there is no guarantee of protection, because other strains may emerge that vaccinated horses are not immune to. This could still result in outbreaks.

Implications of using vaccination in non-emergency situations

Impact on EI-free status for international trade

One of MaF Biosecurity New Zealand’s (MaFBNZ’s) main concerns around large-scale vaccination in the absence of disease (i.e., non-emergency use) is the potential impact on our EI-free status.

If a significant number of horses were vaccinated, then MaFBNZ could no longer rely on detecting clinical signs in infected animals. It is this ability, facilitated by passive surveillance carried out by owners and veterinarians and supported by emergency reporting and response capability, which provides New Zealand with the evidence required to support claims of disease freedom. Loss of EI freedom status could affect exports. New Zealand would still claim freedom, but this would be less credible to our trading partners, who are under no obligation to accept our claims of EI freedom at face value.

The World Organisation for animal health

(OIE) has specific guidelines for EI-free countries where vaccination is used. To comply with their requirements and ensure that our claims of EI freedom are accepted by other countries, New Zealand’s equine industry would need to undertake extensive and expensive surveillance programmes. This also means that to retain EI-free status, New Zealand would need to identify horses that have been vaccinated. This is why all horses vaccinated in australia have to be microchipped.

‘Silent spread’

Vaccination may hide signs of infection in horses that are still capable of spreading the virus. This may result in the so-called silent spread of infection. This would allow the infection to spread much more rapidly before it could be detected. By the time signs of disease are detected and reported in a non-vaccinated horse, it could potentially be very widespread.

Need for repeated, regular vaccination

horses need to be vaccinated at regular intervals to ensure that effective immunity is built up and maintained. If vaccination is allowed to lapse (a real risk where people don’t see evidence of disease after a period and decide not to revaccinate) the horse population is again at risk.

Vaccination and movement control in the event of an outbreakThere is a misconception that vaccinated horses will be exempt from movement controls during an outbreak of EI and will be allowed to participate in activities such as races, shows and events. This is generally not the case. Vaccination alone is insufficient to control an outbreak and needs to be combined with strict movement control, quarantine and biosecurity precautions, as was the case in the australian outbreak.

Summarya decision to vaccinate, especially where the disease is not present, is not a simple matter. Many factors require consideration. Vaccination will affect different sectors of the horse industry in different ways, and it is important that all views from potentially affected parties are considered before any decisions are made.

Brendan Pollard, Senior adviser animal response, Post Border Directorate, [email protected]

■


BIOSEcUrITY ScIENcE

adventurous kiwis on their OE have been known to get into the odd spot of bother over the years. So too can our expatriate plant communities. Their problems are not with local constabulary, but with local pests and diseases. By monitoring communities of New Zealand native plants in overseas situations – especially in climates similar to our own – we gain a valuable insight into how they might be affected by foreign organisms that have so far been kept out of our country (see also Biosecurity 68:20, 15 June 2006).

In 2002, the National research council recommended that plants native to the United States growing in other

countries’ botanic gardens and arboretums be monitored to help predict which non-native species could present risks if they arrived in the United States. To our knowledge, New Zealand is the only country evaluating this ‘expatriate plant communities’ concept to see if it can add value to pre-border risk analyses.

The project aims to:

• identify where New Zealand plants are growing overseas

• determine which overseas localities are most climatically matched to New Zealand

• develop protocols for collecting long-term monitoring data

• interpret data on potential pest and disease threats.

Up to 20 staff from crop & Food research, agresearch and Scion are contributing to this project, which will be reviewed in June 2008 by its potential end users, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ) and the Department of conservation.

Overseas, New Zealand native plantings have historically been for plant conservation purposes. Utilising existing botanical garden conservation networks and the internet, the project team has communicated with the guardians of more than 107 overseas New Zealand plant collections in 13 countries (see Table 1). curators at each garden were surveyed on the extent of their New Zealand planting, a species list, climate and soil type, history of pest and disease problems and a range of other details. Information was collated and entered into a newly constructed database intended for future phases of this project and for other biosecurity and conservation initiatives.

To best target future monitoring and response efforts, climate matching was used to identify regions of the world where temperatures and climatic conditions closely match those typically experienced by native plants growing in New Zealand. New Zealand host plants growing in similar conditions overseas could harbour future pests and diseases. The most suitable sites were situated in australia, north-eastern Europe and parts of western USa (Figure 1).

another task undertaken by the project team was developing a standard survey and sampling protocol for the long-term monitoring of these overseas plant collections. Entomologists and plant pathologists developed a symptom-based field protocol designed for use by non-experts. The protocol includes how to collect samples, deliver samples to overseas diagnostic collaborators or import non-viable materials into New Zealand for

Expat plant communities useful biosecurity sentinels

Table 1: Overseas New Zealand plant collection types and localities

countries

Trust and com

munity

gardens

University/college/

research gardens

Botanic gardens

arboretum

s

reserves and public parks

Private gardens (large and sm

all)

Plant nurseries

Total

England 7 3 4 3 2 9 5 33

Ireland 2 3 2 2 2 11

Scotland 2 4 1 1 8

Belgium 1 1

France 2 1 3 1 1 1 9

Germany 3 3 1 1 8

USa 3 2 2 3 10

South africa 3 2 1 1 7

australia 10 10

china 2 2

Bulgaria 1 1 2

Some of the expatriate plant communities project members testing protocols at christchurch Botanic Gardens. Top row: Sean Bithell (plant pathologist), Matthew cromey (plant pathologist), craig Phillips (B3 Science Leader and entomologist), John Kean (ecologist), John Fletcher (virologist), Nick Martin (entomologist). Bottom row: Nigel Bell (nematologist), Margaret Dick (plant pathologist) and Mark McNeil (entomologist).


identification.

Twelve overseas botanic gardens have been visited since the project began two years ago. Gardens in the United Kingdom (Kew gardens, Ventnor gardens), canada (UBc gardens), United States (hawaii), australia (hobart, Melbourne, adelaide) and New Zealand (christchurch gardens) were visited on an ad hoc basis to help develop and trial the protocols. a number of damaged or diseased New Zealand plant species were identified using the symptom-based protocol. The pests or diseases were then confirmed as not being present in New Zealand using organism records collected by MaFBNZ and the Department of conservation as well as the new Plant-SyNZ database (Biosecurity 78:25, 15 September 2007), which will help determine their risk to New Zealand natural ecosystems.

Information collected from overseas visits is entered into the Expatriate Plant communities Database, which will allow searches to be made on the basis of plant species, region, pest or pathogen. The internet-linked database also allows photographs of damage symptoms to be submitted to assist with preliminary diagnoses or identifications.

Now that the conceptual phase of the project is nearing completion, it is anticipated that the second phase of a full-scale monitoring trial for pests or diseases in the selected New Zealand overseas gardens will proceed. Potential methods to achieve long-term monitoring data to increase MaFBNZ’s pre-border readiness and response may include New Zealand biosecurity researchers travelling overseas to conduct surveys, or by reciprocal monitoring projects with overseas collaborators. regardless, informal inspections of overseas plantings by MaFBNZ staff while attending other business will assist in the compilation of expatriate plant community data.

referencesanon 2002. Predicting invasions of nonindigenous plants and plant pests – committee on the Scientific Basis for Predicting the Invasive Potential of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant Pests in the United States. Washington D.c., National academy Press.

Oates M 1999. New Zealand Plants and Their Story. In: Oates M ed. New Zealand plants and their story.

To access Plant-SNZ database:www.crop.cri.nz/home/plant-synz/

Laura L. Fagan, Project Leader: Expatriate Plant communities, Better Border Biosecurity (B3), phone 03 325 6400 ext. 3627, [email protected]

www.b3nz.org

■

■

■

Figure 1: Expatriate plant communities (red dots) where New Zealand plant collections are located compared with the climate match index (cMI) indicating the location’s climatic similarity to New Zealand growing conditions (cMI of 0.9–1.0 is the best match to New Zealand conditions).

Scale insect damage on a specimen totara (Podocarpus hallii) tree in christchurch Botanic Gardens, November 2007. Identification confirmed that the infestation was caused by native scale insects Leucaspis podocarpi (white scale on the leaves) and Leucaspis sp. ‘totara’ henderson 2004 (the scale in the crevices of the green stem).


BIOSEcUrITY ScIENcE

number of collaborative programmes are underway to address this issue.

PaDIL (Pests and Diseases Image Library, www.padil.gov.au) is one of

the programmes initiated by the australian Department of agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DaFF) – with support from Plant health australia and the cooperative research centre National Plant Biosecurity (crc NPB) – to address the decline of taxonomic expertise, increasing risk of incursions and the increasing number of identifications required.

PaDIL is an on-line electronic image library which provides high-quality images of mainly exotic targeted organisms of plant health concern. PaDIL combines leading-edge technology in light microscopy, digital imaging and image manipulation. The imaging technology employed includes capturing a series of images, each providing an in-focus image of part of the photographed organism; then each series of images is combined to create a single new image. Diagnostic images of specimens are shown in true-life colour and in the best orientation to view the specimen. The result is a collection of ‘virtual specimens’, allowing a user with a

microscope linked to a computer to focus on different parts of the viewed organism, simultaneously comparing what they see against a single PaDIL image.

at present, PaDIL contains almost 1,000 species which include about 100 pathogens. There is a wide coverage of pest species, ranging from timber and stored food pests to horticultural pests. The geographical pest coverage is world wide. There are many other features available in PaDIL, e.g., Google Maps, a Google Earth interface, illustrated diagnostic keys, on-line tutorials and details of voucher specimens. It acts as a virtual technical reference collection. The PaDIL database not only facilitates identification work but also helps to train a new generation of taxonomists and overcomes the expense of maintaining centralised reference collections. PaDIL

has become an internationally recognised entity addressing issues on invasive species and ecosystem (agricultural, forestry and natural system) health.

The Plant health and Environment Laboratory (PhEL), Investigation and Diagnostic centre, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand, organised three one-day workshops on PaDIL in November 2007. They were organised in collaboration with Museum Victoria, Melbourne, australia. Two workshops were conducted in auckland and one in Lincoln near christchurch. The aim was to raise the awareness of the PaDIL database, train users on operations/functions of PaDIL and encourage scientists to contribute to and develop the database. Workshop participants included scientists from crop & Food research, university staff, taxonomists from Landcare research, Quarantine Inspectors, surveyors, trainers from MaFBNZ cargo and staff from asureQuality pest and disease laboratories, and PhEL. Forty-five people attended these very successful workshops.

Dr Lalith Kumarasinghe, Scientist/coordinator Border Diagnostic Programme, Investigation and Diagnostic centre, Plant health and Environment Laboratory, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 09 909 5713

■

Pests and Diseases Image Library workshopBorder Security and Plant health are critical to the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of australia and New Zealand. Inadequate taxonomic expertise is a common problem for both countries and a

Screens from the PaDIL database showing red imported fire ant images.

Participants at one of the one-day workshops held in November 2007.


a classic piece of scientific detective work and collaboration has thrown new light on a woodland pathogen only recently confirmed in New Zealand. revisiting an investigation from the 1960s has revealed that Phytophthora kernoviae (Pk) has been in this country longer than first thought.

In 2005, scientists from Landcare research, Ensis (now Scion) and hortresearch examined New Zealand’s

laboratory collections of Phytophthora and discovered the presence of Phytophthora kernoviae (Pk), a recently described species associated with significant disease in several plant species in the United Kingdom.

The New Zealand specimen had been isolated from cherimoya material submitted by a grower in 2002. MaF initially identified this material as another Phytophthora species known to be present in New Zealand. The use of molecular diagnostic techniques by the scientific team, however, revealed that Pk was present on cherimoya.

MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ) immediately commenced surveillance and tracing work to determine where this disease came from and how far it had spread. In the meantime, the scientists examined further isolates collected from soil in kauri forests in Northland and identified Pk in a single sample. Tests of kauri that were showing signs of die-back in Northland, Waitakere ranges and Great Barrier all tested negative for the presence of Pk, and other causes of the dieback in kauri are being investigated.

apart from the cherimoya plants in Northland, no symptoms have been observed in the field that can be attributed to Pk. This was in contrast to the situation in the United Kingdom, where Pk was associated with significant disease symptoms on a number of species.

Shortly after MaFBNZ convened a Technical advisory Group meeting, a 1970 thesis came to light describing a Phytophthora collected from soil under pine plantations in the central North Island. The description in the thesis was sufficiently similar to the

published description of Pk to warrant MaFBNZ investigators and scientists taking a closer look. They collected material from the sites sampled in the 1960s and re-isolated the organism. Subsequent analysis of the material they collected revealed that Pk was present at many of those sites, and that the Phytophthora described in 1970 was indeed Pk.

The distribution of Pk in the Northland, auckland, Taupo and Waikato regions, as well as the length of time it has been present in New Zealand, meant that neither eradication nor containment were feasible options.

This case was an example of MaFBNZ working in close partnership with the New Zealand scientific community and their overseas colleagues to investigate and clarify a complex situation. The linkage of historical New Zealand Phytophthora records to a modern incursion scenario has shown the importance of maintaining links with work carried out in the past, and to constantly re-examine old information in the light of new techniques.

George Gill, Senior adviser Plant response, Post Border Directorate, [email protected]

■

Phytophthora kernoviae:

Past investigation throws up new answers

Beech tree (UK) showing infection with Phytophthora kernoviae. (Photo courtesy of

Phytophthora kernoviae-infested cherimoya.

John Lyall has recently been appointed assistant Director in the Passenger clearance Directorate of MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ). Prior to this appointment,

John was the Manager at auckland International airport, where he had been since joining the then MaF Quarantine Service in December 2005. he was also a member of the Quarantine Service Executive Management Team.

John was formerly a member of the New Zealand Police, where he attained the rank of Superintendent. The majority of his policing career was as a manager in criminal investigations, electronic surveillance, criminal intelligence, and latterly managing the Police emergency communications centres. During his policing career he attained tertiary qualifications in Business Studies and Quality assurance.

Nicky carpenter has joined MaFBNZ as Executive coordinator to Leanne Gibson,

Director Passenger clearance. Nicky recently returned to New Zealand after two years in the United Kingdom and a year in Ireland. She worked at a maternity hospital

in Dublin supporting the General Manager during industrial action, and at a busy town planning consultancy in London supporting two directors.

Nicky’s previous experience also includes roles at Parliament, Inland revenue and Wellington-based recruitment companies.

PEOPLEIN BIOSEcUrITY

www.defra.gov.uk/planth/pestnote/kern.pdf■


BIOSEcUrITY SYSTEMS

MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ) is introducing a new way of managing responses to risk organisms.

The new response system is designed to help MaFBNZ better manage responses. It is focused on effective and efficient decision-making and ensuring sufficient capacity and skills. It uses MaFBNZ’s decision-making framework and is aligned with the whole-of-government coordinated Incident Management response System (cIMS)1 approach.

Why change?MaFBNZ’s traditional ‘all hands on deck’ way of managing responses to biosecurity risks has worked well for New Zealand. however, there is always room for improvement.

as well as managing ongoing local risks, growth in trade and travel is constantly increasing the probability of incursions and climate change is extending the range of organisms that may pose a biosecurity risk.

Increasing biosecurity risks, and the growing pressure these place on staff and resources, mean a better response management system is needed to give stakeholders and MaFBNZ consistency and certainty.

What’s new?The most significant change is the move to a single, generic management approach covering all sectors and replacing animal-, plant-, forestry- and marine-focused policies. It covers both new to New Zealand and existing risk organisms. The new response system can be scaled up or down as appropriate for almost any situation.

1 cIMS is an approach which allows various organisations to work closely together using common management structures, functions and language, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/coordinated_Incident_Management_System

The new response system is aligned to the new response policy, Preparing for and responding to risk organisms, and sets out what the crown will do and what people can expect in respect of responses to pests and diseases (risk organisms). It reaffirms MaFBNZ’s leadership role, while anticipating that there other stakeholders who will participate in a response.

Underpinning principles• risk-based decision making:

decisions made based on risks to the values of New Zealand (economic, environmental, socio-cultural, human health) at each stage of the response.

• Whole-of-government approach: follows the coordinated Incident Management System (cIMS) approach.

• Scalable and consistent: response phases and core management approach are the same for a large response as for a small response.

• Project management: underpins the approach with a focus on planning the work and working to the to plan.

• a response organisation structure dictated by the work: organisation charts are based on response activities, not on role-holders; this allows responses to be easily scaled up or down.

• activities: defined by the work that is required to be completed, not by the responsibilities of role-holders.

Irrespective of the approach, it is people working well together who achieve results.

Good management processes help people do their job well.

What does this mean for stakeholders?MaFBNZ is committed to clear and timely communication, consultation and liaison with stakeholders (e.g., government agencies, regional councils and other local government bodies, industry, environmental groups and the public).

For people with a particular interest in biosecurity, the new system will support greater opportunities for early and ongoing involvement in responses and will meet increasing expectations for:• timely, transparent, information-based

decision-making• response programmes that meet their

objectives and performance measures• effective management of response

programmes• stakeholders having confidence in

the response system, making useful contributions and supporting the system

• enhancing the response system over time.

To achieve this, the new system provides MaFBNZ with well-defined and accessible response processes, systems to support the technical side of the new processes, and enhanced training and support for staff and managers.

When will the new system go live?MaFBNZ will be phasing in the new system from the beginning of 2008. a successful simulation exercise was held in late 2007 as a first in-house test and pilots involving real-life responses began in early 2008. all responses will be managed under the new system by June 2008.

MaF Biosecurity New Zealand is looking forward to working with stakeholders over the coming months to ensure the success of the new response System.

Kevin Sloan, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0838, [email protected]

■

New biosecurity response modela smarter way of managing biosecurity responses


INTErFacE

For only the second time since joining the World Organisation for animal health (OIE) in 1925, New Zealand recently hosted the OIE regional commission for asia, the Far East and Oceania conference.

The conference is an important event which provides an update on animal health and welfare issues of national,

regional and international significance.

Dr Barry O’Neil (Deputy Director-General, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand – MaFBNZ) the OIE delegate for New Zealand and President of the OIE International committee, chaired the conference, which was officially opened by the hon Jim anderton (Minister for Biosecurity and agriculture) and attended by OIE Director-General Dr Bernard Vallat.

a total of 130 delegates from around the region took part, including, for the first time, representatives from china, which will host the 2009 conference.

There were delegates from 31 countries, along with representatives from key New Zealand scientific, agricultural, veterinary and animal welfare organisations who were invited to attend as observers and see first hand the workings of the OIE.

The conference focused on regional cooperation in the control of animal diseases and surveillance activities. Topics included regional reports, aquaculture, zoonoses, emerging and re-emerging animal diseases and poultry production food safety in asia. animal

welfare presentations from Dr David Bayvel (Director of animal Welfare, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand) and from Dr andrea Gavinelli from the European commission in Brussels created much interest and debate.

The conference started with a regional workshop on highly pathogenic avian influenza in South East asia. This issue is still of concern as the virus continues to change and impact on bird and human health in different ways.

Discussion also included controlling foot and mouth disease, which is endemic in South East asia with about 400 outbreaks each year.

In addition, possible drivers of emerging pig diseases were examined, including whether there was a genetic problem from a narrowed base, husbandry systems and susceptibility related to more intensive farming.

The work of the OIE is of particular relevance to New Zealand due to our reliance on biosecurity, transparency and science-based information to facilitate trade in agricultural goods. The success of the OIE can only be beneficial to the nation. New Zealand is represented in several key positions in the organisation, including chairmanship of the Permanent Working Group on animal Welfare.

The OIE is recognised as the organisation best placed to provide international inter-governmental leadership in animal welfare. animal welfare is a fast growing complex field with scientific, economic, ethical and political dimensions and its importance is only likely to increase. In recognition, the

OIE created the Permanent animal Welfare Working Group.

The second OIE Global conference on animal Welfare will be held in cairo from 19–22 October 2008.

www.oie.int/eng/press/en_070926.htm■

New Zealand hosts OIE regional conference

OIE internship candidate attends conferencerecent Massey University veterinary graduate, rebecca Jennings, is being considered for an internship at the OIE (World Organisation for animal health) and attended the OIE regional congress conference in Queenstown on 26–30 November.

In 2007, final-year veterinary students at Massey University with a particular interest in animal welfare were asked to prepare an essay on the topic of the OIE and the relationship between animal health and welfare. The successful applicant would have the opportunity to attend the Twenty-fifth OIE regional commission for asia, the Far East and Oceania conference in Queenstown and to visit OIE headquarters in Paris, as an intern, to assist with the work with the OIE’s Permanent animal Welfare Working Group, headed by Dr David Bayvel (Director of animal Welfare, MaFBNZ). after attending the OIE conference in Queenstown last November, rebecca hopes to head to Paris in mid June 2008. She contributed to this report for Biosecurity.

Objectives of the OIEThe OIE is an inter-governmental organisation responsible for improving animal health worldwide. It comprises 172 member countries, organised into five regional commissions. New Zealand is one of 31 members of the regional commission for asia, the Far East and Oceania. The OIE’s objectives are:

• to ensure transparency in the global animal disease and zoonosis situation

• to collect, analyse and disseminate scientific veterinary information

• within its mandate under the World Trade Organization – Sanitary and Phytosanitary (WTO SPS) agreement, to safeguard world trade by publishing health standards for international trade in animals and animal products

• to provide a better guarantee of the safety of food of animal origin and to promote animal welfare through a science-based approach

• to provide expertise and encourage international solidarity in the control of animal diseases

• to improve the legal framework and resources of national veterinary services.


INTErFacE

in 2006 and 2007 and recorded in

formal General Session resolutions.

In the Middle East, a sub-regional strategy has been developed for members of the Gulf cooperation council, while in the asia, the Far East and Oceania, the OIE, in collaboration with the australian Government Department of agriculture,

Membership of this group, appointed by the OIE Director-General Dr Bernard Vallat, included the following international experts:Dr David Bayvel (chair), Director animal Welfare, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand, NEW ZEaLaNDDr Kathryn Bayne, Senior Director and Director of Pacific rim activities aaaLac International UNITED STaTESDr Gilles Demers, IcLaS President, IcLaS, caNaDaDr Tsutomu Miki Kurosawa, The Institute of Experimental animal Sciences , Osaka University Medical School, JaPaN

Dr christophe Joubert, Direction Générale de la recherche et de l’Innovation, FraNcEDr Judy Macarthur clark, chief Inspector, animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate, The home Office, UNITED KINGDOMProfessor Souilem Ouajdi, National School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sidi Thabet, TUNISIa

The OIE’s Permanent animal Welfare Working Group had previously prepared a discussion paper, ‘Issues and Options regarding a Future International role for the OIE in Laboratory animal Welfare’, to assist in defining and scoping the OIE’s potential international role. The group had also met on a number of occasions with representatives of both the International council of Laboratory animal Science (IcLaS) and the International association of colleges of Laboratory animal Medicine (IacLaM). Both organisations provided strong support for OIE involvement in the international laboratory animal welfare area.

The ad hoc group’s terms of reference included:

• to review and provide specific advice

on recommendations in the Issues and Options paper

• to advise on Guiding Principles for the OIE in the development of standards on laboratory animal welfare and to make recommendations on future priorities and strategies

• to advise on strategies for supporting OIE members

• to make recommendations on how the OIE can strengthen linkages with key international stakeholders in the field of laboratory animal science.

This meeting proved to be very productive and a report and draft OIE Guidelines on research animal Welfare have been submitted to the OIE Terrestrial animal health Standards commission. The OIE sees its relationship with IcLaS and IacLaM as being of particular strategic significance. These established, specialist international organisations recognise the unique benefit of OIE involvement, i.e., the scientific and policy credibility provided by an internationally recognised, inter-governmental body representing 172

regional implementation of OIE animal welfare guidelinesThe 172 members of the OIE are divided into five regions: Europe, the Middle East, africa, the americas and asia,

OIE commences work on laboratory animal welfarea first meeting of the OIE ad hoc group on laboratory animal welfare was held in Paris from 5–7 December 2007. The meeting was chaired by MaF Biosecurity New Zealand’s Director animal Welfare, David Bayvel.

attendees at the successful Bangkok animal welfare workshop.

the Far East and Oceania. The latter region, which includes New Zealand and australia, contains 31 countries and is the OIE region with the largest populations of both animals and humans.

The importance of regional commissions playing an active role in the implementation of the OIE animal welfare guidelines on transport and slaughter, adopted in 2005, was emphasised by the OIE Director-General Dr Bernard Vallat at the OIE General Sessions


INTErFacE

Fisheries and Forestry (DaFF) held a very successful animal welfare workshop in Bangkok in November 2007. This was attended by 35 delegates from 12 countries and included both industry and animal welfare non-governmental organisation representatives. MaF Biosecurity New Zealand’s Director animal Welfare, David Bayvel participated as an invited speaker and also attended a second writing group meeting in February 2008, at which a regional animal welfare strategic plan was drafted.

The strategy provides direction for the development of action plans for member countries to implement existing OIE guidelines and standards. It provides a roadmap for the development of future animal welfare policies, based on a regional consultative approach. It also facilitates the establishment of priorities consistent with agreed strategic goals and provides a framework for cooperation among the member countries and different stakeholders in the promotion and advancement of animal welfare in the region.

Dealing with the care, uses and direct impacts of human activity on all sentient species of animals in the region, the strategy has an initial emphasis on farm animals. It covers the welfare of farm animals during handling, transportation and slaughter according to the standards and guidelines adopted by the OIE.

It embraces a broad vision for the humane

David Eyles has joined the MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ) Post Border Plants response team as Senior adviser. he has been involved in area-wide pest management in agriculture for 13 years in South africa, and more recently with InSecta Ltd in the United Kingdom. The former involved promoting a sterile insect technique (SIT) for Mediterranean fruit fly in countries around the Mediterranean and included developing insect rearing facilities and assessing field control programmes. he also worked in Liverpool with aedes aegypti (yellow fever mosquito), developing

and improving mass-rearing methods for a GM and stock strain with a view to SIT production. David’s career began with integrated pest management (IPM) for vegetables grown under cover, moving to IPM research in the deciduous fruit industry, specifically with codling moth, mites and secondary pests. Moving to the pest management division of the agricultural research council at Stellenbosch, South africa, he was involved with all aspects of the fruit fly SIT programme, including running an insect mass-rearing facility.

Karen Pugh joined the MaFBNZ Post Border Plant response team in January 2008 as a Senior adviser. Karen recently arrived from the United Kingdom, where she worked for the

Department for Environment, Food and rural affairs as a Senior Plant health and Seeds Inspector. In her previous position she was responsible for the organisation of emergency measures to control outbreaks of non-indigenous plant pests and diseases and managed a team of inspectors responsible for implementing national and international plant health standards and legislation.

In recent years she has primarily been involved in the eradication and containment campaign against Phytophthora ramorum (sudden oak death) and P. kernoviae in the south west of England.

Deborah Smith has joined the Post Border Directorate of MaFBNZ as a Team Support Officer. She provides Pa administration to andrew harrison, Pest Management Group Manager, and support to John Sanson and the National coordination Team. Deborah has a background in business management within the retail and service industries, where she was involved

in creating and implementing business systems as well as team training and development.


The OIE ad hoc group.

treatment of animals, including during emergency situations, and provides a framework for sustainable improvements in animal welfare outcomes based on scientific evidence and social, economic and ethical considerations.

The entire region is covered in the strategy, and it is particularly aimed at persons in charge of animals, animal users, the veterinary, animal science and agricultural professions, livestock producers, processors and transporters, animal welfare bodies, researchers, animal technicians and teachers, educational facilities, consumers, government agencies and allied entities.

Once formally agreed and adopted, it is envisaged that this strategy will play a major role in guiding, coordinating and

prioritising animal welfare activities and initiatives within the region in the years ahead.

a c David Bayvel, Director animal Welfare, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0368, [email protected]

■

member countries.

The ad hoc group will meet again in Paris from 3–5 December 2008.

a c David Bayvel, Director animal Welfare, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0368, [email protected]

■


UPDaTES

codes of ethical conduct – approvals, notifications and revocations since the last issue of Biosecurity

all organisations involved in the use of live animals for research, testing or teaching are required to adhere to an approved code of ethical conduct.

codes of ethical conduct approved: Nil

Transfers of codes of ethical conduct approved: • ancare Scientific Ltd (from ancare New Zealand Ltd)

code holder name changes: Nil

amendments to codes of ethical conduct approved: Nil

Notifications to MaF of minor amendments to codes of ethical conduct: Nil

Notifications to MaF of arrangements to use an existing code of ethical conduct:

• Biocell corporation Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code)• horticulture and Food research Institute of New Zealand Ltd – Lincoln

campus (to use the National Institute of Water & atmospheric research Ltd’s code)

• Jurox Pty Ltd (to use Estendart Ltd’s code)

codes of ethical conduct revoked or expired or arrangements terminated or lapsed: Nil

approvals by the Director-General of MaF for the use of non-human hominids: Nil

approvals by the Minister of agriculture of research or testing in the national interest: Nil

Linda carsons, Senior Policy adviser, animal Welfare, phone 04 894 0370, fax 04 894 0747, [email protected]

■

codes of welfare – update on issues, consultation, development and review since the last issue of Biosecuritycodes of welfare issued 2008:

• None• Note that new requirements came into force on 1 January 2008 under the

existing code of welfare for layer hens.

consultation on codes of welfare:• commercial slaughter: recommended to Minister • Dairy cattle: NaWac finalising code• Dogs: submissions being considered by NaWac

codes of welfare under development:• Transport in New Zealand• Sheep and beef cattle• Temporary housing (including boarding establishments)

codes of welfare under review:• Broilers

cheryl O’connor, Programme Manager animal Welfare, phone 04 894 0371, fax 04 894 0747, cheryl.o’[email protected]

amendment to Deer code plannedFollowing discussions with Deer Industry New Zealand, NaWac (National animal Welfare advisory committee) plans to amend Minimum Standard 15 (c) (Pre-transport Selection) in the code for Welfare for Deer issued in 2007. This standard prohibits transport of unweaned deer (dams and fawns) and deer that have been weaned for less than 10 days.The amendment will restrict the prohibition to transport to auction or saleyards, and not to the transport between farms. however, as the amendment process may take some time to be completed, NaWac has agreed that the industry best practice of moving unweaned deer directly from one farm to another within the total time of six hours must be adhered to in the interim.

cheryl O’connor, Programme Manager animal Welfare, phone 04 894 0371, fax 04 894 0747, cheryl.o’[email protected]

■

■

Senior Federated Farmers role for former MaFBNZ adviser

In a brand new role at Federated Farmers, Mark ross brings expertise from his time at MaF Biosecurity New Zealand (MaFBNZ) to help assess farming issues and develop agricultural policies.

Mark, formerly a senior adviser with the MaFBNZ Post Border Group, has joined Federated Farmers as General Manager for Policy and advocacy.

Mark leads a nation-wide team of 20 advisers split into three specialist areas: environment, industry, and general issues.

“I oversee the policy process and get involved

in a lot of the technical working groups. I also convey concerns from farming members to our policy team and we work with them to solve problems.”

The group interacts regularly with MaFBNZ on agriculture-related biosecurity issues, says Mark.

“anything that MaFBNZ does can affect our members, so we do get invited to a lot of discussion groups and have plenty of contact.”

Mark worked in many roles during a lengthy career at MaFBNZ. This background has greatly assisted him in his new role. “Being familiar with the government system is really useful – knowing how the government works, how policy is put together and where the minister sits in relation to decision-making.”

MaFBNZ and farmers need to maintain a constructive dialogue, says Mark.

“It’s really critical that we have open communication and trust, and that we each know what the other is doing. It’s a crucial part of the agricultural sector.

“at our Federated Farmers National council meeting last November, we had a good 20-minute discussion on biosecurity, and the risks and concerns that are being expressed. There was huge awareness and discussion. Our farming members really understand the importance of having a great biosecurity system.”

[email protected]



DIrEcTOrY

PLaNT KINGDOM rEcOrDS 22/12/2007 – 08/02/2008

Validated new to New Zealand reportsOrganism host Location Submitted by commentsalternaria hordeiseminis(fungus: no common name)

hordeum vulgare(barley)

Wanganui IDc (general surveillance) New to science; collected 1977.

alternaria axiaeriisporifera(fungus: no common name)

Gypsophila paniculata(baby’s breath, gypsophila)

auckland IDc (general surveillance) New to science; collected 2003.

alternaria gaurae(fungus: no common name)

Gaura lindheimeri(butterfly plant)


alternaria glyceriae(fungus: no common name)

Glyceria maxima(reed meadow grass, reed sweet grass)

Waikato IDc (general surveillance) New to science; collected 2003.

alternaria rosifolii(fungus: no common name)

rosa sp.(rose)

auckland IDc (cut flower survey) New to science; collected 1995.

ramularia rollandii(fungus: no common name)

Iris x hollandica(Dutch iris)

auckland IDc (general surveillance) Known overseas only from Iris.

alternaria geniostomatis(fungus: no common name)

Geniostoma rupestre var. ligustrifolium(hangehange)


alternaria thunbergiae(fungus: no common name)

Thunbergia alata(black-eyed Susan)


ramularia gunnerae(fungus: no common name)

Gunnera tinctoria(chilean rhubarb)

auckland IDc (general surveillance) host is a widely distributed weed species.

alternaria rosae(fungus: no common name)

rosa rubiginosa(sweet briar)

central Otago IDc (general surveillance) New to science; collected 1993.

alternaria iridaustralis(fungus: no common name)

Iris sp.(iris)


alternaria cucumericola(fungus: no common name)

cucumis sativus (cucumber, gherkin, telegraph cucumber)

Northland IDc (general surveillance) New to science; collected 1993.

alternaria echinaceae(fungus: no common name)

Echinacea sp.(cone flower)

Gisborne IDc (general surveillance) New to science; collected 1998.

alternaria ascaloniae(fungus: no common name)

allium ascalonicum(shallot)

hawke’s Bay IDc (general surveillance) New to science; collected 1997.

alternaria herbiculinae(fungus: no common name)

Petroselinum crispum(wild parsley)

Wellington IDc (general surveillance) New to science; collected 2001.

alternaria vicia-fabae(fungus: no common name)

Vicia faba(broad bean, tick bean)

New Zealand IDc (general surveillance) New to science; collected 1979.

Significant find reportsOrganism host Location Submitted by commentsNo significant find records during this period.New host reportsOrganism host Location Submitted by commentsPleospora tarda(fungus: sooty mould)

allium cepa(onion)

auckland IDc (general surveillance)

Pseudocercospora rubi(fungus: brown leaf spot)

rubus x barkeri(no common name)


Puccinia menthae(fungus: leaf rust)

Origanum vulgare(oregano)


cylindrocladium pacificum(fungus: no common name)

Vitis riparia(frost grape, river bank grape)


cylindrocarpon didymium(fungus: cylindrocarpon root rot)



cylindrocarpon obtusisporum(fungus: no common name)



Pestalotiopsis versicolor(fungus: pestalotiopsis)

Erica sp.(erica, heather)

Mid canterbury

IDc (general surveillance)

Oemona hirta(insect: lemon tree borer)

Tamarix ramosissima(pink tamarisk)

Wellington Scion (high risk site survey)

Ochrosopsis subfasciatus(insect: chrysomelid beetle)

Eucalyptus quadrangulata(eucalyptus, gum)

Northland Scion (public enquiry)

Extension to distribution reportsOrganism host Location Submitted by commentscolletotrichum circinans(fungus: smudge)

allium cepa(onion)

Waikato IDc (general surveillance)

Pest watch: 22/12/2007 – 08/02/2008Biosecurity is about managing risks – protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases. MaF Biosecurity New Zealand devotes much of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention, to follow up as appropriate. The tables below list new organisms that have become established, new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests. The information was collated during 22/12/2007 – 08/02/2008 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database. Wherever possible, common names have been included.

aNIMaL KINGDOM rEcOrDS 22/12/2007 – 08/02/2008No new records during this period.

ranuka robinson, Team Support Officer – Surveillance, MaF Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0281, [email protected]■

Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline: 0800 809 966

animal welfare complaint hotline: 0800 327 027

www.biosecurity.govt.nz

Biosecurity Magazine - Issue 82, 15 March...

Documents

Transcript of Biosecurity Magazine - Issue 82, 15 March...