Biosecurity Direction Statement 2025

By – Chris Smellie NZFGA Executive Officer.

Initiated by Minister Guy Nathan last year, the direction statement is a road map to future proof NZ Biosecurity through to 2025 and beyond. It builds on the 2003 strategy – ‘Protect New Zealand’.

Many of us are very aware of the rising number of pest & disease incursions occurring in NZ and wonder when one will affect the cut flower & foliage sector. [For example the Ralstonia solanacearum threat in the Netherlands) Threats are growing in scale and complexity and below are the increases for incoming item volumes from 2003 to 2014:

• Mail Parcels   + 216%

• Sea Containers  + 37%

• Air Passengers   +47%

These increases along with other factors such as the increasing diversity of trade and tourism; changing risk pathways; pressure from established pests as well as climate change.  All of these make the task of containing pest & disease incursions seem almost impossible.

This document outlines the ways in which these threats will be countered. This is not just a problem for horticulture and farming, in a broader sense all New Zealanders need to recognise what is at stake – our lifestyles, our livelihoods, our indigenous biodiversity, our cultural aspects, our health and wellbeing, our national identity, and recreational and historic values. As an adjunct to the 2025 document we now also have the ‘Predator Free 2050’ goal. It is an ambitious goal to rid NZ of the three most damaging predators. Eradicating rats, stoats and possums would have enormous benefits for our indigenous biodiversity, taonga and economy.  [From a tourism perspective the most visited Hauraki Gulf Island is Tiritiri Matangi].  The significance is the rise in the consciousness of Government and other movers and shakers, of the importance of all aspects of Biosecurity and of course as a consequence, increased funding for it, from both government and private sources.

As well as being aware of the rising risks, many of us have also felt that the border is the place where Biosecurity control must be maintained.  It is now clear and accepted that it is no longer feasible do achieve 100% border inspections.  Hence the development of the many pre border and post border systems [Including GIA] that have been established.

Five strategic directions have been identified for the ‘2025 Document’  as being the highest priority areas that will be focused on to meet the challenges facing the Biosecurity system.  In brief they are: -

1. A Biosecurity team of 4.7 million people.

2. A toolbox for tomorrow.

3. Smart free flowing information.

4. Effective leadership and governance.

5. Tomorrow’s skills and assets.

I will attempt to give a brief and concise outline of what these five priority areas entail.

1. A Biosecurity Team of 4.7 Million

The target is to have 75% of all adult New Zealanders and 90% of all relevant businesses, understanding what biosecurity means and why it is important. Given that press releases made by NZFGA in the past with reference to biosecurity issues sometimes fail to attract much attention I am naturally sceptical about this goal. However a Canadian expert on behaviour change explained how you get people to take an issue seriously.

The concept of ‘know more – care more – change behaviour’ does not work. Attitude change does not necessarily lead to behaviour change. He outlined five steps of community based social marketing.

• Break down behaviour patterns in a community, to get the most easily influenced group.

• Within that group identify barriers and benefits.

• Develop strategies to increase benefits and decrease barriers.

• Pilot the strategies, find the most effective factor.

• Make it an overarching community vision – achieve the power of social norms.

So we may need to aim for sections of the community becoming much more engaged re biosecurity.

1. A Toolbox for Tomorrow.

The target is to have at least $80 million of private and public investment in science for bio security, with at least 50% focused on identified critical biosecurity areas. Science provides the foundation for evidence based decisions and supports wise decision making and the setting of rules and standards. The science will come from diverse fields of research and strong connections within the science community will help facilitate greater cooperation alignment and knowledge sharing.

Some of the new technologies anticipated : UAV’s for both aerial and sea searching as well as targeted insecticide application for urban eradications;  with smart sensors coming down to 40 cents each, it will be possible to have them in all containers, sea and air; space based sensors [small ones known as ‘cube sats’] able to see what is happening in trees etc; smelling sensors; colour metric sensors; sound sensors; smart phones and the internet; automated sensor ID; smart dogs; genome sensors; genetic technologies.

3) Smart, free-flowing information.

The target here is – a publicly accessible network enabling electronic access to organism data held by a variety of agencies. Organism data is crucial to identifying and managing biosecurity risks.  Alerts about emerging risks can also be rapidly provided to all participants across the biosecurity system.

4) Effective Leadership and Governance.

The aim is to provide oversight of the system as a whole, providing all participants with a clear purpose, visibility re system performance and assurance about how everyone’s interests are being reflected in decision making.

Good leadership supports everyone to contribute effectively within their own parts of the system and provides everyone with confidence in the system. It is a collaborative process, a concept stressed by many.

5) Tomorrow’s skills and assets.

The aim is to increase the profile and attractiveness of biosecurity as a career, incorporating biosecurity into primary secondary and tertiary education.  The target is for at least 150,000 people with biosecurity skills that can be quickly drawn on to provide support during biosecurity incursions.

During the forum breaks I was able to do a little networking, here are three outcomes.

•   Discussions with Peter Thompson- Director Plants, Food & Environment.

  I was able to pursue the current state of the devitalisation programme for imported flowers. Samples continue to be taken and tested for glyphosphate levels. The potential for incursions is treated as high and if there are any serious incursions the approach to the imported product would change significantly.  The devitalisation formula [international] is seen as effective.

  Also involved in the conversation was Lyn O’Connell, deputy secretary to the Dept. Agriculture & Water Resources in Australia.  She expressed considerable concern about the effectiveness of fumigation of incoming flowers to Australia. She said the effectiveness depends on how tightly the flowers are packed, what type of wrapping there is around them plus other aspects. It would seem that they are not happy with the current state of flower fumigation in Australia which presumably is similar to ours.

• Discussion with Steve Rich the GIA secretariat. I put it to Steve that we would like to see non signatory sectors given the right to be observers to the discussions between MPI and signatory groups on how to deal with an incursion and the allocation of costs to affected sectors. I pointed out that the current forum put a lot of emphasis on collaboration and everybody being involved.  But the current structuring of the GIA tends to see non signatories as free loaders not worthy of involvement!  Steve will give me written reply when he is back at his office.

• Discussions with John Liddle CEO for NZPPI.  This discussion revolved around longer term prospects for representation, for NZ flower and foliage growers as a sector.  John pointed out that any flower grower who raised even some of his plants for himself was eligible to join NZPPI. John also pointed out that in the NZPPI constitution there was provision for special interest groups which the NZFGA could fit quite well.