ASPARAGUS PLUMOSUS: I SURRENDER

By Bob Stoothoff

In the October Newsletter I reported that the Ministry for Primary Industries had rejected my application for permission to grow Asparagus plumosus for the purpose of selling its stems. I indicated my intention to question the MPI decision to reject the application. During the last few months I have done just that, and also questioned the decision by the NPPA Steering Group in 2012 to list A. plumosus as an Unwanted Organism. As might have been expected, and was indeed predicted by those who have had dealings with the MPI, my questioning hit the stone wall of bureaucratic inertia. Bureaucratic organisations like the MPI are reluctant, to put it mildly, to admit that they have made a mistake. (The case of Ben Kosterman, reported in the last Newsletter, is a notable exception.)

But bureaucratic inertia is not the only factor underlying the MPI decisions. For I believe that both the listing of Asparagus plumosus as an Unwanted Organism and the refusal to allow trade in its stems are based on highly dubious reasoning. In general terms, this reasoning involves assessing risk in terms of the possibility of adverse events rather than their probability. So, for example, the MPI argued that trade in A. plumosus stems would possiblyencourage trade in the plant itself, which would possiblyresult in the plant’s being released in the wild, where they would possibly be invasive and inhibit the growth of native vegetation. No evidence was presented regarding the probability that any of these possibilities would actually occur. This is not surprising since I believe there is no such evidence.

Nor was any substantial evidence given in 2012 that A. plumosus poses a significant biosecurity risk. The NPPA Steering Group decided that the plant should be listed as an Unwanted Organism on the basis of ‘evidence’ that the plant has the potential to pose a risk by growing invasively in the wild. In other words this decision was based on the possibility of this happening, not on evidence regarding the probability of its happening. (Similarly, the Minister of Education argued recently that Redcliffs School should be closed because of the possibility of rockfall, whereas her opponents have presented evidence regarding the (im)probability of rockfall. And employers may be punished because they have allowed the possibility of a workplace accident, even though they may have taken all reasonable steps to minimise its probability.)

The NPPA Steering Group is composed of representatives of the nursery industry, regional councils and government agencies such as DoC and the MPI. Its decision to ban the sale of A. plumosus was based on ‘evidence’ presented by the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) of the plant’s “potential to cause adverse adverse impacts”. The TAG advised that A. plumosus has “substantial weed potential that has not been realised here but is likely to be in future”. This is surprising, given that A. plumosus has been a common garden plant in New Zealand, and its stems have been used in floral decorations, for well over a century. So why has its “substantial weed potential” not already been realised?. One would expect to find much evidence of its naturalisation and of its adverse impact. That is, it would not merely have the potential to be a pest, but would actually be one. In this regard, it is interesting to compare A. plumosus with A. scandens. Reports of the latter growing in the wild and causing adverse impacts – smothering native vegetation – are plentiful, but it has never, I believe, been a common garden plant or used by florists. Why is the actual distribution of A. plumosus in the wild not extensive, given that it’s been widely available in New Zealand for so many years? And why is it thought “likely” that it will be a substantial weed pest in the future?

The experts don’t know the answers to these questions. When, as must often happen, Risk Industry bureaucrats – like members of the NPPA Steering Group – lack evidence regarding the probability of adverse events, then they resort to the principle “’Tis better to err on the side of caution” (note the word “err”), and they make decisions – like banning trade in A. plumosus – based on the potential or possibility of such events, rather than their probability (or improbability). I suspect that many of the policies and regulations promulgated by Risk Industry bureaucrats rest on this principle.

So, I’m sorry to say, Asparagus fern is no longer available for use by florists and floral artists. More precisely, it is no longer available commercially, through auction markets and wholesalers, but I suspect that it will be available casually. For although, as an Unwanted Organism on the NPPA list of banned plants, A. plumosus may not be grown or traded (or even displayed!) commercially, it may still be grown and propagated privately, in one’s garden, conservatory, greenhouse or living room. So bridal decorations may still be adorned with Asparagus fern stems, provided that they have been acquired without any money changing hands. Be warned, however: Big Brother in Wellington and its regional council agents will be on the look-out for stems that have been produced and traded commercially.

I understand that I could continue my fight with the MPI by asking the Ombudsman’s office to review their decisions. But then I would be dealing with two Wellington bureaucracies. No thank you.

Footnote: It must be confessed that A. plumosus, however lovely it may look when trailing from a bridal bouquet, is not an entirely pleasant plant. Its stems are equipped with nasty thorns and its “leaves” (more precisely, cladodes) turn into dust when they die. An amusing account of the downside of the plant is at http//:plantsarethestrangestpeople.blogspot.co.nz/2008/02/fraternity-asparagus-spp.html.