Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States - Aquatic ...

20 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox I-E-How New Zealand Addresses Non-lndigenous SpeciesNew Zealand’s Iegal and institutional framework and the nature of its programs are key to its currentsuccesses managing harmful non-indigenous species (NIS). As in the United States, however, protectingagriculture has received higher priority than safeguarding the indigenous flora and fauna. Sores aspects of NewZealand’s approach that are absent or rare in the United States are given here:Legal and Institutional Aspects:● Agency performance standards implemented through agency “contracts” to provide specified governnentalservices and through detailed annual reports.● Detailed national standards for animal imports and strong authority to require bonds for potential costs ofescape and to impose other conditions.. A “user pays” approach to cover most costs of inspection, surveillance, scientific analysis, andenforcement against violators.Programmatic Aspects:● Intensive inspection of arriving passengers, baggage, and goods with random checks to evaluateinterception rates.. 100 percent treatment of arriving aircraft with insecticide.. Computerized tracking of imports, from arrival to unloading.● Detailed surveillance of and contingency planning for forest pests.. Extensive enlistment of public support for pest surveys and monitoring.Recently, New Zealand determined that its more than a dozen major acts and several hundred subsidiaryregulations pertaining to agriculture needed consolidation and revamping. The new approach will regulate ailpotentially harmful imports through an appointed Hazards Control Commission.An independent professional staff will advise the Commission, with input from expert advisory committees.Proposals for imported and genetically engineered organisms will be advocated by private or governmentalproponents. Countervailing arguments will be presented by the Department of Conservation.The Iaw provides forfull economic and ecological consideration, public hearings, and opportunities for appeal. Known low-riskorganisms will receive less scrutiny. Decisions must balance “the benefits which may be obtained from . . . neworganisms against the risks and damage to the environment and to the health, safety and economic, social andcultural well being of people and communities.” If this new approach succeeds, it could provide a broad model forthe United States.SOURCES: Anonymous, “Biosecutity Bill: Update,” SantlneJ, New Zealand Ministry of Agrloulture and Flshedes, VWngton, No. 19, Feb.1,1932, p. 3; Director of the Law Commission, “VIII. Pubtic Welfare Emergenofes,” l%all?qortm Ehww?&M, Law Wnndedon ReportNo. 22, Wellington, New Zealand, December 1991, pp. 230-24S; OffIoe of the MlnisterofAgrloulture, MkdstryofAgrioutture and Ftsheries,Wellington, New Zealand, memorandum regarding Agricultural Regulation Reform, to Chairman, Cab&ret Strategy Committee, undate@A. Moeed, Chairperson, Interim Assessment Group, Minbtry for the Environment Wdkgton, New Zealand letter to P.T Jenkins, Offioeof TArwlogy Assessment Feb. 10,1992; D. Towns, IUCN Regional Member, Department of Oonservatkm, Auldand Conservancy Office,Aukland, New Zealand, letter to P.T. Jenkins, Office of Ttinology Assessment, Oot. 29,1031.though none have been issued to date, eventual Tens of thousands of different species (most ofregulations under the Act could impose additional the world’s fauna, excluding insects) potentiallyrestrictions on the importation of harmful aquatic could be legally imported into the United StatesMS (30).(81). Well over 300 non-indigenous fish andIn practice, then, the Federal Government wildlife species of foreign origin have establishedplaces only a few piecemeal constraints on the here already, approximately 122 of which areimportation of fish, wildlife, and their diseases. known to cause harm (ch. 2) (8,23,104).