Honshu white admiral for biocontrol of Japanese honeysuckle

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #32439

    Richard
    Participant

    Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) is a fast emerging weed of concern to regional councils and the Department of Conservation.   Landcare Research has identified insects in Japan that could be used as biological control agents for Japanese honeysuckle.

    They have recommended that the Honshu white admiral butterfly, Limenitis glorifica, should be introduced to New Zealand.  Field records in Japan indicate that the caterpillars will not damage plants other than honeysuckles in New Zealand, and this has been confirmed by laboratory testing.  The butterfly has several generations each year, and (like monarchs) the caterpillars can heavily damage the foliage.

    The Honshu white admiral is not to be confused with the Eurasian white admiral (L. camilla) which has a slightly wider host range.

    An application to introduce the Honshu white admiral will probably be lodged in Late February, and Greater Wellington Regional Council will be the applicant. This will lay out all of the evidence for and against the introduction for the EPA to consider when making its decision.  On their behalf I am asking for public input on this proposal for inclusion in the application.  I am sure many of you will have opinions, and l look forward to reading them and responding on this forum.

    If you want more to learn more about the project, go to
    http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/plants-animals-fungi/plants/weeds/biocontrol/approvals/current-applications/japanese-honeysuckle
     

Viewing 25 replies - 1 through 25 (of 40 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #58371

    Jacqui
    Moderator

    Is there anyone breeding these in New Zealand? If so, could you tell us more about them – would like to write up an article in the BUTTERFLIES magazine.

    How do they overwinter? How long are the various stages, e.g. before an egg hatches, before it pupates etc.

    #43716

    Jacqui
    Moderator

    Clinton, no it doesn’t mean that at all. I hope to provide an update in the next issue of the magazine, out about 30 June.

    In February we were told: “…butterflies were seen at the initial release site in January which means they have successfully completed a generation in the field, which is extremely promising. We will need to wait until next spring to evaluate how well they are doing…”

    #43714

    clinton9
    Participant

    Since nobody had seen Honshu white admiral butterflies on Waikato areas, that seems these Honshu white admiral butterflies had died out (extinct) now, been killed & eaten by intelligent Chinese paper wasps and Germany wasps.
    I had not seen white admiral butterflies in Thames.

    #42508

    clinton9
    Participant

    How are White Admiral butterflies in Waikato area ???

    I worried about they dies out, fell prey to Asian Paper wasps and birds.

    I had not seen White Admiral butterflies in Thames.

    #40877

    clinton9
    Participant

    Terry,
    I strongly agree with Zac as I wanted to see beautiful European Swallowtail butterflies (papilio machaon) being introduced to New Zealand, I understand the caterpillars do eat carrots, but we DO NEED European Swallowtail butterflies (papilio machaon) as biological control for our wild fennels & dills that are weeds in our country.
    Our country is overrun with so too many wild fennels & dills and honeysuckle.
    Swallowtail caterpillars can be shifted from carrots to wild fennels & dills.
    I do not think European swallowtail butterfly caterpillars will become a pest here.
    With rather fewer kinds of New Zealand butterflies and much more kinds of British butterflies, I would welcome European Swallowtail butterflies (papilio machaon) to New Zealand.

    #40874

    Terry
    Participant

    Hi Zac!

    There’s not much chance of papilio machaon being introduced to New Zealand because although very colourful it would effect the agricultural sector. When I visited New Zealand I found a railway embankment covered in Fennel one of the p machaon food-plants which it would thrive on, however it is also very fond of Carrot which would be a serious problem. In the UK the subspecies papilio machaon britanicus is only found in an area of the Norfolk Broads and thus endangered. papilio machaon however is widespread in continental Europe. The only chance of this species entering New Zealand would be either to be placed in a Commercial Butterfly House with all the necessary bio security, or by accidental introduction like the Large White.
    Maybe you can get hold of some Honshu White Admiral to release in your area to save waiting for them to spread naturally.

    #40868

    Jacqui
    Moderator

    There is an article going in the Summer magazine and we will be calling for members who might like to release the Honshu White Admiral in their area… Magazine should be in the mail on or about 1 December.

    If you’re not already a financial member, it’s not too late – join up here:

    Financial Membership

    #40865

    Zac
    Participant

    hi terry,

    i agree the underside of this butterfly is quite nice indeed. it will be interesting in the years to come to see it spread and view its lifecycle, flight pattern as you suggested. it’s certainly something new, and welcome it considering we are not gifted with much variety of butterflies. it would be nice to have something a little more bright and colorful, but i might be saying that because i personally travel the world and collect and see exotic butterflies in their environments. it might be the underlying wish we had something that really would get noticed, if it had of been something like papilio machaon like you have over there terry, than i would have felt more excited about it’s release. but like you said, it might be quite a thrill to see if i see it myself one day soon. although im down in masterton, will be many years before one is seen this far south. unless they release it in wellington which is just over the hill from me.. then it wouldn’t be long 🙂

    #40863

    Terry
    Participant

    Hi Zac!

    I will say this about the Honshu White Admirals, if they fly in the same manner as our White Admiral, they will be a complete joy to watch with their gliding, with the odd flap, type of flight. The undersides are very beautiful as well. I hope they turn up in your area so you can get a good look at them in the near future.

    #40861

    Zac
    Participant

    another species for us 😉 that is all they are doing I’m afraid. All this is doing is only adding excitement for us who enjoy butterflies. This introduction will not have any effect on the problem of this plant. In effect they have just released something to eat the leaves, and a new addition to our limited butterfly fauna. I mean think about the fact this plant grows rapidly in just a year, and that like the release of the cinnabar moth to control ragwart, has it made a difference? Hardly you would agree. The only way to control or remove a plant is to pull it out and dispose of it properly. That is what they are doing in the Miami everglades to stop invasive weeds and trees. They cut and poison the trees\weeds to stop their spread. However, they only thing I hoped from this butterfly release is that if only the species was more attractive in colour. Its a interesting butterfly, but the only real benefit it could have done is been vibrant in colour lol

    #40860

    clinton9
    Participant

    Hi Terry,
    White admiral butterflies in New Zealand might take years to increase their numbers. These newly released butterflies have to learn to fend for themselves and to avoid these Indian mynas (birds) that catch & eat butterflies in midair, while caterpillars have to learn to avoid the intelligent Asian Paper wasps which are killing Monarch butterfly caterpillars.
    Food as flowers for adult butterflies are scattered and butterflies may get lost and not able to find other each, so numbers remain low for 1-3 years until numbers increase and spread over large area, as soon as they became wary of birds and caterpillars learn to avoid the wasps.
    as I don’t expert to see White Admiral butterflies until 2024, by time they will had spread to Thames, Auckland, Northland.

    #40856

    Terry
    Participant

    I watched the video on the link and was surprised how similar this species is to our White Admiral, Limenitis camilla. The added bonus is the Honshu White Admiral should be multi brooded if and when it successfully establishes itself in New Zealand unlike our White Admiral which is single brooded. As could be seen from the TV news clip it’s food-plant is never going to be difficult to locate, given it is such a pest species in the country now. I do hope it’s introduction is a success it will be an added bonus in a country which is a bit short on Butterfly species. I will add that what is expected of this species by the government entity is a bit far fetched. Maybe they will find another species of Butterfly or Moth that could be added to help with the control of Honeysuckle. As I stated earlier I really hope this is a success and it spreads rapidly across New Zealand so you can enjoy it’s presence.

    #40849

    clinton9
    Participant

    I am happy we have new butterfly … White Admiral butterflies here. so we will see them in 10 years time.

    Please do not hunt / catch these white admiral butterflies…these butterflies are very low in numbers and are learning to fend for themselves.

    #40848

    Jacqui
    Moderator
    #40842

    Jacqui
    Moderator

    Watch out for an item on TV1 News tonight about the releases that are continuing in the Waikato area. Also update in our Summer magazine… almost at the printers’.

    #35666

    clinton9
    Participant

    The problem is the Asian Paper wasps will kill caterpillars of White Admiral butterflies, slowing the spreading of this species.

    Asian Paper Wasps had no controllers to control their numbers and Japanese giant hornets are not welcome here because they might wipe the numbers of honeybees here to extinction.

    #35658

    Jacqui
    Moderator

    Yes, we noticed and immediately advised them but they’re obviously not too fussed about it. Very poor. You’ll see where it’s mentioned if you read further down.

    http://images.tvnz.co.nz/tvnz_images/world_news/2013/08/white_admiral_butterfly_N2.jpg

    #35657

    Antherina
    Participant

    Has anyone noticed the link to the Japanese white admiral in the first post actually shows a South American Heliconius-type butterfly?

    #35311

    Errol
    Participant

    Thanks Jacqui. I hope it becomes established so we can have another butterfly to breed in our back yards and to admire its beauty.

    #35310

    Jacqui
    Moderator

    Hello Errol

    Yes, well they’ve got the permission to release them and hopefully they will breed and spread on the honeysuckle and become “another” NZ butterfly. How well it will go is anybody’s guess. I will try and find out more about the next step(s) and keep you informed.

    BTW, I see there’s something on the TVNZ website about the release – so quite possibly there will be something on the news tonight – hopefully some footage of White Admirals!

    White admiral butterfly to take on honeysuckle
    TVNZ – ‎Aug 7, 2013‎
    The Greater Wellington Regional Council applied to release the butterflies in order to control Japanese honeysuckle, which it says is causing problems on public land in the North Island. EPA’s Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Committee ruled the …

    Except the photo I’m looking at is NOT a White Admiral, not the one we’re talking about anyway!!!

    http://images.tvnz.co.nz/tvnz_images/world_news/2013/08/white_admiral_butterfly_N2.jpg

    And here’s your answer: “Wellington Regional Council now has five years to release the white admiral butterflies, which are also known by the scientific name Limenitis glorifica.”

    Jacqui

    #35305

    Errol
    Participant

    Sorry I meant – they are going to be released at some stage?

    #35303

    Errol
    Participant

    Thanks Jacqui, but what’s it all mean in English ;-). The butterflies are going to be released at some stage.

    #35300

    Jacqui
    Moderator

    Just received:

    Kia ora

    Please see attached decision for APP201710 – To release Limenitis glorifica for control of Japanese honeysuckle

    Under section 126 of the HSNO Act any party to an application including submitters may appeal against the Authority’s decision to the High Court on a question of law.

    Please contact Kate Bromfield on 04 474 5460 or Kate.Bromfield@epa.govt.nz if you wish to discuss any aspect of your application or the decision-making process. Further information is also available on our website http://www.epa.govt.nz

    Kind Regards

    Graham Young
    Applications Administrator
    New Organisms

    Environmental Protection Authority · Level 10 · 215 Lambton Quay · Private Bag 63002 · Wellington 6140 · New Zealand
    Tel +64 4 916 2426 · Fax +64 4 914 0433 · DDI +64 4 474 5571 http://www.epa.govt.nz

    —–

    Decision APP201710 from the Enviornmental Protection Authority

    Date 08 August 2013

    Application code APP201710

    Application type To release any new organism under section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

    Applicant Greater Wellington Regional Council

    Date application received 3 May 2013

    Consideration 29 July 2013

    Considered by A decision-making committee of the Environmental Protection Authority (the Committee) (see Note 1)

     Damian Stone (Chair)

     Dr Shaun Ogilvie

     Dr Kerry Laing

    Purpose of the application To import and release Limenitis glorifica as a biocontrol agent for Japanese honeysuckle

    The new organism approved for release Limenitis glorifica Fruhstorfer, 1909

    1. Summary of decision

    1.1. The application to release Limenitis glorifica was lodged under section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the Act).

    1.2. The application was considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and of the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology).

    1.3. The Committee has approved the application without controls in accordance with section 38(1)(a) of the Act.

    2. Application process

    Application Receipt

    2.1. The application was formally received for processing on 3 May 2013.

    Public notification

    2.2. Section 53(1)(c) of the Act provides that an application under section 34 of the Act must be publicly notified by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).

    2.3. The application was notified by placing a notice on the EPA website on 6 May 2013.

    2.4. In accordance with section 53(4) of the Act, letters or emails notifying the Minister for the Environment, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), the Department of Conservation (DOC), and other government departments, crown entities, and local authorities who have expressed an interest in being notified about applications for non-genetically modified new organisms were sent. Māori organisations, non-government organisations and stakeholders who have expressed an interest in being notified about applications for non-genetically modified new organisms were directly notified. All those parties had an opportunity to comment on the application as per section 58(1)(c) of the Act and clause 5 of the Methodology.

    2.5. Section 59(1)(c) of the Act requires an application to be open for the receipt of submissions for 30 working days from the date of public notification. The application was open for submissions from 6 May 2013 until 18 June 2013.

    2.6. The Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) chose not to comment on the application.

    2.7. The Department of Conservation, a member of the National Biological Control Collective along with the regional councils and Landcare Research, provides funding to the Collective to assist with the biological control of weeds. The Department submitted that they consider Japanese honeysuckle to be a “significant environmental weed”, and that successful control will “help protect conservation values”.

    2.8. Eleven submissions were received during the public notification period of the application. Seven submitters; Hawkes Bay Regional Council, Northland Regional Council, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Rob Morton, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Waikato Regional Council and Thames Coromandel District Council supported the application to import and release L. glorifica. Two submitters; Donovan Scientific Insect Research, and Kiwifruit Vine Health neither supported nor opposed the application. Two submitters; Huakina Development Trust, and Cliff Mason, opposed the application. One late submission, which neither supported nor opposed the application, was received on 8 July 2013, from the Moths and Butterflies of New Zealand Trust (MBNZT).

    2.9. Cliff Mason initially requested the opportunity to speak to his submission at a hearing, but after reading the EPA staff report and the applicant’s response to submissions, he withdrew this request, stating that he is certain he “will be disappointed in the outcome…”. As no other persons requested that a hearing be convened, the application was decided via a consideration.

    Consideration

    2.10. Section 59(1)(d) of the Act requires that a consideration be held not more than 30 working days after the closing date for submissions. The consideration was held on 29 July 2013 at the EPA offices in Wellington.

    Reports provided to the Committee

    2.11. The EPA staff report was provided under section 58(1)(a) of the Act.

    2.12. Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao (NKTT) provided a report under section 19(1)(2) of the Environmental Protection Authority Act (2011).

    2.13. The EPA staff report and the report from NKTT were published on the EPA website on 15 July 2013, and the applicant and submitters were informed of their availability.

    Information available for the consideration

    2.14. The information available for the consideration comprised:

     The application;

     EPA staff report;

     NKTT report;

     Comments received from DOC;

     Submissions received during the public notification period; and

     The response from the applicant to submissions.

    Legislative criteria for application

    2.15. The application was determined in accordance with section 38 of the Act, taking into account the matters specified in sections 36 and 37, relevant matters in Part 2 of the Act, and the Methodology.

    3. Minimum Standards

    3.1. The Committee noted that there is uncertainty about whether L. glorifica will establish and disperse successfully, and how long this will take, given that biological control agents can take many years to establish widely and have an impact on the target species. If it does not establish, the Committee assumed that there will be no significant effects from the release. Conversely, if it successfully establishes, effects may be significant. In considering the application, the Committee assumed that

    L. glorifica will become widely established and that effects will be realised.

    3.2. The Committee considered whether L. glorifica meets the five minimum standards as specified in section 36(a-e) of the Act; specifically whether it could:

    (a) cause any significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat; or

    (b) cause any significant deterioration of natural habitats; or

    (c) cause any significant adverse effects on human health and safety; or

    (d) cause any significant adverse effects to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity; or

    (e) cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for human, animal, or plant disease, unless the purpose is to import or release an organism to cause disease, be a parasite, or a vector for disease.

    Consideration of section 36(a) of the Act

    3.3. The Committee considered whether L. glorifica is likely to cause any significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat.

    3.4. Limenitis glorifica is only attracted to plant hosts from the family Caprifoliaceae, none of which are native to New Zealand. As L. glorifica will be attracted to these plants, it is likely to remain closely associated with them, and is therefore unlikely to interact with native moths and butterflies, which will be attracted to their own host plant species.

    3.5. The applicant noted that L. glorifica may attract native parasitioids and that this could cause displacement of such parasitioids. However, the Committee discussed the pathways necessary for such an event, and considered that there is no evidence to support this possibility.

    3.6. The Committee noted concerns raised by a submitter, the Huakina Development Trust, who made a submission to the effect that “we do not know the potential harm the butterfly may cause [so] it is very difficult to say where any impacts could occur”. The Trust considers all native species of the whenua to be taonga.

    3.7. However, after assessing all the information, the Committee was satisfied that L. glorifica is unlikely to cause any significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat.

    Consideration of section 36(b) of the Act

    3.8. The Committee considered whether L. glorifica is likely to cause any significant deterioration of natural habitats.

    3.9. Host testing indicates that no native plants will be affected by the introduction of L. glorifica. The Committee considered that potenial off-target effects are likely to be insignificant and will be limited to plants in the family Caprifoliaceae. As no plants in this family are native to New Zealand, the Committee did not consider that L. glorifica will have any significant effect on native plants. In addition, the Committee considered whether there are any impacts on any other native species that could have significant flow-on effects to natural habitats.

    3.10. As the Committee considers that no native species will be affected by L. glorifica, and host range testing demonstrates that there will be no significant off-target effects that could affect native plant species, the Committee considered that it is unlikely that the release of L. glorifica could cause significant deterioration of native habitats.

    Consideration of section 36(c) of the Act

    3.11. The Committee considered whether L. glorifica is likely to cause any significant adverse effects on human health and safety.

    3.12. The applicant, submitters, and the EPA staff report did not identify any examples of L. glorifica acting as a human pathogen or posing a threat of any kind to human health and safety. After assessing all the information, the Committee did not identify any mechanisms by which this could happen, and was satisfied that L. glorifica is unlikely to cause any significant adverse effects on human health and safety.

    Consideration of section 36(d) of the Act

    3.13. The Committee considered whether L. glorifica is likely to cause any significant adverse effect on New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity.

    3.14. The Committee acknowledged that the introduction of any new organism to New Zealand has the potential to cause harm to New Zealand’s genetic diversity. However, the biology and the taxonomic classification of L. glorifica indicate that this potential is highly unlikely to eventuate, as it does not have a close taxonomic affinity with any New Zealand species and cannot cross-breed with any species present in New Zealand.

    3.15. After assessing all the information, the Committee is satisfied that L. glorifica is unlikely to cause any significant adverse effects on New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity.

    Consideration of section 36(e) of the Act

    3.16. The Committee considered whether L. glorifica is likely to cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for human, animal, or plant disease.

    3.17. The Committee accepted that there are no examples of L. glorifica acting as a pathogen, parasite, or vector of human, animal, or plant disease. Therefore, the Committee was satisfied that L. glorifica is unlikely to cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for human, animal, or plant disease.

    Conclusion on the Minimum Standards

    3.18. After assessing all the information, the Committee considered that L. glorifica meets the minimum standards, as specified in section 38(a)(i) of the Act.

    4. The ability to establish an undesirable self-sustaining population and the ease of eradication

    4.1. Section 37 of the Act requires the Committee to have regard to the ability of the organism to establish an undesirable self-sustaining population and the ease with which the organism could be eradicated if it established such a population.

    4.2. The Committee considered that L. glorifica would establish a self-sustaining population and that this is the intention of the release. The Committee then considered whether such a self-sustaining population would be “undesirable”. The Committee noted that biocontrol agents take many years to establish and do not typically eradicate the target weed completely, but rather, act to limit its rate of spread.

    Therefore, the Committee considered that as L. glorifica could act as a biocontrol agent for Japanese honeysuckle for the foreseeable future, that any self-sustaining population would not be undesirable.

    4.3. The Committee noted that the eradication of such a population would be very difficult. However, it is expected that the population of L. glorifica will be directly proportional to the population of Japanese honeysuckle, so that as Japanese honeysuckle declines in New Zealand, L. glorifica numbers will simultaneously decrease. Therefore eradication of any such population is unlikely to ever be required.

    5. Effects of any inseparable organism

    5.1. The Committee did not identify any inseparable organisms associated with L. glorifica.

    6. Assessment of adverse effects

    6.1. The Committee considered the potential adverse effects of the organism, including any risks and costs associated with the release of the organism, on human health and safety, the environment, society and communities, Māori culture and traditions, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), and the market economy.

    6.2. The Committee noted the potential adverse effects outlined in the EPA staff report, which included:

     A decline in Japanese honeysuckle abundance leading to invasion by worse weeds;

     A reduction in Japanese honeysuckle fruit significantly limiting the food supply of native birds; and

     The possibility of adverse impacts on bumble bees.

    6.3. The Committee also considered whether L. glorifica could pose any environmental effects in addition to those covered in the staff report.

    6.4. After assessing all the information, the Committee did not identify any additional adverse effects from the release of L. glorifica, and considered the adverse effects discussed in the EPA staff report to be negligible.

    Effects on Māori and their culture and traditions and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)

    6.5. The Committee took into account the possible effects on the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga, and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

    6.6. After assessing all the information, the Committee did not identify any adverse effects on the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga, as it is highly unlikely that there will be any impacts on native flora or fauna.

    6.7. Given the absence of identified effects to the outcomes of significance to iwi/Māori (as outlined in the Protocol ‘Incorporating Māori perspectives in HSNO Act decision making’) the Committee considered the application to be broadly consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

    Conclusion on adverse effects

    6.8. After reviewing the information, the Committee considered any adverse effects, risks or costs from the release of L. glorifica to be negligible. Accordingly, the Committee was not required to take into account the probability of occurrence or magnitude of any adverse effects.

    6.9. In addition, the Committee noted that New Zealand has no international obligations relevant to the application.

    7. Assessment of positive effects

    7.1. The Committee considered the potential positive effects (including benefits) of the organism on human health and safety, the environment, society and community, relevant aspects of Māori culture and traditions, and the market economy.

    7.2. The Committee noted the benefits outlined in the EPA staff report, which included:

     A reduction in shading of native plants growing beneath Japanese honeysuckle canopies;

     Increased establishment of native seedlings in forest margins;

     Limitation of Japanese honeysuckle to existing sites;

     A reduction of fruit production and the rate of spread to new sites;

     Reduced herbicide use.

    7.3. The Committee noted the submission from Cliff Mason to the effect that “the introduction of yet another alien species would further damage the ecology of New Zealand”, but also considered the submission from Moths and Butterflies of New Zealand Trust that “the introduction of another butterfly species would add to the pleasure that New Zealanders receive when they are in the outdoors”.

    7.4. The Committee also considered whether L. glorifica could pose any effects in addition to those covered in the staff report, but did not identify any additional benefits.

    7.5. The Committee considered that the import and release of L. glorifica as a biocontrol agent for Japanese honeysuckle is likely to have long term environmental benefits to New Zealand.

    Conclusion on positive effects

    7.6. After reviewing the information, the Committee considered that there are benefits to be gained from the release of L. glorifica. Accordingly, the Committee is satisfied that these benefits are likely to be achieved in the foreseeable future and will be non-negligible.

    8. Achieving the purpose of the Act

    8.1. The purpose of the Act is to protect the environment, and the health and safety of people and communities, by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms (section 4 of the Act).

    8.2. The Committee took into account the following matters when considering the application in order to achieve the purpose of the Act:

     The sustainability of all native and valued introduced flora and fauna;

     The intrinsic value of ecosystems;

     Public health;

     The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga;

     The economic and related benefits and costs of using a particular hazardous substance or new organism;

     New Zealand’s international obligations;

     The need for caution in managing adverse effects where there is scientific and technical uncertainty about those effects; and

     The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

    8.3. The Committee was satisfied that this decision is consistent with the purpose of the Act and the above principles and matters. Any substantive issues arising from the legislative criteria and issues raised by submitters have been discussed in the preceding sections of this decision.

    9. Evaluation and weighing of positive and adverse effects

    9.1. The Committee took into account all the effects of L. glorifica, and concluded that it poses negligible risks, and that the benefits are non-negligible. It is therefore evident that the positive effects of releasing L. glorifica outweigh the adverse effects.

    10. Recommendation

    10.1. The Committee noted that monitoring of the post release effects of all biocontrol agents released in New Zealand is undertaken by Landcare Research. They already supply EPA staff and the public with this information via newsletters and publications, and the Committee supports this on-going dissemination of information on the effects and efficacy of biocontrol agents.

    11. Decision

    11.1. After reviewing all of the information contained in the application, the Committee was satisfied that the application meets the requirements of section 34 of the Act. In any event, in accordance with section 59(3)(a)(ii), the Committee waived any information requirement that has not been met as requested by the applicant in its application.

    11.2. The Committee considered that the threshold for approval under section 38 of the Act had been met.

    The Committee concluded that the organism meets the minimum standards set out in section 36 of the Act and that the positive effects of the organism outweigh the adverse effects of the organism, taking into account all of the following:

     All the effects of the organism;

     The matters in section 37 of the Act;

     The relevant matters in Part 2 of the Act; and

     The Methodology.

    11.3. The Committee decided to exercise its discretion and approve the release of Limenitis glorifica under section 38(1)(a) of the Act. The Committee noted that in accordance with section 38(2) of the Act, the approval has been granted without controls.

    11.4. The Committee noted that under section 38(3) of the Act, if Limenitis glorifica has not been released within five years of the date of this decision, this approval for release will lapse.

    However, any person may apply before the expiry of the time limit for an extension of that time limit for a further period of up to five years.

    11.5. The Committee waived the requirement under section 38(4) of the Act, to notify the Authority of the release of L. glorifica.

    11.6. The Committee would like to thank all people who submitted information used in making this decision.

    Public submissions provide a focus for the Committee on points that need clarification, and the

    Committee found the submissions and the applicant’s responses very helpful in its consideration of the application.

    Note 1

    The Committee referred to in this decision is the subcommittee that has made the decision on this application under delegated authority in accordance with section 18A of the Act.

    #34820

    clinton9
    Participant

    Well, I welcome White Admiral butterflies to NZ, to control our too many Japanese honeysuckles which are everywhere in NZ, in farmland, bush, in wasteland… excellant idea…

    But about Eastern Black swallowtail butterfly (papilio polyxenes asterius) and European Swallowtail butterfly (papilio machaon) ??? !!! They are wonderful controllers of weedy wild carrots and parsly, wild celery, wild dill, wild fennel, which are overrunning over our countries, I had seen lots lots of wild fennels everywhere in Thames, in wasteland and in bush !

    Oh dear… EPA had forgetten to bring in the natural controller for our cunning pesty moth plants…Southern Monarch butterfly (danaus erippus) !

    I had seen moth plants, wild fennels, Japanese honeysuckles in bush where I hunted for copper butterflies, near Thames.

    If EPA do not bring Eastern Black Swallowtail butterflies and European Swallowtail butterflies and Southern Monarch butterflies and White Admiral butterflies, to control our weeds, the numbers of these weeds will increase and becoming more difficult for humen to get rid of, then our country will be OVERRUNNING with million of weeds !!!

    #34702

    Terry
    Participant

    Hi Roger

    I believe you are correct, that no matter how slim the chances of related plants to those needed to be controlled being vulnerable to the introduction of the White Admiral L. glorifica, research needs to be done prior to any release of this species to the native environment. I am actually surprised to hear that the research so far has not been that thorough. I would have thought with the history of damage done to the New Zealand environment after previous introductions of non native species, both deliberate and self introduced, that the powers that be would be far more careful in there studies of all the possible scenarios. 

Viewing 25 replies - 1 through 25 (of 40 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.