28 February 2007

 

The Strategic Science Team

Biosecurity New Zealand

PO Box 2526

Wellington 6011

biosecurity.science@maf.govt.nz

 

DRAFT BIOSECURITY SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY FOR NEW ZEALAND - Mahere Rautaki Putaiao Whakamaru: A DISCUSSION PAPER

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comments on the draft biosecurity strategy in order to ensure that the final biosecurity strategy meets the needs of all biosecurity stakeholders.  Biosecurity is of such strategic importance to New Zealand that it needs to be a priority.

 

While the vision for the biosecurity strategy proposed is a good start ‘advancing our Biosecurity System through excellence in science, to better protect New Zealand’, it is not entirely accurate. The use of the term ‘excellence’ does not take into account the very valuable, but often overlooked, ‘basic’ science on which existing, and future science, relies.  What is it that we want to ‘protect’?  We suggest words like environment, economy, society and culture (and possibly well-being) be identified in the vision statement.

 

The draft biosecurity strategy identifies 129 key actions within 27 action areas which makes it a confusing document to read. Greater clarity and continuity could be achieved by standardising the document, for example using headings. The numbering within and between sections also needs to be standardised.  In general clarity and simplicity would make it a better and more useful document.

 

Does the strategy accurately reflect the current state of biosecurity science, research and technology in New Zealand? Over the last few years effort has been concentrated primarily on monitoring of incursions, particularly in the marine area, into New Zealand. From a public perspective, it appears that only those alien species that have been highlighted as a potential risk to New Zealand by industry and/or media have warranted further investigation. There is a need to re-focus on import pathways and regions that are high risk from pest incursions. The strategy also appears to overlook alien biota that are already present in New Zealand and have the potential to out-compete endemic species. It may be effective for Biosecurity New Zealand to undertake a cost-benefit analysis to compare interception of alien biota at point of entry and subsequent pest management action.

 

Additionally, biosecurity surveillance depends on access to species identification guides not just for the local region, but globally. The strategy thus need to have mechanisms to encourage taxonomists based in New Zealand to have expertise both regionally and globally, and rapid access, ideally online, to species identification and ecology information. The availability of online species information systems infrastructures should be supported in an international context.

 

Furthermore, while the draft biosecurity strategy acknowledges Matauranga Maori as ‘an important source of knowledge and information which can add value to New Zealand’s biosecurity systems’, the strategy does not state how this value is to be incorporated into biosecurity systems. Given that Matauranga Maori is primarily an oral history, and therefore largely anecdotal, limited capability and resources may make its value inaccessible. While funding has been made available in an attempt to capture this information, more funding and capability (e.g., skilled social scientists fluent in Maori) are needed.

 

It is not clearly defined in the strategy that Biosecurity New Zealand is a lead agency within Central Government. Biosecurity New Zealand obviously has a formal role to play in developing policy, yet this fact, and the process for doing so, is not obvious.  It should be clarified.

 

We would prefer the use of the term “fundamental research” instead of “blue skies research.”

 

The proposed biosecurity science system (pg 26) is currently an ‘ideas’ driven system when it appears that it should be an issues-based system. Communication between high-level management committees of Biosecurity agencies and the science providers needs to be both transparent and consistent. How can we make this a responsive system given that funding timelines are often out of sync with the financial year?  Is there opportunity for reference/working groups? If so, where do they fit in the biosecurity science system and what would be expected of them?

 

We are asked to comment on ‘indicators, reporting or how best to measure the performance of the strategy’. It is impossible to comment on indicators that have yet to be decided upon. Biosecurity New Zealand may wish to look at a useful website on ‘essential science indicators’ - http://in-cites.com/rsg/esi/.

 

When planning for the future, greater emphasis needs to be placed on the evaluation of an alien species potential for successful survival, increasing population and spread throughout New Zealand, and the likelihood of competition with endemic species. Public education and awareness of alien biota, and how to deal with alien biota if found, also needs to be increased.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft strategy.

 

 

On behalf of the NZMSS

- Signature File -

Dr Alison MacDiarmid

Secretary

 

 

See http://nzmss.rsnz.org/index.html for details of the society, its aims and membership.