Pests and diseases of forestry in New Zealand
Forest Health Pests and Diseases
Forest
Health: A guide to conducting forest health assessments and sampling
Pest and
Disease database for forestry
You can browse using the menu above or use the google
search box at the top of this page.
This database has so far been put together from the complete archive of
Forest Health Newsletter articles (to FH News 215), the Forest Timber and Insects
leaflets and the Forest Pathology leaflets, along with MAF publications (to Biosecurity issue 103)
and Treegrower articles. It is an information
resource for forestry in New Zealand.
Biosecurity:
Importance of
biosecurity to forest management
MAF Biosecurity New
Zealand's Strategic Plan
Who pays to stop the invaders?
Global
forest biosecurity threats and the risk to New Zealand
From
Biosecurity 99 August
2010
Future proofing plantation forests from pests
May 2010 (
PDF 555.38 kB)
Biosecurity
surveillance for tourist risk sites
From
Biosecurity 89, February
2009
Keeping
an eye on our plantation forests
From
Biosecurity 89, February
2009
New
Zealand’s forest survey activities praised
From Biosecurity issue 81, February 2008
Unwanted
pests arrive in comfort
From Biosecurity 79, November 2007
Forestry
focus for national certificates
(NZQA-accredited biosecurity qualifications)
From Biosecurity 75, May 2007
Blown
in the wind or border slippage? What natural dispersal of exotic
species to New Zealand has to do with biosecurity
From Biosecurity 69, August 2006
Biosecurity Authority policy statement on conducting
import risk analyses and applying them in the development of import
health standards
From Biosecurity Issue 26, March 2001 (pdf)
Fragile
ecosystems facing threat?
From Biosecurity issue 17, February 2000
The
SPS agreement and New Zealand’s primary industries
From Biosecurity issue 14, September 1999
Perspectives
on the SPS agreement
From Biosecurity issue 13, August 1999
Importance of
biosecurity to forest management
Commercial forestry in New Zealand is largely based upon plantation
culture of
Pinus radiata. Much of the economic success of this
forestry enterprise can be attributed to the fact that these trees are
grown in exclusion of the numerous insects and diseases in
P.
radiata's native range (and elsewhere in the world) that limit its
growth and survival. As such, biosecurity, much like genetic
improvement, silviculture and fire suppression, represents a critical
component to
the economic success of forestry in the country. Investment in
biosecurity by the forest industry thus is likely to yield tangible
economic benefit in the form of exclusion of at least some pests that
would otherwise reduce profit from the forestry enterprise.
Without biosecurity, incursions of new pests are likely to occur,
though identifying the time, location and identity of invaders would be
impossible to forecast. Thus, the return on investment in biosecurity
can be reducing the probability of such incursions.
(Extract from the Forest Owners Association Forest Health
Surveillance Review, November 2007)
(Top)
From MAF
Biosecurity New Zealand's Strategic Plan
The biosecurity system outcomes, which we have responsibility for
delivering, are to:
- Prevent harmful organisms from crossing New Zealand's borders and
establishing, while ensuring trade and tourism are maintained.
- Reduce the unwanted harm caused by organisms already established
in New Zealand, and to
- Support New Zealanders to be informed and involved participants
in the biosecurity system.
It is critical to MAFBNZ's success that everything it does aligns to
these outcomes. To achieve them, MAFBNZ works in three separate but
interrelated geographic zones: Global, within New Zealand and at
Pathways and Borders. MAFBNZ's strategic direction comprise seven goals
which will drive our priorities over the next five years; i.e. to:
- provide effective leadership across the biosecurity system
- make timely and informed decisions
- to have more effective interventions at the border
- to work collaboratively across organisations for better
biosecurity outcomes
- to see that everyone takes responsibility for biosecurity risks
and interests
- identify and prepare for emerging threats and risks
- attract and retain the right people
Who pays to stop the
invaders?
(Opinion piece By NZFOA executive director David Rhodes, from
The
New Zealand Forestry Bulletin, Autumn 2008: Source NZFOA)
When it comes to biosecurity, forest owners are unique. We are the only
primary industry to have a formal surveillance programme for plant
pests and diseases, funded by growers themselves.
However, the programme is not formally linked with other surveillance
programmes - despite the close personal contacts we have with MAF
Biosecurity staff and biosecurity researchers at Scion. And it doesn't
cover small forest blocks, shelter belts or the indigenous estate.
Linking all the biosecurity strands together, as part of a coherent
policy applying to all sectors, is therefore vital. This need was
identified in the Prime Report for MAF in 2002 and in the NZ
Biosecurity Review of 2003.
MAF plans to do this in its new Biosecurity Surveillance Strategy due
to be released for stakeholder comment in May.
As part of the development of this strategy, MAF is reviewing who
should decide whether an exotic organism is contained or eradicated,
and who should pay. These are important questions.
The budget for painted apple moth eradication in Auckland in 2003/04
was more than $51 million - a large sum. But it would have been a
fraction of the annual economic cost of controlling the moth in forest
plantations if it had got away - quite apart from the destruction it
would have wrought in native forests, gardens and parks.
A proposal that MAF Biosecurity should work in partnership with
affected sectors in preparing for and dealing with incursions like this
is to be applauded. But the suggestion that they should also jointly
fund such activities is a more complex issue.
In various policy papers, MAF argues that those who contribute to an
incursion ('exacerbators'), if they can be identified, may not have the
resources to contribute to the response. This draws the ministry to
conclude that "funding from importers seems unfair and inefficient" and
that "beneficiaries are better placed to pay than exacerbators".
The NZFOA does not accept that this conclusion is logical. Also, it
runs contrary to the polluter-pays principle and sends the wrong signal
for influencing behaviour.
Just like trampers and hunters, who have to pay for control costs if
their campfires spread to the surrounding forest, importers need to
know they will be liable if pests spread from their shipping containers
into the surrounding environment.
On a practical level too, an industry battling with a new organism may
well have very little ability to pay - especially if leads to the loss
of overseas markets, or if yields and quality are severely compromised.
The NZFOA accepts in principle that there can be circumstances where it
would be appropriate for an industry to contribute to an incursion
response. But...
- The industry would need to be getting a disproportionately higher
benefit than society at large
- Exacerbators would have been identified and required to pay their
share
- The efforts of the industry to prevent or minimise the impact of
an incursion through surveillance, research etc, would have been taken
into account
- Other beneficiaries would be contributing on the same basis. With
forestry, we imagine this might occur if an exotic organism arrived in
the country unassisted, with effects that were largely restricted to
one or two plantation species - a very unusual event.
Because of this, we believe the policy reviews should focus on ensuring
that New Zealand has a coherent and integrated biosecurity framework
covering surveillance, readiness, response and recovery. It would
indeed be unfortunate if this focus was lost in squabbles over 'who
pays' in a range of unlikely hypothetical scenarios.
(top)
