CHANNEL CATFISH

Forest and Bird, Volume 22, Issue 1, 1 February 1991, Page 37

CHANNELCATFISH

by

Theo Simeonidis

a matter of import

The destruction of 2200 channel catfish in September 1990 was an historic event. But will it mark the beginning of a new awareness over the perils of ill considered importations of exotic species? Wie THE CHANNEL CATFISH, imported for an aquaculture venture in Northland, were destroyed at a Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries quarantine centre in Upper Hutt, a long and involved saga ended. However, questions remain as to how a species posing an enormous threat to New Zealand's freshwater animals came close to being introduced into the country. On several counts the catfish decision was highly significant: it was the first time in recorded memory that a newly imported species was destroyed; and it was probably the first time a species was destroyed on ecological grounds. As such the decision may mark a turning point in attitudes towards the importation of exotic species. It is to be hoped that no future Government will display such a cavalier attitude towards imports of potential pest species. New Zealand's history is littered with the legacy of poorly researched and ill-advised animal and plant introductions which have had disastrous economic and environmental impacts. Plagues of possums and rabbits respectively exact a high toll on our native forests and high country grasslands. Introduced predators such as stoats prey heavily on birds. It was against a background of increasing public concern over the damage to New Zealand's environment by pests such as possums that conservationists and anglers decided to draw the line on the channel catfish importation. The New Zealand Federation of Freshwater Anglers (NZFFA) researched and publicised the case and together with Forest and Bird's advocacy the Government was convinced the importation would be a serious mistake.

MAF — Judge and Jury

Dissatisfaction with the periormance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) over animal imports has been growing, especially over controversial decisions to allow the South American rodent chinchilla and the West Australian marron crayfish into the country. In 1986 the Ombudsman chastised the Ministry for its importing procedures and in June 1988 the MAF bureaucracy was taken to task by Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Helen Hughes over its handling of the proposal to import marron crayfish from Australia. The Commissioner was critical of the inadequacy of MAF’s approval procedures for considering importation applications. She criticised the manner in which marron was allowed into the country, the confused and often contradictory decision making process within MAF under which the application was considered, and most importantly, the very real concerns over the potential impact of marron on our freshwater ecosystems. Less than 12 months later, MAF and its former minister Colin Moyle went down exactly the same path with channel catfish. The importation did not follow an acceptable due process and was fast-tracked by backdoor

means through the statutory process. Consider the following points. e The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared by MAF Fisheries was inadequate, raising more questions than it answered, and was not a sound basis on which to judge the merits of importation. Overseas research on channel catfish was either ignored or simply not located. Yet a voluntary organisation, the NZFFA, discovered more than 10 major studies highlighting the predatory and competitive behaviour of the catfish in areas of the United States where the species had been liberated outside its natural range. It also obtained expert opinion from respected US fisheries authorities who attested to the ecological dangers of the importation. e The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in her August 1989 newsletter that the EIA was inadequate. e The distribution of the EIA to interested parties was restricted. Neither the Federation nor Forest and Bird received copies; it was never publicly released or advertised. MAF belatedly distributed the EIA to about 35 iwi and asked for comments. As the document was never explained to the Maori community, the possible impact of catfish on native

A chronology of events

July 1988 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared under contract by MAF Fisheries for Presbyterian Support Services. 18 August 1988 Support apply to MAF for consent to import "the stock or fertile ova" of channel catfish into New Zealand claiming that "... the findings of the EIA speak for themselves and that there are many compelling reasons for early approval of importation...". October 1988 The EIA is distributed to a restricted number of interested parties by MAFFish. The Federation of Freshwater Anglers and Forest and Bird find out about the existence of a detailed proposal and obtain a copy of the EIA in January, two months after submissions to MAFFish close. December 1988 MAF is concerned over the legal tests to be applied under the Animals Act 1967. It is claimed that the refusal to grant a permit on environmental grounds would be open to legal challenge by Support. (This view is not held by the Ministry for the Environment/MFE or Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE). MAF seeks a more specific set of criteria in the Animals Act to provide clearer directions to the decision-maker to enable balancing of the matters to be taken into account. 12 December 1988 Cabinet agrees to proceed with an Animals Amendment Bill. Until such time as the Bill receives the Royal Assent, the importation of channel catfish is prohibited by the Customs Import Prohibition (Aquatic Fauna) Order 1988, brought under the Customs Act on 22 December 1988. The Order-In-Council will be withdrawn on the forming of the Amendment Bill. 23 February 1989 MAFFish completes review of responses to EIA from those who had been invited to comment on EIA.

16 March 1989 MAF undertakes review of the importation proposal against the criteria of the draft Animals Amendment Bill. It concludes that there is an insufficient case to permit the importation of channel catfish. 2 May 1989 Animals Amendment Bill introduced into House. It is referred to the Primary Production Select Committee. 8 May 1989 Minister of Agriculture submits verbal recommendations to Cabinet in favour of allowing the importation of channel catfish. These recommendations are based upon a substantially incorrect and misleading MAF paper. No Cabinet paper is presented or discussed and Ministers are inadequately briefed on the issue. Cabinet agree that channel catfish be allowed into New Zealand subject to certain terms. 22 May 1989 The Animals Amendment Bill is preempted by the Customs Import Prohibitions Order (Aquatic Fauna) 1989, which revokes the earlier Order. It prevents the importation of live channel catfish at any stage of its life cycle, subject to the comment of the Minister of Agriculture and such conditions as the Minister thinks fit to impose. The Animals Amendment Bill remains unpassed. 15 June 1989 An interdepartmental meeting of officials is convened to consider any evidence against importation of channel catfish. Federation of Freshwater Anglers makes a submission citing opinions from experts in Michigan and South Carolina warning against importation. It is ignored. 16 June 1989 Minister of Agriculture grants consent to importation of the catfish. He retains the right to order the destruction of the stocks if he considers "...on the basis of the information presently available or as a result of tests or research carried out, or any other reason that the fish pose an

unacceptable hazard to New Zealand." It is intended that environmental trials be conducted during the period of the catfish’s quarantine. 21 June 1989 Channel catfish eggs are imported. August 1989 Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment states in her monthly newsletter that the quality of the EIA for the channel catfish application was inadequate. July-December 1989 Unsuccessful MAF efforts to design meaningful trials for assessing impact of channel catfish on New Zealand's freshwater ecosystems. January 1990 FFA institutes Ombudsman's inquiry following MAF decision to withhold information relating to importation. May 1990 MAF advises in newsletter of its intention to transfer the catfish to owneroperated quarantine in Auckland from June 1990. May 1990 FFA and Forest and Bird form coalition to step up the campaign against channel catfish. Petitions, letters to MPs and Ministers follow. May/June 1990 Further documented research evidence and expert opinions against channel catfish received from North America: Washington/Oregon; California; Utah/ Colorado; Michigan; Florida. The evidence against channel catfish is overwhelming. June 1990 Minister of Fisheries establishes an Independent Review Team (IRT) to consider all relevant available information on channel catfish and make recommendations, by 20 July 1990, on whether the environmental risks posed by channel catfish are acceptable or unacceptable. FFA presents two detailed submissions and copies of overseas research evidence. 20 July 1990 Minister receives IRT report which concludes "... that one or more value species is more likely than not to suffer an unacceptable decline in abundance or distribution as a consequence of the introduction of channel catfish. Accordingly our recommendation to the Minister is that the environmental risk posed by the channel catfish is unacceptable." July — early September 1990 Minister advises Support he is of the preliminary view that channel catfish pose an unacceptable environmental risk and they should be destroyed. Support is given an opportunity to respond to the report and present any new information in support of its case. The responses received do not persuade the Minister to change his preliminary view. 20 September 1990 Channel catfish stocks destroyed.

freshwater fauna of importance to Maori was not understood. @ On 8 May 1989 Agriculture Minister Moyle spoke to Cabinet in favour of allowing the importation of channel catfish. His recommendation was based upon a substantially incorrect and misleading MAF briefing paper to its Minister. No Cabinet paper was presented and ministers were inadequately briefed on the issue. The Cabinet decision to proceed with importation was therefore based on incorrect information and eminently challengeable. e MAF advised its minister that environmental trials could be undertaken to assess the impact of channel catfish in the New Zealand environment, even to the extent of releasing catfish into natural environments to assess their impacts. In the US it had been shown that catfish could not be eradicated once established in the wild. e MAF advised its minister that "a source of catfish eggs of acceptable health status has been identified." Yet at the time the import permit was granted, both MAF and the minister knew that the source broodstock, from which the eggs were obtained, had disease. e In advising its Minister, MAF claimed to have "firm economic advice that the project has a reasonable chance of success." Yet some six months later the project's executive marketing officer said no market studies had been undertaken to find out what level of acceptance the catfish would have with consumers. e The importation reversed the onus of proof Instead of placing the onus on the proponent to prove that the new species would not have any adverse impact, MAF and its Minister took the view that if there was no evidence to the contrary, they might as well take a gamble. One of the factors contributing to the catfish fiasco is MAF’s structure. As a large government agency with diverse responsibilities, it has inherent conflicts of interest. In relation to the catfish application, MAF acted as: e consultant to the importers (a joint venture between Presbyterian Support Services and the Muriwhenua Incorporation), by preparing an EIA and supplementary report for financial return. The supplementary report published in Freshwater Catch 41, Spring 1989, appeared to be little more than an attempt to justify the importation ; e distributor of the EIA and receiver and analyser of submissions on the EIA on behalf of the proponent; e arbiter/advisor on whether the importation should proceed; e advocate for aquaculture; e "independent advisor’ to the Minister of Agriculture; e quarantine manager (on contract to the importers) for financial return; e suardian of the ecological estate. A letter dated 6 April 1989 from Northland Support to MAF Fisheries highlights these conflicts: "My secretary in Whangarei has been busy gathering supplemental information regarding overseas experience with catfish to further bolster the extensive material in the EIA. Hopefully this will provide the people at Gillingham House with yet more ammunition to ward off any possible anticipated attacks

by the dreaded extremist environmental critics,"’ it reads. (Gillingham House is MAF's Wellington Head Office.)

Maori Values

A supreme irony of the catfish story is the fact that one of the partners, the Muriwhenua Incorporation, which has a concern for traditional fisheries, was advocating the importation of an alien, predatory species which would decimate the native fisheries to which its people have a cultural attachment. The venture was promoted as a Maori initiative and it was claimed that a refusal would be viewed as anti-Maori. However, the reality is that the impact of channel catfish on native freshwater fisheries which are of significant cultural importance to Maori would have been devastating. Our efforts in opposing the importation were strongly supported by a number of iwi. A disappointing feature of the debate was

the eleventh hour approach made to the Waitangi Tribunal by the proponents seeking an interim tribunal ruling inviting the Minister of Fisheries to postpone destruction of the catfish. Such an approach achieved little but brought the Tribunal into disrepute. It was indeed ironic that the Tribunal, an institution created to help protect Maori values and access to traditional resources, should be called upon to support the exotic catfish. Of importance to Maori also are the central North Island trout fisheries. The trout fisheries of the Rotorua Lakes and Taupo are gems which have been established through a partnership between the Crown and Te Arawa and Ngati Tuwharetoa. Ngati Tuwharetoa receive $500,000 a year in funds from their share in Taupo licence fees and from fines. Direct angling-expenditure pumps close to $50 million into the Taupo/Rotorua economies. The capital value of business assets

Just when you thought it was safe...

HE CONTROVERSY over new animal imports does not end with the channel catfish victory. Marron crayfish and chinchilla (a South American rodent) have both been imported into New Zealand in recent years and hard questions are now being asked as to their potential impacts on the environment. Marron crayfish, a native of West Australia, were imported in 1987 under dubious circumstances. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment questioned the Environmental Impact Assessment but licensing for a farm at Warkworth went ahead nevertheless. At the time fears were raised about the possible ecological impact of the crayfish after it was discovered they had been banned in Victoria and Tasmania on the grounds they would predate on the native freshwater fauna in those states. The issue came to a head in December 1990 when reports came in from around the country of the crayfish being sold in fish shops, hotels and restaurants. As a result, Forest and Bird and the Federation of Freshwater Anglers called for an independent review along

the lines of the catfish inquiry. New Fisheries Minister Doug Kidd responded to our concerns by announcing the Government would begin negotiations to buy the Warkworth farm, and that further live sales were banned. When chinchilla were imported in the mid-1980s, the importer was granted a licence to farm them only in the North Island. They were specifically excluded from the South Island on the grounds that the South Island high country most closely resembled their South Amercian habitat. Since then however the terms of the licence have been challenged and overthrown, and today chinchilla are freely sold as pets, including in the drier areas of the South Island. Concern has been expressed that they could become another rabbit-like pest. Forest and Bird has joined the growing body of organisations calling for the destruction of the chinchilla before the inevitable escapees establish wild populations. These organisations include several South Island local bodies, High Country Federated Farmers and the Mountain Lands Institute. #

employed to cater for anglers in these districts approaches $250 million.

The Turning Point

The turning point in the debate was 17 May 1990. An NZFFA/Forest and Bird deputation (Russell McKendry, Kevin Smith, Mark Bellingham and myself) met with new Agriculture Minister Jim Sutton. At that meeting it quickly became apparent that either Sutton had forgotten his lines or his officials had fed him some incorrect ones. For example he would not accept that he had the authority to order the destruction of the channel catfish without compensation. The relevant clause of the Consent to Importation (signed on 16 June 1989 by his predecessor) was quoted to him. Officials remained silent throughout that meeting, perhaps realising that the importation was indefensible. Soon the Minister was literally saved by the bell — the division bell summoning MPs to the debating chamber to vote. Calling the meeting to an end, a relieved Sutton lit up a smoke and darted off to vote in favour of the Government's anti-smoking legislation! By now the efforts of many concerned people writing to their MPs, to newspapers and by signing petitions, were starting to tell. The meeting with Sutton was followed immediately by a strongly worded letter demanding the destruction of the catfish stocks. A copy was sent to Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer who was becoming increasingly aware of the procedural impropriety and irregularities surrounding the importation. His own Ministry for the Environment Officials ensured he was fully briefed on the issue.

With the national pressure mounting, nervous government MPs raised the issue in caucus in late May. By that time the catfish were at the stage of nearly exceeding the capacity of the MAF quarantine facility. MAF advised they would shift them to an importercontrolled secondary quarantine centre, a move we strongly opposed. Fisheries Minister Ken Shirley, who had by this time been handed responsibility for the fate of the catfish, was reluctant to take any action, preferring to leave the issue over to an incoming government after the October election. Geoffrey Palmer fortunately won the day, demanding that the importation be properly examined. Shirley appointed an independent review team which several weeks later handed him a report concluding that channel catfish posed an unacceptable risk to the environment, vindicating the stance the Federation of Freshwater Anglers had taken against channel catfish for 20 months.

Other Players

The Department of Conservation and its minister were conspicuously absent from the debate. Philip Woollaston, who was not in Cabinet when Colin Moyle approached it for support in May 1989, was presented with a fait accompli when the proposal received Cabinet backing. The National Opposition took the issue up and raised appropriate questions in Parliament, but they failed to fully exploit the Government's vulnerability to charges that, while it was grandstanding on global environmental issues, it was prepared to place

the local environment at risk by allowing the importation.

Summary

In June 1989 after the channel catfish eggs arrived in New Zealand, I was disappointed at the defeatist attitude of many who had accepted that the decision would not be reversed. Our success demonstrates that nothing is impossible provided we demonstrate a castiron commitment to the values we believe in. The favourable result is a fitting reward to the wide range of people who stood up and weighed in when it finally mattered. We must continue to be vigilant to ensure that similar episodes to the channel catfish fiasco are never repeated. &*

Theo Simeonidis is President of the New Zealand Federation of Freshwater Anglers. A keen angler and conservationist, Theo has been active in the Vote Environment and Action on Resource Management coalitions, both of which Forest and Bird is a member. He received a 1990 Conservation Medal for his services to conservation.