ERMA New Zealand 2000 Conference Abstracts

Thursday 29 June

Friday 30 June.

Thursday 29 June.

W J Falconer - Chairman, The Authority

Session 1: Welcome and keynote address - View from the Authority.

Governance

The Environmental Risk Management Authority is charged with all the functions and responsibilities contained in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, but in practice much of the work devolves upon ERMA New Zealand - the organisation under Bas Walker's leadership - in respect of which the Authority takes a governance role, similar to that which a Board would have towards a company.

In this context we are concerned to see that ERMA New Zealand is well structured and resourced for the roles it fulfils, and that, for example, it will be ready to take on the new responsibilities which will arise with the introduction of the Hazardous Substances sections of the Act, later this year. We are equally concerned to ensure that ERMA New Zealand is operated efficiently, and that costs to applicants and to the taxpayer are correspondingly kept to a minimum.

In these functions, our task over the Authority's first three years has been complicated by the start-up delays with the Act, and by uncertainties as to the number of applications likely to be received, and the time and resources required to deal with them. We are also required to undertake a number of activities independently of the consideration of applications under Part V of the Act, including in particular, programmes to increase public awareness of the way in which the Act is intended to manage the risks associated with the introduction, development and release of hazardous substances and new organisms in New Zealand.

While we are entitled under the Act to recover the costs of processing appIications, the uncertainties I have referred to have resulted in some lumpiness in our charging structure. We are therefore still reliant, to a large degree on government funding, not only to meet our general responsibilities, such as the public awareness programme, but also to contribute to the costs of considering applications - specifically the costs of public hearings, and of public notifications.

This lumpiness will continue until the Authority's work programme settles down following the introduction of the hazardous substances provisions of the Act and , I expect, the completion of the work of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, and the review by the Government of the current voluntary moratorium on GMO applications.

In the meantime there is much to do, and some of the activities such as the transfer of toxic substances to the jurisdiction of the new Act, the management of new organism importation, and public awareness will be constrained until our funding becomes more stable.

Enforcement and Compliance

A major governance issue arises from the fact that the Authority is not the enforcement agency under the Act. We are entirely dependent on local authorities, and other Government agencies such as MAF and OSH, to ensure that the requirements of the Act and the conditions of our approvals are complied with. We now have agreements in place with almost all of the relevant enforcement agencies, but thorough enforcement is a huge task and it remains to be seen whether the agencies can allocate sufficient resources to handle it. 'After the event' enforcement is not satisfactory.

We in the Authority cannot compel people to comply with the Act's provisions, and while there are penalties for non-compliance, it has become evident that the HSNO Act has been seen by some as relatively easy to ignore. While border protection measures will pick-up most unauthorised imports of GM and new organisms prior to their entry to New Zealand, the relatively few applications received for the importation of new organisms suggests that easy to smuggle goods such as seeds and small plants are entering without authority or detection. Once inside the country of course, the ability to manage any risks which may relate to those organisms is extremely limited.

The key to improving this situation lies in establishing a greater public awareness of the unacceptability of bringing potentially hazardous or invasive flora and fauna into the country, and a culture of responsibility such as that which does exist, I believe, towards the importation of food - amongst New Zealanders if not some of our visitors.

The recent exercise involving the identification of unauthorised GMO developments in our universities and research institutions highlighted another aspect of compliance.

I am pleased to record that most of the instances of non-compliance identified in New Zealand's research laboratories were inadvertent - situations where researchers with approvals under the pre-HSNO regime were unaware of the need to have them gazetted under the HSNO Act when it came into force; or where researchers were unaware that the extension of approved research into the development of new GMOs required a new approval. However, there were some instances also of researchers regarding the HSNO Act and ERMA as a bureaucratic hurdle that they would prefer to walk around rather than jump if they could get away with it.

I have no doubt that the decision to withdraw approval authorities delegated to IBSC's while we sorted all this out was the right move, draconian as it may have seemed to some. The only practicable way in which we can administer the large amount and diversity of low risk modifications which take place in our research institutes and universities is through the delegation of authority for approvals to IBSC's. But we must be able to have confidence in the thoroughness of their procedures, and confidence that the researchers within the jurisdiction of the IBSC's take them seriously. The withdrawal of delegations gave us the space to be able to re-establish that confidence.

I am pleased to report that of the 17 delegations withdrawn, 8 have been reinstated with another 1 imminent; 1 has been relinquished; leaving 7 still to be processed.

It is not just the Authority, however, which must be able to have confidence in the system and know that compliance is not an issue. This is just as important for the public, and for scientists themselves. As it is, many amongst the public are already suspicious towards what scientists are doing in the field of genetic modification. It is in their interests to demonstrate that they take seriously the legislative and administrative provisions of the Act which are designed to assure the public that their work is carried out under conditions which do not represent a threat to the environment or to human health.

Over the past two years ERMA New Zealand has made determined efforts to ensure that the science community is fully aware of its responsibilities in this regard. This started with a "road show" back in 1997, and has included the setting up of the New Organisms Industry Consultative Group, meetings with IBSC representatives, sessions at our annual conference, regional workshops and the dissemination of a considerable amount of information in print, and on the web.

Clearly more remains to be done, and the recent exercise has been a timely wake-up for us all. It has however, signaled that there are opportunities to improve the Act, particularly as regards approvals for on-going research programmes, and ERMA New Zealand will be pursuing these with the Government.

Decision making under Part V

The principal role of the Authority lies in its consideration of applications under Part V of the Act to import, develop and release new organisms, GMOs and, shortly, hazardous substances. Here, although the preparation of the E&R Reports is the responsibility of ERMA New Zealand, the Authority, either as a whole or in decision making committees operates quite independently from the ERMA New Zealand team.

Thus far we have considered only applications for the importation, development and field testing in containment of genetically modified organisms; and for the importation into containment and, recently, release of non-genetically modified new organisms.

I wanted to cover today three aspects of this work: responsibilities as regards scientific uncertainty; responsibilities as regards public concerns; and the treatment of those provisions of the Act which relate specifically to Māori.

Scientific Uncertainty

The HSNO Act is a public process, and all of the applications received to field test genetically modified organisms have involved public hearings at which submitters have taken some trouble to emphasise their concerns regarding the scientific uncertainty attaching to genetic research. Under the HSNO Act, where scientific uncertainty exists, the Authority is required to take into account the need for caution in managing adverse effects of a proposed application.

These submitters have ranged from simply concerned members of the public, to professional scientists and medical practitioners. Common in these submissions are views that:

  • genetically modified genes may transfer horizontally (jump) from the organism under test, to other living organisms and, thereafter directly or indirectly, to humans;
  • the use of antibiotic marker genes may result in the development of antibiotic resistance in the organisms concerned, and, ultimately, in humans;
  • while a gene may be selected for transfer because it is known to code for a particular protein with a particular outcome, insufficient research may have been undertaken to determine whether the protein may promote other (adverse) outcomes;
  • insufficient research has been undertaken into the long term consequences of genetic modification generally, and the impact of proposed programmes of research on future generations in particular; and so on.

Thus far, all of the GMO applications considered by the Authority have involved the importation, development or field testing of GMOs in containment, and the various decision making committees have been able to conclude that risks associated with these concerns, under containment conditions, are very low or negligible, and the concerns have not been sufficient grounds for declining an application.

The point I wish to make however, is that as regards horizontal gene transfer, and the use of antibiotic marker genes in particular, the Authority has considered it necessary to investigate the concerns which have been expressed. Its conclusions however, more often than not, result from an inquiry conducted either by or at the request of the Authority, rather than from material or research results presented by the applicant.

I am comfortable with the quality of this work and the resultant decisions although, like all science bodies, the Authority has not been unequivocal or categoric in its decisions. I believe we have, in each instance assessed both the probability of the damage occurring and the risks of harm if it did, and that our conclusions have been scientifically robust.

As a result, we have asked ERMA New Zealand to undertake some generic studies on these types of issues, with the objective of providing some common reference points for applicants and submitters alike, so that it becomes necessary to deal only with matters which are specific to a particular application in our consideration.

The point however, is that it is the applicant's responsibility to anticipate the concerns of submitters, and to support an application with a reasoned assessment of the risks related to those concerns. It is not sufficient just to dismiss the concern as remote, and leave it to the Authority to provide the public with the reassurance they are seeking. For its part the Authority should not be called upon to cover for inadequate preparation or research.

If the Authority were to extend its work in this regard, it would need additional funding, and this would have to be recovered from the applicant in one form or another. My guess is that applicants should be able to undertake this work more cost effectively themselves.

Wider Public Concerns

A number of submitters advance the view that genetic modification, and transgenic modification in particular is unnatural - whether because it is contrary to perceived processes of evolution or the laws of nature, or spiritual or religious injunctions, or just because it doesn't seem right. These views have emerged in the several considerations of applications for genetically modified sheep and cattle, and particularly those involving the insertion of copy genes coding for human protein. Interestingly, the proposed modification of potatoes through the insertion of genes copied from a sequence identified in the African clawed toad raised greatest public interest on this count.

While it is easy for science to dismiss the concern, I have to make the point that these concerns arise in every sector of society including those who, in their own occupations and professions, may be regarded as well informed and rational. It will be a feature of the current Royal Commission's work.

Unless a submitter can establish that the "unnaturalness" (however based) will lead to consequences which are harmful to the environment or human health, then the Authority is not required to consider the issue under the Act. Thus far because all the GMO applications have been for development or field testing in containment with defined objectives and end points, we have not had to address this question.

However, there is a concern that, unnatural or not, the science of genetic modification is insufficiently developed or understood to know whether there will be adverse consequences in the long term to the disbenefit of future generations. Indeed, many believe that the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification will address this fundamental issue, and that it is should recommend whether genetic modification should be allowed to take place in New Zealand at all, notwithstanding the fact that it has been occurring for 20 years or more and, for example, is taught in secondary schools, and is a standard part of laboratory work at tertiary levels.

I think that science has to take this issue head on, and decide to allocate resources to addressing the largely philosophical questions of whether genetic modification is, or maybe contrary to, the processes of evolution or the laws of nature. Explaining how genetic modification is conducted is not sufficient, though the processes should be de-mystified. The critical questions are why, and to what end, and how does this fit with established understandings of how the world ticks.

Maybe the human genome project will help. Personally, I believe that the understandings which will emerge from it will challenge our traditional concepts of natural sciences in the same way that the emergent understanding of the evolution of species did 150 years ago. Science should reflect on that transition, and recognise that it owes it to its public to provide them with the information with which to understand their fears.

Māori Issues

The Authority is required, in carrying our its responsibilities under the HSNO Act, specifically to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; and the relationship of Māori and their culture, ancestral lands, flora and fauna and their taonga.

These requirements appear in other statutes, and the Resource Management Act in particular, and they have been progressively elaborated by the Courts in the landmark Treaty cases as well as cases under the RMA; and of course by the Waitangi Tribunal. So there is a fair body of precedent as to how these requirements should be fulfilled.

For its part, the Authority has appointed an advisory group, Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao, to advise it on the sections of the Act relating to Māori, and it has reported on a number of applications, and nominated experts in tikanga to form part of some of the decision making committees. You will hear from the current Chairman of Nga Kaihautu, Gerard Albert, later this morning.

It has been our experience thus far that the consultative process which is central to the Treaty principles is observed inconsistently as between applicants, and, more particularly the IBSC's in universities and research institutes, who approve all of the low risk GMO applications under delegated authority. The Authority and ERMA New Zealand are taking steps to upgrade the level of awareness of the requirements of the Act in this regard.

The consultative process does, of course, slow down the preparation and consideration of applications. It is made more difficult by the fact that GMO applications involve a new and complex science on which most New Zealanders are uniformed, and towards which most have some suspicion. Moreoever, as with Treaty claims and RMA consent applications, for example, the obligations to take into account and to protect the interests of Māori relate not only to land and waterways, or flora and fauna, which could be at risk from the introduction of GMOs as well as hazardous substances, but also to the spiritual beliefs which give these the status of taonga.

In a sense the obligations to Māori under the Act encapsulate all the concerns that the public have towards this new and developing science, but with the additional overlay of Māori cultural beliefs from which their concerns derive. Dealing with them is not straight-forward. But the Authority has taken the view that it needs to put every effort into ensuring that the concerns are understood and addressed, and properly dealt with under the Act, and that applicants recognise the role they have to play in this process.

The Authority has a responsibility too, to ensure that the wider New Zealand public understand the concerns and they way they have been dealt with in its decisions. It is too soon to say that a pattern has emerged from the Authority's consideration of these matters and a continuing dialogue with relevant iwi and with Nga Kaihautu will be critical to developing a body of precedent which addresses both traditional cultural values and the role of contemporary science in New Zealand.

Conclusion

In conclusion, may I remind you that the Authority's task is not to decide whether genetically modified organisms should exist in New Zealand or not. Our Act assumes that GMOs do form part of our scientific activities. Our task is to ensure that where new GMOs are to be imported, developed, field tested or released, this shall only be under circumstances where the benefits outweigh any risks to the environment and human health. Everything else is secondary to the objective of ensuring that GMOs are managed in a manner that is safe to the environment and human health. If applicants cannot satisfy the Authority, the provisions of the Act and our Methodology on this matter of safety, their applications will be declined.

And, may I also remind you that we have other things to do - in the months ahead I see the focus of our work shifting to new organisms and hazardous substances - and we are looking forward to the challenge.

Gerrard Albert - Chair Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao

Session 2: New Organisms and HSNO - a review of progress since July 1998: lessons learned and suggestions for ERMA New Zealand processes.

Kaati, e tuu tautoko ana i nga whakaritenga o te rangi nei, otiraa, nga mihi kua mihia i waenganui i a taatau te kaupapa tangata, teenaa taatau.

Despite a feeling of anxiousness leading up to this address, I have nevertheless looked forward to the opportunity to make succinct, and hopefully, useful observations for you on what has been a challenging time for Nga Kaihautu and the Authority. In doing so, I must say that it has not been an easy task to draw from what has essentially been a shared experience and present it to you from a personal perspective. And it is hardly a straightforward matter of listing the relative successes or failures of the group, as anyone who has served in an advisory capacity similar to that of Nga Kaihautu will know that success or failure is often not easy to measure. However, I hope what I am about to offer will challenge you to think about the opportunities that exist within the context of your own work when dealing with issues Māori.

Since its establishment in 1997, Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao has advised the Authority on three fronts. The first was in the design and building of this new advisory group, which at that time was simply referred to by the Authority as "Te Koomiti Māori" (the Māori Committee). This less than flattering name in itself will give you an appreciation that we were pretty much building from the ground up here, although precedents for such advisory bodies did exist in various shapes and forms. Without going into unnecessary detail, the Authority and those of us who originally formed "Te Koomiti Māori" managed to commit to a relationship bound by a Memorandum of Understanding which itself took over a year to finalise from draft form.

The second was to advise the Authority on implementation of policy and measures required to give effect to Sections 6(d) and 8 of the HSNO Act, in other words, the core purpose of the group. It was through this process, the drafting and finalisation of the Māori protocol, user guide and other policy documents, that we were first alerted to the potential 'non-fit' that existed between the legislative framework provided by HSNO, and cultural and spiritual values. Yet this mismatch was not totally unexpected, as most of us had dealt with similar cultural and spiritual provisions within the framework of the Resource Management Act. In any case, as any intrepid young policy analyst will freely admit, policy formulation is a relatively straightforward task. It is the interpretation, application and implementation of that policy that is often fraught with difficulty.

In saying this, the third and most contentious area of work has latterly been the application of this policy in practice, particularly in dealing with applications for GMOs. Typically, hapuu, iwi, or individual Māori have objected to such applications on the basis of cultural and spiritual affronts. Some of these applications you will all no doubt be familiar with, most notable of which are the applications by PPL Therapeutics and Ag Research to field trial transgenic animals (sheep and cattle) with human genomes.

In each instance Nga Kaihautu has recommended that the Authority decline the applications in light of the objections put forward by hapuu and iwi, based on what we consider to be a lack of quantitative and qualitative research on the potential risk of GMOs to Māori. To date the Authority has yet to decline a GMO application, let alone one that has come down to the weighing of Māori cultural and spiritual risks with the costs against the benefits of the application.

I will hardly be letting the cat out of the bag by stating that the Authority is struggling somewhat to deal with the Māori cultural and spiritual issues within the context of applications, in that it seems that the legislative framework of the HSNO Act is woefully inadequate to deal with them, if at all this was its intended purpose. It is at this point that I should turn to one or two examples to demonstrate what I see as having constituted missed opportunities to circumvent the Act's inadequacies by taking responsibility to address the issues at the right time and via the correct process. By doing this, I will largely be talking to potential applicants, though there are lessons for all to be taken here.

One key issue has been the approval of "low risk" genetic modifications by Institutional Biological Safety Committees (IBSC's) who have delegated power from the Authority to approve these types of applications. In 1999, approvals were given by IBSC's to carry out low risk GM work on various indigenous species including the kokako, saddleback, seven species of shell fish and the tuatara - applications which - put into a Māori cultural context - were hardly considered by Nga Kaihautu to be "low risk."

As a result, both Nga Kaihautu and the Authority established a special working group to investigate the approvals from IBSC's, and the use of indigenous flora and fauna and human genetic material for low risk GM experiments. It soon became apparent during the course of the review of the IBSC's that assessment of potential risk factors for Māori, or of even their views on such matters, were insufficient or non-existent. As a result, revised directives were given to IBSC's insisting that Māori be consulted on applications which involved the use of indigenous flora and fauna, and that local Māori be included on these committees. In the event that an IBSC was experiencing difficulty in consulting with Māori, or in dealing with the cultural issues raised, then the application should be referred back to ERMA.

I note that it is such concerns that have led to the WAI 262 indigenous flora and fauna claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. In short, this claim, lodged in 1991, argues that the Crown has failed to protect the Rangatiratanga of Māori over both their genetic resources and the cultural knowledge linked to those resources. Given this, I cannot accept that the research institutes involved in GM experimentation using native species were not at least generally aware that Māori have an interest in the use of these resources, though I accept that not everyone follows these issues as closely as might I do. At the Waitangi Tribunal hearing on the WAI 262 claim in Nelson in December 1999, Ngati Koata elder Jim Elkington, criticised an ERMA decision (made under delegation by a Massey University Biosafety Committee) to approve the gene mapping of tuatara. In doing so, he said that:

"The ERMA process is like the one Māori have suffered to their detriment under the Resource Management Act for many years, and does not reflect or enhance our Rangatiratanga".

An indication perhaps that Māori are frustrated by another decision making process that purports to deal with issues Māori, but fails miserably to do so with any real intent.

I therefore wonder what opportunities have been missed up to this stage to inform ourselves of where Māori sit in relation to the use of indigenous resources in GM experimentation, in order that we might achieve robust outcomes. For while not all hapu and iwi have been afforded the opportunity to participate in this debate thus far, there nether the less exists a relatively easily accessible body of evidence that will provide some guide to applicants. If not so in detail relevant to each and every application, then certainly by way of an overview of Māori concerns for the use of indigenous resources. This issue has recently been accentuated by the unearthing of unauthorised GMO developments taking place in research institutions throughout the country.

Indeed, these types of approvals highlight the fundamental difficulty of dealing with tangible and intangible risks to Māori. It also highlights the almost contradictory nature of the HSNO legislative framework, in that in the case of the AgResearch Cattle application, approval for the insertion of the human genome into the embryo was given via the IBSC process. In other words, there was no consultation whatsoever with Māori about this. The contradiction lies in the fact that once an application was lodged to field trial transgenic cattle carrying the human genome, the Authority has laboured over the very same cultural and spiritual issues which should have been apparent at the very beginning of the process.

One of my colleagues has referred to this process as "gradualism" or the breaking down of the process into incremental steps. The cumulative effects of this are that by the time the stage is reached for full consideration of the issues, critical decisions have already been made and thus constrain, to a greater or lesser degree, the decision making Authority. Nga Kaihautu sees this as a fundamental flaw in the HSNO process.

Despite this, Nga Kaihautu still felt that the opportunity was available to all parties to consider the views of tangata whenua, particularly in relation to the AgResearch GM cattle application. This opportunity presented itself once it was clear that Ngati Wairere, as tangata whenua in the locale of AgResearch Ruakura, held grave concerns for the metaphysical effect of the proposed experimentation on their people. The Authority, Nga Kaihautu, and the applicant at least agreed on one point - that fundamental to dealing with the cultural and spiritual concerns was the establishment of an ongoing relationship between Ngati Wairere and AgResearch. The only point of contention is whether this relationship should take place after the approval of the application or without the spectre of the application hanging over every ones heads. Certainly, Ngati Wairere resolved to approach dealing with the relationship issue void of the application continuing, and Nga Kaihautu agreed.

I wish not to delve too deeply into this application at this point. The Authority is yet to release its final decision and I note that Jaqui Amohanga is to participate in a panel discussion later this morning and will no doubt expand on Ngati Wairere's position. But I want to make the point here that where an opportunity exists to establish a relationship with tangata whenua exists it must be grasped. But in doing so there must be recognition of the fundamental principle of good faith.

As applicants, you will no doubt be well aware of your obligation to consult with Māori. Yet even after consultation has taken place, if issues come to light in the course of processing the application, then Nga Kaihautu still see benefit in taking time to address all of the issues fully. This may require you taking the hard option by withdrawing your application for the time being, yet this is an opportunity that consistently presents itself, but is not often taken. I hope by providing Nga Kaihautu's observations of dealing with the IBSC approval process and the Ag Research Cattle application, that such opportunities will become clearer to us all in that a measure of good faith will prevail in addressing issues Māori in the HSNO process and beyond.

Kaati rawa, kia ora no ra taatau katoa.

Phillipa Stevens - Hort Research, Mt Albert.

MaryAnne Howard-Clarke - NZRN NZRM, Rage, Wellington.

View from submitter

I have 4 children, 3 of whom have allergic conditions.

I am national spokes person for GE FREE New Zealand (RAGE) Inc. I am past president of Open Forum for health information. My particular field of in interest is diet and crime and Diet and Health and the relationship of how our bodies respond to what we eat.

Our food is a major factor in the Poor State of health, humans find themselves in. Soaring Healthcare costs threaten every democracy in the western world. New Zealand spends close to 6 billion on health care every year. Much of which could be saved. Unfortunately, Big business and their products are contributing to poor health and environmental degradation.

I have come to the conclusion that society has been duped by a system engaged in the pursuit of profit at the earth and consumers expense. GE for many people is the final straw on the onslaught on our food supply. Can it be right to GE every basic food component, if it hasn't been already, over the next few years. Then patent it and push it on to the market?

My awareness to genetic engineering was raised during my training as a midwife in London. The Geneticist that taught us said that GE could herald great things for the future in medicine but he also said that MAN had not the ethical or spiritual maturity to control the enormity of the potential. He also said that GE offered endless possibilities to science and big businesses, which were caught in that "paradigm".

Infinite intelligence has given us the ability to create almost anything from the atomic bomb to antibiotics. Some of these creations move humanity forward, others have the potential to destroy us.

Consumers are angry about genetic engineering. There is a collective revolt. "I am as mad as hell. And I am not going to take any more" said one member. Consumers distrust the scientific world now. For Scientists, even if they have their own reservations about genetic engineering, they have children to feed and educate and money to earn.

The legacy of disasters that science has left us and the current state of the earth is damming to their profession.

We cannot keep on doing what we are doing and expect a different result.

Time Magazine's year 2000 special edition focus was "how to save the planet". The earth's condition is critical. Man/Science has managed to bring the world to its devastating condition in an evolutionary blink of an eye.

In medicine, when there is call for a drug, its use is carefully weighed up. The fact is that although it might treat one condition, it also may have negative effects that only show up in time. Often what happens then is that another drug is needed to treat the negative effect of the first drug. The second drug often has negative effects also. As a medical profession I have seen that it is not uncommon for some people to have to take 10 or 20 tabs 3 times a day.

While genetic engineering may look appealing at first glance, what are the consequences? Scientists tell us that there will be casualties from genetic engineering and it is up to society to decide whether they want this new technology or not. In my own experience talking with consumers and consumer groups, I have seen consumers say a resounding NO to this technology.

The Areas of particular concern about genetic engineering are:

  • Ethical - is it right to put human genes in cows /sheep? Should we be tampering with an organism's unique genetic blueprint?
  • Legal - who is responsible if something goes wrong? For example - a health concern linked to eating a GE component? Should it be the Biotech Company who creates the new organism or the farmer who grows the GE seed? Or the manufacturer of the product, or possibly the retailer who sells the product? Or will only the consumer alone have to pay with their health?
  • Patents - Every basic food component e.g. wheat, rice, maize and potatoes to name a few, will be genetic engineering and patented and then pushed onto the market. Is it right for a handful of biotech companies to own our global food supply?
  • Economic issues - New Zealand is well regarded for its clean green image, and strong stance on environmental issues. Can we build on this?
  • Consumers worldwide are demanding pure food. The organic market is growing at an amazing pace. New Zealand can step into this niche market to obtain a unique position. The GE issue has perhaps highlighted the fact that the Food industry has not always had consumers best interests at heart when you consider some of the products on the market and the way they are processed. But it is up to us as parents and consumers to demand pure food.

Health issues

  • New allergens.
  • Toxic reactions.
  • New diseases.
  • Antibiotic resistance.
  • Deletion of important food elements.

Environmental issues

  • Damage to our ecosystem.
  • Superweeds.
  • Irreversible genetic pollution.
  • Harm to wild life and insects.
  • Change in natural habitats. Recent reports coming out of America, state that animal stock is not thriving on GE crops. Apparently they loose weight ,and marauding animals will go to great lengths to avoid GE crops and eat only organic or GE free. If animals are able to detect earthquakes, navigate vast distances and self medicate we need to ask ourselves - WHAT DO THEY KNOW THAT WE DON'T!

Spirituality issues

  • Do we have the right to play God?
  • Consider the ramifications of the chaos and complexity theory. Imagine a dam still and calm and throw a pebble into it. See the ripples flow out causing a chain reaction of ripple upon ripple. Now imagine 2 stones 4.10 stones and see how all the ripples effect each other until chaos reigns.

Nothing happens in isolation. Every change effects everything else.

Jacqui Amohanga

View from Māori participant.

Nga mihi atu kia koutou
Ko Tainui te Waka
Ko Kakepuku me Maungaroa nga Maunga
Ko Puniu me Mangapu nga awa
Ko Maniopoto me Waikato nga Iwi
Ko Kaputuhi me Mangatoatoa nga marae
No reira tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa.

Jacqui Amohanga is of Ngati Paretekawa and Ngati Kaputuhi, hapu from Ngati Maniapoto and the Waikato. Jacqui has been working on Tangata Whenua environmental management for over 8 years. Currently she works as a voluntary researcher for Te Kotuku Whenua Consultancy which is the Environmental agency for the hapu of Ngati Wairere. In addition she assists her people in the Ngati Maniapoto rohe with their environmental management. Jacqui was a principle voluntary researcher for Ngati Wairere who were involved in the AgResearch application for field testing in containment genetically modified cattle.

Speech Abstract

  • Sensitive Information;
  • Procedures at Hearing;
  • Time frames;
  • Definitions and terminology.

As a researcher for Ngati Wairere a substantial amount of information gathering was undertaken to enable the Ngati Wairere people to become informed on the HSNO application and its procedures with no resourcing being provided. Problem issues that arose during the process was the timeframes needed to collate and disseminate the information to as many of the local hapu to enable them to forward their views on the AgResearch application. In addition the terminology that is often used under the HSNO area and its frameworks both by the applicant and the authority proved to be an obstacle.

A Key aspect that assisted with the ERMA process were having the non Māori scientific information presented in a user friendly manner by the applicants scientist. Whilst the hearing process permits the use of Te Reo Māori and the ability to exclude the public for the purpose of protecting culturally sensitive information made it more accessible for the Māori scientific world views to be expressed there is however a reluctance by members participating in the HSNO process due to the mere fact that they are not involved in the decision making process over their mana whenua environmental resources. Issues as presented in our evidence such as Māori risk assessments particularly dealing with the metaphysical (spiritual) and physical aspects of Māori tikanga and kawa will continue to act as a problematic area under the HSNO process and in particularly the debate about whether the metaphysical Māori values can be quantified or ameliorated.

Future suggestions for Tangata Whenua participation under the HSNO Act.

Ensure that provisions are made available for Tangata Whenua to determine their own framework of consultation prior to being consulted. This may include issues of timeframe, confidentiality, dissemination of information, resourcing, intellectual property rights etc. To encourage Tangata Whenua to become informed of the HSNO provisions and how they may relate to their own tikanga and kawa (or ethics) prior to receiving an application. Establishment of a protocol agreement between mana whenua roopu the applicant and the authority.

 

Deborah Read - Senior Public Health Advisor Science and Research Group ERMA New Zealand

SESSION 3: From means to ends - looking to the future Key issues and outcomes for new organisms in New Zealand

The Generic Issues Programme

Applications for approval of new organisms under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 often raise the same issues. This has been particularly so for genetically modified organism (GMO) applications. A similar situation is expected for hazardous substances applications when the hazardous substances component of the Act commences.

In late 1999 the Authority decided to initiate a programme of work to produce a series of reference reports that would address some of these common issues.

The aim is to provide an up-to-date reference report on the issue based on a review of the scientific literature and/or other relevant information. The report is intended to help reduce duplication in processing applications and to be a reference for the Authority in its consideration of applications. The report will not substitute for consideration of the issue in the context of a particular application, but may in some instances provide a substantial basis for the Authority's consideration.

The main factor in selecting topics is identifying those issues that are common to several applications and where review is likely to give a useful result.

The process followed will vary according to the issue being reviewed. In general:

  • The topic will be selected by the Authority and the Authority or its relevant standing committee will oversee the review
    An ERMA New Zealand staff member will coordinate the review. The work may be done internally and/or contracted to an external expert(s).
  • A draft report will be prepared and peer reviewed.
  • The draft report will be advertised on the ERMA New Zealand website and available for external comment.
  • Comment will be sought from the Authority's Māori Advisory Committee, Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao, where there are Māori perspectives involved.
  • Depending on the comments and issues raised ERMA New Zealand may convene a workshop to discuss the information and its interpretation or application.
  • A final report is prepared for the Authority or Authority committee who will approve it for publication.
  • The final report will be publicly available from ERMA New Zealand including the website.

The topics currently under review are:

  • The use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GMOs.
  • Māori generic issues.

Use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GMOs

The objective of the antibiotic resistance marker gene project is to produce a reference report for the Authority that:

  • Evaluates the implications of the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GMOs. This includes the mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer, the likelihood of occurrence and under what circumstances, and the practical effects of such transfers, ie the level and nature of risk presented. The influence of the antibiotics involved is considered.
  • Provides some degree of comparative analysis of the risks of antibiotic resistance occurring by other means, whether that represented by GMOs is additive/cumulative and is significant in that context.
  • Considers the pros and cons of alternative selectable markers, including removal of antibiotic resistance marker genes from GMOs for release. This includes other risks that may be increased by the alternatives. The report reviews the relevant scientific literature and considers the reviews and recommendations of other agencies about the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes. It identifies the unresolved issues and the level of certainty/uncertainty that can be attributed to the current state of knowledge.
  • The draft report has been peer reviewed and is currently being revised prior to becoming available for wider comment. Its availability will be advertised on the website with a six week time frame for comments to be received by ERMA New Zealand.

The literature review has revealed many opinions but relatively few experimental data and widespread disagreement as to what constitutes acceptable risk when it comes to antibiotic resistance.

Irrespective of the scientific conclusions antibiotic resistance marker genes serve no useful purpose in the final GMO and alternative strategies exist such as removal of the gene or use of other selectable markers.

Māori generic issues

The objectives of the Māori generic issues project are to develop an approach to taking account of Māori cultural (in particular spiritual) concerns with regard to new organisms, including GMOs in HSNO decision-making, and to establish a more comprehensive understanding of the basis for these concerns.

This project is being carried out in three stages. These are:

  • Analysis of the information generated to date by ERMA New Zealand, the Authority or Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao to identify common issues, themes and information gaps about the relationship between Māori cultural and spiritual concerns and new organisms, and analysis of relevant precedents from other decision-making bodies in New Zealand.
  • Establishment of an Expert Working Group to conduct further research and report to the Authority.
  • Determination of the implications of the Working Group's research and report on the Authority's decision-making processes with respect to Māori issues.
  • Consultation with Māori will occur throughout the project. The project is due for completion by 31 March 2001 and is being overseen by the Authority and Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao.

Dr Val Orchard - ESR

Antibiotic resistance marker genes.

Outline of research on horizontal gene transfer - [pdf - 87 kb]

Mick Clout - Chair, IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group & Director, Centre for Invasive Species Research University of Auckland

New organisms: issues for biodiversity conservation

The spread of alien species around the world poses what is arguably the greatest current threat to biological diversity, and it is occurring at an ever-rising rate. Other threats, such as habitat clearance, over-harvesting and pollution are all, in the long term, potentially reversible. Given the right conditions, habitats can regenerate, over-harvested populations can recover and pollution can be cleaned up. Hazardous substances will eventually break down; even radioactive wastes have a limited life. By contrast, biological pollution, in the form of alien invasive species, reproduces itself and can get progressively worse with time. Mistakes made in introducing new organisms will have perpetual consequences, causing species extinctions, limiting future opportunities and incurring perpetual costs. The effects of alien species are especially severe in biologically isolated countries, such as New Zealand. We have a unique biodiversity that is highly vulnerable to alien invasive species. These facts demand that great caution be exercised in introducing any new organisms. Paradoxically, the best opportunities for reducing the impacts of existing invasive aliens in the long term may lie with biological control, involving the introduction of natural enemies and even the genetic engineering of new organisms for this purpose. The HSNO Act therefore has a major role to play in the conservation of native biodiversity, along with its partner legislation, the Biosecurity Act.

It may be too early yet to fully assess the effectiveness of HSNO, but among the technical issues that merit attention is the prediction of risks. The second schedule to the HSNO Act lists 43 prohibited organisms, but these are a strange mixture of 19 vertebrates (or groups thereof), 22 plants and only 2 invertebrates (both of them molluscs). How was this list arrived at, and does it need revision Is the idea of such a list redundant Are there objective ways of assessing risk by looking offshore for species that have already proved invasive in similar habitats elsewhere Extreme rigour and care is clearly required in the screening of new organisms for biocontrol. Are current procedures adequate for this And how should we handle the issue of GMOs for the biological control of alien invasive species.

Edward Ellison

Māori Issues: "Understanding Māori issues on new organisms and the environment, taking Māori views into account in the HSNO process"

Outputs - summary of key issues over last two years, how well has the HSNO Act worked to deal with these issues? Are HSNO objectives for the environment and public health being achieved? What do we need to to do in future to achieve desired outcomes?

To Ngāi Tahu whanui, whakapapa, is core to our identity, a treasured taonga, the link in the cultural and spiritual relationship we have with all elements of the environment, a relationship based on indigenous concepts. This cultural concept links Ngāi Tahu whanui with land, sea and the flora and fauna that inhabit that domain, an interconnected relationship explained in the creation traditions under pinning custom and lore.

Terms such as whakapapa, mauri, wairua, tapu, noa and kaitiaki are the glue that binds the people with the environment, reinforcing the connection to land and resources. The existence in our beliefs and customs of the primeval parents Rakinui (Sky Father) and Papatuanuku (Earth Mother) provides an overarching spiritual dimension.

The capacity for new technology to modify or alter tribal values and resources that are central to the identity and ethos of Ngāi Tahu is a key issue.

Researchers and research institutions have a great capacity to assist or diminish the relationship tangatawhenua hold with the environment and the natural resources which iwi have a whakapapa connection to. The degree of understanding that exists between researchers and Ngäi Tahu is in the early stages of evolution, this would be the same in most instances for other iwi. The recent spate of unauthorised research experiments that have been brought to light through the ERMA amnesty raises further issues of credibility and identifies a gap in responsible attitudes. The capacity for ERMA and research institutions to adequately monitor the range or research that is occurring, to ensure robust peer review processes are applied is reduced and reduced by the fact that so much of the research occurring in this country is market driven or captured research. The effectiveness of accountability processes have some uncertainties.

The issue is how well are the interests of iwi taken into account when research applications are considered by ERMA under the HSNO Act. It may be that iwi have higher threshold standards in respect of GMOs due to the cultural and spiritual associations with the natural resources and the tapu nature of whakapapa.

Funding of research is sourced from a range of sources, both public and commercial, given the significant public monies contributed to research there is a need to ensure Māori cultural values and concerns are given greater cognisance.

The HSNO legislation remains an enigma for many people, in contrast to the RMA or Conservation acts, which deal with tangible resources and values, such as land, water, air and preservation of indigenous bio diversity. Discussion of GMOs at hui or any gathering never fails to generate strong views and emotions, opinions invariably are focused on the 'relationship' issues perceived by tangatawhenua, the threat to the mauri or the wairua of a resource and the whakapapa connection of the iwi. GMOs represent to many of our people the 'unknown', and a threat to important cultural values.

How well does the consultation process work under the HSNO Act, and relevant sections? Sec 6(d), requiring the authority 'to take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga'. Also Sec 8, 'to take into account the Treaty of Waitangi'. There has also been a schedule developed of matters Māori that require attention when considering applications. Compliance with treaty imperatives and provision of resources to ensure that duty is given effect are moot points, and an important element in the precautionary menu.

Were the participation levels of Māori adequate when the legislation was being developed? ERMA have an active duty to inform iwi and protect their interest, this will require bridging the 'gap' that currently exists in understanding of the act and the environmental risks it is designed to address. What provisions in HSNO provide for monitoring of released organisms? and who is responsible for monitoring the long term effect issues?

Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao has been established to advise and provide input on ERMA consideration of applications. This committee provides a broad Māori perspective on matters coming before the Authority, and is a useful model. It does not substitute for consultation with iwi or tangatawhenua in specific areas for specific resources or taonga that may be subject to research or release. The function of traditional guardianship (a loose interpretation of kaitiakitanga) is a responsibility that can only be exercised by those with whakapapa connection, and customary authority for specific resources and taonga management.

Establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate genetic modification is welcome, and should result in improved understanding and appreciation of the capacity of the HSNO act to deliver positive outcomes. This should result in closer scrutiny to cultural, spiritual and ethical standards.

To date two approvals have been made by HSNO for release into field trials in Te Waipounamu, applications for GM sugarbeet and GM potato trials in the Canterbury region. The kaitiaki Rānanga agreed to the releases in each case.

Ngāi Tahu recognise the value of research and development, and the need for resilient processes that maximise risk aversion.

The options open to ERMA, science and research might include;

  • engage with and expand linkages with iwi Māori;
  • develop stronger precautionary processes;
  • implement monitoring of long term effects of GMO releases;
  • ensure provisions are in place to monitor organisms contained for use in weaponry / deliberately harmful purposes;
  • develop a national policy statement to underpin the HSNO Act;
  • amend the HSNO Act to provide for the above;

Knowledge and information sharing must be key outcomes, the exercise of tino rangatiratanga is reliant on access to quality information in a timely manner. Ethics are about doing good, in the assessment of potential impacts on cultural values it is the kaitiaki who are well positioned to make such calls. To make ethical decisions the integration of Tangata Whenua values and involvement is necessary.

Friday 30 June.

Stephen Thornton - Manager Policy and Analysis, ERMA New Zealand

Establishment of the New Zealand Risk Management Society [pdf - 107 kb].

Janet Gough - Environmental Risk Management: principles and process

Session 5: Environmental Risk Management

Introduction to the Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand Environmental Risk Management Handbook [pdf - 192 kb].

Introduction

In 1995 Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand published the joint risk management standards (AS/NZS 4360: Risk Management). This standard is a generic document that can be applied to all organisations, and all disciplines. By its nature, therefore, it does not address the detail of the specific issues that risk managers working in specialist areas face in applying the standard. Applying a generic standard often requires additional guidance, and the risk management committee recognised the need to develop a series of guides or handbooks to provide this guidance in a practical form.

To date three handbooks have been published:

  • Risk Financing HB 141: 1999.
  • A basic introduction to managing risk HB 142: 1999.
  • Guidelines for managing risk in the Australian and New Zealand Public Sector HB 143: 1999.

Four further handbooks are being printed:

  • Environmental risk management: principles and processes.
  • Risk management guidelines for emergency management.
  • Risk management for information security.
  • Risk management guidelines for outsourcing.

Three working parties are preparing guidelines for risk management in the areas of:

  • Risk management and corporate governance.
  • Occupational Safety and Health.
  • Health risk management.

The environmental risk management 'guide'

The risk management committee recognised the importance of environmental risk management and initiated preparation of this guide in 1997. In this case, rather than the working party comprising a subset of the main risk management committee (as was the case for most of the rest of the guides/handbooks) Standards Australia established a separate committee. Members were selected from experts in environmental risk management and environmental management, rather than representing particular sectors. Notwithstanding, an attempt was made to ensure that a range of sectors were represented.

The environmental risk management committee has worked over nearly three years to develop and refine the document. As well as the members who attended these drafting meetings a small group of corresponding members from both Australia and New Zealand provided advice and assistance. In mid 1997 Standards Australia held a workshop in Melbourne with the assistance of the Environmental Council of Australia and the Minerals Council of Australia. A group of Senior Managers and Officials from Australian industry and government were invited to introduce the environmental risk management document and to speak to how they saw it being used in their own organisation. Over two hundred participants reviewed the document at the workshop and provided direction and support for further development. As a result some significant changes were made in style and content.

In late 1999 the document was circulated to an extended peer review group for final comment. The committee met in February to review and confirm changes before the document was sent to an external editor and thus entered the publication process.

Purpose

The purpose of the document is to help individuals and organizations to understand environmental risk management, and to implement environmental risk management programs based on the generic process set out AS/NZS 4360, Risk management. It can be used to inform management and staff about environmental risk management as a framework for strategic planning and decision making to implement environmental risk management at operational and strategic levels as a tool within an organization's environmental management system to provide guidance for drafting briefs when engaging consultants

Audience

The intended audience is 'Young' (ie inexperienced) environmental manager Non environmental specialist professional managers/supervisors to General public

Scope of the document

Environmental risk management is concerned with managing risks to the environment including people and communities as well as the natural environment.

Environmental risks can be grouped into two categories:

1) Risk to the environment.
This type of risk recognises that activities of an organisation can cause some form of environmental change. Environmental risks can relate to flora and fauna; human health and wellbeing; human social and cultural welfare; earth, air and water resources; energy and climate. The scope of each particular study needs to be defined.

2) Risk to an organisation from environment-related issues.
This includes the risk of not complying with existing (or future) legislation and criteria. Other risks include business losses an organisation may suffer as a result of poor management, such as loss of reputation, fines, costs of litigation, and from failure to secure and maintain permission for development and operational activities.

Health and safety issues and risk management for emergency management can be significant issues for environmental risk. However, other guidance documents being prepared by Standards Australia address these issues, and to avoid duplication, they are not addressed in the environmental risk management guide.

Application of Environmental Risk Management (ERM)

In the same way that risk management is an integral part of an organisation's operations, so too, environmental risk management is an integral part of risk management. All organisations should consider aspects of the environment as part of their normal risk management activities.

While risk management is normally considered in the context of an organisation, it is equally applicable to activities and individual projects. It is often used as a framework for either structuring or reviewing activities and projects. Environmental risk management is therefore often used in conjunction with the development and implementation of an environmental management system.

Specifically, environmental risk management can be used to:

  • identify areas of environmental risk within an organisation and evaluate potential environmental effects of proposed or existing projects, programs and policies;
  • assist in implementing an environmental risk management plan;
  • identify areas of lack of compliance with environmental legislation;
  • increase understanding of the application of, and linkages between different environmental management tools and general systems management tools;
  • provide the basis for the preparation of educational material for the broader community;

Special features of environmental risk management

Environmental risk management needs to take account of the complexity of the environment, caused by the large number of ecosystems and organisms, and how they interact with one another and their surroundings. This introduces significant uncertainty.

Environmental decisions and predictions often have long time spans, and make assumptions about impacts, such as effects on future generations. Because of this difficulty in making accurate projections, decisions must often be made when there is still significant scientific uncertainty about the potential outcomes.

Factors that affect environmental risk management include:

  • a lack of data, or limited data sets, and the need to make assumptions;
  • natural variability;
  • application of immature sciences with large differences of opinion at a scientific level on the most suitable actions to take or outcome to be achieved;
  • long time spans (e.g. as well as safeguarding the interests of future generations, ecological change may emerge slowly, due to delay between cause and effect);
  • potential effects on the environment and economic welfare locally, and on regional, national, international and global scales, and the potential for irreversible outcomes;
  • the complex and extensive web of stakeholders, with the possibility that those with little control over their exposure may be adversely affected;
  • lack of a clear direct link between some environmental effects and causes

The guide does not specifically address the application of the precautionary principle, but it does note that adoption of the principle or a precautionary approach is one way of addressing the inherent uncertainty and ignorance associated with environmental decisions. Organisations have to take decisions, but in some cases the decision-maker must explicitly recognise that unknown factors exist. The precautionary principle is enshrined in Australian legislation through the principles of environmentally sustainable development agreed by the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment signed in 1992. In New Zealand the HSNO Act requires decision makers to be cautious when there is significant scientific and technical uncertainty.

In revising the generic risk management standard (AS/NZS 4360) in 1999, the risk management committee recognised the importance of communication in risk management. Communication is particularly important in environmental risk management because of the large number of stakeholders and interested parties that need to be considered in making decisions about environmental risk.

Communication may be internal to an organisation or external, between the organisation and interested parties. In some cases an organisation may not want to communicate with interested parties because of confidentiality issues, but communication should be considered. Environmental risk issues often affect the general public, whether it be local communities, or the public at large. The reasons for undertaking communication is that if communication is omitted, projects or proposals may fail because there is no 'buy-in' by affected parties. This is important both for commercial organisations and non-commercial organisations including public sector organisations.

Publication of the Guide

The document is currently in the process of publication, and should be available on the Standards Australian Web site at http://www.standards.org.au/.

Standards New Zealand will have copies available shortly. It is not intended that this document should be static, and therefore the committee would be grateful for any comment that you might have that could assist us in improving it. Please send your comments to:

Janet Gough,
16 Merlincote Crescent Governors Bay,
RD 1 Lyttelton,
janetg@ihug.co.nz.

OR

Geoff Clarke Standards Australia,
P.O. Box 1055,
Strathfield,
NSW 2135,
Australia.
geoff.clarke@standards.com.au

Professor Jean Cross - School of Safety Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, AustraliaChair of the Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (SA/SNZ) Risk Management Committee

Environmental Risk Management - what is it, why is it important, key international trends, why companies need to do ERM, standards and good professional practice

What is risk management?

Risk management is defined in the Australia/ New Zealand standard as and "the culture, processes and structures which are directed towards the effective management of potential opportunities and adverse effects." In plain English risk management encompasses all the things you need to have and to do to manage an uncertain future. It is important to recognise that risk has both potential benefits and potential costs. Risk is an inevitable consequence of change and risks are generally taken so as to achieve some benefit. It is not the purpose of risk management to stifle innovation and change but to ensure it can occur without taking unacceptable risks and to ensure that risks which do exist are managed in the best possible way.

The culture of risk management involves a proactive, forward looking approach, It involves thinking about what might happen rather than working from past failures. Risk management concerns rare catastrophic events and long term outcomes as well as day to day decisions. Thinking has to be long term and strategic. The culture of risk management requires logical consideration of data as a basis for decisions. A consultative approach is essential because without team work and involvement, important issues will remain unidentified, and procedures to control risk will not be fully effective. Finally, while it is not intended that risk management processes should necessarily be defined and audited in the same way as environmental management systems are audited against ISO 14000, traceability and auditability are important aspects of the risk management culture. The processes of risk management are the techniques which have been developed to perform the different steps that must be followed to manage risk effectively. These steps are establishing the context, identifying and assessing risks, setting up systems to treat the risks and monitoring. Communication and consultation should occur at all stages.

The structures of risk management are the management structures that link risk management into the overall management system of an organisation. They include structures to provide accountability, communication and resources for managing risk

Why is risk management important?

As the pace of change increases there is inevitably also increasing uncertainty. It is less and less possible to rely on past history to make decisions about the future or to rely on past procedures working in the modern world. With globalisation and more complex infrastructure the effects of a loss are more far reaching than in the past. Not only are the potential consequences of loss greater because of the greater complexity of infrastructure but there is also a greater awareness of loss and less tolerance to large losses particularly where these relate to safety or the environment. Perhaps the most important driver of the rise of risk management in recent years has been court decisions that make Directors more personally responsible when things go wrong. Top management therefore want to be assured that risks are being managed properly and also want an integrated risk management system rather than a system where risks are managed in different sections with few links.

AS/NZS4360

At the beginning of the 1990s risk management was becoming prominent and major organisations were trying to introduce an integrated risk management system which covered all risks. However the people managing different risk areas such as environment , safety, health, security, IT, finance, audit and insurance were all using different terminology to talk about basically the same thing. In addition the increasing demand for risk management services meant people were attaching the name risk management to small parts of the whole process and selling it as if it were a risk management system. There was a particular tendency to sell solutions to risk problems as risk management without proper identification or analysis of the true risks.

How the standard was developed

People from all different types of organisation and different types of risk were put together on a committee. The group included academics, and people from government and industry from New Zealand and from different states of Australia. The first debate was whether it was actually important or even intrinsically possible to standardise on a single process of risk management for all organisations and all risks or whether issues were so different processes had to be different too. This debate was not without heat at times but eventually it was decided that a standard could be written to cover the general aspects of good practice for managing any risk and that handbooks could then be provided to deal with the special issues of different risks As a first step it was agreed that risk management involved identifying risks, assessing risks and controlling them. However there was not a consistent definition of the word control. Safety people meant reduce risk, financial people included insurance as a means of risk control , health and environment people prefered to use the word "manage" instead of "control." This dilemma was solved by using a new word we could all tolerate. The process became identify, assess, and treat risks. With little discussion all agreed that monitoring and feedback was an essential part of the process. Use of this terminology brings about a particular difficulty when dealing with environment risks because in the USA a different terminology is used. The protagonists for the American terminology strongly argue for a clear distinction between risk assessment as the part of the process carried out by experts and risk management as the part carried out by decision makers who are responsible for implementing their decisions and bear responsibility for the risk. Identification of hazards and risks is seen as part of risk assessment process. The committee did not want to perpetuate the use of the word risk management to mean both the whole process and the subset of the process carried out by decision makers and wished to have a universal terminology which could be applied to all risks. The need to separate the role of the assessor from that of the decision maker was dealt with by recognising risk assessment to have two stages, analysis in which facts are gathered, and evaluation in which decisions are made. This had the advantage of being compatible with European standards on Risk Analysis of Technological systems. Two factors came up at this stage. First the standard was not intended to stifle innovation in business but to encourage business to balance the potential for loss and gain and make decisions with a clear understanding of risks. Risk is not always bad Risk was therefore defined as "the chance of something happening that will impact on objectives" where the impact might be good or bad.

Finally the committee recognised that there was considerable background work that had to be carried out before starting to identify risks. This includes getting to know the organisation and how it operates. For example one needs to know the objectives of an organisation and the stakeholders before seeking those things that will have an impact on objectives. Risk affects different stakeholders in different ways so in order to identify risks one must know who the stakeholders are. Risks may be affected by outside influences, for example government policy and natural events. These too must be identified. Questions about the criteria for defining acceptability and tolerability of risk need to be considered before the risks are identified and assessed because the criteria will affect what is important in identification and how assessment must be carried out Finally there must be a proper planning process so it can be decided which risks are most important and where to start in detailed risk management studies. This preparation step was called "establish the context."

The process was then considered complete and the committee turned to considering whether anything else should be included in the Standard. The outcome was the sections on infrastructure and implementation. It is clear that if risk management processes are to be introduced one needs the same infrastructure that is required for implementing management systems for those risks. ISO 14000 and 9000 already described management systems for two particular kinds of risk so we simply lifted one of these into AS/NZS 4360. It happened to come from ISO9000. The standard was published in 1995 and the committee broke up into working groups, brought in new experts and started writing guidelines of which Environmental risk management is one. It rapidly became clear to all groups, that the diagram of the risk management process was not complete. All handbooks needed to stress the importance of communication and consultation which was not discussed adequately in the 1995 version of the Standard. This was adjusted together with some changes in terminology to better fit with International Standards and the new version was published in 1999

AS/NZS 4360 has been highly successful. One measure of its success was its rapid growth of sales to becoming within in few months one of the highest selling standards in Australia. Perhaps more importantly organisations in Australia and New Zealand and overseas who are trying to integrate management of risk are using the standard as a basis for developing their own systems. The IEC standards committee on dependability has used it in the standard on Project Risk Management. The National Health Service in the UK has used as the basis for a system for integrating clinical and operational risk management in Health Care. ISO considered an international standard on risk management but this was eventually voted against mainly because of people''s fears that there would be yet another management standard to be audited against. However ISO is preparing a document on risk management terminology which picks up most of the Australian/ New Zealand usage.

Environmental Risk Management (ERM)

The working parting for Environmental risk management had a particularly interesting task in writing a handbook. ISO 14000 was well established but used terminology and more importantly concepts that were slightly different to those used in AS/NZS4360. Aspects and Impacts as defined in ISO 14000 do not relate exactly to sources of risk and areas of impact as used in AS/NZS4360 but the differences are not easy to explain simply (and arguably do not really matter ) There was also the need for the Committee to formally think through the link between Environmental Management Systems and Risk Management systems. This would be easy if Risk Management had been first and the Environment was seen as one of the risks to manage but is more difficult to define to people who already have an EMS conforming to ISO 14000 and who are trying to fit risk management in as a subset of an EMS The question is in practice academic because the day to day life of someone who has to manage environmental risks does not consist of rigidly following steps of a management system defined in a standard. The risk management culture and process is used in making any decisions which are part of the environmental management system. and implementation of an EMS can be considered to be a way of treating environmental risks at a strategic organisational level.

Environmental Risk Management in Organisations

Environmental risks need to be considered at a political policy level and at a strategic level within organisations as well as when considering day to day operations as part of an environmental management system. It is sometimes argued that the level of uncertainty in environmental risk assessment is so high that trying to assess risks in a meaningful way is not worth the effort. The decision maker may feel they cannot understand the complexities of the environment and the methodologies of risk assessment and are in no better position to make a decision once an assessment has been completed. However the only alternative to risk management is risky management. Decisions must be made and results will follow. Even doing nothing has its impact. Decisions can be based on the best analysis of data, incomplete and inadequate as it may be, or on politics gut feel and risk perception. A best estimate of potential outcomes together with a discussion of the uncertainties is still a better basis for decisions than no analysis. From an organisational view point failure to demonstrably identify, assess and treat risks to the environment will incur costs to reputation, reduced ability to operate in the community or to be allowed future developments and possibly fines and clean up costs. Nobody whether an individual or a manager wants to be responsible for environmental degredation. There is in reality no choice but to manage environmental risks and this can be done wisely or poorly.

Managers who are reluctant to embrace risk asessment as part of environmental management do however have some valid points which need to be addressed. In some areas of risk assessment standard methodologies have been developed and standard criteria of acceptability defined to fit the methodologies. An example is the methods used to assess the risk to human life at the boundaries of a chemical plant and the requirement that the fatality risk must be less than 1 in a million per year. For many environmental risks there is not a single easily identified quantitative measure of environmental impact, and criteria such as sustainability and biodiversity cannot be easily predicted by a standard methodology. Decisions are based more on reasoned judgement from a range of qualitative and quantitative data than on decision rules. There is no easy decision rule and the manager may not have environmental technical expertise. The key to this problem is communication and involvement of the decision maker in the risk assessment process. Standard methodologies of risk assessment are useful but there is a danger that some environmental risks will not be adequately considered because there is no standard assessment methodology developed. This is an argument for a focus on the early steps of the risk management process; defining the context and identifying and prioritising risk issues. This will ensure that important issues are not overlooked because there are no standard methods of assessment and allow communication issues to be addressed

Challenges for environmental risk management in the future

The greatest challenge to environmental risk management in the future is the same as it has been for the previous century. That is how to identify and assess the risks of new developments where the impacts may not eventuate for decades. Uncertainties are huge and the directions that economic development will take new inventions are even more difficult to predict than environmental impacts in particular circumstances. We can barely envisage the sort of world we expect in 10 years time let alone 50 - 100 years.yet that is the world with which environmental risk management must be concerned. We would not retrospectively have banned the internal combustion engine although it is today one of the biggest causes of environmental damage. It has taken more than 60 years for the risks of emissions from cars and trucks to be fully recognised and a world dominated by cars would have been impossible to imagine when the first cars were built. Could we have managed the environmental risks of vehicles better and if so at what stage of development? Similar questions apply now to the development of third world countries, to an economic system where growth is necessary for success, to some of the latest scientific advances in genetic engineering and perhaps to some areas we have not even considered We need improved methods for identifying and assessing risks for policy decisions as well as better methods for identifying and assessing risks to help decision makers at an organisational and local government level. Finally we need the risk management culture where what if thinking applies the risk management process informally to day to day decisions so as to take advantage of business opportunities, minimise environmental harm and enhance and protect the environment.

Overview of AS/NZS 4360: Risk Management, 1999 [pdf - 323 kb].

Steve Thornton and Donald Hannah - ERMA New Zealand

Risk identification and risk assessment - best practice under HSNO [pdf - 107 kb].

Kevin Currie - ERMA New Zealand

Unauthorised GMO developments [pdf - 139 kb]