Weed Risk Assessment for the Australian Nursery & Garden Industry - Workshop
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Weed Risk Assessment for the Australian
Nursery & Garden Industry – Workshop
Date: Monday 11th April, 2011
Time: 9:30 am (for 9:45 am start) – 4.00 pm
Location: Maiden Theatre
Mrs Macquarie’s Road
Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney NSW 2000
Why? The workshop has two parts:
1. To evaluate the application of the existing Botanic Gardens
Weed Risk Assessment procedure (WRAP) with regards to
commercially produced ornamental taxa for cultivation by the
general public.
2. To develop a short list of 1,000 common ornamental taxa
using current nursery growing/availability lists for screening
using the WRAP
Attendees Roger Spencer, Anthony Kachenko, Michael Gleeson, Bruce Higgs,
Anthony Dali, Sarah Peacock, Barry Naylor, Michael Danelon, Robert
Chin, Hillary Cherry, Nicola Fidler, Paul Carmen, Birgitte Verbeek,
Rohan McDonald, Stephen Johnson, Andrew Perkins, Rob Smith
Apologies Scott Charlton, Frances Jackson, Tanya Leschev
Minutes
Weed Risk Assessment for the Australian Nursery & Garden
Industry – Workshop
ITEM TOPIC
1 W E L C O M E A N D AP O L O G I E S
A Kachenko formally declared the Weed Risk Assessment for the Australian Nursery &
Garden Industry – Workshop open at 9:50 am and extended a warm welcome to
participants. A Kachenko provided an outline of the agenda and indicated that Agenda
Item 11 NSW Review of Noxious Weed Act would be incorporated into Agenda Item 3
Overview of Existing State/Territory Risk Assessment/Regulation – NSW Example.
1A Kachenko noted that an apology for absence had been received from T Leschev from
Plant Pics, Scott Charlton from Industry & Investment NSW (I&I NSW) and Frances
Jackson from Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney. He noted that Birgitte Verbeek would be
late as she was delayed with flights.
SESSION 1
2 RIRDC G R A N T O V E R V I E W
A Kachenko provided an outline of the Australian Nursery & Garden Industry (NGI) and
expressed the worth of the industry along the horticultural supply chain. He advised the
group that the project was funded through RIRDC under Stage 2 of the National Weeds
and Productivity Research Plan 2010-2015. He noted that Sydney Botanic Gardens, I&I
NSW and NGI were driving this project in a collaborative nature. He provided an outline of
how the project was developed since November 2008 where I&I NSW initiated a plant
labelling workshop that discussed the need for a Weed Risk Assessment procedure
(WRAP) that could assist industry in identifying plants that might exhibit invasive
tendencies. He noted that the project would utilise an existing weed risk assessment
system known as Botanic Gardens Weed Risk Assessment procedure (WRAP), to screen
1,000 common ornamental taxa cultivated in Australian nurseries. The project could then
lead to the development of a ‘white list’ of safe plants.
Concern was raised by industry about the white list approach in that it could be used as a
definitive list of plants to grow. A Kachenko said that this would not occur as this project is
only a pilot and the list generated would help develop a white list and perhaps guide future
investment in assessing the many thousands of ornamental plants for their perceived risk.
A Kachenko also noted that he would maintain close relations with the regulators in
building this project to ensure that the outcomes were not misinterpreted. A Kachenko
provided an overview of the Outcomes and Objectives of this project and indicated that
the outcomes of the workshop were to:
• Understand the application of the existing Botanic Gardens Weed Risk
Assessment procedure (WRAP) with regards to commercially produced
ornamental taxa for cultivation by the general public.
• Develop a short list of 1,000 common ornamental taxa using current nursery
growing/availability lists for screening using the WRAP
He suggested that plants chosen for assessing using the WRAP would be from Köppen
Climates and would be assessed under the six key Köppen Climates including:
Equatorial, Tropical, Subtropical, Desert, Grassland and Temperate.
ACTION: A Kachenko to forward a copy of his PowerPoint presentation to
workshop participants.
3 O V E R V I E W O F E X I S T I N G S T A T E / T E R R I T O R Y R I S K A S S E S S M E N T /R E G U L AT I O N –
NSW E X AM P L E A N D NSW R E V I E W O F N O X I O U S W E E D A C T
2S Johnson provided an overview of Weed Risk Management and the Australian Weeds
Strategy. In his discussion, he outlined the Biosecurity Australia pre-border system based
on the Pheloung model. He also detailed the three post-border systems in Australia,
namely:
South Australia (New South Wales, Northern Territory and Future Farming CRC).
Victoria.
Queensland (current and proposed).
He noted that the Botanic Gardens Weed Risk Assessment process (WRAP, which was
based on the South Australian system) was an important tool to assess the risk posed by
plants in Botanic gardens in Australia.
He provided a definition of Risk as opposed to Risk Management and outlined the four
goals of the NSW Invasive Species Plan 2008-2015. He discussed an example of
regulation in NSW, the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 where one key objective is to “reduce
the negative impact of weeds on the economy, community and environment” on NSW.
The review of the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 was also discussed where consideration will
be given to a ‘permitted list’ or ‘white list’ approach.
With regards to this approach, a NSW permitted list could act as a de facto
complementary safeguard for national quarantine measures deterring prospective
commercial smugglers, who are less likely to smuggle seeds or other plant material into
Australia if they are unable to legally sell them. He noted that adopting a permitted list
approach in NSW would involve applying a WRA process like the Botanic Gardens
WRAP to determine a species’ invasiveness, negative impacts and potential to become
invasive. He said that linkage to the current national weed categorisation project was
needed to provide a consistent national approach to a list of restricted plants in each
jurisdiction. He stressed that a Black List would still exist and that legislative change
would be needed to account for a white list and potentially conditionally approved
commercial species
ACTION: S Johnson to forward a copy of his PowerPoint presentation to
workshop participants.
M O R N I N G T E A 11:00 – 11:20 AM
4 Botanic Gardens WRAP Overview
R Spencer provided workshop participants with an interactive overview of
the Botanic Gardens WRAP using an offline version of the tool. During
the presentation he outlined the ease of use associated with the tool
including the three stages in the tool.
• Stage 1 – checks for high risk plants (i.e. existing declared plants)
• Stage 2 – screens plants as per the 10 questions/sections of the
assessment tool
3 Stage 3 – provides management considerations based on the risk
associated with plants assessed by the WRAP
R Spencer explained the interface of the database and how existing plant data could be
accessed. Plant data was entered based on botanical nomenclature and ranked based on
low, medium or high risk. He noted that the program has a number of very useful features:
• By right clicking on the spreadsheets it is possible to export them to EXCEL, PDF,
WORD, HTML, XML EMAIL etc. as they appear on the screen
• All of the spreadsheet displays that are part of the system can be updated at RBG
Melbourne – so we can add/edit information on high risk weeds, native plants
known to hybridise etc. We plan to have the latest versions of these spreadsheets
available on our web site.
• It is possible to set the score levels that correspond to Low, Medium and High
5 L E A R N I N G ’ S F R O M T H E B O T A N I C G AR D E N S WR AP
During the presentation, workshop participants raised a number of issues for
consideration including:
• Who maintains the database and how often is it reviewed/updated?
• Issues in linking the database with other Botanic Gardens – consistency in
application across the Botanic Gardens
• Requirements of the user to understand the plant history and climatic differences
in plant performance across large expanses of Australia i.e. they must exhibit a
certain level of skill as well as display a sound horticultural knowledge
• Need for the WRAP to factor in cultivars, hybrids and ‘sterile’ plant taxa
• Need for some economic yield post assessment to reflect the commercial value of
the taxa
These issues were discussed and referred to Session 2.
L U N C H 12:30 P M – 1: 20 P M
SESSION 2
6 G R O W M E I N S T E A D ‘S A F E ’ P L A N T S
A Kachenko provided a historical update on Grow me Instead. He noted that it was a joint NGIA +
Defeating the Weed Menace Funded project that built on the original NSW version.
4It was a multi stakeholder project that opened up dialogue between industry, regulators
and various weed stakeholder groups. He noted that for each State/Territory (and in the
case of QLD, regions) ~25 invasive plants were listed with a minimum of three alternative
plants listed as suitable replacements. The criteria used for this included:
• Must be recognised as non-invasive.
• Must be readily available to the gardening public.
• Must be reliable garden plants.
A Kachenko distributed a list of ~470 plants that were selected as alternative plants
across the country. He suggested that these plants should be mandatorily run through the
project to back claims of each State/Territory booklet. The workshop participants agreed.
B Naylor indicated that there were approximately 90 additional plants listed in the QLD
booklets that were not picked up in this list.
ACTION: B Naylor to forward an electronic copy of the 90 additional plants to A
Kachenko
7 GROUPINGS OF PLANTS FOR WRA BASED ON KÖPPEN CLIMATES
The workshop participants indicated that it would be beneficial to run through the
assessment of two plants to familiarise themselves with the WRAP. Furthermore, they
indicated that this would be more useful than short listing the plants due to the
thousands of existing assessments already in the system. Participants suggested that A
Kachenko obtain a list of all the plants that have been run through the assessment
process to date and use this information to assist in developing the short list of 1,000
taxa to run through the WRAP.
ACTION: A Kachenko to request lists from all botanic gardens staff as to the
plants that have been assessed to assist in developing the 1,000 list of plants to
assess.
R Spencer provided delegates with an insightful look at how the assessment are
undertaken using the cutting grown improved form of Murrays paniculata ‘Smart jurd
clone’ as opposed to the seeding Murraya paniculata. The questions related to:
1. WEED HISTORY - What is the weed history of the plant?
2. COMPETITION - How well does the plant outcompete outcompete other types
of plants?
3. HEALTH - Is the plant a health risk to people and/or animals?
54. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS - Does the plant have attributes that, at high
density, can cause detrimental changes to the environment?
5. EASE OF CONTROL - How easy is the plant to kill?
6. HARDINESS - How well is the plant adapted to the local climate?
7. REPRODUCTION - How well does the plant reproduce?
8. NATURAL SPREAD - Are the plant's propagules (seed or vegetative) likely to
spread long distances to susceptible habitats by natural means?
9. HUMAN SPREAD - Are the plant's propagules (seed or vegetative) likely to
spread long distances due to human activities?
The process outlined some key issues for consideration including:
1. Question 1. The reference to regions needs to factor in the Köppen Climates as
opposed to Botanic Gardens
2. Questions 3. Health risks need to be linked in with the NGI National Plant
Labelling Guidelines.
3. Question 5. The attributes of the plants listed in the scientific paper do not marry
with the database and need to be updated.
4. Question 7. Reference to ‘garden’ should be removed and the options made
more generic.
5. Question 9. The reference to a 1 km boundary within 1 km of the gardens with
regards to how humans may spread plant material needs to be generalized to
refer simply to a 1 km distance. Similarly, reference to 5 km distance from the
gardens needs to refer to a 5 km distance.
6. Question 10. The reference to visitors should be replaced with ‘humans’
A Kachenko was requested to contact the IT company responsible for designing the
tool and seek clarification as to whether these modifications could be made. It was also
discussed that the revised version of the database should be able to list the risk
associated with each plant in the one central database for ease of use. Discussion on
the ability of this database to house a web portal was also discussed. A Kachenko said
that it would be linked in with www.growmeinstead.com.au.
ACTION: A Kachenko to contact the IT company responsible for the database and
ascertain the feasibility of updating the database as per the points detailed above.
A Kachenko noted that Agenda Item 8 and 9 were no longer relevant to the workshop
and were removed.
A F T E R N O O N T E A 2:45-3:00 P M
10 PR OJE CT TIM ELIN E
6A Kachenko provided a brief overview of the project timeline as follows:
April 2011 – This Introductory Workshop
April 2011 – December 2011 – Assessments from botanic
gardens staff with industry input
January 2012 – White list developed
February 2012 – Workshop 2 to review white list
March 2012 – April 2012 – Grow me Instead Website and Plant
Labelling Guidelines updated
May 2012 – Final Report to RIRDC
11 C O M M U N I C AT I O N – N E X T S T E P S
A Kachenko noted that the success of this project would rest on the ability to sell the value
of this project to all interested stakeholders. This included groups not represented at the
workshop such as regulatory agencies and lobby groups.
He noted minutes from the workshop would be drafted and circulated to the workgroup
promptly after the meeting as well as regular communications to ensure maximum level of
input from all interested parties.
A Kachenko noted that the project team delivering this project would seek employment of
a suitably skilled person in the coming months to undertake the assessments. This was
pending acceptance by the committee that the WRAP was suitable given changes to
reflect the workshop discussion. There was also the need that the 1,000 plants listed for
assessment were agreed to by the workshop participants, A Kachenko inferred that the
likely split would be 80% exotics versus 20% natives to ensure maximum penetration of
this project in addressing the issues of invasive plants.
7A Kachenko noted that three Clippings articles and two Nursery Papers would be drafted
as part of this project to ensure industry was abreast of the projects progress. He said that
he would attend the NGIA Conference in 2012 and NSW/VIC state weed conferences
2011 and present an update of this project. The Grow me Instead website as well as Plant
Labelling Guidelines would also be updated. A Kachenko mentioned that this data could
also be used on plant labels to get the results across to the consumer. Further discussion
on this aspect will continue as the project develops further over the coming months.
Issues flagged during the workshop were discussed including:
• Who maintains the database and how often is it reviewed/updated. A Kachenko
noted that NGIA would likely house the data, however regulatory agencies
pending legislative changes may also house the data.
• Issues in linking the database with other Botanic Gardens. A Kachenko noted that
he would investigate this when he makes contact with the IT provider.
• Requirements that the user understand the plant history and climatic differences in
plant performance across large expanses of Australia i.e. they must exhibit a
certain level of skill as well as display a sound horticultural knowledge. A
Kachenko noted that this would be a key consideration when selecting the
candidate to undertake the assessments.
• Need for the WRAP to factor in cultivars, hybrids and ‘sterile’ plant taxa. A
Kachenko said that this was a key consideration of the project and several
examples including the Murraya paniculata example would be included.
• Need for some economic yield post assessment to reflect the commercial value of
the taxa. A Kachenko said that this would likely occur in Stage 3 – Management
following review of the assessments. This would be discussed in the second
workshop scheduled for 2012. H Cherry noted that the Florida WRAP could be a
useful tool to assist in this process.
Fee for service was also discussed as a way for growers to assess their lines prior to
cultivation and release. Existing plant lines could also be assessed. This was noted for
discussion at workshop 2.
R Chin noted that future research should look at the process to scientifically validate the
sterility of a particular plant line. Participants agreed that this was important and should be
looked at in the future. It was noted that although relevant, it was outside the scope of this
project.
P Carmen indicated that he would provide A Kachenko with a contact to follow up with
regarding the Atlas of Australia Plants that might be useful in building the framework to
this project.
ACTION: P Carmen to provide A Kachenko with a contact to follow up with
regarding the Atlas of Australia Plants.
M E E T I N G C L O S E D A T 3:40 P M
8You can also read
