http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2145013a7693,00.html Maize report finds legal and accountability confusion 20 December 2002 nzpa An independent report into how the discovery of genetically-engineered (GE) maize in New Zealand was handled has found confusion over accountability and legislation. Released today, the review, done by Don McGregor for the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), found there was confusion over which organisation was responsible for handling the case and what legislation it came under. Earlier this year, Pacific Seeds Ltd notified MAF when it found GE maize in seed made in New Zealand on its behalf by contract growers in Gisborne and Pukekohe. Pacific Seeds destroyed the accidentally GE-tainted crop but called for New Zealand's zero tolerance policy to be changed "to a more realistic level". Today's review, based on interviews with people involved in the case, focused on how departments and agencies handled the scare. It said confusion was caused because The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act was complicated. Also, people interviewed said it was written to consider deliberate introductions but not unintended ones. Most people involved thought the maize case came under the HSNO Act, but others thought it was a Biosecurity Act issue. "Most (of those interviewed) agreed that it would have been much easier to handle the incident if it had fallen unambiguously within the ambit of the Biosecurity Act," the report said. Legislative confusion created accountability issues too. "At interviews, lines of accountability were variously described as 'messy', 'fuzzy' or 'confused'," the report said, noting that the bulk of interviewees felt the HSNO was to blame. "Whatever the reason, lack of clarity about accountability erodes efficient and effective management of incidents. "It is highly desirable, if not essential, that all people involved in incidents like this share a common view of accountability." The report said it would be a mistake to rely on improved legislation to solve the problem, and MAF and ERMA needed to work together to clarify roles. Another finding was that testing of seeds took too long and a decision on how to manage the affected fields was not made quickly enough. Also, it took "far too long" to decide how to clean up the sites. However, "there was general agreement that, while there were delays and wobbles along the way, the final outcome was satisfactory". The follow-up was hampered because many people and different agencies were involved, "but there was no one person acknowledged by all as responsible for overall co-ordination and management". The report said there was a "yawning gap" between ERMA's job of enforcing the act and MAF's responsibility for enforcement officers. Communication about the maize had been open, the report found. Professor McGregor, former chief scientist with the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, said it was likely that similar or more serious incidents would happen in future and steps needed to be taken to prepare for that. Legislative and operational recommendations were that: MAF and ERMA make submissions to a review of the new organisms provisions of the HSNO Act on their experiences and difficulties in interpreting and operating the act during the incident; ERMA and MAF consider whether and how the HS NO Act could be changed to clarify the roles, responsibilities and powers of the ERMA, MAF's chief executive, and MAF-appointed enforcement officers in enforcing the act. Also to clarify and give better guidance on operational relationships between ERMA, enforcement agencies and enforcement officers; a review of relevant provisions of the Biosecurity Act be done alongside the new organisms provisions of the HSNO Act review so that the acts are better aligned, and 'seamless' in their operation; MAF, in consultation with other departments and agencies, consider whether and how the Biosecurity Act might be amended so that unintentional release into the environment of any new unapproved organism - which is not an unwanted organism - comes under the Biosecurity Act; MAF and the Environment Ministry investigate whether and how the HSNO Act might be amended to align it with the Biosecurity Act over cost recovery; MAF and ERMA ensure they are ready for handling similar or more serious incidents involving less co-operative companies or individuals; ERMA and MAF review and revise their relationship and how they work together and also work "continuously" to improve their operational relationships for handling breaches of the new organisms provisions of the HSNO Act. Also that they develop a generic framework for management of future incidents; MAF prepare an operational protocol and performance standards for collection, despatch and monitoring of seed and other biological material for testing for GE contamination where there is urgency in obtaining results; and give staff training in the operation of the protocol; MAF and ERMA discuss how enforcement officers are trained and draw up a protocol specifying roles and responsibilities for guiding and directing officers in the discharge of their duties. And make sure enforcement officers meet legal requirements; MAF review every two years the effectiveness of its import health standards, and border detection and testing protocols for preventing the entry to New Zealand of unapproved GMOs; MAF and ERMA, as part of their contingency planning for handling future incidents, formulate a communications strategy that is open, transparent and fair to all parties, and which recognises the interests of the government, commercial organisations and other parties or individuals directly involved. MAF and ERMA assess the resources used in handling the maize incident and plan for future needs; and ERMA review its guidelines for its operations, and its delegations.