ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
DECISION
20 October 2003
Application code
NOC03003
Application type
To import into containment organisms under section 40(1)(a) of the
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act.
Applicant
Viacom Ltd
Purpose
Temporary importation of an Ursus arctos (Brown bear) to be used in
filming of the Paramount Pictures feature film “Without a Paddle”.
Date received
13 August 2003
Consideration
2 October 2003
Considered by
A sub-Committee of the New Organisms Standing Committee of the
Environmental Risk Management Authority (the Authority).
Summary of Decision
The application to import into containment the bear Ursus arctos is approved subject to
controls having been considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Hazardous
Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 and the HSNO (Methodology) Order
1988.
Legislative Criteria for application
The application was lodged pursuant to section 40 (1)(a) of the HSNO Act. The decision was
determined in accordance with section 45, taking into account additional matters to be
considered under section 44, and matters relevant to the purpose of the Act, as specified under
Part II of the HSNO Act
Consideration of the application followed the relevant provisions of the Hazardous
Substances and New Organisms (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology), but with
particular regard to clauses 12 (dealing with assessment of risks) and clauses 13 (dealing with
assessment of costs and benefits)
Application process
The application was formally received on 13 August and stalled under section 52 on 14
August 2003. Further information was received on 22 August. The application was not
publicly notified.
In accordance with clauses 2 (2) (e) and 5 of the Methodology and section 58(c) of the HSNO
Act, the Department of Conservation and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry were sent a
copy of the application and provided comment for the consideration process.
The application was considered by a sub-Committee of the New Organisms Standing
Committee of the Authority, appointed in accordance with clause 43 of the First Schedule,
and section 19(2)(b) of the HSNO Act. The sub-Committee comprised the following
members: Dr Lin Roberts (Chair), Mr Manuka Henare and Professor Colin Mantell.
The documents available for the evaluation and review of the application by ERMA New
Zealand included the application, a video about the training of the bear which was made
available to the Committee, and comment from the Department of Conservation. The
responses from MAF about appropriate containment were incorporated into the body of the
report.
Purpose of the application
The Committee considered that the purpose of the application was to display the organism to
the public. In accordance with section 45(1)(a)(i) of the HSNO Act, the Committee
determined that this was an appropriate purpose under section 39(1)(e), the public display of
any organism including but not limited to, display in a circus or zoological garden, as the bear
will be displayed on screen.
Consideration of the application
In accordance with clause 24 of the Methodology, the approach adopted by the Committee
was to look sequentially at identification, assessment and evaluation of risk, costs and
benefits. Management techniques were considered in relation to the identified risks (clauses
24 and 12) and those risks identified as significant were assessed (clause 12). Costs and
benefits were assessed in accordance with clause 13 of the Methodology.
Risk characteristics were then established, in accordance with clause 33 of the Methodology.
Finally, taking account of the risk characteristics established in accordance with clause 33 of
the Methodology, the combined impact of risks, costs and benefits was evaluated in
accordance with clause 34, and the cost-effectiveness of the application of controls was
considered in accordance with clause 35.
Identification of the significant risks, costs and benefits of the organism
Significant risks, costs and benefits identified for assessment and evaluation were as follows,
following clauses 9 and 10 of the Methodology, which incorporate sections 5, 6, and 8 of the
Act.

Risks to human health arising from the bear attacking people (clauses 9(c)(ii), and 10
(c))

Risks to the environment arising from the bear eating native flora and fauna should he
escape (clauses 9(a), 9(c)(i)&(ii), 10(a),(b),(d)-(f))
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMC00014
Page 2 of 8

Risks to Māori (clauses 9(b)(i), (c)(iv))

Risks associated with inseparable organisms (section 45 (a)(ii))

Benefits to the New Zealand film industry and local economy
Adequacy of the proposed containment and controls
In carrying out its consideration the Authority considered the adequacy of containment in
accordance with section 45(i)(a)(iii) of the Act, and the magnitude and probability of the
risks, costs and benefits at the same time and in an integrated fashion. This is because the
former interact with the latter and this is recognised in clause 12(d) of the Methodology and in
section 45(i)(a)(ii) of the Act. For convenience in setting out the decision the adequacy of
containment is discussed first.
The Committee’s consideration of the adequacy of the proposed containment regime focused
on the ability of the organism to escape from containment (section 44(b)). Other matters
relating to controls, but not containment were also considered.
The bear will be travelling in a trailer. This is his home where he sleeps and where he is kept
when he is not being trained or working. The bear will be travelling from USA in the trailer,
and then, after quarantine procedures are completed at Auckland Airport, the trailer will be
towed to Wellington. The trailer will be parked near the set, and will continue to act as the
bear’s sleeping quarters, and will be where he is kept when not training, recreating or
working. Surrounding the set and the bear’s trailer will be a single wire electric fence. The
bear has been trained since 4 months of age to stay behind this fence, and the fence will be
sign posted to prevent unintentional and unauthorised access to the bear (Control 6.2). When
the bear is outside his trailer, he must be accompanied by his trainer (Control 6.1). When the
bear is outside his trailer, there must also be posted a sentry with a dart gun containing a drug
that is able to immobilise the bear, in the event he becomes unmanageable (Control 6.3).
In view of the training of the bear, and the nature of the relationship between him and his
trainer, which means that this bear is highly dependent and entrained on humans, and with the
additional controls listed in this decision, the Committee is satisfied that this bear will be
adequately contained.
Ability of organism to establish an undesirable self-sustaining population and
ease of eradication
In accordance with sections 44 and 37 of the HSNO Act the Authority considered the ability
of the organism to establish an undesirable self-sustaining population, should it escape from
containment, and the ease with which such a population could be eradicated. In evaluating
these matters the Authority took into account the nature of the organism.
This male bear will be the only bear of his species present in New Zealand while he is here.
He is therefore unable to establish a self sustaining population.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMC00014
Page 3 of 8
Assessment of the risks (magnitude and probability of adverse effects) and
costs
The risks and costs assessed were those identified as potentially significant, having regard for
those matters set out in clauses 9 and 10 of the Methodology. Risks were considered in terms
of the requirements of clause 12 of the Methodology, including especially the assessment of
consequences and probabilities, the impact of uncertainty and the impact of risk management.
Costs were considered in terms of clause 13 of the Methodology.
The evidence available was largely scientific in nature and was considered in terms of clause
25 of the Methodology. This evidence was principally provided by the applicant and was
supplemented with additional evidence set out in the Evaluation and Review Report prepared
by the staff.
Risks to human or other animal health
The bear is being inspected by MAF personnel on arrival in New Zealand to ensure he is not
carrying any diseases, seeds, plant material or hitch-hiker organisms. His food is prepared to
the same standard as food for human consumption, and therefore he is unlikely to be carrying
infectious diseases. His excrement will be bagged and disposed of in accordance with
instructions from MAF. This is primarily a matter covered by the Biosecurity Act 1983.
The site where the filming is to take place, a privately owned block of land, will be cleared of
all farm animals before the arrival of the bear. This will reduced the likelihood of the bear
infecting any other animal with any disease to a negligible level. The inspection of the bear at
the border by MAF will also reduce the likelihood that the bear will be allowed into the
country while diseased.
The containment regime and the training of the bear are designed to prevent anyone coming
into contact with the bear without authorisation. If there was to be uncontrolled interaction
between the bear and a member of the public, there is a risk that the person could suffer
serious damage.
There is a very small risk that the bear may become uncontrollable during filming. To prevent
this becoming a risk to the wider community, the Committee has added a control requiring
there to be a dart gun operator present to render the bear unconscious should he escape
containment. The drugs in the gun can only be used in the presence of a veterinarian. A New
Zealand registered veterinarian will be present on site during filming (also representing the
American Humane Society).
Risks to the environment
The Committee considered potential adverse effects associated with the organisms on the
environment (including flora, fauna and ecosystem integrity), should the bear breach
containment. The effects are most likely to occur if the bear eats any flora, or catches any
animal which he may then eat. Although there is significant uncertainty as to these effects it is
unlikely the bear will be present in the environment long enough to eat any native flora or
fauna.
The Committee considers that the containment controls specified in this decision will make it
very unlikely for the bear to escape from containment, and that if he did escape, it is
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMC00014
Page 4 of 8
impossible for him to form a self-sustaining population. The Committee is thus confident that
the risk of either a short or long term adverse effect on the environment is negligible.
Effects on the relationship of Māori with their taonga
The Committee considered potential adverse effects associated with the organisms on the
relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites,
wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga (in accordance with section 6(d) of the
HSNO Act, and requirement 9(c)(iv), section 8.4.1 of the ERMA New Zealand Annotated
Methodology).
The Committee considers that adverse effects on Māori and their culture and traditions are
unlikely. In the unlikely event that the bear breached containment, the Committee considers it
would be very unlikely for him to pose risks to native or valued flora or fauna or otherwise
adversely affect the environment or Māori culture.
Risks associated with inseparable organisms
The Committee considered the effects of any inseparable organisms, in accordance with
section 45(a)(ii) of the HSNO Act and noted that MAF would require the bear to meet the
requirements of an import health standard as per section 22 of the Biosecurity Act.
Assessment of benefits (beneficial effects)
A “benefit” is defined in clause 2 of the Methodology Order as “the value of a particular
positive effect expressed in monetary or non-monetary terms”. Benefits, which may arise
from any of the matters set out in clauses 9 and 10 of the Methodology, were considered in
terms of clause 13.
The Committee considers the primary benefit of the importation of the bear will be to the NZ
film industry and the local economy providing services to the film industry, and from
educational and recreational benefits arising from the public display of the bear in the film.
Overall evaluation of risks, costs and benefits
The overall evaluation of risks, costs and benefits set out below was carried out having regard
to Clauses 22 and 34 of the Methodology and in accordance with the tests in clause 26 of the
Methodology and section 45 of the Act.
Clause 34 of the Methodology sets out the approaches available to the Authority in evaluating
the combined impact of risks costs and benefits, i.e. weighing up risks, costs and benefits.
The Committee concluded that each of the risks was negligible, so did not have regard to the
risk characteristics in terms of clause 33 of the Methodology.
The Committee considered the training of the bear and the containment provisions and
controls to be imposed on the applicant.
In making its decision under clause 26 of the Methodology, the Committee is satisfied that the
risks and associated costs are cumulatively negligible, that costs are unlikely to accrue to
parties other than the applicant, and that (while the risks, costs and benefits cannot be
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMC00014
Page 5 of 8
meaningfully combined using common units under clause 34(a) of the Methodology) the
benefits outweigh the costs.
Decision
1. Pursuant to section 45(1)(a)(i) of the Act, the Committee is satisfied that this
application is for one of the purposes specified in section 39(1) of the Act, being
section 39(1)(e), the public display of any organism including but not limited to,
display in a circus or zoological garden.
2. Having considered all the possible effects of the organism, Ursus arctos, in
accordance with sections 45(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Act and pursuant to clause 26 of
the Methodology, and based on consideration and analysis of the information provided
and taking into account the application of risk management controls specified in this
decision, the view of the Committee is that the risks (or costs) of adverse effects
associated with the importation into containment of the organism(s) are outweighed by
the benefits of involvement in the public display of the organism.
3. The Committee is satisfied that the proposed containment regime together with the
additional controls imposed will adequately contain the organism as required by
section 45(1)(a)(iii) of the Act.
4. In accordance with clause 36(b) of the Methodology the Committee records that, in
reaching this conclusion, it has applied the balancing tests in s.45 of the Act and
clause 26 of the Methodology and has relied in particular on the following criteria in
the Act:

Section 5(a) -Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and
ecosystems

Section 5(b) – to recognise and provide for the maintenance and enhancement
of the capacity of people and communities to provide for their own economic,
social and cultural wellbeing and for the reasonable foreseeable needs of future
generations

Section 45 (1)(iii) – that the organism can be adequately contained
5. It has also applied the following criteria in the Methodology:

clause 9 - equivalent of sections 5, 6 and 8;

clause 10 - equivalent of sections 36 and 37;

clause 12 – evaluation of assessment of risks;

clause 13 – evaluation of assessment of costs and benefits;

clause 21 – the decision accords with the requirements of the Act and
regulations;

clause 22 – the evaluation of risks, costs and benefits – relevant considerations;

clause 24 – the use of recognised risk identification, assessment, evaluation
and management techniques;
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMC00014
Page 6 of 8

clause 25 – the evaluation of risks;

clause 26 - risks are negligible and costs are outweighed by benefits;

clause 34 – the aggregation and comparison of risks, costs and benefits.
6. The application for importation into containment of the organism Ursus arctos “Bart
the Bear II” is thus approved, with controls, as follows.
Containment controls
1.
To limit the likelihood of any accidental release of any organism or any viable
genetic material1:
1.1 The bear shall be maintained in a MAF registered containment facility in accordance with
MAF/ERMA New Zealand Standard 154.03.04: Containment Facilities for Zoo Animals
and additional controls of the Authority.
2.
To exclude unauthorised people from the facility:
2.1
3.
Access to the containment facility shall be in compliance with the standards listed in
Control 1.1.
To control the effects of any accidental release or escape of an organism:
3.1
Control of the effects of any accidental release or escape of the bear shall be in
compliance with the standards listed in Control 1.1.
3.2
If for any reason a breach of containment occurs the facility Supervisor2, MAF
Biosecurity Authority and ERMA New Zealand shall be notified immediately the
event is noticed.
3.3
In the event of any breach of containment of the organisms, the contingency plan for
the attempted retrieval or destruction of the bear shall be implemented immediately.
The contingency plan shall be developed and agreed by MAF.
4.
Inspection and monitoring requirements for containment facilities:
4.1
The inspection and monitoring requirements for containment facilities shall be in
compliance with the standards listed in Control 1.1.
Viable Genetic Material is biological material that can be resuscitated to grow into tissues or organisms. It can be
defined to mean biological material capable of growth even though resuscitation procedures may be required, eg
when organisms or parts thereof are sublethally damaged by being frozen, dried, heated, or affected by chemical.
1
2
An inspector appointed under the Biosecurity Act.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMC00014
Page 7 of 8
4.2
The Authority or its authorised agent or properly authorised enforcement officers,
may inspect the facility at any reasonable time.
5.
Qualifications required of the persons responsible for implementing those
controls:
5.1
The training of personnel working in the facility shall be in compliance with the
standards listed in Control 1.1.
6.
Additional controls:
6.1
The bear shall at all times be either inside his locked cage/trailer, with a security guard
present, or shall be accompanied by his trainer(s) inside the wire fence.
6.2
The extent of the containment area identified by the electrified single wire fence shall be
approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and a site map identifying this
fenced area shall be provided to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry prior to the bear
being introduced to this electrified single wire fence area. The electric single wire fence
area shall surround the bear cage and the bear shall remain within this area until it is
transported back to Auckland for its departure from New Zealand. The wire fence shall
be labelled with prominent warning signs to prevent unauthorised or unintentional access
to the containment area
6.3
While the bear is in the containment area identified by the electrified single wire fence
and outside of the cage/trailer, a sentry equipped with a tranquilising dart gun shall be
posted to monitor and if necessary immobilise the bear if it breaches the containment
area identified by the electrified single wire fence.
6.4
This approval is specifically for Bart II to be temporarily imported to New Zealand to be
used in the film “Without a Paddle”, in the containment facility approved by MAF for
that purpose.
6.5
The approval holder, shall at times while the bear is in New Zealand, comply with
requirements of MAF personnel.
Dr Lin Roberts, Chair
New Organisms Committee of the Authority
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application GMC00014
Page 8 of 8