ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
DECISION
17 September 2007
Application code:
NOR06003
Application category:
Import for Release or Release from Containment any New
Organism under the Hazardous Substances and New
Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996
Applicant:
Taharoa C Block Incorporation
Purpose:
Miscanthus  giganteus is a sterile perennial grass with
capacity for substantial biomass development that has high
energy potential. Intended for use as feedstock for liquid
biofuel production or direct co-firing in coal fired power
stations.
Date application received:
18 May 2007
Consideration date:
16 August 2007 – 16 September 2007
Considered by:
Decision-making Committee of the Authority
1 Summary of decision
1.1
The application to import for release Miscanthus  giganteus, J.M. Greef & Deuter ex Hodk.
& Renvoize, 2001 is approved, without controls, having been considered in accordance
with the relevant provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO)
Act 1996 (the Act) and of the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology).
2 Application process
Legislative criteria for application
2.1
The application was lodged pursuant to section 34(1)(a) of the Act. The decision was
determined in accordance with section 35, taking into account the minimum standards
specified in section 36, and matters relevant to the purpose of the Act, as specified under
Part II of the Act.
2.2
Consideration of the application followed the relevant provisions of the HSNO
Methodology Order 1998 (the Methodology).
Receipt of application
2.3
The application was formally received on 18 May 2007.
2.4
A time waiver was applied on 1 June 2007 under section 58 in order to obtain expert advice
regarding the stability of triploid hybrids, the advice was received on 16 August 2007.
Decision-making Committee
2.5
In accordance with section 19(2)(b) of the Act and clause 43 of Schedule 1 to the Act, the
Environmental Risk Management Authority (the Authority) appointed a Decision-making
Committee (the Committee) to consider the application. The Committee comprised the
following members of the Authority: Max Suckling (Chair), Helen Atkins and Kieran
Elborough.
Public notification
2.6
In accordance with section 53 of the Act, the application was not publicly notified.
2.7
The lack of public notification was raised in the DOC submission with the comment that
“This application has not been publicly notified. It is highly likely that this application will
generate a significant level of public interest and debate due to the potential for adverse
environmental impacts”.
2.8
The Committee acknowledges DOC’s concern but notes that sections 53(1) and 53(2) do
not give any discretion to publicly notify an application for rapid assessment.
Consultation with government departments
2.9
In accordance with section 58(1) of the Act and clause 5 of the Methodology, the
Department of Conservation (DOC) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF)
were consulted in regard to this application.
2.10 Comments from DOC and from MAF can be found on file at ERMA New Zealand.
Relevant points of consideration raised by DOC and MAF have been addressed within the
decision.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 2 of 17
Information available for the consideration
2.11 The information available for consideration included:
i.
Application form and supporting references;
ii. DOC and MAF comments;
iii. Expert advice from researchers (can be found on file at ERMA New Zealand);

Dr JA Juvik, Professor of Plant Genetics, University of Illinois: 30 years
experience in the genetics and breeding of horticultural crops including
M.  giganteus.

Dr JC Clifton-Brown, Professor at Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council, United Kingdom: 17 years research experience of the
ecophysiology, agronomy and breeding of Miscanthus species.

Dr U Jørgensen, Senior Scientist, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences
Research Centre, Foulum: extensive knowledge and research experience of the
use of M.  giganteus for biofuel production.

Dr TR Hodkinson, Department of Botany, Trinity College, Dublin: expertise in
the taxonomy, genetics, systematics, genomics and polyploidy of Miscanthus.
3 Consideration
Sequence of consideration
3.1
In accordance with clause 8 of the Methodology, the Committee considered the
information provided from the sources listed in section 2.11 of this decision to be relevant
and appropriate to the scale and significance of the risks and costs associated with the
release of M.  giganteus.
3.2
In accordance with clause 24 of the Methodology and section 35 (rapid assessment of risk)
of the Act, the Committee adopted the approach to first identify and assess any potentially
significant risks, with particular reference to the matters set out in sections 35 and 36 of the
Act (covered also by parts of clause 9 and 10 of the Methodology). Also, the Committee
considered the principles and matters relevant to the purpose of the Act as set out in
sections 5 and 6. Identification and assessment of risk was in accordance with clause 12 of
the Methodology. Costs were assessed in accordance with clause 13 of the Methodology.
3.3
The Committee took into account the risk characteristics established in accordance with
clause 33 of the Methodology, and the combined impact of risks and costs were evaluated
in accordance with clause 34 of the Methodology.
3.4
The approach to the consideration followed the decision path which can be found on file at
ERMA New Zealand.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 3 of 17
Application summary
3.5
The application is for approval to import for release a perennial grass Miscanthus  giganteus,
J.M. Greef & Deuter ex Hodk. & Renvoize, 2001 by rapid assessment. The applicant
intends to use M.  giganteus as feedstock for liquid biofuel production and direct co-firing
in coal fired power stations as it has the capacity to produce substantial biomass of a high
energy potential.
4 Identification of the organism
4.1
4.2
Kingdom: Plantae
Class:
Liliopsida
Order:
Cyperales
Family:
Poaceae
Genus:
Miscanthus
Species:
 giganteus (the  indicates that this species is a hybrid). Molecular and
chromosomal studies confirm that M.  giganteus is an allotriploid (57
chromosomes) combining genomes from M. sinensis (38 chromosomes) and
M. sacchariflorus (38 or 76 chromosomes) (Hodkinson et al, 2002).
Miscanthus  giganteus is considered a new organism as only one parent,
M. sinensis, is present in New Zealand.
Synonyms: Miscanthus  giganteus is also known as M. giganteus, M. sinensis ‘Giganteus’
Anderss, M. ogiformis Honda, and M. sacchariflorus var. brevibaris (Honda) Adati. It is often
confused with M. sacchariflorus, as the latter species is highly variable in morphology and
chromosome number (Hodkinson et al, 2002). The common names for species within the
genus Miscanthus are elephant grass or E-grass.
Biological characteristics of the organism
4.3
Miscanthus  giganteus is a perennial grass that has a life span of 20 years and can grow to 3m
in height. It is cold tolerant (Scurlock, 1999), however it is not particularly frost tolerant
until it is well established, which usually occurs after its first season (Jørgensen and
Schwarz, 2000; Lewandowski et al, 2000). Individual plants increase in size through
rhizome production where runners are not formed, for example, in Danish field trials
individual plants grew to a diameter of 2-3m over 24 years (Jørgensen in litt., 2007).
4.4
The genus Miscanthus is indigenous to South-East Asia. Miscanthus  giganteus was originally
introduced from Japan and has no known natural distribution; existing only in cultivation
(Greef and Deuter, 1993). It was initially introduced to Denmark in 1935, by nurserymen,
as an ornamental plant (Scurlock, 1999; Linde-Laursen, 1993; Lewandowski et al, 2000) and
later distributed to other European countries (Lewandowski et al, 2000).
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 4 of 17
4.5
Since 1985, there has been considerable interest in M.  giganteus because it has the capacity
to produce substantial biomass of a high energy potential (Scurlock, 1999). For example, in
Europe, M.  giganteus has the potential to yield over 20 tonnes of dry matter per hectare
annually, with low fertiliser and pesticide requirements (Lewandowski et al, 2000). Biomass
obtained from M.  giganteus can be used for construction materials such as particle board;
as a solid fuel for use in coal fired power stations; a source of cellulose for biofuel (ethanol)
production (Lewandowski et al, 2000); and pelletising as a low emission fuel for domestic
and industrial burners (Biomass Energy, No Date). Miscanthus  giganteus is also being
cultivated in Austria, southern Britain, Turkey (Scurlock, 1999), Denmark, Greece, Italy,
Spain, (Lewandowski et al, 2000), Germany (Scurlock, 1999; Lewandowski et al, 2000) and
the USA (Juvik in litt., 2007) for biofuel research.
4.6
Miscanthus  giganteus is a triploid hybrid, which does not produce seed (Lewandowski et al,
2000; Jørgensen and Muhs in Heaton et al, 2004; Clifton-Brown in litt., 2007; Hodkinson in
litt., 2007; Jørgensen in litt., 2007; Juvik in litt., 2007) or viable pollen (Linde-Laursen, 1993;
Clifton-Brown in litt., 2007; Hodkinson in litt., 2007; Jørgensen in litt., 2007; Juvik in litt.,
2007) and is therefore, sterile. However, inflorescences are produced regularly in warmer
climates (Clifton-Brown in litt., 2007; Hodkinson in litt., 2007; Juvik in litt., 2007).
4.7
The Committee notes that Nielsen (1987) reported that M. sinensis “Giganteus” (a synonym
of M.  giganteus) was ‘practically’ sterile (see Linde-Laursen, 1993). Nielsen (1987) further
noted that when seeds were produced, they were few and gave rise to morphologically
highly variable offspring. However, the Committee considers that the greater weight of
scientific evidence indicates that M.  giganteus is sterile and notes that the Nielsen (1987)
account could be a case of misidentification between M. sacchariflorus and M.  giganteus.
This is an entirely possible outcome considering that it is considered to be impossible to
differentiate, morphologically, between M.  giganteus and M. sacchariflorus (Hodkinson in litt,
2007).
4.8
The Committee noted the potential for confusion between M.  giganteus and
M. sacchariflorus and note that a Biosecurity New Zealand Import Health Standard (IHS) will
be required for the import of M.  giganteus and that biosecurity clearance will only be given
to plant material that is unequivocally identified.
5 Ability to form a self-sustaining population and ease of
eradication
5.1
In accordance with section 35(2)(b)(i) of the Act and clauses 10(e) and (f) of the
Methodology, the Committee considered the ability of the organism to establish a selfsustaining population, and the ease of eradication of such a population.
5.2
The Committee notes DOC’s concern about the invasive potential of M.  giganteus and the
potential for it to form a self-sustaining population from either seed or vegetative matter
(submissions can be found on file at ERMA New Zealand). This concern is addressed
below.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 5 of 17
Seed production and dispersal
5.3
The Committee notes that MAF and DOC in their submissions both raised the possibility
that sterility in M.  giganteus might not be stable over time.
5.4
As noted in section 4.6, M.  giganteus is sterile because it is a triploid hybrid. This means it
has three sets (3n) of 19 chromosomes giving a total of 57 chromosomes. The three sets of
chromosomes cannot pair and divide evenly during meiosis, resulting in unequal
segregation of the chromosomes and consequently sterility. However, if the chromosomes
fail to segregate, resulting in an unreduced gamete with 57 chromosomes, this unreduced
gamete may be able to fuse with either a haploid (1n) gamete from a species such as
M. sinensis, to produce a tetraploid offspring (4n=76), or with another unreduced gamete to
form a hexaploid offspring (6n=114). The tetraploid and the hexaploid progeny could be
fertile amongst themselves but not amongst the triploid parents. The Committee notes that
there is no literature currently available that predicts the probability of this process
occurring in plants in general, nor specifically in M.  giganteus.
5.5
The Committee sought expert advice to confirm the sterility and the lack of viable seed and
pollen production in M.  giganteus (expert advice can be found on file at ERMA New
Zealand).
5.6
Dr Jørgensen (in litt., 2007) commented that “…there is a theoretical risk of one in a billion
seeds to become fertile, but so far I have not heard of anyone observing this.”
5.7
Dr Juvik (in litt., 2007) noted that in his experience, M.  giganteus has not produced viable
pollen with reduced or unreduced gametes capable of self-fertilisation or pollinating other
Miscanthus species. He has not observed flowers of M.  giganteus produce seed from either
self-fertilisation or from controlled pollinations. Neither has he ever observed seed set in
field plots of M.  giganteus. He has also never observed apomixis (asexual reproduction,
without fertilisation) in M.  giganteus.
5.8
Dr Clifton-Brown (in litt., 2007) states that in the field, flowering of M.  giganteus is
dependent on climate and latitude; with, for example, reliable annual flowering in southern
Europe. However, in northern Europe flowering only occurs when the growing season has
been particularly long and hot; for example, during the summer of 2006. He also
comments that in the field, seed production has never been reported from M.  giganteus,
even in Portugal where flowering occurs early enough to ensure seed set; should
fertilisation take place. In 17 years of work on Miscanthus species, Dr Clifton-Brown has
never observed the production of viable M.  giganteus gametes (either pollen or seed), and
thus has never observed seed germination in M.  giganteus, or the production of viable
plants that may form a self-sustaining population.
5.9
Dr Hodkinson (in litt., 2007) states that flowering in M.  giganteus is dependent on daylength and temperature and that M.  giganteus flowers regularly in southern Europe but
rarely in north-western Europe. Further, Dr Hodkinson has never heard reports of viable
seed being produced.
5.10 The Committee considered evidence from the currently available literature, in addition to
the expert advice provided by Drs Jørgensen, Juvik, Hodkinson and Clifton-Brown, which
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 6 of 17
indicate that the triploid M.  giganteus is sterile and that it does not produce viable pollen or
seed.
5.11 The Committee considered the ability of M.  giganteus to form a self-sustaining population
through seed dispersal.
5.12 The Committee notes that because M.  giganteus is a sterile triploid hybrid, it cannot
produce viable seed or pollen and that the literature and correspondence with experts
indicates that M.  giganteus has remained sterile throughout its research and cultivation
(Linde-Laursen, 1993; Lewandowski et al, 2000; Jørgensen and Muhs in Heaton et al, 2004;
Hodkinson et al, 2002; Clifton-Brown in litt., 2007; Hodkinson in litt., 2007; Jørgensen in
litt., 2007; Juvik in litt., 2007).
5.13 The Committee considers it highly improbable that M.  giganteus could produce fertile
offspring and form either a hybrid tetraploid or hexaploid self-sustaining population.
Vegetative dispersal
5.14 The Committee considered the ability of M.  giganteus to form a self-sustaining population
through vegetative spread of rhizomes or from rhizomes discarded outside of a plantation.
5.15 The Committee notes that both MAF and DOC in their submissions raised the possibility
of vegetative spread of M.  giganteus.
5.16 The Committee notes that for this decision, the term ‘spread’ with regards to M.  giganteus
is interpreted to mean an increase in plant size (diameter) through rhizome production.
The term ‘spread’ does not imply movement of plants beyond the planted area that might
result from dispersed seeds or new plants developing from runners (see paragraph 4.3).
5.17 The Committee notes that long-term field trials in Ireland (17 years) and Denmark (24
years) suggest that vegetative spread from plots is minimal (Clifton-Brown in litt., 2007;
Jørgensen in litt., 2007). Dr Jørgensen stated “…our oldest plantation of M.  giganteus
from 1983 has not spread outside the field only each plant (stand) has broadened to a
diameter of 2-3m”. Dr Clifton-Brown commented that each plant increases in size very
slowly until a closed canopy is formed, and that there is very low spread outside the plot
areas”. He also indicated that “European colleagues have made similar observations”, and
that from his experience, “most Miscanthus species are not very invasive”. Dr CliftonBrown said that he “…would be very surprised if it [M.  giganteus] became an invasive
plant in New Zealand!”
5.18 The Committee also considered the formation of a self-sustaining M.  giganteus population
from rhizomes discarded outside the intended plantation. The Committee noted that
rhizome establishment may also be limited by the vulnerability of rhizomes to frost damage
after their initial planting (especially if planted late in the growing season), as rhizomes that
have not penetrated deeply into the soil are often destroyed by cold or wet conditions in
winter. However, over subsequent winters, rhizomes are less susceptible to such damage
(Lewandowski et al, 2000). The Committee noted that Dr Jørgensen (in litt., 2007)
indicated that if M.  giganteus rhizomes are “left upon the soil surface, they will usually not
grow. However, if they are not damaged or dried out and if covered by a little soil, they will
most likely grow”. No evidence could be found to suggest that discarded rhizomes could
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 7 of 17
actively penetrate the soil, and so to survive, the rhizomes would either have to be
deliberately planted or inadvertently buried under other waste material or soil.
5.19 The Committee notes that M.  giganteus is artificially replicated through clonal propagation
and that due to its sterility is incapable of forming a population that could reproduce. The
committee is also aware that this species lacks any mechanism to cause the creation of new
individuals through vegetative fragmentation and dispersal. Therefore, the Committee
considers it highly improbable that M.  giganteus could form a self-sustaining population
through vegetative dispersal. Further, the Committee recognised that there is the possibility
that vegetative spread could occur through animal or human intervention. However the
committee notes that even if vegetative fragments do survive after their dispersal by
animals or humans they are incapable of founding a reproducing population and without
further human intervention will in time die out. Therefore, the Committee considers it
highly improbable that M.  giganteus could form a self-sustaining population through the
dispersal of vegetative fragments by animal or human intervention.
Ease of eradication
5.20 The Committee considered the ease of eradication of any populations of M.  giganteus.
5.21 The Committee notes that MAF and DOC in their submissions both raised the possibility
that M.  giganteus may not be easily eradicated.
5.22 The Committee considered Dr Jørgensen’s comments (in litt., 2007) suggesting that “As
they [M.  giganteus rhizomes] form tuft-like plants, they are rather easy to dig up. And on
farmland they are rather easy to remove by application of a few tillings. Finally they can be
treated chemically by glyphosate or substances that attack monocots (grasses)”.
5.23 The Committee notes a similar statement from the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), United Kingdom, that Miscanthus can be easily removed from
an existing site by the application of a post-emergence non-selective herbicide such as
glyphosate. This is followed by rotovation of the crop to eliminate the Miscanthus rhizome
(DEFRA, 2001; Hockenberry Meyer, 2003). In addition, the Committee notes that mowing
and grazing during the growing season are also proven techniques for killing M. sinensis
(Hockenberry Meyer, 2003).
5.24 The Committee notes that like other grasses or monocots, M. sinensis and Cortaderia spp.
(pampas grass) can be quickly and cheaply eradicated by several readily available herbicides,
such as glyphosate and Arsenal AC (active ingredient imazapyr as the isopropylamine salt)
(Miller, 2003; DOC, No Date).
5.25 The Committee considers it highly improbable that M.  giganteus could form a selfsustaining population. Further, the Committee considers any M.  giganteus population
could be easily detected and eradicated.
6 Identification and assessment of potentially significant adverse
effects (risks and costs) of the organism
6.1
In accordance with clause 24 of the Methodology and sections 5 and 6 (purpose) of the
Act, the Committee adopted the approach to first identify and assess any potentially
significant risks, with particular reference to the matters set out in sections 35 (rapid
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 8 of 17
assessment of risk) and 36 (minimum standards) of the Act (covered also by parts of clause
9 and 10 of the Methodology).
Potentially significant adverse effects on the environment
6.2
The Committee considered the potential for M.  giganteus to cause significant adverse
effects on the environment by displacing or reducing valued species; causing deterioration
of natural habitats; or causing adverse effects to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity.
These effects could only occur if M.  giganteus became an invasive species within New
Zealand’s ecosystems. For M.  giganteus to become invasive, it would have to form a selfsustaining population. The Committee considers that it is highly improbable that
M.  giganteus could form a self-sustaining population (section 5).
6.3
There is no evidence in the published literature to date that suggests M.  giganteus is an
invasive species else-where in the world. To the contrary, M.  giganteus only exists in
cultivation and has no known natural distribution (Greef and Deuter, 1993).
6.4
The Committee notes in DOC’s submission that Dr McAlpine (weed ecologist, DOC)
suggests that although M.  giganteus does have weedy traits and weedy relatives overseas, it
is not likely to spread very far from initial plantings, and is likely to be easily controlled
(expert advice can be found on file at ERMA New Zealand).
6.5
Having considered the above information, the Committee considers it highly improbable
that M.  giganteus will become invasive in any of New Zealand’s ecosystems.
6.6
The issue of M.  giganteus plantations being established in native or partly native grasslands
was raised by DOC who commented that “there would be a substantial loss of native
species (birds, invertebrates, and plants) from the area”.
6.7
The Committee agrees with DOC’s concern noting that if native grass species were
removed and replaced with M.  giganteus plantations, then there will be an effect on native
species. However, the Committee also notes that the same native grassland could be
converted to either dairy or some other agricultural production system with similar effects.
Therefore, these effects are not attributed to M.  giganteus but to land management
practices. The Committee noted that the Act focuses on the effects of the organism and
not on the effects caused by the action of cultivating the organism or general farming
practices. The Committee considers the effect of the cultivation of M.  giganteus a land
and resource use issue that is more appropriately addressed under the Resource
Management Act, 1991 (RMA).
6.8
The Committee notes that under section 31(a) of the RMA, territorial authorities have the
function to manage “the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and
associated natural and physical resources of the district” where natural and physical
resources are defined to include “land, water, air, soil, minerals, and energy, all forms of
plants and animals (whether native to New Zealand or introduced), and all structures”.
6.9
The issue of M.  giganteus plantations harbouring pests such as mice, rats, ferrets and stoats
was raised by DOC who commented that “Miscanthus plantations could become
temporary breeding grounds” and that a “resulting boom and bust population cycle will
have adverse effects on nearby natural habitats”.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 9 of 17
6.10 The Committee acknowledges DOC’s concern but notes that M.  giganteus does not
produce seed. Consequently, this species will not provide a more abundant food supply
for either mice or rats, relative to other plantations. Thus any boom and bust cycles will be
more dependent on food supplies within neighbouring habitats. The Committee also notes
that M.  giganteus is perennial and thus plantations will be harvested annually; ensuring no
persistent cover for mice, rats, ferrets and stoats. The Committee thus conclude that
M.  giganteus will be less attractive to mice, rats, ferrets and stoats than other agricultural
and forestry productions.
6.11 Issues regarding the water requirements of M.  giganteus plantations, their effects on soil
structure and groundwater levels were also raised by DOC in their submission.
6.12 The Committee acknowledges DOC’s concern but notes that M.  giganteus does not have
any novel characteristics that enhance its ability to draw water away from streams or
aquifers relative to other existing crops and plantations. Thus, M.  giganteus water
requirements, if greater than precipitation can supply, will need to be met through
irrigation. The use of irrigation is a resource use issue and should be addressed under
section 30 of the RMA.
6.13 The issue of heavy machinery negatively impacting on soil structure was raised by DOC.
6.14 The Committee notes that any impacts to soil structure or composition are not an effect of
the plant itself but of agricultural practices. Further, the Committee considers that if any
such practices have an adverse effect on the land, they should be subject to land
management regulations similar to dairy and forestry practises administered under the
RMA.
6.15 The issue of accumulation of heavy metals in M.  giganteus rhizomes was raised in the
DOC submission. DOC commented that “measures must be taken to monitor the
concentration of heavy metals at susceptible planting site particularly those adjacent to
waterways” and the “removal of the rhizomes at the end of cultivation is a reasonable
precaution that is likely to limit any impacts in sensitive areas”.
6.16 The Committee notes that to date there is no scientific evidence supporting the
accumulation of heavy metals in M.  giganteus rhizomes. However, even if M.  giganteus
can accumulate heavy metals, the Committee considers it likely that the plant will only draw
them from the soil in contact with the roots. Thus, when the plant dies, such metals will
be returned to the same soil with neither gain nor loss from the system. The Committee
further notes that if excessive heavy metals are a local environmental issue, it is likely that
over time as M.  giganteus is harvested, such concentrations in the soil will be slowly
reduced. The Committee considers that the disposal of such heavy metals after the crop is
processed is more appropriately addressed under the RMA.
6.17 The Committee has not identified any significant adverse effects to the environment from
the release of M.  giganteus. In making this assessment, the Committee considered the
potential for M.  giganteus to be disease-causing or be a parasite, or be a vector or reservoir
for animal or plant disease; displace or reduce valued species; cause deterioration of natural
habitats; or cause adverse effects to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity. The
Committee concludes that the adverse effects on the environment from the release of
M.  giganteus are negligible.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 10 of 17
Potentially significant adverse effects on human health and safety
6.18 The Committee has not identified any potentially significant adverse effects to human
health and safety from the release of M.  giganteus. In making this assessment the
Committee considered the potential for M.  giganteus to be disease-causing or be a parasite,
or to be a vector or reservoir for human disease. The Committee identified no adverse
effects and thus concludes that the adverse effects on human health and safety from the
release of M.  giganteus are negligible.
Potentially significant adverse effects on the relationship of Māori to the
environment
6.19 The Committee has considered the potential for the release of M.  giganteus to result in
adverse effects on Māori and their culture and traditions in accordance with section 6(d)
and 8 of the HSNO Act and clauses 9(b)(i) and 9(c)(ix) of the Methodology. In
considering this, the Committee took particular note of the responses to the consultation
carried out by the applicant under the guidelines of the ERMA New Zealand User Guide
“Working with Māori under the HSNO Act 1996”.
6.20 The Committee notes that this is the first application made by a Maori organisation and the
overall response and support for this application by Iwi was overwhelming.
6.21 The Committee considered that the potential for adverse effects to native or valued flora
and fauna species is highly improbable, therefore any flow on effect to the mauri of those
species and potential implication to the role and responsibility of kaitiaki is also highly
improbable.
6.22 Based on the available information, the Committee considers the potential adverse effects
on the mauri of people and taonga, and the ability of Iwi/Māori to effectively fulfil their
role and responsibility as kaitiaki from the release of M.  giganteus to be negligible.
Potentially significant adverse effects on society and community
6.23 The Committee considered the potential for the release of M.  giganteus to result in
potentially significant adverse effects on society and communities in New Zealand.
6.24 In their submission, DOC identified the potential for large-scale conversion of land into
M.  giganteus plantations that may potentially obscure and cover local historic sites (such as
fortified pa, living terraces and growing pits) and natural landscape features (such as
streams, rivers, the natural rolling landscape, and pockets of natural vegetation) and
therefore impacting on local Iwis’ cultural identity, and reducing recreational and tourism
opportunities.
6.25 The Committee notes that M.  giganteus is neither expected nor capable of spreading
beyond its initial plantings without human intervention. The covering and obscuring of
historical sites are more appropriately dealt with under the Historic Places Act 1993 and
the RMA. The issues of cultural identity and reduced recreational and tourism
opportunities are resource issues and similarly are more appropriately dealt with under the
RMA.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 11 of 17
6.26 The Committee has not identified any potentially significant adverse effects to society or
the community from the release of M.  giganteus. The Committee conclude that the
adverse effects on society and the community from the release of M.  giganteus are
negligible.
Potentially significant adverse effects on market economy
6.27 The Committee has not identified any significant adverse effects on the market economy
from the release of M.  giganteus. The Committee conclude that the adverse effects on
market economy from the release of M.  giganteus are negligible.
7 Statutory criteria for rapid assessment
Minimum standards section 36 of the Act
7.1
Under section 35(3)(b) of the Act, the application may be declined, or the applicant
required to apply under section 38, if the organism is likely to fail the minimum standards
specified in section 36 of the Act. Each of the minimum standards is briefly considered
below, drawing on the material in section 6 above on the identification and assessment of
risks for the proposed release of M.  giganteus.
7.2
In respect of each element of section 36, the Committee considers that the release of
M.  giganteus is:

not likely cause any significant displacement of any native species within its natural
habitat;

not likely to cause any significant deterioration of natural habitats;

not likely to cause any significant adverse effects on human health and safety;

not likely to cause any significant adverse effects to New Zealand’s inherent
genetic diversity; and

not likely that the organisms will cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for
human, animal, or plant disease.
Rapid assessment of risk section 35 of the Act
7.3
In accordance with section 35(2)(a) of the Act, the Committee have determined that
M.  giganteus is not an unwanted organism as defined under the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Additionally, it does not appear on the Second Schedule of the Act, Prohibited New
Organisms.
7.4
Under section 35(2) of the Act, the Authority may approve the application without
controls if the criteria set out in this sub-section are met. Each of these criteria is briefly
considered below, drawing on the material in section 6 above on the identification and
assessment of risks.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 12 of 17
7.5
7.6
In respect of each criterion, the Committee considered that it is:

highly improbable that, after release, M.  giganteus could form self-sustaining
populations anywhere in New Zealand, taking into account the ease of eradication;

highly improbable that M.  giganteus could displace or reduce a valued species;

highly improbable that M.  giganteus could cause deterioration of natural habitats;

highly improbable that M.  giganteus will be disease-causing or be a parasite, or be
a vector or reservoir for human, plant or animal disease; and

highly improbable that M.  giganteus will have any adverse effects on human
health and safety or the environment.
Further, the Committee has taken into account the matters identified in sections 5 and 6 of
the Act and, in relation to section 6(d) consider it highly improbable that the release of
M.  giganteus will have adverse effects on relationship of Māori and their culture and
traditions, with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and
other taonga.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 13 of 17
8 Decision
8.1
The Committee has not identified any significant risks from the organism and considers
the requirements of section 35 (criteria for rapid assessment) and section 36 (minimum
standards) to be met.
8.2
Further, the Committee considers that the cultural risks to Māori (in terms of sections 5(b)
and 6(d) of the Act) from this application are negligible.
8.3
For clarity, any person exercising this approval must comply with all other relevant statutes,
including the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the RMA.
8.4
It is determined that:
1.
Pursuant to section 35(3)(a) of the Act, the species M.  giganteus proposed to be
released is not an unwanted organism under the Biosecurity Act 1993.
2.
The organism satisfies the criteria for rapid assessment set out in section 35(2) of the
Act.
3.
The organism satisfies the minimum standards set out in section 36 of the Act.
4.
The application to import for release of:
Miscanthus  giganteus: J.M. Greef & Deuter ex Hodk. & Renvoize, 2001
is accordingly approved without controls, pursuant to section 35(2) of the Act.
___________________________
Dr Max Suckling(Chair)
17 September 2007
Date
Chairperson of the Decision-making Committee
Approval Code: NOR000042
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 14 of 17
9 References
Biomass Energy, No Date. Miscanthus at the University of Illinois.
http://miscanthus.uiuc.edu/index.php/research/special-research-initiative/biomassenergy/ Retrieved 16 August 2007.
DEFRA, 2001. Planting and Growing Miscanthus. Best Practice Guidelines for Applicants for DEFRA’s
Energy Crops Scheme. United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs. http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/pdfs/ecs/miscanthus-guide.pdf Retrieved 22
May 2007.
DOC, No Date. Threats and Impacts: Weeds: Pampas Grass. New Zealand Department of
Conservation.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/MultiPageDocumentTOC.aspx?id=40083 Retrieved
7 August 2006.
Heaton, EA, Clifton-Brown, J, Voigt, TB, Jones, MB, Long, SP 2004. Miscanthus for renewable
energy generation: European Union experience and projections for Illinois. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 9: 433-451.
Hockenberry Meyer, M 2003. Fact Sheet and Management of Miscanthus sinensis. University of
Minnesota. http://horticulture.coafes.umn.edu/miscanthus/management.html Retrieved
22 May 2007.
Hodkinson, TR, Chase, MW, Takahashi, C, Leitch, I, Bennett, MD, Renvoize, SA 2002. The use
of DNA sequencing (ITS and TRNL-F), ALF, and fluorescent in situ hybridization to
study allopolyploid Miscanthus (Poaceae). American Journal of Botany 89: 279-286.
Jørgensen, U, Schwarz, KU 2000. Why do basic research? A lesson from commercial exploitation
of Miscanthus. New Phytologist 148: 190-193.
Lewandowski, I, Clifton-Brown, JC, Scurlock, JMO, Huisman, W 2000. Miscanthus: European
experience with a novel energy crop. Biomass and Bioenergy 19: 209-227.
Linde-Laursen, I 1993. Cytogenetic analysis of Miscanthus ‘Giganteus’, an interspecific hybrid.
Hereditas 119: 297-300.
Nielsen, PN 1987. Vegetativ formering af elefantgraes, Miscanthus sinensis “Giganteus” (vegetative
propagation of Miscanthus sinensis “Giganteus”) (in Danish with English Summary).
Tidsskrift Planteavl 91: 361-368.
Stufkens, MAW, Teulon, DAJ 1998. Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus in Cereals - Significance and
Control. New Zealand Crop & Food Research report.
http://www.aphidwatch.com/bydv/virusinfo.htm Retrieved 22 May 2007.
Scurlock, JM, 1999. Miscanthus: a review of European experience with a novel energy crop. ORNL/TM13732. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 15 of 17
10
Glossary
Allopolyploid:
The production of a polyploid species from the contributions of two different species. The
evolution of an allopolyploid begins when two different species interbreed to produce a
hybrid. These hybrids are usually sterile, because the two haploid sets of chromosomes
don’t match up during meiosis. If the species can reproduce asexually as many plants do,
then the sterile hybrid population can maintain itself until the next event occurs.
Allotriploid:
An organism produced by crossing a diploid of one species with a tetraploid of another
different species. For example, M.  giganteus (3n) was produced from the crossing between
the diploid M. sinensis (n) and the tetraploid M. sacchiflorus (2n).
Apomixis:
The naturally occurring ability of some plant species to reproduce asexually through seeds,
meaning the embryos develop without a male gamete. This ensures the seeds will produce
plants identical to the mother plant.
C4 plant (C4 metabolism, C4 photosynthesis):
An alternative, very efficient pathway used by plants living in areas with low levels of
carbon dioxide, to convert carbon dioxide into a form usable by the plants during
photosynthesis. Some plants that use the C4 cycle are corn, sugarcane and M.  giganteus.
C3 plant (C3 cycle of photosynthesis):
Plants (eg, soybean, wheat, and cotton) whose carbon- fixation products have three carbon
atoms per molecule. Compared with C4 plants, C3 plants show a greater increase in
photosynthesis with a doubling of CO2 concentration and less decrease in stomatal
conductance, which results in an increase in leaf-level water-use efficiency.
Gamete:
A specialised sex cell that fuses with another sex cell during sexual fertilisation (ie pollen
and ovum).
Hexaploid:
An individual with six sets of chromosomes (6n).
Inflorescence:
An inflorescence is a group or cluster of flowers on a branch of a plant. In botany the
term refers to the way individual flowers are arranged on the plant, in which single or
multiple flowers develop on the same stem.
Perennial:
A plant which lives for more than two growing seasons. All trees and shrubs are
perennials. It may be herbaceous, for example M.  giganteus, and die back to underground
structures such as corms, tubers, rhizomes or bulbs.
Reduced gamete:
In plants gametes (pollen and ovum) are haploid and are formed by meiosis. Meiosis is a
process which divides the chromosome number of the parent in half (fertilisation then
restores the original somatic number). Gametes may then be represented by n (haploid)
and the offspring produced from the fusion of the gametes is 2n (diploid).
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 16 of 17
Rhizome:
A rhizome is a usually underground, horizontal stem of a plant, as in M.  giganteus, that
often sends out roots and shoots from its nodes, though a number of species of plants
have above ground rhizomes or rhizomes that sit at the soil surface including some Iris
species. They are characterised by having short internodes.
Runners:
A horizontal stems which grows either on the soil surface or below ground, to form new
plants at the ends or at the nodes. Runners are more correctly called stolons. They are
characterised by having long internodes.
Tetraploid:
An individual with four sets of chromosomes (4n).
Triploid:
An individual with three sets of chromosomes (3n).
Unreduced gamete:
Occasionally, in gamete formation, meiosis fails to occur producing an ‘unreduced gamete’,
that is gametes with the somatic chromosome number of 2n (diploid) and not 1n (haploid).
See ‘reduced gamete’.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision: Application NOR06003
Page 17 of 17