ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
DECISION
Date signed: 11 July 2003
Application code
Application category
Applicant
Organism
Purpose
Date received
Consideration date
Considered by
ERMA New Zealand
Contact
S2602009
Determination whether or not any organism is a new organism
under section 26 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms
(HSNO) Act 1996
Alois Wolloner
Lobophytum pauciflorum, Sarcophyton ehrenbergi, Sarcophyton
tenuispiculatum, Sinularia brassica, Sinularia dura, Sinularia
flexibilis, Sinularia notanda, Sinularia mollis, Capnella imbricata,
Litophyton arboreum, Xenia elongata, and X. umbellata
Determination whether or not the corals Lobophytum pauciflorum,
Sarcophyton ehrenbergi, Sarcophyton tenuispiculatum, Sinularia
brassica, Sinularia dura, Sinularia flexibilis, Sinularia notanda,
Sinularia mollis, Capnella imbricata, Litophyton arboreum, Xenia
elongata, and X. umbellata are new organisms under section 26 of
the HSNO Act
26 March 2003
1 July 2003
The (non-GMO) New Organisms Standing Committee of the
Authority appointed under section 19(2)(b) of the HSNO Act 1996
Toni Jenkins
Decision
The Committee has determined that Lobophytum pauciflorum, Sarcophyton ehrenbergi,
Sarcophyton tenuispiculatum, Sinularia brassica, Sinularia dura, Sinularia flexibilis,
Sinularia notanda, Sinularia mollis, Capnella imbricata, Litophyton arboreum, Xenia
elongata, and X. umbellata are not new organisms under section 26 of the HSNO Act, and
directs that this decision be enacted by notice in the New Zealand Gazette.
Purpose of Application
Mr Alois Wolloner sought a determination that Lobophytum pauciflorum, Sarcophyton
ehrenbergi, Sarcophyton tenuispiculatum, Sinularia brassica, S. dura, S. flexibilis, S.
notanda, S. mollis, Capnella imbricata, Litophyton arboreum, Xenia elongata, and X.
umbellata (the corals) were present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998 and
therefore should not be considered new organisms, under section 26 of the Hazardous
Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996.
Application and Consideration Process
The application was formally received on 26 March 2003. The applicant provided supporting
information relating to the presence of the corals in New Zealand, in the form of signed
statements from two experts attesting to the current presence of the corals and their
identification and import invoices from the early to mid-1990s.
Twelve identification documents were submitted, each one showing the scientific name of the
species, a description of the species and its natural habitat/distribution, and a photograph of a
specimen of the species in an aquarium. Each document was signed individually by the owner
of the specimen attesting to ownership, and signed by two experts attesting to the
identification of the specimen. The experts were David Deyermond, Director of the
Hollywood Fish Farm, who has worked in the retail aquarium trade for twenty years, and
Michael Kramer, who is the Head Aquarist at Auckland Zoo. Mr Kramer stated that he had
sighted all the species in aquaria in the Auckland region and Mr Deyermond stated that he had
sighted them in aquaria.
As well, a number of invoices were submitted where the corals were listed under their
common names. The common names of tropical soft corals are not unique to each species,
making this evidence of presence less reliable. However, the cumulative weight of evidence
indicates that the corals were imported into New Zealand before 29 July 1998, and have been
consistently present in unregistered containment systems (aquaria) since the early to mid
1990’s.
Receipt of the determination request was not required under the HSNO Act to be publicly
notified.
The determination was made in accordance with section 26 of the HSNO Act and relevant
provisions of the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998. It is noted that the Methodology
provisions relating to the identification, assessment and evaluation of risks, costs and benefits
is not relevant to section 26 determinations.
In accordance with clause 2(2)(e) of the Methodology, the Department of Conservation (DoC)
and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Biosecurity Authority were sent a copy
of the application and the former provided comment for the consideration process. DoC were
concerned about the possible establishment of the corals in New Zealand and potential effects
of them, as some have aggressive growth characteristics, and may produce harmful toxins.
DoC’s technical specialist indicated that some of the corals might be able to establish in
warmer waters north of New Zealand. The applicant replied to these concerns with
information that the soft corals must grow on a solid surface below the sea surface and that
sub-surface temperatures in New Zealand waters are too cold for them to survive, and pointed
out that if they could survive the temperatures and predators in New Zealand waters, they
would probably already have established here, having arrived as larvae in water currents or
ballast water. Statements were also submitted by Dennis Gordon, NIWA scientist, and
Associate Professor Russ Babcock of Leigh Marine Laboratory, who is a specialist in the
ecology of temperate and sub-tropical reefs, stating the coral species involved in this
application would be unable to survive in the natural New Zealand environment. The
Committee considered there was a negligible risk to New Zealand’s environment from these
tropical corals.
The application was considered by the New Organisms Standing Committee (the Committee)
of the Environmental Risk Management Authority (the Authority) appointed in accordance
with section 19(2)(b) of the HSNO Act. The Committee comprised the following members:
Dr Lin Roberts (Chair), Dr Max Suckling and Mr Tony Haggerty.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Determination: S2602001
Page 2 of 4
Reasons for the Decision
Based on the information provided by the applicant, the Committee is satisfied that these
tropical soft corals are currently present in New Zealand aquaria and are likely to have been
permanently present in New Zealand since the early-mid 1990s, when they were imported for
recreational display purposes. The import invoices supplied by the applicant used only the
common names of the corals, which are not unique to each species. The import invoices
therefore suggest, but do not prove, the presence of these organisms since the early-mid
1990s, because each species was not clearly identified.
In addition, for a determination under section 26 the HSNO Act, each element of the
definition of ‘New Organism’ (section 2A of the HSNO Act) must be considered. In the case
of the corals, the Committee is satisfied that:
the corals were likely to have been present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July
1998;
 the corals have not been prescribed as a risk species under the HSNO Act (there are
currently no prescribed risk species under the HSNO Act);
 the corals are not genetically modified;
 the corals are not a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar that
has been eradicated from New Zealand;
 the corals have not been given containment approval under the HSNO Act.
 the importation of the corals in the early-mid 1990’s does not appear to have been in
contravention of the Animals Act .
(Section 2A (4) of the new organism definition in the HSNO Act relating to rabbit
haemorrhagic disease virus, or rabbit calicivirus, is not relevant to corals.)

The Committee also notes that the corals are not listed as ‘prohibited organisms’ in the
Second Schedule of the HSNO Act or ‘prohibited entry’ under the Biosecurity Act 1993.
The Committee confirms that the corals do not fulfil any of the above criteria for a new
organism and the Committee was satisfied that
the corals are present in New Zealand legally.
In reaching this conclusion the Committee was satisfied that the taxonomic identification of
the corals has been adequately established, using the twelve documents about the individual
species signed by the two experts, Michael Kramer and David Deyermond.
Environmental Risk Management Authority Determination: S2602001
Page 3 of 4
Conclusion
In accordance with section 26 of the HSNO Act 1996 and having regard to the information
provided by all parties, as detailed above, the Committee determines that Lobophytum
pauciflorum, Sarcophyton ehrenbergi, Sarcophyton tenuispiculatum, Sinularia brassica, S.
dura, S. flexibilis, S. notanda, S. mollis, Capnella imbricata, Litophyton arboreum, Xenia
elongata, and X. umbellata are not new organisms for the purposes of the HSNO Act, and
directs that this decision be enacted by notice in the New Zealand Gazette.
Dr Lin Roberts
Chair, Decision-making Committee of the Authority
Environmental Risk Management Authority Determination: S2602001
Date
Page 4 of 4