ERMA review raises concerns over regulator's GE capabilities

3.00pm

An independent review has questioned the capability of the Government's environmental watchdog to regulate genetically engineered crops and animals when such commercial releases are allowed, from October.

The report, released today, more than three months after it was submitted to Environment Minister Marian Hobbs, says there are concerns over the Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) in terms of monitoring, management and staff morale.

While Erma is doing well in many areas it has become tied to an inflexible process, unresponsive to "changing appetites for risk".

"Concerns exist on Erma's implementation of key concepts in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act," the review says.

There were also concerns over Erma's approach to risk management, and its use of different kinds of information.

"Organisational culture is a source of concern. Superficial signs of satisfaction may be obscuring deep-seated frustrations.

The report details technical and managerial shortfalls, which it says have to be addressed, to build public responsiveness, and cost effectiveness, needed to support wise and practical risk management

The 130-page report has made 49 recommendations for clarifications, improvements and reinforcements in Erma for its "fitness for purpose".

The report said there was poor oversight by Erma of compliance and monitoring of conditions set on GE approvals, and poor coordination between Erma and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) -- which enforces the conditions set by Erma.

Conditional releases have been highlighted by the Government as a key measure of mitigating the risk of commercial releases of GE organisms after October.

The independent review -- which was undertaken as part of a co-operation agreement between the Government and the Green Party -- also said there had been some notable oversights by Erma, and tensions between Erma and MAF.

It also said the authority had allowed Erma's officials to create a separate identity for themselves, different to the quasi-judicial panel around which the HSNO Act was written. This had effectively led to many decisions being made by staff rather than the eight-member authority, with confusion about accountability.

There were also serious gaps in skills in both the authority and its staff -- particularly in gene technology, microbial ecology, social science, bio-ethics, environmental effects assessment, and strategic foresight.

On Erma's approach to risk, the reviewers said people they talked to said the authority was perceived as having given greater weight to the views of applicants than to the view of people making submissions on those application.

Erma's organisational culture undermined staff efforts, did not respect alternative views and left Erma bogged down in details and unable to see the "big picture".

Its organisational goals did not include effective environmental risk management -- a key thrust of the HSNO Act.

But Ms Hobbs said in a statement that the review "found the authority does have the core competencies and capability to carry out its role".

Erma was committed to implementing the review's 49 recommendations to strengthen the authority's performance including its functions under the law, its internal policies for development of staff and management, and its relationships with other agencies, stakeholders, Maori and the public.