Jump to content
Gino de Graaf

AFB Proposed Levy Increase

Recommended Posts

Basically, to effectively do anything towards erradicating AFB, the first step is for the authority to put the existing regulations into place and get a far more complete database of all apiaries and beehives. Without that, you are playing with the idea. Have a moritorium for one month  including getting the general public to notify all apiaries on their properties , then hire a group of uni IT students for one of the winter breaks to get the apiaries all checked on Apiweb, then DO SOMETHING REAL about the unregistered sites. The sudden increase in income to the authority would be dramatic in my area alone. Those employed by Assure Quality in administration who think it is below them to use this type of stategy need to go and work somewhere else, I am sick of helping beeks burn hives - (fortunately so far not mine) because of the cowboys who are not even paying their fair share.

With a complete database, it would become far more obvious just how stupid and damaging the corporate business model is and how it is empacting hive health and survival in the dump-site areas in particular.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sailabee said:

DO SOMETHING REAL about the unregistered sites. The sudden increase in income to the authority would be dramatic in my area alone.

 

I recently went to the DECA course and the AP2 there was very clear that they had no authority to issue fines. Assuming this is correct, it seems pretty hopeless. They can inspect unregistered ones, can destroy diseased ones (think I’ve got this correct) but can’t fine. I think they can prosecute but the cost is so great that they don’t.

 

If I have this right, it would seem something that is fairly easily addressed and would soon increase compliance if fines started rolling in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cBank said:

 

I recently went to the DECA course and the AP2 there was very clear that they had no authority to issue fines. Assuming this is correct, it seems pretty hopeless. They can inspect unregistered ones, can destroy diseased ones (think I’ve got this correct) but can’t fine. I think they can prosecute but the cost is so great that they don’t.

 

If I have this right, it would seem something that is fairly easily addressed and would soon increase compliance if fines started rolling in.

That is true of AP 2's, who must preserve their excellent relationship with beekeepers, but as Dr Mark Goodwin has already said, the full legal rights of the authoriy to act have never been implimented as it used to be a gentlemans game, but not anymore, greed and ignorance has destroyed that concept completely.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sailabee said:

That is true of AP 2's, who must preserve their excellent relationship with beekeepers, but as Dr Mark Goodwin has already said, the full legal rights of the authoriy to act have never been implimented as it used to be a gentlemans game, but not anymore, greed and ignorance has destroyed that concept completely.

 

That must be what is meant in their recent email (7 Aug) which contained the below. Are you saying that the Act allows for it but the plan never made provision for this part?

 

2.      Why doesn’t the Management Agency issue fines to non-compliant beekeepers?
The National American Foulbrood Pest Management Plan does not provide the Management Agency with the authority to issue fines.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cBank said:

 

That must be what is meant in their recent email (7 Aug) which contained the below. Are you saying that the Act allows for it but the plan never made provision for this part?

 

2.      Why doesn’t the Management Agency issue fines to non-compliant beekeepers?
The National American Foulbrood Pest Management Plan does not provide the Management Agency with the authority to issue fines.”

Personally, I would be chuffed to see a list of non payers (after ignoring a warning) published in 'The Beekeeper". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sailabee said:

Personally, I would be chuffed to see a list of non payers (after ignoring a warning) published in 'The Beekeeper". 

 

If that’s all they get, I suspect the rate of non-compliance wouldn’t change that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/08/2018 at 5:43 PM, Dennis Crowley said:

yes philbee, dogs are not the longterm answer, what a dog can do is the answer, ie its smell. talking with a scientist about this very thing his opinion is that it could be done so that every beekeeper could with their smart phone or other small device smell their own hives at anytime of the day. 

it would take a bit of research but a real possibility. you could then extend that to other symptoms etc. it has been done with sound in the USA. 

We have been training dogs to detect AFB for 9 years now and have gained a lot of experience and collected a lot information on where the dogs are good at and where they are not the ideal tool to help with the detection of AFB

 

Right from the beginning we were saying that the dogs are only an additional tool and we are still saying the same. 

Are they replacing the beekeepers in doing their inspections : no ! 

Are they better than a beekeeper in detecting preclinical AFB : yes!

Is that important information for a beekeeper to know he / she has pre clinical AFB in the hives : yes in my opinion 

is there anything else available that can do the same job as a dog ? No 

 

It would certainly much easier and cheaper to have a small handheld phone / machine that can detect AFB or any other specific odour (narcotic, explosive, etc) But unfortunately at this stage the dogs are still the most reliable tool that is avalible world wide.

Again we are not saying the that the dogs are the solution to this enormous problem called AFB but the are certainly in my opinion an very useful additional tool. (And by the way I’m not a beekeeper!) 

 

we are in the process of looking at other ways (like @JohnF) in improving the tool we are training / using.  We still want to use the very sensitive nose of the dogs but in a more controlled environment and not having to battle against the elements (weather and especially the bees! ) if possible. 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sailabee said:

Personally, I would be chuffed to see a list of non payers (after ignoring a warning) published in 'The Beekeeper". 

Is there any provision for the confiscation/removal of unregistered beeks hives (and hives on unregistered sites? 

Removal of hives even once would create quite a scurry!!

Certainly an amnesty period would be called for prior. Publicity on a large scale would help a lot too.

Engagement with land owners to ensure they know the registration requirements would be important too.

There are lots of options and means that don't seem to be employed currently.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rene Gloor said:

We have been training dogs to detect AFB for 9 years now and have gained a lot of experience and collected a lot information on where the dogs are good at and where they are not the ideal tool to help with the detection of AFB

 

Right from the beginning we were saying that the dogs are only an additional tool and we are still saying the same. 

Are they replacing the beekeepers in doing their inspections : no ! 

Are they better than a beekeeper in detecting preclinical AFB : yes!

Is that important information for a beekeeper to know he / she has pre clinical AFB in the hives : yes in my opinion 

is there anything else available that can do the same job as a dog ? No 

 

It would certainly much easier and cheaper to have a small handheld phone / machine that can detect AFB or any other specific odour (narcotic, explosive, etc) But unfortunately at this stage the dogs are still the most reliable tool that is avalible world wide.

Again we are not saying the that the dogs are the solution to this enormous problem called AFB but the are certainly in my opinion an very useful additional tool. (And by the way I’m not a beekeeper!) 

 

we are in the process of looking at other ways (like @JohnF) in improving the tool we are training / using.  We still want to use the very sensitive nose of the dogs but in a more controlled environment and not having to battle against the elements (weather and especially the bees! ) if possible. 

 

 

 

Rene, not saying dogs are no good at what they do, but they do have some limitations, and improving technology will be able to take that ability that dogs have and be able to fill in the gaps when and where you can use it when the dogs are unable, granted we are not there yet but its only a matter of time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ali said:

Is there any provision for the confiscation/removal of unregistered beeks hives (and hives on unregistered sites? 

Removal of hives even once would create quite a scurry!!

Certainly an amnesty period would be called for prior. Publicity on a large scale would help a lot too.

Engagement with land owners to ensure they know the registration requirements would be important too.

There are lots of options and means that don't seem to be employed currently.

Yes they can remove hives, and have I believe in Southland with a constant AFB spreader. Personally I would rather they spent money on the amnesty publicity rather than the 'save the bees' type 'Be awareness' promo. There is one registered hive to about 5 humans, and more is not better - especially owned by those who see a hive as this years 'must have' garden ornament.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the percentage of hives that have sub clinical AFB present develop clinical symptoms?

Would it be surprising to find that a great percentage of hives actually have sub clinical levels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ali said:

What is the percentage of hives that have sub clinical AFB present develop clinical symptoms?

Would it be surprising to find that a great percentage of hives actually have sub clinical levels?

It could be a bit like giardia, lots of people have it in their guts without obvious effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ali said:

What is the percentage of hives that have sub clinical AFB present develop clinical symptoms?

Would it be surprising to find that a great percentage of hives actually have sub clinical levels?

@JohnF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dennis Crowley said:

Rene, not saying dogs are no good at what they do, but they do have some limitations, and improving technology will be able to take that ability that dogs have and be able to fill in the gaps when and where you can use it when the dogs are unable, granted we are not there yet but its only a matter of time.  

I agree Dennis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rene Gloor said:

I agree Dennis.

 As Rene has said, the Dog Team are moving on with a bit of lateral thinking and private funding to introduce new techniques to the program  to make it more user friendly for both handler and beekeeper.

These are methodologies that  we would welcome the agency to have a hand in but they seem too stuck in the mud to want to move with the times. Which is ironic.  They complain to have no funds for R&D  and yet some of the ideas come up with could prove to be very nice little income earners to offset the running of the AFB control/eradication program.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the powers that be Have been listening. I just got an email saying the afb levy will not go ahead in the 19/20 year and they realise they need to engage more with beeks. From the wording I wouldn’t be surprised if we get the same email re the commodity Levy. Good decision afb management board. 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats great to see, at least they are listening to the bee keepers ? 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One down, for now

 

One more to go 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 1:46 PM, Dr Mark Goodwin said:

What we learnt between 1990 - 2000, when we caused AFB levels to drop from 1.2% of hives to 0.25 % of hives,   was that  beekeepers inspect all hives each year for AFB, and they are responsible for the spread of all AFB.  To eradicate AFB,  all the strategy has  to do is to  get beekeepers to  do better inspections and / or  spread AFB less.

In telecommunications (in the era of electro-mechanical switches) an often referred to study of telephone exchanges showed if you locked technicians, cleaners and other staff out out of the switch-room the fault rate was minimised (mostly in categories where a human being was the root cause).

Relating this observation to beekeeping; and " beekeepers ... are responsible for the spread of all AFB." The number of inspections of a hive per year must also be a factor.

Hive inspections per year most probably increased after varroa arrived and regular treatments became necessary. 

Hive inspections per year most probably increased after recent AFB training promotion.

Assume most beekeepers have occasional lapses in applying perfect AFB prevention strategies; then over time and with increased visits, compared to a decade ago, then lapses will occur more often and affect more hives.

I'm not suggesting to not visit more often, nor to reduce AFB and varroa inspections, but just that the influence of the average visits per hive per year should factored into analysis of long term AFB infection rate statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
60b17750-675b-4cfe-a73e-0be86a62948a.png

Response to submissions on proposal to increase the American foulbrood apiary and beekeeper levy


In July 2018 the Management Agency consulted with beekeepers about our proposal to increase the American foulbrood apiary and beekeeper levy.

We received 908 submissions and would like to thank respondents for their feedback on the future of funding American foulbrood elimination in New Zealand.
 

Summary of key changes to proposal to increase the American foulbrood levy

Having considered the feedback received the Management Agency Board has decided to change the proposal to increase the American foulbrood levy. These changes will be consulted on in March 2019. The key changes proposed are outlined below:
 

The existing apiary and beekeeper levy to be replaced with a hive and beekeeper levy

The majority of respondents considered that the Management Agency should not continue to use apiaries as a basis for calculating the levy. These respondents proposed that the apiary levy should be replaced with a hive levy. They considered that the proposed levy structure was unfair to beekeepers with low hive concentration, hive rental companies, and urban beekeepers working within local council laws regarding apiary size. Many respondents also considered that the proposed levy structure would be a disincentive to registration of hives and apiaries and would incentivise high hive concentration with a higher disease risk.

Having considered this feedback the Management Agency Board has decided that replacing the apiary levy with a hive levy will result in a fairer distribution of national pest management plan costs. Replacing the apiary levy with a hive levy will also reduce the financial incentive for beekeepers not to register apiary sites or to establish apiaries with a high concentration of hives.
 

Management Agency to establish a dedicated team focused solely on the elimination of American foulbrood

Many respondents expressed a lack of confidence in the Management Agency and cited instances where the Management Agency had failed to respond to issues or take effective action to address serious cases of non-compliance that were creating disease risks for neighbouring beekeeper’s apiaries.

The Management Agency Board recognised in June 2016 that the operational plan that had been in place for many years was no longer suitable for an industry that was experiencing massive growth in beekeeper numbers and hives. This initiated the development and roll out of a 5-year strategy to eliminate American foulbrood, employed two full time professional managers with extensive experience in biosecurity incursion investigation and response and American foulbrood elimination, and transferred the management of Authorised Persons Level 2 (AP2s) from AsureQuality to the Management Agency. With the support of the Apiculture New Zealand Board, these changes have enabled the Management Agency to develop the capability to take enforcement action to address serious non-compliance with national pest management plan rules.

From 1 November 2018, non-compliant beekeepers identified as causing serious and ongoing disease risks to neighbouring beekeeper’s apiaries can expect that the Management Agency will act on their failure to comply with national pest management plan rules and that they will be liable for the costs and expenses incurred.

The Management Agency Board has considered respondents feedback and determined that changes to the compliance business model are required. This has resulted in the decision to phase out the outsourcing of operations from AsureQuality Ltd and the establishment of a dedicated in-house team focused on eliminating AFB. This will prevent conflicting demands from export certification and auditing risk management premises from interfering with staff focus on the American Foulbrood Pest Management Plan.

The establishment of a dedicated in-house team in the place of the current contract is expected to provide cost savings that will enable the Management Agency to propose a smaller increase in the levy than was originally proposed in July 2018.
  
The analysis of submissions and the Management Agency’s response can be found on the levy webpage or by selecting the links below:
Copyright © 2018 The Management Agency AFB PMP, All rights reserved.
You are a registered beekeeper

Our mailing address is:
The Management Agency AFB PMP
PO Box 44 282
Lower HuttWellington  5040
New Zealand

Add us to your address book

 





 
This email was sent to josethayil@hotmail.com
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
The Management Agency AFB PMP · PO Box 44 282 · Lower Hutt, Wellington 5040 · New Zealand 
 

open.php?u=243d2c0e101a57a2d71a67e42&id=68619248c9&e=cf0bc4d77a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, can't fault them as far as listening to the people goes, and attempting to do what the people want. The way it has to be i guess.

 

Me, I personally disagree with this change, because for an AP2 (or for that matter anyone), to inspect 20 hives at one apiary, is FAR more efficient than inspecting 20 hives in 20 different apiaries.

 

I suspect there may be a vocal rental hive operator or two, who have badgered and letter written their way to getting what suits them to pay the least amount of money. Even though that now with the dropping price of honey, rental operators are the group who can most afford it.

 

They forget that the next group to feel they have a grievance, will be commercial operators with bigger and more efficient sites, who for the most part do a good job of managing their own AFB, so are never seen by an inspector. But will now feel they are shelling out thousands of dollars, just to subsidise rental hive operators and such. Especially now many of those commercials are struggling financially, while rental hive operators charge on an entirely different basis.

 

There will be problems as some commercials struggle to come up with the money.

 

Anyhow, that's democracy. :$

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I am very happy that they have listened and are changing the levy to be based on hives rather than apiaries. After all, the unit every beekeeper bases their hobby or business on is hive number not apiary number.

I don't think it comes down to a couple of vocal rental hive operators at all. For me it comes down to making sure that they are not encouraging large apiaries. For good beekeepers I wouldn't see these as a major disease risk but I have always seen them as detrimental to hive health. I firmly believe it is better for beehives to be spread out in small apiaries and I think it is unjust for beekeepers to be punished with higher levies for opting to keep their bees this way. 

A big thumbs up from me for the Management Agency! I thank them for listening.

Edited by Otto
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I hope they have a better handle on the changes than I  can sort out from their email. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...