Jump to content

Beekeepers worry about biosecurity clean-up costs


Recommended Posts

From the NZ Herald

Beekeepers are concerned they may be lumped with the costs of cleaning up future biosecurity breaches that are not their fault.

Primary industry groups are currently looking at signing up to a deal with Government to work together on improving post-border biosecurity controls.

The Government Industry Agreement (GIA) would allow industries to help identify the biosecurity risks of greatest concern to them, and manage those risks through joint investment with the Government.

National Beekeepers Association co-chief executive Daniel Paul is worried that the GIA only gave beekeepers a say in biosecurity systems post-border.

"Our industry would be far more comfortable if the agreement allowed us to have serious input into pre-border controls as well."

Beekeepers could well be left responsible paying for a biosecurity breach they had no opportunity to prevent, he said.

 

He cited the Government's intention to allow Australian honey into the country, which had the potential bring in three new pests and diseases, Paul said.

"We don't have any concerns that consumers would stop buying New Zealand honey.

"What we are concerned about are the chances of a serious biosecurity breach if Australian honey is allowed in. Who's going to pay for that?"

The Government could not on the one hand allow a new product into the country and then expect the industry to pay the costs if something went wrong, he said.

The benefit of the GIA was that beekeepers would at least get to sit around the table and talk with the MPI, he said.

"There's sufficient benefit to warrant signing up. It would be foolish to write it off right now.

"If we're not a signatory and something happens, we just won't have the chance to talk with MPI about how to deal with it."

Paul said he hoped discussions now with the MPI would lead to a fair cost-sharing agreement.

MPI said the GIA, planned to start formally on July 1, 2013, would give primary industries a better say in biosecurity preparedness and response activities.

A Joint Working Group, made up of industry members and the MPI, was currently in discussions over what the agreement would look like and how the cost-sharing would work.

The JWG was expected to produce a draft Deed of Agreement for industry bodies to comment on later this year, with industry members to eventually vote on whether to sign up.

Beekeepers worry about biosecurity clean-up costs - Business - NZ Herald News

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 18
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It will certainly make me think about my registration status. In the case of a new biosecurity breach we will be paying enough in treatments never mind paying extra for someone elses stuff up

 

As has been said before. It is like getting the victim to pay for the burglary while the burglar gets away scott free. And of course the police tell you to leave your doors and windows open because they have it covered. Then they will sit down with you and discuss how much prison time you will do.

 

It is always someone else's fault.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I just wonder what advantage there is in being able to sit around a table and "talk" after the horse has bolted.

 

The powers that be dont listen to us now why would they listen to us after signing an agreement?

 

Whats the use in being able to "talk" when EFB is found in NZ?

 

and it will be found if we allow honey imports there's nothing surer.

 

Either way we will end up paying for it.

 

Wasn't it MAF that said there's no problem with kiwi pollen imports?

 

Wasn't it Maf that said deformed wing virus wasn't in drone sperm?

 

but thats ok if they get it wrong because we can sit around a table with them and "talk" about it.

Not sure I completely agree. I have to agree with Daniel Paul that getting input into pre-border security is what counts for us. To say that we are not being listened to now is being a little unfair. As far as I know there is still a complete ban on importing bee products?

 

The kiwifruit pollen thing can only be viewed as a colossal mistake.

 

Blaming the presence of Deformed Wing Virus in NZ on sperm imports is however very misinformed. Many strains of this virus existed in NZ before Varroa was found here. The mites just do a very good job of selecting the most virulent one and spreading it around.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure I completely agree. I have to agree with Daniel Paul that getting input into pre-border security is what counts for us. To say that we are not being listened to now is being a little unfair. As far as I know there is still a complete ban on importing bee products?

 

The kiwifruit pollen thing can only be viewed as a colossal mistake.

 

Blaming the presence of Deformed Wing Virus in NZ on sperm imports is however very misinformed. Many strains of this virus existed in NZ before Varroa was found here. The mites just do a very good job of selecting the most virulent one and spreading it around.

I must say the thing I like most about this forum is the range of knowledge and infomation that comes through. Thank you to all who post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blaming the presence of Deformed Wing Virus in NZ on sperm imports is however very misinformed. Many strains of this virus existed in NZ before Varroa was found here. The mites just do a very good job of selecting the most virulent one and spreading it around.

 

Hi Otto I wasn't actually saying that DWV was brought in with drone semen.

 

When consent was being saught for importation of Carniolan semen it was stated that DWV was not transmitted in semen since that time it's been found that DWV is in fact transmitted via semen.

 

Whether it was here before the importation of Carni semen or whether the Carni semen contained DWV or not I have absolutely no idea

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure I completely agree. I have to agree with Daniel Paul that getting input into pre-border security is what counts for us.

 

Otto Daniel Paul is saying the beekeeping industry would like input into pre-border security the problem is the GIA is not about our input into pre-border only post border which to me is a waste of time.

 

The GIA is not about stopping disease and pestilance into the country it's about who is paying for it when it gets here

Link to post
Share on other sites
Otto Daniel Paul is saying the beekeeping industry would like input into pre-border security the problem is the GIA is not about our input into pre-border only post border which to me is a waste of time.

 

The GIA is not about stopping disease and pestilance into the country it's about who is paying for it when it gets here

I know where you are coming from Fraz... However I also agree with Daniel Paul even if we are only offered access to a small portion of the decision making cake it is still better than no access (cake) at all. (we will still have to pay for the cake one way or another anyway)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with Frazz on this one. We get no say in the mess that may be made. We just get the shovels to clean up after the fact and we have to buy our own shovels.

 

It is nice to think we can have input pre-border but the reality is it wont happen. Trade agreements or other agendas will take precedence over our input

Link to post
Share on other sites
However I also agree with Daniel Paul even if we are only offered access to a small portion of the decision making cake it is still better than no access (cake) at all. (we will still have to pay for the cake one way or another anyway)

 

So as an example shaun honey is allowed to be imported from australia going against the wishes of most beekeepers and a couple of scientists.

We get EFB it's found in hives in Auckland just like varroa was.

 

Under a GIA our industry will have made an agreement with the government about how much money we as an industry will put towards this incursion we might get a say in what we will do about it trying eradication as with varroa or live with it as with varroa.

 

What about this is good for our beekeeping business's? Is it good that we weren't able to stop it coming in? is it good that we pay for the clean up? is it good that we get to say whether or not we want to try to eradicate?

 

bearing in mind that all we get is a chance to have our say but in reality what does that mean.

How many times have people and organisations had a chance to have a say and the govt goes ahead and does what it wants anyway.

 

I bet the kiwifruit growers who have had their livelihoods destroyed by PSA wish they had a GIA so they could sit round a table with the guvmint and talk about where to next.

What do you think would have happened if we had a GIA when varroa hit our shores? do you think we would still have varroa? do you think we would have affordable treatments? or do you think it wouldn't have changed a thing?

 

Either way we as beekeepers will carry the can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is taken from the Summerfruit website

Summerfruit

 

It gives an indication on where other primary industrys are on GIA.

 

Transfering costs

 

On this matter it is concerning that the new biosecurity legislation proposed in the form of Government Industry Agreements (GIAs) appears to be aimed at transferring the financial costs of readiness and incursion response on to land owners. Federated Farmers has been part of the discussions around the GIA scheme since its original starting point as the Surveillance, Incursion and Response Working Group a few years ago.

During GIA discussions we have constantly questioned the fact that the majority of farmers are exporters and not importers. Farmers do not bring the pests and diseases into New Zealand, so why should we be the cash providers for the government when border failure occurs? Should it not be the importers and the tourists bringing the pests and disease risks into New Zealand who carry the costs of biosecurity?

Unfortunately our questions on this matter have been skimmed over by MPI, and as signalled in the new legislation, the government is powering on with the GIA concept. Industry groups across the sector are united in their opposition to the GIA, and we are still hoping that some sense comes out of the process. Having a compulsory levy slapped on us by the government for something we have no or very little control over just does not go down well with the land-based sectors.

Response principles

 

It is inevitable that some industry groups will sign up to GIA as they see the credit system working in their favour. Having the ability to make money out of the government for core surveillance and preparation work is not stupid, but when a large incursion hits it could make an affected business have a cash deficit overnight.

Our members want to see enhanced governance around decision-making and improved partnerships. A lot of the fundamentals set out in the GIA are actually quite good. On the preparation and planning side we see this as common sense and are currently working with MPI and other industry groups to ensure we have response processes in place associated with high-risk diseases.

The response and compensation principles are much harder to digest, based around the fact that as exporters, farmers are not the risk generators. We are very concerned with what is proposed in some facets of the biosecurity equation. It comes across to us that the government now has a focus on wanting to be really good at incursion response with internal readiness over stopping unwanted pests actually entering New Zealand.

Of interest is a scientific paper entitled ‘Improving Border Biosecurity: Potential Economic Benefits to New Zealand’ published in 2005 in the NZ Plant Protection Society Journal. In this paper it is stated that in relation to invasive plant pests, New Zealand is faced with

  • Incursions of increased phytophagus plant pests at a cost of $880 million a year, although this does not include non-economic ecological effects
  • A weighted average cost of $540,000 per incursion
  • An estimation, using MPI’s own data, that a total of 514 unwanted species will be established in New Zealand between 2005 and 2017 at a total accumulated cost of $921 million.

It is noted in the paper that, even with a lineal reduction of 10 per cent of incursions by stronger border control over a 12-year period, this would lead to a dollar saving of over $96 million. When assessing the financial cost of incursions, as a guideline Federated Farmers remains on the government’s case in lobbying for the focus of biosecurity to continue on keeping pests out of New Zealand.

Border control

 

By placing a major focus on readiness and response, as MPI is currently doing via the GIA, we see this as the government admitting that the border is too hard to control from a biosecurity perspective. It would rather place our biosecurity resources within New Zealand as a softer solution.

Federated Farmers strongly believes that it is MPI’s role to lead a biosecurity system which protects New Zealand’s people, environment and economy from risk organisms. Within New Zealand MPI is also the only body that can influence international phytosanitary agreements. Under the proposed GIA framework MPI still maintains the biosecurity mandate. Industry is very limited in its ability to affect the biosecurity framework where it counts the most, at pre-border and on the border.

As an organisation we maintain that rather than focus on the post-border scenario, MPI should place more of its energies into securing pre-border agreements with trading partners. MPI should ensure there is no reduction to the effectiveness of border biosecurity.

Share the costs

 

In any biosecurity incursion response the benefits are to all of New Zealand such as employment, trade and protecting conservation values. Costs should rightly fall on the government which is funded through taxpayers. As an organisation we can accept no additional financial responsibility for biosecurity management other than the tax we already pay to the government to ensure New Zealand is adequately protected.

Federated Farmers has no problem in supporting the principle that those who create the need for regulation should bear its costs, and agree that there are efficiency and equity benefits that can be achieved through cost recovery. If a business wants to import or export a product, then there is a good case for the cost of any required regulation to help the exporting or importing process to fall with the beneficial party.

It makes sense that importers and tourists along with government are targeted as the main funders of readiness and response. The fact that international phytosanitary requirements and trade obligations are used to fend this one off does not go down too well and we are sure some compromise can be reached.

Partnerships

 

It is critical that New Zealand’s biosecurity is implemented to a level where the farmer feels secure from unwanted pests and disease incursions. This requires government leadership, but it is agreed this would also benefit from industry decision-making versus financial contribution.

A more feasible option to the GIA that would be supported by Federated Farmers is for MPI to develop a Memorandum of Understanding, working groups or similar non-fiscal arrangements between industry groups and the government around decision-making for preparedness and incursion response. The partnership approach would also work as we have much we could offer in the form of resources other than cash.

Industry needs to be part of the decision-making framework during readiness and response, but not the funder. An agreement would lay out such items as consultation requirements, non-fiscal resources available in a response, communication networks and so on. Federated Farmers could support such an arrangement by the supply of human resources and communication networks.

Federated Farmers welcomes further discussion on the GIA development process and does give MPI some credit for involving industry groups on this matter. However, we enforce the message that any costs associated with biosecurity should fall with the Crown and importers, not the individual farmer who has little if no influence on the biosecurity framework

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)..........Having a compulsory levy slapped on us by the government for something we have no or very little control over just does not go down well with the land-based sectors.

Response principles

 

It is inevitable that some industry groups will sign up to GIA as they see the credit system working in their favour. Having the ability to make money out of the government for core surveillance and preparation work is not stupid, but when a large incursion hits it could make an affected business have a cash deficit overnight.

These people will make money after an incursion as well

 

Share the costs

 

In any biosecurity incursion response the benefits are to all of New Zealand such as employment, trade and protecting conservation values. Costs should rightly fall on the government which is funded through taxpayers. As an organisation we can accept no additional financial responsibility for biosecurity management other than the tax we already pay to the government to ensure New Zealand is adequately protected.

Federated Farmers has no problem in supporting the principle that those who create the need for regulation should bear its costs, and agree that there are efficiency and equity benefits that can be achieved through cost recovery. If a business wants to import or export a product, then there is a good case for the cost of any required regulation to help the exporting or importing process to fall with the beneficial party.

It makes sense that importers and tourists along with government are targeted as the main funders of readiness and response. The fact that international phytosanitary requirements and trade obligations are used to fend this one off does not go down too well and we are sure some compromise can be reached.

Partnerships

 

............Federated Farmers welcomes further discussion on the GIA development process and does give MPI some credit for involving industry groups on this matter. However, we enforce the message that any costs associated with biosecurity should fall with the Crown and importers, not the individual farmer who has little if no influence on the biosecurity framework

 

What we need is an "I told you so" clause which excuses us of anything introduced the at we had raised concerns about.

 

Is FF/BIG really on our side?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
What we need is an "I told you so" clause which excuses us of anything introduced the at we had raised concerns about.

 

Is FF/BIG really on our side?

 

Hi all - thanks for all your comments on this issue. It's really good to see the range of views. As you may know by now, the NBA has signed the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with MPI to EXPLORE THE VALUE PROPOSITION in GIA. Those words are in caps to stress them. We're EXPLORING the value proposition. There may not be one. There may be. We can all have a view - but we won't really KNOW until we test it. And that's what we aim to do over the coming months.

 

As I have said publicly the govt can't expect on the one hand to introduce Aussie honey with all the threats it poses and on the other expect us to pay for any B/S problem. So you can be assured that issue will be very, very high on the value proposition (in other words, how do we manage pre-border controls to avoid post-border problems).

 

If we can get some traction on that issue, beekeepers may feel there is some value in GIA.

 

I've already had that preliminary conversation with MPI but it's something that we need to put a lot more effort into as part of exploring the value of GIA.

 

Cheers

 

Daniel

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I have said publicly the govt can't expect on the one hand to introduce Aussie honey with all the threats it poses and on the other expect us to pay for any B/S problem. So you can be assured that issue will be very, very high on the value proposition (in other words, how do we manage pre-border controls to avoid post-border problems).

 

If we can get some traction on that issue, beekeepers may feel there is some value in GIA.

 

I've already had that preliminary conversation with MPI but it's something that we need to put a lot more effort into as part of exploring the value of GIA.

 

In my mind Daniel that is the key The GIA has to be much more than dealing with the fallout post border I myself see no benefit in that it has to be all about reducing the liklihood of anything being brought in.

 

There's a big difference in someone sneaking something in in there back pocket and government sanctioned imports.

 

As much as I would hate to have to deal with another bee disease/pest it would be so much worse if it was brought in on the back of a government directive and the boffins at MPI telling me it's ok to bring this in as long as it's heated to kill the bugs that are in it.

 

And the important thing to remember is that Australian honey DOES have disease so you are playing russian roulette with NZ beekeepers.

If this honey is allowed in we WILL get EFB and any other nasty thats being harboured in it.

 

After tasting Australian honey I have no worries about kiwis buying it because IMO it's truely awful so it's not about that it's all about disease.

 

I would also like to know why MPI is pushing so hard on this the science behind some of there decisions have been proved to be pretty shoddy over the years and I have no faith they will get this one right.

 

At the VSH workshop in Canterbury Paul Bolger was there and he pretty much said that imports were coming get over it so it gives me an idea of just how helpful sitting around a table and having "input" into anything is going to be.

 

Wheres that Tui's?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
In my mind Daniel that is the key The GIA has to be much more than dealing with the fallout post border I myself see no benefit in that it has to be all about reducing the liklihood of anything being brought in.

 

There's a big difference in someone sneaking something in in there back pocket and government sanctioned imports.

 

As much as I would hate to have to deal with another bee disease/pest it would be so much worse if it was brought in on the back of a government directive and the boffins at MPI telling me it's ok to bring this in as long as it's heated to kill the bugs that are in it.

 

And the important thing to remember is that Australian honey DOES have disease so you are playing russian roulette with NZ beekeepers.

If this honey is allowed in we WILL get EFB and any other nasty thats being harboured in it.

 

After tasting Australian honey I have no worries about kiwis buying it because IMO it's truely awful so it's not about that it's all about disease.

 

I would also like to know why MPI is pushing so hard on this the science behind some of there decisions have been proved to be pretty shoddy over the years and I have no faith they will get this one right.

 

At the VSH workshop in Canterbury Paul Bolger was there and he pretty much said that imports were coming get over it so it gives me an idea of just how helpful sitting around a table and having "input" into anything is going to be.

 

Wheres that Tui's?

 

We'll keep working on it for you, Frazzle. The fat lady's not sung yet!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...