‘To GIA or Not to GIA?’ Biosecurity Takes Centre Stage at Industry Roundtable

While wider beekeeping industry representation and what to do about it – as detailed in Industry Roundtable 3 - ApiNZ Leader Backs Beekeeper-Only Approach  – concluded the most recent roundtable meeting of New Zealand Beekeeping Inc (NZBI) leadership and assorted industry stakeholders, the pressing issue of improving a woefully inadequate biosecurity programme for apiculture was pushed to the forefront of talks.

While MPI provide a level of biosecurity protection to the apiculture industry, the beekeeping industry is at severe risk due to a lack of preparedness for exotic pest incursions.

Unsurprisingly, given that the Ministry for Primary Industries’ (MPI) Biosecurity NZ director of readiness and response John Walsh signalled Government Industry Agreements (GIA) as their desired instrument for dealing with primary sectors at the last roundtable meeting, that is where the biosecurity conversation picked up at the May 26 online ‘Zoom’ meeting attended by around 15 people.

“As far as MPI are concerned it is GIA or bust. We need to break that impasse,” meeting facilitator Ian Fletcher set the table with.

“We’ve got a problem – the irresistible force – and an immovable object, the GIA. What are we going to do about it?”

Fletcher said that during discussions with Walsh, post-meeting, he was told that, among primary sectors, it was only apiculture and seafood industries without a GIA. Both share the similarity of uncontainable stock.

NZBI president Jane Lorimer said her research into GIAs led her to believe she didn’t think beekeepers would be able to meet the financial requirements, but equally so MPI would not be able to meet their requirement to stand up a sufficiently skilled workforce at a time of exotic pest incursion.

The issue of cost-recovery from MPI following an incursion was raised, and how the beekeeping industry might protect itself from a large bill.

“If MPI decide they want to burn every hive from Hamilton north, because an incursion has occurred in Auckland, there is nothing beekeepers can do about it. At least with a GIA we can say we agree to whatever action,” hobbyist beekeeper and Dnature lab owner/technical director John Mackay pointed out.

Apiculture New Zealand has previously promoted a GIA for beekeepers, and current board member Tony Wright offered insight.

“As I understood it the GIA was a way of limiting how MPI could cost-recover. You could agree in advance that, ‘we have only got this-much amount of money, so you can only cost recover to that point’. Alternately, I think the provisions under the Biosecurity Act enable MPI to cost-recover to whatever extent it chooses to,” Wright said.

“It might be the least-bad option. The option of not responding to the risks that are presented by the Biosecurity Act and future incursions could be greater than the risks associated with adopting a GIA position. Or something else could be better than both.”

That something else was explored, led by a question posed by Mackay.

“What are beekeepers willing to do to prevent an incursion? Because if there is no willingness there to act for the long-term good, then it really seems like a lot of wasted effort,” he said.

It will not be possible to answer that question, without a more complete picture of a surveillance and response plan being presented it was decided.

“If there wasn’t a clear agreement within the industry about how we would respond to an incursion and how that would be managed, it would be difficult to go and burn a lot of hives… if there is not that collective understanding, I don’t think it would work,” East Valley Honey owner Martin Crisp suggested.

“Some sort of structure, or plan of attack, before it happens, is needed. That way, everyone knows what we are going to do regardless of who is running things at the top end,” added Kiwitahi Honey owner James Harrison.

“To test our will to act, we need to know what action would look like,” Fletcher summarised.

To that end, Wright made a potential, practical suggestion.

“Maybe there is a case for the industry to be self-insured to some extent,” he offered.

“If you find an incursion early and act, are we prepared to reimburse any beekeepers for effectively ‘taking one for the team’, or do they have to wear it themselves? It may not be a terribly big fund that you need to enable that because, if you know that when we find something the first response is ‘burn your hives’, but you know that by being a good citizen you are going to get some form of compensation, then there is less barrier to that being an effective plan.

“The other side of that is, what does that fund look like and how do you raise it? You may have a small additional levy which gets charged up until the point the reimbursement fund total is reached, then you can stop charging it, for example.”

Could that be the basis of an acceptable plan to MPI, to prevent unachievable cost-recovery?

“That might be the agreement with MPI – we’ve got an approach already and let’s start with that. It might be that you don’t get straight into a bill for millions of dollars,” Wright added.

Lorimer suggested that the existing American foulbrood (AFB) Pest Management Plan (PMP) might provide the structure to administer a separate levy for biosecurity and ‘self-insurance’, but beekeeping opinion would need to be canvassed regarding such a proposal.

“Legally it can’t be done right now, but the PMP is written ‘for beekeepers, by beekeepers’. So, if beekeepers want a change, why can’t we lobby government to make a change?” she asked.

After over an hour’s discussion it was concluded that the only way to gauge beekeeper enthusiasm for such measures was to form a working group to advance a draft biosecurity plan which would cover both surveillance and response measures. To assist that process, Fletcher threw the doors open to the industry.

“No one is excluded. If anyone else feels they want to jump in, then all ideas are gratefully received.”