|
|
|
|
|
13 July 2000
What is the current distribution of varroa?
A delimiting survey for Varroa has been completed. Infestations are prevalent and heavy around Auckland, Pukekohe and Hauraki Plains, with outlying sites at Helensville, Te Puke, Hokianga, Te Awamutu, Otorohanga and National Park. It is assumed that feral bees have been infected.
What are the possible economic impacts of varroa?
MAF has estimated the impacts to be in the range of $400 million to $900 million if there is no direct Government involvement. (This is a the total, or one-off, value of the future expected impacts.) The impacts arise through factors such as the reduced bee numbers leading to reduced pollination; increased costs of pollination services; and increased costs for beekeepers. The actual economic impacts of varroa will depend to a large extent on the success of the Government response.
With Government involvement - how much?
The management programme is expected to cost Government up to $40 million over the next two years. Government's involvement and funding of management beyond the two-year interim programme will be determined through the development of a long-term management plan. The decision to go for the management option should reduce the monetary impact of varroa to a much lower level.
What were the response options being discussed?
implement a Government supported eradication programme;
industry only management; and
joint Government and industry management.
What was the technical advice on a preferred response?
On the basis of risks identified by a group of technical experts, MAF considers there is a low probability that an eradication programme for varroa would be successful.
What about industry only management?
The economic impacts to New Zealand of Varroa under this option are estimated to be in the range of $400 million to $900 million. MAF considers that these impacts could be significantly reduced through direct Government involvement in management.
Why was eradication not pursued?
The four primary technical risks identified were:
while the Apistan test is the most sensitive available, it will not reliably detect very low levels of varroa infestation; and
the likelihood of unidentified infestations reduces the feasibility of eradication.
eradication of varroa is dependent on being able to detect new infestations before they spread to other locations;
even with the best available Apistan test, new infestations may remain undetected for up to six months, and there is potential for those to spread further prior to detection; and
the technical group considered this a significant risk to eradication being achieved.
eradication of varroa requires elimination of all infested feral colonies (this would be done using poison bait stations - one per square kilometre);
attracting the last feral bees into poison bait stations would be difficult because the last bees would have little competition for abundant natural food sources, such as flowers.
There may be public concerns over possible environmental and public health impacts of a poisoning programme
Although any poisoning programme would be carried out with appropriate safeguards, public concern would be an unqualified but potentially significant risk to the programme.
In addition to technical risks, the technical group also noted:
eliminating a substantial proportion of the North Island's bees (about 40%) poses a significant risk to industries that rely on bees for pollination services. (This risk is acceptable only if there were a good probability of success.)
What was the estimated cost of eradication?
The cost of attempting eradication is estimated at $55-70 million.
Was cost a factor in the decision not to eradicate?
No. Eradication would be overwhelmingly worthwhile from an economic perspective if it was technically feasible with a good probability of success. The decision not to pursue eradication was based on the technical advice that there is a low probability of success.
Was MAF too slow in its response and did this affect the chance of a successful eradication?
The time taken to collect information and properly assess response options did not affect the response option chosen. MAF and the Technical Advisory Group considered it was necessary to determine the extent of the varroa infestation before commencing any response.
MAF and beekeepers have addressed this issue with great urgency, but determining the geographical distribution of varroa has been very time and people consuming. The extent of spread has meant a huge number of bee hives had to be tested in the infested area, and many follow up surveys were required outside of the infested area as a result of beehive movements.
Depopulating large numbers of infested hives before the extent of the infestation was known would have been premature. In fact, as it turns out, this would have resulted in much unnecessary destruction of hives, as the long-term management option chosen does not require hive destruction.
Natural spread of the mite is slow, and movement controls were put in place to guard against accidental spread while the delimiting survey was completed.
Would an eradication attempt contribute to control, even if it were unsuccessful?
The techniques for eradicating Varroa are fundamentally different from the techniques for long term management. Eradication would require the depopulation of all managed and feral bees. Long-term management requires the use of chemicals to kill Varroa in managed hives, while leaving the bees in those hives healthy.
A failed eradication attempt would not effectively contribute to a long-term management programme. Rather, it would drain Government and industry resources, good will and trust, to the extent that any subsequent control programme would probably be much less effective than what is currently being proposed. An unsuccessful eradication attempt would also severely disrupt beekeeping activities, and put crop pollination at risk.
What will the joint Government and industry response involve?
Government has agreed in principle to a three-stage plan.
Immediate management (next 10 weeks)
Aim: To get a treatment programme underway while the interim management plan is finalised.
Actions: Beekeepers from all infested apiaries, and apiaries within a five kilometre radius of an infested apiary, will be offered treatment of hives with a registered chemical. A MAF contractor will administer the treatment and costs will be met by MAF.
Interim management (a two year Government supported management programme)
Aim: to ensure that the South Island remains free of Varroa for as long as possible, and that the effects of Varroa in the North Island are minimised.
Actions: MAF has prepared and released a draft operational plan for Varroa control to the industry for comment.
It is proposed that MAF finalise this plan once industry comments have been received, and report back to Cabinet by the end of mid-September with firm proposals.
Long term management (beyond two years)
Aim: to ensure the effects of Varroa are minimised.
Actions: The Government considers that the complex issues associated with long term management of Varroa would be best considered in the context of developing long term management proposal under the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Cabinet has approved additional funding to enable MAF to employ a facilitator to lead development of a long-term strategy. (Control at an apiary level - At an apiary level, control involves monitoring mite populations and treating infested hives with a registered chemical (or alternative organic treatment) which kills mites and leaves the hives intact.)
What is a long-term management plan?
The long-term management plan will have similar legal status to regulations. The strategy sets up a pest management agency responsible for implementing the strategy and the basis for funding the strategy. The pest management agency is responsible for developing a detailed operational plan and providing an annual report to the Minister. The Government has approved funding for a facilitator to lead the process of developing a management plan for varroa.
The process of developing a management plan for varroa would require explicit consideration of:
Because of the national significance of Varroa and the potential for conflicting industry interests, it is considered that the development of a management plan would be led by MAF in partnership with industry. Additional funding has been approved to enable MAF to employ a facilitator for the strategy. A management plan for Varroa would not preclude or necessarily require future Government involvement. Long-term varroa control at apiaries will involve monitoring mite populations and treating infested hives, which will kill the mites and leave the hives intact.
How much will the joint Government / industry response cost?
The cost of the response will depend to some extent on whether there is an incursion in the South Island and the extent to which Government pays for disease management.
Costs of three-tier plan:
Preliminary estimates of the cost of a two-year interim Varroa control programme incorporates:
When will chemical controls for varroa mite be registered and available for use?
There are currently no chemicals registered in New Zealand for the treatment of varroa. In April the Minister of Agriculture instructed MAF to fast track the approvals process for chemicals to be used in beehives to treat varroa. Approval of such chemicals is required under the Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Act 1999. The process used to assess and approve chemicals under this legislation closely mirrors that for animal remedies or pesticides. Two products are going through the approval process. It is expected that one or both of these products will be available for use in July.
Are there any human health or environmental impacts of the joint Government / industry response?
There are not expected to be any significant human health or environmental impacts from the control programme. Potential issues and necessary safeguards are being addressed during the statutory process of registering treatments for use. (MAF Agricultural Compounds unit facilitates this process and issues the registration).
Will there be compensation for Beekeepers?
Compensation is not expected to be a significant issue with the joint industry and Government response because the treatment regime leaves hives intact and productive.
What are the expected long-term impacts of Varroa on beekeepers?
It is expected that beekeepers involved in providing pollination services will be able to successfully adapt to the presence of varroa, because the profit margins in horticulture should enable the costs of varroa management to be passed on.
Small and medium sized beekeepers focussing on honey production may not be able to successfully adapt to the presence of varroa, as the current profit margins for honey products are insufficient to meet treatment costs. Large sized honey producers will be assisted by economies of scale and are expected to adapt.
How will the Government respond to hardship caused to beekeepers by Varroa?
Cabinet has asked MAF and the Ministry of Social Policy, in consultation with the beekeeping industry, to review the need for rural sector support measures, and report back to Government by the end of August 2000 with a proposal.
How is industry likely to react to the decision to manage varroa rather than eradicate
It is expected that the decision by Cabinet not to pursue eradication will be met with an angry response from some industry participants. In the end though eradication was simply not feasible, and we hope that once beekeepers have had an opportunity to consider the decision carefully, they will recognise this. The Government is committed to assisting industry to manage Varroa mite, and we will be looking to work in partnership with beekeepers to develop the best possible response.
MAF will continue to work with beekeepers to further explain the Government's planned Varroa initiatives, and to finalise a control plan.
How is the public likely to react to the decision to manage varroa rather than eradicateThe public is likely to be concerned at the establishment of a new organism in New Zealand. It is anticipated that like beekeepers they will come to accept the proposed response as being the best of the available options.
Is there a need to review Border Controls as a result of this and other recent
MAF has been asked for options on enhancing New Zealand's overall biosecurity. This will require MAF to undertake careful analysis of the range of existing and potential measures and ensure that any new proposals fit within the existing integrated risk management approach. An initial report is expected in about a month.
How has industry been involved in considering the response to Varroa?
Industry representatives have participated in technical groups considering the economic impacts of Varroa, the technical feasibility of eradication and development of options for controlling the impacts of the mite. Industry has had an opportunity to make submissions on draft eradication and control plans. There have been meetings and conference phone calls to ensure that industry has been informed of key developments
What does the management option mean for pollination
There should be minimal impact on pollination services as the management option enables viable hives to be available for pollination
Home NZ Bkpg Bee Diseases Organisation Information Contacts
, webmaster of the site...