This accompanying report from the Executive, in support of eradication, has come about because MAF Biosecurity Authority had commissioned AgriQuality to furnish a report on the Control of Varroa.

This was presented to the Finance Committee of Government on Tuesday, 20th June.

The report produced by AgriQuality had very little input from the beekeeping industry, even though two members were belatedly included.   (They were told that beekeepers' input was not required by AgriQuality for them to write the document).

MAF Biosecurity Authority is placing more emphasis on the Control of Varroa option rather than on the Eradication option.
The Control option is available at your Branch or on the NBA Website.

On 20th June, the NBA Executive convened a group of Commercial Beekeepers to consider the eradication option.   They produced this report, which the Executive would like you to consider.

The Executive must have the report about the Eradication option into the Ministers' offices by Wednesday, 28th June.
The Executive have been informed that the full Government Cabinet sits on the 3rd July, at which time the options will be considered.

Because of the time pressure we would like you to discuss this with your branch members and take a vote on these options; "Control" or "Eradication".   One person, one vote.   Please also record how many people have hives in the Infected, Buffer and Surveillance zones.

If unable to attend the meeting, please ring, fax or E-mail your Branch Secretary or President and cast your vote.

The members of this working committee are:

A. Taiaroa	D. Bell	J. Lorimer	G. Cammell
M. Stuckey	P. Cropp	R. Berry	M. Bush

Terry Gavin

President
National Beekeepers' Association

Submitted Version: 23 June 2000

Commissioned by:
The Executive of The National Beekeepers' Association of New Zealand Inc

Project Supervisor:
NBA Executive

Contributors:
Jane Lorimer B.Sc., Hamilton: Commercial Beekeeper - queen raiser, paid pollination, packing & marketing honey, pollen production, NBA Executive member, Marketing Committee chair person

Murray Bush, Blenheim: Commercial Beekeeper - S.I. high country pastureland pollinator, paid pollination, honey packing & marketing, Pest Management Review Committee chairman

Graham Cammell, Auckland: Commercial Beekeeper - paid pollination, packer, marketer & exporter of bulk & packed honey, Marketing and Pest Management Strategy Review Committee member

Mike Stuckey, Auckland: Commercial Beekeeper - NBA Past President, packer, marketer & exporter of honey specialising in varietal honeys

Tony Taiaroa, Waikari: Commercial Beekeeper - paid pollination, honeydew production, NBA Executive member, Marketing Committee member, and Chairman of The NZ Beekeeper Journal Committee

Don Bell, Sheffield: Commercial Beekeeper - paid pollination, NBA Executive member, chief NBA/Government liaison person, past public servant responsible for National Parks, principal conservation officer for ecological management Nelson/Marlborough region Dept of Conservation

Philip Cropp, Nelson: Commercial Beekeeper - paid pollination, packs & markets honey for NZ & overseas including some specialty products, queen producer

Russell Berry, Rotorua: Commercial Beekeeper - paid pollination, packs, markets bulk & packed lines honey NZ & overseas, producer & exporter queen bees & package bees, Immediate Past President of the NBA

The listed contributors consider that the long term effect of this Plan is to return New Zealand beekeeping to its varroa mite free status, thereby enabling continuation of profitable production of honey, beeswax, live bees, bee products and long term pollination, both paid and unpaid, of New Zealand horticultural and agricultural crops, to the benefit of all New Zealand citizens.

Table of Contents
Introduction
Executive Summary
Recommendations
Industry Concerns
Critical Assumptions
Requirements for Industry Acceptance of Eradication
Depopulation of Registered Hives
Eradication of Feral Colonies
Repopulation of Registered Hives
Movement Control
North to South Movement Ban
Surveillance
South Island Surveillance Options
Compensation
South Island Incursion
South Island Incursion

1. INTRODUCTION

This document has been prepared by the National Beekeepers Association, as an alternative to the Eradication document prepared by AgriQuality New Zealand.

The participants who have prepared this document, are expert commercial beekeepers (apiarists) who have diverse skills in all facets of Apiculture and business management.  They are dedicated to beekeeping and earn their income from their beekeeping operations.

The Executive believes that the documents prepared by AgriQuality reflect the non-commercial beekeeping acumen of the contributors, so we have proceeded to formulate the following document, which we believe will have greater beekeeper support.   We have taken the liberty of using various sections from within the AgriQuality document, where we have deemed them to be appropriate.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

Beekeepers and AgriQuality to be the preferred contractors.

Bait stations will work if the correct dimensions solutions and poisons are used.  Additional methods should be used at the same time to assist speedy eradication of all ferals.

Trees to be sprayed preferably while flowering, with sugar solutions toxic to bees.  E.g. spray willows or other flowering shelter belts surrounding kiwifruit orchards, with sugar solutions toxic to bees. This spray must have NO environmental detrimental effect.

Information on double testing for varroa mite confirms accuracy of surveillance methods used.  This information must be released to increase beekeeper and government confidence in the eradication programme.

To give extra beekeeper and government confidence in the location of varroa mites, repeat testing should be carried out for varroa mites immediately during the next week, testing additional apiaries for the second time.

Immediately carry out further surveillance along main highways between known varroa infested areas to areas where bees are regularly transported - e.g. kiwifruit orchards.

Testing in other areas throughout NZ should have emphasis on testing apiary sites in close proximity to main arterial routes used regularly by beekeepers transporting live bees.

The above test results will all give increased assurance to beekeepers and government alike, of varroa mite location.

4. INDUSTRY CONCERNS

4.1Declaration of Involvement

4.2 Cost of Varroa to Country

4.3 Clover Weevil

4.4 Varroa Spread

4.5 Incursion

4.6 Hive Deaths

4.7 Affect on Economy

5. CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS

The following critical assumptions were used in the development of this Operational Plan:

Feeding Habits and Eradication of Feral Bees
All feral hives will die without a source of natural nectar or honeydew, or a source of sugar generated by man.

All feral hives have bees that bring nectar into the hive from flowers, for the survival of the hive.

Beehives can be killed out by naturally poisonous nectar sources (Karaka trees - Trevor Palmer Jones).

Beehives are killed out by poisonous sprays being applied to flowering plants in New Zealand (1942, arsenic sprays in Hawkes Bay).

Bees collect poisonous nectar from flowers sprayed with toxic sprays and bees in the hive are killed by this nectar (e.g. carbaryl in Hawkes Bay orchards and toxic sprays kiwifruit orchards).

Bees in all feral colonies are the direct descendants of New Zealand farmed bees.

Farmed beehives generate a high proportion of feral colonies on a yearly basis.

The bees from all beehives will readily search out and consume honey and sugar solutions, with the correct moisture content, in close proximity to their hives.

Certain aromas attract bees

Bees will collect sugar solutions sprayed onto the leaves and flowers of plants.

Bees in Canada that are regularly fed sugar at a short distance from the beehive all collect sugar.

Beekeepers in New Zealand have fed granulated honey to beehives in the open.  All farmed beehives in close proximity fed from this honey source.

Any eradication programme for ferals using poison bait stations will have enough area covered with sugar, honey and poison solution, to allow all feral hives access to feed at one time.

Small bait stations will be dominated by local strong hives.

5.1 Baiting Bees

5.2 Bee Flight

5.3 Blip Operations

5.4 Depopulation

5.4.1 Depopulation Compensation

5.5 Enforcement

5.6 Eradication Period

5.7 Feral Colonies

5.8 Compliance with Movement Control

5.9 Natural Mite Spread

5.10 Risk of Reinfestation

5.11 Surveillance Outside Eradication and Buffer Zones

5.11.1 Surveillance in Eradication Zone

5.11.2 Surveillance in Buffer Zone

5.11.3 Buffer Zone

5.11.4 Infected Zone

5.11.5 Surveillance Zone

5.12 Enforcement

5.13 Sensitivity of Test

5.14 Apiary site level sensitivity

5.15 Testing all hives

5.16 Movement Control, North Island to South Island

5.17 South Island Incursions

5.18 Extension activities

5.19 The Operational Plan

5.20 A full survey of all apiaries

5.21 The Operational Plan

6. REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRY ACCEPTANCE OF ERADICATION

No eradication attempt, no matter how technically sound, will succeed without the co-operation of most of the beekeepers.  They are the stake-holding group upon whom the effects will fall most heavily and prosecutions should take place on non-compilers.  A small group within the beekeeping industry is opposed to eradication.  If eradication of varroa from New Zealand is to be successful, it is necessary that those presently opposed are persuaded that the eradication programme to be attempted in New Zealand has significant components, not found in overseas programmes, that will greatly improve the likelihood of success.

These components can be listed as:

• An Apiary Register recording the location of apiaries in New Zealand.
• A very thorough delimiting survey has been carried out which will give a high level of confidence that we have established the extent of the infection.
• The most sensitive test available (Apistan and sticky boards) has been used to carry out the delimiting survey.
• A comprehensive tracing effort is being made to track down as many as possible of the risk contacts with known infected apiaries.
• Epidemiology tools are being used to successfully model and predict mite behaviour.
• The methods to be used for eradication will have been tested and be technically sound.
• Trials on poisoning feral colonies are being carried out by Dr Mark Goodwin
• The planning of the eradication programme has included technical, regulatory and industry representatives.
• This eradication programme has been planned and agreement on key components reached by consensus.
• There is a very strong commitment from the stake holding sectors, beekeeping, horticulture and agriculture to see this programme succeed.
• There is a commitment from Government to commit the large sums of money required over a period of time.
• The programme acknowledges that it is probable that tracing will have missed some outlying low-level infections
• Ongoing surveillance will ensure that any presently undiscovered infections are detected early and will be dealt with.
• Fair compensation will be paid for the destruction of hives and consequent loss of income, also other losses as listed.
• A process of appeal for when disputes arise is to be built into the programme.
• A process for review and modification is built in to the programme.

7. DEPOPULATION OF REGISTERED HIVES

7.1 Introduction:

Depopulation of the infected areas - Auckland, Hauraki, South Auckland, Te Puke, and the other outlying infected places, should be depopulated in various stages, and consideration should also be given to the severity of the infections, which will determine how far out from the infected apiary (radius), the depopulation will be carried out i.e. low infestation - 7.5km; Medium-High infestation - 15km.

7.2 Background

For the purposes of this Operational Plan, registered hives are those colonies of honeybees managed by man and registered by a beekeeper under government legislation.

No record will be kept of the number of boxes of combs per hive, the condition of the equipment or the amount of stored honey present, as it will have no effect on Compensation.   Two queen colonies will be treated as one hive.  Hives with splits (i.e.. two colonies separated by a barrier division board placed in them last autumn) will be recorded as two hives.

7.3 Goal:

Any hives found to be infected with varroa mites or within 7.5km radius of that find (or 15km for highly infected hives will be eradicated.  Once eradication has taken place equipment can be treated as stated earlier.

7.4 Te Puke

That the farmed hives and feral colonies in the Te Puke infected area should be eradicated before pollination.  Providing eradication is successful and not many mites are found in ferals, the subsequent hives used for pollination of these orchards should not be depopulated.  These hives are only to be moved into the buffer zone, and not moved again until after 1st August.  Hives to be tested twice following removal from the Orchard, at not less than 3 months apart.  If mites found depopulation of hives within the required radius to be carried out.

7.5 Tracing

All hives to be given a unique New Zealand number and these numbers to be recorded before moving hives out of an apiary.

7.6 Timing

All varroa infected farmed hives to be depopulated immediately, and feral colonies in Te Puke to be killed by walking, finding and destroying.  Samples to be taken whenever possible and by a poisoning programme if deemed necessary, up to a 7.5km radius from lightly infected apiaries. 15km radius from heavily infected apiaries.  The other small outbreaks in Rawene north of Auckland, Te Kauwhata north of Huntly, Te Rore north of Te Awamutu and Raurimu at Tongariro National Park (if it is still considered positive), Tapu north of Thames and one other site just north of Thames, are unlikely to have many, if any, infected colonies at this stage and should be treated as above.  The Army could be used to eradicate ferals in difficult terrain, such as just north of Thames.  This site will also probably require poisoning because of the difficult terrain.

7.7 Auckland-Hauraki Plains

The beehives and feral colonies in the Auckland - Hauraki Plains Infected zones should be immediately depopulated.  The hives that are to be placed into pollination should then be depopulated.  The depopulation should then carry on with ferals until the 1st August 2001, at which point progress reviewed and decision made on future programme.  It will be relatively easy to deal with ferals in the Hauraki Plains compared with Auckland.  A few feral colonies may have varroa mites in the Hauraki Plains area.  The Hauraki Plains could have varroa eradicated by spring.

7.8 Auckland

The Auckland area will be the most difficult area to eradicate varroa and it will take more time to eradicate from the Auckland area than from any other area.  But the big advantage of Auckland because of its geographic position with its narrow neck of land with seas on each side is that it will be relatively east to 'fence off' from the rest of the North Island.

7.9 Notification

All beekeepers and owners of apiaries within a 7.5km radius of an established varroa find, or 15km radius from a heavily infested site, to be notified by AgriQuality and asked for the exact hive numbers currently on each site.  This is to be audited by AgriQuality to confirm numbers and that no hives have been shifted in or shifted out and that the beekeeper has placed on each hive a unique beehive identification number.  Also to check on any illegal movements of hives.  At the same time as above, exact and detailed depopulation area maps to be publicly notified in local papers.

7.10 Operational Procedure

Hives to be placed into controlled atmosphere chillers to kill all bees and varroa, one in each Eradication Zone.   If unable to hire, hire reefer containers with mobile controlled atmosphere units to be brought into each area of eradication.   Use of methyl bromide in controlled atmosphere chiller would be acceptable.

7.10.1 Shifting Hives

All hives with live bees or the owners and local branch members to assist, at a price to be negotiated between parties should shift dead hives, into the controlled atmosphere chillers.   All shifting into these controlled atmosphere units to be done at night.  Beehives to be left in units until mites are dead, plus same time again.

7.10.2 Identification

All hive numbers are to be checked into the chiller units and invoices made out by the contracting personnel and signed by the owner.  Hives to be date stamped as they are placed in these units.

7.10.3 Handling Mite Free Equipment

From the Controlled atmosphere chillers all gear to be stored (or to be used after four weeks), by beekeepers anywhere in the North Island, by permit.  All transporting of hives or boxes must be done at night from these fumigation units to storage areas, and must be covered to stop any infected bees entering load.  All cost of controlled atmosphere units to be met by the Government.

7.10.4 Compensation Paid For:

Bees in registered hives, and the beekeepers work for delivering and taking hives away from the controlled atmosphere units, to be paid for at the rate of $150 per hive, by Government within 20 days of eradication.  This $150 pays for the numbering of the hives, cartage to the controlled atmosphere unit, placing hives into the unit, picking up hives from the controlled atmosphere unit and transporting to the storage area at a later date, paying for the rental of the storage area, removing dead bees in storage area, vermin control, taking hives out into the field again, placing into apiary sites, purchase of 4 frame nucleus hive or package bees, and all associated costs to building up the strength of a production hive again.

7.10.5 Compensation Qualifications

• A set price of $150 plus GST should be offered as compensation to all beekeepers who have hives depopulated by an Approved Person.
• No compensation will be paid on colonies found to already be dead at the time of depopulation, unless, in the judgement of an Approved Person the hive died as a result of varroa infestation.
• No compensation should be paid for honey consumed as stores by hives prior to depopulation.
• No compensation should be paid to growers for loss of production unless they had paid for pollination in the past season or could not bring in beehives because of the feral baiting programme.
• No compensation be paid to non-commercial beekeepers for loss of income other than the $150 per hive fee.

7.10.6 Claims

For claims for loss of income for commercial beekeepers the following options are suggested:

1. The beekeeper's accountant should submit a claim for loss of income based on an average of the sets of accounts for the past 3 years.
2. A MAF independent accountant to assess the claimant's books as above and determine compensation rate.
3. The beekeeper accept an assessed amount as determined by government and based on average net income figures presented in the American Foulbrood Pest Management Strategy document (1997) and adjusted for inflation at the rate of 1.5% p.a. (i.e. 4.5%).

7.11 Alternatives

If any products are found which will kill all varroa mites and not bees, then this could be applied in the same manner, but in the meantime all bees, varroa and brood, pollen mites, wax moth and any other living creatures are to be killed.

7.12 Sticky Boards

All sticky boards to be checked by an approved Contractor.

8. ERADICATION OF FERAL COLONIES

8.1 Background

Feral honeybee colonies are established from swarms emanating from other colonies.  The density of feral colonies in any given area is influenced by climate and foraging potential of the area but most importantly by the number of suitable cavities available for occupation and the number of other colonies in the area.  Typical areas for feral colonies include native bush and shelterbelts with hollows in trees and buildings with gaps providing access to wall linings and ceiling cavities.

8.2 Eradication of Feral Colonies

Poisoning using bait stations is recommended in Auckland and probably other areas.  This option has been chosen because it will deal with difficult to locate feral colonies in large and rugged areas of bush.

This method will kill any unregistered colonies and any colony that may not have been killed during the depopulation operation.  It will also kill colonies located high in trees that can be very difficult to find and access.  On-foot eradication will also be required so samples can be collected and the effect of poisoning observed.

8.3 Definition of Eradication Zone

The area from which feral colonies will be eradicated will be the same as the area within which managed colonies will be depopulated.  This is the area referred to as the Eradication Zone.  That is, the area covered by drawing a 15 kilometre radius around every heavily Infected Place or 7.5km around lightly Infected Places.

The area from which registered colonies will be depopulated will consist of:

• All apiaries where a varroa mite has been identified during the delimiting and/or in-fill survey (called an Infected Place),
• A 15km radius around any heavily Infected Place, 7.5km around any lightly Infected Place
• The Eradication Zone will be legally defined in the form of 260 Series Map.  No account will be taken for local features and natural boundaries (i.e., bush areas and offshore islands that fall within the 15km radius will not be excluded).

8.4 Exclusion Zone

An exclusion zone of a further 5 kilometre radius will be needed around the outside perimeter of the Eradication Zone.  Beekeepers will be advised to remove beehives, under permit, from this area to prevent these hives also being poisoned.
The owners of any hives that are required to be removed from an area because of the poisoning programme will be paid $10 per hive.  This $10 will recompense the cost of moving hives possibly twice and the cost of arranging a new temporary location.

8.5 Discussion of Options

There are two options worth considering for eradication of feral colonies:

8.6 Search and Destroy

Ground searching and appeals to the public and landowners for information will locate many feral colonies that can be destroyed by the application of a small amount of insecticide such as Carbaryl.  This will be carried out in the Te Puke area.  As of 11/5/00, members of the public had volunteered information on the location of 279 feral colonies, in the Infected Area, to the Operations Centre.  This would be only a small proportion of the actual number.  This may be carried out in the Te Puke area.

8.7 Poisoning Using Bait Stations

Bees can be attracted to bait stations provided attractive bait such as honey is used.  Successful foraging bees recruit other bees to feed from the bait station.  If a non-repellent, slow-acting poison is included in the bait, sufficient will be carried back to the colony to destroy it.

8.8 Operating Procedure

A grid of bait stations containing poisoned bait will be established at 1 km intervals throughout the Eradication Zone.  These will be checked at regular intervals and the bait changed or replenished as required.  Baiting would cease in any area three months after the last observed honeybee activity.

8.8.1 Timing of Feral Eradication

The feral eradication programme would start as soon as registered hive depopulation was completed.  This is anticipated to be about the beginning of August 2000.  Spring and early summer are the ideal times for this as bees are hungry and actively foraging.  The objective would be to have the Eradication Zone bee-free by the end of March 2001.  Earlier for other than the Auckland zone.

8.8.2 Bait

Bait will be honey mixed with a poison such as acephate (Orthene) or sulfuramid (Finitron).  These are recommended as they are slow acting, non-repellent to bees and have low mammalian toxicity.  The honey will be tested to ensure it is free of AFB spores as there is a chance that some of this honey will be robbed out of dead feral colonies and end up in managed hives after repopulation.  The honey will also be dyed to reduce the possibility that it will be consumed by people.  The addition of a queen bee pheromone or beeswax to the bait station may increase attractiveness to bees (this will be tested before the start of the programme).  Bait will be contained in pre-packed screw top plastic jars for ease of use and safety of transport.

8.8.3 Servicing

Pre-baiting of stations with non-toxic bait is not required but non-toxic honey could be incorporated on top of the toxic bait if creamed or crystallised honey was used.  Bait stations will initially be checked at one-week intervals.  Any old bait remaining will be removed and replaced with a container of fresh bait.  Bait remaining longer than two weeks is likely to ferment and be less attractive to bees.  The quantity of bait eaten will be recorded as a measure of bee activity in the area.  As the bee population in an area declined, the frequency of servicing will be reduced in that area.

8.8.4 Determining Area Freedom From Bees

Bait station servicing staff will be required during their servicing runs to stop and inspect areas containing flowers to check for the presence of foraging bees.  An area will be deemed to be free of honeybees' three months after the last bee activity is observed.  It has been suggested that members of the public should be asked to report the presence of bees.  It is our experience that many people cannot distinguish between bees, wasps and various look alike flies, which means that the Operations Centre would be inundated with many incorrect reports of sightings.  However, it would be worth considering an appeal for information from the public toward the end of the operation.  Feral colonies whose locations are known will be used as monitors and will be checked at the end of the baiting programme to ensure that they are dead.

8.8.5 Safety Issues

Each station will carry a warning sign.  Occupiers of properties containing bait stations will be given written information describing the programme and any safety issues.  Poisoned bait will be carried and placed in the stations in screw top jars so it will not be touched by bait station servicing staff.

8.9 Baiting Programme Direction

Baiting will start at the edges of the Eradication Zone and move progressively toward the centre.  Baiting around areas requiring hives to be brought in for pollination will be timed as much as possible to take place before or after pollination.

8.10 Management of Pollination Issues

The baiting programme in areas of significant kiwifruit production will be managed as much as possible to reduce the risk of poisoning hives brought into the area for pollination purposes.   This could be done by pulling out, over the pollination period, bait stations located close to orchards, or timing baiting of those areas to take place after pollination.   It may not be possible to manage baiting round minor crops occupying small areas, as this may be too disruptive to the programme and put its objectives at risk.   Some allowance will have to be made for compensation for loss of production to cover these cases. Many crops currently receive "free pollination" (i.e., pollination is provided by bees from registered hives located in the vicinity for honey production or nearby feral colonies).   After depopulation of registered colonies and eradication of ferals, bees will have to be brought in to pollinate these crops.   It is recommended that these growers be expected to pay a commercial price for this service and not be compensated for any extra cost involved.

However, the hives brought in to provide this pollination will have to be destroyed so the owner of the hives will be eligible for compensation for the cost of repopulating those hives on the same basis as other registered hives depopulated in the Eradication Zone.

8.11 Programme Management

The programme will be managed from an Operations Centre with sufficient staff to recruit and train bait station operators, plan run servicing, enter run records in the database, and administer stores and wages, etc.

8.11.1 Database

A database will be developed to record and track bait station monitoring progress.  This will be able to produce summary reports and data for mapping.

78.11.2 Reporting

Reports on progress of the feral eradication programme will be supplied to the NBA and MAF as required.

8.11.3 Audit

An internal audit programme covering the following areas will be developed to ensure consistency and maintenance of standards:

• Data entry
• Bait station site spacing
• Bait station servicing
• Forms

The following forms will be developed:

• Bait site-servicing record
• Run map
• Landowner consent form
• Landowner information sheet

8.11.4 Work Instructions

Work instructions for the following activities will be produced:

• Specifications for making traps, formulating and storage of baits, and disposal of baits and traps
• Locating and setting up bait stations
• Negotiating with land occupiers
• Bait station servicing
• Bait station servicing data entry

8.12 Preferred Bait Station Operators

It is recommended that preference is given to employing beekeepers and their employees affected by the eradication programme that would otherwise be unemployed.

8.12.1 Training

A hands-on, practical training programme will be developed to train bait station operators.  This will cover correct bait station servicing, safety, public relations and accurate record keeping.

It is envisioned that access to property to place bait stations will be by consent so bait station operators will not require warranting under the Biosecurity Act.  Some of the operations management staff will be Authorised Persons under the Biosecurity Act who will have authority to deal with the expected few cases where access to a required property is denied.  Occupiers of land where bait stations are sited will be asked to sign a document stating that they understand that the bait station contains a poisoned bait, that they agree to have it located on their property, that they will allow access for servicing, that they will not interfere with it and that they will inform the Operations Centre if the bait station becomes damaged.

8.14 Management of Pollination Issues

Since it is assumed that the depopulation programme will be concluded before any significant pollination of horticultural crops is required in the spring of 2000, there is no requirement for the management of pollination issues other than depopulation of hives used for paid pollination.   All crop pollination is expected to be in the form of paid pollination services.   No compensation will be paid where paid pollination services were not previously required.

8.15 Database and Records

The existing Apiary Register database will be used to identify apiaries to be depopulated and record depopulation activity.  A file will be maintained of all depopulated apiary inventories.

8.15.1 Reporting

Reports of the number of apiaries and hives depopulated will be supplied to the NBA and MAF as required.

8.15.2 Audit

An internal audit programme covering the following areas will be developed to ensure consistency and maintenance of standards:

• Data entry
• Depopulated apiary inventory
• Depopulated apiary procedures
• Complaints

8.16 Summary of Issues to Be Resolved

• Is resource management consent required before we put out poisoned bait in stations and dispose of unused poisoned baits and containers?
• Do we require an emergency use permit for the bait station poison?
• Who is responsible for obtaining that?
• Will compensation be paid to growers for loss of income if pollination not possible?
• Trials on poison concentration in bait, bait station spacing and bait station design need to be carried out to verify that this programme will work under NZ conditions.

9. RE-POPULATION OF REGISTERED HIVES

9.1 Background

The need to repopulate registered hives depopulated during the varroa eradication programme stems from compensation provisions of Section 149 of the Biosecurity Act, namely that a person with goods destroyed as a result of anything done to eradicate the pest is entitled to compensation of such an amount that the person will be in no better or worse position than any person who is not directly affected by the action taken.   Beekeeping activities should be allowed to begin again once it has been determined that no feral colonies exist within the Zone, and indeed repopulated hives kept within Zone will be required to act as surveillance hives to establish whether the eradication programme has been successful, and whether any "hot spots" need to be re-worked.

9.2 Timing of Repopulation

The timing of repopulation is driven by the length of time taken to eradicate all feral colonies within the Zone, together with a sufficient length of time to ensure no mites in dead feral colonies remain alive at the time repopulation occurs.  It is therefore recommended the "all clear" period before repopulation is no shorter than 6 weeks.

9.3 Source of Nuclei and Packages

It is recommended that beekeepers source their replacement bees on the open market.  However, because of the numbers likely to be required it is recommended that the NBA, at national or branch level, organise numbers and sources of supply.  The American Foulbrood Pest Management Strategy contains provision that should ensure that no bees made available for repopulation come from hives with a clinical case of American Foulbrood.

9.4 Testing of Nuclei and Packages

All nuclei and packages produced in the Buffer Zone to be tested for varroa immediately prior to sale to another beekeeper.

10. MOVEMENT CONTROL

10.1 Background

Movement control involves 4 distinctly different zones; the Eradication Zone (15km around any heavily infested apiary); the Buffer Zone (the northern half of the North Island excluding the Eradication Zone); the Surveillance Zone (the southern half of the North Island); the Disease Free Zone (all of the South Island).  Each zone will be treated separately and different movement controls will be required because of the different level of risk posed.

10.2 Strict Movement Control

Strict movement control based on zones of risk, which is similar to the regime currently being used in the delimiting survey, was also considered.  It was felt that such a regime provides a simpler system to both administer and comply with, and is already well understood and accepted in the current circumstances by beekeepers.  From an epidemiological point of view, the system treats all beehives equally according to risk, and does not impose as many restrictions on beehives or beekeepers who are not high risk (i.e.,those in the Surveillance Zone).  Finally, the system is likely to be no more costly than the Accreditation option.  Strict movement control with hive testing is therefore the recommended option.

10.3 Critical Line

No hives of bees should be allowed to be shifted from the Buffer zone to the Surveillance zone.
The line between these two zones is likely to be critical in eradication or control.

10.4 Restricted Hive Movement

All hive and bee movements to cease in the Infected and Buffer zones for 7 months starting 1 January, ending 1 August 2001.  Movement of hives may be allowed under exceptional circumstances, under strict permit controls.

10.5 Restricted Bee Movement

In the buffer zone, all boxes of combs to be delivered by trucks to apiaries at night, so avoiding movement of bees, or by daylight hours in a closed truck in which bees can be eradicated between apiaries.  All honey to be placed in closed truck in which bees can be eradicated, before arriving at the next apiary.  Compensation will be paid for costs incurred in achieving this.

10.6 Cell Raising

All raising of cells to be done in a manner by which no bees are moved from one apiary to another.

10.7 Bee Exports

All exports of live bees from the North Island will cease for one year.  Compensation will be paid for loss of income.

10.8 Illegal Hive Movement s

All illegal hive movement or bee movement to be taken very seriously and prosecutions to be made by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

10.9 American Foulbrood

All AFB hives to be burnt on site wherever possible, otherwise destroyed, wrapped and transported in a sealed van to point of burning.

10.10 Eradication Zone Before and During Eradication

Movement in the Eradication Zone is currently prohibited except where allowed under permit.  These restrictions will remain in place until eradication has been completed.  Before eradication has been carried out hives may be moved in to the Eradication Zone, under permit, for pollination purposes.  None of these hives will be allowed out and all will be depopulated on completion of the pollination contract (these hives will be treated in the same way as any other depopulated hives for compensation purposes), other than the Te Puke area which may be treated differently.

10.11 Eradication Zone after Depopulation

After depopulation has been completed and the all clear given to repopulate hives, movement will be permitted in the same way as described below for the Buffer Zone.
All hives in the Buffer and Eradication Zones will be tested twice yearly.  Clear tests each time will be required to maintain free movement status.   (A positive test will result in that apiary being declared an Infected Place, the hives depopulated and tracing carried out to find and test any risk contacts with that apiary)

• Movement into the Surveillance Zone will be prohibited.
• Movement to the South Island will be prohibited except for bee products , which would be allowed under permit
• The collection of swarms will be prohibited (Swarms should be destroyed as they are of unknown disease status).

10.12 Surveillance Zone

Free movement will be allowed within the Surveillance Zone.  Any hives moved in to the Buffer or Eradication Zone will not be allowed back in to the Surveillance Zone and will be subject to twice yearly testing.

10.13 South Island - Disease Free Zone

Movement will be unrestricted except that no movement from any part of the North Island will be allowed.

10.14 Duration of Restrictions

The movement restrictions will be reviewed annually by a group representing the MAF and Beekeeping Industry.  Movement restrictions will be eased if good progress with eradication is achieved.  Some movement restriction will remain in place until country freedom status is regained.

10.15 Restrictions Applying to Beekeepers with Hives in More than One Zone

Beekeepers in this situation to operate under an agreed management plan under which they describe how they isolate or minimise the risk of moving potentially infected material from an area of high risk to an area of lower risk.

Any such agreement will be subject to audit by the Operations Centre.

10.16 Consultation with Industry

An industry consultation process will be set up to assist with any alterations and amendments to the detail of the movement control restrictions.  This process will take account of changes and unforeseen circumstances.

10.17 Dealing with Disputes and Contentious Issues

A process will be negotiated with MAF and the NBA on how these issues will be handled.  This will be documented and included in operating procedures.

10.18 Management of the Movement Control Function

For acceptability it is important to ensure consistency in the application of movement restrictions.   For this reason centralised control of the function is desirable.  A Movement Control Manager will be appointed to the Operations Centre.  This may not always be a full time role, as the workload will vary seasonally and according to programme development.  Movement control officers will be appointed as required to assist.

Movement permits will be issued on MAF letterhead and signed by properly Authorised Persons under the Biosecurity Act.  Applications will be requested on an approved application form to ensure that all of the necessary detail is provided.  Where possible issued permits will be faxed or emailed to the beekeeper.

Copies of all permits issued will be filed along with the application form and any other relevant documentation.
When applications are declined the applicant will be advised by phone or in writing.  A copy of the declined application will be filed along with an explanation.

10.19 Work Instructions

Work instructions will be produced for the following activities:

• Managing the movement control function
• Issuing Movement Permits
• Handling movement control documentation

10.20 Internal Audit

The movement control function will be subject to a programme of regular internal audit.

10.21 Training

Movement control staff will be those who have already had some experience in this role or will be trained on the job by an experienced operator.  A training checklist will be produced to assist with this.  Administration of movement control of bees and bee products requires a good knowledge of the beekeeping industry and beekeeping jargon. Where movement control staff have not yet gained this experience a person with apiculture experience will be assigned to assist them.

10.22 Forms

The following forms will be further developed:
Movement permit templates to cover the most common situations (these will be sent to MAF Legal for comment before use)
Application forms for movement permits.

10.23 Reporting

A report will be provided to MAF and the NBA summarising permitted activity as required as any changes made.

11. NORTH TO SOUTH MOVEMENT BAN

Maintaining varroa-free status in the South Island has significant advantages for the New Zealand beekeeping, horticultural and agricultural industries in general, and the South Island components of those industries in particular.

11.1 Varroa Free South Island Essential To Economy

Maintenance of varroa-free status for the South Island is very important since beekeeping in much of the area is reliant solely on honey production (less diversification options available), and since the honey produced (clover) is often lower in value than specialty honeys.   Much of this beekeeping is carried out on marginal dryland pasture or high country, which in turn are more dependent on clover pollination from honeybees to maintain high quality forage for stock production.

11.2 Varroa Free South Island Essential To Beekeeping Viability

Downstream varroa impact is likely to be much greater in these South Island pasture areas than in paid pollination areas of New Zealand, since control costs cannot easily be passed on (little paid pollination services), and since beekeeping enterprises may not be able to absorb significant cost increases if varroa becomes established in the South Island, unless low cost control measures are developed and/or the price of clover honey increases dramatically, beekeeping in most areas of the Island may well become uneconomic.

11.3 North - South Border Control

FFor a South Island quarantine to be successful, North Island beekeepers will follow established movement control rules for risk materials they may wish to send to the South Island.   At the same time, transport operators will need to be made aware of the ban on a periodic basis, since they are likely to be the first line of surveillance if movement control rules are broken.   There will also need to be on-going publicity of the reasons for the movement control rules to beekeepers, transport operators and to a lessor extent the public in general.   It is assumed that border surveillance for goods coming into the South Island from outside New Zealand will be increased in an effort to prevent another incursion of the mite from offshore.

11.3.1 Movement Control Restrictions

The following movement control restrictions will be enforced:

• No movement of live bees (hives, packages, brood combs, queen bees) from the North Island to the South Island
• Movement of raw pollen, propolis or comb honey from the North Island to the South Island by permit only
• Movement of bulk or retail packs of honey between Islands allowed without permit
• Permits will be issued by the government authority upon application.

11.3.2 Transport Operator Communication

Since transport operators will be a first line of surveillance for any breaches of movement control restrictions and on-going communication and publicity to those operators about the programme is essential.

A list of operators (name, address, phone/fax/email, and contact person) will be established and the list will be updated continually.   A written communication 4 times per year outlining movement control restrictions and who to contact in case of a breach will be provided.

A poster (see below) will be sent to each operator once per year with instructions that it be hung in a conspicuous place (e.g., lunch room) on the operator premises.

11.3.3 Publicity

A publicity campaign on the reasons for the movement control restrictions will be put in place.   The campaign will be targeted at persons most likely to be involved in movement of risk goods.   The general public will also be targeted because they are also likely to be transporting such goods.  To this end signs will be placed at ferry terminals and wharves to request people to check their vehicles for live bees before embarkation.

Six articles per year will be produced and published in the New Zealand Beekeeper magazine.
Two articles per year will be produced and published in other agricultural/horticultural magazines (e.g., Growing Today, Grower magazine).

Three articles per year will be produced and published in transport industry trade magazines to be produced by expert beekeepers in the field.

A poster will be designed and distributed each year to 600 outlets in both islands associated with the beekeeping industry (beekeeping supply outlets, honey buyers), the transport industry (operator premises/depots, truck stops, ferry terminals, shipping terminals), the travel industry (travel agents, car rentals) and florists and flower auction houses that import flowers from the North Island.   Cut flowers have been known to contain live bees after in island transport.

11.3.4 Public Relations

Transport operators may be reluctant to act as a surveillance point for the programme.   It will be important to establish good relations with these operators, and public relations activities will be undertaken to get them to understand the "public good" reasons for the programme.

North Island commercial queen producers who normally supply part of their production to South Island beekeepers will be adversely affected by the movement control restrictions.   There are no good figures on the size of this market, but the affect will be limited to a small number of North Island producers (approximately 5-7).   It is recommended that compensation be paid to these queen producers based on an independent analysis of their sales records for the previous 3 years.

12. SURVEILLANCE

12.1 Background

On-going surveillance during and after eradication is required to provide information on the status of zones, beekeepers and apiary sites, and to determine the success of the programme in achieving its objective.   The information obtained is used for a variety of purposes such as delimiting the geographic spread of the infection, proof of zonal freedom, and for pre-movement and export purposes.  If eradication is to succeed the surveillance regime must be sensitive enough to be able to detect any low levels of mites in hives to minimise the likely spread to another apiary.   At the time of writing, NCDI were still working to more accurately define test sensitivity.   The surveillance regime described below may have to be modified if the test level is found to be inadequate.

12.2 Definition of Surveillance Zones

The surveillance zones are the same as for movement control, namely:

1. Eradication Zone - 7.5 - 15km around any Infected Place
2. Buffer Zone - the northern half of North Island excluding the Eradication Zone
3. Surveillance Zone - southern half of the North Island
4. Disease-Free Zone - the South Island

12.3 Miticide Strips, Application, Payment

Surveillance is to be carried out by beekeepers under contractor supervision and are to be provided with free sticky boards and Miticide strips so they can test all their own hives, they will be paid $10 per hive for motor vehicle running costs and for the placement and removal of the sticky boards and strips.   These to be left in the hives for 2 days.   All miticide strips to be returned.  Use of miticide strips to be audited.   All hives within a 20km radius of a positive find to have the most effective method of finding varroa mites immediately used on them.   Apiaries to be tested twice in 6 months.

12.4 Surveillance Based on Risk

This was examined and appeared to satisfy both epidemiological and statistical analysis requirements.   Surveillance is on going and universal in both the Eradication and Buffer Zones, and lesser and randomised in the Surveillance Zone and Disease Free Zone.   Surveillance based on risk is therefore the recommended option.

12.5 Operational Procedures

12.5.1 Summary of Surveillance Strategy

The following surveillance strategy programme will be carried out in the various zones:

• Eradication Zone - all apiaries and all hives, 6 and 12 months following repopulation, and twice yearly thereafter for at least a year after the last blip has been eliminated.
  
• Buffer Zone - all apiaries and all hives, twice yearly for at least a year after the last blip has been eliminated
  
• Surveillance Zone - Approximately 1150 randomly selected apiaries will be tested in the first year and the same number at approximately two year intervals thereafter. This is designed to meet the OIE minimum requirement for achieving disease free status of not more than 0.2% of hives infected
  
• Disease-Free Zone - As for the Surveillance Zone except that 1400 randomly selected apiaries will be tested and sentinel hives will be set up and tested around major ports and airports.
  
  

  12.5.2 Approved Test

  The only test with the necessary sensitivity that can be approved at this stage is the Apistan test.  The test is two Apistan strips per five frames of bees for 48 hours above a sticky board placed on hive floor.  The strips and sticky boards will be inserted and removed by persons approved by the Operations Centre managing the response.  The sticky boards will be sent for reading to an approved laboratory.
  
  

  12.5.3 Training and Audit of Varroa Testing Personnel

  A training programme with defined competency levels will be developed and will be compulsory for all testing personnel.  An audit programme will be developed to ensure consistency of standards.
  
  

  12.5.4 Surveillance Programme Management

  The programme will be managed by the Operations Centre.
  
  

  12.5.5 Recording

  Details of test results for each apiary and each beekeeper will be recorded in the apiary database.
  
  

  12.5.6 Testing Allocation Management

  Forms allocating testing runs will be generated on the apiary database.
  
  

  12.5.7 Obtaining Verified Sticky Board Readings

  A procedure will be negotiated and documented with approved labs to process sticky boards and advise results.
  
  

  12.5.8 Reportings

  Reports summarising progress will be made to the NBA and MAF as required.  Incidents and significant issues will be reported as they occur.
  
  

  12.5.9 Audit

  An internal programme covering all aspects of the programme will be developed.
  
  
  
  

  

  13. SOUTH ISLAND SURVEILLANCE OPTIONS

  
  
  

  13.1 Background

  At this point it would appear that the South Island is still free of varroa.  There are large cost benefits in keeping it free.
  
  
  
  

  13.2 Two Programmes

  This section describes two surveillance programmes for the South Island.  The first is intended as an initial survey to provide a baseline of information showing that the South Island is most likely mite free, or if varroa is present, providing a very good chance of detecting it.  The second is designed to provide ongoing information with the intensity of surveillance based on the level of risk.

  The two programmes described are not necessarily alternatives.  The first is intended as a one-off, to be done as soon as possible.  The second is intended to be an annual survey.
  
  
  
  

  13.3 Programme Description

  The programme will have three levels of surveillance based on level of risk:
  
  

  13.3.1 Very High Risk - Ports of Entry

  Sentinel apiaries will be established around all South Island ports/airports of entry.  This will include fourteen ports/airports and an estimated six container terminals.  Six apiaries, depending on the layout of risk area, will be established around a 1km radius of the risk centre.  Where possible existing apiaries will be used.  If no existing apiaries are present, sentinel apiaries will be established and maintained by the contractor.  All hives in each apiary will be tested six times each year.
  
  

  13.3.2 High Risk - Beekeepers Engaged in Paid Pollination in Nelson/ Marlborough

  These operations are high risk because they are both moving hives in and out of pollination, and are located in the area with the highest number of North Island to South Island movements.
  

  • All hives in all apiaries belonging to these beekeepers will be tested annually, in the period March to July inclusive.  The actual time will be negotiated with individual beekeepers to ensure that access is possible to difficult sites such as high country apiaries.
  • Beekeepers in the surveillance programme will be required to keep very good records of their hive movements and apiary locations so that traceback can be carried out if a mite is found.  All hives in New Zealand to have a unique hive number.
  • Any high-risk traces of possibly infected material from the North Island to beekeepers in the South Island (e.g., queen bees shipped prior to North Island delimiting survey) will be included in the high-risk category.
    
    

  13.3.3 Medium Risk - All Other South Island Beekeepers

  From the approximately 9000 apiaries not included in the categories above, 2543 randomly selected apiaries will be tested annually.

  All hives in each apiary will be tested.  This survey will give a 95% chance of finding an infected apiary, with 10 or more mites per hive, if 10 or more apiaries are infected.
  
  

  13.4.4 Issues

  Preference would be given to employing beekeepers who are Authorised Persons under the Biosecurity Act to do all work and to test their own hives and the hives of other beekeepers.  The beekeepers would be paid for this work.   A competency training and testing programme would be needed for Authorised Persons.
  
  
  
  

  

  14. COMPENSATION

  14.1 Background

  The Biosecurity Act 1993 allows for compensation to be paid provided, "The compensation must be of such an amount that the person to whom it is paid will be in no better or worse position than any person whose property or goods are not directly affected by the exercise of the powers."   It is proposed to offer compensation to beekeepers who have had colonies depopulated to purchase a replacement nucleus hive, or not, as they choose to.  It will also cover the cost of treating brood boxes and combs in storage or loss of production and income.
  
  
  
  

  14.2 Source of Funds

  Compensation is payable from money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose under the Biosecurity Act.  Full payment to be made by Government on all lost profits and all expenses incurred by the NBA.
  
  
  
  

  14.3 Who May Not Receive Compensation Biosecurity Act (Section 162A (4c))

  Compensation cannot be paid to persons who have seriously breached the Biosecurity Act, or regulations under the Act, and whose failure has been serious or significant or has contributed to the presence of the organism or to the spread of the organism being managed or eradicated.
  
  
  
  

  14.4 Cost of Hive Replacement

  It is recommended that a set price of $150 plus GST be offered to all beekeepers who have live hives depopulated by an Approved Person.  Compensation should also be paid for hives that, in the opinion of the Approved Person, died from varroa infestation.
  Beekeepers can use this money how they choose, but most will use it to purchase replacement nuclei.  The per hive compensation fee will be paid regardless of the size of the hive or its condition provided that it is maintained in a registered apiary and complies with the American Foulbrood Pest Management Strategy (i.e., compensation will not be paid for hives infected with American Foulbrood as these must be destroyed anyway).
  Note:   The sections on Repopulation and Costings in this plan has recommendations on sourcing nuclei and the numbers that will be needed to repopulate hives from the Infected Zones as well as hives brought in for pollination and subsequently depopulated.
  
  
  
  

  14.5 Honey Consumed by Hives Prior to Depopulation

  Some honey will have been eaten by hives prior to depopulation and will not be available for processing and sale.  However, this would be impossible to assess.  It is therefore recommended that no compensation be paid for honey consumed as stores by the bees since movement controls were initiated.
  
  
  
  

  14.6 Comb Honey

  Comb honey left too long on hives in the autumn is subject to both travel stain on the surface of the cappings and to puncturing by bees. Both of these reduce the value of the comb, especially for export.  Comb honey is more valuable than bulk honey ($7 kg compared to $2.20 for bulk extracted honey on average) but in any case it will be very difficult to assess any loss in value.
  
  
  
  

  14.7 Honey Stores in Hives

  Beekeepers will be invited to remove any surplus honey stores prior to depopulation (see Depopulation section).  As this is normal beekeeper activity, it is recommended that no compensation be offered for any alleged loss of honey stores.
  
  
  
  

  14.8 Pollination

  14.8.1 Loss of Beekeeper Contracts and Orchardist Compensation

  It is expected that hives will be brought into the Eradication Zone for pollination purposes after depopulation is completed, which is expected to be the beginning of August 2000.  The feral baiting programme will begin in August as well and can be managed in such a way that kiwifruit pollination is not affected.  However, it may be difficult to accommodate early citrus, berryfruit, and stone fruit requirements (late August to late September) as well as tunnel house and green house pollination for such crops as flower seed crops, strawberries and gerkins and melons etc.  Mid season pollination of pip fruit, avocados and nashis may also be compromised.  Some beekeepers may have a claim for loss of pollination fees and growers may expect payment for loss or reduction in marketable crops.  Further work will need to be done to assess the areas of these crops that may be affected from a lack of honeybees.   It is recommended that no compensation be paid to growers unless they had paid for pollination in the past season or had a crop already planted before this Agreement was made into law or could not bring in beehives because of the feral baiting programme.
  
  

  14.8.2 Bumble Bee Pollination

  Bumblebee colonies are imported into the Auckland area for pollination of tomatoes in greenhouses.   Bumblebees mostly remain in the green houses; there is little threat to their pollination activities.   Bumblebees can transport varroa, however, so it is recommended that bumblebee colonies only be brought into the Eradication Zone under permit and that they are destroyed following the pollination period.
  
  

  14.8.3 Compensation for Pollination Hives that are Depopulated

  Hives brought into the Eradication Zone for pollination may be depopulated.  Full strength hives will be needed for early to mid-season pollination, since a 4-frame replacement nucleus hive will not be strong enough.  These hives should also receive the $150 per hive fee after depopulation. Compensation will also need to be paid for subsequent loss of honey crop and other income activities.
  
  
  
  

  14.9 Loss of Income

  This will be the most difficult option to assess and administer since beekeepers produce different income streams from their colonies with attendant different costs.   For example the following "farm gate prices" are achievable:
  

  Product:	Farm Gate Value
  Bulk honey	$1.50-$4.50/kg
  Active manuka	$10-$20/kg
  Comb honey	$5-$7/kg
  Beeswax	$5-$7/kg
  Pollen	$9-$20/kg
  Royal jelly	$900-$4000/kg
  Bulk bees	$11-$15/kg
  Queen bees	$14-$20/each
  Nucleus hives	$50-$100/each
  Pollination (other)	$30-$46/hive
  Pollination (kiwifruit)	$70-$100/hive

  14.9.1 Means of Assessment

  It is not possible to give production figures per hive since not every hive will produce all of the above and there are seasonal and regional variations in production.  For example, some hives earn more than one pollination fee and some beekeepers wholesale their products whereas others will retail their products.  Compensation, at least for commercial beekeepers, therefore needs to be assessed on an individual basis.   A commercial beekeeper is defined as one "who keeps bees for a pecuniary profit" and as such submits a set of accounts to Inland Revenue each year. It is recommended that for non-commercial beekeepers no compensation other than the $150 per hive fee be paid.   For commercial beekeepers, the following options are suggested:

  1. The beekeeper's accountant submits a claim for loss of income based on an average of the set of accounts for the past 3 years.
  2. An independent person or accountant to assess the claimant's books as above and determine compensation rate.
  3. The beekeeper accept an assessed amount as determined by government and based on average net income figures presented in the American Foulbrood Pest Management Strategy document (1997) and adjusted for inflation at the rate of 1.5% p.a. (i.e. 4.5%).
  4. These figures are discussed in the Estimated Cost of Implementation section.
  
  
  

  14.9.2 Added Value Products

  Care will be needed in assessing loss of income for beekeepers who produce-added value products (e.g., cosmetics and dietary supplements from beeswax, honey and royal jelly).   They may still be able to make these products by buying in the raw materials, but may effectively lose the price differential between their own raw materials and those bought from another beekeeper.   For beekeepers, who's hives are producing high value products, there needs to be the ability for claims to be made under a statutory declaration.
  
  

  14.9.3 Loss of Markets and Goodwill

  Beekeepers within the Eradication Zone, who lose a large proportion, or all of their hives, and who have a significant retail business may lose market share and goodwill as a result of an inability to supply e.g. royal jelly and pollen.   However, it is hoped that they may be able to source product elsewhere, although at higher cost.  Compensation will be paid.
  
  

  14.9.4 Downstream Losses

  There appears to be an anomaly in the Biosecurity Act relating to downstream losses.   Beekeepers who manufacture products derived from their production may be able to seek compensation for the loss of those products, markets and goodwill.   As well, the horticultural industry receives an indirect compensation in the form of sufficient repopulated hives to provide paid pollination services, as well as potentially direct compensation for loss income resulting from eradication activities under the plan.   However, companies who do not own beehives and derive their income from the manufacture of products derived from raw materials supplied by beekeepers affected by eradication may not be eligible for compensation under provisions of the Act.   There is likely to be significant downstream losses suffered by such companies, especially if they cannot obtain bee product raw materials from other sources.
  
  
  
  

  14.10 Management of Compensation Payments

  14.10.1 Fee Payments and Validation of Recipients

  It is proposed to review the Apiary Register database and interview involved parties as well as the alleged owners of the hives if required. Some hives may be leased, others will be in company, partnership or trust names, there may be bank liens, and so on.
  
  

  14.10.2 Arbitration

  Section 162A (5) of the Biosecurity Act requires that, "Any dispute concerning the eligibility for, or amount of, compensation must be submitted to arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 apply."
  
  
  
  

  14.11 Summary of Issues to be Resolved

  Procedures for assuring that any compensation payments go to the correct party(s)
  Compensation payable to growers and downstream bee product manufacturers

  

  15. SOUTH ISLAND INCURSION

  15.1 Background

  While this Operational Plan includes a component for a North Island to South Island movement control programme to attempt to keep varroa mite out of the South Island, the current section is included to provide a programme description in the event varroa mite is found in the South Island.
  
  
  
  

  15.2 Activities Summary

  An Eradication Operational Plan for a South Island varroa incursion would include either:

  1. A delimiting survey and eradication activities (if high level surveillance for the mite was not already being conducted), or
  2. Only eradication activities, with increased surveillance outside of the Eradication Zone.
  
  
  
  
  

  15.3 Delimiting survey activities would include:

  • hive surveying, both within and outside a 50km zone around the Infected Place (Buffer Zone)
  • movement tracing for any hives, bees and equipment that may have been
  • moved from apiaries around the Infected Place prior to the mite find
  • surveying of hives associated with high-risk traces outside the Buffer Zone
  • movement control of risk materials within, through and outside the Buffer Zone
  
  
  
  
  

  15.4 Eradication activities would include:

  • depopulation of registered hives within 15km of any Infected Place - for medium to high levels of infection and 7.5km for low levels of infection (Eradication Zone)
  • poisoning of feral colonies within the Eradication Zone
  • depopulation of hives brought in for paid pollination activities within the Eradication Zone (only if required)
  • repopulation of registered hives
  • movement control of risk materials within, through, and outside the Eradication Zone
  • compensation for beekeepers affected by eradication activities
  • On-going high level surveillance both within and outside the Eradication Zone, based on tracing and risk analysis
  
  
  
  
  

  15.5 Decision to Attempt Eradication

  If high level surveillance was already being carried out and a mite was found during this surveillance, eradication would likely be a feasible option, since mite spread would be limited.

  If high level surveillance was not being carried out, a decision to attempt eradication would be dependent on the outcome of the delimiting survey.
  
  
  
  

  15.6 Factors affecting the decision would likely include:

  • further finds of the mite outside the initial Infected Place
  • the population levels of mites in the original infected apiary
  • the movement of risk materials from Infected Places to other areas of the South Island
  • whether or not mites were found or had been taken to areas of substantial paid pollination activities
  • the extent of migratory beekeeping activities in and around Infected Places

  

  16. EMPLOYMENT ISSUES

  
  
  

  16.1

    There are many beekeepers employed in the Beekeeping Industry not reflected in AgriQuality's beekeeping statistics.   For example, there are beekeeping businesses in New Zealand, which employ 70 people.   Many businesses employ 5 - 20 people.   There are many people employed both upstream and downstream from the primary producing industry of beekeeping.   We would expect these numbers to be over 100,000.   The success or not of eradication of varroa will have a very influential effect on New Zealand employment levels.   Eradication of varroa will have to make use of expertise of beekeepers who have lost their employment because of beehive depopulation.

  16.2

    If control measures are followed substantial job losses will occur in New Zealand.   If eradication is successful there will be substantial creation of job opportunities; many of these will be created in rural communities.