Ref: AX100-010-6

Notes from the Phase II Varroa Management Meeting 20.09.00

Chair:	Tom Lambie, Federated Farmers
Attendees:	Appendix 1
Agenda:	Appendix 2
Distributed documents:	Draft transitional (2 year) varroa management plan Compiled notes from varroa regional meetings
Objectives:	1. To ensure the South Island remains free for as long as possible. 2. To ensure North Island impacts are mitigated.

1. The chairman, Tom Lambie, introduced himself. He noted that the meeting was on a tight time frame, and that it was important to concentrate on the issues.

2. Derek Belton, Director Animal Biosecurity, introduced himself and outlined the objectives of the meeting. He then acknowledged the input of people in dealing with the varroa incursion. He stated that some areas discussed at this meeting would be contentious, but it was important to keep to the time. Where the meeting could not come to an agreement, the disagreement would be noted and the meeting would move on. Conclusions of the meeting would be incorporated into a cabinet paper in October. The meeting must come up with robust recommendations, because there was a significant amount of money involved so it would be scrutinised closely.

3. Richard Hatfield, President of the National Beekeepers' Association (NBA), thanked the people involved in the consultation process. He stated that mediation was the key phrase - there was a new-found cooperation between beekeepers, government and other organisations. This was brought about by good will, such as government funding to assist with treatment. He stated that it was important for beekeepers to have funding, and therefore was surprised that the new draft Phase II plan was a significant departure to the operational plan for control of varroa that was originally circulated to beekeepers. He said that MAF must identify the changes and explain why they came about. The consultation process requires people to be fully informed. Beekeepers had not had a lot of time to digest the document, and there had been complete changes in some places.

4. Matthew Stone, Programme Coordinator, Exotic Disease Response, spoke about the Phase II plan development process outlined on page 5 of the draft Phase II plan. Development of the managed control programme for varroa started at the first meeting of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on 2 May 2000. At that meeting, the essential elements of eradication and a managed control programme were scoped out. There were tight time constraints. MAF's exotic disease response contractor AgriQuality New Zealand Limited (AgriQuality) prepared the operational plans for each response option. Matthew stated that it was important to understand that the TAG had scoped out the technical aspects and the contractor had developed more detailed plans. Cabinet decided on a managed control programme on 12 July 2000. After the regional beekeeper consultation meetings in August 2000, MAF compiled summary notes and recommendations. The recommendations from the North Island movement control mediation meeting on 14 September 2000 had not yet been assimilated into this draft Phase II plan. Matthew emphasised that this was a draft plan, intended for continuing the consultation process. After this meeting, MAF would absorb the recommendations, analyse costs versus benefits, further consider available resources, and make a recommendation to cabinet. There would be continuing discussion between MAF and NBA for the Cabinet paper. He said that consultation was hard to get right, particularly when a wide range of views and perspectives must be taken into account.

5. At this point, many of the beekeepers showed their opposition to the new draft Phase II plan. Many did not feel that MAF had taken notice of the recommendations from previous consultation meetings. There were threats to walk out the door unless some assurance of consultation was given. They also said that it was not good enough to receive the consultation document on the Friday before the meeting or later, then have to discuss it on Wednesday. They said that they had not had the opportunity to consult with fellow beekeepers. They said that they had reluctantly accepted the first operational plan for control document with the understanding that it would be refined, not changed significantly. MAF could not impose this document on them without the cooperation of the industry.

6. Derek Belton stated that MAF had got a range of views from the beekeeper regional consultation meetings. MAF had then attempted to review that feedback to narrow down the options. He said that during the meeting, MAF would highlight differences between the original control operational plan and new draft Phase II plan, and that there was no suggestion of imposition. The appendices showed that there was room for discussion around a number of points in the documents.

7. In order to get the meeting back on track, the chairman stated that the purpose of the meeting was to get information on the table for discussion. He said that he would take on board what the beekeepers had said, but there was a need to move forward.

8. Beekeepers again stated their concerns that they did not have confidence in the consultation process, and that their concerns would not be incorporated into the phase II plan. One beekeeper said that this new draft document would wipe out 80% of beekeeping operations in the South Island because they did not have the resources to control varroa. He said that under this document it would cost $40 to treat each hive, but there is only $20 profit per hive per year. Beekeepers questioned why the $40 million offered in the control operational plan had decreased to $3 million in the draft Phase II plan. This was answered that beekeepers were not promised $40 million, and the $3 million of the draft plan would not include a contingency plan for a varroa incursion in the South Island.

9. Matthew Stone stated that the phase II plan would take beekeepers through first two years of varroa management, and was intended to meet the objectives of this meeting.

10. It was decided that the meeting would then discuss the new draft document and MAF would explain it the changes.

    South Island Surveillance

11. Helen Benard of MAF's National Centre for Disease Investigation (NCDI) explained section 2.1, page 11 of the draft Phase II plan. She invited the meeting to ask questions if they had difficulty understanding some of the technical issues. She said that early detection was the key to keeping the South Island free of varroa. The plan included an active surveillance programme with random surveys, and risk-based surveillance as the key points. This section is less costly than the control operational plan because the full census of the South Island was dropped from the plan because it would not provide us with particularly valuable information.

12. Appendix 5, page 52 of the phase II plan contained a paper by NCDI presenting five options for South Island surveillance. The surveillance plans were targeted to give 99% confidence of finding varroa. These surveillance plans would be more effective and therefore better justifiable than the three-tiered surveillance programme in the original control operational plan. In the control plan, surveillance and labour would have been contracted to an external organisation. In the draft Phase II plan, beekeepers would conduct surveillance on their own apiaries. Beekeepers had shown preference to this in the regional consultation meetings. Surveillance materials would be supplied, as would the laboratory diagnosis. The information would then be collated and reported.

13. Surveillance would be on an annual basis, and aimed at cluster-based detection. As soon as varroa moved to the South Island, it would start to reproduce in the hive. After one year of introduction, it could start to spread, and would therefore have a clustered distribution. It should be detectable and eradicable after one or two years of introduction.

14. One beekeeper asked why this surveillance plan was not presented as an option in the regional beekeeper meetings. When was new proposal formulated? How is it better targeted than in the three-tiered option of the control operational plan? Helen replied that the new surveillance programme was designed after the regional consultation meetings. This new plan would be better because a grid of 20 x 20km will be placed over the whole of the South Island, with more focus on high-risk areas. High-risk areas would have sentinel apiaries, and could be such areas as ports, urban areas and pollination areas. Helen stated that the meeting could decide what high-risk would be defined as. As well as grid surveillance, a random survey would be conducted.

15. A beekeeper said that in the original control operational plan, it was estimated that we would have to inspect 2,373 apiaries to get a 95% confidence level. With the new survey, less than half the hives than in the original plan would have to be inspected, to get 90% confidence, in the assumption that we would find varroa. Vancouver Island did not find varroa because it wasn't where they were looking. Helen stated that it was possible to look at more apiaries to lift the confidence level.

16. A beekeeper told the meeting that there was a lot of beekeeper movement in the South Island. South Island beekeepers needed to contribute information about where they moved. As well as targeting risk areas, it was important to look at areas with a lot of hive movement because there was the risk of spreading from those areas.

17. Beekeepers expressed their concern that the budget for South Island surveillance had been lowered. The new plan was 20% of the original budget, so could not be as good. Helen replied that the plan was not written based on finances. It was not chosen because it cost less, but because it was better.

18. Beekeepers indicated that they would like to be paid for their time and other factors such as vehicle mileage for their surveillance work. MAF agreed to consider incorporating this into the budget. Beekeepers suggested that passive surveillance in the South Island could complement the active surveillance programme.

19. Mark Goodwin from HortResearch raised the need to work out the aims of surveillance programme, and to design the surveillance programme around the aims. There is still time for review by an independent person. The surveillance system should be designed with eradication in mind. What is the maximum area we could eradicate from? We could take into account high risks and weight the risks, for example focus more on particular ports. We could set rules beforehand on what cluster size would be eradicable.

20. Beekeepers expressed concern over whether eradication would actually be attempted in the South Island if varroa were found there. Won't we see what happened in the North Island, where eradication was not attempted because we could not detect where all the mites were? It would be a waste of money to carry out surveillance, find varroa, and then find that you can't do any thing about it anyway. Eradication still depends on available funds.

21. A beekeeper said that the original plan of checking sentinel apiaries twice a year was not going to be enough, and now the new plan suggests we only check them once a year. Twice yearly sampling was not sufficient in high-risk areas such as Nelson, a possible entry point to the South Island. Beekeepers said they wanted sentinel hives in high-risk areas to be looked at monthly through the season, and more than twice yearly at other times. MAF answered that there was no point in testing anything more than twice a year, but hives could be checked twice yearly.

22. The discussion was summarised by the following points. Everyone agreed that the relevant points had been noted.

    South Island Surveillance
    
    1)   High risk sites - twice yearly sampling.
    2)   Consider higher level of movement associated with South Island beekeeping.
    3)   Confidence level in SRS lifted to 95%.
    4)   Beekeepers involved in active surveillance compensated for disbursements (and time?).
    5)   Independent review process of active surveillance plan.
    6)   Definition of a cluster (or area) that can be eradicated established, and surveillance designed to detect such a cluster.
    7)   Consider timing of testing:
            - maximise sensitivity
            - tie in with beekeeping operations

    ---

23. Barry O'Neil, Group Director MAF Biosecurity, stated that he recognised peoples' frustrations. However, at end of day, it is the Government that makes the final decision. MAF could only make recommendations to the Government, and could not guarantee that the Government would agree with all points put forward. MAF would need to analyse the scientific and policy implications of the points raised in the meeting. If MAF decided not to support any of these points, they would let NBA know. If industry did not agree with MAF's recommendations, this would be recorded in the cabinet paper.

24. MAF agreed that the new draft plan written at the end of this meeting would be widely circulated to NBA executives, beekeeping clubs and commercial beekeepers. The cost benefit analysis would also be circulated to beekeepers. Due to time restrictions, MAF could not guarantee that there would be a chance to sit together in this type of forum before the cabinet paper was sent to Government. The meeting agreed with this process.

    Mediation process for movement control boundaries in North Island Rotorua, 14 September 2000

25. Bruce Cottrill, Federated Farmers, read his report of the meeting (appendix 3). The outcomes of the meeting were to be measured by three key criteria that were outlined in the terms of reference that MAF had provided. He stated that it was agreed in the Rotorua meeting that a member of NBA, appointed at that meeting, would check his report. Bruce noted that this had not yet been done.

26. The meeting was invited to discuss Bruce's report. MAF agreed to distribute a copy of the report to the members of the meeting.

27. A beekeeper stated that all hives in all orchards in the surveillance zone should be treated prophylactically. The original proposal was that free Apistan strips would be put into all orchards. The Bay of Plenty was in favour of this, but it was hard to discuss the issues without any terms for compensation of valuable honey crop. How would a beekeeper who gets $100,000 turnover from honey be compensated? Does prophylactic treatment have any chance of succeeding?

28. Beekeepers said that there was no trust from the industry of the government paying compensation. The beekeepers at the meetings had felt that if they co-operated to minimise the effect in buffer area, they would be entitled to compensation. Now they were not sure if they would receive it. The bubble in the movement control line enabled them to get to a situation where the amount of compensation that would need to be paid could be reduced significantly, especially since a large manuka honey producing area was in the bubble.

29. MAF said that it was important to understand that movement controls would not stop varroa, but would slow the spread down. In the bubble, the hives would come from kiwifruit pollination. The bubble would in a sense be an intermediate buffer zone. A beekeeper asked why that concept could not be used for the entire buffer zone because although the bubble would not be as good as the buffer, it would increase the chance of cooperation. MAF answered that this would alter the integrity of the movement control line. There would be mixing of hives in the bubble area.

30. Helen Benard thought that the concept of a control zone surrounding a boundary was good. She said that there were several possibilities, and different risk assessments could be done for the bubbles. She said that if the bubbles were designed to move, it would compromise the boundary. This brought up serious issues regardless of the treatment in place.

31. The issue of prophylactic treatment of hives going to pollination was raised. Many of the beekeepers were in favour of free prophylaxis. They felt that it would help the objectives stated at the beginning of the meeting.

32. Andrew Matheson of MAF Biosecurity said that it was important for industry to consider issues such as mite resistance and chemical residues in honey. Prophylactic treatment on a wide scale was contrary to the principles of an integrated pest management (IPM) system, where the objective is to minimise treatment. Most beekeeping operations in the world operate using prophylactic treatment. That could be one model for New Zealand beekeeping, but in that case there would not be the need for monitoring, movement control or surveillance.

33. The chair suggested that the meeting could put forward some recommendations regarding prophylactic treatment. They could then add a subset of specific recommendations to marry with the IPM. He reminded the meeting that treatments are a tool to use well so we can use them long term.

34. Barry O'Neil suggested that the two issues of movement control and prophylactic treatment should not be in the same document. He also stated that MAF would have to assess the option of prophylactic treatment, and could not guarantee support for this option.

35. Beekeepers argued that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss how to best slow the spread of varroa. We must slow the spread throughout the North Island. If there were no prophylactic treatment in orchards, varroa would be spread all over. Prophylactic treatment was not for the profitability of beekeepers, but to buy time to stop the spread of varroa. Beekeepers are already moving their hives into pollination. We need to quickly mitigate the spread of varroa. Hives now in pollination would be moved out by Christmas.

36. Beekeepers suggested prophylaxis would buy time for beekeepers in areas where there are no mites. They said that it would be difficult to quickly change the way they produce products; it may take a couple of years. Beekeepers would need time to adjust their businesses in order to survive.

37. Beekeepers suggested that prophylaxis could be reviewed in one year, when more options were available. Beekeepers needed a decision now. Beekeepers could use it for only two months. MAF pointed out that it was important to think about what happens after you have bought that time. You must not back yourself into a corner by depriving yourselves of future options. If you buy 12 months, in 12 months you might ask for another 12 months.

38. Beekeepers responded that there is no point in worrying about an IPM programme if we don't have anything to treat at the end of 12 months. We would only prophylactically treat some hives. There are no organic treatments in the approvals process so we can't have an IPM yet anyway.

39. Beekeepers said that industry wanted a 12-month breather window to minimise varroa numbers in the bottom half of the North Island. The result of prophylactic treatment would be to buy time for beekeepers in all New Zealand. The cost of prophylactic treatment must be borne by those who benefit. It would also buy time for those who buy pollination services. Government must fund it because it would buy time for every primary producer.

40. Re-infection of treated hives. A beekeeper said that prophylaxis was necessary because although infected hives had been treated they were being re-infected from outside sources. If these treated hives were put into pollination they would be placed next to hives from Northland. There would be drift in orchards around the Auckland area, and varroa would be spread widely around the north of the North Island. Also there were feral bees and unregistered hives that had not been treated. Treated hives would be infected again before they went into the pollination area, so would need to be treated again before pollination.

41. A beekeeper said that prophylaxis in orchards would slow the spread of mites in the North Island. If two beekeepers moved hives into orchards, and one was infected and the other not, but both treated prophylactically, the negative hive may pick up a couple of mites, but they would be killed when they got to the hive. Even if a beekeeper took a mite away from the area, at least it would only be one or two, not a whole hive of mites.

42. A beekeeper said that the density of mites would be reduced with prophylactic treatment, and therefore the cost of treatment over time. If hives were not prophylactically treated, beekeepers would have a big problem this year. If there were prophylaxis, there would be less of a problem next year.

43. MAF argued that beekeepers must think where prophylactic treatment would take then. Every hive moved around and exposed might as well be blanket treated. In that case there would be no point in having movement controls or surveillance because you would be treating hives regardless. It would not be sustainable for government or beekeepers to treat like this in the long term.

44. Beekeepers asked that if they got the funding to blanket treat, what options would be cut off? MAF answered that one major worry is that it would affect how beekeepers see varroa treatment. It would set a precedent. On the other hand, once beekeepers have to pay for it, they would start thinking about it.

45. Mark Goodwin stated that there were two forms of spread: geographic (how far varroa spread over the country), and spread between beehives. Prophylactic treatment would not stop geographic spread, but would reduce the number of hives being infected. If you were treating to reduce number of colonies then you would get a benefit from prophylactic treatment. If it were to reduce geographic spread, then there would be a slight benefit. It would mitigate the economic impact of varroa if government paid for it.

46. If Government decided to treat hives prophylactically, it would be important to keep the objectives in mind. There are some choices - what degree of hives would we treat? Would we treat hives that are possibly infected, or treat them all? What benefit would we gain from treating them all? A second choice was where would we allow hives to move after pollination - back to origin or could they spread throughout the North Island?

47. A beekeeper said that prophylactic treatment could not be voluntary - all hives would have to be treated as they went into pollination. A lot of hives going into bubbles would be hives that had been in pollination. Prophylactic treatment would reduce the number of infected hives coming out of pollination.

48. The chair stated that the meeting was looking for a general agreement, with the knowledge that there may be some technical issues that would still need to be worked through. Who would pay for treatment? Should it be for a whole infected area, but limited for 12 months period because people want to buy time? There could be some technical issues to decide who could get treatment. This option would need further development. In general is the consensus that people happy with that recommendation?

49. A beekeeper questioned what was the cost benefit to having treatment as opposed to not having treatment? Would we have a greater cost benefit if we treat? It was answered that the Cost Benefit Analysis model arose over a series of meetings. It was put together on the assumption that there would be treatment, so treating is cost benefit positive. Appendix 10 questioned who should pay for the treatment.

50. A beekeeper suggested that the word 'subsidy' in appendix 10 be replaced with 'control treatments', because it was not a subsidy but a control measure to stop spread further down the North Island. On the other hand varroa is endemic. The Government could argue that it is not control but subsidy because of this.

51. MAF said that the decision on prophylactic treatment needed to be made before the cabinet paper scheduled for the end of October. This decision would affect people not present at the meeting, so it was important to find out what they wanted. If beekeepers wanted more consultation, Government would not be able to make a fast decision. Until Cabinet agreed, nothing could be done. It was stated that there was not enough Apistan in the country to carry out prophylactic treatment at the moment. MAF stated that they needed to find out if it was technically sustainable and confirm that with their advisers. If MAF could overcome that technical hurdle, they would be most of the way there and funding would be a secondary issue.

52. The MAF team agreed to take on board the degree of urgency.

    North Island surveillance

53. Section 1.1, page 6 of the draft Phase II plan. Passive surveillance would involve beekeepers testing hives themselves, and laboratories conducting the diagnosis. Active surveillance is proposed in appendix 1, page 27. This is more intense and more precise than in the control operational plan. The passive surveillance system would be less precise, with less government involvement. It works along same principles as South Island surveillance, but the confidence level would be 95%.

54. Beekeepers stated that spending half the amount of money on surveillance in the North Island compared to the South Island did not look good. Good North Island surveillance would be an advantage to South Island freedom - surveillance below the red line would be essential. One beekeeper suggested that if varroa were found below the Southern movement control boundary, the line could be moved lower. MAF countered this by saying that it would not be economic because would stop too many beekeeper operations.

55. A beekeeper suggested that the North Island just rely on passive surveillance. Beekeepers could use cheap methods such as ether roles, which may not be as effective as Apistan, but would pick up moderate infections. The information could then be fed back to MAF. MAF answered that if you rely solely on passive surveillance, people might stop reporting so you would not necessarily know where infected hives were. With the grid system, the information would be public knowledge. The two systems could be merged, whereby kits would be sent to beekeepers to test their hives, and the results sent back to MAF. It is not as critical as in the South Island if not all tests are sent back because varroa is already endemic.

56. The cost for beekeepers in monitoring their own hives had not been included in the plan's budget. Self-monitoring costs for local networks was also not included in these costs.

57. MAF said that treatment chemicals would be under restricted tender. There would be scope to adapt the type of tender for consideration to a range of available supplies. It was MAF's opinion that for this type of surveillance programme, there was a supplier that had performed well so the restricted tender process would be used.

58. Bee exports from New Zealand. Bilateral agreements with trading partners would have to be negotiated. MAF told the meeting that there was not yet funding set aside for this. Export activity in MAF works on cost recovery from export. Trading partners always impose pre-export test requirements. The exporter meets the costs. Beekeepers argued that it would be more than one individual exporter, and many protocols would need to be changed. MAF stated that they would take note and revisit this issue.

59. Area freedom for exports. A beekeeper said that it was important to be able to follow infected hive movements to assist with area freedom knowledge for export. He thought that the degree of surveillance was not enough to satisfy our trading partners. This surveillance programme would only be able to give the status of an area, not an apiary.

60. Knowledge of varroa distribution. Active surveillance would begin autumn 2001. This was a long time away, and autumn is 3 months long. Apiary status would not be known when the time came to export bees. A beekeeper said that it was important to know varroa distribution as soon as the honey flow was finished. There would be repercussions of exports of live bees from NZ.

61. North Island surveillance. At what level are we looking to find varroa in the North Island and for what reasons? A beekeeper said that the surveillance programme needed to be tailored so that varroa could be found in time to treat so that it did not cause great economic impact. MAF answered that there would be some losses in the centre of a cluster - a cluster could not be found until that happened.

62. A beekeeper asked who would own the results of the surveillance exercise and how would they be disseminated? MAF answered that the information would be publicly available with a rapid reporting system. There were a variety of options to disseminate the information - web based reporting systems, MAF's quarterly Surveillance magazine, monthly New Zealand Beekeeper magazine.

63. Traceability. Beekeepers said that it would help then to know to where infected hives were returning. We could identify infected areas if we knew where hives had gone. They would like to know when varroa got to an area, and to monitor infection levels in infected areas.

64. Targeting of high-risk areas. MAF said that the grid based surveillance programme would ensure high-risk areas such as fruit containers going to the South Island were not missed. Within an area we could test specific risk places, for example along roads.

65. MAF said that it was important that people knew that the active surveillance programmes for the North and South Islands would be large extension services. There was a great opportunity for information sharing and skills transfer. It would have a strong link to extension.

66. At the last meeting in Wellington, NBA asked for two beekeepers from both the North and the South Island to be involved in further meetings with MAF to finalise the plan. A beekeeper asked if that was still going to happen, because it would help beekeeper confidence levels a great deal.

67. North Island Surveillance

    1)   Agree passive and active surveillance.
    2)   Transparent and rapid reporting of results.
    3)   Consider further targeting of active surveillance.
    4)   Re-negotiation of export certificates - MAF to consider foregoing cost recovery.

    ---

    North Island Movement Control

68. Appendix 4, page 42. In the operational plan for control, there were four options and three zones, each with a different disease status. Appendix 4 of the new document highlights the issues to do with different zones, such as how they would be named, the objectives in each zone, and the technical justification.

69. A beekeeper said that some people from Northland had said they would take their hives to an infected area for pollination, and would not treat hives or put a screen over their trucks during transport. He said that there should be movement restrictions where loads have to be screened and they must go back to their original site.

70. A beekeeper suggested that apiaries at risk could be identified, for example those eligible for treatment under phase 1, and for a certain period (such as this season), a status could be put on that area. Areas in Northland could be permitted, and beekeepers made to take hives back to their area of origin. Prophylaxis could also be offered when hives are moved for pollination. MAF answered that from the delimiting survey results we currently know where the infected apiaries are. After some time spread will have occurred, so the survey results would no longer be valid. Permitting and restrictions would be a significant imposition on at-risk beekeepers, who would have to be tested and gain permits to move. It could be justifiable to do it for the next 12 months, but are these people willing to put up with restrictions put on them?

71. Permitting speed. Beekeepers thought that the permits were very slow to come through. For the buffer zone proposal, it would be important to keep the permitting process quick and simple to keep in line with objectives, for example electronic notification would be faster. There could be work-related permits, for example for a job to move a load of honey. MAF answered that it is the amount of input needed in the decision-making process that slows permitting down, not the time taken to notify a beekeeper. It is important to make the permitting process simple to speed it up.

72. Permitting requirements. Outside the Infected Zone permits do not apply. A beekeeper asked that if beekeepers could prophylactically treat hives going into kiwifruit orchards, would they need a permit? That would mean that effectively 140,000 permits would have to be issued for hive movements. We could have blanket permitting - give a permit to a beekeeper business, retaining the possibility for statutory control. MAF answered that blanket permitting would be difficult because beekeepers would still have to prove their status by testing.

73. Permit system ideas. MAF said that the fastest system is voluntary compliance for movements; the slowest is for a complicated permit process. A beekeeper suggested beekeepers could staple a permit onto a hive so people can see that they are allowed to be in there, but there would have to be security measures such as a bar code so permits couldn't be photocopied. The permitting system would need to be traceable, work well, quick and able to be audited.

74. Beekeepers thought that permitting would be advantageous because it would show when infected hives are moved into an area. Also, hives could be monitored once treatment had taken place, to track the population dynamics after treatment and build up a picture of New Zealand conditions. Branches could organise a notification procedure whereby beekeepers reported where they were taking their hives and where they were planning to return to.

75. Beekeepers requested that it be made compulsory for everyone shifting hives to be sheeted, day and night. MAF answered that to get statutory backing for this, there must be a sound reason for it. Moving hives that are varroa-free does not pose a risk of spread, and there are problems under the Biosecurity Act 1993 in imposing restrictions where there is no disease risk. If the whole industry agreed on this point, MAF could look at the legalities of it.

76. Issues agreed from the North Island movement control (except the funding issue) were as follows:

    North Island Movement Control

    1. MAF to consider recommendations of the mediation report - especially reconsider "who pays" issue for prophylactic treatment in the "Control Area" (as defined in the mediation report).
    2. MAF to consider recommendation for prophylactic treatment during pollination, for first 12 months, funded by government.
    3. Accept movement permitting recommendations related to the MC boundary within the mediation report - subject to further technical consideration. ^TMDisplay of permits during/following movement.
    4. Upper North Island movements not subject to permit.
    5. NBA to consider mandatory cover of all hive loads on trucks.

    ---

    Lower North Island and South Island Movement Control

77. Section 2.3, page 16 covers North Island to South Island beekeeper pathways and non-beekeeper pathways.

78. MAF suggested the possibility of having voluntary movement controls between districts. The problem would be distribution of bees during hive movement.

79. MAF told the meeting that the poster campaign to educate the public on movement controls was almost underway. Beekeepers stated that they wanted more publicity, such as a bee-shaped ticket that ferry passengers could look at while they were waiting. There could be a person appointed to ferry terminals to check people and educate the public.

80. Border surveillance in the South Island. A beekeeper raised the risk of varroa arriving again from overseas. MAF answered that recently there had been new x-ray machines and dogs put into the mail centre and there were other changes to the border programme. The programme worked as best it could but had limitations, and would never stop everything from coming in. Government wants to review this, and would be developing a biosecurity strategy over the next two years. MAF would also review the surveillance programme.

81. Beekeepers stated that they would like a total stop on movement of queen bees from the North to South Island. MAF answered that they could do some specific risk analyses on risk pathways such as non-beekeeper pathways and some products like raw wax. This was covered in the draft Phase II plan.

82. Points from this discussion agreed were:

    South Island Movement Control

    1)   Measures to raise profile of movement controls at Cook Strait ferry terminals.
    2)   Risk analysis work to focus on non-beekeeper pathways.

    South Island incursion response

83. Section 2.2, page 14 of the draft plan. It was stated that it is important to establish the benefit of South Island freedom. MAF policy was writing a report about this, which would be made available once complete. It was important to agree on contingency plans for an incursion response. MAF would prefer AgriQuality to be the supplier for an incursion response. The next important thing was the decision-making process for the incursion response - to prevent spread through movement controls, conduct a delimiting survey and assess the cost. The draft operational plan for eradication of varroa was a good base for a response.

84. Feral bee poisoning programme. MAF said that it would be important to consider other affected agencies such as Department of Conservation, Ministry of Health and Regional councils. The varroa management group would lead the process through risk assessment work, and would consult with the other departments. MAF had already held discussions with involved agencies, but had yet to develop a formal memorandum of understanding.

85. A beekeeper stated that there were a lot of outstanding issues in this section of the draft Phase II plan. Nelson beekeepers were only in favour of a small-scale eradication if all of these issues were completely covered, such as certainty that this was the only incursion, and that feral hives could be destructed. The meeting decided that it was important to establish the varroa management group as soon as possible to address outstanding issues, and to draw up a timeline for addressing them.

86. MAF said that it was necessary to secure in principle a contingency fund for the response, especially for a delimiting survey.

87. During the North Island delimiting survey, infected hives were not treated as they were found. Beekeepers stated that they would like this to be incorporated into the South Island response. MAF answered that during the delimiting survey Apistan was not available. Also, Apistan reduces the number of mites in the hive, and so compromises the ability to detect infection.

88. The meeting agreed that it was important to establish how large a blip could be for an eradication attempt. MAF said that South Island surveillance would be much more effective than when varroa was first found so we would find smaller blips than were found in the North Island.

89. Some beekeepers stated that they wanted an indication that the decision would definitely be to eradicate. They said that they needed to know now so that they could make decisions. Beekeeping in the South Island was already marginal, and varroa would tip the scales.

90. South Island beekeeper/farmer relationship. South Island beekeepers told the meeting that there was an understanding that farmers provide nectar and beekeepers provide pollination. There was the suggestion that there may have to be a levy system in the South Island for pollination services, but South Island beekeepers did not feel that they could do that. Until the number of hives had been reduced by 50%, there would still be enough hives to pollinate, so farmers would not pay for it.

91. The chairman stated that the South Island needed to have a meeting to discuss the issue of the beekeeping industry and pastoral groups. The varroa incursion is an industry issue, not just a beekeeper issue. This industry is worth $50 million in export value to New Zealand each year. The benefit of clover pollination adds about $300 million per year from seed industry and $1 billion from pastoral industry. The economic model assumes that pollination would not occur in the South Island if varroa were present, so fertiliser would have to be put down. This means that it would definitely be more economic to eradicate than not.

92. Some beekeepers suggested that MAF had insufficient knowledge of the economics of beekeeping. They asked to see the economic analysis MAF had used in its decision making to date. An opinion was also expressed that there was insufficient South Island input to this analysis.

93. Agreed outcomes of this discussion were:

    Incursion Response

    1)   Establish Varroa Management Group by 1 November 2000 (ASAP) to address unresolved issues.

    2)   South Island delimiting survey to incorporate treatment of infected sites pending eradication decision.

    3)   CBA to take into account South Island specific industry effects.

    ---

    Treatments

94. Section 3, page 18 of the draft phase II plan. The meeting was told that the industry-wide treatment strategy was being incorporated into the varroa control booklet. MAF was hoping to have the booklet distributed to beekeepers by the end of the year.

95. Choice of treatment products. At the moment there is only one approved product. MAF Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) group is fast tracking all treatments.

96. One beekeeper stated that he was not happy to have an organophosphate-based treatment product registered in New Zealand. We want the least damaging, cheapest chemicals. It was answered that anyone who wanted to nominate a product for approval could do so. The approval process examines efficacy and safety issues. The varroa management group would play an important role in deciding what products they wanted. Where there were commercial preparations approved in overseas countries that are organic, the group would take an active role in encouraging manufacturers to have them approved and distributed. It is not possible to stop people from registering products. The beekeeper felt that the beekeeping industry should have some input into what chemicals are allowed in the country.

97. The issue of encouraging people to treat hives in a like manner and at the same time was raised. MAF suggested that this had to be voluntary and worked out between beekeepers. A beekeeper stated that hobbyists' and unregistered beekeepers' bees could die out in a few years making this issue less complicated. Beekeepers would have to accept that there would be regional differences in treatment strategies and move on.

98. A beekeeper requested regular liaison with organic certifying bodies and regular meetings to establish what treatment would be available.

    Funding arrangements for treatments

99. Appendix 10, page 66. The chairman stated that the meeting must bear in mind there might be some movement in the government position. However, it was not realistic to expect the government to fund treatment in the long term. Appendix 10 examined the advantages and disadvantages of government funding of treatment over the next 2 years. One significant disadvantage additional to those covered in the draft plan was that government would not be seen to be promoting minimal chemical usage, as should be in an IPM.

100. MAF said that the disadvantages of government subsidy had been discussed with the Minister of Agriculture, and he expressed a preference for no government support for treatment subsidy for the 2 year plan. The Minister had concerns about policy and equity - people would ask why they didn't get support for other pests that affect the agriculture industry. In consideration of the earlier discussion about prophylactic treatment and control zones, MAF would revisit this issue.

101. A beekeeper suggested that if Government was not going to assist treatment for 2 years, beekeepers should try for 12 months.

102. Another beekeeper answered that if the government provided free treatment for a couple of years, beekeepers would still have to learn to deal with varroa after that. There would still be the same problems in the future, so why not do it now? It would be better for the government to pay beekeepers for pollination services than provide free treatment. Other beekeepers answered that in next 18 months there would be problems with re-infestation, so assistance with chemical treatment would help. There were many people who would not have the luxury of deciding whether they wanted to pay to treat hives or not. A beekeeper said that he already subsidised rabbit and TB control in his rates, so what would the difference be?

103. South Island beekeepers stated that they did not want subsidies or handouts, but they were in a difficult position in that they did not have the money to treat. MAF answered that the reality seemed to be that South Island beekeeping was not sustainable, with varroa or without. However, farming was essential, and needed pollination.

104. The chairman stated that these issues had been noted and the Government would be made aware of them. Points agreed after this discussion were as follows:

     Treatments

     1) Regular liaison with organic certifying bodies.
     2) Recognise regional differences.
     3) Consider 12 month funded treatment option.

     ---

     Extension services

105. Extension services were very much as proposed in the operational plan for control.

106. A beekeeper suggested having extension services in different media formats because a lot of beekeepers preferred formats other than written material.

     Research

107. The varroa management group (VMG) would be responsible for approving projects. It was necessary to decide who would be in the VMG. The operation plan had a suggested fund of $1.4 million. This would produce about 15 pieces of original research.

108. The VMG's primary role would be to coordinate phase II of varroa management. MAF proposed that the chairman of the group would be the Director Animal Biosecurity, the secretary would be the Varroa Programme Coordinator. There would also be representation from the NBA and horticulture industry. It is important that where public money was spent, MAF retained its accountability for public funds.

109. NBA would be provided with funding for technical advice and assistance to the sum of $20k per year. NBA asked for a small sum because it would enable them to retain credibility as an independent organisation.

110. An industry representative said that the Apicultural Research Advisory Committee needed to apply for funding soon because there are opportunities out there that could be captured, for example funding for sustainable farming applications such as bumble bees and pseudoscorpion research.

111. Mark Goodwin said that the VMG could involve the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST) and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FoRST). NBA executive and industry stakeholders would be involved in the VMG. MAF said they would take recommendations for any other beekeepers to be involved.

112. Research. A beekeeper said that advice should be taken from the research advisory committee. MAF could liase with experts from overseas such as Denis Anderson. There is a need to formulate a plan to ensure research was not done that had already been conducted.

113. Research funding. Beekeepers expressed concern that money had only been set aside for the next few years. MAF replied that the initial funding would ensure that some seed research is started that could later be fed into main research funding.

114. Involvement of beekeepers on the VMG. Beekeepers involved in this group would have a fair amount of work. They would be paid a set amount per hour. It would be an overseeing group that would meet quarterly. Paul Bolger, Varroa Programme Coordinator would spend a lot of time on the group. The budget is calculated to allow about $15,000 per meeting.

115. A beekeeper suggested research funding be raised as this was considered the most important to invest in. MAF reminded the meeting that it was a seeding fund that would feed in later. New Zealand's contribution would be small compared to research from the USA and UK. The primary focus would be initially to get projects underway and to gain statistics on varroa for New Zealand conditions.

116. Points agreed from the research discussion were:

     Research

     1) Research Advisory Committee with input of MoRST/FoRST.

     Closing comments

117. Derek Belton made summary comments that MAF would undertake to send feedback to people present at the meeting. Jane Lorimer was to provide MAF with a contact list for circulation of meeting notes and subsequent documents. MAF was to keep meeting attendees informed and people were invited to approach MAF if they had any questions.

118. Beekeeper closing comments were to ask MAF to take on board the comments they had made at the meeting and to make the changes discussed.

119. The meeting closed at 5pm.

Name	Organisation
Chris Baddeley	MAF
Neil Barton	Grains Council Federated Farmers
Paul Bartrum	Southland/ Canterbury Branch NBA
Don Bell	Canterbury NBA Executive
Derek Belton	MAF
Helen Benard	MAF
Peter Berry	Hawkes Bay Branch NBA
Peter Berry	Zespri International Ltd
Russell Berry	Waikato Branch NBA
Johannah Branson	MAF
Murray Bush	Marlborough Branch NBA
Graham Cammell	Auckland Branch NBA
Bruce Cottrill	Federated Farmers
Henry Dowler	MAF
Barry Foster	Poverty Bay Branch NBA
Terry Gavin	Whangarei NBA Executive
Mark Goodwin	Horticulture & Food Crown Research Institute
Malcolm Haines	Far North Branch NBA
Geoff Hantz	Canterbury Branch NBA
John Hayes	MAF
Colin Holden	MAF
Gerrit Hyink	Bay of Plenty Branch NBA
Tom Lambie	Federated Farmers
Shaun Lawlor	Southland Branch NBA
Tim Leslie	NBA Executive Secretary
Frank Linsday	Southern North Island Branch NBA
Jane Lorimer	NBA Executive
Lucy Martinez	MAF
Andrew Matheson	MAF
Lin McKenzie	NBA Executive
Clare Miller	Department of Conservation
Barry O'Neil	MAF
Byran O'Neil	Oamaru Branch NBA
Simon Peacey	Northland Branch NBA
Murray Reid	AgriQuality NZ Ltd
Peter Sales	Otago Branch NBA
Matthew Stone	MAF
Michael Wraight	Nelson Branch NBA

APOLOGIES

John Gardner	Ministry of Health
Cath Rozendaal	Treasury
Peter Silcock	Fruit & Vegetable Federation
John Simmons	Environment Waikato
Alan Walker	MAF

APPENDIX 2 Agenda of the Phase II Varroa Management Meeting

1. Welcome and introductions                 9.00am

2. Phase II plan development process                 9.15am

3. North Island surveillance                 9.30am

4. South Island surveillance                 10.00am

   Morning tea and coffee                 10.30am

5. North Island movement control                 10.45am

6. South Island movement control                 11.45am

   Lunch                 12.30pm

7. South Island incursion response                 1.15pm

8. Treatments                 2.00pm

   Afternoon tea and coffee                 3.00pm

9. Extension services                 3.15pm

10. Research                 4.00pm

11. Administration                 4.30pm

    Meeting finish                 5.00pm

Bruce Cottrill FAMINZ PO Box 715 WELLLINGTON

Phone: 04 494 9197 025 426 101 Fax 04 473 1081 E-mail: bcottrill@fedfarm.org.nz

MEDIATION REGARDING:	MAF objectives relating to Beekeepers affected by Movement Control Line
MEDIATOR:	Bruce Cottrill
MEDITAION DATE:	Thursday 14 September 2000

Executive Summary

This mediation brought to the table 20 affected beekeepers adjacent to, or with sites split by the Movement Control Boundary. In a collaborative way they turned their minds to the problems associated with the varroa infestation, and in their own way to resolving those problems.

Of great importance to them is the issue of government funded prophylactic control, a desire to be listened to, and to be allowed to craft their own solutions in a pragmatic way.

It is apparent that for Government and its agencies through MAF to achieve widespread compliance of statutory regulation, goodwill needs to be maintained. From the beekeepers perspective this can be best achieved by giving serious regard to their proposals and for a speedy clarification on the issue of reasonable compensation.

The beekeepers feel that through their (new) commitment to commercially co-operate and to abide by self imposed regulations they have minimised Governments exposure to compensation claims.

Threats were made to release the varroa mite into the surveillance zone. This threat has more to do with creating an even playing field in the event that those most affected by the Movement Control Zone continue to feel aggrieved, than with any high degree of malice. The mediation was successful in defusing these feelings.

The feedback from the mediation has been positive. The very fact that the industry has shown that it can put differences aside and work towards the common good has had a positive effect on attitudes.

The specific outcomes of the mediation are:

• Rejection of an exclusion zone
• Commitment to a Control Zone
• A proposal for Government funded prophylactic treatment
• A redefined and redesigned Movement Control Boundary

1. The Terms of Reference

   The objectives of the terms of reference, dated 7 September, were (paraphrased):

   • The re-definition of the movement control boundary with the objectives of reducing the spread of varoa while avoiding undue impacts from regulatory interventions.

   • Identification of potential solutions for beekeepers most affected by the movement control boundary agreed on.

   In addition to the written terms of reference I received verbal instruction from Mathew Stone (MAF) to include in the objectives of the mediation a proposal for an exclusion zone.

2. The Method

   The chairman from the National Beekeepers Association's branches of Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Poverty Bay, Hawke's Bay and the Southern North Island were invited by telephone, followed by letter, to consult with their most affected members regarding the terms of reference, and for five representatives from each branch to attend a mediation in Rotorua.

   Twenty affected beekeepers from the branches attended the mediation, plus two representatives from the NBA National Executive, and the NBA's Executive Secretary.

   The mediation process was typical; each party being given the opportunity to make an opening statement; issue identification and the building of an agenda; exploring the issues and the parties interests; negotiation, and consensus building.

   Agenda items listed, but not in the terms of reference were eradication, voluntary compliance, compensation and prophylactic treatment. In any event, of these items only prophylactic treatment and compensation were discussed. The issues of eradication and voluntary compliance "dissolving" once positions were explored and new ideas were tabled.

   The mediation moved through the familiar phases of position taking and bargaining, perception testing and acknowledgement, and onto collaborative problem solving.

3. The Issues

   3.1 Exclusion Zone.

   The establishment of an exclusion zone was unanimously rejected. It was felt that regardless of where the "red line" (the movement control boundary) was set, to include an exclusion zone would adversely affect too many beekeepers, and that it would be inconsistent with MAF's stated objected of attaining the maximum co-operation between affected beekeepers on either side of the "red line".

   Beekeepers do however support the introduction of a "Control Zone" on either side of the "red line", which would maximise co-operation between affected beekeepers. (see 3.3 below) The Beekeepers attending the mediation showed unprecedented co-operation in turning their minds to the criteria for a Control Zone.

   3.2 Prophylactic Treatment

   There was unanimous support for Government funded prophylactic treatment, in particular relating to movement in and out of the proposed Control Zone, and for hives entering kiwifruit pollination sites.

   The use of prophylactic treatment is seen as cost effective risk mitigation, and in combination with high co-operation between beekeepers within the Control Zone meets the criteria of minimising the spread of varoa in a cost-effective manner.

   The beekeepers agreed:

   • All labour relating to prophylactic treatment of beekeeper's own hives would be at no cost to Government.
   • Treatment must not be ad hoc, and should be according to strictly applied and self-imposed guidelines according to MAF's stated objectives.
   • That treatment is viewed as proactive, rather than reactive.
   • That approval of products other that Apistan should be accelerated.
   • That pragmatic solutions are available relating to the pollination of organic orchards.
   • That the Government funded use of prophylactic treatment would greatly contribute to goodwill building and voluntary self-enforcement.

   Note, that it was the tenor of the mediation that this issue is fundamental to maintaining the new found co-operation between the beekeepers themselves, between beekeepers and Government agencies, and the successful application of the resolutions agreed to at the mediation.

   3.3 Control Zone

   The establishment of a Control Zone on either side of the "red line" was unanimously supported. This control zone would run parallel to the "red line", north and south. Both sides would be ten kilometres wide.

   Apart from the exceptional circumstances referred to in 3.4 (below), there would be absolutely no (hives or honey) crossing of the "red line".

   Prerequisites for entry and exit from the control zone would be:

   • A permit and three weeks minimum prophylactic treatment prior to hive entry from the north.
   • A permit required for hive entry from the south.
   • A permit plus prophylactic treatment for a minimum of six weeks prior to hive exit to the south. Strips must remain in hives until relocation out of the Control Zone
   • Honey exiting Control Zone to the north, no restrictions.
   • Honey exiting Control Zone to the south to be bee free (fumigation, storage, or sealed). Permit required.
   • Existing/permanent hives in Control Zone to be monitored by MAF and/or beekeepers, and to prophylactic treated for six weeks spring and autumn.
   • Unregistered hives and illegal entry to be dealt with firmly.

   The beekeepers agreed that this was the best possible solution, when combined with realignment and redesigning of the "red line", to ensure commercial co-operation between affected beekeepers, to minimise the spread of varoa and to mitigate the risk of the intentional release of varoa south of the "red line".

   3.4 The Movement Control Boundary (The 'red line")

   The beekeepers worked in a collaborative way to realign and redesign the "red line".

   The realignments (apart from three areas of redesign) are not significant, and were crafted in a way so as to minimise disruptions to affected beekeeper's businesses, to allow for the maximum co-operation between beekeepers and to minimise the need for compensation.

   Using topographical maps (for MAF's information), the beekeepers have drawn in the changes to the Movement Control Boundary.

   A departure from the standard Movement Control Boundary is the inclusion of four "bubbles". These bubbles are in effect a bifurcation of the red line north and south to encompass badly affected beekeeper's hives so as to (once again) minimise disruption to businesses, encourage co-operation between beekeepers and to minimise compensation claims.

   These bubbles are in the, Central Plateau, Motu and Tikitiki areas. The Tikitiki bubble is subject to further negotiation, owing to the absence from the mediation of an affected party who has seven hundred hives in the area.

   Agreements have been reached between beekeepers to exchange sites to allow these bubbles to work.

   The southern side of the bubbles would include the ten kilometre Control Zone below the "red line", but not the northern side.

   Perquisites for entry and exist into the bubbles (from the north only, with one exception) would be:

   • Before entry, hives prophylactic treated for three weeks minimum
   • Strips to remain in hives until entry into bubble
   • MAF permit prior to hive entry
   • Hives exiting north, no restrictions
   • Prior to the transport of hives (because of a lack of road access, which would be an exceptional circumstance), into the surveillance zone to re-enter north of the red line, varoa test-minimum 50% of hives. If positive, hives must be treated for minimum of six weeks prior to shift, and re tested. Hives must be shifted at night and the load screened. Under the same circumstances, honey must be screened
   • Hives left in the bubble permanently, to be treated six weeks, spring and autumn.
   • Hives shifted into bubble from south must have MAF permit to assist tracking.
   • Hives to be shifted south from bubble to be treated a minimum of six weeks prior to shifting.
   • Honey shifted out of bubble south to be bee free. Fumigation, sealed or storing. MAF permit required.

   The above criteria Movement Control Boundary criteria were endorsed with one person dissenting on some detail.

   Throughout the mediation I reinforced to the beekeepers the need to measure these proposals against the MAF criteria for acceptance, continually reality tested, and referred back to the terms of reference.

   The beekeeper's attitude can be generalised as one of solidarity regarding the proposals. Compromises were made and attitudes certainly changed during the mediation.

   Bruce Cottrill
   Mediator

   © 16 September 2000