DATE/TIME:	21 June, 2000
PLACE:	24 Andromeda Cres., East Tamaki, Auckland
CHAIRPERSON:	Brian Alexander, President
GUESTS:	Lin McKenzie, NBA Executive Lewis Olsen, President, NBA Waikato Branch

The meeting was attended by a broad cross section of major and medium sized commercial beekeepers in the Auckland region, plus hobbyists with the notable attendance of Ian Anderson, President, Auckland Beekeepers Club.

PART ONE

OBJECTIVES:

To consider the Operational Plan for Control of Varroa, as released by the Ministry of Agriculture on 16 June, 2000

To vote on an option which best carries New Zealand beekeeping and other associated primary industries through the current biosecurity crisis brought about by the introduction of the varroa mite

To devise and disseminate recommendations and submissions which best promote the outcome of the vote (above)

SUMMARY:

The meeting voted unanimously to reject ALL control options put forward by the Ministry of Agriculture

The meeting voted unanimously to accept in principle the Operational Plan for Eradication of Varroa put forward by the Ministry of Agriculture, albeit with minor changes to make it more acceptable and workable for New Zealand beekeeping and other associated primary industries

PART TWO

OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR CONTROL OF VARROA


SECTION 5.3: BEEKEEPER TREATMENT WITHOUT MOVEMENT CONTROL

This is NOT a control option it is an irresponsible "do nothing" option.   It fails to address the biosecurity crisis and will quickly produce the worst possible scenario for New Zealand beekeeping and other associated primary industries.

By MAF's own calculations varroa will rapidly spread throughout the North Island, culminating inevitably in a sooner than expected infestation of the South Island.

Large parts of the beekeeping industry (ie. beekeepers and hives) will quickly disappear.   This produces a real risk of not enough hives for pollination of kiwifruit, pipfruit, stonefruit, pastoral grasses, etc.

Examples from other countries where varroa has become pandemic demonstrate overwhelmingly the disasters alluded to (above).   Critics will quickly point out those countries still have beekeeping industries and honey crops.   The facts show most of those countries are not dependent on agriculture as an economic base to the same extent as New Zealand.   They have large industrially based economies which not only diminish the importance of beekeeping for a healthy economy but also subsidise beekeepers with "soft" loans and other support measures to keep them in existence.   In some European countries it would be fair to say that beekeepers' status is similar to that of park ranger at a nature reserve.   Nonetheless, since the onset of varroa the number of commercial beekeepers in the United Kingdom has reportedly been reduced to TWO.   To that end a resolution was passed:

"That NBA Auckland Branch appoint a person to report back on the world honey production and trade situation over the past ten years.   That Trevor Cullen would donate $200 toward expenses."
Moved: Trevor Cullen, Seconded: Sean Cranfield


SECTION 5.4: MOVEMENT CONTROL BETWEEN NORTH ISLAND BUFFER AND SURVEILLANCE ZONES

This option is little more than monitoring the affects of the "do nothing" option.   It introduces the added problem that few beekeepers from the mite-free Surveillance Zone will want to move hives into the mite-infested Buffer Zone, for kiwifruit & other pollination, and not be able to have them returned (S.5.4.1, para 3).   This will lead to an additional shortage of hives during critical pollination periods.

Beekeeping outfits which straddle the Buffer/Surveillance Zone border would have to be compensated for the logistical nightmare they would face in conducting their business.

If this option were forced upon the industry by government, it would be a requirement that all surveillance work be offered first as paid work to beekeepers, and that the estimated cost of $142,450 per annum be forwarded to the NBA for that purpose.


SECTION 5.5: COORDINATED CONTROL IN NORTH ISLAND

If this option were forced upon the industry by government, consensus was that the management agency MUST be the NBA, and that $1,874,670 in the first year, with additional amounts in subsequent years, be forwarded to the NBA for that purpose.


SECTION 5.6: ASSISTED CONTROL IN NORTH ISLAND

This is a "blunderbuss" option, with formidable overkill of treatment.   With only one infected hive in an apiary site, all hives in that site plus all apiaries within a 5km radius are to be treated twice per year.   Overseas experience clearly shows that such a regime will hasten miticide resistance in varroa, risking the viability of the New Zealand beekeeping and other associated primary industries if alternative treatment methods cannot be developed in time.

This option places intolerable interference on beekeepers in the normal operation of their business and runs a very high risk of errant compliance.


SECTION 5.7: CONTROL OF VARROA WITH A PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

The biosecurity crisis presented by the introduction of varroa is NOW.   Hives in the Auckland region are presently dying off because beekeepers cannot act while we wait for government to determine the course we must take.   By the author's own admission, a PMS would take at least a year to develop and is therefore NOT an option.

This option led to a lengthy discussion about the time it has taken MAF to finalise its delimiting survey, release the two operational plans, and move towards a final decision by Cabinet.   During this period beekeepers have not been able to use Apistan, formic acid or any other form of miticide so as not to "mask" the delimiting survey results.   The President urged members to itemise all costs which have been an imposition on a beekeeper's business due to the delays.   To that end a resolution was passed:

"That a meeting of the NBA Auckland be called to investigate the possibility of initiating legal action against MAF Biosecurity, who have prevented beekeepers taking remedial action to minimise loss of assets & income during the emergency period."
Moved: Brian Lipscombe, Seconded: Ben Rawnsley

The meeting also asked Lin McKenzie to investigate the legal position of people making public statements which subvert the Eradication Plan.   Lin McKenzie will discuss both issues with the Federated Farmers' lawyer, Mike Smith, and report back to the President.

Further discussion ensued about the frustration beekeepers faced in having their voice heard by the technical advisory group, which has been instrumental in authoring both plans.   None of the group's members are commercial beekeepers, and to that end a resolution was passed:

"That a letter be written to the Prime Minister and copied to the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Biosecurity, expressing NBA Auckland Branch's grave concerns about the technical advisory group and that we have no confidence in their ability to consider the views of beekeepers."
Moved: Shaun Cranfield, Seconded: Brian Lipscombe

PART THREE

OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR ERADICATION OF VARROA

Having affirmed unanimous support for MAF's previous plan to eradicate varroa from New Zealand, the meeting felt it would be worthwhile to refresh ourselves and others on the key features which have made it acceptable to the majority of our nation's beekeepers.

1. Firstly, beekeepers are not stupid!   We are practical people who make a living from a healthy, vibrant beekeeping business.   That is why we support MAF's Eradication Plan, because it is a practical, cost effective solution which best ensures the long term well being of our industry.

2. Beekeepers in the Auckland region harbour NO illusion that someone can wave a magic wand and make varroa mites decamp from their hives, en masse, overnight.   It will require a concentrated effort in the Infested Zone for the first year to eradicate all bees from registered/managed hives, and to carry out a poison baiting programme for unregistered/feral hives.   It will require an extensive, on-going surveillance programme to detect recurrences inside the Infested Zone and "blips" outside.   It will require on-going, but diminishing eradication of "blips" as/when they occur.   MAF's Eradication Plan calculates for at least a four year duration to total annihilation of varroa inside and around the Infested Zone.

   Most Auckland beekeepers stand to lose EVERYTHING from the Eradication Plan.   All will lose substantially at best.   So why do we support such a plan unanimously?....

   We live with varroa NOW.   We see first hand its devastation every day. Like cancer, we wouldn't wish it on our worst enemy.   Some suggest chemical treatments (eg. Apistan); but like chemotherapy to a cancer patient, it reduces the symptom but inflicts pain over a longer period. And besides, the end result is still the same.   Overseas beekeepers tell horrifying stories of living with varroa in "do nothing" and controlled environments.   They encourage New Zealand beekeepers to break the cycle of despair and do everything to reinstate our varroa-free status.

3. The cost of an ongoing Eradication Plan is $56 million over a FOUR year period.   That is to say: Year 1 = $31 million, Year 2 = $13 million, Year 3 = $6 million, Year 4 = $6 million.   NBA Auckland Branch believes it is money well spent.   It is substantially less than the $87 million allocated to the Arts in the recent Budget, and should be seen as an insurance policy to maintain the good health and well being of industries which underpin the viability of the New Zealand economy; namely, beekeeping, kiwifruit, apples, pears & other pipfruit, stonefruit, foodstuffs such as honey & jams, clover & other pasture grasses for dairying, meat & wool, seed cropping and a host of other ancillary industries.   One third of the horticulture industry's $2.2 billion annual contribution will be placed directly at risk if we have to live with varroa.   Over the life of the Eradication Plan, horticulture alone will be spared that risk (from pollination) and can continue to generate safely $3,000 million for our economy ($750 million x 4 years). In addition, the wellbeing of New Zealand's primary industries is pivotal to regional development, and creates substantial downstream employment through a financial sector rule of thumb: "ONE primary sector job creates FOUR industrial, commercial & service sector jobs."   Living with varroa, for the sake of a meagre $56 million, will put all this at risk.

4. It should not be forgotten that 75% of New Zealand's beekeeping industry will continue to function in its traditional, efficient manner under an Eradication Plan.   In fact it will prosper by supplying replacement bees to the Infestation Zone and making up any minor shortfalls in honey, bee pollen, propolis & royal jelly.   75% of our industry equates to total domestic demand for honey, and packers report adequate stores created by several years of overproduction to meet ongoing retail pack exports (approx. 650 tonnes/annum).   The only area of shortfall will be in bulk exports (300kg drums) which is generally the low returning, commodity priced end of the product spectrum anyway.

5. We will only get ONE chance to eradicate varroa, and the longer we leave it the more it will cost.   New Zealand's unique geography as a relatively remote island nation lends itself to eradication.   Czechoslovakia tried an eradication programme but its continental location facilitated waves of mites crossing the border continuously from its not-so-vigilant neighbours.   The topography of our Infestation Zone is mainly flat to rolling and readily accessible, which makes any eradication work easier.

6. The meeting recognised that globalisation had increased imports to New Zealand exponentially over the last 20 years.   On the other hand border control effectiveness to ward off exotic pests had declined significantly.   This has been highlighted in recent months/years by such cases as: varroa, snakes, tussock moth, calisi virus, paper wasps, Australian mosquitos, and a host of others.   Any attempt to prevent and/or eradicate exotic pests must also be met by government supplying adequate resources to our border control services.   It is in the overall, long term national interest to see their effectiveness outpace any increase in imports, NOT vice versa.

   If we do not implement an Eradication Plan for varroa the prospects are frightening. Some obvious concerns are:

7. Many countries afflicted with varroa have economies with a large industrial base.   New Zealand is almost entirely agriculturally based and does not have an industrial "safety net" to rely on when things go wrong.   If we opt to live with varroa there is NO turning back. Disease control experts say we have an 80-90% chance of success with an Eradication Plan, so it is surely worthwhile trying.   At best we have achieved a milestone in history, at worst we have still left our options open.

8. With no eradication programme organic honey will be lost forever, there will be serious chemical residue concerns from honey, bee pollen, propolis & royal jelly customers, and New Zealand's "clean, green" image will receive a serious setback which may have flow on effects to other primary industries.

9. With no eradication programme there will not be enough hives for pollination long term.   Overseas experience shows that (post-varroa) the honey bee can only survive in hives managed by humans (albeit with difficulty).   Feral hives become a thing of the past, and large tracts of the New Zealand countryside will be without bees.

   If their are no feral colonies and fewer managed hives, costs will rise to a level which makes New Zealand's vibrant seed crop industry (among others) uncompetitive with Australia.   The industry will then be transposed to Australia where bees are plentiful.   This will result in lost New Zealand jobs in the agricultural sector, with flow on job losses (4X) in the manufacturing, commercial & service sectors.

10. With no eradication programme varroa will become immune to the miticides commonly used and recommended under MAF's Control Plan.   This phenomenon is already causing major headaches for overseas beekeeping industries; and in New Zealand we only have to look at parallel problems surrounding the calisi virus and the onion beetle.

11. Questions have been raised about beekeeper compliance to an eradication programme, and yet the overwhelming support shown by Auckland beekeepers to MAF's Eradication Plan counters such logic.   As long as beekeepers in the Infestation Zone perceive they are being treated in the spirit of the Biosecurity Act and are left "in no better or worse position than any person who is not directly affected" by varroa, the eradication programme should progress smoothly.   It should also be said that a fair and adequate level of compensation will go a long way to cementing in such compliance.

Conversely, it could be argued lack of compliance would create more serious setbacks for any of the Control options, which the majority of beekeepers oppose.   In a worst case scenario, some of the more errant beekeepers may exhibit behaviour akin to someone knowing they are HIV+ but having unprotected sex anyway.   They could become despondent/desperate from weakening hives and may feel little responsibility of passing their varroa problem onto a neighbouring beekeeper.

Opponents of eradication are sometimes vociferous but small in number.   They are well known to the rest of the beekeeping community and it would not be difficult to monitor their behaviour during the implementation of any eradication programme.

In conclusion, the branch decided it would be worthwhile to enlist people with a public profile, who are seen as supporters of an eradication programme, to promote our case to a broader audience.   To that end a resolution was passed:

"That the NBA seek people locally, nationally and internationally, who can act as public figures supporting eradication."
Moved: Brian Lipscombe, Seconded: Bob Blair

SIGNED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Brian Alexander (President)
Date 23 June, 2000


For further information please contact:
Brian Alexander
President, Auckland Branch
National Beekeepers Association
Tel: (09) 420-5028

For documentation, fax, email support please contact:
Mark Horsnell
Tel & fax: (09) 838-5249
Email: m12345@ihug.co.nz