Chapter 2
Background and current challenges
2.1
This chapter discusses the importance of the beekeeping and pollination
service industries from a food security, environmental and financial point of
view as well as the current challenges facing these industries.
Food security, environmental and financial importance of the beekeeping and
pollination service industries
2.2
The committee considered a range of evidence relating to the importance
of bees to food security and the corresponding financial impact this has.[1]
Many submitters were keen to elevate the level of awareness among the public,
policy makers, and food producers of the importance of bees and what may be lost if some of the threats
to bees are realised.[2]
Importance for food security
2.3
The United Nations Committee on World Food Security describes food
security as being 'when all people, at all times, have physical, social and
economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary
needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.'[3]
2.4
Australia enjoys good food security generally and also has the capacity
to export significant volumes of food and contribute to the food security of
other nations. However this does not mean that Australia is not presented with
threats to current food security, as noted by the Prime Minister's Science
Engineering and Innovation Council in 2010:
...if our population grows to 35–40 million and climate change
constrains food production, we can expect to see years where we will import
more food than we export. We are now facing a complex array of intersecting
challenges which threaten the stability of our food production, consumption and
trade...[4]
Importance of beekeeping and
pollination services
2.5
The main way in which bees contribute to food security is through
pollination of crops and plants. Pollination enables a plant to bear fruit and
seeds. The pollination process involves the transfer of pollen, from the male
part of a plant (in flowers, this is the ‘stamen’) to the female part of the
plant (the 'carpel').[5]
Pollination is important for many fruit, nut, vegetable, legume and seed crops.
Insects that contribute to pollination by transferring pollen include bees,
butterflies, moths and flies[6]
with the honey bee the most frequent visitor to many crop species.[7] These bees
include feral bees and managed bees which either intentionally or coincidently
pollinate crops.
2.6
The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) estimates:
...that out of some 100 crop species which provide 90% of food
worldwide, 71 of these are bee-pollinated. In Europe alone, 84% of the 264 crop
species are animal pollinated and 4 000 vegetable varieties exist thanks to
pollination by bees. The production value of one tonne of pollinator-dependent
crop is approximately five times higher than one of those crop categories that
do not depend on insects.[8]
2.7
The contribution of bees and other pollinators to pollination depends on
the type of crop. In addition to increasing the yield, pollinators can also
increase the quality of many crops and reduce agricultural inputs, such as
water and time. Pollination also has significant benefits for animal feed:
Pollination can also impact the animal production sector
because of the importance of insect pollinated crops as fodder. Legumes, such
as clovers, are important as a dietary nitrogen source for livestock, and many
legumes benefit from insect pollination. Bee pollination can influence the
persistence of clover in pasture, therefore affecting grazing quality.[9]
2.8
The yield of some crops can be increased by up to a factor of four with
efficient pollination. As a result, the environmental benefits are associated
with reductions in the required agricultural inputs, such as water, soil,
chemicals, and preparation of land.[10]
Financial importance
2.9
The financial importance of beekeeping can be considered in two parts.
One part is the direct products from the bee keeping industry, including honey,
wax and other hive products. In 2010 the global production of honey was 1.54
million metric tons. In 2011, global imports of honey accounted for 0.38
million metric tons with a value of US$1.2 billion.[11]
The second part is related to crop pollination by bees which has a greater
financial output than direct bee products:
The contribution of pollinators to the production of crops
used directly for human food has been estimated at €153 billion globally, which is about
9.5% of the total value of human food production worldwide.
It is problematic to estimate the global economic value of
the pollination services provided by managed species, as it is difficult to
know if crops have been pollinated by managed or wild individuals.
Nevertheless, recent estimates range between €22.8
to 57 billion, including apiculture markets and particularly all cash-crop
yields.[12]
2.10
The demand for pollination services has risen by over 300 per cent in 50
years. This suggests that economic globalisation, rather than biological
factors, drives the dynamics of both the global managed honey bee population
and the demand for agricultural pollination services.[13]
2.11
In Australia the honey bee industry includes 12 250 registered
beekeepers operating 524 000 hives. Approximately 340 000 of these hives are
managed by about 1650 commercial beekeepers. Australia’s annual production of
honey typically varies between 20 000 and 25 000 tonnes. Annual honey yields
per hive in Australia are among the highest in the world, due to the relatively
large amounts of nectar produced by Australia’s native flora and the tendency
of the Australian honey bee industry to focus on honey production rather than
pollination services.[14]
2.12
Honey and other hive products generate $70 – 90 million a year in
Australia.[15] Financial estimates for the contribution to
crop production by pollination services included a commonly quoted figure of $4–6
billion per annum,[16]
however the Department of Agriculture cited a 2003 estimate of $0.6 – 1.7
billion.[17]
A number of submitters and witnesses identified increasing demand for honey
locally and for export, and pollination services due to the expansion of
pollination dependent crops such as almonds.[18]
2.13
The majority of plants (measured by volume) produced for human
consumption and animal feed in Australia are crops such as wheat, barley and
rice, which self-pollinate. In contrast, 65 per cent of horticultural and
agricultural crops (measured by number) introduced into Australia since
European settlement, require honey bees for pollination.[19]
The dependence on honey bee pollination of a range of crops is shown in
Appendix 3.
2.14
The CSIRO provided some examples of high value crops which rely on
managed pollination to varying degrees. The Australian almond and apple
industries, worth $331 million and $464 million per annum respectively, are 100
per cent dependent on bees for pollination. In contrast, canola is a crop that
is worth $1.8 billion to the Australian economy and is routinely grown without
managed pollinators, but a better yield is produced when pollinators are
provided.[20]
2.15
The honey bee industry also offers downstream benefits to other
industries in the supply chain[21]
with food manufacturing reliant on the availability of ingredients such as:
-
honey or honey derived products;
-
plant food products (e.g. fruits, vegetables, nuts) which rely on
the pollination services of the honey industry to maintain production from
season to season; and
-
dairy, meat and protein products derived from grazing farm
animals foraging on introduced pasture grasses (e.g. clover, legumes, lucerne)
reliant on honey bees for pollination. [22]
2.16
The committee is also aware of arguments that there are gaps in
understanding how well feral and managed honey bees contribute to crop
pollination in Australia, due to inconclusive data and a lack of Australian
specific data:
Apart from a relatively small number of highly
pollination-responsive and specialist industries, such as almonds and seed
crops where pollination is well managed, it is likely that the importance of
insect pollination is not fully appreciated and as a result is not optimally
managed by the majority of producers.[23]
Committee view
2.17
Evidence considered by the committee indicates that there is potential
for bees to be used as pollinators to deliver an even greater yield for some
crops. The committee considers that honey and other hive products form a small
but important part of Australia's agricultural production, and notes the
growing importance of pollination services that honey bees perform, including
the ability to increase productivity and crop yield.
2.18
The committee also notes that, as recently as 20 June 2014, US President
Barack Obama issued a memorandum directing US government agencies to take
further steps to protect and restore these industries because of their critical
contribution to the economy and environment. This action includes:
-
The Department of Interior and United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) joining 45 state governors in issuing Pollinator Week
Proclamations, publicly acknowledging the vital services that pollinators
provide;
-
The Environment Protection Agency releasing guidance designed to
help scientists accurately assess the potential risks that different pesticides
may pose to bees; and
-
As part of its Conservation Reserve Program, the USDA has
announcing an $8 million initiative to provide funding to farmers and ranchers
who will establish new pollinator habitats on agricultural lands.[24]
Current challenges facing the beekeeping industry and its future
sustainability
2.19
The section below discusses the current challenges facing the Australian
beekeeping industry.
Effect of chemical use on bees
2.20
Managed, feral and wild bees are exposed to a number of chemicals found
in pesticides and herbicides that are used in agriculture, horticulture, and apiculture.[25]
When used alone these chemicals can affect honey bees, however their combined toxicity may be even
more harmful.[26]
2.21
Chemical companies wishing to register a product for sale and use in
Australia are required to provide data to the Australian Pesticides and
Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) supporting the safety and efficacy of
the product.[27] Once approved for use, the APVMA manages the
registration of pesticides under Commonwealth legislation, and state and
territory legislation regulates the use of those registered pesticides.
2.22
The Commonwealth Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Code) Act
1994 controls the import or manufacture of pesticides, their packaging,
registration, labelling, wholesale supply, and retail supply to the end user.[28]
States and territories regulate the post retail sale, transport, storage, use
and disposal of pesticides once they are in the possession of the end user.[29]
2.23
Concerns were raised with the committee that data provided to the APVMA
in support of chemical registration is not independently verified, nor are
tests conducted to assess the
effect of prolonged exposure of these chemicals on native
bees and honey bees. [30]
Neonicotinoid Pesticides
2.24
Several submitters raised concerns about the use of
neonicotinoid pesticides (neonics), which have been accused of contributing to
the decline of honey bee populations in Europe and the United States of America.[31]
However, neonics remain widely in use in Australia. Neonics were first used in
the 1990s and designed to be systemic insecticides, meaning crop seeds are
sprayed before planting. As the seed grows, intake of the chemical occurs,
making the plant itself toxic to insects and providing protection from pests
throughout the entire growth cycle and season.[32]
2.25
Some submitters observed that research conducted in the United Kingdom
indicates that neonics ingested by bees can seriously impact their ability to
collect food, even at very low levels of contamination.[33]
However, this research has been questioned by chemical manufacturers and bee
researchers on the basis that research conditions did not accurately replicate
in-field conditions.[34]
2.26
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers' Association contends that APVMA data
requirements for testing of insecticides are not adequate to properly consider
possible routes and the extent of exposure of insect pollinators to pesticides
or to assess the potential for adverse effects of pesticides on honey bees and
other insect pollinators. On this basis the current testing system may not take
account of the impact of neonics on pollinators.[35]
2.27
In support of this point, Ms Manu Saunders advised the committee that
research has found that honey bees simultaneously exposed to an immune challenge
and a dietary toxin, as found in neonicotinoid pesticides, died sooner than
honey bees exposed to only one of the stressors alone.[36]
2.28
Crop Pollination Association Inc (Vic) suggest that there have been no
independent long term studies on the effects of systemic
pesticides on soil, water or bees. They also suggest that batch mixing
of chemicals can be performed by
farmers, which can increase the
efficacy of these chemicals against
insects and may kill bees at far lower dosage rates.[37]
2.29
The committee notes that there are international examples of
restrictions on the use of neonics. From 2013, the European Commission suspended
the use of neonics on flowering crops such as corn, canola, sunflowers and
cotton for two years. The suspension
restricts the use of three neonicotinoids for seed treatment, soil
application and foliar treatment on bee attractive plants but does not apply to
crops that are not attractive to bees.[38]
2.30
In March 2013, the United States Center for Food Safety, environmental
groups, and beekeepers initiated legal action against the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on the basis that the USEPA should have
prevented the registration of two neonicotinoid pesticides alleged to be
harmful.[39]
The USEPA accelerated the schedule for registration review of the neonicotinoid
pesticides but has indicated the review will not be completed before 2018.[40]
2.31
The APVMA released a report in 2014, Overview Report: Neonicotinoids
and the Health of Honey Bees (Overview Report), which noted that
neonicotinoids offer a range of benefits when compared with older
organophosphate and carbamate insecticides they have mostly replaced. The
report advised that '...the scientific literature shows there is lack of
consensus on the causes of honey bee declines, with a wide range of possible
causes being actively investigated'.[41]
2.32
In the Overview Report the APVMA identified that Australia, unlike its
German, British, Italian and United States counterparts, lacked a national
honey bee colony survey scheme, and recommended trialling nationwide annual
surveys of beekeepers about the health of their hives to be collated into a
national report. A number of submitters support this concept, calling for an annual
industry report to provide data on financial and physical industry production,
trends and issues.[42]
2.33
The APVMA's Overview Report also noted Australia's lack of residue
monitoring and suggested a similar project be established to analyse pesticide
residues in various plant and bee media.[43]
Committee view
2.34
The committee considers that the Commonwealth could, in consultation
with relevant industry participants, investigate the viability and benefits of
establishing a national honey bee colony survey scheme with a view to
collecting reliable data that monitors the long term health of the industry, as
discussed above. Consideration could also be given to establishing a residue
monitoring project to analyse pesticide residues in various plant and bee
media, as recommended by the APVMA in its Overview Report, also discussed above.
Recommendation 1
2.35
The
committee recommends that the Government should, in consultation with relevant
industry participants and with consideration to world’s best practice, develop
and establish a national honey bee colony survey scheme to collect reliable and
comprehensive data about the industry and inform future decisions. The survey
should include the establishment of a residue monitoring project to analyse
pesticide residues in plant and bee media.
Spray drift from chemical
application
2.36
Another issue of concern raised with the committee during the inquiry is
that of spray drift from the application of chemicals to crops. Spray
application involves the use of spray equipment to distribute pesticides to
crops in the form of active liquid ingredients at certain concentrations.[44]
Pesticides applied as a spray of liquid droplets or as a fine dust can be
carried by wind outside the intended area either during or after application.[45] As
temperatures increase and the air becomes drier, increased evaporation allows
droplets to remain airborne longer and may travel further than intended.[46]
2.37
According to the NSW Apiarists' Association, there have been a number of
incidents where beekeepers have lost hives due to direct spraying or spray
drift.[47]
Mr Terry Brown advised the committee that bees in 120 of his hives died while
being transported on the back of a truck after experiencing spray drift from a
pesticide being applied to a cotton crop.[48]
Mr Warren Jones provided another example of how spray drift may have impacted
on bees:
Several beekeepers working river gum sites on the Macquarie
River at Warren and Gin Gin suffered severe bee losses due to cotton spray
‘drift’ on to hives. The cotton crops are seed treated with a neonicotinoid at
planting which is highly systemic. The cotton plants were then sprayed with
Fipronil and Phenyl pyrazole which are also highly systemic. I suspect that
there was a high probability that the two chemicals have combined within the
cotton plants to provide a perfect storm for a major loss of bees to all the
beekeepers involved. The EPA and APVMA need to start somewhere with independent
evaluation.[49]
2.38
To address these concerns, Mr Stephen Targett suggested the
implementation of 'no-spray zones' around beehives.[50]
Chemical labelling
2.39
The committee heard evidence that some beekeepers believe that
inappropriate use of chemicals and unclear labelling of chemical products is
having an impact on bees, and contributing to bee deaths.[51]
David and Wendy Mumford suggest that the quality of information on chemical
labels should be improved, and that legislation be amended to regulate the
inappropriate use of chemicals that are used contrary to their labelling
instructions.[52]
2.40
The committee notes that this issue was considered in the More Than
Honey report and that the government response agreed with recommendation 4 of
that report which called for clearer labelling of chemicals to reduce the possible
impact on bees. The committee also notes that the APVMA has been progressing
work in relation to pesticide use generally, discussed above at paragraphs 2.31
to 2.33.
2.41
During its public hearing in Murray Bridge, South Australia, the
committee heard that there was support for introducing penalties for chemicals
used contrary to labelling (referred to as 'off-chemical use'):
If a particular chemical is dangerous to bees or beneficial
insects that should be clear—'Do not spray while bees are foraging' and back
that up. I think there should be warnings that fines could apply if you use
this off-label procedure, because most of the bee kills are from off-label use.[53]
2.42
The Department of Agriculture advised the committee that it is
progressing work to improve labelling of chemicals that may impact on bee
health. In 2012, as part of a detailed investigation of the neonicotinoid
insecticides the APVMA contracted the Australian Environment Agency Pty Ltd to:
...look at the labels of those Australian products which carry
bee protection statements and review the consistency or inconsistency of the
wording in those statements; and
...advise the APVMA if changes need to be made to standard
statements and to existing labels.[54]
2.43
This investigation noted the wide variety of bee protection statements
on labels and that bee protection statements are not consistently applied to
registered insecticide products. The Department of Agriculture advised the
committee that recommendations were considered at an APVMA workshop for
regulatory stakeholders on 24 July 2013, and these outcomes and recommendations
are currently being considered by the APVMA and the Department of Agriculture.[55]
Committee view
2.44
The committee will monitor the response to these outcomes and
recommendations by the APVMA and the Department of Agriculture, and will follow
developments in this area. The committee looks forward to being advised of this
information by the relevant agencies when it becomes available.
Access to floral resources
2.45
During the
inquiry the committee encountered a high degree of concern regarding the
security of access to floral resources on public land,[56] with a number of submitters
advising that there was confusion amongst beekeepers about the access available
between the states and territories. Mr Benjamin Hooper of the South
Australian Apiarists Association Incorporated explained the problem:
National parks are the typical ones, the biggest parks and so
forth in this state that we rely on, but there are other land tenures. It is
confusing to the average beekeeper as to who controls those titles. For
instance, we have a memorandum of understanding with SA Water. However, a
single land manager can take control and he can individually say that he does
not want bees in that area, even though we have an understanding with the peak
authority. It is just that it can be undermined so easily.[57]
2.46
Mr Ian Zadow called
for clarification of procedures for access to public land for beekeepers[58]
and Mr Dan Heard suggested that the Victorian government policy, Apiculture
(beekeeping) on public land standard operating procedure, was a good model
that could be used by other states and territories to assist with clarification
about access to resources. This was seen as a strategy to reduce confusion.[59]
2.47
The committee
notes that this issue was considered in the More Than Honey inquiry,
with recommendation 5 of that report recommending that the Commonwealth, in
conjunction with state and territory governments, establish guidelines for
access to public and leasehold lands, including national parks, with a view to
securing access to floral resources for the relevant industries.[60]
2.48
The
Department of Agriculture advised the committee that the Commonwealth has
raised these matters with state and territory governments through a discussion
with state and territory agriculture agencies at a Primary Industry Standing
Committee meeting on 11 September 2008.[61]
Committee view
2.49
While the committee
notes that the Commonwealth has raised this issue with states and territories,
it considers more could be done to address confusion and improve communication
between beekeepers and relevant state and territory agencies. The committee
also notes that access issues vary between states and territories. Evidence
presented to the committee indicates that there is still a high degree of
concern and confusion about access to floral resources and the committee
reiterates the More Than Honey report recommendation that in states and
territories which do not have them, guidelines be developed to clarify access
to floral resources.
Recommendation 2
2.50
The committee recommends that the Government liaise with state and
territory land management agencies to establish relevant guidelines to clarify
access to public lands for beekeepers within the next 12 months.
Forest and Fire Management
2.51
As beekeepers are reliant upon the natural environment to farm their
bees, the committee was advised that forest and fire management practices can
affect their success. Several submissions indicated that fire management issues
are affecting the beekeeping industry, as some controlled burning programs do
not take the requirements of beekeepers into consideration.[62]
2.52
The committee heard that controlled burning programs may lead to the
loss of floral resources and biodiversity,[63]
possibly rendering bee sites unusable for decades.[64]
Crop Pollination Australia Inc suggests that fuel reduction burns are commonly
planned to occur in spring which distorts the plant species within the forest
or scrubland and reduces biodiversity.
Lack of biodiversity in the forest or scrubland is to the
detriment of honey bees as well as native bees and marsupials. Different plant
species will survive a spring burn to those of an autumn burn. Spring
germinators are designed to survive a hot dry summer whereas autumn germinators
are designed to survive frosty wet winters and are then established enough to
survive a hot dry summer. Fire management of natural resources should alternate
between spring and autumn burns.[65]
2.53
A number of submitters recommended burning programs be reassessed, in
collaboration with the beekeeping industry. They also supported more research
into the effectiveness of current fire practices, and the impacts on both
native forest biodiversity and honey bee industry, with a view to establishing
honey bee friendly and sustainable environmental practices.[66]
2.54
The VFF State Beekeeping Branch suggested that beekeepers would be
willing to participate in integrated fuel reduction planning, to help reduce
the risk of their honey crops being compromised if burning occurs around or
during flowering season.[67]
2.55
The committee notes that recommendation 7 of the More Than Honey report
recommended that the Commonwealth government fund research into fire management
practices that are more appropriate to the honey bee industry. The Department
of Agriculture in its submission to the current inquiry, stated that as fire
management is primarily the responsibility of state and territory authorities,
this issue had been raised with relevant state and territory agencies during
the meeting where access to floral resources was discussed,[68]
referred to earlier at paragraphs 2.45 to 2.48.
Committee view
2.56
While the committee
notes that the Commonwealth has raised this issue with states and territories
it considers more could be done to consider the impact of fire management
practices on the beekeeping industry. The committee encourages the
Commonwealth government to liaise with states and territories to encourage
integrated fire management practices which consider the needs of the beekeeping
industry.
Clear Fell Harvesting
2.57
It was put to the committee that clear fell harvesting within the
forestry industry and a gradual encroachment of clear fell[69]
harvesting across licenced bee sites is depreciating native forest floral
resources.[70]
A number of submitters expressed concern that clear felling is also affecting
natural resource security.[71]
2.58
The Victorian Apiarists' Association expressed concern about the
security of lower elevation mixed species forests that provide critical summer
and autumn pollens in preparation for winter pollination tasks:
If the current
rates of clear fell/ seed tree harvesting continue the Honey bee industry stands to lose a significant proportion of its available native forest resource over the next forty years...Having lost the mature forests that are harvested, studies
have reported...species either fail to regenerate at all or a single opportunistic species favoured
by the disturbance of a total loss of canopy cover, dominates the regeneration thereby
diminishing the biological diversity and richness of the forest.[72]
Committee view
2.59
The committee considers that harvesting areas which overlay bee sites
could be reviewed, and encourages state and territory land management
authorities to consider this as part of their responsibilities in this area.
International challenges
2.60
While the terms of reference of the inquiry include international
challenges facing the beekeeping industry, the committee was presented with
little evidence in relation to this issue. One issue that was raised is that of
bilateral and multilateral trade agreements and the possibility that honey,
hive products and live bees are being excluded from trade agreements.
2.61
Honey exported from Australia can be subject to charges imposed by
importing countries; yet according to the AHBIC, Australia does not impose
tariffs on honey being imported from those countries or any other country.[73]
The AHBIC's submission states that some typical tariffs Australian honey
exporters are subject to include the European Union (17.3 percent), South Korea
(253 percent), Japan (over 25 percent), China (15 percent) and India (60 percent).[74]
In comparison, the Superbee Honey Factory advised the committee that New
Zealand does not allow honey to be imported, in an effort to support their domestic
industry and improve biosecurity.[75]
2.62
Capilano Honey Ltd observed that the recent Australia-South Korea Free
Trade Agreement excluded honey '...which was very disappointing for industry
considering the vast range of agricultural products included.'[76]
Committee view
2.63
While the committee did not receive a substantial amount of information
relating to international and trade issues, the matter still deserves some
discussion. The fact that honey and related products has not been considered in
free trade agreement negotiations points to a lack of understanding or
acknowledgement from Government on how vital beekeeping and pollination
services are to the agricultural sector.
Recommendation 3
2.64
The committee recommends that the Government ensure that beekeeping and
pollination services are considered as an integral part of free trade agreement
negotiations, and consider the impact current agreements have on the industry.
An ageing workforce
2.65
One issue raised is that of an ageing workforce. The committee heard
that there are few young people entering the profession and that there are
limited opportunities for training and career development.[77]
The committee notes the existence of a single, nationally recognised course offered
in Australia through Vocational Education and Training.[78]
The committee heard that while this is considered a comprehensive course, it
could be strengthened as it lacks modules on biosecurity, marketing, business
management and communication.[79]
2.66
To overcome a future shortfall of professional beekeepers, several
submitters suggested that apprenticeship programs be made available to the
beekeeping industry.[80]
The committee notes that the issue of an ageing workforce
and the lack of formal pathways into the industry was discussed in the More
Than Honey report.[81]
However, the committee does not consider that it has been presented with
sufficient evidence on this issue in order to make a clear recommendation. The
committee notes, however, that a comprehensive approach to supporting the
industry and recognising its importance on the part of government would help it
to be seen as a valid career choice.
State apiculture staff
2.67
The committee heard that there are concerns about low numbers of state
and territory government apiculture staff available to maintain biosecurity
through inspections, uphold best management practice, enforce regulation and
offer advice in the field. It was put to the committee that current staff
numbers are insufficient[82]
for the scope of work,[83]
as they may be engaged on a part time basis with little time for field work.[84]
2.68
Spurge Apiaries explained:
Due to funding cuts and the size of the industry in WA we no
longer have Stock Inspectors in the field monitoring bad practises. The
Apiculture Section within AgWA now only has a staff of two and is largely
irrelevant to the wider industry. Should an outbreak of Varroa occur in WA
resources would be severely tested.[85]
2.69
The AHBIC website states that apiary officers are allocated to states
and territories in the following way: three officers in New South Wales and
Victoria; four officers in Queensland; and one officer in each of South
Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory.[86]
Honey production levy
2.70
The Australian beekeeping industry currently pays a compulsory levy on
honey production, which is used for research and development, and biosecurity. The
honey levy and export charge funds the Honeybee Research and Development
Committee of the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC)
and National Residue Survey testing of honey, with a small portion contributing
to the Animal Health Australia Emergency Animal Disease Response Fund.[87] The
committee heard that there is strong support for relevant research activities
to be expanded.[88]
The levy is administered by AHBIC and authorised under the same legislative
framework which supports Australia’s primary industries levies system; the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 and
the Primary Industries Levies and Charges
Collection Act 1991.[89]
2.71
The AHBIC is currently proposing to raise the honey production levy from
the current 2.3c/kg to 4.6c/kg on 1 July 2015.[90]
One of the purposes of the increase in the levy is to pay for biosecurity
officers to operate in each of the states to help inform beekeepers how to
manage pests and diseases.[91]
However during the committee's hearing in Queensland Dr Whitten of the Wheen
Bee Foundation questioned how biosecurity activities had been previously
funded.
Who paid for that before? The states, so the states were
paying through their apiary offices for the service which now this small struggling
industry is being forced to pay...What we have really got, when you look at the
biosecurity situation, is the struggling beekeepers are footing the bill to
solve problems not of their making and producing benefits which are captured by
others.'[92]
2.72
The committee was informed that current legislation does not permit statutory
levies to be charged on services, and as such, the beekeeping industry is
prevented from collecting levies (via the bee industry) related to the
pollination services it provides to plant industries. According to a number of
submitters, this means that one of the largest beneficiaries of the beekeeping
industry, the pollination-dependant horticultural and agricultural plant
industries, are not contributing to research and development or to biosecurity.[93]
2.73
A number of submitters urged the Commonwealth government to broaden the resource
base for these vital activities by amending legislation to allow for the
collection of a statutory levy, or some other financial contribution for pollination
services.[94]
2.74
The committee notes that recommendation 25 of the More Than Honey report
recommended that legislation be amended to allow for a levy on pollination
services, and that voluntary contributions made by industry to research be
matched by government funding. The committee understands that as pollination
services do not fall within the definition of an animal or plant product under
Schedule 27 of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 (Cth) and
Schedule 14 of the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999 (Cth), an
amendment to legislation is required to enable a levy on pollination services.[95]
2.75
In its response to the More Than Honey report, the Commonwealth
government suggested that if Pollination Australia wished to establish a levy
system, government would consider this proposal.[96]
The committee at this point notes considerable criticism of Pollination
Australia by several submitters and witnesses during the inquiry.
Committee view
2.76
The committee strongly encourages AHBIC, Pollination Australia and the
Commonwealth government to enter into discussions about the best way forward to
allow the pollination industry to make a contribution for pollination services
to research and development, and to biosecurity.
Recommendation 4
2.77
The committee recommends that AHBIC, Pollination Australia and the
Commonwealth government enter into discussions about the best way forward to enable
the pollination industry to make a contribution for pollination services to
research and development, and to biosecurity.
Marketing the Industry
2.78
The committee considered evidence to suggest that the beekeeping and
honey industries could expand the way in which their products and services are
marketed. The committee notes that the existing honey production levy lacks a
marketing component to address international and domestic opportunities for
growth. During its public hearing in Brisbane, the committee heard that
marketing was often overtaken by day-to-day issues, and a lack of staffing.[97]
2.79
In comparison to the Australian industry, New Zealand markets its
similar high quality honey to great effect, with the industry experiencing
continual growth. Since 2009, the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries
has produced a yearly publication which monitors apiculture trends across the
country. It shows that registered beekeepers and hives have increased every
year since 2005; the honey crop for 2012/13 was up 72 percent on the 2011-12
crop; and Canada's demand for New Zealand live bees exports also increased
despite the country's strong dollar.[98]
Committee view
2.80
The trends from New Zealand may indicate that the Australian industry
has potential for growth and could benefit from a similar marketing strategy.
The committee considers that industry's efforts to capitalise on the reputation
of Australia's high quality honey internationally and to promote the value of
pollination services to farmers domestically should be increased. The committee
encourages the beekeeping and pollination service industries to pursue support
from relevant states and territories and Commonwealth agencies to expand its
marketing expertise.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page