Developing the AFB PMS

The Introduction of User Pays to AFB Control

In the middle 1990s the New Zealand beekeeping industry found itself in a difficult place. Had action not been taken, American foulbrood disease (AFB) would have been deregulated and all hell would break loose in the beekeeping industry…

The political landscape of the time was rife with ‘user pays’ generally, resulting in the deregulation of many things along the way. The general approach was ‘get rid industry-specific legislation, and replace it with umbrella acts that could be used to create (and pay for) many aspects of governmental servicing that had been provided up to that time. Looking back on it now, I can be proud that we, as the beekeepers of that time, made the decisions we did that at the very least avoided the potential for the loss of regulative protections within the industry.

The Early Versions of the Apiaries Act

AFB was first regulated in New Zealand with the Apiaries Act 1906. Descriptions of the background and import of that legislation are worthy of their own article. In the years leading up to 1906 the use of moveable frame hives were enabling ‘modern beekeeping’ (ability to manipulate combs, remove honey without killing bees, and – importantly – inspecting for AFB). With many other colonies of bees being kept in boxes, AFB brought many operations to financial ruin. The Apiaries Act 1906 made it a requirement that AFB be notified and dealt to. Before that, with no legislative instrument and no regulatory powers, there was absolutely nothing that beekeepers could do about AFB. Full stop.

The Apiaries Act changed and developed over time, incorporating a range of topics to (hopefully) further the industry. The Apiaries Acts 1906, 1907, 1927 and 1969 were all acts in their own right – but there were also amendments to the main Act in 1913, 1920, 1951, 1953, 1956, 1958, 1965, 1967, 1971, 1973, 1978 and 1980. The beekeeping industry – through the National Beekeepers’ Association – throughout this time worked to ensure that any regulatory powers that were needed were provided for.

The Legislative Context of the 1990s

The Biosecurity Act 1993 was the ‘umbrella act’ that would spell the end of the Apiaries Act. Completely. The regulatory authorities of the Apiaries Act would be completely gone – unless a strategy to identify and manage/eradicate a given pest was developed. And paid for!

From the beekeeping industry’s point of view, it would be a massive loss. Nearly 100 years of industry development on the back of (varying degrees of) inspections and required destruction of infected colonies. AFB was still a big issue, but the entire basis for inspection services, burning of infected hives and basically, making AFB ‘illegal’ meant the disease was (again, to varying degrees) kept under control through the 20th century. Though the Biosecurity Act kept a few ‘transitional’ provisions until a strategy was (maybe) decided upon, that Act eliminated the Apiaries Act and all of its various amendments.

The Biosecurity Act and Impending Loss of a Range of Services

The Biosecurity Act was never developed with the beekeeping industry in mind. Our industry relied on the provisions of the Apiaries Act; it was the only thing that kept the industry alive through that time. The Biosecurity Act was really aimed, we decided, at possum control and TB control. It was never really imagined that a small industry like beekeeping would really need, or would work so diligently and methodically, to in some way avoid the disaster of complete deregulation of AFB. We did not ask to do it. We did not want to do it. We simply needed to do it.

Until the early 1990s, the old Department of Agriculture, and then the Ministry of Agriculture of Fisheries, had a significant presence with the industry. Apiary advisory staff, beekeeping scientists and the issues relating to certification for sale and export were mostly seen as just one more of the ‘public good’ services that a government like New Zealand prided itself on. And in the case of beekeeping, rightly so! But many/most of these people and services were being taken away. No longer could we simply say to the government that we, as an industry, need things such as this to prosper, or even to survive. Once again, the words ‘user pays’ were repeatedly dragged out.

One component in the mix was the apiaries register, the listing of apiary sites and locations. Up until that time, MAF had both developed and maintained the register, as it was not only wanted and needed by the industry itself, but allowed for AFB inspections and management, as well as providing an effective ability to certify honey and bee products for export. And the same thing applied to inspections for AFB by MAF inspectors, and the required destruction of hives with AFB by burning. The Biosecurity Act would have almost certainly spelled not only the end of advisory staff and inspectors, but also export certification and any sort of regulated approach to AFB control. Unless a pest management strategy was developed, AFB would be completely deregulated. As an industry, we would be back to the early 1900s.

So who could develop a pest management strategy? For such as possum control it was (effectively) the government itself. If the argument could be effectively made that ‘dealing with TB and possums is a good thing’, and could outline how it would be paid for, managed and carried out – voila! A pest management strategy could be developed. But the strategy could come with its own levying system. That is, even if the ‘users’ who have to pay to have the strategy didn’t like the strategy or the levy involved, it would still go ahead. There was even the fear of an ‘unfriendly pest management strategy’, with the imposition of a strategy and a levy on an unwilling industry!

So, worst case? MAF staff would no longer be available to the industry. And they wouldn’t be there to enforce the Apiaries Act because it has gone. All AFB regulatory control is gone. Inspection would no longer be a requirement in any way, and no one could be made to destroy AFB colonies or deal with the aftermath of an AFB outbreak. And the feeding of antibiotics to mask AFB would dominate any futures of exports or disease elimination.

But it didn’t stop there. The body that had represented New Zealand beekeepers since 1913 – the National Beekeepers’ Association – potentially faced a similar fate. The Hive Levy Act was to be removed. In its place was the generic/’umbrella’ Commodity Levies Act. In a similar manner to a pest management strategy, any grouping of people could propose a commodity levy. But with this Act there was a difference. In order for a levy to be approved, the people who were liable to pay the levy would be able to vote in a referendum, and it would only go ahead if it was clearly the desire of the voting levy payers.

The NBA Chooses to Develop One Rather Than Two Levies

Here is where the beekeeping industry got canny…

We felt we needed to achieve an industry levy to support the work of the NBA, to replace the Hive Levy Act when it disappeared. But since we needed to do this through the Commodity Levies Act, why not use that same levying system to create the levy to fund a pest management strategy? The ability to create levies was the same with both Acts, with the only real difference being that the levy payers got a chance to vote for or against a commodity levy, and there would be a reduced cost of raising one levy only rather than working with both Acts. Remember, the Hive Levy Act related only to beekeepers with 50 hives or more – as that Act was designed to fund the NBA itself. To fund a pest management strategy we felt that all beekeepers would benefit from an effective strategy to deal with AFB. But from a practical sense, we chose the level of 10 hives or more (or being kept on more than 3 registered sites in the apiaries register). We effectively changed the levying ‘thing’ to be a registered apiary site, rather than a declaration by the beekeeper of hive numbers.

It had been felt that the Hive Levy Act was being variously abused by some (‘other’) beekeepers – under-declaring hive numbers, not bothering to register apiaries, actively working to avoid paying the levy. In reality, I am not sure how much of that was really the case. It did rely on a declaration by the beekeeper – the number of hives as at a particular date. But we had no way to compare that declaration back to the apiaries register. And the NBA did not even have the details for those beekeepers with 10-50 hives, though we wanted to include them into the levy payments.

What did the beekeeping industry really need? Well, a means of controlling AFB would sit near the top of the list. A means to pay for that control. We needed a way forward in the changes to export certification – they, too, were facing these same threats and moves to ‘user pays’. And finally, and humbly, I would identify the need for an effective industry organisation to represent all interests. The NBA was fulfilling that role at the time, with the support of beekeepers and other aspects of the greater industry.

The Apiaries Register at the Centre of the NBA Efforts

And what do all of those have in common? Oddly enough, it came back to the Apiaries Register, developed and ‘owned’ by MAF. The register was at the heart of AFB control for about half a century. Without such a registry, AFB control would be a non-starter. Both the industry and government wanted (needed?) the register to enable export certification. But the Privacy Act meant that MAF would not/could not provide the NBA with the apiary register! Ironically, if the NBA did get a pest management strategy, access to the apiary register could be part of that.

So we couldn’t have a referendum for the commodity levy – consisting of a levy for the NBA, part cost of the apiaries register and the pest management strategy costs – unless we had access to the apiaries register. Once the levy was passed, no problem. Regardless of who finally had to pay for it (government and/or industry) we could use that apiary register to more objectively levy beekeepers to pay for this wide range of activities. Ultimately? MAF played hard ball and refused us the apiary register. But they did agree to send out the commodity levy ballots on our behalf…

The end result? The NBA was supported by beekeepers to carry out the essential functions. The industry developed its own pest management strategy, rather than the development by the government itself or the imposition of an ‘unfriendly pest management strategy’. While these musings have been largely about the levying aspects, the actual development of the NBA’s Pest Management Strategy was absolutely significant and necessary for the future of NZ beekeeping.

Were There Alternatives Available?

Opponents of the pest management strategy argued that we could just leave it all to the individual beekeepers. They argued since it was not ‘fun’ or ‘profitable’ to spend a lot of time dealing with AFB, that all beekeepers can be trusted to try to eliminate AFB from their own ‘hobby’ or ‘commercial’ hives. Oh, yes, and we don’t really need an apiary register for export certification – almost all other honey exporting countries had AFB already anyway, and a test could be used to provide for certification. But remember – at this stage AFB would be deregulated, there would be no compulsory inspections or prescribed handling of diseased equipment. From the point of AFB control, we would be back to what it was like before the Apiaries Act 1906… And, add on to that – the call for allowing the use of antibiotics to treat AFB.

Developing a New Approach

The 1990s changed the whole regulatory basis for dealing with AFB. From 1906 the Apiaries Act had provided the ‘teeth’ of enforcement – and the Government indicated very clearly that that Act would be repealed in the early 1990s. If the industry still wanted some form of regulatory protection, it would need to develop a Pest Management Strategy – later to be known as a Pest Management Plan.

The industry recognised that without regulation, AFB would likely decimate the industry, the same fears that were held before 1906! Without a regulatory basis for control, AFB would/could no longer be controlled, quite literally. No requirement to inspect, destroy infected hives, or stop the spread of AFB. Nothing. The fears of losing AFB control inspired the NBA to take up the challenge/necessity to develop a PMS to meet the needs of NZ’s beekeepers.

Through the late 1980s and 1990s, Dr. Mark Goodwin carried out exemplary research into many aspects of AFB – and from a remarkably sound practical base. There was very little AFB research being carried out in other countries in the world that was of relevance to NZ. With almost all other major beekeeping countries already well down the “just keep feeding the antibiotics” track, there just wasn’t any interest in researching how AFB spreads between colonies, or how AFB could be dealt with without the use of drugs. Dr. Goodwin’s work informed the industry well as it worked toward a PMS.

Cliff Van Eaton, then an Apicultural Advisory Officer, is another person to single out for particular recognition. Cliff worked incredibly long and hard to get through the labyrinth of the new (and still changing) legislation.

Those from the NBA who were so immediately involved? I would not dare to start naming them, for fear of leaving people out. The two chairs over time of the NBA’s Disease Control committee, Ian Berry and Terry Gavin, led the committee to develop a PMS that could work. NBA presidents that deserve particular thanks from beekeepers include (again) Ian Berry, but then extend through the years to Allen McCaw, Dudley Ward and Francis Trewby. And I guess I’ll hold up my hand, too – I was the NBA president through some of the PMS’s development, and remain a committed proponent.

The approach was more than just ‘inspect and hope you find more than get infected in the same period of time’. The industry-led and industry-supported approach started from the minimal premise: every hive should be inspected every year by someone who has demonstrated ability to identify clinical cases of AFB.

To achieve that, the strategy introduced the use of a Disease Elimination Conformity Agreement (DECA). Beekeepers would need to evidence the ability to identify AFB, and agree to the various aspects of inspection, reporting and eliminating AFB from their own outfit.

Industry Support, Funding and Programme Management

There would have been no referendum to gauge support had the NBA decided to raise the money for the PMS under the Biosecurity Act. The Minister would simply approve it. But the NBA chose to collect the money using the Commodity Levies Order, knowing that the organisation would need that levy into the future. The referendum revealed more than 70% support for the proposal.

When the NBA (the ‘Management Agency’ for the PMS) failed to get the support from beekeepers needed to renew the Commodity Levy Order, the PMS was in jeopardy. Fortunately, the overwhelming need for the PMS saw the Minister leave the NBA as the Management Agency, but provided a levy to support the PMS only.

Transition to the Present

The NBA continued to manage the PMS (now having been renamed by another Biosecurity Act amendment to a Pest Management Plan – PMP) until the creation of ApiNZ in 2016. ApiNZ continues to be responsible as the Management Agency, but it has separated out the governance of AFB control into a separate board, effectively an agency of its own.

The philosophical approach remains the same: Beekeepers are primarily responsible for disease within their colonies. Beekeepers need to comply with the provisions of a DECA, following the steps that can clearly lead to AFB elimination within their outfit.

And especially if an outfit’s AFB levels are increasing, the beekeeper should consider:

More inspections for AFB than the required ‘once per year’, and certainly whenever equipment is removed or swapped to another hive.
Increase the thoroughness of the inspections, the number of frames of brood that are examined. The more frames of brood inspected, the more likely AFB can be detected at an early stage.
Reduce the amount of equipment being moved between colonies.
‘Quarantining’ – returning equipment, especially extracted supers, to the same hive/apiary/area as needed, again reducing equipment interchange.

If a beekeeper adheres to a DECA’s provisions AFB within an outfit will decrease. That is, the infections will not be coming from the beekeeper simply infecting more colonies by practices that will tend to spread AFB. If the other beekeepers in the area are also compliant, the area would be AFB free. Ultimately, AFB can be eliminated from New Zealand. But even if the result is only a decrease from year to year? The value to the industry can still be demonstrated as being cost effective…