To make the point even clearer, indications are from next July the Government intends to move to recover costs from those not signed up to a Government Industry Agreement (GIA) but benefitting from what it delivers to their sector.
That’s effectively the worst of all possible worlds – having to pay but having no say about what’s being done on your behalf, while others do.
Increased tourist numbers, more New Zealanders taking a break overseas, free-trade agreements and more foreign airlines flying to these shores mean risks grow despite the Government’s greater commitment to biosecurity funding where it’s so often the most visible – at airports and ports.
But already there have been two major incursions this year – velvetleaf and pea weevil. Both have meant considerable disruption after the initial find was investigated, its spread tracked and precautions put in place to stop the impact being greater.
After the event it’s easy to say more steps could have been taken at an earlier stage, investigations launched more promptly and awareness both inside and outside the sectors most immediately impacted ramped up rapidly.
But with a GIA readiness for just such an event is much better assured, with a ranking of a range of pests according to the damage it’s believed they could cause if they arrived in this country.
Simple steps can be taken, such as a sign at the gate reminding visitors of any biosecurity risks that might come from their presence or intended actions on the property.
Also detailed would be a range of measures which could be quickly put into place if their presence was ever confirmed, meaning it wouldn’t be a case of rushing to get a strategy in place because a blueprint would already be waiting to be actioned.
There will always be incursions from outside what can be expected but covering off all the major risks is definitely a prudent strategy.
This is where farmers, through their various industry organisations, can have a considerable input based on where they farm and what they perceive as being their greatest threats.
As well, those outside agriculture can be assured those with the greatest amount to lose from an incursion are having the greatest say and taking the steps they want to protect their livelihoods.
At an onfarm level there’s also much that can be done. At a recent grower gathering Foundation for Arable Research chief executive Nick Pyke referred to the steps one farmer was taking to stop unwanted pests in their tracks.
When the hay baler arrives he not only destroys the first bale produced, but has another two of his own ready to be put through then discarded as a precaution against seed and insect pests.
How many dairy farmers would be so vigilant?
They’ve needed to up their acts in the health and safety area over recent years. Depending on where they farm environmental legislation is in place already, or is about to be, requiring plenty of onfarm attention.
Biosecurity is another area where what might have been regarded as being satisfactory in the past certainly won’t be in the future.
Simple steps can be taken, such as a sign at the gate reminding visitors of any biosecurity risks that might come from their presence or intended actions on the property.
Then there’s upskilling of staff by getting them to think about what an incursion could mean for the future of the farming enterprise. They’re right at the frontline so their buy-in is perhaps the most important undertaking.
Forewarned is fore-armed and when it comes to biosecurity, the very best preparedness is being as ready as you can be, hoping the day you need to put plans into practice never, ever comes.
