Why our future depends on taking biosecurity seriously
OPINION: When it comes to biosecurity, we often hear about the end of a response, but it’s the beginning that helps determine our success.
It points out that this adds unnecessary complexity, administrative cost and a lack of transparency with levy investment in biosecurity for farmers.
"We would like to see a more integrated and sustainably funded biosecurity system for the livestock sector that minimises risks through collective readiness and good biosecurity practices," it says.
"To support this, our farmers need certainty and consistency of the principles that will be applied to risk management, cost-sharing, and decision-making across the biosecurity system."
It also notes that delivery of services within the biosecurity system is fragmented, with inconsistent legislative and system settings to support effective funding and delivery.
"Different programmes often have the same stakeholders involved and this contributes to the frustration experienced by dairy farmers about regulatory burden and lack of transparency of levy investment."
DairyNZ notes that farmers currently fund the biosecurity system through six different levies and with the transition of the Mycoplasma bovis programme to a National Pest Management Plan (NPMP), this increases to seven.
"Dairy farmers may also contribute further funding to the biosecurity system when cattle are designated as beef cattle for slaughter and on the purchase of seed for arable crops."
It recommends that biosecurity levies consolidated into a single levy (or fewer levies) with the creation of a cross-industry organisation that integrates the deliver, and funding, of biosecurity services would be a more efficient way to recover costs and lessen administrative expense for industry and government.
