FAQs

A1: To help overcome the impact of Psa-V into the future, the entire New Zealand kiwifruit industry needs to work collectively at a local, regional and national level. We will not succeed in overcoming the impacts of Psa-V if growers act individually.  While it is important for all growers to take individual responsibility for the protection of their own orchards, a collective approach will be essential to achieve success.  A NPMP will deliver the required collective approach.

A2: A NPMP would give growers the means to keep unaffected areas free, slowing the spread in areas where it is already present at low levels, while also assisting affected growers who have had to cut out to re-establish their orchards in heavily infected regions. There has been a significant recent investment in new varieties, $140 million over the course of the next three years. All varieties—including the mainstay of our industry, Hayward—are susceptible to Psa-V unless individual and collective action is taken.
 

A3: This will be different depending on the disease situation in the growing region.  For instance, in areas where Psa-V has not been detected, growers will need to monitor to ensure absence of disease as well as comply (along with others) with movement restrictions to stop risk items moving into these areas. In areas where the disease is already widespread, growers would be responsible for their management practices to control/minimise the impacts of Psa-V on their orchards. In these situations growers will be able to apply the approach that is best suited to their production system.

A4: A NPMP would provide a ‘level playing field’ for everyone involved in the industry. Therefore, the actions or inactions of one individual would not be putting other growers at risk. It would provide for the industry to work together to manage Psa-V and in doing re-establish a profitable industry.

The NPMP would establish three types of regions based on the level and distribution of Psa-V found within a geographical region. Each type of region would have its own set of clear objectives based on whether or not Psa-V is present, and the objectives would reflect what the industry and growers want to achieve.  These three types of regions would be:

Exclusion regions—regions which do not have Psa-V identified. The objective for these regions is to maintain freedom of Psa-V. They include Kerikeri, Whangarei, Auckland, Coromandel, Hawkes Bay, Nelson/Motueka/Golden Bay, Gisborne and Whanganui/Horowhenua and Waikato. (Note: South Waikato and Coromandel have recently discovered Psa-V positive orchards. However, they are yet to be re-classified as ‘containment’ regions under the proposed NPMP).

Containment regions—regions with limited disease. The objective for these regions would be aggressive containment to limit the spread and impacts of Psa-V. They include Katikati, Franklin and Tauranga West.

Recovery regions—heavily infected regions. The objective would be to support the recovery pathway to commercial kiwifruit production by providing a significant reduction in Psa-V inoculum and therefore associated disease incidence. This region includes Te Puke, Opotiki, Waihi, Tauranga East and Whakatane.

A5:
There will be a cost in implementing and maintaining the programme and it is proposed the NPMP will be funded by grower levies. The levy would follow established industry practices which recognise the different risks and benefits between kiwifruit varieties associated with Psa-V. A maximum cost of one cent per tray for Green growers and two cents per tray for Gold growers is being proposed.  KVH wants to keep the costs of a NPMP to an absolute minimum, while still being able to provide growers with the results and support needed.

A production-based levy also means those growers who are seriously affected by Psa-V would not have to contribute to the costs while their orchards are not producing. 

In addition to this grower levy, ZESPRI and other parties have indicated they will continue to fund the R&D efforts of approximately $2 million per year.

Q6: Government has signalled the $25 million contribution already made, is all that it is able, or willing, to contribute to the disease control efforts against Psa-V.  Under the current law there is no compulsion for the government to contribute further to the control against Psa-V, or to a NPMP.  Even if the government isn’t directly contributing it is important the government continues to support the industry in other ways, including R&D and financial support for growers in real financial hardship due to Psa-V.
 

A7: Growers would take the primary responsibility for the plans implementation, supported by post-harvest operators and regional co-ordinators.

If growers agreed, KVH would be the industry-approved management group to implement and manage the NPMP. It would continue to drive the R&D efforts to find new tools and management techniques and develop best practice making these freely available to growers.

The strategy would give KVH the authority under the Biosecurity Act to require specific actions of those who are creating an unacceptable risk to others.  While this authority is required to ensure the necessary ‘level playing field’ it will only be used as a last resort.

A8: There would be movement restrictions to regions with no, or limited, Psa-V, monitoring requirements, and growers would need to manage disease when it is present. However, no specific crop protection programme would be enforced and growers will be able to apply the approach that is best suited to their production system. KVH would continue to develop and provide best practice advice for control that growers may wish to use. However, if a grower is not actively managing a diseased orchard and, as a result high inoculum levels were creating a significant risk to others, the grower will be required to change their approach.

A9: A diseased orchard will be considered ‘unmanaged’ by KVH when:

• white or red exudate is present; and
• diseased and collapsing canopy is present; and
• the disease situation is deteriorating; and
• the orchard is not being actively managed to reduce the amount of diseased material; and
• there is no evidence that at least one product on the KVH approved list has been applied.

A10: A NPMP needs to be endorsed by New Zealand kiwifruit growers and approved by the Minister for Primary Industries.  The maximum time period it can be in place is 10 years, and reviews are conducted after three and seven years.
 

A11: A formal proposal is being finalised and will be submitted to the Minister for Primary Industries in October 2012. The final proposal will take into account industry feedback, strong grower support from the recent grower poll (50 per cent of eligible voters cast their vote, and 77 per cent of these voters supported the proposed NPMP), unanimous support from the August KGI forum and strong endorsement from ZESPRI and Turners and Growers for this approach.
 

A12: A NPMP would provide an opportunity for KVH to support growers should other significant new pests and diseases occur that could affect kiwifruit. There is no other kiwifruit body that currently focusses on identifying these risks in advance, engaging with the Ministry of Primary Industries to ensure border controls are sufficient to keep risks out, and develops, in advance, pre-agreed rapid response actions if a future biosecurity risk eventuates.

The Government has signalled a change in the way the incursion of new pests and diseases will be managed in the future. It is setting up Government/Industry arrangements with specific industry sectors to work jointly in preparing and responding to the arrival of new pests and diseases that affect that sector. If growers agree to a NPMP, KVH could take on this role and be responsible for preparing for other significant biosecurity events with Government, something signalled by ZESPRI at its AGM as desirable.