![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
|
Print Chapter 3 (PDF 238KB) | < - Report Home < - Chapter 2 : Chapter 4 - > |
Access to public lands
Land management
Plantations
Environmental impact of the honey bee industry
Bushfires
Committee conclusions
3.1 | Resource security—access to the floral resources upon which the honey bees depend—is one of the two most critical issues facing the honey bee industry and, therefore, those industries which rely on 1honey bees for pollination. It is estimated that 70 per cent of honey production is derived from native flora species. Much of this is located on public lands. However, native forest also plays a significant role in conditioning hives for pollination, and recovery afterwards. Thus, beekeeper access to native forests is essential to both the honey bee industry and those industries depended on honey bees for pollination. As AHBIC stated in its submission: Without access to native flora the commercial beekeeping industry would not exist. Continued access to native flora on private but more especially public land is the essence of the Australian beekeeping industry.2 |
3.2 | In its submission, the Victorian Apiarists Association emphasised the importance of native vegetation to the viability of the industry, and the conservation ethic of beekeepers: Eucalypt forest and woodland systems represent the most important melliferous (nectar and pollen producing) resource for beekeeping in Australia. In Victoria about 85% of honey production derives from species of eucalypts. |
3.3 | In its submission to the inquiry, Western Australian honey packer Wescobee Limited identified the following threats to resource security: From a forestry perspective continuous threats to the floral resources accessed by beekeepers in Western Australia include: |
3.4 | Thus the exclusion of beekeepers from native forests and the destruction of native forests for agriculture, urban development or through burning, has a direct impact upon the honey bee industry. |
![]() |
|
Access to public lands |
|
3.5 | Beekeeper access to public lands is seen by the honey bee industry as essential to the future of the industry, as public lands contain the bulk of the remaining forest and woodland vegetation upon which beekeepers depend. In its submission, AHBIC stated: Access to native forests on public land is essential for the honeybee industry—state forests, national parks, Crown lands, stock routes, etc contain the majority of remaining native forest which provide most of the floral resource on which the industry depends for honey flows, a ‘safe harbour’ and clean rehabilitation. Honeybees are rested in native forest on public lands after completing the pollination services which generate very little honey and on which Australian agriculture and horticulture depend for food production.5 |
3.6 | However, beekeeper access to public lands has been declining with the growth of national parks and conservation reserves to protect native forests. In its 2005 report, Future directions for the Australian honeybee industry, the Centre for International Economics noted: All states have experienced increasing areas of public lands transferred into various state conservation reserves, such as national parks or nature reserves or wilderness areas.6 |
3.7 | As CIE further noted, this trend has resulted in the exclusion of beekeepers from public land: Within this increasing protectionist framework, managed honeybees are seen by some to be a land management activity which is no longer appropriate without a thorough understanding of the interactions between introduced honeybees and ecological processes. Some ecologists and conservationists have taken the position that as managed honeybees are exotic insects they have no place in any conservation reserve at any time.7 |
3.8 | As a matter of policy, governments are excluding beekeepers from public conservation reserves. In its submission to the inquiry, the New South Wales Government acknowledged the importance of public land access to the honey bee industry, noting that ‘the honey bee industry is heavily reliant on access to apiary sites, mostly on public land, to harvest nectar flows and maintain hives during cool weather, drought, or following bushfires’. Nonetheless, the New South Wales Government has placed restrictions upon access to apiary sites on public lands and designated feral honey bees as a key threatening process: Under existing Government policy, access to apiary sites on public land such as State Forests, National Parks, and travelling stock routes and reserves, will continue, but it will not increase. Apiary sites in NSW National Parks are managed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 which gives conservation objectives precedence over other management objectives. Other jurisdictions such as Queensland and Victoria have a similar approach. |
3.9 | The position of the Queensland Government, as stated in its submission to the inquiry, is that ‘beekeeping is inconsistent with the management principles of National Park tenure’. The Queensland legislation, the Nature Conservation Act 1992,‘provides for authorised beekeeping activities on some protected areas including conservation parks and resource reserves’. Nonetheless: Beekeeping is not normally allowed on National Parks. However, where a new National Park is declared on land used for beekeeping, this activity can be allowed to continue for the unexpired term of existing apiary permits up to a maximum of five years.9 |
3.10 | The submission further notes, however, that transitional arrangements have been enacted to allow beekeeping to continue until 2024 on lands covered by the South-East Queensland Forests Agreement (SEQFA) and Wet Tropics lands being transferred from Forest Reserve to National Park or National Park (recovery) tenure. These arrangements allow for ‘the continuation of existing apiary sites for beekeepers while alternative resources were found for the industry by 2024’.10 |
3.11 | The Queensland Government submission observes that the ‘investigation of freehold land for honey production in south east Queensland indicates that there is almost 19 000 hectares of high honey yielding forest areas located on freehold land, which may be available as an alternative resource when access to SEQFA lands ceases in 2024’.11 In the meantime, some 800 000 hectares of land will be taken out of production: In 1999, the signing of the South-East Queensland Forests Agreement (SEQFA) provided for protection of important forest ecosystems in south east Queensland through the immediate transfer to forest reserve and termination of any further timber harvesting on 425 000 ha of former State Forests, and the future transfer of a further 375 000 ha of State Forest once timber harvesting was phased out. As of January 2007, 188 594 ha has been converted to protected area, with much of this area being dedicated as National Park.12 |
3.12 | As the Queensland Government’s submission acknowledges, the cessation of timber harvesting is likely to impact on beekeepers even before total exclusion occurs as forestry roads and fire trails degrade from lack of maintenance: The discontinuation of timber harvesting in forest areas means that harvesting roads used by beekeepers to access sites may not continue to be maintained where they are not required for management of the protected area. Remaining management roads, including fire management trails, may not be maintained to a standard suitable for beekeepers’ use. In these cases, it may be possible to relocate sites to suitably maintained access roads, in keeping with a commitment to preserving the total number of apiary sites on the areas of previous forest reserves through to 2024.13 |
3.13 | A number of submissions and witnesses contradicted the evidence of the Queensland Government, emphasising the probable impact of current policies upon the honey bee industry in that State, and the apparent contradictions within the Queensland Government’s position on this issue. In evidence before the committee, Dr Max Whitten stated: It is unfortunate that the Queensland government are not here to defend their position. I do not believe, when you look at their submission, that it stacks up. I draw attention to one item which they call ‘Key issues impacting on the industry’. They list four key issues: drought, profitability, industry skills and disease management. What is not on that list is what you will hear from beekeepers here today: the question of access… |
3.14 | Dr Whitten noted: We desperately need a viable honey industry, and the Queensland government does not distinguish adequately between the possible impact of feral bees in those parks as against migratory beekeeping.15 |
3.15 | In his evidence before the committee, Mr Don Keith also highlighted problems with the Queensland Government’s approach to resource access: With regard to land management, the Queensland government have made quite an extraordinary decision with regard to removal of honey bees from the majority of the forests in south-eastern Queensland. I am aware that there are quite a number of submissions that address this issue, and I will try to be brief in my discussion of it. However, the Queensland government are removing honey bees from about 70 per cent of south-east Queensland’s honey bee resources. In doing so, they took the attitude that there were plenty of resources for bees and they also said that, if there were not the resources there, it would replace them by planting melliferous resources for the beekeeping industry. I think a very minor level of due diligence would have shown that there are no other resources. In their submission they recognise an area in the tens of thousands of hectares, well below 400,000 hectares, that they have decided in parliament that our industry would be excluded from. |
3.16 | In his submission, Mr Peter Barnes, a Queensland beekeeper, expressed the view that under current arrangements the future of the industry was under threat: The future of the honey bee industry in Queensland is grim. The Queensland State Government has put in place legislation to stop beekeeping in most Government controlled Native Forest areas in South East Queensland after the year 2024. The Western hardwood areas that are government controlled are just as important to the honey bee industry as our other South East Queensland sites. We may get locked out of Western hardwoods sooner than the year 2024. 80% of honey that is produced in Queensland comes from Queensland Government controlled Native Forest. Over half of the time spent in these Native Forest Areas is not for honey production, but for strengthening bee hives for pollination or a honey flow later on in the season. For example the Spotted Gum Tree which in our industry is vital for strengthening hives in the autumn and winter months by shifting to different areas we can work this tree for 4-8 months of the year (in the right year). An area of trees only flowers well once in 5 years. Huge areas of Native Forest are required to sustain the beekeeping industry over that 5 year cycle. One of the factors is a drought and that cycle may go out to once in ten years or more. |
3.17 | Queensland was not the only state where beekeepers faced declining access. In his evidence before the committee, Mr Linton Briggs outlined the experience of the industry in Victoria, stating: …in 1996 in Victoria—and remember that at that time only about nine per cent of the public land estate was vested in national parks—we had upwards of 600 sites vested in national parks out of a total of something like 3,000-odd sites across the state as a whole. We find today that there has been an attrition, with successive management plans having been implemented throughout the state for certain national parks; we have been losing bee sites. As the VAA has described in its submission: it is death by a thousand cuts. We find that, today, we have about 91 fewer sites than we have had in the past, in raw figures. |
3.18 | Mr Briggs saw the precedent being set in Queensland as a potential threat to the industry nationwide: We as an industry have been very concerned to observe, for example, the Queensland government’s position. They have said, ‘We would like all managed honey bees to be out of our conserved forest, our national park estate, by 2024.’ That is a precedent that does worry us. We all love our environment and we all want to care for our environment, and we have no problem with that. Beekeepers are themselves men and women of the land, of course, and we have a real conservation ethic. Coming back to the challenges I was talking about a little while ago, we see this precedent established in Queensland as a challenge that could gather moss as far as the rest of Australia is concerned and it could make it harder to maintain access to our national parks.19 |
![]() |
|
Land management |
|
3.19 | Aside from the question of access to public lands, there are a number of land management issues having a significant impact on the Australian honey bee industry. These include forest management, land clearing, rural subdivision and urban sprawl. In its submission, AHBIC noted that: In addition to erosion of access to resources on public lands, the following are also threats to floral resources accessed by beekeepers: |
3.20 | As the Fewster family (Kuyan Apiaries and West Coast Honey) of Western Australia pointed out in their submission, all these issues have the potential to limit the viability of the industry: Honey and Pollen in shorter supply due to removal and death, due to lack of water and burning of large old trees and bushland eg—Tuart trees, Redgums, Whitegum, Jarrah—Banksia, Mallee trees and Wildflowers—(coastal heath country). |
3.21 | Victorian beekeeper, Mr John Edmonds, painted a similar picture in Victoria: Access to farmer’s properties is becoming a greater problem as they worry about occupational health and safety issues. |
3.22 | In evidence before the committee, Mr Rodney Ruge, President of the Queensland Beekeepers’ Association, highlighted the problems caused by subdivision of rural lands for urban and semi-rural development. He told the committee: I have done an addition to my submission with regard to the access to private land or the use of private land [Submission no. 85]. It was brought to my attention only just last week. I visited one of my regular farmers. I suppose I would have had bees there every four to five years; quite a large holding. When I first met him, he had about 20,000 acres of freehold country, plus about 40,000 acres of leasehold country. But in the last 10 to 15 years he has sold something like 1,000 hectares of the freehold land to developers; 700 hectares have gone since I was there two years ago. |
3.23 | Mr Ruge also highlighted the issue of land clearing, which continues to be a problem from the perspective of beekeepers: I know that the present government has legislation to stop that. But it created a huge problem. Word got out that that was coming in. Many farmers said prior to this happening, ‘If legislation looks like coming in, we’ve got the dozers fuelled up ready to go, and they will run 24 hours a day.’ As we drive around in Queensland, we see evidence of that.24 |
3.24 | Forest management was an issue across Australia: in their submission, the Fewsters noted that ‘clear felling practices have had a devastating affect on our natural resources and the environment’. They further noted that: The woodchip industry are rather cunning leaving belt of timber close to main roads for I am sure if the general public were to drive past and see the effects of clear felling there would be more objections to it. To woodchip our beautiful trees is sacrilege. |
3.25 | Looking at the Victorian experience in his submission, Mr Gavin Jamieson, a Victorian beekeeper, advised the committee: Forests other than the Gippsland Apiary/Forest Plan do not take into account the age class stands that best ensure sustainability of wood production and honey and beeswax at the same time. |
3.26 | The committee received evidence in the form of detailed submissions and bore witness to robust discussion on the issue of forest management in Tasmania. There the key conflict is between harvesting timber commercially and the preservation of Leatherwood for honey production and the conditioning of hives for pollination. The Forests and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania (FFIC) has worked to harmonise the interest of beekeepers, foresters and government agencies. In its submission, the FFIC noted that the critical issue was the locking up of leatherwood resources in parks and reserves: Much resource is now inaccessible to apiarist. There has been an enormous expansion in the area of national parks and wilderness areas, accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the area of State forests. One of the effects of the reduction in the area of State forests and the increase in the area of conserved land is the gradual disappearance of access roads. In most national parks, and in all wilderness areas, former logging roads are not maintained and in some instances are deliberately made impassable to vehicular traffic.27 |
3.27 | The consequence of this decline in access was that the Tasmanian honey bee industry was effectively at its productive limits in terms of honey production and provision of pollination services. This has significant implications for agriculture and public land management: If most multiple use forest is now accessed to the productive limit of apiarists, and if the pollination industry is entirely dependent on leatherwood to raise hives to efficient pollinating capacity as is claimed by some, there appears to be a limit to which horticulturalists can intensify cropping. Only two changes are possible—more retention of leatherwood during harvesting to sustain the industry at current levels, or making the large areas of leatherwood in reserves more accessible to commercial beekeepers. Currently, more than 60% of leatherwood lies within World Heritage Area or other Reserve boundaries. It follows that consideration must be given to making these boundaries more porous for legitimate beekeepers and to finding ways to lessen the impact of harvesting patches of leatherwood in public forests coupes. Both of these points require serious consideration and the topic of mitigating harvest impacts is being addressed.28 |
3.28 | Both apiarists and Forestry Tasmania emphasised the good working relationship between beekeepers and the forestry industry. In evidence before the committee, Mr Julian Wolfhagen, President of the Tasmanian Beekeepers’ Association and member of FFIC, told the committee: There has been close communication between Forestry Tasmania and Tasmanian beekeepers, particularly over the last few years. Obviously it has been ongoing…but in my involvement in the last three years as president and some years before that heading up the TBA’s resource subcommittee, we have had good and meaningful communications with forestry. They have been redressing coupe boundaries in certain areas to minimise the impact on leatherwood. That has been a significant benefit to us; however, I believe their remit does not allow them to facilitate our industry as much as the timber industry, of course. That is a matter of debate because of the size of the industries, but for the future benefit of the industry we need to see leatherwood getting formal recognition within the Forest Practices Code. |
3.29 | Mr Graham Sargison, of Forestry Tasmania, explained in turn: I would like to make a few comments from the point of view of Forestry Tasmania. Forestry Tasmania does have a very good working relationship with most of the state’s beekeepers. We signed a Community Forest Agreement with them in November 2000. Part of that agreement contained some guidelines by which we manage beekeeping on state forests and it includes mostly the protection of the leatherwood-rich forest. |
3.30 | The problem is, as both Mr Wolfhagen and Mr Sargison admitted, the relative importance placed on apiarists needs by those responsible for forest management. Mr Wolfhagen, from the point of view of the honey bee industry, explained: One of the core issues in the broader sense is that in the state we have an issue that forestry at times does not necessarily see itself constitutionally as responsible for agriculture. We have been told this in the past. I appreciate the work and the communication that has happened, but structurally there is an issue that their remit does not, I believe, cover the responsibility that they have to our industry in a holistic sense.31 |
3.31 | Mr Sargison, from the point of view of Forestry Tasmania, stated: It is all down to the value. From our point of view, forestry gets returns from the timber industry of about $50 million. Our return from the beekeeping industry is $30,000 a year. So when it comes to management we try to do our best but, as Julian says, we are there to manage the forest for all its values. My concern is that the true value is not placed on the pollination services. If the true value of pollination services was recognised that could be reflected right back through the chain and we could all get a reasonable return. After all, forestry is a business.32 |
3.32 | Mr Sargison advocated opening up reserves to the honey bee industry: I think that is an absolutely crucial issue. On state forest, as I said earlier, we manage for multiple use so that beekeepers will always be welcome on state forest. But, as we said earlier, although we may differ somewhat on the percentages of leatherwood-rich forest, the majority is in reserves. Leatherwood is so critical to this industry, for both honey and pollination, that if we do want to move ahead I think we do have to make access available into those reserves for the beekeepers.33 |
3.33 | He could see little merit in continuing to exclude them: I certainly cannot understand the reasoning. We have got wasps in there and bumblebees and, as Julian said earlier, we have got honey bees that overfly the boundary—they do not know where the boundary is—so it seems farcical to exclude them. In fact, our parks have withdrawn access. In some cases we have had existing roads into what are now reserve areas and they have actually pulled up those roads and withdrawn access in a couple of cases. We have supported the beekeepers in trying to reopen that access—without success. I think one of the management guidelines in the World Heritage area was to close any unnecessary road access. But when the road is already there it does seem rather strange to me.34 |
![]() |
|
Plantations |
|
3.34 | While plantation timber has been seen as a potential resource for the honey bee industry, the industry itself sees plantations as a poor substitute for mature native forest. In her submission, Mrs Elwyne Papworth explained that: There is a trend to try to replace denied access to public lands with plantation timber, no plantations are being planted to replicate the natural mixes of flora, (eucalypt and ground flora), not enough land is available to replace the same quantity of denied native flora, planters have no understanding of industry needs to maintain hives or to produce honey, plantations already in ground mostly flower during the winter and are not of mainland species. From May to August, managed honey bees go into hibernation, and have to [be] encouraged through specific management techniques to be prepared for Almond pollination in early August.35 |
3.35 | In its submission, the Amateur Beekeepers Society of South Australia decried the ‘unnecessary clearing of remote or inaccessible areas of land for alternative plantings of softwoods or wood chip products. Those responsible for land management need to understand the irreplaceable resources yielded from a Eucalypt tree 50 years or older…’36 |
3.36 | In its submission, the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries and Water stated: Eucalypt plantation forests are not likely to be a significant source of honey for the apiary industry because the trees are generally harvested before they reach floral maturity. Native forests are an important source of nectar.37 |
3.37 | However, in its submission the South Australian Government advocated planting trees for bees as part of revegetation programs: Access to privately managed areas of native flora is declining. This access problem could be rectified by making future access to Federal funds for revegetation and conservation activities on private land provisional on the inclusion of local pre-European “bee friendly” vegetation and that such vegetation is available to the honeybee industry. Similar consideration could also be given to plantations intended for use in the event of carbon trading.38 |
3.38 | The South Australian Government recommended: Review[ing] the potential to make Federal Government funds for revegetation land conservation activities provisional on the inclusion of local pre-European “bee friendly” vegetation that is available to industry.39 |
Environmental impact of the honey bee industry |
|
3.39 | The environmental impact of the honey bee industry has two facets—the environmental impact of the European honey bee in the Australian environment; and the environmental impact of managed bees upon the natural environment. |
3.40 | In its submission, CSIRO identified three classes of potential impacts of European honey bees in the Australian environment:
|
3.41 | On the first point, CSIRO notes: There have been numerous studies from around the world showing that when honey bees are present, native bee visitation rates are reduced. Unfortunately, this research does not answer the fundamental question regarding the long term survival of these native species in response to honey bee competition. Only by looking at reproduction, survival, or population levels can one really answer this question. Recently researchers have focused on the reproduction of native bees when honey bees are present. Two studies, one of which was conducted in Australia, show a negative impact of honey bees on natives (Paini and Roberts 2005; Thomson 2004), and two others found no impact (Paini et al. 2005; Spessa 1999). |
3.42 | On the second point, CSIRO notes: Honey bees have distinctive behaviours that mean they may cause patterns of plant pollination that differ from the native pollinators. Studies of different plant species have shown different kinds of effects, with honey bees diminishing pollination of some species and enhancing pollination of others (Gross & Mackay 1998). Honey bee pollination can also affect patterns of gene flow, such that their pollination increases the frequency of mating over short distances rather than long distances (England et al. 2001) which could lead to inbreeding effects.41 |
3.43 | On the third point, CSIRO notes: It has been shown that bees select similar hollows to some endangered species (Oldroyd et al. 1994), and some endangered vertebrates are limited by the availability of hollows (Lindenmayer et al. 2002). There have been two cases reported where nests of the white-tailed cockatoo failed as a result of swarming honey bees (Saunders 1979). Honey bees are also known to occupy caves, where they could affect roosting of bat species. |
3.44 | The extent of the impact, if any, of the European honey bee in the Australian environment has been the subject of some debate in the evidence put to the committee. |
3.45 | In his submission, Mr John Tadman, a Queensland beekeeper, questioned the relevance of this issue, arguing that honey bees had been in the environment for so long that any damage they were going to do had already been done and that honey bees were now a part of the Australian environment. He stated: The important points out of all this are: |
3.46 | In his evidence before the committee, Mr Trevor Weatherhead, a beekeeper from Queensland, noted that in his experience native bees and honey bees co-existed happily. He argued that the biggest threat to native bees was habitat destruction: With the native bee—the trigona—there are records of people rescuing hives out of trees and finding native bees and European honey bees working out of a hole in a tree, using exactly the same entrance. It is not uncommon to find them in the same tree together. When I kept native bees before the drought, when they died off, we had situations where native bees were living side by side with honey bees. I see no real threat to either one. They certainly coexist. There are plenty of cases of beekeepers who have both. They keep the trigona basically as a hobby. There are no published papers that I am aware of that show that there are any problems with having one or the other. They always bring up the competition angle with it. The biggest threat to the native bee population in Queensland is clearing. There is a service in Ipswich where fellows go out and rescue native beehives from trees before subdivision and before people cut down trees for firewood. They like to get the dead, high trees for firewood, and that is where the bees are. From the point of view of a threat to the native bee—the trigona—the honey bee, in my opinion, is not a threat.44 |
3.47 | In his evidence before the committee, Mr Des Cannon, beekeeper and chairman of RIRDC’s Honeybee Research and Development Committee, noted that the European honey bee might actually be benefiting native flora. He stated: …studies have been done that show that in some cases native pollinators do not pollinate eucalypts as effectively as European honeybees. There is less seed set per tree and the seed that is set is more viable when European honeybees are used as the pollinators.45 |
3.48 | In a similar vein, the Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, noted in its submission: Honeybees are recognised as important pollinators of Western Bluegums (Eucalyptus globulus) which provide seeds to grow large numbers of seedlings the private and state forestry operations. The use of the Jarrah forest belt of WA by beekeepers ensures the trees have plenty of seed to disperse. The benefit of bees to forest trees requires further research to quantify that interaction. A recent DAFWA project has shown that honey from the Jarrah forest has effective levels of antimicrobial activity and therefore there is an additional community health benefit associated with bees having access to forests.46 |
3.49 | In evidence before the committee, Mr Weatherhead downplayed the role of honey bees in the cross-pollination of native flora, noting that there was evidence of hybridisation predating the presence of European honey bees: They say that bees will cross-pollinate in things like eucalypts, but in a previous life I worked in the forestry department, and I know that there are many records of botanical identification of trees within Australia back in the 1800s where they named new species of trees and later on found out that they were hybrids between trees. Taking into account that the first European bees came into Australia in 1822, and those trees in the 1800s would have been hundreds of years old, it certainly was not honey bees that caused those trees to hybridise. There is certainly plenty of other native fauna out there that contribute to the crosspollination of particular species and hybridisation of species without needing any help at all from the honey bees.47 |
3.50 | Mr Allan Baker, a Western Australian beekeeper, observed that ‘in badly fragmented landscapes where natural pollinators have been lost Honey Bees may now be the only way that many native plants in remnant bush can reproduce’.48 |
3.51 | However, Mr Baker also emphasised that feral honey bees had a significant impact upon the environment, especially in competing with native birds for nesting sites: Bee-keeping has an environmental impact and much of it occurs on public land. As such the industry should be responsible and accountable for the sustainable use of the natural resources upon which it depends. Currently the industry has a “head in the sand” attitude with respect to environmental issues. An environmental (Environmental Management System) needs to be introduced (complementing BeeQual on the food safety side) as a condition of access to apiary sites on crown lands. |
3.52 | The Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia, took the view that feral bees were an environmental pest that had to be managed. In an attachment to its submission entitled Development of a Feral bee Control Strategy for Western Australia, the department noted: The European honey bee (Apis mellifera) is an exotic species that was introduced into Western Australian in the 1840s. Although they are the same species, feral bees differ from managed bees. Feral bees are those that have escaped from a managed apiary hive to establish unmanaged hives in many areas of the State. Feral bees are generally aggressive, have a tendency to swarm and they are of little value for commercial honey production or for pollination of crops. |
3.53 | In its submission, the Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia, noted its progress with the Feral Bee Control Strategy: Stage One has been completed in partnership with the Water Corporation. DEC trials are continuing, using remote poisoning for large scale programs and in situations where the location of feral hives cannot be determined or accessed. Baiting trials have been conducted at three sites, with effective control of feral hives being observed. The Department has developed a Standard Operational Procedures (SOP) manual for feral bee control based on the results of the trials conducted during the program. The SOP considers the impact and risks to non-target species and the relevant occupational health and safety requirements for efficient baiting of feral bees using the pesticide.51 |
3.54 | The other aspect of the question is the environmental impact of managed bees upon the natural environment. In his submission, Mr John Edmonds, a Victorian beekeeper, referred to research which indicated that managed bees had little or no impact upon the natural environment: Research will prove that when the trees are in full flower and weather is suitable nectar secretion is unlimited and there is more nectar available than can be used by native birds, bees and the honeybees. Research conducted by Latrobe University in approx 1990 at Cobobonee State Forest proved that managed honeybees did not reduce available nectar for native bees; in fact the greater numbers of native bees were where the largest commercial apiaries were located. The main reason this occurs is because the insect eating birds and insects prefer to catch and eat the honeybee, and the species do not compete as they have differing preferences for nectar sugar composition. As far as I know because this research did not suit the environmentalists it has never been published.52 |
3.55 | In evidence before the committee, Mr Linton Briggs elaborated: …as far as research targeted specifically to the operations of migratory commercial beekeepers is concerned, not much work has been done. The most important work that has been done in that regard was in south-western Victoria in the early nineties, where the World Wildlife Fund, cooperating with the La Trobe University in Victoria and the Victorian Apiarists Association, cooperating with what was in those days the department of conservation, forests and lands put together a design which, if implemented, would test the hypothesis for honey bees being managed according to the migratory principle. Bearing in mind that our operations are tuned to the sporadic flowering behaviour of eucalypts in particular, you might be in there for only six weeks for a particular eucalypt and then maybe every third, fourth or fifth year, or whatever. So the design was specifically tailored to accommodate that—usually when there is a super-abundance of nectar and pollen in any case. |
3.56 | Nevertheless, the industry recognised that in order to justify access to public lands it needed to develop a National Code of Conduct (NCC) and an Environmental Management System (EMS) for the industry. In its submission, AHBIC stated: In order to reduce the risk from declining access to public lands, the industry has already developed an action plan to drive it towards a national code of conduct and then on to an Environmental Management System (EMS). This includes the establishment of a management industry steering committee, an industry reference group (made up of various industry participants across the entire supply chain), and an industry scientific environmental advisory group. Furthermore the industry held a workshop with industry representatives to discuss the development and implementation of a national code of conduct and the subsequent introduction of an EMS once the code has been implemented. In June 2006, the industry received funding from stage two of the Industry Partnership Program (IPP) to develop a national code of conduct for those working on public land, and has been developing such a code for the last nine months.54 |
3.57 | In its submission, the Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, also highlighted the need for an EMS for the industry: Western Australian beekeepers had a ‘no new sites’ policy implemented in 1992. A moratorium on the issue of new sites had been in place five years and at the time beekeepers were given an assurance that a decision would be made after research had been concluded on the subject of honey bees in the environment. The moratorium is still in place 15 years later. |
3.58 | In evidence before the committee, the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry pointed to the importance of the National Code of Conduct to the future viability of the industry: One of the purposes of this environmental code of conduct project is to provide assurances of the environmental sustainability of the industry and, therefore, to help access to public land so beekeepers can demonstrate their environmental credentials and I guess reduce some of the concerns that the keepers of those public lands may have about having beekeepers on that public land. That is one part of it. It is probably not the whole solution, but it is certainly part of the solution there.56 |
3.59 | In its submission, the South Australian Government argued for more research into the impact of managed bees on the natural environment to underpin the environmental credibility of the industry: To ensure that future negotiations for land access are based on scientific data, research funds are needed to measure the impact of managed beehives on different ecosystems. It is arguable that the South Australian honeybee industry's relatively stable access to crown land is the result of such research undertaken in the Ngarkat Conservation Park.57 |
3.60 | In its submission, CSIRO also argued for more research into the impact of bees on native flora and fauna: A key issue confronting beekeepers is the environmental concern around the perceived impact of honey bees on native flora and fauna and weeds. However, the knowledge upon which this is based has been drawn from a narrow range where vested interests have exposed the process to accusations of framing, context dependence and motivational bias. This opens the area to bias and misleading prioritisation. A key set of questions needs to be answered before issues such as access to floral resources can be dealt with effectively. These questions include, what are the population dynamics of the feral honey bee population? How much will varroa change this? To what degree are feral populations dependent on the managed populations for re-colonization? What plant communities and animal species are most vulnerable to negative effects of feral honey bees?58 |
3.61 | However, the committee notes that the question of researching the impact of honey bees on the natural environment is an issue of some controversy. In his submission, Mr John Tadman, a Queensland beekeeper, argued that the ‘question of environmental impacts of bees in National Parks is a giant red herring. Feral bees have been in National Parks for 150 years, and any considerations of good or harm are now purely academic’. He urged that research funding be concentrated on other areas rather than trying to prove a negative—that bees have had no serious or irreversible effects on the environment in which they are now an established fact.59 |
3.62 | Mr Robert McDonald, a beekeeper and President of the Beekeepers Branch of the Victorian Farmers Federation was also sceptical of the value of research into the impact of bees in the environment: I am not prepared to say much off the top of my head as to which lines of research, except that I have got huge problems with pouring a lot of money into research into the effect of European honey bees on our native ecosystem. In my opinion, there have been quite a few good research projects done that have proved fairly conclusively that there is no effect. Generally land managers will not accept the results of such research. The attitude seems to be, when the land managers talk about doing further research, that ‘we want to do some research until we can find a negative impact so we can limit your access’. In some submissions that I have done in relation to management plans, I note they always say in these management plans that there is a need for more research into the impact of European honey bees on the native ecosystem. So in my submissions I always say, ‘So you should accept the results of the research that has already been done and which we have put in front of you quite often. You won’t accept them, so I cannot feel any need for any more research.’60 |
![]() |
|
Bushfires |
|
3.63 | Bushfires have a significant effect on the Australian honey bee industry. As the Victorian Apiarists’ Association noted in its submission, loss of honey producing flora and viable bee sites through fire is a major issue for apiarists: Since 2002–03, major bushfires in North Eastern Victoria, Central Victoria and Gippsland have impacted in some cases severely on native flora and beekeeping industry prospects. |
3.64 | The evidence presented to the committee indicates that fire management is a major source of contention between the honey bee industry and land managers. Solutions to the problems of how and when to conduct controlled burns of native bushland and management of wildfires seemed to have defied agreement in all States. Mr Peter McDonald, a Victorian beekeeper, explained in his submission: Bushfires affect us greatly. The loss of the flora to everyday Australians is only temporary, they generally recover relatively quickly. However, they take much longer to recover in terms of beekeeping and we may be unable to use the resource again for 10 or more years and the trees re-grow. |
3.65 | In his evidence to the committee, Mr Peter Barnes, a Queensland Beekeeper and member of the Queensland Beekeepers’ Association (QBA) executive, highlighted problems in that State with fire management: …it is a widespread problem. You now have guys coming out of university, the EPA and National Parks, and they get to manage the large areas of forest. We find that Forestry do an exceptional job when it comes to burning and that sort of thing, but the problem is that there is a history of a lot of these places going from Forestry to National Parks. I will give you an example. About six years ago, we had a load of bees burnt on Kandanga State Forest, which is at the back of Gympie. That fire had been reported to National Parks on 10 separate occasions over 15 days before the humidity got down to 10. We actually had our bees on burnt ground and it got them as well. This is not uncommon. |
3.66 | In its submission, the Western Australian Beekeepers’ Association noted: In WA the industry maintains a very good relationship with the state Department of Environment and Conservation, (DEC), who are responsible for management of our state forests and the conservation estate. Generally very few problems arise that can’t be resolved to our mutual satisfaction. Perhaps the one area causing most angst relates to fire events; both controlled hazard reduction burns and wildfires. Given the rainfall reductions WA has experienced in the past decade, this situation is more likely to worsen than improve. DEC has a very good system of prior written notice to beekeepers about planned hazard reduction burns affecting apiary sites, which enables forward planning for sites that will be available during particular honey flows, (although it is not a rare event for this system to break down!). Depending on the vegetation type, some flexibility in timing of the burn can usually be negotiated. However as our landscape becomes drier with time, recovery of some burnt areas is taking longer. This same drying phenomenon places even greater emphasis on the importance of hazard reduction burns to the wider community, and to a degree restricts the ability of the agency to be flexible towards beekeepers’ desires for these burns to not proceed at the scheduled time. This will remain an issue for negotiation between the industry and DEC.64 |
3.67 | In his submission, Mr Allan Baker, a Western Australian beekeeper, told the committee: Bushfires and burning policies have also had a significant impact on the bee-keeping resource in my area. |
3.68 | In its submission, the New South Wales Government acknowledged the concerns of beekeepers, but highlighted the conflicting priorities of land managers and differences within the honey bee industry over timing and methods for controlled burning: Bushfires can devastate an area for many years regarding its potential productivity for bees. Banksia heath country may take seven years to recover, eucalypts possibly several decades. |
3.69 | In its submission, the Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia, highlighted the importance of prescribed burning for fire management:
|
3.70 | In its submission, the Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, highlighted the impact on apiarists of prescribed burning for fire management: Bushfires are mainly started by lightening strikes. But the concern of beekeepers is the way prescribed burning of the forests and other bushland by conservation agencies to reduce fuel loads and thereby minimise risks of more severe fires. Often the prescribed burns are conducted in spring when the understorey plants are providing a source of pollen and nectar for the honeybees and when it’s an ‘on year’ for some of our forest tree species. The majority of the eucalyptus species flower biennially. There is a light flowering one year followed by a heavy flowering in the second year. Prescribed burning may coincide with the year when trees are in heavy bud. The heat from fires forces the tree to drop buds and beekeepers (and wildlife in general) miss out on the expected heavy flowering. The cost to beekeepers can be significant. There seems to be no provision for variations in times of burning, so that heavy nectar flows can be exploited, before burning is undertaken, or arranging for burns to be conducted in light flowering conditions.68 |
![]() |
|
Committee conclusions |
|
3.71 | In the committee’s view, a critical challenge facing the Australian honey bee industry is resource security. Access to floral resources underpins the viability of the honey bee industry. The principal sources of nectar and pollen for the production of honey and the maintenance of hive health are native forests species—especially eucalypts and leatherwood (Tasmania)—and some weed and crop species. Despite this, beekeeper access to native flora is under increasing pressure from land use change, declining access to public land, land clearing and the impact of bushfires. |
3.72 | The committee notes, and wishes to highlight, that the level of access to floral resources limits the size of the industry and therefore the capacity to provide pollination services. Access to native flora is therefore essential to crop pollination in Australia. Much of our native flora is on public land, which is increasingly being locked away in national parks and nature reserves. In the event of a Varroa incursion, beekeeper access to public land will be essential to the maintenance of many agricultural and horticultural industries. |
3.73 | The committee therefore believes that giving beekeepers access to public lands is essential to the future of the honey bee industry and pollination dependent industries. Governments must ensure this to maintain the viability of major agricultural industries and to ensure the nation’s food security. |
3.74 | In turn, access to public lands requires the industry to uphold environmental standards which protect the natural environment and minimise the impact of the industry upon it. The committee notes and endorses the industry’s work towards a National Code of Conduct and the development of an Environmental Management System, supported by funding from the Australian Government. This is essential to beekeeper access to public land. |
3.75 | The committee also notes that the evidence for the environmental impact of honey bees on native flora and fauna is at best equivocal. There is evidence for both positive and negative impacts, but the overall picture is of a species that has become naturalised within the Australian environment and is now endemic to Australia. There is a case for managing certain environmental impacts, such as is happening in Western Australia, but no case for excluding the industry from public lands. The committee is of the view that the ‘precautionary principle’ should be reversed in the case of bees—that their exclusion should only be justified by positive evidence of environmental harm. |
3.76 | The committee also believes that revegetation schemes under the Natural Heritage Trust and plantations established for the purpose of obtaining carbon credits could be established under multi-use principles that would allow for ‘bee friendly’ plantings. The committee is of the view that the public investment is best justified by obtaining the broadest possible public benefit. |
3.77 | The committee is also concerned about the impact of bushfires and fire management upon the honey bee industry. While recognising the responsibility of land managers to a range of stakeholders, it would appear to the committee that land managers and beekeepers could quite easily coordinate and communicate with each other as to their respective needs, and that public lands could be better managed to protect the floral resources available to the industry and, therefore, to industry more widely. |
3.78 | Recommendation 5The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in conjunction with State and Territory governments, establish guidelines for beekeeper access to public lands and leasehold lands, including national parks, with a view to securing the floral resources of the Australian honey bee industry and pollination dependent industries. |
3.79 | Recommendation 6The Committee recommends that the Australian Government provide incentives for the planting and conservation of melliferous flora under Commonwealth funded revegetation projects and carbon credit schemes. |
3.80 | Recommendation 7The Committee recommends that the Australian Government fund research into the impact of fire management on the Australian honey bee industry with a view to establishing honey bee industry friendly fire management practices. |
1 | Centre for International Economics, Future directions for the Australian honeybee industry, CIE, Canberra, September 2005, p. 1. Back |
2 | AHBIC, Submission no. 56, p. 49. Back |
3 | Victorian Apiarists’ Association, Submission no. 71, pp. 25–6. Back |
4 | Wescobee Limited, Submission no. 34, p. 3. Back |
5 | AHBIC, Submission no. 56, p. 49. Back |
6 | Centre for International Economics, Future directions for the Australian honeybee industry, CIE, Canberra, September 2005, p. 86. Back |
7 | Centre for International Economics, Future directions for the Australian honeybee industry, CIE, Canberra, September 2005, p. 86. Back |
8 | Government of New South Wales, Submission no. 79, p. 5. Back |
9 | Queensland Government, Submission no. 25, p. 11. Back |
10 | Queensland Government, Submission no. 25, p. 4. Back |
11 | Queensland Government, Submission no. 25, p. 4. Back |
12 | Queensland Government, Submission no. 25, p. 4. Back |
13 | Queensland Government, Submission no. 25, p. 4. Back |
14 | Dr Max Whitten, Transcript of Evidence, 10 August 2007, p. 17. Back |
15 | Dr Max Whitten, Transcript of Evidence, 10 August 2007, p. 17. Back |
16 | Mr Don Keith, Transcript of Evidence, 10 August 2007, p. 15. Back |
17 | Mr Peter Barnes, Submission no. 5, p. 1. Back |
18 | Mr Linton Briggs, Transcript of Evidence, 25 July 2007, p. 3. Back |
19 | Mr Linton Briggs, Transcript of Evidence, 25 July 2007, p. 3. Back |
20 | AHBIC, Submission no. 56, pp. 10–11. Back |
21 | Kuyan Apiaries and West Coast Honey, Submission no. 58, pp. 2–3. Back |
22 | Mr John Edmonds, Submission no. 23, p. 3. Back |
23 | Mr Rodney Ruge, Transcript of Evidence, 10 August 2007, p. 40. Back |
24 | Mr Rodney Ruge, Transcript of Evidence, 10 August 2007, p. 40. Back |
25 | Kuyan Apiaries and West Coast Honey, Submission no. 58, pp. 7–8. Back |
26 | Mr Gavin Jamieson, Submission no. 10, p. 2. Back |
27 | Forests and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania, Submission no. 80, p. 3. Back |
28 | Forests and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania, Submission no. 80, p. 20. Back |
29 | Mr Julian Wolfhagen, Transcript of Evidence, 3 September 2007, p. 7. Back |
30 | Mr Graham Sargison, Transcript of Evidence, 3 September 2007, pp. 24–5. Back |
31 | Mr Julian Wolfhagen, Transcript of Evidence, 3 September 2007, p. 28. Back |
32 | Mr Graham Sargison, Transcript of Evidence, 3 September 2007, p. 28. Back |
33 | Mr Graham Sargison, Transcript of Evidence, 3 September 2007, pp. 42–3. Back |
34 | Mr Graham Sargison, Transcript of Evidence, 3 September 2007, pp. 43. Back |
35 | Mrs Elwyne Papworth, Submission no. 74, p. 7. Back |
36 | Amateur Beekeepers Society of South Australia, Submission no. 19, p. 4. Back |
37 | Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries and Water, Submission no. 72, p. 4. Back |
38 | Government of South Australia, Submission no. 73, p. 8. Back |
39 | Government of South Australia, Submission no. 73, p. 8. Back |
40 | CSIRO, Submission no. 33, pp. 14–15. Back |
41 | CSIRO, Submission no. 33, p. 15. Back |
42 | CSIRO, Submission no. 33, p. 15. Back |
43 | Mr John Tadman, Submission no. 30, pp. 11–12. Back |
44 | Mr Trevor Weatherhead, Transcript of Evidence, 10 August 2007, p. 60. Back |
45 | Mr Des Cannon, Transcript of Evidence, 8 August 2007, p. 7. Back |
46 | Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, Submission no. 24, p. 3. Back |
47 | Mr Trevor Weatherhead, Transcript of Evidence, 10 August 2007, pp. 60–1. Back |
48 | Mr Allan Baker, Submission no. 53, p. 2. Back |
49 | Mr Allan Baker, Submission no. 53, pp. 1–2. Back |
50 | Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia, Attachment to Submission no. 84, Development of a Feral Bee Control Strategy for Western Australia. Back |
51 | Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia, Submission no. 84, p. 1. Back |
52 | Mr John Edmonds, Submission no. 23, p. 2. Back |
53 | Mr Linton Briggs, Transcript of Evidence, 25 July 2007, pp. 6–7. Back |
54 | AHBIC, Submission no. 56, p. 26. Back |
55 | Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, Submission no. 24, p. 3. Back |
56 | Ms Victoria Anderson, General Manager, Industry Leadership and Development Branch, DAFF, Transcript of Evidence, 13 June 2007, p. 6. Back |
57 | Government of South Australia, Submission no. 73, p. 8. Back |
58 | CSIRO, Submission no. 33, p. 16. Back |
59 | Mr John Tadman, Submission no. 30, p. 23. Back |
60 | Mr Robert McDonald, President, Beekeepers Branch, VFF Horticulture Group, Transcript of Evidence, 25 July 2007, pp. 18–19. Back |
61 | Victorian Apiarists’ Association, Submission no. 71, p. 38. Back |
62 | Mr Peter McDonald, Submission no. 45, p. 4. Back |
63 | Mr Peter Barnes, Transcript of Evidence, 10 August 2007, p. 49. Back |
64 | Western Australian Beekeepers’ Association, Submission no. 32, pp. 14–15. Back |
65 | Mr Allan Baker, Submission no. 53, p. 3. Back |
66 | NSW Government, Submission no. 79, pp. 7–8. Back |
67 | Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia, Submission no. 84, p. 2. Back |
68 | Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, Submission no. 24, p. 5. Back |
Print Chapter 3 (PDF 238KB) | < - Report Home < - Chapter 2 : Chapter 4 - > |