« Back

Fresh Tomato Product Group update for October

2009-10-30

Market Access to Australia

Biosecurity Australia released its official and final Pest Risk Assessment for the Tomato/Potato Psyllid and Candidatus Liberibacter on 16 September.  While all submissions have been carefully considered and assessed over the preceding three and half months very few if any of MAF BNZ’s submission points, covering the technical matters that were raised by industry in NZ, have been included.

 

The key known outcomes (at the time of writing 28 September)

These are:

1.      Fumigation is a standalone measure (i.e. separate from the systems approach; e.g. a field or greenhouse programme & brushing for tomatoes and tamarillos).

2.      Pre-clearance is optional; i.e. clearance on arrival is available.

3.      No changes (to the Emergency Measures) until the new measures go live on ICON (the AQIS Import Conditions on the NET). This is being worked on by Industry’s and BNZ’s Technical Advisors and we expect it to be complete by early October.  BNZ has advised AQIS that we are keen to get it in as soon as possible so that the exporting of tamarillos can start again and before the end of this season’s crop.

4.      MAFBNZ will then update its ICPR (Importing Country Phyto requirements) immediately thereafter. BNZ has undertaken to have this ready and waiting to go up and to inform its IVAs in advance. 

5.      Land Bridging is important to the Australians to stop movement via trucks/trains before clearance.  The intent is to get the product cleared at first port of call.  Apparently this is a reasonably standard statement on their import permits.

 

The following matters are being resolved by BNZ with AQIS:

1.      AQIS is not yet certain about the details of the new requirements, but feels that if the current temporary system meets the new ICON requirements there should not be a problem in recognising the current process until we have got the updated process approved.  

2.      Secure packaging – AQIS is less convinced that this refers to just "sound" packaging (the interpretation BNZ has given them). AQIS think it may mean insect proofed but again is checking on the expectations at BA on this. (Industry’s opinion is that it is unreasonable for Australia to expect insect proofed cartons but not unreasonable for them to expect secure storage following packing and up to dispatch.)

3.      Criteria for treatments other than methyl bromide will depend on what the particular treatment is.  If it is a dip that has been used previously for similar uses (for example it may be a dip using Dimethoate), it probably would not need a lot of information.  If it is something new then it will need to be enough information to show it was equivalent to methyl bromide.

 

Background to the key known outcomes

The final version of the Australian Pest Risk Assessment for market access back into Australia for tomatoes, capsicums and tamarillos is based on three options for phytosanitary measures.  Depending on the option selected, growers and exporters will need to have an operational system (like the existing compliance programme).

 

Option 1 – Pest free areas: the establishment of areas or places of production free of the tomato potato psyllid.  This is unlikely to be a practical option anywhere in New Zealand.

 

Option 2 – Systems approach: this is a combination of crop monitoring, psyllid control, and post harvest measures based on the NZ Industry Code of Practice and brushing of some types of fruit.  The PRA indicates that brushing is accepted as effective for loose tomatoes and tamarillos, but not capsicums or truss tomatoes (because of the impacts of the big calyx and plant stem material).  However it is not clear from the PRA whether brushing would need to be combined with pest control in the greenhouse or could be used on its own.  There is no indication of whether washing of capsicums or hand brushing would be acceptable.

 

Option 3 – Fumigation / treatment: this option is available for all types of tomatoes, capsicums and tamarillos.  Methyl bromide is currently approved as a treatment, however Australia will consider any other treatment proposal accompanied by efficacy data (although not specified, this could include chemical, heat, or physical mode of action treatments).

 

The operational system

An outline of an operational system is proposed, however the final detail will be “determined in agreement” with MAF and AQIS. Registration and pest control are not needed if consignments are being fumigated. The following is the basic framework only:

(i)         Registration of greenhouses or fields with MAF. These are standard requirements with no issues.

(ii)        Pest control. Hygiene maintained by appropriate pest management options approved by MAF.  The main concerns here are that the pest control programme must be MAF approved and possibly MAF (IVA) audited.  However the industry code of practice appears to be accepted by Australia as a basis for pest control, so the current compliance programme may cover this.

(iii)       Packhouse registration. All packhouses are to be registered with MAF to provide traceability of all fruit from each production site.

(iv)      Packaging and labelling. Secure packaging is required, but hopefully not insect proofed, and identification numbers affixed to cartons or pallets with packhouse and production site ID numbers. 

(v)       Storage. Measures will need to be in place to prevent contamination or substitution after packing, which are a standard requirement.

(vi)      Phytosanitary inspection. These are the standard phytosanitary inspection requirements.  Action will only be taken on live pests.  If a line fails, there will be an option to treat and re-inspect.

(vii)      Phytosanitary certification. These are the standard requirements and an accompanying additional declaration will be required.

(viii)     Pre-clearance. Pre-clearance is an option but not mandatory and inspection can be on arrival using standard inspection methodology. 

(ix)       Remedial actions. If there are instances of non-compliance Australia reserves the right to suspend trade until remedial actions are taken.  The Operational Procedures will describe these circumstances and actions.

 

Climate change and the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme

To recap on the process that is underway - following the General Election late last year -the incoming National led Government formed a Select Committee to review the NZ ETS legislation and wider climate change policy for New Zealand.

 

The Select Committee reported its findings at the end of August and the Government made some significant announcements mid September regarding its proposed revision of the previous government’s emissions trading scheme (ETS). On behalf of growers I wrote to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Nick Smith about the projected impacts especially for the greenhouse sector. Unfortunately in reply I have only received old or very general information, which was rather obviously the standard official response. This told me that there is no specific recognition of the issues within horticulture; e.g. intensive energy use in the greenhouse sector, packhouses or cool stores.

 

Some of the key points from the Government’s recent announcements are:

·                Stationary energy emissions accounting and associated price increases will now take effect 1 July 2010 instead of 1 January 2010; i.e. delayed six months.

·                Liquid fuels emissions accounting and associated price increases will now also take effect 1 July 2010 instead of 1 January 2011; i.e. brought forward six months.

·                The date of entry for Agriculture (e.g. for methane emissions from farm animals) is now deferred to 2015 (from 2013)...

·                The price of emission units is fixed at $25/tonne of carbon emitted.

·                There is to be a 50% obligation or transition phase from July 2010 to December 2012 where the energy and fuels sector will be required to surrender only 1 emissions unit for every 2 tonnes of emissions.

·                The assistance level will initially phase out at 1.3% per year beginning 2013, rather than 8% (as originally specified).

·                There is estimated to be a high intensity threshold for approximately 15 companies and a medium intensity threshold for approximately 50 companies.

·                There is increased support for the fishing industry.

·                There are no significant changes for forestry.

·                A cost to government and therefore taxpayers of about $400million in 2013.

·                Politics are still prevailing in the debate; e.g. increased influence by Maori Party, Labour and the Greens sidelined.

·                Government intends to have the ETS Amendment Bill passed in December.

·                Government is hanging its hat on reforestation to reduce NZ’s projected emissions longer term.

 

It is important for all growers to be aware of the intended energy and fuel price increases that will occur 1 July 2010 as a result of the emissions accounting required under the ETS. Growers should expect and be working toward food prices increasing and therefore their returns increasing too. Whether or not their customers and the general public as the consumers have the same expectations remains to be seen.

 

Imports

In July imports were 993,158 kgs with a CIF value of $2.01 million, the highest July figure since 2004.

 

To the end of July 2009; i.e. for the period May to July 1,349,834 kgs of tomatoes with a CIF value of $4.11million have been imported (from Queensland). For the same period to the end of July last year the volume was 1,634,542 kgs with a CIF value of $4.74 million.