Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly Research ... Research... · Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly Research, Development & Extension Plan Plant Biosecurity

Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly Research, Development & Extension Plan

Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre

September 14, 2015

Report written by Jenni Metcalfe

PBCRC Econnect Communication

Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan

Contents

SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 2

Fruit Fly RD&E Plan provides research direction for National Fruit Fly Strategy2

Fruit fly issues differ across regions 2

REGIONAL CONSULTATION ACROSS AUSTRALIA 3

We consulted people in seven locations across Australia 3

We consulted grower, industry, research and government representatives 3

We used a consistent process to determine feasibility and impact for RD&E in each workshop 3

People defined aspects of feasibility and impact for particular RD&E priorities 4

DIFFERENT PRIORITIES FOR DIFFERENT REGIONS 5

RD&E INVESTMENT AREA: COORDINATION 7

1.1 The need for national coordination and resourcing 7

RD&E INVESTMENT AREA: EXTENSION, COMMUNITY AND CAPACITY 8

2.1 Regionally based fruit fly biosecurity officers 8

2.2 Fruit fly not just a grower issue – need for community involvement 8

2.3 Regional differences 9

2.4 Capacity – build local capacity in RD&E 9

2.5 Support core science disciplines 9

RD&E INVESTMENT AREA: CONTROLLING FRUIT FLIES 10

3.1 Managing exotic risks, especially through northern Australia 10

3.2 Replacing dimethoate and fenthion chemicals 10

3.3 Eradicating fruit flies in some regions 11

3.4 Individual and area-wide integrated pest management 11

RD&E INVESTMENT AREA: TRADE AND MARKET ACCESS 12

4.1 Disinfestation tools 12

4.2 Evidence-based regulations 12

RD&E INVESTMENT AREA: FUTURE ISSUES 14

5.1 Northern Australian Development 14

5.2 Climate Change 14

5.3 A future without pesticides 15


Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 1

Summary

The National Fruit Fly Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was written in 2014-15 to provide direction for the National Fruit Fly Strategy and in response to fruit flies becoming a larger problem in Australia.

Recognising that fruit fly issue differ across regions, we consulted with 81 people representing horticultural industries, government and research to find out their fruit fly RD&E priorities. Our consultation across eight different jurisdictions (SA, WA, QLD, NT, NSW, VIC, TAS, Australian Department of Agriculture) looked at priorities across the five RD&E areas in the Plan:

1. Coordination 2. Extension, community and capacity 3. Controlling fruit flies 4. Trade and market access 5. Future issues

Our workshops with six jurisdictions in five workshops (SA, WA, QLD/NT, NSW, VIC, TAS) specifically rated each subtheme within these five areas while a more general discussion of local priorities were held in the other jurisdictions (TAS, Australian Department of Agriculture).

All jurisdictions agreed that the first RD&E area of Coordination, and more specifically national coordination, was of high priority. Those consulted believed that any new national body needed strong leadership, should have strong links with industry to ensure two-way communication, and needed to define its role with HIA. All the subthemes in the Extension, community and capacity RD&E area were seen to be of at least medium importance by all jurisdictions. The need for regionally based biosecurity fruit fly officers was particularly endorsed by most jurisdictions, except for Tasmania who see themselves as isolated from mainland issues. Participants stressed the need for such officers to be independent of government and closely connected with industry. Controlling fruit flies is seen to be of medium to high RD&E priority for all jurisdictions except for Tasmania. The majority of all participants who attended the five workshops where subthemes were rated believed individual and area-wide management of fruit flies was an especially important subtheme in this investment area. Not surprisingly, Queensland and NSW rated eradication of fruit flies as a low priority for their regions. Trade and market access was the RD&E area that received the highest overall support across all jurisdictions. Concern was focussed on maintaining or gaining market access, which was seen to be reliant on new data, increased capacity, increased funding and a need to review the current Code of Practice. In general, the least support was given for investment in Future issues with many noting the long-term nature of such issues compared to more immediate concerns. Others expressed a view about the low feasibility of eliminating chemicals, establishing horticultural industries in the north or responding to modelling on climate change.



Introduction

Fruit Fly RD&E Plan provides research direction for National Fruit Fly Strategy

The National Fruit Fly Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was written in 2014–15. The Plan was written in response to the perceived need by the National Fruit Fly Advisory Committee to establish the future direction for improving the focus, efficiency and effectiveness of fruit fly RD&E for Australia’s horticultural industries. The Plan forms part of and complements the National Fruit Fly Strategy (Plant Health Australia, 2008), and recognises that the urgency of the fruit fly problem has become significantly greater in the last two years. The objectives of the RD&E Plan are to:

reduce the risk of fruit fly incursions from overseas and the spread of

economically significant species within Australia as far as practicable

optimise early detection and response to non-endemic and economically significant endemic fruit flies to minimise their impact

manage fruit fly through effective and efficient use of tools, technology and people in order to establish, maintain or modify the fruit fly status of an area to support trade and sustainable production

raise awareness of biosecurity generally, and fruit flies specifically, to empower growers, industry, government and community to work collaboratively to minimise the impacts of fruit fly on production, environment and trade

establish and maintain an intelligence network that imparts information to target risks and threats, supports the risk assessment process and facilitates development and ongoing implementation of the fruit fly management system.

Fruit fly issues differ across regions

The Plan specifically recognises that fruit fly is not the same problem in different regions of Australia. Queensland fruit fly is the major pest species in eastern Australia, while Mediterranean fruit fly affects the west. South Australia is concerned with maintaining area freedom, whereas Victorian growers want to regain area freedom. There are other regional differences. As such, the Plan specifically states that “the RD&E investment areas identified will need to be prioritised by region, horticultural industry and resources available”. This report summarises the process of regional prioritisation that took place between June and August in 2015.

http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/national-programs/fruit-fly/draft-national-fruit-fly-strategy/



Regional consultation across Australia

We consulted people in seven locations across Australia

Econnect Communication (we) were contracted to run a series of regional prioritisation workshops to gain feedback about the Plan. We ran workshops in five capital cities in collaboration with Professor Tony Clarke from the Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre (PBCRC), who was also the Chair of the group who wrote the RD&E Plan. Tony Clarke also consulted with interested Tasmanian people via a teleconference, and with those from the Federal Government through a workshop and follow-up email which was facilitated by Craig Hull. The dates and locations for all the consultation are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Regional consultation locations and dates

Location Date/time Number of people

Loxton, South Australia June 11, 2015 11

Perth, Western Australia July 27, 2015 7

Brisbane, Queensland and Northern Territory

July 29, 2015 16 (2 from NT)

Coffs Harbour, NSW August 4, 2015 12

Tatura, Victoria August 6, 2015 20 (+ 2 via email)

Canberra, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture

August. 20, 2015 9

Teleconference, Tasmania August 26, 2015 4

Total 81

We consulted grower, industry, research and government representatives

Local contacts in each region, usually from the National Fruit Fly Advisory Committee, organised the workshops by inviting relevant grower, industry, research and government representatives. They also organised venues and catering. A total of 81 people participated in the consultation process, as shown in Table 1.

We used a consistent process to determine feasibility and impact for RD&E in each workshop

We used a similar process across all regions to consult about the Plan. We began each workshop by explaining the purpose of the workshop and with everyone introducing themselves. Local members of the National Fruit Fly Advisory Committee explained the role of the Committee. Tony Clarke gave an overview of the Plan using a PowerPoint presentation that we had prepared, and took questions. We then discussed the concepts of feasibility and impact for prioritising RD&E, with participants listing how they understood these concepts. Each workshop group was then divided into smaller groups of 2–3 people to:

discuss the investment areas and subthemes of the Plan, using a sheet that listed all the investment areas and subthemes with space to rate feasibility and impact

consider the overall priority for each subtheme.



After each small group had discussed feasibility and impact, we then discussed all items as a group. At the end, we requested each person to submit a new form with their individual prioritisation, which was informed by all prior activities of the day. Some people recorded feasibility and impact scores in the format of ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’, whereas others put a specific score to the items. After each workshop, we produced a summary of that workshop and sent it back to our contacts in each region to review and correct where necessary. The final reports from all five workshops that we conducted are shown in Attachments 1–5. The meeting with representatives from the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture (DA) followed a similar form to the other workshops in explaining the purpose of the meeting and the background to the Plan (see Attachment 6). The Commonwealth then provided its consolidated input via email exchange. Tony Clarke’s teleconference with Tasmanian representatives also followed the format of previous workshops, but identified priorities through general discussion (see Attachment 7). Both of these meetings did not specifically prioritise the subthemes as the five workshops did. Instead, people spoke about their specific priorities and needs.

People defined aspects of feasibility and impact for particular RD&E priorities

At each workshop we discussed the concepts of feasibility and impact, and how considering these concepts might make it easier to determine each item’s RD&E priority. Feasibility of a particular RD&E subtheme was generally about an issue’s extent of or likelihood to attract:

technical skill/capability

funding

tools and technology

knowledge

market profitability/acceptance

the right government regulatory environment

available time

practicality

applicability across areas/borders. A particular RD&E subtheme was thought to deliver impact when it:

reduced reliance on, and use of, chemicals

reduced impacts of fruit flies

reduced the number of people affected by fruit flies

reduced costs of production

increased saleable yield

increased market access and acceptability

increased community awareness and appreciation of the problem

increased uptake of RD&E

met the needs of growers

was capable of being integrated into current grower practices

decreased threat of exotic fruit flies

decreased government investment needed to respond to incursions

decreased the politicisation of the issue.



Different priorities for different regions As discussed in the introduction to our report, we expected that different regions of Australia would have different priorities, as demonstrated in Table 2. Table 2. Results of individual prioritisation of research subthemes by state Total agreement - high priority

Majority agreement - high priority

Medium importance (>50% M or H)

Low importance

Investment area

Description Overall priority given by:

SA WA Q/NT NSW VIC TAS DA

Coordination 1.1 Single national coordinating body and resourcing of R,D, E initiatives

Extension, community and capacity

2.1 Regionally-based fruit fly biosecurity officers

2.2 Fruit fly not just a grower issue – need for community involvement

2.4 Capacity – build local capacity in RD&E

2.5 Support core science disciplines

Controlling Fruit Flies Controlling fruit flies

3.1 Managing exotic risks – especially through northern Australia

3.2 Replacing dimethoate & fenthion chemicals asap

3.3 Eradicating flies in some regions

3.4 Individual and area-wide integrated pest management

Trade and Market access

4.1 Disinfestation Tools

4.2 Evidence-based regulations

Future issues 5.1 Northern Australian development

5.2 Climate Change

5.3 A future without pesticides



As Tasmania and the Department of Agriculture (DA) did not specifically prioritise each research subtheme, we have provided ticks where this item seems relevant to their priorities either implicitly or explicitly. As can be seen in the table the majority of people across all regions rated the following subthemes as being of high priority:

1.1 Single national coordinating body and resourcing of R,D, E initiatives 3.4 Individual and area-wide integrated pest management

The majority of regions also thought the following subthemes were of high-priority:

2.1 Regionally-based fruit fly biosecurity officers 3.1 Managing exotic risks – especially through northern Australia 3.2 Replacing dimethoate & fenthion chemicals as soon as possible 4.1 Disinfestation Tools 4.2 Evidence-based regulations

Three out of five states thought that the subtheme of ‘5.1 Northern Australian development’ was of low priority, with the other two states saying this subtheme was only of medium priority.



RD&E investment area: Coordination

1.1 The need for national coordination and resourcing

As noted in Table 2, the participants at all of the five workshops saw this as a high priority. Some of the points made about this subtheme in discussion were that:

Such a body needs to have sufficient resources (SA, WA, VIC)

This body needs to involve government organisations as well as industry (SA, QLD/NT)

This body needs to have strong leadership (SA)

There is a need to clarify the role of HIA in such a body (SA, VIC)

There is a need to join all existing bodies together (QLD/NT, NSW)

That an existing body could take on this role (QLD/NT)

Such a body needs to remember regional areas and link with local leaders (VIC)

That we also need a grass roots bottom-up approach (VIC) While those consulted in Tasmania did not explicitly prioritise any subthemes, they did state that a high priority for them was for the National Code of Practice for Fruit Fly Management to be re-written so that Tasmania was treated as region that was distinct from mainland Australia with respect to fruit fly ecology and management. This assumes some level of national coordination. Those at the Department of Agricultural consultation did not specifically discuss this subtheme, but they did emphasise the central and leading role of the Australian Government because of the importance of fruit fly to trade. Again, this assumes a national coordination role, whereby the Australian Government is a central player. This group also noted that they “work collaboratively with state and territory governments, the horticultural industry and research institutions”.

National Fruit Fly RD&E Plan - KEY RECOMMENDATION:

National coordination for fruit fly RD&E issues and improved resourcing is urgently needed to maximise the benefits gained from RD&E investment and to ensure consistent information is provided to growers and other end-users. The National Fruit Fly Advisory Committee should investigate the different models by which such coordination and resourcing could be achieved.



RD&E investment area: Extension, community and capacity

2.1 Regionally based fruit fly biosecurity officers

The majority of participants at the five workshops saw this subtheme as a high priority, with only NSW participants seeing this overall as a medium priority. NSW’s lower rating of this item may reflect the fact that they claim to already have people on the ground and relationships in place. This subtheme was not mentioned by those from Tasmania or at the Department of Agriculture workshop. Some of the major comments made at the workshops were that:

There is a need to link such a position with other regional biosecurity issues (SA)

Someone needs to fund this, and that this should look to both government and industry (SA, WA, VIC)

They should not be seen as government officers (WA, QLD/NT, VIC)

Could be field entomologists, growers, private consultants that are upskilled (QLD/NT, VIC)

It would be good to have two people in each state, that could be embedded in local government areas (WA)

This needs to be two-way between growers and these people so they are also learning (WA)

Each place has different issues and needs from such people (NSW, VIC)

They should not compete with local agronomists, but rather add value and connections (VIC)

Should be cross-industry rather than industry-based (VIC), which is different to what NSW said, although they were reflecting that NSW already had industry-based officers


All five workshops rated this sub-theme at least of medium importance with everyone in Western Australia and the majority in South Australia seeing it as being of high importance. Tasmanian participants noted the need for “full stakeholder engagement, where stakeholders include growers, the wider public, policy makers and politicians.” Department of Agriculture officers did not specifically mention this subtheme.


There is a major need for regional development and extension of fruit fly research, including working directly with growers to trial and develop control strategies optimized for local regions and crops. Urgent consideration should be given to the models for provision of fruit fly development and extension services in Australia’s major horticultural production areas, including by the private sector.

"Public education media program to notify public to clean up fruit in backyards and unoccupied orchards/orchards that have fallen into disuse. Make links with local

shires, growers’ cooperatives and other agencies selling supplies to horticulturalists, to engage their help to deliver this message."

WA grower, 11 September 2014.



The participants of the five workshops commented on the:

Importance of urban and rural communities working together (SA, WA, QLD/NT, NSW, VIC)

Feasibility of this subtheme being dependent on the size of the town and their reliance on horticultural industries (SA, QLD/NT, NSW, VIC)

Role that local government could play in assisting – e.g. supplying services for eradicating and disposing of infected trees (WA), but VIC concerned hard to get local government involved

Difficulty of getting the whole community involved (QLD/NT, NSW, VIC)

Fact that this works best where area-wide management is applicable (QLD/NT,

Opportunities to use citizen science tools (QLD/NT,

Need for growers to demonstrate best practice (QLD/NT,

Need for ongoing community education (NSW

2.3 Regional differences We did not assess this at the workshops as this regional consultation process was already implementing the subtheme.

2.4 Capacity – build local capacity in RD&E All participants in the NSW workshop rated this subtheme as being of high importance as did the majority of participants from Queensland / Northern Territory and Victoria. South Australia and Western Australia saw this as of medium priority. Neither the Tasmanian participants nor the Department of Agriculture representatives mentioned this subtheme. The comments made in the five workshops included:

That local RD&E capacity was not as important as tapping into the right networks (SA, QLD/NT, VIC)

The lack of funding for local RD&E (WA, QLD/NT, VIC)

The need to do local research on local issues rather than relying on overseas research (WA, VIC)

Concern about the ongoing loss of local expertise (WA, QLD/NT, NSW, VIC)

That research can be national levels, development at regional and extension at local (QLD/NT, VIC)

2.5 Support core science disciplines All participants from Queensland and NSW thought this subtheme was of high priority, while South Australia, Western Australia and Victorian participants saw this as a medium priority subtheme largely due to the long term nature of this research. A number of participants queried the feasibility of getting funding for core research. Victorian participants made the comment that there was a lot of research already there that needed to be extended and adaptively applied. Tasmanian participants did not specifically mention core science disciplines but rather noted specific research they wanted done such as accurate estimation of flight thresholds, overwintering of flies, data and modelling to demonstrate Tasmania’s climate as being unsuitable for fruit flies, and scientific justification for trapping measures. The Department of Agriculture did not specifically mention core disciplines with most of their comments focussed on protecting international markets.



RD&E investment area: Controlling fruit flies

3.1 Managing exotic risks, especially through northern Australia

All participants from Queensland / Northern Territory and the majority from South Australia and Victoria rated this subtheme a high priority. West Australian and NSW participants saw it as of only medium priority. Tasmanian participants are concerned about a risk of incursion happening, especially from the Spotted wing Drosophila, but see that as being unlikely given Tasmania’s climate. They would like to see data or mapping which shows the current distribution of flies in mainland Australia. They were also concerned about biosecurity threats that extended beyond fruit flies to pests such as the Brown Marmorated stinkbug. The Department of Agriculture representatives see a primary role for the Australian Government in (a) managing the biosecurity risk of exotic fruit flies and (b) managing the invasions of exotic fruit fly species through national pathways. They particularly saw surveillance, diagnostics and response as being critically important components of this subtheme. Comments made by participants of the five workshops included that:

This is already being done and needs to be continued (SA, QLD/NT, VIC)

This is not a high risk to our growers given our location (WA; VIC)

There needs to be surveillance to pick up any incursions early (WA)

There is concern about oriental fruit fly (QLD/NT)

Managing risks might be difficult given development in northern Australia (NSW)

Risks are more likely to come through Sydney and Melbourne (VIC)

3.2 Replacing dimethoate and fenthion chemicals

All participants from Western Australia, and most participants from Queensland, NSW and Victoria saw this subtheme as a high priority. South Australia saw this as medium priority subtheme. The subtheme was not mentioned by Tasmania or the Department of Agriculture. However, the Department of Agriculture did mention that pre and post harvest control of fruit flies was a high priority and made the comment: “New treatments could potentially be available in a short timeframe.”


R&D support continues to be provided for biosecurity preparedness and quarantine activities targeted at preventing the entry and establishment of offshore fruit fly threats. Particular focus should be applied to mitigating the risk posed by Oriental fruit fly.


RD&E activities targeting rapid replacement options for dimethoate and fenthion should focus on the registration of new chemicals and new uses for existing registered chemicals, and optimisation of existing controls such as MAT, protein bait spray, crop hygiene and mass trapping.



The participants at the five workshops commented:

About the difficulty and cost of finding replacement chemicals (SA, NSW, VIC)

That this was a role for the chemical industry (SA, NSW, VIC)

About the need for growers to avoid using sprays (WA)

That markets needed to accept chemical use (QLD/NT, NSW)

That Area-wide integrated management was more important (SA, QLD/NT)

3.3 Eradicating fruit flies in some regions

All of the South Australian participants and the majority of the West Australian participants saw this subtheme as a high priority. However, Victoria saw this as a medium priority and Queensland / Northern Territory and NSW as a low priority. Neither Tasmanian participants nor the Department of Agriculture mentioned it. Comments from participants at the five workshops were:

That this is difficult to achieve (need the right traps and density of traps (SA, VIC)

It is very area-dependent (WA, NSW, VIC)

That once eradicated, need to monitor and maintain services (WA)

This should not be seen as a single tool but part of an overall package (NSW)

3.4 Individual and area-wide integrated pest management

. The majority of participants at the five workshops saw this subtheme as high priority. This is not an issue for Tasmania while the Department of Agriculture are particularly interested in all aspects of the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT), in which they say they are already investing heavily. Comments from participants at the five workshops were about the:

Difficulty in achieving cultural change (SA, WA)

Need to gain higher community involvement (SA, WA, NSW)

Need to gain higher grower involvement (SA)

Importance of SIT (SA, QLD/NT)


An R&D focus be applied to fruit fly eradication technologies (such as SIT, MAT and protein baiting), to make the eradication of fruit flies technically easier and hence economically more justifiable.


RD&E activities targeting medium to long-term fruit fly infield controls should work within an integrated pest management framework, which will decrease the need and reliance on synthetic pesticides. Such control or eradication strategies include Sterile Insect Technique, mass trapping, crop hygiene, eradication, protein baiting, MAT and use of natural enemies. The combination of these techniques into a systems approach can be used for market access.



RD&E investment area: Trade and market access

4.1 Disinfestation tools

Only Western Australian participants rated this subtheme as being of medium priority. All of South Australian participants and the majority of the other states rated this as a high priority. The Department of Agriculture rated all market access and regulatory issues as being of high importance, especially noting the importance of RD&E applied to tropical and lesser flies, Queensland fruit fly complex, and trade information. Tasmanian participants are most concerned about maintaining Tasmania’s fruit fly Pest Free Area status so they can retain their access to various markets. The participants of the five workshops commented that:

Market access was the biggest issue to address (SA)

They were concerned about loss of funding and capacity for this (WA, VIC)

This was difficult to achieve (WA, QLD/NT, NSW)

There was a need to invest in community and market education (QLD/NT)

There is a need for post-harvest treatment for market access (QLD/NT

There is a need to break political and trade barriers (NSW)

There is market concern about techniques like irradiation (QLD/NT, NSW, VIC)`

Tools need to be targeted at the risk and the type of crop (VIC)

4.2 Evidence-based regulations

All of the workshop participants from South Australia and the majority from all the other workshops saw this subtheme as a high priority. Tasmanian participants also stressed their desire for scientifically based evidence, which would prove that their region was one where flies were absent due to climatic conditions. They called for the modification of the National Code for Fruit Fly Management, which Tasmanian participants believed to be currently inappropriate for fruit flies in Tasmania. The Department of Agriculture participants also saw this subtheme as being critically important for ensuring export market access. They noted that they thought two


R&D targeting medium and long-term outcomes for fruit fly disinfestation should focus on the development of new methodologies and statistical approaches which can provide the same importer confidence and regulatory approvals as currently achieved, but with reduced logistical effort, time and/or cost.


Standardised approaches for market access RD&E and field operations should be developed and implemented so as to ensure international acceptance of Australian fruit fly market access datasets and fresh commodities. This includes updating national codes of practice for fruit fly.



aspects were missing from this subtheme: Pest Free Places of Production and Pest Free Production Sites. The Department of Agriculture is looking for guidance in this area in collaboration with Plant Health Australia. Participants in the five workshops we ran noted the:

Need for trading partner acceptance (SA, QLD/NT, NSW, VIC)

Need to review the Code of Practice (SA, WA, QLD/NT)

Lack of benchmark to measure against; and need for new data sets (SA, NSW, VIC)

Potential to do more in this area (SA)

Issue of gaining acceptance of protocols (WA)



RD&E investment area: Future issues

5.1 Northern Australian Development

Most of the workshop participants saw this subtheme as being of low or medium importance. Given their geographic position, it is probably not surprising that participants from Western Australia and Queensland were more likely to see this of at least medium importance. Neither Tasmanian nor Department of Agriculture participants referred to this subtheme. Overall, this subtheme received the lowest priority rating. Participants of the five workshops noted:

The longer term nature of this subtheme (SA, VIC)

The need to keep monitoring this (SA, NSW, VIC)

Their own focus on what was locally-relevant (SA, WA)

That horticulture is unlikely to part of any northern development and therefore is less of a threat (QLD/NT, VIC)

The need to consider biosecurity in any northern development (QLD/NT, VIC)

The question of payment for ongoing surveillance (VIC)

5.2 Climate Change Most of the workshop participants saw this theme as medium or low importance. Tasmanian and Department of Agricultural participants did not mention this subtheme. Indeed, the overriding theme from Tasmanian participants was the need to prove that they were climatically different to the Australian mainland, and therefore needed different protocols and research. This appears to ignore the likelihood of ongoing climate change. Workshop participants noted that:

It is important to find out how fruit flies may adapt to climate change (SA, NSW)

Nobody tended to do anything until the flies started appearing, despite any modelling predicting the movement of flies with climate change (WA)

Given the prevalence of fruit fly already locally that climate change was unlikely to create a new issue (QLD/NT); although others disagreed (QLD/NT)

Need improvement in modelling and tools to determine more local impacts (VIC)

National Fruit Fly RD&E Plan - KEY RECOMMENDATIONS:

RD&E focus should be applied to the ‘other’ fruit fly pests of Australia, including resolving the systematics and taxonomy of the Bactrocera tryoni complex and developing biological data sets (including confirmed host lists) and management tools for native fruit fly species other than B. tryoni and C. capitata. Systematic and taxonomic research be carried out to develop accurate and user- friendly diagnostics to separate native pest fruit flies from native non-pests and exotics.



5.3 A future without pesticides The majority of Western Australian participants rated this a high priority; NSW a low priority and the rest of the states in the five workshops a medium priority. Tasmanian and Department of Agricultural participants did not mention this subtheme. The participants of the five workshops noted that this subtheme:

Is critical in terms of SIT (SA)

Was a longer term priority (SA, VIC)

Required core science underpinning it (SA)

Offered opportunities through non-chemical pesticides (WA, QLD/NT)

Needed to pull together the tools and information already available (WA, NSW)

Needed to define what was meant by pesticides (VIC)

Should recognise that there is no such thing as no residues (VIC)

ATTACHMENT 1: Fruit Fly National RD&E Plan prioritisation – South Australia

Introduction A prioritisation workshop was held on Thursday June 11 in Loxton, South Australia with 11 participants (see list in Appendix 1). The workshop (see agenda in Appendix 2) started by explaining the purpose of the workshop and with everyone introducing himself or herself. Will Zacharin explained the role of the National Fruit Fly Advisory Committee, and then Tony Clarke gave an overview of the Plan and took questions. We then discussed the concepts of feasibility and impact before dividing into smaller groups of 2-‐3 people to discuss the investment areas and subthemes of the plan (see Table 1). After each small group had discussed feasibility and impact we then discussed all items as a group. At the end, I requested each person to submit a new form with their individual prioritisation, which was informed by all that went prior.

Results In Table 1 below I have provided an average of the individual scores for feasibility and impact and a collation of the responses as to whether each subtheme was of high, medium or low priority. Some people rated each part of a subsection within a subtheme, and this is indicated in the table. As can be seen in Table 1, there was total agreement that the following four subthemes are of high priority (shaded lilac) in SA:

• 3.1 Managing exotic risks – especially through northern Australia • 3.3 Eradicating flies in some regions • 4.1 Disinfestation Tools • 4.2 Evidence-‐based regulations

There was majority agreement that the following subthemes (shaded in blue) were also of high priority:

• 1.1 Single national coordinating body and resourcing of R,D, E initiatives • 2.1 Regionally-‐based fruit fly biosecurity officers • 2.2 Fruit fly not just a grower issue – need for community involvement • 3.4 Individual and area-‐wide integrated pest management

Subthemes seen to be of medium importance in SA (shaded in green) reflected less support for immediate work in the extension, community and capacity building investment area (building local capacity in R,D&E; and supporting core science disciplines). There was also less immediate support for investing in future issues like climate change and a world without pesticides. There was mixed or little support for investment into replacing chemicals (3.2) or northern Australian Development (5.1). These items were thought to be more important nationally than specifically to SA. Following Table 1, I have included a table that describes the key points that emerged from the whole group conversations during the workshop about each subtheme.

Table 1: Results of individual prioritisation of research subthemes from 11 forms Total agreement -‐ high priority Majority agreement -‐ high priority Medium importance (>50% M or H) Low importance Investment area

Description Subthemes Feasibility Average / 10

Impact Average / 10

Priority rating High, Medium, Low


6.5 p. 49 Managerial Infrastructure

6.4 8.8 10 X H 1 X M-‐H


2.1 Regionally-‐based fruit fly biosecurity officers

6.1 p. 46 Regional support

7.7 8.4 8 X H 3 X M


5.1, 5.2 p. 43-‐45 Fruit fly as a socio-‐political issue; Growers and the community as full partners

7.7 (1 person rated 5.2 as 5)

8.7 8 X H 2 X M-‐H 1 X M


6.2, 6.3. 6.4 p. 47-‐48 Research & Development Capacity; Professional Networks; Physical Infrastructure

5.8 (2 people rated 6.3 as 8 and 6.4 as 5)

7.1 (2 people rated 6.3 as 8 and 6.4 as 5)

9 X M 1 X M-‐H 1 X L-‐M


7.1 p. 50-‐51 Core sciences

7.1 8.5 8 X M 1 X H 1 X M-‐H 1 X L-‐M

Controlling Fruit Flies


1.1, 1.2. 1.3. 1.4, p. 17-‐20 Entry pathways; surveillance; invasion biology; diagnostics

7.6 9.3 11 X H


2.2, 2.6 p.24, Cover sprays; Physical barriers

5.6 (2 people rated 2.6 as 4)

7.8 (2 people rated 2.6 as 6)

2 X L 1 X H 2 X H for 2.2; L for

Investment area


Impact Average / 10


2.6 1 X M 5 X H for national; M for SA

Controlling fruit flies


2.4, 2.11 p. 25, 29 Lure and kill; regional eradication

8.6 9.5 11 X H

3.4 Individual and area-‐wide integrated pest management

2.1. 2.3; 2.5, 2.8, 2.9. 2.10 P. 22, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32 Monitoring and evaluation; Natural enemies and biological control; host plant and host fruit interactions; Sterile insect technique; IPM and area-‐wide IPM

8.2 (2 people rated 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 & 3.5 as 9, 5, 6, 6 respectively)

9 (2 people rated 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 & 3.5 each as 9)

9 X H 2 X M



3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 p. 35-‐39 Refinement and improvement of existing treatments; protection; detection; new research and data protocol; biology of death

7.5 8.8 11 X H (but 2 people said M for 3.3, 3.4, 3.5)

4.2 Evidence-‐based regulations

4.1, 4.2 Market and access data sets

6.8 9.2 11 X H


1.5 p. 21 Response Plus 1.1-‐1.4 p. 17-‐20 (see 3.1 above)

5.1 8.7 5 X L 4 X M 2 X L in the short term; high in long term

5.2 Climate Change

2.7 p. 29 Phenology and distribution models

7.6 7.1 11 X M

Investment area


Impact Average / 10



Covered in: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.5, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1

6.5 7.6 5 X M 4 X H 2 X M in short term; H in long term

Table 2: Group discussion points that arose during the workshop Investment area

Description Subthemes Discussion points



Need one body in charge of regulations who has the right resources A national coordinating body would have high impact, although feasibility might be low If there is no coordination, then likely to be no resourcing This coordinating body really needs good leadership Need to involve Federal and State Governments and industry One of the new players is the HIA and their model does not fit this; this is a real concern that they don’t understand their place in the strategy




Who pays for this? Industry or Government? Having someone in each region would be good for fruit fly plan, but also other biosecurity issues Fruit fly is entwined with so many other biosecurity issues



Urban and rural communities need to work together – this is high priority Feasibility will depend on the size of the town and their reliance on horticultural industries



What is “local”? We don’t need RDE capacity locally but we do need to be able to tap into the right RD&E networks.



This is likely to be more important in the longer term This needs to be regularly reviewed

Investment area


(annually) Blue sky research is very high risk We are not saying this should not be done SA has a very active program of increasing enrolments in agricultural sciences and in the last couple of years enrolments have increased




This is already being done through existing programs that should keep going If oriental and other flies get in, this will be devastating Our main thing in SA is to keep it out We need to watch what is happening in the north, in Victoria and elsewhere



Low priority because finding replacement chemicals is difficult Could cost mega dollars Who is going to develop new chemicals? Isn’t this a role for chemical industry? We need to be pushing area-‐wide management instead This is not a priority in SA but it may be elsewhere




This is very important, but what are the chances to do it? Need to know the right traps and density of traps to use with which produce; what are the optimal trapping systems



It may be difficult to gain cultural change – there needs to be a change of thinking, which may not happen until there is increased awareness Community involvement is low – that is the issue Sometimes it is even difficult to get growers involved A key question is what is the “area”? SIT is important as there are so many possibilities




This is the biggest issue on the page – very important It is important to consider market access versus managing the pest

Investment area




Need trading partner acceptance The code needs to be reviewed and we need data sets Feasibility is low because this is hard to do, but the impact is very important This is DAFF core business Where is the benchmark? We are not reaching the full potential We have to lift our game with market access

Future issues#

5.1 Northern Australian development


Lower priority in short term but we do need to review in the longer term Should be part of the development process Need to keep monitoring; we don’t want it to go off people’s radar What we don’t know is dangerous – we tend to be too focussed on the situation in front of us

5.2 Climate Change


The distribution models are important Important to find out likely fruit fly adaptations with climate change


Covered in: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.5, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1

Critical in terms of SIT Some of it is critical in terms of low pest prevalence With some things like lures, we are still using a toxin Feasibility in short term is low Need a systems approach Long term this is a very high priority Need some of the core science (2.5) before we can throw ourselves at this; the core science needs to be more specific

#There was some discussion that ‘Future Issues’ should be called ‘Further Issues’.

Appendix 1: Participants Name Lastname Organisation Email Steve Burdette Costa Group [email protected]

Gary Cox BSA/DIRSA [email protected]

Peter Crisp PIRSA/SARDI [email protected]

Tim Grieger SA Fresh Fruit Grower [email protected]

Dave Hall BSA/Plant Health [email protected]

Con Poulos Citrus Aus/NFFAC [email protected]

Hilke Ppiros Apricot Grove [email protected]

Nick Secomb PIRSA/SARDI [email protected]

Ian Sparnon Cherry Growers SA [email protected]

Grant Wotton Cherry Growers Aust/Grower [email protected]

Will Zacharin PIRSA/SARDI [email protected]

Appendix 2: Agenda 12pm – Lunch / snack 12.30 – Welcome / introductions 12.40 – Purpose of workshop / role of National FF Advisory Committee (Short presentation by Will Zacharin with Q&A) 12.45pm – Overview of Plan (Presentation by Tony Clarke with Q & A) 1.15pm – Feasibility and impact (Facilitated whole group discussion) 1.30pm – Divide into pairs / small groups to go through the prioritisation sheet 2.15pm – whole group discussion on prioritisation exercise

(Facilitated as a focus group discussion where all pairs report on and discuss results) 3.00pm Final individual voting on priorities 3.20pm Where to from here? 3.30pm CLOSE

ATTACHMENT 2: Fruit Fly National RD&E Plan prioritisation – Western Australia

Introduction A prioritisation workshop was held on Monday 27 July with seven participants, including one from Manjimup via teleconference (see Appendix 1). The workshop (see agenda in Appendix 2) started by explaining the purpose of the workshop and with everyone introducing him or herself. Bill Woods and Mark Williamson explained the role of the National Fruit Fly Advisory Committee, and then Tony Clarke gave an overview of the Plan and took questions. We then discussed the concepts of feasibility and impact for prioritising R, D&E with participants listing how they saw these concepts, as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Perceptions of what is meant by ‘feasibility’ and ‘impact’ Feasibility Impact Participants’ perceptions Technical know how

Money Capital Time

Less / no reliance on sprays Reduced impacts of med fly Med fruit fly seen to be less important as an issue Reduced number of people affected by fruit fly (growers, back-‐yarders) Reduced politicisation of the issue Needs of growers met

My list R&D Skill Funding Capability Participation Capacity

Reduced / contained the spread of fruit fly Controlled fruit fly pre and post harvest Access to markets Increased awareness, collaboration, capacity

The group was then divided into smaller groups of 2-‐3 people to discuss the investment areas and subthemes of the plan. After each small group had discussed feasibility and impact we then discussed all items as a group. At the end, I requested each person to submit a new form with their individual prioritisation, which was informed by all that went prior. Some recorded their feasibility and impact scores as being high, medium or low whereas others put a specific score on these items. I have converted all scores to high, medium and low (see Table 2).

Results In Table 2 below I have provided an overview of the individual scores for feasibility and impact and a collation of the responses as to whether each subtheme was of high, medium or low priority. One group rated each part of a subsection within a subtheme, and this is indicated in the table. As can be seen in Table 1, there was total agreement that the following three subthemes are of high priority (shaded purple) in WA:

• 2.1 Regionally-‐based fruit fly biosecurity officers • 2.2 Fruit fly not just a grower issue – need for community involvement

• 3.2 Replacing dimethoate & fenthion chemicals There was majority agreement that the following subthemes (shaded in blue) were also of high priority:

• 1.1 Single national coordinating body and resourcing of R,D, E initiatives • 3.3 Eradicating flies in some regions • 3.4 Individual and area-‐wide integrated pest management • 4.2 Evidence based regulations • 5.3 A future without pesticides

All other subthemes were considered to be of at least medium importance. Subthemes seen to be of medium importance in WA (unshaded) reflected the differing views within the group, which is shown in the discussion points that emerged from the whole group conversations about each subtheme (see Table 3). In some cases, views were polarised amongst workshop participants. Table 2: Results of individual prioritisation of research subthemes Total agreement -‐ high priority Majority agreement -‐ high priority Medium importance (>50% M or H) Low importance Investment area

Description Subthemes Feasibility Rating High, Medium Low

Impact Rating High, Medium Low




5 X M 2 X H

5 X H 2 X L

4 X H 2 X M 1 X L




7 X H 7 X H 7 X H



7 X H (but 2 said L where fruit fly endemic)





2 X H 3 X M 2 X L

5 X H 2 X M

7 X M

Investment area






5 X H 2 X M

3 X H 2 X M 2 X L

2 X H 5 X M




2 X H 2 X M 3 X L (2 said L for 1.3)

3 X M 4 X L (2 said M for 1.3; L for 1.4)

1 X H 4 X M 2 X L



3 X H 4 X M

7 X H 7 X H




4 X H 3 X M

6 X H 1 X M (2 X M for 2.11)

4 X H 3 X M



5 X H 2 X L (2 said M for 2.3)

7 X H 4 X H 3 X M




4 X H 1 X M 2 X L (2 said 3.3 and 3.5 M)

3 X H 2 X M 2 X L ( 2 said 3.5 M)

7 X M



5 X H 2 X L

5 X H 2 X L

5 X H 2 X L



4 X H 1 X M 2 X L

2 X H 1 X M 4 X L

2 X H 3 X M 2 X L

Investment area




5.2 Climate Change


5 X H 2 X L

2 X H 5 X L

2 X H 3 X M 2 X L


Covered in: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.5, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1

4 X H 1 X M 2 X L

7 X H 5 X H 2 X M





Resourcing is the highest priority (compared to national coordinating body) We have no luck in the past with R, D, & E resourcing Important to have a coordinating body to discuss national priorities and take things forward If there are new dollars then there will be resourcing for all, otherwise we are just reworking what we have done before




Easy to do and the impact could be huge as grass roots activity with growers We have already applied for 2 industry partners in R for R but we got knocked back There is one in the Kununurra office who is very effective Two people could be in different parts of the state and they could roam around Having two people in each state would be good You could embed in local government areas so not seen as being Departmental The 5 shires could have a hot desk and people could move between shires It needs to be a 2-‐way thing where they also learn from growers and share this information



It depends on whether the area is one where fruit flies are endemic already; if so then this is low priority It is a critical issue to have community support onside. This needs to be growers working with the community; DAFWA can facilitate but it’s a grower-‐community space There could be a real role for local government; e.g. local government could

Investment area


supply a chainsaw and pickup service for infested trees



The Department is disintegrating and there are limited opportunities to get funding from eastern states Medfly is studied around the world But overseas work is not applicable to WA; the fruit flies here behave differently and we can’t just throw overseas findings at it – we need to do research I am not sure how we can build capacity when we are losing it [at DAFWA] When we had access to the sprays, growers and scientists didn’t care about fruit flies as it was not an issue so we have already lost capacity Unless we get funding, we will be out of fruit fly research within 18 months There are no entomologists at universities any more



It depends on the sciences; molecular research won’t help much and modelling is limited. However, physiology, behaviour, ecology and statistics are very important. This is low impact as it won’t help in the short to medium term. The long term nature of this research means it is of medium priority.




WA is not involved in exports so it won’t affect us But our growers will get flooded from the eastern markets and we need to be export-‐focussed to survive Medfly is the hardest to kill so if we get other flies we should be able to control 1.2. – Surveillance is very important But, whatever happens in the north, we can pick it up early and eradicate it It’s currently not high risk, but this could change



We are about 10-‐15 years too late The problem with cover sprays is that they stay on the fruit; people will not put up with residues so cover sprays are transient. Growers want to get away from sprays.



It depends on the area – very area-‐dependent Once flies have been eradicated need to monitor and maintain services. For example, in Carnarvon medfly was eradicated, but now it is back This is expensive it can cost $1.4M a year for a check point and monitoring activities

Investment area




This depends on the area 2.3 – pathogen sprays could be a reality Area-‐wide means people working together; this is difficult We are in the middle of suburbia so not really a feature of WA This section needs teasing out; for example 2.1 (monitoring and evaluation) is crucially important, others less so




The feasibility is low as they have tried this for 30 years It has medium feasibility because DAFWA has lost its capacity But if DAFWA does not do it then the whole country suffers I am concerned that funding will be cut unless WA becomes export-‐focussed



This needs a systems approach to get work done Areas of freedom are very important Our export markets are low compared to other states Needs someone to set protocols, but then the challenge is to get people to accept these

Future issues#



This is of less interest to southwest growers, but in the north of WA it’s important. 15% of mangoes grown in the north goes to Japan

5.2 Climate Change


The modelling emphasis means this has a low impact and nobody does anything until the flies start happening There was disagreement about whether climate change was already happening or if it was more a longer term issue (different views on climate change in the room)


Covered in: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.5, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1

There are real opportunities with non-‐chemical pesticides like use of pathogens, fungi, There’s already tools out there but they have not been put together to make it all work

Other comments Some of the other points that came out in discussion are summarised below. • Agreed that there needed to be a greater emphasis on extension.

• Concerned that most of the people on the National Fruit Fly Advisory Committee are regulators rather than entomologists

• The current Vision of the plan refers just to commercial horticultural products; it should also refer to domestic produce (from backyards); sharing the fruit fly problem should be in the plan’s Vision.

• WA is poor at lobbying on the national stage where a lot of stuff happens outside of the committee and WA misses out (one person saw this as a consequence of WA being perceived as being more about broadacre farming rather than horticulture, compared to places like QLD)

Appendix 1: Participants Name Last name Organisation Email Sonia Broughton DAFWA [email protected] Tim Byl Grower [email protected] Darryl Hardie DAFWA [email protected] Barbara Kachigunda Murdoch University [email protected] Stewart Learmonth DAFWA, Manjimup [email protected] Mark Williams Orchardist [email protected] Bill Woods DAFWA [email protected]

Appendix 2: Agenda 1pm – Welcome / introductions 1.15 – Purpose of workshop / role of National FF Advisory Committee (Short presentation by Bill Woods with Q&A) 1.30pm – Overview of Plan (Presentation by Tony Clarke with Q & A) 2pm – Feasibility and impact (Facilitated whole group discussion) 2.15pm – Divide into pairs / small groups to go through the prioritisation sheet 3pm – whole group discussion on prioritisation exercise

(Facilitated as a focus group discussion where all pairs report on and discuss results) 3.45pm Final individual voting on priorities 4pm CLOSE

ATTACHMENT 3: Fruit Fly National RD&E Plan prioritisation – Queensland & Northern Territory

Introduction A prioritisation workshop was held on Wednesday 29 July with 16 participants, including two from the Northern Territory (see Appendix 1). The workshop (see agenda in Appendix 2) started by explaining the purpose of the workshop and with everyone introducing him or herself. Mike Ashton explained the role of the National Fruit Fly Advisory Committee, and then Tony Clarke gave an overview of the Plan and took questions. We then discussed the concepts of feasibility and impact for prioritising R, D&E with participants listing how they saw these concepts, as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Perceptions of what is meant by ‘feasibility’ and ‘impact’ Feasibility Impact Participants’ perceptions

Capacity Capability Cost Knowledge Market profitability / acceptance Tools and technology Government regulatory environment

Reduce costs of production Increased market access Fruit flies not an issue for growers Community awareness and appreciation Increased uptake of RDE Decreased chemical use with same efficacy (to meet community demands / farmer needs) Increased saleable yield Decreased threat of exotic fruit flies Decreased government investment needed to respond to incursions



The group was then divided into smaller groups of 2-‐3 people to discuss the investment areas and subthemes of the plan. After each small group had discussed feasibility and impact we then discussed all items as a group. At the end, I requested each person to submit a new form with their individual prioritisation, which was informed by all that went prior. Some recorded their feasibility and impact scores as being high, medium or low whereas others put a specific score on these items. I have converted all scores to high, medium and low (see Table 2).

Results In Table 2 below I have provided an overview of the individual scores for feasibility and impact and a collation of the responses as to whether each subtheme was of high, medium or low priority. As can be seen in Table 2, there was no total agreement from the group on any subtheme. However, there was majority agreement that the following subthemes (shaded in blue) were of high priority:

• 1.1 Single national coordinating body and resourcing of R,D, E initiatives • 2.1 Regionally-‐based fruit fly biosecurity officers • 2.4 Build local capacity in R&D • 2.5 Support core science disciplines

• 3.1 Managing exotic risks • 3.2 Replacing chemicals • 3.3 Eradicating flies in some regions • 4.1 Disinfestation tools • 4.2 Evidence based regulations

Table 2: Results of individual prioritisation of research subthemes (15 forms received) Total agreement -‐ high priority Majority agreement -‐ high priority Medium importance (>50% M or H) Low importance Investment area

Description Subthemes Feasibility Rating Average score/10

Impact Rating Average score / 10




6.3 7.3 9 H 4 X M 2 X L




7.8 8.7 10 X H 4 X M 1 X L



6.2 6.9 1 X H 10 X M 4 X L-‐M



7.7 8.5 11 X H 4 X M



7.6 7.5 8 X H 6 X M 1 X L




7.7 8.7 15 X H

3.2 Replacing 2.2, 2.6 p.24, 4.2 7.5 8 X H

Investment area




dimethoate & fenthion chemicals asap

Cover sprays; Physical barriers

2 X M 5 X L




6.3 8.8 5 X H 2 X M 8 X L



7.8 9 13 X H 2 X M-‐H




6.8 9.2 14 X H 1 X M



7.2 9.3 14 X H 1 X M



5.1 5.8 3 X H 6 X M 2 X L-‐M 4 X L

5.2 Climate Change


7 5 1 X H 2 X M 12 X L


Covered in: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.5, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1

2.5 7 1 X H 10 X M 4 X L





If this is done it needs to be done very well Would like to take the confusion out of the process; there are plenty of national coordinating mechanisms so we don’t need a new one If there is one single body there is more opportunity for them to get things wrong What we need to greater coordination at a national level This could be from an existing body There are already bodies delivering some elements of biosecurity, but need one body to coordinate and allocate resources This coordinating body need not be from government; it could be industry-‐driven




These do not have to be government officers and they don’t need to be traditional biosecurity officers I think they should be field entomologists Could up skill growers They need not be called biosecurity officers; e.g. grains have people in each state with their own expertise who are brought together for training Have a more deliberate and systematic focus on supporting private consultants for E (and R&D)



Need full community involvement The feasibility of getting all the people involved is low It depends on the community; in some places this is easy but in others not Need to focus on the communities where there will be the most impact It my be more feasible in urban settings While area-‐wide management is a great goal, there are not many areas in Australia where this is applicable and it’s of concern that people think they can’t do it. We need to focus on the farm and avoid the perception that if the community does not support it, it just won’t work. When we had community volunteers, everyone wanted a trap and wanted to do counts every week. There is a community desire to be involved There’s lots of good tools for citizen science Growers should focus on ensuring their own actions are best practice. External roles

Investment area


follow after that. 2.4 Capacity – build local capacity in RD&E


Not sure of the feasibility of this; need to consider funding Not everything has to be paid for by government Does research need to be done in every area where fruit fly control is happening? Research can be national, development regional and extension local The core of funding has not been maintained; there’s a need for more RDE funding The total spending on RDE is decreasing across the country; our spending compared to internationally is low



This is of medium priority compared to everything else Some core sciences really need to be supported Do we need more investment in post-‐harvest treatment compared to what is happening in the field? It is difficult to get funding to keep up the core science capacity What is the feasibility of getting more funding? [comment: Macquarie University investing $20M in getting Q-‐Fly research up to Med-‐Fly standards] Need multidisciplinary teams




This is critical for managing incursions from Torres Strait; there is a high risk pathway we need to manage Oriental fruit fly is a big risk



Need market acceptance of chemical use If kill adult fruit flies in the field then this is highly toxic and interrupts IPM Barriers work but are expensive The priority to find something is high, but we need IPM There is significant work around new lures By the time you get a new chemical through all the trials etc, the market place likely won’t accept it What if you get an incursion in a major area? What do you do? You need another product as an insurance We don’t know what chemicals various companies have up their sleeves

3.3 Eradicating flies in some

2.4, 2.11 p. 25, 29 Lure and kill;

Thought 2.4 was important, but 2.11 less so

Investment area


regions regional eradication



Control in QLD and NT is very important If we had a combination of tactics we could get the endemic groups down There is already a huge investment in SIT, which might already be enough investment in that technique, but more investment is required to develop and improve other management techniques that are more likely to be effective in areas of high natural prevalence.




Difficult to achieve, but with resources this would have a high impact We need investment in community and market education to accept new technologies People assume that the market won’t accept irradiation Need post harvest treatment for market access



Market access is more and more important Code of Practice and means of domestic market access need review.

Future issues#



In a lot of northern development application biosecurity is not considered Seeing northern Australia as the food bowl is a rash statement; need to look at what we can produce up there. This is not going to be traditional fruit and veggies. Any commercial development in the north is not likely to be a big threat as horticulture unlikely to be part of it

5.2 Climate Change


We already have fruit fly so unlikely to be an issue for us This is untrue – Qfly is spreading with climate change and free areas are under threat (e.g. TAS) or lost (e.g. Sunraysia.


Covered in: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.5, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1

A future without pesticides does not seem to be feasible Perhaps organic pesticides offer an opportunity But it is a goal We should be looking at no residues

Other comments • A big issue the increase in export and market expectation and aspirations – this needs to be given

more recognition in the introduction to the Plan • We really need evidence for market access; not just internationally but also inter-‐state • Such evidence needs to be science-‐based • Every season that passes is a lost opportunity for millions of dollars as the confidence of overseas

markets in our ability to deal with the issue declines • This is where regional bodies can help growers in collecting data

Appendix 1: Participants Mike Ashton Department of Agriculture & Fisheries [email protected]

Marius Collatz Bugs for Bugs marius@bugsforbugs Trevor Dunmall Australian Mango Industry Association Ltd [email protected]

Peter Hocking Bundaberg Fruit & Vegetable Growers [email protected]

Michael Kennedy Department of Agriculture & Fisheries [email protected]

Rachael Mackenzie GrowCom [email protected]

Allan Mahoney Bundaberg Fruit & Vegetable Growers Ross Maxwell NT Mango Industry Association [email protected]

Dan Papacek Bugs for Bugs [email protected]

Suzy Perry Department of Agriculture & Fisheries [email protected]

James Planck Department of Agriculture & Fisheries [email protected]

Andy Sheppard CSIRO [email protected]

Brian Thistleton Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries [email protected]

Rieks van Klinken CSIRO [email protected]

Peter Whittle Horticulture Innovation Australia Limited [email protected]

Pauline Wyatt Department of Agriculture & Fisheries [email protected]

Appendix 2: Agenda 11am – Welcome / introductions 11.15 – Purpose of workshop / role of National FF Advisory Committee (Short presentation Mike Ashton by with Q&A) 11.30pm – Overview of Plan (Presentation by Tony Clarke with Q & A) 12.15pm – Feasibility and impact (Facilitated whole group discussion) 12.30-‐1.00 – Light lunch 1.00 pm – Divide into pairs to go through the prioritisation sheet (can also happen in regions) 1.45 pm – whole group discussion on prioritisation exercise

(Facilitated as a focus group discussion where all pairs report on and discuss results) 2.20pm Final voting on priorities 2.40pm Where to from here? 4pm CLOSE

ATTACHMENT 4: Fruit Fly National RD&E Plan prioritisation – New South Wales

Introduction A prioritisation workshop was held on Tuesday 4 August at Coffs Harbour with 12 participants, (see Appendix 1). The workshop (see agenda in Appendix 2) started by explaining the purpose of the workshop and with everyone introducing him or herself. Satendra Kumar explained the role of the National Fruit Fly Advisory Committee, and then Tony Clarke gave an overview of the Plan and took questions. We then discussed the concepts of feasibility and impact for prioritising R, D&E with participants listing how they saw these concepts, as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Perceptions of what is meant by ‘feasibility’ and ‘impact’ Feasibility Impact Participants’ perceptions

Cost-‐effective Technically possible Time available Practical Legal Expertise Has other synergies

Efficacy Increase markets Increase production Increase profitability Decrease pesticide use Buy in from producers and markets Commercial and community outcomes



The group was then divided into smaller groups of 2-‐3 people to discuss the investment areas and subthemes of the plan. After each small group had discussed feasibility and impact we then discussed all items as a group. At the end, I requested each person to submit a new form with their individual prioritisation, which was informed by all that went prior.

Results In Table 2 below I have provided an overview of the individual scores for feasibility and impact and a collation of the responses as to whether each subtheme was of high, medium or low priority. As can be seen in Table 2, the only item where there was total agreement was on building local capacity in R, D and E (shaded in lilac). However, there was majority agreement that the following subthemes (shaded in blue) were of high priority:

• 1.1 Single national coordinating body and resourcing of R,D, E initiatives • 2.5 Support core science disciplines • 3.2 Replacing chemicals • 3.4 Individual and area-‐wide IPM • 4.1 Disinfestation tools • 4.2 Evidence based regulations







8.2 8.6 9 H 3 X M




4.8 5.6 4 X H 3 X M 5 X L



3.4 8.2 5 X H 6 X M 1 X L-‐M



8.2 8.5 12 X H



7.3 8.3 10 X H 2 X M




4.7 8 4 X H 8 X M



4.7 9.2 7 X H 5 X M




2.4 7.5 1 X H 5 X M 6 X L

Investment area






5.7 8.8 7 X H 5 X M




7.3 7.3 7 X H 5 X M



6.6 8.7 9 X H 3 X M



4.7 7.3 4 X M 8 X L

5.2 Climate Change


4.8 7.8 6 X M 6 X L


Covered in: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.5, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1

3.2 7.8 4 X M 8 X L





What sort of body would this be? This needs to be something that joins all those bodies existing together Need some immediate action




We have already had people on the ground and relationships in place We think it depends on the location; in some places this would be good, but in other places not Each region is different with different fruit fly issues and it is difficult to know who to call at the moment Growers talk to each other or go to produce stores and we can get conflicting information We need a conduit between researchers and national bodies to translate the science; at the moment there are no extension officers We [raspberry industry] have people in industry connecting dots on our issues and our problems but the industries are not well developed in other areas For the Blueberry industry we have a small number of has and we already have a network of people Each industry has its own biosecurity manual so we could have industry-‐based biosecurity officers Everything is done in industries so a regional biosecurity officer would be better In NSW we have government-‐industry funded extension officers – there are 6 industries we look after but other industries like strawberries etc do not benefit It is always good to get someone from DPI to show us direction



It is positive to get the community involved, though they may be spooked by it This can have high impact but low feasibility as it can be hard to get people on side Need to organise ongoing community education Transparency is very important as an industry, but with community education you will get some people coming to one meeting

Investment area


but not the next, and for them it’s all about chemicals It all comes back to feasibility, it depends on whether there is a strong need to communicate and educate the community about what a fruit fly is and how to deal with it; it can be difficult if the community does not come on board There are some positive examples, like for Swan Hill



Need to have people on the ground There is only one of me (in blackberry industry) and other industries do not have something like this



Hard to get people in the right area and train them up and keep then in the industry, but if you can do this then the impact is high




There is a big impact with new species The feasibility will depend on the infrastructure to cover R&D How feasible is it to manage risks given the economy of northern Australia? We need to increase the feasibility by looking at the pathways



Not sure how feasible this is, but if it is the impact is high Without those two chemicals, it is very hard to control fruit flies and we need to develop up replacements Growers want a cover spray, barriers are costly ad can take a long time You can use other chemicals, currently used for other purposes, which are less costly There are lots of steps involved, but growers would love to have it We [blackberry industry] have a permit to use chemicals but this is renewed only on a yearly basis If you look overseas there are already chemicals for controlling fruit flies; we need to ask chemical companies as it should be feasible



Depend on the location This should not be seen as a single tool but part of a wider package

Investment area




Need to address mechanisms that would help this sky rocket Need to bring in the community to make the feasibility higher Impact would be high if it works If you can get feasibility higher with community support then great




Impact high but feasibility around getting technologies right faces significant hurdles from time, cost and technical expertise; there are significant costs associated with this Need to test with individual varieties Post-‐harvest treatment is the last resort if all else fails End point treatment is required by some companies as it’s quicker It depends on tool and markets There are recognised costs involved, but internationally there has been success with cold storage treatments There is already knowledge and tools for disinfestation, but there are political problems with some of these and so e need to break political and trade agreement barriers



It is going to take awhile to put data sets together and get a trading partner to agree The end point is that we want market access

Future issues#



Question whether market or politically driven What are the impacts on other markets?

5.2 Climate Change


This is very complex in terms of feasibility but the impacts would be high Others thought the impact low and covered in 3.1 already Fruit fly could be adjusting to different climates; it is likely they will adapt It’s not just climate change that is a concern, but adaptation by various species It’s impact compared to other things is less important From a market point of view considering the environment perspective can be good

5.3 A future without

Covered in: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.5, 6.2, 6.3,

We do have some information already and the impact would be high in the longer term

Investment area


pesticides 7.1

The impact could be huge but the feasibility is low

Other comments It would be great to know “who is who in the zoo”. Who is doing what? Industry is confused about this Need a model where biosecurity officers are working close to industry Concern about local R&D capacity and resourcing for this given that government cost-‐cutting has driven capacity down on a state level Industry needs to also be involved in funding of R, D & E One of our biggest concerns is not incursions through northern Australia, but through Sydney and Melbourne, which would be devastating (e.g. spotted-‐wing drosophila)

Appendix 1: Participants First name Surname Organisation email Garry Atwal OZ Group [email protected] John Atwal OZ group [email protected] Jonathan Eccles Raspberries and

Blackberries, Australia

[email protected]

Alejandro Haro Costa Berries [email protected] Andrew Jessup NSW DPI Research [email protected] Satendra Kumar NSW DPI [email protected] Brittney Landsberry Costa Berries [email protected] Leigh Pilkington NSW DPI [email protected] Maurizio Rocchett Costa Group [email protected] Melinda Simpson NSW DPI [email protected] David Van Dorumele Mountain Blue

Farms [email protected]

Phillip Wilk NSW DPI [email protected]

Appendix 2: Agenda 1.15 – Welcome / introductions 1.30 – Purpose of workshop / role of National FF Advisory Committee (Short presentation Satendra Kumar by with Q&A) 1.45pm – Overview of Plan (Presentation by Tony Clarke with Q & A) 2.30pm – Feasibility and impact (Facilitated whole group discussion) 2.45pm – Divide into pairs to go through the prioritisation sheet (Afternoon tea available during this time) 3.30 pm – whole group discussion on prioritisation exercise

(Facilitated as a focus group discussion where all pairs report on and discuss results) 3.50pm Final voting on priorities 4.10pm Where to from here? 4.15pm CLOSE

Attachment 5: Fruit Fly National RD&E Plan prioritisation – Victoria

Introduction A prioritisation workshop was held at Tatura on Thursday 6 August with 20 participants (see Appendix 1). The workshop (see agenda in Appendix 2) started by explaining the purpose of the workshop and with everyone introducing him or herself. Gabrielle Vivienne-‐Smith explained the role of the National Fruit Fly Advisory Committee, and then Tony Clarke gave an overview of the Plan and took questions. We then discussed the concepts of feasibility and impact for prioritising R, D&E with participants listing how they saw these concepts, as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Perceptions of what is meant by ‘feasibility’ and ‘impact’ Feasibility Impact Participants’ perceptions

Applicability to a range of situations Cost-‐effectiveness High probability of success Sustainable Can be done in a reasonable time Capacity Practical Works across borders and areas

Greatest early adoption rate Practical in the long term Not labour intensive Capable of being integrated into current practices Cost efficiency and effectiveness Accepted internationally by stakeholders as well as the community High impact on pest IPM friendly



The group was then divided into smaller groups of 2-‐3 people to discuss the investment areas and subthemes of the plan. After each small group had discussed feasibility and impact we then discussed all items as a group. At the end, I requested each person to submit a new form with their individual prioritisation, which was informed by all that went prior. Three participants recorded their feasibility and impact scores as being high, medium or low whereas others put a specific score on these items. Some individuals chose not to hand in an individual sheet and I received 18 individual sheets (see Table 2).

Results In Table 2 below I have provided an overview of the individual scores for feasibility and impact and a collation of the responses as to whether each subtheme was of high, medium or low priority. As can be seen in Table 2, there was no total agreement from the group on any subtheme. However, there was majority agreement that the following subthemes (shaded in blue) were of high priority:

• 1.1 Single national coordinating body and resourcing of R,D, E initiatives • 2.1 Regionally-‐based fruit fly biosecurity officers • 2.4 Build local capacity in R&D • 3.1 Managing exotic risks

• 3.2 Replacing chemicals • 3.4 Individual and area-‐wide integrated pest management • 4.1 Disinfestation tools • 4.2 Evidence based regulations







6.9 1 X M 2 X L

8.3 1 X H 2 X L

9 H 1 M-‐H 6 X M 2 X L




6.9 3 X M

7.4 1 X H 2 X L

9 X H 5 X M 4 X L



6.1 2 X H 1 X M

8.1 2 X H 1 X M

7 X H 11 X M



7.3 2 X H 1 X M

8.5 2 X H 1 X M

11 X H 7 X M



7.5 3 X L

7.3 3 X L

6 X H 9 X M 3 X L




8.2 3 X H

8.4 3 X H

15 X H 3 X M

3.2 Replacing dimethoate &

2.2, 2.6 p. 24, Cover spays;

6.4 2 X H

8 2 X H

10 X H 6 X M

Investment area




fenthion chemicals asap

Physical barriers 1 X L 1 X L 2 X L




6.2 2 X H 1 X L

8 3 X H

8 X H 8 X M 2 X L



7.5 3 X H

9 3 X H

12 X H 4 X M 2.1 -‐ 2 X H 2.3 – 2 X M 2.5 – 2 X M 2.8 – 2 X L 2.9 – 2 X M 2.10 – 2 X H




6.7 2 X H 1 X L-‐M

8.2 3 X H

10 X H 6 X M 3.1 – 2 X H 3.2 – 2 X M 3.3 – 2 X M 3.4 – 2 X H 3.5 – 2 X L



7.5 3 X H

8.4 3 X H

14 X H 3 X M 1 X L



6.1 3 X L

6.3 2 X H 1 X L

4 X H 5 X M 9 X L

5.2 Climate Change


7.2 2 X H 1 X M

7.1 1 X H 2 X M

6 X H 11 X M 1 X L


Covered in: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.5, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1

3.5 1 X M 2 X L

6 1 X M 2 X L

2 X H 9 X M 7 X L





Difficult to have a good working model of someone coordinating because of state debates but the impact high If a coordinating body has cash then it will have a greater feasibility We questioned feasibility based on resourcing We thought feasibility was low as lot of regional groups depend on volunteers and so need to look at employing people. We are concerned they would not be focussed on regional areas. In regional areas you often have local leaders and knowledge that may not be captured by a large national body It would be better if there was communication between regional groups It has to be a priority as if you move fruit from one state to another then each state needs to know what is happening and negotiate this. They need to understand and have confidence in what is happening. It is a priority. If you look at plague locusts then that works by overcoming transaction costs. We have had 20 years of exclusion zones, and had 20 years of current state of play so a central body that administers the whole lot has merit. The national coordinating body is why we are here We could also learn from others that are not working at all; the national horticultural research network is not working; it is taking a long time to kick goals. Made up of states, unis and CSIRO. It was supposed to be a coordinating body. A key point is around the commitment and roles of people who are involved. When you go on national committees there are jurisdictional boundaries. Using a single top down approach is not going to work; need grass roots bottom up so can allocate resources. The regional stuff needs to feed in and be noticed.




There is a need for a regionally based fruit fly security officer. If you have someone across biosecurity issues for the region, that would be good. It has the scope to work very well but could be unsuccessful. Its impact is contingent on model

Investment area


used. They should not compete with local agronomist but rather value-‐add where they make the critical connections and so owned by the community. Models like the wild dog coordinators have been really successful like that. I think it’s not about duplication of efforts of current service providers who know the industry. It is about adding value and making connections. They need to make sure things are happening in the area and pull it together so area wide management works. Regional level industries – some have more emphasis on fruit flies than others; we could make it more attractive to those who see it as a lesser priority. In horticulture we have done it via commodity rather than across commodities – and if regional it has to be across commodities. We need to grow the model. Fruit fly is the model so we can make it into a cross industry issue. We spoke about a baiting and monitoring program – and we discussed where is the support for industry service providers to engage in the space. Where is the scientific support for these programs? You have to be able to fund it somehow. If you put these in place, where is it going to be located – in terms of an organisation to ensure long term viability? Governments chop and change and so does the HIA and industry and local govt has no money. The impact high but feasibility is hard. The changes we have seen in this Department and the costs associated does not mean they are there after next election; whereas industry has filled that void – much more value to look at this. We were looking at a grower’s perspective – we said medium feasibility as we are already over it with our agronomists doing the work. Growers have trust in their agronomists, but this doesn’t address community needs so why not have some community days about techniques to employ to control fruit flies. Grower training days as well would be good. Not just about the knowledge – need to know its been done and is successful. I know about traps and where to place them. But, we are assuming all growers over the top of it – but they are not; there are gaps there and this has effects on management of fruit flies. If neighbour not do anything then still have flies. This person makes sure things are implemented. The system needs to be set up so it provides evidence for market

Investment area


access into the future. Otherwise we are wasting our time. If there is not a biosecurity officer then people will step up. What will biosecurity officer do in our neck of woods? Should not be a government official. Need to have growers who are doing practices on their farm – needs to be a commercial gain so they have access into another market – they need to provide evidence that doing it back to a central point. This becomes a management issue. It does not come back will nilly. I hear same things all the time; until structure right uphill battle.



We do not see the will from local community and local government participating. I think in our area that local government and community involvement is important. But if Melbourne is your urban area then no hope but in smaller towns it works. The most things we have done are radio, which is almost no cost, and it has massive impact. Brochures don’t work though they cost a lot of money. Community involvement is important. Swan Hill is the size that works. We are in early stage with Goulburn Valley and had massive buy in so far with local government and the community – they have all been supportive at this stage, though too early to tell at this stage. Local community needs to understand that jobs etc. are at stake. It has worked successfully in Adelaide – when they did have outbreaks it was all reported by backyard residents. You can get this level of awareness and it works well. Impact is high when you get buy in from community – saves money from need to strip fruit or get rid of trees.



We had this as high priority, although a lot of principles of fruit fly can be applied nationally but you do need to understand the local environment. Having someone in this area is an advantage. The aim is to have national coordination and local extension and so this fits in with this. The applied stuff can be done regionally and locally. Feasibility – is there a political will from state government and others? RDE – there is an argument for more E and communication on local basis. The R&D might be more centrally located.



Adaptive research may be more important, although this may be important for breakthroughs and making quantum leaps, and

Investment area


this may be happening overseas. Throwing everything at core science is not good when there is a lot of info already out there that should be extended and adaptively applied, which is more important. Need to factor in how you are going to evaluate and how effective the adaptive research is. If not properly designed then may work one season and not again. Solutions have to be based firmly on science both for their effectiveness and to provide evidence for market access. Another issue is that most unis don’t get involved in core science around fruit flies and we need their buy in so if a central body could create this critical mass, that would be great.




Surveillance is very important and prevention is very important. We have it as a low priority based on geographical location. It is more feasible to control it in the north. But are there other pests in northern Australia that can move south? There are quite a few that could extend their range, e.g. From PNG – the market access issue is also important – the area freedom status is costly. Our trading partners are more technically astute and asking for evidence. I agree it’s a high priority. It says managing exotic risk, but if we have this covered across Australia then it has to make it easier for us for market access. It’s very unlikely to come in through northern Australia – more likely through Sydney and Melbourne. There’s potential for other species that we need to track – we need to check the maths. We need to put a reasonable investment into surveillance. We need a balance across all areas. We put medium for it being in northern Australia. It’s limited about the amount of surveillance we can do. If something gets infested from Kununurra it goes all the way to Perth. Trade entry point – Sydney and Melbourne are big entry points.



From the tomato industry point of view it is seen as medium priority We covered stone fruit and vegetables and we thought feasibility good as companies developing products and there is overseas data and this would have a high impact. There are plenty of multi nationals who can do

Investment area


this for us so we don’t need to do it. Is the market big enough to encourage them to do this? The question is not who does it, it is about priorities. It’s priority one for us so we can keep industries going until we can get other things happening There are effective tools out there now without using cover sprays. The patents for some chemicals likely to be changed or be deregulated; we have had no chemicals seen as suitable options. [Someone disagreed and said there are some options.] Some companies saying not worthwhile. The multi nationals may be working globally but Australia seen as minor in their eyes.




We started discussing whether eradication is reasonable and we thought low feasibility and impact high. Low prevalence would be a more achievable outcome. If only 3 years for implementing the plan, then could not achieve this. Eradicating flies in SOME regions may make a difference to how you look at this. Emphasis is more on eradication.



This is tied together – feasibility and impact high.



3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 p. 35-‐39 Refinement and improvement of existing treatments; protection; detection; new

From a regulatory perspective rely on people to do good work in this area, which has lead to good protocols interstate and internationally. The most disappointing thing is the numbers of people are dwindling. What happens if medfly comes to Victoria? Need to support researchers as this underpins regulations. One of the issues is what do you mean by disinfestation? If you irradiate there is then a lot

Investment area


research and data protocol; biology of death

of other work you need to do. If you hit them with enough radiation this may affect fruit. If dead maggots in fruit this is not good. The whole trade issue is very complex, and there are strategies to find live maggots in irradiated fruit. We had similar discussion but around disinfestation protocols and tools being a good insurance policy. Everyone suffers if a detection of just one maggot in a market. A sophisticated tool will be important. I suppose area wide management is another protocol to help disinfestation. If we get caught up on terminology then can’t achieve an outcome – we have had a clear objective, which depended on the business and region. This depends on having good science in this space to make sure we have the disinfestation arrangement that can be ramped up when needed. Some crops need different treatment to disinfest it – they can’t tolerate the protocol (eg cold treatment for stone fruit). Irradiation difficult to implement – but an important tool as no residues associated with this. Tools need to be targeted at the risk. QLD did stuff with strawberries in Sunshine Coast – protocol was to monitor when females active. Whatever treatment or method needs to be focussed when risk highest rather than treating whenever an outbreak. Need to clarify what meant by disinfestation – is it post harvest? Fumigation better than irradiation. This is a high priority but need some techniques that cover a range of crops.



We rated it high because we need data sets to negotiate market access. There is data out there so may be limited gaps to fill and critical tool in negotiating market access. Evidence-‐based regulations – does that mean its now based on fiction?

Future issues#



The impact is high, but as a priority it is low in terms of what we do. We had low feasibility as very expensive to do in the next 3 years. Has the Ord River scheme kicked off as feasible? There will be other things that will be a limiting factor. The pressure will come from PNG so pressure from top down and there is surveillance now – so we need to decide who pays for it to keep it going. We are going to grow more crops; will there be

Investment area


more traffic movement that would transport it? But you probably won’t put a lot of money into this now. There are external risks and internal risks where industry through bad luck or management has issues. The climate up there manifests itself significantly. If you think about all the other stuff re maintaining capability; what is to stop us using the people who have the capability to check this out? I don’t think any crop up there will be competitive (in domestic markets). It will only be export-‐focussed. I don’t think it will happen in the next 3 years. There is no way they can grow things cheaper up there than in Cobram/here. If issues up there then the national coordination group need a mechanism where people with capability could be employed up there.

5.2 Climate Change


I think the feasibility is a bit more complicated but depends on the aspects of climate change modelling How important is the distribution modelling to the area-‐wide work; can you do it properly without it? From a practical point of view modelling fruit fly movement around Goulburn Valley – not likely. Unless you can target a bit more of the data and check out where flies from new outbreaks coming from. This will require improvement in modelling tools. By all means put some work into it but needs to be properly assessed.


Covered in: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.5, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1

Low feasibility and perhaps unrealistic, but the impact could be really high if no pesticides. We put a line through it as not likely. NZ looked at zero residues. But the definition of pesticide -‐ what is it? We need to look at what minimum or low residues are as even with IPM there are residues. There is no such thing as no residues. It’s about no detectable residue -‐ that is important. The other issue is the definition of pesticides – is it a future without synthetic pesticide or what? It deserves some effort as what happens with trade barriers? I think there is scope to have a look at a number of alternatives.

Other comments during workshop • Industry might be asked to fund the biosecurity officers • There is a lot of discussion about who pays for biosecurity officers; growers are more likely to go

to an agronomist but somebody is required to link growers and the community • We can have IPM controls, but if not accepted (by markets) then pointless • If area-‐wide management is successful we need to know where incursions come from; it’s too late

if you wait until it is in the fruit

Comments made prior to the workshop Two people were unable to attend the workshop and sent in comments prior to the workshop. These are shown below and are unedited. The following comments were made by the Mildura Citrus Growers (and written by Vince DeMaria): 1. Citrus heavily reliant on cold treatment post harvest -‐ costly and damages fruit. Need for better alternatives. 2. Chemicals will be less acceptable in future, Europe already strict on citrus MRLs. Even bait spraying could create issues due to concentration on one piece of fruit. 3. Regional Biosecurity Officers are a good idea if managed by regional bodies/ industry, otherwise waste of time (argument about old dogs teaching new dogs bad tricks). 4. Need for extension to assist growers in implementing area wide mgt. Good trap data/info is a crucial element. 5. Need datasets in relation to risk in citrus during winter months. Is there potential for windows for trade during certain periods if data shows risk of infested product is highly unlikely? There is a huge amount in the plan, I hope Barnaby Joyce is prepared to put up some decent dollars to implement it. National approach is long overdue, how much has been wasted in the last 20 years. Good to see recognition of Traps and bait delivery systems in the plan. Colin Bain made the following comments prior to the workshop via Joelene Williams (Sunfruit Orchards): 1. There is a "now" requirement which is a fact sheet for growers and distributors on what strategies are advised for fruit fly management. It appears that no one wants to commit to a recommendation. There's still a lot of confusion and differing opinions as to what an effective program is. 2. The extension officer proposal is excellent, HAL supports one in the Riverina, the only issue I have is the lack of training for these individuals and who do they report to. The Riverina person reports through to the DPI in NSW and there are some issues and constraints there. 3. For the short term, 1-‐2 years R & D work should be done on baits (some work has already been done here) improving their efficacy, reducing Phyto, etc MAT to me is a very contentious issue and I believe that the companies who sell this concept should support work to prove its worth in a FF management program and how it impacts on monitoring. 4. Mass trapping evaluation would fit in this time frame, evaluate the border protection concept and effect in an urban situation ( basically the work you are doing ) 5. For the longer term, 3-‐5 year projects naturally you would have to look at SIT and all the specific requirements needed for this. There's a lot of work that HAL is supporting and it appears that CRC are either not aware of or are not acknowledging this needs sorting, do you know that HAL are appointing a national FF coordinating manager?

Appendix 1: Participants Name Organisation contact details Angus Crawford APAL [email protected] Bill Ashcroft Fresh Tomato Growers [email protected]

Charles Robin University of Melbourne [email protected] Dave Antrobus Syngenta [email protected]

David Williams Department of Economic Development Jobs Transport and Resources

[email protected]

Gabrielle Vivian Smith

Department of Economic Development Jobs Transport and Resources

Gabrielle.Vivian [email protected]

Gary D'Arcy Department of Economic Development Jobs Transport and Resources [email protected]

Jessica Lye AusVEG [email protected]

Joelene Williams

Greater Sunraysia Industry Development Committee [email protected]

Jonathan Eccles Rubus and Blackberries Australia [email protected] Liz Mann Australian Processing Tomatoes Research Council [email protected]

Mali Malipatil Department of Economic Development Jobs Transport and Resources

[email protected]

Martin Bluml Department of Economic Development Jobs Transport and Resources

[email protected]

Michael Tempini

Greater Sunraysia Industry Development Committee [email protected]

Ross Wall Northern Victorian Fresh Tomato Industry Development Committee [email protected]

Russell Fox IK Caldwell [email protected]

Simone Warner Department of Economic Development Jobs Transport and Resources

[email protected]

Sze Flett Department of Economic Development Jobs Transport and Resources [email protected]

Tony Filipi Fruit Growers Victoria [email protected]

Tony Siciliano Cobram and districts Fruit Growers [email protected]

Appendix 2: Agenda 12.30pm – light lunch 1 – Welcome / introductions 1.15 – Purpose of workshop / role of National FF Advisory Committee (Short presentation Gabrielle Vivian-‐Smith by with Q&A) 1.30pm – Overview of Plan (Presentation by Tony Clarke with Q & A) 2.15pm – Feasibility and impact (Facilitated whole group discussion) 2.30 pm – Divide into pairs to go through the prioritisation sheet (can also happen in regions) (Afternoon tea available during this time) 3.20 pm – whole group discussion on prioritisation exercise

(Facilitated as a focus group discussion where all pairs report on and discuss results) 3.40pm Final voting on priorities 3.55pm Where to from here? 4pm CLOSE

ATTACHMENT 6: Fruit Fly National RD&E Plan prioritisation – Commonwealth of Australia

Introduction A prioritisation meeting was in the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture (DoA) offices, Marcus Clarke St, Canberra, on the 20th of August. It was hosted by Dr Craig Hull ([email protected] ) and attended by six other DoA officers. Rodney Turner and Melanie Bottrill of Plant Health Australia also participated. The list of attendees is provided in Appendix 1. The meeting followed the form of previous prioritisation workshops in explaining the purpose of the meeting and background to the Plan. General discussion around the Plan and its elements was then held. It was considered appropriate that, for the DoA, only a single response be provided with respect to that organisation’s priorities with respect to the Plan. This was undertaken by Craig Hull in consultation with his colleagues and provided to Tony Clarke via email. This document follows as the statement of priority for the Commonwealth Government. Response of Commonwealth Department of Agriculture to National Fruit Fly R,D&E Plan. Email sent from Dr Craig Hull (DoA) to Prof Tony Clarke (QUT) on Friday 28/08/2015. I’d like to start by first congratulating the PBCRC on preparing the National Fruit Fly Research, Development and Extension Plan, with particular thanks to the RD&E writing group. It is a comprehensive document that provides good direction on the broad range of fruit fly RD&E requirements. We were grateful for the opportunity to participate in the regional workshops facilitated by the PBCRC on behalf of the National Fruit Fly Strategy Advisory Committee and provide input on the RD&E priorities from the Commonwealth perspective. Whilst management of endemic fruit fly pests is the responsibility of state and territory governments and industry, the Australian Government takes a strong leadership role because of the importance of fruit flies to trade. We see that the Australian Government’s key role is to:

• negotiate market access and certify export products so that Australian produce can enter international markets properly

• manage the biosecurity risk of exotic fruit flies to Australia • manage the invasions of exotic fruit fly species through natural pathways.

These responsibilities drive the Commonwealth RD&E priorities and we work collaboratively with state and territory governments, the horticulture industry, and research institutions to identify key issues.

Rather than use the spreadsheet that you provided to score the priority rating, I think it will be more instructive just to outline our broad priority areas from the RD&E plan. The two themes in the RD&E plan that are of the highest priority for the department are Theme 1: managing exotic risk and Theme 4:Market access and regulatory issues. Of course, there are other themes and sub-‐themes of importance that have an impact on biosecurity and market access and improvement. There is a large degree of crossover between the themes. Managing exotic risk This is part of the core business for the department and so we would consider all of the sub-‐themes as being of importance, and in particular sub-‐themes 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5. 1.2: Surveillance The department is heavily involved in surveillance and is always seeking to improve our capacity. We work collaboratively with the states and territories on surveillance issues. The importance of surveillance was recognised in the recent white paper. 1.4: Diagnostics Appropriate capacity in diagnostics supports our surveillance activities and provides us with critical information about what organisms are being detected at our border. The department is involved in maintaining and developing capacity through the Subcommittee on Plant Health Diagnostics (SPHD) and can help provide a coordinating role for any projects in this area. The department is looking at facilitating a proficiency testing program for fruit fly diagnosticians through SPHD. 1.5: Response Dealing with any incursions in the most efficient manner possible is critical to minimise impacts on trade. The broader impacts on industry also need to be considered as well as potential impacts on the environment and community. We work closely with the state and territory governments to provide appropriate responses. Market access and regulatory issues Supporting our horticultural producers to be market access ready is of high importance. 4.1.1 Tropical and lesser flies Whilst we recognise that Mediterranean fruit fly and Queensland fruit fly are the economically significant species in Australia, information on other species should be reviewed and updated so that complete information packages are available. This will help in preparedness should any of our international trading partners seek clarification on the pest status of fruit flies in Australia. 4.1.2 Queensland fruit fly complex This species has significant impact on horticultural exports. Greater understanding of the species complex is necessary and the department should be kept informed of any

developments in research on the systematics of this group so that we can be prepared for any potential impacts on market access. 4.1.3 Trade information Several industry groups have developed export market access strategies. The strategies are used to inform us of gaps in data that may impact export market access readiness. Targeting the immediate gaps in R&D that are holding up international market access could provide short term gains of great benefit. More industries are interested in this approach and any RD&E in this area will need to be properly coordinated with the department and Horticulture Innovation Australia Limited. 4.2.1 Systems approaches The department is currently working with industry to develop some guidance around systems approaches, both as a method of on-‐farm management as well as the potential for improved export market access. Whilst the concept of systems approaches has been around for some time, there is currently a lack of understanding around quantifying or measuring how efficacious the various aspects of a systems approach are. There is an opportunity to work with industry to further develop our understanding of systems approaches. 4.2.2 Area Freedom Area freedom is of vital importance for various regions around Australia for both Queensland fruit fly and Mediterranean fruit fly. Further research in areas such as the scientific basis for the size of suspension zones and reinstatement dates could have significant benefits for industry. 4.2.3 Areas of low pest prevalence This may be difficult to use in market access when fruit flies are involved and producers may not see the value of an area of low pest prevalence if an end point treatment is still required by the importing country. 4.2.4 Protocols for pest free areas and areas of low pest prevalence. We have a good understanding of the requirements for pest free areas. Better communication with growers is important, especially if a region is looking to develop new pest free areas. 4.2.5 Codes of practice Given that market access negotiations can be a long process, we also need a strategy for how we will consult and progress any changes to the CoP with a view to potential impacts on market access. Given potential sensitivities there would need to be appropriate coordination with the department and control of information. 4.2.6 ICAs

These provide improved domestic access and these can be used as a basis for international market access. The department provides guidance through the Subcommittee on Domestic Quarantine and Market Access. Any development of an ICA should be in alignment with international standards. Two aspects which are missing from theme 4 is for Pest Free Places of Production (PFPP) and Pest Free Production Sites (PFPS). Industry are becoming increasingly interested in PFPPs as Pest Free Areas become harder to maintain. The department will be looking at developing guidance in this area, in collaboration with Plant Health Australia. It is also important to acknowledge that great gains for industry can come from developments in market improvement as well as new market access. For instance, new technological developments in transport and packaging of fruit fly host commodities could be more cost effective and provide significant savings for producers. Other themes in the RD&E plan also have a high priority for the department. Many elements of Theme 2: Pre-‐harvest controls and Theme 3: Post-‐harvest measures are of critical importance both as a means of improving on-‐farm management to give better returns at the farm gate and also as tools to help facilitate export market access. New treatments could potentially be available in a short timeframe. Phenology and distribution models could provide useful data to be used in trade negotiations. And the department has a strong interest in all aspects of the Sterile Insect Technique and is investing heavily in this area. Finally, I would encourage any researchers to work closely with the department in the early stages of project development so that we can help produce research work of relevance to producers and that meets our international market access needs. We are also willing to provide guidance to researchers on potentially trade sensitive information that may be contained in their publications. Thank you again for helping facilitate the workshop. It was a very useful process for us and it may be worth considering running such workshops every few years to keep up with developments in fruit fly RD&E. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require some further input. I look forward to seeing the final outcomes from the regional workshops and discussing them at the next NFFSAC meeting. With kind regards, Craig. Dr Craig Hull National Fruit Fly Coordinator Plant Health Policy Department of Agriculture GPO Box 858 Canberra

ACT 2601 Australia Phone: +61 2 6272 3544 Email: [email protected] Appendix 1 Attendees Craig Hull, Commonwealth DoA, [email protected] Adam Powell, Commonwealth DoA, [email protected] Luke Osborne, Commonwealth DoA, [email protected] Russell Cant, Commonwealth DoA, [email protected] Matthew Smyth, Commonwealth DoA, [email protected] Glenn Bowman, Commonwealth DoA, [email protected] Jamie Nicholls, Commonwealth DoA, [email protected] Rodney Turner, Plant Health Australia, [email protected] Melanie Bottrill, Plant Health Australia, [email protected]

ATTACHMENT 7: Fruit Fly National RD&E Plan prioritisation – Tasmania Introduction A prioritisation meeting was held via teleconference on Wednesday 26 August with four participants: Simon Boughey (Cherry Growers Aust., [email protected]), Lionel Hill (Tas DPIPWE, [email protected]), Phil Pyke (Fruit Growers Tasmania, [email protected]), and Guy Westmore (Tas DPIPWE, [email protected]). Tony Clarke (PBCRC) facilitated the meeting, while Andrew Bishop was an apology. Lionel Hill followed up the meeting with a detailed email elaborating several issues. The meeting notes were compiled by Tony and modified/endorsed by participants. The teleconference followed the form of previous prioritisation workshops in explaining the purpose of the meeting and background to the Plan, while the priorities were identified through general discussion. The state priorities do not automatically map against the FF RD&E Plan, although the point was raised on several occasions that Tasmania needs to operate on the ‘precautionary principle’ with respect to fruit flies and needs to remain current with changes in fruit fly management technologies, fly distributions, and the politics of market access. As such there was general support for the National FF RD&E Plan. State priorities 1. Maintenance of Tasmania’s Pest Free Area Status Maintenance of Tasmania’s fruit fly Pest Free Area status is considered the key priority for the state. The grower representatives were highly supportive of the proactive role taken by the Tasmanian Government in maintaining the trapping networks required for regulatory purposes and urged other eastern states to reengage in monitoring. The following research and regulatory issues associated with maintaining/proving PFA status were raised.

1.1 Modification of the National Code of Practice for Fruit Fly Management It is considered that much of the Code is simply inappropriate for fruit flies in Tasmania. For example calculation of reinstatement times after an outbreak are not applicable to Tasmanian climatic conditions. Tasmania wishes to be considered not as a region where fruit flies could establish but are currently absent, but as a region where flies are absent because of a lack of climatic suitability. It is suggested that the National Code of Practice be rewritten to treat Tasmania as a region quite distinct from mainland Australia with respect to fruit fly biology and fruit fly management.

1.2 Specific research for maintaining/proving pest free status Specific research issues of value to Tasmania were:

(i) Accurate estimation of flight thresholds, so as to better time the start and end dates of trapping periods;

(ii) More research on overwintering of flies, especially with respect to length of winters, adult survival and low temperature mortality. It was noted that modelling needs to accurately capture scenarios where temperatures are very close to lower development thresholds. In insect modelling, physiological responses are such temperatures are non-‐linear and are not captured by predictive phenology models. Yet for Tasmania these are likely to be the most critical temperature for determining survival and longevity of the fly during winter months.

(iii) Data and modelling, additional to ii, to make a case that Tasmania is climatically unsuitable for fruit fly establishment for much or all of the year.

(iv) Scientific justification for the density of required trapping arrays and the distribution of traps in urban and rural areas. Justification also for having to maintain the current levels of ME traps (to prove absence of Oriental fruit fly) and Tri-‐lure traps (to prove absence of Mediterranean fruit fly) when both species have very low entry risk give current commodity pathways.

2. Pest free area status and market access into Tasmania Market access treatments were considered a priority for Tasmania; particularly with respect to the stringent requirements for fresh produce entering Tasmania. It was noted that approximately $4mill is spent annually fumigating fresh produce entering Tasmania, and any reduction or removal of this cost would greatly benefit consumers. Much of the fresh commodity supply coming into Tasmania arrives via mixed pallets from the Melbourne markets. While the commodities making up those pallets may have received approved fruit fly treatments, there is no easy mechanism to track these approvals once individual boxes of fruit/vegetables are re-‐palleted into mixed loads. As a result, each new pallet has to be fumigated before on-‐shipment to Tasmania. Currently this costs $100-‐$150/pallet (a cost directly passed to the consumer), the quality and shelf-‐life of produce is greatly reduced, and post fumigation venting requires a 3-‐day delay in product use. Irradiation was considered the preferred end point treatment by the fruit export industry for fresh produce entering Tasmania, especially if a commercial irradiation plant is established in Melbourne. However, DPIPWE noted that this would not reduce the cost to consumers and that the Tasmanian public may not be receptive to irradiated produce. Rather, their preferred option is to prioritise research to determine exactly when Tasmania is at risk of an incursive fruit fly population establishing (point 1.2 above). If it could be demonstrated and recognised that Tasmania is climatically unsuitable for fruit fly establishment for most of the year, then a very large reduction in the need to apply any treatment for produce entering Tasmania would be gained. 3. Other issues

3.1. Spotted wing Drosophila This fly is considered a high priority biosecurity threat to Tasmania and research is justified for both border security and industry response.

3.2. Australia’s other fruit flies

Tasmania recognises the need to be proactive with respect to Australia’s ‘lesser’ or ‘tropical’ fruit fly species. It would like to see the creation and publication of data sets which show the current distribution of the flies in mainland Australia and the provision of data which shows that Tasmania is climatically unsuitable for most (all?) of these species.

3.3. Brown Marmorated stink bug While not a fruit fly, Tasmania wished it noted that BMSB is of very high priority for fruit production in the state. Discussion around this insect raised the point that biosecurity threats to the Tasmanian horticultural industry extend beyond fruit fly. National Priorities Simon Boughey, as CEO of Cherry Growers Australia, discussed national fruit fly issues relevant to cherry growers. He acknowledged the complexity of fruit fly management and the differences in RD&E priorities between regions. He noted particularly the reinvigoration of fruit fly RD&E which is becoming apparent in Australia, but noted the following issues/questions for consideration by the NFFAC and other policy makers.

• Who will carry the cost of funding for operationalising fruit fly surveillance and management? Full reliance on growers will be uneconomic for those growers.

• The need for national level fruit fly legislation for issues such as abandoned orchard management.

• The requirement for full stake-‐holder engagement, where stakeholders include growers, the wider public, policy makers and politicians.

• The need for a national fruit fly monitoring and surveillance program.

Documents

Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly Research ... Research... · Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly Research, Development & Extension Plan Plant Biosecurity