riate because they create the biosecurity risk that services funded by the BSEL are designed to manage. Importers are also the direct beneficiaries of the services that allow them to bring their goods into New Zealand. Charging the importer also supports efficiency, as it provides incentives for importers to take steps to reduce risk, which avoids extra inspection charges. This is equitable as it ensures that those that benefit more and create more risk pay more of the costs3.
Who is paying now?
Here in Australia, the Greenlife Industry is committed to sharing our load of the national biosecurity responsibility. The industry has invested in excess of $5.7 million in biosecurity focused projects including the National Nursery Industry Biosecurity Program (NY15004) and the Improving Pest Management for the Nursery Industry (NY17009) project and in funding response plans including Tomato potato psyllid, Citrus canker, Banana freckle and Brown Marmorated stink bug. Greenlife Industry Australia is also a signatory to the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed (EPPRD), a formal legally binding agreement between Plant Health Australia (PHA), the Australian Government, all state and territory governments and national plant industry body signatories. This deed covers the management and funding of responses to EPP incidents, including the potential for owner reimbursement costs for growers. 0.25% of the Nursery Levy is funnelled into plant health to help fund these responses.
Greenlife Industry Australia
Greenlife Industry Australia believes that risk creators and risk beneficiaries should contribute more fully to the cost of risk management measures in proportion to the risks they create and/or benefits they gain. A serious biosecurity incursion, such as that posed by the Asian gypsy moth, via imports not associated with our industry could cost Greenlife businesses greatly. These costs could include loss of sales revenue due to loss of access to markets (national or international), or because of lower product quality and/or higher costs of production. We will therefore continue to work with the Federal Government to find alternative mechanisms to ensure that importers bringing in products that place other industries at risk share the financial responsibility for national biosecurity.
1. Plant Health Australia 2019, National Plant Biosecurity Status Report 2018 [JM1] , Canberra, ACT, viewed 7 July 2020, https://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/National-Plant-Biosecurity-Status-Report-2018.pdf (p50)
2. Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Gypsy moth (Lymantria spp.), viewed 7 July 2020, https://www.agriculture.gov.au/pests-diseases-weeds/plant/exotic-gypsy-moth#keep-gypsy-moth-lymantria-spp-out-of-australia
3. Biosecurity New Zealand 2019, Investing in Protecting the Border Proposals to Update Cost Recovery for New Zealand’s Biosecurity System, Biosecurity New Zealand Discussion Paper No: 2019/01, Ministry for Primary Industries, viewed 6 July 2020, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/37922-discussion-paper-proposed-updates-to-biosecurity-cost-recovery-final-pdf4. Craik, W, Palmer, D & Sheldrake, R 2017, Priorities for Australia’s biosecurity system, An independent review of the capacity of the national biosecurity system and its underpinning Intergovernmental Agreement, Canberra, viewed 7 July 2020, https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/sitecollectiondocuments/biosecurity/partnerships/nbc/priorities-for-aus-bio-system.pdf (p121)