Weigh up risks, ben­e­fits, costs be­fore sign­ing GIA

The Orchardist - - >>avocado Forum -

in­ter­est around the cur­rent sys­tem, the re­sponse sys­tem and in re­gard to mar­ket ac­cess.

When de­cid­ing whether or not to vote in favour of sign­ing up to the GIA next year, she said grow­ers have to con­sider the like­li­hood and ex­tent of biose­cu­rity risks, and weigh that up against the ben­e­fits and costs of be­ing part of the GIA. How­ever she

Un­der the Deed noted that in­dus­tries that don't sign up and ben­e­fit from any sub­se­quent biose­cu­rity re­sponse car­ried out un­der GIA could be charged costs un­der the Biose­cu­rity Act.

NZ Av­o­cado's pro­gramme and biose­cu­rity man­ager, Brad Siebert, said that NZ Av­o­cado sup­ported sign­ing the GIA.

How­ever he said the in­dus­try will need to agree on how to fund its in­volve­ment, with one op­tion be­ing a sep­a­rate biose­cu­rity levy set at zero and only ac­ti­vated if a biose­cu­rity re­sponse is re­quired.

Con­sul­ta­tion with grow­ers via meet­ings, work­shops and other com­mu­ni­ca­tion chan­nels will con­tinue un­til the end of the year, with the aim of se­cur­ing a man­date from grow­ers early in 2015.

He said should grow­ers agree, sign­ing up to the GIA would take place in April 2015.

The pre­sen­ta­tions prompted some de­tailed ques­tions from the floor, in­clud­ing queries around the ex­tent of cost re­cov­ery likely to be sought by the gov­ern­ment / MPI, an in­di­ca­tion of what costs might be in­volved for the in­dus­try, and how ben­e­fi­cia­ries of any re­sponse are de­fined. While some ques­tions, such as defin­ing ben­e­fi­cia­ries, would be up to the in­dus­try to an­swer as part of any GIA sub­mis­sion, Lois Ran­som con­firmed that MPI's cur­rent fund­ing lev­els for biose­cu­rity would re­main.

For fur­ther in­for­ma­tion on the GIA or the GIA con­sul­ta­tion process see: www.gia.org.nz www.nza­v­o­cado.co.nz

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.