William McCook: Increased farmer levies getting results

The Animal Health Board welcomes Allan Barber's comments - that he does not wish to downplay the importance of bovine TB control or the board's success in reducing TB levels in cattle and deer herds (Rural Delivery, November 7).

However, some of his comments on the board's expenditure and activity need to be placed in context.

The board's total expenditure did increase significantly between 2001-2003. This mainly reflects the phasing-in of higher funding levels to implement a new national TB strategy objective the board proposed in 2001, to meet the internationally agreed standard for "official freedom" from bovine TB, which is a herd TB prevalence rate of 0.2 per cent.

The substantial rise in farmer levies (matched by a corresponding increase in Crown funding) associated with this has largely gone towards paying for a greatly expanded possum control programme which also sets much more demanding targets for possum control contracts (TB-infected possums being the main cause of infection in cattle and deer).

In 2001, our possum-control operations covered 4 million ha, while in 2003 we were able to carry out intensive possum control over 7.8 million ha.

Disease control expenditure (mainly associated with on-farm TB testing, movement control, database management, call centre and information services) also increased but it is wrong to link this to the introduction of contestable contracts and greater in-house management by the board.

Disease-control contracts are now much more prescriptive, detailed and performance-oriented than they were in 2001 and they are subject to far more rigorous audit and assurance processes.

Under previous monopoly supply arrangements with AgriQuality, the board had little control over disease control procedures, performance or standards.

This lack of control over core business activity was not acceptable to the board or its funders.

Overall, total board expenditure remains in line with the projections in our 2001 strategy proposal and we have no mandate or intention to increase those costs over the duration of the strategy.

The present target of 0.2 per cent of infected herds by 2013 was widely supported during consultation on the 2001 proposal and was still overwhelmingly supported in a farmer survey last year.

However, it is fair to debate the continuing relevance of this objective in the face of changing industry or market circumstances.

A recent change has been acceptance by the World Animal Health Organisation that meat inspection and milk pasteurisation standards should be recognised by countries which import meat and dairy products from countries which are not yet free from bovine TB.

This is good news for our exporters because it reduces the risk of regulated trade barriers against New Zealand based on herd TB prevalence.

However, this shift in the official position may not necessarily protect New Zealand from possible adverse consumer perception of the quality of our meat and dairy products.

We must also keep in mind that any major relaxation in TB control effort now would soon see a resurgence of the disease to levels where the impact on farming operations would be serious.

Future directions and objectives for TB strategy will need to be considered and consulted on in a full review of the strategy, which in law must start by mid-2009.

Finally, the board has no new proposals for national livestock identification. It introduced compulsory identification of cattle and deer in 1999 as an aid to tracing sources of bovine TB.

Recent proposals for an enhanced animal identification and tracing system have come from a working party of industry, farming and Government representatives. The board supports this initiative but is not seeking any mandate to increase the scope or size of its own activities.

* William McCook is chief executive of the Animal Health Board.