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

Transcription

1 Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly Research, Development & Extension Plan Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre September 14, 2015 Report written by Jenni Metcalfe

2 PBCRC Econnect Communication 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 The need for national coordination and resourcing 7 RD&E INVESTMENT AREA: EXTENSION, COMMUNITY AND CAPACITY Regionally based fruit fly biosecurity officers Fruit fly not just a grower issue need for community involvement Regional differences Capacity build local capacity in RD&E Support core science disciplines 9 RD&E INVESTMENT AREA: CONTROLLING FRUIT FLIES Managing exotic risks, especially through northern Australia Replacing dimethoate and fenthion chemicals Eradicating fruit flies in some regions Individual and area-wide integrated pest management 11 RD&E INVESTMENT AREA: TRADE AND MARKET ACCESS Disinfestation tools Evidence-based regulations 12 RD&E INVESTMENT AREA: FUTURE ISSUES Northern Australian Development Climate Change A future without pesticides 15 Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan

3 PBCRC Econnect Communication Summary The National Fruit Fly Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was written in 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. Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 1

4 PBCRC Econnect Communication 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 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 Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 2

5 PBCRC Econnect Communication 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 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, Perth, Western Australia July 27, Brisbane, Queensland and July 29, (2 from NT) Northern Territory Coffs Harbour, NSW August 4, Tatura, Victoria August 6, (+ 2 via ) Canberra, Commonwealth August. 20, Department of Agriculture Teleconference, Tasmania August 26, 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. Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 3

6 PBCRC Econnect Communication 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 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. Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 4

7 PBCRC Econnect Communication 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 Coordination Extension, community and capacity Controlling Fruit Flies Controlling fruit flies Trade and Market access Future issues Description 1.1 Single national coordinating body and resourcing of R,D, E initiatives 2.1 Regionallybased 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 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 4.1 Disinfestation Tools 4.2 Evidencebased regulations 5.1 Northern Australian development 5.2 Climate Change 5.3 A future without pesticides Overall priority given by: SA WA Q/NT NSW VIC TAS DA Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 5

8 PBCRC Econnect Communication 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. Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 6

9 PBCRC Econnect Communication RD&E investment area: Coordination 1.1 The need for national coordination and resourcing 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. 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. Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 7

10 PBCRC Econnect Communication RD&E investment area: Extension, community and capacity 2.1 Regionally based fruit fly biosecurity officers National Fruit Fly RD&E Plan - KEY RECOMMENDATION: 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. 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 2.2 Fruit fly not just a grower issue need for community involvement "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 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. Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 8

11 PBCRC Econnect Communication 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. Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 9

12 PBCRC Econnect Communication RD&E investment area: Controlling fruit flies 3.1 Managing exotic risks, especially through northern Australia National Fruit Fly RD&E Plan - KEY RECOMMENDATION: 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. 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 National Fruit Fly RD&E Plan - KEY RECOMMENDATION: 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. 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. Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 10

13 PBCRC Econnect Communication 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 National Fruit Fly RD&E Plan - KEY RECOMMENDATION: 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. 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. National Fruit Fly RD&E Plan - KEY RECOMMENDATION: 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. 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) Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 11

14 PBCRC Econnect Communication RD&E investment area: Trade and market access 4.1 Disinfestation tools National Fruit Fly RD&E Plan - KEY RECOMMENDATION: 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. 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 National Fruit Fly RD&E Plan - KEY RECOMMENDATION: 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. 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 Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 12

15 PBCRC Econnect Communication 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) Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 13

16 PBCRC Econnect Communication RD&E investment area: Future issues 5.1 Northern Australian Development 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 userfriendly diagnostics to separate native pest fruit flies from native non-pests and exotics. 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) Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 14

17 PBCRC Econnect Communication 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) Regional prioritisation of the National Fruit Fly RDE Plan Page 15

18 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.

19 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 Coordination Description Subthemes Feasibility Average / Single national coordinating body and resourcing of R,D, E initiatives 6.5 p. 49 Managerial Infrastructure Impact Average / 10 Priority rating High, Medium, Low X H 1 X M- H 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 6.1 p. 46 Regional support 5.1, 5.2 p Fruit fly as a socio- political issue; Growers and the community as full partners X H 3 X M 7.7 (1 person rated 5.2 as 5) X H 2 X M- H 1 X M Controlling Fruit Flies 2.4 Capacity build local capacity in RD&E 2.5 Support core science disciplines 3.1 Managing exotic risks especially through northern Australia 6.2, p Research & Development Capacity; Professional Networks; Physical Infrastructure 7.1 p Core sciences 1.1, , p Entry pathways; surveillance; invasion biology; diagnostics 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 X M 1 X H 1 X M- H 1 X L- M X H 3.2 Replacing dimethoate & fenthion chemicals asap 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

20 Investment area Description Subthemes Feasibility Average / 10 Impact Average / 10 Priority rating High, Medium, Low X M 5 X H for national; M for SA Controlling fruit flies 3.3 Eradicating flies in some regions 2.4, 2.11 p. 25, 29 Lure and kill; regional eradication X H Trade and Market access 3.4 Individual and area- wide integrated pest management 4.1 Disinfestation Tools ; 2.5, 2.8, 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 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 p Refinement and improvement of existing treatments; protection; detection; new research and data protocol; biology of death 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 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 X H Future issues 5.1 Northern Australian development 5.2 Climate Change 1.5 p. 21 Response Plus p (see 3.1 above) 2.7 p. 29 Phenology and distribution models X L 4 X M 2 X L in the short term; high in long term X M

21 Investment area Description Subthemes Feasibility Average / A future without pesticides Covered in: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.5, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1 Impact Average / 10 Priority rating High, Medium, Low 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 Coordination Extension, community and capacity Description Subthemes Discussion points 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 6.5 p. 49 Managerial Infrastructure 6.1 p. 46 Regional support 5.1, 5.2 p Fruit fly as a socio- political issue; Growers and the community as full partners 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 2.4 Capacity build local capacity in RD&E 2.5 Support core science disciplines 6.2, p Research & Development Capacity; Professional Networks; Physical Infrastructure 7.1 p Core sciences 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

22 Investment area Controlling Fruit Flies Controlling fruit flies Trade and Market access Description Subthemes Discussion points 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 4.1 Disinfestation Tools 1.1, , p Entry pathways; surveillance; invasion biology; diagnostics 2.2, 2.6 p.24, Cover sprays; Physical barriers 2.4, 2.11 p. 25, 29 Lure and kill; regional eradication ; 2.5, 2.8, 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 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 p Refinement and improvement of existing treatments; protection; detection; new research and data protocol; biology of death (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

23 Investment area Future issues# Description Subthemes Discussion points 4.2 Evidence- based regulations 5.1 Northern Australian development 5.2 Climate Change 4.1, 4.2 Market and access data sets 1.5 p. 21 Response Plus p (see 3.1 above) 2.7 p. 29 Phenology and distribution models 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 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 The distribution models are important Important to find out likely fruit fly adaptations with climate change 5.3 A future without pesticides 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.

24 Appendix 1: Participants Name Lastname Organisation Steve Burdette Costa Group Gary Cox BSA/DIRSA Peter Crisp PIRSA/SARDI Tim Grieger SA Fresh Fruit Grower Dave Hall BSA/Plant Health Con Poulos Citrus Aus/NFFAC Hilke Ppiros Apricot Grove Nick Secomb PIRSA/SARDI Ian Sparnon Cherry Growers SA Grant Wotton Cherry Growers Aust/Grower Will Zacharin PIRSA/SARDI

25 Appendix 2: Agenda 12pm Lunch / snack Welcome / introductions 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 3.20pm 3.30pm Final individual voting on priorities Where to from here? CLOSE

26 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 Participants perceptions My list Feasibility Technical know how Money Capital Time R&D Skill Funding Capability Participation Capacity Impact 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 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

27 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 Coordination Extension, community and capacity Description Subthemes Feasibility Rating High, Medium Low 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 2.4 Capacity build local capacity in RD&E 6.5 p. 49 Managerial Infrastructure 6.1 p. 46 Regional support 5.1, 5.2 p Fruit fly as a socio- political issue; Growers and the community as full partners 6.2, p Research & Development Capacity; Professional Networks; Physical Infrastructure 5 X M 2 X H Impact Rating High, Medium Low 5 X H 2 X L Priority rating High, Medium, Low 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 7 X H (but 2 said L where fruit fly endemic) 5 X H 2 X M 7 X H (but 2 said L where fruit fly endemic) 7 X M