Potential risks arising from the commercial use of bumblebees
3.1
Submitters opposed to the commercial use of bumblebees argued that such
a proposal presents significant risks to the environment, biosecurity and
agriculture. Submitters also suggested native bees as an alternative pollution
option and argued that further research is required to establish the
effectiveness of native bees for commercial pollination.
Environmental risks
3.2
The population of feral bumblebee in Tasmania is well established. Some
submitters stated that the environmental impacts in Tasmania have been minimal.
The University of Tasmania and Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture (TIA), while
noting that there have been limited empirical studies, stated:
...with the existing population already widespread, commercial
bumblebee production is unlikely to add any additional impact on the
conservation status of other species or ecological communities.[1]
3.3
Other submitters, however, highlighted the invasive nature of the
species and the wide range of environmental risks associated with bumblebees.
The following paragraphs examine this evidence.
Possible distribution
3.4
The major concern with the commercial use of bumblebees is the invasive
nature of species. While it is acknowledged that the existing feral population
has a low genetic diversity, they have been highly invasive and have now spread
throughout Tasmania.[2]
Many submitters commented that improved characteristics through breeding would
enable bumblebees to establish more widely and in greater density should they
escape from greenhouses.
3.5
The committee received evidence that the bumblebee is considered an
invasive species wherever it has been introduced.[3]
The Department of the Environment and Energy (the department) commented:
Internationally B. terrestris has been shown to be
very invasive—in almost all regions/countries where B. terrestris has
been released, it has established wild or feral colonies. This has occurred in
countries where no native Bombus species existed, such as New Zealand and
Australia, and also in regions where native Bombus species were present such as
Europe, the Middle East (Israel), Asia (Japan, Korea and China), North America
and South America.[4]
3.6
Dr Peter McQuillan, University of Tasmania, provided further information
on the invasive nature of bumblebees and noted that B. terrestris and a
second European bumblebee species have established in Argentina and Chile. He
commented that the second bumblebee species had presumably established from a
single individual, and had spread widely to occupy most of the available
habitat that it can tolerate. Dr McQuillan concluded that bumblebees have
'a history of invasibility from small populations or even potentially from a
single individual. It is a rare event, but it is not zero'.[5]
3.7
In addition, the department noted that studies in Poland showed a high
proportion of wild bumblebees had descended from greenhouse populations, being
the offspring of queens which had escaped from greenhouses or workers which
were conducting foraging flights outside the greenhouse. Further studies have
shown that bumblebees in greenhouses, despite the abundant food source within
the greenhouse, seek out other plants if given the opportunity.[6]
3.8
The department went on to comment that these studies provided evidence
that bumblebees escape greenhouses used for tomato growing. Further, the
department stated that 'it is plausible that bumblebees would seek alternative
pollen sources if used in commercial glasshouses'. As a consequence, density of
bumblebees would increase around glasshouses.[7]
3.9
A further matter raised in evidence was the possible distribution of
bumblebees should they reach the mainland. As part of the 2008 application to
list the bumblebee on the live import list, modelling was undertaken to chart
the possible distribution of bumblebees should they establish on the mainland.
The modelling showed that bumblebees could establish over much of the southern,
south western and eastern parts of Australia.[8]
3.10
Dr McQuillan also commented on the possible distribution of bumblebees
should they establish on the mainland. He stated:
We need to be careful now as to the opportunities we open up
that may come back to bite us in terms of the species becoming a more serious
environmental pest than it already is. That is why you would not want them to
get onto the mainland, because they would expand quite effectively over the
cooler south-eastern part of the mainland, across the Mount Lofty Ranges and
perhaps near Perth.[9]
3.11
The invasive nature of the bumblebee has already been recognised by the
Victorian and New South Wales Governments: the Victorian Government has listed the
introduction of the bumblebee as a potentially threatening process while the
New South Wales Government has listed the introduction of the bumblebee as a
key threatening process.[10]
3.12
In response to this evidence, Mr Phil Pyke, Fruit Growers Tasmania,
asserted that bumblebees would not survive on the mainland due to the climate
of 'superheated days'. Mr Pyke noted that the feral population are European
bumblebees suited to a temperate climate.[11]
3.13
In relation to the escape of bumblebees, Mr Marcus Brandsema, Protected
Cropping Australia, stated that 'queen excluders', used overseas to prevent the
bee exiting the hive, could be used in Tasmania. He noted that if the queen
does not escape, bumblebees cannot replicate.[12]
3.14
The University of Tasmania and TIA also noted that European studies suggested
that male bumblebees are most likely to escape and are mating with endemic
queens. It was further stated that 'in the case of the proposal for Tasmania,
there are no endemic bumblebees other than the existing invasive population'.[13]
However, it was submitted that queens are most relevant to colonisation and
devices to prevent the queen escaping should be fitted to hives. In addition,
hives should be destroyed before new queen production can be undertaken to
minimise queen dispersal.[14]
Adverse environmental impacts
3.15
The department noted that research on the environmental impacts of
bumblebees throughout the world is limited.[15]
However, CSIRO outlined a range of adverse environmental impacts of bumblebees
which have occurred:
In Japan and South America Bombus terrestris is
considered a harmful invader because of the negative impact it has on local
environments. It can harm native bees through direct competition for food and
nest sites...and can be a conduit for new diseases into the bee community...In some
places invasive Bombus have become such abundant and aggressive flower
visitors, they damage the flowers of commercially important species, leading to
reduced crop production and losses for producers.[16]
3.16
Similarly, the committee received evidence which outlined the possible
adverse environmental impacts of bumblebees in Australia. It was noted that
bumblebees exhibit a range of characteristics which enable to them to establish
quickly and to impact negatively on native ecosystems. These characteristics
include having a generalist foraging strategy, high reproductive capacity, few
natural predators, the ability to be active in a range of temperatures and
environmental conditions, and a high dispersal rate.[17]
3.17
Submitters argued that these impacts could be exacerbated by an increase
in the density, or improved breeding, of the existing feral pollution through
commercial activities.[18]
Dr McQuillan, University of Tasmania, stated:
...[the bumblebee populations in Tasmania] look to be on a
plateau and have been for at least 15 years, I would say. That may well be due
simply to the fact that they are highly inbred and the populations are limited
by that genetic inbreeding, but if you diversify the genetic base of the
species they may step up to much higher populations because they are more
vigorous, they are more fecund, they tolerate the conditions better—whatever it
might be.[19]
3.18
Dr Andrew Hingston commented similarly:
If bumblebees are deployed in Tasmanian greenhouses escaping
bumblebees will increase the density of the species in the immediate vicinity,
potentially increasing the ecological impact of the species in the local area
and possibility of it spreading to the Australian mainland.[20]
3.19
Other submitters also commented on the effects of improved genetic
diversity. Dr Halcroft stated:
With an increase in genetic diversity comes an increase in
species fitness and vigour...This could potentially lead to enhanced aggression
and competition with native flower-visitors, at floral resources. Increased
hybrid vigour could also see an increase in individual colony populations,
which would increase overall floral resource competition and also increase the
incidence of exotic weed pollination and weed seed distribution...[21]
Competition for food sources
3.20
It was stated that bumblebees may compete for food sources with native
bees and other species.[22]
Dr Hingston advised that the bumblebees have the potential to compete with a
wide variety of native animals for nectar and pollen and that there is
'evidence of bumblebees displacing native Tasmanian bees from flowers through
competition'.[23]
Dr Halcroft noted that a 2004 report by the NSW Office of Environment and
Heritage Scientific Committee determined that bumblebees were a threat to
native species. Bumblebee colonies contain between 300 and 1000 workers which
compete heavily with flower-visiting native animal species, both vertebrate and
invertebrate.[24]
3.21
The University of Tasmania and TIA also reported on the competition for
food sources:
In some flowers such as native heath (Epacris impressa)
bumblebees have been observed as nectar robbers, stealing nectar from flowers
but not successfully causing pollination in the process. Similarly, some
reduction of available nectar due to bumblebee consumption in local areas is
also hypothesised in regions where nectar is in short supply but this has not
been quantified.[25]
Less effective pollination of
native plants
3.22
The department commented that research has shown that bumblebees may affect
the pollination of native plants and seed production. Bumblebees foraging on
some native plants resulted in fewer visits by its native pollinator. As
bumblebees are not as effective at transferring pollen as native bee species,
this may reduce pollination and seeding rates of native plants. As a
consequence, species dependent on these native plants may be affected.[26]
Swift parrot
3.23
The potential risk to the critically endangered swift parrot was noted
by some submitters. The Tasmanian Government noted that bumblebees could reduce
nectar available to the swift parrot:
In Tasmania, potential impacts to threatened species have
been identified with B. terrestris under some conditions reducing
eucalypt nectar availability to the critically endangered swift parrot (Lathamus
discolor) in spring, which may negatively impact the parrots'
reproductive output.[27]
3.24
Dr Hingston also pointed out the potential for bumblebees to compete
with the swift parrot for nectar, including during the swift parrot breeding
season:
This includes competing for nectar of Eucalyptus trees with
the Critically Endangered swift parrot Lathamus discolor...Indeed,
bumblebees markedly reduced nectar standing crops in two trees of E. ovata
in an area where swift parrots foraged on this species of tree.[28]
3.25
Dr Hingston added that swift parrots are more effective than bumblebees
at pollinating the Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus).[29]
Biodiversity
3.26
Submitters also suggested that there are risks to biodiversity from the spread
of weeds through bumblebee activity. The department noted that there is
evidence from Tasmania and New Zealand that some previously minor weeds, for
example tree lupin, become much more prevalent and problematic as bumblebee
numbers increase. As bumblebees utilise both native and introduced plant
species in Tasmania, changes to pollination rates of introduced plant species
could result in more successful pollination and therefore higher seed
production rates. The department commented that:
...this may result in an increase in abundance of those plants
over native species and therefore impact any species dependent on the native
plants such as other insects, animals or birds.[30]
3.27
The Tasmanian Government also noted the link between the feral
bumblebees and the spread of weeds. It stated that there is now evidence of a
positive link between the spread of weeds and the presence of introduced B.
terrestris around the world including evidence to support the enhanced
pollination of weeds in Tasmania. It went on to note that currently many weeds
in Tasmania originate from Europe where they have evolved complex mutualistic
relationships with bumblebees. This could result in increased seed production
and dispersal in these species. Research has also indicated that several
species of introduced plants have become more invasive in Tasmania since bumblebees
arrived.[31]
3.28
Submitters pointed to a range of weeds that have become more invasive in
Tasmania since the arrival of bumblebees including Rhododendron ponticum,
Solanum marginatum, Buddleja davidii, Agapanthus praecox and foxglove.[32]
CSIRO pointed to the potential for the increase of Cytisus scoparius
(Scotch broom). This weed is of concern in a number of states and is known to
be well pollinated by bumblebees. CSIRO commented that the potential for
bumblebees to accelerate the spread of Scotch broom was one of the primary
reasons for the New South Wales Government to list the introduction of Bombus
terrestris as a key threatening process.[33]
3.29
The department stated that weeds impact on biodiversity by out-competing
native plants and degrading habitat. Almost all Australian native vegetation
communities have been invaded, or are vulnerable to, invasion by introduced
species that 'could result in changes to the structure, species composition,
fire frequency and abundance of native flora and fauna'.[34]
The impact of increased density of weeds on agricultural production is
discussed below.
3.30
It was also noted that bumblebees are nectar robbers, that is, the bee
steals nectar from the flower by cutting a hole at the flower base rather than
entering the plant and interacting with pollen stamens. As a consequence, the
hole may be used by other nectar feeding species without entering the flower,
thereby reducing pollination and cross-pollination. There may also be insufficient
nectar left for the usual pollinator species leading to fewer visits to the
plant. This may result in decreased pollination rates and seed production in
native plants.[35]
3.31
It has also been suggested that the greater foraging activity of
bumblebees (they are larger and able to forage for greater lengths of time than
honey bees and native bees) may result in nectar or pollen being depleted by
the time other bee species become active. As a consequence, the diversity and
abundance of native bees may be altered.[36]
Biosecurity risks
3.32
Concerns about biosecurity risks focussed on the introduction of
diseases and pests and the incentive for illegal imports of both bumblebees and
other illegal species.
Diseases and pests
3.33
A major concern for submitters was the risk related to the introduction
of new pathogens to the Australian environment. CSIRO commented that while it
may be considered that using the feral population will ameliorate those risks,
this may not be the case. CSIRO stated that:
...the use of bumblebees in commercial operations may change
the dynamics of disease transfer within existing populations, because
bumblebees will be transported and managed in Tasmania in a way that differs
radically from their current free-living circumstances. This could increase the
risk of disease transfer from bumblebees to managed European honeybees (Apis
mellifera) in and around the managed greenhouse environment.[37]
3.34
Of greater concern to submitters was the potential for diseases and
pests to be introduced through the importation of new genetic material. The
committee notes that the Tasmanian Government and supporters of trialling the
commercial use of bumblebees have indicated that there are no plans to
introduce new genetic material should the existing feral population of
bumblebees prove not to be viable pollinators. However, submitters raised
concerns that the poor genetic diversity of feral bumblebees in Tasmania would
inevitability lead to the importation of new genetic material to 'improve their
genetic diversity and ensure the populations are suitable for commercial
rearing'.[38]
The following discussion canvasses concerns about biosecurity risks should new
genetic material be imported.
3.35
Presently, Australia has a largely disease-free bee population which has
created a thriving honey and live bee export industry.[39]
Submitters argued that importation of genetic bumblebee material could put the
health of honey bee populations at risk through the introduction of new pests
and diseases.[40]
In addition, it was argued there is no way of knowing if native bees will be
affected by these pests and diseases.[41]
3.36
The Australian Honey Bee Industry Council (AHBIC) agreed with this view:
AHBIC is fearful that, if the use of bumble bees for
pollination in Tasmania is permitted, then the pressure to import other stock
to improve the genetic diversity of the current stock will be mounted. This is
when there is a great biosecurity risk to the current honey bee industry in
Tasmania and maybe Australia.[42]
3.37
Submitters noted that in other countries, bumblebees have been found to
carry multi‑host pathogens such as deformed wing disease.[43]
Dr Katja Hogendoorn, Ms Elisabeth Fung, Dr Remko Leijs and Dr Richard
Glatz in a joint submission highlighted the impact of diseases spread by the
bumblebee:
A newly introduced parasite can jump onto local species and,
because the disease is novel, the new host is unlikely to have any defence
mechanism against the disease. This is seen in Argentina, where, due to a
microsporidian parasite that was introduced together with Bombus terrestris,
the native bumblebee, B. dalbohmii, has become extinct in large areas
wherever the introduced B. terrestris has invaded.[44]
3.38
Of particular concern was the introduction of the varroa mite. As
discussed in chapter 2, introduction of Varroa destructor would have a
devastating impact on honey bees and thus agricultural production generally. The
Tasmanian Beekeepers' Association commented that introduction of new genetics
into Tasmania could provide a vector for this mite.[45]
3.39
Dr Hingston indicated that in addition to the varroa mite, bumblebees
can carry other pathogens that affect honeybees:
...an investigation into 48 commercially produced colonies of B. terrestris
in 2011–12 found five species of pathogens that affect honeybees: deformed wing
virus and Nosema ceranae were found in the bumblebees; while both of
those pathogens and N. apis, American foulbrood, and chalkbrood were found
in pollen in the colonies...Many of these pathogens are difficult to detect
visually and cannot be cultured in vitro, and can only be detected through
molecular methods. As a result, colonies of B. terrestris that were
certified as 'disease-free' often carried these pathogens.[46]
3.40
The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources also commented on
biosecurity concerns of introduced diseases and pests. Dr Taylor stated:
From a biosecurity perspective, given the history of the
bumblebees in Tasmania, we have not found traces of introduced diseases, but
importing them from another country would be a different risk. We would only
really start to look at the risks if they were added to the list, and there are
a number of them. We have a favourable honey bee disease status in Australia,
and there are a number of diseases that could cross from the bumblebee to the
honey bee, which we would be very keen to keep out of Australia.[47]
3.41
A further concern raised by submitters was that the commercial use of
bumblebees would increase the risk of transferring diseases and pests, such as
the Braula fly (Braula coeca), to the mainland[48]
CSIRO commented that Braula fly, which is a significant honey bee pest, is
found in honey bees in Tasmania but not on the mainland. Accidental transfer of
Tasmanian bumblebee queens on to mainland Australia would present a significant
risk of introducing this pest. CSIRO explained that:
Bumblebees are not a natural host for this fly, but they may
act as a carrier. Braula coeca is listed in the AUSVETPLAN as a Category
4 emerging animal disease (except Tasmania), with potential to cause
international trade losses and local market disruptions.[49]
3.42
CSIRO also highlighted that the Tasmanian bumblebee population is yet to
be tested for viruses common to bumblebees, but not present on the mainland:
Should these viruses be present in bumblebees, and then
transfer to honeybees this would compound detrimental effects of Varroa should
it arrive in future.[50]
Biosecurity risks to the mainland
3.43
The possible introduction of bumblebees to the mainland was seen as a
significant risk. As noted above, studies indicate that bumblebees could
colonise large areas of mainland Australia. CSIRO commented that:
Some of the more highly favourable areas of suitable
environment [for bumblebees] overlap with significant parts of the conservation
estate, including the Australian Alps National Parks. Following any
introduction of Bombus terrestris to the Australian environment, the
nexus between the bee and introduced plant species would make many habitats vulnerable
to invasion.[51]
3.44
CSIRO summarised the concerns shared by many submitters that the
commercial use of bumblebees for pollination in Tasmania would increase the
possibility of bumblebees, along with the associated risks outlined above,
being transferred to the mainland. One issue noted by CSIRO was that the use of
bumblebees in greenhouses would increase risk of accidental transfer to the
mainland. CSIRO explained:
Greenhouse use will bring Bombus terrestris into
closer association with people and products that are transported to the
mainland. This greatly increases the risk of an accidental transfer. For
example, a single mated queen bee could be transferred to the mainland in a
container, or a boxed bumblebee colony could be mistakenly stacked in among
produce that is being shipped to the mainland, and there establish a new
colony.[52]
3.45
CSIRO highlighted the need to increase biosecurity controls to prevent
the inadvertent spread of the bumblebee to the mainland should the proposed
trial proceed. CSIRO stated that pest insects and bee diseases are already
among the targets for internal biosecurity controls in Australia, however, preventing
a bumblebee incursion on to the mainland could become a new target. This would
require new strategies from biosecurity agencies. CSIRO also noted that due to
the small size and cryptic nature of the bumblebee, it can easily 'hide' in
greenhouse materials which would suggest the need for significant biosecurity
controls.[53]
3.46
In addition to inadvertent transportation risks to the mainland, the
potential for bumblebees in greenhouses to escape was noted by several
submitters.[54]
As stated above, the industry has indicated that measures such as queen gates
fitted to hives can be employed to minimise the risks of escapes.
Incentives for illegal
introductions of bumblebees and other invasive species
3.47
Submitters were particularly concerned that the commercial use of the
feral bumblebees in Tasmania for pollination would create a strong incentive to
introduce bumblebees (and other invasive species that may have a commercial
value) to the mainland and to introduce new varieties of bumblebees. The
Invasive Species Council described this as a 'foot in the door' strategy to
remove impediments to introducing and using bumblebees on mainland Australia. The
Invasive Species Council went on to state:
If the ban on using illegally imported species is removed,
this will create a strong incentive to shift them illegally to the mainland and
to introduce new varieties of bumblebees.[55]
3.48
Many submitters argued that the commercial use of bumblebees in Tasmania
would create an incentive for their illegal introduction to the mainland
particularly if their use resulted in commercial advantages for crop growers.[56]
CSIRO observed that:
If greenhouse growers in Tasmania gain an economic advantage
by use of bumblebees, growers on the mainland will have a stronger incentive to
access the same benefit. An unscrupulous person might then be motivated to
illegally import bees to the mainland in the hope that the invasion will be
followed by legitimate commercial adoption (i.e. history of the species in the
species in Tasmania would then be repeated on the mainland).[57]
3.49
Dr Hingston expounded on this point and stated:
If the commercial use of bumblebees is permitted in Tasmania
on the grounds that a feral population is already established, and a feral
population then becomes established in another Australian State, that State
could then argue for permission to use bumblebees commercially otherwise it would
be at a competitive disadvantage to the State of Tasmania.[58]
3.50
Similarly, the Geelong Beekeepers Club indicated that the successful use
of bumblebees in Tasmania would create pressure to use them on the mainland:
If this demand for the use of the bumblebees in Tasmania for
commercial pollination purposes is successful, it is quite easy to envisage
future demands by the industry, especially as one of the country's largest
producers of glasshouse tomatoes has a facility in Tasmania. Through the "foot
in the door" argument, one can readily extrapolate their claim for the
introduction and use of bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) throughout the
rest of the glasshouse vegetable growing industry in Australia based on the
"success" of the bumblebees...in Tasmania! All the research and
scientific evidence currently available indicate it would be extremely detrimental
to allow yet another "invasive species" into Australia with untold
consequences![59]
3.51
The Geelong Beekeepers Club noted that despite best efforts to contain
the bumblebees, potential economic benefits would make transfer to the mainland
attractive:
One can easily also foresee
the "illegal" or "accidental" transfer of bumblebees onto
mainland Australia, as the "economic benefit" envisaged from
bumblebees...may prove to alluring to resist for some.[60]
3.52
Submitters also noted that approval of the commercial use of bumblebees
may be used seen as a precedent which will encourage the illegal import of
other species.[61]
Dr Halcroft, for example, argued that:
Allowing the commercialisation of B. terrestris for
use in Tasmania for commercial pollination purposes would function as an
incentive to illegally introduce any organism that conveys a benefit to an
industry.[62]
Pressure to allow the importation
of new genetic material
3.53
The committee received evidence that should the proposed trial of
bumblebees prove successful and their commercial use were to be approved, there
would eventually be pressure to import new genetic material to improve the
feral bee stock. The AHBIC stated that this would result in 'a great
biosecurity risk to the current honey bee industry in Tasmania and maybe
Australia'.[63]
3.54
Alternatively, it was argued should the proposed trial prove unsuccessful
due to the poor genetic quality of the feral bumblebee population, there would
be pressure to import new genetic material. According to Dr Hingston, it is
likely that new genetic material would be needed for commercial breeding
success:
...use of the Tasmanian population of bumblebees appears
unlikely to be able to provide economic benefits because analysis of the
population in 1996 found that it was too inbred for commercial rearing to be economically
viable.[64]
3.55
The department also commented that allowing the commercial use of
bumblebees in Tasmania could create an incentive to improve the genetics of the
bumblebees to make them more efficient pollinators. The present population may
have limited viability compared to other population which some have suggested
may result in an expectation that improved genetic stock would be sought by
tomato growers to lift productivity and reduce costs. The department noted that
the proposed trial aims to determine whether the current feral population is a
viable pollinator of glasshouse tomatoes.[65]
3.56
The department also stated, in relation to the import of new genetic
material, that there would need to be an application under the existing
provisions for the inclusion of that new genetic material on the live import
list if it was viable genetic material. The amendment of the live import list
would be for the whole of Australia and could not be restricted to Tasmania.[66]
3.57
The pressure to improve commercial stock by importing new genetic
material was also discussed by Dr McQuillan. He commented:
If the trial is successful, there will be incentives to make
it even better by having the bees living longer, being more active and all
those sorts of things—being more resistant to disease and perhaps being more fecund.
So I think we have to acknowledge that, if the trial is successful, it
will put pressure on the government to allow extra genetic stock to come into
the country. That raises questions about whether they would become even more
invasive or more likely to succeed in the environment if they escape. It becomes
a complicated question.[67]
Risks to primary industries
3.58
Submitters were concerned about the possible effects of a commercially
reared colony of feral bumblebees or imported bumblebees on Tasmania's honey
industry and live bee export industry, as well as the possible link between
bumblebees and increasing numbers of introduced weeds.
Reduced honey production
3.59
One of the major concerns put to the committee regarding the greater
density or increased vigour of bumblebees is based on the competition with
honey bees for resources and subsequent impact on the lucrative Tasmanian honey
industry. The Invasive Species Council commented that commercial
quantities of bumblebees in Tasmania would enhance the bumblebee's competitive advantage
in the environment which would have consequences for the honey industry:
It could compete for nectar and pollen with the honeybee, and
because it can forage at lower temperatures and start foraging earlier in the
morning, it would have a competitive advantage over managed honeybees.[68]
3.60
This view was supported by the Geelong Beekeepers Club which submitted
that there is competition for nectar between the bumblebee and honey bees.[69]
Dr Hingston also pointed to a study which suggested that bumblebees are competitively
excluding honeybees in some situations in Tasmania.[70]
3.61
The South Australian Government raised concerns that should bumblebees
be introduced to the mainland, their greater ability to forage could have a
negative effect on the mainland honey bees.[71]
3.62
The Tasmanian Beekeepers' Association raised concerns that increased
numbers of bumblebees could affect the Manuka and Leatherwood honey industry in
Tasmania. The Association noted that bumblebees operate at lower temperatures
and carry more nectar than honey bees. The Association warned that competition
from feral bumblebees could have a devastating effect on the honey industry
should they roam to the Leatherwood and Manuka areas in Tasmania.[72]
3.63
The Geelong Beekeepers Club pointed out that the possibility of
introduced diseases through imported bumblebees could put the European honey
industry at risk, and industry which 'currently provides pollination services
to agriculture estimated at $3.2 billion' annually.[73]
Live bee exports
3.64
The introduction of diseases and pests through importation of bumblebee
genetic material was seen as a threat to the live bee export industry. It was
noted that Tasmania exports its disease-free bees to countries where diseases such
as the varroa mite have destroyed hives. The Costa Group noted that Tasmanian
beekeepers exported 14 pallets of bees—9.8 tonnes of live insects—to Canada in
2014.[74]
The Tasmanian Beekeepers' Association also pointed to the importance of
the live bee export market and commented that 'any biosecurity issue could shut
down this market causing financial hardship to our beekeepers'.[75]
3.65
Similarly, the AHBIC also outlined concerns about the impact of new
diseases and pests on live bee exports. The council stated:
Tasmanian beekeepers currently have a market for package bees
into Canada. Whilst this involves transhipping through Melbourne, there have
been concerns raised about the possible introduction of Braula coeca to
mainland Australia during transhipping. Braula coeca does not have the
same devastating effect on honey bees as does the varroa mite. So it would be
envisaged that there will be much disquiet about allowing the transhipping of
package bees through Melbourne if the varroa mite was inadvertently introduced
to Tasmania through the introduction of bumble bees from outside Tasmania. This
would lead to the loss of this important source of revenue for beekeepers in Tasmania.[76]
Increased weeds
3.66
As noted above, research indicates that the introduction of bumblebees
is likely to lead to increased seed production of some agricultural weeds. Of
particular concern is the possible increased prevalence of weeds that currently
lack an efficient pollinator. The department commented that:
Weeds have major economic, environmental and social impacts
in Australia, causing damage to natural landscapes, agricultural lands,
waterways and coastal areas. Weeds impact severely on agriculture by competing
with production, contaminating produce and poisoning livestock.[77]
3.67
The South Australian Government commented that bumblebees could be an
ideal pollinator for weeds that currently occur in low densities or have not
yet escaped gardens.[78]
Any increase in weed density would result in significant costs to agricultural
sector through weed eradication costs and lost production. The Tasmanian
Government commented that:
Sleeper weeds are a significant national issue with the
Australian government estimating that if nine currently recognized sleeper
weeds were not controlled or eradicated, they could eventually cost $100 million
annually in lost agricultural production. Recent assessment of weeds in
Tasmania has identified six possible sleeper weeds; the cost to control and/or
eradicate these remains undefined.[79]
3.68
The Tasmanian Government recognised the increased risks for weed control
associated with the introduction of new genetic material:
For example, a genetically enhanced B. terrestris
population has the potential to hinder control programs for gorse in Tasmania,
a species that today costs woolgrowers alone about $1 million annually in lost
production.[80]
3.69
This view was supported by Mr Robert Bell who noted the increased costs
of controlling noxious weeds spread by bumblebees. Mr Bell stated:
Currently Australia spends in the region of $3.5 billion
controlling weeds. Any commercial gain for Tasmanian Glasshouse Producers is
likely to be totally subsumed by the inevitable increase in the weed control
budget.[81]
3.70
The Geelong Beekeepers Club also highlighted the consequences of accelerated
weed spread for other industries:
Other weeds likely to benefit are poisonous or prickly, and
problematic for the dairy and grazing industries in Tasmania. More research
needs to be carried out in these areas. [82]
Alternative pollination options
3.71
Submitters opposed to the commercial use of bumblebees argued that there
are alternative pollination options available to producers. Bumblebees are
valued in horticulture due to their buzz pollination. As outlined in chapter 2,
wand pollination of greenhouse crops, such as tomatoes, mimics buzz pollination
and results in improved yield and quality compared to pollination by honey bee.
However, growers note that this method is labour intensive and therefore
increases costs of production.
3.72
The committee also received evidence that native bees are a potential
alternative to bumblebees. The department noted that some native bees, such as
blue banded bees and green Carpenter bees have been shown to be effective
buzz pollinators.[83]
3.73
Both the department and the Invasive Species Council noted that research
has shown that two species of blue banded bee, Amegillia holnesi and A.
cholorocyanea are effective pollinators of greenhouse tomatoes.[84]
A blue banded bee, A. murrayensis, was shown to be a potential
glasshouse pollinator due to its high buzzing frequency and reduced flower
visit duration when compared to a common bumblebee species used in North
America for pollination services.[85]
3.74
Two species of Carpenter bees, Xylocopa aeratus and X.
bombylans, have also been shown to be efficient pollinators of tomatoes
with about a 14 per cent increase in fruit weight compared to wand pollination.[86]
3.75
While these native bees may have potential for effective crop
pollination, it was noted that there are no species of bee native to Tasmania
suited to the same pollination tasks in which bumblebees offer specific
advantages.[87]
In addition, while some research has been undertaken into the use of native
bees for pollination services, this research is limited and has not progressed
in recent years.[88]
CSIRO commented that commercial use of native bees will not be possible until
methods have been developed to rear and supply them in sufficient number. CSIRO
went on to comment that 'the problem is not that rearing the bees is
necessarily infeasible, but rather that there has been very limited research in
this area to date'.[89]
3.76
In their joint submission, Dr Katja Hogendoorn et al outlined the
research invested in the use of native bee for greenhouse tomato pollination up
to 2009. It was stated that:
So far, four large individual growers and one distributer of
greenhouse tomato have invested a total of $44,000 into [research and
development] of native bees for greenhouse tomato pollination, over a period of
6 years, i.e. about A$7,300 per annum, between 2003 and 2009. The
commercial development of bumblebees for tomato pollination took 20 years and
involved 3 research groups. This demonstrates that the Australian greenhouse
tomato industry has not made a concerted effort to research native alternatives.[90]
3.77
CSIRO argued that the limited investment into research and development
of native bees is because:
...there has been ongoing hope (among growers) that a Bombus
system will one day become available in Australia. In other words, the
possibility of adopting the imported technology (greenhouse Bombus
pollination) may have suppressed investigation of other options.[91]
Calls for further research
3.78
Further research into the use of native bees rather than trialling
bumblebees was supported by a range of submitters.[92]
Dr Anne Dollin, for example, stated that:
Focus and funding should be directed towards continuing to develop
safe native pollinators for Australian agriculture, rather than importing an
exotic bee species with known invasive characteristics.[93]
3.79
The South Australian Government submitted that research into the use of
native bees 'should be encouraged with funding contributed by industry'.[94]
3.80
However, Costa Group submitted that the blue banded bee, while an
effective pollinator, 'is not a social bee and has no commercial value or use
except on a limited scale as a pollinator for seed crops in greenhouses'. Costa
Group added that research was funded for several years will little result.[95]
Conclusion
3.81
The committee has carefully considered the issues canvassed during the
inquiry and concludes that, on the evidence provided, a trial of the use of the
population of feral bumblebees in Tasmania for pollination purposes should be
supported. In coming to this conclusion, the committee is mindful of the possible
environmental and biosecurity risks arising from the commercial use of
bumblebees. However, the committee has taken into account significant
mitigating factors outlined in the evidence.
3.82
First, the committee notes that before a trial of the commercial use of
bumblebees can be undertaken, amendments to the EPBC Act would be required. In
the previous Parliament, the Commonwealth Government proposed amendments to the
EPBC Act which would have established a new part (Part 3) to the live import
list and a mechanism to allow a trial in Tasmania into the use of bumblebees
for crop pollination. These amendments were introduced in September 2015 as
part of the debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 (the bill) after the Environment
and Communications Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill had concluded.
The bill lapsed at the end of the Parliament and has not been re-introduced.
3.83
The committee acknowledges that the proposed amendments sought to
establish a process requiring an environmental impact assessment, including
consultation with the public and state Ministers, before the live import list is
amended to allow possession of an existing feral population. In part, the
assessment would require the applicant seeking an amendment of the live import
list to demonstrate that the use the existing feral population would not threaten
other species or biodiversity in Australia. The applicant would also have to
demonstrate that the feral species would not become invasive and there would
not be adverse impacts on threatened species or ecological communities.[96]
The proposed amendments also contained an 'opt in' provision whereby state and
territory governments would be required to consent to the exemption.
3.84
Based on the evidence received during this inquiry, the committee
considers that the amendments proposed in 2015 appear to provide an adequate mechanism
to ensure that the environment, threatened species and biodiversity are protected
before a decision is made to allow the possession of an existing feral species.
However, the committee is mindful that the proposed amendments have not been
subject to review by the Legislation Committee.
3.85
As the proposed amendments have implications for the Australian
environment generally, the committee considers that a thorough examination is
required so that the views of interested stakeholders can be sought, to ensure
that there are no unintended consequences, and that the mechanism proposed is sufficiently
robust to apply to a broad range of existing feral populations. In addition,
the committee considers that any proposal to amend the live import list to
provide for a Part 3, also include a review mechanism to identify whether the
arrangements put in place are effective in protecting the environment.
3.86
Secondly, before feral bumblebees in Tasmania can be used for any commercial
purpose, a trial of their commercial viability would be undertaken. The
committee notes that the minister may permit for a trial for up to two years.
The committee considers that is an appropriate period and recognises the need
to undertake research into the commercial viability of bumblebees.
3.87
Further, the committee notes the Tasmanian Government's evidence that only
wild caught bumblebees would be used in a trial. If feral bumblebees prove not
to be viable, particularly because of poor genetic diversity, the Tasmanian
Government indicated that the trial would not continue. The Tasmanian
Government also clearly stated that it would not support the importation of new
genetic material to improve the feral bumblebee population for pollination
purposes.
3.88
The possible need for new genetic material was a significant matter
taken into consideration during the committee's deliberations. The committee only
supports the trialling of the existing population of bumblebees for pollination
in fully enclosed facilities. It does not support the importation of any new bumblebee
genetic material as it believes this constitutes an unacceptable risk to Australia's
environment and biodiversity.
3.89
In addition, the committee notes that the proposed trial will also test
containment procedures. The committee considers that ensuring there are no escapes
of queen bumblebees and no establishment of new colonies is crucial to maintaining
the existing density of bumblebees in the environment. The committee notes that
to date there appears to have been few adverse environmental impacts in
Tasmania from feral bumblebees. However, this may not continue to be the case
should the density of bumblebees in the wild increase. Moreover, the committee considers
that adequate containment of bumblebees will address some of the concerns
raised by the honey bee sector.
3.90
The committee considers that any trial of the commercial use of
bumblebees in Tasmania should also ensure that adequate biosecurity mechanisms are
in place so that bumblebees are not accidentally, or otherwise, introduced to
the mainland.
3.91
The committee has considered the environmental concerns raised in
evidence. As noted above, there appears to be limited evidence of adverse
environmental impacts from the existing Tasmanian feral bumblebee population.
At the same time, the potential economic benefits for Tasmania from the
commercial use of bumblebees in greenhouses may be significant. Bumblebees are
well suited for pollination of certain greenhouse crops resulting in improved
crop yields and quality. Production costs for Tasmanian greenhouse producers would
also decrease as bumblebee pollination would replace labour-intensive wand
pollination. The committee considers that these benefits will lead to increased
production and thus employment opportunities in Tasmania.
3.92
The committee has also considered carefully the arguments related to the
use of bumblebees should Varroa destructor establish in Australia. As
bumblebees are resistant to varroa, their use for commercial pollination could
provide significant advantages. However, in light of the potential for damage
to the honey bee colonies from V. destructor, the committee also sees significant
value in further research into alternative pollination options, particularly
the use of native bees.
Recommendation 1
3.93
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth introduce amendments to the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to amend
the live import list to allow for the use of existing feral populations and
that the proposed amendments be referred to the Environment and Communications
Legislation Committee for inquiry and report.
Recommendation 2
3.94
The committee recommends that any proposed amendment of the live import
list to allow the use of existing feral populations provide for a review
mechanism after two years of operation. The committee further recommends that,
should any adverse environmental impacts be identified in the review, the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 be amended to omit Part 3
of the live import list.
Recommendation 3
3.95
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government work with
state governments to fund further research into the use of native bees as pollinators.
Senator Peter
Whish-Wilson
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page