NAIT – asset or liability?
Media Release
27 January 2010
NAIT – asset or liability?
The National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) Scheme has been given approval to proceed by Cabinet. The scheme has been promoted on the basis of two key criteria. The first is increased biosecurity effectiveness, but initially covering only cattle and deer. The second being market access for New Zealand beef and venison products.
Federated Farmers does not endorse this second
and, seemingly, final business case or its presentation to
Cabinet
While it’s acknowledged that during the design
and consultation period, the concerns of Federated Farmers
and its membership were recognised and some key issues
addressed, the final business case document fails to provide
sufficient confidence that real on-farm value will be
generated as a result of NAIT. Moreover, at a time when
farmers are just recovering financially, this will add an
additional cost and compliance burden alongside the
Emissions Trading Scheme and early proposals for a Land Tax.
The 2009 Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry’s Situation
and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture & Forestry had farms
receiving just 6.3 cents out of each export dollar
generated.
Biosecurity claims are an illusion
While
the intention to bring all cattle and deer under an
individual identification scheme holds some merit, in
reality this is a narrow range of risk animal species. It
is therefore only a band-aid. A serious biosecurity breach,
such as Foot and Mouth Disease, afflicts all cloven hoof
animals; the UK’s experience in the past decade being a
good example.
If the Government truly believes in a biosecurity basis to NAIT, then the Government must disclose to New Zealand’s hard-pressed sheep farmers that it intends to enrol all cloven hoof animals into the NAIT scheme and when. If it does not, it confirms the biosecuirty basis to NAIT is without merit. The risks also go far deeper. It is estimated that several hundred thousand livestock live on small holdings/lifestyle blocks or even urban centres. Additionally, a large number of livestock are feral. The risk lays less on professional farms, which NAIT sets out to target, than where animals are unrecorded or effectively off the grid.
NAIT’s application must apply to wherever target livestock is kept. This must include lifestyle blocks/small holdings and in urban centres. This will place an additional compliance burden onto local authorities.
No market is demanding
NAIT
At this time, no country is requiring the NAIT
concept as part of entry criteria for New Zealand beef, lamb
or venison. Federated Farmers has verified this with the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. New Zealand also has
the highest reputation in the world for food products. The
New Zealand Food Safety Authority is highly respected and
the European Union (EU) is currently trialling a direct
interface between our Ecert certification system and the
EU’s TRACE programme. This indicates confidence in New
Zealand’s ability to deliver results.
On an exporter to client basis, lifetime traceability is being offered in some instances as a private commercial arrangement between processor and supplier. This is market forces in action, where the supplier is being rewarded by the processor for their ability to supply lifetime traceability. Federated Farmers believes, if individual markets require individual identification and traceability, this can be achieved through market incentives between the processor and supplier. This eliminates any need for mandatory implementation, too. We must further ask why the dairy sector is being asked to fund a generous share of the NAIT system for meat traceability when, primarily, their production is milk based?
Individual Data
Protection
Federated Farmers has expressed real concern
with regard to individual farm data information and its
protection and security. During the consultation process
assurances have been provided that legal protection will be
robust and ensure NAIT data conforms to the Privacy Act. In
addition, access and disclosure will be tightly controlled
and will only be available for stated purposes as determined
in the legislation. Federated Farmers needs to be assured
that NAIT data will only be used for clearly stated purposes
and it will not be available to other government
departments/agencies or on-sold to private parties.
Federated Farmers will be submitting to the Select Committee
in this regard.
Data validity
Research on comparable
systems shows unacceptability high error rates in terms of
data, which negates many of the claims made for NAIT. This
is of real concern as it will undermine farmers and,
ultimately, trade confidence in the scheme. Again,
Federated Farmers believes the voluntary introduction of
NAIT, led by market-forces, will verify systems and
approaches.
On-farm cost
Ultimately, the cost of a
NAIT scheme will be funded by the farming community; this
will be via a direct levy, tag levy or some other funding
fee. Farmers already have an investment in NAIT. While it
is acknowledged that funding to date has been a joint
programme between the Crown and industry groups, the
industry portion has come from levies paid by farmers via
their relevant industry body. By default farmers have been
funding part of the NAIT development programme. The $2 to
$3 per animal cost quoted by NAIT is misleading and omits
considerable user costs (time data entering/updating stock,
processor fees as well as saleyard fees etc). Farmers, in
reality, will face a far greater cost than the $2 to $3 per
animal cost being quoted. Until there is significant rural
broadband fibre penetration, it will, in many regions,
require the adoption of satellite or 3G mobile
broadband.
ICT risk
NAIT will require one of the most
complex databases ever constructed in New Zealand. It must
be capable of registering and tracing tens of millions of
animal movements each year. Federated Farmers believes this
introduces an element of fiscal risk to the Crown. Unless
managed especially well, our fear is for an agricultural
equivalent to the 1999 INCIS debacle.
Federated Farmers
recommendation
The Federation does not believe it is in
the interests of New Zealand farmers, given the significant
economic pressures they currently face, for this system to
be compulsorily introduced at this point and time. Instead,
a tracing scheme (NAIT or other) should be introduced as a
voluntary, market-led system with price signals from the
processors to drive stock enrolment. This means a system
can be introduced and refined until markets ultimately
require it for trade access. Federated Farmers would fully
support proposals to run a tracing scheme through an
existing organisation, given this will reduce cost and limit
unnecessary
duplication.
ENDS