1. What led to the submission?

We (Marilyn Steiner and I) have a strong interest in the development of IPM and biocontrol in the protected cropping industry in Australia. Currently, we are involved in two HRDC projects:

• National IPM program in greenhouse crops (5 years)
• National WFT R&D Strategy - development of native natural enemies as BCAs against WFT (6 years).

Both projects end this financial year.

NSW Agriculture is developing Gosford HRAS as a Centre for Protected Cropping through an injection of money into some capital improvements and through the appointment of a new position to manage the horticultural R&D program in the Sydney Basin.

Further, and in support of this, we are pursuing two external opportunities:

• discussions with Netafim to provide two modern greenhouse structures complete with environmental controls, and irrigation and hydroponic systems
• HRDC submission on a national approach to protected cropping R&D and communication. This comprises seven modules, including two on IPM and biocontrol. One of these involves the Netafim deal, the other seeks to further develop of native natural enemies as BCAs against key pest species and the development of some new biorational chemicals.

All of this demonstrates our commitment to, and primary interest in, the area of biocontrol and IPM. We have extensive overseas contacts through our involvement with the IOBC/WPRS working group on greenhouse IPM which meets every three years. These contacts are both commercial and scientific from around the globe. We are aware of the benefits of biological pollination to greenhouse growers. Additionally, the adoption of biological pollination using bumblebees forces growers to adopt biocontrol, and to use fewer chemicals, against their pests.

Given the establishment of B. terrestris in Tasmania, and the almost inevitable transfer to the Australian mainland, plus the positive benefits on IPM and biocontrol, it was felt that there was a stronger case for the release of this bee species than not.

In putting together the submission for Environment Australia we have attempted to address all the issues. We sought expert advice from both bee conservationists and from industry sources from within Australia and overseas. Apart from searching the literature we also made personal contact with a wide range of people. These are acknowledged on pages 4-5 of the submission. In short they include 18 personal contacts of which 12-13 might be classified as bee conservationists, and eight respondents to the BOMBUS listserver publicity of our intention to apply to the authorities for approval to introduce B. terrestris into mainland Australia. We sought to be transparent about our actions. In so doing we recognised that there is significant opposition to this proposal, and sought to address these arguments in the submission.

The fact that we are here at this workshop suggests that we were not entirely convincing in that effort.

2. Main points documented in the submission.

These are outlined in the submission's Table of Contents (attached). I am assuming everyone got a copy of the submission and has familiarised themselves with its contents.

3. Questions addressed in the submission.

We as applicants sought to make B. terrestris commercially available in Australia. In recognising the environmental concerns that this submission has raised, however, we attempted to deal with each issue in a comprehensive and objective manner based on available literature and personal comment provided by a range of credible sources.

To that end, on p4 of the submission we said:

It should be noted that while the merits of B. terrestris use in crop pollination are not in question, scientific opinion on the risks of introducing bumblebees as a group into Australia is divided. Every effort has been made to represent both sides of the discussion in this response."

The issues included:

• competition between B. terrestris and native bees for nesting sites and floral resources
• competition between B. terrestris and other pollinators for floral resources
• possible impact of B terrestris and other environmental influences on native bee populations
• risk of parasite and pathogen introductions and their potential harm to native bees and honey bees
• risk of B. terrestris establishing in the wild
• overseas experiences with B. terrestris
• potential for illegal entry of B. terrestris into mainland Australia
• potential for using native bee species as alternative commercial crop pollinators

4. Outstanding issues.

Clearly there is unease over a number of environmental issues and support for the development of native bee species as crop pollinators.