<< Previous Page          September 20th  to 30th, 2003       Next Page >>
Left panel on? Yes | No

The Recent CFIA Announcement:
Opening the Border to Queens

What does it mean?

The recent Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) announcement about opening the Canadian border to mainland U.S. queens represents a watershed decision.  This announcement was not made at CHC's request, or with CHC's approval, as were past extensions of the import prohibition.  This move rather appears to be an independent move by CFIA to take charge, to get on-side with free trade issues, and to avoid the embarrassment that close scrutiny of the ban would bring.

There is nothing a civil servant hates more than getting caught off side, or in the middle of a political war.  Such an miscalculation is embarrassing, and can seriously affect reputation, future assignments and promotions, and even retirement options.

When CFIA inherited border closure from another agency some time back, the border closure still had general acceptance in the Canadian bee industry, and was probably still legal under international trade rules.  Moreover, until recently, a large majority of Canadian beekeepers and scientists (and quite a few Americans) believed  that the prohibition was in the best interests of the Canadian bee industry, and fully justified.  At the time, opposition to the embargo was muted, and restricted to a few regions and individuals.  Those Canadian beekeepers who disagreed simply put up with the inconvenience, went out of business, or quietly imported U.S. bees unofficially, with only occasional arrests and with only minor fines being assessed.

Much has changed since the mid-nineteen eighties when the border was originally closed to bee imports.  CFIA may have overlooked, or may have ignored, progressive changes in international rules about such restrictions on trade that came into being during the years of the prohibition's existence (see below), the change in distribution of the bee mites, and the progress made in managing the economic damage from mites.  CFIA continued to renew the prohibition at CHC's request, even though the rationale for doing so became progressively more dubious to the point where, at present, it is likely illegal.  A lot has changed since the mid-nineteen eighties.

• In 1989, a U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was signed.
• By January 1994, Canada, the United States and Mexico had also signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
• In 1995, the original 125 signatories of the new World Trade Organization "ushered in a new era of multilateral cooperation and freer trade" with GATT

At the beginning of the embargo, NAFTA, FTA and GATT rules did not apply, and Canada was well within its rights to ban bees -- at that time -- without meeting current standards.  Free Trade and GATT changed everything.  These new international rules prohibit trade restrictions unless they met certain very specific criteria. 

One criterion that permits import restrictions of the type in question here, is the phtyo-sanitary consideration.  To (over)simplify, this rule states that if a named pest/disease etc. is present in one country, and trade in specific items/animals and will likely cause transmission to another country which is apparently free of the pest/disease, the importing country can legitimately restrict or ban imports of such items/animals.

This rule worked in CFIA's favour in the early stages of varroa spread, but once varroa became widely distributed in Canada, Canada became liable to complaints under the rules.   Canada is now in violation of the agreement, in the opinion of many observers.

Even if the prohibition were somehow proven to be legal, it has other severe weaknesses that have shown up over time.  We Canadians have learned a lot during the embargo.  In the early stages, we thought we could survive and thrive without U.S. bees.  We'd learn to winter bees and breed bees and raise queens, etc.  We did all that, and poured a lot of government and personal funds into the projects. We managed to struggle through, and there were some notable successes.  Some beekeepers manage to be totally self-sufficient, at least for a while, however, we have discovered that most beekeepers cannot keep this up over a period of time, and many cannot manage without a reliable supply of bees and queens.  We thought we'd save a lot of money that was, at that time, going out of the country to buy bees.  We learned better, though, we found that spent the same money, but for poorer bees from less reliable suppliers. 

In a nutshell, in the past decade and half of embargo, we have learned

• Varroa and tracheal mites are readily manageable at low cost, but when controls fail, good cost-effective replacement bees must be available instantly.

• Beekeeping in Northwestern Canadian provinces depends largely on a good, reliable supply of quality imported package bees and queens in a season extending from April through May.

• Some winters, bee losses are unexpectedly very high, and last-minute replacements, ordered late, coming as late as May, are vital to survival of producers

• Sources other than those on the US mainland CANNOT supply the quality and quantity needed or in a reliable and timely manner.

• A lot of bees -- many tens of thousands of queens annually (almost 100,000 annually by some estimates)  -- have been quietly coming in from the mainland US while the embargo has been in effect, with no apparent ill effect.  Suddenly cutting off that supply has created tremendous demand on all other queen sources, demand these other sources simply cannot meet.  Everyone, including those who were not buying smuggled queens, has suffered from the resulting shortage.

• Canadian sources, even after a decade and half of support and encouragement, are not nearly able to fill the void for more than a small minority of beekeepers

• Australia and new Zealand are not immune to sudden appearance of new pests and cannot be trusted to keep them out -- or warn us in a timely fashion if a new scourge appears.

• Even if Australia and new Zealand get a new pest, we will have no choice but to continue to buy from them under the current regulations, since we are not permitted to use the logical alternate source of package bees! 

The situation this spring was a good example of the predicament we are in.  SHB was discovered, and we had nowhere else to go.  What if it were tropilaeps clarae they discovered?  Even if we opened the US border then, the US industry could not respond quickly enough to save us.  we need to open the border at least six months in advance of need to allow for them to gear up.

• Lack of bees has had a huge economic cost to Canadian beekeeping over the past decade and a half, not only in terms of additional work and risk, but also in terms of foregone opportunities.

...And, most importantly,

• We have learned that a healthy bee industry is more important than minor, manageable threats to the health of individual colonies.

Additionally, as a result of this experience, and as a result of observing the success that U.S. scientists and producers have had in mitigating and overcoming the ill effects of varroa and tracheal mites, the popularity for blanket border closure is dropping to new low levels in Canada.  Moreover, recent arrests at the Canada/US border of beekeepers bringing home U.S. queens -- a result of increased security after 9/11 -- and the resulting prosecutions of well-know and well-liked beekeepers have caused those of us who sat on the fence to have make up our minds and take sides.

The majority of the fence-sitters have joined the open-border advocates, and opinion is rapidly swinging the balance in favour of U.S. bee imports.  Support is even growing fast for a complete opening of the border, both ways and allowing provincial and municipal regulations to provide necessary controls locally where needed.  The fact is that many Canadian beekeepers would love to send bees south to U.S. beekeepers in the Fall and receive back nucs in the spring.  The economic advantages of such co-operation for both parties are obvious.  The main stickler here is that some powerful beekeepers are afraid of competition and are running a fear and disinformation campaign to prevent change, and they recruit many unthinking followers.  Fear is a strong force.

We have come to the point now, where resistance to free trade in bees across the border is almost entirely justified by protectionist arguments, and protectionism is not justifiable under international agreements.  Regardless of whether two-way exchange becomes possible in the near future, current high honey prices are making the smarter beekeepers realize how much they are losing annually, simply due to inability to buy the bees they need when they need them.  They are exhausted and limited by the need to spend 1/3 of their scarce beekeeping time, or more, splitting, raising queens, and generally making sure they will have bees for the next season, when they should, ideally, be putting their full effort into producing honey.  Everything is forcing beekeepers and regulators alike to the the conclusion that the embargo has served its purpose, and is now far too limiting, costly, and impossible to justify. Since the justification for continued prohibition due to mite worries has run out of steam, diehard protectionists have resorted to another fear tactic: they cite fear of Africanized Honey Bees (AHB) as justification for a continued embargo.

As for the threat to public health from Africanized bees, should U.S. bees be imported, that threat  has proven to be entirely hypothetical, a product of ignorance and fear mongering, but nonetheless a powerful image to wave in front of the undecided.  The simple fact is that, in the limited U.S regions into which Africanized bees have migrated, apparently no statistically significant increase in bee-related deaths has been noted.  Additionally, U.S. bee breeders are highly skilled in selection and are unlikely to tolerate or produce vicious stock for export.  Anyone doing so, even once, would quickly lose his business.

Furthermore, there is no proof that AHB genes are not already present in Canadian bees. No survey has been done, and even if one were commissioned, no incontrovertible basis for comparison exists.  It is well known that Taber imported Africanized queens from Kerr in Brazil and widely distributed the progeny to breeders in the U.S, in the middle of the last century.  At that time, bees from the U.S. traveled freely into Canada, and it is entirely possible that we already have some African bee genes in Canadian bee stock, dating from as far back as the seventies.

Recent events have driven home how destructive arbitrary border closures can be.  Canadian cattle, sheep, and other livestock producers -- and all the people and industries who depend on them for commerce -- have suffered terrible financial and personal loss due to the current poorly justified continuing embargo on Canadian meats and livestock.  Although there was reason for an initial closure to beef and cattle while the extent of the infection and the risk was investigated, there is no reasonable excuse for continuation at present.

The border closure to U.S. bees and the U.S. border closure to Canadian beef are similar.  Both closures seemed to be reasonable precautions at the time, and it was reasonable to continue them until the risks were understood.  In each case, loss and dislocation occurred in both in Canada and in the U.S. due to the interdependence of some segments of the industry.   In each case, athough the embargos have proven a windfall to some, others, and the public at large, have suffered a greater total loss than the total of all benefits.  In each case, there is no longer any rational excuse for continuation of the prohibition, but in each case, it lingers due to political factors, and optics.  Fear is a more powerful force than faith.  

Although adjustments have been made to limit the cost to us of restricted trade in bees, the damage continues.  The prohibition must be lifted as soon, and as completely, as possible.  Just as the U.S. beef embargo of Canadian beef and cattle is an overreaction to a slight and exaggerated threat, the continued closure of the Canadian border to U.S. bees is an overreaction to minimal and theoretical threats. 

From  recent communications, it appears to me that CFIA is now becoming aware that it is in an indefensible position, and is moving to extricate itself gracefully. If CFIA maintains the embargo, it's a lose/lose situation for CFIA.  In the face of lessening support, and the prospect of legal challenge by U.S. bee suppliers and/or Canadian beekeepers, they need to cut their losses ASAP, and are doing so as fast as they can.  This recent announcement is an initial step, and if they know what is good for them, and I'm betting they do, CFIA will find a way to get entirely out of the bee embargo business within a year, maybe even six months.

What CHC thinks no longer matters.  They've been cavalier, and thus lost their credibility on this with CFIA, and much of the honey industry.  The game is over. CFIA will make its own decisions based on the facts.  Can CHC regain industry the respect and support it needs to function effectively, and the support of those who interests it has neglected so long?  We'll see.  I'll bet they'll be claiming that this announcement was their idea.

We know it wasn't.

Tuesday December 06, 2005 05:17 PM