Honeybee pollination is essential for some crops, while for others it raises yield and quality. In 1989 Gill estimated that total honeybee pollination services — from farmed and feral honeybees — was worth between $0.6 and $1.2 billion. Replicating Gill’s work for a 35 largely honeybee pollination dependent crops, and allowing for the adjustments in imports and exports the value of honeybee pollination services was estimated to be $1.7 billion for 1999-2000 production. In addition to the 35 crops for which data was available, a wide range of pastures, including lucerne and clover, are pollinated by honeybees hence this estimate understates the potential value of the pollination services.

The estimate of $1.7 billion may look high compared to the value of horticulture, which in 1999-2000 was $3.8 billion, but this is the cost if farmers were unable to adjust as would be the case of a sudden disease outbreak. With such an outbreak, not only would growers of honeybee dependent crops and pastures suffer, but so too would Australian consumers with the sudden and sometimes complete decline in the availability of many fresh fruits and nuts and some major vegetables such as carrots and onions, not to mention honey. The capacity to import many of the products that would be affected is limited due to quarantine restrictions and prices for what remained would be driven up to the detriment of the consumer.

The direct costs of a loss in pollination services fall roughly equally on Australian consumers and the producers of the honeybee dependent crops. A little over half, or $877 million, is a loss to producers and $839 is the loss to consumers due to higher prices and not being able to obtain certain products.

The decline in the value of agricultural output of some $1.6 billion and around 9 500 jobs are directly affected.

In addition to the direct effect on the industries relying on the agricultural inputs, flow-on effects could result in an additional $2 billion loss in industry output and 11 000 jobs following the loss of all honeybee pollination services. These latter losses do not persist over time as unutilised resources will move to other industries in the longer term. They do however have significant implications for regions with high shares of honeybee dependant crops in the few years following a honeybee decline.

The results are highly sensitive to the assumptions about the dependence on honeybees for pollination.

But even if the dependence on the honeybee as pollinators is half that reported in the pollination trials then the loss is estimated as $0.6 billion.

Given that over 65 per cent of horticultural and agricultural crops introduced to Australia since European settlement require honeybees for pollination the impact of a sudden loss of all honeybee populations, commercial and feral, would require considerable adjustment in agriculture. The speed of adjustment to a world without honeybee pollinators, and hence the longer term costs of a major uncontrolled disease outbreak, depends on several factors. One factor is the extent to which other pollinators can replace the honeybee and this varies greatly between crops, with some such as almonds unable to be pollinated by other insects. A second factor is the profitability of the current crops relative to the next best, but not honeybee pollination dependent, crops. A third factor is the impact on market prices of a large scale switch in domestic production, which will depend critically on the scope to export production. While for consumers, the loss will decline if current restrictions on imports, that would no longer be justified for disease control reasons, are lifted.

This paper also estimates the longer term costs to farmers under three scenarios for the loss in income before farmers switch to an alternative. These scenarios assume production can be exported at world prices, and that consumers are able to access imports.

! If farmers absorb a 25 per cent loss in income before they switch to alternative crops, the estimated loss declines to $1.2 billion.

! If a 10 per cent decline in income results in farmers switching, then the estimated loss declines to $1 billion.

! Over time if all producers other than those experiencing a decline in income of less than 5 per cent switch to non-honeybee pollinated crops, then the lost producer surplus declines to $100 million.

In practice, even a problem such as V.destructor will not wipe out all honeybees immediately across Australia, so farmers have some time to adjust. So too do honeybee producers, and it is likely that a market for pollination services would develop rapidly in the heavily honeybee dependent industries, lowering the impact of exotic incursions largely to losses incurred from foregone production while honeybee producers expanded supply to meet the demand for pollination services. The final outcome would depend on the costs to the honeybee producers of expanding production. These costs include the additional costs of disease control, the access to areas to rebuild the health of the hives, and the market for honey.

This study did not aim to estimate the potential size of the market for commercial pollination services, nor the price these services would attract. It can be argued that the value of this market is a more accurate way to estimate the value of honeybee pollination services than the approach followed in this paper and by other studies that have attempted to estimate the value of honeybee pollination. The large estimates of value come from the fact that the loss of a critical ingredient – the honeybee pollination service – renders all the other inputs valueless in the case of the 100 per cent honeybee dependent crops, and by a proportional amount for the less dependent crops. While these costs would adjust downwards over time, such a loss would see a major restructuring of agriculture in Australia, making the humble honeybee one of the unsung heroes of Australian agriculture.