<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>There are no levies in Italy. The system is unique to Australia (I
think) and an excellent one in principle. The producers of the product pay
for the research or part of it (there is usually some government matching
funds). It does however buck the world trend of equitible payment in the
public interest. The trend is toward private research funded by patents.
Australian farmers and growers are now finding that they are paying twice.
There are levies for public research which should go freely into the public
domain and then they pay again through the royalties on seeds and plants
that have been patented. Part of the joys of globalisation I suppose!

For olive growers it is a difficult choice.

The other aspect of levy funds is who controls them. In most case it is
the larger farmers. They have the time to attend meetings and get themselve
elected onto the relevant committees. They intentionally or unintentionally
bias the research toward the problems of the big growers.

Cheers Brian Chatterton.
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>--- In OliveOil@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Chatterton"
<blchatterton@t...> wrote:
>
>
> There are no levies in Italy. The system is unique to Australia
(I
> think) and an excellent one in principle.


The proposed levy has two parts, one (compulsory) for R&D and
the other (not compulsory) for AOA funds. Both are required to be
collected by the processor. In each instance the AOA advise on
the direction of spending of those funds.

As has already been demonstrated, the AOA represent the olive
industry and the Barkworth Managed Investment Scheme leads
the Australian olive industry.

The Government has already spent funds on R&D, in 1997 they
gave Agrolive $500,000 to research the growing of Barnea in
Australia. At that time Agrolive stated it was the aim of "their
consortium" to produce more than 10 million litres per year. In
2003 the Australian harvest was some 1,300 tonnes (approx 1.4
million litres)



>
> The other aspect of levy funds is who controls them. In most
case it is
> the larger farmers. They have the time to attend meetings and
get themselve
> elected onto the relevant committees. They intentionally or
unintentionally
> bias the research toward the problems of the big growers.
>
> Cheers Brian Chatterton.
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Isn't Barnea the culprit spreading the olive knot largesse?

> The proposed levy has two parts, one (compulsory) for R&D and
> the other (not compulsory) for AOA funds. Both are required to be
> collected by the processor. In each instance the AOA advise on
> the direction of spending of those funds.
>
> As has already been demonstrated, the AOA represent the olive
> industry and the Barkworth Managed Investment Scheme leads
> the Australian olive industry.
>
> The Government has already spent funds on R&D, in 1997 they
> gave Agrolive $500,000 to research the growing of Barnea in
> Australia. At that time Agrolive stated it was the aim of "their
> consortium" to produce more than 10 million litres per year. In
> 2003 the Australian harvest was some 1,300 tonnes (approx 1.4
> million litres)
>
>


Margaret and Peter Moir
Olive Hill Farm
Margaret River.
www.olivehillfarm.com.au
>
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>--- In OliveOil@yahoogroups.com, "Margaret Moir" <olivehill@w...>
wrote:
> Isn't Barnea the culprit spreading the olive knot largesse?
>
margaret

its a matter of supposition.

what we do know is that;

* there was no known olive knot in australia
* barnea was recommended for the large intensive groves
* barnea went through a government quarantine procedure.
* barnea was been imported into australia
* the olive knot was found in barnea
* we now have olive knot in australia


maybe we will have to pay for R&D on olive knot?
</pre>
</td></tr></table>