Adoption of environmental assurance in pastoral industry supply chains - Market failure and beyond

This paper describes adoption rates of environmental assurance within meat and wool supply chains, and discusses this in terms of market interest and demand for certified 'environmentally friendly' products, based on phone surveys and personal interviews with pastoral producers, meat and wool processors, wholesalers and retailers, and domestic consumers. Members of meat and wool supply chains, particularly pastoral producers, are both aware of and interested in implementing various forms of environmental assurance, but significant costs combined with few private benefits have resulted in low adoption rates. The main reason for the lack of benefits is that the end user (the consumer) does not value environmental assurance and is not willing to pay for it. For this reason, global food and fibre supply chains, which compete to supply consumers with safe and quality food at the lowest price, resist public pressure to implement environmental assurance. This market failure is further exacerbated by highly variable environmental and social production standards required of primary producers in different countries, and the disparate levels of government support provided to them. Given that it is the Australian general public and not markets that demand environmental benefits from agriculture, the Australian government has a mandate to use public funds to counter this market failure. A national farm environmental policy should utilise a range of financial incentives to reward farmers for delivering general public good environmental outcomes, with these specified and verified through a national environmental assurance scheme.

Stakeholder expectations for environmental assurance in agriculture: Lessons from the pastoral industry

This paper outlines the expectations of a wide range of stakeholders for environmental assurance in the pastoral industries and agriculture generally. Stakeholders consulted were domestic consumers, rangeland graziers, members of environmental groups, companies within meat and wool supply chains, and agricultural industry, environmental and consumer groups. Most stakeholders were in favour of the application of environmental assurance to agriculture, although supply chains and consumers had less enthusiasm for this than environmental and consumer groups. General public good benefits were more important to environmental and consumer groups, while private benefits were more important to consumers and supply chains. The 'ideal' form of environmental assurance appears to be a management system that provides for continuous improvement in environmental, quality and food safety outcomes, combined with elements of ISO 14024 eco-labelling such as life-cycle assessment, environmental performance criteria, third-party certification, labelling and multi-stakeholder involvement. However, market failure prevents this from being implemented and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. In the short term, members of supply chains (the people that must implement and fund environmental assurance) want this to be kept simple and low cost, to be built into their existing industry standards and to add value to their businesses. As a starting point, several agricultural industry organisations favour the use of a basic management system, combining continuous improvement, risk assessment and industry best management practice programs, which can be built on over time to meet regulator, market and community expectations.

Scenario analysis of alternative vegetation management options on the greenhouse gas budget of two grazing businesses in north-eastern Australia

The emerging carbon economy will have a major impact on grazing businesses because of significant livestock methane and land-use change emissions. Livestock methane emissions alone account for similar to 11% of Australia's reported greenhouse gas emissions. Grazing businesses need to develop an understanding of their greenhouse gas impact and be able to assess the impact of alternative management options. This paper attempts to generate a greenhouse gas budget for two scenarios using a spread sheet model. The first scenario was based on one land-type '20-year-old brigalow regrowth' in the brigalow bioregion of southern-central Queensland. The 50 year analysis demonstrated the substantially different greenhouse gas outcomes and livestock carrying capacity for three alternative regrowth management options: retain regrowth (sequester 71.5 t carbon dioxide equivalents per hectare, CO2-e/ha), clear all regrowth (emit 42.8 t CO2-e/ha) and clear regrowth strips (emit 5.8 t CO2-e/ha). The second scenario was based on a 'remnant eucalypt savanna-woodland' land type in the Einasleigh Uplands bioregion of north Queensland. The four alternative vegetation management options were: retain current woodland structure (emit 7.4 t CO2-e/ha), allow woodland to thicken increasing tree basal area (sequester 20.7 t CO2-e/ha), thin trees less than 10 cm diameter (emit 8.9 t CO2-e/ha), and thin trees <20 cm diameter (emit 12.4 t CO2-e/ha). Significant assumptions were required to complete the budgets due to gaps in current knowledge on the response of woody vegetation, soil carbon and non-CO2 soil emissions to management options and land-type at the property scale. The analyses indicate that there is scope for grazing businesses to choose alternative management options to influence their greenhouse gas budget. However, a key assumption is that accumulation of carbon or avoidance of emissions somewhere on a grazing business (e.g. in woody vegetation or soil) will be recognised as an offset for emissions elsewhere in the business (e.g. livestock methane). This issue will be a challenge for livestock industries and policy makers to work through in the coming years.

The climate change risk management matrix for the grazing industry of northern Australia

The complexity, variability and vastness of the northern Australian rangelands make it difficult to assess the risks associated with climate change. In this paper we present a methodology to help industry and primary producers assess risks associated with climate change and to assess the effectiveness of adaptation options in managing those risks. Our assessment involved three steps. Initially, the impacts and adaptation responses were documented in matrices by ‘experts’ (rangeland and climate scientists). Then, a modified risk management framework was used to develop risk management matrices that identified important impacts, areas of greatest vulnerability (combination of potential impact and adaptive capacity) and priority areas for action at the industry level. The process was easy to implement and useful for arranging and analysing large amounts of information (both complex and interacting). Lastly, regional extension officers (after minimal ‘climate literacy’ training) could build on existing knowledge provided here and implement the risk management process in workshops with rangeland land managers. Their participation is likely to identify relevant and robust adaptive responses that are most likely to be included in regional and property management decisions. The process developed here for the grazing industry could be modified and used in other industries and sectors. By 2030, some areas of northern Australia will experience more droughts and lower summer rainfall. This poses a serious threat to the rangelands. Although the impacts and adaptive responses will vary between ecological and geographic systems, climate change is expected to have noticeable detrimental effects: reduced pasture growth and surface water availability; increased competition from woody vegetation; decreased production per head (beef and wool) and gross margin; and adverse impacts on biodiversity. Further research and development is needed to identify the most vulnerable regions, and to inform policy in time to facilitate transitional change and enable land managers to implement those changes.

Environmental regulation in the pork producing industry - bring on the research!

Over the last 20 years, environmental management in Queensland has moved from the policy backwaters of government to the front line of operations by way of regulatory enforcement, industry programs and incentives. When the new Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EPA) came into effect, the business of environmental management has become a central feature of urban and rural development activity. The concept of environmentally sustainable development (ESD), has given life to the precautionary principle as a way for planners and regulators to place relevant controls on development. The planning, development and operation of pig farming systems has been effected by the new regulatory framework. Ever more definitive standards and approval permits have emerged which endeavour to achieve ESD. With these modern planning instruments in place, rural industry sectors have become, quite legitimately, concerned about future opportunities for research and innovation. This paper asserts that the capacity to engage in research and to achieve innovation in the pork producing industry is not hindered by Queensland environmental regulation frameworks. However, in order for research and innovation to prosper within these frameworks, some protocols need to be followed by the industry. What is at stake is community confidence.