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.

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.

Relocation of Intensive Agriculture to Northern Queensland The Cotton Industry

Development of new agricultural industries in northern Australia is often perceived as a solution to changes in water availability that have occurred within southern Australia as a result of changes to government policy in response to and exacerbated by climate change. This report examines the likely private, social and community costs and benefits associated with the establishment of a cotton industry in the Burdekin. The research undertaken covers three spatial scales by modelling the response of cotton and to climate change at the crop and farm scale and linking this to regional scale modelling of the economy. Modelling crop growth as either a standalone crop or as part of a farm enterprise provides the clearest picture of how yields and water use will be affected under climate change. The alternative to this is to undertake very costly trials in environmental chambers. For this reason it is critical that funding for model development especially for crops being crop in novel environments be seen as a high priority for climate change and adaptation studies. Crop level simulations not only provide information on how the crop responds to climate change, they also illustrate that that these responses are the result of complex interactions and cannot necessarily be derived from the climate information alone. These simulations showed that climate change would lead to decreased cotton yields in 2030 and 2050 without the affect of CO2 fertilisation. Without CO2 fertilisation, yields would be decreased by 3.2% and 17.8%. Including CO2 fertilisation increased yields initially by 5.9%, but these were reduced by 3.6% in 2050. This still represents a major offset and at least ameliorates the impact of climate change on yield. To cope with the decreased in-crop rainfall (4.5% by 2030 and 15.8% in 2050) and an initial increase in evapotranspiration of 2% in 2030 and

Modelling interactions between farm-level structural adjustment and a regional economy: A case of the Australian rice industry

Climate change and on-going water policy reforms will likely contribute to on-farm and regional structural adjustment in Australia. This paper gathers empirical evidence of farm-level structural adjustments and integrates these with a regional equilibrium model to investigate sectoral and regional impacts of climate change and recent water use policy on rice industry. We find strong evidence of adjustments to the farming system, enabled by existing diversity in on-farm production. A further loss of water with additional pressures to adopt less intensive and larger-scale farming, will however reduce the net number of farm businesses, which may affect regional rice production. The results from a regional CGE model show impacts on the regional economy over and above the direct cost of the environmental water, although a net reduction in real economic output and real income is partially offset by gains in rest of the Australia through the reallocation or resources. There is some interest within the industry and from potential new corporate entrants in the relocation of some rice production to the north. However, strong government support would be crucial to implement such relocation.

Good science for improving policy: greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural manures

Australia’s and New Zealand’s major agricultural manure management emission sources are reported to be, in descending order of magnitude: (1) methane (CH4) from dairy farms in both countries; (2) CH4 from pig farms in Australia; and nitrous oxide (N2O) from (3) beef feedlots and (4) poultry sheds in Australia. We used literature to critically review these inventory estimates. Alarmingly for dairy farm CH4 (1), our review revealed assumptions and omissions that when addressed could dramatically increase this emission estimate. The estimate of CH4 from Australian pig farms (2) appears to be accurate, according to industry data and field measurements. The N2O emission estimates for beef feedlots (3) and poultry sheds (4) are based on northern hemisphere default factors whose appropriateness for Australia is questionable and unverified. Therefore, most of Australasia’s key livestock manure management greenhouse gas (GHG) emission profiles are either questionable or are unsubstantiated by region-specific research. Encouragingly, GHG from dairy shed manure are relatively easy to mitigate because they are a point source which can be managed by several ‘close-to-market’ abatement solutions. Reducing these manure emissions therefore constitutes an opportunity for meaningful action sooner compared with the more difficult-to-implement and long-term strategies that currently dominate agricultural GHG mitigation research. At an international level, our review highlights the critical need to carefully reassess GHG emission profiles, particularly if such assessments have not been made since the compilation of original inventories. Failure to act in this regard presents the very real risk of missing the ‘low hanging fruit’ in the rush towards a meaningful response to climate change