Harmonising GAP programs for fresh produce in ASEAN region

Many forces are driving the global demand for assurance that fruit and vegetables are safe to eat and of the right quality, and are produced and handled in a manner that does not cause harm to the environment and the health, safety and welfare of workers. The impact of these driving forces is that retailer requirements for suppliers to comply with Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) is increasing and governments are strengthening legal requirements for food safety, environmental protection, and worker health, safety and welfare. The implementation of GAP programs currently within the ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) region varies, with some countries having government certified systems and others beginning the journey with awareness programs for farmers. Under a project funded by the ASEAN Australia Development Cooperation Program, a standard for ASEAN GAP has been developed to harmonise GAP Programs in the region. The goal is to facilitate trade between ASEAN countries and to global markets, improve viability for farmers, and help sustain a safe food supply and the environment. ASEAN GAP is an umbrella standard that individual member countries will benchmark their national programs against to gain equivalence. The scope of ASEAN GAP covers the production, harvesting and postharvest handling of fresh fruit and vegetables on farm and postharvest handling in locations where produce is packed for sale. ASEAN GAP consists of four modules covering food safety, environmental management, worker health, safety and welfare, and produce quality. Each module can be used alone or in combination with other modules. This enables progressive implementation of ASEAN GAP, module by module based on individual country priorities.

Effectiveness of commercial harvesting in controlling feral-pig populations

Context. The feral pig (Sus scrofa) is a widespread pest species in Australia and its populations are commonly controlled to reduce damage to agriculture and the environment. Feral pigs are also a resource and harvested for commercial export as game meat. Although many other control techniques are used, commercial harvesting of feral pigs is often encouraged by land managers, because it carries little or no cost and is widely perceived to control populations. Aims. To use feral-pig harvesting records, density data and simple harvest models to examine the effectiveness of commercial harvesting to reduce feral-pig populations. Methods. The present study examined commercial harvest off-take on six sites (246-657 km2) in southern Queensland, and 20 large blocks (~2-6000 km2) throughout Queensland. The harvest off-take for each site was divided by monthly or average annual population size, determined by aerial survey, to calculate monthly and annual harvest rates.Asimple harvest model assuming logistic population growth was used to determine the likely effectiveness of harvesting. Key results. Commercial harvest rates were generally low (<~20%) and are likely to provide only modest reductions in population size. Additionally, harvest rates capable of substantial reductions (>50%) in long-term population size were isolated occurrences and not maintained across sites and years. High harvest rates were observed only at low densities. Although these harvest rates may be sufficiently high to hold populations at low densities, the population is likely to escape this entrapment following a flush in food supply or a reduction in harvest effort. Implications. Our results demonstrated that, at current harvest rates, commercial harvesting is ineffective for the landscape-scale control of feral-pig populations. Unless harvest rates can be significantly increased, commercial harvesting should be used as a supplement to, rather than as a substitute for, other damage-control techniques.

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.