Forest health surveillance methodology in hardwood plantations in Queensland, Australia

Forest health surveillance (FHS) of hardwood plantations commenced in Queensland in 1997 as plantations expanded following a state government planting initiative arising from the national 2020 forest policy vision. The estate was initially characterised by a large number of small plantations (10-50 ha), although this has changed more recently with the concentration of larger plantations in the central coast and South Burnett regions. Due to the disparate nature of the resource, drive- and walkthrough surveys of subsets of plantations have been undertaken in preference to aerial surveys. FHS has been effective in detecting a number of new hardwood pests in Queensland including erinose mites (Rhombacus and Acalox spp.), western white gum plate galler (Ophelimus sp.), Creiis psyllid and bronzing bug (Thaumastocoris sp.), in evaluating their potential impact and assisting in focussing future research efforts. Since 2003 there has been an increased emphasis on training operational staff to take a greater role in identifying and reporting on forest health issues. This has increased their awareness of forest health issues, but their limited time to specifically survey and report on pests and diseases, and high rates of staff turnover, necessitate frequent ongoing training. Consequently, common and widespread problems such as quambalaria shoot blight (Quambalaria pitereka), chrysomelid leaf beetles (mainly Paropsis atomaria) and erinose mites may be under-reported or not reported, and absence data may often not be recorded at all. Comment is made on the future directions that FHS may take in hardwood plantations in Queensland.

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.