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.

Evaluation of weed eradication programs: containment and extirpation

Weed eradication programs often require 10 years or more to achieve their objective. It is important that progress is evaluated on a regular basis so that programs that are 'on track' can be distinguished from those that are unlikely to succeed. Earlier research has addressed conformity of eradication programs to the delimitation criterion. In this paper evaluation in relation to the containment and extirpation criteria is considered. Because strong evidence of containment failure (i.e. spread from infestations targeted for eradication) is difficult to obtain, it generally will not be practicable to evaluate how effective eradication programs are at containing the target species. However, chronic failure of containment will be reflected in sustained increases in cumulative infested area and thus a failure to delimit a weed invasion. Evaluating the degree of conformity to the delimitation and extirpation criteria is therefore sufficient to give an appraisal of progress towards the eradication objective. A significant step towards eradication occurs when a weed is no longer readily detectable at an infested site, signalling entry to the monitoring phase. This transition will occur more quickly if reproduction is prevented consistently. Where an invasion consists of multiple infestations, the monitoring profile (frequency distribution of time since detection) provides a summary of the overall effectiveness of the eradication program in meeting the extirpation criterion. Eradication is generally claimed when the target species has not been detected for a period equal to or greater than its seed longevity, although there is often considerable uncertainty in estimates of the latter. Recently developed methods, which take into consideration the cost of continued monitoring vs. the potential cost of damage should a weed escape owing to premature cessation of an eradication program, can assist managers to decide when to terminate weed eradication programs.