Developing a National Certification Process for Environmental Management in Australian Agriculture

Report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation By Philippa Rowland, (Australia 21 Scholar), Mike Waller, Geoff Gorrie and Bob Douglas (Directors Australia 21)

October 2005 RIRDC Publication No 05/157 RIRDC Project No MS056-04

ii

© 2005 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 1 74151 220 4 ISSN 1440-6845 Developing a National Certification Process for Environmental Management in Australian Agriculture Publication No. 05/157 Project No MS056-04 The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable industries. The information should not be relied upon for the purpose of a particular matter. Specialist and/or appropriate legal advice should be obtained before any action or decision is taken on the basis of any material in this document. The Commonwealth of Australia, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, the authors or contributors do not assume liability of any kind whatsoever resulting from any person's use or reliance upon the content of this document. This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact the Publications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186. Researcher Contact Details Emeritus Professor Bob Douglas Board Chair Australia 21 PO Box 3244 Weston ACT 2611 Phone: 02 6253 3138 Fax: 02 6288 0823 Email: bobdouglas@netspeed.com.au

Ms Philippa Rowland Australia 21 Scholar Phone 0429 828 412 Email rowland@netspeed.com.au

In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form. RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 1, AMA House 42 Macquarie Street BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6272 4819 Fax: 02 6272 5877 Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au Published in October 2005 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint

iii

Foreword Considerable activity, led by industry and supported by government, has been occurring in Australia in recent years on the certification of environmental management of agricultural properties. There is considerable diversity in the approach both between different sectors of industry and across jurisdictional borders. The research reported here was stimulated by a roundtable discussion organized in Queensland by Australia 21. That discussion examined the sustainability Australia's agricultural landscapes and the potential role of accredited farm and land management systems. As a result of that discussion, Australia 21 was invited to prepare an options paper for consideration by the Primary Industries Standing Committee at its meeting in September 2005. It was agreed that consultation with industry leaders should be carried out as part of the process of development of the paper. Accordingly, Australia 21 appointed Ms Philippa Rowland as an Australia 21 scholar to prepare a report entitled "Towards a National Approach to Certification and Information Management in Australian Agriculture”. A late draft of the paper was then used as input to a consultation meeting that involved 46 leaders of industry and state and federal government bodies. The proceedings of that discussion were audio-taped and transcribed and an overview of the consensus reached at that meeting has been incorporated in this report. The main conclusion is that there is now a strong case for developing the framework for a national certification process that could harmonize activities that have been piloted in recent years. The report proposes a mechanism for carrying this process forward and offers the possibility that Australia could be a world leader in developing a coherent environmental certification system for its agricultural land. This project was funded from RIRDC core funds, which are provided by the Australian Government. This report is an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1500 research publications. It forms part of our Environment and Farm Management R&D sub-program, which aims to support innovation in agriculture and the use of frontier technology to meet market demands for accredited sustainable production. Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: • downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.html • purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop Peter O’Brien Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iv

Acknowledgments Thanks are due to the following Steering Committee members who provided valuable input to the drafting of this options paper through numerous teleconferences: Peter Arkle (National Farmers Federation), Peter Kenny (AgForce), Tony Roberts (Queensland DPI), Mark Allaway (Victorian DPI), Genevieve Carruthers (NSW DPI) and George Wilson (RIRDC). We also warmly acknowledge the contributions of the 46 participants in a robust discussion on the issues raised in this paper at a roundtable consultation hosted by Australia 21 in Canberra on 9th August 2005. The 46 participants in that discussion were Peter Ampt, Rob Anderson, Martin Andrew, Peter Arkle, Genevieve Carruthers, Jean Chesson, Liz Clay, Jock Douglas, Bob Douglas, Saan Ecker, Brent Finlay, Andrew Freeman, Tony Gleeson, Geoff Gorrie, Ross Hardwick, Ellen Howard, Maurice Incerti, Andrew Johnson, Peter Kenny, Andre Leu, Ralph Leutton, Bruce Lloyd, Jane Lovell, Rod Luke, Glen Martin, Jane Muller, John Noonan, Nick Ronin, Jenny O'Sullivan, Trevor Ranford, Tony Roberts, Ian Rogan, Philippa Rowland, Gary Sansom, Phillip Schmidt, Nick Schofield, Malcolm Sedgwick, Greg Smith, Len Stephens, Heather Tomlinson, Alan Umbers, Mike Waller, Corey Watts, George Wilson, Blair Wood, and Doug Young.

v

Contents Foreword iii Acknowledgments iv Executive summary vii

Objectives vii Background vii Research vii Outcomes vii Implications viii

Overview 1 Introduction 1 Part 1. Options paper - Towards a national approach to certification and information management in Australian agriculture 1

Background 1 A practical pathway to convergence - a possible way forward 2 A national certification system for Australian agriculture 3 Strengthening national data and information management systems in agriculture 4 Conclusions and recommendations 5

Part 2. Stakeholder responses to the options paper 6 The process 6 Final consensus statement prepared for PISC 6

Full description of the research process and findings 8 Introduction 8 Part 1. The options paper 9

1. Background and purpose of the paper 9 2. International trends in agricultural certification 9 3. Towards a national approach to certification 9

Rationale for a national certification system 9 The necessary national framework for Certification in Agriculture 10 Standards and criteria 11 Accreditation 11 Audit and certification 11

4. A possible way forward – the evolution of a national certification system 12 5. Data and information management across agriculture 14 6. Benefits of a national approach to information and data management in agriculture 15 7. Labelling 16 8. Conclusions and recommendations 16

Part 2. Stakeholder response to the options paper 18 The process 18 Dotpoint summaries prepared by invitees and circulated to all participants ahead of the meeting 19

1. A researcher into agricultural systems 19 2. A consultant in natural resource management 20 3. A grazier and former agri-political leader 20 4. Two state primary industry managers 21 5. Organic farmer and chair of a regional catchment authority 22 6. Commonwealth administrator with role in agricultural monitoring and evaluation 22 7. Research ecologist 23 8. Medical epidemiologist and Director Australia 21 24 9. Pastoralist, horticulturist and leader of Australian Landcare Management System 25 10. Project Leader of EMS Pilot 26 11. Chicken meat producer and agri-political leader 26 12. Woolgrower and agri-political leader 27 13. Commercial livestock producer and consultant on agricultural policy 28 14. Director Australia 21 and former Commonwealth agricultural administrator 29 15. Representative of agri-political body 30 16. CEO of dairy industry body 31

vi

17. State resource management administrator 32 18. Organic horticulturalist and Lychee industry leader 32 19. Dairy farmer, former politician and former Chair of Landcare Council. 33 20. Food safety auditor and facilitator state based EMS Pathways Program 33 21. Mixed farmer actively involved in EMS Pilots 34 22. Manager for state horticulture agri-political group 35 23. State government primary industry manager 36 24. Representative beef and lamb body and involved in EMS pilot 36 25. Horticulturalist and agripolitical leader 37 26. State department of primary industry manager 37 27. Agricultural scientist and Australia 21 scholar 38 28. State based agri-political leader 38 29. Environmental project manager for meat and livestock association 40 30. Project manager for state based agri-political body 41 31. Manager for NRM Strategies in DAFF 41 32. A manager in the Grains Council 42 33. A manager in RIRDC 43 34. Executive Director of the national land and water audit 44 35. Policy Director of Winemakers Federation 44

The roundtable dialogue 45 Edited version of closing remarks by Australia 21 team to articulate the consensus reached 46 Final consensus statement prepared for PISC 48

References 50 Attachment 1 – Relevant International Programs and Activities 51 Attachment 2 – Relevant Australian Programs and Activities 53

NAP/NHT regional/catchment planning and investment processes 53 National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework 53 National framework for EMS in Australian agriculture 53 National Food Industry Strategy 54 National certification and accreditation bodies (JAS-ANZ etc) 55 Organic certification 55 Landcare initiatives, including ALMS 55 Australian forestry standard 55 State-based activities of certification and accreditation of sustainable agriculture 56

Queensland 56 Victoria 56 Western Australia 56 Tasmania 56 New South Wales 57 South Australia 57 Northern Territory 57

Commonwealth EMS investments 57 Related industry activities (codes of practice, best management practice etc) 58 Investment by the Research and Development Corporations 59 Horticulture for Tomorrow environment assurance guidelines 61 Murray-Darling Basin environmental stewardship system (Landmark and Watermark) 62 National accreditation scheme for professionals in NRM and agriculture 62

Attachment 3 – Relevant data and information management activities 63 National land and water resources audit and state of the environment reporting 63 Signposts for Australian agriculture 63 Other datasets from Bureau of Resource Sciences etc 64 Indicators for sustainable agriculture 65

Attachment 4 - Key principles of various agricultural certification approaches 66 Australian Land Management System (ALMS) 66 National framework for EMS in Australian agriculture 66 Murray-Darling Basin environmental stewardship system 67 Queensland farm management systems principles 67 Western Australia agricultural certification principles 68

Abbreviations and glossary 69

vii

Executive summary Objectives 1. To explore the possible shape of

• a national approach to environmental certification of the use of Australia's agricultural land resources and

• the feasibility of a national monitoring system of the environmental resilience of Australia's agricultural land.

2. To consult with leaders of Australia's agricultural bodies on these matters. Background Australia 21 in collaboration with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries held a roundtable in March 2005. This initial roundtable identified the need for an options paper on certification and information systems and the need to consult with key stakeholders on the feasibility of developing national coherence and convergence on these matters. The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation funded the development of an options paper and an industry roundtable to consider it. The following report provides both the options paper and the consultation outcomes. Research An options paper that built from recent Australian experience with Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and current national agricultural monitoring systems was prepared by a team from Australia 21 with input from a steering group with representation both from agri-political bodies and from three state departments of primary industry. The paper, which is included in this report, was then circulated to a group of stakeholders who were invited to respond to it. Thirty-five written responses were received and distributed to the forty-six participants. After the Roundtable a consensus statement was prepared and further modified in the light of comments. This is also contained in this report. Outcomes There is now an opportunity for Australia to move towards a national approach to environmental certification of the use of Australia's agricultural land resources. Such a certification system would be internationally credible and underpinned by a national information management system providing a real basis for long-term adaptive management. The issues involved in developing the system are complex. However, there was good agreement in the diverse group as to what the main features of a national system should be. The task requires convergence in some of the activities both of the Primary Industries Ministerial Council and the Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council. It also requires ongoing commitment by the Federal Government to the strong start it has made through the National Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, as well as the funds that have been committed to the industry based Environmental Management Systems. A system of certification that is imposed from the top down will neither meet the requirements nor be adopted. The Australian framework for agricultural certification should build on the enthusiasm, skills, interests and needs of Australia's landholders. The evolving national framework should seek to harmonize certification and working systems for the property manager and build on the interests and enthusiasm that have been generated through the pilot activities in recent years. An underlying principle needs to be to reduce complexity.

viii

Developing this national approach will need to pay attention both to agricultural management processes and environmental outcomes. It would build on a dynamic relationship between landholders and catchments and on a coherent national approach to collection of information that can be used to judge progress in meeting environmental targets. Part of the process should be to provide proof of stewardship and recognition of progress towards sustainability. It should also be able to substantiate claims of good environmental management and support individuals to improve environmental performance. The development of a credible framework, a national “brand” and a voluntary certification process that offers farmers tiered entry will require the creation of a new network of stakeholders. This network would bring together the interests of farmers, catchment authorities, and state and federal agencies with responsibility both for primary industry and natural resource management. Development of such a network is in the national interest and its cost cannot be borne either by the market or by producers alone. Implications Australia is well placed to become an international pacesetter in the development of internationally credible certification in agriculture and in the streamlining of certification procedures. Such a certification system will bring substantial benefits to the nation and will enable Australian farmers to be on the front foot on the environmental impact of agriculture. The opportunity exists to build on the momentum that has been established in recent years as a result of federally funded projects on Environmental Management Systems, and related investments by industry, by state governments and the rural research corporations. Building on existing schemes towards a national approach could provide Australian products with a market edge. The group of stakeholders at the Australia 21 Roundtable in August 2005 agreed that there is pressing need for 'statesmanlike' national leadership to formalise and establish the development process; and that an expanded Pathways to Industry EMS Advisory Committee is an appropriate body to provide this leadership.

1

Overview Introduction This project was developed to explore options and consider the feasibility of developing a coherent approach to the national certification of environmental management processes in Australian agriculture. It began with the preparation of an options paper by a group from Australia 21 with input from a steering group that included industry and state government representatives. The paper outlined both the need for, and possible shape of, a national approach to this issue. The authors of the paper also examined options for developing a national monitoring approach to the environmental resilience of Australia's agricultural land. The draft paper was then submitted to 46 agricultural stakeholders from diverse sectors of the industry who came together in a day of round table dialogue to examine the feasibility and practicability of the ideas contained in the options paper. There are thus two parts to this report. Part 1 is the final draft of the options paper and part 2 is a report of consensus reached at the broad ranging discussion of the issues raised in the options paper at the roundtable held in Canberra on August 9, 2005. This report is intended for wide distribution among property holders, agricultural administrators, catchment managers and researchers into the environmental resilience of agricultural landscapes. Part 1. Options paper - Towards a national approach to certification and information management in Australian agriculture Background There is a window of opportunity for Australia to develop a national approach to certification for the environmental stewardship of agriculture that is internationally credible and underpinned by a national information management system providing a real basis for long term adaptive management. The past five years have seen an unprecedented investment in integrated natural resource management at the catchment and regional scale and a rapid escalation in industry-led developments in the area of environmental assurance. These industry-led developments have typically allowed for a flexible, tiered approach allowing producers to ‘opt in’ at a particular level of verification rigour to suit their enterprise. However, this growing level of diversity and innovation may lead to confusion and frustration for producers and consumers alike unless there is a concerted effort to develop a consistent national approach. This paper suggests a possible way forward for agricultural certification in Australia. It seeks to build on common ground and to facilitate agreement on a national core set of principles and elements that could provide the basis for a voluntary but internationally credible national certification system. The aim is to put Australian rural industries in a position to demonstrate their environmental credentials to interested third parties and the community, by providing documented evidence to NRM agencies for investment and support or to consumers and international markets in order to maintain or improve market access.

2

A strong driver for rural industries will remain the potential of management systems to provide cost savings to producers from the identification of efficiencies in business practices that can lead to productivity gains. Another key driver for action is the growing pressure for food and fibre producers to provide evidence that they are managing the natural resource base and the environmental impacts of agriculture in a sustainable manner. While domestic and international markets still differentiate primarily on price and quality, expectations in key markets are changing. It is thus important that an internationally credible certification system is set up now to enable producers to voluntarily seek certification if and when there is a compelling business case for them to do so. Most Australia farms are multi-enterprise, and farmers want to adopt an integrated approach to management that focuses on robust and credible management principles applicable to all enterprises. They do not wish to undertake multiple audits and certification procedures but seek value from a streamlined auditing process that provides opportunity for feedback on performance, enhanced communication and the development of partnerships with community and NRM agencies. The proposed development of a coherent national process would assist producers to voluntarily demonstrate their management system to minimize potential negative impacts and enhance the beneficial impacts of production practices, while providing enhanced management skills, risk minimisation and data on which to develop both catchment targets and NRM policy. It would place Australian rural industries in a strong position to demonstrate their environmental credentials to a concerned public seeking reassurance about the impact of agriculture in a fragile landscape. A practical pathway to convergence - a possible way forward The immediate need is for some form of coordination mechanism responsible for progressing the development of a national certification system for Australian agriculture. This could take a number of forms: • Develop a network or taskforce that builds on the existing Pathways to Industry EMS Independent

Panel industry to develop a national process for moving forward • incorporate activities with those already being undertaken by the National Food Industry Strategy

Ltd – or by a sub-committee of the existing National Food Industry Council • develop a formal partnership approach modelled on the Research and Development Corporation

model for funding joint projects such as the Joint Venture Program on AgroForestry or Grain and Graze (ie a sectoral consortium of interests)

• promote a mutual agreement framework for a loose aggregation of individual stakeholders, jurisdictions and industries (simplest but least beneficial approach).

We suggest the most effective approach would be the development of a network to be sponsored jointly by industry and government. This would build on industry/government partnerships to develop a practical, streamlined and credible mechanism for promoting mutual recognition and setting in place the structures for certification and accreditation. The proposed design elements below are drawn from the range of existing industry/state programs, including Queensland Farm Management Systems, WA Farming for the Future, Murray Darling Basin Commission Environmental Stewardship System, Australian Landcare Management System, National Framework for Environmental Management Systems, Australian Forestry Standard, industry codes of practice, national standards for Quality Assurance (QA), Occupational Health and Safety, EMS and the organic standards. See Attachment 4 for key principles of several key approaches. The proposed set of unified core principles is: • Voluntary, industry and community led, locally relevant, linked with catchment outcomes, build

on existing programs (including EMS, QA, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point, Freshcare, Property Management Planning etc)

3

The proposed crucial common elements/components of the certification systems are: • Standards, accreditation, audit, certification, data and information management, labelling • Risk assessment, continual improvement, systems approach, monitoring and evaluation,

recording, documentation. The proposed core performance standards are: • Comply with existing regulations, duty of care/due diligence, catchment/regional targets The proposed network could usefully be funded to undertake integration studies that assess how existing relevant frameworks and programs in various jurisdictions and industries (see Attachment 2) can best be coordinated in the national interest, including but not exclusively the following: • National Food Industry Strategy • NAP/NHT regional/catchment planning and investment processes • Landcare initiatives (specifically including the Australian Land Management System) • National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework • National Framework for EMS in Australian Agriculture • National certification and accreditation bodies (JAS-ANZ etc) • State-based activities of certification and accreditation of sustainable agriculture • Commonwealth EMS investment (EMS National Pilot, Pathways to Industry EMS and EMS

Incentives Programs) • Related industry activities (codes of practice, best management practice guidelines etc) • Murray Darling Basin Environmental Stewardship program (Landmark and Watermark) • Horticulture for Tomorrow (Horticulture Australia Ltd environment assurance project) • Signposts for Australian Agriculture (measuring industries contribution to ESD) • National Land and Water Resources Audit and State of the Environment reporting etc • Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture (including the National Collaborative Program on

Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture, NCPISA). A national certification system for Australian agriculture Consideration of a national certification system for Australian agriculture is timely, given international trends that suggest some kind of certification process may become an inevitable requirement of market access in future. Governments in industrialised countries, particularly in Europe and North America, are actively developing a raft of environmental programs and certification arrangements. National certification schemes for agriculture are under development in the United Kingdom, France and Canada. An industry/government conference in June 2005 called for a national foundation to promote agricultural environmental management systems (EMS) in the United States, while the Common Codex for Integrated Farming is being proposed as a realistic way forward for Sustainable Agriculture in Europe (See Attachment 1). Australian certification arrangements for agriculture must be WTO-compliant to ensure continued market access for Australian commodities and minimise the potential for disputes with trading partners (Rowland, 2003). The WTO recommends that its member countries adopt internationally recognised standards where possible. The most relevant, internationally recognised process standard is ISO 14001 for environmental management systems (EMS), a continuous improvement business management tool already used worldwide by other industries. However, rural industry-led developments have typically built on existing industry initiatives and programs, so a model needs to be developed for mutual recognition of common elements achieved through a variety of means. The benefits to farmers of a co-ordinated farm management approach that streamlines the process of achieving business efficiencies and delivering proof of stewardship for legislative and market requirements cannot be underestimated.

4

It makes sense to align the certification process with the significant existing investment in developing regional/catchment standards and targets through the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) and the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT). These provide both resource condition targets and management action targets for regional natural resource management plans, where these are in place. It is worth noting that serious gaps remain in the provision of data at a scale and in a format useful for on ground management decisions. Investment is required into the development of a core set of national performance criteria against which industry and state efforts can be benchmarked. Any performance standards considered will have to be locally relevant and readily monitored. Credibility and accountability are essential elements for the successful development of a national certification system for agriculture. Credibility requires both domestic/international recognition and local ownership of the certification system, while accountability requires a clear link with improvements in natural resource management (ie actual environmental outcomes). Any viable certification scheme will thus include both process and performance standards. To be adopted, such a scheme will also have to recognise and build on the significant activity already taking place around Australia, as briefly captured in Attachment 2 and more thoroughly document in the National Inventory of Environmental Management Systems in Australian Agriculture (Rowland, in press). Strengthening national data and information management systems in agriculture A credible national certification system needs to be underpinned by a national system for sharing relevant information on natural resource trends and condition. Ideally this will provide a baseline for future monitoring and inform on-ground management decisions to enable adaptive management of the biophysical resource base that underpins all agriculture, indeed all human settlement. Improvements in major intractable problems like salinity, biodiversity and resilience will rely on cumulative outcomes at the landscape scale. Achieving this will require landholders to be provided with the information necessary to assist them to document and track their contributions towards meeting regional and catchment targets. This will be difficult given the complexities of cause and effect in the landscape, and the time-scales involved. However, the ability to set a baseline for resource condition and provide feedback on progress is critical. There have been significant investments and improvements in data management across agriculture. The aim is to add value to existing work rather than to reinvent the wheel. Nonetheless serious gaps still exist, particularly between information gathered at the national and state/regional level and the information at the scale required for landholder decision making. Existing efforts include the national monitoring and evaluation framework, signposts for Australian agriculture, the BRS land-use and other databases, a conceptual framework for socio-economic and biophysical information and the report on the status of the natural resources underpinning the national NRM monitoring and evaluation framework (See Attachment 3). A key requirement is to enhance the ability to populate these frameworks with real data. One economical option could involve the National Land and Water Resources Audit. The National Land and Water Resources Audit could be easily 'institutionalised' and thus move away from being a time limited 'project' under the Natural Heritage Trust. The service requirements for a National Certification System for Australian Agriculture could be built into the charter of an ongoing Audit. Similar service requirements could be built in for State of the Environment Reporting, the National Water Initiative and other monitoring and evaluation frameworks to achieve effective integration of all data and information systems. This option would appear to make best use of existing mechanisms. Areas/issues for consideration (by whatever agency, consortium or co-ordinating group is charged with this integration role) include the potential for improved co-ordination across jurisdictions and landscapes and mechanisms for facilitating the reliable transfer of information across geographic scales.

5

Conclusions and recommendations There appears to be an inescapable trend that requirements for environmental assurance of agriculture will increase over time, potentially quite rapidly in some international markets. Early and coordinated response by the Australian rural industries is prudent, particularly in promoting robust management approaches that retain flexibility for addressing issues that change over time. The very diversity and complexity of Australian agriculture will continue to make it difficult for the development of a single ‘one-size fits all approach’, particularly given the level of investment in individual programs to date. Nevertheless, some level of consistency, harmonization or mutual recognition will be required to maintain and improve the credibility of Australian efforts in international markets and to reduce the burden of multiple systems on landholders themselves. Combining the management benefits of continuous improvement processes such as EMS with environmental product assurance programs and codes of practice targeting specific markets will strengthen the overall certification approach being taken by Australian agriculture. A voluntary process combined with agreed baseline standards will enable agricultural producers to demonstrate attainment of acceptable environmental practices, the pre-requisite for any environmental claims. This can be applied to opportunities such as market access and advantage in environmentally sensitive markets, or future programs such as carbon trading or payments for ecosystem services where attainment of acceptable practices is required (ie going beyond continuous improvement). Independent third party audit and certification (with robust and credible accreditation of the auditors) would provide the necessary assurance that markets and consumers may seek on environmental credibility. There is a range of options for establishing a coordination mechanism to address these issues. On grounds of simplicity and focus, we recommend a special purpose network or taskforce that would develop a strategic plan at the national level that can be enacted at state and industry level. Elements of that strategic plan should include objectives, actions, coordination, monitoring and review. We recommend the network be tasked with addressing the following issues: • Clearly define the production, inspection/audit, certification and labelling criteria and processes

that will constitute the national certification system for Australian agriculture • Investigate the potential for harmonisation of mutual elements across various schemes • Improve communication and co-ordination across various industry activities and government

initiatives (at all three levels of government) • Seize the opportunity to forge better links between industry and state developments and

existing/developing frameworks for natural resource management, quality management and international trade.

• Develop an effective mechanism to provide feedback to industry leaders and organizations on international trends in agricultural certification. Promote closer liaison with international bodies including but not only the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Sustainable Agriculture Initiative, International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements, United Nations Environment Program, EUREPGAP, European Initiative for Sustainable Agriculture etc

• Consider requirements and options for national evidence in supporting clean and green claims for export markets (sustainability index, ecological footprints, on-ground NRM outcomes)

• Develop national approach to indicators – whether agreed set or devolved to nested sets of regional/industry indicators.

6

Part 2. Stakeholder responses to the options paper The process Australia 21 convened a group of 46 stakeholders on August 9, 2005in Canberra to discuss the recommendations contained in the options paper. Participants in addition to the Australia 21 team, included land managers and representatives of agri-political bodies, state primary industry and federal government administrators, individuals actively involved in the piloting of farm and environmental management systems and in target setting by catchment authorities, and people involved in monitoring environmental aspects of Australian agricultural land. The format of the consultation was a full day of roundtable dialogue that was preceded by the email exchange of participant responses in the form of up to a page of “dot-point” comments to this options paper by the invitees. Thirty-six of the 46 participants in the dialogue provided a written response to the options paper that was circulated to all of the other participants twenty four hours before the consultation began. A summary was prepared after careful review of the transcripts of the discussion and submitted to participants for comment or amendment. The summary below is the final result of this process. Final consensus statement prepared for PISC 1. The piloting and experimentation with Environmental Management Systems that has been supported in recent years by the Federal Government and by most industry groups and state and territory governments around Australia has resulted in discernible and measurable benefits both to farm productivity and to environmental outcomes. It has also generated considerable enthusiasm and motivation at the grass roots. 2. There is need for a national framework that builds upon the momentum that has been developed towards the certification of environmental stewardship and the adaptive management of land at all scales for all purposes. This national framework needs to be internationally and locally relevant and provide international equivalence. Its primary justification is environmental improvement, not to gain a market premium. 3. Such a framework could enable the development of common principles for a national certification approach to farm management and the ongoing development of a monitoring system that describes the environmental sustainability of the Australian landscape. 4. There is need for property managers to work synergistically with the evolving network of catchment management authorities to set environmental targets and monitor progress towards these targets. These two issues - the setting and achievement of environmental targets at the catchment level and certification of environmental accomplishment at the property level - are closely interdependent and need to be developed with an eye to the profitability of agricultural enterprises and the long term sustainability of the Australian landscape, including particularly its provision of ecosystem services.

5. An underlying principle needs to be to reduce complexity. Property managers are confronted by a variety of certification requirements and expectations of compliance with a range of regulations. Auditing for all of these purposes has proliferated dangerously in recent years. Industries, products, activities and environmental outcomes have all become the subject of audit, certification and labelling. The evolving national framework should seek to harmonise audit and certification systems for the property manager and should build on the interests and enthusiasm that have been generated through the pilot activities in recent years.

7

6. Both internationally and domestically, there are emerging market drivers for certification that include not only food safety, occupational health and safety and animal welfare issues, but also environmental outcomes. Adequately responding to all of these issues is sound business for landholders but for multi-product farmers, coordination and streamlining of the audit and certification process is urgently required. 7. Australia should now embark on a process towards national certification that pays attention both to agricultural management processes and environmental outcomes. This should build on a dynamic relationship between landholders and catchments and on a coherent national approach to collection of information that can be used to judge progress in meeting environmental targets. Part of the process should be to provide proof of stewardship and recognition of progress towards sustainability. It should also be able to substantiate claims of good environmental management and support individuals to improve environmental performance. 8. This development of a credible framework, a national “brand” and voluntary certification that offers farmers tiered entry will require the development of a new network of stakeholders that brings together the interests of farmers, catchment authorities, and state and federal agencies with responsibility both for Primary Industry and Natural Resource Management. 9. Development of such a network is in the national interest and its cost cannot be borne either by the market or by producers alone. The group agreed that there is pressing need for 'statesmanlike' national leadership to formalise and establish the framework; and that an expanded EMS Advisory Committee is an appropriate body to provide this leadership. 10. The issues involved in developing a national framework for certification are complex. However, Australia is well placed to become an international pacesetter in the development of internationally credible certification in agriculture and in the streamlining of certification procedures. There was good agreement in the diverse group about the main features required of a national system. 11. The task requires convergence in some of the activities both of the Primary Industries Ministerial Council and the Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council. It also requires ongoing commitment by the Federal Government to the strong start it has made through the National Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, as well as the funds that have been committed to the Industry based Environmental Management Systems. 12. A system of certification that is imposed from the top down will neither meet the requirements nor be adopted. The Australian framework should build on the enthusiasm, skills, interests and needs of Australia's landholders. Such a system will bring substantial benefits to the nation and will enable Australian farmers to be on the front foot on the environmental impact of Agriculture.

8

Full description of the research process and findings

Introduction Australia 21 is a non-profit company whose core business is developing interdisciplinary and inter-institutional networks aimed at expanding frameworks for understanding key Australian problems. On 31st of March and 1st April 2005, Australia 21 held a roundtable in Brisbane on the topic "Sustainability of Australia's Agricultural Landscapes: the Potential Role of Accredited Farm and Land Care Management Systems". The 40 invited participants included landholders, farm leaders, scientists, environmentalists, researchers, government officials, representatives from banks and supermarkets, and experts in certification and labelling. The roundtable agreed that there is now both a need and a timely opportunity for development of a coherent national system of data collection, certification and accreditation of the environmental management of agricultural land resources. There is a need to avoid multiple competing and incompatible certification schemes that will lead to confusion and frustration for producers and purchasers alike. An Australia 21 communiqué was submitted by the Queensland Government to the April 2005 Primary Industries Ministerial Council Meeting, which supported the preparation of a paper by Queensland and Victoria. This paper was presented at the Primary Industries Standing Committee (PISC), scheduled for 15 to 16 September 2005 and is now being forwarded to both the Primary Industries and the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council meetings in October. The authors worked with an industry/government advisory group to develop the Australia 21 options paper which details ways in which a national certification system might evolve. The options paper built from work carried out in many Australian jurisdictions and industries in recent years on environmental and farm management systems and on catchment information systems. It suggests a process whereby industry, Commonwealth and State stakeholders could quite quickly develop a national framework for certification that could enhance the sustainability of Australian agriculture and underpin the differentiation of Australian agricultural products in the international marketplace.

9

Part 1. The options paper “Towards a National Approach to Certification and Information Management in Australian Agriculture” by Philippa Rowland, (Australia 21 Scholar) Mike Waller, Geoff Gorrie and Bob Douglas (Australia 21 Directors) 1. Background and purpose of the paper We suggest here ways forward to a voluntary but internationally credible national certification approach that will place Australian agricultural producers at the leading edge of international markets. The paper also outlines principles for the evolution of national information systems that could underpin such an approach. It suggests a practical vision for the way forward, recognising that this would represent the starting point for a nationally coherent approach to the management of Australia’s fragile land resources. This paper is believed to be of interest to the national agricultural stock-take and to ministerial councils on primary industry and natural resource management. 2. International trends in agricultural certification Governments in industrialised countries, particularly in Europe and North America, have been active in relation to environmental concerns and have established a raft of environmental programs and certification arrangements. There are also significant trends in South East Asia, and in the retail sector with the development of the EurepGAP Integrated Farm Assurance scheme and the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative. Several countries have embarked on the development of national certification schemes for agriculture in various forms. More details are provided in Attachment 2 and in reports by Rowland, 2001/2005 in press, and the Allen Consulting Group, 2005). 3. Towards a national approach to certification Rationale for a national certification system The critical challenges that face agriculture today include managing the complexities of a fragile environment, a competitive world market and changing trade rules, and the ever increasing regulatory demands on producers. The Australian community is investing significant resources in integrated NRM at catchment and regional scale, yet our ability to prove that collective efforts are increasing the sustainability of agricultural production is still in its infancy. Momentum is building with great diversity of activities taking place across jurisdictions and industries. However, there is a narrow window of opportunity to add value to existing programs and policies by identifying gaps and potential mechanisms to develop synergies and improve coordination. There is a need to help farmers move onto a more ‘professional’ footing, gaining recognition for their competence in management and environmental stewardship. A significant current threat is the proliferation of incompatible and inconsistent schemes that do not ‘mesh’ in the long-term national interest, particularly those that may be product or sector specific and limited in their ability to be integrated at the farm level. Drivers vary enormously across industries and across regions, with market signals strongest for those industries closest to their buyers, (eg fresh horticultural produce) and environmental signals strongest for industries most reliant on scarce resources (eg. irrigated agriculture). To be widely adopted, any accredited farm and land management system will need to be: • domestically and internationally credible • useful and usable 'from the ground up' • compatible with existing agricultural business management tools • some combination of process (eg. EMS) and performance standards (eg regional benchmarks)

10

Enlightened self-interest will be the key ingredient to widespread adoption (ie. the benefits need to be evident to landholders for them to bother engaging in the certification process). Mutual recognition of common elements across the myriad of state and industry programs currently underway will facilitate progress towards a national system (see Table 1). The range of existing work (see Attachment 1) considered while developing this paper includes: • National Food Industry Strategy • NAP/NHT regional/catchment planning and investment processes • Landcare initiatives (specifically including the Australian Land Management System) • National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework • National Framework for EMS in Australian Agriculture • National certification and accreditation bodies (JAS-ANZ etc) • State-based activities of certification and accreditation of sustainable agriculture and farm

planning processes (including specific property management, vegetation, drainage and water/irrigation and biodiversity plans)

• Commonwealth EMS investment (EMS Pilots, Pathways program, EMS Incentive) • Related industry activities (codes of practice, best management practice guidelines etc) • Murray Darling Basin Environmental Stewardship program (Landmark and Watermark) • Horticulture for Tomorrow (Horticulture Australia Ltd environment assurance project) • Signposts for Australian Agriculture (measuring industries contribution to ESD) • National Land and Water Resources Audit and State of the Environment reporting etc • Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture (including NCPISA) Table 1. Some state based activities pertinent to this report Jurisdiction/Industry Name of program or policy Type of activity Queensland Farm Management Systems Government/industry MOU

on accrediting FMS as meeting specific property level requirements.

Western Australia Farming for the Future Audit and Certification of sustainable agriculture

Victoria EMS in Victorian Agriculture Government/industry EMS partnership

New South Wales Property Vegetation and Management Plans, Farm Plan, use of EMS amongst a range of industry groups and individual businesses, Environmental Services Scheme

Agreed plans to meet vegetation conservation aims, enhanced business planning skills + EMS on specific sites

South Australia State NRM Plan under a new NRM Act, and the release of Environmental Legislation relevant to primary producers

Coordinated NRM planning, and provision of ready info on environmental regulations

Tasmania Tasmanian ecolabel Third party auditing to receive a Responsible Agriculture certificate

The necessary national framework for Certification in Agriculture Here we clarify the steps needed to develop an internationally credible certification system for Australian agriculture, drawing on relevant Australian and international experience eg. Standards Australia, the Australian Forestry Standard and AQIS accredited certification of organic produce.

11

Three central elements: standards and criteria, accreditation and audit and certification are considered here. Development of national data and information on the environmental attributes of land, which will provide the essential underpinning of a certification process, is considered in section 4 of this report. A fifth vital issue, the labelling of products that have been certified by an accredited agency as meeting desired standards, is a subject that is discussed briefly under section 7. Markets and consumers will be influenced by the authority of the label that is attached to products that arise from farms and processes, which have been certified as meeting appropriate standards. There is still considerable scope for improving the credibility and accountability of all parties in the process of certification of agriculture – governments, industry, producers and consumers. The issue is not only to identify clearly their roles and responsibilities but also to ensure that transparent actions are taken and sustained over the long term. Standards and criteria Credibility will depend on audit and certification under a recognised system. In order for Australian agriculture to reap the benefits of recognition for its sustainable resource use, any national initiative must be based on well-defined standards. A key question is certification against what standard? This is a process that took forestry a number of years to develop. Standards Australia is the recognised national body for standards development. Agriculture is very diverse and needs are uniquely different, depending on farm size, commodity, marketing arrangements and farm philosophy. One size cannot fit all needs so an Australian approach must be flexible to accommodate unique needs. Substantial investment is required to assist producers in becoming compliant even with existing environmental laws. The environmental compartments to be managed don’t really differ (soil, water, air, biodiversity, social/community/neighbours, cultural etc.) but expectations for performance outcomes differ regionally, and rightly so. In addition, solutions applied to specific problems will also differ, so flexibility in innovation is required and should be encouraged. In recent years there has been substantial investment in national natural resource management through accredited regional/catchment plans in the NAP and NHT. This has resulted in the development of catchment targets that could become the basis for criteria for incorporation in on farm targets. Accreditation Accreditation is the formal recognition of competence that an authoritative body gives to another body or person, to empower them to perform specified tasks such as third party auditing against given standards for the purpose of certification. Accreditation thus provides confidence in certification. In Australia, accreditation is generally done by the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ). For example, accreditation criteria for EMS are based on the requirements of ISO/IEC Guide 66 and the IAF Guidance on the Application of ISO/IEC Guide 66 for Bodies Operating Assessment and Certification/Registration of Environmental Management Systems. JASANZ ensures the credibility of Australian certification system (based on internationally accepted procedures and Standards, see WA Dept of Ag. 2004 for a good outline). It does so by providing a measure of confidence in the competence, integrity, independence and impartiality of certification bodies and enables the international process of mutual recognition with other accredited certification bodies around the world. It identifies the clear dichotomy between those developing and giving advice and those auditing to see that advice is being implemented. (It is not credible for the auditors to be the same people who have developed the standards, best management practices or other guides). Audit and certification Certification refers to assurance that a business, producer or processor is operating in conformity with a particular standard (for example organic, Forest or Marine Stewardship Council or the ISO series of

12

standards). Certification procedures require an accredited third party to gives written assurance that they have methodically assessed the extent of compliance with a clearly identified set of process and/or performance and/or product standards and have adequate confidence that the processes and practices conform with the standards in question. JAS-ANZ have registers of accredited certification bodies in various programs – independent third party companies that verify compliance with a system or a standard by formal audit. Certification bodies may be able to audit and certify against a range of areas of concern (eg QA, OHS, EMS) thus improving streamlining as desired by producers – particularly if common management elements are applied. There are major benefits to be gained by using recognised ISO and Australian Standards that have elements in common. Audit may take place at three levels 1st party audit – eg self–assessment 2nd party – peer review eg cotton BMP or Woolworth’s audit against their own requirements 3rd party – independent eg ISO 14001 or SQF 2000 where the auditor has no role in the development of the management systems applied and audits against a recognised standard. Recent cost-benefit survey work (MDBC 2005) revealed that producers seem to be willing to go as far as 2nd party audit (peer review by industry or colleagues) – yet a sceptical public and a competitive international marketplace may in time demand 3rd party independent audit by accredited auditors. Issues for agriculture that will require particular consideration are: • The availability of accredited auditors with relevant training or knowledge of farming systems • Systems for ensuring auditor competence across industries and regions • Who will pay for encouraging landholders to leap the audit hurdle (consumers, industry,

government) and do they need to from an environmental perspective? 4. A possible way forward – the evolution of a national certification system How might a national certification system evolve and build from what is currently in place in Australia? A potential model proposed is for individual industries to determine specific competencies and standards with nationally agreed processes for certification. This would suggest an agreed national process enacted at the state and industry level (with specific performance outcomes identified from regional/industry perspective – ie catchment targets and industry codes of practice where applicable). The key aim here is to identify and build on common ground amongst existing diverse schemes towards an internationally credible, mutually beneficial national approach. There is a need to: 1. Identify the principles used in the various approaches and propose a set of unified core

principles that apply in current certification schemes such as Qld Farm Management Systems, WA Farming for the Future, National EMS framework, SQF, ALMS, Industry programs.

2. Develop mutual recognition of common elements. This will require analysis of various systems and identification of key components (eg risk assessment, continual improvement, systems approach, monitoring and evaluation, communication with relevant parties, recognition of the need to training, updating of information.)

3. Identify core performance standards (eg comply with existing regulations, provide evidence of duty of care/due diligence, meet regional and catchment targets). This could possibly occur

through recognition of a progressive series of environmental milestones which provide specific issues/outcomes and technical support to ‘flesh’ out the management principles, and become the areas that are implemented. (These could be derived from industry specific BMPs)

4. Develop a nationally standard approach to tiered certification (Tier 1 - self-assessment, Tier 2 -peer review, Tier 3 - 3rd party audit comprising an external 3rd party audit certified by accredited

13

certification body consistent with requirements for programs such as SQF, ALMs and ISO 14001.

5. Build on work already underway via the NFIS, industry strategies and national frameworks. The central principles of a national system will need to be stated very clearly. Key principles of various existing approaches are provided in Attachment 4. All land managers (not limited to farmers, but also forestry, national parks etc) will need ultimately to recognise and potentially report on the impact of their activities on the natural resource base of Australia. In developing the national approach it will be necessary to consider the views of all relevant stakeholders in defining objectives, targets and outcomes, plus legal and other industry requirements Develop measurable means to address impacts. The aim of all of this activity is to prevent further and future impacts where possible by taking a precautionary approach and to provide evidence of acceptable stewardship of the land. There has been a substantial increase in the engagement of Australian primary industries on the environment and natural resource management over the past 5 years. One key to the apparent plethora of different approaches being generated is to understand the investments already made by various industry sectors to meet new standards for quality, food safety and occupational health and safety. Across the spectrum, industries vary in their starting points for considering the environment as an emerging issue. Some have existing commitments to Environmental Management Systems (EMS), others to food safety programs based on hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP), quality assurance (QA) and/or other vendor declaration schemes imposed on them by the marketplace or the retail sector. Given the time and energy required to promote industry adoption, there may be reluctance in some quarters to wholeheartedly embrace a common approach. Nevertheless, given the inescapable need to improve the management of the natural resource base and provide evidence to underpin claims made on the basis of environmentally friendly production, there is great merit in developing a uniquely Australian approach that is internationally credible. It is in Australia’s long-term interests to have land management strategies that deal effectively with issues of common concern to Indigenous and non-Indigenous land managers alike (including complex problems like salinity, land degradation, feral animals and weeds). Any national effort to improve sustainable management of Australia’s natural resources must acknowledge the extent of Indigenous custodianship of the land is now 15-20% nationally. It is clear that any certification system will need to combine both process and performance standards. Environmental performance has strong potential to be used as a de-facto trade barrier in the future. Australian certification arrangements for agriculture must be WTO-compliant to ensure continued market access for Australian commodities and minimise the potential for disputes with trading partners. The WTO recommends that its member countries adopt internationally recognised standards where possible, including those of direct relevance for agricultural production developed by the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) and Codex Alimentarius amongst others. The WTO is keen to limit the proliferation of different domestic technical standards. EMS has benefits as it is an internationally accepted voluntary standard put forward by the International Standards Organisation (ISO) and provides a management process that can be informed by the relevant regional and industry specific performance outcomes being set at the local level. Multi-commodity producers have often stated in discussions with government that they perceive a critical need to avoid the creation of multiple incompatible schemes that duplicate demands on producers’ time and energy. A landholder producing meat, wool, grains and even some export horticultural crops on their river flats does not want to have to contend with four separate sets of documentation and monitoring for each commodity. This keenness for minimising the pressure on producers already struggling to meet the multiple requirements of QA, HACCP, OHS etc, leads to

14

strong interest in developing some streamlined reporting mechanisms and promoting mutual recognition of common components of various schemes. The rationale for developing an agreed National Framework for EMS in Australian Agriculture (NRMMC, 2002) was to provide a national context within which existing industry programs and growing interest in EMS could be harnessed to best advantage to improve management and contribute to both market and environmental outcomes across industries and regions. NSW DPI Interviews revealed a majority of farmers (Carruthers 2003, 2005) want to use a management approach that allows them to integrate all facets of farm management – environmental, Quality Assurance (QA), Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) and animal welfare (95% of farmers using EMS, 70% non-EMS). Producers want to be able to apply the same principles across all of their management, and require sufficient technical information to back up their management processes. Landholders with property-wide assessment and actions developed to address their key environmental impacts may be well placed to receive government funding. In time, investment may depend upon producers’ ability to demonstrate that all stakeholder views, and relevant local, regional and other plans have been taken into consideration when setting property-level management targets. EMS is useful process to identify and implement property-scale actions that can contribute to catchment scale targets set in the regional NHT planning process for natural resource management. This also includes the opportunity to integrate the monitoring of natural resource condition at property (via EMS), catchment and regional (via NRM/CMA groups), state (state agencies) and national (NLWRA) scales. The framework offers the flexibility to enter the continuous improvement cycle at a number of levels to suit the needs of the operator. This approach will continue to fit well with approaches such as Farm Management Systems (FMS), Best Management Practice (BMP) programs, Property Management Planning, native vegetation management planing and mapping, Grazing Land Management (GLM) and Integrated Area Wide Management. However, achieving outcomes will depend upon both provision of adequate environmental information and setting of adequate environmental standards or industry/community benchmarks. There has been considerable discussion about the potential of EMS to help achieve triple bottom line outcomes. Environmental non-government organisations in Australia have been quick to point out the deficiencies of EMS if deployed as a stand-alone process standard. Groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and the WorldWide Fund for Nature have consistently identified the need to ensure EMS produces tangible environmental benefits on the ground – documenting and sharing the results of the various EMS trials and pilots taking place around Australia will be an important reality check. 5. Data and information management across agriculture To underpin standards used in a national certification system there must be agreed performance outcomes that provide credible evidence about the issue of environmental sustainability of the landscape. A key aim would be to develop agreed principles for the evolution of national information systems that can inform individual landholder and catchment efforts to improve the environment. This, in turn, would provide a practical and coherent approach to monitoring the management of Australia’s fragile land resources. There have been significant improvements in the data management across agriculture. However, serious gaps still exist, particularly between information gathered at the national and state/regional level and the information at the scale required for landholder decision making. Existing efforts (see Attachment 3) include a report on the status of the natural resources underpinning the national monitoring and evaluation framework, signposts for Australian agriculture, the BRS landuse and other databases and a conceptual framework for socio-economic and biophysical information. Landscape Function Analysis (Tongway and Hindley, 2003 and 2004) is one powerful tool for monitoring the

15

functional status of rangelands that may provide a means of assessing resilience and sustainability of broader agricultural landscapes. The context for action is the need to mend current gaps in information flows and provide domestic and international accountability for agriculture's management of natural resources. Opportunities to provide data and input into the NRM planning processes also need to be provided for those actually managing the land (ie adaptive management feedback loops). One option that makes efficient use of existing mechanisms would be to build the service requirements for a National Certification System for Australian Agriculture into the charter of an ongoing National Land and Water Resources Audit. The National Land and Water Resources Audit could be easily 'institutionalised' and thus move into a longer-term oversight role. Similar service requirements could be built in for State of the Environment Reporting, the National Water Initiative and other monitoring and evaluation frameworks to achieve effective integration of all data and information systems. To make headway in improving the sustainability of the natural resource base, we still need: • practical and reliable information on the current status of the resource base available at a scale

useful to the individual landholder (ie. disaggregated from catchment, regional or national databases in a meaningful way)

• translation of broad-based catchment targets into farm-scale targets and actions • widespread adoption of improved practices across land-uses (ie. farming, forestry, peri-urban,

national parks) • long term support and technical assistance for monitoring ecological change to assess whether

progress is being made in a positive direction and provide feedback. • a national set of sustainability indicators for agriculture might help to provide consistency as the

Montreal process indicators do in forestry - a key issue is to avoid artificially imposing consistency on a diverse continent.

Issues for consideration in developing a national information management system include: • Potential for improved co-ordination across jurisdictions and landscapes (current barriers to

information flows constitute a serious opportunity cost, particularly at ground level) • Scientific issues of reliability of data/information transfers across scales (up and down) • Availability of existing environmental data and ability to ‘plug’ gaps • Facilitate involvement of farmers and others through ease of gaining information, support and

encouragement/mentoring, and to provide input into the entire process • Regional focus on seeking landscape outcomes for large-scale intractable problems (eg. salinity,

water quality, biodiversity, vegetation etc) • Resourcing/staffing • Ability to capture data in a consistent manner and promote consistent ‘language’

o scale issues – across landscapes, farms, catchments, regions, etc. o maintenance of confidentiality (critical to gaining trust/participation) and access issues o provision of on-going funding and stability in order for the initiative to continue without the

loss of either data or good-will involved. 6. Benefits of a national approach to information and data management in agriculture Benefits of a national data and information management system include the ability to: • provide landholders with information necessary to assist meet regional/catchment targets • gather evidence required for domestic and international accountability in management of natural

resource base • enable feedback for adaptive management of resources

16

• provide credibility, consistency and clarity for external stakeholders (Australian public through to consumers and regulators)

• permit diversity while promoting convergence, consistency and coherence • encourage integration with existing systems and harmonisation or mutual recognition of common

elements • facilitate entry at any level and progress at own pace with agreed 'stepping stones' and end points • provide an access point for ‘tried and true’ methods/outcomes • allows collation of a huge variety of data to develop real national trend statements 7. Labelling If producers are to benefit from consumer recognition of the national certification system for Australian agriculture, a meaningful label and logo will need to be developed for products that meet the certification requirements. Integrity of the label will require legal protection of the certification mark. Developments in this area should be consistent with international eco-labelling requirements and aligned with the proposed development of a national eco-label for agriculture by the Australian Environmental Labelling Association (AELA, see www.aela.org.au). AELA already delivers a national ecolabelling program for other consumer and building products. There has been market demand and interest in AELA developing an ecolabel for agriculture, however, AELA believes that the technical foundations and underpinning science required for an Australian agricultural ecolabel is yet to be created. According to AELA, the key elements required are: 1. regional catchment data on the absorptive capacity of catchment for chemical application,

biodiversity and endangered communities and species; 2. A quantitative methodology of soil quality and 3. A national dataset available via a national platform so that different regions can be assessed

[pers. Comm., Petar Johnsson, AELA October 2005]. CSIRO produced an excellent paper entitled Credible ‘Clean and Green’ (Heinze 2000), which set out the requirements for a credible Australian approach to environmental audit, certification and labelling. Heinze pointed out that environmental labelling is critically important in markets where environmental credentials are important to sales, providing examples of pulp and paper markets in Europe, USA and Japan and suggesting Australia trades on being ‘clean and green’, yet trading partners do not necessarily support this view, eg. with the EU aware of Australia’s salinity problems. Australia may need to defend its trade position by clearly articulating the unique bio-geophysical characteristics of the Australian continent, demonstrating our growing understanding of these characteristics, developing a set of environmental indicators and standards relevant to Australian conditions and demonstrating that Australia is taking positive steps to manage its environmental problems. 8. Conclusions and recommendations There appears to be an inescapable trend that requirements for environmental assurance of agriculture will increase over time, potentially quite rapidly in some international markets. An early and coordinated response by the Australian rural industries is prudent, particularly in promoting robust management approaches that retain flexibility for addressing issues that change over time. The very diversity and complexity of Australian agriculture will continue to make it difficult for the development of a single ‘one-size fits all approach’, particularly given the level of investment in individual programs to date. Nevertheless, some level of consistency or harmonization will be required to maintain and improve the credibility of Australian efforts in international markets. Combining the management benefits of continuous improvement processes such as EMS with environmental product assurance programs and codes of practice targeting specific markets will strengthen the overall certification approach being taken by Australian agriculture. A voluntary process combined with agreed baseline standards will enable agricultural producers to demonstrate attainment of acceptable environmental practices, the pre-requisite for any environmental claims. This

17

can be applied to opportunities such as market access and advantage in environmentally sensitive markets, or future programs such as carbon trading or payments for ecosystem services where attainment of acceptable practices is required (ie going beyond continuous improvement). Independent third party certification (or auditing (with related robust and credible accreditation of those auditors)) provides the assurance markets and consumers may seek on environmental credibility. There is a range of options for establishing a coordination mechanism to address these issues. On grounds of simplicity and focus, we would recommend a special purpose network or taskforce that would develop a strategic plan at the national level that can be enacted at state and industry level. Elements should include objectives, actions, coordination, monitoring and review. We recommend the network be tasked with addressing the following issues: • Clearly define the production, inspection/audit, certification and labelling criteria and processes

that will constitute the national certification system for Australian agriculture • Investigate the potential for harmonisation of mutual elements across various schemes • Improve communication and co-ordination across various industry activities and government

initiatives (at all three levels of government) • Seize the opportunity to forge better links between industry and state developments and

existing/developing frameworks for natural resource management, quality management and international trade.

• Develop an effective mechanism to provide feedback to industry leaders and organizations on international trends in agricultural certification. Promote closer liaison with international bodies including but not only the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Sustainable Agriculture Initiative, International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements, United Nations Environment Program, EUREPGAP, European Initiative for Sustainable Agriculture etc

• Consider requirements and options for national evidence in supporting clean and green claims for export markets (sustainability index, ecological footprints, on-ground NRM outcomes)

• Develop national approach to indicators – whether agreed set or devolved to nested sets of regional/industry indicators.

18

Part 2. Stakeholder response to the options paper The process Australia 21 agreed in April to develop a process for consultation with stakeholders on issues relating to certification and information management. Australia 21 scholar, Ms Philippa Rowland was invited to work with three board members and an advisory group on the preparation of an options paper, which could then be distributed for comment to a representative group of stakeholders in agricultural land management. Ms Rowland consulted widely with Commonwealth and State public servants and with leaders of industry groups in developing the drafts and drew extensively on her own previous work on issues related to Environmental Management Systems (eg Rowland 2005 in press). Funding support to enable this process to occur was obtained from the Rural Industry Research and Development Corporation and a steering group was set up including Ms Rowland, three directors of Australia and nominees from the Directors of Primary Industry from Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. The head of Agforce Queensland, a representative from the National Farmers Federation and a representative from RIRDC joined the steering group, which met by teleconference to consider early drafts of the options paper and suggest ways in which it could most effectively respond to the needs identified at the Brisbane roundtable in March. A list of 70 potential invitees to the roundtable was developed in consultation with members of the steering group. The list included especially individuals known to have some understanding and experience with certification and environmental management systems. It included individuals from all sectors of agricultural industry in Australia and invitations were extended to all of the 70 individuals of whom 46 were able to participate on the day. Of the 46 participants, 35 provided written a responses to the options paper in time for their responses to be circulated to all participants before the roundtable discussion. The roundtable was held in the Council Room of the Australian National University (by courtesy of the Vice Chancellor Professor Ian Chubb)and was chaired by Mr Mike Waller, a Director of Australia 21 who also chaired the previous roundtable in Brisbane. Participants were encouraged to keep their comments brief and to enable dialogue to occur around the topics raised in the written responses. The chair made it clear at the outset that there was hope that the group could reach some consensus by the end of the day and that this consensus would be checked during the day. At lunch time, he posed what he understood to be an emerging consensus in the group, which then became the topic of discussion in the later sessions At the end of the day, the Chair of the Board of Australia 21 and Mr Geoff Gorrie and Ms Rowland summarized what they believed to be the consensus position verbally. A written version of the consensus position was prepared after the transcripts of the audiotapes of the discussion had been reviewed carefully and the draft was circulated for amendment or comment to all participants. Minor amendments were made following these comments and the consensus statement presented in the early part of this document is the result.

19

Dotpoint summaries prepared by invitees and circulated to all participants ahead of the meeting Below are the responses to the options paper received from 35 of the participants in the roundtable. All of these responses were circulated to the 46 Roundtable participants in advance of the Roundtable and they helped to identify issues that stimulated the discussions. Each response is headed by a generic description of its author. 1. A researcher into agricultural systems These points relate only to a national approach to data and information management.

o A large number of techniques currently in use and/or in development measure various aspects of biodiversity, landscape function and broader aspects of sustainability. They vary in their level of detail and specificity to particular environments. There are some common elements and some significant points of difference.

o Any national system will need to be based on a basic level of land condition with a set of

indices that are widely understood and accepted as key ecological drivers of sustainability. These indicators should be relevant not just for agriculture but for other land uses, especially conservation areas. The indicators should provide a broad spatial and temporal context for the other more detailed and localised data.

o Monitoring and assessment will have to be done systematically and regularly. Remote

techniques are currently possible for broad scale approaches, but do not as yet provide information about land condition, only broad land use types and vegetation cover. On-the-ground approaches are going to be very expensive (especially in the context of only 5% of CMA budgets allocated to monitoring) unless it has a large community component

o To be accepted, community monitoring will have to serve a clear function on a day-to-day

basis for those doing the monitoring. Ideally it should be done by land managers as part of their tools of trade – an additional and useful activity that helps them to adaptively manage their land.

o The process of doing the assessment will need to be clear, understandable and readily

learnable and require a minimum of specialized ecological knowledge. Those who learn it and who are doing the monitoring will need to achieve results consistent with others.

o The data collected will need to be in a form that can be aggregated across space and time and

ideally can be extended by remote sensing in future. It could be collated by catchment or sub-catchment, IBRA region or sub-region, land-use type (eg rangeland) and compared against broader categories defined by remote sensing.

o Preliminary investigation of Land Function Analysis (LFA) suggests that it has the potential to

meet the above requirements. In concentrating on the key indices of stability, water infiltration and nutrient cycling it is able to be widely generalised with some local calibration. It also has functional vegetation assessments and is apparently easily learned to be consistently applied although further study is needed on this aspect. LFA values can also be derived hyper-spectrally from the air.

20

2. A consultant in natural resource management

o I come to this meeting with the particular experience of the Watermark Environmental Stewardship Program which has independently proposed an Environmental Stewardship System which was developed as a generic environmental performance assurance system from first principles developed through real-world trialling. ESS’s essential features are listed in Attachment 4 of the circulated paper. The circulated paper is consistent with much of the thinking underpinning the ESS.

o Not surprisingly, the various approaches listed in Attachment 4 are all consistent with the

essential features of the generic ESS (and vice versa). Indeed the tabled paper reinforces the high-level of consistency between the various approaches.

o Australia does indeed need a national, credible system that delivers genuine environmental

performance, is generic and is based on robust and defendable principles and features that are the minimum needed to define the generic system. It needs to be independent and secure from capture by partisan interests. The Schumacher adage: Think globally, act locally is useful here too. The paper contains these principles within it.

o These principles should not be a ‘compromise’ between existing systems – that approach will

inevitably come undone on the world scene. The principles and features need to be unassailable. Rather, schemes and initiatives that include these essential principles and features would be cross-compliant with the agreed national system. Specific industry and catchment schemes and initiatives might include additional requirements needed for their specific purposes.

o It is important to distinguish between environmental performance (which is driven by

environmental needs e.g. catchment targets), and the process rigour needed to assure this (i.e. audit; driven by market and regulatory drivers). The two are largely independent. Both can vary from less to more demanding.

o The generic system should reinforce the role of existing institutions: e.g., NLWRA, JAS-

ANZ, the official regional catchment bodies. Partnership approaches will be a key.

o The generic system needs to accommodate the realities that: most farmers have more than one enterprise; industries operate in more than one catchment and state; catchments contain have more than one major industry; and land use includes more than just production agriculture.

o Finally, we all need to come to the table on 9th August with a genuine desire to progress

towards a robust national system, and not to protect our various patches – me included. Perhaps we should have ‘patch protection whistle-blower’ on the day!

3. A grazier and former agri-political leader

o I am excited to be considered as a participant in the drafting of a potential way forward in the complex design of NRM for the future in Australian agriculture.

o The past decade has seen the piecemeal development of numerous QA and certification

systems that have been embraced by a few but have caused much consternation among many due to the fact that they are new ideas and have been in many cases complex and arduous to implement.

21

o The task as I see it is to develop any new systems in full consultation with those expected to implement them and have all participants owning the process rather than foisting grandiose schemes on the unwary and unwilling out of the blue.

o My experience is that the US and parts of Europe have been down the ‘big stick’ approach of

‘legislate and command’, and are now having much more success in the reward and educate system, to the point that in some cases they are being over subscribed by farmers wanting to get into resource management area.

o To have boundaries within which different rules or techniques apply is not only confronting to

individuals it make no sense, water for instance knows no bounds, and soils and vegetation vary within regions so greatly they make a mockery of lines drawn on maps. There must be a way in which these things can be managed on a community of interest and topographic basis that will allow common sense to prevail?

o All land must be managed under one set of NRM rules, otherwise the inequities that currently

exist (NPWS etc) will continue to cause unease and distrust between land managers. The rules must be based on sensible and sound science and must co-exist with socio-economic realities otherwise NRM will continue to be unmanageable with continuing perverse outcomes in which no one will benefit.

4. Two state primary industry managers

o By developing national “standards” and approach that have wide acceptance/recognition, it

provides guidance and assistance to all farmers who wish to adopt. Much of the cost at present is that people find it hard to get info/assistance.

o There is a need to recognise and encourage awareness of the non-market, business benefits of

EMS and related programs.

o Audit/Certification process needs to provide value, other than only market outcomes/ eg access to resources/emergency audit, training etc).

o Rather than data collection development of data exchange (eg legal, outcomes, trend data etc).

o Need to work in Standards Australia and build on the internationally recognised process

already have established for accreditation and certification.

o Development of an accredited body by Standards Australia which would than certified procedures.

o Great deal more consultation required

o Clear definition development of what the stakeholder wont/expect – this will shape what’s

certified/audited.

o “Tiered” approach should not equate to multi-audits – farmers want integrated system and one audit, not more. Multiple “tiers” are likely to result in confusion amongst both farmers and those that wish to gain recognition/creditability from.

o Significant investment required in gaining recognition of EMS or whatever is certified for –

farmers, consumers, agency staff, CMA, community groups.

o Common elements allows non-industry/cross region utilisation

22

o Farmers who have used/are using EMS do understand ISO 14001 – have identified the need

for assistance and finding data (esp. legal info)

5. Organic farmer and chair of a regional catchment authority Some reflections on experiences in certification

o It is costly – for farmers, for consumers

o It is a financial boon for the certification industry!!!

o Ensure the process is participatory and relevant to farmers

o Peer review systems work

o What/who are the drivers?

o What is the role of a logo

o Be guided by a set of Principles – include values based

o Be clear about why you want a certification program – Are there other ways to achieve the same end result

o What do you want the certification to achieve – market access? farmer recognition? access

to the system by a few elite? or ensuring better environmental outcomes by all?

o Read the international certification landscape – what are the trends? Should we be working with other international systems in order to have harmonization from the beginning?

o Engage the regional NRM bodies – CMAs

o Align regional NRM efforts to the EMS/certification outcomes

o CMA information needs to be made accessible to farming systems/landuse at bioregional

levels - (this needs external funding!!)

o NRM bodies are at different stages of development.

o Is there a role for a national program to be implemented at the regional level?

o Should the certification system be process based or outcome verified?

6. Commonwealth administrator with role in agricultural monitoring and evaluation

o There is a strong demand for agriculture to be able to demonstrate its environmental performance for a variety of purposes. To be credible, a certification scheme needs to be clear about which purpose(s) it is addressing, what it is certifying (product, enterprise, process, outcomes) and against which criteria.

o I believe it is important to include performance criteria, not just process criteria.

23

o Can environmental performance be assessed sensibly without reference to, say, economic and

social performance? For example, should water use or soil nutrient levels be assessed in absolute terms or in relation to the mix of goods and services provided by an agricultural enterprise?

o It is appropriate to link agricultural certification with national programs such as the NAP and

NHT and the National NRM M&E Framework. However, it must be recognised that frameworks designed to monitor resource condition do not necessarily provide information in a form suitable for performance evaluation or certification. For certification, one needs to be able to distinguish the contributions of the entity being certified from the contributions of other entities both agricultural and non-agricultural. Signposts for Australian Agriculture has been designed to make this distinction in a way that maximises the use of resource condition information.

o I agree that management systems can provide cost savings to producers, but I think that this

point can be oversold. It applies only to a subset of environmental outcomes. There are environmental outcomes desired by society that will reduce or limit a producer’s income. Some of these may be regarded as conditions of a ‘license to operate’. Others may be regarded as alternative or additional services that society chooses to pay for in addition to the traditional provision of food and fibre.

7. Research ecologist

o The discussion paper is comprehensive and raises all of the major issues in my view. o The importance of simple, transparent, consistent accreditation systems that don’t require

overly large investment of time or money by land managers is well argued in the discussion paper.

o I think it is particularly important that the complex issues surrounding sustainable natural

resource management are addressed and resolved so that simple guidance can be given to land managers about what steps are required.

o There has been a tendency in the past to define sustainable land management in terms of

minimum impact. This is important but not sufficient. We need to become more sophisticated in our thinking about how viable social-ecological systems can exist in Australia under a range of future conditions. Leading thinkers recognise that there is no single “sustainable state” that we can move unerringly towards. What is key is maintaining the capacity of social and ecological systems to change and respond to challenges (“resilience”). This includes the ability to change land uses, management practices and even social structures if more viable alternatives exist.

o This is all very nice in theory, but we need to translate it into clear guidance about what

policies and practices are most likely to contribute to resilience, and easily measured indicators so we know if we are heading in the right direction.

o It will take some time to get to the point where this sort of thinking can be incorporated into

accreditation schemes, but several other parts of the World, including North America, the EU and Scandinavia are taking the issues very seriously.

o There are numerous reasons why Australia should try to lead rather than follow in the

development of accreditation of agricultural practices, not the least of which is to ensure that our competitive advantages are acknowledged.

24

8. Medical epidemiologist and Director Australia 21

o Having come fresh to this topic recently, I am impressed by the complexity of the task of

declaring Australian agricultural products “green” and also by the importance of doing so.

o The proliferation of EMS activity in various industries and jurisdictions in recent years highlights both the importance of the topic and the danger of creating multiple certification systems, thus complicating, rather than improving life for individual landholders. Now would seem to be the time to seek convergence towards a national approach to Australia's “green” agricultural credentials that addresses market, farm management and environmental needs.

o The model adopted by the forestry industry that was discussed at the Brisbane roundtable

seems to offer potential benefits to all parties. By charging an independent non-profit company with development of an approach to certification that will meet the needs of all stakeholders, a dynamic process of engagement is likely to result that will be at arm's length from government. This is likely to hasten the development of consensus about the nature of the desirable model and the way it builds on what has gone before.

o Unless certification systems are properly underpinned by a nationally coherent data system on

key environmental attributes of the landscape, they will not win essential credibility with either Australian or international communities. As I understand it, considerable research and development is required to ensure that catchment information systems are collecting appropriate environmental data that can be used by landholders and governments alike to monitor the environmental outcome over time of land management activities.

o Hard pressed small farmers involved in multi product farming must be properly represented in

the discussions and their needs must be adequately addressed. The costs of an effective certification and accreditation system will not be trivial and they need to be shared by the whole Australian community. But the cost of not now proceeding to a coherent national approach to this issue are likely to be much greater.

o Different Australian states are clearly at different points in the development of certification,

information and accreditation systems. It would seem to be in everyone's interest that mutual recognition, development of common principles, and convergence towards the concept of a national “brand” is set as a reasonably short term objective.

o In my own field of health, we have been struggling for some years to arrive at a point, (now

looking achievable), where the national electronic health information system will be progressively built up from information collected by individual doctors about individual patients as part of their patient care, which will be aggregated (with appropriate privacy safeguards) to provide practice, regional, state and national views of population health and its needs. I would have thought there are parallels in thinking about national human health and national ecosystem health and that we ought to be working towards a national eco-data system that is an aggregation of data collected from units beginning at property level and building progressively to provide a picture of catchment, state and national ecosystem health and its needs.

25

9. Pastoralist, horticulturist and leader of Australian Landcare Management System

First, a brief appraisal of the suggested approach and comments. …the most effective approach would be the development of a new non-profit company to be sponsored jointly by industry and government. This would build on industry/government partnerships to develop a practical, streamlined and credible mechanism for promoting mutual recognition and setting in place the structures for certification and accreditation.

o The premise here is that industry/government partnerships will build a base for EMS implementation. The premise is highly optimistic. Let’s face it – agricultural ‘industry’ has not seriously engaged with EMS, nor is it about to given the deafening silence on this issue from a normally voluble sector.

o The extent of industry inertia is evident when an ‘outside’ organisation like Australia 21 takes

the lead on a ‘national approach to certification in agriculture’.

o The question is how would a new non-profit company based on this partnership bring any change from the current unsatisfactory situation.

o A more natural partnership for progressing certification of land management is between

government and catchment management authorities. Industry is well represented in these bodies and engagement with land management issues (NRM) is the focus. This is the partnership which should be developed.

A more creative approach is suggested:

o I agree that there is a window of opportunity for certification but it may be beginning to close already. If EMS is not being implemented and supported nationally by 2010 it can be declared stillborn.

o We first had the DAFF ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’ approach with EMS; It would be

equally unacceptable to have a certification management process that aims to be ‘all things for all people’. It will most likely produce a bureaucratic morass and entrench the proliferation instead of streamlining the approach.

o We should come back to the basics and do it quickly before EMS is declared to have been

tried and failed and the window of opportunity is closed.

o The basics are a focus on land and its management, through its managers (and beyond just private land and agriculture)

o Let’s go for innovation, for creativity, for excitement for land managers and the Australian

public. Let’s aim for a world leader approach we can be proud of nationally, which individuals will want to adopt.

o We can start this high profile ball rolling by cutting through and offering say one million

dollars for the best EMS approach that comes out of the EMS Regional Pilots and Partnerships programs – with the caveat that the money will be spent further developing (learning from the others) and implementing the EMS approach chosen. Have fiercely independent judges. Time this for the latter half of 2006.

o The chosen EMS package would have the desired key principles as identified by Australia 21;

would be one which had been trialed and successfully implemented by land managers. Non-chosen EMS would adapt to the chosen one.

26

o Then we can give the newly chosen EMS a name; back it up with a national certification of

land managers and identification of products – whether those products are food, fibre, minerals, eco-services or tourism services.

o Appoint a certification tribunal in which land managers and the public will equally have

confidence. The tribunal would oversee the required management standards, certify the people/enterprises who manage land to a standard, oversee identification of their products. (Suggestion is a National Environmental Tribunal, which like the National Heart Foundation gives a widely recognised badge of approval – but NET may have defined powers and Government backing.)

o Then build a monitoring, data collection and exchange system on this base of active land

managers who provide an eco-service for landscape and catchment management.

10. Project Leader of EMS Pilot

o Hope here for an integrated approach for farmers to deal with all the NRM demands rather than having to manage EMS, Certification, PMP, accounting for Ecosystem services, Vegetation Management Plans, reporting on regional targets, OHS, QA etc as unrelated components.

o The further level of complication for auditing / assessment for each different commodity also

needs to be eliminated wherever possible.

o Achieving this integration that many are calling out for around the country is going to take some doing and some giving up turf. What resources need to go into this? How can current resources going into this be optimised?

o The options paper does not perhaps present a landholder/ producer focus. This needs to be

more fully considered even at this early stage.

o The state based initiatives into coordinating EMS are very new and subsidised by current Commonwealth funding. As yet there is little to draw from these and no way of knowing how resilient they will be beyond Commonwealth EMS program funding. My point here is a hesitation as using these as a base for future developments when they are not yet proven or developed.

o There are many EMS initiatives not noted in the paper. I support the study into these many

initiatives with a focus on assessing the resilience, adoption rates, useability and resource requirements of these initiatives on a comparative basis. Results on our recent experimentation into EMS / certification need to be analysed to allow a progressive move to the next stage.

11. Chicken meat producer and agri-political leader

o It makes sense for Australia to be moving toward an internationally credible, national

certification system for environmental land management that is robust and which can deliver measurable improvements over time, which enhance agricultural production. The information supplied however, indicates that this stated goal is also being linked to an extraordinary amount of potential data collection, the additional cost/benefit of which to agriculture needs to be fully evaluated.

o When considering farming in terms of environmental sustainability, there must be balance

with the economic and social factors for this move to be more than yet another QA type push

27

that will come and go. Providing sufficient incentives to encourage maximum take-up by farmers voluntarily in the near-term may prove challenging.

o For such voluntary measures to be economically sustainable, given they will by their very

nature impose added costs and workload on the producer, there should be a clear and attainable financial benefit to the farmer as well as an environmental benefit. State or Federal land stewardship payments to encourage take-up of the system, combined with carbon trading could offer a viable incentive and help to defray the costs involved. This requires long-term, committed government support and development of a credible monitoring and evaluation system to demonstrate measurable environmental outcomes, which would be linked to the payments.

o Early adopters may well gain a market (financial) advantage, but once such a system is

routine, it will simply become a requirement for entry to some markets, locally and internationally. We need to be careful that we do not “improve” ourselves out of other, fundamentally important markets through adding costs to industries where vigorous competition continually erodes margins.

o Much of the economic success and sustainability of such plans will depend on the parallel

adoption or not by other countries with which Australia trades, or against whom Australia competes, and which currently do not apply the examination and rigor that is applied or will be applied to Australian producers. Imported alternatives, which are not similarly constrained by costly compliance and auditing could adversely affect Australian markets.

o Education of consumers as to the advantages and value of sound agricultural environmental

management will need to be undertaken as part of the process. Who will pay for these programs?

o There must be parallel strengthening and accuracy in labelling to identify those products,

which come from certified operations and those which do not. 12. Woolgrower and agri-political leader

o There needs to be a strong level of trust between land owners/managers, and those involved in the development of catchment environmental targets and NRM policy.

o There is a need for a simple system to measure/monitor environmental data. Most land owners

currently monitor with their eyes and record in their heads. They have also seen the amount of paperwork increase at least 4-fold in the past 10 years. This has coincided with a decrease in human resources and therefore a reduction in office time available.

o Certification must be suitable across ALL agricultural commodities, both for export and

domestic trade.

o Non profit company to manage certification has merits- Would also encourage this company to address issues of education, training, promotion and costs of auditing- as auditing costs are a major inhibitor to participation.

o What is the desired level of participation for certification to make the process a success?

o Recognition of existing management systems and how to incorporate them into environmental

certification of agricultural land management.

o Perhaps a multi-level system is necessary for both entry levels and certification.

28

13. Commercial livestock producer and consultant on agricultural policy

o Clarity of Purpose: The Roundtable needs to be clear about whether it is concerned with the design of a system for agriculture or whether it is concerned with the design and application of a certification system for land management

o Complexity: The situation is both ecologically and psychologically complex. It is ripe for

what software programmers call ‘functional creep’ ie the addition of every little good thing that anyone can think of eg national data management. That approach will be the death of efforts to establish a national certification system for land management. Development of a system of certification for land management should be more driven by capable, innovative land managers.

o Starting from where? Convergence? Determining how existing relevant frameworks,

programs etc under various jurisdictions and agencies can best be harnessed/coordinated in the national interest might be best done after, or at least concurrent with, the determination of the essential features of a potentially successful system, as is begun in the Roundtable paper. Otherwise a ‘camel’ is the likely outcome.

o Regional/catchment standards and targets: While it might make sense to ‘align the certification process with the significant existing investment in developing regional/catchment standards and targets through the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) and the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT)’ this must be tempered by the fact that the major investment in land management is by landholders. There is no endless commitment to the NHT/NAP programs and riding on those horses might only be more of a sprint than what is required here. In many respects these programs are top down. Lastly and contrary to what is asserted in the paper there is no evidence that these programs have actually increased the aggregate public sector investment in land management.

o National data and information management: Although there is an attractive logic to it no case has been made for a national certification system for land management to be dependent on developments in NRM monitoring and information management at scales broader than the individual property. Certainly the application of a certification system would be assisted by such developments but the certification system needs to be certification of that which is in the control of the land manager. More practical ‘can do’ analyses are required of these issues. Populating national databases designed and maintained outside the scope etc of land managers should not be a function of a property based certification scheme for land management; it will drown under the weight of idealism and irrelevance.

o Standards and criteria: The discussion on ‘standards and criteria’ could be improved by considering desirable criteria (outcomes in terms of environmental outcomes, practices and/or processes), indicators and then standards. Standards are the last consideration. Furthermore who sets the standards might be nearly as important as what they are.

o The paucity of trend data sets for land condition, pressures and responses available for the

preparation of the Land Commentary for SoE (State of Environment) 2006 cannot be overstressed. There needs to be a sharper focus on what is required and what is practical at the property level.

o Existing indicators of condition, pressures and responses, as used for SoE reporting, are

frequently not populated by trend data and there is a lack of clarity of the respective roles, responsibilities and capabilities of different organizations. In simple terms much of the thinking in this area lacks the application of the ‘can it be done /will it be done’ rule.

29

o An approach based around the structural, functional and compositional elements of biodiversity holds much promise for it would be relevant to both business and environmental outcome purposes, it is internationally recognisable, it is universally applicable and it does not suffer from being dependent on the single factor oriented focus of many transient public funded programs, such as NAP.

o Many will see an approach based on biodiversity as being too complex but that is not necessarily the case. In fact selecting such a single holistic parameter will provide great practicality and clarity, as well as ‘customer’ recognition. The idea here is that there would be a national set of indicators that land managers could chose from to suit their particular agro-ecological needs. Performance against such indicators would be an addition to/encompassed in the operation of a continuous environmental improvement management system.

o Tiered approaches: The need for a tiered entry into a continuous improvement system is an

assertion, not a proven fact. The assertion that a tiered approach is necessary has lead to many programs not being based around a sustainable auditable continuous improvement system. Furthermore even if the claim for tiered entry might be correct to base a national system around such an assertion seems to ignore what we know about the nature of innovation and how innovation happens ie if it is useful and sustainable it does not begin with mass adoption.

o Land management certification company: No clear charter or limitations are provided for

the proposed company and the proposal is not supported by an evaluation of alternative options. There is a need for alternatives to be examined, especially alternatives that simply establish and manage the criteria for accreditation and certification. Furthermore the statement that the forestry approach could be applied to land management needs critical evaluation, in part because of its limited adoption by commercial operators and because there are reasons to doubt its applicability to land management/land managers as compared to forestry managers.

o Table of programs: Interestingly the table of the state and industry programs currently

underway does not include programs that are not individual State or industry based. 14. Director Australia 21 and former Commonwealth agricultural administrator

o A national framework for the certification of agricultural practice and produce should involve standards development, certification and accreditation preferably with the separation of each process under suitable, competent bodies and where applicable, the national framework should be backed up by international bodies, which promote multilateral or mutual recognition in the global context. This national framework can be based on voluntary participation as market pressures fairly quickly move to making participation a condition of ‘market entry’.

o A credible and transparent system to deliver voluntary certification for agriculture based on a

consensus-modelled standard through national certification bodies accredited by a national accreditation body, is one of the primary delivery systems that allows for confidence, certainty, recognition and competitiveness in Australian agricultural industries.

o The highly desirable building blocks are:

o Standards development – consideration should be given to perhaps setting up a small independent company to work with a body such as, say, Standards Australia (SA). SA is the public company that prepares and publishes most of the voluntary technical and commercial standards in Australia through an open process of consultation and consensus in which all interested parties are invited to participate. It is worth noting that SA also has the capacity to accredit other bodies as Standards

30

Development Organisations to prepare standards and so the newly formed independent company could take on this role.

o Certification – Voluntary Australian Standards can be the primary delivery system

for conformance and compliance of an agricultural enterprise to a standard. Independent, third-party certification bodies, working with the newly formed independent company mentioned above, are available to deliver certification under many of the common programmes which cover systems, goods and services eg Quality Management Systems, Environmental Management Systems, Product Certification, OH&S, HACCP etc.

o Accreditation – In order to ensure confidence in the certification undertaken by

certification bodies, the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ) as the national accreditation body assesses the conformity assessment bodies to provide a measure of competence and impartiality of the certification body such that it enables users to have confidence in the certificates of conformance that they issue to an organisation.

o As stated above, there is a need for a linkage at the international level to provide multilateral

or mutual recognition for standard development and accreditation. There is also a need for any national certification system to be underpinned by an appropriate data and information management system to undertake the required monitoring and evaluation tasks. The best option in relation to data and information management would be to attempt to enhance an existing system. In my view, the best building block for developing and satisfying the data and information management requirements is the National Land and Resources Audit. The Audit would need to be converted to an ongoing activity and the data and information requirements for the national certification system could be built into the responsibilities of the Audit as an ongoing activity.

15. Representative of agri-political body

o Working in policy development and the legislative nightmare for the WA agricultural scene has clearly shown a mess exists and the need to develop a framework for agriculture to deal with the issues/risks that are fast approaching from the global scene, namely proving to the value chain that the food and fibre is safe and that the production system is sustainable and profitable.

o There are numerous systems being developed in Australia to deal with particular aspects of

this problem but all are siloed and there is a lot of patch protection going on.

o The WAFarmers Pathways Project is all about open framework systems that farmers can utilise to identify risks, make decisions and prove to the value chain what it is required to prove.

o WE still do not fully understand what is required here, lots of research/knowledge gaps exist,

what farming system, what does sustainable mean?

o There are no real market drivers existing that farmers can utilise to pay them to address societies demands as yet, should government be paying on behalf of the community?

o The problem with a single ‘brand name’ and damage control in the global market place and

consumers?

31

o What are the relevant standards that both producers and consumers should be using, are they viable to be measured and at what level, farm, catchment, state or nation, etc?

o We need to look at the ‘whole of farm’ system, not just components and also recognise that

ISO 14001 is only part of the certification picture.

o What ever system we get to needs to be on an open framework structure in a modular format that will allow producers utilise what ever suits their needs and address the so called standards for value chain/market access that has integrity. With the producer being paid accordingly, not just price takers.

16. CEO of dairy industry body

o The dairy industry in Northern Victoria and Southern NSW is the largest dairying region in Australia accounting for over 25% of Australia’s production.

o Over the past three years Murray Dairy, as part of the MDBC’s Watermark Environmental

Stewardship Program, has been coordinating dairy industry input into the development of an Environmental Stewardship System (ESS).

o The ESS that has been developed with the cotton, rice and viticulture industry is a

comprehensive system of environmental stewardship that:

o Operates at both farm scale and catchment scale o Is outcome focussed, to bring about Catchment and major industry engagement o Incorporates risk assessment at both farm and catchment scale o Is based on continuous improvement at both farm and catchment o Combines content and process.

o At the farm level it: Incorporates self-assessment and external audit. Provides recognition

including certification of farmer achievements via 3rd Party audit where appropriate; Aims to accommodates proprietary schemes, such as competent industry environmental improvement programs, QA, food safety, EMS, OH&S, other ecolabels. Provides a staged progression for farmers.

o The work undertaken by the dairy industry in developing the ESS is now providing input into

the development of industry policy and responses that are being coordinated by the Australian Dairy Farmers and Dairy Australia. This included the industry’s DairyGain$ project, which is focusing on developing strategic measures to ensure long term sustainable management of dairy effluent. This project, while focusing on dairy effluent, is developing a national industry approach, which includes how effluent management will be integrated with milk company QA systems and audit processes.

Issues for the Forum

o The ESS developed by the MDBC and its industry partners provides the system that is being proposed in the discussion paper circulated. The Forum needs to understand the ESS developed by the MDBC and ensure that future effort and resources are used to building on this work.

o The Forum should also focus on identifying the drivers and institutional arrangements that

would allow such a system to be implemented across industries and across catchments without driving additional costs back to farmers.

32

17. State resource management administrator

o There is a general agreement for the desire for a national system from people and organisations that are engaged in policy development but I am still not sure that there is general support from the wider primary industries community.

o There is a growing call for support for landholders to manage the countries natural resources

using an accepted duty of care. To date this duty of care has not been defined. – see “A full repairing lease” for more discussion on this issue.

o Farmer organisations are concerned to have this duty of care defined as the bottom line seems

to be increasing without any thought for the resource implications for producers.

o There has been an increasing call for support for producers to provide ecosystem services- this would equate to an approach similar to that outlined in the paper “Common Codex for Integrated Farming”. This probably requires further investigation.

o The paper provides a useful background to the issue but I am still not sure how we define the

appropriate standards in a form, which can be adopted by producers without considerable cost and which relates regional targets for NRM to on-property actions.

18. Organic horticulturalist and Lychee industry leader

o Ensure that the process does not add extra costs to any industry that is marginally profitable. Most horticulture and small farming operations are cross subsidised by other income streams – i.e. one or both partners working in town.

o Ensure that the documentation processes are simple and do not require much time to

document, as most farmers are already overwhelmed with bookwork.

o The simpler the system, the greater the compliance.

o Ensure that the process actually adds measurable financial benefits rather than warm and fuzzy motherhood statements

o The big stick approach of more regulation to impose environmental management systems will

increase the alienation and resentment currently felt by many in the bush against greens, academics and government.

o Be careful that the certification systems is not another one of the plethora of eco, natural,

dolphin safe, heat tick, free range, low GI, omega 3, Organic, HACCP, SQF, Freshcare, Euregap, ISO14000, QA and other labels that are confusing and overwhelming consumers. Most of these do not bring any premium and do not return the costs of the accreditation system.

o A consistent standard across all commodities and environments that can demonstrate good

environmental management based on current community NRM expectations. This must include no pesticides, herbicides or fertilisers leaving the farm as well as the issues of biodiversity, erosion and water use.

o An effective credible third party audit system that can measure the management criteria.

33

19. Dairy farmer, former politician and former Chair of Landcare Council.

o The document is a valuable addition to the debate, but it does not give adequate recognition to the central role of the Australian Government through the NHT (including the EMS Trials and Pathways to Industry Programs) in providing the essential financial incentives for the more rapid progress in the various forms of EMS in recent years. Most of the programs are federally supported and the majority are still to begin or in early development.

o This central role will also be necessary in the future not only for incentives or assistance

support, but also for international credibility for any accreditation.

o There is also insufficient recognition of the regional role of the catchments /regions to certify the overall environmental credibility of an industry in a region, as no industry completely covers a region, and the EMS process will be an increasingly valuable tool for meeting catchment targets.

o State recognition is also vital for industries or catchments to be accredited to be able to be

accepted for meeting State environmental standards rather than the State using a hoard of regulators.

o The Landcare movement/groups involvement in EMS is far broader than the ALMS projects

and the two should not be confused.

o There are problems at the State level in achieving national uniform accreditation or benchmarks as there are differences in OH&S and native vegetation requirements etc.

o The concept of a stepped benchmark process as proposed by the MDBC has merit and may be

as far as a national framework can go at this stage.

o Agreement on a software program that could encompass the different EMS approaches would be valuable for initial benchmarking and later national recognition. However, the EMS industry is very competitive and the competitors may block this innovation.

o Overall there are dangers in: Repeating an earlier problem when there was too much emphasis

on theoretical frameworks and not enough on encouraging farmer participation; Moving too fast to establish a certification body which may not be acceptable to farmers or to the Australian Government, and without knowing who will pay; Moving too fast to establish a national eco label, which may be very restrictive and not acceptable to the actual food producers.

20. Food safety auditor and facilitator state based EMS Pathways Program

o What is the real objective? Internationally credible certification? Data collection for government/other stakeholders? Landscape change / sustainable primary industries?

o Uncertain how successful any Australian certification system will be give the power of the

international retailers and the lack of trust in government schemes. Traditionally international retailers have determined their requirements and stuck to them with no real interest in acknowledging equivalent systems. EurepGAP is the most notable exception, with a formal benchmarking process available. However, not all retailers accept EurepGAP, even though they may be Members. The level of trust in government certification varies greatly around the world. Credibility may not be connected with government system or national system, but rather with meeting the customers’ specific requirements.

34

o Very little interest/understanding of WTO in grower-land. The driver is the customer. So while the WTO may prefer ISO 14001, we do not hear any customer asking for it and do not believe ISO 14001 to be the appropriate standard for small businesses.

o What consideration has been given to the commercial interests of existing certification

systems? SQF, Freshcare etc are currently developing environmental certification schemes. The proposal for government to invest in this area may be challenged, and based on the SQF experience may not be sustainable. (SQF was developed by AgWest and has changed hands twice).

o The proposal discusses the collection of data and monitoring performance against standards.

It seems the certification process is seen as a means of taking data from farm to feed into national database. What consideration has been given to privacy of this information and reluctance of individuals to have the audit become a means of national data collection? What is the likelihood of “penalties” being associated with “failure” to meet performance standards?

o In the tasks for the proposed not-for-profit company there is no discussion of finding out what

the customer wants. It is our experience that national or state evidence supporting clean and green claims are of very little interest to international retailers. They are only really interested in what happens on the particular farm they are sourcing product from.

o Brand Tasmania has nothing to do with certification.

o Credibility will depend on competence of auditors. Need to refer to the work undertaken on

food safety auditor competence. Certification bodies may be able to certify against a number of standards, but it is the competence of individual auditors that is critical (ie can they audit horticulture and livestock for food safety, environment and OH&S?)

o Mutual recognition of systems is likely to prove difficult. Minister Truss established the

Working Group on Safety and Quality System Equivalence. The group met for years and could not achieve mutual recognition of systems.

21. Mixed farmer actively involved in EMS Pilots

o The biggest hurdle will be to convince producers that EMS or like programmes are here to

stay unlike many of the QA programmes that have come and gone. Justifiably there are many sceptics who ask why they should become involved with a programme that is short term with no tangible benefits.

o There are many mixed messages with regard to what both domestic and overseas consumers

are expecting of our farm production. For a national programme to succeed there will need to be a coordinated awareness programme which would include Government , Industry Groups, Consumer and Environmental organisations to create a common theme to promote what will be expected of producers to maintain market access into the future.

o Whilst Australian Agriculture is extremely diverse, there are many components of an EMS

that would be common to all and we should not get too hung up on individualising a programme for each agricultural type. Whilst there will be individual QA requirements for the various commodities these could be adequately included as a stand alone component.

o To gain maximum participation, the initial entry level should not be set too high. I would

suggest that a voluntary self assessment to establish the state of play of the individual producer would be a good start and hopefully kindle further involvement. This should be instigated at the Catchment level and Implementation Staff made available to offer guidance.

35

All implementation staff should be given adequate training in EMS as they are in the best position to sell the programme.

o Suitable naming of the programme is an important issue that should not be underestimated.

Our experience with the name EMS is that it has been a deterrent to some as the word “environment” implies that the “green/ lefty element’ are wanting to tell them how to run their farms. Some of the farmers’ groups, at least at a local level, have not helped either by saying that EMS is just a plethora of useless paperwork, which is every farmer’s nightmare.

22. Manager for state horticulture agri-political group

o We do need programs that support agri-business managers/land managers to enhance both

their profitability/efficiency and their environmental performance. Industry organisations, working in close partnership with regional NRM bodies, are well placed to deliver such programs.

o We do need to enhance the availability of “environmental” information in an appropriate format to help land managers/agribusiness managers make better management decisions.

o We should not impose yet another auditing and certification requirement on agribusiness that benefits others in the value chain, but makes the life of agribusiness managers even more difficult than it currently is.

o Market-based calls for “environmental assurance” certification are not driven by any genuine desire to encourage environmentally sustainable agricultural production. For example, the drivers for international food retailers are more to do with managing the risks of bad publicity; protecting company reputations and share value; getting an edge on competitors; cheap marketing ploys targeting ignorant consumers; strategies to streamline suppliers etc.

o Do not underestimate how strongly the majority of fruit and vegetable growers dislike audits and how negative their experience of certification for food safety and quality has been!

o Growers receive a disproportionately small share of the wealth and power in agricultural supply/value chains. So any new certification requirements that risk being manipulated to provide even more power to the players at the top end of the chain will not be supported by industry.

o Fruit and vegetable growers do want recognition for the environmental management efforts they are making. They want to win back some respect from the broader community and there is interest in promoting individual and collective success stories.

o Business auditing and certification is not the only way to collect evidence that verifies management efforts and outcomes. For example, the “Integrated Area Wide Monitoring” process is a means of collating property level production and biophysical information and analysing it at a landscape scale. The process both informs farm management and provides evidence of the cumulative effect of farm management at a landscape scale.

o As a general rule, only 20% of fruit and vegetable industry product is exported. Eighty per cent of our produce is sold on domestic markets. Through certification schemes such as EUREPGAP and the development of equivalent Australian schemes, the needs of export focussed horticultural producers will probably be met, without the need for a new Australian agricultural certification standard.

36

23. State government primary industry manager

o The options paper is a very good attempt to capture a very diverse and complicated set of issues on paper.

o There are many challenges in establishing a workable framework that factors the fundamental

differences between individual landholdings – catchments-regions-states with respect to hazards, controls, targets, monitoring, validation and verification..

o Drivers for adoption of “EMS’s” will vary for different industries in a range of locations –

from pure market place pull through - horticultural products into Europe. To replacing the regulatory ‘big stick’ intensive industries in those state with more visible environmental regulation.

o Many lessons can be learnt from the good, the bad and the ugly of the role out of food safety

and quality assurance programs in primary production over the past two decades. o An overarching consideration should be that the first of the so called ‘Part Four’ provisions

under the ‘Model Food Act’, that will mimic the requirements for ‘food safety programs’ beyond the ‘farm gate’, will be applicable before the ‘farm gate’ over the next decade.

o ‘Certification’ is a very complex issue on its own:

o There are ‘Accredited Certifications’ that can be attained through the International

Accreditation Forum’s framework via JASANZ. licensed accreditation bodies (certification providers such as BVQI, NCIS, SGS).Examples of which are ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 14024, ISO 14040, ISO 17025 and SQF 2000 and 1000. These certifications have the highest level of integrity and international credibility;

o There are a range of ‘Certifications’ that are not ‘Accredited’, many are provided by

the same providers. Examples of which are ‘HACCP Certificates’;

o There are a range of other certification types being driven by ‘retailers’ such as programs aligned to the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and the predominantly European EurepGAP; and

o Auditor or ‘inspector’ competency and costs will be a major issue.

24. Representative beef and lamb body and involved in EMS pilot o There is a need for a national approach to certification- o There needs to be consensus and widespread support as to who makes it happen. I personally

believe that it should be an independent non - profit but we need to ensure that those involved give good representation of industries, government and other stakeholders.

o It is essential the whole exercise doesn’t become too top heavy or will not be supported o If wanting NRM outcomes, essential link with NRM bodies and catchment strategies. So

endorse that we need to cover both process and performance standards. o Essential we don’t duplicate work done. Western Australian approach is a good model to

build on.

37

o I am not convinced that information management as outlined in papers is the role of this group. I think those committees/processes that have been working in this area are best served to work on gaps identified.

25. Horticulturalist and agripolitical leader

The main issues I have and wish to bring to the table are:

o Reinforce that growers have been NRM managers since the commencement of primary production in Australia. They continue to be NRM managers and stewards of the land. We need to establish at what level they are at, what adjustments need to be made at property level and how we assist them in achieving meaningful change.

o Ensure that any certification system is relevant, meaningful, cost effective and offers true

advantage to the individual grower or landowner, the region and ultimately the community. 26. State department of primary industry manager

o There are a number of international and national regulatory and market drivers that converge to promote the uptake by producers of credible and defensible systems covering the management of farm practices. These drivers are predominated by quality assurance for human health considerations, but extend to include emerging pressures for environmental integrity and animal welfare.

o The coveted ‘clean and green’ image affording a potential market edge to Australian

producers will ultimately rely as much on the ability to demonstrate ‘clean’ production practices (through for example, traceability mechanisms), as much as the ability to demonstrate ‘green’ credentials (involving stewardship of natural resources).

o To have any real prospect of widespread uptake, any systems approach to demonstrating clean

and green attributes must marry sound business practices with sound NRM management practices to balance profitability with sustainability.

o If broadly adopted, FMS through its continuous improvement (plan, do, check, review)

foundations provides considerable potential for significant landscape improvement on a pathway to enhanced natural resource condition outcomes.

o An increased momentum for the adoption of such systems is evidenced in the mounting

regulatory ‘push’, more sophisticated market dictates, the emerging requirements of finance institutions and ‘soft’ motivations such as peer recognition.

o Accreditation by governments of FMS as meeting specified regulatory requirements provides

a prospectively significant incentive for adoption. Similarly, FMS provides a potentially viable mechanism to codify the Duty of Care onus enshrined in statutes.

o Queensland’s approach to FMS is underpinned by a philosophy that natural resource

management and productivity gains can be optimised through reliance primarily on non-regulatory approaches supported by a regulatory ‘safety net’.

o The success of FMS approaches necessitates collaborative efforts across industry,

governments and natural resource management bodies and preferably recognition and support from NGOs and financial institutions.

38

27. Agricultural scientist and Australia 21 scholar

o To be widely adopted, any accredited farm and land management system will need to be: domestically and internationally credible, useful and usable 'from the ground up; compatible with existing agricultural business management tools; some combination of process (eg. EMS) and performance standards (eg regional benchmarks)

o Enlightened self-interest will be the key ingredient to widespread adoption (ie. benefits need

to be evident to landholders for them to bother engaging in the certification process)

o Drivers vary enormously across industries and across regions, with market signals strongest for those industries closest to their buyers, (eg fresh horticultural produce) and environmental signals strongest for industries most reliant on scarce resources (eg. irrigated agriculture)

o To make any headway in improving the sustainability of the natural resource base, we still

need: practical and reliable information on the current status of the resource base available at a scale useful to the individual landholder (ie. disaggregated from catchment, regional or national databases in a meaningful way); translation of broad-based catchment targets into farm-scale targets and actions; widespread adoption of improved practices across land uses (ie. farming, forestry, peri-urban); long term support and technical assistance for monitoring ecological change to assess whether progress is being made in a positive direction and provide feedback.; although a perennial vexed issue, perhaps a national set of sustainability indicators for agriculture would help provide consistency as the Montreal process indicators do in forestry - a key issue being to avoid artificially imposing consistency on a diverse continent.

o Credibility will depend on audit and certification under a recognised system. Recent cost-

benefit survey work (MDBC) revealed that producers seem to be willing to go as far as 2nd party audit (peer review by industry or colleagues) – yet a sceptical public and a competitive international marketplace may in time demand 3rd party independent audit by accredited auditors.

o Issues for agriculture include: availability of accredited auditors with some knowledge of

farming systems; system for ensuring auditor competence across industries and regions; who will pay for encouraging landholders to leap the audit hurdle (consumers, industry, government) and do they need to from an environmental perspective?

o I hope that our discussions on 9th August will move us towards a nationally coherent

framework for certifying land management in Australia and encourage improved communication and consistency between the myriad efforts underway. There is still enormous scope for improving the accountability of all parties – governments, industries, producers, consumers.

o The issue is not just to clearly identify roles and responsibilities but also to ensure that

sustained commitment is made to improve our management of the environment over the long term.

28. State based agri-political leader o QFF and member organisations are developing farm management systems as a voluntary,

systematic approach to agricultural business management that can be used by primary producers to identify and manage risks, which may occur as a result of their enterprise. It is a tool to help drive sound business development and management by drawing together diverse on-farm management issues under a common flexible ‘systems’ approach. It must be a tool

39

that is easy to implement and has the benefit of allowing individual producers to decide their rate of improvement depending on individual circumstances based on an appropriate risk assessment.

o Rural industries in Queensland are facing an unprecedented reform agenda, which includes competition-based reforms, natural resource planning and management reforms and structural reforms in the sugar and dairy industries.

o The reform agenda is complex as it involves a number of staged reform initiatives (such as

water, vegetation, salinity) being implemented through a range of different processes by a plethora of government agencies. The reforms are being driven through national and state policy frameworks and catchment/regional plans. Farmers and local and regional communities find these frameworks and plans difficult to interpret let alone respond to.

o Farmers have a very real fear that the mix of reforms will drive them out of business rather

than open opportunities for development and market access. Considerable effort will be required over at least the next ten years to ensure that farming enterprises can cope with the implementation of reforms. A national certification system for environmental stewardship of agriculture will add just another reform layer to the complex mix that currently exists unless the fundamental business drivers to such a certification system are addressed at the outset.

o To effectively drive the implementation of voluntary Farm Management System programs industry must first see a business case for such a voluntary initiative. QFF has identified the following issues as being barriers to the implementation of voluntary programs:

o It is difficult to address improvement in the use of natural resources while farmers are still clarifying their security of access to these natural resources under current reforms. These agendas could take at least another 8 to 10 years to complete.

o Industry and farmers have significant limitations on their capacity to implement Farm Management Systems on a comprehensive basis (whole of farm and whole of industry) over at least the next 5 to 8 years.

o Current whole of government policy frameworks at both a state and national level need revision to:

o Recognise and accredit FMS programs for compliance with existing regulation o Define a best practice approach to regulation that addresses an appropriate mix and

separation of voluntary and regulatory approaches. o Address the increasing complexity and volume of regulations and the costs to farming

business both directly and indirectly through the provision of services such as water supply.

o Information systems at the local and landscape level are poor and will make the costs of

implementing and maintaining efficient and effective FMS programs prohibitive. However, these systems are essential to provide an effective link between on farm improvements and regional environmental and other reform targets.

o FMS Programs must deliver a mix of outcomes (business, environmental and resource use

efficiency outcomes) to be attractive for implementation on farm. o International market access and standards of environmental accreditation for access to these

markets is a matter that must be addressed in direct consultation with commodity industries (cane, cotton, dairy and fruit and vegetables)

o QFF would have difficulty supporting a proposal to form a not-for-profit company to address the issues listed in the options paper without firstly seeing :

40

o The development of a coordinated policy and implementation framework within government for voluntary FMS

o Industry at a state and national level having the opportunity to examine a business case within a more clearly defined policy framework.

o Defined partnerships between industry and governments to see FMS programs adequately resourced and implemented.

o If Forum decides to pursue the formation of a not-for-profit company such an

initiative should not proceed unless industry is prepared to lead and manage the initiative.

29. Environmental project manager for meat and livestock association

o A very thorough review of the issues. o I agree that “our ability to prove that collective efforts are increasing the sustainability of

agricultural production is still in its infancy.” Significant work is required to design, test and validate tools to measure natural resource performance.

o The ability of the Australian environment to buffer the impact of agriculture varies greatly

between farming systems and geographical regions. Given finite resources, some prioritisation of the “need to improve the management of the natural resource base” needs to be made.

o How will regional/catchment targets be converted into farm level targets? o The non-profit company model will have significant set up and operational costs. An

alternative strategic approach could be achieved via RDCs and industry heads. The consolidation of industry programs is already occurring.

o The “proposed crucial common elements of a certification system” poses a sizable jump for

many producers. The proposed certification system (pp 5 of the options paper) is a commendable end point, but needs to be rolled out over a number years.

o It is not apparent why “a credible national certification systems needs to be underpinned by a

national system for sharing relevant information on natural resource trends and condition”. Benchmarking national performance is not essential to certify environmental assurance. Most assurance systems operate by assuring a process toward improvement and/or assuring the delivery of a specific standard.

o Environmental assurance will most likely increase over time, but we need to prioritise the

investment based on the efforts of international competitors and competing domestic industries. Australian industries require a sustainable competitive advantage, which can be effectively delivered over time.

o The need for environmental assurance is product dependant, governed by supply and demand

in specific markets. For many commodities there is no need for environmental assurance in the foreseeable future. Similarly, the advantage of environmental assurance may only become apparent in times of over supply. There are obvious exceptions where environmental trade barriers exist. Industries that fund a national approach may end up cross subsidising other industries or at least sectors of other industries.

41

30. Project manager for state based agri-political body

o I am passionate about the importance of profitable/ sustainable agriculture and a great admirer of farmers’ commitment to this goal (ie most farmers) – their resilience, talent and humility.

o See EMS/ environmental assurance as a crucial issue that needs widespread awareness and

involvement by farmers. It is very timely with lots of potential benefits (very few immediate, significant ones, though – for most farmers).

o One clear opportunity is to counter misconceptions that the general public has about

agriculture and Australian farmers, which is being fed by unbalanced media coverage and even some major untruths (eg by US author Jared Diamond in the chapter about Australian Agriculture in his recent book, Collapse – see review by Dr David Smith, Journal AIAST, Vol 18, No. 1, p 10).

o The most successful programs with farmers and communities are those that are driven from

the ground up (Landcare is the classic example, also the EFP program in Canada). Inevitably, local drive and initiative is often stifled by distant, bureaucratic directives seeking overall control or state/ national uniformity. No program can work without an interested and involved audience. The Australia 21 proposal runs the risk of appearing as yet another top down imposition on farmers.

o None-the-less there is merit in national assistance to promote interest, involvement and

outcomes from the grassroots, such as: o Communicating everything clearly and concisely in terms that farmers understand

(unlike ISO 14001 terminology). The legal requirements of farmers are a good example – recent work/publications by DPI, Victoria has helped address this issue in Victoria.

o Providing a logical, range of helpful (clear and concise) kits, diaries, tools for farmers to use (preferably using good images, rather than lots of words, eg a Pasture Pics tool, PIRSA is a great example). Most farmers don’t record/ monitor effectively mainly because there are very few simple and effective ways of doing it, ie the ease and value of recording/ monitoring need lots of attention. Remember KISS – keep it simple!

o Funding the ready availability of the best possible extension and technical support staff to farmers wishing to understand and implement EMS/ environmental assurance on their farms. This is a costly but crucial requirement (especially since agricultural extension services across Australia have been decimated in recent years.)

31. Manager for NRM Strategies in DAFF

o There are increasing community expectations being placed on farmers to manage their land in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way.

o There has been significant progress in the development and application of a range of property-

level management systems to assist farmers demonstrate their environmental performance, secure their access to resources and improve environmental outcomes through sustainable agricultural practices.

o It needs to be recognised that within government the responsibility for the management of

natural resources rests largely with the state governments. That said, the Australian Government is working with state governments to achieve more flexible regulatory arrangements and increased involvement of industry in how these arrangements are implemented.

42

o Widespread adoption of property planning and management systems is required for improved

landscape management and building a reputation for agriculture as good stewards of the land. It is essential that property level management systems remain voluntary and allow producers to opt in at a particular level (tiered approach) to suit their business needs (including regulatory compliance) and market needs.

o We need to recognise that industries have already developed and implemented many programs

to help producers improve their environmental management practices and there is a need to build on existing programs and frameworks. To support these initiatives and increase participation, the Australian Government developed the Pathways to Industry EMS Program (Pathways). The Australian Government has partnered with 19 agriculture, fisheries and state-based farming organisations, and is supporting industry collaboration, in particular among the broad acre industries (grains, meat and wool) through Pathways.

o A key element of the program has been recognition that industries have different levels of

awareness and needs for property planning and management systems. Many of these projects are in their infancy, but generally industry bodies are enthusiastic and committed to learning from one another (not reinventing the wheel).

o It is important that property based management systems are founded on solid collaboration

between industry and government to accelerate the voluntary uptake of property-level management systems.

o Property based management systems have the potential to significantly improve business

(including resource) management, demonstrate farmer’s environmental credentials (to government, regions, the broader community and markets) and provide a link between property level actions and regional plans and targets.

32. A manager in the Grains Council

o It is unclear what benefit there would be for industries such as grains from a national certification system for EMS.

o Such a system would be based on international standard (like ISO14000) which are yet to be see as necessary or likely to be needed by our markets.

o Agricultural industries, especially grains, are in a constant state of improvement with new technologies adopted all the time. These technologies are increase productivity and profitability, but also lead to more efficient use of farm and environmental resources. This increase in efficiency equates to better environmental outcomes. Applying standards to environmental management via certification would be incompatible with the continual innovation in the grains industry.

o The Grains industry is able to demonstrate environmental improvement on a macro and micro scale. This work is ongoing and is based on changes in on-farm practices and on larger measurements for example fertiliser use on a national and catchment basis. Such data is more powerful than having a proportion of producers meeting some standard set by some body.

o The grains industry agrees that EMS and Best Management Practices are only attractive to

producers where these activities lead to improved business practices. These activities need to demonstrate real benefits to producers. Benefits such as reduced costs, increased profit, more stable productivity, lower risk.

o A core set of general guiding principles may be acceptable, providing they are developed with

the grains industry and are based on the need for recognition of real technology improvements

43

already in place, and scientific evaluation of the benefits proposed from such a set of general principles.

o There needs to be concrete financial evidence as to why a national certification scheme is

desirable in place of the already known systems of Best Management Practice. The grains industry though its EMS pathways project is putting together tools that will allow it members to demonstrate environmental credentials in harmony with best management business performance. These tools will be more than adequate to demonstrate the environmental requirements for current or likely future markets for Australian grain.

o It needs to be remembered that the majority of Australian grain is exported in a relatively

undifferentiated form as a bulk commodity, mainly to middle eastern and Asian markets. The end users of this grain are mainly disinterested in and not likely to need EMS certification and will certainly not pay any premium for such. There is thus no direct market signal, and not likely to be any in our markets.

o Grains producers are frequently multi enterprise, and so any systems must cater (for example)

for livestock as well as grains. The current EMS project does this. o Going the national certification route does not necessarily demonstrate environmental

improvement. Data collected from producers on a constant improvement pathway is more powerful and can show improvement compared to past practices more effectively.

33. A manager in RIRDC

o The RIRDC Environment and Farm Management Program has an interest in cross sectoral issues which affect the whole of agriculture. It has sponsored this Australia 21 Roundtable and invested in the development of EMS in agriculture for the past seven years.

o Globally and in Australia there are indications that consumers are increasingly concerned

about obtaining safe, clean and green food and that these trends are growing.

o Improved management of water, soil and biodiversity is a national priority and substantial programs are operating in support.

o Producers who participate need to be able to benefit from doing so. Governments want credit

for their investments and efforts

o At the same time, producers are striving to meet the cost price/squeeze by reducing costs and increasing output. The process can put excessive pressure on the environment and threaten sustainability.

o Other producers are resisting this trend and seeking to differentiate their products as having

quality and environmental attributes. Examples include premium wines, cheeses, free-range eggs, and organics. They are responding to consumers who are sensitive to attributes other than just the lowest price.

o Neither consumers, nor producers, nor landholders want a plethora of labelling and badging

schemes.

o A more strategic approach would include an integrated set of the options to achieve sustainable outcomes including the use of regulations, market-based instruments, voluntarily partnerships.

44

o The national government should commit a significant investment and seek support from the

R and D corporations for a credible national labelling scheme that integrates these aspects. 34. Executive Director of the national land and water audit

o Clearly if we want to have accredited agricultural performance in an international environment we need to get agreement from the international community of the need for it and identify criteria and processes that Australia might use. In a way they (the customer) will need to “set the standards” and be locked in to recognizing them. Need to clearly state the multiple objectives of the project and the value adding (we want to improve NRM outcomes, satisfy legislative requirements and establish or maintain markets) that environmental certification of agricultural land management will contribute to each.

o The States, and differing industries are at different stages in the process of developing

certification systems and performance standards based on differing legislative requirements and stages of development – the least we should be aiming for is a shared vision and principles and incrementally building from there. The aim of building on the common principles, common elements and core performance standards is supported. Various systems can nestle in to the overall national statements. Individuals could choose one that suits their need and “tier”.

o Establishing a resource condition baseline at the point of decision is critical – national

baselines may not be relevant at the sub-catchments or farm level (as identified by the NLWRA). Collecting relevant scale objective information will always be a challenge. There are sets of information required at various scales of reporting. Data at the individual farm level introduces issues of privacy. Data access and exchange introduces issues of pricing and management. The principles of “collect once to use many times” should be reinforced to underpin the needs for a common or agreed collection. Information collection is expensive.

o There needs clarity under what circumstances the tiered approach to certification will apply.

An analysis of spatial entities (enterprise / farm / locality / sub-catchment and catchment and region and the nation) against the industry and food chain associations could establish the matrix for identifying appropriate processes. Land management plans are being “accredited” at the catchment (CMA) or regional level under the NHT/NAP.

o Clearly identifying the cost benefit will be essential for early adoption of any system. Is there

a critical mass of farmers/industries for a system to take off? May need to concentrate initially on industries that require it.

o The link between farm outcomes to catchment outcomes is important to show. This

necessitates identifying the outcomes of farm activity and the contributions to regional land management issues and catchment management plans of particular industries and industry practices. The NAP/NHT are not the only investors in a region – however the regional plan is currently centered on these investments.

35. Policy Director of Winemakers Federation

o There is a need to obtain a robust scientific understanding of the extent to which specific farm-level management practices can influence catchment-level targets. This would assist in the development of regional best management practices. It is likely that the best management practices would need to be adapted to suit specific industries.

45

o Internationally several initiatives already exist and it is highly likely that initiatives such as EurepGAP will have an impact on Australian producers, as will major retailer systems e.g. Tesco’s Natures Choice. Any systems that are taken up in Australia should ensure that they are mapped against existing international systems to facilitate equivalence with those systems.

o Agricultural businesses are already aware of a range of systems such as food safety (HACCP

etc.), OH&S and EMS, although EMS means different things to different people. The key drivers for the uptake of these systems vary but include regulatory influences, market forces and food safety assurance. A driver that is not often acknowledged, but should be, is that most people and businesses want to do the right thing. From an export perspective, food safety remains a key concern and will continue to do so.

o The fragmented approach that has occurred to date with Quality Systems and to some extent

with EMS has led to confusion within industries.

o Accreditation models will need to supply the framework but regional issues will need to drive what the actual system looks like at the regional level. Equivalence will need to be established so that the regional initiatives can fit under one national umbrella.

o Any system that is developed will need to recognise and accommodate agricultural diversity

and regionality.

o Accreditation programs place an extra financial burden on participating businesses, which in times of falling prices, places additional strains on the business and the financial results that are delivered as a result of participation in an accreditation program are not necessarily any better than those that are experienced by businesses that do not choose to participate in those programs.

o Government should facilitate industry initiatives rather than drive them. As an example, most

businesses assessing their risks recognize that they need to comply with legal requirements. However, there is no nationally available legal register that identifies legal requirements for agriculture in an easy to access format or in plain English. Additionally, there are also regional legal requirements that landholders must comply with. Government could help fill this gap through the provision of such initiatives that help deliver this information.

The roundtable dialogue The discussion ranged widely across issues identified in the options paper and in the responses to it. Some participants were unconvinced that there is yet a case to be made for a national certification process. All agreed that piloting of environmental management systems and development of links between landholders and catchment authorities on environmental targets were positive developments. The new focus on environmental outcomes, made possible by Commonwealth funding, is contributing new satisfaction and new opportunities in the marketplace for Australia's farmers. The options paper suggested the possibility of developing a non-profit company to take the lead on certification. This proposition found little support and was replaced with the concept of a national network to progress the issue and improve coordination and communication. There was repeated discussion about the growing imposition on farmers to provide documentary evidence of various aspects of their farms. Farmers need to be persuaded that a certification process would bring benefits to their business and would enhance long-term productivity, and those who have become involved in EMS are convinced that this is likely to be the case. Repeatedly the point was acknowledged that Australian land

46

management needs to become more environmentally friendly and that farmers are seeking ways to achieve this. There was recognition that this is the beginning of a journey and that the shape of the destination is still not clear. There was also strong support for a continuation of voluntarism and industry leadership in the evolving process. Immediately after lunch, the facilitator summarized what he saw to be the emerging view of the group. This then became the topic of further refinement and discussion in the last two sessions, which also paid particular attention to communication on these matters across the industry. In the final session, three of the Australia 21 team summarized their standing of the consensus. After reviewing the transcription of audiotapes of the roundtable, a final document was prepared, and submitted by e-mail to participants for their final comments and amendments. The editor amended the consensus document to incorporate these responses for the participants. Edited version of closing remarks by Australia 21 team to articulate the consensus reached Bob Douglas : Today’s discussion shows that this group is passionate both about the role of landholders in protecting the environment and about need for environmental care of agricultural land to be both recognized and valued by the Australian community and by international markets. There is consensus that we need to build national coherence around a process that is had a great deal of energy and talent committed to it in recent years. Nobody wants to create a new monster and there is not full agreement that the objective is necessarily a single national certification process. But I took from the discussion that people hope that what could result from this process would be coherence across the nation on environmental certification of agricultural land. There is clear consensus that we need national agreement on the principles whereby we can recognise and give farmers credit for preservation of the environment. People are talking about building from the bottom up, rather than from top down and developing a process that farmers feel to be essential to management of their business and worthy of the effort that they would need to make to maintain it. We have also been talking about a national caretaker group/body to carry this process forwards to the next stage. It sounded to me that the group was describing a network that would carry responsibility for this process. And the network would include especially people from the EMS movement who have provided the energy for this development to this point as well as the catchment managers who are now charged with responsibility for meeting environmental targets. We have agreed that it must include also the industry bodies including the RDCs and also the State and Federal Governments. There is consensus that all of these groups have a vested interest in this process and I don't think we reached full agreement on how the process will best be managed. But I did not hear any dissent from the view that the body which might carry the responsibility for managing this network in the next phase might be a task force of expanded membership under the aegis of the EMS Advisory Council

47

There was some suggestion that Australia 21 might convene a meeting of this kind in 12 months to take stock of progress and I believe we would be open to this possibility if that was seen to be desirable. If it is going to work this process must have financial backing and we agreed that it is in the interest of the entire nation that we preserve our heritage. Federal money has underwritten the NHT and the NAP to this point, and that has to be the starting point. But we are also talking about the ways in which markets can ultimately generate funds that will support this. Although we are not making it explicit that the endpoint of this journey will necessarily be a national certificate, I think people are agreed that we unquestionably need a process for collecting environmental data that will assist farmers to manage their properties more effectively. And I heard clear consensus of the need to strengthen the relationship between landholders and catchment managers on the issue of information. I heard three phrases or concepts repeatedly “It's about looking beyond today”, “It's about recognition” and “It's about money”. We have heard that the science of monitoring the landscape is still incomplete and inadequate and therefore the evolving network will need to work closely with the scientists. There has been talk also of the need to ensure that environmental certification is appropriately integrated with all of the other things we now expect of farmers including QA, animal welfare, occupational health and safety and compliance with ever more complex regulation. Clarification and harmonization of regulation and legislation is another issue that is causing concern and angst in the farming community. Some see the process we have been discussing today as a mechanism for making life less, rather than more complex for the farmer. I could not help thinking that I was hearing today exactly the same refrain as I have heard from my medical colleagues over the years. “We've got everybody on our backs. How do we do what we agree needs to happen and agree is right, but at the same time make a buck and hold our heads up in the community?” I've heard people repeatedly saying “This is an opportunity to get it right”. I have a sense that it's an opportunity for Australia to become international pacesetters in this field because I think it's pretty clear that no other countries have yet got this sorted out properly though most are trying. I think we've all agreed that it's very complex and that in order to effect national coherence on this task, it's going to require the energy of the people who understand it. Hence the need for a “bottom up” approach. I hope that we can reflect in our report of today’s activity both the diversity and the clear consensus that emerged today and I hope that it will also be sufficiently convincing to the administrators and politicians to make them feel they want to enable the process to go forward. I invite Geoff Gorrie and Philippa Rowland to add to what I have said Geoff Gorrie: One of the comments I'd like to add to that is that a national approach does not mean uniformity. And you can have a national approach providing you define the task, and define everybody's role in it. You can have quite a degree of diversity in that national approach and I think the more I see of what's on the table , that is the way I think we ought to be trying to move forward. A lot has been said about credibility and recognition, proof of good stewardship, and whether it's for the general public or for market access or just for avoidance of some regulation. It seems to me that if the process becomes too diverse it will lose credibility. Philippa Rowland: I want to highlight the discussion we had on communication. I believe it is really important to engage farmers across Australia on this issue. This is a really critical national issue that

48

requires engagement and it requires engagement in an iterative way of all of those parties around Australia that can help us to the end point that we're talking about. So that involves industry, it involves the regional groups and it involves representatives of individual farmers. We can't have all 192,000 farmers around the table, but we do need to take on board the ground up issues that are going to be faced by land holders. So I make a plea for an improved communication mechanism. The State/Commonwealth roundtable in Victoria said that there was going to be consultation. However, many of us may have been involved in some way in “consult and ignore” processes where a paper is put out, consultations take place and feedback is gathered, then the end result doesn’t appear to reflect this but is something quite different. I'd really like to see commitment to an ongoing iterative engagement in the process, because that is what is needed if we are to achieve convergence on a national approach. Final consensus statement prepared for PISC 1. The piloting and experimentation with Environmental Management Systems that has been supported in recent years by the Federal Government and by most industry groups and state and territory governments around Australia has resulted in discernible and measurable benefits both to farm productivity and to environmental outcomes. It has also generated considerable enthusiasm and motivation at the grass roots. 2. There is need for a national framework that builds upon the momentum that has been developed towards the certification of environmental stewardship and the adaptive management of land at all scales for all purposes. This national framework needs to be internationally and locally relevant and provide international equivalence. Its primary justification is environmental improvement, not to gain a market premium. 3. Such a framework could enable the development of common principles for a national certification approach to farm management and the ongoing development of a monitoring system that describes the environmental sustainability of the Australian landscape. 4. There is need for property managers to work synergistically with the evolving network of catchment management authorities to set environmental targets and monitor progress towards these targets. These two issues - the setting and achievement of environmental targets at the catchment level and certification of environmental accomplishment at the property level - are closely interdependent and need to be developed with an eye to the profitability of agricultural enterprises and the long term sustainability of the Australian landscape, including particularly its provision of ecosystem services. 5. An underlying principle needs to be to reduce complexity. Property managers are confronted by a variety of certification requirements and expectations of compliance with a range of regulations. Auditing for all of these purposes has proliferated dangerously in recent years. Industries, products, activities and environmental outcomes have all become the subject of audit, certification and labelling. The evolving national framework should seek to harmonise certification and auditing systems for the property manager and should build on the interests and enthusiasm that have been generated through the pilot activities in recent years. 6. Both internationally and domestically, there are emerging market drivers for certification that include not only food safety, occupational health and safety and animal welfare issues, but also environmental outcomes. Adequately responding to all of these issues is sound business for landholders but for multi-product farmers, coordination and streamlining of the audit and certification process is urgently required. 7. Australia should now embark on a process towards national certification that pays attention both to agricultural management processes and environmental outcomes. This should build on a dynamic

49

relationship between landholders and catchments and on a coherent national approach to collection of information that can be used to judge progress in meeting environmental targets. Part of the process should be to provide proof of stewardship and recognition of progress towards sustainability. It should also be able to substantiate claims of good environmental management and support individuals to improve environmental performance. 8. This development of a credible framework, a national “brand” and voluntary certification that offers farmers tiered entry will require the development of a new network of stakeholders that brings together the interests of farmers, catchment authorities, and state and federal agencies with responsibility both for primary industry and Natural Resource management. 9. Development of such a network is in the national interest and its cost cannot be borne either by the market or by producers alone. The group agreed that there is pressing need for 'statesmanlike' national leadership to formalise and establish the framework; and that an expanded EMS Advisory Committee is an appropriate body to provide this leadership. 10. The issues involved in developing a national framework for certification are complex. However, Australia is well-placed to become an international pace-setter in the streamlining of certification procedures and in the development of internationally credible certification in agriculture. There was good agreement in the diverse group as to what the main features of a national system should be. 11. The task requires convergence in some of the activities both of the Primary Industries Ministerial Council and the Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council. It also requires ongoing commitment by the Federal Government to the strong start it has made through the National Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan, as well as the funds that have been committed to the Industry based Environmental Management Systems. 12. A system of certification that is imposed from the top down will neither meet the requirements nor be adopted. The Australian framework should build on the enthusiasm, skills, interests and needs of Australia's landholders. Such a system will bring substantial benefits to the nation and will enable Australian farmers to be on the front foot on the environmental impact of Agriculture.

50

References Agriculture WA (2000) Environmental Accreditation System

– Market Analysis Project. Report prepared for the Department of Agriculture Western Australia, by Peter Backshall, Marketing and Management, October 2000.

Allen Consulting (2004) Environmental Sustainability in the Australian Food Sector. A Report to the National Food Industry Strategy by Allen Consulting Group Pty Ltd (www.allenconsult.com.au)

Assured Food Standards (2002) Improving Baseline Environmental Standards in Farm Assurance Schemes: Background Information. British Farm Standard (“Little Red Tractor”), UK, 4pp.

Australian Forestry Standard (2002) (http://www.forestrystandard.org.au/development.html)

Carruthers, G (2003 ) Adoption of environmental management systems in Agriculture: Part 1: Case studies from Australia and New Zealand. Publication No. 03/121 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Carruthers, G (2005) Adoption of environmental management systems in Agriculture: An analysis of 40 case studies. Publication No. 05/032 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Construction Policy Steering Committee (1998) EMS Guidelines. NSW Government, Sydney, NSW.

Douglas, J., Gleeson, T. and Turner, C. (2002) Improved Natural Resource Management with ALMS: The Australian Landcare Management System – Anchors for Implementation and Further Development. ALMS document March 2002, 22pp (www.synapseconsulting.com.au)

EISA (2003) The Obligations for Integrated Farming. European Initiative for the Sustainable development in Agriculture, Bonn, July 2003 (http://www.sustainable-agriculture.org/)

Heinze, K.G. (2000) Credible “Clean and Green”. Investigation of the international framework and critical design features of a credible EMS for Australian Agriculture. CSIRO Land and Water.

IFOAM (2002). IFOAM Norms 2002. International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements, Tholey-Thely. Accessed: 26/8/04 http://www.ifoam.org/standard/norms/cover.html

Lewis, K. and Tzilvakis, J. (2002) Monitoring Environmental Quality on Farm. Presented to the SCI Meeting ‘Managing the Environmental Effects of Agriculture’, Warwick University, March 2002.

Nelson, R., Webb, T. and Byron, I. (2005 in press). A conceptual framework for coordinating the integration of socio-economic information for NRM decision makers. A report by ABARE and BRS to the National Land and Water Resources Audit.

NLWRA (2005) Status of Natural Resource Information: to underpin the National Natural Resource Management Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. National Land and Water Resources Audit, May 2005. See http://www.nlwra.gov.au/products.asp?section=26

NRMMC (2002). Australia’s National Framework for Environmental Management Systems (EMS) in Agriculture. Natural Resource Management Standing Committee Report 1. The Environmental

Management System Working Group on behalf of the National Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC). (see www.daff/gov/au/ems_framework)

NRMMC (2003) National Environmental Management Systems Implementation Plan. The Environmental Management System Implementation Working Group on behalf of the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC). (www.daff.gov.au/ems_plan )

PIRSA (2004) An overview of the Summary of Environmental Legislation: Primary Production in South Australia. Primary Industries and Resources S.A., February 2004.

QFF/QDPI (2005) Memorandum of Understanding between the Queensland Government and Queensland Farmers’ Federation relating to Farm Management Systems.

Rowland, P (2001) EMS, International Trade and the Environment. In Proceedings of the 2nd EMS in Agriculture Conference, November 6-8, 2001, Ballina, NSW (Ed. G. Carruthers).

Rowland, P. (RIRDC 2005 in press) A National Inventory of Environmental Management Systems in Australian Agriculture. A RIRDC-Sponsored Report to Pathways to Industry EMS Independent Assessment Panel. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Taylor, L. (2001) Developing an Environmental Management System: A Practical Guidebook for Agricultural Businesses. Department of Agriculture, Western Australia.

Taylor, L. (2002). Developing an Environmental Management System - a Practical Guide for Pastoralists. Western Australia Department of Agriculture, Perth, December 2002. 92pp.

Tongway D, Hindley N (2003) 'Indicators of ecosystem rehabilitation success: Stage 2 - verification of EFA Indicators. Final Report.' CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems in association with Ben Seaborn, CMLR, University of Queensland, Canberra ACT.

Tongway DJ, Hindley NL (2004) 'Landscape function analysis: procedures for monitoring and assessing landscapes with special reference to minesites and rangelands.' CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra ACT.

VFF/DPI/DSE (2003) The Way Forward – An Action Plan for the Adoption of EMS in Victorian Agriculture. Victorian Farmers Federation, Department of Primary Industry (DPI) and Department of Sustainability and the Environment, Melbourne, Victoria.

USEPA (2005) The Sacramento Report: Agricultural Environmental Management Systems Farmer to Farmer Conference. Sacramento California June 8,9,10 – 2005.

Western Australian Department of Agriculture (2004) Farming for the Future – Recognition of Sustainable Agriculture – a discussion paper (Working Draft (Version 2.1) November 2004.

Woodward-Clyde (2000). International green market signals. Woodward–Clyde (NZ) Limited. <http://www.smf.govt.nz/results/6117_final.pdf>

51

Attachment 1 – Relevant International Programs and Activities

‘…It does not take much thought to see that a manager of a mixed farm selling produce to several retailers could be completely overwhelmed by numerous schemes, protocols, standards, operational codes and bureaucracy. The [UK] assurance schemes tend to address the problems for their own sub-sector but take no account of the mixed producer. The existing multiple farm assurance schemes could be enhanced by a more formal and disciplined approach to process improvement by adopting a single, standard whole-farm scheme encompassing a streamlined approach acceptable to farmers, regulators, retailers and consumers. In short the principles of standard quality and environmental management schemes such as ISO9000 and ISO 14001. …An integrated approach along the food chain would help reduce the cost to the primary producer. The cost to the industry as a whole is significant and should be better shared along the food chain to ease the pressure, particularly in the current climate. The problem is now being tackled by the Assured Farm Schemes, the organization behind the ‘Little Red Tractor’ logo, which is seeking to provide liaison between the [various assurance] schemes and combine verification audits and farm inspections with the aim of reducing costs and the burden on farmers…’

Lewis and Tzilivakis 2002 Monitoring Environmental Quality on Farm Several countries in south east Asia have been promoting ISO 14001, most notably in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea but also evident in Thailand, Malaysia. Japanese export firms have embraced ISO 14001 as a key to competitive global positioning (Woodward-Clyde 2000), leading to a push for EMS up the supply chain through procurement policies. The Taiwanese environment agency was developing a 5-year EMS plan in 2000, while the South Korean Ministry of the Environment developed an Environmentally Friendly Companies Initiative that required an EMS. Leading Chinese companies have investigated the benefits of ISO 14001 certification, influenced by growing government expenditure on environmental infrastructure. This may link with the ‘green labelling’ of agricultural products already underway in China. Canada has recently embarked on the national promotion of Environmental Farm Plans (EFP). The enhanced EFP program is being funded for five years through the Agricultural Policy Framework, an agreement between the federal, provincial and territorial governments, to make Canada a world leader in environmentally safe food production. The EFP originated in Ontario, based on Farm*A*Syst, in 1992. In response to concerns about agriculture and the environment, a coalition of Ontario farmers' organisations released "Our Farm Environmental Agenda", recommending that every farm family develop an Environmental Farm Plan as part of the Food 2002 Program. The Province of Ontario now has over 27,000 farmers voluntarily enrolled in EFP (over half the registered farmers). US activity on EMS and certification to date has been largely in the non-agricultural sector. However, a recent national conference called for a national coordinating organization or foundation to provide the leadership necessary for the development of a National AgEMS program, with possible further funding via USDA Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (Sacramento Report 2005). The EMS Multi-State Working Group provides a highly innovative forum for progressing the debate and promotes EMS adoption across all industries and States (www.msg.org). Wisconsin legislated a Green Tier Program (DNR 2001), signed off in 2003, setting a series of environmental commitments that go beyond regulatory requirements at the local, state and federal government levels. Three major tools promoted were environmental charters, environmental contracts and environmental management systems. The US Farm*A*Syst Program is a national program that has been cooperatively supported by USDA and US Environmental Protection Agency since 1991. It provides self-assessment tools on water quality, waste storage and nutrient management and was a precursor to many self-assessment programs. An agricultural EMS website has been set up. In the United Kingdom, the British Farm Standard was launched in 2000 with the Little Red Tractor as its marketing logo (www.littleredtractor.org.uk). Work is underway to develop environmental standards to underpin the currently unsubstantiated environmental claims made. This will build on the

52

considerable investment in integrated farm management and the LEAF scheme (Linking Environment and Farming). Food safety, environmental and social issues and a range of regulations and Codes of Good Agricultural Practice are covered under the program. There are numerous sector-specific assurance programs that incorporate detailed standards and inspection systems relevant to the various standards are applied. The UK Rural White Paper implementation plan released in December 2003 includes many relevant actions including on going support for the Integrated Farm Management (IFM) approach and provides LEAF with a further 3 years funding to promote IFM to farmers and consumers (http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/pdfs/ruralwp/december2003/10.pdf). In France, a legal definition has been set for “Agriculture Raissonee”, which grew out of work on equivalent of LEAF called FARRE. The French parliament adopted a new article of law on May 2, 2001, giving Integrated Farming a legal basis. (Article L-640-3 du Code Rural, Loi du 2/5/2001). An official "Code of Reference for Integrated Farming" has been adopted jointly by the French authorities, the major farmers' organisations and consumer and environmental groups. There are plans for adding further local standards for agriculture at the regional level to the national Code of Reference by 2004. French farmers who practice Integrated Farming can apply for "Integrated Farming certification", granted by officially authorized bodies after an audit carried out on the basis of the Code of Reference. This is the first official nationwide definition for Integrated Farming (www.farre.org/versionAnglaise/anglais_home.htm). More broadly in Europe, reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy mean that agricultural subsidies previously based on production are gradually being transformed into direct payments linked to compliance with standards that address environmental, social, animal welfare, worker safety and consumer concerns. The European Initiative for Sustainable Development in Agriculture (EISA) is an alliance of national organisations from six countries (UK, France, Luxemburg, Germany, Italy and Sweden) that has been active in establishing a network of demonstration farms and promoting Integrated farming (IF) throughout Europe. IF seeks to “reinforce the positive influences of agricultural production whilst reducing its negative impact, setting up a system that aims to balance food production, profitability, safety, animal welfare, social responsibility and environmental care”. EISA has developed Obligations for Integrated Farming that exceed the Codes of Good Agricultural Practice in all European countries. These obligations, also known as the Common Codex for Integrated Farming, have been put to the European Commission as a realistic way forward for Sustainable Agriculture in Europe (See EISA website http://www.sustainable-agriculture.org/). EurepGAP, or the European Good Agricultural Practice Protocol, is an initiative of the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP). Their aim was to agree on standards and procedures for development of good agricultural practice. EurepGAP offers several product certification schemes in agriculture and aquaculture. EurepGAP is promoting Integrated Farm Assurance (IFA) to provide controlled and more efficient production of agricultural raw materials, giving farmers a response to globalisation and improving public confidence (while providing protection to a coterie of EU supermarket owners in food safety areas). The objectives of EurepGAP - IFA are: • to facilitate mutual recognition through transparent benchmarking • to boost world-wide participation in farm assurance • to encourage continuous improvement • to provide performance and integrity measurement for assurance schemes. Several schemes have been recognised as equivalent to the EurepGAP standard for Integrated Farm Assurance and several whose status is as yet unclear where applications have been received but the approval has not yet been granted. Approved Certification Bodies have received accreditation. More than 650 technical proposals have been evaluated including those from the following countries with their own National private or public sector schemes: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Eire, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, The Netherlands, UK, Uruguay and USA. EurepGAP Reference Standard Integrated Farm Assurance Version 2 (March 2005) is now available. AUSQUAL Pty Ltd is Australia’s one EurepGAP provisionally approved Certification Body (contact Mr Peter Husband peterhusband@ausqual.com.au) approved for the following EurepGAP sub-scopes: cattle and sheep, dairy, pigs, poultry and combinable crops (ie grains).

53

Attachment 2 – Relevant Australian Programs and Activities NAP/NHT regional/catchment planning and investment processes Australian Commonwealth, State and Territory Government have established a framework for investing in natural resource management through agreements on the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) and the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT). The framework includes the establishment of regional integrated natural resource management plans that are jointly accredited by the Australian Government and the relevant State or Territory Government. A series of agreements provide the framework for integrated natural resource management across Australia and the administration and delivery of the NHT and the NAP. Integrated natural resource management across Australia will progress through the development of accredited regional plans that identify regional priorities and establish a framework for investment in action. Regional plans are accredited using criteria agreed by the Australian and States/Territory Governments through the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council in May 2002. Key accreditation criteria require regional bodies to demonstrate that their plans: • cover the full range of natural resource management issues • are underpinned by scientific analysis of natural resource conditions, problems and priorities • have effective involvement of all key stakeholders in plan development and implementation • focus on addressing the underlying causes rather than symptoms of problems • include strategies to implement agreed natural resource management policies to protect the natural

resource base • demonstrate consistency with other planning processes and legislative requirements applicable to

the region • set targets at the regional scale, consistent with the national framework for natural resource

management standards and targets • identify strategic, prioritised and achievable actions to address the range of natural resource

management issues and achieve the regional targets: this includes an evaluation of the wider social economic and environmental impacts of such actions and of any actions needed to address such impacts, and

• provide for continuous development, monitoring, review and improvement of the plan. National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework A National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework has been developed by the Australian and State / Territory Governments to help monitor and report on the impact of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) and the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT). The National M&E Framework sets out broad “Matters for Target” that are to be reported on, using a range of possible indicators. A key role for the second National Land and Water Resources Audit is to report against these matters for target and indicators, with the aim of assisting, over time, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the NAP and NHT (see later section on data and information management across agriculture. National framework for EMS in Australian agriculture

The agreed framework aims to facilitate EMS adoption across industries and regions, and to integrate activity across industry sectors and with broader natural resource management processes. It aims to encourage the appropriate linkages with existing supply chains to obtain the maximum trade and market advantages from efforts to improve natural resource management. It aims to facilitate

54

integration of individual landholder activities to make a significant contribution to improving the sustainability of agricultural production and to meeting community expectations of environmental, social and economic outcomes. Agreement on guiding EMS principles is a crucial step towards a common approach that avoids the difficulties that would arise from proliferation of incompatible systems. Lengthy consultation in 1999 produced national agreement that EMS in agriculture should be: • voluntary and led by industry and community • simple, cost effective, user-friendly, able to be phased in at any level and provide clear advantages

to the adopting enterprise • able to be combined and integrated with existing business management activities wherever

possible • able to demonstrate links between competitiveness and natural resource management outcomes • adaptable and provide for continuous improvement • consistent with existing internationally recognised systems (such as the ISO 14001 series) and be

capable of independent audit. National Food Industry Strategy The National Food Industry Strategy (or NFIS) is a Commonwealth Government - food industry Action Agenda. Under the NFIS the Government is providing $102.4 million over five years to 2006/07 to improve the global competitiveness of the Australian food industry. The Environmental Sustainability element of the National Food Industry Strategy states that the food industry will have to achieve standards that go beyond compliance with minimum government regulation if it is to become environmentally sustainable in the long term. The Strategy supports the use of eco-efficiency tools and concepts like EMS and public environmental reporting, as well as seeing that industry reduces costs, ensures access to adequate resources, and becomes more internationally competitive by maximising resource use efficiency. Under the National Food Industry Strategy, food industries have agreed to develop regular and systematic reporting of environmental performance by producers and companies operating throughout the food chain to deliver net reduction in per unit environmental impact of the food production process. They have also stated that they will continue to implement market-based approaches to through-chain environmental management by way of initiatives in areas such as waste management, recycling and energy conservation, including the National Packaging covenant. In response to a recent report by the Allen Consulting Group entitled Environmental Sustainability in the Australian Food Industry: the Commercial Opportunities, the National Food Industry Council agreed at its March 2005 meeting: • to develop a definition of environmental sustainability and principles for sustainable development

of the Australian food industry, based on raising environmental performance while enhancing the industry’s competitiveness;

• that the Australian Government, together with industry, should develop consistent environmental sustainability reporting guidelines across all agrifood industries;

• that the Australian Government should produce a comprehensive listing of available environmental sustainability programs for food producing industries;

• that NFIS Ltd, in conjunction with the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC), should investigate the potential to develop an Australian subsidiary of the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative; and

• that the Report should be widely released, including distribution to relevant government and industry stakeholder organisations, to encourage uptake of the recommendations.

A Steering Group of representatives from NFIS Ltd, Australian Food and Grocery Council, the National Farmers' Federation and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is responsible for monitoring the implementation of these actions.

55

National certification and accreditation bodies (JAS-ANZ etc) JAS-ANZ is a not for profit, self funding international organisation established under a Treaty between the Governments of Australia and New Zealand on 30 October 1991 to act as the joint accreditation body for Australia and New Zealand for certification of management systems, products and personnel. JAS-ANZ offers an accreditation program for bodies operating product certification programs. The requirements for accreditation are those specified in ISO/IEC Guide 65 - General requirements operating product certification schemes as guided by the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) Guidance on the application of ISO/IEC Guide 65, published as “Procedure 15”. Organic certification The Australian organic industry has a process for accreditation and certification of its producers that is overseen by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS). There are seven separate certification bodies accredited by AQIS as complying with the Australian National Standard for Organic produce. The domestic system of organic certification is entirely voluntary, as AQIS enforcement of the national standard is only applicable for export into international markets, enforceable under the Export Controls Act. However, the organic industry works well between AQIS and the organic certification bodies to deal with any issues of non-compliance. At the international level, AQIS is considered a competent authority to carry out accreditation, being one of the countries whose certification and accreditation system has been deemed ‘equivalent’ by the European Union. However, more broadly, as organic demand increases, more governments are becoming involved in organic certification and have differing standards and processes. Individual operators may thus have to comply with a range of standards and requirements that become both expensive and cumbersome. There are separate accreditation regimes and importing country requirements in place in the USA, in Europe and in Japan. The International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM) aims to harmonise international standards by providing a basic set of standards to which organic producers all over the world can subscribe. There have also been attempts to harmonise organic certification under Codex Alimentarius (UN Food and Agriculture Organization) with reference material for international organic standards produced with significant input from Australia (Ruth Lovisolo) during the 1990s. Landcare initiatives, including ALMS The majority of industry stakeholders consulted by the National Food Industry Strategy survey (Allen Consulting Group, 2005) expressed support for Landcare and other strategic initiatives for sustainability. This includes recent EMS training provided for facilitators and coordinators. The Australian Landcare Management System (ALMS) is a whole-of-farm, externally audited ISO14001 compliant EMS, requiring account to be taken of catchment-wide priorities and strategies (Douglas et al., 2002). The ALMS pilot will test the implementation of EMS across two regions in Victoria and South Australia with different industries, organisational capabilities and natural resource management priorities. A key feature of the project is a cooperative arrangement with a sister project in Victoria to develop on-farm environmental monitoring tools to help farmers assess environmental outcomes. Australian forestry standard Australia's Primary Industries Ministerial Council, formerly the Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture, in partnership with the National Association of Forest Industries, Australian Forest Growers, and Plantation Timber Association of Australia, sponsored the development of the Australian Forestry Standard. This Standard has been developed to provide a basis for voluntary, independent third-party certification against auditable forest management performance criteria that support sustainable management of forests for wood production. It is intended that the

56

Standard will be suitable for use in both native and planted forests regardless of tenure or scale of ownership. The Standard is also intended to provide a basis for third party independent auditing, either separately or in conjunction with the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System standard. State-based activities of certification and accreditation of sustainable agriculture Queensland A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between Premier Beatty and the Queensland Farmers Federation (QFF) on 31st March 2005, formalizing a five-year partnership between industry and government to advance Farm Management Systems (FMS) for Queensland’s intensive agricultural industries. FMS are recognised as part of an effective balance between regulatory and voluntary approaches. FMS are seen to enable producers to demonstrate due diligence in meeting that States statutory stewardship obligations under Queensland environmental laws such as the Environment Protection Act 1994 and the Land Act 1994. Once an FMS program or part thereof has been certified accredited by the Department, farmers successfully implementing the program don’t need to develop land and water management plans to satisfy NRM requirements and use traded water. Victoria The Victorian Farmers Federation and the Victorian government embarked upon partnership in 2002 with the formation of a joint industry/government EMS working group. The partnership aims to provide a more coordinated approach to EMS developments in Victoria and to achieve a more uniform and practical framework for EMS implementation at the farm, regional/catchment and state level. Work by this group and others led to the launch of the Victoria’s Action Plan for the Adoption of EMS in 2003, in which each party has articulated its priorities for EMS to guide future actions. Its vision is profitable ecologically sustainable agriculture in Victoria assisted by widespread adoption of industry-led EMS. Western Australia The WA Farming for the Future program was launched in November 2004, designed as a mechanism for the certification of sustainable agriculture and setting out sustainability principles. Principles include industry participation, alignment with existing industry and regulatory frameworks, outcomes based performance standards where practical and consistent with catchment/regional targets, relevant to farm business decisions. The program also supports a phased tiered approach to audit and certification and continuous improvement. The working document sets out major farm management issues for which standards and assessments will be set and a list of components necessary for a credible and acceptable certification scheme.

Develop environmental standards Industry-based sustainable management options Certification criteria Strategic links with accreditation bodies (JAS-ANZ etc) Criteria for certification, inspection and labelling

Western Australia funded early work in the development of a practical guidebook to EMS for agricultural businesses (Taylor 2001) and market research into agricultural accreditation schemes (Agriculture WA 2000). The promotion of EMS per se since then has been somewhat patchy. Tasmania Tasmanian producers, exporters and government have worked cooperatively to develop an ecolabel that is backed by an independent audit of agreed elements. The label is based on elements already in place for QA and food safety. A review of the requirements of international customers and other eco-labels identified a number of core environmental elements. These elements are tiered to allow recognition of levels of achievement. Third party auditing is required on an annual basis to receive a Responsible Agriculture certificate. Tasmanian Field Fresh onion growers also had firsthand

57

experience in modifying their production to meet the requirements of Tesco’s Nature’s Choice program, with sixty-five producers granted a Certificate of Responsible Agriculture in 2000. Growers participating in this scheme are well positioned to meet future market requirements and many also received ancillary benefits from certification, such as reduced insurance premiums and improved conditions on–farm. Although not specifically designed for agriculture, it is also worth looking at the Brand Tasmania initiative (www.brandtasmania.com.au), which includes some primary producers. New South Wales New South Wales has developed the NSW FarmPlan initiative that encourages property level planning. NSW is implementing EMS approaches on the 26 properties (research stations etc) that it manages. In addition, the NSW Government developed EMS Guidelines for all contractors seeking government contracts in civil engineering, mining, landscaping and similar works (Construction Policy Steering Committee, 1998). These guidelines, which recognise ISO 14001 as an appropriate Standard on which to develop an EMS, highlight the requirements for all works on projects over $10 million or for projects under that value that are environmentally sensitive. Until 2003, NSW was also supporting EMS adoption via the NSW salinity strategy. South Australia South Australia is currently establishing a new NRM Act and State NRM Plan, which may possibly in future provide an umbrella framework for recognising sustainable management. There is no move at present by SA Government (PIRSA) - or, it appears, industry - to establish an over-arching certification framework as proposed by Queensland and WA. Nevertheless, there are independent moves by Rural Solutions, among others, to simplify management processes eg. procedures, record-keeping, auditing etc, by identifying and merging requirements that are common to different certification systems eg. EUREPGAP, ISO14001, HACCP etc. South Australia has set up a network of interested parties to co-ordinate EMS activities across government department, agencies and industries. A tangible example of useful support material for EMS and other environmental developments in South Australia was the release of Environmental Legislation relevant to primary producers in that State (PIRSA, 2004). A number of apple and cherry growers in the Mt Lofty Ranges and citrus growers in the Riverland have gained or are seeking EUREPGAP certification as a requirement to access UK/European markets. Some of these are also taking part in the Commonwealth-sponsored EMS Pilots Program and may proceed to ISO14001 certification. Over 30 broad-acre farmers in the eastern Mt Lofty Ranges-Murray Plains region are participating in the Australian Landcare Management System (ALMS) EMS Pilot and similarly may seek ISO14001 certification, but not automatically in light of a lack of direct market benefit. Certification to ISO14001 is favoured by major South Australian wineries, particularly BRL Hardy and Southcorp, essentially as a marketing edge that demonstrates their "clean and green" management credentials. Northern Territory There is a feeling in the Northern Territory that any further developments in environmental assurance should ensure that they can be integrated with and build upon other existing programs already in place. The impact on growers of a proliferation of incompatible documentation and marketing systems is significant and needs to be addressed, particularly for smaller and/or marginal growers already facing hurdles in developing and maintaining access to markets for fledgling industries from remote areas. Commonwealth EMS investments A range of Federal government initiatives have already been established to encourage the voluntary uptake and test the practical value of EMS. These include: • Pathways to Industry EMS Program • EMS Pilots • Partnerships with national agri-industry, community and Landcare • EMS incentives

58

• National EMS Training Package, and • Eco-efficiency Agreements. Total funding for EMS through the EMS Incentives Program, the National Pilot Program and the Pathways to Industry EMS Program adds up to $34.2 million from 2002-03 to 2006-07. The aim of the programs is to promote partnerships between producers, regional/catchment communities, agricultural industries and farmer organisations to develop approaches to EMS and environmental assurance that result in: • the adoption of profitable and sustainable farming practices • improved natural resource management and environmental outcomes, and • an ability to demonstrate environmental stewardship to markets and the community. The EMS Incentives Program provides an incentive for low-income primary producers to develop an EMS for their enterprise via a taxable cash reimbursement of up to 50% of the costs associated with developing and implementing an EMS (to a maximum of $3000). The EMS National Pilot Program has established 16 pilot projects involving around 1500 producers in 25 regions across all states and the Northern Territory. Participating industries include cotton, dairy, grains, rice, horticulture, grazing and fishing. Early results show that EMS provides a useful framework within which to better manage environmental risks and demonstrate environmental stewardship. The Pathways to Industry EMS Program was established following a review of Federal Government EMS Programs in mid 2003, which involved consultations with industry and community leaders. The Pathways Program is being delivered via three rounds of funding, with total funding of more than $11.7 million over the years 2003-2007: • Round 1 allocated $5.2 million to 6 rural industries – cotton, dairy, pork, seafood and sugar • Round 2 allocated $3.5 million to 7 rural industries – chicken meat, egg, rice, wine, red meat and

the Victorian and Western Australian Farmers Federations. • Round 3 funding of $3 million for eight organisations was announced by the Parliamentary

Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Richard Colbeck on 24 June 2005. The successful organisations are the Grains Council of Australia, Meat and Livestock Australia, Australian Wool Innovation, Queensland Farmers Federation, Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, Western Australian Farmers Federation, NSW Farmers’ Association and the Organic Federation of Australia.

Related industry activities (codes of practice, best management practice etc) There has been a substantial increase in the engagement of Australian primary industries on the environment and natural resource management over the past 5 years. A stocktake of EMS activity (Rowland, 2005 RIRDC in press) reveals a possibly surprising array of activities being undertaken in the arena of environmental management. Even discounting the EMS activity generated by Commonwealth support for EMS via the National Pilot Program, the EMS Incentive Program and the Pathways to Industry EMS program, the increase is still considerable. Not all industries have identified the need to develop EMS that is certified to the international standard ISO 14001. There are two common approaches amongst those industries that have not embraced the ISO approach. One is a risk management approach that carries out the preliminary step of identifying and prioritising risks to the environment caused by industry activities (eg. dairy, cotton). The other is the development and voluntary extension of existing quality assurance (QA) schemes to include an environmental module (eg. cattle, dried fruit).

59

Serious trials of EMS have been carried out in a range of industries, including grains, meat and livestock, pork, cotton, grape and wine. Producers of red wax-tipped bananas in Queensland have a sophisticated marketing effort underpinned by a certified EMS that incorporates an eco growing protocol endorsed by the Great Barrier Reef Research Foundation. The forestry and fisheries industries appear to be further down the path of accepting an EMS as a standard part of doing business. The fishing industry has an extensive EMS program, partly driven by recent requirements of the EPBC Act (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act). This fits in with the development of a national framework for ecologically sustainable development in the fishing industry. Other common industry approaches to the environment include the development of industry codes of practice and best management practice guidelines. Of the industries that have carried out serious EMS trials, the majority are taking it slowly, encouraging further development while awaiting further signals from the marketplace, regulatory agencies or the community about the need to move forward on environmental assurance. Others are moving back one step from full-blown EMS to preparing entry level programs for their producers that could in time lead to ISO 14001 certified EMS if and when required (e.g. grains). Investment by the Research and Development Corporations Work on environmental management in cotton began in the early 1990s with a significant long-term collaborative research program that led to the Cotton Best Management Practices (BMP) program. Cotton Australia and CRDC received National EMS Pilot funding to develop a comprehensive Land and Water Module and assess the Cotton BMP’s effectiveness in an EMS form, across three growing regions in Qld and NSW. Cotton also received Pathways to Industry EMS funding to enhance the BMP Program and improve adoption. The Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) invested in 3 EMS projects (Western, Northern and Southern regions) between 2000 –2003 in which EMS was developed and trialled with farmers in four agro-ecological zones. GRDC and the grains industry recognise pressure for the grains industry to be 'EMS ready', so the industry is prepared to respond should there be sufficient market drivers or market access issues. Australian rice growers have a broad-based environmental policy and stewardship program. The Environmental Champions program has five levels of achievement: compliance, beyond compliance; stewardship, eco-efficiency; regional sustainability. Ricegrowers' Association of Australia received National EMS Pilot funding to further implement the Champions Program in NSW and Victoria, involving 240 farmers in three trial groups, with the results applicable to the remainder of the industry, and transferable to other industries. The rice industry also received Pathways funding to roll out phase 3 of the Environmental Champions Program. Sugar Research and Development Corporation (SRDC) policy is to encourage the industry to achieve triple bottom line outcomes (economic, environmental and social) across all R&D funding programs. Within this framework of over 100 projects, all have some focus on improving environmental management. The Australian sugarcane industry now aims to develop a Farm Management System (FMS) framework following a sugar industry workshop on EMS held in Townsville in July 2003 environmental assurance. The Dried Fruits R&D Corporation has assisted the industry to develop an approved supplier program. The industry has provided a base level QA system to all producers (developed by DPI Victoria), that meets processor requirements and the new Food Safety Acts. This approved supplier scheme will be extended to include environmental best practice as a voluntary module and will be called ‘approved supplier plus’. The Grape and Wine RDC has considerable expenditure on environmentally related projects including EMS work. A key emphasis is assisting industry with EMS and plans that meet the needs of the

60

producer while addressing the real environmental issues in the catchment. The Australian Wine Industry launched its Environment Strategy in August 2002, setting the environmental agenda for the wine industry over the next 25 years and addressing issues such as water conservation and management of land, waste, biodiversity and greenhouse. The Viticare Initiative (part of the CRC for Viticulture) has initiated a National Environmental Code, National Environmental BMP Protocols, Environmental Management Tools and Templates and the Viticare Environmental Risk Assessment Tool (VERA). Horticulture Australia Ltd (HAL) received Pathways to Industry EMS funding to develop environmental assurance in horticultural industries (see below). One component, draft guidelines for environmental assurance, was launched in Sydney in November 2004. Growcom (previously Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers, QFVG) is championing a move beyond standard EMS into a Farm Management Systems approach that provides advice to growers and credibility to the outside world about practices, processes and performance standards for natural resource and environmental management. The industry program will seek recognition by regional NRM groups and ‘equivalence status’ with a range of government regulatory mechanisms. (www.growcom.com.au/). Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) has launched a new Livestock Production Assurance (LPA) Scheme. There are no environmental requirements within LPA yet, but MLA is keen to introduce an optional environmental module and is canvassing industry views on how and when this should occur. MLA trials on EMS for pastoral enterprises were successfully completed with four producer groups: GippsBeef in Victoria, The Northern Australian Pastoral Company, the Western Downs group and the YNot Beef Group in Central West Queensland. Pre-certification audits by SAI Global Insurance found three of the four groups reached the point of certification to ISO 14001, although none sought certification for cost reasons. GippsBeef is continuing EMS work through a National EMS pilot project. A Supply Chain trial was carried out in conjunction with Australian Country Choice, with certification of a meat processing plant in Brisbane to ISO 14001, followed by an ACC feedlot in the Brisbane Valley in June 2003. The current stage of the process involves progressing the on-farm component of the EMS on three farms and supplying both the feedlot and the abattoirs. MLA's Lamb Industry EMS project will investigate the QA/EMS drivers for lamb production and will link with 2 major lamb supply chains and associated farmer suppliers. Australian Wool Innovation and Land and Water Australia have formed a NRM partnership program "Land, Water and Wool". The project was designed to improve natural resource management outcomes for wool production based on productive resource management The major focus on promoting and facilitating information exchange between and within programs and the wider industry. It is a 5 year program with around $20 million of wool industry investment. EMS is not considered part of the “Land, Water and Wool” initiative, although leading farmer groups are interested (eg. Traprock Wool). The dairy research and development corporation (DRDC) has supported the development of dairy’s natural resources strategy, in collaboration with farm level, research, manufacturing and agri-political input. ‘Dairying for Tomorrow’ is a major initiative that provides a national strategy for continuous improvement in the dairy industry (www.dairyingfortomorrow.com). Priority strategic issues include access to water, land management policy. Key elements are communication, best practice, research and development, policy, monitoring, catchment planning and coordination. The dairy approach is to incorporate the environment as part of general business management, engaging industry members in capacity building exercises to develop skills and understanding. The Poultry Cooperative Research Corporation (CRC) has an environment program, investigating improved management of poultry welfare and the environmental impact of poultry production. One aim is to objectively review the use of EMS to drive change in the industry and improve environmental performance (see www.poultrycrc.com.au).

61

The egg industry is developing a code of practice for managing the environmental impact of egg production, improving bird welfare and performance and optimising the environmental and social impact of egg production. The Australian Egg Corporation Ltd received Pathways to Industry EMS funds to implement a stepped project towards environmental assurance. Through RIRDC, the ACGC and ACMF developed a Draft Manual of Good Environmental Practice for the Chicken Meat Industry in 2001. Work has now progressed to the point that a generic Chicken Meat Industry training is ready for general release to growers. EMS are being viewed as an important part of what are now being termed “farm management systems” that incorporate the earlier aspects of food safety, welfare and OH&S. Australian Pork Limited (APL) has launched the ‘National Environmental Guidelines for Piggeries’ developed in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. This is first time Australia’s pork industry has achieved a nationally coordinated approach to environmental management. The new guidelines provide a platform for responsible environmental management and streamline the application of environmental regulations to piggeries. At present, there is no specific requirement from either domestic or international markets for Australian pork to comply with any environmental/ecological requirements. However, APL has been considering developing an industry specific EMS program including an accreditation component to a level that could be linked to the existing Quality program. The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) puts a high priority on environmental and NRM issues directly by funding sustainability projects and indirectly by developing new industries with environmental benefits via increased diversity/rotations, eg the Joint Venture on Agroforestry Project. The Environment and Farm Management Program (previously Resilient Agriculture Systems) played a central role in supporting EMS during its initial phases and was principal sponsor of the National EMS in Agriculture Conferences in 1999, 2001 and 2003. Current priorities are to support developments that are operationally effective at minimal cost and avoid duplication of audit and certification procedures. Horticulture for Tomorrow environment assurance guidelines The 85-page Draft Guidelines for Environmental Assurance in Australian Horticulture report has been developed by Horticulture for Tomorrow – a national project funded by the Natural Heritage Trust. The project is managed by Horticulture Australia Limited (HAL) in partnership with industry, and involves growers, technical advisers, industry groups and people working with existing quality assurance and environmental management programs. The guidelines are the first attempt to establish a national industry-wide approach to recognise sound environmental and natural resource management in the horticulture sector. Horticulture for Tomorrow guidelines are aimed at providing growers with a voluntary guide to appropriate practices and expectations for good environmental management. They include checklists so growers can assess performance and monitor progress in eight key areas – soil, water, nutrition, noise, air quality, energy, waste and biodiversity. Horticulture for Tomorrow aims to help growers link production targets to their care for the environment as an integral part of their daily business management. Since it was set up in June 2004, the project has focussed on developing the guidelines and providing information to growers, including an introductory booklet and dedicated website. A major national industry summit was held late last year to launch the guidelines and provide a forum for industry to discuss the issues. (see www.horticulturefortomorrow.com.au).

62

Murray-Darling Basin environmental stewardship system (Landmark and Watermark) The Murray-Darling Basin Commission commissioned an environmental stewardship program that has developed an environmental stewardship system (ESS). This system was developed by trialling processes in four regional trials (cotton in Narrabri, rice in Coleambally, dairy in Kyabram and vines in Langhorne Creek. ESS provides a framework for aligning and clarifying environmental objectives and targets across scales and for integrating various industry farm improvement schemes and management requirements. It incorporates EMS and is pegged to NRM/catchment targets, providing an auditable system for providing recognition to land managers who deliver environmental stewardship. Efficiency outcomes are generated by aligning farm performance with catchment targets. The ESS creates demand by farmers for useable farm-scale information, improving the effectiveness of outcomes from NRM investment by providing a framework to more accurately target investment. A ‘Stewardship Standard’ has been developed to provide the performance standard of the ESS. At the local scale this comprises information that a land manager needs to meet catchment and environment targets, specifying priority environmental issues, relevant targets and benchmarks, performance and process standards and indicators for monitoring and evaluation. National accreditation scheme for professionals in NRM and agriculture There has been identification of the need for a National Accreditation Scheme for professionals in NRM and agriculture – particularly in the community based Landcare sector (facilitators and coordinators) and compliance auditing of Property Resource Management Plans (in Queensland), Vegetation Management Planning and Property Management Planning in general. The model proposed is for individual industries to determine specific competencies and standards with nationally agreed processes for certification – must link with national training standards/competency assessment.

63

Attachment 3 – Relevant data and information management activities National land and water resources audit and state of the environment reporting There is increasing demand and need for better access and use of natural resource data and information to support natural resource management planning and decision-making processes. To facilitate this, the National Land and Water Resources Audit (NLWRA, the Audit) and ANZLIC (the Spatial Information Council) are working together to promote a national Natural Resource Data Infrastructure. One aim is the development of a consistent national reporting mechanism for collating natural resource information collected against indicators developed under the National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and linking regional, State and Territory and national data sets. The NLWRA coordinates the collation of data and information through specific National Coordination Committees that provide advice on national information needs for each Natural Resource Theme/ Issue or ‘Matter for Target’ under the National Natural Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. The Committees advise on issues such as soil, salinity, water etc, Examples include Australian Collaborative Land Use Mapping Program (ACLUMP), the Executive Steering Committee for Australian Vegetation Information (ESCAVI), the Executive Steering Committee for Australia’s Salinity Information (ESCASI), Vertebrate Pest Committee (VPC) and several others. The Audit uses this advice to progressively update information about the status of the natural resources. This information will form the basis of a report on the Status of Australia's Natural Resources, available in 2006. Work is also underway to align information needs under the NM&EF and National State of Environment Reporting process in preparation for the 2011 SoE Report and to develop nationally consistent but regionally based integrated resource condition reports (including social and economic contexts in which to interpret condition). A very recent report has just been released on the status of natural resource information available to underpin the National Natural Resource Management Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (NLWRA 2005). It was the first attempt to standardise a report on the availability, currency and condition of data and information related to the natural resource base aligned with the indicators identified under the National Natural Resource Management Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. A draft common conceptual framework for prioritising the collection and use of natural resource management (NRM) information was also recently developed, deemed necessary to maximise economies of scale and minimise duplication (Nelson, Webb and Byron 2005 in press). The aim was to promote common understanding that could support collaborative coordination of data collection and analysis activities. In this project, the NLRA commissioned economists and social scientists to synthesize existing conceptual frameworks that show the value of socio-economic information for enhancing natural resource management in Australian agriculture. Signposts for Australian agriculture The Audit commissioned the Bureau of Resource Sciences (BRS) to work with selected research and development corporations (RDCs) to develop and pilot a reporting framework for reporting on the contribution of Australian agriculture to ecologically sustainable development (ESD). The framework is suitable for use by industry organisations and governments to measure and assess the overall performance and direction of agricultural production in Australia. It will provide outcome statements and associated indicators for measuring the contribution of industry to ESD that are practical, consistent and enjoy industry support.

64

During the pilot phase of the Signposts for Australian Agriculture project, the NLWRA sponsored a project with Land and Water to provide an initial stocktake of the current extent of reporting by Research and Development Corporations on the contribution of their industries to ESD. This project identified: • The documents and data held by RDCs (and their industries) that report on the contribution of

their industry to ESD • The form of the information (eg meta-data) and what – if any – conditions relate to its availability

and use by the Audit, and • The information needs of the RDCs in relation to the BRS framework. One aim of the work is to be able to report on common outcomes under an ESD framework in two years time, having carried out a needs analysis on data available, what data needs to be collected in future and web based profiles of agricultural industries and their respective contributions. This will in turn provide Land & Water Australia is helping the National Land and Water Resources Audit assess the availability of Research and Development Corporation data and information against the framework being developed by the Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS). Australia's rural research and development corporations (RDCs) have a large amount of information that will be suitable for inclusion in the BRS reporting framework. This project identified: • The documents and data held by RDCs (and their industries) that report on the contribution of

their industry to ESD • The form of the information (eg meta-data) and what – if any – conditions relate to its availability

and use by the Audit, and • The information needs of the RDCs in relation to the BRS framework. Other datasets from Bureau of Resource Sciences etc Landuse database- by and large completed, except for parts of NSW and Victoria, using data from the late 1990s/2000 – collected at the scale of 1:100,000 for intensive agriculture; 1:250,000 for rangelands and 1:25-50,000 for urban areas. National scale landuse data (scale of 1:2 and 1/2million) is funded by the Murray Darling Basin Commission and the Australian Greenhouse Office, using Agricultural statistics 2000-2001. Current work underway in developing land management practices, using SLA statistics from the Agricultural Census, but also looking at options for gathering reliable data in other ways. Trials underway, such as BRS investigation of using ‘Modus data’ (free but experimental US satellite data provided every two weeks) to map productivity, measuring plant growth across Australia, to report on plant condition, water stress, land cover, winter or summer crops. Landuse data can currently tell you the footprint of cropping, but not whether cropping is taking place that year, can see the area is ploughed but do not know what crops are being grown. Possibility of using modus data to provide some triangulation with land-use datasets. Unless know what crops, tool may be of marginal use for farmers. BRS now looking into how it can deliver data via the web in usable form for various needs and assessing how far the data can be taken. Soil, climate and elevation data are fine at the regional scale but are needed at finer resolution for individual properties. Hence information not being matched by biophysical data at appropriate scales. Climate scientists are delivering rainfall probability data at the farm scale. If data is at 5km pixels (ie covering 25 km area), the question is whether it will be appropriate for use at the farm scale.

65

Climate data is limited by the distances between climate stations and digital elevation required. Vegetation data is now routinely gathered using landsat and remote sensing techniques. Indicators for sustainable agriculture Selecting meaningful indicators is crucial as it is the basis of a proper and credible assessment of whether agricultural practices contribute to enhanced sustainability. The first workshop held by the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI, 2003 –see http://www.saiplatform.org/index.htm) focused on indicators for sustainable agriculture, recognising that there is clearly no single variable to measure the multiple facets of sustainability and that different indicators are relevant at various levels. In order to encourage the development of sustainable agriculture, producers and other stakeholders along the food chain need measurable attributes or indicators to estimate progress along the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainability. A major conclusion of the SAI workshop as that, in order to be practical, one should focus on a limited number of indicators that correspond to major issues or bottlenecks in the farms’ sustainability. A second major conclusion was the need for flexibility – indicators need to be tested on-the-ground. There is still no common agreed set of indicators for sustainable agriculture in Australia, although progress has been made through the national collaborative project on sustainability indicators (NCPISA). Australian tomato growers have also been involved in testing the SAI indicators through the Unilever and Horticulture Australia Sustainable Agriculture Project, “Grow Sustainably™” in Victoria. Ten sustainability indicators were selected as part of the Unilever global sustainable agriculture program - Biodiversity; Soil Fertility and Health, Soil Loss, Nutrients, Pest Management, Water, Energy, Product Value, Social and Human Capital and Local Economy. (NB. This project has also developed a system for incorporating farm biodiversity into Environmental Management Systems (Dalton, 2003). Ten biodiversity parameters were selected and used to assess the biodiversity status of five pilot farms over two monitoring seasons. A farm biodiversity management and enhancement plan was developed in line with project goals, local and regional biodiversity goals). Other sources of information on indicators for sustainable agriculture include Canada and the UK, the OECD and FAO’s work on agri-environmental indicators, the international institute of sustainable development compendium of indicators.

66

Attachment 4 - Key principles of various agricultural certification approaches Australian Land Management System (ALMS) The key principles governing the design of ALMS are: • ALMS will build on and strengthen the intrinsic motivation of landholders to improve

environmental management • ALMS will focus on the impacts of the land manager with environmental management being

defined as the management of the potential direct and indirect, positive and negative impacts of the land manager on the environment

• ALMS will use a continuous improvement cycle based on internationally accepted standards; and hence requires the development, maintenance and external auditing of an ISO 14001 compliant environment management system

• ALMS will also require prescribed environmental outcomes related to support for biodiversity conservation and to catchment priorities and strategies.

National framework for EMS in Australian agriculture The principles for environmental management systems (EMS) in agriculture were proposed as a guide to developing the framework. Agreement on a set of guiding EMS principles was seen as a crucial step towards a common approach that avoids the difficulties that would arise from proliferation of incompatible systems. EMS in agriculture should be: • Voluntary and led by industry and community • Simple, cost effective, user-friendly, able to be phased in at any level and provide clear advantages

to the adopting enterprise • Able to be combined and integrated with existing business management activities wherever

possible • Able to demonstrate links between competitiveness and natural resource management outcomes. • Adaptable and provide for continuous improvement • Consistent with existing internationally recognised systems (such as ISO 14000 series) and be

capable of independent audit. In addition, the national framework for environmental management systems in Australian agriculture: • "encourages voluntary adoption of EMS • promotes a consistent approach to EMS in Australia • provides contexts for environmental improvements on farms and within industries, catchments

and regions • encourages links between management actions taken by landholders and environmental outcomes

at the regional and catchment scales • encourages links to supply chains to improve trade and market access outcomes from improved

natural resource management on farm, and • identifies the need for governments to co-ordinate their support roles across states and territories,

national and international boundaries".

67

Murray-Darling Basin environmental stewardship system The essential features of the environmental stewardship system (ESS) are developed at various scales as set out briefly below (more detail available in paper for EMS conference) At the catchment, agency and industry scale: • Focussed on environmental outcomes, with SMART environmental targets (specific, measurable,

achievable, relevant and time-bound) • Operates interactively at the farm and catchment scale • Incorporates the stewardship standard set out below that defines the requirements of sustainable

environmental performance • Supported by robust partnerships between catchment and irrigation agencies, industries, and

farmers • Uses risk assessment at farm and catchment scales to identify and prioritise key issues • Continuous improvement comprising planning, actions, monitoring and review • Combines environmental performance and assurance (audit) process (with the degree of assurance

determined by the market and regulatory drivers operating in each case • Specifies the roles and responsibilities of each participant, eg catchment authorities, industries and

farmers. At the farm scale, ESS provides a framework for recognising discrete stages of environmental stewardship including the means by which this is measured and institutional arrangements: • Staged progression for farmers to proceed as far as they desire towards a fully audited sustainable

farming system as determined by their assessment of the benefits and costs • Risk assessment of farm performance against all farm business requirements to identify significant

issues to e managed • Environmental performance ranging from below legal requirements to legal compliance to

minimum acceptable for environmental stewardship to catchment BMP and beyond • External review/audit to an appropriate standard depending on the strength of the drivers • Provides recognition of individual farmer’s progress towards environmental stewardship,

including certification of farmer achievements via formal 2nd or 3rd party audits • Accommodates integrated property management, with relevant requirements, schemes and

initiatives such as farm management, competent industry environmental improvement programs, QA, food safety, OH&S and ecolabels.

The Environmental Stewardship Standard at the local scale comprises the information that a land manager needs to meet catchment and regional targets, specifying: • Priority environmental issues • Relevant targets and benchmarks • Performance and process standards • Indicators for monitoring and evaluation. Queensland farm management systems principles • Be broadly consistent with, and have the capacity to align with, national industry programs or

similar systems, such as quality assurance schemes, food safety and workplace health and safety programs

• Aim for continuous improvement through an adaptive management cycle i.e. plan-do-check-review, of planning, implementation, evaluation, review and reporting

• Be based upon a risk management approach • Integrate the management of natural resources including environmental values into a whole-of-

farm business management system • Be voluntary for QFF member organisations and voluntary for their membership

68

• Be simple to administer and implement, seeking to reduce rather than add to the complexity of sustainable farm management

• Utilise the best available science and utilise up-to-date recommended management practices • Promote awareness and understanding of landscape and regional natural resource management

priorities • Be applied by industry and tailored to suit differing industry and regional needs (including multi-

commodity enterprises), requirements and capabilities • Incorporate property level management performance verification and reporting systems that

producers can use to demonstrate achievement of or progress towards recommended management practices

• Aim to achieve recognition from government, community and market processes • Enable the producer to demonstrate due diligence in meeting statutory stewardship obligations for

sustainable management of the land and protection of its natural, productive and cultural values including the ‘general environmental duty’ under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and the ‘duty of care’ under the Land Act 1994

• Be capable of recognition by the Queensland Government as assisting producers to meet specified statutory property-level management requirements

• Focus on the improvement of on-farm management to assist producers in meeting industry and regional desired environmental outcomes

• Inform industry-wide environmental performance reporting.

Western Australia agricultural certification principles • Industry participation at all levels from systems development to auditing • Alignment with existing industry and regulatory frameworks and quality assurance schemes • Practical with realistic transaction costs to participants • Outcome based performance standards as far as practical and consistent with broader

catchment/regional targets and market requirements • Performance standards and targets will be relevant to farm business decisions and will help steer

further R&D direction • A phased and tiered approach where the farmer is able to control the level of adoption • Sustainability as a process of on-going improvement rather than an endpoint.

69

Abbreviations and glossary Accreditation – refers to the acceptance of an organisation as being suitable to certify against a standard, such

as a process or performance standard. In Australia, accreditation is generally done by JAS-ANZ, with accreditation criteria based on the requirements of ISO/IEC Guide 66 and the IAF Guidance on the Application of ISO/IEC Guide 66 for Bodies Operating Assessment and Certification/Registration of Environmental Management Systems.

BMP - Best management practices are procedures and management guidelines. BMPs can be at local, regional or national levels and can be static or periodically updated. They may provide targets for an EMS or other system. Monitoring and assessment are needed to determine their effectiveness.

Certification – refers to assurance that a business, producer or processor is operating in conformity with a particular standard (for example organics, Forest or Marine Stewardship Council or the ISO series of standards).

COP – Codes of Practice are developed and adopted by an industry and promoted amongst industry members. They may incorporate BMPs and may have specific performance indicators.

Due diligence refers to evidence that one has taken all reasonable steps to fulfil requirements under the law. Duty of Care – in its original sense, this referred to the Common Law requirement that everybody has a duty

to avoid causing foreseeable harm to another person. The concept is increasingly being applied to the environment and in some states a duty of care to the environment has been included in legislation. It is the legal responsibility to care for the environment to the extent that is defined as ‘reasonable and fair’ by the local community.

Ecolabels – these allow product differentiation on the basis of claims about environmental characteristics. They are designed to enable consumers to exercise their buying power to increase the environmental awareness of producers and decrease harmful environmental effects. Claims may be externally verified by a third party. Eco-labels underpinned by an EMS and performance standards are likely to carry more credibility than those applied without either certification or system to underpin the claims made.

Environmental management system (EMS)

– a generic term used to describe any systematic management approach used by an enterprise or an organisation to manage its impacts on the environment. Environmental impacts and legal responsibilities are identified and a structured approach taken to review and improvement. An EMS provides a management framework that achieves continuous improvement through a `plan, do, check, act' cycle, within which BMPs can be integrated, and Codes of Practice upheld. An EMS can be externally audited and may be certified to the international standard, ISO 14001, or to EMAS (in the European Union).

ESD – Ecologically sustainable development is the improvement of the quality of life, now and in the future, including all environmental, social and economic components.

EUREPGAP – this refers to the European Good Agricultural Practice Protocol, an initiative of the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP) to develop standards and procedures for good agricultural practice (GAP).

HACCP – hazard analysis critical control point is the internationally recognised method of managing food safety risks and a critical component of any food safety plan. Managed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and often referred to as Codex HACCP.

ISO – International Organisation for Standardisation committees have developed internationally accepted standards to guide the development of quality management (ISO 9000 series) and environmental management (ISO 14000 series, including ISO 14001, the international EMS standard and ISO 14026, the international standard for eco-labelling).

JAS-ANZ – the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand is the government-sponsored joint accreditation authority for Australia and New Zealand.

NRM – Natural resource management is the management of the natural resource base (land, soil, water, vegetation etc) in a manner that maintains and safeguards value for future generations.

PMP – Property management planning assists land managers to manage the personal, physical and financial aspects of a farm business through a Property Management Plan. The National PMP Campaign aimed to increase landholder self-reliance and knowledge in relation to risk management and drought preparedness based on whole farm planning.

QA – Quality assurance programs designed to ensure the quality of end products consistently meets customer requirements. QA systems are usually developed and adopted by industries or individuals. They may be compatible with or certified to ISO 9000.

SI – Sustainability indicators are a practical set of measures that enable decision-makers to evaluate how well a process or activity (such as agriculture, forestry and fishing) is contributing to ESD. In order to be meaningful, indicators need to be expressed within a framework that states the objectives that society is seeking to achieve.