Executive Summary

Pathways to Industry Environmental Management Systems Programme - October 2007

Disclaimer

All description, figures, analyses, forecasts and other details have been prepared in good faith from information furnished to the consultants by other parties. These data are believed to be correct at the date of preparation of this report.

However, it should be noted that analysis, predictions, forecasts and calculations are subject to assumptions which may or may not turn out to be correct and Hassall & Associates Pty Ltd expressly disclaim all and any liability to any persons in reliance, in whole or in part, on the report in total or any part of its contents

HASSALL & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD (Inc in NSW) - ABN 95 001 211 007

Executive summary

The Pathways Programme

The Pathways to Industry EMS Programme was funded under the Natural Heritage Trust. Its stated objectives were to achieve:

• 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 Pathways Programme commenced in 2003 and over the next four years a total of $11.9 million in project funding was provided to 19 agricultural industries and state farming organisations (SFOs). Most of the industries/SFOs had already moved some way towards implementing an environmental management system (EMS) or environmental assurance (EA) approach and the Pathways Programme supported the continuation of this work. Throughout the Programme, the Government encouraged a strong partnership approach and sharing of lessons between industries.

The approaches taken by each of the projects to further EMS/EA differed significantly. Some projects did work towards industry specific ISO 14001 compliant EMS. Others set out to link environmental management into existing certification systems (eg QA). Some projects encouraged producer engagement in environmental management through the use of self assessment tools whilst other projects focused on developing a better understanding of market or community drivers for EA. A few projects worked on developing the necessary audit and recognition systems to enable them to demonstrate environmental management1. Most projects built the broad EMS model “plan, do, check, review” into their “EMS” activities, particularly those engaging directly with producers.

The activities undertaken by each of the Pathways projects were a combination of the following:

• engagement with industry and key stakeholders;
  
• development of content and intellectual property;
  
• employment or development of additional resources to provide on ground support;
  
• engagement with producers;
  
• communication activities;
  
• development of audit and recognition systems; and
  
• demonstration of environmental stewardship.
  

Programme achievements

A hierarchy of outputs and outcomes was devised to capture progress toward the three broad objectives of the Programme. Projects reported on content, linkages and adoption as well as on nine “outcomes”.

All of the projects developed content such as tools, guidelines, best management practices (BMPs) or training materials. Some of the outstanding examples of content achievement include: Guidelines for Environmental Assurance in Horticulture, a document drafted by a technical committee and trialled by over 190 producers; the Australian Wine Federation’s innovative and comprehensive reference tool - System Map of International and National Wine Industry’s Environmental Programs and Activities; and the development and refinement of nine significant EMS documents/guides in the Seafood EMS Resources Kit.

Linkages, either within industry, between industries or with external stakeholders, were created and nurtured by all the participants. The broadacre industries worked collaboratively on research into market and community expectations for environmental assurance while the Queensland Farmer’s Federation engaged strategically with government stakeholders at a policy level while also facilitating roll-out of FMS and onground programs. Organics found that working with colleagues outside their industry, something they have not regularly done, added significantly to their project.

All projects held workshops, ran producer groups or undertook 1:1 facilitation to encourage adoption of their EMS approaches. The Victorian Farmers Federation, for instance, used Pathways funding to employ 10 EMS officers who in turn helped about 900 farmers engage in entry level EMS and about 700 to the next stage of planning. Dairy Australia has helped 12 percent of dairy farmers (around 1,000) undertake the industry self assessment DairySAT, with the majority of these farmers then committing to on-farm actions.

Almost all of the projects also reported achievement in terms of early developmental outcomes. All reported an increase in industry ownership of EMS with a number of projects managing to embed EMS into pre-existing industry structures and training programs. All except one reported an increased capacity within agricultural industries resulting from: an increase in industry level knowledge and skills; the availability of additional resources; the development of operational systems or structures; or an increase in producer knowledge and skills. The attendance and participation of 240 of the 800 chicken meat growers in nationwide workshops suggests that a critical threshold of participants has been met which will in turn create ongoing demand and interest for this industry program. All of the projects except one also reported enhanced working relationships between industry and governments including Local Governments, regional NRM bodies, State and Federal Governments. The 50 indicators of NRM risk and farm performance, developed by SRDC for its Sugar FMS tool, incorporated input from the Queensland Department of Natural Resource Management and Water.

Five of the projects were successful in increasing adoption of EMS in other industry sectors by engaging sectors of the supply chain other than the producers. Cotton extended its BMP approach both upstream and downstream, developing BMPs for harvesters, ginners and classers and sold BMP compliant fabric to a retailer. The pork industry has also engaged other sectors of the supply chain, with some large pork producers now requiring contract growers to undertake the pork industry’s EnviroCheck program.

Few of the projects were able to report increased adoption of profitable and sustainable farming practices. The Programme enabled a number of the industries to further research and define BMPs and a number of projects, including red meat, grains and TFGA, commissioned studies into the business benefits of BMPs and EMS approaches. However, most projects were not able to provide evidence on the current levels of adoption of their BMPs or of the associated impact on profitability and sustainability.

A key achievement of the Pathways Programme has been that it has enabled each of the projects to develop a strategic understanding of EMS/EA and to articulate future directions. Most of the projects have identified ongoing industry actions or pathways and in so doing have been able to demonstrate increased industry responsibility for the achievement of their goals. The rice industry, for instance, will support its Environmental Champions Program with a voluntary per tonne environmental levy placed on all rice crop delivered for milling.

Ultimate outcomes are significantly influenced by external factors and are therefore difficult to attribute to a single funding programme. Few of the projects were able to provide any evidence of increased community capacity and institutional change and those that did were industries that had deliberately structured the delivery of EMS through producer groups. Dairy, rice, seafood and VFF’s programs all used producer groups (focus groups, cluster groups, or mentors) to deliver information and tools and all identified increased community capacity through this approach.

NRM or environmental outcomes could not be measured during the life of the Programme though some of the projects provided examples of “inferred” environmental outcomes resulting from changes in practices. Projects focused on measuring adoption of EMS/EA approaches rather than on monitoring NRM or environmental outcomes.

The majority of the industries now have some type of environmental stewardship system in place and have therefore increased their ability to demonstrate environmental stewardship to domestic and international markets, should they be required to do so. However, only four industries have so far taken the next step and investigated various branding approaches that will enable them to link their products to the environmental management processes adopted on farm.

^{1 The term EMS when used within this document refers to all these different approaches.}


Potential value and constraints of EMS

An analysis of the potential value and constraints of EMS in agriculture is limited to the findings and observations made by the projects themselves and their own understanding of EMS, whether it was their own approach or a more theoretical understanding. There was consistency in the responses provided by the individual projects despite the different approaches taken.

The most frequently identified potential value of EMS is the ability to demonstrate environmental stewardship or BMPs and thereby change community perceptions or increase accountability.

Twelve of the projects consider EMS has the potential to increase farm business productivity, profitability and sustainability through things such as gains in efficiency (for instance lower costs of inputs) and a smaller “environmental footprint”. A similar number of projects, including all of the intensive industries, see the potential for EMS to help an industry maintain market access. The intensive industries are those whose market access is most under threat as a result of animal welfare and environmental issues and they see an EMS as a potential way of meeting and managing this threat.

There are other instances where industries are facing particular pressures and they see an EMS as having value in helping to alleviate these pressures. For example four of the projects (seafood, eggs, pork and PGA) are facing pressure from regulatory bodies and each of them considers that an EMS has the potential to enable self-regulation as an alternative to the increasing imposition of regulation. Dairy, seafood and chicken meat are feeling the pressure of continued resource access (particularly continued access to water in the case of dairy and chicken meat) and see that an EMS may be one mechanism that would enable them to increase resource security and/or maintain resource access.

Four main constraints to EMS were identified by the projects. The most commonly mentioned was lack of resources (human, financial and time). Those projects which were trying to increase landholder adoption through 1:1 facilitation techniques identified the resource hungry nature of this approach and the problem associated with finding facilitators with the necessary expertise. The lack of skilled resources was also highlighted by projects which were implementing auditing and certification processes, such as eggs, chicken and pork, while WAFarmers resorted to “piggy-backing” its workshops onto other meetings to capture “time poor” farmers.

The majority of projects also commented on the lack of drivers for EMS adoption, particularly where there is an apparent lack of connection between NRM benefits and production benefits. The benefits to producers of demonstrating environmental performance must outweigh the costs of implementing the system before they will be keen to adopt an EMS. A driver that may come into play in Western Australia is the current review of the pastoral lease system. The Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association believe a future linking of environmental stewardship to pastoral lease renewal may be the catalyst for widespread adoption of better practices, recording and reporting. The broadacre industries also found that there was a lack of clarity amongst potential “information seekers” about how environmental stewardship could best be demonstrated by producers.

A number of the projects also raised concerns about the use of the term EMS, either because of its perceived association with ISO 14001 or because of the potential for confusion to be created through the same term being applied to a wide range of different approaches to environmental management.


Future directions

The majority of the projects felt that the benefits of environmental management continuing to be industry led far outweigh any disadvantages. Continuing industry leadership and support for EMS was seen as key to long term engagement and action and as a result, some of the projects are starting to investigate ways in which the industry driven delivery model can become more self sustaining.

There is widespread recognition though that the industries should not work in isolation, but instead should continue to collaborate with government and non government stakeholders to ensure that any process or system being developed will meet their requirements/objectives. The intensive industries for example, which are adopting EMS approaches in response to pressure from regulators, saw value in collaborating with those regulators in the development of their BMPs. The three broad acre industries also saw a need to continue their close collaboration in the development of a system through which data on adoption of BMPs is collected and provided to interested parties as evidence of the industries’ environmental credentials.

Many of the projects also recognised the need for continued scientific/technical input and continual updating of tools and guidelines to ensure that they reflect the latest thinking. Scientific/technical input will also be required if farming practices are to be successfully linked to NRM and environmental outcomes, a research gap identified by many of the projects.

A key need identified by many of the projects was for collaboration with regional NRM bodies, so that the environmental benefits from adoption of recommended practices could be linked to achievement of catchment targets. This would enable priorities to be better identified and targets to be set at an individual property level. The projects are therefore calling for the Australian Government to simplify the process of interaction between the industry bodies and the NRM regional bodies by establishing a national or state peak NRM body.

Generally there has been a movement away from the implementation of principle based systems such as ISO 14001. Instead, industries and SFOs have developed simpler approaches where the emphasis is less on the management structure and more on the identification and management of environmental issues. However, the industries are now starting to recognise a need to monitor, aggregate and report on the farming practices undertaken by their producers and to do this with sufficient rigour to provide confidence to those requiring the data. Few of them as yet have the systems in place to enable them to do this on an industry basis.

Whilst the projects appreciated the flexibility provided by the Pathways Programme for them to develop industry relevant approaches to EMS, some of them saw a need for the Australian Government to coordinate the various approaches and to position them within a national framework aligned to catchment and state targets. If the various approaches were to then be “accredited” in some way this could provide the basis for the provision of incentive funding to participating producers.

Observations

The flexibility and strong partnership approach deliberately built into the Pathways Programme design have proven fundamental to the success of the programme. The challenge for the Australian Government and industries is to capture the strengths and lessons of the Pathways Programme in future NRM policies and programmes.

It is clear, as anticipated by the National Framework, that EMS is not a “silver bullet”, where a solution can be efficiently and effectively rolled out across agricultural industries to the satisfaction of producers and “markets” alike. Rather it encompasses a diverse range of approaches driven by the need of industries to suit their situations. The diversity of approaches include, best practice management, management systems, environmental assurance and practice change/capacity building and these are different enough in themselves to warrant distinction.

The Pathways Programme has yielded stronger relationships between government and industries and between industries. Not only could the Australian Government play a role in supporting ongoing industry-industry relationships developed under Pathways, but it could also examine how to streamline industry engagement with NRM bodies. Through their involvement in the Pathways Programme, the various industries and SFOs have developed a better understanding of the drivers that are of most relevance to them and are starting to put into place processes and systems to enable them to meet the environmental stewardship demands of their specific markets. Most drivers are still relatively weak, but Pathways has allowed for a readiness and open-ness to the potential role that these drivers will most certainly have in the future. With the current suite of National EMS Programmes ending in 2008, it is timely for industry to review their capabilities to determine if their approach can adequately demonstrate stewardship in the future and to develop an appropriate industry response plan.

The objectives of the Pathways Programme and the 2006 Framework for Future NRM Programmes both point to future Australian Government priority being given to achieving clear NRM outcomes with clear public benefit results. As such, the Australian Government needs to better articulate the NRM outcomes sought in consultation with industry - be it asset or issue, geographic location or sector. Better articulation of the outcome sought by Australian Government will likely result in a more confident response by industry.

For these outcomes to be achieved, the definition of BMPs for each industry remains crucial. These should be developed in collaboration with the stakeholders who are requiring demonstration of environmental stewardship. The link between BMPs and catchment targets should be transparent and the environmental and production benefits, as well as any associated costs of each of the practices, should also be determined. Capacity building/practice change initiatives will then be required to develop understanding, ownership and adoption of the BMPs amongst producers.

Glossary

ABS	Australian Bureau of Statistics
ABARE	Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics
ACGC	Australian Chicken Growers Council
AECL	Australian Egg Corporation Ltd
APIQ	Australian Pork Industry Quality Program
APL	Australian Pork Limited
AQIS	Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
AWI	Australian Wool Innovation
AWIS	Australian Wine Industry Stewardship
BMP	Best Management Practice
BMRG	Burnett Mary Regional NRM Group
BSES	Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations
CEO	Chief Executive Officer
CMA	Catchment Management Authority
CRDC	Cotton Research and Development Corporation
DAFF	Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
DfT	Dairying for Tomorrow
DNR	Department of Natural Resources
DPI	Department of Primary Industries
DPI&F	Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries
DSE	Department of Sustainability and Environment
EA	Environmental Assurance
ECA	Egg Corp Assured
ECP	Environmental Champions Programme
EMP	Environmental Management Plan
EMS	Environmental Management System
EPA	Environmental Protection Authority
ESD	Ecologically Sustainable Development
ESP	Environmentally Sustainable Piggeries
FMS	Farm Management System
FRDC	Fisheries Research and Development Corporation
GRDC	Grains Research and Development Corporation
HAL	Horticulture Australia Limited
ILG	Industry Leadership Group
IP	Intellectual Property
ISO	International Standards Organisation
LPA	Livestock Production Assurance
M&E	Monitoring and Evaluation
MLA	Meat and Livestock Australia
MOU	Memorandum of Understanding
NEQAP	National Egg Quality Assurance Programme
NGIQ	Nursery and Garden Industry Queensland
NHT	Natural Heritage Trust
NRM	Natural Resource Management
NSW	New South Wales
OFA	Organic Federation of Australia
OH&S	Occupational health and safety
PGA	Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia
PMS	Property Management Systems
PMSI	Property Management Systems Initiative
QA	Quality Assurance
QDO	Queensland Dairyfarmers Organisation
QFF	Queensland Farmers’ Federation
QLD	Queensland
RDC	Research and Development Corporation
RDP	Regional Development Program
RGA	Ricegrowers’ Association of Australia
RIRDC	Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
SA	South Australia
SAT	Self Assessment Tool
SEMS	Seafood Environmental Management Systems
SEQC	South East Queensland Catchments
SFO	State Farming Organisation
SRDC	Sugar Research and Development Corporation
SSA	Seafood Services Australia
SWOT	Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
TAS	Tasmania
TFGA	Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association
VFF	Victorian Farmers Federation
VIC	Victoria
WA	Western Australia
WFA	Winemakers’ Federation of Australia
WWF	World Wide Fund for Nature