Focus Area: Crop Protection

  • Australian farmers will lose in relocation of national regulator

    Comments Off on Australian farmers will lose in relocation of national regulator

    Crucial agricultural product innovations will be significantly delayed and in some cases denied to the Australian farming sector due to disruptions with the unnecessary relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) announced by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP.

    Matthew Cossey, Chief Executive Officer of the peak industry organisation for Australia’s plant science sector, CropLife Australia, today said “the considerable operational disruption created by the unnecessary relocation of the APVMA will severely impact farmer access to crucial agricultural products. This will have a significant negative impact on national agricultural productivity.”

    “It is also disappointing that the announcement of the APVMA relocation to Armidale in the Minister’s electorate has been made outside of the cost benefit analysis process that was announced just two months ago, which is yet to be completed or publicly released,” said Mr Cossey.

    “Small economic benefits to the Minister’s electorate from the relocation of the APVMA to Armidale pales in significance to the net loss to Australia’s agricultural productivity that this relocation will cause. There’s no point trying to dress this up as having any real benefit to the APVMA’s operations.”

    “The APVMA’s unnecessary relocation from Canberra to Armidale will create severe disruption to its operations and undermine the efficiency measures currently being implemented. In the meantime, farmers will not gain access to the latest innovations the plant science industry is trying to bring to the Australian market.”

    “The APVMA is a globally respected, scientifically and technically sound regulator of agricultural chemicals, however, it has not been operating in an efficient manner. We’re at the end of a long and drawn out efficiency reform process and this relocation will seriously set back efficiency reforms. We acknowledge the announcement of $24.1 million in funding to assist with the relocation of the APVMA but that alone will not offset the serious expert staffing challenges this relocation poses,” said Mr Cossey.

    “Considering this arbitrary announcement has been made, it is now crucial that the agricultural and veterinary regulatory reform package is given priority by both sides of politics and extra funding is also provided to ensure this important efficiency reform is appropriately supported and implemented as a matter of urgency.”

    “As a national peak organisation for an agricultural related industry, we support measures that improve economic activity in rural and regional Australia but only where there is a net advantage to the nation as a whole. CropLife strongly supports the establishment of a Centre of Excellence at the University of New England, Armidale, however, that would be better served by relocating policy divisions of the federal Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to Armidale, which could involve more staff and ironically deliver a greater economic impact, rather than the relocation of the APVMA.”

    “We now call on the Minister to consider this as a more viable option for Armidale, rural and regional Australia and the national farming sector. We acknowledge Minister Joyce for being a strong voice for his electorate, however, there are better ways to support rural and regional centres without impacting negatively on national agricultural productivity and farmers across the country,” concluded Mr Cossey.

  • 20 years of benefiting from genetically modified crops proves time is up for antiquated moratoria

    Comments Off on 20 years of benefiting from genetically modified crops proves time is up for antiquated moratoria

    Australian farmers growing genetically modified (GM) crops for the last 20 years have realised significant economic and environmental benefits according to an independent report released today by Graham Brookes of UK-based PG Economics.

    The Adoption and Impact of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops in Australia: 20 Years’ Experience report provides insights into the reasons why many farmers in Australia have adopted and continue to increasingly use crop biotechnology since becoming commercially available 20 years ago. The 20 years of success of GM crop cultivation in Australia is also confirmation that time is up for antiquated and entirely unnecessary state-based moratoria on GM crops.

    Matthew Cossey, Chief Executive Officer of the national peak organisation for Australia’s plant science sector, CropLife Australia, today said “Australian farmers have always embraced innovation in agriculture and the rapid adoption of GM crops is evidence of farmers seeing the clear financial, agronomic and environmental benefits modern crop breeding innovation provides.”

    “It is also evident that state-based moratoria on GM crop cultivation serve no purpose other than to stifle innovation and in some cases act as a political football for people who blatantly refuse to acknowledge the real-world benefits GM crops provide to farmers and the nation.”

    “GM cotton is credited as being the saviour of Australia’s cotton industry with Australian farmers among the first in the world to plant GM cotton seeds in 1996 and herbicide tolerant canola has been successfully grown in Australia since 2008 with almost 40% of WA’s canola growers choosing GM crops. Many more farmers choose to grow GM canola as a rotation crop to help manage weed issues in other crops such as wheat and barley. It’s about time state policy settings are supportive of Australian farmers and their right to choose to reap the well-established benefits of GM crops,” said Mr Cossey.

    “The report released today shows that since 1996 Australian cotton and canola farmers have gained $1.37 billion worth of extra income and produced an additional 226,000 tonnes of canola that would otherwise not have been grown if conventional crops had been used.”

    “The cultivation of GM crops have led to more sustainable use of crop protection products with a reduction of 22 million kilograms of product used. The environmental benefits from the adoption of GM crops by farmers has also resulted in a saving of nearly 27 million litres of fuel use and 71.5 million kilograms less carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.”

    “In the face of these numerous benefits of GM crops and the real-world experience of 20 years of GM crop cultivation in Australia, state-based moratoria just doesn’t make sense. Several independent and government commissioned reports show that Tasmania and South Australia have not gained a marketing advantage from a GM-free status, while their farmers have missed out on their share of the $1.37 billion income gained by Australian farmers with access to crop biotechnology over the last 20 years.”

    “GM crop state-based moratoria was initially introduced as a temporary measure to address perceived concerns around market access; concerns that after 20 years of real-world experience are proven to be unfounded. Australia’s gene technology regulatory system is one of the best in the world. It is a system that consumers can be confident in that approved GM crops are perfectly safe.”

    “A truly productive and competitive agriculture sector that can sustainably contribute to food security challenges in a changing climate requires farmer access to modern farming technologies. Australian farmers deserve to have confidence in their choice of safe and approved crops and it is time that public policies for GM crops are based on facts and evidence, not political game-playing or ideologically driven scare campaigns,” concluded Mr Cossey.

    The Adoption and Impact of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops in Australia: 20 Years’ Experience report is available at www.croplife.org.au

  • Agricultural innovations crucial to sustainable farming in Australia

    Comments Off on Agricultural innovations crucial to sustainable farming in Australia

    Friday 5 June 2015 – World Environment Day provides an important opportunity to recognise the agricultural innovations that support Australian farmers to produce high quality food, feed and fibre for the world more sustainably.

    “The theme of this year’s World Environment Day is ‘Seven Billion Dreams. One Planet. Consume with Care’ which highlights the need for responsible management of the planet’s resources,” said CropLife Australia’s Chief Executive Officer, Matthew Cossey, “and it is a timely reminder of our nation’s farmers who, as the stewards of our arable land, practice sustainable agriculture assisted by modern crop protection products and genetically modified (GM) crops.”

    “Australian farmers are using the latest technologies and innovations to sustainably adapt to modern challenges of feeding a rapidly growing world population of 9.6 billion by 2050 on limited arable land with changing climate patterns.”

    “Australian cotton farmers began using crop biotechnology in 1996 and today almost the entire national cotton crop is based on herbicide tolerant and insect resistant varieties. The use of GM cotton, along with improved on farm management practices, has made a significant contribution to the sustainable use of insecticides applied to Australian cotton crops,” said Mr Cossey.

    “Other benefits of GM cotton are increased populations of beneficial insects and wildlife in cotton fields, a decrease in labour and fuel usage, improved soil quality, reduced production costs, increased yield and further opportunities to grow cotton in areas of high pest infestation.”

    “A recent independent report from UK-based PG Economics found that higher yields from GM crops have reduced the need for 18 million hectares of planting to maintain global food production in 2013. Instead, the world’s demands for food have been met while simultaneously protecting the biodiversity of forests and natural habitats.”

    “Crop biotechnology innovations have allowed a reduction of the equivalent of 28 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide in emissions from agriculture practices because of innovations allowing reduced fuel usage and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with GM crops.”

    “Crop protection products assist water conservation by helping farmers efficiently control weeds that threaten scarce water resources.”

    “The plant science industry in Australia has also shown its commitment to safeguarding the environment through world leading industry stewardship programs designed to minimise environmental impacts of the industry. Agsafe, the wholly owned subsidiary of CropLife Australia, runs successful programs such as drumMUSTER, which collects and recycles pesticide containers, and ChemClear®, which safely removes damaged or expired agricultural chemicals from the environment.”

    “Australian farmers have throughout history embraced modern agricultural practices because of proven environmental and economic benefits of new technologies. The Australian plant science industry is committed to providing farmers the tools that increase yields, safeguard crops, protect human health and preserve the environment,” Mr Cossey concluded.

    About World Environment Day: World Environment Day (WED) is an annual event for people from all walks of life to come together to ensure a cleaner, greener and brighter outlook for themselves and future generations.

  • A welcome boost for Australia’s agriculture industry competitiveness

    Comments Off on A welcome boost for Australia’s agriculture industry competitiveness

    14 October 2014 (Canberra) – The Australian plant science industry warmly welcomes the Federal Government’s Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda released by the Prime Minister and Industry Minister today. Significantly reducing unnecessary regulatory costs is a necessity for Australia’s agricultural industries and is at the core to boosting competitiveness. The Prime Minister the Hon Tony Abbott MP, Minister for Industry the Hon Ian Macfarlane MP and Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister the Hon Josh Frydenberg MP, should be commended and congratulated for this policy.

    “Today’s announcement that systems, services or products that have been approved under a trusted international standard or risk assessment should no longer need additional requirements for approval in Australia, is a well-considered and imperative step forward in policy that recognises the realities of the global marketplace for our industry,” Chief Executive Officer of CropLife Australia, Matthew Cossey said.

    “It is encouraging that the Federal Government continues to deliver on its promises to streamline Australian regulation and remove unnecessary red tape. The new policy is clearly a step in the right direction. The plant science industry would like to see it applied as soon as possible to the several regulatory authorities that cover the plant science industry.

    “Now the pressure is on Government departments, agencies and regulatory authorities to culturally adopt the newly announced policy in their operations. Unnecessary costs and delays have direct impacts on plant science innovation, domestic productivity and international competitiveness. The Department of Agriculture’s current ‘First Principles Review of Cost Recovery at the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority’ is the perfect opportunity to show a real commitment to reducing significant regulatory costs and not simply different ways to recover those costs from industry.”

    “The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is also perfectly positioned to adopt this policy in their business operations, which will see genuine benefits to the plant science industry and our ability to support the Australian farming sector with the latest products.”

    A Deloitte Access Economics report released last year shows that 68 per cent of the total value of Australian crop production, or $17.6 billion of Australian agricultural output, can be attributed to the use of crop protection products.

    “This confirms that an Australia without modern, approved, safe agricultural chemistry used by farmers in a responsible manner would be an Australia incapable of commercially producing the array of fresh, local produce we take for granted every day. Our grocery bills would be almost twice as expensive and the variety of local food to which we’d have access would be alarmingly narrow,” said Mr Cossey.

    “A regulatory system that facilitates innovation in agricultural chemistry will stand Australia in good stead to protect its crops and economy from ever-adapting pests and diseases. It is absolutely vital that Australian farmers have access to the most up-to-date, sustainable agricultural chemical products for the sake of our farmers, our food supply and our economy.”

    “Fully implemented, this latest policy will improve Australian regulation markedly and deliver real benefits to the Australian farming sector as a result. It represents a modern, mature policy approach that is in step with the realities of the global marketplace. The Australian public and farmers will win equally under this new approach if successfully and genuinely implemented,” concluded Mr Cossey.

    Contact: Jaelle Bajada (Manager – Public Affairs)         Ph: 02 6230 6399         Mob: 0410 491 261

  • Agriculture needs industry specific regulator

    Comments Off on Agriculture needs industry specific regulator

    Thursday 1 May 2014 (Canberra) – The proposal in the National Commission of Audit Report released today to merge the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) and place it in the Industry portfolio will do nothing to improve performance and may serve to cloak the real inefficiencies.

    “The Australian Government is to be commended for its commitment to improve efficiency and effectiveness of government services and policy advice and we welcome the report from the National Commission of Audit. It’s important however that the solutions target the real problems and structural reform of NICNAS and the APVMA through consolidation will only serve to conceal the administrative and management inefficiencies that exist,” said Matthew Cossey, Chief Executive Officer of CropLife Australia.

    “Under no circumstances should an agricultural industry regulator be placed in the Industry portfolio. The Department of Industry has shown complete inability to drive any level of reform in chemical regulation over the last few years and NICNAS’ operations have been affected by this failure. In contrast, the APVMA is in the midst of a reform that is about delivering more efficient and effective services, which will mean all that work would be undone.

    “It is crucial that the core regulator for Australia’s agricultural and farming sector remains in the Agriculture portfolio,” Mr Cossey said. “Moving a new amalgamated body from the Agriculture portfolio to the Industry portfolio poses a threat to the competitiveness of Australia’s agricultural industry as it would further undermine the APVMA’s purpose, which is to regulate the use of agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines.”

    A 2008 Productivity Commission Research Report on Chemicals and Plastics Regulation assessed the possibility of consolidating chemical assessment regimes including the full amalgamation of NICNAS and the APVMA. It concluded that the disadvantages of consolidation outweighed the benefits and would put into jeopardy some of the APVMA’s world-class risk-management functions.

    “CropLife’s view is that NICNAS is not required as a regulatory body as its functions could be easily transferred to more appropriate bodies such as the ACCC and the Department of Health. This is in line with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission Research Report. It seems that the Commission of Audit has failed to recognise these previous recommendations,” said Mr Cossey.

    “Chemicals regulators in different industries and sectors have distinct requirements, priorities and skills, but cooperate with the APVMA in the regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. Merging two inefficient regulators does not create one efficient regulator and an amalgamation of NICNAS and the APVMA would create a hybrid regulator with disparate powers, different risk assessment and without a clear purpose.

    “It’s important to Australia’s agricultural sector and future competitiveness and productivity that its regulator is able to give priority to agricultural considerations. The APVMA does need to reform its administrative and management functions to improve efficiencies however, amalgamating it with NICNAS and transferring it to the Industry Portfolio will not solve these problems.

    “I encourage the government to consider the Productivity Commission Research Report as it still provides the roadmap for the appropriate regulatory reform in the agricultural sector and its recommendations should be implemented before any other reform is undertaken,” said Mr Cossey.

     

    Contact: Jaelle Bajada (Manager – Public Affairs)  Ph: 02 6230 6399  Mob: 0410 491 261

  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Subscribe to media releases
  • Issues & Campaigns
  • Our Focus
  • Resources
  • Resistance Management
  • Climate Change
  • Members Area