- Climate change and biosecurity
Introduction
6.1This chapter discusses climate change and biosecurity. It examines the threat and potential impacts of climate change on food security, as well as options for adaptation and innovation that will allow the agriculture sector to reduce emissions, sequester carbon, and adopt approaches that will make the farm sector more resilient. The chapter then explores the challenge of biosecurity—potential threats and the cost of incursions, how biosecurity will be impacted by climate change, and the complex issue of how biosecurity is funded.
Potential impacts of climate change
6.2Climate change is impacting upon food security. In 2021, ABARES released research that indicated that ‘Australia has seen a shift towards higher temperatures and lower winter rainfall, which has had significant effects on many farmers’. It observed that ‘Australia’s climate has warmed on average by 1.4°C since 1910, with most of this occurring since 1950’. There has been a decline in winter rainfall of 20% since 1970 in south-western Australia and 12% since 2000 in south-eastern Australia.
6.3ABARES estimated ‘that changes in seasonal conditions over the period 2001 to 2020 (relative to 1950 to 2000) have reduced annual average farm profits by 23%, or around $29,200 per farm’, with the impacts being felt most heavily in south-western and south-eastern Australia. Northern Australia and the coastal higher rainfall zones were less affected. ABARES indicated that conditions post-2000 had ‘increased risk in terms of more variable cash income and profits’. The risk of very low farm returns due to climate variability had essentially doubled, relative to the period 1950 to 2000, since 2000.
6.4Despite this, ABARES estimated that climate-adjusted Total Farm Productivity showed ‘an increase in farm productivity across the broadacre sector of around 28% since 1989, with much larger gains in the cropping sector (68% since 1989)’. These gains in productivity, ABARES observed, had ‘offset the negative effects of climate over the last 30 years, such that actual industry productivity levels have still increased or at least remained stable’. ABARES noted that ‘a combination of productivity growth, better prices and increases in farm size have resulted in an upward trend in farm profits over the last decade, at least until the droughts of 2018–19 and 2019–20’. One of the consequences of this increased ability to withstand dry conditions was that the 2020 winter crop harvest in Western Australia far exceeded expectations given the seasonal conditions experienced. ABARES observed that ‘there remains much uncertainty over the long-run effects of climate change on farm businesses’.
6.5The CSIRO confirmed these findings, noting that ‘weather and climate extremes observed over recent years in Australia can be increasingly linked to climate change rather than the effects of climate variability alone’. It further stated that ‘recent research suggests that warming and intensification of ENSO sea surface temperature variability is happening faster than previously anticipated’.
6.6The impacts of climate change are not just about production—they also impact the whole supply chain. Farmers for Climate Action noted that severe weather events linked to climate change could ‘directly cut supply lines or have an indirect impact by causing labour shortages and disruptions to international supplies’. Climate change affects the supply chain in a number of ways, including:
- availability and price of water;
- energy prices;
- transport (especially, cutting of key routes following extreme weather events);
- international competition for inputs; and
- availability and price of financial products (such as lending and insurance).
- Farmers for Climate Action highlighted that ‘competition for inputs like fertiliser, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals is growing worldwide’, and would increase as climate change impacts food production systems. This was resulting in increased costs to farmers and ultimately higher food prices.
- Likewise, the CSIRO explained that Australia, with its internationally oriented food production, is affected by climate change impacts on agriculture overseas. According to the CSIRO, ‘climate change has increased the risk of simultaneous harvest failures in major grain producing regions of the world, also called multiple breadbasket failures’. It argued the need to ‘better understand Australia’s role in mitigating this heightened risk to regional and global food security, while navigating its own local climatic challenges to agricultural production’. This required examining how Australia can best contribute to climate proofing the food system, including ‘considering the role of food exports as well as opportunities for cooperation in technology and practice innovations to reduce the vulnerability of countries and the overall system’.
Cost of inaction
6.9The cost of inaction on climate change was stressed by the CSIRO. It argued that global mitigation efforts would need to be accompanied by adaptation efforts to ‘manage local and regional climate risks that can no longer be avoided’. Furthermore, ‘limiting global warming to 1.5°C or at least to well below 2°C will require arriving globally at net zero emissions around the middle of century’. It noted that agriculture was ‘a major driver of greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, biodiversity loss and land use changes while also being vulnerable to environmental changes’, so had a major role in both climate change and mitigation. The CSIRO observed that as well as presenting challenges, climate change also presented Australia with the opportunity to become a leader in the global transformation of the food system. As global temperatures rose, so did risks to global food security, ‘with potentially grave adverse and irreversible changes over meaningful time scales to the Earth’s life support system upon which humanity depends’.
6.10The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group (ASLCG) also stressed the urgency of action on climate change. It estimated that ‘the warming trend will reach 1.5°C around 2030, irrespective of any emission reduction initiatives taken in the meantime’, but that as greenhouse gas levels are still rising, ‘the 2°C target will very likely be missed by a significant margin’. It observed that ‘when large-scale, self-reinforcing climate system feedbacks are considered, current emission-reduction commitments are estimated to lead to around 3°C of warming, which US security analysts say may result in a world of “outright chaos”’. The ASLGC highlighted the potential security risks—human, regional and global—of climate change and its impacts, and urged a deeper understanding of the threats being faced:
To understand the level of security threat and how to respond, Australia needs a sound base of knowledge about the projected physical impacts and the tools to analyse their social and economic consequences. This requires expertise that is well managed and organised, and available in a transparent manner. But due to past political neglect and malfeasance, there is an institutional expertise deficit in Australia at present.
Adaptation and innovation
6.11The need for adaptation and innovation within the food system was highlighted by a number of stakeholders. CSIRO urged that ‘the time for strengthening Australia’s food system is now. Business-as-usual and incremental adaptations to Australia’s agri-food system will be insufficient for managing the changing risk landscape and sustainability challenges’. It argued that ‘harnessing innovation and integrating diverse knowledge systems will help address climate change needs as part of a holistic risk management approach for Australia’s food systems’. Farmers for Climate Action urged measures around mitigation, resilience building, risk management and adaptation, making the following recommendations:
1. Mitigation – Deep emissions reductions this decade, led by energy and transport, and a commitment to 2035 targets being compatible with 1.5°C to protect food security.
2. Build resilience – The Government strengthens the resilience of key supply lines and to fill gaps in the market where private sector investment is insufficient due to high levels of uncertainty.
3. Manage risk – The Government commission a National Agriculture Risk Assessment to provide the knowledge basis required to adequately prepare for the future.
4. Adaptation – The Government works with the agriculture industry, the private sector and other levels of government to develop adaptation strategies that minimise the impact of climate change on our food supply.
6.12Evidence presented to the Committee highlighted a range of adaptations and innovations, including emissions reduction, soil carbon sequestration, regenerative agriculture, and agroecology. These are discussed further below.
Emissions reductions
6.13Managing emissions from agriculture is a key part of greenhouse gas emissions reduction. The CSIRO observed that ‘food systems are responsible for over one third of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities’, with meat-based foods contributing approximately double the amount of plant-based foods. Food and land-use systems therefore had a critical role in mitigating climate change.
6.14A number of industries were already investing heavily in renewable energy. According to the Australian Dairy Products Federation (ADPF), dairy companies reduced their greenhouse gas emissions ‘by 25.5% between 2010–11 and 2020–21’, 94% of dairy farmers had implemented practices to reduce or offset their emissions, and 71% of farms use some renewable energy. The ADPF noted that ‘dairy processing businesses continue to strengthen their understanding and commitment to sustainability through more targeted goals and transition plans’.
6.15Australian Pork Limited (APL) stated that ‘the pork industry has been actively mitigating climate change risks for decades’, noting that industry had ‘reduced carbon emissions by 69%, reduced water usage by 80% and had started the transition to renewable energy technologies’. APL recognised and supported action on climate change and supported mechanisms that enabled investment in innovation within the agricultural sector. It observed that ‘intensive animal industries have the potential to provide low carbon footprint, sustainable protein and contribute to the national climate change targets’.
6.16AUSVEG asserted that producing renewable energy on-farm would decrease emissions and save growers money over time as energy prices increase. It supported on-farm initiatives to increase farm sustainability, such as funding for renewables and waste recycling. The National Rural Women’s Coalition recommended investment in measures ‘to enable rural communities to transition to renewable energy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions’.
6.17Nonetheless, there were voices of caution when it came to the transition to renewables. The NSW Farmers’ Association observed that while greater energy efficiency in the food and agribusiness sector through alternative energy sources would make the sector more cost-competitive, the high-risk nature of agriculture made it ‘difficult for farmers to undertake large investments and the accompanying debt’. Accessing investment from bodies such as the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) for pre-commercial renewable on-farm projects had proved difficult.
6.18The NSW Farmers’ Association suggested that ‘governments could assist farmers in overcoming the high capital costs of on-farm renewables, in addition to reducing farmers’ knowledge gaps of the options available to them’. It proposed:
- A Regional Sustainability Fund for the development and investment of renewable and alternative energy sources and the potential for voluntary emissions reductions.
- Subsidising on-farm batteries to reduce the payback period and make them financially viable—especially useful in intensive production systems requiring high levels of energy security.
- Funding demonstration and knowledge sharing projects.
- The NSW Farmers’ Association also cautioned that while renewable energy projects would cover a significant amount of agricultural land, there was a lack of research into how these projects would impact agricultural operations. It proposed a more rigorous energy network planning process, with clear criteria for reducing the impact of transmission lines through undergrounding.
- Likewise, the Victorian Farmers Federation argued for greater consideration of farmers in the development of energy projects, and particularly the routing of transmission lines. It stated that:
Given Australia and Victoria’s prominence in food and fibre production, farmers must be considered, consulted and supported in the rollout of any large-scale infrastructure project which impacts the ability to farm.
Asparagopsis
6.21One of the potential innovations in emissions reduction brought to the attention of the Committee was the use of feed supplements for ruminant animals made from Asparagopsis seaweed. Tasmanian company Sea Forest explained:
Sea Forest's SeaFeed product, when fed to ruminant livestock such as cattle and sheep, interacts with enzymes in the final stages of digestion and diverts that which would have been expelled by the animal as a gaseous waste product into energy it uses to create milk or produce more meat.
6.22Sea Forest noted that there was ‘a very clear dose-response curve on the dietary inclusion of our supplement and the abatement outcome’. They had achieved a maximum abatement of over 90 per cent emissions reduction, scaling down to 55 per cent abatement with a half dose, and about 30 per cent at a one-third dose..
6.23Sea Forest estimated that when its assets are fully developed, it would ‘have the capacity to feed up to five million cattle, reducing over 12 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum from livestock production’. It observed that livestock feed supplements held significant potential in meeting emission reduction targets with minimal behavioural change by farmers, but this would require ‘in the short-term industry adoption and government support for education and awareness’.
6.24Two barriers to the successful commercialisation of the technology were funding and access to carbon credits. Sea Forest stated that the sector ‘needs the Commonwealth's funding assistance to commence large-scale trials in order to see near-term reduction of agricultural emissions across the nation’. In return, this would help ‘the government to reach its 30 per cent methane reduction target under the methane pledge’.
6.25The barrier to using Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) under the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) was that requirements for newness and additionality under the ERF prevented early adopters from accessing future carbon credits, thereby discouraging adoption of the technology. A possible solution was the introduction of an interim and transitional mechanism ‘that would exempt early adopters of asparagopsis from the newness requirement in the time between now and when the formal legislative change to the ERF can be implemented’. Mr Sam Elsom, Chief Executive Officer of Sea Forest, explained:
What we propose is a precedent that was set in 2014 and 2015 called a notice of intent. That was used for the Carbon Farming Initiative. It was a form that you could download from the Clean Energy Regulator's website which basically outlined that a farmer who wanted to participate in a project for which there was no methodology developed, as in the case of the Carbon Farming Initiative, they could submit that notice of intent and have their newness and additionality assessed from this point in time.
Soil carbon
6.26The sequestration of carbon in soil was viewed as a potentially significant response to climate change and a potential source of income for farmers. The International Fund for Agricultural Development highlighted Climate Change Authority estimates ‘that carbon sequestration in soils could offset up to 60 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year by 2030 if widely adopted’. It suggested that ‘a significant portion of Australian farms have diverse cropping systems which can sequester carbon more efficiently’.
6.27Both the Queensland and New South Wales Governments advised of programs they are undertaking to reduce agriculture emissions and increase carbon farming. The New South Wales Government is developing a Primary Industries Productivity and Abatement Program that aims to reduce emissions from agriculture and increase carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation. The Program includes:
- commercialising low emissions technology in the dairy, wool and red meat industries, such as those technologies identified through the CSIRO-MLA partnership;
- connecting small landholders, including Aboriginal landowners, to carbon markets;
- underwriting project risks from trialling new approaches to carbon sequestration; and
- developing premium land-based carbon markets that deliver stronger environmental and social outcomes compared to traditional low-cost abatement programs.
- In its submission, the University of Melbourne highlighted the benefits of organic farming for soil health, including carbon sequestration. It suggested that in addition to reducing Australia’s reliance on imported synthetic fertilisers, organic farming practices would allow Australia to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture ‘because organic systems emit up to 40 per cent less carbon emissions compared to non-organic systems’. The University proposed the establishment of evidence-based sustainability indices for agricultural production. These would:
- facilitate the monetisation of the costs and benefits of agricultural production to the environment, human health, ecosystems, climate and society;
- develop environmental credits (market premium) to reward more sustainable farmers who produce food with fewer environmental impacts than their peers;
- raise public awareness by helping consumers to make more informed and sustainable food choices; and
- provide information to help guide international trade policies to improve agricultural sustainability in Australia.
- The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) urged the adoption of soil stewardship, recommending recognition and support for the National Soil Strategy 2021 as a key Australian Government priority ‘over all else’. It remarked that ‘if we don’t look after our soil, we won’t have a country to grow food on’. It also recommended the adoption of a Healthy Soils Act modelled on the New Mexico Healthy Soils Act. This legislation from the US state of New Mexico, established five Soil Stewardship Principles:
- Keep soil covered.
- Minimise soil disturbance and external inputs.
- Maximise biodiversity.
- Maintain living roots.
- Integrate animals.
- AFSA proposed, however, that ‘where subsidies are provided to land managers for carbon sequestration, they should not create purchasable or tradeable credits, which disincentivise emissions reduction by polluters’.
- A similar position on carbon credits was taken by the representative of global supplier of farm inputs, Nutrien Ag Solutions. Mr David Stanko suggested that carbon offsets were best employed by farmers to reduce their own carbon footprint, rather than ‘losing the right to that carbon long term in some cases as long as 25 or even up to 100 years’. He stated:
It isn't that we don't believe there's value in sequestering carbon on farm. It's all about selling off the rights to that carbon into a marketplace where there are some long-term liabilities that maybe aren't quite as clear as they should be.
Regenerative agriculture
6.32Evidence highlighted a range of farming practices which could come under the general heading of regenerative agriculture—landscape management practices which restore landscape function and natural capital in agricultural settings. These practices are seen as vital to maintaining and enhancing farm productivity in the face of climate change.
6.33The possibilities for regenerative agriculture were discussed by the CSIRO. Dr Michael Robertson, Director, CSIRO Agriculture and Food, noted that regenerative farming practices were ‘nudging us’ to look harder at things like nutrient management:
How can we recycle things like crop residues, animal excreta and, in more novel ways, to help retain those nutrients on farms and not export them and not have them ending up being wasted and ending up in the groundwater or in the atmosphere.
6.34Dr Robertson thought ‘the regenerative farming movement is pointing to a need for us to adopt a more holistic view about … the natural capital that agriculture generates for the nation’.
6.35Dr Robertson noted that signs were emerging overseas, but also in Australia, of stakeholders investing in ‘natural capital improvements that farmers can create for the nation on their farm, whether it's building their soil fertility, whether it's protecting their native vegetation on their farms or whether it's fostering more biodiversity’. He suggested that this was an agenda ‘that's not going to go away. If anything, it's going to be driven by capital markets and other market access issues. There's no way we can avoid that.’ What was needed, he stated, were ‘simple systems for farmers to be able to show how they're progressing as they go year by year, and improving that natural capital state on their farms’. He indicated that a key challenge for science was ‘to simplify that and help us measure and monitor it’.
6.36The SA Food Systems Network recommended investment in regenerative agriculture to adapt to climate change. It stated that regenerative agriculture had already shown results in restoring degraded soils across Australia; and noted that the Commonwealth had already committed research funding to quantify the benefits of regenerative agricultural practices in restoring soils. It argued for more investment to address ‘the gap in production when farmers stop using chemical fertilizers and the benefits of regenerative agricultural practices begin to take effect’.
6.37Ms Sharon McGann, representing the SA Food Systems Network, explained that there was ‘a one to two-year transition where yields initially decline, but then the deficit tends to disappear’. Ms McGann observed that ‘in stressful or volatile weather conditions, organic yields can actually perform better and be more resilient. Soil can hold more biomass, absorb more water, and water is also a big issue for us in Australia’. McGann noted that:
It's really about getting over the hump. The medium-term increase in profitability can be explained by: the system of practices that lead to lower input costs at a time when fertiliser costs are increasing; resilience, which reduces the risk of climate volatility; the ability to grow higher value crops and access new markets and premiums because there is a demand for higher value; and higher nutritional products.
6.38Farming for the Future, a philanthropic research and innovation foundation, was working at the cutting edge of regenerative agriculture. It defined natural capital as:
…the natural resources that producers manage for the benefit of their businesses, their families and for future generations of producers. Agricultural Natural Capital includes soils, water, pasturelands and croplands, riparian areas, remnant native vegetation, agroforestry and environmental plantings and animals.
6.39Farming for the Future observed that natural capital improvements could mitigate ‘both the cause and impact of climate change (e.g. reducing emissions and increasing sequestration)’; and ‘ameliorate flood impacts (e.g. ground cover reducing top soil losses)’, thus supporting food security. It noted that many of the technologies used to support food security involved investment in forms of natural capital—soils, water, ground cover, genetics, and biological pest control. It argued that:
Understanding the relationships between natural capital and agricultural performance will improve management decisions that optimise the free benefits of nature, improve productivity and farm resilience to climate shocks and contribute to food security.
6.40Farming for the Future suggested that the productivity benefits of investing in natural capital were potentially large, with estimates of a greater than 20 per cent increase in overall farm business productivity. It argued that developing systems and institutions ‘that provide for cheap and effective natural capital measures’ would improve productivity and profitability, creating ‘deeper resilience of food production systems’. They would also improve access to markets with high sustainability reporting and trading standards.
6.41Farming for the Future asserted that ‘the omission of natural capital from farm management and strategic decision making is likely to be a key or even the prime reason that natural capital has been depleted on agricultural landscapes across the globe’. This had resulted in ‘lower agricultural productivity and profitability and increased exposure to risks that are mitigated through the presence of healthy ecosystems’.
6.42The NSW Farmers’ Association also put forward that natural capital investment and markets represented a way to achieve positive outcomes for farmers, the environment, and society. It identified a number of barriers to adoption, including:
- Lack of a unified view of what constitutes natural capital;
- Absence of an agreed way of valuing natural capital;
- Societal perceptions of the role of agriculture; and
- The way governments legislate for environmental outcomes.
- The NSW Farmers’ Association observed that ‘Australian producers are well placed to support retailers, corporations, and government to meet their sustainability commitments’, but that they needed ‘greater clarity on the costs and benefits of doing so’. It argued that ‘at present, an unfair burden of the responsibility falls to producers in an environment already plagued by escalating costs, high risks, and market power imbalances’. The NSW Farmers’ Association proposed a range of areas for government action and investment to support the development of natural capital in agriculture, including:
- Developing analytical tools to assess the performance of agricultural businesses, including standard metrics, robust methods to test these metrics, frameworks which put metrics in context and aligned targets and objectives.
- Providing real examples of natural capital positive methods that deliver financial benefits to build confidence and increase the likelihood of adoption.
- Establishing platforms to link suppliers of natural capital outcomes (producers) with purchasers who have sustainability commitments.
- Partnering with extension networks to ensure information reaches producers.
- Increasing RD&E investment in conjunction with land managers in developing sustainable farming practices and providing information to industry.
- Streamlining environmental regulations.
- In its submission, the WFF advocated for increasing support for producers to scale up sustainable agricultural practices such as ‘maintaining diverse ground cover, use of trees and biodiversity in the landscape, improving soil health, [and] landscape rehydration’. It stated that these practices improved ecosystem health and functioning that support food production and reduced the need for external inputs. The provision of these ecosystem services and the productivity benefits of increasing soil organic carbon justified the effort, quite apart from the soil carbon sequestration potential.
Landscape rehydration
6.45Another example of regenerative agriculture is landscape rehydration. The Mulloon Institute, a not-for-profit organisation focussed on landscape rehydration and environmental regeneration at the property and catchment scales, explained:
Landscape Rehydration strategies employ both natural infrastructure and land management techniques that slow the movement of water over the land’s surface and in waterways and optimise the cycling of water between soil, plant, and atmosphere. These strategies recouple the water cycle with the biological cycle in degraded landscapes, enabling the energy coming from the sun to be moderated near the earth’s surface. This reduces temperature variations, cooling temperatures during the day and warming temperatures at night. When projects are undertaken at scale, these strategies can moderate climatic extremes across entire catchments.
6.46The benefits of this approach are that it:
- re-establishes areas that have historically been carbon sinks including wetlands and swampy meadows;
- sustains soil moisture levels, creating deep ‘soil sponges’ that mitigate the impacts of climatic variation, including drought, on soil carbon levels over time;
- supports the recovery of habitat and biodiversity in farming landscapes; and
- leads to increases in agricultural productivity due to enhanced soil biology, humification and nutrient cycling, reduced erosion and sediment loss, and more reliable plant growth.
- The Institute observed that these restoration techniques were best done at a catchment scale. It concluded that:
An integrated holistic approach to repairing and restoring the function of our landscapes through landscape rehydration can begin to address the impacts of climate change on our productive agricultural lands. This will be an essential component in achieving food security in the face of climate change.
6.48Committee Members had the opportunity to visit the Mulloon Institute’s site at Mulloon Creek, near Bungendore NSW, and see landscape rehydration at work. The project is subject to a rigorous monitoring and assessment program which allows the Institute to measure changes to the landscape across a range of criteria including hydrology, biodiversity and productivity. The Institute has also carried out projects in other parts of Australia across a range of landscape types.
6.49The Institute has identified two barriers to the work it does. The first is reliance on grant funding to continue its work. The Institute finds itself in the position of not being eligible for traditional research funding streams such as ARC or CRC funding. Mrs Carolyn Hall, CEO of the Mulloon Institute, explained that funding from the National Landcare Program (NLP) Phase 2 had ‘allowed an extensive monitoring system and data portal to be developed’ at Mulloon Creek, but that funding was now finished. Mrs Hall noted that the Institute had worked with the NSW Department of Primary Industries to create a catchment rehydration selection tool—'a priority map that has ranked catchments across New South Wales for their suitability for landscape rehydration’. With funding, Mrs Hall observed, ‘that could easily become a national tool’.
6.50The other problem was the regulatory frameworks ‘that treat farmers and natural resource managers trying to deliver these projects the same way they treat developers exploiting the environment for money’. Mrs Hall described the situation:
…if you want to get a project like this up, you need to satisfy probably upwards of 10 pieces of legislation. There's biodiversity, there's European heritage, there's Indigenous heritage, there's water, and it just goes on and on and on. You need specialist expert reports that provide the information to satisfy those regulators so they can make a decision. It's those external additional costs that are making the cost of these projects prohibitive, particularly when we're trying to work at scale...
For example, a biodiversity development assessment report in New South Wales can be between $50,000 and $100,000. You can build a leaky weir for $10,000 or $15,000. You can spend $100,000 on design and get something watertight that's going to survive a one-in-100-years rainfall event, and you can build it for another $100,000, but you're going to spend nearly half a million dollars on approvals. It doesn't stack up then. That's where we need this regulatory reform.
6.51Mrs Hall noted that the Institute was exploring the possibility of state governments shouldering some of the costs of the regulatory burden. While landholders receive the private benefit of increased productivity, ‘the ultimate benefit is a much broader public benefit when you are doing this work at scale’.
6.52The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (ASFA) endorsed the work of the Mulloon Institute and recommended that government ‘develop planning legislation, capacity building (led by farmers) and provide financial resources for landholders to work to restore natural flows’.
Agroecology
6.53Agroecology is perhaps the ultimate response to the challenges of sustainability and climate change in the agriculture sector. ASFA defined agroecology as:
a scientifically and experientially justified practice of agriculture that is sensitive to the ecosystems in which it is situated and that fosters the democratic participation of all peoples in the food system.
6.54Agroecology also aims to promote ‘the deep ecological, social, and economic knowledge of First Peoples, peasants, and other small-scale food producers and custodians of Land’. Fundamentally it puts ‘decision-making power back in the hands of Indigenous Peoples and peasants and local communities’.
6.55The 10 Elements of Agroecology are:
- Diversity: diversification is key to agroecological transitions to ensure food security and nutrition while conserving, protecting and enhancing natural resources.
- Co-creation and sharing of knowledge: agricultural innovations respond better to local challenges when they are co-created through participatory processes.
- Synergies: building synergies enhances key functions across food systems, supporting production and multiple ecosystem services.
- Efficiency: innovative agroecological practices produce more using less external resources.
- Recycling: more recycling means agricultural production with lower economic and environmental costs.
- Resilience: enhanced resilience of people, communities and ecosystems is key to sustainable food and agricultural systems.
- Human and social values: protecting and improving rural livelihoods, equity and social well-being is essential for sustainable food and agricultural systems.
- Culture and food traditions: by supporting healthy, diversified and culturally appropriate diets, agroecology contributes to food security and nutrition while maintaining the health of ecosystems.
- Responsible governance: sustainable food and agriculture requires responsible and effective governance mechanisms at different scales – from local to national to global.
- Circular and solidarity economy: circular and solidarity economies that reconnect producers and consumers provide innovative solutions for living within our planetary boundaries while ensuring the social foundation for inclusive and sustainable development.
- To support the promotion of agroecology, ASFA made the following recommendations:
- Promote and support Indigenous land management, including fire management, to restore biodiversity and health of Country.
- Measure quality of agricultural systems on landscape function, provision of ecosystem services including carbon sequestration and landscape rehydration, and protection and promotion of biodiversity at the genetic, species, and ecosystem levels.
- Support innovation through research and development, and horizontal knowledge sharing to develop and share new models, ideas and designs:
- Agroecological farming systems
- First Peoples-to-farmer knowledge sharing
- Farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing.
- Promote and finance research into agroecological food production and co-design and co-produce educational resources in partnership with small-scale farmers.
- Support a risk- and scale-appropriate regulatory framework to enable small-scale and agroecological production.
- Ensure industrialised food and fibre production is appropriately regulated due to the environmental impacts of monoculture production, land clearing and the use of veterinary and agri-chemicals.
- The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) also promoted the benefits of agroecology. It was leading work on capturing the true environmental and social cost of food through an enhanced economic and financial analysis (EFA+) approach. The aim ‘is to recognise the broader public goods agroecology farming and food systems generate’ through criteria such as biodiversity, clean water, public health and nutrition, flood risk reduction, soil regeneration, carbon storage and emissions reductions. IFAD stated that:
EFA+ will benefit governments and policy makers at all levels, international financial institutions, insurance companies, and private sector impact investors by making visible the benefits of agroecology for ecosystem services and sustainable food systems and positively affect the flow of investments.
6.58The University of Queensland linked agroecology to local food systems and short supply chains, observing that these have ‘strong potential to addressing the cost of food (economic, and environmental)’.
The challenge of biosecurity
6.59Another major risk to Australia’s food security is pest and disease incursions. The National Retail Association observed that ‘livestock, farming, and the agricultural sector will be adversely impacted by any biosecurity hazards’. This included ‘plant and pest diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and biological and chemical hazards’.
6.60The Australian Livestock and Rural Transporter’s Association (ALRTA) stated that ‘Australia’s biosecurity preparedness directly affects food security because an exotic disease incursion can affect domestic food yield, cost of production, food safety, market access and prices’.
6.61Seafood Industry Australia (SIA) noted that ‘any major biosecurity breach has the potential to wipe out an entire sector of Australia’s seafood industry, or agriculture industry more broadly thereby having a significant impact on national food security’. It asserted that ‘the maintenance of a comprehensive and effective biosecurity system is vital for the protection of Australia’s agriculture and fisheries sectors’. SIA observed that there was ‘a plethora of international and domestic examples’ of biosecurity breaches ‘resulting in the devastation of rural industries, impacts on food supply, export bans, reduced market access and national revenue, and long-term impacts on the world’s food security’. It noted that the estimated costs of invasive species across industry and government in the last six decades was in the order of $390 billion. In addition to this, was ‘foregone growth and missed market opportunities’.
6.62The Australian Fresh Produce Alliance (AFPA) highlighted the importance of strong and effective biosecurity to the fresh produce industry’s ability to trade, while also protecting our domestic production. It stated that ‘in order to ensure the ongoing production of fresh produce in Australia, significant attention must be paid to our biosecurity system’.
6.63The National Retail Association emphasised the importance of State and Federal cooperation in the management of biosecurity and the need for additional surveillance, resources and increased education. It identified ‘the need to work with industry to secure better surveillance systems, enhance data sharing across sectors, improve biosecurity community engagement and develop national [and] international biosecurity innovation priorities’. The Northern Territory Government also highlighted the need for community engagement, stating that ‘Australians need to adopt a greater level of awareness of the importance of biosecurity and that it is everyone’s responsibility’.
6.64In its submission, Charles Sturt University expressed concern that ‘at present, too much of Australia’s response to biosecurity threats to the agricultural sector is reactive’. It suggested, however, that there are signs—'with the development of the new National Biosecurity Strategy’—that this was changing.
6.65Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that Australia has some of the best biosecurity protocols in the world. A number of industries are protected by strict restrictions on the import of agricultural products from overseas. Australia does not import eggs due to disease risks. Australia’s strict biosecurity protocols and risk assessment prohibit the importation of fresh pork; only cooked product can be brought in because the cooking process eliminates disease. A similar regime applies to chicken meat. Chicken producer Ingham’s Group stated that ‘Australia’s strict biosecurity regime, including the ban on chicken meat imports, actively protects this country from the devastation these diseases could impose on this industry, the economy, the community and the environment’. It considered ‘a strict biosecurity regime is a central plank in the policy framework required to deliver food security in this country’, and recommended that:
The Committee endorse continuing support for the conservative import protocols in place to protect against exotic disease incursions into the Australian chicken meat industry, given it is a key centrepiece of food security in Australia.
6.66Dr Mary Wu, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Chicken Meat Federation, highlighted Australia’s effective response to previous outbreaks of avian influenza, telling the Committee:
Australia has really strong preparedness strategies in place to be able to respond quickly and basically eradicate the disease as soon as it comes in. The last time we had AI was in 2020, and that was in Victoria. That was resolved fairly quickly. Obviously, we eradicate the birds that are infected, we establish control zones around them to stop movement, we go in with our control measures and then we are declared free.
6.67Despite this, the industry remained on alert because of how quickly the current strain of the disease had moved around the world and how many birds had succumbed to it.
6.68Likewise, Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) acknowledged the work of the Australian Government in strengthening Australia’s border controls around biosecurity in response to the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) and Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) risk in Indonesia. Activities and investments included:
- Supporting the Indonesian Government to review its national traceability system to help track and control livestock movements.
- Funding portable cattle yards to assist local government authorities to vaccinate cattle for FMD.
- Partnering with the Australian Government to deliver biosecurity support to Indonesia.
- Providing in-country vaccination support, including a reimbursement for vaccinations of Australian cattle entering Indonesian feedlots. MLA has committed up to $1.3 million.
- Investing in research and innovation, such as partnerships around the development of mRNA vaccines for LSD.
- The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) acknowledged that increasing biosecurity risks in our region required stronger and more resilient systems to effectively manage animal disease risks. DAFF observed that it ‘invests considerable resources to understand the risks posed by these diseases to minimise these biosecurity threats’.
- DAFF also highlighted the National Biosecurity Strategy, released in August 2022. The Strategy ‘provides a strategic roadmap for Australia’s biosecurity system over the next 10 years in recognition of the critical role biosecurity plays in maintaining a strong agricultural sector and supporting our environment and biodiversity’. The Strategy covers exotic and established pests, weeds and diseases, including zoonotic diseases, but not human biosecurity. DAFF advised that the Strategy ‘will be underpinned by a national implementation plan and national action plan, complemented by other local, regional and sector-based action plans’. The Strategy is also founded upon the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity and builds on the National Biosecurity Statement, and various government and sectoral biosecurity strategies.
Potential cost of incursions on production
6.71The potential costs of incursions were highlighted by a number of stakeholders. For example:
- The National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) observed that the economic impact of a FMD incursion on Australia’s livestock industries was estimated at $80 billion.
- The cost to the grains industry of a Khapra beetle incursion was estimated at $16 billion.
- The cost to horticulture of a Varroa mite incursion was estimated at $5 billion.
- Such outbreaks would detrimentally affect the cost and availability of food. An outbreak of FMD would see ‘a very big reduction in the availability of protein in Australia’. An outbreak of Khapra beetle would limit the availability of grain and the ability to export to key markets, ‘which would have flow-on effects for global food security’. Moreover, the NFF stressed, ‘while the economic impacts of such incursions are stark, the social impacts on not just Australia’s 80,000 farmers, but the communities they underpin, would also be enormous’.
- Meat and Livestock Australia stated that an incursion of FMD or LSD ‘would devastate the Australian cattle and beef industry and the associated communities and businesses’. For example, a suspected outbreak of LSD in July 2023 resulted in the immediate suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia and Malaysia.
- An FMD outbreak was also expected to have severe consequences for the dairy industry including significant impacts across the entire supply chain and international trade losses. It was estimated that ‘the overall cost for the Australian dairy industry from an FMD outbreak would be approximately $6.5 billion over 10 years’. It would ‘potentially take years for Australia to return to its FMD free status’.
- The pork industry was concerned about multiple threats, including African Swine Fever (ASF), Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) and FMD. It indicated that an outbreak of ASF could cost around $2 billion dollars; and noted that ‘the combination of these challenges has disrupted normal operations across the domestic and global pork supply chain, risking both business continuity and pig welfare’. Australian Pork Limited cited analysis from the Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis (CEBRA) in 2021 which found that ‘the likelihood of Australia experiencing a major animal disease outbreak in the next five years sits at 42 per cent’. Ms Margo Andrae, Australian Pork Limited’s CEO, told the Committee:
We've managed to keep the top 10 exotic diseases out of this country over the decades, but we know that is not ideal at the moment, because the diseases are flying at us. But we've managed to keep them out.
6.76SIA observed that ‘aquatic animal disease is one of the most serious constraints to the expansion and development of sustainable aquaculture’. The Australian aquaculture industry had experienced recent disease incursions including White Spot Disease in prawns and Abalone Viral Ganglioneuritis disease in Victoria and Tasmania. SIA noted that ‘globally, a trend in aquaculture is the emergence of novel, previously unknown diseases that cause major cross border production losses approximately every three to five years’. The causes of this trend included:
- Trade and movement of live animals and related products;
- Industry development moving ahead of our understanding of biosecurity risks;
- Lack of capacity in institutional and technical aquatic animal health management; and
- Ecosystem changes arising from dynamic aquatic ecosystems, including through direct human activity and environmental changes, such as climate change.
- The chicken meat industry noted that while Australia remained free of exotic diseases such as virulent Infectious Bursal Disease and Avian Influenza type H5N1, those diseases are present in nearly all other countries and represented a major threat to Australia’s poultry industry. Any outbreak ‘would erode the contribution chicken meat makes to Australia’s food security’.
- Dr Mary Wu told the Committee that ‘protecting our valuable national flock by maintaining strict biosecurity controls, particularly of imported product, in the context of a dramatic global deterioration in animal health’, in the face of the current global outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza, was a priority for the industry.
- For its part, the Australian Fresh Produce Alliance highlighted the potential biosecurity risk facing the horticulture industry:
Biosecurity is a clear example where a failure of government policy or program can have a significant effect on Australia’s food security. Significant pests of concern for horticulture such as citrus canker, brown marmorated stink bug, and leaf miner would all have a substantial impact on the production and distribution of fresh produce and in some cases, eliminate valuable export markets that drive industry growth and sustainability.
6.80The grains sector was also concerned about biosecurity, especially with regard to the threat and potential impact of Khapra beetle. Ms Annabel Mactier, of GrainGrowers Ltd, told the Committee:
There's a whole heap of factors, including climate change, increased cross-border movements—and even COVID has contributed to a significantly larger risk of incursion than we've ever had before. So we need the biosecurity measures to really match that increased risk, because that is a direct threat for food production in Australia—for all food production, not just grain—definitely.
Climate change and biosecurity threats
6.81Climate change was identified as a significant contributor to the biosecurity challenges facing Australia. Charles Sturt University noted that ‘climate change is only increasing the magnitude of these threats, with warming conditions spreading the range of some diseases and pests, and higher rainfall increasing the likelihood, and spread, of diseases like lumpy skin’. Similarly, the Queensland Farmers Federation stated that with ‘global temperature continuing to rise, the incidence of biosecurity threats increases, as pests and disease increase their range of latitude and longitude distribution’. It argued that more funding needed to be provided to address ‘the impacts of climate change on agriculture and the impacts to biosecurity from the inevitable increase of pests and diseases as the climate continues to warm’.
6.82Dr Maxine Piggott, Professor of Tropical Biosecurity at Charles Darwin University, observed that ‘we're certainly seeing an increase in biosecurity risks coming into the country, and I think, with climate change, there will be more of that’. Dr Piggott was concerned at the lack of information or data for northern Australia regarding pathways for pests and disease incursions. The Northern Territory Government also noted that among the negative impacts of climate change was ‘increased biosecurity risks’.
6.83Australian Pork Limited expected climate change to impact the pork industry in a numbers of ways, including increased biosecurity threats. It highlighted predictions by animal health specialists that ‘increased temperatures due to climate change, combined with biodiversity and species migratory changes, will lead to an increased risk of zoonotic diseases’. It noted that the pork industry had responded to a range of animal disease threats such as Swine Influenza (2009) and JEV (2022), while maintaining vigilance for other threats from near neighbours such as FMD and ASF.
6.84DAFF acknowledged the increased biosecurity risks associated with changing global climatic and trade patterns. It also acknowledged the increased risks from mosquito and other insect borne diseases of animals following recent wet weather and flooding events:
In late February 2022, a large outbreak of Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) occurred for the first time in the eastern and southern states of Australia, causing abortions and still births in sows, boar infertility, and possible cases of encephalitis in horses. The disease is transmitted by mosquitoes and also affects people. It can cause severe encephalitis and death.
6.85DAFF noted that previously the virus had only been detected in far northern Australia. It stated that ‘surveillance and preparedness activities are underway in anticipation of another wet summer season and increased risk of mosquito-borne diseases, including JEV’.
Paying for biosecurity
6.86Funding for biosecurity is a complex mix of federal, state and industry funding, much of which comes from industry levies. A number of industry bodies expressed frustration over the current mix of funding, arguing that it was inadequate and fell disproportionately on growers. According to AUSVEG:
Growers and industry are currently bearing the cost of increasing biosecurity incursions, whether through partaking in an eradication response or increased management costs.
6.87AUSVEG noted, however, that ‘there are entities along the risk pathways of cargo, sea vessels and aircraft, international travellers, post, and mail that, while contributing to the risk of new pest incursions, do not share the responsibility of the incursion’.
6.88AUSVEG argued that biosecurity was a ‘shared responsibility’ and that the burden of cost should be shared with stakeholders along the risk pathway. It suggested that ‘an import levy, along with a passenger levy, is critical to ensure biosecurity is a shared responsibility’. It argued that ‘cost sharing of biosecurity risks should be equitable for all parties along the risk pathway’. This would ‘provide a pathway for sustained funding for biosecurity preparedness and response’.’ AUSVEG recommended that the Government restart consultation on the Biosecurity Imports Levy with stakeholders with a view to implementation; and increase capacity and capability of critical government services in biosecurity through increased and sustained funding. In a similar vein, Grain Producers Australia proposed a container levy.
6.89The Australian Fresh Produce Alliance (AFPA) also argued that ‘funding models (both for export and import) that rely on a “user pays” model for biosecurity do not consider the net-benefit or public good created for all Australians by effectively managing biosecurity’. It recommended that:
That Government deliver on its commitment to establish long-term, sustainable funding for biosecurity, which is not dependent on trade levies or new taxes on farmers but drawn from central funding in recognition of biosecurity being of national interest and for public good.
6.90While acknowledging and supporting existing funding programs in place for biosecurity, Australian Pork Limited stated that a barrier to implementing long-term biosecurity solutions was sustainable funding. It questioned whether current compensation and funding arrangements provided enough cover for losses from biosecurity incidents and whether they still serve the needs of the national biosecurity system. It recommended a ‘sustainable and strategically aligned biosecurity funding solution’, which was independent of political cycles, representative of the entire biosecurity system, shared by all stakeholders, and prioritised by risk assessment.
6.91The NSW Farmers’ Association argued that the current model for funding biosecurity was unsustainable, unable to cover all biosecurity system costs and response losses or move in line with Australia’s increasing risk exposure. It, ‘along with other industry stakeholders’, advocated for ‘a sustainable funding model which allocates risk equitably between key risk creators and system beneficiaries, effectively accounting for imbalances in existing cost recovery arrangements for certain border pathways’. The NSW Farmers’ Association asserted that ‘any funding must be invested back into this system and integrated with the necessary drivers to capture and allocate responsibility and cost based on matrixes of risk, benefit, involvement, and capacity’. This was to ensure long-term security in the face of dynamic biosecurity risks. The NSW Farmers’ Association acknowledged the current consultation process being undertaken by DAFF on making national biosecurity funding sustainable.
Committee comment
6.92Evidence presented to the Committee highlights the threat of climate change to Australia’s food security. ABARES’ research tells us that climate change is already playing a significant role in the production and profitability of rural industries, a fact largely disguised to date by substantial improvements in productivity. The challenge presented by climate change will require innovation across the entire food supply chain, but especially on farm. Measures will need to be taken to reduce agricultural emissions and improve the environmental sustainability of agricultural production.
6.93Fortunately, there are plenty of options available for meeting the challenge of climate change and Australia’s farmers have a great track record for innovation. The Committee was impressed by the work of Sea Forest in developing feed supplements to reduce ruminant emissions. The Committee strongly encourages this work, and for the adoption of this technology by farmers. The Committee supports the idea of early adopters of this technology being eligible for Australian Carbon Credit Units under the Emissions Reduction Fund through the mechanism of a ‘notice of intent’.
6.94Regenerative agriculture in all its variety has great potential to meet the challenges of climate change by allowing for production methods which increase soil carbon, reduce emissions, reduce reliance on inputs and restore the landscape. An important part of encouraging the take-up of these opportunities will be the development of clear definitions of natural capital and the development of natural capital markets. Putting a value on natural capital will allow it to be accounted for in production and monetised in developing natural capital markets.
6.95The Committee was particularly impressed by the work of the Mulloon Institute and its landscape rehydration projects. Relatively small interventions had restored the health of the Mulloon Creek catchment and substantially increased the amount of moisture in the landscape. The Committee notes the difficulties faced by organisations such as the Mulloon Institute in accessing sustained funding for what is long-term research, development and extension (RD&E) at landscape level. The Committee would like to see the Australian Government develop a funding stream for this kind of RD&E.
6.96The Committee also notes the difficulties in obtaining development approvals for this kind of landscape restoration. It seems perverse that relatively minor interventions aimed at restoring the natural capital of a landscape should be subject to almost prohibitive development costs. The Committee would like to see this situation improved, either through co-contributions from government or grant funding that defrays the development costs.
6.97The Committee considers that biosecurity threats represent a real and significant risk to Australia’s food security. Although Australia has some of the best biosecurity systems and protocols in the world, incidents such as the current Varroa mite incursion demonstrate that Australia can take nothing for granted.
6.98The costs of a significant biosecurity incursion would be enormous to industry and damaging to trade. Nearly every major agriculture industry is vulnerable to a major pest or disease outbreak. This means that Australia must continue to have strict biosecurity systems and protocols to provide the food sector with the highest level of protection possible. The Committee welcomes the release of the National Biosecurity Strategy and looks forward to following its development and implementation.
6.99Climate change will increase the biosecurity threat by increasing the range of existing biosecurity risks and the volume of potential threats. This will require that the biosecurity system remains agile, responsive and, where possible, proactive. The Committee acknowledges the work of the Australian Government in supporting the response of Indonesia to FMG and LSD.
6.100Biosecurity is everyone’s responsibility. There is a strong case for increased public education on how breaches in biosecurity impact the food system and what people can do to protect the food system from possible incursions. This should be targeted at anyone who interacts with Australia’s international borders.
6.101The Committee acknowledges the challenge of funding biosecurity and industry concerns that much of the burden has fallen on them. Given the accelerated movement of people and goods across international borders, the potential impacts of climate change in facilitating the spread of pests and diseases, and the consequences of a major disease or pest outbreak, funding should reflect the responsibilities and benefits for all stakeholders, and the importance of biosecurity to the whole nation.
6.102The Committee recommends that the Australian Government support early adopters of emissions reduction technologies in agriculture through the mechanism of notices of intent, to ensure they remain eligible for Australian Carbon Credit Units under the Emissions Reduction Fund.
6.103The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with industry and other stakeholders to develop standard definitions of natural capital and develop natural capital markets.
6.104The Committee recommends that the Australian Government develop a funding stream for long-term, public-interest RD&E which promotes the environmental sustainability of agricultural production.
6.105The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with State and Territory Governments to ensure the financial viability of landscape restoration projects either through co-contributions from government or grant funding that defrays the development costs.
6.106The Committee recommends that the Australian Government develop a public education campaign to inform people of their biosecurity responsibilities and what they can do to protect the food system from possible incursions, with a focus on individuals or organisations interacting with Australia’s international borders.
6.107The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that funding for biosecurity reflects the responsibilities and benefits of biosecurity for all stakeholders and the importance of biosecurity to the nation as a whole.