The agrifood industry and market forces

1
The agrifood industry and market forces

• Consumer concern about food safety and the
  environmental impact of food production
• Major food retailers and processors have
  responded by using their market power to insist
  on farmers improving food safety
• - eg HACCP based quality assurance (QA)
  measures to guarantee safe food production
  methods
• - EUREPGAP
• Either farmers must meet the quality and safety
  requirements (including pest control) demanded by
  their supply-chain partners or lose their market
  access
• Consequent process of industrialisation demise
  of small farmers

2
But

• In the case of pest control, the cheapest option
  to achieve the required residue levels may not
  be the one least hazardous to their health.
• Eg Mevinphos may be preferred for use on mature
  vegetable crops, despite the health risks,
  because of its rapid impact and short withholding
  period

3
Impact of market forces Resistance Strategies

• Niche markets eg organics
• Farmers markets

4
Policy implications

• Extending corporate social responsibility to
  include OHS
• Regulation
• Supporting alternatives eg organic movement
• Supporting farmers collective action (amending
  Trade Practices Act)

5
Partners for improvement the roles of civil
society

• Disseminating information rural community
  organisations
• Role of community organisations at national level
• Trade unions and roving safety representatives
• Industry organisations from self-regulation to
  co-regulation

6
NGOs

• NGOs and wider partnerships
• NGOs are trusted in a way corporations are not
• Broader allianceswidening the concept of
  corporate social responsibility
• The role of policy mixes

7
Wisconsin Potato IPM Project

• The Burning Deck
• - high cost of pesticides,
• - health risk,
• - environmental risk,
• - economically marginal
• IPM promised to expand profits, reduce pesticide
  use, and other benefits

8
Why a Partnership with WWF?

• A means to
• document progress in IPM
• quantify public health/environmental gains
• develop premium market/gain market recognition
• gain credibility

9
Benefits for WWF

• A means to
• promote the value of IPM
• demonstrate value of measurable pesticide use,
  risk and IPM adoption goals
• a cooperative model for partnerships
• policy innovations that would help achieve
  national IMP/ environmental quality goals

10
Other factors

• A role for the regulators?
• Reducing risk lenders and insurers

11
Tools and Techniques

• Setting risk reduction goals
• measuring progress
• indicators of progress

12
Results

• In the first 2 years
• reduction in toxicity units per acre of 25
• decrease in insecticide toxicity units of 61
• 20 reduction in toxicity units across all
  herbicides, insecticides and fungicides applied

13
Implications for Government

• Steering not rowing
• kick starting environmental partnerships
• providing incentives
• regulatory flexibility
• reducing risk

14
Achieving an optimal policy mix ROPs

• While education, training and information play
  crucial roles, so do positive incentives, and
  exceptionally,prosecution
• ROPS success exemplifies mix approach
• - subsidies used in conjunction with
  partnerships, underpinned by regulation and
  publicity