EDOA strongly supports government investment in mapping tools to improve spatial data and enhance the accuracy of desktop analyses. Such mapping will be critical to ensure habitats are correctly identified and adequately protected. However, until such mapping is developed, and in the absence of clear contrary evidence as to the classification of particular vegetation, it is appropriate for regulators to adopt a precautionary approach to restrictions on land clearing. In summary, regulation of land clearing is necessary, proportionate and critical to the long-term viability of agricultural productivity in Australia. Native vegetation laws have a demonstrated public benefit not only for carbon sequestration, but – also for ensuring soil and water quality, reducing salinity etc. While it is important for cooperative approaches to be adopted wherever possible, the government must enforce the necessary protections where cooperation and collaboration has failed to achieve an appropriate outcome. As stated at the outset, we hope that the Productivity Discussion Commission’s Paper will include a strong statement supporting the implementation of rigorous environmental regulation as a mechanism to secure long-term competitiveness and productivity of Australian agriculture. Agricultural chemicals In July 2014, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Amendment Act 2014 gave effect to the to remove the requirement for agricultural chemicals government’s commitment to be periodically re-approved and re-registered. At the time, EDOA (then ANEDO) raised a number of concerns regarding the change. The re-approval and re-registration conditions were introduced in 2013 in response to community concern regarding the proper regulation of chemical constituents and chemical products. The reversal of those conditions after less than 12 months was not supported by any evidence that the conditions imposed an unreasonable burden on the agricultural sector. EDOA recommended not only the retention of the new conditions, but strengthening them to require the best available, peer-reviewed data on environmental impacts to be assessed as part of any re-approval determination. EDOA maintains this position. For more details, read our . Feral animal and invasive species control EDOA recognises that the costs of controlling invasive species, weeds and feral animals can present difficulties for farmers. Environmental regulation of such species is an essential and cost effective measure to maintain and improve agricultural productivity. The Commonwealth Government has estimated that weeds cost Australian farmers around $1.5 billion a year in weed control activities and a further $2.5 billion a year in lost agricultural production, with similar costs to the environment.
EDOA strongly supports government investment in mapping tools to improve spatial data and enhance the accuracy of desktop analyses. Such mapping will be critical to ensure habitats are correctly identified and adequately protected. However, until such mapping is developed, and in the absence of clear contrary evidence as to the classification of particular vegetation, it is appropriate for regulators to adopt a precautionary approach to restrictions on land clearing. In summary, regulation of land clearing is necessary, proportionate and critical to the long-term viability of agricultural productivity in Australia. Native vegetation laws have a demonstrated public benefit – not only for carbon sequestration, but also for ensuring soil and water quality, reducing salinity etc. While it is important for cooperative approaches to be adopted wherever possible, the government must enforce the necessary protections where cooperation and collaboration has failed to achieve an appropriate outcome. As stated at the outset, we hope that the Productivity Commission’s Discussion Paper will include a strong statement supporting the implementation of rigorous environmental regulation as a mechanism to secure long-term competitiveness and productivity of Australian agriculture. Agricultural chemicals In July 2014, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Amendment Act 2014 gave effect to the government’s commitment to remove the requirement for agricultural chemicals to be periodically re-approved and re-registered. At the time, EDOA (then ANEDO) raised a number of concerns regarding the change. The re-approval and re-registration conditions were introduced in 2013 in response to community concern regarding the proper regulation of chemical constituents and chemical products. The reversal of those conditions after less than 12 months was not supported by any evidence that the conditions imposed an unreasonable burden on the agricultural sector. EDOA recommended not only the retention of the new conditions, but strengthening them to require the best available, peer-reviewed data on environmental impacts to be assessed as part of any re-approval determination. EDOA maintains this position. For more details, read our . Feral animal and invasive species control EDOA recognises that the costs of controlling invasive species, weeds and feral animals can present difficulties for farmers. Environmental regulation of such species is an essential and cost effective measure to maintain and improve agricultural productivity. The Commonwealth Government has estimated that weeds cost Australian farmers around $1.5 billion a year in weed control activities and a further $2.5 billion a year in lost agricultural production, with similar costs to the environment.
sub060-agriculture.docx