Posts by

Administrator

Home / Blog Archive
Climate change, Public Health, Sustainability

Dairy: good for people and planet

November 15, 2021

By DARYL HOEY*

Agriculture and in particular livestock production has been central to formal global talks about sustainable food production and healthy diets hosted by the United Nations in past weeks.

There have been passionate voices on food, biodiversity and climate. Mostly, these voices have respected all dimensions of sustainable food production from cultural and economic to nutrition and environment.

For our part Australian dairy has a long history in sustainability and is committed to being part of the solution to the world’s biggest sustainability challenges, including climate change and food insecurity.

First and foremost, an unhealthy diet is not sustainable. Our industry nourishes people across the world daily. Milk, cheese and yoghurt are nutrient-rich with proven health benefits.  Dairy is a staple food with traditions woven into society. It’s affordable and accessible meaning it can be part of many cultural diets.

Seventy-nine per cent of Australians agree that dairy foods are essential for good health and wellbeing,

Dairy has and always will be a food – not a fad.

As an industry Australian dairy stands for a healthier world, for people and the planet.

It is not lost on us that livestock industries such as dairy contribute methane to the atmosphere from cow burping. These gases are short-lived relative to those from fossil fuels however there is still an opportunity for us to improve our performance and do more to protect the environment in which we operate.

It’s in our nature – and in our hands – to action on climate change; 94% of Australian dairy farms have implemented practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and GHGs from manufacturers are down 27% since 2010/11, according to the 2020 Australian Dairy Industry Sustainability Report. The report also shows that 93% of waste from manufacturers is diverted from landfill. We are committed to meeting the challenge of climate change and looking after our natural resources.

In relation to economic development Australian dairy is committed to creating a vibrant industry that rewards dairy workers and their families, their related dairying communities, business and investors.

Dairy provides jobs and income for many families and contributes to social cohesion in regional communities. Eighty-six per cent of people in regional areas think dairy is an essential part of their community.

In 2019/2020, Australian dairy processors generated $15.7 billion in revenue and contributed $12.4 billion to Australian GDP. The industry directly employs 42,600 people. It brings regional communities to life.

Australia’s dairy farmers and manufacturers are innovative. We think ahead. This enables us to be part of the solution to food and agriculture’s biggest sustainability challenges, now and in the future.

The Australian Dairy Sustainability Framework sets out what we do to reward our people, make nutritious products, care for our animals, and leave the environment in better shape for the future.

We report our progress towards sustainability goals and targets every year for all to see. Our sustainability promise is to produce nutritious food for a healthier world. It’s a promise we aim to keep.

If people planning the future of food take into account the social, economic and environmental impacts of food production Australian dairy will be part of whatever food system emerges over time.

* Daryl Hoey is Chair of the Dairy Sustainability Steering Committee, which directs the Australian Dairy Sustainability Framework, a whole-of-industry initiative from the Australian Dairy Industry Council.

People & Community, Public Health

Mental health: a focus for you, us

November 15, 2021

By TERRY RICHARDSON, ADF PRESIDENT

A GOOD season and improving returns for dairy farmers doesn’t necessarily mean it is easy for everyone in the industry.

Dairy farming is the career we choose because we love the industry, and the quest for a strong balance sheet is part of that.

Yet, even when the figures are looking good, the requirements of dairy farming – a career that involves living where you work and cows which need attention 365 days a year – can seem relentless.

A survey of the New Zealand dairy industry last year showed that 60 per cent of respondents said at least one of their team had experienced a mental health issue in the previous year.

Although to the best of my knowledge there has not been similar research in Australia, it’s not hard to imagine that there would be a similar result in this country.

While we are much more prepared to talk about mental health now, there is still an inherent unwillingness to acknowledge it in ourselves or our friends or work mates.

It seems at times we consider mental and physical health differently, and this may be at the root of why many are afraid to speak up or acknowledge they have an issue.

If you break your arm, there is a course of action you take – you follow that and there is an outcome. You get the x-ray, you may get surgery, you get another x-ray to check it’s okay and the episode is over.

Dealing with a mental health issue in comparison may appear to be complex, and could require ongoing treatment, much like some physical injuries require ongoing physiotherapy.

For some people, the problem may be with them for a lifetime but there are things that we can do which can help and we should strongly encourage people to seek that help.

The biggest fear that many of us have when we recognise that things are not right with a relative, a friend or a worker (or even ourselves) is that we don’t know how to help.

While you may not have the professional skills to help, you are able to reassure others that they are not alone, and that there are people who can help.

Knowing that you, your friend or worker can get help is reassuring not only to them, but to you as well.

A good season doesn’t guarantee wellbeing, nor does addressing particular issues like sourcing extra labour. That very issue – the lack of workers – means some are working longer and longer hours simply to just carry out the basics.

Working smarter and not harder allows time to relax, go on a holiday or even take a bigger picture view of your business and make decisions and plans. But you can’t do that if you don’t have people to fill in. It’s one of the drivers behind the ADF advocating for Government to take a multi-pronged approach to address the worker shortage.

At ADF, we also get caught up in the daily activities around policy and advocacy and while these are critical, we care deeply about the wellbeing of dairy farmers. We are assessing the merits of developing a wellbeing program, specifically for dairy farmers in Australia.

We understand that much of our work in advocacy does lead to a better dairy farming environment and less business pressure on our farmers, but alongside this, the ADF needs to dedicate specific time to check in and support the wellbeing of dairy farmers.

Ideally, ADF would like to see specific research mirroring that done within the New Zealand industry to gauge the extent of mental health issues within the Australian dairy industry.

That understanding could allow us to tailor programs which could make the greatest positive impact.

We also appreciate fully that the good season many of us are lucky enough to be experiencing this year does not take all the pressure off and while paddocks may be full of feed and milk prices are strong, it’s by no means easy.

For almost 80 years, ADF has cared about wellbeing of dairy farmers – and this will always be at the heart of what we do. We are in the final throes of a new strategic plan, and for the first time we are including a focus area on mental health. It’s important to us, and we know it’s important to you.

Whether it’s lobbying for things that farmers can easily see will make a difference like increasing the labour force to the less obvious planning around farmer health, we’re seeking better outcomes for our members.

So, my challenge for you is to look around your farm and ask yourself “what is my most valuable asset?” If that’s your rotary dairy and something was wrong with it, you wouldn’t hesitate to fix it – right?

Now, think again about your biggest asset – let’s say it’s you, your family or your fellow workers. If any of them are not functioning at their best due to a mental health issue, why would you respond any differently?

Farming operations

Looking ahead for dairy levy poll

September 15, 2021

By TERRY RICHARDSON, ADF PRESIDENT

For the first time in a decade Australian dairy farmers will get a say on how much money is invested in the industry services managed and delivered by Dairy Australia.

This is an outcome sought and welcomed by Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF).

In July, the Levy Poll Advisory Committee (LPAC) recommended that a poll of all dairy farmers be held to set the future level of the dairy service levy – a levy that funds Dairy Australia, including its research and innovation.

This is good news for dairy farmers. We can now consider whether the current dairy levy, or a potential increase in the levy, is needed to ensure the investment in farmer RD&E meets our farmers’ needs.

The LPAC is developing the voting options which will go on a ballot. This process has included seeking input from dairy farmers to determine the voting options, including an option they prefer.

As the voice of dairy farmers, ADF is deeply committed to working with our members, LPAC, Dairy Australia and the broader levy payer farmer base to ensure that an effective and engaging consultation process is undertaken prior to the March 2022 vote.

It is essential this process delivers clear and concise feedback from farmers, because the levy poll should not be taken likely. It will determine how much is invested into RD&E for the coming years.

We expect that levy payers will be informed of voting options by late September, with the levy poll to be held in March 2022.

Importance of leadership in levy poll

While it’s too early for ADF to form a view on a preferred voting option, we know as the national representative body, we need to build consensus among people with diverse views on what levy is best for the industry.

However, we do anticipate that an option to maintain current levels will be included in the levy poll, together with any options for an increase that LPAC may determine appropriate.

The levy poll provides dairy farmers with the opportunity to have a say on an important investment that works to benefit their dairy farm businesses and advance the industry as a whole.

We need to ensure the levy sets the industry up for success, by resourcing Dairy Australia to:

  • deliver on the five-year strategic plan agreed by industry
  • build and maintain the capacity of Dairy Australia to respond to emerging issues (challenges and opportunities)
  • continue to invest in high-returning research and development
  • deliver specific services as prioritised by levy payers
  • collaborate with other agencies to meet ‘head on’ the broader challenges facing the agriculture sector.

Throughout the levy poll development and voting, ADF and the state dairy farmer organisations will engage and consult with our membership.

When you vote – via the poll – I encourage you to think about the broader industry and services that benefit everyone, now and into the future.

To our members, no matter what you vote I have great respect for belief and conviction and urge you to consider the poll carefully.

Labour, People & Community

Worker shortage: hope on horizon

August 15, 2021

By CRAIG HOUGH, DIRECTOR, STRATEGY & POLICY

A CRITICAL shortage of employees is stalling growth in the Australian dairy industry.

While issues around sourcing employees are not new, there are factors which are now making it even harder to find and retain staff.

As an industry, we are working with both the Federal and State governments to find ways to address the workforce issue with a mix of lobbying and creative solutions such as projects to implement the National Agriculture Workforce Strategy

We know and understand that the dairy industry is changing. Farms are getting bigger. The average herd size has lifted from 93 cows in 1985 to 276 in 2018/2019, and there is a growing number of 1000-cow herds. Managing this increasing complexity requires more higher skilled staff.

Not only is it difficult to find staff who are willing to work within the industry, it is also hard to find employees with the skills required to manage and work within larger, more complex operations.

The situation was brought to a head last year with COVID-19, as potential employees and even casual staff like AI technicians faced border closures and the inability to travel freely to work.

Here, Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) and Dairy Australia stepped in to find an immediate, workable solution. It was the tip of the iceberg though, as the Australian Dairy Plan had already identified a capable workforce was a key to future dairy industry productivity.

As such, ADF has been working hard on a number of fronts to lift not only the number of employees but the profile of the industry to attract staff.

The solutions we are working on aim to deliver a bigger field of employees as soon as possible because of the dire need across the industry.

The measure of success will be that by 2025, all sections of the industry will have access to the people they require to meet their operating needs, and who are trained in the skills required for their roles.

We believe that potential employees who see a career path within the dairy industry is key to growing the workforce.

Offering that career pathway and lifting dairy positions into the professional realm could attract more applicants of a higher quality if they could see the ability to progress professionally. If they are engaged and can see a satisfying future career, they are also more likely to stay within the industry.

Making this happen is important, so ADF has been working with education providers to develop a flexible means of study which can be taken up across institutions and across borders. ADF has also stressed the importance of offering “bite size” learning, which recognises the inability of employees to leave the farm for longer periods.

We know that capacity building in employees is vital in ensuring a skilled workforce as well as retention of that workforce.

It’s why the Pathway for People in Dairy Program, including the Dairy Passport, was launched in September last year was a significant step. ADF working in partnership with Dairy Australia ensured the initiative was fast tracked with government funding support. It offers one-stop shop for both employers and employees, which not only acts as an information source but also provides a portable skills registry.

It is also important to try to remove some of the hurdles for future employees, be they short term casuals or those wanting a longer-term career.

Short term workers are useful for some purposes and JobSeeker applicants can fill employment gaps.

Working around this was one of the recommendations in the National Agriculture Workforce Strategy, so we feel it is important to keep the pressure up on this issue.

Overarching all these efforts must be the push for recognition of dairy, and more broadly agriculture, as an important and valuable industry.

Wanting to be part of a vibrant industry will only add to the other initiatives in terms of attracting employees.

While as the ADF we are taking the lead, we also need help from dairy farmers across the nation.

To find the best solutions, we need input to the collection of employment statistics and modelling, which will help set the scene for future policy development and the creation of employment programs.

WHAT WE ARE DOING

  • Working with government through NFF on an agricultural visa for dairy workers
  • Pushing educators to offer “bite size” learning for workers with short-leave period
  • Lobbying for JobSeekers to fill dairy employment gaps at no risk to their benefits
Misc

Time to talk about reforming culture in the dairy industry

October 1, 2020

We need to talk about culture.

In fact, far too often I find myself discussing with friends and colleagues the negative culture in the dairy industry and what must change to improve respect and unity between us.

Just the other day, a farming leader told me he wouldn’t have my job for quids. His precise words were: “I don’t know how you put up with it.”

The industry’s culture problem is so prominent that unity is one of the three pillars of the Australian Dairy Plan, released earlier this week.

The second Dairy Plan Commitment – to attract and support new people and investment – depends on an improved industry culture.

How can we possibly hope to attract new and eager talent if the infighting continues?

I can attest from personal experience just how damaging it is to manage the current culture within the dairy industry.

How would we describe an industry culture that leads success?

Do we seek to build consensus and focus on the future, or continue to debate the past?

Do we prefer to collaborate, or is confrontation more acceptable?

Do we stop and listen or just go on the attack?

Do we think that the politics of personality is better than the politics of substance?

Do we challenge ideas or people?

Do we provide encouragement or just say nothing works?

And do we see ourselves as victims or as problem solvers?

Attacking peak bodies might be sport for some, but it comes with very real consequences for those who give their time to represent farmers and achieve real outcomes for the industry.

All the farmers who care enough about the well-being of our dairy industry to sit on the Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) national council, or our policy advisory groups, or any committees of the state dairy farmer organisations when they all have their own businesses to manage.

In the past year alone, ADF has worked with the Federal Government on a plethora of projects, including implementing a new mandatory industry code of conduct, developing a standard form contract that complies with the code, and facilitating a new blockchain and traceability system customised for the dairy industry. In the next 12 months an industry standard and trial of the blockchain and a milk trading platform will also be delivered.

We have campaigned to reclaim the label “milk” from plant-based dairy alternatives. Just last year, we requested a review of labelling and marketing of non-dairy alternatives, and development of additional regulations to prevent plant-based products from trading on the labelling, qualities and values of dairy.

We have investigated the feasibility of different market intervention mechanisms and recommended to the government that the current dairy code be extended to cover the whole supply chain, including supermarket retailers.

We have made submissions in collaboration with Dairy Australia to several inquiries, including to the Victorian Government’s $50 million Agriculture Workforce Plan and the Federal Government’s National Agriculture Workforce Strategy. The latter addressed all of dairy’s long-standing workforce issues relating to recruitment, skills and training, while the former resulted in a provision of $715,000 for Dairy Australia to deliver the Dairy Farm Induction Program.

This is a substantial work program by any measure, and one that has yielded some outstanding achievements. But if we are to continue fighting on behalf of farmers, we need farmers to stand with us, not against us.

In June, we presented to the Senate inquiry into the performance of the dairy industry since deregulation. I was proud to speak up on behalf of farmers and outline the critical issues that continue to confront many of our colleagues and has led to a disheartening number of dairy farmers making the difficult decision to leave the industry in recent years.

But I was saddened by the conduct, and personal attacks, I witnessed during the last Senate hearings a couple of weeks ago.

We want an industry culture that makes people proud to belong to the dairy industry. Because that’s how you attract new people into representative positions.

Not through continual criticism and personal attacks. Everyone who works in this industry is human, and the culture of negativity has a deep and lasting impact on all of us.

I want new people – people of any age and background – to join us in representing dairy farmers. But why would they want to if all they can look forward to is being targeted on social media?

Before we can champion these new dairy advocates, we first need to lead by example. We must be able to disagree and debate with respect and provide constructive feedback rather than harsh putdowns.

There is a destructive culture eating away at our industry. And it needs to stop, if not for us, then for the next generation.

Uncategorized

The digital revolution has arrived: Dairy must embrace technology to stay ahead of the competition

September 1, 2020

We are experiencing a revolution in digital technology and dairy needs to seize every opportunity we get.

A 2017 report by McKinsey and Company estimated that digital technology could contribute somewhere between $140 and $250 billion to Australia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2025 based on currently available technology alone.

For dairy, the Precision to Decision Agriculture Project, which included Dairy Australia, estimated an additional $497 million or 15 per cent to its Gross Value of Production (GVP). Three years later, we now have a commitment to realise this opportunity.

But digital is not limited to just information technology (IT) infrastructure, nor is it focused narrowly on an online/mobile presence. It is an integrated set of opportunities leveraging technologies ranging from automation and advanced analytics through to agile methodologies and customer-centric product and experience design.

At or near the digital frontier is a cluster of high-tech, knowledge-intensive service industries: IT, financial, professional and administrative services. Closing the gap between dairy and these sectors requires government and industry to address a number of issues around poor telecommunications, privacy and security concerns, capital constraints in agricultural businesses, and capability and time limitations.

Broadband and Internet of Things (IoT) network infrastructure is essential to fully realise the potential of a ubiquitously connected landscape, enable access to large data loads, use of digital imagery and real time controls around autonomous vehicles.

Telecommunication providers and the Federal Government’s Mobile Blackspot Program, National Broadband Network and Regional Connectivity Program are expanding the quality and reach of internet connectivity in regional areas. These are being supplemented by a range of low-power wide-area networks (LPWANs) and other smaller scale networks to enable whole of landscape management and community wide data sharing at low cost.

Data privacy and security have long been complex issues. Vast amounts of personal and commercial data are being housed in a small number of internet service providers. These agencies are now the target of hackers who are increasingly demanding access to national security and commercial in confidence data and information.

While Australia has adequate privacy and security protection, industries need common, open source and secure interoperable data standards. This is a key output of Australian Dairy Farmers’ (ADF) Blockchain and Real Time Payment System project. By establishing a governance framework, farmers and processors have a greater level of assurance that their digital technology investments are secure.

Last year, Australian agriculture adopted a National Traceability Framework. This sets out a common vision, principles and responsibilities for regulated and commercial traceability systems across agriculture supply chains. The framework requires each industry to develop an action plan over the coming 12-18 months. For dairy this will require a significant degree of coordination.

Currently through SAFEMEAT, a partnership between the Australian red meat and livestock industry and state and federal governments, dairy is moving to a fully digitalised livestock traceability system. This will see national consistency in the National Livestock Identification System (NLIS), compliance and enforcement of livestock identification and movement recording and data collection and entry.

Farmers will need to adapt with forms such as National Vendor Declarations and other devices becoming electronic. A number of agencies are reasonably well advanced in this journey. For example, Dairy Food Safety Victoria is rolling out its Dairy RegTech program to Victorian dairy manufacturers in late 2020.

Demonstrating economic benefit on digital technologies is critical to accelerating adoption. Like most businesses’ farmers need to see a proven return on investment before making a capital outlay.

Agriculture Victoria is undertaking an IoT trial of 125 dairy farms in the Maffra region. This includes capturing key economic data to compare against other farms across the state who do not have the technology. Results will be publicly shared to help inform investment decisions. This is also an output of ADF’s Blockchain and Real Time Payment System project.

Economic and environmental benefit is now reasonably well established for virtual fencing. This is an animal-friendly fencing system that enables livestock to be confined or moved without using fixed fences.

The CSIRO are world leaders in this area, having delivered various R&D initiatives since 2003. They are currently collaborating with Melbourne based ag-tech start-up Agersens, universities and livestock RDCs to deliver the Virtual Herding project. This is showcasing better grazing management practices, environmental protection for example riparian areas and reduction in cost of building and maintaining fences for farmers.

So, the fourth industrial revolution is underway for the dairy industry. There is a clear shift happening from feasibility and concept to farm and supply chain adoption. The challenge for industry as it seeks a competitive advantage over international rivals is the speed and integration of uptake. Basically, the faster and more coordinated it is, the greater benefit.

Uncategorized

Stronger leadership on horizon

August 1, 2020

It won’t be an easy road to reforming dairy industry structures, but we are not shy about facing the challenge head on.

The message, delivered by more than 1500 dairy farmers and other industry stakeholders during the Australian Dairy Plan workshops last year, was crystal clear that our existing structures – which have served us well for many years – are no longer fit for purpose.

Structural reform has therefore rightly become a central component of the Dairy Plan. To address this priority, a Joint Transition Team of industry representatives was tasked with developing structural options for industry’s consideration.

They delivered a report in January which recommended creating a single, whole of industry national dairy organisation to support industry services including policy, advocacy, research and development and marketing.

But while this model provided a solid foundation from which to build a new structure, further industry consultation is needed until we can be satis ed that a proposed structure will receive support from a majority of the dairy sector.

The federal government, which collects levies from dairy farmers that help fund the current structure, will play a key role in determining whether any changes should be made. The government must be con dent there is support from industry for the proposed changes.

It is not enough to ask the government to support such significant reform to the dairy industry without demonstrating that a majority of the industry stands behind this change.

The industry, or those advocating for change, must demonstrate there has been high levels of awareness for the change, participation in a vote, and support for the proposed new structure.

The Dairy Plan partner organisations – Australian Dairy Farmers, Australian Dairy Products Federation and Dairy Australia – have now established a process intended to meet these rigorous criteria.

It is based on a phased approach that engages industry around organisational design challenges and develops a new design for industry consultation and a vote around the recommended model. This process, which began in 2019 with the work of the Joint Transition Team, has continued throughout 2020.

This year, we are establishing a pathway to reform, engaging industry and government on any reform challenges, designing options for reform operating models and conducting industry consultation on those options. A proposed model should be  finalised in 2021 for industry to vote.

An Organisational Reform Steering Committee has been formed, comprising two directors each from Australian Dairy Farmers, Australian Dairy Products Federation and Dairy Australia.

This committee will guide the pathway to reform and ensure appropriate consultation and vote prior to recommending a model. Ernst and Young and former MLA managing director David Palmer are leading the coordination, engagement and design efforts.

Three working groups have also been established to further support industry engagement.

One will be dedicated to exploring the potential involvement of dairy processors in a single industry body, including how a fully transparent financial contribution may work for mutual benefit.

Another will consider issues around governance, including how decisions should be made in a reform model that represents all sides of the dairy industry.

And the last will look at representation, such as how to strengthen advocacy without compromising delivery of research, development and extension via a single levy, while still ensuring there is a strong capacity to proactively participate in cross-commodity issues at both a state and federal level.

David Palmer is conducting listening meetings with all recognised leadership groups and capturing key principles and design input from the regions.

Assuming there is adequate support for a new structure, any plans for implementation will require close engagement with the federal government and all affected industry organisations. Legal, financial, and governance considerations must be fully explored.

This is a long, complicated process and should not be underestimated by anyone.

But our aim is to deliver lasting reform that will deliver stronger leadership, a uni ed industry voice, create a single point of contact for all industry services, deliver stronger industry funding, and ensure regional interests directly shape industry policy and advocacy.

Uncategorized

A dairy industry in recovery

July 1, 2020

I’m feeling confident about the future of the Australian dairy industry. Yes, there are a lot of issues affecting us, such as the lingering impact of drought, production costs, discount dairy products, the misleading labelling of non-dairy alternatives as “milk”, and shifts in the global market.

But if there is one thing the COVID-19 pandemic has showed us, with all the panic buying that occurred earlier this year, it is that dairy will always be a staple household item.

And it appears confidence is rising across the industry. The National Dairy Farmer Survey, conducted annually by Dairy Australia, has confirmed that farmer confidence in their own businesses and the future of the Australian dairy industry as a whole has risen over the past 12 months.

While overall confidence remains lower than in 2018 and 2017, 44 per cent of farmers reported feeling good about the future of the industry. This is a marked improvement from last year, when just 34 per cent felt positive about the industry’s future in the survey’s worst ever result, but still far below the historic high of 78 per cent recorded in the 2008 survey, before the Global Financial Crisis.

Even more encouragingly, more than two thirds of farmers surveyed (67 per cent) reported feeling positive about their businesses, a massive 22 per cent jump from last year. This is the highest level reported since Dairy Australia started measuring own business sentiment in 2017.

We can feel buoyed by the fact that there has been an improvement in farmer sentiment on every score since last year, when the ballooning cost of feed and water eroded farm profitability despite stronger than average opening milk prices.

Nearly two thirds of farmers surveyed in 2019 said they were concerned about the cost and availability of feed, while just 43 per cent expect to make an operating profit.

Encouragingly, 70 per cent of farmers surveyed this year expected to make a profit, while 48 per cent of farms anticipated an increase in production volumes for the year ending June 2020.

Significantly more farmers in all but one region reported that they were expecting higher profits in 2020 than have been achieved on average over the past five years. Unsurprisingly, regions with the largest share of profitable farmers also reported the highest levels of confidence in their own business.

All of this comes even as prolonged drought, bushfires and high feed and water costs continued to be major concerns prior to the survey. It seems that farmers are ready to invest in their businesses, buoyed by a favourable start to the season.

As has been reported, these statistics show a dairy industry in recovery, although it is unclear whether this confidence will continue to grow in a post-pandemic environment.

What has been confirmed by Dairy Australia’s June Situation & Outlook Report is that demand for dairy remained strong during the panic buying that accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic.

But while farmers are feeling more positive about their individual businesses, there has only been a modest boost in confidence since last year for the future of the industry. Last year, just 34 per cent of farmers surveyed felt optimistic about the industry’s future – the worst result in the survey’s history.

While there has been a 10 per cent jump in overall confidence this year to 44 per cent, there is still a long way to go before we can approach pre-GFC levels of confidence.

That is the challenge facing the Australian Dairy Plan. A confident industry is one of the Dairy Plan’s key objectives, with a goal to boost milk production up to 9.3 billion litres per year by 2024-25. This would generate more than $600 million annually in extra value at the farm gate and stimulate the growth of at least 1,000 direct new jobs, mostly in rural and regional areas.

There are a lot of factors involved in sustaining a confident industry. But if the trend in farmer confidence continues, I have no doubt that we will go a long way towards achieving our goal over the next five years.

Uncategorized

Contract commitment: ADF developing code-compliant form

May 1, 2020

THE mandatory code of conduct has been in place for a few months now, but the real test of its effectiveness comes with the negotiation of new milk supply agreements in the lead up to the new season.

All contracts signed after January 1 this year must comply with the code, while prior agreements have 12 months to transition to become compliant.

The federal government made a commitment in the lead up to last year’s election to develop a standard form contract that meets the requirements of the mandatory code and can be used by processors and farmers in negotiating supply agreements.

The government contracted Australian Dairy Farmers to develop this template, which will provide a foundation for the obligations of both farmers and processors under the code with the least cost to industry.

Farmers and processors won’t have to spend time becoming experts in the code or contract manage- ment nor will they have to spend time developing new agreements from scratch. ey can simply adopt the template, or develop their own contract using the template as a basis.

The template will also help to resolve a number of issues identified by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in its Dairy Inquiry report.

The competition watchdog made several recommendations related to contracting practices, including that milk supply arrangements should be acknowledged in writing, processors should provide farmers with all contractual documents before the start of their contract, and that those contracts should be simplified.

Many farmers have had no contracts with their processors or contracts that may have contained complex terms. e new standard form contract will ensure that all farmers will have a contract with acceptable and meaningful conditions.

ADF’s goal is to ensure that farmers have a stronger bargaining position when negotiating contracts with processors. One of the key findings of the ACCC Dairy Inquiry was that contract arrangements between processors and farmers have been favourable to processors and exacerbated most farmers’ weak bargain- ing power.

The template was developed by comparing the mandatory code and other legal requirements to current contracts in the marketplace. It will be made widely available on the internet for anyone wanting to use the contract or even to compare with their own milk supply agreements.

Of course, ADF expects that many farmers will have questions about the template and it will seek to answer those through a series of webinars and other online tutorials.

The past few years have been difficult for the dairy industry, underscored by diminished trust between farmers and processors.

One of the key commitments of the Australian Dairy Plan is to improve trust and transparency along the dairy supply chain.

The new standard form contract will help this pro- cess. ADF will be encouraging farmers and processors to use this template and seek further information from ADF, either by attending one of the information sessions when they are organised or by contacting ADF’s office.

Uncategorized

ADF clarifies comments on Murray Darling Basin Plan

October 11, 2019

ADF welcomes the opportunity to respond to questions around our recent Dairy Insight column in the Stock & Land and other newspapers.

The situation facing farmers in the Murray Darling Basin must be addressed before we lose more farmers. Fodder and water are trading at untenable prices
and we recognise the impact at the family, farm and community level.

All dairy farmers can rest assured that ADF continues with its proud 77 year history of passionately representing the interests of dairy farmers.

The objective of the column was to share a view that drought is the major factor impacting on basin communities, including of course dairy farmers.

ADF has a long-standing position not to abandon the Murray Darling Basin Plan.

We have stayed firm in fighting to stop the federal government from buying back water once 1500GL has been recovered, as stated in the Water Act.

We have also urged that any plan to drain an extra 450GL from the Basin for the environment must be viewed as a last resort and only if there are neutral
or positive, NOT negative, socio-economic impacts. This means a cost-benefit analysis and consideration of any future effects on communities.

ADF has also supported the ACCC investigation of the water market to validate assumptions of water use along the Murray River system, including irrigation
and environmental demand and the impact of constraints, and to ensure greater transparency in water trading.

The Murray Darling Basin is home to around 1,330 dairy farm businesses with a value of production worth more than $2.6 billion, supporting over 3,000 direct
jobs in the region. Dairy sits at the heart of the Basin community.

ADF continues to urge state and federal governments to consider any impacts the Basin Plan may have on dairy jobs and local communities.

But while this is paramount, we also urgently need an agreement between commonwealth and state governments to provide a national approach to drought preparation,
response and recovery.

Uncategorized

Pausing the Basin Plan misguided

October 10, 2019

Angst in Murray Darling Basin over skyrocketing water prices is now at fever pitch.

Many groups are advocating for change to the Basin Plan. The Victorian Nationals want to terminate the additional 450 gigalitre (GL) recovery target. Some
farmer groups in the Southern Riverina and northern Victoria want the plan paused or their state governments to withdraw. Members of NSW Farmers Association
passed a motion at their July conference to lobby the federal government to hold a Royal Commission into the Basin Plan.

But while such decisions are being made in response to issues with the Plan, especially an assumption that it is responsible for many areas of the Basin
now having zero water allocation, a solution is not as simple as pausing the Basin Plan.

The dairy industry has largely supported the Basin Plan, mainly because it is underpinned by science and economics. A plan that ensures a balance between
irrigation and water required to maintain river, wetland and floodplain health is not just necessary, it is good policy.

The Australian Dairy Industry Council (ADIC) has argued through countless submissions to government that for the Basin Plan to have the most impact, the
acquisition of water for environmental use must always be rooted in scientific and economic evidence.

Not only that, but the government must also ensure an open and efficient water trading market, coordination between water recovery programs such as irrigator
buybacks and infrastructure reform, respect for individual property rights, and consultation with affected communities.

Investors, especially, have copped blame for driving up the price of water in an already stressed market.

In recent months, horticulture groups have urged Minister Littleproud to put a temporary ban on investors buying water and holding on to it for the next
year. The government responded by announcing the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) will investigate markets for tradeable water
rights in the Basin.

The ADIC has not joined this push to ban the Basin Plan or investors. Water policy experts, including Aither, have found the market to be working effectively
and that high prices are the result of high demand and low supply caused by persistently dry conditions and below average rainfall.

Ultimately it is the devastating impact of drought that is most responsible for rising water prices.

Over the past 30 months, many parts of the Basin have received the lowest rainfall on record, particularly around the Border Rivers – a trend that is set
to continue in 2019-20 given the Bureau of Meteorology’s forecast of below average inflows.

It is important to remember that water prices during the Millennium Drought in the early 2000s, prior to the Basin Plan, were significantly higher than
they are now.

For most of that dark period allocation prices in the Southern Basin were over $500 per megalitre (ML), while in June 2007 it peaked at a whopping $1,400/ML
in the Murrumbidgee.

To put this in perspective, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARES) is predicting an average annual water price of $473/ML
in 2019-20 for the Murray trading zones.

While this is not good news, the best chance to increase water availability and lower water prices in the Basin is for the federal government to get behind
large scale water supply projects to safeguard industries and Basin communities from drought and decline.

The ADIC has requested the government to commission the CSIRO to develop a transformational water supply blueprint for Australian agriculture.

The government, meanwhile, has announced the development of a National Water Grid to bring together water experts, scientists and economists to look at
how large-scale water diversion projects could deliver reliable and cost-effective water to farmers and regional communities.

Ultimately, it is not the answer to simply abandon the Basin Plan. The dairy industry, together with the National Farmers’ Federation, other farmer groups,
and federal government, are working to relieve pressure on irrigators while ensuring a healthy river system.

– Terry Richardson, ADF President

Uncategorized

Australia’s climate change policy needs to focus on a global response

May 27, 2019

Australia’s climate change policy has revolved around whether the climate is changing, to what extent has it been human induced and the country’s response,
by way of an emissions reduction target. These issues were front and centre during the election campaign, with all political parties providing the
electorate with vastly different policy approaches to consider. The problem with this debate is it has focused narrowly on what Australia is doing.
It has completely ignored the role of other nations and Australia’s role in influencing their positions, in particular those countries who are underperforming
or not participating.

The climate is changing, and humans are responsible for some of it
 
 The International
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and many other scientists across the globe, have demonstrated that the earth’s climate is changing. In their 2013 report
they found surface warming increase of 0.85 °C from 1880 to 2012, ocean warming by 0.11°C per decade from 1971 to 2010 and global average sea level
risen at the rate of 1.7 mm/year between 1901 and 2010. The panel attributed these changes to the earth’s nature weather cycle in addition to atmospheric
concentrations of human induced greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide increasing by 40 per cent since 1750.
The consequences of climate change vary depending on location. Rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns and more frequent extreme weather events
like heat waves will occur across the globe as temperatures increase. Some countries like Russia may benefit while others like Bangladesh will be severely
impacted. Generally, countries closest to the equator will be most negatively impacted and less developed or low-income countries will have the lowest
adaptive capacity.
 
The Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Coalition Governments have been acting on climate change
 
 In December 2015,
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement was signed by 196 countries, including Australia under the Abbott
Coalition Government, to combat climate change. The agreement aims to keep global warming below 2°C from pre-industrial levels through nationally determined
contributions (NDCs) to emission reductions. An NDC is a country’s statement on what emissions reduction target it is setting, how it intends to achieve
it, what adaptation measures it will be pursuing and from 2020, report progress. The agreement also aims to significantly strengthen national adaptation
efforts by enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change.
Under the agreement Australia, which is responsible for 1.45 per cent of total global emissions, set itself a target of reducing 26-28 per cent CO2-e below
2005 levels by 2030. This is comparable with most countries with similar or higher polluting profiles. The United States of America (12.1% of total
emissions), Japan (2.82%), Canada (1.96%), Indonesia (1.49%) and Mexico (1.27%) are all in the 25-30 per cent reduction range. Brazil (5.7%) and South
Korea (1.28%) are higher at 37 per cent and the EU (8.97%) is the highest at 40 per cent. The key concerns are China (23.75%) who are allowed to increase
pollution to 2030, India (5.73%) who have an emissions intensity target translating to a significantly lower target than other G-20 countries, and
other smaller countries who are not signatures to the agreement.
The Australian Government has been delivering various emission reduction initiatives to achieve its international targets. Under its flagship $2.55 billion
Emissions Reduction Fund, a policy implemented by Tony Abbott as Prime Minister, has delivered over 700 emission reduction projects. These have reduced
over 190 million tonnes of CO2-e from the Australian economy. As a result, the government’s review of its climate change policies found Australia to
be on track to meet its Paris Agreement target and its second Kyoto Protocol target (another emissions reduction agreement), which requires emissions
to be reduced by 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. This follows Australia exceeding its first Kyoto Protocol target to limit emissions to 108 per
cent of 1990 levels over the period 2008–2012 by 128 million tonnes of Mt CO2-e.
The re-elected Morrison Coalition Government will continue with its current policy of meeting the 26-28 per cent it set in 2015. It will do this largely
through a $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package, which it announced on 25 February 2019. The package includes a $2 billion Climate Solutions Fund
(an extension of its original Emissions Reduction Fund), investment in energy efficiency adoption and building the Snowy 2.0 Hydro Electricity Project.
The ALP wanted stronger action on climate change through a higher emissions reduction target
 
 A Shorten Labor Government
would have committed Australia to an emissions reduction target of 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero pollution by 2050. This would of
positioned the country as having one of the highest targets in world. It was intending to do this by focusing primarily on transitioning to renewable
energy sources quicker than the government. It set a 50 per cent renewable energy adoption target by 2030 to be achieved through initiatives such as
a $2,000 rebate for solar batteries for 100,000 households and doubling the original investment in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation by $10 billion.
A higher emissions reduction target costs the Australian economy
 
 BAE Economics modelled
the economic impacts of Australia’s two emission reduction targets. They estimate:
  • Cumulative Gross Domestic Product (GDP) loss of $62 billion under the 26-28 per cent scenario versus $472 billion under the 45 per cent scenario. This
    is a significant impact given the total size of the Australian economy is $1.3 trillion.
  • Real average wages to decrease $2,000 per annum under the 26-28 per cent scenario versus $9,000 per annum under the 45 per cent scenario.
  • Full time job losses of 78,000 under the 26-28 per cent scenario versus 336,000 under the 45 per cent scenario.
  • Electricity prices, which are already at excessive highs, to increase $93/MWh under the 26-28 per cent scenario versus $128/MWh under the 45 per cent
    scenario.

The advantage for agriculture is it was to be excluded from the 45 per cent target. This significantly reduces the impact on the sector compared to
other sectors. However, agriculture would experience indirect costs passed on by those directly impacted. BAE Economics estimate that for the livestock
sector, which includes dairy, a decline between 0.7 to 2.6 in output will occur depending on the scenario.

The impact of Australia’s emission reduction target depends on responses by other countries

 The difference between the two targets of the major parties is 19 per cent. This translates to 0.27 per cent of total global emissions
(based on Australia’s current 1.45 per cent contribution). Assuming all countries remain the same by way of emissions, the impact of this on the
climate is negligible. If other countries were to increase their emissions, then Australia would be in deficit both in terms of environmental and
economic impact.

Australia’s politicians are ignoring the benefits and issues with the Paris Agreement

While global aggregate emission levels resulting from NDCs are expected to be higher over the reporting period, their implementation will lead to sizeably
lower aggregate global emission levels than in pre-NDC trajectories. Unfortunately, estimated aggregate annual global emission levels resulting
from implementation of NDCs do not fall within the scope of least-cost 2°C scenarios by 2025 and 2030 (a key target in the agreement). However,
by lowering emissions below pre-NDC trajectories, the NDCs contribute to lowering the expected temperature levels until 2100 and beyond.

Despite these achievements there are significant concerns surrounding the consistency, fairness and compliance with the Paris Agreement. Each country
is required to submit its NDC every five years from 2015 to 2030. Based on the 2015 reporting:

  • Only 174 countries have submitted their NDCs. Of these submissions 161 were submitted on time. This leaves 22 countries without an NDC.
  • There is significant variation in each country’s emission reduction targets – type and number.
  • Reporting processes not only vary but are inadequate in terms of specificity, coverage and transparency/comparability.

Australia needs to advocate for improvement to the Paris Agreement and adoption of a standardised emissions reduction target for all countries

Climate change is a global problem requiring a global solution that is fair and equitable. This translates to all countries participating and adhering
to a standardised policy framework. There should be one emission target type applied across all countries with calculation based on a ratio of
total emissions (total Mt CO2-e) and wealth (nominal GDP). It should not be up to one country like Australia to run down its economy to achieve
an aspirational target while others do nothing or worse, continue to increase emissions in the pursuit of economic prosperity. Adopting a standardised
approach ensures the policy response is not only effective (at achieving the 2°C cap) but proportionate to who is causing the problem and their
capacity to pay.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 … 23 24
About ADF
Cart Overview