Diversity—The Hallmark of Australia’s Agricultural Competitiveness, ABCA

At ABCA

http://www.abca.com.au/coexistence/

Diversity of crops and production processes have always been a hallmark of Australian agricultural competitiveness, and it will continue to be so for decades to come. Such competitiveness rests with a broad coalition of farmers and farmer groups, whatever crop or production methods best suits their individual circumstances and the agricultural challenges they face.

This diversity empowers both consumer choice and the quality and value that Australian consumers have come to expect. We support Australian farmers’ freedom of choice whatever they choose to plant, and this principle extends to those growing organic, GM or ‘conventional’ crops.

GM canola in Australia

Benefits

GM and non-GM canola can be grown side-by-side successfully and productively without creating marketing issues.


With 5 years of growing GM canola in Australia, there has not been one incident across over 3 million tonnes of canola delivered domestically, or over 10 million tonnes delivered internationally, where an end user (seed crusher / oil or meal buyer, or food/feed manufacturer) has not received what they had ordered in terms of the GM status.


This demonstrates that the Australian seed and grain industry has the capacity to, and is delivering, market choice.


Issues associated with coexistence are not unique to GM and organic farming.

Commodity segregation is managed in different forms across the entire agriculture sector. All farming systems need to continue working in harmony to ensure that no farmer is exposed to unnecessary economic risk because of unreasonable commodity standards.

Challenges

Of course, there will be challenges along the way, and informed discussion is needed to ensure that any decisions take into account the best possible information available, evidence based science, and public and stakeholder views. The court case that is taking place in Western Australia is one such challenge. As this court case begins we discuss some elements of the case, the farmers themselves and what we believe the case is actually about.

At face value, this case is about a civil dispute between two neighbouring farmers, Steve Marsh and Mick Baxter. The case is new and its circumstances unique, but the central questions that the Supreme Court will rule upon are actually quite straightforward –  the merits of the case will be judged fairly for both farmers, whatever is being said outside of the courtroom. Certainly, the case has attracted much attention in traditional and social media not just in Australia but around the World.


Our View

Australian farmers are the backbone of the Australian agricultural economy and, in this light, when it is one agricultural professional vs. another, farmer vs. farmer, family vs. family, there are no winners.

The case itself is regrettable. We feel it should not have come to this as legal action is damaging all around and more should have been done to prevent this situation. This is not the way forward for sustainable Australian agriculture.

Fairness is an important principle for all farmers. After this case is concluded farmers will go on with their business of providing food, feed, and export earnings for Australia. At the political level, discussions between state and federal representatives of stakeholders may be promoted to seek ways of preventing this type of action in the future. It may be one positive outcome of this case, the chance to reaffirm the regulatory standards in place and address inconsistencies in criteria that precipitated this case in the first place. The Australian agricultural system, its diversity, choice and quality for all, will prevail.

@ ABCA Coexistence: