Adoption of

Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture

Part 1: Case Studies from Australian and New Zealand Farms

A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation by Genevieve Carruthers, Environmental Systems SpecialistNSW Agriculture

Publication Number: 03/121

iii

Adoption of

Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture

Part 1: Case Studies from Australian and New Zealand Farms

A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

by Genevieve Carruthers, Environmental Systems SpecialistNSW Agriculture

Publication Number: 03/121

ii iii

© 2003 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation All rights reserved.

ISBN 0 642 58687 XISSN 1440-6845

Adoption of Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture—Part 1: Case studies from Australian and New Zealand FarmsPublication No. 03/121Project No. DAN-187A

The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of persons consulted. RIRDC shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person who relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report.

This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact the Publications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186.

Researcher Contact DetailsGenevieve CarruthersEnvironmental Systems SpecialistWollongbar Agricultural InstituteNSW AgricultureBruxner HighwayWollongbar NSW 2477

Phone: 02 6626 1237Fax: 02 6628 3264Email: genevieve.carruthers@agric.nsw.gov.au

RIRDC Contact DetailsRural Industries Research and Development CorporationLevel 1, AMA House42 Macquarie Street BARTON ACT 2600PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604

Phone: 02 6272 4819Fax: 02 6272 5877Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au.Website: http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Published in October 2003Designed and typeset by the RIRDC Publications UnitPrinted on environmentally friendly paper by Union Offset Printing, Canberra

ii iii

The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) has prioritised research on Environmental Management Systems (EMS). In 1999 the Corporation provided most of the funding for a national workshop on EMS in Agriculture held at Ballina, NSW. RIRDC was also a major sponsor of the National EMS in Australian Agriculture Conference, held in November 2001.

At the workshop, delegates said they wanted to know how a farmer might develop and implement an EMS, and to learn how such implementation might provide benefits for the farm business. They wanted to know what the environmental outcomes might be, and whether using the EMS process would actually help address the many environmental issues facing Australian agriculture. Consequently, RIRDC funded these case studies to begin to answer these and other questions.

This publication records interviews conducted with 40 farmers and farm managers in Australia and New Zealand. Some had adopted a recognised EMS process using the specifications of the internationally recognised Standard for EMS, ISO 14001. Others used less formal approaches. Benefits and costs were diverse, as were motivations for adopting environmental management approaches. All had made progress in addressing the environmental issues faced in managing their farms. A second publication by the author will provide an analysis of these case studies.

As EMS adoption is in the early stages worldwide in agricultural industries, this study provides an important benchmark for future EMS implementation on farm. It also provides a number of important pointers for support of farmers who wish to utilise EMS as a management tool in the future.

This project was funded from RIRDC Core Funds provided by the Federal Government and is an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1000 research publications It forms part of the Resilient Agricultural Systems R&D program, which aims to foster the development of agri-industry systems that have sufficient diversity, integration, flexibility and robustness to be resilient enough to respond opportunistically to continued change.

Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website:§ downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/reports§ purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop

Simon HearnManaging DirectorRural Industries Research and Development Corporation

Foreword

iv v

Acknowledgments

Many people have made this publication possible. Firstly, I would like to thank the farmers and farm managers who devoted so much time to the interview process and the subsequent checking of stories and data produced. Their efforts in contributing to improved environmental outcomes in the Australian agricultural landscape are to be applauded, and their generosity, experience and assistance is very gratefully acknowledged. The participating farmers and farm managers were:

Cecil Camilleri (Yalumba Wines)Chris and Christine Gillam (Gillam Farms)David Ingerson (Ingerson Citrus)David McLeod (Boen Boe)Frank and Dianne Sciacca (Pacific Coast Bananas)Geoff Kingston (NAPCo.)Jim McDonald (Red Braes)Julie and Neil Hamilton (Shalloch)Kevin Niemeyer (Lyndarra Farms)Kim and Dianne Diamond (Guyescliffe)Mark Taylor (Bartter Enterprises)Michael Blake (Bally Glunin Park)Mick McGinnis (Rivendell)Mike Logan and Rachel Holloway (Oakville Pastoral Company)Mike Muller (Mike Muller and Associates)Nick Gill and Peter Ashby (Southcorp Wines)Owen and Judith Ruddenklau (Garamea)Pam and Jim McGregor (Maybenup)Pat and Anne Francis (Moffits Farm)Paul and Tina Badcock (The Hermitage)Paul Ziebarth (The Gums)Peter and Janelle Witten (Witten Holdings)Peter Jones (Andamooka)Peter Paradice and Paul Troja (Rockdale Feedlot)Ray Whear (Abbotsleigh Citrus)Rob Wilson (Wandalup Farm)Rohan Koenig (Rocky Point Prawn Farm)Ron and Suzanne Watkins (Payneham Vale)Ross Garsden and Dennis Williams (Main Camp)Ross Seagar (SoFresh). Russell Ford (Old Coree)Ruth and Phillip Paterson (Moreton Hill)Steven Mackay (Bolinda Estates)Stuart and Leanne McAlpine (Cooinda)Syd Clarke (Samara)Tony Hoksbergen and Mike Insley (Montana Wines)Trenton Hadie (Stehr Group)Virginia Brunton and Chris Miller (Eastwood Nurseries)Wesley and Pauline Giblett (Roadside)Wesley Hazell (Forest Home)

iv v

The Rural Industries Development Corporation funded this project, and contributed major sponsorship to the 1999 EMS in Agriculture Workshop, from which this project grew. It was also a major sponsor of the 2001 EMS in Australian Agriculture Conference. The assistance and support of the Corporation, particularly that of the Resilient Agricultural Systems Program Manager, George Wilson, is acknowledged. By supporting EMS research in its early days, George was one of the first R&D program managers to recognise the emerging importance of EMS to both consumers and producers. His extreme patience during the lengthy preparation of this report is especially appreciated.

NSW Agriculture staff (Gioia Small, Suzanne Robinson, Chris Cole, Belinda Walker, and Genevieve Carruthers) conducted the interviews. These people and Gavin Tinning (NSW Agriculture) wrote the stories in collaboration with the farmers. Gioia Small produced the maps for all stories. Genevieve Carruthers edited and finalised all stories and wrote the associated chapters.

Wendy Dingle, Lyn Cullen, Narelle Tomlinson, Jim Hindmarsh (all NSW Agriculture staff), and Brigita Arrowsmith (Southern Cross University) assisted in typing interviews, entering data and producing figures. Lyn Cullen, Wendy Dingle, Jillian Cooke, Nina Cannell, and Gavin Tinning assisted with proof reading the stories. Christine Vines, Wendy Dingle, Jenny Grant (all NSW Agriculture) and Carol Reeve, Merryn West and Cecile Ferguson (all of RIRDC) did a fantastic job with the formatting and compilation of the final document. Their patience and tolerance are very gratefully acknowledged. Kay Hindmarsh provided valuable editorial and proof reading services in addition to giving a producers’ perspective on the document.

John Fisher, (NSW Agriculture), Philippa Rowland (AFFA), Thea Mech (CSIRO), Di Bentley (Liverpool Plains Land Management Inc.) and John Shenot (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) all provided comments on earlier drafts of this document. Their input is gratefully acknowledged.

Finally, thanks to Phillip, Aaron and Georgia for putting up with all the lost evenings and weekends.

Genevieve Carruthers Environmental Systems SpecialistNSW Agriculture

September 2003

vi vii

vi vii

Contents

Foreword iii

Acknowledgments iv

Introduction ix

Queensland

Abbotsleigh Citrus 1Wainui Feedlot (NAPCo.) 6Pacific Coast Bananas 13Bolinda Estates 20Rocky Point Prawn Farm 25Rivendell 30Lyndarra Farms 36The Gums 40

New South Wales

Red Braes 47Andamooka 52Oakville Pastoral Company 58Main Camp Holding Pty. Ltd. 64Samarra - Dairy farming 76Rockdale Feedlot 80Old Coree – Rice Growing 85Boen Boe Stud 89Eastwood Nurseries 94Bartter Enterprises 101

Victoria

Bally Glunin Park 109Moffitts Farm 115Witten Holdings 122

South Australia

Southcorp 127Yalumba Wines 132Stehr Group 137Ingerson Citrus 141

viii ix

Tasmania

Forest Home 145Moreton Hill 154The Hermitage, Roxford and Lornebrook 161

Western Australia

Guyescliffe 167Cooinda 171Gillam Farms 176Roadside 180Maybenup 184Payneham Vale 189Wandalup Farms 195

New Zealand

Shalloch 201Garamea 207Montana Wines 212Mike Muller and Associates 217The SoFresh Group 222

Appendices

1: Environmental Management Systems Case Study Questionnaire 227 2: Glossary 236 3: References 237

viii ix

Introduction

The application of environmental management systems (EMS) on farms is in its infancy worldwide, despite the wider application of the process in other industry sectors. For many people, both in Australia and overseas, the concept of applying a management process to natural resource management on-farm is foreign; uncertainty and scepticism of improved environmental outcomes are common. Application of EMS processes typically within the secondary industry sector has led to a perception by some in agricultural industries that use of EMS on farms is “beyond farmers”, “too hard”, “too complex” or “too expensive”. Interestingly, many of the same perceptions were also been expressed about the application of EMS in the industrial sector in earlier times (see Corbett and Kirsch, 2000, Andrews et al., 2001).

Much of the uncertainty regarding benefits and costs of EMS implementation on-farm comes from a lack of information regarding the use of EMS in agriculture – an issue this research aimed to address.

Information on the use of EMS in the past has largely come from the secondary industry sector, or from large companies (Johannson, 2002). The associated performance measures and analysis of outcomes have therefore concentrated on issues and metrics that are pertinent to those industries and they often have limited relevance to agriculture. Many of the methods of evaluation and measurement that might be used to evaluate effects of EMS within a business may not be appropriate for agriculture, but this does not mean that farm businesses cannot benefit from the application of a management process. Hilary (1999) reported that EMS implementation in small to medium enterprises (SMEs) yielded real and valuable benefits. Farms, which may rightly be regarded in many instances as ‘nano-enterprises’, should also realise benefits from EMS implementation, but these benefits may differ from those observed in secondary industry application.

In Australia, a national workshop examining the use of EMS in agriculture (funded by NSW Agriculture, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Land and Water Australia, and others) was held in 1999 at Ballina, NSW. This was the first time that Australian agricultural stakeholders had gathered to discuss the implications of EMS implementation on Australian farms (Carruthers and Tinning, 1999). The use of EMS in Australian agriculture has since gained international attention, with Australia recognised by many as a world leader in the application of the EMS process to farms.

At the Ballina meeting, a range of questions regarding the value of using this process on-farm was raised. The questions included the motivations for EMS adoption, benefits, and costs arising from implementation of an EMS, and methods and information available to support farmers wishing to use an EMS approach.

x xi

The case studies detailed in this publication were developed to meet the expressed desire of the 1999 workshop delegates for information about the application of EMS to farming enterprises. Does the use of EMS help farmers manage better? Are there any differences between using an EMS and addressing environmental issues in other ways? Are there market advantages to be gained? How do farm managers go about developing and implementing their EMSs and where do they get help? What does implementing an EMS cost? What are the environmental outcomes that arise? What benefits accrue to the business?

One central question addressed by this study was “Does using an EMS add anything to existing farm management, where the farmer is already operating at a recognised ‘higher’ level of environmental stewardship than their peers”?

A second publication Adoption of Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture Part 2: Analysis by Genevieve Carruthers, RIRDC Publication Number 03/122 will provide an overall analysis of these case studies.

What is an EMS?

A business, or other organisation, implements an EMS in order to improve the way it manages the environmental impacts under its control. In many regards, an EMS is a vehicle for moving information around inside a business or entity, so that better decisions can be made (Sheldon and Yoxon, 1999). An environmental management system (EMS) is a process designed to:

§ assist with the recognition of environmental impacts, compliance issues, risks and liabilities

§ develop an environmental policy that clearly states the aspirations, methods and timeframes to address these impacts

§ gather and refine the information and data needed to meet the policy aspirations§ review and evaluate management choices in the light of whether the outcomes

achieved met those specified within the environmental policy.

The EMS process has been codified in two cases into internationally recognised documents, the ISO 14000 series (of which the ISO 14001 Standard provides the specifications for developing an EMS, and against which certification can occur) and the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), an European Union regulation. Only ISO 14001 can be used in Australia for certification purposes, as the use of EMAS is limited to EU countries on a site-specific basis. The Australian and New Zealand Standard for EMS, AS/NZS 14001: 1996, is identical to that recognised internationally and known as ISO 14001, and defines an EMS as:

“The part of the overall management system that includes organisational structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures and resources for developing implementing, achieving, reviewing and maintaining the environmental policy” (Standards Australia, 1996).

ManagementReview

EnvironmentalPolicy

Checking &Corrective Action

Implementation& Operations

Planning

CONTINUOUSIMPROVEMENT

Monitoring & MeasurementNonconformance & Preventative & & Corrective ActionRecordsEMS Audit

Environmental Management ProgramEnvironmental Aspects & PlanningLegal & Other requirementsObjectives & targets

Structure & ResponsibilityTraining Awareness &CompetenceCommunicationEMS DocumentationDocument ControlOperational ControlEmergency Preparedness& Response

Figure 1. The EMS cycle

x xi

This Standard forms part of a larger series of documents, known as the ISO 14000 series, which provide guidance and tools for addressing environmental impacts and issues. ISO 14001 is a voluntary Standard. It is recognised and accepted in over 170 countries of the world. Panayotou (2001) points out that many countries which market products internationally find it easier to gain recognition for their environmental management efforts when they use internationally recognised standards for certification, rather than domestic standards. This is particularly the case where the domestic environmental performance standards are perceived to be ‘weak’ compared to international competitors standards. Use of such an internationally recognised process may well be crucial in order to gain credibility for ‘clean, green’ claims for goods entering an international marketplace, such as Australian agricultural commodities.

An EMS is an on-going cycle of planning, implementing, reviewing and improving the processes and actions that a business or organisation undertakes to meets both its own desired, and where applicable, externally legislated or regulated, environmental obligations and aspirations. An EMS features a process of continuous improvement, and is based on management principles that are common across a range of management areas such as quality, occupational health and safety, and financial factors. The EMS management cycle and constituent elements are depicted in the figure below.

xii xiii

Certifications against the ISO 14001 Standard worldwide numbered over 22,000 in 2000 (ISO, 2000). By August 2000, 205 of the certifications recorded worldwide were in agricultural or fishing businesses (ISO, 2000), growing from 16 in 1998. Australia in 2000 had 341 new certificates issued (for a total of 1049), ranking it sixth in the world behind Japan, UK, Sweden, USA and the Netherlands. In 2002, there were over 30, 300 organisations throughout the world with a certified EMS (Morrow and Rondinelli, 2002; Babakri et al., 2003). It is important to note however that not all businesses achieving certification to ISO 14001 make this information available to the ISO, and so these numbers are likely to be under-estimates. In addition, businesses using the ISO 14001 process may also choose not to undertake third-party auditing and certification, while still operating a successful EMS. Such implementation rates are more rapid than those noted for the adoption of the international Standards for quality assurance (the ISO 9000 series), another series of internationally recognised management standards comparable to the ISO 14001 approach. Corbett and Russo (2001) observed that while ISO 9000 series generated 28,000 registrations in the first six years of use, the ISO 14000 series had 23,000 registration within the first four years. Corbett and Russo (2001) therefore suggested that ISO 14000 adoption globally will proceed at a greater pace than the ISO 9000 series. This may be because the ISO 9000 ‘paved the way’ and introduced businesses globally to a process approach to management that has been included (and some say, enhanced) in the ISO 14000 series.

Study Methods

Choosing case study participants

Potential case study participants were identified by recommendations from farmer and industry groups, state agricultural or resource conservation agency staff, certification companies and from publicity about farmers who had won environmental awards. Other areas of interest in selecting potential candidates were farm businesses making use of environmental labelling or marketing, and those who were selling into known ‘environmentally sensitive’ markets.

Criteria for inclusion in the study included the ability of the participants to demonstrate commitment to improving environmental outcomes associated with their farming activities, recognition of the environmental outcomes being achieved on the farm, and willingness to take part in the project. Some participants in the study were using the ISO 14001 Standard to guide their management, but many had never heard of the Standard. All participants had gone beyond the development of a farm plan and were actively engaged in addressing environmental issues on their farms and in their businesses.

Over 70 potential candidates were identified by this peer recommendation process and these candidates were initially interviewed by telephone to assess:

xii xiii

§ their willingness to participate§ whether or not they were using some form of farm plan§ the issues addressed in that plan§ environmental issues facing the farm§ potential and actual impacts of farming operations on the environment§ how these impacts had been recognised§ whether there was a formal environmental policy statement (either written or

verbal)§ what monitoring was being undertaken to assess progress towards the stated goals§ how such monitoring was being used in decision making§ whether the interviewee or farm staff members was involved in any farming,

industry or research groups.

From candidates selected for the initial interview, 40 were chosen for the full interview process. Of these, 35 farms were in Australia and 5 in New Zealand. Of the participants, 17 were using a formal EMS approach based on ISO 14001 or related systems (hereafter referred to as “EMS farms”). The other participants were addressing environmental matters in other ways, using various environmental management programs (hereafter referred to as “EMP farms”) that did not include all elements regarded as ‘systems’ elements in their overall management approach.

Final participants were selected on a number of criteria, including:

§ their ability to clearly articulate, or provide a written version of, an environmental policy for their business

§ the degree to which they were applying a ‘systems process’ to their farm management

§ the application of an assessment ‘process’ to identify environmental issues of concern (both on-farm and in the local area)

§ the use of monitoring to assess progress towards goals§ the use of some form of review process to evaluate progress§ their willingness to participate in the trial§ their availability for interview§ the level of development of their environmental management system or program§ the range of enterprises pursued.

Selection of the final list of participants also considered State and industry sector to include as wide a range of locations and industry types as possible. A wide range of size of operation was considered, from single operators through to large company farms.

xiv

Interviewing farmers and farm managers

Following the final selection of participants, a full interview process was undertaken. The interviewers visited the farms, and talked with as many as possible of the staff involved in the environmental management on-site. Supporting material such as environmental policies, monitoring and recording data, and any eco-labelling or marketing/promotional materials were also reviewed. The interviews were transcribed and approved by the farmers, and full stories subsequently developed. The participants approved the final stories featured in this document. In some cases, participants requested non-disclosure of some information in stories. These requests have been adhered to in the stories that follow.

The interviews aimed to determine the motivations that led the managers to adopt more formalised approaches to environmental management. Questions addressed the following issues:

§ farm history, description and location§ sources of income and mix of enterprises§ training and experience of the managers and staff (if any)§ environmental issues covered in the farm plan§ motivations for change§ management changes applied and the methods used to do so§ sources of information used§ indicators and monitoring used to assess change§ communication§ benefits and costs of changes to management§ marketing (if any) of changes made§ perceptions regarding the role of government, industry and the community§ confidence in management§ perceptions on the future direction of management.

This document provides all of the farmers’ individual stories in the form of case studies. Data from the interviews has been compiled. A forthcoming RIRDC publication Adoption of Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture Part 2: Analysis, RIRDC Publication No. 03/122, will present the analysis of all interview questions, and will provide some answers to questions posed in 1999 at the EMS workshop. It will also highlight area of further research required and suggest partial solutions to some of the issue raised by case study participants in this study.

The full questionnaire used in the study has been provided as Appendix 1 to this report. Appendix 2 provides a glossary of terms used in this publication and appendix 3 provides references cited.