|
Unité Mixte de Recherche INRA -
ENESAD |
|
Environmental Management Systems and ISO 14000 in Australia – on and off-farm implementation and policy development.
Genevieve Carruthers
Awareness and adoption of environmental management systems and farm planning approaches is growing rapidly in Australia. In part this is due to the urgent need to address resource degradation issues, but is also largely driven by the need to maintain markets in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Many Australian farms are, of necessity, operated on a low input regime. Carrying capacity is often low and thus Australian agriculture often less intensive than in many other areas of the world. Due to climatic conditions, Australian farmers often face a very different suite of environmental issues to farmers in the Northern hemisphere.
The age and low nutrient content of our soil, the harsh and unpredictable climate and lack of agricultural subsidies available to many of our competitors have forced Australian farmers to become highly efficient. Another consequence of the competition in earning income from farming is that many farm families have now become increasingly reliant on income generated off-farm.
In the past, much Australian marketing has been strongly based on Australia’s "Clean and Green" credentials. Demands for ‘proof’ of sustainable production methods are now growing worldwide and the provision of ‘proof’ seems to be driving the adoption of credible systems approaches. In many cases, overseas programs appear to have been integrated with practices that have been subsidised, and which are associated with existing structures of bureaucracy and documentation. To a great extent, Australia has not subsidised farming in the past, but rather left farmers to manage farms as they see fit. Australian farmers tend not to have a culture or mind-set which supports record keeping. Farm records are frequently used overseas as a way to demonstrate stewardship of land, but in Australia the use of such methods for demonstration of stewardship are rare. Thus, the challenges facing those trying to promote and encourage adoption of environmental management systems in agriculture are complex and stimulating, to say the least!
Australian farmers appear to face numerous barriers when considering the adoption of environmental management systems (EMS). Foremost amongst these is the perceived cost of developing EMS, and the associated record keeping. Concurrent with this is the doubtful status of market advantage for ‘environmentally sustainable’ goods. Vertical marketing chains will need to be strengthened for farmers to take full advantage of any marketing benefits that accrue from adoption of EMS. Other issues inhibiting widespread adoption of EMS by the farming sector are uncertain regulatory implications, lack of sound knowledge about EMS (both as a concept and implementation), concern about integration with other management systems (such as quality assurance), and lack of time and/or expertise for farmers to develop their own EMS approach.
Despite these constraints, it is apparent the use of EMS in Australian is growing. Several of the approaches are based on existing farm management practices, but many also incorporate ISO 14001 principles. The following information is a summary of current activity in Australian agriculture and some related industries in the adoption and implementation of environmental management systems, farm planning programs and resource management approaches. Some information about activities in New Zealand has also been included.
New South Wales (NSW)
New South Wales Agriculture first appointed an officer (Genevieve Carruthers) dedicated to the research, development and implementation of EMS for agribusiness in January 1997. It appears that NSW was the first state agriculture department to take this step in Australia. Since that time, other state agricultural departments having slowly begun appointing EMS staff, however in many cases these officers play many roles and do not always focus solely on EMS development. In addition, often these other state officers are actually working on integrated or whole farm planning approaches, rather than on EMS per se.
The first national workshop on the use of Environmental Management Systems in Australian Agriculture was held in May 26-28, 1999, at Ballina NSW. The workshop was organised by Genevieve Carruthers and Gavin Tinning of NSW Agriculture, and funded by NSW Agriculture, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Land and Water Rural Research Organisation. Several research and development corporations, certification and auditing companies, the WorldWide Fund for Nature, the Australian Fertiliser Industry group and various grower organisations also provided sponsorship.
160 delegates from all sectors of agri-industry, retail, consumer, research and certification sectors attended the workshop. For many it was their first introduction to the concepts and principles of EMS. The presence of several speakers from overseas (Canada, the UK, and New Zealand) added to the steep learning curve of delegates, as they were exposed not only to ISO 14000, but to the Ontario Farm Environmental Plan, The UK Linking Environment and Farming program, as well as to the National Association of Sustainable Agriculture Australia (NASAA) Standard for organic production. Delegates heard how to develop an EMS, what labelling requirements were allowed, how indigenous Australians felt they could contribute to sustainable land management, how partnerships could be used to further the process, the benefits of group certification and auditing requirements. However, delegates did not merely listen. Through a series of facilitated discussion groups, the issues of importance and in need of more consideration were developed over the three days. Delegates attempted to define the desirable features of any EMS, discussed whether there should be a national approach to the use of EMS in agriculture, and considered roles of various stakeholders throughout the process. A series of recommendations and agreed principles were developed (see below).
Principles
That EMS, its purpose, objectives, roles and responsibilities be clearly defined.
That international and domestic case studies, market analysis and EMS processes be documented and distributed.
That benefits and costs of an EMS to enterprise owners and the environment be defined.
That a credible inclusive process of consultation be undertaken, managed by RIRDC, to establish the level of support for EMS and the form EMS should take.
That a representative, national, funded body be established to champion EMS being introduced into agriculture.
We believe that EMS offers opportunities for advancements in agricultural sustainability & productivity. We call on industry groups to move this process forward & call on government to support partnerships to progress EMS.
That any EMS:
The proceedings may be purchased at a cost of Aus$15.00 from:
Publications Section
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
PO Box 4776
Kingston ACT 2604
Bulk orders (10 or more copies) receive a discount of 20%.
On-line ordering of the proceedings is possible through the RIRDC website www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/cat/contents.html. The proceedings may also be downloaded from this site. Search on the site for EMS to locate the proceedings.
Since the workshop, a group has now formed to examine a way forward to the development of a national approach to EMS for Australian agriculture. This group is currently chaired by Mr. Lui Marcelli of the Kondinin group, a farmer research and information exchange group with membership across the country. Whilst still in the formative stages, this group will attempt to engage farmer associations across the country, and will begin the process of setting a framework for further work in this area. It is anticipated that a number of groups will form that have a more technical focus on a number of the issues that will need to be addressed (for example – training, funding, communications etc.).
For further information contact Genevieve Carruthers, Environmental Systems
Specialist, NSW Agriculture at:
Wollongbar Agricultural Institute
Bruxner Highway
Wollongbar
NSW AUSTRALIA 2477
61 266 261 237 (ph)
61 266 283 264 (fax)
genevieve.carruthers@agric.nsw.gov.au
Genevieve Carruthers is the also project leader for a three-year pilot project to develop on-farm environmental management systems for grain farms in NSW and Queensland. It is hoped that the project will form a prototype for the rest of Australia’s grains industry. This project is one of several that have been funded by the Grains Research and Development Council of Australia, the peak research body for grains in Australia.
The project aims to incorporate all legal requirements of grain growers, as well as community expectations, agronomic best management practices and risk assessment features into workable systems approaches. While the systems developed will be aligned with ISO 14001, there is no requirement for farmers participating in the study to seek certification. In addition, features of Farm*A*Syst, the Ontario Environmental Farm Plan and the Linking Environment and Farming program will also be incorporated into the final program. Farmers are being asked to firstly identify those features that they wish to be included and secondly to trial the programs of their farms as part of their normal farming operations. Progress to date has included: a review of the environmental, social and economic issues of concern to both farmers and the wider communities of the two catchments involved in the project; the development of a self review/audit process to determine priority areas of resource management; and introductory training program development. A prototype EMS manual has been developed and will be trialed on two farms in the first half of 2000.
Mike Logan in New South Wales (1st farmer in the world to gain certification to ISO 14001, in March 1997) has highlighted the following points arising from his experience in utilising ISO 14001 on his farm. In relation to marketing, Mike believes that the three most crucial things are:
A water utility in NSW, Coleambally Irrigation Limited has recently been awarded both ISO 9002 and 14001 certification, and is believed to be the first water utility in the world to receive such certification. 11 environmental staff are employed by Coleambally Irrigation to assist with the management of land and water planning.
The Coleambally area produces $7 million worth of agricultural produce, largely grown using irrigation waters. As a result, Coleambally Irrigation Limited believes that the stage is now set for the Coleambally Farm Management package, which will assist growers in developing and implementing certified sustainable land practices, to be developed by the district’s community.
Funding the development of a land and water management plan for the area will come from both government and private sources. One of the features of the land and water management plan will be a benchmarking survey to monitor preservation of local flora and fauna. At least two threatened species, the Superb Parrot and the Southern Bell Frog are known form the area, with a further two species (the Greater Long-eared Bat and the Inland Forest Bat) believed to also be in the region.
Coleambally Irrigation is currently investigating the use of labelling to certify the area's commitment to food safety, environmental management and quality systems.
Contact Mark Bramston (mbramston@colyirr.com.au)
South Australia
Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA) is seeking funding and currently putting up several proposals in respect to EMS and is currently developing a State EMS Strategy specifically for the agricultural industry (contact: moran.paul@saugov.sa.gov.au).
The wine industry is recently employed an EMS Officer to specifically develop and implement and EMS for South Eastern Australia. This industry is seeking currently investigating industry wide adoption of EMS for all growers and processors, and this may ultimately involved ISO 14000 certification (contact: Dr. Anne-Maree Boland: Anne-Maree.Boland@nre.vic.gov.au) In addition, funding was recently received for the wine industry to establish "Viticare" a cooperative research and EMS development. Several of Australia’s major wine companies (eg. Southcorp) have been working to develop sustainable practices for widespread use within the viticulture industry and another company, "Banrock Station’ recently received an environmental award for its work in restoring degraded wetlands as part of its’ winery development. Most of the development in the wine industry may be centred on ISO 14000. Contact HughArmstrong@msn.com.au or hogan.gerard@saugov.sa.gov.au
The piggery industry in South Australia is also investigating the feasibility of introducing an EMS and ISO 14000 accreditation
The forestry, mining and petroleum and fishery industries are all currently investigating the development of EMS for their industry sectors. Early indications are that all will choose ISO 14001 as their model. For more information contacts are as follows:
Forestry (contact: www.pir.sa.gov.au).
Mining and Petroleum. (Contact: dwyer.elliot@saugov.sa.au, www.pir.sa.gov.au or stone.michael@saugov.sa.gov.au, www.pir.sa.gov.au)
Fisheries. (Contact: neveraskus.vic@sau.gov.sa.au, www.pir.sa.gov.au)
Western Australia
Activities on EMS are being largely directed by AGWEST, the state’s Department of Agriculture, but are also being followed up by the Land Management Society in that State and by a number of community groups such as the Kondinin group – a farmer directed research and education agency.
AGWEST has an agency-wide EMS working group which includes staff from the Meat, Grains, Wool, Dairy, Horticulture, Trade, Sustainable Rural Development, and Industry Protection programs. An internal policy and a range of "issues papers" on a wide range of topics are being developed. Discussions about EMS have also been held with external stakeholders - catchment groups, other agencies, grower organisations, Kondinin, Land Management Society and similar groups.
AGWEST is developing "Best Management Practice" and "Codes of Practice" with various industry stakeholders in a range of industries. Some are more advanced than others.
AGWEST are developing an "Environmental Farm Plan" - using adaptions of other examples from around the world, with a view to eventually developing an EMS product that is linked to our QA product (SQF 2000). Accommodating concepts such as hazard analysis, targets, indicators, monitoring systems, continuous improvement concepts etc into the farm plans is under consideration. AGWEST believes believe that a local product will have some advantages over the ISO system - in terms of applicability, affordability, and incorporation of sustainability principles
WA also has a quality assurance scheme (SQF 2000 – Safe Quality Food 2000) that is being used throughout Australia, predominantly with horticultural produce. Integration of EMS with SQF 2000 programs is currently under investigation.
Contact Jill Wilson: (jwilso@agric.wa.gov.au)
Victoria
Anna Ridley and Veronique Froelich, Agriculture Victoria Rutherglen are working on a project to examine the sort of EMS and how to implement and EMS that will suit the farming community in Victoria. This project is being funded by the Grains Research and Development Council, and is working collaboratively with Genevieve Carruthers in NSW, and is following similar pathways. They are encouraging farmers to establish farm policies for environmental management including principles and goals. The principles include ideals such as ‘at least partial restoring of the water balance’, ‘matching plant demands with nutrient supply’, ‘maintenance of adequate biodiversity and protection of threatened species’, ‘minimal impacts on natural ecosystems’. Farmers are also expected to identify the significant effects farm operations on the environment, allocate responsibility and commit resources to carry out an action plan of improved environmental management and develop procedures, documentation, tools and training to ensure the program is carried out properly (these could be record keeping and simple tools for monitoring performance). Finally, it is expected that farmers will review and check that the system is operating effectively.
Farmers have been presented with summarised information on a range of farm planning approaches used overseas and have been asked to choose which scheme they wish to follow. Two of the major targets to be developed from the project are a self assessment questionnaire to be used on farm and appropriate monitoring tools to help assess whether on-farm environmental performance is improving. To assist with the progress in this project, the self-assessment audit developed by NSW Agriculture has been forwarded for comment to Ann Ridley. This should provide valuable information for both projects.
Depending upon farmers’ interests and progress, the project will then possibly proceed to develop a Local Action Plan to address off-farm issues (such as rising groundwater caused by regional groundwater, adjacent irrigation areas).
Another feature of the project is to evaluate the requirements for auditing and/or certification. The project recognises the value of third-party audits for credibility for product labelling. As with the NSW Agriculture grains project, the needs of participants will be canvassed in this study to determine whether participants wish to proceed with third-party certification audits or not.
Contact Anna Ridley (ANNA.RIDLEY@NRE.VIC.GOV.AU)
Dairy processing
Bonlac Foods Limited is Australia’s leading Australian owned and controlled dairy products manufacturing and export company. The company has over 3400 dairy farmer supplier shareholders. The company generates revenue of over $1.2 billion (Australian) annually. Bonlac has gained certification to ISO 14001 at all of their Victorian plants (with systems for plants other areas under development). This has been done as a means to manage all environmental aspects of the company’s business. Existing quality and occupational health and safety management programs are integrated with the EMS programs. The decision to develop and implement EMS’s has been taken not only as a way to demonstrate due diligence with respect to environmental management of their processing plants, but also as both a way to gain market differentiation and to respond to community concerns about environmental matters generally.
Bonlac are now "closing the loop" and have commenced work on the development of on-farm EMS approaches that extend the work conducted at Bonlac’s factory sites. Six areas are seen as integral to farm EMS approaches – effluent management; water management; soil, health and pasture management; nutrient balance; native flora/fauna protection; farm roads, shedding and animal welfare. Eventually it is anticipated that Bonlac will develop a self-audit based on best management practices that will integrate with QA, occupational health and safety, animal welfare and energy management programs.
Further information about Bonlacs’ environmental management systems can be obtained from Graeme Rogers (RogersG@bonlac.com.au).
Goulburn Murray Water is another water utility that has done considerable work in developing an EMS based on ISO 14001. Originally the work commenced using British Standard 7750, and a Register of Significant Environmental Effects was developed. Since that beginning, a number of audits have been conducted, and have revealed the full extent of the environmental laws applicable to Goulburn Murray Water’s activities. In addition, a much fuller knowledge of the levels of environmental impacts and risks have been identified. Whilst the initial work appears to have been largely undertaken to protect Goulburn Murray Water from legal risk, the business is now communicating more with farmers in the catchment areas to attempt to work together to address environmental management.
Queensland
The Sustainable Industries Division (Sustainable Industries Division) is a solutions-driven Queensland Environmental Protection Agency initiative assisting Queensland industry to achieve higher levels of environmental performance while boosting profitability and competitiveness. The division does not have a regulatory role.
The SID Agribusiness and Food Processing Team will identify, or implement processes to: - value-add potential for products, manage risk areas, build strategic partnerships, encourage efficient resource use, examine and exploit market opportunities, improve profitability, minimise off-site impacts and to current and emerging social, economic and environmental factors which influence agribusiness-food chain logistics, and interactions with regional communities.
The Division has been operating for less than 12 months, and already has established partnerships with key Queensland agribusiness sub-sectors, with a range of activities underway including R&D, pilot projects, and industry workshops. Linkages are also being established with programs of other state agencies such as the Departments of Primary Industries, and Natural Resources. The Division is currently examining the possibility of supporting the on-farm grains EMS work being done in Queensland by NSW Agriculture.
An Environmental Code of Practice for all Queensland farmers was released in 1998. This has been followed up by "Farmcare: Cultivating a Better Future. A Code of Practice for Sustainable Fruit and Vegetable Production in Queensland", 1998. Whilst neither document deals greatly with EMS, they do at least provide the baseline required practices that allow farmers to demonstrate their "Duty of Care" required from all Queenslanders, with respect to natural resources. Such codes could be expanded into an EMS with some work. The need for integration of farm business and environmental issues planning is raised in both documents.
Contact: Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers Brisbane Market, Sherwood Rd. Rocklea. PO Box 19 Brisbane Market Queensland Australia 4106.
Recently in Queensland, a Shire Council development approval for a piggery and slaughterhouse included the requirement that the developer seek and obtain certification to ISO 14001 as part of the development consent. The piggery management has already decided to undertake such a move, as they were finding that pressure from overseas customers for demonstrably ‘clean, green’ produce was growing, and they saw ISO 14000 as one way to demonstrate this status. Dr Mike Spence, from the University of Southern Queensland has been working with the pork industry to develop EMS modules for piggery managers, and environmental awareness training has commenced for piggery operators throughout Queensland and NSW. Quality assurance program usage is growing rapidly in piggery operations in Australia (with most research funded through the Pork Research and Development Council).
Contact Mike Spence (spencem@usq.edu.au)
Tasmania
There has been considerable work in Tasmania lately involving purchasers from the UK requiring the use of production protocols for produce (particularly onions). The first official audits for ‘Fresh Field’ onion producers were commenced in December 1999, and are planned to be finalised by February 2000. The State government is assisting in covering audit costs for the first year of the program, and 70% of onion growers who supply Fresh Filed shave opted to have their properties audited.
There are two levels for farmers to aim at – basic and gold. Basic category farms means that 100% of criteria relating to human health and safety and 65% of criteria related to pollution, wildlife conservation and enhancement must be met. To be assigned gold status, 85% of the pollution and wildlife criteria must be met, in addition to 100% in the heath and safety areas. A bonus of $10 per tonne of onions is paid to growers participating in the scheme.
Adoption of sustainable systems approaches has been advancing in Tasmania, partly through a program known as APACE/SAFER. This program has developed a self-check list approach intended to guide farmers in identifying environmental issues they should address.
Tasmania benefits from being one of the most scenic places in Australia, and so there is much community support, and economic benefit in protecting habitats. The Tasmanian scheme could be considered as a first stage towards and EMS. It is a self-assessment questionnaire, developed initially from the LEAF program. There are 7 modules; Soil, Water, Landscape, Pests, Weeds and disease, Animal health and welfare, Enterprise management and Human resource management Questions are not scored by number but at ranked from ‘most sustainable’ to ‘least sustainable’. Many of the issues relevant to Australian agriculture have been thought through. It covers both broadacre and row cropping horticulture.
Contact Liz Bond (liz.bond@dpiwe.tas.gov.au)
Australian Capital Territory
Nothing specific to report, other than that the Territory is the home of Federal government. and thus there is much high policy development done there.
Federal/Across State Boundary Works
The Murray Darling Basin Commission Project
The Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) has recently commenced a project examining the feasibility of using certification and auditing processes in fostering the adoption of best management practices throughout the Murray Darling Basin in Australia. This area covering much of Australia’s eastern states and stretches from Queensland in the North, passes through NSW and Victoria before the two river (the Murray and the Darling) eventually run to the sea in South Australia. Therefore, many of Australia’s agricultural enterprises are affected by, and impact on the health of this riverine system. Over the years the system has become very with salinity, erosion, algae and other problems occurring over much of the length of the system. In addition, increasing competition for the use of water from the system has seen the introduction of a water use ‘cap’ and the growing use of Land and Water Management Plans to attempt to ensure the water is used sustainably. Water is also now charged for at much higher prices in the past, and this has driven a greater efficiency in use.
The MDBC project is initially targeting four major industries – cotton, viticulture, rice and dairy, and also the ‘water industry’ - public utility providers within the Basin. The project aims to:
The project is has a steering committee made up of representatives of agricultural and resource management agency staff. Genevieve Carruthers represents NSW Agriculture on this committee. The project is expected to be completed by February 2001. The project leader is Mr David Marston of Dames and Moore in Sydney, who can be reached at sydd@mail.syd.dames.com. His phone number is 61 29955 7286.
CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation)
Market research identified a role for CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) in the development of EMS for agriculture, principally in the following areas: -
CSIRO conducted a scoping study to identify the key national and international market, ESD and regulatory drivers and constraints determining the need for an internationally consistent EMS and impacting on its successful implementation. A paper entitled "Credible ‘Clean and Green’; investigation of the international framework and critical design features of a credible EMS for Australia agriculture" describing this work was published February 2000.
CSIRO has also conducted a national consumer survey to identify key consumer preferences and trends presenting future R&D challenges to the Australian food production and processing industries. This research has provided evidence of consumer trends towards a desire for food that is produced and processed using environmentally sustainable methods.Contact Kathy Heinz (Kathy.Heinze@adl.clw.csiro.au)
The Cotton Industry Efforts
The feasibility of introducing an appropriate audit and certification model to foster better management practice in natural resource management in the irrigated cotton industry.
Involvement:
Australian Cotton Growers Research Association Cotton R&D Corporation
Murray Darling Basin Commission
Oakville Pastoral Company
Objectives:
General Comments:
The focus of the study will be two-fold
A detailed analysis of the practical requirements for cotton farms to become ISO 14001 certified (drawing in particular on the experiences of Oakville Pastoral Co. in achieving ISO 14001 certification)
An assessment of the requirements, for a range of farms, to be able to meet the identified practical requirements. This assessment will be an actual assessment of cotton farms, with cotton farms with a range of management structures, crops, geographic location, size and circumstances to be surveyed.
The cotton industry has also commenced a pilot project (involving approximately 50 growers) to develop and trial the implementation of a best management practice manual that deals with the use of pesticides and herbicides. Self-assessment worksheets based on best practice guidelines (based on the Farm*A*Syst and Canadian EFP schemes). Currently the areas assessed are limited to Farm design and management, Pesticide application, Integrated pest management, Pesticide storage and handling
Development of on-farm Action Plans to address the high-risk areas. The solutions are documented as are the monitoring and review processes implemented to evaluate the effectiveness of the plans.
Further resources to assist farmers in the planning process are also listed under each self-assessment heading, including other published material and relevant legislation.
The worksheets can be audited (one farmer has been ISO 14000 certified), but the industry is only now becoming ready for this to occur. Certainly 4 years ago, the industry was not ready for auditing.
The cotton industry decided to have its initial focus on pesticides, the rationale being that this was clearly politically sensitive. The industry believed that it had more chance of gaining acceptance of the majority of farmers if it took a gradual and staged approach. Addition of other modules will occur in future. It is planned to extend the subject area to other resource management issues over time. The BMP manuals are to be aligned with the principles of ISO 14000, and options for certification and labelling of cotton grown using these protocols are under investigation. The project discussed above will of course draw upon the BMP development extensively.
Contact Allan Williams (allanw@mpx.com.au)
Developments with Agriculture Fisheries and Forests Australia (AFFA)
A discussion paper ‘Managing Natural Resources in Rural Australia for a Sustainable Future’ for developing a national policy on resource management issues has recently been released by AFFA. The paper outlines a possible overarching national policy framework for natural resource management in rural Australia and discusses sustainable natural resource management from a regional and catchment perspective. (The development of a national strategy for EMS in agriculture was one of the major reasons for holding the EMS in Agriculture workshop mentioned above in the section on NSW). The paper suggests a wider mix of policy instruments and influences to encourage improved management practices and more effective investment in rehabilitation activities. The paper also makes specific reference to the use of EMS as a suitable way to achieve sustainable resource management within Australia’s farm industry.
The Discussion Paper recognises that it will be impossible, economically and/or technically, to restore all degraded areas and that there will be areas where natural resources will decline further. The challenge is to develop new commercial opportunities, production systems and innovative technologies, to optimise economic, environmental and social outcomes and to help communities identify new opportunities and adjust to changed circumstances. The paper will be available for public comment for four months, with the closing date for comment 31 March 2000.
The following paragraphs have been supplied by AFFA staff, and describe the rationale behind the production of the discussion paper.
"In the past decade or so we have made considerable advances in understanding natural resource issues. But despite some recent successes, continuing degradation of our natural resources is costing Australia dearly. This is in terms of lower agricultural yields and higher costs of production, costs of rehabilitation, threats to Australia's market advantage as a producer of 'clean and green' goods, and increasing expenditure on repairing infrastructure damaged by salinity. In addition, there are increased biodiversity losses, poorer quality water and declining aesthetic value of some of our landscapes.
Natural resource management poses unique challenges because the managers and users of natural resources are widely dispersed - there are 115 000 farmers and pastoralists across the continent, for example - and there is a complex mix of public and private benefits involved.
With the conclusion of the Decade of Landcare [a national, community participatory program aimed at promoting resource management which includes a farm planning component, and which is now in its 10th year - GC], a new national strategy for managing natural resources in rural and regional Australia is needed for the next 10 to 15 years to guide and influence decision making and actions of governments, landholders, communities and industry.
The Commonwealth, State and Territory governments believe the problem can only be tackled effectively through a partnership of landholders, community, industry and government. For this reason, a detailed (90 page) Discussion Paper has been released and comments are invited from interested groups, individuals or organisations. The paper was developed over 12 months by Commonwealth, State and Territory government agencies in collaboration with landholders, rural community leaders, scientists and industry and conservation interests."
Copies of the Discussion Paper are available from the internet at:
www.affa.gov.au/nrm_paper
New Zealand
The North Otago Sustainable Land Management Group (NoSLaM) has been operating since 1994, and encourages the uptake of environmentally preferable farming methods, through information exchange. The group has developed the "ENVIRO-AG" Farm Environmental Certification Scheme, which is modelled on ISO 14000. Farmers utilise a generic proforma and customise it to suit their own operations. The group sees that such an approach allows participants to be able to verify claims of environmental management. Six farms have been certified to the Standard so far. The certification is conducted as a partnership between the NoSLaM group and SGS New Zealand Ltd. The farm plans incorporate Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) planning. It is believed the by following the ENVIRO-AG process, farmers will be well placed to demonstrate claims made in the market place, and to take advantage of increasing market trends for ‘proof’ of claims about the sustainable practices being followed by farmers.
Contact North Otago Sustainable Land Management Group (http://noslam.co.nz/).
<< back to Appendices
|
Unité Mixte de Recherche INRA -
ENESAD |
|
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (ISO 14001) |
Gilles Grolleau
Ph.D. student in economics
26, Bd Dr Petitjean BP 87999 21079 DIJON cedex France
g.grolleau@enesad.fr
Society's expectations towards farmers are becoming more and more complex. New requirements (to improve intrinsic qualities, ethic and environmental requirements, fair trade[1], …) are added to the past requirements (to produce more crops and cheaper, to provide quality and variety). In France, the gap between the consumer-citizen and the productivist model is going wider because of the lack of trust of the industry (i.e. mad cow, agricultural use of mud), the authorities (i.e. contaminated blood, asbestos) and even scientists sometimes (GMO). There are variable answers to these factors. There are political decisions (i.e. tightening of regulations, "eco-conditionality" for payment of public subsidies). The requirements of the food chain (food processors, retailers[2], and consumers) and of interested parties (i.e. banks, insurances, and investors) become more and more severe by including environmental guarantees. This situation can lead to consumer's boycott of some products. Behind the marketing information "environmentally friendly system or/and product" provided by farmers, food processors or retailers, the experts discover various realities ranging from a real environmental management to false declarations. The marketing of environmental claims are often checked by various and multiple tools whose credibility is sometimes difficult to assess in a competitive market where everyone seems to be particularly aware and critical towards the weaknesses of rival firms systems. Besides, these several factors can have contradictory requirements towards the same farmer.
In such a context, the ISO 14001 standard is a generic and consensual model of environmental management systems (EMS) which can be used on farms. Several countries are interested in developing environmental management systems in agriculture (Wall, 1997a; 1997b; Wall et al., 1999; Carruthers et Tinning, 1999; Gottlieb-Petersen, 1997; 1999; MAF, 1998). In France, this kind of research is barely emerging. Some European farms have already obtained ISO 14001 certification and one of them is in France. The small number of certified farms indicates that there are significant obstacles to farmer participation in development of EMS in French agriculture (Grolleau, 1997, 1999; Montel, 2000). The first aim of this brief paper is to provide some references. This work is not a deep and exhaustive analysis of ISO 14001, but can be a relevant basis for researchers and practitioners interested in this field. After an overview of the ISO 14001 standard in the French agricultural context, we identify some opportunities and barriers for developing EMS on French farms. Finally, we propose some strategies to overcome the barriers and to encourage the implementation of EMS. These propositions could become promising avenues of research.
1. Critical overview of the ISO 14001 standard applied to French farms
We present a critical overview of the ISO 14001 approach applied to farms. These critics are mainly based on an analysis of standard requirements in the French agricultural context and on a synthesis of the literature. We also use results of a prospective survey done among farmers in Burgundy (Grolleau, 1997). Finally, we use information from interviews among significant agents[3] of the agro-food chain (1999-2000). These data allow a qualitative approach, giving nevertheless interesting results for our work.
1.1. Basic principles and application criteria
The international ISO 14001 standard[4] proposes a voluntary scheme to prove the implementation of an effective and documented EMS. This standard is based on minimum requirements i.e. compliance with environmental laws and regulations, prevention and continual improvement. ISO 14001 is a management standard, it is not a performance or product standard. The principle of continual improvement constitutes the strength and the weakness of the standard. Indeed, this continual improvement is dependant on the farm's own situation, not on an external level. This approach allows no comparison between environmental performances of farms. It is a personal and progressive way in relation with the farm's own performances. This means that two similar farms, both certified according to the ISO 14001 standard may have different environmental performances. While it may be difficult to understand, it allows a lot of farms to apply the ISO 14001 approach. It seems better to get the participation of a lot of farmers than only a few because of the global character of environmental impacts (Paillotin, 2000).
The ISO 14001 standard concerns every organization that wishes to set up an EMS and to get a certification by a third party.[5] In a previous article (Grolleau, 1998), we argued that the organization corresponds to the complete farm (with exception of farms with several independent areas). Indeed the ISO 14001 certification would lose its credibility and pertinence if it is applied only to a workshop because the farm's workshops are interdependent. The definition of the field of application is one of the dilemmas of AgriConfiance® volet Vert.[6] Indeed, this approach, initially conceived for the food chain of a product, loses its pertinence with regard to environmental aspects, which need to consider the farm as a whole. A solution could be the definition of a national common base[7] that allows consideration of the farm as a whole in regards to the environmental.
Figure 1: General model of the ISO 14001 standard
1.2. Attempt of application of EMS to farms
Even if our description is in accordance with the ISO 14001 approach, it does not describe precisely all the requirements and recommendation of the ISO 14001 standard. To make understanding easier, we have chosen not to stick to the strict sense of the terms and the degree of precision met in the standards, i.e. in ISO 14001 and ISO 14004.[8] Lussier and al. (1998) give a detailed model of EMS applied to farms with explanations and examples.
1.21. Defining an environmental policy
This environmental policy explains the essential principles and the environmental commitment decided on by the top management of the organization, that is to say the farmer in most cases.
Example of a brief environmental policy of a farm
|
This environmental policy is communicated to all employees and is available for interested parties. This policy is the framework of the following steps.
1.22. Making an initial environmental analysis
Without previous EMS, this initial environmental analysis is both a preliminary inventory and an environmental diagnosis. It identifies the regulations which applies to the farm (for example, European directive about "nitrates", "biotope decree" protection of water sources and legal requirements to get implementation permits). It identifies the significant environmental aspects,[9] the environmental effects of current practices and their significant environmental impacts. These significant environmental impacts could be real or potential, beneficial or harmful. Indeed, agricultural activities can provoke beneficial and harmful effects on the environment whereas for industrial activities, the reduction of harmful impacts is the main purpose. For example, farming can lead to ecosystems' disappearance, air and water pollution and soil contamination. At the same time, farming can also contribute to reduce greenhouse gases, to manage landscape and to limit some natural risks such as avalanches and floods.
Practices
|
Impacts
|
Moreover, this initial analysis lists the past environmental problems and accidents. This step allows producers to be aware of their environmental responsibilities.
Problems
|
Management of the problems
|
1.23. Establishment of an environmental plan
This environmental plan, coherent with the main principles of the environmental policy gives a concrete substance about the EMS set by the farmer. It takes into account regulatory aspects, significant environmental aspects, commercial requirements and the concerned agents opinions. These interested agents are often other users of the biophysical area where the farm is located (hunters, neighbors, environmental associations, ...). Thus, the opinion of the different actors who are concerned by the farm’s environmental management is closely linked to decision making process and that increases the system's credibility. Indeed, the inclusion of other parties’ opinions avoids potential conflicts and promotes mutual understanding on both sides.
This environmental plan specifies notably:
Target: Reduction by 10% of the quantity of nitrates used on cereals crops |
Indicator: units of nitrates used / quintal of harvested cereals |
An important difficulty concerns the indicators, which must be reliable and adapted to farms. These indicators have to be easily measurable and be appropriately related to the followed goal. Indeed, the agricultural practices are factors of environmental impacts because the relation between agricultural practices and real environmental impacts is not linear. This relation can depend on other factors like pedological and climatical conditions, economical conditions and available technologies. Some environmental impacts can vary from an area to another and it is very hard to provide performance criteria for all farms. Despite the definition of global and generic principles, an environmentally friendly agriculture can not be easily defined in a uniform way for all kinds of farms. For example, the previous indicator, while being attractive, can at the same time support intensive and extensive practices. Moreover, it does not mention the period in which the comparison takes place, and does not deal with the division and the type of nitrates used.
1.24. Effective implementation of the environmental plan
This step answers to the following questions: who makes what and how? When and with what kind of means?
Environmental target |
Responsible party |
Procedure |
Time and place of procedure's achievement |
How to achieve this procedure? |
Reduction by 10% of the quantity of herbicides' used in the main crops compared with the period 1998 - 1999 |
M. Martin |
|
At each field cultivation |
Descriptive check list of procedures enclosed in annex I[10] |
The answers correspond to:
This effective implementation concentrates many standard requirements on a few people because French agricultural structures are usually composed of 2 or 3 workers.
1.25. Control, corrective actions and possible modification of the EMS of the farm
The farm has to establish and keep documented procedures allowing it to observe, to regularly measure and to register the main characteristics of its activities which are able to have a significant environmental impact. In case of non-conformity, the farm can make use of procedures to identify the reasons of these gaps and set up corrective measures.
The internal and/or external audits realized in regular time-gap, by competent and impartial persons, allows a systematic checking of the EMS conformity as regards the ISO 14001 standard requirements and the effective establishment of the EMS.
This step is especially expensive and discouraging since according to Bergstrom and al. (1999), the external audit (occurring every 3 years) costs approximately $3,500 and the annual internal audit approximately $1,200. According to the Noslam (2000), "the cost of certifying an individual farm to ISO 14001 are currently around $ 5,000 - $ 7,000 for the initial certification audit and $2,000-$4,000 per annum thereafter. These costs are interesting approximations, but their transposition in other contexts implies that the structures concerned are known.
1.26. Direction review
After each time-gap that is determined by the top management of the farm, the top management must review the EMS and determine if it is still appropriate, sufficient and efficient. This documented review envisages some modifications of the environmental policy and of the other components of the EMS farm to improve the global environmental performance of the farm and to adjust better to external requirements.
A few researchers and practitioners have elaborated practical application documents for the ISO 14 001 standard for farms (Lussier and al., 1998, Noslam, 2000). Complementary tools and concrete examples are even available on line on Noslam’s web site (2000).
2. The ISO 14001 standard: a generic and differentiated approach of environmental management
2.1. A generic and recognized environmental management
Nowadays, farmers respond to a multiplication of the specifications based on different systems which claim similar aims. In some cases, the farmer is confronted with several "environmental" requirements, whose mutual compatibility and coherence are debatable. Moreover, those with the power to give orders don't have the legitimacy and the experience to advocate the kind of environmental management that is applicable to the whole farm, which yet makes the credible entity from an environmental point of view. For example, a firm, which buys milk from a farmer, will have difficulties to making valuable environmental requirements concerning cereal crops. From this developing situation, emerges a suspicious context leading to a loss of credibility for the entirety of the approach (Pujol and Dron, 1998). In this context, the ISO 14001 standard should form a base document adaptable to various kinds of farming. In France, only one farm is currently certified according the ISO 14001 standard (Champagne Pommery), despite of the elaboration of systems (AgriConfiance® volet Vert and Quali'Terre - Certi'Terre[11] notably), which ambitiously refer to ISO 14001. In his report on integrated farming, G. Paillotin (2000) shows the importance of setting up a "formal quality insurance procedure based on written and transparent elements, which can be set against thirds". According to Paillotin, "the only solution" to give credibility to these pro-environmental systems, "consists in transposing the approach of the ISO 14001 standard to agriculture". "The agricultural system will find its entire credibility relying on a trust contract, which means in practical terms use of an adapted standard from the ISO 14001 one". This point of view is shared too by the National Commission of Food Products Labels and Certifications, which proposes to write "an ISO 14001 standard transposition guide, to describe the integrated farming principles, the concrete processes being specific to each production". (CNLC, 1999). These analysis recommend too an ISO 14001 certification of the whole food chain concerned by the considered food product. Thus, Paillotin (2000) recommends use of the ISO 14001 standard to objectively substantiate the environmental allegations of food products.
Moreover, the international and generic characteristic (that is to say it is applicable to all kinds of organizations) of the ISO 14001 standard gives it a stronger credibility compared with local systems, especially in terms of recognition in the export markets.
2.2. The ISO 14001 standard: a useful tool for a differentiation strategy?
On the intermediate market (business to business), the agents of the food chain have more expertise than final consumers (Grolleau, 2000b), enabling them to understand the real implications of an ISO 14001 certification. Thus, the ISO 14001 certification could at the end become selection criteria of agricultural suppliers. For example, according to Wall and al. (1999), in the case of Sweden, "a number of certifications have been carried out because expectations are high for the food service/retailers (Mac Donald's) to start making demands". In their report to the French Minister of the Environment, Pujol and Dron (1998, p. 433) say that "farmers are currently strongly urged by their customers to involve themselves in this way, knowing that farmers in others countries conform themselves to it".
Moreover, when marketing eco-labelled products,[12] food processors and distributors should have to prove that their raw materials, in this case, farming products, really come from environmentally friendly production systems. In this perspective, "the ISO 14001 certification could constitute a reliable means" to provide this guarantee (Wall, 1997b).
On the final market, the product represents one of the main informational vehicles for the consumer. Nevertheless, differentiation of products coming from ISO 14001 certified farms is especially complex, because the consumer can not detect environmental characteristics ("credible characteristics"). Products coming from certified farms do not necessarily have intrinsic characteristics higher than the classical products. In some cases, the environmental differentiation of the farming process can generate positive effects on these classical qualities i.e. lower pesticides and heavy metals contents. On the other hand, an ISO 14001 certified farm can inherit a polluted environment. This situation can lead to produce whose quality level doesn't correspond to the "green image" the consumer expects. An environmental food product differentiation is strongly based on a process differentiation. The relation between ISO 14001 certification of farms and eco-labelled food products is particularly complex and ambiguous. Moreover, the French world of official and non-official quality signs, is often unknown by the consumers. The consumers can not always understand the difference between what the products claim and their real meanings.
Public authorities do not want to destabilize this precarious equilibrium by introducing a new sign, whose message concerning environmental impacts of the production system, could be not well understood by consumers. In another way, this lack of official sign based on a credible referential is an opportunity for marketing allegations without real environmental significance.
3. Some obstacles to setting up EMS on farms and propositions
Several authors have identified favorable factors and obstacles to the adoption of the ISO 14001 standard by farmers (Baker and al., 1999; Carruthers and Tinning, 1999; Grolleau, 1999; Wall and al, 1998; Ljung, 1998; MAF, 1998). These works must be considered in the agricultural framework (i.e. country, kind of production, farm size, organization model) where they have been achieved. Indeed, the term "farm" can mean various kinds of organizations from very small farms to very big and industrial farms. For example, the Del Monte firm got ISO 14001 certification for some banana farms consisting of about several dozen thousand acres. This variance the achievement of a standard transposition difficult. We postulate that farms likely to set up an environmental management system have specific characteristics.[13] We will identify these characteristics in our next works.
3.1 Transcription of the ISO 14001 standard to agriculture
One of the first barriers to the adoption of the ISO 14001 standard is the lack of knowledge of French farmers. Indeed certain words associated with ISO 14001 can provoke negative responses or confusion. For example, for some farmers, the French term "norme" – which means "standard" in English – evokes the "legal requirements about livestock buildings". Moreover, the ISO 14001 standard uses a generic vocabulary and a style peculiar to international standards. These aspects could become obstacles for its understanding and adoption. A transcription of the ISO 14001 standard for agriculture and a linguistic adaptation should allow for a higher interest and participation of farmers (Grolleau, 1998). Thus, a technical document (ISO/TR 14061) provides specific information to help forest managers in the implementation of an ISO 14001 environmental management system.
Terms used in the ISO 14001 standard |
Propositions |
Processes |
Practices |
Organization |
Farms |
Standard |
Referential, Charter |
Top management of the organization |
Farmer |
Figure 2: Some propositions for ISO 14001 word adaptation
Moreover, an environmental communication referring only to the ISO 14001 standard will be hard to understand for consumers. According to Mike Logan, the first farmer in the world to gain ISO 14001 certification (March 1997), farmers must "change the name ISO 14001 to something that we can use in our marketing - it is a terrible name designed by a committee who has never sold an ounce of produce in a marketplace in their lives" (Carruthers, 1999).
3.2. The ISO 14001 requirements are costly and heavy
For French farms, the ISO 14001 requirements (training and awareness procedures, monitoring and regulatory and technical update, communication,…) would be achieved by only one or two people. Moreover direct costs (i.e. environmental investments, audits) and indirect costs (training, time) are one of the main barriers to the adoption of the ISO 14001 by farmers, notably in small farms. This implementation generates too a cut in costs. This reduction results notably from lower inputs and a better management of these inputs. Nevertheless, the costs of the implementation of an environmental management system are not fully compensated by the cut in costs.
To solve the previous problems, we suggest some ideas, which need further research:
F Promotion of products originating from ISO 14001 certified farms
The ISO 14001 certificate applies to farms, not to products. Normally, producers can not advertise the ISO 14001 certificate on their products. The promotion of food products originating from ISO 14001 certified farms could be achieved by eco-labelling the product (Van Ravenswaay and Blend, 1997). Environmental quality of agricultural products often implies the certification of practices, as in, for example, organic products or more exactly, product originating from organic agriculture. This strong interdependence between production practices and product environmental quality raises questions about an EMS product label (Grolleau, 1999). This ISO 14001 certification could become a differentiation strategy in business to business relations. This subject has been dealt in a previous paper highlighting the various conceptions of green food products (Grolleau, 2000). According to Mike Logan, "there is no such thing as premiums", only access through product/farm differentiation. This differentiation opens access to new markets i.e. markets sensitive to environmental qualities (Carruthers, 1999; Warren, 1997).
F Group management of certain ISO 14001 requirements
Small farms can participate in the implementation of an environmental management system thanks to group management of certain ISO 14001 requirements (Grolleau, 1998, 1999; Montel 2000; Noslam, 2000). Some ISO 14001 requirements are generic (environmental policy's model, monitoring tools, updating, audit, …) and they can be achieved by an intermediate structure without attacking farmers' autonomy. The identification of this intermediate structure and its roles needs further research. This intermediate structure could be various organizations who are closer to farmers. Sharing of standard requirements can be found at various levels in AgriConfiance® volet Vert and in Quali'Terre, the qualification program of the Chambre d'agriculture of Picardie. This promising idea could be considered and studied by focusing on the forestry experiences and on the systems that use similar approaches. According to Noslam (2000) the benefits of a group accreditation scheme are:
Figure 3: Group management model for establishing an EMS (adapted from Noslam, 2000)
F Listing the tools likely to correspond to ISO 14001 requirements
Several tools are available and can correspond to certain ISO 14001 requirements. Indeed, some tools (i.e. self-environmental diagnosis, practical guides to environmentally friendly farming, tools of the sustainable development plans [PDD]) are available and can be used to achieve some ISO 14001 requirements. There are specific guides to implement EMS in small sized organizations (EPA, 1996) and they could be adapted for use in agriculture as well. This inventory could reveal shortcomings and help focus research on areas of improvement. A synthetic document similar to the ISO 14004 standard could be elaborated to help farmers in implementation of an environmental management system (Carruthers and Tinning, 1999).
F Requirements' level has to be proportional to the considered agricultural system.
Thus, the report on Integrated Farming (Paillotin, 2000), although encouraging the setting up of the ISO 14001 standard acknowledges the need to adjust the standard to the agricultural system. Besides, the ISO 14001 standard clearly mentions its willingness to adapt itself to every kind of organization: "The level of detail and complexity of the environmental management system, the importance of documentation and the level of resources allocated will depend on the size of the organization and the nature of its activities. This is particularly the case for small and medium sized firms" (AFNOR, 1996; Translated from the French text). A remaining question is how this flexibility of the ISO 14001 standard could be really expressed in farms.
3.3. Bypassing the constraining image of the environment to encourage individual commitment
In regards to companies’ environmental practices, the public authorities have often played a constraining role by using the regulatory and economic policies. The stakes involve the existence of the firm as well as minimizing costs. Without questioning the justification of these policies, they are often intended as partial objectives in which the perverted effect could be a transfer of pollution from one environmental compartment to another, or from one step of the life cycle to another and even from one place to another. These policies are often have adverse effects on the agricultural producers, giving them the feeling of being "scapegoats". The managerial tools offer new perspectives by encouraging the operations to go beyond a purely reactive attitude (i.e. satisfy the regulations), to take a step in a global trend of voluntarily pro-action, susceptible of becoming strategic stakes (market share, product differentiation...) In addition, these approaches could become valuable and motivating instruments for farmers, allowing them to recapture a green image, such as Sweden’s slogan "Swedish agriculture, the cleanest agriculture in the world."
The public authorities can play a role in promoting these managerial tools by providing information, training, research, financial and technical assistance, consistency between voluntary systems and the content of other regulatory instruments, and economic incentives. For example, the ISO 14001 standard with the minimal requirement of respect of the regulations could lead to a lighter control for certified farms, and that is already the case in the industrial sector. "It is clear that the frequency of controls achieved by authorities in the frame of the law of July 19, 1976 about "Installations classées" must be proportional to the significance of pollution and the risk of each establishment : the setting up of a EMS in accordance with the ISO 14001 or Eco-Audit will be taken into account in the establishment of control programs (MATE, 1997).
By taking into account all these factors, the public authorities could play a preponderant role in the adoption of EMS by farmers (Pujol and Dron, 1998).
Final Remarks
We have discussed the ISO 14001 standards without considering the strong links that unite it with the quality management system of the type ISO 9000. These systems are very close and most of the operations aimed at encouraging and accompanying the projects towards the ISO14001 standard are mixed approaches associating quality assurance and environmental management (Gottlieb Petersen, 1997a, 1997b, Wall et al. 1999; Bergstrom et al., 1999). In addition, in the perspective of communication with the public, the group of experts do not correspond with the global perspective of consumers (Grolleau, 2000). A deeper analysis comparing systems established in France and abroad could constitute a credible base to study the applicability of a mixed system of quality assurance—environmental management in French farms.
The interest in the ISO 14001 standard and its adoption by French farmers seems also linked to the type of backing considered. Certified ISO 14001 customers and customers with an environmental image can have a strong impact on development of ISO 14001 in farms. The study of these effects could be a pertinent track for further research. Indeed, according to Wall et al. (1998), the food processors who are ISO 14001 certified could in the run choose only products from producers who have adopted ISO 14001 standards. This idea is in accordance with the principles of the ISO 14004 standard which considers the "encouragement of the subcontractors and the suppliers to establish an EMS" to be one of the fundamental principles of the establishment of an EMS (AFNOR, 1996). This situation has already been verified in several industrial sectors where the ISO 14001 certified companies have a strong market power to force their providers (producers) to adopt the ISO 14001 standard.
Acknowledgements
This paper is the temporary result of a research program financially supported by the French Agency for Environment and Energy Management (ADEME) and the Inter-institutional Program for Research in Environment Economics (PIREE). I would like to thank L. Thiébaut (INRA-ENESAD), D. Bougherara, B. Montel (CEREOPA - INAPG) and A. Desforges (CFCA) for their helpful suggestions and comments. I take responsibility for any remaining errors.
Bibliography
AFNOR, 1996, Management de l'environnement, lère édition, 440 p.
Baker L., Thomassin PJ., Kabasele E., 1999, "Environment Management Systems in Agriculture:Farmers' Perceptions of Problems and Benefits." Department of Agricultural Economics, McGill University, Macdonald Campus, 34 p.
Bergström M., Hellqvist R., and Ljung M., 2000. Farm Certification: Implementing and using quality and environmental management systems in Swedish agriculture. In IATP (ed) Adding Value through Environmental Marketing. Proceedings, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, December 6-7th, 1999.
Carruthers G., 1999, What’s hapening about ISO 14000 and EMS in Australian agriculture?, Conference of IMP and IATP, Adding Value through environmental marketing : oppotunities for food producers, processors and retailers, Madison (USA), 6 et 7 décembre 1999, 6 p.
Carruthers G. and Tinning G., (eds), 1999, Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture, Proceedings of a national workshop, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, May 26-28, Publication 99/94, New South Wales, Australia, 233 p.
Doll J. Doersch R., Proost R., Kivlin P., 1992, Reduced Herbicides rates : aspects to consider, Paper A 3563, University of Wisconsin, 8 p.
Gottlieb-Petersen C., 1997, Quality and Environmental Management System on Sixty Danish Farms, Paper for the 49th EAAE Seminar on February 19-21, Bonn, Germany
Gottlieb-Petersen C., 1999, A Quality and Environmental Management System used by Danish Farmers, Paper for SIMA, March.
Grolleau G., 1997, Les systèmes de management environnemental : vers une convention applicable à l’agriculture, mémoire de DEA, Faculté de sciences économiques, Dijon, 98 p.
Grolleau G., 1998, La norme environnementale ISO 14001 est-elle applicable à l’exploitation agricole ?, Ingénierie, juin 1998, n° 14, p. 69-79.
Grolleau G., 1999a, Application of environmental management systems (ISO 14001) on french farms : opportunities, barriers and strategies for success, Comunication à la conférence de l’IATP : Adding Value through environmental marketing : oppotunities for food producers, processors and retailers, Madinson (USA), 6 et 7 décembre 1999, 4 p.
Grolleau G., 2000a, L’écoproduit agro-alimentaire : de la compréhension des concepts à la complexité de la réalité, Annales de l’Ecole des Mines, Responsabilité et Environnement ,n°18, Avril, p. 27-44.
Grolleau G., 2000b, Green food products as credence goods : implications for an environmental product differentiation strategy, Communication at the 3rd Biennial Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Vienna, 3. - 6. May 2000
Knudsen S, 1997, A Quality and Environmental Management System Developed by Farmers, Paper for the 49th EAAE Seminar on February 19-21, Bonn, Germany
Life, 1998?, Coopérer dans une démarche environnementale, Projet Life n° 94/IRL/367 (Projet copilote franco-danois-irlandais sur la gestion administrative de l'audit), 33 p.
Ljung M., 1998, Farmer participation in development of environmental management systems in Swedish agriculture, Paper for the 15th AFSR-E Symposium, Pretoria, South Africa, 29 November–4 December, 9 p.
Lussier G.R., Baker L., Thomassin P.J., 1998, Un système de gestion environnementale pour les agriculteurs du Québec, Rapport final du Programme de Gestion d’Entreprises Agricoles, Université Mc Gill, Campus MacDonald, Canada, 62 p.
MAF (Ministry of agriculture and forestry), 1998, The role of on-farm Quality Assurance and Environmantal Management Systems (QA/EMS) in achieving sustainable agriculture and sustainable land management outcomes, MAF Policy technical paper 98/2, July, 122 p.
MATE (Ministère de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environnement), 1997, Circulaire du 28 février 1997 relative au développement des démarches environnementales des entreprises, Paris, 1p.
Montel B., 2000, Mise en place de systèmesde management environnemental certifiésdans les élevages porcins bretons Une analyse prospective, Document de travail, INAPG – CEREOPA, Paris, 36 p.
Noslam (North Otago Sustainable Land Management Group), 2000, http://www.noslam.co.nz/
Paillotin G., 2000, L’agriculture raisonnée, Rapport au Ministre de l’agriculture, february, np.
Prats A., Nominé M., 1998, Mise en place d'un système de management environnemental, Techniques de l'Ingénieur, Traité de Génie industriel, G 5 000, 15 p.
Pujol JL., Dron D., 1998, Agriculture, monde rural et environnement : qualité oblige, Rapport de la Cellule Prospective et Stratégie à la Ministre de l’Aménagement du territoire et de l’Environnement, La Documentation française, Paris, 589 p.
Stapleton P.J., Cooney A.M., Hix W.M., 1996, Environmental Management Systems: An Implementation Guide for Small and Medium-Sized Organizations, NSF International, 166 p. (Available from: http://www.epa.gov/owm/wm046200.htm).
Van Ravenswaay E.O., Blend J.F., 1997, Using ecolabeling to encourage of innovative environmental technologies in agriculture, Staff Paper n° 97-19, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 45 p.
Wall E., 1997a, ISO 14000 Environmental Standards How will they affect agriculture? Quickfacts, Number 51, August 1997.
Wall E., 1997b, International standards for environmental management systems : their implications for north american agriculture, Paper presented at the Annual Meetings for the Rural Sociological Society, Toronto, Ontario, Aug. 12–16, and the North American Farming Systems Research and Extension Association Conference «Food and Natural Ressouce Systemes : integrating diversity, Action and People, Nov. 2-5.
Wall E., Weersink A., Swanton C., 1998, Ontario Agriculture and ISO 14000 : is the time right? Summary report for the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, March 1998, 8 p.
Wall E., Weersink A., Swanton C., 1999, Update on ISO 14000, implications for food production and food policy, 4th Biennial Conference International Farming Systems Association Guelph, Ontario, Canada October 20-23, 1999.4 p.
Warren L., 1997, ISO 14001 Certification: A Case Study, Newsletter of the National Association of Forest Industries, February.
Endnotes
[1] Some of these requirements (environmental and ethical requirements) cannot be detected on the product even after consumption ("credence goods"). At the very outset, this situation is favorable to opportunism and leads to a crucial information management. An economic analysis of credence attributes can be found in another paper (Grolleau, 2000).
[2] Some French retailers – Carrefour, Auchan – have recently introduced environmental claims in food advertising. and need to substantiate them by a credible and generally applicable certification system (Le Monde, March, 1st 1999).
[3] For reasons of confidentiality, we do not mention the names of interviewed people or firms.
[4] A European regulation (1836/93) called "Ecoaudit" about implementation of an EMS looks like the ISO 14001 standard. Initially this regulation was for industrial activities only. According to the regulation, an experimental implementation can be applied in other activities. A try to implement "Ecoaudit" in farms is described in Life (1998).
[5] According to the ISO 14001 requirements, labeling this certification on the products is forbidden.
[6] Agri Confiance® is an application of the ISO 9002 quality assurance system in the relation between farmers and their cooperative. Agri Confiance® is promoted by the French Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives. It certifies quality, information and service flows in the farmer/cooperative relationship. This approach provides consumers with more guarantees about safety, health, and traceability. It will be applied to environmental guarantees by adapting the ISO 14001. In February 2000, 129 cooperatives were working to implement an Agri Confiance® system and 28 cooperatives are certified today i.e. 7900 farmers. (Web site : http://www.cooperation-agricole.asso.fr/qualite_reglement_alim/agri_confiance/agri_confiance.htm)
[7] For example, in December 1999, the Forum for environmentally friendly Integrated Farming (Farre) has published its "common base of integrated and environmentally friendly farming" that corresponds partly to the requirements of the initial environmental analysis (by using the self environmental diagnosis of Farre) and of the environmental policy according to the ISO 14001 approach. Farre is a non-profit inter-professional association. The purpose of FARRE is to promote Integrated Farming in order to increase public awareness of the practice (Web site : http://www.farre.org/).
[8] The ISO 14001 standard gives the "what", i.e. the structure of an EMS and the elements allowing certification. The ISO 14004 standard clarifies the "how" that is to say recommendations and helpful suggestions to implement the EMS described in the ISO 14001 standard.
[9] No method is required to identify the significant environmental aspects (EA). Prats et Nominé (1998) proposed a calculation method to put an coefficient of criticity from 1 (i.e. insignificant criticity) to 1000 (i.e. very high criticity). This method has been adapted to agro-environmental analysis and it is called DIAGE.
Importance of the EA Neglible : 1Very important : 10 |
X | Control of the EA by the firm Full control : 1No control : 10 |
X | Sensitiveness of the environment No sensitiveness : 1Very sensitive : 10 |
= | Criticity of the EA Low : 1Strong : 10000 |
[10] For references concerning the best application of reduced herbicides rates confer to Dole and al. (1992) and the internet site of P. Lachance.
[11] Quali'Terre is a common system of the quality assurance and the environmental
management aiming at providing guarantees to the different partners of the farm and to
the customers. This process is built according to 2 axis :
[12] The idea to create a specific ecolabel for food products is highlighted in the
resolution by the European Parliament (OJEC C328, 26/10/98), to the European commission
and the Europe Council which :
[13] We found a stronger interest for ISO 14001 standard among : winegrowers of Burgundy and Champagne (wines with high added value, more direct contacts with the retailers and consumers who search for environmental qualities) and farmers who have an industrial management (big size farms, food processing workshop i.e. industrial pigsty and milk farms with a cheese workshop). In their recommendations, Pujol and Dron (1998, p. 85) say that "we can consider applying the Ecoaudit regulation (1836/93) to farms which are in the first quarter with regard to size for each agricultural sector." In the case of the Brittany pigsties, Montel uses the concept of "opportunity threshold" (Montel, 2000). This concept needs further research. It could be tested and validated a posteriori on certified farms in accordance with the ISO 14001 requirements.
[14] Contact:
Gilles Grolleau
Unite mixte de recherche INRA - ENESAD en Economie et Sociologie Rurales
26 Bd Dr Petitjean BP 87999 21079 DIJON CEDEX France
Tel: 03 80 77 25 70
Fax: 03 80 77 25 71
Email: g.grolleau@enesad.fr
<< back to Appendices
Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture
Richard Castelnuovo
From livestock production to pesticide-intensive cropping operations, agriculture is under considerable pressure to improve its environmental performance. While public policy options to reduce agricultural pollution have evolved to include increased regulation, they remain strongly committed to voluntary approaches centered on education, technical assistance and economic incentives (Napier and Johnson, 1998). Voluntary schemes have room for improvement as evidenced by the track record of early efforts such as soil conservation (Nowak, 1987). Market forces including a consumer demand for quality are creating incentives that may improve "voluntary" efforts to address water quality and other environmental impacts (Battie and Ervin, 1997).
Environmental management systems (EMS) are vehicles for farmers and their trade groups to take the major step forward in environmental stewardship. These systems, particularly ISO 14001, can bridge gaps in traditional voluntary approaches by integrating environmental responsibility into the business of farming, stressing continuous improvement and providing a reliable method to document adoption of environmentally-sound practices. While farmers face challenges in developing EMS’s, they stand to gain benefits beyond reduced impacts on the environment. Farm*A*Syst, the Environmental Farm Plan and the Australian Cotton Best Management Practice Manual are related programs that share key components required to develop an EMS (Wall, 1998; Williams, 1999). Farm organizations and government agencies can play a supportive role in helping individual farmers develop effective management systems.
How Do Environmental Management Systems Work?
An EMS is a structured and planned approach for a business to manage its impacts on the environment. Typically it involves the following basic steps as part of a process of continual improvement: establish environmental policies, set goals and targets, adopt plans and procedures to achieve goals and targets, monitor implementation and institute actions to insure compliance, and review progress. An EMS is intended to improve an organization’s compliance with local environmental laws but can have goals beyond this. Through independent certification, an EMS provides assurances to clients, consumers and government about the environmental performance of an organization.
ISO 14001 is the leading EMS model. The International Organization for Standards (ISO) developed the ISO 14001 as a companion to ISO 9000, a set of standards for quality management to insure customer service. Like ISO 9000, ISO 14001 is increasingly viewed as a passport for doing business in the growing world economy where markets are demanding assurances of quality (Farye, 1996). With over 70 countries that are members of ISO, ISO 14001 enjoys international acceptance and recognition.
Its strength is its flexibility. Since ISO 14001 focuses on the quality of an organization’s management process, it offers a shell that a range of enterprises can adapt to meet environmental needs they define as important. Management systems based on ISO can provide a framework for addressing many aspects of quality assurance beyond environmental concerns. One of these concerns involves food safety. Changing laws may require that producers document that they have an effective system for reducing risks of food-borne illness. In United Kingdom, the 1990 Food Safety Act introduced a "due diligence" defense available to food processors and others in the food supply chain involved in legal actions. This defense has been successfully raised by firms that can show that they have taken reasonable precautions to set up a system to prevent problems and employed due diligence to insure that the system works. Firms are exerting downward pressure to insure that others in the food supply chain are taking actions to minimize microbial contamination risks (Buzby & Frenzen, 1999). By following ISO procedures, producers can provide the necessary upstream assurances.
But ISO’s flexibility is also its weakness. Beyond commitments to compliance with the law and continual improvement, ISO 14001 is not sufficiently prescriptive and does not have the precision to distinguish the best from the mediocre (Crooks, 1999). The limitation can be best appreciated by a comparison to a standard-based system such as organic certification. Both systems rely on principles of third-party auditing, certification and accreditation of certifying-organizations, but farmers seeking organic certification are all measured against the same external production-based standards. In the case of ISO 14001, an organization sets its own standards for environmental performance beyond basic compliance. ISO registration only confirms that the organization is exercising appropriate oversight and control over the environmental impacts of its operation.
This outcome does not mean that substance cannot be incorporated into environmental management systems prepared under ISO 14001. Through leadership from trade groups, for example, member organizations can subscribe to a range of environmental performance policies, goals and actions that could be included in each of their individual EMS’s. In the area of forest management, a technical committee of ISO has worked to develop a "bridging document," Information to assist forestry organizations in the use of Environmental Management System standards ISO 14001 and ISO 14004, ISO/TR 14061, to provide guidance for forestry organizations in the application of generally accepted criteria for Sustainable Forest Management to establish performance objectives and targets as part of their EMS’s (Hortensius, 1999).
What is the Future of Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture?
There are solid indicators that agriculture is moving to embrace ISO 14001. Considerable momentum is building in the Pacific Rim. Of note, there have been two recent national efforts in Australia (a May 1999 workshop entitled Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture) and in New Zealand (a national research project entitled The Role Of On-Farm Quality Assurance And Environmental Quality In Achieving Sustainable Agriculture And Sustainable Land Management Outcomes). Among the early adopters of ISO 14001 featured in the Australian workshop were winemakers. A consortium of wine makers in New Zealand known as the Living Wine Group has realized multiple benefits to its group registration under ISO 14001 (Riddiford, 1999).
A New Zealand initiative called the North Otago Sustainable Land Management Group (NOSLaM) has received government funding to move dairy, vegetable and other area farmers to a new level of environmental management. NOSLaM developed an "ENVIRO-AG," a system that enables farmers to assess range of farm activities and prepare a plan to manage and correct problems. With a certification component, ENVIRO-AG incorporates audits to take the farm plans a step further. Farmers audit their operations annually to see if they are doing what they planned to do. Participating farms are subject to audits by NOSLaM every three years and to random audits by a certification organization affiliated with the New Zealand operation of the Societe Generale de Surveillance. This scheme has qualified farms for group certification under ISO 14001 (NOSLaM, 2000).
There are parallel activities in Europe and North America. In the United States, trade groups are actively pursuing quality assurance programs with environmental management components. The American Soybean Association has joined other commodity groups such as the National Pork Producers Council in developing such initiatives. Organizations such as the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board are seriously evaluating the benefits of ISO 14001, drawing on models in Denmark and other countries. These efforts can serve as building blocks to fashion more advanced management systems.
The future of ISO 14001 will depend on how farmers and their member organizations view the short- and long-term benefits of ISO registration. Through its more focused approach, ISO registration enhances farmers' capacity to reduce their impacts on the environment. With third-party audits, farmers have credible documentation of environmental performance. This reliable documentation may be necessary to gain access to markets (especially export markets). It may open the door to premium prices. This competitive edge is of particular significance to farmers who negotiate contracts to sell their products. From an advertising standpoint, an organization that meets ISO 14001 standards can publicize this fact to consumers although ISO 14001 is not a "green label" that can be affixed to an organization's products.
On the other side of the ledger, ISO registration may also provide a competitive advantage by reducing the costs for pesticides, fertilizers and other inputs. This is the case because farmers who systematically evaluate their operations are in better position to waste and identify more efficient uses of inputs. These risks include legal actions, loan denials, and encumbrances on the sale of real estate. Farmers who can demonstrate that their operations pose reduced risks may qualify for lower loan rates and insurance discounts. One of more than 40 Danish dairy farmers registered under ISO 14001 reports this immediate benefit—a 15% discount on his insurance (Precision, 1998).
Verification of environmental performance can meet the growing demand for quality of consumers, retailers and others in the food distribution network. Retailers will be looking at ways to strengthen the credibility of marketing programs by requiring third party auditing (MAF, 1998). The move to third party auditing is a logical step for programs such as the IPM initiative developed by Wegmans Food Market.[1] Assuming that confidentiality concerns can be resolved, an EMS may be recognized by government agencies as a form of self-policing, relieving farms of regulatory burdens and the costs they entail.
The path toward adoption has obstacles. Farmers face economic hurdles including declining prices and a lack of clearly observable short-term economic benefits. (Williams, 1999). Even though ISO 14001 standards recognize that an EMS must be appropriate to the scale of a business, administrative and transaction costs can be high for individual farmers. Auditing is a significant expense but much of the cost (as high as 80 percent) incurred is for setting up and operating a management system. For an Ontario farmer, Wall estimates a cost of $3,000 for an audit and $12,000 for implementation costs including improvements (Wall, 1999). Danish dairy farmers experienced significantly lower costs in a two-year government program that subsidized farmers in setting up management systems and conducting inspections (Precision, 1999).
While government subsidies can reduce economic barriers, more efficient private arrangements hold out promise for reducing costs. In particular, a group approach to registration can reduce auditing and other costs. When reviewing an EMS, an auditor only selects samples for evaluation. This principle can be used to some advantage by a group. If several farms coordinate to develop and manage their operations according to the same EMS, then an auditor can be reasonably confident in the overall management system without auditing each of the sites. The cost savings can be shared among group members as was done by New Zealand winemakers and NOSLaM (Spencer, B. 1999). Riddiford (1999) explains how winemakers in New Zealand successfully used this group approach to reduce auditing costs as well as obtain other benefits such as information sharing to speed up the certification process.
Is There a Foundation upon Which to Build Environmental Management Systems?
For most producers, the central challenge in meeting ISO 14001 involves systematically identifying the environmental impacts from their activities and developing plans to manage these risks (Walls, 1999). According to Wall and her colleagues, the Ontario version of Farm*A*Syst, the Environmental Farm Plan[2] satisfies basic elements required for ISO 14001:
Those well versed in ISO 14001 who have reviewed the Ontario Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) agree that there is a great deal of compatibility between the two schemes ... EFP provides detailed and thorough guidance for planning and implementing an environmental management system so that farm operations meet the ISO requirements of:
To meet ISO 14001 standards, these three modifications to Farm*A*Syst-based system are needed: addition of an environmental policy, third party auditing, and a commitment to continual improvement. In regard to environmental policy, Farm*A*Syst and the EFP embody the principles of pollution prevention and thus, point farmers to these values in developing policy. Policies might draw on other values that underlie the EFP and Farm*A*Syst framework such as commitments to peer support and partnership building within the private and public sector. In regard to auditing, the EFP provides for review by peers but this process is not sufficiently rigorous to meet ISO audit requirements (Wall, 1998). Regarding continuous improvement, this concept is implicit in the structure and delivery of Farm*A*Syst and the EFP. EFP offers 23 worksheets that enable farmers to assess every aspect of their operation from drinking water well condition to manure management. Every worksheet has questions that require farmers to match their operation to risk descriptions ranging from poor through fair, good and best. After completing each worksheet, farmers are encouraged to develop a plan outlining practices that move them to the next risk classification, e.g., from fair to good. They can take these actions by implementing the management practices described in the next classification. This can serve as a sound framework for continual improvement (Wall, 1999).
With respect to the Australian cotton industry, Williams (1999) observes that the Farm*A*Syst framework is a key step in the cotton industry’s progress toward adoption of EMS’s. This framework provides a way for farmers to apply best management standards. Using assessment worksheets, farmers have the capacity to evaluate their operations to identify areas of environmental concern. On this basis, they can develop plans for implementing corrective actions. This system of environmental management fits the ISO 14001 model. With its audit provision, ISO 14001 can provide legitimacy and credibility to this assessment framework by showing that it is being used, is being used properly and having a positive impact.
What Is the Role of Private and Public Sector Leadership?
Farmer adoption of environmental management systems will depend on leadership and support from different quarters. Farm organizations can work with university research and extension faculty to define and refine best management practices in an industry and revise assessment tools such as Farm*A*Syst and the EFP to meet commodity-specific needs of a group of farmers. They can identify opportunities and stimulate interest among members in EMSs. Farmers may not be ready to make the leap to a full-blown management systems, but farm organizations can facilitate movement of farmers in assuming increased responsibility for environmental management. Trade groups such as the cotton industry build on triggers such as public concerns about pesticide use to help growers gradually make the transition to EMSs (Williams, 1999). Farm groups can fill in the missing pieces needed to register for ISO 14001. Through environmental committees, they can build a consensus about key issues and concerns for inclusion in environmental policy statements and publish templates for use by farm members. NOSLaM has made available this documentation at its web site, http://www.noslam.co.nz/agvantage/. Farm groups can explore and support options to reduce the costs of registration, particularly the third party audit (Walls, 1998). They can integrate environmental management into other quality assurance initiatives within a particular industry.
For government agencies, ISO 14001 offers the opportunity to move education and other voluntary programs to a new level of disciplined application and accountability. Wisconsin is among 10 states participating in a pilot program to evaluate the benefits of ISO 14001 for farms and other businesses. Jeff Smoller, of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, sees ISO 14001 as a vehicle for government to more effectively address environmental concerns. Conventional command and control approaches can address no more than 10 percent of environmental concerns—remedying problems and capturing opportunities to protect environment (Begley, 1997). To promote EMSs in agriculture, government does not need to subsidize farmers as extensively as the Danish government assisted its dairy farmers. It could promote partnerships to insure that best management practices reflect the most advanced research and the practical experience of private sector groups in agriculture. Government could provide adequate support to programs such as Farm*A*Syst and EFP that simplify setting up management systems. Both federal and state agencies could increase cost-share programs to compensate farmers in part for their time as well as pay for improvements in structures and practices.
There are positive indicators that point to growth in environmental management systems in agriculture. The building blocks are in place with programs such as Farm*A*Syst, EFP and the Australian Cotton Environmental Management System. Research, pilot programs and the experience of early adopters will provide valuable feedback to shape future directions. Farmers will need to make a gradual transition. Participation in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs and other voluntary stewardship efforts are steps toward better management and documentation of impacts. Support from both the public and private sectors will be critical to stimulating individual adoption.
References
Batie S. and Ervin, D. 1997. Business-led Initiatives in Environmental Management: The Next Generation of Policy? In the Workshop Proceedings, Pre-conference Workshop to the AAEA Annual Meeting, July 26, 1997, available at http://www.aec.msu.edu/agecon/Smith_Endowment/batiervin.htm.
Buzby J. and Frenzen P. 1999. Food Safety and Product Liability, Food Policy 24, 637-651.
Begley R. 1997. Value of ISO 14000 Management Systems Put to the Test. Environmental Science and Technology 31, No. 8, 364A.
Crooks, P. What is an EMS: Basic Principles. Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture, Proceedings of a National Workshop, May 26-28, p.75-9.
Fayre, D. 1996. Inside ISO 14001: The Competitive Advantage of Environmental Management. St. Lucie Press.
Hortensius, D. 1999. ISO 14000 and Forestry Management - ISO develops ‘bridging’ document, Part I and II, available at http://www.tc207.org/articles/.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), New Zealand. 1998. The Role Of On-Farm Quality Assurance And Environmental Quality (QA/EMS) in Achieving Sustainable Agriculture and Sustainable Land Management Outcomes, MAF Policy Technical Paper 98/2.
Napier T. and Johnson E. 1998. Impacts of voluntary conservation initiatives in the Darby Creek Watershed of Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 53(1):78-84.
Nowak P. 1987. Adoption of Conservation Technologies. Rural Sociology 52(2):208-220.
NOSLam. 2000. ENVIRO-AG Environmental Certification for farmers, available at http://www.noslam.co.nz/agvantage/.
1998. Precision recording for Danish milk assurance schemes, Dairy Farmer, April 1, p.40.
Spencer, B. 1999. Certification and Auditing--Do you really need them. Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture, Proceedings of a National Workshop, May 26-28, p.75-9.
Wall, E., Weersink A. and Swanton, C. 1998. Ontario Agriculture and ISO 14000, Final Report prepared for Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
Williams, A. 1999. Best Management Practices in the Cotton Industry. Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture, Proceedings of a National Workshop, May 26-28, p. 90-7.
Endnotes
[1] A description of the IPM program operated by this New York-based supermarket chain is available at: http://www.wegmans.com/features/growing_better.html.
[2] For more information on the Environmental Farm Plan, a farmer-driven program, visit this web site: http://res2.agr.ca/london/gp/efp/efpmenu.html. Information on Farm*A*Syst is available at: http://www.uwex.edu/farmasyst/.
Contact:
Richard Castelnuovo
Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst
1545 Observatory Drive
303 Hiram Smith Hall
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Tel: 608-265-3727
rcastein@facstaff.wisc.edu
<< back to Appendices
