Response to Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

Response to Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

Final Draft

Operating Principles in relation to

Spray Drift Risk

Contents:

IntroductionPage 3

NFF comments on Draft APVMA Operating PrinciplesPage 4

NFF Actions to reduce Spray DriftPage 5

ConclusionPage 7

ContactPage 7

Introduction

The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) was established in 1979 and is the peak national body representing farmers, and more broadly agriculture across Australia.

The NFF's membership comprises of all Australia's major agricultural commodities. Operating under a federated structure, individual farmers join their respective state farm organisation and/or national commodity council. These organisations collectively form the NFF.

Each of these state farm organisations and commodity councils deal with state-based 'grass roots' issues or commodity specific issues, respectively, while the NFF represents the agreed imperatives of all at the national and international level.

As such, we represent over 210,000 legitimate chemical users.

A major platform of NFF policy is that the production and operating decisions of one farmer must not negatively impinge on the production and operating decisions of other farmers. We also strive to achieve strategic objectives, three of these objectives being:

• To champion the cause of Australian agriculture in embracing the very latest in technologies to deliver the very best products for domestic and, increasingly, international customers.

• To promote the interests of Australian farmers and to proactively interact with members to ensure Australian agriculture continues to be dynamic in meeting the ever-changing needs and expectations of the Australian community.

• To strive in achieving acceptance by governments of the major role Australian agriculture plays in the economic, environmental and social fabric of the nation, as well as farmers' commitment to adequate self-regulation and review - thus ensuring the highest standards across all facets of farm practice.

Preventing spray drift is an essential aspect of using agricultural chemicals responsibly. Off-target spray drift has a number of consequences, including:

• damage to non-target vegetation and crops or non-target organisms;
• contamination of animals, agricultural and animal produce and of non-target areas;
• human health hazards;
• compromising international trade; and
• environmental contamination.

Spray drift may also impact on the owner of the sprayed crop, due to:

• monetary loss because the chemical is not placed on the target area; and
• poor pest control and subsequent crop loss.

The risks associated with off-target spray drift areincompatible with, and undermine, the NFF strategic objectives and policy principles. On this basis, the NFF welcomes the detailed assessment of spray drift risks and the development of operating principles by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (AVPMA).

It should be noted that the NFF is also developing policies and pursuing actions to bring about attitudinal, educational and practical change amongst farmers. Our policy-level objective is to achieve a reduction in the cases of adverse experiences due to spray drift and, on the more positive side, to ensure that farmers’ reap the many benefits to be gained when spray applications are conducted using best-practice.

NFF comments on Draft APVMA Operating Principles

Regulation

We note favourably that the Operating Principles do not constitute new regulation of spray applications. According to the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), it is estimated that potentially 2800 chemical products may require assessment, affecting about 175 companies.

Home Products

We consider that there is an inconsistency in the scope – specifically the exclusion of home garden products and animal treatments. The APVMA has contended that the spray drift risk is much lower in these instances due to limited scale of use. However, the NFF argues that while the consequence of the risks is lower in some cases -but not all- the actual risks remain the same. Over the past decade, awareness of chemical safety, education and training has risen dramatically amongst the farming community. Yet, we acknowledge that there is still some way to go, particularly with respect to spray drift risks.

However, the decision to exclude home users from these principles is short-sighted and likely to lead to adverse impacts caused by spray drift. Most home product users have not undertaken any form of chemical training, are not aware of the importance of correct dilution factors and safety equipment and will, in many cases,use products in an urban environment, close to water systems, people and pets. On this basis, the NFF considers that off-target impact is likely to occur and these products should be included in the scope of the Operating Principles.

Label Consistency

The planned process will benefit industry by achieving consistency in label instructions and greater transparency to the process used by the APVMA to make decisions for regulating spray drift risk. It will also help to provide a level playing field between older, unassessed products and those new products recently assessed using the new principles.

The NFF notes technological developments towards computerised label systems that take into account daily weather conditions and specific use factors to develop a label for each spraying situation. We would be interested in any moves of the APVMA to introduce this system.

Compliance Costs

However, there will be some additional business compliance costs which are likely to be passed on the chemical users. By the APVMA’s calculation, this cost comes to $2,843,750 over a period of up to five years. This cost burden cannot be disregarded, particularly given that the Australian agriculture is still in the grips of the current, prolonged drought and many farmers are struggling to meet input costs. On the other hand, if these compliance measures make a difference in reducing spray drift instances, the net effect will be a positive one for individual farmers, the environment and the community. The NFF is keen to understand what performance measurement criteria the APVMA will be applying to record the reduction in spray drift risk achieved following the introduction of the new Operating Principles.

The NFF supports the change of approach between previous draft operating principles and the final draft, which puts the onus and cost of completing preliminary assessments on the APVMA rather than industry. The NFF considers this to be an appropriate responsibility of the APVMA as industry does not have the necessary expertise or financial means to conduct these assessments.

Spray Drift Data

It is not clear to the NFF that the APVMA will utilise only Australian data and modeling in its assessments. Significant differences exist between the farming practices, environmental impacts, population density and other factors that affect the measurement of spray drift risks. The NFF seeks an assurance from the APVMA that the data used to assess spray drift risk will be sourced from Australian tests and take into account farming systems and industry best-practice.

Timing

The NFF notes that the APVMA has estimated that four- five years will be required to conduct assessments on all of the relevant chemical products. Given the importance of addressing this issue, and reducing off-target drift, the NFF is pursuing actions to help to raise awareness of this problem and to drive further industry best-practice. These actions are described in the next section.

NFF Actions to Reduce Spray Drift Risk

A Draft NFF Spray Drift Action Plan will be formally considered in the first week of April 2008. Its contents are below.

The NFF recognises that spray drift has long been a contentious issue in farming and the broader community. Off-target spray drift has resulted in the loss of crops, compromised livestock quality, threatened export markets, risked environmental and community safety and pitted farmer against farmer in civil law cases.

The NFF recognises that technological advances mean that off-target spray drift is unacceptable, avoidable and the result of poor practice and/or non-compliance with spraydrift codes of practice. A fundamental platform of NFF policy is that the operational decisions of one farmer must not unfairly impinge on the rights of other farmers. It is therefore necessary for the NFF to take action on two fronts to reduce the adverse experiences of farmers caused by off-target spraydrift.

Action Plan Objectives

• To highlight to farmers the benefits of best practice spray applications.
• To increase farmer awareness of the benefits of managing spray drift risks
• including how these risks can be managed, the cost of risk management and the cost of not managing these risks appropriately.
• To reduce off-target spray drift occurrences.
• To retain spray application and chemicals as a tool available to farmers.

Initiative OneAwareness-Raising and Education

1. The NFF will highlight the importance of managing spray drift by:

a)Including a spray application learning module in the NFF Farm Chemicals Sub-Committee meeting;

b)Develop a multi-media presentation on spraydrift to disseminate to all NFF member organisations;

c)Partner with chemical manufacturers to jointly promote spray application training, including considering links on the NFF ‘Members area of the NFFwebsite to spraydrift training courses;

d)Partner with government bodies and chemical manufacturers to present a spray drift summit targeted at farmers to raise awareness of the potential consequences off-target spray drift and the variety of means by which these can be avoided;

e)Provide information on the importance of managing spray drift to farmers via NFF member organisations and NFF media tools;

f)Liaise with farm chemical training organisations to promote spray application training and best-practice.

Initiative TwoNFF Policy Position

1. The NFF will develop a comprehensive policy position on spray drift:
2. The NFF policy on spray drift will consider increased obligations on farmers to recognise their role in managing spray drift risks;
3. The NFF will consult with the APVMA, industry groups and government to secure appropriate input and feedback on the draft policy position; and
4. The NFF will adopt a strong advocacy position to promote the spray drift policy internally and to external stakeholders.

Conclusion

Spray drift is an important issue that must be addressed by the farming community, industry and governments alike. The NFF is pleased to see that the APVMA draft Operating Principles will bring greater consistency and transparency to governments role in regulating spray drift. While there are some areas on which we have sought further clarification from the APVMA, in-principle we support this document as a step forward towards managing spray drift risks appropriately and at a national level. We bring to the attention of the APVMA the efforts the NFF is pursuing on our own behalf which will support the intent and objectives of the APVMA Operating Principles from the user end and we hope to retain a strong dialogue and consultative approach to managing these risks in such a way that farming businesses are not negatively affected.

Contact

Natalie Collard

Manager Rural Affairs, NFF

02 6273 3855

1