 |
|
|
|
|
RIRDC Completed Projects in 2005-2006 & Research in Progress as at June 2006
To Human Capital, Communications & Information Systems Research in Progress
Human Capital, Communications & Information Systems
COMPLETED PROJECTSInformation and Communications Systems
PROJECT No PROJECT TITLE RESEARCHER PHONE ORGANISATION SYC-5A Fostering creativity in research Mr Tony Gleeson (07) 4666 4112 Synapse Research & Consulting TLG-1A Technological advancement of growers in NetMeetings™ for effective information tender Ms Jill McGregor (08) 9664 2030 Liebe Group UNE-90A Replacing the notebook: collaborative development of farm management software Dr Elaine Barclay (02) 67735141 Institute for Rural Futures, The University of New England UQ-123A Maximising the benefits of intellectual property for Australian rural industries Prof Brad Sherman (07) 3365 6193 University of Queensland VUT-5A Relationship marketing and E-Business strategies in food enterprises Dr Suku Bhaskaran (03) 9216 8263 Victoria University, Australian Food Marketing Centre Rural Communities and Social Issues:
PROJECT No PROJECT TITLE RESEARCHER PHONE ORGANISATION CUT-8A Factors impeding and facilitating natural resource management by local government Dr Fiona Haslam McKenzie Dr Barbara Pini (08) 9266 1087 Curtin University of Technology DAV-208A Small farms—valued contributors to healthy rural communities Ms Carole Hollier (02) 6030 4500 Department of Primary Industries (Vic) DAV-214A Farm diversification: Which farm families diversify and where does it take them? Ms Alison Medhurst 03 9210 9222 Department of Primary Industries USA-13A Sustaining rural communities: Recruitment and retention in the mining, food and beverage processing Industries Dr Lia Bryant (08) 8302 4363 University of South Australia Farm Health and Safety
PROJECT No PROJECT TITLE RESEARCHER PHONE ORGANISATION ORM-1A Ute guide to occupational health and safety (OHS) for broadacre agriculture Mr Phil O’Callaghan (03) 5441 6176 O’Callaghan Rural Management and DIRT Management QUT-5A Organophosphate exposure Prof Michael Capra (02) 4348 4021 Queensland University of Technolog US-121A National farm injury data project—continuation A/Prof Lyn Fragar (02) 6752 8215 Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety USA-14A Testing and delivering media communication strategies for child farm safety Dr Lia Bryant (08) 8302 4363 University of South Australia WDH-3A Cost analysis of sustainable farm families program Ms Susan Brumby (03) 5551 8460 Western District Health Service Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building
PROJECT No PROJECT TITLE RESEARCHER PHONE ORGANISATION CSW-38A Targeting ‘pragmatist’ farmers in transfer of simulation-based decision support Ms Lisa Brennan (07) 3214 2375 CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems DAV-201A Improving delivery mechanisms for sustainable land management in the small farm sector Ms Carol Hollier (02) 6030 4500 Department of Primary Industries (Vic) RRE-4A Funding of capacity building and the implications for institutional arrangements Dr Kate Roberts (03) 9670 0745 Roberts Evaluation Pty Ltd RUS-1A Women’s leadership in rural industries Ms Jo Eady (07) 3848 2890 RuralScope Pty Ltd UT-41A A responsive training market: the role of brokers A/Prof Sue Kilpatrick (03 6324 4011 (03) 6231 9033
University of Tasmania and Rural Development Services UT-48A Aligning extension and the VET sector A/Prof Sue Kilpatrick (03) 6324 4011 University of Tasmania VAN-1A Many paths: first Australian farm succession planning conference Mr Mark Gardner (02) 6884 4401 Vanguard Business Services Information and communication systems
Project Title: Fostering creativity in research RIRDC Project No.: SYC-5A Researcher: Tony Gleeson Organisation: Synapse Research & Consulting
‘Avondale’
Legume NSW 2476Phone: (07) 4666 4112 Fax: Email: syncons@ozemail.com.au Objectives ·1 To examine institutional factors affecting creativity in rural Australia. Background This work follows an earlier project examining creativity in rural R&D. Research Literature searches and studies of innovation systems and practice were applied to identify constraints on creativity and how they night be addressed. Outcomes Several institutional constraints to creativity in innovation in rural Australia were identified including, the narrowness of the mental constructs for innovation and the lack of diversity in innovation systems. Implications This project has shown that there is a need for greater insight in R&D for rural Australia and that this could be enabled by having greater diversity in innovation systems. Publications None at this time.
Project Title: Technological advancement of growers in NetMeetings™ for effective information transfer RIRDC Project No.: TLG-1A Researcher: Jill McGregor Organisation: Liebe Group Phone: 08 9664 2030 Fax: 08 9664 2040 Email: liebe.jill@bigpond.com Objectives ·1 To establish capacity, in both infrastructure and skills, for members of the Liebe Group to utilise MS NetMeetings™ for on-line communications ·2 For the Liebe Group to conduct regular NetMeetings both for internal business operations and for communications with external collaborators
·3 Promote to other grower groups around Australia the benefits of real-time on-line Internet meetings.
Background The Liebe Group has been involved, previously, with APSRU Toowoomba in a FarmBis-funded pilot training program aimed at equipping farmers with decision-making tools to better deal with climate, market and environmental risks. This project provided a glimpse of what internet technology can achieve with regular NetMeeting communications between APSRU and Liebe Group. However, this introduction to MS NetMeeting™ was not sufficient to enable the Liebe Group to adopt this exciting technology in its own operations. Research An audit was carried out in the area to identify Internet exchanges and the technology available at those exchanges. Dean Hargreaves (APSRU) trained staff and members in the installation and running of MS NetMeeting. This increased the staff’s technical expertise. A videophone unit is installed at the Liebe office for face-to-face meetings. The Liebe Group decided to have one of its five subcommittees as the pilot group for conducting NetMeetings. The Finance Committee was the first committee to utilise the NetMeetings. NetMeetings were also used as internal information transfer between staff members. An evaluation was documented after each NetMeeting to highlight the benefits or problems associated with the technology. The Liebe Group has an excellent extension network and through newsletters, other publications and field days the benefits of MS NetMeeting have been distributed to the wider community.
Outcomes The Liebe Group conducted internal and external business communications using real-time on-line Internet meetings involving both group members and other stakeholders. The technology proved to be low cost and efficient enough to allow remote farmers to communicate and access the advice of their peers and relevant research. The evaluation process conducted by the Liebe Group after each meeting will enable the use of the technology to be improved by the people using it. Industry interest in the project is high with requests for articles for media publications to extend the research to a wider audience. Implications This project has shown that new communications technology is enabling farmers to attend vital meetings from their own home office, saving time and money. Rural Australia will be able to be connected within their communities and to external services through more effective use of the Internet for real-time communication. Publications Kondinin Group ‘Farming Ahead’, November 2005. Our Community ‘Board Builder’ edition 4, Liebe Group newsletters.
Project Title: Replacing the notebook: collaborative development of farm management software RIRDC Project No.: UNE-90A Researcher: Dr Elaine Barclay Organisation: Institute for Rural Futures, The University of New England Phone: (02) 67735141 Fax: (02) 67733245 Email: ebarclay@une.edu.au Objectives ·1 In consultation with farmers and with the support of a commercial business partner, this project sought to develop and commercialise a user-friendly but leading-edge livestock and farm management system incorporating palm computer technology to replace the paddock diary or notebook commonly used for recording information on farms. The product is designed specifically for small operators in the grazing, cropping and mixed farming industries. Background A high proportion of Australian farmers well recognise that Information Technology is crucial to maintaining their competitiveness in the rural sector. However, many of the commercial farm management software packages are expensive, difficult to master and beyond the requirements of many small producers. The present project was developed to address that need. Research Consultations with several groups of farmers in three diverse regions across northern New South Wales identified their actual versus perceived needs for farm management packages to guide the software development. It was found that farmers require specific tools for identifying calves and lambs with their mothers. This led to the development of the Breeding Tool to accomplish this task. New Workcover regulations realised the need for new software to record Occupational Health and Safety Risks on farm. The software developed addressed farm safety, security and biosecurity hazards on farms. Outcomes The final package of several simple farm management software programs was the result of ongoing liaison and quality assurance checks by farmers. The package includes: ·2 A Breeding Tool: a livestock management program In partnership with our commercial partner, the Breeding Tool module is now available on the market as part of Practical Systems’ Stock Book package.·3 Paddock Event Diary: Recording information on crop planting records, chemical and fertiliser applications including a boomspray calibration and rainfall records
·4 Occupational Health and Safety Checklist
·5 Farm Safety and Security Checklist
·6 Farm Biosecurity Checklist
·7 Farm employee document handling including duty statement, contact details, accreditation, qualifications etc.
·8 Palm Pilot standard programs including a calculator, to do list, memo and diary.
Implications The product will be most appropriate for the needs of small operators and will introduce them to the usefulness of the new technologies for the agricultural industries and encourage them to explore further options. The Breeding Tool will be most beneficial to livestock producers in the roll out of the National Livestock Identification Scheme. Publications Practical System’s Stock Book Program. See http://www.psystems.com.au/
Project Title: Maximising the benefits of intellectual property for Australian Rural Industries RIRDC Project No.: UQ-123A Researcher: Prof Brad Sherman Organisation: Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture Phone: 07 3365 7179 Fax: 07 3346 7480 Email: b.sherman@uq.edu.au Objectives ·1 Maximise the benefits and minimise the costs associated with intellectual property (IP) for Australian rural industries by enhancing the on-going competitiveness, sustainability and profitability of rural industries ·2 Promote research, innovation and development; to ensure the effective uptake and dissemination of research results; to protect innovations within the rural industries; and to enhance access to local and overseas markets
Background There has been very little research undertaken on the interaction of intellectual property and agriculture (except for the work undertaken by members of ACIPA). The research for this project will build upon previous work undertaken by ACIPA since it was formed in 2000. There are a number of opportunities for positive interaction with other rural industry research and development corporations (such as GRDC, HAL, and CRDC). Research A number of ACIPA researchers were available to conduct research, prepare fact sheets and training materials, deliver IP Training workshops and a 1-day IP Master Class. Outcomes ·1 Provision of consultation and advice on intellectual property issues to RIRDC staff ·2 Production of three IP fact sheets
·3 Delivery of 10 IP Training workshops in urban, regional and rural locations throughout Australia for RIRDC funded scientists
·4 Delivery of a 1-day Intellectual Property Master Class for RIRDC staff
·5 Publication of academic papers related to the project
Implications The Australian rural sector is undergoing significant change in IP laws. The advice, consultation, education and training provided by ACIPA were relevant throughout the project and will continue to be of benefit to ensure the on-going competitiveness, sustainability and profitability of rural industries. Publications Sherman B., 'Intellectual Property and Genetic Use Restriction Technologies', (2005) 6 Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal (in Japanese), pp. 1-31 (with S. Hubicki) Sherman B., 'Terminator Genes as 'Technical' Protection Measures for Patents' in C. Heath and A. Kamperman Sanders (eds) New Frontiers of Intellectual Property Law, (Kluwer/Hart Publishing, 2005) (with S. Hubicki)
Sherman B., 'The Killing Fields: Intellectual Property and Genetic Use Restriction Technologies', (2005) 28(3) University of New South Wales Law Journal, pp. 740-757 (with S. Hubicki)
Burrell, R., 'Patent Law and Genetic Drift: Schmeiser v Monsanto Canada Inc', (2005) 7(3) Environmental Law Review (with S. Hubicki)
Handler, M., 'The WTO Geographical Indications Dispute' (2006) 69 Modern Law Review, pp. 70-80
Lawson, C., 'Releasing GM Canola into the Environment - Deconstructing a Decision of the Gene Technology Regulator under the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth)' (2005) 23(1) Environmental and Planning Law Journal, pp. 22- 59 (with Richard Hindmarsh)
Lawson, C., 'Amgen, TKT and the Erythropoietin Patents - Patent Privileges in Preference to Competition' (2005) 16(3) Australian Intellectual Property Journal, pp. 129-136
Lawson, C., 'Rethinking the Exemption of Some Patent License and Assignment Conditions from the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Competition Laws' (2005) 2 Macquarie Journal of Business Law, pp. 1-43
Lawson, C., 'Implementing an Objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Intellectual Property, Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing in Australia' (2005) 22(2) Environmental and Planning Law Journal, pp. 130-157
Lawson, C., 'Patent Privileges and the National Competition Policy – Patent Scope and Allocation?' (2005) 33(1) Australian Business Law Review, pp. 7-29
Rimmer, M., 'Japonica Rice: Intellectual Property, Scientific Publishing, and Data-Sharing', Prometheus, September 2005, 23(3), pp. 325-347
Project Title: Relationship marketing and e-business—Operations and strategies of small- to medium-scale food enterprises RIRDC Project No.: VUT-5A Researcher: Dr Suku Bhaskaran Organisation: Victoria University
Australian Food Marketing Centre
PO Box 14428
MELBOURNE CITY MC VIC 8001Phone: (03) 9216 8263 Fax: (03) 9216 8135 Email: suku.bhaskaran@vu.edu.au Objectives ·1 To understand the e-business, management and marketing issues for SMEs (small to medium enterprises) in the food chain in order to improve their competitive position. Background Rapid growth in the adoption of e-business and the increasing tendency of large corporations to down-size and contract out non-core activities to SMEs and manage such relationships through technology networks has substantively altered the business landscape. Traditionally, the commercial success of many SMEs was not based on price competitiveness or other transaction cost efficiencies alone but was also because of the strong relationships that the owners and managers of SMEs had with their customers, suppliers and employees. The widespread adoption of information communication and internet technologies has altered the business landscape and consequently it is imperative that food SMEs re-examine how they manage their relationships with customers, suppliers and employees in the ‘new’ technology enabled environment. This study examines the information communication and internet technology enabled business initiatives of food SMEs in Australia. It evaluates the types and variety of technology adopted, evaluates the benefits that these technologies have delivered and recommends actions that may enable food SMEs to operate more efficiently and competitively in the information communication and internet technology enabled business environment. Research The study reveals that the vast majority of food SMEs in Australia has limited their e-business initiatives to developing websites which provide information about the business and its products. Because of this, greater integration across the value chain has not occurred nor have SMEs benefited through cost savings or business growth. The study concludes that food SMEs should adopt a wider suite of ICT and internet technologies and that this will improve the capability of SMEs to collate better quality information about customers and markets and integrate customer, supplier and employee relationships more cohesively. Better quality and timely information will improve the SMEs relationships with customers, suppliers and employees and increase the SMEs capability to service customers more efficiently and effectively. The study recommends that information regarding the availability of competitively priced but more advanced and appropriate information communication technologies should be disseminated to SMEs and that the managers and owners of SMEs should be mentored through the e-business adoption process. Outcomes A detailed report on the findings of the study has been published. The findings were published in the Food Magazine (www.ferret.com), an industry periodical. Workshops and training programs that will help food SMEs understand the benefits of adopting more advanced ICT and internet technologies are being developed. Implications The adoption of the recommendations in the report should enable SMEs to achieve operational efficiency, increase value chain integration and deliver growth in sales and market share. Publications Peer reviewed journal articles and conference papers are being written-up for publication.
Rural Communities and Social Issues
Project Title: Factors impeding and facilitating natural resource management by local government RIRDC Project No.: CUT-8A Researcher: Dr Fiona Haslam McKenzie and Dr Barbara Pini Organisation: Curtin University of Technology Phone: (08) 9266 1087 Fax: (08) 9266 3793 Email: f.mckenzie@curtin.edu.au Objectives The purpose of this project is to examine the gaps between the potential of local government to take a lead role in natural resource management (NRM) and its limited contribution to date. It is different from, and adds to, previous earlier work in three distinct ways: ·1 Firstly, its focus is particularly on local government authorities in rural and regional areas. Its concern is with the issues of developing, implementing and monitoring environmental goals at a local rural and regional level. ·2 Secondly, it seeks to give particular emphasis to the role stakeholders play in rural areas in terms of the local government approach to the environment. Again, given the rural focus, attention will be placed on the role of groups such as producer organisations, rural research and extension institutions and rural women’s networks etc.
·3 Thirdly, it aims to move beyond critique and highlight the factors that can facilitate and support local government taking a lead role in natural resource management.
Background Over the past decade, local government in Australia has experienced a period of significant reform (social, economic and environmental) (see for example Chapman 1997, Martin 1999). One of the outcomes of this has been the transformation of the roles undertaken by local government as it has moved from what Worthington and Dollery (2000) characterise as "property-related to community-related functions". Included in this latter category is the increased responsibility for environment and natural resource management (Crowley, 1998). The potential that local government has to make to natural resource management has been well documented. Doyle and Kellow (1995, p. 50) for example describe local authorities as the sleeping giant of the Australian environmental policy arena given that they are typically more flexible than other tiers of government and are by nature, closer to their constituents and the community. International literature echoes this sentiment, (Yanarella and Levine, 1992; Janicke and Weidner, 1997; Welsh, 1997; Salman and Parker, 1999).
Unfortunately however, there is evidence that the capacity local government has to make a contribution to natural resource management has not been fully realised ; . Australian critiques (Keen, Mercer, & Woodful, 1994; Whittaker, 1997; Crowley 1998) have suggested that there are a range of factors that may explain why this is the case. These include a lack of finance, the dominance of more conservative and pro-development values in the sector and the limited legislative power of some authorities to support environmental action.
Research The project involved two separate studies. The first study utilised case studies of rural local government management of natural resources to identify the barriers and facilitators to environmental engagement, while the second was a Q-methodology study designed to detail different stakeholder perspectives on rural local government’s management of the environment. Data for Study One was obtained from fifteen case studies of rural local governments across Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. The case studies involved interviews with council staff and elected members as well as document analysis of council materials relating to the environment. Barriers and facilitators to natural resource management in rural local governments were categorised according to four key themes:
·1 Community The concluding chapter documents why each of these operate as barriers to local government management as well as suggests possible strategies by which rural local governments and state and federal governments could address these barriers. Study Two focused on stakeholder perceptions of rural local government management of natural resources. To address this issue a Q-methodology study was utilized as this method focuses on people’s own perspectives, meanings and opinions. Data analysis of the Q-sorts revealed that there are five distinct stakeholder perspectives in terms of local government and natural resource management.·2 Capacity
·3 Co-ordination
·4 Commitment
Outcomes The study concludes by noting that past research a decade before documented a similar list of barriers to local government engagement in natural resource management. It is therefore concerning that the same constraints remain. It is evident that any identified problems in local government engagement in natural resource management are likely to be magnified in rural locations. Implications Barriers identified in previous research continue to impede local governments in taking up an environmental agenda. In the interim natural resource management at the local government level in Australia is compromised. Publications Challenging local government notions of community engagement as unnecessary, unwanted and unproductive: Case studies from rural Australia. Pini, B. & Haslam McKenzie, F. Environmental Policy and Planning, Vol. 8 (1) 27-44.
Q-Methodology and Rural Research
Pini, B. Previte, J. & Haslam McKenzie, F. submitted to Sociologia Ruralis in November, 2005.
Project Title: Small farms as valued contributors to healthy rural communities RIRDC Project No.: DAV-208A Researcher: Carole Hollier, Michael Reid and Max Coster Organisation: Department of Primary Industries (VIC)
Catchment and Agriculture Services, Rutherglen Centre
Chiltern Valley Road
Rutherglen VIC 3685Phone: (02) 6030 4500 Fax: (02) 6030 4600 Email: Carole.hollier@dpi.vic.gov.au Objectives ·1 To increase the national understanding of the contribution of small farms to rural communities. ·1 To inform program and policy (including extension practice) of the contribution of small farms to rural communities.
Background Australia’s farming history has seen a shift from a countryside once scattered primarily with traditional family farms, to a diverse landscape where large farms operate next door to rural residential properties and small farms. In addition to increasing local rural populations, this emergent group of new landholders with a lifestyle focus brings opportunity, diversity and resilience to rural communities. Increasingly, the sector is shaping a distinctive regional character in parts of rural Australia. Research Socio-demographic trends suggest there is significant change in land ownership and use resulting in a highly fragmented countryside and more small farms in amenable rural landscapes and near large urban centres. It is widely recognised that small farms can make a substantial contribution to rural communities in many parts of regional Australia. However, there is no consistent definition of a small farm. The term tends to be used interchangeably with hobby, lifestyle or part-time farms and can generate positive and negative reactions within rural communities. Farming is often not their primary occupation or income source. Location is linked to lifestyle. Outcomes The characteristics of rural communities are becoming increasingly more heterogenous in nature. A range of rural locations in Australia has experienced population growth and economic prosperity in response to changing community values and the lifestyle aspirations associated with small farm ownership. The complex mix of traditional agricultural production alongside small parcels of land appears to have strengthened communities at some locations. This ranges from more diversified local economies, improved services and greater opportunities for environmental conservation. Implications Small farm landholders are an increasingly significant component of rural populations around the fringes of major cities and locations with high amenity that match lifestyle aspirations. The characteristics associated with this group of landholders provides particular challenges for rural policy makers and programs that focus on building robust and resilient communities. Understanding their contribution to communities is invariably linked to understanding their diversity, lifestyles, views and values as part of rural communities. Recognition of the value of the small farm sector to communities and applying this understanding to community development and polices to capitalise on the future sustainability of regional communities will continue to be important. Publications Hollier, C, Reid, M, Francis, J, 2004 Understanding drivers of land use change associated with lifestyle farms, Driver Research Phase Background Report No. 4 Project 05116. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria.
Project Title: Farm diversification: Which farm families diversify and where does it take them? RIRDC Project No.: DAV-214A Researcher: Alison Medhurst Organisation: Department of Primary Industries
Private Bag 15
Ferntree Gully Delivery Centre VIC 3156Phone: 03 9210 9222 Fax: 03 9800 3521 Email: Alison.Medhurst@dpi.vic.gov.au Objectives ·1 This project aimed to add to the current knowledge on farm diversification in Australia through focussing on the farming family unit by understanding their drivers, decision making processes, information needs and common traits. Background Farm diversification is a phenomenon common to rural landowners across the developed world. Within Australia diversification is being promoted as a way to maintain the rural landscape in the face of increasing pressures. This report is an attempt to better understand why farm families diversify and what the outcomes of that diversification are. Research For this study we defined diversification as the addition of a source of farm-based income to the existing source however other definitions are equally valid for the situations they apply to. A number of key themes and common traits relating to diversification were identified from the interviews with the 25 diversified farm families. ·1 Judgements of successful diversification for the farm families included a mix of financial and social factors. A range of disadvantages was discussed by farm families in this study and can be placed into two categories: time and increased workloads and the difficulties associated with marketing and distribution.·2 The drivers for diversification included making room of family involvement (children, siblings and partners), lifestyle choices and spreading risk.
·3 The advantages of diversification included: spreading risk, increasing interest in the farm, the challenge of a new business, learning new skills, understanding where personal strengths lie, having new experiences, meeting new people, and being a part of new networks.
Outcomes The findings of this report include identifying the drivers for diversification for these 25 farm families, some advantages and disadvantages of diversification and suggestions for the types of questions that farming families should consider before embarking on a farm diversification. This report also discusses some implications for government in their role as policy maker and service provider. Implications Farm families will have an additional tool available to them in the form of a checklist of questions they should consider before diversifying. This will allow them to have a greater understanding of the likely issues and benefits associated with diversification, which will contribute to more sustainable rural communities. Governments and other regulatory bodies have a greater understanding of the social implications of diversifying a family farm. It is hoped this information will be used to inform decisions on rural policy and service delivery. Publications Currently in press.
Project Title: Sustaining rural communities: Recruitment and retention in the mining, food and beverage processing industries RIRDC Project No.: USA-13A Researcher: Dr Lia Bryant Organisation: University of South Australia Phone: (08) 8302 4363 Fax: (08) 8302 4377 Email: Lia.Bryant@unisa.edu.au Objectives ·1 This study aimed to construct an up-to-date audit and analysis of private sector organisations from a sample of Australian mining and food manufacturing industries, to identify existing policies, practices and projects regarding the attraction and retention of skilled trades, semi skilled workers and professionals to regional and rural areas. ·2 To construct an audit of private sector and TAFE training courses that relate to the needs of the food and mining employment sectors to aid retention and attraction of workers to rural and regional areas.
·3 To identify gaps and successful initiatives to provide a reference base for development of human resource policies.
·4 To consider future policy directions and opportunities.
Background The question of how to attract and retain workers in Australia has received much media publicity and has been the focus of debate among government, unions, training institutions and employer groups. Central to the debate has been the question of skill shortage in trades, shortage of semi-skilled workers, geo-science professions and medical and allied health professions. Skill shortage and its potential impact on industry has resulted in media headlines suggesting demise of certain industries and tension between industry sectors as they fight for an increasingly smaller pool of skilled workers. There has been little empirical data and academic literature on the attraction and retention of workers, however, this body of literature has primarily focused on certain occupations and professions particularly in the health care sector in rural and regional Australia.
This project extends analyses by focusing on the mining and food and beverage industries. These industries constitute the focus for the study as they are the largest employers outside of agriculture in rural, regional and remote communities. Thus, the sustainability of rural communities is reliant upon employment in the mining and food and beverage processing industries.
Research The empirical data for this report was obtained from a national study which included 19 mining sites and 23 food and beverage sites and 34 training providers. The sample for the mining organisations mostly include sites without Fly-in-Fly Out operations and a sample that represented a range of organisational contexts, like size, remoteness and commodities. The sample was constructed with the aid of the Minerals Council of Australia. The sample for the food organisations were chosen to reflect the economic importance of specific food and beverage processing industries by state and territory using ABS classification data. In addition, sampling was aided by the National Food Industry Strategy. Data collection reflected the overall aims of the project by including the provision of broad based profiling data on professionals and skilled workers in rural food processing and mining industries, and the provision of in depth data at individual organisational/site level on recruitment and retention for food processing and mining sites in regional, rural and remote Australia. In order to achieve these aims data collection involved quantitative analyses of ABS and other official statistics to indicate industry and workforce profiles, analyses of government and industry documents to provide a detailed discussion of ‘skill shortage’ and telephone interviews with HR personnel or site managers to identify barriers and strategies around recruitment and retention. Telephone interviews were also held with 34 private, community and government training providers to gain insight into inter-relations between industry training needs and current training provision.
Outcomes Key Finding: Recruitment and retention strategies differ across and within sectors and indeed, within organisations. The data show evidence of industry awareness of problems associated with recruitment and retention and in some cases attempts to overcome these problems. However, future development of recruitment and retention opportunities for Australian rural based industries will require further research and development initiatives around organisations culture and its impact on recruitment and retention. The structural and behavioural aspects of organisation culture are also linked to the extent of diversity and inclusivity of the organisation. Consequently, diversification of the workforce while identified as a means of enhancing recruitment and retention is also a reflection of organisation culture. Importantly diversity is also a means by which to fully utilise existing personnel and the capacity within the local community and thereby to reduce gaps in skills and skill shortage. Implications Further discussion is required in regard to the meaning of the term ‘skill-shortage’ to enable the development of appropriately driven strategies to accommodate training needs of the current workforce and future workforce. Understanding of organisational culture at the site level is imperative for the development of rural labour markets and organisational development. Publications Bryant, L. and Tedmanson, D. (2006) Drilling Down: Diversity the Mining Industry, Barriers to Gender and Indigenous Diversity in the Australian Mining Industry, International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, in press.
Project Title: Ute guide to occupational health and safety (OHS) for broadacre agriculture RIRDC Project No.: ORM-1A Researcher: Phil O’Callaghan and Frank Delahunty Organisation: O’Callaghan Rural Management and DIRT Management Phone: 03 5441 6176 Fax: 03 5444 4299 Email: admin@orm.com.au Objectives ·1 Publish a ute guide to OH&S for the agricultural industry as a user-focused tool for communication of OH&S guidelines and best practice relating to common Agricultural operations. Background Fragar and Franklin (1999) identified the industry view that ‘the protection and enhancement of health and safety and the wellbeing of the human resource is a critical factor for ensuring the efficient future for agriculture in Australia’. The RIRDC report, Farm Machinery Regulatory Review (Gunningham, 2003), recognised that the limiting factors affecting agricultural businesses educating themselves on safety issues were available time and opportunity. The development of this Guide has resulted from the identification of the need for a user-friendly, portable reference that Agricultural workers can use in their day to day operations. This is in accordance with the objectives of the RIRDC R&D Plan for Farm Health & Safety 2002–06 to increase the adoption of safe systems of work on farm and to update and further develop training material and delivery modes more likely to be taken up by farmers.
This tool is intended to be used in conjunction with the process of risk assessment and the development and implementation of action plans by agricultural businesses to potentially reduce incidents of workplace injury.
Research A Reference Group was established and consisted of Farmer Representatives, OH&S Professionals including Farmsafe Australia representatives, Agricultural Consultants and Agricultural Business Managers to assist in refining the concept of Ute Guide and to ensure that Farmsafe recognised standards are met. Desk top research was undertaken to establish the current status of OH&S legislative requirements and industry best practice for broadacre agricultural operations The guide was refined and edited through a series of reviews with the project team and finally the Reference Group.
Outcomes A reference tool for people working in agriculture to conduct common tasks to best practice standards and in accordance with OH&S legislation that can be integrated with Agricultural Business’ OH&S Policy and Training. Implications The benefits of this project will be economic and social. There is also a potential for reduced environmental impact. Key objectives and benefits include: ·1 Provide people in the agricultural workplace with a clear, accessible reference on how to carry out operations in accordance with OH&S guidelines and industry best practice ·2 Lessen the risk of injury to people in the agricultural workplace
·3 Reduce incidents with environmental impacts such as chemical spills through safe management of agricultural chemicals.
·4 Provide a simple tool to support Job Safety Analysis (JSA) and Risk Assessments in the workplace.
·5 Promote best practice health and safety performance to agricultural businesses and foster a culture of ‘beyond compliance’.
Ute guide to occupational health and safety (OHS) for broadacre agriculture.
Project Title: Organophosphate exposure in agricultural workers: Human exposure and risk assessment RIRDC Project No.: QUT-5A Researcher: Kelly Johnstone, Prof Michael Capra, Prof Beth Newman, Dr John Cameron, Dr Keith Adam Organisation: Queensland University of Technology, School of Public Health
Victoria Park Road
Kelvin Grove QLD 4059Phone: (02) 4348 4021 Fax: (02) 4348 4013 Email: k.johnstone@aussafe.com.au; Mike.Capra@newcastle.edu.au Objectives The broad aims of this study are to characterise OP pesticide exposure and to assess the feasibility of using urine metabolite testing as a risk assessment tool for agricultural and related industry workers exposed to OP pesticides. The specific objectives of the study are:
·1 to assess participant fruit and vegetable farmers’ knowledge and use of formal risk assessment techniques ·2 to investigate the OP exposure levels of four groups—fruit and vegetable farmers; agricultural pilots and their mixer/loaders; formulator plant staff; and controls—using urine DAP metabolite analysis and, where possible, blood cholinesterase testing
·3 to investigate sample collection requirements (eg. sample collection frequency, number and timing in relation to exposure) for urine DAP metabolite monitoring
·4 to investigate correlations between urine DAP metabolite levels and blood cholinesterase activities where blood sampling is possible.
Background Organophosphate (OP) pesticides, as a group, are the most widely used insecticides in Australia. Approximately 5 000 tonnes of active ingredient are used annually. Various sectors of the Australian agricultural industry work with OP pesticides. Exposure to OPs can result in both acute and chronic health effects. Pesticide exposure related illness has both economic and social effects for the ill farmer’s, their families and the rural community they support. It is important that agricultural workers be able to assess and manage their exposure to OP pesticides. WorkCover NSW Laboratories offers a urine metabolite test for OP pesticide exposure. However, the test has not previously been used in any field-based research with the agricultural industry in Australia. The test has potential for use by farmers in the risk assessment process and is more sensitive than the traditional health surveillance tool—blood cholinesterase monitoring. Research A cross-sectional study design was used to assess exposure to OP pesticides and related issues among four groups: fruit and vegetable farmers, pilots and mixer/loaders, formulator plant staff and a control group. The study involved 50 farmers in an interviewer-administered questionnaire and 32 in urine sample provision. Eighteen pilots and mixer/loaders provided urine samples and nine exposed formulation plant staff provided urine and blood samples. Community controls from Toowoomba Rotary clubs provided 44 urine samples and 11 non-exposed formulation plant staff provided blood and urine samples; all groups also provided responses to a self-administered questionnaire. Outcomes Participant farmers were drawn from the main cropping areas in south-east Queensland—Laidley/Lowood, Gatton, and Stanthorpe. The farmer group was characterised by small owner-operators who often had primary responsibility for OP pesticide mixing and application. Farmers had good general knowledge of pesticide-related safety practices; however, despite this knowledge, use of personal protective equipment (PPE) was low. More than half of the farmers did not often wear a mask/respirator (56%), gloves (54%) or overalls (65%). Material Safety Data Sheets were never or rarely read and 88.2% of farmers never or rarely read OP pesticide labels before application. There were also problems with chemical suppliers providing farmers with MSDSs. The majority of farmers (90.2%) reported that they had never had any health surveillance performed and three-quarters had never read about or been shown how to perform a formal risk assessment. The study found that workers with prolonged exposure to OP pesticides over several hours and consecutive days had the greatest potential for exposure. Fruit and vegetable farmers whose typical pattern of use was short (less than hour), infrequent and involved boom-type application methods had limited potential exposures to OP pesticides. Urine metabolite levels recorded for the farmers group were generally low. Formulators exposed to OP pesticides were found to have the highest urine OP metabolite levels, followed by pilots and mixer/loaders. The results of this study indicate that dietary and other environmental exposures to the parent compound, as well as to OP metabolites themselves, may contribute substantially to urine metabolite levels.
Levels found in this study are similar to those reported in international research. The observed metabolite levels were not associated with a drop in blood cholinesterase activity among the formulation plant workers. Urine metabolite levels recorded for all groups are unlikely to be associated with acute health effects. In contrast, there is insufficient scientific knowledge to know whether levels recorded in this study and elsewhere may be associated with long-term, chronic health effects. Further research is required in this area.
Implications Based on the findings of this research project a guide will be developed to assist farmers in the completion of a risk assessment of their, and/or their employee’s exposure to organophosphate pesticides. The guide will incorporate the use of the urine OP metabolite test as part of the risk assessment. The guide would also be of assistance in completing risk assessments for other chemical exposures on the farm. Publications
Project Title: National farm injury data project—continuation RIRDC Project No.: US-121A Researcher: A/Prof Lyn Fragar and Kirrily Pollock Organisation: Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety Phone: (02) 6752 8215 Fax: (02) 6752 6639 Email: nfidc@health.usyd.edu.au Objectives ·1 To continue to improve the ability of Australian agriculture to manage risk of injury through the provision of accurate, timely, concise and relevant data about injury occurring on farms or due to agricultural work. Background The early work of the National Farm Injury Data Centre was instrumental in drawing attention to farmers’ organisations, research organisations and government the specific safety problems of the industry, and the Data Centre has been undertaking farm injury surveillance for the past nine years in response to their information needs. Farm injury surveillance has been seen as critical in the instigation of prevention programs by the network of organisations under the Farmsafe Australia umbrella. Data has been used to define the nature and scale of the farm injury problem in Australia, in states and in specific industries, to identify priority hazards of high risk that need specific intervention and more recently to define and report on farm safety benchmarks. Research As more safety and injury prevention activity has been set in place, so have the information needs of the agriculture industries become more sophisticated. At the commencement of this project it was recognised that reports and profiles needed to be presented in ways that were more meaningful to the users of the data—farmers, policy makers, educators and others. It was further recognised that improvements were needed in relation to the timeliness of access to farm deaths and serious injury data—a key challenge using the previous data sources. This has been undertaken by accessing the National Coroners Information System, recognising that this system is in its infancy, with many data access problems yet to be resolved, and by accessing a press monitoring service to provide timely information that is already available to the public. A more recent move has been the recognition of the need for safety benchmarking systems to be available in the context of farm business management, and this project has set in place systems that will contribute to that endeavour.
Outcomes The Data Centre has worked to establish and maintain the National Farm Injury Data Collection, and to ensure that people are recruited and skills developed so as to ensure that requests for information and reports can be filled in a timely and careful manner. In addition to producing specific reports, the Data Centre, through maintenance of the Data Collection, has supplied data, comments and advice to a range of organisations and individuals. These have included each states’ OHS authority, Worksafe Australia, the media, Federal, state and territory politicians, research organisations including, Monash University Accident Research Centre, The University of New England Rural Development Centre, ABARE, university & school students, farmers and community groups including the Country Women’s Association, state and national farmer groups, rural rehabilitation service providers, rural educators and medical educators.
Implications Surveillance of agricultural injuries is a precursor to an effective program to reduce death and disability. Data gathering does not in itself serve to reduce fatalities or morbidity. Data gathering does allow us to use our prevention dollar more wisely, to evaluate our effectiveness and it alerts us to changing patterns of disease and injury. Publications These reports have been produced by project funded personnel to meet the objectives defined by the project: -14 Franklin RC, Thomas, PR, Fragar LJ. 2004. The Health and Safety of New South Wales Farmers, Farm Families and Farm Workers. Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety, Moree and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. These reports have been produced by personnel in the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety with significant use of data held by the National Farm Injury Data Collection:-15 Franklin RC, Thomas, PR, Fragar LJ. 2004. Falls in Agriculture. Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety, Moree and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
-16 Fragar L, Pollock, K. 2004. All-terrain Vehicle Injury on Australian Farms – Update 2004. Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety. Farmsafe Australia website. www.farmsafe.org.au
-17 Fragar L, Pollock, K. 2005. All-terrain Vehicle Injury on Australian Farms – Update 2005. Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety. Farmsafe Australia website. www.farmsafe.org.au
-18 Fragar, L. J., Stiller, L. and Thomas, P. 2005. Child Injury on Australian Farms – The facts No 5. 05/047, Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
-19 Fragar, L. J., Thomas, P. and Morton, C. 2005. Injury on New South Wales Farms- The facts No 7. 05/048, Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
-20 Fragar, L. J. and Thomas, P. 2005. Machinery Injury on Australian Farms – The facts No 4. 05/050, Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
-21 Fragar, L. J., Pollock, K. and Morton, C. 2005. Occupational Health and Safety Risk in the Australian Beef Cattle Industry - The facts No 1. 05/046, Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
-22 Fragar, L. J., Pollock, K. and Morton, C. 2005. Occupational Health and Safety Risk in the Australian Poultry Industry- The facts No 2, 05/052, Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
-23 Fragar, L. J., Pollock, K. and Morton, C. 2005. Occupational Health and Safety Risk in the Australian Horticulture Industries- The facts No 3, 05/049, Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
-24 Fragar, L. J., Sankaran, B. and Thomas, P. 2005. Pesticides and Human Health in Australia – The facts No 6, 05/051, Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
-25 Temperley J, Pollock K, Fragar L. 2006. Benchmarking farm health and safety for Australian agriculture – preliminary paper. Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety
-26 Fragar, L. J., Pollock, K, Morton, C, Day L. 2006. Occupational Health and Safety Risk in the Australian Dairy Industry - The facts No 9. 05/046, Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (In press).
-27 Fragar, L. J., Pollock, K. and Morton, C. 2006. All-terrain vehicle injury on Australian farms – The facts No 8. 05/046, Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (In press).
-28 Morton, C, Fragar, L. J., Pollock, K. 2006. The safety of older farmers in Australia - The facts No 10. 05/046, Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (In press).
-14 Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety. 2004, Safe Play Areas on Farms Resource Guide. Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety, Moree. -15 Fragar L, Sankaran B, Thomas P. 2004. Pesticides and human health — a report of health data related to pesticides in Australia. A report to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety. Moree
-16 Athanasiov A, Fragar L, Gupta M. 2004. Farm Machinery Safety – Injuries associated with Grain augers in Australia. Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety, Moree and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Canberra
-17 Miller J, Fragar L, Franklin R. 2004. Farm Machinery Safety – Injuries associated with posthole diggers. Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety, Moree and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
-18 Miller J, Fragar L, Franklin R. 2004. Farm Machinery Safety – Injury involving tractor run-over. Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety, Moree and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
-19 Athanasiov A, Gupta M, Hewitt RJ, Franklin RC, Fragar LJ. 2004 Farm machinery safety – Power take off shaft guards. Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety, Moree and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
-20 Fragar L, Pollock K. 2006. Head injury On Australian Farms - Data for consideration of helmet requirements. A report produced for Standards Australia Helmet Standard Committee. Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety. Moree.
Project Title Testing and delivering media communication strategies for child farm safety RIRDC Project No.: USA-14A Researcher: Dr Lia Bryant and Ms Elizabeth Hoon Organisation: University of South Australia
School of Social Work and Social Policy
St Bernards Road
Magill SA 5072Phone: (08) 8302 4363 Fax: (08) 8302 4377 Email: Lia.Bryant@unisa.edu.au; Elizabeth.Hoon@unisa.edu.au Objectives ·2 This study aimed to test the effectiveness of written, visual and audio communication strategies under the National Farmsafe Australia Child Farm Safety Strategy. Specifically to identify: 1) Access to Farmsafe media resources
2) Use of Farmsafe media resources
3) Assessment of a selection of Farmsafe media tools
4) Strategies to improve effective delivery of current resources and their messages.
Background The benefits of this independent in-depth study are the project’s dual focus on state and national child farm safety representatives and farming community members who ground the research within local knowledge, experience and activities. For communication strategies to be effective they need to be constructed in association with those to whom) they are applied (e.g. farm men, women and their children). The study identifies awareness and use of a sample of Farmsafe Australia’s child farm safety communication strategies and evaluates these tools. There is little research which evaluates communication strategies associated with child farm safety. Research There were three major components to sampling and data collection to evaluate CFS resources: 1) Telephone Interviews with child farm safety officers/facilitators and community members with an act interest in child farm safety issues. (N=18).
2) Focus groups with farm parents and grandparents, farming and community organisations and businesses, health care professionals and educators and local government (N= 14, with an average of 8 participants in each).
3) Focus groups with children and teenagers in rural based primary schools (aged between 7-9 & 10-12 years) and high schools (aged 13-15 & 15 to 17 yrs) (N=32).
Outcomes In line with the objectives, outcomes fall under the following categories: ·3 access to Farmsafe Australia child farm safety media tools Some of the outcomes include:·4 use of CFS media tools, assessment of resources
·5 improving CFS resources and their uptake.
·1 Individuals working in CFS and rural community members need greater exposure to the range of Farmsafe CFS resources. Improvements to resources included:·2 This lack of awareness and therefore promotion of CFS resources in communities and among professionals is likely to be exacerbated by a lack of funding and infrastructure in most states and territories to promote and develop CFS initiatives.
·3 CFS resources most often utilised by adults working in CFS, health, education and/or farming parents and grandparents was the Child Safety on Farms Checklist and the Safe Play Area Brochure and Guide.
·4 Majority of community respondents from all states highlighted the need to distribute targeted resources to specific industries.
·5 Farmers are overloaded with mail; therefore to increase awareness and education it is suggested that farm parents and grandparents be targeted via regional radio.
·6 Branding—using the same symbol across all written materials. ·7 Education and Youth—target youth in agricultural schools, traineeships and on stations.
·8 Education and Children—involve CFS resources in curriculum of kindergartens and schools (note school based resource has been developed by Farmsafe— Ripper II Growing Kids on Farms). Involve children in helping to instigate change using the resources and mediums most likely to be used by children—eg, cartoons and involving children and teenagers in developing own CFS media tools (see appendices for drawings).
·9 Co-ordinate and collaborate across and within states and territories
Implications The findings provide specific recommendations for development of one tool, the poster and the necessity to brand all written Farmsafe Australia media tools. Implications for Farmsafe and educators involve collaboration regarding the curriculum and child farm safety messages. Further, a major implication derived from the findings is that Farmsafe CFS media tools require greater distribution and/or different mechanisms to deliver CFS messages to increase awareness of these tools by child farm safety workers and rural and farming communities. An additional implication to emerge from the findings for Farmsafe Australia and other child farm safety organizations is the necessity to develop resources which go beyond their current focus of 0-14 years to include teenagers. In light of the findings and current literature the question of whether this particular population would be responsive to confrontational style media also requires examination. There are also implications for state and commonwealth governments regarding the funding of child farm safety initiatives at a state level to increase inter and intra state co-ordination, and delivery of awareness and education regarding CFS.
Publications The research teams are developing publications to be submitted to Pediatrics and Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health.
Project Title: Cost analysis of the sustainable farm families program RIRDC Project No.: WDH-3A Researcher: Susan Brumby Organisation: Western District Health Service
PO Box 283
Hamilton VIC 3300Phone: (03) 5551 8460 Fax: (03) 5572 5371 Email: Susan.brumby@wdhs.net Objectives ·1 To undertake a cost effectiveness analysis of the Sustainable Farming Families (SFF) program to provide an economic evaluation of the impact of the program.