Foreword
Five-year research and development (R&D) plans are developed for each of RIRDC’s major programs. This plan (2007–2012) is the first for the Food Integrity and Biosecurity (FIB) Program, which was established in 2004.

The Food Integrity and Biosecurity Program is managed by RIRDC as part of the National Rural Issues Portfolio. The R&D plan was prepared in consultation with the FIB Research and Development Advisory Committee. The Committee has members from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), National Farmers’ Federation (NFF), Australian Food and Grocery Council, Plant Health Australia (PHA) and Animal Health Australia (AHA). The plan was developed between February and May 2006.

This 2007–12 R&D plan sets out five objectives and accompanying strategies for R&D under the program. Each strategy has a set of performance indicators. The strategies define how each objective should be tackled, and the indicators provide the basis on which the program will be assessed.

The plan is consistent with the RIRDC Corporate Plan (2007–2012) and Australian Government National Research Priorities and Rural Research Priorities. The plan reflects stakeholders’ priorities for R&D to support profitable, competitive and resilient agricultural industries and innovation and change in rural industries.

The current level of funding for the program is low relative to the R&D needs for addressing biosecurity and food integrity issues in RIRDC small industries. There are major gaps in R&D to identify risk and develop solutions for peri-urban production that is a concern to many industries. There may be scope for economies of scale in developing technologies and systems for managing risk in smaller industries. Substantial negotiation with the RIRDC industries and with other industry R&D organisations and state agencies will be required to source additional funding to pursue the strategies set out in this plan. Success in achieving this co-investment will indicate that the issues raised in the plan are priorities, and that successful implementation of the R&D outputs is likely.

This report, an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 16500 research publications, forms part of our Food Integrity and Biosecurity R&D program, which aims to:

• optimize investment in surveillance for Food Integrity and Biosecurity
• address the risks posed by peri-urban activities and alternative distribution networks
• develop biosecurity and food integrity management tools for RIRDC industries
• assist RIRDC industries meet national and international market demands
• communication and adoption by industry of research funded by the FIB program.

Snapshot of the five-year plan
Goal
The Food Integrity and Biosecurity Program aims to deliver research and development to enable Australia to maintain its ability to deal with the threats that pest, disease and bio-terrorism pose to food, to crops, to livestock and to enable access to national and international markets.

Objectives
The research objectives of the program are to:

The Plan is consistent with RIRDC’s overriding aim of maximising the contribution its investments make to the profitability, sustainability and resilience of rural industries and communities. Alignment of Plan objectives with RIRDC’s Corporate Goals and Strategies is shown in Appendix  1.

The purpose of this five-year plan is to:

The plan should be regarded as a living document that will be updated, as circumstances require. All agencies involved in food integrity and biosecurity and providers of R&D are encouraged to work towards achieving the objectives of the plan to enhance food integrity and biosecurity in Australia.

FIB Committee

The program is managed by RIRDC in consultation with a Research and Development Advisory Committee. The Committee has representatives from the:

The committee meets twice yearly, to consider preliminary and full research proposals. Recommendations from the Committee on which proposals are suitable for funding are made to the RIRDC Board.

• Current organisational structures
• Food integrity
• Biosecurity
• Research and development providers and research programs
• Food integrity R&D
• Biosecurity R&D

Food integrity
The broad institutional structures for food integrity are set out in Table Figure 3.1. The overarching agency setting standards for food safety is Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). The state and territory governments are the responsible legislating bodies for food standards, but they have adopted a national approach to setting standards based on the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, which they then implement. In most states the responsibility for implementation still lies with the relevant Department of Health, however, some states have set up dedicated agencies for this purpose.

Industries are responsible for developing their own quality assurance systems and for meeting the requirements of the state and territory regulations and the Food Standards Code. Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA), for example, fund SAFEMEAT, and Dairy Australia operate a quality control program aimed at quality assurance, including food safety. Processors and others along the food chain are subject to regulations to meet national standards but may also choose to comply with international standards, as long as Australia’s national standards are met. Major supermarket chains are also imposing their own food safety standards on suppliers, which must meet national standards. Guidelines for accreditation of ISO22000: 2005 Food Safety Management Systems: Requirement for any organisation in the food chain is expected in September 2006.

The Australian Government supports industry in these efforts through the National Food Industry Strategy (NFIS) Ltd, which is an industry-led public company funded under contract to DAFF. The most relevant area under the NFIS is the Food Safety and Quality Systems Initiative, managed by DAFF, which recently developed the National Food Safety Auditor Certification Scheme and relevant training to improve national consistency of food safety auditors. DAFF is involved in the development of policies and programs for food safety. Table 3.1 outlines the major players in food integrity in Australia.

Biosecurity
There is a framework of national arrangements and institutions to address the preparedness and response to biosecurity issues facing Australia. These are set out in Table Figure 3.2. A Joint Steering Committee formed by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council and the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council provides the overall policy coordination between the Australian Government and the state and territory governments. Recently AusBIOSEC has been formed to provide coordination of the national arrangements. The main policy making agencies are DAFF and the relevant departments in the states and territories. The main implementing agencies are:

Food integrity R&D
There are a range of providers of R&D for industry and the food integrity regulatory and implementing agencies. The two dominant providers are Food Science Australia (FSA) and the Australian Food Safety Centre of Excellence (AFSCE). FSA is a joint venture between CSIRO and the Australian Food Industry Science Centre (which is funded by the Victorian Government). AFSCE was established by the NFIS, with FSA as a founding member, and is located at the University of Tasmania in the Tasmanian Institute for Agricultural Research. AFSCE research programs include studies in predictive modeling, microbial physiology, molecular biology, and industrial microbiology, (including evaluation of new preservation technologies) that must be combined to provide effective food safety management options.

FSA undertakes R&D to establish the efficacy of new processes that deliver safe, fresher, more convenient foods for consumers, and to understand how pathogenic micro-organisms and chemical contaminants interact with food and their environments and develop techniques to effectively control or eliminate food safety hazards. FSA also has strategic partnerships with firms to develop relevant, novel products and processes. There is also considerable R&D capacity in private companies at the product development and processing points in the food chain.

Biosecurity R&D
Biosecurity R&D is provided mainly by the state departments of agriculture and two Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) that were established specifically to provide R&D into biosecurity issues. State departments’ R&D is largely focused on emergency response, and there appears to be limited scope for these agencies to fund basic research to support improved surveillance and early warning of disease incursion.

The CRC for National Plant Biosecurity ($65 million over 7 years from 2005) research strategy is to:

Table Figure 3.2 A framework of national arrangements and institutions to address the preparedness and response to biosecurity issues facing Australia

Table 4.1 sets out the gap analysis. It is divided into areas of R&D already being covered by other rural research and development corporations (RRDCs), industries, state governments, and other research organisations. In many cases the work is being done for (and funded by) the large industries, but there is a gap for the small industries that fall under RIRDC’s portfolios. There is also a potential gap when an issue affects a number of industries, when the collective nature of the problem can result in under-investment in developing a solution. This gap may be more relevant to R&D in biosecurity than in food integrity.

Food safety R&D tends to be fairly product-specific in nature, apart from the collective problem of identification of pathogens that may be present in a range of food products. Much of the focus of food safety R&D in large industries is on reducing the cost of meeting regulatory requirements. There is also a strong overlap between the R&D that addresses issues of food integrity and that aimed at improving quality assurance systems. Quality assurance systems tend to be industry-specific in nature, however where common platforms are cost-effective, a collective approach is preferable.

Establishing priority areas for the R&D plan
The scope of the RIRDC program needs to be guided by both the dollars available for investment as well as by the R&D being undertaken by other agencies. In selecting the areas for the program to address the following filters were used:

Capacity to deliver on these priorities
The analysis of R&D providers found that there is ample capacity in Australia for research, so this is not a limiting factor for the program. However, funding and the potential to develop partners is a major limitation. While to date the program has attracted good co-investment from collaborators at a project level, these projects reflect the priorities of the contributing agency. Funding available for direct allocation to priorities set out in this five-year plan is limited to the RIRDC investment as the Advisory Committee member’s organisations are not financial contributors to the program. For AHA and PHA at least, these organisations may not have resources that can be committed for R&D as this falls outside of their mandate.

Options for increasing funding
The priorities that emerged from the analysis suggest the need for an increase in funding. There is an opportunity for funding to be accessed through Natural Heritage Trust-3 funding, and conversations about this possibility have begun with the Australian Government Joint NRM team. A second option is for RIRDC to make a case to the Australian Government for increased funding for the program on the basis of the R&D plan set out in this document. Under this option it may be advisable to expand the Advisory Committee to include AusBIOSEC (Australian Biosecurity System for Primary Production and the Environment). The AusBIOSEC brings together biosecurity strategies and programs being undertaken by the Australian Government, states and territories, as well as industry, landholders and other key stakeholders. It establishes a policy framework for greater national collaboration on biosecurity issues both within and across jurisdictions and with key stakeholders in the primary production and environment sectors. It would be useful to include this knowledge on the committee.

The importance of the risk to both biosecurity and to food integrity posed by peri-urban production and alternative distribution networks points to the need for a cooperative or joint venture approach to fund and disseminate R&D in this area. This area is of interest to a range of industries and to state governments responsible for managing these risks. The involvement of these organisations and agencies in the R&D is essential for the development of programs to implement the R&D outcomes.

The third option for increasing funding is to seek coalitions for pursuit of specific projects or sets of projects. The RIRDC industries are ideal partners in the areas where the objectives are targeting developing generic approaches for small industries. However, this will require convincing these programs that the returns to their industries from these projects exceed those from other areas of investment (as set out in their five-year R&D plans). Ensuring that biosecurity and food integrity issues are considered at the time of development of program five-year plans within RIRDC is a slow but potentially more effective way of establishing such cooperative approaches than seeking coalitions after the programs have been committed.

Table 4.1 Gap analysis of FIB and related R&D
 

Issues	R&D being undertaken	Gaps
Bioterrorism, security and access control through the food chain—US Bioterrorism Act requirements and voluntary commercial security auditing arrangements	Traceback systems developed for beef and dairy, underway in some other areas (DA, MLA) Development of tamper evident packaging (Industry-CSIRO) Critical infrastructure for physical security—driven by trade demands including US CT-PAT	Track and trace not being developed for or adopted by small industries
New organisms—Evolution, spread and entry of new pathogens, invasive species	Surveillance and detection systems for some industries (CSIRO-AIFST)  Work on human health vectors and zoonoses (Medical research, tropical disease)	Appropriate practices for surveillance—Question of how much is enough
Diagnostic tests, surveillance methods, containment, management strategies	CRCs extensively involved in these areas—Industry and partner (AHA/PHA) driven	Small industry needs may not be covered
Import risk analysis failure to take account of all risks	Methodologies for IRA being developed (UMelb Centre for Risk Assessment, CRCs) Knowledge base to assess risk (CRCs)	Case by case gaps revealed
Market access requirements are increasing—Potential to be used for restraint of trade	Industry responding to demands, beef processing (MLA-CSIRO, state departments)	What intensity of measurement is needed to prove that something does not exist?
Simply prepared foods and preference for fresh food pose new human health risks	Tamper evident packaging, packaging that reads the quality parameters to indicate freshness (Industry-CSIRO) State jurisdiction—Undertake the R&D to support their implementation	Adequacy of treatments for small industry products
Farmers markets and other alternative distribution networks fall outside of food safety monitoring and pose a risk for spread of disease	Food safety regulations cover prepared food area to some degree (state agencies)	Industries have little capacity to engage with this sector Limited effectiveness of voluntary approaches Pathways to adoption may be different
Labelling requirements, process as well as content labelling may be needed for human health, but impose costs	Labelling—Standards have a level of food safety (FSANZ) Industries own marketing research	Requirements for small industries
QA, certification and audit for food safety	Undertaken by industries (MLA, DA, PAL, HAL)	Food safety in organics Level of risk acceptable Social impact of risk mitigation
Impact of primary production practices—pre-farm gate, extension of the NFS code	FSANZ is going to work with horticulture on food safety (HAL)	Common approaches that can work for a range of industries
Peri-urban agriculture Surveillance issues Communication issues	State agencies Undertaken by RIRDC, state agencies and Catchment management authorities	Adequacy of research for small industries How to communicate effectively with peri-urban producers Importation of genetic material without appropriate quarantine assessment
Climate Change	Currently addressed through the cross RDC program "Climate Variability in Agriculture Program (CVAP)" Land and Water Australia.	Adequacy of research for small industries
Organic Agriculture	Addressed through the RIRDC Organic Industry Program	Adequacy of research and communication for organic industries Risks that organic agriculture practices pose to conventional agriculture

Source: Background paper, workshop 21 April 2006

Table 4.2 Analysis of R&D priorities
 

	On-farm	Off-farm
All industries	What does effective and adequate surveillance look like? What are the risk factors for food integrity and biosecurity and how can they be managed? IRA methodology enhancement	Generic technology for testing and detection What is the level of risk posed by farmers markets and alternative distribution networks? Can communication of the risk encourage voluntary action?
RIRDC industries as a collective	IRA methodology enhancement— access to materials Codes of practice for on-farm food safety and on-farm biosecurity Integration of on-farm food safety and biosecurity into standard farm management and QA systems Communication of risk for voluntary action Reliable and accessible Information to aid early detection and reporting of food safety and biosecurity threats Evaluation of awareness levels and behavioural change	Technology options for track and trace —integration for an Australian solution
Specific industries	Risk management options for pests and diseases Organics—food safety

5. Review of the existing R&D program

Background to the RIRDC FIB Program
The Food Integrity and Biosecurity Program was established in 2004 in response to a need for smaller industries to access R&D to support their food integrity and biosecurity efforts. It grew out of a commitment made by RIRDC to support the CRC for Plant Biosecurity. The program is managed by RIRDC in consultation with an Advisory Committee comprising members from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), National Farmers’ Federation (NFF), Australian Food and Grocery Council, Plant Health Australia (PHA) and Animal Health Australia (AHA).

Its stated objectives are to:

• Vision, Mission and Objectives
• Objectives

In RIRDC’s Food Integrity and Biosecurity Program, biosecurity addresses the risks and costs associated with the impact of invasive species on animal, plant and human health throughout the food supply chain. Food integrity addresses the risks and costs associated with the human health impact of hazard control failure at any point in the food supply chain.

Mission
To provide R&D to support the development and application of a framework that enables all Australian agricultural industries to achieve appropriate levels of biosecurity protection and preparedness.

Objectives
To fund high quality R&D that will achieve the following:

Key Performance Indicators
Key performance indicators (KPIs) have been provided to assess whether the research investment has contributed to the R&D objectives.

Objective 1: Optimize investment in surveillance for FIB

Objective 2: Address the risks posed by peri-urban producers, regional production and alternative distribution networks

Objective 3: Develop biosecurity and food integrity management tools for RIRDC industries

Objective 4: Assist RIRDC industries meet national and international market demands

Objective 5: Extension and communication

Background

Markets are increasingly demanding ‘evidence of absence’ as well as process certification as market access requirements. These demands vary with the nature of the product, the potential risk to human health and the demands for technical barriers to trade from domestic producers (in international and interstate markets). The costs of meeting these demands can be considerable, and the level of surveillance and other actions required to meet market requirements can be difficult to determine. There may also be a need for collective action as market access can be impacted by the failure of one producer. Specific market requirements are many, varied and changing and many small industries and producers lack information to make informed decisions about their own actions or the need for collective action. There is also a need for low cost diagnostic tools to develop and implement collective surveillance systems.

Strategies

The delivery of the strategies will depend on the funding available. An important early indicator of program performance will be its capacity to attract co-contributions from RIRDC industries to address specific strategies. The key performance indicators and targets set out below reflect this approach to program funding.

Background
Biosecurity risks for industries in Australia are rising with the increasing travel and trade in goods and services. The growth of peri-urban production, small mainly part-time producers located on the outskirts of urban areas, potentially raises exposure to risk of entry or outbreak of exotic pests and diseases. This is due to the higher density of production, the smaller scale and limited ability to control access and the greater intensity of the production system. It can also be exacerbated by the lack of knowledge of new entrants (hobby farmers) and lack of resources for managing risk for existing producers who may also be taking off-farm work to remain financially viable. Effective communication with these target audiences is crucial to minimisation of the risk of disease incursion in these industries. Outbreaks of pests and diseases in peri-urban production may not be readily identified, are more difficult to isolate and control and pose risks to other members of the industry as well as the public. Alternative distribution networks, which may fall outside of the ambit of food safety and plant health regulators, are a possible channel for distribution of pests and diseases as well as posing food safety risks. It is difficult for industries to address these risks as most peri-urban producers are not members of industry associations. The reach of state government regulators into these areas is also limited by the high cost of engagement and the currently low (but growing) perception of the risk posed.

Strategies

Key performance indicators and targets
The strategies set out above can only be achieved by collective action of affected industries and state agencies. The program must work with state and other agencies in the development of their programs to promote adoption of good management options for peri-urban producers and alternative distribution networks to achieve the second and third strategies.

Background
Industries that are signatories to the AHA and PHA Deeds of Arrangement have or are developing biosecurity plans for managing biosecurity risks to their industries. Many also have food integrity programs, although this is more generally managed at a producer level. Very few of the RIRDC industries are signatories, and many are too small to have the resources to develop biosecurity plans or to implement management actions. Yet these industries are at no less and possibly greater risk from biosecurity threats and food integrity is important for those producing products that enter the human food chain.

Strategies

Background
Track and trace is the capacity to trace back products from the retail point to the primary producer and even to the source animal or paddock. Some markets are requiring producers to be able to provide this facility. This is most relevant for meat products, but is starting to be required for some fresh fruit and vegetable products. The ability to track and trace is a strong selling point for a producer where this is valued by the consumer. Thus individual producers as well as industries have an interest in the technology to provide this facility in a cost-effective way. The large economies of scale in implementing such technology also mean that industry organisations may be well placed to facilitate implementation.

Strategies

Key performance indicators and targets

Background
Adoption of research is crucial in implementation the Plan. Rate of adoption of research depends on both the relative advantage that use of the innovation gives, and the trial ability of the innovation. Rate of adoption of new technologies can be enhanced by using appropriate interventions.

Strategies
A variety of strategies will be used to ensure adoption of research outputs from the FIB program. Links with existing agencies that promote adoption (eg state agencies and industry bodies) will be maintained, and new ones forged as required with specific industries or sectors (eg organic industry sectors). As a cross-sectoral program, the FIB program is working with audiences that have quite different needs for information. Prior to any project being funded, the committee will discuss the target audience for the research (Table 6.1). When this has been defined, appropriate awareness raising strategies will be implemented so that when the research is completed, the audience is receptive to adopting the research recommendations. When possible, evaluation strategies will be put in place to measure adoption of the research

When the research has a direct application to a RIRDC industry, the industry will be consulted before the project is funded to begin the dialogue about the best process for adoption of end results. Industry will receive regular updates about research in progress, and when the research is completed, the report delivered to industry in a format suitable for promoting adoption. Where possible, an action learning cycle will be used to explore both the relative advantage of the product, and its trial-ability, to ensure that the research is appropriate for industry needs. The adoption component of the research will be budgeted for when the project is initially funded. This component will be revisited when the research is completed.

Table 6.1: Possible strategies for adoption of research funded by the FIB program
 

Audience	Information Needs	Possible Strategies
Government agencies	Context of threat to Australia pre and post border security Tools for dealing with the threat	·1 Report ·2 Contact with researchers
Industry organisations	Related to maintaining industry productivity, profitability, sustainability	·1 Report ·2 Contact with researchers ·3 Learning tools
Growers	How threat / solution will impact on or benefit business What is in it for me? How to incorporate research into business	·1 Report  ·2 Use action learning cycle ·3 Farmer talking to farmer ·4 Direct contact with researcher ·5 Work through agribusiness, state agencies, and industry associations. ·6 Develop code of practice ·7 Integrate into QA systems ·8 Incorporate information into grower training packages ·9 Support farm advisory services with information ·10 Target hobby farmer/small landholder associations ·11 Profile FIB at unregulated farmers/produce markets

Key performance indicators and targets

Table 7.1 Food Integrity and Biosecurity five-year R&D plan (Indicative Budget)

Food Integrity & Biosecurity
BUDGET
for the period ended 30 June			Budget ($)
			2006-07	2007-08	2008-09	2009-10	2010-11
Revenues from ordinary activities
External contributions1			145,000	122,292	-	-	-
RIRDC Core contributions			271,000	271,000	370,000	370,000	370,000
Total revenues from ordinary activities			416,000	393,292	370,000	370,000	370,000
Expenses from ordinary activities
Existing commitments			419,604	333,456	150,000	100,000	100,000
Notes
1. External Contributions
			145,000	122,292
Total External Contributions			145,000	122,292	-	-	-

Appendices
Appendix 1: Alignment with Government and RIRDC priorities
The Plan aligns well with the Australian Government’s National Research Priorities and Rural Research Priorities and with RIRDC’s corporate objectives. RIRDC has an overarching outcome of a more profitable, dynamic and sustainable rural sector. The FIB Program is in the National Rural Issues Portfolio, which has the goal of:

• Rural policy priorities of government
• priorities of rural industries and communities
• topics that are cross-sectoral, or multi-industry

Rural Research Priorities
The FIB program addresses a number of the rural R&D priorities. Those most relevant are as follows:

Peter Arkle (NFF); Reg Butler (DAFF); Alan Edwards (DAFF); Rob Floyd (PM&C); Ralph Hood, (AHA); Robert Moore, (PHA); and Dick Wells (AFGC).

Abbreviations

AFGC Australian Food & Grocery Council
AFSCE Australian Food Industry Science Centre
AHA Animal Health Australia
AQIS Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
AusBIOSEC Australian Biosecurity System for Primary Production and the Environment
BA Biosecurity Australia
DA Dairy Australia
DAFF Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
DEH Department of Environment and Heritage
FSA Food Science Australia
FSANZ Food Standards Australia and New Zealand
HAL Horticulture Australia Limited
IRA Import Risk Analysis
MLA Meat and Livestock Australia
NFIS National Food Industry Strategy
NFF National Farmers’ Federation
PHA Plant Health Australia
PM&C Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Last updated: April 2007
Copyright © RIRDC
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/fib5yr.htm