|
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.
Most of our publications are
available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website:
downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.html
purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop
Peter O’Brien
Managing Director
Rural Industries Research
and Development Corporation
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:
Enable Australian agricultural
industries to optimize investment in surveillance for biosecurity and food
integrity on and off farm (35% of budget).
Address the risks posed to agricultural
industries and human health from peri-urban and regional production and
alternative distribution networks (8% of budget).
Develop biosecurity and food
integrity management tools for RIRDC industries (27% of budget).
Assist RIRDC industries meet
national and international market demands by improving their ability to
track and trace their products (20% of budget).
Extension and communication
of research (10% of budget).
All objectives address Australia’s
need for economic, environmental and social sustainability. Program budget
allocations are flexible and will be guided by the Food Integrity and Biosecurity
R&D Advisory Committee.
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.
1.
Purpose of the plan
The purpose of this five-year
plan is to:
Outline the rationale for the
Food Integrity and Biosecurity (FIB) Program that the Rural Industries
Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) will fund and manage.
Indicate the specific role that
RIRDC-funded R&D will play in expanding the knowledge and management
of food integrity and biosecurity.
Provide clear signals concerning
food integrity and biosecurity needs and priorities for the period 2007–2012.
Outline the broad priorities
that RIRDC will pursue through its investment in the program over the next
five years.
Take account of national research
priorities, Ministerial guidance and RIRDC policies.
Encourage collaboration and
coordination for FIB R&D, including new joint investment.
Encourage and support discussion
between RIRDC and the research, development and extension community that
will enable future needs of the sector to be identified and incorporated
into annual and longer-term planning.
The plan is based on consultation
with the CRC for Plant Biosecurity, Plant Health Australia (PHA), Animal
Health Australia (AHA), AusBIOSEC, the Department of the Prime Minister
and Cabinet (PM&C) and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry (DAFF), Biosecurity Australia, Australian Quarantine and Inspections
Service (AQIS) and a workshop involving the committee in April 2006. A
draft plan was circulated to the Committee in May 2006 and refined following
feedback.
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.
2.
The Food Integrity and Biosecurity Program
This paper presents the
first five-year R&D plan for the Food Integrity and Biosecurity (FIB)
Program in the National Rural Issues portfolio. The FIB 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
current budget is around $270,000 per year, with additional financial and
in-kind contributions attracted on a project by project basis.
FIB
Committee
The program is managed by
RIRDC in consultation with a Research and Development Advisory Committee.
The Committee has representatives from the:
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry (DAFF)
Department of the Prime Minister
and Cabinet (PM&C)
National Farmers’ Federation
(NFF)
Australian Food and Grocery
Council
Plant Health Australia (PHA)
Animal Health Australia (AHA)
RIRDC Program Manager for FIB.
It is currently chaired by the
General Manager, National Rural Issues, RIRDC.
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.
3.
Overview of FIB Food Integrity and Biosecurity
Current
organisational structures
Both biosecurity and food
integrity are addressed in a formal structure defined in part by the constitutional
responsibilities of the Australian and state governments. These structures
influence the pathways to adoption with the setting of regulation and mechanisms
for information sharing. Industries have the incentive to invest in R&D
to reduce the costs of complying with regulations, and benefit from the
information shared. Commercialisation is a pathway to adoption mainly when
the technology is embodied in a product that provides a more cost effective
way of meeting compulsory or voluntary standards or requirements.
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:
Australian Quarantine and Inspection
Service (AQIS), which provides border control and import quarantine and
ballast water programs.
Biosecurity Australia (BA),
which undertakes import risk analyses (IRAs).
Animal Health Australia (AHA),
a not-for-profit industry and government-owned company which supports biosecurity
planning for industry members and AUSVETPLAN and administers the Emergency
Animal Disease Response Agreement. Cost sharing arrangements between the
two levels of government and industry are in place for emergency response
to incursions assessed as nationally significant.
Plant Health Australia (PHA)
which is similar to AHA, but for plant pests and diseases and delivers
PLANTPLAN.
Industry signatories to the
Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement and Emergency Plant Pest Response
Deed who have obligations to develop biosecurity strategies, and implement
these strategies including risk mitigation actions.
State and territory departments
of agriculture, which are responsible for state level emergency response
and on-going management of emergency pests and diseases. The relevant state
agencies also implement AQUAVET PLAN and the Emergency Marine Pests plan
(EMP PLAN). There is an intergovernmental funding agreement on weed management
in place.
Research
and development providers and research programs
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:
Conduct research to fill gaps
in the knowledge of the biology and epidemiology of priority exotic plant
pathogens and pests
Develop and maintain a diagnostic
capability to detect and identify exotic pathogens and pests
Develop underlying tools to
enhance surveillance and incursion response capabilities
Equip plant breeders with information
and tools to facilitate pre-emptive breeding against exotic pests and diseases
(such as DNA resistance markers and resistant germ plasm)
Stimulate adoption of biosecurity
technology through commercialisation and information dissemination.
The Australian Biosecurity CRC
for Emerging and Infectious Disease, ($68 million over 7 years) commenced
in 2003. Its main research areas are:
developing technologies to enhance
detection: To develop new and improved detection methods for significant
emerging infectious disease threats.
investigating the ecology of
emerging infectious diseases: To elaborate the disease ecology of prioritised
emerging infectious disease threats.
advanced surveillance systems:
To develop new disease surveillance support tools and systems to provide
an improved scientific basis for decision–making by disease control authorities.
Table Figure 3.1 The broad
institutional structures for food integrity

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

4.
Key challenges for the program (SWOT)
The Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis was undertaken at the planning
workshop on 21 April 2006. It drew on a background paper prepared for the
R&D Advisory Committee. The focus of the analysis is slightly different
to the usual industry R&D planning SWOT as there is considerable R&D
activity in biosecurity and food integrity already occurring outside of
the program. Chapter 2 summarised the activity and the agencies involved.
The RIRDC program targets the gaps in these current arrangements. Thus
the analysis below is a gap analysis as much as a SWOT.
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:
What are the areas of food integrity
and biosecurity (FIB) planning, preparedness and management that are not
covered by the major agricultural industry organisations or by private
firms, including climate change, and organic production systems?
Which of these gaps or issues
require R&D as part of the solution?
What are the pathways by which
the R&D outputs will contribute to the solution?
What is already being addressed
well in other industries and is transferable or is being addressed overseas?
Do Australian researchers have
the capacity to address these issues?
What level of investment is
required for the science to be successful? For adoption?
Is there potential for generic
solutions that are applicable to the set of industries of interest?
Is there a significant benefit
to public health or consumers in general?
Is there a benefit to producers
not directly involved in adopting the R&D outputs; for example, through
avoiding loss of market access if Australian products are banned, or through
a reduction in contamination risk, or the need for preventative actions?
The priorities that emerged
are set out in Table 4.2. The analysis separated out all industries, RIRDC
small industries as a collective and specific industries. It also divided
these into on-farm and off-farm needs.
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:
Assist Australia’s rural industries
by supporting research that integrates human and environmental health objectives
Undertake research that enhances
the capacity of participants in the supply chain to ensure food integrity
Contribute to Australia’s biosecurity
by investigating potential risks and how they can be addressed and communicated.
Program
funding commitments
Over the period of 2006–09,
the FIB Committee has undertaken to fund the following collaborative projects:
Biosecurity Risk Management
in the Food Chain, a two-year project with a first-year contribution of
$54,219 from RIRDC and $13,614 from the Victorian Department of Primary
Industries.
Infrared and Raman micro-spectroscopic
analysis of food contamination and integrity, a three- year project funded
through the CRC for Plant Biosecurity. In Year 1 (2006–07) RIRDC will invest
$54,772; the National Science and Technology Unit (NSST) $132,832; and
Monash University $78,024. In Year 2 (2007–08) RIRDC will invest $42,617;
NSST $122,292; and Monash $79,675. Year 3 has yet to be confirmed but indicative
amounts are RIRDC $50,000; and Monash $81,360.
To date the program has made
commitments for funding of the CRC for Plant Biosecurity for $100,000 a
year for the next three years. This has funded two projects:
"Enhanced biosecurity planning
tools" with the CRC for Plant Biosecurity which has leveraged additional
funding (to the CRC) of cash co-investment of $210,000 per annum, 2two
research staff and a Post-Doctoral fellowship for the period 2006-2009.
A rice blast project: RIRDC
$50,000, Research Organisation $20,800 and CRC National Plant Biosecurity
$3,794 (Total $74,594), in 2006–07. Other projects are anticipated.
6.
The R&D Program 2007–2012
Vision
Effective biosecurity and
food integrity practices adopted by all Australian agricultural industries.
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:
Enable Australian agricultural
industries to undertake the optimal level of investment in surveillance
for biosecurity and food integrity on and off farm (35% of budget).
Address the risks posed to agricultural
industries and human health from peri-urban production, regional production
and alternative distribution networks (8% of budget).
Promote better management of
biosecurity and food integrity risks for RIRDC industries by providing
them with management tools (27% of budget).
Improve the capacity of RIRDC
industries to meet export and domestic market demands relating to product
and process integrity now and in the future by improving their ability
to track and trace their products (20% of budget).
Extension and communication
(10% of budget).
Strategies
Strategies indicate specific
research areas that will contribute to achieving the five objectives. Strategies
have been defined in sufficient detail to indicate to research providers
where RIRDC will invest over the period 2006–2011. The strategies will
enable research organizations to align their research investments with
RIRDC’s priorities. These strategies will be complemented with more specific
research priorities that will be published annually, to give more detailed
information about the research priorities for RIRDC funding in the following
year.
Key
Performance Indicators
Key performance indicators
(KPIs) have been provided to assess whether the research investment has
contributed to the R&D objectives.
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
Objective
1: Optimize investment in surveillance for FIB
The objective will enable
Australian agricultural industries to undertake an optimal level of investment
in surveillance for biosecurity and food integrity on and off farm (35%
of budget).
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
Develop advisory material to
assist industries in determining what constitutes sufficient and appropriate
evidence to meet market requirements for proof of adequate biosecurity
and/or food integrity.
Develop cost-effective diagnostic
tools for on and off-farm pests, diseases and contaminants. The focus is
on generic technologies for low cost testing and detection for use in surveillance
programs.
Develop technologies and arrangements
for capturing and reporting surveillance information.
Key
performance indicators and targets
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.
KPI: Publication of advisory
material that allows industry organisations and producers to assess and
develop their investment in meeting food integrity and biosecurity market
access requirements.
Target: Use of advisory material
by two RIRDC industries in their assessment of market requirements for
biosecurity and food integrity.
KPI: Availability of new diagnostic
tools and evidence of adoption by RIRDC industries.
Target: Use of new diagnostics
tools by three RIRDC industries.
Objective
2: Address the risks posed by peri-urban producers, regional production
and alternative distribution networks
The objective is to reduce
the risk posed to industry and human health from peri-urban and regional
production and alternative distribution networks (8% of budget).
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
Assess the risk posed to industry
and human health by peri-urban producers, regional production and alternative
distribution systems (such as farmer’s markets).
Identify the on-farm risk factors
for this set of producers and develop effective risk management systems
for the scale and systems of production.
Develop and test materials and
methods to communicate the risks and management options to peri-urban producers,
regional producers and agents along the supply chain in collaboration with
other agencies and industries undertaking related communications.
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.
KPI: Establishment of collaborative
arrangement with state agencies
Target: Decision on participation
in FIB joint venture by state agencies.
KPI: Publication of a study
on the risks posed by peri-urban production and the major risk factors
Target: High rates of awareness
of the publication and agreement with the findings in state agencies involved
in biosecurity and food integrity and in the relevant areas in the industry
organisations for industries identified as affected by peri-urban production
risks. Co-investment in R&D for the second and third strategies of
Objective 2 (above).
KPI: Publication of guidelines
for management of biosecurity risks and food integrity risks for peri-urban
and regional producers
Target: Guidelines widely available
and promoted by organisations with reach into these communities.
Target: Development of strategies
to address the risks posed by peri-urban and regional producers by industry
and state agencies. Evidence of use of the R&D findings in the development
of these strategies.
Objective
3: Develop biosecurity and food integrity management tools for RIRDC industries
The objective is to promote
better management of biosecurity and food integrity risks for RIRDC ‘small’
industries by providing them with management tools (27% of budget).
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
Develop a framework for or a
generic approach to codes of practice for on-farm biosecurity and food
integrity that promotes step-wise improvement.
Develop treatments and/or protocols
for facilitating movement of plant and animal materials across boundaries
(international, state and regional) that take trade barriers into account.
Identify the generic biosecurity
and food integrity risks, including organic production systems, climate
change and climate variability for small industries (in RIRDC’s portfolio)
and develop a package for industries to do their own risk assessment (including
getting a baseline of the current tools available).
Key performance indicators
and targets
The strategies will target
the RIRDC industries. The success of the strategies depends not only on
attracting co-funding from these industries, but the active promotion by
these industries of the findings and coordination of activities to implement
the management options developed. An overall target for the program is
to partner with at least one RIRDC industry each year to undertake a project
to deliver one or more of the strategies. Thus at the end of five years,
at least five RIRDC industries will have been involved as core partners
or as pilots in delivering on this objective.
KPI: Publication of guidelines
for the development of codes of practice for on-farm biosecurity and food
integrity
Target: High rates of awareness
of the publication across the RIRDC industries, including organic production
systems.
Target: Approval of treatments/protocols
by one state agency.
Target: Three industries applying
for approval by state agencies for their protocols.
KPI: Publication of a risk assessment
package
Target: High rates of awareness
of the package among RIRDC industries, including organic production systems.
Target: Use of the package to
undertake a risk assessment by three RIRDC industries.
Objective
4: Assist RIRDC industries meet national and international market demands
The objective is to improve
the capacity of RIRDC industries to meet export and domestic market demands
relating to product and process integrity now and in the future by improving
their ability to track and trace their products (20% of budget).
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
Scope the likely future market
demands for track and trace and communicate to small industries on their
need to address these issues in their industry. Develop/identify and adapt
technologies to support track and trace systems that will be effective
in small industries.
Design and test systems for
track and trace that will work for small industries.
Economies of scale in the implementation
of technology and overlap in processing, wholesale and retail markets will
be the important for forming a coalition of industries with a common interest
to invest in the strategies. The first strategy is designed to identify
areas of common interest. If there is found to be a strong interest and
need RIRDC explore a coalition of interested RIRDC (and possibly HAL) industries
to co-fund the R&D to deliver the second and third strategies. The
early performance of the program on this objective can be assessed in terms
of the coalition being formed. The second and third strategies should only
be pursued on the findings of a common need in the first strategy.
Key performance indicators
and targets
KPI: Explore the possibility
of a joint venture between RIRDC small industries and HAL industries for
development and implementation of track and trace technologies for industries.
Publication of a study on the demands for track and trace technology identifying
potential common interests.
Target: High awareness of the
publication in RIRDC industries.
Target: Decision on development
of FIB joint venture by potential collaborators.
KPI: Technologies that support
track and trace available to small industries
Target: adoption of track and
trace technologies by two industries.
KPI: Publication of guidelines
for small industries in designing and implementing a track and trace system
with costings
Target: Implementation of pilot
track and trace systems by two RIRDC industries.
Objective
5: Extension and communication
The objective is to communicate
and assist in the adoption by industry of research funded by the FIB program
(10% of budget).
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
KPI: Adoption strategy scoped
for each project before the project is funded
Target: Adoption strategy captured
in project proposal and monitored during and after project completion.
KPI: Ex-ante and post hoc evaluation
of selected projects with two RIRDC industries.
-
Target: Adoption of new technology
by industry quantified.
-
Target: Qualitative analysis
of the impact of the use of the new technology by industry.
-
Target: Benefit-cost analysis
of two projects.
7.
Proposed budget
An indicative research budget
for the life of the program is given in Table 7.1.
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:
Providing the knowledge to
address national rural issues
National Rural Issues Portfolio
Strategy
Invest in R&D in the
national interest to support:
-
Rural policy priorities of government
-
priorities of rural industries
and communities
-
topics that are cross-sectoral,
or multi-industry
The FIB program is clearly addressing
the national R&D priority of safeguarding Australia and its multiple
industries. It will contribute to profitable, competitive and resilient
rural industries through reducing the risk and cost of biosecurity and
food integrity events for a wide range of industries. The focus is on small
industries and producers on the margin of industries, but in managing these
risks better the program will deliver benefits to all Australian agricultural
industries and to the Australian consumer.
Rural Research Priorities
The FIB program addresses
a number of the rural R&D priorities. Those most relevant are as follows:
Improving competitiveness through
a whole-of-industry approach that emphasises efficient and effective supply
chain management—the FIB program works across the whole of the food supply
chain in seeking to address food integrity and biosecurity risks.
Maintaining confidence in the
integrity of Australia's food, fish and forestry products—by reducing risks
and providing evidence of process and outcomes the program will contribute
to maintaining confidence.
Probability of a biosecurity
or food integrity event—this reduces the risk of loss of market access.
The need for industries to be able to undertake track and trace for maintaining
market access is also increasing, making this focus relevant to this priority.
Making use of ‘frontier’ technologies—in
undertaking the R&D there is an emphasis on innovative approaches to
minimise the cost of achieving high quality outcomes for industry and the
public.
Protecting Australia from invasive
diseases and pests—this is addressed directly by the program.
Creating a culture of innovation,
largely by investing in the sector's most important asset—its people. The
program will support, through the funding of projects, the CRC for Plant
Biosecurity (established in 2005) and is also developing relationships
with the University of Melbourne’s new Centre for Risk Management. These
new organisations aim to be at the forefront of innovation in their respective
areas, and have a strong component of capacity building.
Acknowledgments
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
|