Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
The Rangeland Journal The Rangeland Journal Society
Journal of the Australian Rangeland Society
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > RJ > RJ07012
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 29(1)

Drivers for uptake of environmental management systems by pastoralists in western Queensland

L. I. Pahl A E , L. Z. Weier B , N. M. Sallur C , A. L. Bull C and B. M. Howard D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, PO Box 102, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia.

B Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, PO Box 519, Longreach, Qld 4730, Australia.

C Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, PO Box 282, Charleville, Qld 4470, Australia.

D URS Australia Pty Ltd Level 3, Hyatt Centre, 20 Terrace Road, East Perth, WA 6004, Australia.

E Corresponding author. Email: lester.pahl@dpi.qld.gov.au

The Rangeland Journal 29(1) 13-23 https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ07012
Submitted: 19 December 2006  Accepted: 5 April 2007   Published: 14 June 2007

Abstract

Pastoralists from 37 beef cattle and sheep properties in western Queensland developed and implemented an environmental management system (EMS) over 18 months. The EMS implemented by them was customised for the pastoral industry as part of a national EMS pilot project, and staff from this project encouraged and assisted pastoralists during this trial. The 31 pastoralists surveyed at the end of the pilot project identified few benefits of EMS implementation, and these were largely associated with environmental management and sustainability. In terms of the reasons for uptake of an EMS, these pastoralists identified drivers similar to those reported in other primary industry sectors. These included improving property and environmental management, financial incentives, a range of market benefits, assistance with red tape issues, access to other training opportunities and assistance and support with the development of their EMS. However, these drivers are weak, and are not motivating pastoralists to adopt an EMS. In contrast, barriers to adoption such as the time involved in developing and implementing EMS are tangible and immediate. Given a lack of effective drivers and that pastoralists are under considerable pressure from ongoing rural adjustment processes, it is not surprising that an EMS is a low priority. It is concluded that widespread uptake and on-going use of an EMS in the pastoral industry will not occur unless pastoralists are required or rewarded for this by markets, governments, financiers, and regional natural resource management bodies.

Additional keywords: benefits, EMS, evaluation, pastoral industry, survey, uptake.


Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the funding provided by the Natural Heritage Trust through the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s EMS National Pilot Program (see www.daffa.gov.au/natural-resources/land-salinity/ems/nat-pilot-programme). The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Queensland) also provided significant funding for this work. Pastoralists from at least 40 properties also contributed considerable resources to the development, implementation and evaluation of EMS. We thank them for their cooperation, insights and friendship during this pilot project. We also thank Martin Andrew for reviewing and improving a draft of this paper.


References


Anon. (2004). ‘AS/NZS ISO 14 001:2004, Australian/New Zealand Standard, Environmental Management Systems – requirements with guidance for use.’ (Standards Australia: Sydney, NSW and Standards New Zealand: Wellington.) Available at www.saiglobal.com/shop/Script/details.asp?DocN=AS0733764061AT (accessed 4 December 2006).

Banney S. (2002). Environmental management systems, cattle industry pilot. Final Report prepared for Meat and Livestock Australia, Project number NAP3.329. (Meat and Livestock Australia: Sydney, NSW.) Available at: www.mla.com.au/TopicHierarchy/ResearchAndDevelopment/ResearchAndDevelopmentDetails.htm?projectId=1429 (accessed 21 November 2006).

Brah N. , and Schelleman F. (2000). Green purchasing in the field of agri-food, background paper for EPE’s hearing in the field of green purchasing of agri foodstuff, final report. (Department of Environmental Management: De Bilt, Netherlands.) Available at: http://epe.be/programmes/egpn/epeagric.html (accessed 4 December 2006).

Carruthers G. (2003). ‘Adoption of environmental management systems in agriculture, part 1: case studies from Australian and New Zealand Farms.’ Publication number 03/121. (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation: Barton, ACT.)

Carruthers G. (2005). ‘Adoption of environmental management systems in agriculture: an analysis of 40 case studies.’ Publication number 05/032. (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation: Barton, ACT.)

Guerin L., Guerin T. (1994) Constraints to the adoption of innovations in agricultural research and environmental management: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34, 549–571.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | (accessed 5 December 2006).

Sallur N., Weier L., Pahl L., Holmes S., Yeoman S. (2007) EMS in the pastoral industries of western Queensland: from customisation to implementation. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture (in press). 47,
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Seymour E., Ridley A., Noonan J. (2007) A staged approach for broad acre farmers for EMS and QA – opportunity or bureaucratic nightmare? Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture (in press). 47, open url image1

Starkey R. (1998). ‘Environmental management tools for SMEs: a handbook.’ (European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark.) Available at: http://reports.eea.eu.int/GH-14-98-065-EN-C/en/enviissu10.pdf (accessed 5 December 2006).

Steger U. (2000) Environmental management systems: empirical evidence and further perspectives. European Management Journal 18, 23–37.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Strachan P., Sinclair I., Lal D. (2003) Managing ISO 14 001 implementation in the United Kingdom continental shelf (UKCS). Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 10, 50–63.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Taylor L. (2001). Blue skies, red earth and a ‘green tick’, towards environmental certification in the west Australian rangelands. In: ‘Proceedings of the 2001 National Conference on Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture’. (Ed. G. Carruthers.) pp. 265–274. (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, ACT and New South Wales Agriculture: Orange, NSW.)

Tee E. , and Boland A. (2005). Reconciling stakeholder objectives and drivers for adoption of EMS in the Australian wine and grape industry. In: ‘Proceedings of the 4th National Environmental Management Systems Conference’. (Eds A. Ridley and E. Seymour.) (CD-ROM) (DPI: Rutherglen, Victoria.)

URS (2005). Watermark Environmental Stewardship Project. Final Report I2116 prepared for Murray-Darling Basin Commission.

URS (2006). EMS National Pilot Program. Final Report prepared for Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, URS Australia Pty Ltd, Hackney, South Australia. Available at: www.daffa.gov.au/natural-resources/land-salinity/ems/nat-pilot-programme (accessed 7 December 2006).

Williams H., van Hooydonk A., Dingle P., Annandale D. (2000) Developing tailored environmental management systems for small businesses. Eco-Management and Auditing 7, 106–113.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1









1 The EMSNPP was an initiative of the Natural Heritage Trust managed by the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

2 URS is an environmental and engineering consultancy firm that managed the EMS National Pilot Program on behalf of the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.



Appendix 1

The questions used during the end-of-project survey of pastoralists

Q1. Now after being through the pilot project and knowing more about EMS, do you think EMS will address the issues below? (Tick one of the boxes from 1–5; 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree or disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree)

Farm/Business Management

1. Help me learn more about EMS

2. Help me improve my property’s productivity

3. Motivate me to improve my property business management

4. Help me to reduce my production costs

5. Help me to manage for extreme seasonal/environmental conditions

6. Help me to reduce my costs of environmental management

7. Help increase my understanding of sustainable land management

8. Help combine my management obligations into one system (such as QA, OH&S)

9. Help me sustainably manage my property for my children, or for future sale

10. Help with succession planning and inclusion of others into the business mgt

11. Help improve my time management to increase time spent with family, or socially

Environmental Management

12. Help maintain access to natural resources on which my business is dependent
e.g. leasehold, vegetation, water

13. Help me demonstrate that I manage my property sustainably

14. Motivate me to improve my on-property environmental management

15. Strengthen my ability to address environmental management issues

16. Improve my property’s contribution to catchment health

Product Value

17. Provide an eco-label for my product that recognises my environmental mgt

18. Be required by my industry

19. Help my business to maintain access to current markets

20. Help my business to gain access to new markets

21. Make it possible to ask for a price premium for my products

Red Tape

22. Help me comply with current legal and legislative requirement

23. Help me avoid more stringent and prescriptive regulatory standards

24. Help my business to get better access to government funding and services

Q2. To what extent have the following factors influenced your current progress with developing and implementing the Pastoral EMS? (Please rate on a scale of 1–5; 1 = none, 2 = low, 3 = medium, 4 = high, 5 = very high).

a) Access to funding for on ground works

b) Available time

c) Cost of implementation

d) Drought

e) Understanding of the EMS process

f) Group support (groups only)

g) Commitment to EMS

h) Assistance from partner

i) Assistance from project staff

j) Meeting schedule

k) Other (please specify)

Q3. What reasons might encourage you to use an EMS based management system in 5–10 Years? (Tick one of the boxes from 1–5.) The options for this question were the same as those presented in Q1 above.

Q4. What would encourage you to further develop your EMS?

Q5. On a scale of 1–5, rate how useful the following factors would be in encouraging you to further develop and implement the Pastoral EMS. (1 = not at all useful, 2 = slightly useful, 3 = unsure, 4 = useful, 5 = very useful.)

a) Continued, organised meetings

b) Continued assistance from project staff

c) Industry support (financial)

d) More involvement from partner

e) More information about EMS

f) More direction from industry

g) Business management training

h) Livestock management training

i) Market benefits

j) Financial incentives

k) A national program that has a national label or brand (such as a green tick)

l) Other (please specify)

Q6. Do you intend to continue using your EMS in managing your enterprise? (Yes/Not sure/No). Then give reasons why or why not?

If you answered yes, do you think you might progress to ISO 14 001 certification in the future? (Yes/Not sure/No).

Q7. Have you or would you recommend this process to other farmers in your industry/region? (Yes/No).

Q8. Do you think an EMS process should be promoted for widespread adoption in your industry/region? (Yes/No).