Government's role in future-proofing agrifood systems

Farm Policy Journal, Editorial: Richard Heath

As Australia’s only agricultural policy think tank, we often ask ourselves at the AFI how much intervention from governments is required to achieve good policy outcomes. This is a question that always elicits a spectrum of opinions, and at times very passionate discussion. There are those who believe that government’s role is to intervene as little as possible, others who see an active and integrated role for government, and every variation in between.

The ‘appropriate’ level of intervention is one that is often hard to define or quantify. More often it is the design rather than the extent of the policy intervention which determines successful outcomes. Indeed, much of the commentary on this topic is driven more by ideological positioning on big versus small government rather than a detached, data-driven analysis.

In this year’s John Ralph Essay Competition we sought to provoke a broad discussion on the role of public decision-making in agrifood policy by posing the question: What degree of government intervention is required to future-proof Australian food and agriculture?

While the role of government is a perennial talking point in the farming community, casting this question widely was timely given that climate change, geopolitical disruption and supply chain vulnerabilities pose significant, urgent risks to Australian and global agriculture. In response, governments around the world are implementing robust regulations, offering financial incentives, investing in R&D for innovation and providing education to support their farming industries as they manage these uncertainties. However, in Australia the degree and type of government intervention in the agricultural industry – and the subsequent capacity of such policies to help or hinder farmers – is a topic of ongoing debate. What kind of support strengthens, and what kind weakens? Where is the tipping point?

This edition of the Farm Policy Journal presents three entries to the 2023 John Ralph Essay Competition, including the two winning papers, along with a contributed paper.

The winner of the competition’s scholarly category for 2023 is Jessica Ramsden . Jessica’s essay, ‘As little as possible, as much as necessary’, argues that future-proofing Australian food and agriculture is a task that will be best served by system-wide approaches, building on work already under way in several areas. Government intervention will have a critical interdependent role to play in supporting these approaches. This must be determined by the scale and complexity of the future challenges faced, the market-shaping influence of non-government food system actors, and the evolving societal context in which food and agriculture operates. It should involve considerations of traditional economic policy such as market failure, as well as some aspects more characteristic of social policy. The essay suggests that a ‘realignment of thinking’ about food and agriculture policy could future-proof Australian food and agriculture in the absence of a long called for national plan, or could help build the tools and momentum to make such a plan an enduring reality.

Brendan O'Keeffe is the winner of the opinion category. In exploring the appropriate degree of government intervention in agriculture Brendan noted that Australia’s food system, of which agriculture is a key component, remains on the policy periphery. For example, the National Food Plan is almost 10 years old and has only been gathering dust rather than guiding strategic interventions. There is no national climate change policy for agriculture (rather, we have a ‘National Statement’). There is no lead agency responsible for addressing problems in our food system. And the list goes on.

While there is more intervention in agriculture than most sectors of the economy, this pales in comparison to other necessities which make up non-discretionary spending. In the last three decades significant gains have been made by removing wasteful interventions which artificially protected agriculture. More needs to be done, Brendan writes, in specific areas which will support producers to provide safe, affordable, and sustainable food in the long-term.

A third competition entry is included from Colette Glazik and David Eade . The authors had both recently completed the Global Focus Program components of a Nuffield Farming Scholarship, visiting Singapore, Japan, Israel, Netherlands and the United States and engaging with all parts of the agricultural supply chain. As they travelled, they considered some significant questions. What do we collectively want as farmers? What do consumers, government and industry want from us and what do we need from them? What are we trying to solve? What is the role of agriculture in a changing climate?

In addressing the competition topic, they compared the potential evolution of Australian agricultural policy to harnessing the kind of collective goodwill experienced for major sporting events. For example, watching the nation come together supporting the Matildas soccer team in their World Cup journey demonstrated the team spirit in Australia. People who normally were apathetic towards the sport suddenly engaged, watching a team working together to beat the odds. However, the authors note this team spirit dissipates when looking for solutions to complex and multifaceted issues such as future-proofing Australian food and agriculture, despite this being one of the most fundamental (and consequential issues) facing the nation.

As a net exporter of food, Australia has such a perceived abundance that we apparently think we can afford the $36.6 billion that food waste costs the Australian economy each year. Yet our food and agricultural system is fragile, with future climatic effects having the ability to turn our abundance to scarcity in the space of one season. If steps are not taken to future proof the food system today, then the authors caution that – much like the Matildas – we may rally, only to fall short.

For the final essay in this edition, we invited Robbie Sefton AM to provide a summary and analysis of some results obtained in a recent project completed by Seftons advisory in partnership with the National Farmers' Federation . The project conducted a first-of-its-kind Australian farmer survey which laid bare the uncertainty and frustration of farmers regarding government policy in Australian agriculture today.

The survey was designed to gauge the feelings of producers across a broad range of issues to help identify priorities and challenges of the industry, with more than 1600 farmers across all commodity sectors participating.

At a time when the agricultural landscape is evolving at a rapid rate, Australian farmers are seeking increasingly efficient and sustainable measures to boost productivity and meet ever-growing expectations. The same challenges are being experienced around the world as governments and agriculture grapple with rapidly changing markets, a rising global population, evolving consumer expectations and climate concerns – to name a few.

Robbie writes that for governments it’s become a case of ‘how much is too much when it comes to stepping in’? Government must ensure the long-term viability of the industry, balancing its impacts against pressing environmental deadlines and protecting its front-line role in nourishing and sustaining a projected 9.7?billion people by 2050: no easy task, and not one policy-makers can tackle alone.

As we at the Institute continue to grapple with recommendations on policy levers for the agriculture sector moving into our twentieth year of operations, we take heart that this topic is not only the subject of constant discussion but also of deep thinking from a range of equally passionate stakeholders.

AFI?members and subscribers?can log in to access the Journal, editions are also available for individual purchase. Become a member?to gain access to AFI publications as well as discounts to events and much more.