Helping local industries help themselves in a multi-level biosecurity world – Dealing with the impact of horticultural pests in the trade arena

Figures & data

Table 1 Grower survey.

	Central Burnett (Queensland)	Young Harden (NSW)	Leeton & Carrathool (Riverina, NSW)
No. of respondents (response rate)	28 (70%)	20 (63%)	50 (51%)
No. of respondents interested in QFly-sensitive markets	26	12	22
Main crop	Citrus	Cherries	Citrus
Background	• Industry-driven AWM since 2003 • Achieved access to some domestic markets based on a systems approach (ICA-28)	• Export-oriented growers participate in a domestic systems approach protocol trial as forerunner for international trade	• Different initiatives underway in the Riverina to support market access to QFly-sensitive markets.
• Overseas export to QFly-sensitive markets requires costly post-harvest treatments

Table 4 Summary of the functional-structural analysis of creating an enabling environment for local industries to pursue AWM as part of a systems approach (SA).

Summary of key issues	Structural problem type	Blocking mechanism
F1. Entrepreneurial activities
Growers have limited understanding of market access rules	Actor Interaction	Lack of clear market access pathways
SAs including AWM require developing and implementing extensive systems	Institutional Infrastructure	Lack of clear market access pathways
‘Grower voice’ regarded weak in higher level forums	Actor Interaction	Low system connectivity
Progressing market access can require liaising with and joint decision-making between diverse actors	Interaction	Low system connectivity
Lack of market access pathways
F2: Knowledge development
Various information gaps remain	Infrastructure	Lack of market access pathways
Difficult to statistically prove the effectiveness of SAs	Institutional	SAs problematic
F3: Knowledge diffusion
Weak linkages between DAWR and local industries in international trade protocol development and negotiation	Interaction	Low system connectivity
Lack of people understanding the entire system	Interaction	Low system connectivity
Different “languages” used in groups cause communication challenges	Interaction	Low system connectivity
Several growers have mistaken expectations about market access opportunities	Actor Interaction	Lack of clear market access pathways
Higher level committees underestimate the on-ground complexity of SAs and AWM	Actor Interaction	Low system connectivity
Local industries cannot readily access information about international trade rules	Interaction Infrastructure	Lack of clear market access pathways
Low system connectivity
F4: Guidance of search
Developing a shared local vision can be challenging	Actor Interaction	Lack of clear market access pathways
Clear guidance lacks on how to do systems approaches	Institutional	SAs are problematic
Lack of clear market access pathways
F5: Market formation
Most markets prefer ‘one-kill-step’ systems	Institutional	SAs are problematic
Lack of a state government-funded trapping grid without third-party pest monitoring system	Infrastructure	Feasibility signals lacking
Third-party pest monitoring system will add considerable cost to industry	Institutional	Feasibility signals lacking
Negotiating and changing protocols are lengthy and costly processes	Institutional	Feasibility signals lacking
Time gap between last industry input and government trade protocol negotiations can lead to impractical protocols	Interaction Institutional	Low system connectivity
F6: Resource mobilisation
Investment from government and industry lacking	Infrastructure	Feasibility signals lacking
F7: Creation of legitimacy
Higher level actors are perceived as underestimating on-ground challenges	Actor Institutional	Low system connectivity
Trust in government support for market access varies between regions, lowest for Australian Government	Interaction	Low system connectivity
Local industries may underappreciate government and industry body efforts to facilitate trade	Actor Interaction	Low system connectivity

Table 2 Growers’ trust in their management groups’ ability to assist them in overcoming QFly-related market access issues.

	Central Burnett (n = 26)	Young Harden (n = 12)	Leeton & Carrathool (n = 22)
The management group…	(Percentage of grower respondents who strongly or somewhat agreed)
…understands our QFly–related issues hindering market access (‘know how to’)	85%	100%	96%
Strongly agree	77%	92%	73%
Somewhat agree	8%	8%	23%
…is capable of supporting our local industry (including working with the right government people) (‘can do’)	89%	91%	81%
Strongly agree	54%	58%	36%
Somewhat agree	35%	33%	45%
…is serious about helping our local industry (‘want to’)	89%	100%	86%
Strongly agree	62%	83%	59%
Somewhat agree	27%	17%	27%

Table 3 Percentage of growers who agree that government is supportive in overcoming QFly issues hindering market access.

	Central Burnett (n = 26)	Young Harden (n = 12)	Leeton & Carrathool (n = 22)
The state government department responsible for agriculture…	(Percentage of grower respondents who strongly or somewhat agreed)
…understands our QFly–related issues (‘know how to’)	77%	100%	91%
…is capable of supporting our local industry (‘can do’)	62%	100%	86%
…is serious about helping our local industry (‘want to’)	53%	100%	77%
	Central Burnett (n = 26)	Young Harden (n = 12)	Leeton & Carrathool (n = 22)
The Australian Government department responsible for agriculture…	(Percentage of grower respondents who strongly or somewhat agreed)
…understands our QFly–related market access issues (‘know how to’)	48%	75%	85%
…is capable of supporting our local industry (‘can do’)	50%	75%	81%
…is serious about helping our local industry (‘want to’)	27%	50%	48%

Fig. 1 Main blocking pathways to creating an enabling environment for industry-driven AWM and entry points for proposed interventions (adjusted from Bergek et al. (2008)).