Vice-Chancellor
The Grange Chancellery
Panorama Avenue
Bathurst NSW 2795
Tel: +61 2 6338 4209
Email: [email protected]
www.csu.edu.au
Ms Deb Langford
Assistant Secretary
Biosecurity Policy and Response Branch
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
GPO Box 858
Canberra City ACT 2601
Email: [email protected]
Dear Ms Langford
On behalf of Charles Sturt University (CSU) I am delighted to respond to the Discussion
Paper on Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper Established Pest Animals and Weeds
Control Tool and Technology Development Grants Programme.
We also welcome the opportunity to provide information and comment on the design of the
program that is outlined in this Paper.
We note that the program is supported by an investment of approximately $22 million in
research and development to develop and promote better technologies and tools (including
chemical and biological options) for controlling priority species. This includes developing
cost-effective new methods of control, which requires targeted research.
Our comments address the specific guidance that is contained within the Discussion Paper
as well as providing further comments on the Research and Development options that may
be considered.
CSU strongly believes that it has a demonstrated track record of undertaking Research and
Development that contributes to the competitiveness of our agricultural industries and
assists producers to control pest animals and weeds and ensure our agricultural production
is maintained.
We also believe is vital that the unique opportunities and challenges faced in rural and
regional Australia are taken into account when considering these issues.
Rural and regional Australia is home to a significant volume of cutting edge, industry-focused
and collaborative research and innovation, born from a position of working with
farmers/producers and providing outcomes that support efforts to control established pest
animals and weeds. This includes strong relationships with agricultural industries through
our expertise in agricultural innovation and wine/grape science.
We would be delighted to provide the Committee with further information and evidence that
will assist the Department in its work in examining the questions regarding the control of
established pest animals and weeds.
If you require additional background, please do not hesitate to contact my office on
(02) 6338 4209 or [email protected].
Professor Max Finlayson
Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Development and Industry
April 2016
AGRICULTURAL COMPETITIVENESS WHITE PAPER:
ESTABLISHED PEST ANIMALS AND WEEDS
COMMENTS ON CONTROL TOOL AND TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
GRANTS PROGRAMME DISCUSSION PAPER
Charles Sturt University
CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY
Charles Sturt University (CSU) is Australia’s largest regional university, with more than 39,000
students and approximately 2,100 FTE staff. Established in 1989, the University traces its roots to
the formation of the Bathurst Experimental Farm and Wagga Wagga Experimental Farm in the
1890s. In one form or another, research, innovation and education has been integral to the
University’s character and mission for more than a century.
CSU is a unique multi-campus institution with campuses at Albury-Wodonga, Bathurst, Canberra,
Dubbo, Goulburn, Manly, Orange, Parramatta, Port Macquarie and Wagga Wagga, as well as
various study centres.
The University’s commitment to the development and sustainability of rural and regional Australia is
informed by the unique research focus undertaken, and the partnerships it has formed with each of
its campus’ local communities, local industry, and with the broader regions it serves.
CSU offers a comprehensive suite of research and academic training programs that focus on
addressing rural and regional labour market needs, growing regional economies, and preparing
students for the jobs of the new economy through rural and regional Australia.
The success of the University is demonstrated by its sector-leading performance in work-integrated
learning, graduate employment and graduate incomes. Underpinning this success is the close links
that the University has forged with industry, both regionally and nationally.
Research excellence, with a strong commitment to addressing the complex regional needs through
innovation, has long been at the centre of CSU’s mission. As evidenced by the recent Excellence in
Research for Australia results (ERA, 2015), Charles Sturt University is recognised internationally for
competitive research strengths in agricultural science, horticultural production, food and wine
sciences, crop and pasture production, veterinary science, animal production, education, curriculum
and pedagogy, environmental science, applied ethics, philosophy, religious studies, criminology,
nursing and marketing.
The University’s researchers work in consultation and collaboration with end-users, industry, the
professions and communities for the public good. CSU has a proud tradition of delivering highquality research that creates new knowledge, benefits people’s lives, enhances the profitability of
regional industries and helps communities grow and flourish.
The recently announced AgriSciences Research and Business Park, to be located on the Wagga
Wagga campus exemplifies our industry focus. The AgriSciences Research and Business Park will
facilitate industry engagement and collaboration, economic growth, wealth creation, employment
and skills development. Success will be evidenced by the recognition of Wagga Wagga as a worldstandard centre for agricultural innovation, research and development, extension, education and
training.
Today, CSU continues a 100-year tradition of engagement and leadership with our local
communities, of research and innovation in collaboration with industry, expansion in the educational
opportunities offered to our diverse student body, and preparing students for employment markets
emerging with the evolution of regional and the national economy.
|Page
2
WHITE PAPER BACKGROUND
The White Paper released on 4 July 2015, sets out the Australian Government’s roadmap of
practical actions to grow Australia’s agriculture sector because stronger farmers mean a stronger
economy.
It is a $4 billion investment in Australian farmers and the competiveness and profitability of our
agriculture sector.
The White Paper responds to the ideas, feedback and comments from thousands of interested
parties—including farmers, industry, business and the community—about how we can ensure the
agriculture sector remains a significant contributor to the economy and local communities and takes
advantage of available opportunities
Under the $2 billion Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper, the Australian Government is
providing $50 million to support farmers and the community to better manage common established
pest animals and weeds.
As part of this initiative is an investment of approximately $22 million in research and development
to develop and promote better technologies and tools (including chemical and biological options) for
controlling priority species. This includes developing cost-effective new methods of control, which
requires targeted research.
The Department is seeking comment about the design of this investment.
The research and development component is one of four components the government is investing
in as part of this Initiative.
As outlined, comments are sought on the following outline including if it is likely to deliver on the
programme objectives.
Comments will contribute to the grant guidelines. It is important this process is competitive and
collaborative.
Any other information or issues about the pest animals and weeds initiative including any comments
on related research; development opportunities; and risks or innovative partnership or practices are
also welcomed as part of the process.
|Page
3
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. The draft document provides an opportunity to address the guidelines that will be used to
encourage effective investment of the millions of dollars expended in research and
development to develop and promote better technologies and tools (including chemical and
biological options) for controlling priority species.
As CSU has an established reputation in supporting agricultural competiveness through the
effective management of established pest animals and weeds we welcome the development
of mechanisms to promote better technologies and tools.
2. As this includes developing cost-effective new methods of control, which requires targeted
research we suggest that the guidance for this investment clearly specifies that the reference
to biological means of controlling pest animals and weeds does not solely refer to the
identification and investigation of a biocontrol organism, but also recognises the benefits of
developing biologically related strategies or a targeted series of strategies using integrated
pest management practices and appropriate risk identification and reduction approaches.
While these approaches have been widely accepted we envisage that they could be
improved and provide further opportunities for producers to work with relevant experts to
provide proactive responses to key pests and weeds.
3. CSU also encourages efforts to develop new chemical products, as well as means to
enhance the use of existing chemicals, such as glyphosate, in a more efficacious manner. In
this respect CSU encourages support for steps that enable the discovery of, for example,
novel molecules, such as a glyphosate-like derivative with activity similar to glyphosate
which was identified by targeted chemical screening and discovery programs performed by
chemists, or whether they mean only the enhanced and targeted use of glyphosate in a more
efficacious manner.
CSU strongly encourages the former whereby new chemical discoveries and screening are
supported. We are unsure from the current wording whether the former is being considered.
4. CSU suggests that the guidance for prioritising investment in research and development
projects is adjusted to ensure the emphasis is on the technologies relevant to improved
management, that there is better understanding of organismal biology and responses to a
changing environment, and that producers have access to new or improved tools. Suggested
changes to the first paragraph of the text in Section 3 of the discussion paper are shown
below with changes underlined:

develop and promote one or more new or improved control tool(s) and or
technology(ies) relevant to improved management (chemical, biological, physical).

focus on one or more priority pest animals and weeds, in particular, those of national
significance, by development of a better understanding of organismal biology and
response to a changing environment.

enable the producer to have access to the new or improved tool(s) or
technology(ies) where there is a related demand (end user driven).
|Page
4
5. In Section 3.1 we suggest that if feasible the proposed timeline for applications for grants is
extended from 4 weeks to 8 to enable applicants more time to develop these. We appreciate
that this timeline may be affected by other administrative requirements, but are also aware
that an extended time period can provide proponents more opportunity to develop quality
applications.
6. CSU further suggests that the text in table 1 that provides an overview of the types of
proposed eligible control tools and technologies is adjusted to emphasise that the usage
patterns of chemicals as well as the development of new chemicals is important, and that the
biological options may also include the development of targeted integrated non-chemical or
biological approaches for enhanced management of the organisms under study. The
suggested changes to the text in Table 1 are presented below, with the changed text being
underlined.
Category
Description
Chemical
This can include the development of chemicals and usage patterns
(e.g. existing pesticides, herbicides, poisons as well as new
chemical leads) and the associated delivery systems (e.g. baits,
lethal trap devices) and patterns to control a pest animal or weed.
Approaches employing chemical ecology are encouraged as they
tend to be organism specific and environmentally benign.
Examples of successful chemical control tools and technologies
developed in the past include: glysophate; and 1080 baits for pest
animals.
Biological
This can include the research and development of a biological
agent that is not available, or not well distributed around Australia
to limit the population of a target species. Biological control agents
include viruses, insects and fungi. Examples of successful past
biological controls include: myxoma virus and calcivirus for wild
rabbits; and Cactoblastis Moth (Cactoblastis cactorum) to control
Prickly Pear (Opuntia stricta). The distribution of the agent should
be through ‘on-ground’ action or existing state/ community
networks. This may also include the development of targeted
integrated non-chemical or biological approaches for enhanced
management of the organisms under study.
7. As it is unlikely to be possible to do anything for many pest species we also encourage a
R&D focus on helping farmers/producers cope with pest outbreaks, including investigating
alternative uses for pest-damaged products. For example, and hypothetically, if a farmer is
growing wheat that is attacked by rust can the rust-affected wheat still be used for another
purpose, or is it possible to oversow the affected crop with something else and still make an
income?
8. Implementing a control suggests that we would be happy to accept that outbreaks will occur
and farmers need to be reactive. Prior to implementing a control, it might be that there are
some critical aspects of the pest’s life history stage are unknown. It is recommended that
|Page
5
some ‘pure’ research on life histories of the pests may be undertaken to increase
understanding dispersal patterns of a particular pest might be a precursor needed to keep it
off a property in the first place. And hence, rather than control the outbreak when it occurs
and the expenditure of substantial funds on chemicals, the research might help understand
the species enough to help prevent the outbreak from occurring at all.
9. There are many types of chemical pest control which are actively being implemented but
little is known about the impacts. For instance DDT was used widely until it was seen as
something that impacted birds, so it was stopped. Neonicotinoids fall into that category. They
are used extensively but contain known endocrine disruptors which is now known to be
impacting honeybees. It is also thought that Neonicotinoids impact moulting in aquatic
vertebrates. Research and Development that focuses on the wider implications of
pesticide/herbicide application would be useful as well to ensure we avoid adverse
outcomes.
10. Research to ‘model’ the potential impact of emerging pest animals and weeds may also be
useful. Many pest animals and weeds are being actively kept out of Australia, but do we
really know what the costs of letting them in might be?
Have we determined whether the cost in terms of lost production justified by the costs of
keeping them out of the country? R&D, in a biosecure location, of emerging threats (or
control mechanisms) may also be useful. The analogy we draw on is the CSIRO research
into carp virus release where several years of effort was spent ensuring that the virus would
have no impact on local fauna prior to release.
Given the importance of agricultural production to our economy we support R&D measures
that ensure this is not adversely impacted by pest animals and weeds and is based on sound
economic and social analyses.
CONCLUSION
CSU is delighted to respond to the Australian Government’s call for comment in relation to the White
Paper.
CSU would welcome the opportunity to participate in future rounds of consultation and collaboration
with the Commonwealth.
|Page
6