COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What is the difference between property management, best practice management and environment management systems?

There is a lot of confusion about what different systems offer and under what circumstances they should be supported. However, the confusion is all of our own making6 and the choice about what system to use can be made confidently by asking a few simple questions and arriving at a pragmatic solution. These questions are:

Will the management system lead to the desired outcome, for instance ongoing improvement in environmental outcomes?

Irrespective of whether it is a BMP, EMBP, PMP, PMS or EMS approach there is no benefit from having a plan if it is not implemented and continually reviewed.

Is ongoing independent recognition required or likely to be required and if so by whom?

It is important that the system and its verification meets the needs of as many different avenues as is possible or at least provides a platform to enable such recognition, for instance from CMAs, from industry organisations, from the market places for food and fibre products, from carbon traders, from administrators of NRM programs including eco-service and stewardship programs.

Can the system be independently verified and, if not, is it sensible to combine the components in one system?

Invariably it is preferable to not combine management systems that need to be open to external scrutiny with those that should remain confidential to the landholder.

Can the system be integrated with other management requirements?

Where ever possible it is critical to enable integration of systems requiring external audit, for instance systems for environmental management, for occupational health and safety, for food safety, for product quality control and there are several reasons why the foundation system should be a whole-of-farm environmental management system.

Property management planning (PMP) and property management systems (PMS) are broadly based systems that encompass most if not all of the issues required to be managed by landholders. These are broad capacity building systems. PMP and PMS are not necessarily designed to deliver independently verifiable public good outcomes in an ongoing way. They are not based on internationally recognised standards and hence they cannot effectively align the drivers for improving NRM. In fact, they do not have the design features required to justify a high level of public investment.

Best management practice (BMP) and environmental best management practice (EMBP) systems rely on the proposition that broadly applicable judgements can be made external to the business about what is the best practice to adopt. Some organisations survey land managers to indicate the extent to which they apply BMP with the purpose of presenting industry wide profiles of the practices adopted by industry participants.

Environment management systems (EMS) are systematic processes used by an organisation to continuously improve its impact on the environment. While many things contribute to the development and implementation of EMS the standard processes and the environmental outputs can be externally verified at the individual farm or business level.

Key features to consider when evaluating the applicability of an EMS in an NRM policy and program context are whether or not it applies across industries with most farms having two or more industries, whether or not it is linked to landscape wide outcomes and whether or not it is externally audited and can lead to both national and international recognition.

Why have we developed industry-by-industry approaches to environmental management?

There are several reasons why this has happened but none of them is defensible. The main reason why we have an industry-by-industry approach is that the Australian government made funds available on an industry-by-industry basis under the mantra of improvement in environmental management needing to be ‘industry lead’. The majority of these approaches will cease once the industry linked funding ceases as there is no rationale for having fundamentally different approaches for different industries.

While some commentators believe across-industry approaches are a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, a well designed environmental management system can accommodate generic, industry, location and business specific factors equally well. In fact, especially where different industries have overlapping impacts, it is almost impossible to implement different environmental management systems for each industry.

Why should there be a common environmental management system across industries?

There are several very compelling reasons why.

The first and most important reason is that all else being equal it will be more effective in that it enables the industry off-site and environmental interactions across industries, time and space to be dealt with more effectively.

Only 60% of the Australian land mass is used for agriculture so any system of land management that is industry-by-industry will not apply to nearly forty percent of Australia. More than 60% of farms have two or more industries producing over 70% of agricultural production by value. Hence industry-by-industry approaches greatly add to the complexity and cost of improving and auditing environmental management. And it locks in existing forms of land use and makes catchment or landscape approaches more difficult.

Most farm suppliers and marketers, processors and wholesalers of farm products as well as NRM organisations deal across several agricultural products and/or services.

Only a small number of land managers are implementing environmental management systems so how will they have a cost effective impact?

The introduction of environmental management systems is an innovation. Innovations by their nature are not adopted by all participants from the outset. In fact it is desirable to proceed slowly but steadily so that any difficulties are sorted without major costs.

Why seek IS014001 compliance?

The the system is effective in that it addresses the causes of environmental impacts rather than the impacts themselves.
It is internationally recognised and can be applied across industries and jurisdictions and along the product chain.
As it exists, there is less time and money needing to be dedicated to its development and marketing.