Backlash after CBH successfully petitions ISCC grain program to water down aerial spraying regulations

An external audit recently raised concerns some farmers were spraying in contravention of the certification process. (ABC Great Southern: Andrew Chounding)

Some farmers and scientists say the removal of a restriction banning aerial crop spraying near farm dams and salt lakes poses a risk to both businesses and the environment.

This year, WA-based Co-operative Bulk Handling (CBH) advised its 3,500 members it had successfully petitioned the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) to remove farm dams and salt lakes from its definition of a water body.

While not legally binding, farmers who meet ISCC conditions have greater access to premium grain markets in Europe.

The reclassification has paved the way for farmers participating in the program to aerial spray crops alongside farm dams and salt lakes, where previously they were required to maintain a 500-metre buffer zone.

It comes following months of consultation between CBH and the ISCC, and after an external audit raised concerns some farmers were spraying in contravention of the certification process.

Aerial spraying 'best practices'

The decision has been welcomed by farmers who say the previous caveat made it difficult for grain growers to meet euro-centric definitions, giving them access to lucrative grain markets, while growing in Australian conditions.

"We've been really supportive of that change in the definition because it allows us to utilise best practices within our paddocks," sheep and grain farmer Reece Curwen said.

Mr Curwen, from South Stirling, has more than 250 dams on his property.

He said the restriction imposed by the ISCC meant each paddock had been impacted.

"We just simply couldn't comply with that requirement so, essentially, we wouldn't be able to send our canola and other products to Europe," he said.

Members concerned with change 

Not all CBH members have welcomed the decision, with some concerned the new rules will harm the environment and those with diverse farming operations.

"My reaction was a great deal of stress to be quite honest," CBH member Mary Nenke said.

"Immediately when I saw the announcement I rang CBH about my concerns."

The grain and yabby farmer from Kukerin, 300 kilometres south-east of Perth, has grown her aquaculture operation into Australia's largest yabby export business, but is concerned the changes would see the crustaceans' population decline.

"We've had experience of pesticides causing huge deaths to our yabby industry," she said.

"People ring me up and they'll say, 'I've got a dam that's got no yabbies in it', and I'll ask them, 'Do you spray pesticides?' and they will say 'Yes' nine out of 10 times."

Ms Nenke said she was also concerned about the environmental and health implications of spraying near water sources commonly used by farmers.

She wants CBH to reverse its decision.

"Our water systems are different to the rest of the world. We have so little water here in WA," she said.

"We rely on our dams for our homes and our gardens, and we rely on rainwater to drink, and if it's polluted that's not good for us or anything that we produce.

"I would like CBH to look at sustainability as not being an exemption from spraying pesticides. To me that's greenwashing."

Transparency questioned  

CBH chief marketing and trading officer Paul Smith said the claims were unfounded, with the bulk handler pointing to a report by hydrology and ecology experts from the University of Western Australia used in the ISCC's decision.

"They've [the ISCC] reached a conclusion that there is no risk around biodiversity, soil health, water health, or health as a result of reaching this decision," he said.

"None of this discussion around exemptions from the ISCC, which is a voluntary program, actually changes the requirements for growers to adhere to the APVMA [Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority] standards."

The UWA report was paid for and commissioned by CBH, which declined multiple requests for it to be made public.

The ISCC also declined to provide a copy of the report, and did not respond when asked to comment on its decision to reduce the caveat around farm dams, or if it planned to reduce further caveats on spraying near natural water bodies.

The decision to withhold the report has raised concerns with UWA Institute of Agriculture's Judy Fisher, who say it should be open to scrutiny.

"[Spraying] will have an impact, a negative impact, on biodiversity, on production for other crops, and other people who are producing other products," Dr Fisher said.

"[The report] should be in the public domain so that anyone who is interested in this topic has access to that report to find out what was actually in the report and what the report covered."

Call for greater reductions 

Others in the farming community say the removal of the aerial spraying caveat does not go far enough.

Mark Fowler farms in the wheatbelt town of Williams and is the grain section president of the WA Farmers Federation.

"Farmers if they have to do it, they have to do it. If you are required to aerial spray, as a matter of the agronomic requirements of the crop, you will go and spray," he said.

The group lobbied CBH to pursue the removal of the farm dam and salt lake spraying caveat, but also want the ISCC to reduce its 500-metre spraying buffer around other water bodies like lakes and streams.

"The arbitrary 500-metre buffer distance is significantly in excess of what is required under Australian law as set out by the APVMA," Mr Fowler said.

"We're still continuing to work on that aspect."