Subproceso de formación de asesores

The application of environmental management systems (EMS) on farms is in its infancy worldwide, despite the wider application of the process in other industry sectors. For many people, both in Australia and overseas, the concept of applying a management process to natural resource management on-farm is foreign; uncertainty and scepticism of improved environmental outcomes are common. Application of EMS processes typically within the secondary industry sector has led to a perception by some in agricultural industries that use of EMS on farms is “beyond farmers”, “too hard”, “too complex” or “too expensive”. Interestingly, many of the same perceptions were also been expressed about the application of EMS in the industrial sector in earlier times (see Corbett and Kirsch, 2000, Andrews et al., 2001).

Much of the uncertainty regarding benefits and costs of EMS implementation on-farm comes from a lack of information regarding the use of EMS in agriculture – an issue this research aimed to address.

Information on the use of EMS in the past has largely come from the secondary industry sector, or from large companies (Johannson, 2002). The associated performance measures and analysis of outcomes have therefore concentrated on issues and metrics that are pertinent to those industries and they often have limited relevance to agriculture. Many of the methods of evaluation and measurement that might be used to evaluate effects of EMS within a business may not be appropriate for agriculture, but this does not mean that farm businesses cannot benefit from the application of a management process. Hilary (1999) reported that EMS implementation in small to medium enterprises (SMEs) yielded real and valuable benefits. Farms, which may rightly be regarded in many instances as ‘nano- enterprises’, should also realise benefits from EMS implementation, but these benefits may differ from those observed in secondary industry application.

In Australia, a national workshop examining the use of EMS in agriculture (funded by NSW Agriculture, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Land and Water Australia, and others) was held in 1999 at Ballina, NSW. This was the first time that Australian agricultural stakeholders had gathered to discuss the implications of EMS implementation on Australian farms (Carruthers and Tinning, 1999). The use of EMS in Australian agriculture has since gained international attention, with Australia recognised by many as a world leader in the application of the EMS process to farms.

At the Ballina meeting, a range of questions regarding the value of using this process on-farm was raised. The questions included the motivations for EMS adoption, benefits, and costs arising from implementation of an EMS, and methods and information available to support farmers wishing to use an EMS approach.

The case studies detailed in this publication were developed to meet the expressed desire of the 1999 workshop delegates for information about the application of EMS to farming enterprises. Does the use of EMS help farmers manage better? Are there any differences between using an EMS and addressing environmental issues in other ways? Are there market advantages to be gained? How do farm managers go about developing and implementing their EMSs and where do they get help? What does implementing an EMS cost? What are the environmental outcomes that arise? What benefits accrue to the business?

One central question addressed by this study was “Does using an EMS add anything to existing farm management, where the farmer is already operating at a recognised ‘higher’ level of environmental stewardship than their peers”?

A second publication Adoption of Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture Part 2: Analysis by Genevieve Carruthers, RIRDC Publication Number 03/122 will provide an overall analysis of these case studies.

What is an EMS?

A business, or other organisation, implements an EMS in order to improve the way it manages the environmental impacts under its control. In many regards, an EMS is a vehicle for moving information around inside a business or entity, so that better decisions can be made (Sheldon and Yoxon, 1999). An environmental management system (EMS) is a process designed to:

§ assist with the recognition of environmental impacts, compliance issues, risks and liabilities

§ develop an environmental policy that clearly states the aspirations, methods and timeframes to address these impacts

§ gather and refine the information and data needed to meet the policy aspirations

§ review and evaluate management choices in the light of whether the outcomes achieved met those specified within the environmental policy

The EMS process has been codified in two cases into internationally recognised documents, the ISO 14000 series (of which the ISO 14001 Standard provides the specifications for developing an EMS, and against which certification can occur) and the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), an European Union regulation. Only ISO 14001 can be used in Australia for certification purposes, as the use of EMAS is limited to EU countries on a site-specific basis. The Australian and New Zealand Standard for EMS, AS/NZS 14001: 1996, is identical to that recognised internationally and known as ISO 14001, and defines an EMS as:

“The part of the overall management system that includes organisational structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures and resources for developing implementing,

Management Review Environmental Policy Checking & Corrective Action Implementation & Operations Planning CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

Monitoring & Measurement Nonconformance & Preventative & & Corrective Action

Records EMS Audit

Environmental Management Program Environmental Aspects & Planning Legal & Other requirements Objectives & targets

Structure & Responsibility Training Awareness & Competence Communication EMS Documentation Document Control Operational Control Emergency Preparedness & Response

Figure 1. The EMS cycle

This Standard forms part of a larger series of documents, known as the ISO 14000 series, which provide guidance and tools for addressing environmental impacts and issues. ISO 14001 is a voluntary Standard. It is recognised and accepted in over 170 countries of the world. Panayotou (2001) points out that many countries which market products internationally find it easier to gain recognition for their environmental management efforts when they use internationally recognised

standards for certification, rather than domestic standards. This is particularly the case where the domestic environmental performance standards are perceived to be ‘weak’ compared to international competitors standards. Use of such an internationally recognised process may well be crucial in order to gain credibility for ‘clean, green’ claims for goods entering an international marketplace, such as Australian agricultural commodities.

An EMS is an on-going cycle of planning, implementing, reviewing and improving the processes and actions that a business or organisation undertakes to meets both its own desired, and where applicable, externally legislated or regulated, environmental obligations and aspirations. An EMS features a process of continuous improvement, and is based on management principles that are common across a range of

management areas such as quality, occupational health and safety, and financial factors. The EMS management cycle and constituent elements are depicted in the figure below.

Certifications against the ISO 14001 Standard worldwide numbered over 22,000 in 2000 (ISO, 2000). By August 2000, 205 of the certifications recorded worldwide were in agricultural or fishing businesses (ISO, 2000), growing from 16 in 1998. Australia in 2000 had 341 new certificates issued (for a total of 1049), ranking it sixth in the world behind Japan, UK, Sweden, USA and the Netherlands. In 2002, there were over 30, 300 organisations throughout the world with a certified EMS (Morrow and Rondinelli, 2002; Babakri et al., 2003). It is important to note however that not all businesses achieving certification to ISO 14001 make this information available to the ISO, and so these numbers are likely to be under-estimates. In addition, businesses using the ISO 14001 process may also choose not to undertake third-party auditing and certification, while still operating a successful EMS. Such implementation rates are more rapid than those noted for the adoption of the international Standards for quality assurance (the ISO 9000 series), another series of internationally recognised management standards comparable to the ISO 14001 approach. Corbett and Russo (2001) observed that while ISO 9000 series generated 28,000 registrations in the first six years of use, the ISO 14000 series had 23,000 registration within the first four years. Corbett and Russo (2001) therefore suggested that ISO 14000 adoption globally will proceed at a greater pace than the ISO 9000 series. This may be because the ISO 9000 ‘paved the way’ and introduced businesses globally to a process approach to management that has been included (and some say, enhanced) in the ISO 14000 series.