WITH some big trade decisions seemingly going against the Australian beef industry in recent times, several producers have been questioning the slow but relentless build up of compliance they are required to do.

The issue of compliance imposed by the industry has been talked about for a long time, however, two recent events seem to have brought out frustration from producers.

One is the Federal Government’s decision to allow imports of beef originating from the United States, Canada and Mexico. The other is Europe’s ban on goods linked to deforestation, which is requiring producers to share their geolocations – although that now looks like it will be delayed.

The decisions have been causing plenty of discussion online on both social media and in the comments section on Beef Central articles. Smithfield Cattle Company’s Jason Shearer-Smith also expressed frustration about the situation at this week’s National Farmers’ Federation conference, saying Australia is not seeing the benefits in its trade agreements.

Central Queensland producer and processor Josie Angus has been questioning the increasing level of compliance for some time – particularly compliance imposed by the industry.

She said the sell for more compliance is that it gives Australian producers better market access – a sell she believes is questionable given the recent decisions.

“We should always be asking whether we are facing equivalent levels of compliance to what our department is willing to accept from other countries,” she said.

“I wish someone would take the same risk rating and report to the Australian industry (as the Federal Government did with the US industry) and we would be done with probably 85pc of our regulation.”

Ms Angus said the level of industry-imposed regulation has been building up over a long time.

“We are just seeing this continuum of nothing ever taking a step backwards and we keep getting told that it is all about market access,” Ms Angus said.

“But the reality is that we are seeing other countries go around us with market access.

“It is important to remember for industry leadership that any form of regulation, by its very nature, is discriminatory against small and medium enterprises. Corporates can have a couple of lawyers trawling through these standards and regulation, but the reality is that family farmers do not have the capacity.”

A similar point was made by other producers, including one family lotfeeding operation told Beef Central one audit process alone had doubled in time and increased every year in cost.

“Our audit used to take 2-3 hours and now it takes 5-6 hours and it is currently $255 an hour, plus GST,” the source said.

“We want our industry to have high standards so Australia can continue to promote its clean, green image, but I don’t understand why the audits need to increase in time and money year on year.”

Geolocations not a small job

Industry groups have recently been calling on producers to add their geo-location coordinates to the Livestock Production Assurance accounts to comply with Europe’s upcoming ban on goods linked to deforestation.

The geo-location system has been contentious, with recent stories (like this one) creating plenty of discussion among producers – many concerned about their privacy.

Ms Angus said she was sceptical about the groups implying that signing up to the new compliance measure was easy for producers.

“I still remember the original pitch with LPA was that ‘all you will need is your Coopers notebook’. We are a long way from that now,” she said.

“When we see media articles coming out saying that is simple or easy, it is so far removed from the level of verification that it takes to meet an importing country requirement. Any cost that we increase along our supply chain ultimately gets worn by the producer, because he is the only price taker.

“We need to be talking about the cost and impost and the absolute achievability of what they are saying here.

“It is not just tracing every piece of meat to a geolocation, it is someone having to make a judgement call on whether deforestation has occurred.”

‘Drowning in paperwork’

Other producers who Beef Central has contacted over the compliance issue mirrored the frustration, with  some describing the tide of compliance-related paperwork as “out of control”.

A common thread of feedback on the issue was that the Federal Government decision to reduce restrictions on the import of beef from the United States – where ranchers do not face the same compliance requirements as Australian producers – has undermined the long-standing “market access” justification for Australia’s extensive compliance systems.

It was not so much that no level of compliance is needed, but more that the sheer weight of paperwork that livestock producers must deal with that drew frustration and concern that much of it was coming from their own industry bodies, with every “seemingly small” new imposition adding to an already over-whelming burden.

Some producers running family-farming enterprises spoke of having to print hundreds and hundreds of pages of records for every audit, and pointed out that the ongoing demands of livestock tracking, welfare reporting and accreditation systems was consuming days of administrative effort each week.

Little consideration appeared to be being given to how each additional requirement adds to the overall compliance burden on livestock producers. “They’re not looking at the overall weight of it. Farmers’ time doesn’t seem to be valued.”

Others said that with no market premiums in return to help cover the costs of high compliance loads, and question marks now emerging over the market access  argument, they were now questioning if the heavy compliance load is worth it.

Another producer made the point that for producers to be doing the best job possible where it really matters, they need to be able to spend their time “in the paddock, not behind a desk”.