Give us some credit, plead organic farmers

By James Woodford

October 20, 2004

Organic farmers are struggling to convince the environment movement and governments to accept the conservation credentials of their industry.

They forsake pesticides, herbicides and other artificial chemicals and, the theory goes, treat their land as a living organism.

The standards they must meet contain requirements for animal welfare and crop purity that would make some traditional farmers choke on their muesli.

For many consumers the sense that they are contributing to a better-managed environment is one of the main attractions of buying organic.

However, mainstream environmentalists are yet to fully embrace the organic industry, and organic certification is not an automatic ticket to the Federal Government's environmental incentive schemes.

The Australian Conservation Foundation's sustainable rural landscape campaigner, Corey Watts, said the issue of organics and the environment was more complicated than most realised.

"If I were giving advice to someone wanting to make a choice to buy an apple or a litre of milk I would suggest the organic," Mr Watts said. "They're exercising their right as a consumer to prefer a better product.

"I think organic is on the right track. I think the organic philosophy is a fairly good one, but I don't think it's always best under all conditions. Some people go into it because there's a price premium. They don't necessarily go into it as an ecological crusader."

The foundation's co-ordinator of land and water campaigns, Tim Fisher, was more blunt in his criticism, having protested at riverside habitat being cleared to make way for organically certified farms in the lower Murrumbidgee.

"It isn't all roses out there in organic land, and there are environmental issues that they need to confront," Mr Fisher said.

However, there is mounting evidence of the environmental benefits of organic farming.

A report published in a British scientific journal a little over a month ago says modern intensive agriculture is among the greatest threats to biodiversity. "Over the last quarter of the 20th century dramatic declines in both range and abundance of many species associated with farmland have been reported in Europe, leading to growing concern over the sustainability of current intensive farming practices."

It says organic practices such as prohibition/reduced use of chemical pesticides and inorganic fertilisers, sympathetic management of non-cropped habitats and preservation of mixed farming are particularly beneficial for farmland wildlife.

Liz Clay, the vice-chairwoman of the Organic Federation of Australia and also a board member of the peak international organic body, said one of the main hindrances to the organic industry was a lack of green support.

"We are not well supported by the environmental movement," Ms Clay said. "The Australian Conservation Foundation is more likely to support Landcare than they are to support organic farming. The ACF and the conservation movement don't understand what the industry is about."

What made organic different to conventional farming was intense focus on soil health and acknowledgment that it was a living ecosystem, she said.

The chief executive of Biological Farmers of Australia, Dr Andrew Monk, said the views of the conservation foundation indicated the need for more communication between organic farmers and environmentalists.

"[But] there's going to be some cases where pure conservation views don't sit 100 per cent with agriculture," Dr Monk said.

"Biodiversity is essential to organic farmers. Bushland is also very important.

"But sustainable farming of land is not always going to satisfy someone who is 100 per cent interested in forests foremost and food production second.

"It's really important to use existing farmland rather than clearing habitat."

smh.com.au/