Category: Carbon Risk

Policy impacts, right side of the bell curve

Power of Choice – review by AEMC of DR

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

All community is affected by the rising cost of energy. Something can be done, and the “Power of Choice” review being run by the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) and a Senate Select Committee on Electricity Prices Inquiry is underway. Both these essential bodies need to be influenced and informed about how essential the implementation of and effective Demand Response (DR) is in the National Electricity Market (NEM) in saving $billions, and continuous saving thereafter.

Over the last 11 years there have been a number of Reviews that have made clear recommendations[1] that Demand Response (DR) should be implemented in our electricity markets.  Unfortunately, all these recommendations for implementation of DR have been ignored, with the exception of DR for Reserve Capacity in Western Australia’s Wholesale Electricity Market (WEM) which works very well.  In hindsight, the lack of an effective DR mechanism in the NEM in particular has cost electricity users an estimated Present Value (PV) of $15.8 Billion[2] (this is in the order of a 9% impost on their annual electricity bills).  Worse still this loss to the community is continuing to grow.

The “Power of Choice” Review is an unfinished work, and CO2Land org has experience in the material of Demand Response (DR). DR is most effective as a formal aggregation of small amounts of demand reduction from a larger electricity users who are contracted to reduce this pre-agreed amount of their demand at times when their are extreme wholesale prices, extreme peaks in demand or in emergencies.  It is much cheaper way to address these short term events than our current outdated approach of spending billions of dollars on more generators and networks which are only needed for a total of about 40 hours per year.

In the push for acceptance of DR becoming a part of the National Electricity Market (NEM) an article was written in the Daily Telegraph, 5 Sept 2012,  (link: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/power-shift-to-cut-household-bills/story-e6freuy9-1226465075377) after it was relayed some of the source contributions were gleaned from an EnerNOC sponsored report recently completed by CME.

CO2Land org and those mentioned in this post accept we look forward and hope the AEMC is now convinced that DR is essential to minimize further price rises.

If you are confused with the terminology, hopefully the following will help you better understand: The energy market has three components that affect the price we pay: Price response (PR), Demand Response (DR) and the Emergency response (ER).  Price is largely inelastic, and as we are experiencing alternative energy sources we notice the costs have similar or more Price effects to introduce them. Demand Response (DR) is the most volatile price driver in the market where smaller splices of time require a greater build and increase capital required for infrastructure projects (pole and wires builds and maintenance needs to cater for the demand growth). Emergency Response (ER) is an energy security problem and is reactionary to large events with little warning.

References to support this view are:

[1]

  • Alan Fels, Chair of ACCC, speaking at the Inaugural EUAA Conference on 19 November 2001
  • The Parer Review 2002 “Towards A Truly National And Efficient Energy Market”
  • The EUAA April 2004 “Trial of a Demand Side Response Facility for the National Electricity Market”
  • The ERIG Review November 2006 “Review of Energy Related Financial Markets”
  • Stages 1 & 2 of the Demand Side Participation Review (Stage 3 still in progress)

[2]

Energy Performance Contracting promoted – ESI

Posted on Posted in Carbon RiskTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Energy Savings Insurance is being promoted overseas. Yet, Australians were attempting to get a similar scheme going termed ‘Energy Performance Contracting’ back the 2003. The only significant support for the scheme was the Australian Capital Territory Government funding support and a handful of Federal Agencies piloting the scheme. At that time the champion was Stephen Oster and we found a reference he made back in June 2011: “I did a lot of work in 2003/04 trying to get business to take up “Energy Savings Insurance”, or as we call it in Australia, Energy Performance Contracting. We managed to secure funding from the Australian Capital Territory Government to pay for all the initial consulting and set-up work for business (http://www.energetics.com.au/newsroom/media_releases/energy_performance_…). Despite the removal of one of the big barriers, we still couldn’t get any significant traction. Ultimately I think people believe if something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is. In the case of Energy Performance Contracts, the idea of an investment with significant economic returns being low risk, just didn’t make sense to most business people. A couple of old but still useful resources can be found at http://www.eec.org.au/Best%20Practice%20Guides “.

CO2Land org knows all to well that innovation is a very difficult space and as Steve said in this country getting significant traction for good ideas can fail without good reason. We have to ponder why? Is the Carbon Farming Initiative heading to the scrap heap for the same reason – another discussion for later?

More recently: Scott DeGaro, LEED AP BD+C, O+M, Barge Waggoner Sumner & Cannon posted on LinkedIn the following discussing called ‘Have You Heard of Energy Savings Insurance’ and he referred to his article regarding the proposed LEED 2012 version. He also acknowledged contributions of Rob Freeman for regular, monthly article on Green Buildings and what’s happening. “Rob is also the impetus behind this first article regarding Energy Savings Insurance (ESI). This is a new form of insurance that may have an impact on Sustainability and LEED projects in the coming years….The concept focus of ESI is bonds and other financing tools with the potential for great benefit in the energy savings market and should continue to grow in availability, use and understanding in the coming years as energy efficiency continues to be a growing aspect of building owner operations….ESI may find a market as projects that promise energy savings, but fail to deliver, become more well known… Perhaps the most visible case of this right now is the Destiny USA project in Syracuse, NY. In a nutshell, the developer proposed a large number of energy conservation measures and LEED certification in order to obtain low-interest government loans. Throughout the project, there were a number of financial difficulties and stoppages in work. At present it appears that many of features were not included in the project, which is cause for question and an investigation by the government regarding the loans. This project and related investigation will probably take many years before everything is settled”.

CO2Land org at this point asks if a hypothesis test might prove ‘where government support is required it becomes more difficult to overcome suspicion “it is too good to be true”’!

Ready Steady Farmer – and the Challenge of Climate Change.

Posted on Posted in Carbon RiskTagged , , , , Leave a comment

Access to finance is not significant in persuading farmers to adopt other than business as usual (BAU) agricultural practices. It is more likely some farmers’ actions and views are driven by near term happenings, such as extreme weather events. Possibly, the inability of outreach attempts by our Australian Government to have farmers change from BAU is the dogma of the belief we need initiatives to deal with long term problems. To test a farmers response to change might be as simple as determining which are the most are reactive, and who is proactive, in terms of how they manage and respond to impacts associated with climate change. Policies might then tailor the necessary competencies to suit the bands of farmers needing to change.

It does not matter whether we are in Australia, UK, US Russia or whatever, our changing climate and the effects of extreme weather events, such as the recent floods and droughts are having a significant impact on agriculture. Changed practices are required. However, if you don’t understand the problems of the farmers you only ‘feed the chooks’(referring to the media stories). We suggest a survey is necessary after taking note that in the UK the Environment Agency approach is commit to supporting the agricultural industry. Supporting to be more sustainable and resilient to climate change. They also go the extra to know how farmers are responding to the challenge of a changing climate and ask what are their needs?

A better way to promote the Carbon Farming Initiate or BioDiversity challenges could take the lead from the report on the analysis and key findings of the opinions, attitudes and behaviours of farmers across the UK, towards climate change. The report draws conclusions and recommendations that could inform future action, led by the Environment Agency (UK) and its key partners. The evidence came from surveys conducted by the Farming Futures project, the National Farmers Union (NFU) Water Survey 2011, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Irrigation Survey 2009/10 and the Defra Farm Practices Survey.

“The report‟s focus is predominantly on water use on the farm, as an indicator of attitudes and practice. It is recognised that wider agronomic issues such as pests, disease, soil management, plant genetics and nutrient management are important factors within the climate change context; these issues are outside the scope of this report.” The full report is at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/GEMI0512BWKV-E-E.pdf

The key findings in this report highlight (source: Farming Futures 4 Sept 2012):

“Arable and horticulture businesses appear to be the most forward thinking farm types on climate change and are actively preparing for change.

Some management decisions on farms positively address climate change issues, however decisions are usually driven by the need to increase production and resource efficiency and thereby reduce overall costs.

Access to finance is not in itself a significant barrier to farmers changing existing practices.

Farmers need better support to understand climate change and what measures they could take in order that the UK food production becomes more sustainable in the future.

Many of the methods that farming could consider to help them adapt will already be familiar as good environmental practice. These include: maintaining good water quality, conserving water resources, conserving soils, following good nutrient management and improving wildlife habitats.

Many actions can lead to cost savings for example, reduced water and energy bills; and could create new income, for example, generating renewable energy.

Enabling farmers to take action now will result in a more ‘climate change proof’ agriculture industry.

Recommendations for enabling change:

Recommendation 1 – Production of targeted information for farmers on climate change impacts for agriculture.

Recommendation 2 – Establish or utilise existing good practice farm programmes.

Recommendation 3 – Farm advice programmes need to integrate and improve upon how climate change is represented, with information and best practice guidance produced for agriculture.

Recommendation 4 – To monitor and analyse the activities of farmers on climate change adaptation, and in the long term, understand the impact which is made by agriculture.

Recommendation 5 – For the Environment Agency and key partners who work with agriculture, to work in partnership to implement the recommendations identified in this report.”

CO2Land org strongly supports Farming Futures in how they flag practices. It is a signals approach and they allocate their assessment of blogs with ‘weak signals logo’ for yet unrecognized, by mainstream agriculture, ideas, trends, technologies or behaviour changes within the farming industry.  We are sure you will have stories of your own that know of practices that might have a big impact on future farm practices or have disappeared from the radar for no good reason other than they get forgotten or were poorly promoted.

CO2Land org will talk to some friends to see if this problem can be addressed in a better way for Australia.

Pitfalls – (Carbon) and (CO2)

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , Leave a comment

Thinking about 12.5% Carbon Credits currently possible under the EU – ETS, and the Government’s need to negotiate a better deal for it to work for Australia’s Carbon Offsets market and the component CFI programs. Remembering that that program has bi-partisan political support we might think it will be plain sailing.

CO2Land org on 2 Aug 2012 published for educational purposes “Carbon the word most confused” and that story is “the problem is the word ‘carbon’ and carbon is directly linked to abatement and an offsets market.  Whereas the focus issue for farmers is methane production and it is part of the production cycle and it does seem contradictory to imply the backside of a cow can be abated as a constant!”  Then again on other dates 9th, 14th, 17th and 30th Aug each story was directly related to programs that impact on markets and ‘carbon’.

If we feature the UK and how it is handling carbon and we are not alone – In June 2012, 1370 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange had mandatory carbon reporting requirements announced. From 6 April 2013, carbon footprint reports and information will be included in the Director’s Report and financial statements. Thank you ManageCO2 for the heads up. Go to http://www.manageco2.com for their summary.

Notwithstanding, it is the UK Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) that established the core requirements under the ISO standards and what is missing in those standards Co2Land org previously explained this was so not to offend world trade bodies. In that context we were talking of Real, Additionality and REC’s and primarily referenced to ISO 14064-2.  DEFRA use similar language to our Government and have started to finalise the exact details of there respective programs and legislation, and use words like ‘the core requirements have been made very clear and are largely consistent with other reporting standards such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and ISO 14064-1.” Other similarities are in the reporting of total operations, but it stops at CO2 and that is different to carbon in our context.

The UK requires organisations that operate outside that country have to report emissions for each facility outside the UK.  They also expect that each operational area outside UK will report according to that region. The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme is included – The London Stock Exchange companies listed to report will be required to report emissions that we will recognise as scope 1 – combustion of fossil fuels. However, we (Australians’) have a problem  – the UK is focused on energy related emissions – not all 6 Kyoto gases are covered – only CO2 is covered! They cover off other requirements in other programs and many of them support innovation!

So lets go over the reporting requirements of EU-ETS as it stands today:

Scope 1 – yes

Scope 2 – no

Scope 3 – no

All 6 Kyoto gasses reported – no CO2 only

Each country/region Specific Emissions Factors required in the report – yes

Enforced – yes.

Source: http://www.defra.gov.uk

The challenge for Australian farmers is the to be able to sell credits in Europe with some certainty as their land practice changes most probably and in full likelihood relate to methane production, and that issue is well posted and might help understand what the government meant by 12.5% could be currently generated as credits to meet the domestic demand through the EU ETS and we have a 50% limit on overseas credits. Exploring that 12.5% if you takes our 6 gases and the harm effects of each (CO2-e calculation) across industry you come up with a number very similar where 50% offshore credits are whittled to become 12.5% when only CO2 can be counted! Are you now confused about ‘Carbon’ Farming?

So can we expect the transition from carbon price to Au ETS to EU ETS to see more ‘policy adjustments’ between now and 2015? It could be worth a wager and it will not matter what political persuasion you are either. It will be a global trade adjustment that will bring that about, and if history prevails political decision based on intervention strategies will dictate price not the market forces.

Why not checkout http://www.CO2Ti.com and the Carbon Offset Masterclass – could be a good move.

 

 

Understanding how soil and plants cope with climate change

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Zero WasteTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Managing carbon in the soil is complex, and chemical reactions are essential to trigger responses to help plants grow and develop. Understanding how soil and plants cope with climate change logically leads to questioning the necessary terrestrial ecosystem carbon balance that will be sustainable under future climate-change scenarios.

CO2Land org has previously discussed ‘soil bugs’ under ‘Bugs to cure our climate ills’, on 21 Aug 2012 and more recently further information as been sent on findings that have been on public release (30 Aug 2012 ): “Unexpected finding shows climate change complexities in soil.  While it is hard to describe the finding as surprising it is more evidence of underground organisms ability to play complex roles with greenhouse sequesting.

Presented by mick_kulikowski@ncsu.edu of North Carolina State University  in a paper published in the Aug. 31 edition of Science, “North Carolina State University researchers show that important and common soil microscopic organisms, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), play a role in sequestering carbon below ground, trapping it from escaping into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas…. Yet at the same time, the study shows, elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide also increase a number of underground decomposing interactions that cause carbon to be released back into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. This greenhouse gas release essentially offsets any carbon sink benefits, the researchers found…AMF have a win-win relationship with plants. The fungi take carbon from plants and provide nitrogen and other useful soil nutrients that plants need in order to grow and develop. Present in the roots of about 80 percent of plants that grow on land, AMF help hold this carbon in the ground by putting the brakes on the decomposition of soil organic matter, which prevents the carbon in the decomposing material from escaping into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas”.

What was so complex in that action you might ask?  The paper says different experiments yielded different results. However all concluded AMF spur other soil micro-organisms to help fill the plant’s need for ammonia. To do so, soil micro-organisms decompose soil organic matter, which allows the carbon to escape into the atmosphere.

Quoting the paper: “We showed that the fungi previously thought to control carbon in the soil can increase carbon decomposition when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are elevated. ” The study lead Dr. Shuijin Hu, associate professor of plant pathology at NC State and the corresponding author of the paper to say: “But if we effectively manage x, we have a chance to manage carbon sequestration in the soil.”

What CO2Land org reads of this is that regardless, we humans can manage the need for change and anthropogenic change can affect the extent to which terrestrial ecosystems will interact and need the sequester carbon to mitigate climate change is a matter of debate. And to quote the study again “The stimulation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) by elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has been assumed to be a major mechanism facilitating soil carbon sequestration by increasing carbon inputs to soil and by protecting organic carbon from decomposition via aggregation. We present evidence from four independent microcosm and field experiments demonstrating that CO2 enhancement of AMF results in significant soil carbon losses. Our findings challenge the assumption that AMF protect against degradation of organic carbon in soil and raise questions about the current prediction of terrestrial ecosystem carbon balance under future climate-change scenarios”.

 

ever heard of Climate Change Authority, Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

What? You never heard of Climate Change Authority, what about Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

The Energy Users Association of Australia (EUAA) would like to make sure you are up to speed, and encourage you to consider attending their important briefing in Sydney this Thursday, 30 August 2012.

Why would you know more for attending? Because Roman Domanski (Executive Director, EUAA) has engaged the CEO of the new Climate Change Authority, and the Chair of the new Clean Energy Finance Corporation to present the outline and effects of their charge. These two are responsible for advising the Government on the carbon price and the renewable energy target, amongst other things, and responsible for providing funding for clean energy, low carbon and energy efficiency projects.  Of course there is more to the program but you should check that out for yourself.

Because CO2Land org likes to know a little more, a short research brings up:

1. The Climate Change Authority was created as an independent body to provide advice on the Australian Government’s policies for reducing carbon pollution (reviewing the Renewable Energy Target, Pollution caps, carbon pricing and Carbon Farming Initiative):

  • Has a Board of nine members with skills in science, economics, climate change mitigation, emissions trading, investment and business.
  • The Board is supported by a CEO and support staff.
  • Importance is to make recommendations on the steps Australia should take towards the 2020 target and on the longer-term path towards the 2050 target.
  • The Authority will conduct regular, public reviews and its reports will be made public.

2. Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) is made up of a panel of experts appointed by the Government to advise on the design of the $10billion Clean energy package. The package is announced to:

  • encourage private investment and help overcome capital market barriers to commercialising clean energy technologies.
  • The expert review panel consults with key stakeholders and report with recommendations to assist with the drafting of legislation, allowing the CEFC to start operating from 2013-14.

CO2Land org notes that the EUAA and the agencies recognize that it is an act of being together that will be a success factor with putting a price on carbon pollution, and the establishment of responsible bodies that will help Australia meet the environmental and economic challenges of competing in a low-pollution world.

If you have any interest direct your queries direct to:

 

Energy Users Association of Australia

Suite 1, Level 2, 19-23 Prospect St

Box Hill  Vic  3218 Australia

T +61 3 9898 3900

F +61 3 9898 7499

W www.euaa.com.au

 

Human Creativity – ideas and innovation

Posted on Posted in Carbon RiskTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

I long for where Human creativity meant ideas and opportunity will be captured and questioned and then crafted into a business. While lamenting, along came a story that human creativity has not changed, and the problem is we might be running out of big NEW companies. This leads to looking deeper into why this could happen.

A story from Alyson Shontell, 23 August 2012, (http://www.businessinsider.com/startups-have-gotten-very-boring-2012-8#ixzz24PkQEhSJ ) in essence says the space is too crowded and starting a company used to be more difficult.

CO2Land org does agree starting a company is more easy, however funding is getting more difficult, banks have tighter lending rules, old (family) money has all but dried up or is invested in the minerals boom (particularly since 2007-08) and we are back to the time when only people with boatloads of money could afford to launch one (a start-up company) and see it to maturity. However, the difference to how it was before is marketing, this is more important and in particular we need to know how to use the changed practices in marketing to your advantage and this is more critical than being a engineering genius. That said we have to point out the improved technology, and social media can create something for a condition to start-up a company that is neither being novel or necessary. The condition for this is because – “Founders can scale consumer products relatively quickly too. Angel investor Chris Dixon called 10 million users the new one million.”

CO2Land org then ponders: Is innovation of this type going to reach a ‘peak oil’ type of scenario and when, and what drives us to start-up a new company that is different especially where we might have products that are familiar, can use and understand, and have been around for the years. A good example might be how a director of an affiliate company said my PC was fine until Microsoft made it more complicated, so I changed to Apple and had to learn all over again! This is a very good example of how we did not want to change until it was forced on us, and the moral of the story is do it before it is done unto you! By that is meant things will change through human creativity and that creativity can at least be influenced by our ideas if we participate (is this not the correct way of a human touch?).

Back to the Alyson Shontell story: “The interesting innovation now is happening in [business-to-business] and infrastructure, which doesn’t seem as intellectually interesting but can have a large impact,” an investor told us. “[Business-to-consumer] might just be tapped out for the moment after a good 5+ year run.” It would seem the Alyson Shontell claim is an indicator of the shift in how we do business, and CO2Land org recently published a story on how branding perceptions has changed (Time for a real review). Both support the view the intellectual is less interesting and more important is systems based on hardware, enterprise software, infrastructure and bio-whatever.

CO2Land org does fully agrees those in this B2B space are different and have their thoughts arranged in a way different to B2C and may have an easier time in start-up as they can be better, more predictable bets for investors.

Watch this space for more affiliate action – soon! And, Twitter, is becoming more and more important in watching this space.

Announcement from Smart Energy

Posted on Posted in Carbon RiskTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Being some were concerned that smart grid technology was slipping off the radar, be consoled with the following: Hello Smart Energy members,

I thought you might be interested in receiving a copy of a recent interview that Smart Energy’s sister site, Energy IQ, conducted with Andrew Blaver, Implementation Manager for Perth Solar City at Western Power Corporation.

Andrew discusses how smart meters and other smart grid technology have helped Western Power to create an economically efficient electricity system. He also talks about how access to real time data has enabled them to change the way they interact with customers, increasing engagement through customer acquisition and retention strategies that are more tailored to individual needs. You can read the interview here: http://bit.ly/NmyMe6

Andrew will be revealing more about the impact that real time energy data has had on consumer behaviour and customer engagement in his session at the Solar Cities 2012 conference, taking place in Brisbane in October. For more information on the event, you can download the agenda here: http://bit.ly/O6QGlF 

Kind regards

Siân Jenkins
Smart Energy Group.

CO2Land org says excellent, all the best.

 

Bugs to cure our climate ill’s

Posted on Posted in Carbon RiskTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Something we all know, we need help to adjust to climate change – and in other civilisations and cultures we have been told of stories of using nature to cure our ills. In the search for our cure for the climate ills, we should consider “Soil ‘bugs’ help plants survive – Posted by Layne Cameron-Michigan State on Wednesday, August 15 2012”.

It follows that climate change will occur quicker than plants can adapt – obviously a food security risk for the world. In a report put forward by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “a new study shows how plants interact with microbes to survive the effects of global changes, including increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, warmer temperatures, and altered precipitation patterns”. While the report is called new, many have previously speculated or even preached that healthy soils and microbes in balance are promoters of healthy plant growth. This story is new in the way it explains how microbes in the soil adapt quickly, doing most of the work so plants can survive. “In doing that the microbes in the soil work overtime to give plants the power to face the challenges of a rapidly changing climate. (Source: “growing plant” via Shutterstock)”

The method of the conduct of the experiment involved multi-generational sampling of manipulated environmental factors above and below ground, and paying close attention to the interaction between the plants and microbes in the soil.

CO2Land org has recently been discussing how this type of research has far reaching implications that can provide measures to not only give assurance of economic, national accounting of sustainable agriculture and a healthy future – but illustrates that there needs to be more of this type of literature and studies to assure we have something to leave behind for the future of our kind.

 

Time for a real review

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , 1 Comment

Smart forms of research has found that customer service and sales skills are considered the least important when building a brand, and it would seem big brand and government know this very well. This might explain why any meaningful programs are explained in a way of the language of spin. For what is done would we not prefer to hear or feel that our policy makers value some measure of the actions and actively seek feedback from those that influence our lives at least every 6 to 12 months from a startup campaign. This view suggests government is a business – a business that must please its total stakeholder basis.

Why should this happen? Take a look at quotes taken from the writings of Laurissa Smith and Anna Vidot (www.abc.net.au ), on Monday, 20/08/2012, the story ‘Carbon farmers challenged by rigorous process’: “The guidelines which set out how they can make money from schemes like the Federal Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative are still being developed…It’s still sitting under consideration with the Domestic Offset Integrity Committee which is the committee tasked under the clean energy regulator to review the methodologies…So we hope that it’s going to become available for public interest by early 2013.” This is extremely frustrating when you consider the Department responsible made announcements of a body as set up for Carbon Offsets in June 2010.

In fairness some methodologies are already approved – 3 with the possible 4th soon, and the promise is new methodologies on the way would allow farmers to earn credits not yet seen for not yet approved promotions on their properties.

Following on with the need for measures and feedback, consider another story featuring Anna Vidot, it too is clearly linked to our food security, the National Retailers Association says the sector is suffering from “review fatigue” and is an easy target for people concerned about the viability of Australian food processing. The story is leveraged on how the industry is responding to recommendations made by a Senate committee which has just concluded a year-long investigation into food processing in Australia. Rather than call it a broad based affair, the report is labeled ‘wide-ranging’ across areas of diverse ranges. The report makes more than 30 recommendations from industrial relations to food labeling.

If we refrain from discussing the market dominance of Coles and Woolworth, views of a political advantage etc, and concentrate on finding evidence of how customers and suppliers are satisfied with their treatment by the big two, you can narrow down to the need for a survey of supermarket activities. That survey concept could also be used to find evidence of government performance, and that survey could, ideally, be reviewable on a half yearly or yearly basis. Correctly structured we could be well assured ‘all funny business’ would be stamped out of politics, and we would remove the election cycle porkbarreling we are so used to in new policy announcements.

If we explore this a little further, from the retailers: “We’ve had a number of reviews in this space, and the last Australian Competition and Consumer Commission review found that there was workable competition in this country… The supermarkets already do an enormous amount of research and collection of data… Many of the suppliers you’re talking about are big multinationals in their own right…From the perspective of farm-gate suppliers, in the case of Coles and Woolworths, the majority of their suppliers have been with them for 20 or 30 years.”

Then from a peak body for the manufacturers, the Australian Food and Grocery Council sums it all up very well: “If you’re looking at how we become more competitive, to improve productivity and compete effectively against imports and secure export markets, innovation is absolutely fundamental to that…,[It’s about] giving that a commercial focus and providing some leadership, or a catalyst if you like, for some of the innovative effort that assists in improving productivity and identifying and securing export markets…But it’s not easy and we welcome the fact that this report has identified this as an area for future action.”

Can you see the similarities that each industry faces, it follows: Call for interest, formulate, approve, review, report, review the review, determine if real, and review if the review equals very little intervention other than a market correction and then all care and no responsibility taken.  And, what if each industry could review the performance of the politician and review that appointment?