Organic export orders review

Consultation has concluded

Thank you for your feedback on the regulation of the export of organics and the impacts of different regulatory options.

Submissions have now closed.

Our consultant, Deloitte, has collated your feedback and is currently putting together the report.

Feedback summary

Organic export orders review Thank you for participating in the organic exports review. Our consultant, Deloitte, has been reviewing your submissions. We asked for your perspective on proposed reform to organic exports. Your feedback has been collated and will inform the review. This is a snapshot of what we learnt during the public consultation. Feedback Deloitte collected domestic feedback for the consultation via four channels. • Online submissions • Questionnaire responses • Face-to-face at the Love Organic Symposium • Over the phone. Submissions 75 responses were received. Figure 1 Type of respondents   Key themes 1. The National Standard is the de facto domestic standard. The National Standard has become the basis of standards for domestic organic certi¬fication, even though it only exists as part of the export legislation. Although the Australian Standard, AS 6000, is used to enforce organic claims in Australia, it’s not actually used in domestic supply chains. 2. There are important diff¬erences between international standards and the National Standard. Many Australian organic producers have international certification to access export markets. But many producers said they didn't want to wholly defer to international standards over the National Standard, both because of relevant differences in the standards and because of a belief that there is brand value in Australia’s organic reputation. 3. Selected recognition of other countries’ standards is possible under existing arrangements and would not require a regulatory change. Certifi¬ers told us they already issue export certifi¬cates in line with conformity assessment arrangements they hold with importing governments. It would be better to look at a country’s conformity assessment arrangements so that Australian certifying organisations would not need to separately negotiate and maintain their individual conformity assessment arrangements, which can be costly and time consuming. 4. There are a range of costs in getting and staying certified, and exporting. There is a considerable up-front cost to achieving organic certifi¬cation, ¬financially and in terms of modi¬fications to production systems. The differences between the National Standard and other countries’ are generally not signifi¬cant, but having to manage production systems to different standards can create costs (for example, the cost of keeping products certi¬fied to different standards from being mixed together). 5. The option of using AS 6000 is well worth considering, but would involve certain transition costs. Making AS 6000 the export standard is viewed as desirable by a number of stakeholders, both because of the transparency and rigour of Standards Australia processes, and a perception that it would better support market access improvements in the long term. Transitioning to AS 6000, and Standards Australia processes for standard management, would involve a number of costs, particularly in the short term (for example, purchasing copies of the standard, and updating AS 6000). www.agriculture.gov.au

Thank you for your feedback on the regulation of the export of organics and the impacts of different regulatory options.

Submissions have now closed.

Our consultant, Deloitte, has collated your feedback and is currently putting together the report.

Feedback summary

Organic export orders review Thank you for participating in the organic exports review. Our consultant, Deloitte, has been reviewing your submissions. We asked for your perspective on proposed reform to organic exports. Your feedback has been collated and will inform the review. This is a snapshot of what we learnt during the public consultation. Feedback Deloitte collected domestic feedback for the consultation via four channels. • Online submissions • Questionnaire responses • Face-to-face at the Love Organic Symposium • Over the phone. Submissions 75 responses were received. Figure 1 Type of respondents   Key themes 1. The National Standard is the de facto domestic standard. The National Standard has become the basis of standards for domestic organic certi¬fication, even though it only exists as part of the export legislation. Although the Australian Standard, AS 6000, is used to enforce organic claims in Australia, it’s not actually used in domestic supply chains. 2. There are important diff¬erences between international standards and the National Standard. Many Australian organic producers have international certification to access export markets. But many producers said they didn't want to wholly defer to international standards over the National Standard, both because of relevant differences in the standards and because of a belief that there is brand value in Australia’s organic reputation. 3. Selected recognition of other countries’ standards is possible under existing arrangements and would not require a regulatory change. Certifi¬ers told us they already issue export certifi¬cates in line with conformity assessment arrangements they hold with importing governments. It would be better to look at a country’s conformity assessment arrangements so that Australian certifying organisations would not need to separately negotiate and maintain their individual conformity assessment arrangements, which can be costly and time consuming. 4. There are a range of costs in getting and staying certified, and exporting. There is a considerable up-front cost to achieving organic certifi¬cation, ¬financially and in terms of modi¬fications to production systems. The differences between the National Standard and other countries’ are generally not signifi¬cant, but having to manage production systems to different standards can create costs (for example, the cost of keeping products certi¬fied to different standards from being mixed together). 5. The option of using AS 6000 is well worth considering, but would involve certain transition costs. Making AS 6000 the export standard is viewed as desirable by a number of stakeholders, both because of the transparency and rigour of Standards Australia processes, and a perception that it would better support market access improvements in the long term. Transitioning to AS 6000, and Standards Australia processes for standard management, would involve a number of costs, particularly in the short term (for example, purchasing copies of the standard, and updating AS 6000). www.agriculture.gov.au

  • CLOSED: This survey has concluded.

    Make an online submission

    Complete our questionnaire or upload your own submission now.

    You will need to register or sign in to provide your feedback.

    This form is for Australian residents only. International stakeholders should email Deloitte to provide feedback.


    Complete our questionnaire or upload your own submission now.

    You will need to register or sign in to provide your feedback.

    This form is for Australian residents only. International stakeholders should email Deloitte to provide feedback.


    Consultation has concluded