Sustainability claims for international markets

Below is a consolidated list of additional or emerging regulatory requirements that were not explicitly mentioned in section 2.1 of the discussion paper, with notes on which markets and sectors are primarily affected. These points are drawn from BCSDA’s submissions and their observations on evolving global rules.

EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Reforms
What it adds: New eco-schemes and ‘green architecture’ measures under the CAP put greater emphasis on climate adaptation, biodiversity, soil health, and reduced inputs in agriculture. While primarily directed at EU producers, these evolving CAP requirements can indirectly affect third-country suppliers (including Australia) when the EU or importers require equivalent sustainability standards.
Relevant sectors: Beef, lamb, grains (especially wheat and canola), dairy, cotton (if exported as a raw commodity).
Markets: European Union.

EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)
What it adds: Extends beyond the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and requires EU-based companies (and, by extension, their supply chains worldwide) to identify, prevent, and mitigate adverse human rights and environmental impacts across their operations.
Relevant sectors: All agricultural exports (e.g., grains, livestock, horticulture, seafood) because suppliers to an EU-based corporation must demonstrate robust environmental and social due diligence.
Markets: European Union.

US State-Level Transparency Laws
What it adds: Certain states (notably California) have stricter supply chain transparency requirements, including ethical labour and modern slavery disclosures (e.g., California Supply Chain Transparency Act).
Relevant sectors: Horticulture (fruits, nuts), seafood, dairy, wool, cotton (especially where apparel or textile supply chains involve the US).
Markets: United States (particularly retailers or brands headquartered in California and other states with specific legislation).

US Farm Bill Provisions
What it adds: Conservation or regenerative agriculture incentives (periodically updated within the Farm Bill) could shift expectations on imported products – for example, requiring alignment with certain animal welfare or environmental standards.
Relevant sectors: Beef, dairy, grains, horticulture.
Markets: United States.

South Korea’s Organic Certification
What it adds: Separate from Japan’s JAS, South Korea has its own certification regime for organic products, with requirements for labelling, production standards, and evidence of environmental practices.
Relevant sectors: Horticulture, grains, any organic-labelled Australian goods.
Markets: South Korea.

ASEAN Harmonized Standards
What it adds: Various ASEAN countries are beginning to harmonize sustainability and food safety requirements, especially around pesticide residue, product traceability, and resource efficiency.
Relevant sectors: Rice, grains, seafood, horticulture.
Markets: Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and other ASEAN nations.

Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) Certification
What it adds: Focuses on farmed seafood standards for environmental responsibility, fish welfare, and social impact. While the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) covers wild-catch fisheries, ASC is increasingly relevant where farmed seafood is prominent.
Relevant sectors: Seafood (especially aquaculture).
Markets: EU, US, premium markets in Asia.

GMO Labelling and Approval Processes
What it adds: Some export destinations (e.g., the EU, Japan, South Korea, China) have more stringent or evolving GMO approvals and labelling mandates for grains (like canola or certain wheat varieties).
Relevant sectors: Grains, cotton.
Markets: European Union, East Asia (especially Japan and South Korea).

Pesticide Residue Limits and Chemical Management
What it adds: Increasingly stringent maximum residue limits (MRLs) in the EU, the US, and some Asian markets, with more frequent updates and stricter thresholds.
Relevant sectors: Horticulture (fresh produce), grains, cotton.
Markets: European Union, North America, and premium Asian markets.

Animal Welfare Requirements
What it adds: Several regions (e.g., EU, UK) are considering or have enacted stricter welfare rules, potentially linked to trade conditions. Producers supplying meat, eggs, or dairy may need to demonstrate compliance with recognized welfare standards.
Relevant sectors: Livestock (beef, dairy, sheep).
Markets: European Union, United Kingdom, certain US retailers/brands.

Waste Management and Circular Economy Regulations
What it adds: The EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan, for instance, may create tighter scrutiny of packaging materials, on-farm waste management, and resource efficiency.
Relevant sectors: Food processing, horticulture (packaging, plastic use), wool or cotton (textile and fibre waste).
Markets: Primarily European Union, but increasingly discussed in Asia.

Expanded Climate Commitments under the Paris Agreement
What it adds: Individual country commitments to carbon reduction targets might lead to more specific import rules or carbon border adjustments (like the EU’s CBAM) that eventually include agriculture.
Relevant sectors: All commodity exports with a notable emissions profile, such as livestock, dairy, grains.
Markets: European Union (CBAM), potential for broader adoption elsewhere in future.

Here are some additional evidence expectations (both in terms of what type of evidence is required and what aspect of sustainability it addresses) that go beyond those explicitly listed in section 2.2. These points reflect emerging trends in global markets and can apply across a range of Australian agricultural exports.

Advanced, Technology-Driven Traceability
Form of Evidence: Blockchain-based ledgers: immutable records of product origin, farm practices, and chain of custody data.
IoT sensors: data feeds confirming real-time environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, water usage).
Why it’s important: Many global retailers (especially in the EU and US) increasingly require tech-enabled transparency to substantiate sustainability claims—particularly around deforestation-free sourcing or fair labour practices.
Relevant Sectors/Markets:
Sectors: Grains (e.g., verifying no land-clearing), livestock (e.g., proof of feed source), horticulture (fresh produce), seafood (chain-of-custody).
Markets: EU (deforestation regulation, due diligence laws); US (retailer-driven transparency); premium Asian markets (Japan, South Korea, high-end supermarket chains).

Traceability Linked to Measurable Outcomes
Form of Evidence: Lifecycle assessments (LCAs): showing cradle-to-grave carbon footprints, including upstream and downstream emissions.
Outcome-based metrics: e.g., quantifiable improvements in soil organic carbon, reductions in pesticide use over time, or verified habitat restoration efforts.
Why it’s important: Buyers want to see that traceability systems aren’t just tracking goods but producing real environmental or social benefits—particularly in response to corporate net-zero pledges and biodiversity initiatives.
Relevant Sectors/Markets:
Sectors: Dairy (emissions reduction), grains (regenerative approaches), horticulture (biodiversity-friendly), cotton or wool (sustainable land use).
Markets: EU and North America (strict buyer ESG mandates), Asia (premium segments).

Soil Health & Carbon Sequestration Evidence
Form of Evidence: Soil testing data: standardised metrics for carbon content, nutrient levels, and soil organic matter.
Remote sensing imagery: satellite or drone-based data verifying improved cover crops, reduced tillage, or other regenerative practices.
Why it’s important: Soil health and carbon sequestration claims are increasingly recognized as key to achieving net-zero targets and resilient agriculture. Various industry stakeholders (including financiers) are beginning to require verifiable soil metrics.
Relevant Sectors/Markets:
Sectors: Grains (e.g., wheat, canola), beef (grazing management), dairy (feed production).
Markets: EU (common agricultural policy reforms, carbon farming initiatives), US (regenerative agriculture programs).

Waste Management & Circular Economy Indicators
Form of Evidence: Waste reduction audits: showing minimized on-farm waste, re-use of by-products (manure, offcuts), or closed-loop packaging solutions.
Circular economy certifications: third-party verifications (especially in the EU) that materials are reused or recycled in alignment with local regulations.
Why it’s important: Circular economy is a core focus in the EU Green Deal and is becoming a common component of buyers’ sustainability KPIs worldwide (especially for food processors and retailers).
Relevant Sectors/Markets:
Sectors: Dairy (processing by-products), horticulture (packaging reuse), cotton/wool (textile waste).
Markets: EU (circular economy action plan), increasingly Asia (fast-moving consumer goods sustainability requirements).

Evidence of Community Engagement & Social Licence
Form of Evidence: Local stakeholder engagement logs: demonstrating prior consultation, co-designed initiatives, and benefits to local communities.
Social impact metrics: e.g., local employment rates, fair-trade premiums paid, educational or training programs funded.
Why it’s important: Brands and retailers in the US and the EU, as well as domestic Australian consumers, increasingly link “sustainable” to positive community outcomes in regions where raw materials are produced.
Relevant Sectors/Markets:
Sectors: Cotton (grower communities), beef/dairy (regional employment, farm labour), seafood (coastal community livelihoods).
Markets: US (brand-driven CSR), EU (corporate due diligence directives), Australia (domestic social licence).

Data on Regenerative or Resilient Farming Practices
Form of Evidence: Verified management plans that include cover cropping, reduced tillage, rotational grazing, or multi-species planting.
Monitoring & Reporting: periodic third-party or self-assessment against regenerative benchmarks (e.g., Leading Harvest, Regenagri frameworks).
Why it’s important: Beyond simply “sustainable,” many buyers now want proof of regenerative practices and climate resilience. This is especially pertinent for markets with advanced ESG agendas, or for premium branding opportunities.
Relevant Sectors/Markets:
Sectors: Broadacre cropping (grains), horticulture, livestock/grazing systems.
Markets: Primarily North America (big-name food corporations), EU (sustainability-driven retailers), niche markets in Asia (premium organic/regenerative).

How These Additional Areas Fit with Section 2.2
- Section 2.2 highlights the importance of specific topics (e.g., carbon emissions, water, biodiversity, social responsibility). The evidence types listed above extend these themes by focusing on technology-enabled transparency, measurable outcome-based verification, and broader social/circular economy considerations.
- They also reflect a global trend: increasingly, importers and large multinational buyers are not only requesting evidence of good practices but requiring robust data-driven proof—whether it is blockchain traceability, advanced soil testing, or verified circular economy metrics.
- Taken together, these emerging expectations underscore how dynamic the regulatory and market-driven sustainability space has become. Australian producers looking to maintain or grow market share—especially in the EU, US, and high-end Asian markets—are well advised to align with these data-rich forms of verification.

Below is a list of what BCSDA consider to be the most frequently requested types of evidence underpinning sustainability claims, along with examples of the specific markets and sectors in which they typically apply. These groupings align with both regulatory drivers (for example, in the EU and US) and voluntary or market-led requirements (particularly premium retail and consumer demands).

Third-Party Certifications
What it is: Independent verification that producers or supply chains meet recognized sustainability standards. Examples include GLOBALG.A.P. (horticulture, general agriculture), SAI Platform (dairy, grains), Marine Stewardship Council (seafood), Better Cotton Initiative (cotton), and International Sustainability and Carbon Certification/ISCC (canola).
Where it applies:
- Sectors: Seafood (wild-caught or farmed), grains (especially canola, wheat), dairy, cotton, wool, and horticulture (fresh produce).
- Markets:
EU: Strong preference for certification to meet regulatory requirements (e.g., deforestation-free, reduced pesticide use).
US: FMCG companies and retailers often mandate recognized certifications as part of supplier agreements.
Asia (Japan, South Korea): Premium buyers increasingly adopt certifications as a quality differentiator.

Traceability and Data Systems
What it is: Digital platforms or tools that record the product journey from farm (or fishery) to final market. These can include blockchain-based systems, RFID tracking, and satellite mapping to verify land-use origin.
Where it applies:
- Sectors: Livestock (beef, sheep), grains (location-based to confirm no recent land clearing), seafood (vessel-to-plate tracing), horticulture (handling from orchard or field to retailer).
- Markets:
EU: Used for verifying deforestation-free or low-carbon supply chains.
US: Large retailers often require full visibility of product origin and handling.
Asia: Premium sectors in Japan, South Korea, and increasingly China, especially for high-value or branded agricultural goods.

Declarations, Templates, and Tools
What it is: Self-declarations, supplier codes of conduct, and standardized templates for emissions or pesticide use—often supplemented by calculators (e.g., carbon calculators, water footprint tools) or lifecycle assessments.
Where it applies:
- Sectors: Dairy (on-farm GHG calculation), horticulture (chemical use reporting), grains (emissions or biodiversity templates).
- Markets:
EU: May require ongoing reporting or declarations in line with Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).
US: Retailers often issue questionnaires or codes of conduct for suppliers.
Asia: Utilized where formal certifications might not be mandatory but some documented sustainability proof is expected (e.g., large supermarket chains).

Industry-Based Sustainability Frameworks and Reports
What it is: Collective initiatives at the sector level that track, benchmark, and publicly report on industry-wide sustainability metrics. Examples include the Australian Wool Sustainability Scheme, the National Farmers’ Federation frameworks, or Meat & Livestock Australia’s annual sustainability reports.
Where it applies:
- Sectors: Wool, dairy, grains, beef, horticulture—where an industry body coordinates data collection and best-practice guidelines.
- Markets:
EU and US: Buyers and regulators sometimes use these frameworks to gain an overview of an entire sector’s performance, though more granular on-farm evidence may still be required.
Asia: Useful for brand-building when marketing “Australian” commodity advantages (e.g., quality, safety, environment).

Demonstration of Regulatory Alignment
What it is: Evidence that a producer complies with existing legislation in areas like modern slavery, chemical usage, or environmental management. The assumption is that meeting Australia’s relatively high regulatory standards can partially satisfy international sustainability expectations.
Where it applies:
- Sectors: Horticulture (pesticide compliance), livestock (animal welfare), seafood (fishing regulations), cotton/wool (fair labour, labour safety).
- Markets:
EU: Still often requires additional proof beyond local regulations, but compliance is viewed as a baseline.
US: Focus on fair labour laws, forced-labour checks, especially in textiles or seasonal worker contexts.
Asia: May be satisfactory for certain commodity buyers, though premium segments often demand more stringent proof.

Customer (Buyer) Audits
What it is: Direct, often on-site evaluations by the purchaser (e.g., a supermarket or brand) to verify sustainability practices and data accuracy.
Where it applies:
- Sectors: Horticulture (fresh produce supply contracts), dairy (milk supply to processors or branded products), seafood (retailers verifying catch methods), and grains or pulses (specific end-user demands).
- Markets:
EU and US: Large retailers and food service companies frequently conduct their own checks to ensure compliance with brand or consumer expectations.
Asia: Premium supermarkets or hotels might use audits for high-end supply chains.

Key Takeaways
- Third-party certifications remain a core requirement—particularly in high-regulation markets like the EU or with multinational buyers in the US.
- Data-driven traceability is growing in importance, with some major players (especially in Europe and North America) requiring detailed chain-of-custody records or blockchain-based verification.
- Declarations and calculators fill gaps in certification regimes and help quantify metrics like greenhouse gas emissions or water usage.
- Industry-based frameworks provide sector-wide credibility but often need supplementary farm-level or processing-level data for high scrutiny markets.
- Regulatory compliance proof is a baseline rather than a cap—countries with strict local laws can leverage that to show partial alignment with international standards.
- Buyer audits remain a flexible mechanism for larger customers seeking to validate or go beyond standardized certifications.

By leveraging these various forms of evidence, Australian agriculture can better demonstrate a credible, multi-layered approach to sustainability—satisfying both regulatory requirements and the evolving expectations of global customers.

Below is an overview of the types of evidence that BCSDA consider that various markets expect to see when verifying compliance with regulations—particularly those related to labour conditions, worker safety, and broader social responsibilities in agricultural supply chains. Specific markets have their own nuances, but the general categories of supporting evidence (and the sectors where they are commonly applied) are as follows:

Labour and Employment Documentation
What it includes: Employment contracts, wage records, and time sheets demonstrating fair remuneration and compliance with minimum wage laws. Documentation verifying freedom of association, worker grievance mechanisms, and no forced or child labour.
Where it matters:
- Sectors: Particularly relevant for horticulture (seasonal harvest labour), dairy (on-farm employees), seafood (fishing crews, processing facilities), and textiles (cotton, wool) where extensive manual labour is involved.
- Markets:
United States: The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and state-level supply chain transparency acts (e.g., California Supply Chain Transparency Act) require documentation of fair labour practices.
European Union: The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and existing Modern Slavery/forced labour legislation require companies to demonstrate thorough human rights due diligence across their supply chain.
Australia: Fair Work Act and Modern Slavery Act compliance is often recognized as baseline evidence for export customers.

Health, Safety, and Worker Training Records
What it includes: Occupational health and safety (OHS) audit reports, training logs, evidence of personal protective equipment (PPE) usage, and accident/incident registers. Verification of safe handling of agrochemicals, machinery, and livestock.
Where it matters:
- Sectors: Horticulture (pesticide application safety), livestock and dairy (handling large animals and equipment), and seafood (vessel safety).
- Markets:
EU: Strong worker safety guidelines under general labour directives; retailers also enforce OHS standards as part of supplier codes of conduct.
US: Customers (e.g., major supermarket chains) increasingly request OHS compliance records in supply contracts.
Asia: While some markets are less formal, premium buyers and multinational companies still expect robust OHS evidence.

Supplier Codes of Conduct and Audits
What it includes: Signed declarations or contractual clauses obligating suppliers to adhere to labour and safety standards. Documentation of periodic on-site or remote audits by either the buyer or a third-party auditing firm.
Where it matters:
- Sectors: Seafood (chain-of-custody audits), horticulture (on-farm inspections), cotton/wool (textile brand audits), dairy (milk processor checks).
- Markets:
US/EU: Large retailers and brands typically issue standardized codes of conduct (e.g., Walmart, Tesco).
Asia: Especially in premium segments (e.g., Japanese retailers, Korean high-end grocery chains) looking for proof of fair labour practices.

Third-Party Ethical or Social Responsibility Certifications
What it includes: Certifications such as Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance (for certain commodities), SEDEX/SMETA audits, or SA8000, covering worker rights, health, safety, and community impact. Reporting on metrics like wages above minimum standard, worker retention, and community investment.
Where it matters:
- Sectors: Coffee, cocoa (less common in Australia but relevant for broad reference), cotton, horticulture, seafood.
- Markets:
EU: Seen as strong evidence for due diligence compliance.
US: Companies and consumers seeking ethically produced goods.
Asia: Gaining traction among premium retailers or for goods with sustainability-focused branding.

Modern Slavery Statements and Risk Assessments
What it includes: Public statements detailing policies, due diligence, and remediation steps to eliminate modern slavery in operations and supply chains. Risk-mapping or gap analysis identifying the highest-risk labour practices and the controls in place to address them.
Where it matters:
- Sectors: Highly relevant where manual or low-skilled labour is prevalent (horticulture, cotton picking, meat processing).
- Markets:
Australia: Mandatory reporting under the Modern Slavery Act for entities above certain revenue thresholds.
EU/UK: Similar Modern Slavery disclosure requirements, corporate due diligence directives.
US: Increasing scrutiny on imported goods for forced labour, especially textiles or produce linked to vulnerable populations.

Data Integration with Sustainability Platforms
What it includes:
Integrating labour practice data into broader sustainability or traceability platforms, e.g., blockchain solutions that track both environmental and social metrics.
Real-time dashboards showing workforce conditions, worker training completion, or compliance checks.
Where it matters:
- Sectors: Multi-touchpoint supply chains like seafood or horticulture, where advanced digital traceability is used.
- Markets:
EU: Aligns with emerging digital product passports and other “end-to-end” transparency requirements.
US: Some major retailers require integrated solutions for environmental and social compliance data.
Asia: Premium supply chains, especially those targeting export to Western markets or high-end domestic retailers.

Why This Matters
- Global Convergence on Due Diligence: Many major economies (EU, US, Australia) are converging on the principle that importers must demonstrate thorough checks on social and labour conditions.
- Retailer-Driven Requirements: Even where local laws are less stringent, international retailers and brands may impose their own codes of conduct or require third-party audits.
- Risk Mitigation and Market Access: Demonstrating compliance with labour regulations (especially modern slavery and worker safety) is increasingly a market-entry requirement rather than just a reputational preference.

By maintaining robust records—ranging from employment contracts and wage documentation to health and safety audits and third-party certifications—Australian agricultural exporters can show credible, tangible evidence of compliance with ever-evolving labour-related regulations in the world’s leading markets.

Below is an updated, comprehensive list of the key organisations and agencies—spanning government, industry, research, the private sector, and business NGOs—that BCSDA consider play distinct but complementary roles in assuring sustainability claims for Australian agriculture. Each entry notes the function they perform, and how they fit into a broader sustainability and traceability ecosystem.

Australian Agricultural Traceability Governance Group (AATGG)
Role: Provide strategic oversight and coordination of national traceability initiatives. Ensure that traceability standards and sustainability goals are harmonised across different commodities and supply chains.
Why they matter: Serve as the central governance body that aligns multiple stakeholders’ efforts under a cohesive national strategy.

Assuring Sustainability Claims Working Group (ASCWG)
Role: Formulate detailed guidance on what constitutes credible sustainability evidence (e.g., metrics, verification methods). Work closely with industry bodies to identify data gaps and propose approaches to fill them.
Why they matter: Specifically dedicated to verifying and enhancing sustainability claims, ensuring alignment with evolving domestic and global requirements.

Data Standards Working Group
Role: Develop and implement standardised frameworks for collecting, storing, and sharing data relevant to sustainability and traceability. Promote interoperability of digital systems across various agricultural sectors.
Why they matter: Consistent, interoperable data ensures that sustainability claims are backed by transparent, verifiable information—vital for both domestic and export markets.

Research & Development Working Group (led by CSIRO, universities, and other research bodies)
Role: Drive innovation in measuring and verifying sustainability outcomes (e.g., new remote sensing tools, soil carbon testing). Provide scientific validation and peer-reviewed research underpinning sustainability metrics.
Why they matter: Their work ensures continuous improvement and credibility of sustainability methods, metrics, and technologies.

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)
Role: Oversee Australian regulations relating to agriculture, biosecurity, and sustainability. Negotiate market access with trading partners (in conjunction with DFAT) to ensure recognition of Australia’s sustainability credentials. Provide funding or incentives for sustainable ag and traceability solutions.
Why they matter: As the chief government agency for agriculture, DAFF helps integrate industry-led initiatives with national policy and global trade obligations.

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)
Role: Lead trade negotiations, incorporating evolving sustainability and traceability requirements into free trade agreements and bilateral discussions. Advocate for acceptance of Australian sustainability standards in key export markets.
Why they matter: They open and maintain export pathways, ensuring that Australia’s sustainability frameworks are recognised (or equivalently accepted) abroad.

Industry Associations and Commodity Bodies
Examples: National Farmers’ Federation (NFF), GrainGrowers, Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA), Australian Wool Innovation (AWI), Dairy Australia, Seafood Industry Australia.
Role: Develop sector-specific sustainability frameworks and guidelines (e.g., carbon calculators, on-farm assessments). Provide capacity-building, training, and advocacy for producers and processors.
Why they matter: Translate high-level sustainability requirements into practical, implementable standards across farms and supply chains. Often coordinate sector-wide data collection, target-setting, and annual reporting.

Certification Bodies and Standards Organisations
Examples: GLOBALG.A.P., SAI Platform, Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), Australian Wool Sustainability Scheme (AWSS).
Role: Provide third-party audits and certifications ensuring compliance with recognised sustainability benchmarks. Issue seals or labels that buyers and regulators trust.
Why they matter: Independent verification significantly boosts the credibility and market acceptance of sustainability claims, especially in heavily regulated or premium markets.

Technology Providers (Traceability & Data Analytics Firms)
Role: Develop digital solutions—blockchain ledgers, IoT monitoring, analytics dashboards—for tracking and verifying sustainability metrics in real time. Integrate data capture with existing on-farm or processing-plant workflows.
Why they matter: Effective data tools reduce risks of fraud, streamline evidence capture, and support transparent reporting across the supply chain.

State and Territory Agriculture Departments
Role: Enforce region-specific regulations on animal welfare, environmental management, biosecurity, and water usage. Provide local extension services and pilot programs that encourage or reward best sustainability practices.
Why they matter: Practical, on-the-ground implementation of national policies depends on coordination with regional authorities, which understand local conditions and industry needs.

Financial Institutions and Investors
Role: Integrate ESG considerations into lending policies—potentially offering preferential rates or credit terms for proven sustainable operations. Require verifiable sustainability performance before providing capital or insurance coverage.
Why they matter: The link between sustainability performance and access to finance strongly incentivises adoption of robust practices across the sector.

Retailers and Processors (Buyer-End Stakeholders)
Role:Impose procurement standards requiring verifiable environmental and social criteria in upstream sourcing. Conduct audits or request traceability documentation as part of supply contracts.
Why they matter: As the consumer-facing end of the chain, they shape specific sustainability demands and drive supply chain compliance.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and Business Council for Sustainable Development Australia (BCSDA)
Role:
- WBCSD: A global CEO-led community of companies working toward sustainable business solutions. It provides frameworks, thought leadership (e.g., “Reporting Matters”), and guidance on ESG reporting, scope 3 emissions measurement, and best practices for sustainable supply chains.
- BCSDA: An Australian partner of WBCSD that adapts these global insights for the local context. BCSDA reviews and benchmarks corporate and industry reporting using the “Reporting Matters” review framework, highlighting gaps or opportunities for improvement in agricultural sustainability reporting.
Why they matter: They bring an international business lens to sustainability assurance, aligning Australian agricultural practices and reporting with global benchmarks. Through the Reporting Matters framework, they help organizations critically assess the quality, materiality, and transparency of sustainability disclosures.

Why This Collaboration Matters
Each of these entities brings a specific area of expertise—governance, policy, standard-setting, technology, research, advocacy, financing, or global best practices. Coordination ensures that:
- Policy decisions by DAFF and DFAT reflect on-the-ground realities and technological possibilities.
Industry associations and certification bodies help producers efficiently meet both domestic and export market demands for sustainable products.
- Technology providers offer verifiable, streamlined data solutions supporting claims.
- Global networks like WBCSD (along with BCSDA in Australia) connect Australian agriculture to leading-edge sustainability frameworks and shared learnings on reporting excellence, while the Reporting Matters review framework can spotlight where reporting can improve.
- Financial institutions align capital flows with proven or auditable sustainability performance, thereby reinforcing the business case for robust sustainability claims.

By leveraging each actor’s strengths, Australian agriculture can establish credible, scientifically grounded, and globally recognised sustainability claims—securing ongoing market access and maintaining a strong, future-fit position in international supply chains.

Below is a list of additional topics beyond those in section 3.2 that are increasingly seen as critical for demonstrating sustainability claims. These reflect evolving global priorities, emerging regulations, and shifting consumer demands. Each topic includes examples of which markets and sectors might prioritize or benefit most from these areas.

Soil Health & Carbon Sequestration
Why It Matters: Healthy soils underpin both productivity and long-term climate resilience. As pressure grows to demonstrate carbon neutrality or regenerative practices, soil carbon data can provide quantifiable proof of emissions reduction or removal.
Where It’s Most Relevant
- Markets:
EU: Carbon farming incentives, Common Agricultural Policy reforms.
North America: Interest in regenerative agriculture, Scope 3 emissions reduction in corporate supply chains.
Asia (e.g., Japan, South Korea): Premium buyers increasingly value low-carbon or climate-resilient products.
- Sectors: Grains (e.g., wheat, canola), beef and dairy (grazing systems), horticulture (soil fertility crucial for fruit and vegetable production).

Biodiversity Conservation and Land Stewardship
Why It Matters: Focus extends beyond deforestation to include preservation of habitats, wildlife corridors, and pollinator health. Many global buyers now expect tangible actions that protect or restore biodiversity.
Where It’s Most Relevant
- Markets:
EU: Biodiversity Strategy, likely expansions to deforestation-free rules that might include broader ecosystem metrics.
US: Consumer-facing brands with biodiversity sourcing policies, especially for specialty commodities.
Asia: Slowly emerging demand among niche premium retailers or government-driven conservation efforts.
- Sectors: Broadacre farming, horticulture (pollination-dependent crops), dairy and beef (pastureland biodiversity), forestry for integrated land management.

Waste Reduction & Circular Economy Practices
Why It Matters: The circular economy approach aligns with global efforts (e.g., EU Circular Economy Action Plan) and brand commitments to reduce environmental footprints. Demonstrating reduced packaging, on-farm waste, and upcycling byproducts can be a key differentiator in sustainability marketing.
Where It’s Most Relevant
- Markets:
EU: Regulations increasingly require design for reuse, recycle, and minimal waste in agricultural and food systems.
US & Asia: Larger corporate buyers and hotel chains prioritizing zero-waste or closed-loop supply chains.
- Sectors: Dairy (manure use, processing waste), horticulture (food waste reduction, composting), cotton and wool (reuse or recycling of offcuts, textile waste).

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Adoption
Why It Matters: Many large retailers and food companies track overall product carbon footprints, including how much renewable energy is used in production or processing. Renewable energy use can reduce Scope 2 emissions and align with net-zero commitments by major import markets.
Where It’s Most Relevant
- Markets:
EU: Emission trading systems and stricter climate targets.
US: Corporate net-zero pledges, brand-driven requirements to slash supply-chain emissions.
Asia: Especially in high-value export segments (e.g., Japanese premium retailers).
- Sectors: Meat processors (energy-intensive refrigeration), dairy (heating/cooling processes), greenhouse horticulture (lighting), grains (on-farm machinery).

Community Engagement & Social Licence
Why It Matters: Beyond compliance with labour regulations, a socially responsible supply chain can enhance community well-being, drive local economic development, and build trust. Activist groups and consumers increasingly scrutinise whether producers operate ethically and maintain positive relationships with local communities.
Where It’s Most Relevant
- Markets:
US & EU: Corporations factor social and community impacts into ESG ratings.
Australia: Strong emphasis on social licence, particularly where agriculture intersects with Indigenous land rights or rural employment.
Asia: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) frameworks gaining traction, albeit more slowly.
- Sectors: Large-scale cropping, beef feedlots, cotton/wool in rural communities, seafood (coastal communities).

Resilience to Climate Extremes
Why It Matters: Buyers want confidence that supply chains can withstand disruptive climate events, such as droughts or floods. Demonstrating climate adaptation measures—like water-use efficiency, diversified crop rotations, or robust infrastructure—can reassure importers.
Where It’s Most Relevant
- Markets:
EU and North America: Emphasis on stable, reliable sourcing, especially for staples (grains, proteins).
Asia: Growing concern in markets like China and Japan over climate-related supply disruptions.
- Sectors: Horticulture (sensitive to water deficits), grains (drought resilience), dairy and livestock (feed supply security).

Digital Traceability of Inputs & Outputs
Why It Matters: Goes deeper than simple chain-of-custody by capturing data on the origin, resource use, and carbon footprint of inputs like feed, seed, and fertilizers. This ties directly into claims about precision agriculture and sustainable resource management.
Where It’s Most Relevant
- Markets:
EU: Strict deforestation-free sourcing rules, potential expansions to digital product passports.
US: Retailers with advanced supply-chain traceability requirements.
Asia: Japan and South Korea for premium export lines requiring full transparency.
- Sectors: Livestock (feed traceability), grains (certified seed use), cotton (tracking chemicals and water usage), horticulture (pesticide and fertilizer logs).

How These Topics Fit into the Global Landscape
- Regulatory Pressure: The EU and, increasingly, other regions are embedding requirements around biodiversity, circular economy, and digital traceability into existing frameworks.
- Corporate Sourcing Policies: Large multinational buyers (e.g., major retailers, consumer brands) often incorporate these additional topics into supplier codes of conduct or procurement specifications.
- Investor and Financial Perspective: Banks and insurers reward or even require improved climate risk management, soil health, and transparency before offering favorable lending terms.

In Summary
Addressing these additional topics helps Australian agriculture demonstrate a holistic approach to sustainability—one that goes beyond carbon and water to capture aspects of social, ecological, and economic resilience. In doing so, producers and supply chains can differentiate in premium markets, ensure compliance with emerging regulations, and enhance overall ESG performance for investors and stakeholders worldwide.

Below are several current and emerging approaches that BCSDA is aware of to demonstrating evidence-based sustainability claims, all of which align with the scope outlined in the discussion paper (Section 1.3.3). Each entry includes a brief description, the entity responsible or a relevant point of contact, and a link where further information can be found.

1. Leading Harvest – Farmland Management Standard
What it is: A holistic sustainability certification program for farmland that covers key metrics such as biodiversity, soil health, water quality, and stakeholder engagement.
Why it’s relevant: Leading Harvest’s flexible standard can be applied to Australian contexts, providing robust, third-party verification that meets many international market requirements. It’s particularly useful for grains and horticulture producers aiming to showcase regenerative or climate-resilient practices.
More information / Contact:
Website: leadingharvest.org
Email (general): info@leadingharvest.org

2. Regenagri – Regenerative Agriculture Certification
What it is: A global initiative supporting scalable and measurable regenerative agriculture, including carbon sequestration, soil health, and biodiversity indicators. Participants can monitor improvements over time and use the data to support sustainability claims.
Why it’s relevant: This approach helps producers align with premium international markets that value regenerative practices. Data from Regenagri’s digital platform can be integrated with other traceability systems to provide comprehensive evidence.
More information / Contact:
Website: regenagri.org
Contact: regenagri.org/contact/

3. SAI Platform’s Farm Sustainability Assessment (FSA 3.0)
What it is: A widely recognised framework to assess and benchmark farm-level sustainability across commodities. The FSA covers environmental, social, and economic criteria, and is used by major multinational buyers.
Why it’s relevant: Companies in the EU, US, and Asia increasingly request proof of compliance with the SAI Platform’s FSA as part of their sourcing requirements. Australian producers can use FSA 3.0 to address multiple markets simultaneously.
More information / Contact:
Website: saiplatform.org
Email (general): info@saiplatform.org

4. Blockchain-Based Traceability Solutions (e.g., IBM Food Trust)
What it is: A technology platform using blockchain to record and verify each step in the supply chain, from farm inputs to finished product. It can incorporate sustainability metrics, such as water usage or carbon footprint, and display them to buyers in real time.
Why it’s relevant: Major retailers and importers (particularly in the EU and US) are increasingly interested in transparent, tamper-proof supply chain records. Adopting blockchain can streamline audits and provide instant verification of sustainability attributes.
More information / Contact:
Website: ibm.com/blockchain/solutions/food-trust
Inquiry form: ibm.com/blockchain/contact-us

5. CSIRO Digital Solutions & Remote Sensing Tools
What it is: CSIRO has developed a range of remote sensing and data analytics approaches to measure on-farm carbon flux, vegetation cover, soil moisture, and biodiversity indicators. Their solutions can feed into or augment existing traceability systems.
Why it’s relevant: Using satellite imagery and AI-driven insights allows producers and supply chains to provide objective, near-real-time evidence of land-use practices and sustainability outcomes.
More information / Contact:
Website: csiro.au
General enquiries: 1300 363 400 (within Australia) or +61 2 6276 6600 (international)
Email (inquiries): enquiries@csiro.au

6. BCSDA ‘Reporting Matters’ Review Framework
What it is: A framework adapted from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) to help organisations assess and improve the quality and materiality of their sustainability reporting.
Why it’s relevant: Australian agricultural companies or industry groups can use ‘Reporting Matters’ to benchmark their disclosures against global best practices, identify gaps, and enhance transparency. The framework helps ensure that sustainability reports meet the needs of investors, regulators, and customers.
More information / Contact:
BCSDA Website: bcsda.org.au
Email (enquiries): bcsda@bcsda.org.au

7. Savory Institute’s Land to Market Program
What it is: A program focused on verifying and marketing regenerative livestock and grazing operations, with metrics for soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem function.
Why it’s relevant: Suitable for beef, sheep, and dairy producers seeking a robust framework to show regenerative outcomes. Many high-end US and EU markets increasingly value (and sometimes demand) proven regenerative attributes.
More information / Contact:
Website: savory.global/land-to-market/
Contact form: savory.global/contact/

8. AgTech Platforms Integrating Carbon & Biodiversity Credits (e.g., AgriProve [Disclsoure - A bcsda member])
What it is: Some Australian companies provide integrated carbon farming and biodiversity credit platforms, combining soil carbon measurement, remote sensing, and market registration of credits.
Why it’s relevant: Aligns with emerging global interest in ecosystem services payments. Provides an independent, verifiable revenue stream for producers who adopt regenerative or climate-smart practices.
More information / Contact:
Website: agriprove.io

Key Takeaway:
All of these initiatives can integrate with or complement existing traceability efforts—helping Australian producers and agribusinesses demonstrate that their sustainability claims are backed by credible data, recognised standards, and robust verification methods. Incorporating such approaches in the next phase of the project (per Section 1.3.3 of the discussion paper) will strengthen Australia’s position as a global leader in trustworthy, evidence-based sustainable agriculture.

Australian agricultural producers often contend with multiple, overlapping hurdles when attempting to provide verifiable, data-driven sustainability evidence that meets complex international requirements. Below is an overview of the most notable challenges, along with explanations of why they pose difficulties for Australian exporters and industry stakeholders.

Data Gaps and Fragmented Systems
Description: Numerous sustainability frameworks, certifications, and metrics are in use, and many require different data points. On-farm data capture is often incomplete or inconsistent, with technology adoption varying widely across regions and farm sizes.
Why It’s a Challenge: Producers may struggle to align various data collection methods or integrate metrics for specific export markets. Fragmentation leads to duplication of effort, confusion, and potential errors when compiling evidence for multiple buyers or certifications.

Cost and Resource Constraints
Description: Implementing traceability technologies (e.g., blockchain, IoT sensors) or pursuing multiple certifications can be costly. Audits, inspections, and data verification add administrative overhead, especially for small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs).
Why It’s a Challenge: Smaller producers often lack the capital or staffing capacity to invest in robust data systems and continuous evidence gathering. High costs may reduce overall competitiveness, especially when profit margins are thin.

Complex Regulatory Landscape
Description: Regulations in major markets (EU, US, Asia) can differ in scope (e.g., deforestation, modern slavery, Scope 3 emissions). Requirements continually evolve, with new directives like the EU Deforestation Regulation and
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).
Why It’s a Challenge: Producers must keep pace with shifting rules, risking lost market access if they cannot show timely compliance. Tracking multiple regulations simultaneously can be overwhelming, leading to confusion and non-compliance.

Limited Technical Expertise and Support
Description: Skilled personnel (data managers, sustainability officers) are not uniformly available in rural areas.
Adopting advanced digital traceability or monitoring tools requires ongoing technical support and training.
Why It’s a Challenge: Even when funding is available, producers may lack on-the-ground expertise to set up or manage new systems effectively. A shortage of qualified auditors or certification bodies in certain regions can delay verification or increase costs.

Privacy and Commercial Sensitivity
Description: Public or buyer-facing documentation (e.g., supply chain traceability data, carbon footprints) can reveal proprietary business information or farm-level trade secrets.
Why It’s a Challenge: Producers are sometimes reluctant to share detailed data for fear of compromising competitive advantage, raising liability concerns, or facing reputational risks. Balancing transparency with confidentiality can complicate how data is collected, stored, and made publicly (or semi-publicly) available.

Inconsistent International Recognition of Australian Standards
Description: Australia already has stringent regulatory frameworks around biosecurity, animal welfare, and environmental management—yet not all international markets automatically accept these as meeting their own criteria.
Why It’s a Challenge: Producers may find themselves duplicating efforts, collecting data to prove compliance with both local and foreign standards. Misalignment and a lack of equivalency agreements can stifle trade opportunities or add bureaucratic layers.

Variability in Farm Sizes and Production Models
Description: Australia’s agricultural sector spans large-scale corporate farms to family-owned and operated properties, each with different capacities for data gathering and compliance.
Why It’s a Challenge: A “one-size-fits-all” sustainability or traceability system seldom works, leading to uneven uptake and gaps in industry-wide evidence. Large operators can integrate sophisticated technology more easily, while smaller farms may lag behind.

Evolving Consumer Expectations and Activist Pressure
Description: Beyond regulatory mandates, many consumers (particularly in premium markets) expect transparency on carbon footprint, animal welfare, biodiversity, and ethical labour.
Why It’s a Challenge: Providing granular, credible proof of each aspect can stretch producers’ resources. Reputational risk is high if claims are not well-substantiated, prompting further need for rigorous data.

Lack of Harmonised Reporting Standards
Description: Even when metrics are well-defined (GHG emissions, water usage), reporting formats differ among certification schemes, buyers, and regulators.
Why It’s a Challenge: Producers need to rework data outputs into multiple reporting structures, duplicating time and costs. This lack of harmonisation can fuel “audit fatigue,” where farms are subjected to numerous, overlapping verifications.

Climate Variability and Geographic Diversity
Description: Australia’s climate ranges from arid to tropical, with unique environmental conditions that can complicate standardised data collection and sustainability practices.
Why It’s a Challenge: Some internationally recognised methods (e.g., soil carbon monitoring regimes tailored to northern hemisphere climates) may need local adaptation. Proving equivalence to global benchmarks under Australia’s distinct conditions can be time-consuming.

Why Overcoming These Challenges Matters
- Market Access and Premiums: Failure to meet evidence requirements can result in lost market access, especially in higher-value markets (EU, US, East Asia).
- Competitiveness: Robust, verifiable sustainability credentials can differentiate Australian agricultural products in crowded global markets.
- Long-Term Resilience: Strong data systems support better farm management decisions, helping producers adapt to climate-related risks and shifting consumer demands.

Ultimately, addressing these challenges requires coordinated efforts across government agencies, industry bodies, technology providers, research institutions, and NGOs—to invest in user-friendly data solutions, unify reporting frameworks, offer training and incentives, and continue negotiating international recognition of Australian standards. This collective approach can significantly reduce the evidence burden on Australian producers, while ensuring the sector remains globally competitive in sustainability-driven markets.

Below are several strategies that BCSDA consider Australian agriculture sectors can implement to address the challenges detailed previously, ensuring continued market access in an era of increasing sustainability demands.

Collectively, these solutions focus on streamlining data collection, reducing cost and complexity, and reinforcing the credibility of Australian agricultural products in global markets.

1. Foster Data Standardisation & Interoperability
Why It Helps: Reduces duplication and inconsistencies when producers are reporting across multiple certification schemes or buyer requirements. Creates a more cohesive national traceability infrastructure that meets international demands.
How to Do It: Encourage industry groups and the Data Standards Working Group to harmonise metrics (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, water usage, biodiversity) under common data standards (e.g., GRI-, TCFD-aligned). Leverage agtech providers to create interoperable tools (e.g., dashboards) that automatically format data for various reporting needs.

2. Increase Access to Technical Support & Training
Why It Helps: Producers with varying levels of technological sophistication need practical guidance for implementing sustainability initiatives and data collection. Skilled personnel and regional extension officers can bridge knowledge gaps.
How to Do It: Government and industry bodies (e.g., DAFF, NFF) offer regional workshops, “train-the-trainer” programs, and resource libraries focusing on digital traceability, audit readiness, and sustainability best practices.
University and R&D partnerships (e.g., CSIRO, local colleges) to develop user-friendly tools and coordinate demonstration farms that showcase successful adoption.

3. Streamline Verification & Audit Processes
Why It Helps: Minimises “audit fatigue” for producers juggling multiple certifications or buyer audits. Reduces overall cost and administrative burden of evidence collection.
How to Do It: Advocate for mutual recognition among different certification schemes (e.g., equivalence agreements between GLOBALG.A.P. and local Australian frameworks). Adopt risk-based auditing—producers with strong past compliance could see fewer on-site visits, supplemented by remote sensing (satellite imagery) or real-time data from IoT sensors. Develop an “audit once, certify many” approach, so a single comprehensive audit covers multiple buyer or regulatory requirements.

4. Develop and Promote Collaborative Platforms
Why It Helps: Shared platforms can aggregate data across industries, reducing costs for individual producers and enabling sector-wide reporting. Encourages collective solutions to climate or biodiversity issues that may exceed the scope of an individual farm.
How to Do It: Encourage industry-wide traceability hubs where all stakeholders can securely share data (e.g., on inputs used, carbon footprints, labour practices). Use collaborative frameworks (e.g., SAI Platform, BCSDA “Reporting Matters” review framework) to benchmark and improve reporting consistency.

5. Leverage Government Incentives & Funding
Why It Helps: Addresses the high cost of technology adoption, certification, and verification for smaller producers. Catalyses R&D into novel measurement and monitoring techniques (e.g., remote sensing for soil carbon).
How to Do It: Establish or expand government grants or tax incentives for adopting advanced traceability systems, renewable energy on-farm, or soil carbon monitoring. DAFF-led programs can subsidise group audits or pilot projects in emerging areas like regenerative agriculture or biodiversity credits.

6. Secure International Recognition of Australian Standards
Why It Helps: Reduces duplicative efforts where producers must prove compliance with both Australian and overseas regulations or certifications. Enhances the perceived credibility of Australia’s regulatory regime in key export destinations.
How to Do It: DFAT could negotiate equivalence or mutual recognition agreements with major trading partners (EU, US, key Asian markets) so Australian standards in biosecurity, animal welfare, and environmental management are deemed acceptable abroad. Maintain continuous dialogue with importing-country regulators to keep abreast of new regulations (e.g., EU Deforestation Regulation) and adapt local standards accordingly.

7. Support Smaller and Family-Owned Operations
Why It Helps: Ensures inclusivity and avoids leaving behind large segments of the agricultural sector that might struggle with cost or administrative demands.
How to Do It: Promote cooperative certification (cluster or group certification models) so smaller farms share the costs of audits and data systems. Provide simplified reporting templates and user-friendly mobile applications, reducing the time and complexity of compliance documentation.

8. Encourage Adoption of Innovation & Tech Solutions
Why It Helps: Automation and remote data capture can greatly reduce labour-intensive record-keeping, improving data accuracy and timeliness. Technologies like blockchain and IoT devices enable real-time, tamper-proof evidence of farm practices and product attributes.
How to Do It: Work with technology providers (both domestic and international) and host hackathons or pilot projects to test new traceability solutions in real-world contexts. Integrate remote sensing for land-use verification—crucial for meeting deforestation-free and biodiversity requirements in the EU, US, or Asia.

9. Communicate Success & Collaborate with Business NGOs
Why It Helps: Market stakeholders want to see transparency and continuous improvement. Frequent communication builds trust with buyers, investors, and the public. Business NGOs like WBCSD and BCSDA bring global best practices, frameworks (e.g., “Reporting Matters”), and networks for collaboration.
How to Do It: Partner with organisations like BCSDA to benchmark Australian agricultural sustainability reporting, identifying areas for improvement. Regularly publish industry-level sustainability progress reports (e.g., by commodity groups such as MLA or GrainGrowers) to showcase measurable achievements.

10. Integrate Financial Incentives & Risk Mitigation
Why It Helps:Financial institutions increasingly link better ESG performance to lower lending rates or insurance premiums, reinforcing the business case for verifying sustainability claims.
How to Do It: Engage banks, insurers, and investors to design “green finance” products that reward validated sustainability improvements (e.g., soil health, emissions reduction). Incorporate advanced data analytics to demonstrate real, quantifiable risk reduction, encouraging favourable financing terms.

Closing Comments
Overcoming these challenges requires systemic cooperation among government entities (DAFF, DFAT, state agriculture departments), industry associations (NFF, commodity bodies), technology providers, and global networks (WBCSD, BCSDA). By integrating harmonised data standards, incentives, training, and mutual recognition agreements, Australian agriculture can maintain and expand access to premium export markets—while strengthening its international reputation as a reliable, high-quality producer of sustainably sourced commodities.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of existing datasets and data sources that agricultural sectors in Australia commonly use—or could use—to substantiate sustainability claims. Each entry highlights the type of data provided, the typical use cases for sustainability verification, and (where possible) a pointer to the responsible entity or platform.

1. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI)
Managed By: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW)
Type of Data: National and sector-level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data, including agriculture, land use, and land-use change. Emissions factors for different crop and livestock systems.
Use Cases: Calculating carbon footprints (Scope 1 and 2), estimating methane emissions from livestock, and validating emissions reductions to meet market or buyer requirements.
Access/More Info: National Greenhouse Accounts

2. ABARES & Agricultural Commodity Statistics
Managed By: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES, within DAFF)
Type of Data: Production, yield, export, and resource-use statistics (e.g., water usage, fertiliser application) for various commodities.
Use Cases: High-level industry benchmarks to contextualize individual farm or regional sustainability performance. Evidence of compliance with industry-average practices (e.g., demonstrating that a farm’s resource efficiency is above national averages).
Access/More Info: ABARES Publications and Data

3. Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) Water and Climate Data
Managed By: Bureau of Meteorology
Type of Data: Nationwide data on rainfall, evaporation rates, water resource availability, reservoir levels, flood/drought tracking.
Use Cases: Verifying water stewardship claims (e.g., showing efficiency improvements against historical water availability). Climate risk assessments for resilience or adaptation-focused claims.
Access/More Info: BoM Water Information; BoM Climate Data

4. Remote Sensing and Spatial Datasets (e.g., GA, CSIRO)
Managed By: Geoscience Australia (GA), CSIRO, and various state-based spatial agencies
Type of Data: Satellite-derived land cover and land-use change, vegetation indices (e.g., NDVI), soil and pasture biomass estimates. Geospatial layers indicating deforestation rates, biodiversity hotspots, or land condition.
Use Cases: Demonstrating no (or reduced) deforestation for compliance with EU or buyer-led deforestation-free requirements. Quantifying improvements in pasture or vegetation cover for regenerative agriculture claims.
Access/More Info: Digital Earth Australia (GA); CSIRO Remote Sensing Tools

5. Industry-Led Sustainability Frameworks
Examples & Managers: Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA): Australian Beef Sustainability Framework & associated data on GHG emissions, welfare metrics, water use. Australian Wool Innovation (AWI): Data driving the Australian Wool Sustainability Scheme (AWSS). GrainGrowers / Grain Trade Australia: Insights on grain quality, supply chain traceability, and sustainability indicators. Dairy Australia: National Dairy Farmer Survey data and carbon calculators.
Type of Data: Aggregated data on productivity, resource use, GHG intensity per kilogram of product, animal welfare, supply chain traceability.
Use Cases: Benchmarking farm-level performance against sector averages. Providing recognized, industry-endorsed metrics and frameworks that satisfy buyer requests for consistent reporting.
Access/More Info:
- Australian Beef Sustainability Framework
- AWI – Wool Sustainability
- Dairy Australia – Sustainability Framework

6. Modern Slavery Register and Workforce Datasets
Managed By: Australian Border Force (Modern Slavery Register) & Fair Work Ombudsman
Type of Data: Disclosures from businesses above certain revenue thresholds, detailing actions to address and mitigate forced labour risks. Information on wage compliance, workplace standards, and any infringements or improvement notices.
Use Cases: Demonstrating alignment with global labour standards (EU, US due diligence requirements).
Providing “chain-of-custody” style social compliance evidence in audits.
Access/More Info: Modern Slavery Register; Fair Work Ombudsman Data

7. National Landcare Program & Related Biodiversity Data
Managed By: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), in partnership with local Landcare groups
Type of Data: Regional environmental health indicators, reforestation or revegetation achievements, soil erosion rates, and community-led conservation outcomes.
Use Cases: Verifying biodiversity gains or land restoration projects for markets requiring evidence of positive environmental impact. Aligning farm practices with broader conservation strategies at the landscape level.
Access/More Info: National Landcare Program

8. Great Barrier Reef Water Quality Data
Managed By: Queensland Government & GBR Marine Park Authority
Type of Data: Water quality indicators, pesticide loads, nutrient runoff data, especially relevant to sugarcane, horticulture, and grazing near reef catchments.
Use Cases: Demonstrating improved on-farm practices that reduce sediment or nutrient discharge in sensitive marine ecosystems—helpful for environmental certifications.
Access/More Info: Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan

9. Regional & State Government Spatial Portals
Examples: NSW Spatial Data Catalogue (NSW Government); Vicmap (Victoria); QLD Globe (Queensland)
Type of Data: Regional cadastre information, property boundaries, vegetation mapping, bushfire/flood risk areas.
Use Cases: Validating land management claims, verifying property-specific conditions relevant to biodiversity, carbon, or water use.
Access/More Info: Each state’s departmental website or data portal (search: “[state] + spatial data portal”).

10. CSIRO Soil and Landscape Grid of Australia
Managed By: CSIRO
Type of Data: High-resolution grids of soil attributes (organic carbon, pH, texture) and landscape metrics across Australia.
Use Cases: Baseline measurements for soil carbon projects or regenerative agriculture claims; helps track improvements over time.
Access/More Info: Soil and Landscape Grid of Australia

Why These Datasets Matter
- Credibility and Verification: By referencing reputable, peer-reviewed, or government-managed datasets, producers and exporters can reinforce the integrity of their sustainability claims.
- Streamlined Reporting: Aligning on common, publicly accessible datasets can reduce reporting overhead, foster consistency, and streamline compliance with multiple buyer or regulatory requirements.
- Granularity vs. Aggregation: Some data sources (e.g., remote sensing) can provide farm- or even paddock-level evidence, while others (ABARES, NGGI) excel at sector-wide or national baselines—both levels are valuable depending on the claim.

Key Takeaway
A combination of these datasets—coupled with robust farm-level records and appropriate certifications—can offer compelling, multi-layered evidence of sustainability. The more that different actors (farmers, processors, exporters) draw on common data sources and harmonised metrics, the easier it will be to meet or exceed international market requirements for transparent, verifiable sustainability claims.

Below BCSDA has pulled together a selection of industry-specific datasets—covering key commodities such as beef, dairy, grains, horticulture, cotton, wool, and seafood—that Australian agricultural stakeholders often rely upon for sustainability insights. The datasets described can help producers benchmark performance, demonstrate compliance with market requirements, and support continuous improvement across different production systems.

1. Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA)
Datasets & Tools: Australian Beef Sustainability Framework metrics: Collates data on greenhouse gas emissions, animal welfare, biodiversity, and community impact specific to the beef sector.
Carbon Accounting Tools: Provides farm-level GHG calculation modules for beef and sheep producers.
Why Prioritise: These metrics and tools are designed to align with major global market expectations (including the EU and US) for verified sustainability claims. Helps red meat producers showcase evidence of continuous improvement in emissions intensity, welfare standards, and environmental stewardship.

2. Dairy Australia’s Sustainability Framework & Carbon Calculators
Datasets & Tools:
- Sustainability Framework Reporting: Measures the sector’s performance in GHG emissions, water efficiency, waste reduction, and community engagement.
Carbon Calculator: Simplifies quantifying farm-level emissions (methane from cows, energy usage in milk processing).
Why Prioritise: Dairy operations often face heightened scrutiny over water usage and animal welfare in certain export markets (e.g., premium Asian buyers). Standardised data allows quick verification for customers and regulators, reinforcing trust in Australian dairy’s sustainability credentials.

3. Grains Research & Industry-Led Data
Datasets & Tools:
- GrainGrowers / Grain Trade Australia: Provide aggregated and regional data on crop yields, chemical inputs, grain quality, residue levels, and traceability outcomes (e.g., National Residue Survey).
- Australian Export Grains Innovation Centre (AEGIC): Conducts market studies and agronomic research, supplying region-specific production data that can be used to demonstrate best practices.
Why Prioritise:
Exporters of wheat, canola, and other grains increasingly need to show compliance with deforestation-free and carbon footprint standards (e.g., ISCC, EU Deforestation Regulation).
Harmonising these datasets with traceability systems can verify compliance at shipment scale.

4. Cotton (e.g., MyBMP, Cotton Research and Development Corporation)
Datasets & Tools:
- MyBMP (Best Management Practices) portal: Tracks on-farm data around water, pest management, biodiversity, and soil health.
- CRDC Research: Offers region-specific cotton production data, enabling comparisons against baseline environmental performance metrics.
Why Prioritise: Buyers of Australian cotton (particularly in the US and EU) are increasingly concerned with water efficiency, labour practices, and chemical usage. Consistent MyBMP data can demonstrate improved resource stewardship, supporting claims of sustainable cotton production.

5. Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) & The Australian Wool Sustainability Scheme
Datasets & Tools:
- WoolQ Portal: Provides an online platform for wool growers to track on-farm practices, wool quality, and traceability information.
- AWSS Reporting: Captures data on animal welfare (including mulesing status), land management, and chemical usage.
Why Prioritise:
Wool customers in Europe, North America, and high-value fashion brands increasingly demand transparency regarding animal welfare and environmental impact. Demonstrating alignment with the AWSS can open market opportunities where ethical sourcing is paramount.

6. Horticulture Innovation Australia (Hort Innovation)
Datasets & Tools:
- Hort Innovation R&D Outputs: Aggregate pest management, water usage, yield, and best-practice data across fruit, vegetable, nut, and nursery sectors.
Programs like SEDEX or GLOBALG.A.P. facilitate third-party audits, underpinned by local orchard- or farm-level data from Hort Innovation projects.
Why Prioritise: Horticultural products (especially fresh produce) are subject to stringent residue, labour, and supply chain transparency requirements in the EU and high-end Asia. Centralising relevant data can streamline evidence for chemical use compliance, worker conditions, and traceability.

7. Seafood Industry Australia (SIA) & Fisheries Data
Datasets & Tools:
- Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) records: Data on catch volumes, stock assessments, and bycatch, plus vessel-level information for traceability.
- SIA Sustainability Reports: Provide aggregated insights into fishery health, environmental impact, and industry compliance.
Why Prioritise: Premium EU and North American seafood markets require certifications such as Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) or traceability proof to combat IUU (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated) fishing. Access to consistent fisheries data helps validate claims of sustainable catch limits, proper gear usage, and minimal ecosystem impact.

8. Wine Australia & Viticulture Databases
Datasets & Tools:
- Wine Australia’s National Vintage Survey & Export Report: Tracks grape production, water usage, harvest quality, and export volumes.
- Sustainable Winegrowing Australia Program: Provides benchmarking for greenhouse gas emissions, water, energy, biodiversity, and winery operations.
Why Prioritise: Markets in the EU, US, and Asia increasingly demand proof of low chemical residues, water stewardship, and biodiversity protection for premium wines. Consolidated data from Wine Australia can efficiently demonstrate farm-to-bottle sustainability credentials.

9. Sugar Research Australia (SRA) & SmartCane BMP
Datasets & Tools:
- SmartCane BMP system: Encourages best practices in sugarcane farming (soil health, water quality, chemical use).
- SRA Research Projects: Provide technical data and region-specific benchmarks on productivity and environmental performance.
Why Prioritise: Queensland sugarcane faces scrutiny for runoff impacts on the Great Barrier Reef. Verified SmartCane BMP data can demonstrate reduced nutrient and sediment discharge, helping meet buyer expectations for reef-friendly or low-impact sugar.

Key Reasons for Prioritisation
- Relevance to Export Markets: Each dataset provides commodity-specific metrics often requested by overseas regulators, retailers, or consumer groups.
- Ease of Integration: Many of these datasets are already in standardized digital formats, making it simpler to integrate them with overarching traceability and auditing frameworks.
- Sector Endorsement: Industry bodies (MLA, AWI, etc.) actively encourage producers to use these systems, meaning there is broad acceptance and ongoing support.
- Continuous Improvement: By routinely collecting data around resource efficiency, animal welfare, or chemical usage, these datasets enable evidence-based improvements over time—a key focus for global buyers looking at year-over-year sustainability progress.

In Conclusion
Prioritising these industry-specific datasets and aligning them with national traceability and sustainability initiatives (e.g., via the Australian Agricultural Traceability Governance Group or the Assuring Sustainability Claims Working Group) can greatly streamline the compliance process and boost credibility of sustainability claims. Combining such datasets with government-managed sources (like ABARES or BoM) creates a powerful evidence base that resonates in both advanced markets (EU, US) and emerging premium markets (Japan, South Korea).

Below are several strategies to enhance and streamline data collection so that it underpins credible sustainability claims, without imposing excessive additional burden on farmers or supply chain participants. By focusing on automation, integration, and harmonisation, these approaches can reduce duplication of effort while improving overall data quality and transparency.

Automate Data Capture Using Existing On-Farm Systems
Precision Agriculture Tools: GPS-enabled machinery, IoT sensors, and yield monitors can automatically record key data (e.g., fuel usage, soil moisture, fertiliser application) during regular farm operations.
Livestock Management Apps: Herd-tracking software already used for breeding, health, or feed records can collect relevant animal welfare, feeding, and emission data.
Why It Helps: Farmers don’t have to manually enter data multiple times; information is captured in real-time and stored for future use in audits or sustainability reporting.

Integrate Sustainability Fields into Existing Workflows and Compliance Forms
Single Data Entry Point: Whenever farmers fill in statutory forms (e.g., for chemical use, biosecurity), incorporate a small number of additional sustainability questions rather than creating a separate process.
Harmonised Templates: By collaborating with local government agencies, certifiers, or industry associations, unify forms so that data about water usage, emissions, or animal welfare can be logged once and satisfy multiple needs.
Why It Helps: Reduces duplication (e.g., no more separate “sustainability” logs if it’s built into everyday documentation).

Leverage Geo-Image Technologies for Remote Assessment
Satellite Imagery, Drones, and Aerial Photography: High-resolution imagery can validate claims about land use, cover crops, deforestation, or soil and vegetation health without repeated on-farm inspections.
Third-Party Remote Sensing Platforms: Outsourcing image analysis to specialised providers who can extract data (e.g., vegetation indices, erosion risk) and supply auditable metrics directly into traceability systems.
Why It Helps: Minimises on-farm labour by moving some verification steps to remote analysis—especially useful for large-scale properties or frequent reporting needs.

Adopt Collaborative or Group Certifications
Cluster Auditing: Multiple farmers in a region share one auditing entity, standard documentation, and a single “umbrella” certification (e.g., group compliance under a recognised scheme).
Cooperative Data Platforms: Industry associations or local co-ops manage data collection, freeing individual farmers from the administrative overhead of multiple audits.
Why It Helps: Spreads the cost and workload of compliance across a broader base while maintaining robust oversight.

Promote Mutual Recognition Among Certification Schemes
Equivalence Agreements: Encourage certifiers (e.g., GLOBALG.A.P., SAI Platform) to map their standards so meeting one automatically satisfies requirements of another.
Streamlined Audits: If an operator is already certified to one scheme, they need only minimal incremental data to achieve compliance with another.
Why It Helps: Minimises “audit fatigue” by reducing duplicative processes and verifying the same practices multiple times.

Secure Data-Sharing Agreements in the Supply Chain
Buyer-Supplier Transparency: Processors, exporters, or major buyers can pool data through secure, shared platforms—reducing the need for repeated requests to farmers.
Blockchain or Central Repositories: Once a verified data point (e.g., GHG footprint, water usage) is recorded, it can be reused or referenced by multiple downstream customers.
Why It Helps: Farmers provide information once, yet it remains accessible to all relevant auditors, certifiers, and trading partners.

Use Standardised Metrics and Reporting Protocols
Align with Existing Frameworks: Such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), or industry-specific modules (MLA, Dairy Australia).
Minimal “Extra” Fields: By focusing on the most material topics (water, emissions, biodiversity, labour practices), data collection can be kept concise.
Why It Helps: Standardising the metrics reduces confusion and ensures data is widely acceptable across multiple markets.

Provide Training and Extension Services for Efficient Data Management
Short, Practical Workshops: Show how to embed sustainability metrics into daily workflows, how to use phone apps for quick data logging, or how to calibrate on-farm sensors.
Online Tutorials and Helplines: Offer immediate support when farmers run into tech or reporting issues, preventing repeated trial-and-error.
Why It Helps: Farmers quickly see the benefit of integrated data practices, reducing resistance and making it second nature.

Combine Certification/Audit Visits with Other Necessary Farm Inspections
Coordinated Audits: If a farm is already hosting an inspection for biosecurity or food safety, add sustainability data checks to the same visit.
Efficient Scheduling: Industry bodies can work with government inspectors to create joint checklists, ensuring minimal disruption to farm operations.
Why It Helps: Merges multiple verification needs into fewer site visits, saving time for farmers and auditors alike.

Incorporate R&D Innovations and Continuous Feedback Loops
Test New Technologies: Pilot programs, through collaborations with CSIRO or universities, can validate emerging methods (e.g., real-time soil nutrient sensors, AI-based yield forecasting).
Iterative Improvement: Use feedback from each season or audit cycle to refine the data fields collected, dropping non-essential metrics and focusing on high-impact ones.
Why It Helps: Encourages incremental improvements in data collection over time, rather than a sudden overhaul that burdens farmers.

Key Takeaway
By weaving sustainability data collection into existing operations—and by making strategic use of technology, cooperation, and aligned frameworks—it’s possible to bolster the credibility of sustainability claims while minimising extra workload for producers and supply chain actors. This approach aligns well with the core objectives of traceability initiatives and industry-led sustainability programs, ultimately strengthening Australia’s competitiveness in global markets.

International markets increasingly scrutinise the verifiability, accuracy, and consistency of sustainability data before accepting a claim as credible.

Below are key considerations and methods used by regulators, buyers, and NGOs in leading import markets (e.g., the EU, US, and premium markets in Asia) when evaluating the strength of the data supporting sustainability claims:

Third-Party Verification or Certification
What it entails: Independent auditors or certifiers (e.g., GLOBALG.A.P., Marine Stewardship Council, SAI Platform) confirm that data is correct, processes are followed, and standards are met.
Why it matters: Markets view external assurance as a safeguard against self-reported inaccuracies or greenwashing. A credible third-party seal often serves as a “passport” to higher-value segments, especially in the EU and US.

Traceability and Transparency
What it entails: Clear documentation or digital tracking (e.g., blockchain, RFID) proving product origin, production processes, and supply chain custody. Data is consistently recorded at each stage, making it easily auditable.
Why it matters: Traceability reveals if claims of “deforestation-free” or “fair labour” are backed by actual records, preventing false assertions. Retailers or regulators can cross-check a product’s chain of custody to confirm data integrity.

Use of Recognised Frameworks and Standards
What it entails: Alignment with established frameworks (e.g. Sustainable Development Goals), methodologies (e.g., Global Reporting Initiative, Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, ISO 14001, or industry-level frameworks like the Australian Beef Sustainability Framework).
Why it matters: Global buyers often rely on these frameworks’ consistent reporting metrics and performance indicators, making cross-comparison easier. Recognised standards reduce confusion and enhance trust that the data follows widely accepted norms.

Evidence of Robust Governance
What it entails: Formal internal policies and accountability systems (e.g., sustainability committees, risk management processes).Clear oversight and documentation that data collection is systematic, with internal checks and balances.
Why it matters: Strong governance frameworks discourage data manipulation and increase reliability of reported metrics. Buyers often view robust internal review processes as critical to ensuring claims hold up under scrutiny.

External Data Triangulation and Technology
What it entails: Using remote sensing, satellite imagery, IoT sensors, or public databases (e.g., national greenhouse gas inventories, land-use data) to corroborate on-farm or supply chain records.
Why it matters: Objective, third-party data sources can validate reported improvements in soil carbon, reduced deforestation, or water usage. Scientific tools and open datasets reduce reliance on self-reported figures alone, building market confidence.

Consistency and Comparability Over Time
What it entails: Regular updates to reported metrics, showing year-over-year (or season-over-season) performance trends. Tracking uniform indicators or KPIs that allow consistent comparisons and reveal a pattern of improvement or stagnation.
Why it matters: Markets prefer to see continuous improvement, not just one-off data points, as evidence of genuine commitment to sustainability. Consistency over time also makes it harder to “game” the system with selectively published data.

Risk-Based Auditing and Spot Checks
What it entails: Regulators or buyers may initiate surprise or random audits, request additional documentation, or use independent verifiers to spot-check data accuracy.
Why it matters: Encourages ongoing compliance rather than a box-ticking approach prior to scheduled audits. Mitigates concerns that claims could be exaggerated or only partially correct.

Alignment with Legal Requirements
What it entails: Demonstrating conformity with relevant legislation (e.g., EU Deforestation Regulation, US Forced Labor Prevention Act, local environmental laws).
Why it matters: Data that proves compliance with statutory mandates (e.g., no illegal deforestation, no forced labour) is often a prerequisite for market entry. Non-compliance can lead to rejected shipments, fines, or damaged reputations.

Transparency of Methodology
What it entails: Clear explanations of how data was collected, calculated, and aggregated—covering sampling methods, boundaries (e.g., farm gate vs. entire lifecycle), and assumptions made.
Why it matters: Lenders, NGOs, and retailers can better trust metrics if they understand the underlying processes.
Opaque or undisclosed methodologies raise red flags about data validity.

Stakeholder Engagement
What it entails: Inclusion of local communities, labour unions, or environmental NGOs in verifying claims or reviewing data. Public reporting or dashboards that share key indicators with interested stakeholders.
Why it matters: Collaboration with community and civil society groups can confirm that on-the-ground practices match reported improvements. Greater stakeholder buy-in typically enhances credibility and reveals potential blind spots early.

Why It Matters for Australian Agriculture
- Competitive Advantage: Meeting these criteria can help Australian producers access premium markets and differentiate from competitors.
- Risk Management: High credibility reduces the likelihood of disputes, rejections at port, or brand damage if claims are challenged.
- Long-Term Market Relationships: Transparent, verifiable data fosters enduring trust with importers, retailers, and end consumers.

By combining third-party certifications, robust traceability systems, recognised reporting frameworks, external verification, and ongoing stakeholder engagement, Australian agricultural exporters can present sustainability data that meets or exceeds international buyers’ and regulators’ expectations—ultimately safeguarding and expanding global market access.

Below is a list of commonly used benchmarks and standards that international markets look to when evaluating the credibility of sustainability data.

These frameworks vary in scope—some focus on corporate reporting, others on product-level certifications, and still others on specific commodities.

However, they all share a common goal of providing transparent, measurable, and comparable criteria for assessing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance.

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
Focus: Broad sustainability reporting across environmental, social, and economic dimensions.
Why it matters: Offers universally recognised guidelines and disclosures that buyers and investors can use to compare different companies or sectors. GRI-aligned reports are often considered a baseline for transparent, consistent reporting of ESG metrics.

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) (now subsumed into the ISSB)
Focus: Climate-related risks and opportunities, emphasising governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics/targets.
Why it matters: More buyers, regulators, and financial institutions require TCFD-aligned disclosure to evaluate climate resilience in supply chains. TCFD’s forward-looking approach helps demonstrate how a producer or exporter is preparing for climate shifts (e.g., drought resilience).

Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)
Focus: Sector-specific ESG metrics designed to be material to financial performance.
Why it matters: While SASB is widely adopted in North America, it’s increasingly recognised internationally for its focus on decision-useful data in agriculture, food, and fibre. Provides clarity on what sustainability issues are most financially relevant to each industry (e.g., water stress for dairy, carbon footprint for beef).

International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB)
Focus: Building on TCFD and SASB, the ISSB aims to establish a global baseline of sustainability disclosures, particularly around climate.
Why it matters: The ISSB’s standards—integrated into IFRS—are expected to become a key global benchmark for financial-grade sustainability reporting.

ISO Standards (e.g., ISO 14001, ISO 22095)
Focus:
- ISO 14001: Environmental management systems.
- ISO 22095: Chain of custody.
Why it matters: ISO provides internationally accepted frameworks for environmental management, product traceability, and quality control, giving buyers confidence in consistent processes.

Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) (European Union)
Focus: Expands mandatory sustainability disclosure requirements for EU-based or EU-operating companies, covering climate, biodiversity, social standards, and more.
Why it matters: Non-EU suppliers selling to EU corporations may need to provide data that aligns with CSRD, especially for high-risk or carbon-intensive commodities. Ensures that sustainability claims meet stricter, more standardised EU reporting expectations.

Industry-Specific Certification Schemes
Examples:
- GLOBALG.A.P. (horticulture, livestock, aquaculture),
- Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) (wild-caught seafood),
- Better Cotton Initiative (BCI),
- Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) (not a major Australian crop, but relevant globally),
- Australian Beef Sustainability Framework (MLA), etc.
Why it matters: These certifications provide clear, commodity-specific criteria that can be mapped to importers’ requirements (e.g., deforestation-free supply chains, water use, labour conditions). Buyers and regulators often use these labels as a “quick check” for compliance with recognised standards.

Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi)
Focus: Greenhouse gas reduction targets aligned with the Paris Agreement (well-below 2°C or 1.5°C scenarios).
Why it matters: Demonstrates that a producer’s or supply chain’s climate goals and pathways are backed by scientific consensus. Many global FMCG companies require SBTi-aligned targets from suppliers.

National and Sectoral Frameworks
Examples (Australia):
-Australian Wool Sustainability Scheme (AWSS),
- MyBMP (cotton),
- Hort Innovation frameworks,
- Dairy Australia Sustainability Framework,
- SIA’s seafood sustainability metrics.
Why it matters:International buyers may accept recognized Australian sector frameworks if they are robust, transparent, and periodically audited. Alignment with local best practices can be leveraged in trade negotiations for mutual recognition (e.g., DFAT seeking equivalences).

Voluntary ESG Indices and Ratings
Examples:
- Dow Jones Sustainability Indices,
- FTSE4Good Index,
- MSCI ESG Ratings,
- CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project).
Why it matters: Large buyers and investors often reference these indices and ratings when assessing the performance of suppliers or agricultural producers. A good ranking or rating can open doors to premium markets or improved financing terms.

Putting It All Together
-Consistency and Clarity: Adhering to one or more of these benchmarks/standards signals that data reporting is transparent, comparable, and verifiable—the core requirements for credible sustainability claims.
-Market Acceptance: Aligning with widely recognized frameworks (e.g., GRI, TCFD, ISO, or a reputable commodity certification) reduces friction when exporting to major economies in the EU, North America, and Asia.
-Flexibility for Different Commodities: Industry-level schemes (GLOBALG.A.P., MSC, or AWSS) can complement broader reporting frameworks by providing tailored metrics for specific commodities or production systems.

By embedding these benchmarks and standards into regular operations (e.g., audits, data collection, and reporting cycles), Australian agricultural businesses can better meet or exceed international buyers’ expectations for strong, data-backed sustainability claims.

Below are new or evolving data collection methods that BCSDA is aware of, that can help Australian agricultural producers and supply chain actors meet emerging market demands for more granular, real-time, and verifiable sustainability evidence.

These methods build on existing technologies but push further toward automation, interoperability, and precision—aligning well with the new regulations and buyer expectations in key export destinations (e.g., the EU, US, premium markets in Asia).

IoT-Enabled, Real-Time Monitoring
What It Entails: Deployment of sensors for soil moisture, temperature, humidity, or animal movement (e.g., smart tags for livestock). Automated data flows into cloud-based platforms, providing continuous insight and reducing reliance on manual inputs.
Why It’s Needed: Buyers and regulators increasingly want up-to-date evidence of resource use (water, feed, chemical applications). Real-time data can be used to validate compliance with water or pesticide limits, as well as highlight animal welfare conditions.

High-Resolution Remote Sensing & Drone-Based Imagery
What It Entails: Using drones or satellites (Sentinel, Landsat, commercial providers) for farm-scale monitoring of vegetation cover, land use, crop health, or deforestation status. Integrating results with GIS-based dashboards for automated analysis (e.g., measuring ground cover changes, detecting illegal clearing).
Why It’s Needed: Regulators such as the EU require proof that no recent deforestation has occurred, and remote sensing offers objective, large-scale verification. Helps demonstrate biodiversity or regenerative practices (e.g., increased cover crops, rotational grazing areas).

Blockchain-Based Chain of Custody Systems
What It Entails: Secure, immutable ledgers recording each step of a commodity’s journey—from farm input purchases (feeds, seeds) to final export. Often integrates scanning (QR codes, RFID tags) and automatically updates a shared database accessible by authorised supply chain partners.
Why It’s Needed: Many global retailers and consumers increasingly demand traceability that can’t be tampered with. Blockchain can store relevant sustainability data (e.g., GHG footprints, pesticide usage logs) alongside origin records, giving buyers confidence that data hasn’t been altered.

Automated Carbon and Biodiversity Assessment Tools
What It Entails: Sensors combined with AI/ML algorithms to estimate soil carbon changes or habitat quality (e.g., species abundance, pollinator presence). Mobile applications that let farmers input basic field data (tillage events, cover crops) to produce up-to-date carbon or biodiversity scores.
Why It’s Needed: Buyers seek quantifiable evidence of carbon sequestration and biodiversity preservation, not just broad claims. Automated tools reduce survey costs and help producers easily comply with programs like carbon credit schemes or EU biodiversity directives.

Integrated, Cloud-Based Data Platforms
What It Entails: Centralised data hubs where on-farm metrics (yield, resource inputs, GHG estimates), logistics data (transport emissions), and processing data converge. Can connect to external datasets (ABARES, Bureau of Meteorology, satellite imagery) and produce holistic sustainability reports.
Why It’s Needed: Consolidation of data facilitates “one-stop” reporting for multiple certifications or buyer requirements, avoiding duplication. Helps satisfy new legislative frameworks (e.g., the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) that require supply chain–wide disclosures.

Digital Product Passports
What It Entails: A digital identity for each product or lot, containing details on origin, farming methods, input types (fertilisers, pesticides), carbon footprint, and social compliance. Easily scannable by customs authorities, retailers, or end consumers for quick verification of sustainability attributes.
Why It’s Needed: The EU is exploring Digital Product Passports under its Circular Economy Action Plan, which could eventually extend to agri-food imports. Streamlined cross-border checks and simplified compliance in multiple jurisdictions.

Risk-Based Auditing & Predictive Analytics
What It Entails: AI-driven algorithms that flag anomalies in farm data (e.g., unexpected spikes in fertiliser use), prompting targeted audits or further checks. Predictive models that assess future yield or climate risk, enabling proactive resource management and meeting advanced buyer expectations (e.g., climate resiliency claims).
Why It’s Needed: Resource-strapped certifiers and buyers prefer risk-based approaches to continuous auditing, focusing on potential problem areas. Early anomaly detection also helps farmers address issues before they escalate into regulatory non-compliance.

Multi-Stakeholder Feedback Loops & Farmer-Friendly Interfaces
What It Entails: Apps or platforms enabling two-way data exchange: farmers input critical metrics, while processors or buyers provide feedback (e.g., best practices, training resources). Incentive mechanisms (like micro-payments or premium pricing) for consistent, high-quality data submissions.
Why It’s Needed: Without easy-to-use interfaces, data collection quickly becomes a chore. Real-time feedback can encourage continuous improvement, aligning with new “outcome-based” sustainability expectations rather than box-ticking approaches.

Why These Methods Are Important
Evolving Regulations:
- The EU’s push for comprehensive supply chain due diligence and deforestation-free verification (EUDR) necessitates advanced monitoring tools.
- Carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAM) and climate-focused legislation demand granular, verifiable emissions data.
Consumer & Retailer Demands: Shoppers and corporate buyers increasingly want real-time, transparent information, especially for premium or ethically branded goods (organic, fair trade, regenerative).
Operational Benefits: Automated, data-rich methods can reduce the duplication of audits, ensure consistency, and provide producers with on-farm insights for better decision-making.

By adopting these newer data collection technologies—and integrating them seamlessly into existing compliance processes—Australian agriculture can not only satisfy emerging market demands but also enhance profitability and resilience in the face of environmental and competitive challenges.