IS greater competition for CBH Group the answer to the supply chain crisis in Western Australia?
The State's three peak bodies for graingrowers are all in agreement that it is a discussion which needs to be had, which is an impressive feat in itself.
Mainly, WAFarmers, WA Grains Group (WAGG) and the Pastoralists and Graziers' Association of WA (PGA) would like to see another player enter the market on the shipping side of the puzzle.
While they are all aware they can't click their fingers and make something happen, the hope is that by having those conversations publicly it encourages someone to look at WA.
"If there is a monopoly in any service provision sector in society then there is a chance you won't get the best service, best responsiveness, etc," said PGA grains committee chairman Gary McGill.
"Any sector which services the farmer - fertiliser, chemicals fuel, machinery - are all subject to a competitive environment and it is interesting to note that CBH itself has recognised competition in the area of fertiliser could be advantageous for growers.
"Bringing competition to the supply chain in WA can only be a good thing for us all."
Among other things, it was suggested a number of shallow water ports could be established at strategic locations along the WA coastline which would permit self loading coastal vessels (a type of barge) to convey grain to larger vessels anchored in deeper water.
It is a model which has been used successfully in South Australia by T-Ports and as part of it, the new ports would be owned and operated by a private company which would compete with the existing dominant bulk handler in CBH.
WAFarmers grains section president Mark Fowler said any project would not be funded by growers, unless they choose to invest in it, so there was limited financial exposure for them.
"That is, if it fails, the cost will be borne by the new operator alone," Mr Fowler said.
"Under the model used in South Australia, the new operator would not itself trade grain, it would merely provide an accumulation and ship loading service.
"So it would have no conflict of interest, real or perceived."
However, that particular model looks unlikely at the moment, with a spokesperson from T-Ports stating it was not currently on the cards for the business.
"At present T-Ports is not considering investment in the grain supply chain of WA, notwithstanding its progress in SA and the construction of our second port at Wallaroo on Yorke Peninsula," the spokesperson said.
MORE STORIES:
Regardless whether it's T-Ports or another operator, the thinking is the same - more ports means less distance grain has to travel.
Any new ports would mostly draw grain out of the areas surrounding the new ports, meaning that grain from those areas will do less kilometres to port.
It would also take tonnes out of CBH's freight task, easing pressure on out-turn as a result.
Having more ports and therefore avenues to port would also lead to diversification in the risk of up-country freight interruptions due to bushfire, flooding, train derailments, labour strikes, etc.
Ultimately, that would mean faster out-turn capacity of the entire network and therefore more tonnes to market earlier in order to take advantage of better prices prior to the commencement of the Northern Hemisphere harvest.
In 2021/22 graingrowers delivered a record 24 million tonnes, this year is anticipated to beat that and CBH is preparing to be able to bring in 30mt by 2030.
With that in mind, WAGG chairman Alastair Falconer said he believed even the most diehard supporters of CBH would be pragmatic and see this as a sensible conversation to have.
"With the size of the crop growing, there is more room in the market for more logistics operators," Mr Falconer said.
"We are struggling at the moment in terms of lower prices due to the shipping situation, so it seems like the logical next step to bring in another option."
Whatever type of port was to enter the scene, chances are it could be used by other industries, such as mining, enabling capital and other fixed costs to be spread.
With the barge model, there are lower port costs as there are no costs for pilotage, tugging costs, port cargo dues and wharfage which collectively represent about $4 per tonne in the deep water port scenario.
The capital expenditure to build a port of that nature is also about 20 per cent of a deep water port and these are all savings which should then be reflected in grain prices.
With price such a big conversation this year, the hope was that any news ports not run by CBH would encourage site based pricing which, in the current supply chain scenario, would permit pricing at or closer to international parity.
Mr Fowler said that would create localised price competition around new ports, like what occurred with Bunge.
"This model would encourage site based pricing at the new ports which, in the current supply chain scenario, would permit pricing at or closer to international parity," he said.
"It would also create general supply chain competitive pressure as growers would scrutinise up-country and port costs in a way that they never have before and may cause CBH to offer similar options with competing site based pricing at port more reflective of international parity."
For its part, CBH would not comment directly on the proposal from WAFarmers, WAGG and PGA.
"As a grower-owned co-operative, CBH's core purpose over its near 90-year history has always been to sustainably create and return value to WA growers, both current and future," said a CBH spokesperson.
"CBH remains focused on executing our Path to 2033 Strategy as quickly as possible, which will increase the capacity of the supply chain to meet the growing size of the crop, and therefore provide benefits for all WA growers."