Concern over aerial spraying after ISCC decision

ISCC's principle 2.6.2 prevents aerial spraying from taking place within 500 metres of bodies of water, however the regulation has been changed to exclude farm dams and salt lakes, following a push from CBH Group (see story on page 12).

Not everyone is happy with the change, including yabby farmers Mary and Michael Nenke who have seen the devastating ecological effects of unwanted aerial spraying firsthand.

The couple established Cambinata Yabbies at Kukerin, in 1991, growing it to be a large-scale accredited exporter.

In 2006, the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) funded an aerial spraying program to address a locust problem which inadvertently killed about 70 per cent of the yabby population, as well as local birds.

"Realising the impending threat to the yabby industry, I lobbied the government and DPIRD to not spray aerially, which was unsuccessful," Ms Nenke said.

"It was determined that farmers could register to not be aerially sprayed, and I was told that DPIRD was surprised by how many farmers had registered as no spray zones," she said.

Following the incident, a DPIRD officer visited the Nenke's farm, and agreed it was extremely likely the birds had died as a result of the spraying.

"No one bothered to ask us why there was such a dramatic drop in production, and there was never any offer of compensation for the serious financial losses," Ms Nenke said.

She has committed her time into researching the effects of aerial spraying, and aimed to stop the practice.

Wandering beef farmer Nicola Kelliher's initial thoughts following CBH Group's announcement, was how to opt-out, and how many people wanted the change.

"It feels like CBH members have had the chance to push this over the line, did we all get the chance to decide if we would like that restriction removed?" Ms Kelliher said.

"It seems quite sudden."

Sustainability is at the forefront of Ms Kelliher's farming practices and beef branding, and aerial spraying leads to a whole new range of variables.

"We're trying to portray this clean green image internationally, but how is aerial spraying of pesticides classed as sustainable?" she said.

"It raises alarm."

Another cause for concern was the proximity of which Ms Kelliher and her family live to the rest of their farm.

"Everyone should be able to say 'at least stay away from my house," she said.

"We live on the farm but we are allowed to protect our home."

Ms Kelliher's husband, Shane said farmers should be allowed to follow whatever management practice suited them best, but this shouldn't impose on the practices of others.

"The rights of someone else shouldn't restrict others," Mr Kelliher said.

Ms Kelliher said it was a balance between profitability and environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards, and that ESG should take precedence.

"CBH wouldn't make decisions without having lots and lots of information, so I just want to know what informed that decision," she said.

In response, some farmers wondered if registering their farm as a sensitive site with DPIRD would protect them from unwanted aerial spraying.

However a DPIRD spokesperson said registering as a sensitive site wouldn't help farmers in this situation.

"The DPIRD sensitive sites service is designed to identify the locations of sensitive commercial production systems, such as certified organic or certified biodynamic enterprises, as well as managed commercial tree nurseries, licensed aquaculture and commercial viticulture businesses," the spokesperson said.

"Registration as a sensitive site does not provide any legal protections.

"The service exists to facilitate contact between sensitive enterprises and nearby landholders so they can work together to plan for and mitigate any risks from activities to nearby sensitive sites."