Download (4Mb) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern Queensland

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sugar Corporation and Queensland Sugar Limited). A land assignment system was introduced whereby cane could only be grown on cane assigned land. Growers were required to deliver cane to designated mills and mills were required to accept all cane grown on assigned land within a mill area. Aspects of the cane supply such as delivery and pricing arrangements were specified in accompanying regulation. The benefits of government regulation include the establishment of rules to manage industry participants and the provision of certainty which allowed the industry to form. The potential drawbacks include inflexibility which prohibited allowances for changing conditions over time. This also impeded progress and innovation to respond to a changing environment. In 2004 the industry through the introduction of the Queensland Sugar Industry Reform act became partially deregulated permitting sugarcane growers to freely enter into supply contracts with the mill of their choice. In 2005 the Queensland Government entirely deregulated the marketing of Queensland’s raw sugar exports allowing the industry to graduate from statutory relationships to contract based commercial relationships. A review of the development of sugar industry legislation is provided below. Legislation has been strongly influential on the relationship between the growers and milling companies, how they do business and manage the supply chain. Legislative and review timeline (Source: Sugar Industry Oversight Group, 2006) 1893 Sugar Works Guarantee Act authorises the funding of central sugar mills with financial backing by the Queensland Government. 1901 Australian Government places protective import duties on sugar. 1915 Queensland Government passes Sugar Acquisition Act and Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act, which legislate and establish regulatory controls over production levels, marketing and pricing. Though not to the same extent, regulatory controls are also imposed on wages and working conditions within the sugar industry. 1923 Sugar Board in Queensland, established under the Sugar Acquisition Act 1915, takes over the authority to acquire and market all raw sugar produced in Queensland. 1925 Queensland legislation establishes the basis for the future CANEGROWERS organisation. 1937 First International Sugar Agreement is negotiated, but does not come into force due to World War II. 1951 Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is reached with the United Kingdom. 1969 International Sugar Agreement commences for a five-year term, Australia still participates in the International Sugar Organisation. 1974 Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is terminated. 1978 Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) conducts an inquiry into the industry. 1983 IAC conducts a second inquiry into the industry and concludes that government assistance to the industry should be substantially reduced; recommendations were not accepted by Australian Government. 1985 Sugar Industry Working Party undertakes a review and makes recommendations similar to those of the IAC. The flexibility of some regulatory controls is increased. 1986 Report by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Efficiency of transport, milling and handling in the sugar industry; states’ regulatory regimes are considered to have inhibited the efficiency of the Australian sugar industry. 1989 Embargo on sugar imports is dismantled and customs tariff is imposed. Senate standing committee inquiry 125
is conducted into tariff levels on future sugar imports. 1990 Qld State Sugar Industry Working Party is convened; recommendations handed down in June. 1991 Australian Government begins phased reduction of tariffs on sugar from AUD115 to AUD55 per tonne. Queensland’s Sugar Acquisition Act and Regulation of Sugarcane Prices Act are superseded by the Sugar Industry Act 1991. This Act removes the authority of the Central Board, replacing the Sugar Board and the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board with the Queensland Sugar Corporation, which is given the responsibility to develop and implement policy relating to management of the Queensland industry. Also under the aegis of the Sugar Industry Act 1991, the Queensland Sugar Corporation is established, on 15 July, ‘to provide comprehensively for all matters relating to the promotion and regulation of the sugar industry in Queensland’. Although the ‘old’ Acts are repealed, many of the practices born of the previous legislation remain and, with the discretionary powers provided to the Queensland Sugar Corporation, the industry remains, in effect, one of the most highly regulated in Australia. Industry Commission review into production, institutional and regulatory arrangements in the sugar industry is established. 1992 Industry Commission report is finalised; the main finding of the report is that ‘the regulatory controls applying to the production and marketing of raw sugar in Queensland’ are the major factor reducing efficiency of the Australian sugar industry.63 Sugar Industry Task Force is established by the Australian Government Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. 1993 Sugar Industry Task Force reports to the Australia Government Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. The Joint Sugar Industry Infrastructure Programme is announced, with assistance of up to AUD20 million; of this, AUD19 million is allocated to Queensland projects and the balance to New South Wales projects. 1994 Queensland’s Sugar Industry Act 1991 is amended, making some changes to pool prices paid to sugar mill owners in subsequent years and providing for quality standards to be set by the Queensland Sugar Corporation. 1995 Council of Australian Governments reaches agreement on an ambitious plan to enhance competition in Australia, designated as the National Competition Policy. This has a significant effect upon all agricultural industries. To meet its obligations, the Queensland Government establishes the Sugar Industry Review Working Party (SIRWP) to review the Sugar Industry Act 1991 and import tariff on sugar. 1996 SIRWP reports in November 1996, concluding that the Queensland Sugar Industry Act 1991 restricts competition in a variety of ways. Over 70 recommendations are made by the SIRWP review. In part they recommend that: 1. the Queensland Government • continue the compulsory acquisition of all raw sugar produced in Queensland • retain the single-desk seller of domestic and export sugar, subject to the pricing of domestic sales at export parity prices • permit growers to negotiate individual agreements with mills and transfer their supply to alternate mills, when collective supply agreements expire 2. the Australian Government remove the customs tariff on raw sugar imports. 1998 Sugar Terminals Limited is established as a special purpose vehicle to transfer the beneficial interests in Queensland’s bulk sugar terminals and long-term leases to the growers and millers, who actually pay for them through deductions from sugar pool prices. 1999 New Sugar Industry Act is passed (effective 1 Jan 2000). CANEGROWERS loses its compulsory levy capacity. 2000 Sugar Industry Amendment Act 2000 establishes Queensland Sugar Limited to replace the Queensland Sugar Corporation. 2002 Independent assessment of the sugar industry (the Hildebrand Report) is released by the Australian Government Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 126
Page 1 and 2:
Sustainable Biomass Supply Chain fo
Page 3 and 4:
Foreword This report provides an as
Page 5 and 6:
include business development (new p
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgments The authors would l
Page 9 and 10:
4.1 Product Options and Supply Chai
Page 11 and 12:
Table 4.2 Assessment of current val
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 3.4 Tracked rigid self-prope
Page 15 and 16:
Executive Summary What the report i
Page 17 and 18:
• Biomass production potential of
Page 19 and 20:
• As the Industry expands, the mo
Page 21 and 22:
Harvesting, transport and storage s
Page 23 and 24:
Biomass processing, supply chain pl
Page 25 and 26:
Key barriers to biomass industries
Page 27 and 28:
Crop-Biomass Production Production
Page 29 and 30:
Figure 1.1 The cropping and pasture
Page 31 and 32:
Table 1.1 Mallee species used for p
Page 33 and 34:
1.1.4 Growth Cycle Mallee System Ma
Page 35 and 36:
northern New South Wales (where it
Page 37 and 38:
Almost 80% of the industry now cuts
Page 39 and 40:
Bark has relatively high ash but as
Page 41 and 42:
Carbon sinks Planting of mallees to
Page 43 and 44:
Table 1.5(a) State Land area devote
Page 45 and 46:
out the fluctuations in farm income
Page 47 and 48:
Mallee system Most of the mallee bi
Page 49 and 50:
inconclusive result may have been d
Page 51 and 52:
For a sustainable woody crop indust
Page 53 and 54:
changed significantly since they we
Page 55 and 56:
Figure 2.2 Biosystems Engineering p
Page 57 and 58:
Whole-of-crop harvesting represents
Page 59 and 60:
During the last decade the harvesti
Page 61 and 62:
single row, as this would improve t
Page 63 and 64:
2.2.2.2 Weight Sugar System The Aus
Page 65 and 66:
Table 2.1 Harvester Comparison Tabl
Page 67 and 68:
The quality of cut may be less impo
Page 69 and 70:
ate than a 170 tonne/ha crop of sta
Page 71 and 72:
Dry Leaf 6.1 - 3.5 17.0 58.9 53.2 T
Page 73 and 74:
Bulk density will be a key consider
Page 75 and 76:
Table 2.4 EM levels in cane supply
Page 77 and 78:
L/T L/T 60 0.97 0.71 80 0.92 0.66 1
Page 79 and 80:
Total 7.5-26 16.5 Mallee System The
Page 81 and 82:
• waiting for mill delivery of em
Page 83 and 84:
perhaps at 10 - 20 km intervals. Th
Page 85 and 86:
transport arrangements, harvest gro
Page 87 and 88:
contractors and growers, and the fa
Page 89 and 90:
experience of the sugar industry wi
Page 91 and 92:
Table 2.11 Alternative harvest paym
Page 93 and 94:
onto the harvester. BR+F still send
Page 95 and 96:
Repairs and maintenance 2.10 Capita
Page 97 and 98: Figure 2.14 and Table 2.14 describe
Page 99 and 100: Sichter et al. (2005)), harvest and
Page 101 and 102: Transport efficiencies may be possi
Page 103 and 104: 3. Transport and Storage Systems Tr
Page 105 and 106: same time, the potential problems o
Page 107 and 108: Figure 3.3 Articulated self-propell
Page 109 and 110: • The harvester will not have any
Page 111 and 112: Figure 3.7 Gross mass compared with
Page 113 and 114: external factors dramatically impac
Page 115 and 116: Figure 3.11 The effect of haulout t
Page 117 and 118: 3.3 Road Transport 3.3.1 Configurat
Page 119 and 120: Figure 3.15 shows an example of the
Page 121 and 122: Road distance one way < 20 km 70 km
Page 123 and 124: Haul distance is largely outside th
Page 125 and 126: 3.6 Recommendations The nature of t
Page 127 and 128: • The strategy offered lower tota
Page 129 and 130: sugarcane billets are such that wit
Page 131 and 132: • Transfer the whole tree product
Page 133 and 134: Figure 4.5(b) Energy balance of con
Page 135 and 136: 2010). Table 4.2 presents a summary
Page 137 and 138: 4.4.2 Activated charcoal Activated
Page 139 and 140: Nett Product Value ($/t) $475.00 $
Page 141 and 142: Table 4.9 presents an estimation of
Page 143 and 144: • Oil from leaf @ $2/kg • Synth
Page 145 and 146: • The mallee oil would be extract
Page 147: 5. Industry and Business Structures
Page 151 and 152: Bx is % brix in first expressed jui
Page 153 and 154: Hildebrand (2002) estimated that th
Page 155 and 156: also has a flow on effect to the sp
Page 157 and 158: Sugar Industry Illustrative Example
Page 159 and 160: with super size multi-lift bins ove
Page 161 and 162: farmer vs. harvester) is the next l
Page 163 and 164: 6. Supply Chain Planning and Manage
Page 165 and 166: Figure 6.1 Building blocks of the s
Page 167 and 168: weighed against the costs of operat
Page 169 and 170: • There is close contact between
Page 171 and 172: 6.4 Planning, Management Tools and
Page 173 and 174: • Harvest and transport logistics
Page 175 and 176: interface. The system allows users
Page 177 and 178: Case Study 6.2 - Model Application
Page 179 and 180: Relationships between sectors and p
Page 181 and 182: 7. Supply Chain Modelling and Econo
Page 183 and 184: It was assumed that there was a fif
Page 185 and 186: Table 7.2 Scenario two capital equi
Page 187 and 188: Table 7.4 Fuel burn rates harvester
Page 189 and 190: Figure 7.5 Effect of capital equipm
Page 191 and 192: Figure 7.7 Effect of annual tonnes
Page 193 and 194: 30 1.8 7.0 12.3 17.5 50 1.1 4.3 7.6
Page 195 and 196: 8. Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 197 and 198: Biomass bulk density has a large im
Page 199 and 200:
Vehicles used for infield haulout w
Page 201 and 202:
This can be compared with harvest a
Page 203 and 204:
While diversification can add value
Page 205 and 206:
Appendix 1: Comparative Assessment
Page 207 and 208:
and transport conditions. Billet le
Page 209 and 210:
that cane production is the most pr
Page 211 and 212:
on sugar only, other proceeds (mola
Page 213 and 214:
References Agnew, J 2002. A Partici
Page 215 and 216:
Enecon 2001. Integrated Tree Proces
Page 217 and 218:
Keating, BA, Antony, G, Brennan, LE
Page 219 and 220:
Ridge, DR and Linedale, AL, 1997. T
Page 221:
Willcox, T, Hussey, B, Chapple, D a
show all

Download (4Mb) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern Queensland

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?