APVMA approval process slows and time frames drag out

The long approval process by the nation’s agricultural chemical regulator could see companies turn away from the Australian market.

Fears chemical manufacturers may turn away from supplying Australian farmers with new ag-vet chemicals are rising as the national regulator struggles to meet approval deadlines.

Some agricultural chemicals are taking more than three years to be assessed and only 55 per cent of new applications were completed on time by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority for the first three months of this year.

It’s led to state farming organisations calling for more funding for the APVMA, arguing chemical manufacturers may turn away from selling new products into the Australian market.

Victorian Farmers Federation grains group president Ryan Milgate said Australia represented just 2 per cent of the global agricultural chemical market.

“Because we are so small, there is the risk that we might get left out because of the lengthy and costly approval process,” Mr Milgate said.

“Of course, we want to make sure that approval process is proper, but it must be done in a timely manner or we will get left behind (with the use of new chemicals) and we don’t want that.”

Mr Milgate said it was particularly concerning that emergency permits to use chemicals were also not being processed in a timely manner.

The latest APVMA performance report showed that of the 19 emergency permits received from January to March, 11 were issued. Emergency permits do not have an approval deadline but are usually lodged where control is considered urgent, such as mouse and locust plagues.

“If an emergency permit cannot be approved in time, it defeats the purpose,” Mr Milgate said.

“It appears that the APVMA is under resourced.”

NSW Farmers agricultural science committee chairman Alan Brown said extra funding was needed to allow farmers to have access to new chemistry.

“There are all these new products out there that could save our crops from pests and diseases, but we can’t use them yet, because they haven’t been assessed or approved,” Mr Brown said.

“Farmers need a regulator that is transparent, efficient and adequately supported to deliver outcomes that benefit agriculture, the environment and the wider community.”

Crop Life Australia chief executive officer Matthew Cossey said the APVMA was inefficient.

“In just three years performance in this critical category (new product approvals) has nosedived from 98.8 per cent to a dismal 54.9 per cent,” Mr Cossey said.

“This failure to meet even the most basic legislated performance standards and repeated delays in new product registrations is leaving Australian farmers exposed to preventable crop losses, costing the economy hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

“The APVMA’s inefficiency stands as a roadblock to progress.”

The APVMA said it had finalised 83.4 per cent of applications related to pesticides within statutory time frames from January to March; however, that figure was dragged up by those chemicals that did not require a technical assessment. Most new chemicals require a technical assessment.

An APVMA spokeswoman said assessment time frames varied for a number of reasons including the complexity of the assessment, the quality of available data, or the completeness of the application.

She said emergency permits did not have statutory time frames and the organisation “tirages all permit applications to ensure they meet the relevant criteria”.

“Emergency permits are treated as the highest priority applications to support time-sensitive biosecurity responses,” she said.