Top origin of importing agricultural product to eu 2023 năm 2024

In terms of import value, the Netherlands is the largest EU importer of soy, palm oil and cocoa (as well as the related products) from outside the EU. Furthermore, the Netherlands is the second largest EU importer of non-EU wood and cattle and related products, as well as the sixth largest EU importer of coffee; the latter often enters the Netherlands via Germany and Belgium.

Wood imports have more than doubled in two decades

The largest volume growth in these imports from outside the EU since 2002 is in wood (+125 percent), followed by cocoa (+67 percent), cattle (+53 percent) and palm oil (+19 percent). The import volume of coffee has declined slightly (-2 percent) and soy imports have fallen by 21 percent.

Import volume of non-EU goods associated with deforestation1), 2022 relative to 2002ProductImportgewicht (% change)Wood and wood products125Cocoa and cocoa products67Cattle and cattle products53Palm oil and palm oil products19Coffee-2Soy and soy products-21Source: CBS, Eurostat1) Based on the original list not including rubber. EU imports of rubber concern a relatively small flow.

Main non-EU country of origin is Brazil

Brazil is the largest supplier outside the EU of deforestation-linked goods to the Netherlands. The import value of such goods from Brazil stood at 3.2 billion euros in 2022. These were mainly soy and wood or wood products. The United States is the second largest supplier of soy and wood after Brazil. In third place is Ivory Coast, which supplies mainly cocoa beans. China is a major source of wooden furniture, while Indonesia and Malaysia mainly supply palm oil. Among the top 10 origin countries from outside the EU are also the United Kingdom (mainly wood), Uruguay (wood and cattle), Argentina (cattle and soy) and Ghana (cocoa).

Top 10 non-EU suppliers of deforestation-linked goods, 2022 Cocoa, cocoa products (bn euros)Wood, wood products (bn euros)Coffee (bn euros)Palm oil, palm oil products (bn euros)Cattle, cattle products (bn euros)Soy, soy products (bn euros)Brazil0.01220.88390.22010.00280.13641.9179US0.02730.73540.00180.00000.17761.0293Ivory Coast1.14350.00140.00180.00200.00000.0000China0.00470.88140.02400.00000.00020.1136Malaysia0.01030.14770.00000.64860.00000.0000Indonesia0.06190.27220.00910.42950.00010.0003UK0.16150.40030.02950.00190.05480.0028Uruguay0.00000.40480.00000.00000.18750.0460Argentina0.00060.00050.00000.00000.20080.2992Ghana0.46040.00020.00000.00180.00000.0001

The bulk of imports is ultimately exported

Dutch imports from within the EU also include goods that are linked to deforestation. These are mainly wood and wood products from Germany, Belgium and Sweden. The import value of wood and wood products even exceeds that of all other deforestation-linked products combined.

A share of 28 percent in total Dutch imports of deforestation-linked goods (excluding quasi-transit trade) is exported again without further processing. Thirty-three percent leaves the country after processing in the Netherlands, and 39 percent stays in the Netherlands (for direct consumption or processing). Wood, coffee and cattle are relatively most likely to stay in the Netherlands after import. Cocoa is re-exported relatively often. Palm oil and soy are relatively often processed in the Netherlands and then exported.

This Insights report describes the current state of Australian agriculture, with the aim of providing key information and statistics in one place. It covers eight key aspects of Australian agriculture: its role in the broader economy, trends in production, farm incomes, industry structure and productivity, climate change impacts and risk management, agricultural employment, sustainability and trade.

The mix of Australian agricultural activity is determined by climate, water availability, soil type and proximity to markets. Livestock grazing is widespread, occurring in most areas of Australia, while cropping and horticulture are generally concentrated in areas relatively close to the coast .

Agriculture accounts for over half of Australia’s land use so the sustainable management of this land is an important issue for both farm businesses and the general public. There are many sustainable land practices that have become standard for Australian farmers (Coelli 2021). For example:

Australia has a diverse agricultural, fisheries and forestry sector, producing a range of crop and livestock products .

The breaking of a 3-year east-coast drought in 2020 has been followed by successive years of record-breaking production. Many agricultural regions transitioned from very poor to very good conditions within the span of a single season. This has been combined with very high commodity prices for almost all of Australia’s major agricultural products.

The gross value of agricultural, fisheries and forestry production has increased by 51% in the past 20 years in real terms (adjusted for consumer price inflation), from approximately $62.2 billion in 2003–04 to $94.3 billion in 2022–23. When including fisheries and forestry, the total value of agricultural, fisheries and forestry production has increased by 46% in real terms in the same 20 year period from approximately $68.5 billion in 2003–04 to $100.1 billion in 2022–23 .

Drivers of growth in the value of output over the past 20 years vary by sector.

• In cropping, producers have improved productivity by adopting new technologies and management practices leading to strong volume growth.
• In livestock, higher prices have been the main driver of growth, reflecting growing demand for protein in emerging countries and some temporary factors, such as drought in the United States and disease outbreaks such as African Swine Fever in meat importing countries.

Figure 3 Agriculture, fisheries and forestry value of production, by commodity, 2022–23

Note: Contributions of commodities to the agriculture, fisheries and forestry value of production do not sum to 100 due to rounding. Other grains and oilseeds group contributes 0.2% to the value of production. Values are measured at the farm gate (i.e. prior to processing). Source: ABARES *(See Box 1.2 of the Agricultural Commodities Report for further information)

Figure 4 Agricultural, fisheries and forestry production, 2003–04 to 2022–23

Note: Values are measured at the farm gate (i.e. prior to processing). Percentage changes represent the average annual growth rate between 2003–04 and 2022–23. Sources: ABARES; ABS International Trade in Goods and Services (cat. 5368); ABS Value of Agricultural Commodities Produced, Australia (cat. 7503)

Australian agriculture reached a record gross value of production in 2022–23 on the back of past reforms, investments in productivity and industry responses to domestic and global pressures. These factors placed the sector in a strong position to take advantage of historically high global commodity prices (Cameron & Greenville 2022).

Changes in Australian agriculture can be seen through compositional shifts in its output. Over the last 5 decades, production of horticultural commodities, meat, oilseeds and pulses have grown to account for much larger shares of production while wool and milk (the two largest livestock products) account for much less .

Figure 5 Agricultural production has changed, contributing to an overall increase in output

Commodity group contribution by volume to total agricultural output, 1969–70 to 2022–23. Notes: Based on chain volumes measures. Base years of 1971–72 and 2020–21 were used for the 5-year ranges shown to minimise the effect of non-additivity on category shares. The Other crop types category includes wine grapes, sugar cane, cotton and fodder crops. Source: ABARES

In the three years to 2019-20 Australia exported around 72% of the total value of agricultural, fisheries and forestry production. Export orientation of each industry can vary by commodity type. Wheat and beef, which are large sectors, are more export-focused than dairy, horticulture and pork

In real terms the value of agricultural exports has fluctuated between $44 billion and $80 billion since 2003–04 . In 2022–23 Australia agricultural, fisheries and forestry exports reached a record $80 billion. Grains, oilseeds and pulses have been the fastest-growing export segment, growing at an average annual rate of 11% in real value terms between 2003–04 and 2022–23, followed by other horticulture (excludes fruit and vegetables) (5%), and meat and live animals (3%).

Figure 6 Australian agriculture is export oriented

Note: Share of agricultural production exported by sector, 3 year average, 2017–18 to 2019–20. Source: ABARES, following method outlined in Cameron (2017)

Figure 7 Real value of agricultural, fisheries and forestry exports by destination, 2003–04 to 2022–23

Note: Export values are measured at the border and so include processing of some commodities beyond the farm gate (for example, wine from grapes and cheese from milk). For this reason, production and export values are not directly comparable. Total exports may not match ABARES estimates of export value as published in the Agricultural Commodities report due to some agricultural, fishery and forestry exports not being included in ABS data. Sources: ABARES; ABS International Trade in Goods and Services, Australia (cat. 5368)

Biosecurity is the management of risks to the economy, the environment and the community from pests and diseases entering, establishing, and spreading in the Australian landscape. There are two groups of pests and diseases of biosecurity significance: the ones that are not found in Australia (exotic) and those already established. Through the combined efforts of the Australian, state and territory governments, industries, landholders, and the community, Australia’s biosecurity system reduces the risk of exotic pest and disease incursions and the impact of those already established. In the absence of these efforts, pests and diseases could cause more harm to people, animals, plants, and the environment.

Freedom from many of the world’s major pests and diseases provides agricultural industries with a significant trade advantage and is important for maintaining access to valuable export markets, as well as maintaining productivity.

Insights into the value of Australia’s biosecurity system can be gained by looking at the potential economic impacts of individual pest and disease incursions at the national level.

The value of biosecurity measures to prevent the entry of exotic pests and diseases can be seen in the economic costs they could cause should they enter. For example

• A multi-state outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is estimated to cost $80 billion over 10 years ($2020-21) (ABARES 2022).
• African Swine Fever becoming endemic in Australia, following its incursion, is estimated to cost between $0.4 and $2.5 billion ($2018–19) (Slatyer et al. 2023).
• An incursion of Pierce’s disease (Xylella fastidiosa) could cost the Australia horticultural industries between $1.2 billion and $11.1 billion over 50 years ($2017–18) (Hafi et al. 2021).
• The value of biosecurity measures to contain the spread of an exotic pest is seen in ABARES modelling of Varroa impacts, which, with recent revisions, showed that the potential economic cost of Varroa can be reduced from $5.2 billion to $3.8 billion over 30 years ($2021-22) through measures taken to contain the spread (Hafi et al. 2012). The value of new initiatives for managing established pests and diseases can be seen in the economic cost they still cause despite ongoing management measures. In an average year established vertebrate pest animals and weeds are estimated to cost Australian agricultural producers at least $5.3 billion, with weeds contributing 82% of the total ($2020–21) (Hafi et al. 2023).

Labour is a key input to Australian agriculture. According to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Labour Force Survey (ABS 2024), the Australian agricultural sector employed 257,000 people on average over the four quarters to November 2023, up 2.4% from the previous year but down 0.7% from a decade earlier. Broadacre farming is the largest employer by industry, followed by fruit and tree nut growing, dairy farming, and mushroom and vegetable growing .

Figure 8 Employment by agricultural industry, November 2023 and November 2013

Source: ABS 2024

However, the ABS Labour Force Survey only focuses on the Australian resident civilian population and does not count the significant number of overseas workers employed in the agricultural sector (Capel 2024).

Variation in total employment on farms throughout the year occurs almost entirely through changes in the use of casual and contract labour. The number of casual and contract workers employed on farms peaks in late summer and is at its lowest in late winter, reflecting the timing of relatively labour-intensive operations, such as planting and harvest. Horticultural farms tend to use relatively large amounts of casual and contract labour at key times of the year , while broadacre and dairy farms tend to use this kind of labour to a lesser extent and more consistently through the year.

Figure 9 Horticulture farm labour use, July 2019 to June 2023

Source: ABARES

Australian cropping farms received record farm cash incomes in 2022–23. Increased average income for cropping farms was driven by high prices for commodities such as wheat and high levels of production in some regions offsetting lower crop production in other regions.

Dairy farms also received record farm cash incomes in 2022–23, primarily due to record milk prices, but partly offset by lower production as wet seasonal conditions and flooding in parts of eastern Australia hampered grazing and fodder production systems.

Incomes for livestock farms fell in 2022–23, because of lower prices for beef cattle, sheep, wool and lambs. Despite the decline, average incomes were estimated to have been around the long-term average in 2022–23.

Changes in farm cash income were not evenly distributed across farms. Larger farms tend to be more profitable, invest more, and generate a higher rate of return on capital than smaller farms. Moreover, larger farms have more capacity to reduce their costs through scale, and a greater ability to invest in productivity-enhancing capital additions. Industry performance is therefore increasingly driven by the performance of the largest farms (ABARES 2023b).

Figure 10 Average cash income per farm, by industry, Australia, 1999–2000 to 2022–23

Note: Provisional estimates for 2022–23. Data expressed in 2022–23 dollars. Source: ABARES Australian Agricultural and Grazing Industries Survey

In 2021–22, there were 87,800 agricultural businesses with an Estimated Value of Agricultural Operations (EVAO) of $40,000 or greater in Australia (ABS 2023a). Of these, there were an estimated 54,400 broadacre and dairy farm businesses with 62% classified as livestock farms, 30% cropping farms and 9% dairy industry farms. There has been a reduction in the number of farm businesses over time as average farm sizes have increased (). There has also been a change in the mix of farm types, with the most substantial shifts being a rise in the number of cropping farms and reduction in dairy farms.

Figure 11 Number of broadacre and dairy farm businesses, 1979–80 to 2021–22

Note: ABARES’ counts of farm numbers rely on the definition of a farm business according to the ABS measure of EVAO (ABS 2023b). The EVAO threshold used for ABARES’ farm surveys has changed over time with shifts in industry structure and output value. Farm numbers in this graph relate to those farms with an EVAO of $10,000 or more until 1987–88; $20,000 or more from 1987–88 to 1990–91; $22,500 or more from 1991–92 to 2003–04; and $40,000 or more from 2004–05. Source: ABARES

Productivity is a core measure of industry performance and a fundamental mechanism for boosting farm profitability and competitiveness. Australian broadacre farm productivity has averaged 1.0% average annual growth since 1977-78, however, in recent years, this growth appears to be slowing compared to the productivity gains achieved during the 1980s and 1990s — when structural adjustment and the adoption of labour-saving mechanisation was in full force (). Broadacre productivity is also becoming increasingly volatile, as farmers face the headwinds of price fluctuations and increasingly unstable climate conditions.

Figure 12 Australian broadacre farm productivity, by pre and post 2000, 1977-78 to 2021-22

Source: ABARES 2023a

Achieving productivity growth will become increasingly difficult into the future as traditional channels for growth offer more marginal benefits. Farmers and policy makers will need to think creatively to identify and facilitate new sources of productivity growth and stay competitive.

There remains further scope for ongoing structural adjustment which has allowed the transfer of scarce land resources from low performance to high performance farms. This trend has in the past supported productivity growth and will be a key driver in future. Another key avenue for lifting productivity growth is R&D, which will be an increasingly important source of farm productivity. It is essential that the R&D system is robust, with good levels of investment, and a balance between private and public sector involvement. There must also be a stable balance between applied practical research and long term underlying developments. A strong R&D system will provide a foundation for farmers to innovate, adopt and apply the latest production techniques, and optimise their farm businesses. During 2022-23 total agricultural R&D funding was $2.32 billion, with 57% contributed from public funding and 43% by the private sector (ABARES 2024b).

Farmers have several avenues to lift their own farm productivity. Innovation and the adoption of technology is a core farm productivity driver and has proven potential for improving efficiency and producing more with less – for example, adoption of precision tractor equipment can optimise fertiliser, chemical and seed use, while saving labour inputs and increasing potential crop yields. Australian farms that innovate and adopt technology tend to achieve higher levels of productivity (Sauer & Moreddu 2020, Chancellor 2023). Smaller farms or those with lower financial capacity may still be able to innovate and benefit from new technology by hiring rather than purchasing, which Sheng and Chancellor (2019) found to be an important channel for productivity growth.

Australian agricultural producers manage significant variability, including a highly variable climate and volatile commodity prices. These factors generate substantial variation in farm output and incomes, greater than that experienced by farmers in most other countries and that experienced by business owners in other sectors of the Australian economy (Keogh 2012).

The effects of climate variability on farms are complex and can vary greatly across locations, farm types and sizes. On average, cropping farms face greater climate risk than livestock farms, whereas the risk associated with price variability is larger for livestock farms than cropping () Cropping farms are subject to large declines in production and revenue in drought years (due to reduced crop yields), while livestock farms can partially offset drought impacts in the short-term by increasing livestock sales (i.e., de-stocking, see Hughes et al. 2019). Exposure to climate variability and drought risk varies across Australia but is generally higher in drier in-land agricultural zones compared with high-rainfall coastal zones (Hughes et al. 2022a). Price variability can be managed by cropping farms better than livestock farms due to cropping farms having typically more diverse production and greater options for centralised marketing and storage.

Figure 13 Effect of climate and price variability on profit for Australian cropping and livestock

Source: ABARES farmpredict

Australian farmers have a number of effective strategies for managing risks associated with short term fluctuations in climate, including maintaining relatively high levels of equity, liquid assets and borrowing capacity, using inputs conservatively, diversifying across enterprises and locations and earning off-farm income.

Many broadacre farms have substantial liquid assets relative to farm household income (farm cash income plus off-farm income). While larger farms hold higher average liquid assets per farm in absolute terms, small and medium farms hold higher average levels of liquid assets as a proportion of farm income.

Farm incomes are being adversely affected by longer term trends towards higher temperatures and lower winter rainfall. ABARES modelling (Hughes et al. 2022b) estimates that changes in seasonal conditions over the period 2001 to 2020 (relative to 1950 to 2000) have reduced annual average broadacre farm profits by 23%, or around $29,200 per farm. These impacts have been most pronounced in south-western and south-eastern Australia, with northern Australia and the coastal higher rainfall zones tending to be less affected ().

Figure 14 Effect of recent (2001 to 2020) seasonal conditions on farm profit

Source: ABARES farmpredict (Hughes et al. 2022a)

While there is still much uncertainty over the long run impacts of climate change on Australian agriculture, climate model projections provide some insight into the range of climate futures, and adaptation pressures, farmers may face. ABARES has undertaken modelling to estimate the potential effects of deteriorating climate conditions on farm profitability under climate scenarios accounting for a 1.4°C and a 2°C increase in global mean surface temperature by 2065 (Hughes & Gooday 2021).

Projected impacts in the beef and sheep sectors under the 1.4°C scenario remain modest relative to climate driven decreases in profit experienced in the last two decades. However, negative impacts on livestock sector profits become much more significant under the 2°C scenario.

Cropping farms in Western Australia are more heavily impacted than those cropping in other regions under both future climate scenarios, mainly due to the more substantial projected declines in winter rainfall and the resulting effects on crop yield.

Globally, agriculture has a large environmental footprint. The sector accounts for around 50% of global land use, 73% of global deforestation, 70% of global water use and 34% of global greenhouse gas emissions (OECD 2023a).

Governments, investors and consumers are responding to this by increasing demand for sustainability credentials in global food systems (KPMG 2022; WEF 2023). For example, the European Union (EU) has implemented the transitional phase of a carbon border adjustment mechanism applied to emissions-intensive imports (currently excluding agricultural products). Some governments, including Australia, are also considering mandatory adoption of reporting standards for business, relating to climate risk and other sustainability criteria (CCA 2022; WEF 2023).

Australia’s major agricultural industries have anticipated these trends and developed sustainability frameworks, including annual updates from the Australian Beef Sustainability Framework and the ongoing development of the Australian Agriculture Sustainability Framework. Going forward, there is concern about the development of fragmented reporting landscapes and inconsistent sustainability criteria across markets, which has the potential to restrict trade and market access if unresolved (WEF 2023).

Sources of Australia's agricultural emissions

Australia’s farm sector emissions fluctuate each year, based on seasonal conditions. Since 2005, agriculture contributed between 12% and 17% of national greenhouse gas emissions (DCCEEW 2023a). Almost 80% of Australia’s agricultural emissions are methane, deriving mainly from cattle and sheep industries. Despite annual fluctuations, Australia’s aggregate agricultural emissions have fallen over time, largely reflecting a shift in commodity mix, from sheep to cropping.

Figure 15 Australia’s agricultural emissions by commodity

Source: DCCEEW 2023a

Australia's comparative emissions intensity

On many criteria, Australia’s agricultural industries demonstrate enviable sustainability credentials when compared internationally. For example, the average emissions intensity of Australian cattle and grains producers is estimated to be below the global average and lower than most major producers, and likewise for cattle and sheep.

Figure 16 Average emissions intensities, 2012–2021

Source: Fell, Creed, Hafi (2023)

Note: major producing countries for each commodity are shown, but international data availability limits the scope of countries displayed. For sheep and cattle, high and low estimates reflect assumptions for animal manure/urine deposits and application on fields.

Emissions reduction pathways

As the rest of the Australian economy decarbonises, agriculture's share of emissions is expected to increase from 17% in 2022 to over 25% in 2035 (DCCEEW 2023b). While it is recognised that the complexity and diversity of agricultural systems, within Australia and globally, makes the development and implementation of abatement technologies more challenging for agriculture (IPCC 2022; McKinsey & Company 2020), over time this rising share of national emissions will increase pressure on the sector to change production systems and invest to reduce emissions.

Figure 17 Australian emissions projections

Source: DCCEEW 2023b

While low-cost measures to reduce emissions exist, such as herd management and planting trees on farms (AgriFutures 2022), substantial reductions in agricultural emissions will require the development of products to reduce methane production from ruminant livestock (Black et al. 2021). Some technologies are currently being trialled in several countries, including Australia. However, cost remains an obstacle to widespread adoption, and future pathways for agriculture must recognise global food security, least cost approaches to decarbonisation and the need to enhance productivity and efficiency in global agri-food markets.

Farm support policies and emissions

Removing existing agricultural support policies, which distort global agricultural markets and impede productivity growth in the sector, is one practical way to improve sustainability outcomes. Currently around $630 billion a year is transferred globally in trade and production distorting agricultural support such as subsidies and tariffs (OECD 2023b). Removing this support can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with food production by shifting production into more efficient products and countries, thereby contributing to improved agricultural productivity and less food waste (Fell et al. 2022; Cao et al. 2023). Doing so will also improve global food security, household welfare and economic growth. Australia is already doing its part, with very low levels of support to farmers. But ongoing effort in multilateral frameworks is required to achieve global benefits.

Figure 18 Impact of removing subsidies and trade barriers

Source: Cao et al 2023

ABARES 2022, Direct economic impacts of a foot-and-mouth (FMD) disease incursion in Australia, An update of ABARES 2013 estimate, ABARES, Canberra.

ABARES 2023a, Australian Agricultural Productivity, ABARES, Canberra.

ABARES 2023b, Disaggregating farm performance statistics by size, ABARES, Canberra.

ABARES 2024a, Agricultural Commodities: March quarter 2024, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABARES 2024b, Agricultural research and development investment in Australia - 2022-2023 update, ABARES, Canberra.

ABS 2023a, Agricultural Commodities, Australia, cat. no. 7121.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

ABS 2023b, Agricultural Commodities, Australia, Methodology, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

ABS 2024, Labour Force, Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, accessed 06 February 2024.

AgriFutures 2022, A farmer’s handbook to on-farm carbon management, Publication no. 22-054.

Black, JL, Davison, TM & Box, I 2021, Methane Emissions from Ruminants in Australia: Mitigation Potential and Applicability of Mitigation Strategies, Animals, vol. 4, no. 1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11040951.

Cameron, A & Greenville, J 2022, Agriculture in Australia – understanding the recent success, ABARES Insights, Canberra, DOI: https://doi.org/10.25814/9j44-d476.

Cameron, A 2017, ‘Share of agricultural production exported’, in Agricultural commodities: ABARES 2017, Agricultural commodities: December quarter 2017.

Cao, LY, Burns, K & Greenville, J 2023, Reforming agricultural markets to support emissions reductions, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra, DOI: https://doi.org/10.25814/zjg3-0b14.

Capel, L 2024, Defining the agricultural workforce, ABARES research report, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra, February, DOI: https://doi.org/10.25814/rf44-kp75.

CCA 2022, First Annual Progress Report: the baseline, global context and methodology, Climate Change Authority, Canberra.

Chancellor, W., 2023. Exploring the relationship between information and communication technology (ICT) and productivity: Evidence from Australian farms. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

Coelli, R 2021, Natural Resource Management and Drought Resilience – survey of farm practices, ABARES research report 21.12, Canberra, DOI: https://doi.org/10.25814/99n0-7q92.

DCCEEW 2023a, Australia's National Greenhouse Accounts, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra.

DCCEEW 2023b, Australia’s emissions projections 2023, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra.

Fell, J, Creed, C, Hafi, A 2023, International emissions intensity statistics, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

Fell, J, Liangyue, C, Burns, K & Greenville, J 2022, Emissions, agricultural support and food security, ABARES Insights, Issue 6, Canberra, https://doi.org/10.25814/r6ep-9f06.

Hafi A, Addai D, Gomboso J, Randall L & Lucaks Z 2021, Protecting Australia’s horticultural industries from disease: The impacts of Xylella fastidiosa on Australian horticulture and the environment, ABARES research report, Canberra, December, DOI: https://doi.org/10.25814/0z5t-k661.

Hafi A, Millist N, Morey K, Caley P & Buetre B 2012, A benefit-cost framework for responding to an incursion of Varroa destructor, ABARES research report 12.5, prepared for National Biosecurity Committee, Canberra, June.

Hafi, A, Arthur, T, Medina, M, Warnakula, C, Addai, D & Stenekes, N 2023, Cost of established pest animals and weeds to Australian agricultural producers, ABARES, Canberra, October, DOI: 10.25814/xve7-s985.

Hughes, N, Galeano, D & Hattfield-Dodds, S 2019, The effects of drought and climate variability on Australian farms, ABARES, Canberra, DOI: http://doi.org/10.25814/5de84714f6e08.

Hughes, N & Gooday, P 2021, Climate change impacts and adaptation on Australian farms, ABARES Insights, Canberra, DOI: http://doi. org/10.25814/589v-7662.

Hughes, N, Lu, M, Soh, W Y, & Lawson K 2022a, Modelling the effects of climate change on the profitability of Australian farms, Climatic Change, vol. 172, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03356-5.

Hughes, N, Soh, W Y, Lawson, K, & Lu, M 2022b, Improving the performance of micro-simulation models with machine learning: The case of Australian farms, Economic Modelling, Volume 115, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2022.105957.

IPCC 2022, IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Keogh, M 2012, Including risk in enterprise decisions in Australia’s riskiest businesses, paper presented at 56th Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics conference, Fremantle, 7–10 February.

KPMG, 2022, The time is now: The Australian Agricultural Sustainability Framework (AASF) and its role in sustainable supply chains.

McKinsay & Company 2020, Agriculture and climate change: Reducing emissions through improved farming practices.

OECD 2023a, Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2023, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

OECD 2023b, OECD Global Forum on Agriculture, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, accessed 2 February 2024.

Sauer, J. and Moreddu, C. (2020), Drivers of farm performance: Empirical country case studies, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 143, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/248380e9-en.

Sheng, Y. and Chancellor, W., 2019. Exploring the relationship between farm size and productivity: Evidence from the Australian grains industry. Food Policy, 84, pp.196-204.

Slatyer, R, Hafi, A, Richards, K, Cozens, M, Addai, D, Cao, L, Mornement, C, Keighley, M & Arthur, T 2023, Potential economic consequences of African swine fever in Australia, ABARES research report 23.07, Canberra, March, DOI: https://doi.org/10.25814/rznz-8y79.

WEF 2023, Emissions Measurement in Supply Chains: Business Realities and Challenges, World Economic Forum.

Who are the top 3 importers of agricultural products?

The top five global importers of agricultural goods include China, the United States, the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (U.K.), and Japan. The top five global exporters include the EU, the United States, Brazil, China, and Canada.

Which country is the largest importer of agricultural products?

As per Agro product importers data, China imported more agricultural products than any other country in the world in 2020, with a value of about $193.5 billion. This indicates a rising requirement for food and other agricultural products to suit the needs of the country's expanding population.

What are the top 5 agricultural imports?

U.S. imports of agricultural products increased by $3.6 billion (2.2 percent) in 2020. On a product basis, imports of fresh, chilled, or frozen vegetables increased the most, followed by cattle and beef; miscellaneous processed foods; pasta, cereals, and other bakery goods; and sugar and other sweeteners.

Who is the largest agricultural producer in Europe?

France is the largest EU agri- cultural producer (23 percent of the value of EU-15 agricultural production), followed by Germany and Italy (both at about 15 percent), Spain (12 percent), United Kingdom (9 percent), and the Netherlands (7 percent).