Top misconceptions in language translation for business

Translation of your business messages into foreign languages looks easy these days with the Internet at your fingertips and bilingual friends on call. 

However, often these friends will translate your messages into the foreign language quite literally.  They will take your words and pose the exact referenceable words against them.  They will not rephrase them to make them more readable, nor check the grammar, sentence structure, vocabulary and expressions that might be local to a particular market.

When you write for a country or region of the world, you must localise the meanings and intents of metaphors and statements and make your words natural to the reader in order to be taken seriously as a real business constituent.

When you think about it, translating an important business message using the wrong tools could frankly be very dangerous.  For example, Julia Gillard’s Chinese version of Australia in the Asian Century contained broken sentences, grammar and syntax errors, inappropriate vocabulary and incomprehensible expressions, leading many to question how it was prepared.

The Australian newspaper reported that "It is reasonable to suspect that the person who translated this white paper relied heavily on Google Translate, not their Asian language skills."

Further to this, modern day machine translation systems (MT) have become much more advanced than the capabilities offered online, and can recognise common linguistic differences in a way that Internet systems cannot.

Today, we break down some myths and mysteries to explain what you really should know when considering translation for business purposes.

1. There is a lot more involved in high quality translation than you think

You may think that you just need a translator but in essence, to guarantee high quality materials, you will need a lot more. International campaigns, documents, collateral and websites will not only involve translation, but localisation, checking, revision, editing as well as desktop publishing and file handling.

Think about how long it took you to create that English brochure? Materials created for a foreign audience will require a little more care in their preparation. You will often need a second pair of eyes, an industry expert to verify terminology, and an editor for final publication. Also, you will often need project management to handle your file formats, connection to your content management system and your internal systems.

2. Bilingual friends or colleagues could do more harm than good

Translating business documents or marketing materials through bilingual colleagues or friends can be dangerous, as they might not be familiar with the subject area or could be from another region of the country you are translating for. Or, they might be native speakers, but do not have an excellent command of the language, or they might know enough about the subject matter, but their feedback might not be relevant or helpful.

Don’t get me wrong, there is a very useful place for these bilingual contacts, but they need to be given clear and precise instructions when translating business and marketing documents. Questions like "Is the message getting across?", "Does the translation use the right language for the target market?",  "Could messages be misinterpreted?" –  instead of just “ What’s your opinion?” – should be asked.

3. Machine Translation is more than Google Translate

You may think that Machine Translation (MT) systems are just a version of Google Translate, but in fact, the term refers to professionally programmed IT translation engines, trained for a specific technical subject, trained with millions of approved TMs (translation memories) and fed with a high volume of technical data to be able to produce a fast and pertinent output against a source text that has been written specifically for MT purposes.

The translated text is then still revised by human “post editors”. The use of the tool enables people to be more efficient on repetitive tasks that can be automated, and to use the skills of high quality translation professionals for more complicated translations.

MT is not to be confused with Translation Management Systems. These handle complicated file formats and can hold translation memories of entire segments of translated text in a database. They assist the translator to achieve consistency when similar terms and contexts come up again in future translation and can often save you, the client, money when many repetitions occur in high volume texts.

4. A back translation will not give you the full message

An ad agency was recently outraged when they used back translation to have a German translation translated back into English, and read that someone was "going to eat a broom"!  You see… pigs fly in the English language, but Germans will eat a broom if they don’t believe something will happen. It is because of these nuances that back translations should not be used to measure quality. Back translation should only be used in rare circumstances and done by a language professional who knows how to interpret the results. Independent checkers, focus group testing, community feedback and industry editors are a much more efficient way to ensure quality of the intended message.

5. High quality input gives high quality output

You may be committed to getting high quality translation, but if your own message is not clear from the start, it is difficult for the translator to guess what you mean and transmit it.  For best quality, a clear source text must be provided and translators should be equipped with as much information as possible such as background, style guides, related articles, links, glossary lists, anything you have to ensure the translator fully understands your subject and your message.

6. Don’t mix and match your translators

Translators become familiar with your style, terminology and subject area. So, if you have a good one, stick with them and train them to your needs. Even if you have glossaries and style guides, consistency is best achieved by continuing to work with those who are familiar with your content.

Using various different providers can result in mixed messaging and less efficiency in your translations. Very often, changes in translations are a matter of personal preference or ignorance on background knowledge, and you may find yourself spending a lot of time just redoing the versions, when it was often only matter of opinion.

As you can see there are many considerations in getting the quality right when translating for business. With translation, it can sometimes be a bit like picking up your car from the garage and wondering… what did the mechanic really do? But of course, there are varying degrees of services that can be applied for different types of outputs required. A high quality provider can show you the options and guide you through the process to ensure that your message hits the mark with your target audience.

Written by Tea C. Dietterich, Director of 2M Language Services. 
P: +61 7 3367 8722
W: 2m.com.au
E: multimedia@2m.com.au

Double whammy for Australian retailers?

This article was prepared by Freight & Trade Alliance and does not reflect the opinion of the Export Council of Australia (ECA). The ECA understands that these are difficult and complex issues and concerned parties should seek specific advice for their circumstances.

The Australian public has widely embraced Internet trade … and why wouldn’t they?

The dollar has been strong, consumers have a global reach for product selection, the express logistics sector deliver an amazingly efficient service and low value items (under $1000 in value) are free of any government imposed Import Processing Charges, GST or duty.

It is no wonder that traditional retailers have been affected by this.

Retail associations have responded by lobbying for a “level playing field” and forcing the federal government to re-examine the quantum of the threshold and associated implications of such a reform.

Whilst a reduction in the threshold may not be a vote winning move, it would certainly be a more equitable arrangement for the trading sector and would also return considerable GST revenue to state governments.

As well as lobbying the threshold issue, it is a credit to Australian retailers that they have also looked to modernise their practices to remain competitive. One business model adopted has been to centralise overseas distribution centres.

In effect, this has built on an existing and legitimate commercial practice commonly referred to as “assembly order” where multiple suppliers bring cargo to a DC for “pick and pack” to Australia.

As outlined in recent notices to Freight & Trade Alliance (FTA) subscribers, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS) are now flexing their compliance muscle wanting these consignments to be “split” with a separate cargo report for each supplier.

The reason for forcing this practice is that their Integrated Cargo System (ICS) cannot adequately deal with this scenario of allowing multiple suppliers on a cargo report. This has been a known problem since mid-2005 prior to the system going “live”. Rather than fixing the system over the ensuing 8 year period, the solution now being mandated by Customs is for industry to change their commercial practices.  

Freight forwarders will now have to cut multiple house bills of lading / air way bills (or use some other form of approved document to complete this mandatory data field) and customs brokers will be required to complete multiple import declarations. This gets really exciting when you keep in mind that the already high Import Processing Charges are likely to further increase from 1 January 2014. 

On one hand, ACBPS is leading the way by announcing their “Blueprint for Reform 2013 – 2018” on the other they are still hamstrung by flaws in the ICS.  

The result is that Australian retailers are facing a “double whammy” of competing against Internet trade and are now also facing limitations to legitimate contemporary global supply chain practices.

FTA and the Australian Federation of International Forwarders (AFIF) have provided a formal submission to ACBPS making two key recommendations:

1. Enhancement to the ICS would have the benefits of:

• providing transparency to ACBPS of suppliers’ details;
• avoiding the complexity of dealing with piece counts of packaged consignments;
• negating the need for industry to dismantle existing business models; and
• minimising any increase in supply chain costs.

2. A compliance moratorium is desirable and appropriate until further industry engagement has been completed and ICS functionality is enhanced. We recommended that ACBPS follow this approach with an “informed compliance” campaign to ensure that (a) industry is fully aware of requirements and (b) are operating on a “level playing field”.

It is important to note that despite the ongoing efforts of both FTA and AFIF, currently no moratorium applies.

The ACBPS has received support from other industry representatives who have publicly stated a view that a moratorium is unnecessary and would create further uncertainty for industry. A collaborative approach between these parties has also resulted in the development of a fact sheet in an attempt to address industry’s concerns and to form the foundation for a compliance framework.

Both FTA and AFIF were subsequently asked for our responses to the final draft of the fact sheet and have provided commentary. The final release of the fact sheet provides 10 models which do not include all scenarios or operational issues which FTA and AFIF brought to the attention of ACBPS - the final fact sheet has been released and is available via the FTA Feature Artile at www.FTAlliance.com.au

For further information / clarification, ACBPS have noted that industry should contact the Customs Information and Support Centre on phone 1300 558 099 or email: cargosupport@customs.gov.au

COMMENTARY

The fact sheet, whilst providing some clarity of ACBPS compliance expectations, does not address all operational issues. FTA and AFIF remain committed to reforms in line with its formal submissions.

The scenario of assembly order / multiple supplier import practices highlights an opportunity to enhance ACBPS systems’ capabilities and to integrate reforms with other global initiatives whilst facilitating contemporary logistics practices.

FTA and AFIF will continue to liaise with trade groups and ACBPS to use this issue as a catalyst to give the ACBPS Blueprint for Reform 2013 – 2018  some early momentum and the opportunity to evolve towards a longer term outcome of having in place world leading cargo management systems and strategies.

Paul Zalai – Director FTA

Freight & Trade Alliance (FTA) Pty Ltd
(ph +61 2 9975 1878|È mob +61 408 280 123
Ê www.FTAlliance.com.au |* pzalai@FTAlliance.com.au

 

FREIGHT AND TRADE ALLIANCE (FTA) PTY LTD
FTA represents a cross-section of international freight logistics and import / export trade entities forming an influential advocacy alliance.
As your business partner we ensure that you are at the forefront of all emerging supply chain issues through our responsive operational support, professional development training, pertinent industry updates and corporate events.
For further details please refer to WWW.FTAlliance.com.au

Atradius - Key to Business Success in Mexico

Sydney, Australia 9 August 2013

In line with the ‘Trade Successfully With…’ series, Atradius has now released the recording of the ‘Key
to Business Success in Mexico’ webinar which is available to view for free.

A panel of experts on Mexico’s economy, business culture and law cover the opportunities and the
logistics of trading in Mexico in a lively debate designed to help businesses make their mark there.
The discussion is led by award winning financial journalist and broadcaster Adam Shaw.

Mexico is an accelerating economy. It is Latin America’s 2nd largest with a growing middle class that
has an increasing demand for luxury goods. With 150 million people and an economically stable
market, consumers now have more money to spend. Consumer spending is forecast to increase by
32% between 2013 and 2017.

As an emerging market, Mexico has signed 43 trade agreements with different countries making
Mexico a more appealing and competitive market to do business with. The reform of the
telecommunications market sector offers opportunities for foreign providers.

The webinar discusses the key factors for doing successful business in this market, including having a
local representative on site in Mexico.. There are 31 different states in Mexico all with different cultures,
rules and regulations which are just some of the key reasons a local representative is crucial to get
ahead in this market.

As always in the series there is also an accompanying special report ‘Trade successfully with Mexico –
10 Important Principals’. The report looks at ten principles that those seeking to expand their sales
strategy into Mexico should follow to avoid the many pitfalls of trading in untried territory.

To download the report, click here

If you have any questions or comments in regards to these publications or the webinar please contact
us at oceanianews@atradius.com.au

About Atradius
The Atradius Group, a company of Grupo Catalana Occidente S.A., protects businesses against trade
credit risks throughout the world with credit insurance, bonding, and collections services offered in 45
countries. With total revenue of EUR 1,554 million and a market share of approximately 31% of the
global trade credit insurance market, Atradius’ products contribute to the growth of companies throughout the world by protecting them from the payment risks associated with selling products and
services on credit.

Contact Details:
Level 14, 1 Market Street
Sydney  NSW 2000
Phone: +61 (0)2 9201 2389
Fax: +61 (0)2 9201 5224
Website: www.atradius.com

Atradius Country Report: Czech Republic July 2013

Summary of Report

Low demand from EU partners continues to hit exports

• Austerity measures hit domestic demand
• Export growth is forecast to slow down
• However, budget deficit targets will be met in 2013
• Construction and textile sectors remain in trouble

General Information

• Capital - Prague
• Government type - Parliamentary democracy
• Currency - Czech Koruna (CZK)
• Population - 10.6 million
• Status - Upper middle income country
•  (GDP/capita: US-$ 18,037 in 2011)

Main import sources (2012, % of total)

• Germany - 25.2%  
• China - 11.1%
• Poland - 7.1%
• Slovakia - 6.0%
• Russia - 5.6 % 

Main export markets (2012, % of total)

• Germany - 32.4%
• Slovakia - 9.0 % 
• Poland - 6.1 %
• France - 5.1%
• UK - 4.8 %

After a 1.2% year-on-year contraction in 2012, the Czech economy continued to shrink in early 2013:
by 2.2% year-on-year in Q1 (down 1.1% on the previous quarter), with GDP forecast to decrease 0.8%
in 2013 after its 1.2% decline in 2012.

The continued weak economic performance is partly the result of austerity measures. Tax increases
and public sector cuts have lessened the purchasing power and confidence of both households and
businesses, with a consequent impact on domestic demand. Private consumption is expected to
increase only slightly - by1.2% - this year after a 2.6% decrease in 2012, while lower government
spending will continue to have a negative effect on growth. Industrial production will level off this
year after a drop in 2012, investments will continue to decrease.

At the same time, low demand from EU trading partners will continue to hit exports. At more than
75%, the Czech Republic’ export-to-GDP ratio is one of the highest in the EU, making it especially vulnerable to trade losses.

To download the full report, please click here.

Atradius Country Report: Japan July 2013

Summary of Report

General Information

• Capital - Tokyo
• Government type: Parliamentary government with a constitutional monarchy
• Currency - Yen (JPY)
• Population - 127.6 million

Still obstacles to a comprehensive rebound

• Massive quantitative easing and fiscal stimulus will spur growth in 2013 and 2014
• However, the budget deficit is likely to exceed 10% of GDP in 2013
• Business insolvencies expected to decrease 2% this year

Main import sources (2012, % of total)

• China - 21.3%  
• USA - 8.6%
• Australia - 6.4%
• Saudi Arabia - 6.2% 
• United Arab Emirates - 5.0%
• South Korea - 4.6%

Main export markets (2012, % of total)

• China - 18.1%
• USA - 17.6% 
• South Korea - 7.7%
• Taiwan - 6.2%
• Thailand - 5.5%

To download the full report, please click here.

IP Australia: Economic Opportuntities in Asia

The role of intellectual property in capturing economic opportunities in Asia

Asia is one of the most important opportunities open to Australian businesses. If we play it right, there are numerous ways innovative enterprises can use their intellectual property to help Asia solve some of its most pressing issues, including food security, energy and environmental challenges.

At the recent IP Forum hosted by IP Australia, Scott Bouvier, a partner with law firm King Wood and Mallesons, outlined the Asian context for Australian firms wishing to expand into Asia. As he noted in his address, given he works for an entity that combines established law firms in Australia and China, he is uniquely positioned to reflect on the potential for Australian businesses to use their intellectual property to expand their operations across Asia.

THE POLICY CONTEXT

Certainly, the policy framework is in place to help support Australian businesses wishing to leverage their intellectual property into Asia. Central to this is the Federal Government's Australia in the Asian Century whitepaper, which acts as a comprehensive roadmap to increase engagement between Australia and Asia.

The paper sets out five pillars of productivity, of which innovation is one. As Bouvier notes, "intellectual property is a large part of innovation." Therefore, it will be key to identifying better ways of doing business, as well as developing new business models  and products tailored to Asian nations.

The second key policy initiative that will be central to Australian businesses capturing commercial opportunities in Asia, explains Bouvier, is the Federal Government's recently released statement on industry and innovation, "A Plan for Australian Jobs".

Part of the statement is a pledge by the Federal Government to set up Industry Innovation Precincts. The 'Manufacturing Precinct and Food Precinct' will likely be a springboard for Australian businesses to develop Asian-centric initiatives.

"Precincts will enable firms to collaborate and build scale with researchers and with each other to improve knowledge and skills, deploy technology, create new products and services and take advantage of business opportunities," explains Bouvier.

He believes the Industry Innovation Precincts will boost productivity by fostering clusters of innovative firms and encouraging better connections with Asian researchers and industries.

The third plank in the policy armour that will help shepherd the best of Australian intellectual property into Asia is the National Food Plan, which outlines the immense opportunity for Australian food exporters to Asia. As the paper notes, "By 2050, world food demand is expected to rise by seventy seven per cent in monetary terms. Much of this growth will occur in Asia where demand will double."

The food plan works in concert with the cross-border governmental study Feeding the Future: A Joint Australia-China Report on Strengthening Investment and Technological Cooperation in Agriculture to Enhance Food Security.

The report recommends the initial focus of technological cooperation should be sustainable agriculture, plant genetic resources, plant biosecurity, animal disease control and health, plant biotechnology, agricultural processing technologies, animal genetic resources, environmental remediation, remote sensing technologies for agriculture and supply-chain development and improvement.

"These policy initiatives focus on Australia being Asia's food bowl, in the context of a growing need for food security in Asia," explains Bouvier.

"There is a significant emphasis on innovation, collaboration and R&D with China in these policy initiatives. In my mind, this sets the scene for intellectual property to play an important role in developing Australian commercial initiatives across Asia," he adds.

THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CLIMATE IN ASIA

Bouvier notes that across Asia, intellectual property laws are becoming stronger, and the number of patent filings is increasing, especially in China, Japan and Korea. "But there seems to be real challenges in turning innovation into commercialisation," he says.

Nevertheless, there is huge potential for Australian firms to be part of the shift as the Chinese economy, which has traditionally been based on manufacturing, moves to a knowledge-based economy.

"What we're seeing is a shift from 'made in China' to 'designed in China', which is a reason why there is a focus on strengthening their IP laws," he explains.

Bouvier acknowledges counterfeiting, especially in electronics and pharmaceuticals, remains a problem. He stresses the ability to enforce intellectual property rights is improving in Asia, but points to the failure of foreign investors to establish rights in China as a key issue.

"Many fail to register their trademarks or patents, often turning a difficult enforcement situation into an impossible one," he says, adding that the "best solution is to file early and monitor carefully."

Of course, China is not the only Asian market to offer Australian businesses economic opportunities. As Bouvier notes, Japan is a key intellectual property market and there are more patents held in Korea than any other Asian country. There has also been a big increase in patent filings in India, but he says enforcing intellectual property rights is extremely challenging on the sub continent.

Overall, says Bouvier, the intellectual property system is strengthening in Asia, which is a positive for Australian businesses wishing to leverage their intellectual property in Asia. He also stresses that although it's easy to hold a stereotype that Asian intellectual property laws, as well as the enforcement system, remain difficult, the situation is rapidly progressing.

"Things are improving in Asia, a region that will be at the centre of the world's economy in twenty years. It's important to remember that even in Australia we don't always get it right. What's key is to focus on using our technologies to help Asia face its food, energy and environmental challenges. It's a great opportunity and it's important we don't miss it," he says.

To learn more about IP Australia, please visit their website.

IP Australia: The Future of Intellectual Property in Australia

The Australian Intellectual Property system is ranked in the top five systems globally.

Intellectual property remains an issue of national significance as Australia gears up to take its place in the ‘Asian Century’. Data shows the Australian intellectual property system is robust – as a nation our intellectual property system routinely ranks in the top five systems globally.

But our level of investment in intangible assets, which includes intellectual property, is far behind that of our tangible assets – things like roads, mines and buildings. In addition, although our innovation inputs - for instance patent filings - are high, our outputs and record when it comes to commercialising innovative activity could be better.

So what can we do to better support innovation and intellectual property in Australia? This was the central question that framed discussion at IP Australia’s recent IP Forum in Sydney.

Keynote speaker Christine Emmanuel, executive manager, intellectual property and licensing, CSIRO Operations, believes as a nation we could be better at talking about the value of innovation.

“We don’t have a good way of communicating value, as well as no way of talking about innovation in the language of the government.”

According to Emmanuel, this inability to adequately communicate around innovation is a problem when it comes to attracting investors to innovative projects, which is a reason why innovative businesses find it challenging to attract venture capital.

But importantly, as we resolve this and nurture our intellectual property system, we need to make sure we don’t give too much away.

“We need to have our scientists think about the value of innovation for our economy and our country. Scientists need to understand the value of their work from a commercial perspective. We seem to think scientists must have integrity and not bow to commercial pressures, but that’s nonsense. Both science and commerce should be going in the same direction. We need to teach our scientists to work on problems that will create value.”

Another keynote speaker, Scott Bouvier, a partner with law firm King Wood and Mallesons, suggests to generate better business outcomes from the innovation process, intellectual property advisers need to become better business advisers.

“Advisers need to broaden their role so that they understand the commercial context and to develop intellectual property within that context. Intellectual property advisers also need to be working with clients on commercialisation strategies,” Bouvier argues.

Nevertheless, another keynote presenter, Christine McDaniel, deputy chief economist, IP Australia, says we should not take for granted that our intellectual property system is well-functioning. The fact it’s possible to obtain high quality patents, which can be opposed and defended, within a transparent intellectual property system is a situation to which many countries aspire.

As to how or even whether our intellectual property system needs to be improved, McDaniel says “it’s a reasonable goal just to maintain the system.”

So what’s the place of government in encouraging investment in innovative activities? According to McDaniel, governments have a role in helping new, innovative firms enter the market, as well as in promoting innovation in existing firms.

Public sector involvement in innovation can take a number of forms – it can include support of ongoing research and development, acquisition of external knowledge through activities such as buying patents, as well as encouraging new business processes and new ways of organising people.

McDaniel says according to OECD figures, the Australian government is already a strong supporter of innovation. Data suggests sixty per cent of large firms receive support for innovation and twenty per cent of small firms receive government support to be innovative.

“But the question is whether we’re doing it the right way – how do we know whether we’re giving financial support to the right firms? It’s very hard to pick winners,” she states.

According to McDaniel, a new way of approaching this challenge is for governments to invest in performance-based innovation. So the idea is that if an innovative firm receives government funding, if it can demonstrate it is performing, it will qualify for further government support.

“But the challenge is how to measure performance – this is the big question,” says McDaniel.

She says there is also a role for governments in providing opportunities for innovative firms to be networked through trade shows, to assist in the collaborative process.

“Governments can help create the circumstances for firms to collaborate, but ultimately collaboration happens at the individual firm level.”

Emmanuel says as a nation we’re actually good at collaborating. “We do that well and to innovate you have to collaborate – no-one can innovate in a silo. Scientists are always sharing information at conferences and sharing information across universities, as well as travelling overseas to collaborate. So we’re seeing that activity – it’s just whether this translates into value.”

Bouvier says the intellectual property sector must work from more of a position in which intellectual property portfolios are created with the purpose of attracting investment.

“We need to understand investors’ drivers and look for collaboration based on intellectual property. By doing that we will be able to improve the services we provide to the sector and also improve innovative outcomes. Businesses need a mix of skills to be able to translate innovation into commercial results and advisers need the right skills to assist in this process.”

Fundamentally, says Bouvier, intellectual property needs to be properly structured so investors can securely invest. “Poor decisions about the way intellectual property is structured are very hard to undo and investment deals can die just on the terms of licenses.”

“We have undertaken the right steps to reform the industry. Our IP system is highly regarded. We have the right framework and what we need to do now is work more effectively within it,” he says.

For more information about IP Australia, please visit their website.

Australia’s National Food Plan: Tapping Into Asia’s Expansion

Cynthia Dearin

Dearin & Associates

W: dearinassociates.com 

Tel: +612 8003 7583

info@dearinassociates.com

• Will your business be affected by the new National Food Plan?
• Are cheap imports of fresh food affecting your competitiveness?
• Did you know that you may be eligible to apply for financial assistance through grants under the new National Food Plan?
• What do you see as the big issues for Australian food producers and would you like to have your voice heard?

The Federal Government has said it will help Australia’s food industry target Asia as part of its “National Food Plan” to grow the sector.

On 25 May, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry released the National Food Plan, spelling out the Government’s intentions for Australia’s food industry. Based on the objectives outlined in the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper, the Plan has a strong focus on Asia and assisting Australian industry to tap into the needs of an expanding Asian middle class.

The plan also aims to help Australian industry increase exports and support a thriving food industry while ensuring Australia’s food needs are met sustainably. It sets out 16 goals in four categories – “Growing Exports”, “Thriving Industry”, “Sustainable Food” and “People” – to be reached by 2025.

What does the National Food Plan mean for business?

Under the Plan, the Government will provide about $40 million worth of funding, mostly to strengthen Australia’s position as a quality food producer for Asia.

The plan includes a $1.5 million small grants program for community food groups. Applicants will be able to apply for Federal Government grants of up to $25,000 to support projects such as farmers’ markets and “food rescue activities”, while grants of up to $10,000 will be available to people involved in smaller initiatives such as community gardens and city farms.

The Plan also sets up a Productivity Commission inquiry into cutting red tape for food manufacturing.

How has the business community reacted to the Plan?

Public reaction to the Plan has been mixed.

The Australian Made Campaign has welcomed the National Food Plan and its focus on exporting into Asia, and stressed the importance of branding Australian products in Asian marketplaces.

The National Farmers’ Federation has described the Plan as a positive step and welcomed the $28.5 million worth of grants to investigate Asian food markets.

Ausveg, Australia’s peak body for vegetable growers, has welcomed $2 million to strengthen the Australian brand in Asia, but says that doesn’t help producers compete with cheap imports.

Spokesman William Churchill says $908 million worth of fruit and vegetables were imported last year, and country of origin labelling isn’t addressed in the food plan.

Robert Pekin is the Executive Director of the Food Connect Foundation and has been heavily involved in developing community supported agriculture.

He says the plan ignores some big issues facing Australian food producers.

“It hasn’t addressed the real issues in the food system… around farmer debt, the number of farmers leaving the land, anti competitiveness in the retail sector. Or some of the huge issues coming down the road in terms of energy constraints, water constraints and financial constraints at the global level which are big issues for Australian agriculture,” Mr Pekin said.

How can Dearin & Associates help you engage with the National Food Plan?

Dearin & Associates can help your business bring its perspectives and priorities to the attention of leaders in government.

If your business will be affected by the National Food Plan, particularly in light of Australia’s developing relationship with Asia, we can help you engage with the relevant government officials, assist in the preparation of submissions to government and connect you directly with the key people. We particularly encourage small and medium enterprises in emerging sectors to consider engaging in this process to ensure that their views and concerns are not drowned out by bigger companies in traditional sectors.

We can also assist your business or association to apply for the grants available under the Plan.

To talk to us about the various ways in which we can assist your business or industry group to work with government, contact us at (02) 8003 75 83 or at info@dearinassociates.com.

Sources

Best, Dean. “AUS: Canberra targets Asia in “national food plan””. Just-food. (http://www.just-food.com/news/canberra-targets-asia-in-national-food-plan_id123345.aspx).

Department of Agriculture, National Food Plan. 25 May 2013. (http://www.daff.gov.au/nationalfoodplan).

Lindberg, Rebecca and Lawrence, Mark. “National Food Plan: most Australians are food secure, but can we do more?”. The Conversation. 29 May 2013. (http://theconversation.com/national-food-plan-most-australians-are-food-secure-but-can-we-do-more-14682#comments).

Locke, Sarina. “Opposition says National Food Plan is a “con job””. ABC Rural. 29 May 2013.

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-29/opposition-food-plan/4719736).

Rose, Nicholas and Croft, Michael. “The draft National Food Plan: putting corporate hunger first”. 20 July 2012. The Conversation. (http://theconversation.com/the-draft-national-food-plan-putting-corporate-hunger-first-8342).

Wilson, Cameron. “National Food Plan”. Radio National. 27 May 2013. (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bushtelegraph/national-food-plan/4715298).