Australia's ag sector is pushing back against European-dominated sustainability frameworks.
Programs such as the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) are prerequisites for Australian canola producers to send their product into the lucrative European Union (EU) market.
However, there is a sense of increasing frustration among Australian growers that they are being forced to comply with standards dictated by EU officials more concerned with ideology than science.
Sustainability specialist Su McCluskey also said there was concern about standards being used as non-tariff measures to lock rival farmers out of markets.
Speaking at the Australian Grains Industry Conference she said overly prescriptive standards and import requirements effectively locking Australia out of markets.
"We need to continue to try and influence those international standards, the EU influence means we have great difficulty with pushing an outcomes based approach," she said.
Former diplomat Dennis Richardson agreed.
"I'm always sceptical of the Europeans and how they use environmental issues for essentially protectionalist reasons," he said.
"Yes they are concerned about the environment, yes they are concerned about climate change, as they should be but they mix it up with protectionist ideology."
Ms McCluskey said Australian growers were hurt by biases within the framework in favour of EU production systems rather than Australian farming practices, with less emphasis on things Australian farmers do extremely well such as maintaining soil cover and soil health.
There is also a feeling among growers in Australia that heavily subsidised EU growers can more easily manage to conform with the requirements of sustainability frameworks than Aussie farmers competing on the open market.
The matter is an issue being discussed by Australian farmer organisations.
"We're concerned that by participating in schemes such as ISCC we're losing our own sovereignty over chemical regulation and handing it over to the EU, which has shown itself to be very sensitive to popular opinion," said WAFarmers grains section president Mark Fowler.
Ms McCluskey said recent moves had shown the EU was heavily influenced by ideology in its decision making rather than a focus on outcomes-based approaches based on science.
"Strong, powerful and noisy NGOs (non-government organisations) are driving the way the EU sets their legislation," she said.
"The Farm to Fork framework recently introduced is a key driver of what the EU wants to do, and there is a major issue in that EU farmers are heavily subsidised to do things that may not make much sense."
"I was talking to the Irish recently and I said I just don't see how you are going to be able to comply with the regulations."
"They replied ' firstly you're trying to make logic out of something totally illogical'."
"Secondly, it is always signed up to so we just have to do it."
She said the EU was putting a focus on environmental, rather than production based measures when allocating subsidies.
"The CAP (Common Agricultural Payments) have moved to being based off environmental measures."
"I describe the French now not as farmers but as a parks and garden department."
"They're being paid to keep their hedgerows neat and their fields pretty for the tourists."
"This overly prescriptive stance is going to be a real problem that could potentially see us locked out of markets."
Mr Fowler said up until now the requirements had been relatively easy to satisfy.
"Our concern is the expectations that the requirements will change and grow."
"We've seen EU regulators very sensitive to public opinion and that worries us, particularly with chemical regulation such as moves in France and Germany to ban glyphosate."
"The Australian grains industry has very little influence over either the EU or the ISCC and we are concerned that our very different growing conditions will not be taken into account."