It is illegal to use paraquat in at least 74 jurisdictions worldwide, including the European Union, China, Malaysia, Brazil and, most recently, the US state of Vermont.
But today, Australia’s chemical regulator gave this effective but highly toxic herbicide the green light.
After a nearly 30-year review, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) finally decided paraquat can continue to be used on Australian farms.
It will have to be used at reduced rates and can no longer be applied with backpack sprayers, only in enclosed systems.
There’s no doubt paraquat is dangerous. It’s a Schedule 7 poison that is acutely toxic to humans if touched, swallowed or inhaled. Farmers have to be exceptionally careful in how they handle it.
Health advocacy groups and neurologists called for an outright ban on paraquat over concerns longer-term exposure could be linked to Parkinson’s disease.
Why is Australia so dependent on this chemical? As our recent research shows, the reasons are simple. Generic imported paraquat is cheap and effective, and there are few alternatives given the way we currently farm. Ironically, paraquat is largely imported from China, where its domestic use is banned.
How did Australia get here?
For broadacre Australian farmers who grow crops such as wheat, oats, chickpeas, canola and soybeans, paraquat is an essential tool. It is used to kill broadleaf and grassy weeds on no-till farms. No-till practices have been widely adopted in Australia to minimise soil disturbance, but require chemical weed control.
Paraquat also works on weeds that have become resistant to other major herbicides, such as glyphosate. Farmers often use these two herbicides together to effectively manage weeds.
This reliance is partly due to developments in the pesticide industry (a term covering herbicides, insecticides and fungicides). Until recently, this industry was dominated by large multinational European and American companies who sold patented (more expensive) and off-patent products.
But in the last two decades, Chinese manufacturers have ramped up cheap generic products. The global industry is now dominated by Chinese state-owned and private enterprises producing off-patent and far cheaper pesticides.
Tax rebates and other government incentives have helped companies such as Rainbow, Wynca, Adama, Yangnong and Syngenta China to become the world’s leading agrochemical companies. In 2006, Australia imported around 10% of its pesticides (by value) from China; by 2025 that figure was almost 50%.
The rise in generic pesticides has led to more product availability. The 2015 China-Australia Free Trade Agreement removed tariffs on pesticide imports, making imports easier. Australia’s regulatory agency doesn’t require a full assessment to register new products with approved active ingredients.
As a result, there are now 121 products containing paraquat registered in Australia, sold under names such as Rainquat, Gramoxone and Spraytop. While individual supply chains are difficult to trace, our research shows the chemicals in these products appear to be almost exclusively produced in China. The two leading agricultural chemical retailers in Australia, Nutrien and Elders, now have their own low-cost generic labels, sourcing generic formulations from China.
As one of the interviewees for our research told us: “there are less and less commercially attractive options outside of China these days… when I was in the business 20 years ago, we had a lot of material coming out of Europe. There’s almost nothing in Australia that comes out of Europe.”
Prior to the APVMA’s announcement, many Australian farmers and agronomists were worried about a total ban on paraquat given the lack of readily available, affordable and effective replacement herbicides.
If paraquat was off the table, Australian farmers would have had to rely more heavily on non-chemical strategies, such as rotating crops and growing crops more densely to crowd out weeds.
A change like this would likely cause significant short-term disruption as farmers grapple with how to make it work. It could reduce yield and make food more expensive, though a lot of these crops are produced for export.
With heightened attention on the APVMA’s decision, now is a chance to rethink our deep dependence on pesticides to grow our food – especially those which can severely damage our health.
It is worth thinking about how we could farm without paraquat. Supplies of cheap, generic chemicals are not guaranteed. Chinese authorities have been reducing production volume in recent years. When faced with external crises, Chinese authorities tighten fertiliser export controls to protect Chinese farmers from price rises. They could decide to do the same for pesticides.
For now paraquat will continue to be used on Australian farms. But with an uncertain future, it is worth figuring out how we can best farm without it.
Sarah Rogers receives funding from the University of Melbourne, the Ford Foundation and the Australian Research Council.
Sonia Graham receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a director for Landcare NSW and a member of the Grains Research and Development Corporation flaxleaf fleabane biocontrol advisory group.
Zoe Wang receives funding from James Cook University and the Australian Research Council.
Ten Australians – including a firefighter, First Nations leaders and young people – are bringing their concerns about the nation’s coal and gas exports to the United Nations.
On Tuesday, the group lodged a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee, claiming the Australian government is failing to protect them from climate harms.
They argue Australia’s continued exports are inconsistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, as set out in the Paris Agreement.
This case spotlights Australia’s role as a major . And it’s the first case of its kind to go to the UN since the world’s highest court – the International Court of Justice – ruled countries have a legal obligation to protect the climate and prevent harm to the climate.
Last month, Australia supported a UN resolution backing the Court’s ruling.
So what is this case about? And why does it matter?
Relying on fossil fuels
Australia is the world’s second largest fossil fuel exporter, behind Russia. Our total fossil fuel exports generate around 3.5% of global carbon emissions annually.
Australia’s state and federal governments are continuing to approve and subsidise new coal and gas projects, most of which are for export. However, every approval increases global carbon emissions.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, every additional tonne of carbon emitted adds to global warming. For example, research shows Woodside’s Scarborough gas project in Western Australia could lead to 484 additional heat-related deaths in Europe alone, and may expose 516,000 people to unprecedented heat. Woodside has said the project “is expected to be one of the lowest carbon intensity sources of LNG delivered into north Asian markets”.
Despite growing concern about fossil fuel exports and emissions, authorities generally don’t give much weight to export-related climate harms when deciding to approve or reject fossil fuel projects.
The current case involves ten people making a claim against the government. These include First Nations leaders, people with disability, young people and a firefighter.
Each person says they have experienced climate harms, ranging from bushfires and extreme heat to flooding, rising sea levels and algal blooms. The First Nations claimants say extreme heatwaves have limited their ability to maintain certain cultural practices, such as engaging in controlled cultural burning. Floods have also displaced them from their traditional lands.
If this committee finds that Australia has breached the terms of this treaty, it can make recommendations to ensure Australia meets its obligations. While these recommendations are not legally binding, they carry weight.
The claimants have told the UN that Australia’s continued support for fossil fuel exports is inconsistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, as set out in the Paris Agreement.
They are making three main claims to support this:
the climate emergency has already harmed the claimants, and these harms will get worse in the future
Australia’s fossil fuel exports have and will materially contribute to climate change
by continuing to produce fossil fuels for export, Australia has breached its obligations under international law to prevent significant and foreseeable climate harms.
The claimants will also argue Australia’s actions breach multiple human rights obligations. These include failing to respect and protect Australians’ rights to life, privacy, family and home life, and culture.
Yet to unfold
In this historic case, the claimants want to establish a clear link between human rights and Australia’s fossil fuel exports.
They have told the committee that climate harms such as extreme heat, bushfires, floods, and sea-level rise directly threaten the right to life by increasing the risk of serious injury or death.
For First Nations communities, climate harms also disrupt connection to Country and prevent communities from sharing traditional knowledge on Country, undermining the right to culture.
This case is unfolding in the wake of last year’s International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion. The court found that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is needed to enjoy human rights. The court also recognised all states have a binding legal obligation to prevent significant harm to the climate.
If this case is successful, the Australian government could be held responsible for climate harms caused to Australians by its fossil fuel exports.
The committee may also recommend Australia phase out its fossil fuel exports. This would expose Australia’s export industries to increased domestic and international scrutiny.
This case has the potential to shape future climate litigation, as well as government policy.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The past five years have not been easy for the people of the Pacific. COVID restrictions disrupted tourism and upended supply chains, while global fuel shocks raised prices and hit island economies hard.
The region relies on expensive imports of fossil fuels, as domestic sources are largely lacking. Some nations spend up to 25% of their GDP on securing fuel, even before this year’s price spikes.
In recent months, authorities in the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu announced emergency measures to conserve fuel. Fiji’s main energy provider has warned electricity rationing is now a possibility, and the Samoan government is considering school closures to save fuel.
News of a peace deal between the United States and Iran has been welcomed. But even if the deal holds, it’s unlikely to lead to quick relief.
In May, the region’s leaders took a rare collective step by invoking the Biketawa Declaration by consensus. It means governments are united in their response to the ongoing fuel crisis.
Why is this significant?
Pacific leaders formalised this declaration in 2000 at the Biketawa Islet in Kiribati as a way to collectively respond to major regional challenges such as conflict.
The declaration paved the way for the long-running Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (2003–17) during a period of conflict, and the Pacific Regional Assistance Mission to Nauru (2006–09) during an economic crisis.
Most recently, the declaration enabled a regional response to the COVID pandemic, allowing transport of vaccines and other medical equipment to Pacific countries during lockdown periods.
This year’s fuel crisis has affected the entire region. As Pacific Islands Forum Secretary General Baron Waqa recently warned, the region is “highly exposed to external shocks”. He said the fuel crisis is:
beginning to intersect across Pacific economies, with direct implications on essential services, connectivity, economic resilience and the livelihoods of our people
The first step has been to establish a regional response mechanism to the fuel crisis, encouraging better coordination between nations.
An unequal crisis
The fuel crisis poses a bigger challenge to Pacific Island countries than many other nations. Almost all the region’s fuel is imported from a handful of East Asian countries, where it is refined. These countries were in turn highly reliant on oil from the Middle East – 80% of the crude oil processed in refineries was transported via the Strait of Hormuz.
The full impact of the Iran war has not yet washed through. Tankers in transit before the Hormuz closure have continued to make deliveries, while support from donors such as Australia has helped some countries manage what has, so far, mostly been a price shock.
Nations such as Fiji had healthy fuel reserves before this year’s fuel crisis.
Maintaining fuel storage facilities in difficult environmental conditions is an ongoing challenge for many nations.
What now?
It’s an uncertain time for the Pacific. The Iran peace deal — if it holds — may mean more oil products can flow. But damage to energy infrastructure will take time to repair. Insurance premiums and food prices may stay high for some time.
Pacific foreign ministers have left open the possibility of more direct measures if fuel security isn’t assured. These haven’t been determined, but joint purchases of fuel could be on the table if political and practical challenges can be overcome.
Australia has indicated its priority is to monitor the situation in the Pacific and engage with Pacific partners. In a recent round of “fuel diplomacy” in Asian markets, Australia called for continued attention to the Pacific’s unique energy security needs.
But difficult choices lie ahead.
Access to affordable, reliable energy is one of the world’s sustainable development goals, and Pacific communities deserve no less.
The region and its partners will need to find a way to respond to the immediate crisis without worsening the longer-term and much larger threat posed by climate change.
Before this year’s crisis, many leaders were focused on reducing fossil fuel imports and boosting energy self-reliance through renewables. The goal was to be the first region to run on 100% renewables.
Fuel security is the most pressing problem today. But the broader goal is still clear. Pacific energy ministers recently reaffirmed the goal of a 100% renewable energy future and agreed to accelerate the rollout.
The world’s continued reliance on fossil fuels created the conditions for both crises. Only reducing the world’s reliance on fossil fuels will solve them.
Hugo Temby has received funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program. He is also vice president of the Canberra Environment Centre.
Joel Nilon was previously the Pacific Regionalism Adviser at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, where he worked on regional policy frameworks.
Divers have observed just a ‘couple of dozen’ of the cephalopods along the heritage-listed Cuttlefish Coast in South Australia, causing locals and marine scientists to worry
Mid-June is usually the peak time for giant Australian cuttlefish to gather near Whyalla, in South Australia’s Spencer gulf.
Nearly every year, they come in their thousands – and sometimes hundreds of thousands – to assemble in the shallows to breed. It’s a globally unique natural phenomenon, celebrated locally as “Cuttlefest”.
As flood waters rose in Brisbane’s West End in February 2022, Brendon Donohue was trapped alone in his second-storey apartment for 10 days. The 33-year-old is legally blind and his movement is limited by Peters plus syndrome. He received evacuation alerts on his phone in the middle of the night. But with the lift, intercom and front entrance shut down he had no safe way out of the building.
“It was terrifying,” he says. “The whole street was badly impacted with water. The power went out, which made me not able to contact anyone. I ran out of food but couldn’t get any into the building.”
