Advocacy in Horticulture at the AIPH Industry Conference in Sydney

Panel speakers exchange views on market concentration and advocacy during the Sydney conference session.

Third in a three-part series, insights from the AIPH Horticultural Industry Conference in Sydney on 10 March show how the industry is moving toward more coordinated, strategic responses to production, market, and societal demands.

For an industry built on planting landscapes, shaping home environments and supplying flowers for gifting and everyday life, much of its future now depends on something less visible: its ability to influence the conditions in which it operates, from market access and regulation to public views and policy.

As production becomes more constrained and markets more complex, advocacy is no longer limited to representation. It is becoming a core function in how the sector secures recognition, manages risk, and retains the conditions for growth.

At the AIPH Horticultural Industry Conference in Sydney, a clear message emerged: effective advocacy is long-term, resource-demanding and increasingly structured.

Structuring relationships in concentrated markets

In Australia, advocacy is increasingly focused on managing concentration within the retail outlet landscape.

Nick Hutchinson, Chairman of Greenlife Industry Australia, described how engagement with Bunnings, the country’s dominant plant retail outlet, has evolved as growers respond to the commercial pressures created by this highly concentrated retail market.

Growers reported mixed experiences: some benefited from stable volumes and strong relationships, while others faced uncertainty around pricing, reliance on forecasts and limited contractual clarity.

Rather than escalating conflict, the industry moved to formalise the relationship.

As Hutchinson explained, the role of Greenlife Industry Australia was not to challenge concentration directly, but to create structure around it, acting as a convenor of growers’ concerns and a builder of practical frameworks.

Through this approach, growers’ concerns were translated into structured mechanisms, including a Statement of Principles, a formal working group and an independent arbitration process.

The objective was not to rely on improved goodwill, but to reduce commercial uncertainty by establishing clearer guardrails.

As Hutchinson noted, “the question is not whether concentration exists, but how it is managed.”

This reflects a broader shift in how advocacy is understood. Markets do not stabilise when relationships change, but when systems do. In a sector facing rising costs and increasing risk, predictability becomes essential not only for stability, but for unlocking investment.

Panel discussion at the AIPH Horticultural Industry Conference in Sydney, moderated by Tim Briercliffe, AIPH Secretary General, with speakers including Nick Hutchinson (Greenlife Industry Australia), Leonardo Capitanio (AIPH President), Victor Santacruz (Canadian Nursery Landscape Association), and José Antonio Restrepo (Asocolflores).

Building value and social licence

Turning to Canada, advocacy has focused on positioning ornamental horticulture within both policy frameworks and public perception.

Victor Santacruz of the Canadian Nursery Landscape Association described a long-term effort to secure recognition of ornamentals as part of agriculture, a shift that unlocked access to risk management programmes and infrastructure investment.

This was achieved not through a single campaign, but through sustained engagement with policymakers, supported by research demonstrating the functional value of plants.

“You have to be active; to be at the table and consistently engaged in stakeholder groups,” Santacruz said, reflecting on the importance of long-term engagement.

Alongside this, the sector invested in building public support. Separate foundations were established to promote the environmental and social benefits of plants, generating an estimated $30 to 40 million in media coverage from relatively modest investment.

The approach embodies a key principle: advocacy does not operate only through policy. It also depends on public comprehension and approval.

Coordinating systems beyond the farm gate

For Colombian exporters, advocacy operates at the intersection of logistics, government and trade.

José Antonio Restrepo Rada, Chairman of Asocolflores and newly elected AIPH Board member, described the level of coordination required to supply international markets.

At peak periods, the Colombian industry operates as a highly organised system, bringing together government authorities, logistics providers, security forces and thousands of workers to manage export flows. During key seasons such as Valentine’s Day, this can involve around 60 cargo flights per day and more than 12,000 truck movements over a two-week period.

Labour is a critical part of this system. The ability to mobilise and coordinate a large workforce within tight timeframes is essential to maintaining reliability and meeting international demand.

“If we are not well organised and working together with multiple partners, we are not going to succeed,” Restrepo said.

At the same time, exporters continue to face trade barriers, particularly in the United States, with tariffs and associated costs estimated at around $200 million. Dealing with these pressures requires ongoing engagement with policymakers to sustain competitiveness in global markets.

This highlights that in horticulture, market access depends not only on production and logistics, but also on the policy environments that enable or restrict trade.

Advocacy under pressure: crisis and community

Shifting to Italy, advocacy has been determined by crisis.

Leonardo Capitanio, AIPH President and Italian nurseryman, reflected on the industry’s response to the outbreak of Xylella fastidiosa, a bacterial plant pathogen that has caused widespread and long-term damage across southern Italy, with meaningful economic and landscape impact, most notably in olive production and also affecting ornamental crops.

Initial containment measures required the removal of all plants within a 300-metre radius of infected sites, causing substantial losses for growers and nurseries. Through sustained engagement with regional, national and European authorities, the industry succeeded in reducing this requirement to 50 metres.

“Trust takes time — it has to be built every day,” Capitanio said.

The outcome demonstrates a central lesson from the advocacy panel: effective advocacy often depends upon aligning industry needs with wider societal interests.

Advocacy as a strategic discipline

Across the panel discussion and wider conference contributions, a consistent set of lessons emerged.

Advocacy requires long-term investment in relationships, underpinned by credibility built over time. It also demands strategic focus — understanding where engagement will have the greatest impact, and where it will not.

As Victor Santacruz noted, success is not only about pushing harder, but about directing effort effectively.

“What does it cost you not to have advocacy?” was a question posed during the panel, reframing the issue from cost to consequence.

The cost of advocacy is real. But as several speakers made clear, the cost of not engaging is often far greater, whether through restricted market access, regulatory constraints or unmanaged risk.

Aligning plant health across borders

Beyond the panel discussion, a further dimension of advocacy emerged at the conference: the need for greater alignment in how plant health is managed internationally.

Dr Audrey Timm presented AIPH’s Unified Framework for Plant Health, an externally audited, systems-based approach to managing plant health in ornamental production.

The framework has been introduced to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and is being advanced through AIPH’s Plant Health Forum, bringing together existing voluntary standards.

The objective is not harmonisation for its own sake, but alignment, enabling more consistent approaches across borders as trade volumes increase.

For Jack Goossens, AIPH Vice-President and interim Chair of the Plants and Flowers Foundation Holland, this shows a wider challenge for the sector. As trade volumes increase, differences between national systems become more visible and more consequential, moulding both risk and market access.

Speaking from the Dutch perspective, where coordinated industry marketing and communication play a central role in supporting demand, he pointed to the need for greater harmony not only in plant health systems, but across how the sector presents itself and operates internationally.

In this context, coordination is not solely technical. It is strategic, forming part of how the industry maintains both the movement of plants and the conditions for demand.

A more coordinated future

Across this three-part series, a clear direction has emerged.

• Production is becoming more constrained.
• Markets are becoming more complex.
• And the industry’s response is becoming more organised.

Advocacy is now central to this shift, not as a reaction, but as a structured, strategic activity shaping how horticulture operates.

For growers, this does not remove uncertainty. But it does begin to provide a framework for managing that uncertainty.

More from the AIPH Horticultural Industry Conference

This article concludes a three-part series exploring key themes shaping global horticulture, from production pressures and market dynamics to coordinated industry responses.