WA Grants to Grow Farmers Markets: What the Funding Signals and What It Doesn't

WA Grants to Grow Farmers Markets: What the Funding Signals — and What It Doesn’t In July 2025, the Australian Farmers’ Markets Association (AFMA) announced new Western Australian grants aimed at growing the farmers market sector in the state. On the surface, the announcement sounds familiar: support for farmers markets, growth, resilience, and community benefit. But when read carefully, the program reveals something more important than the funding itself — it shows how governments now define a “legitimate” farmers market. This article breaks down what the WA grants can realistically be used for, what evidence shows works, and where the structural gaps remain for operators and traders. What the WA grants are actually designed to support The WA funding initiative is not a trader grant and not an income support measure. It is a market-level capability program. The focus of the funding is on markets as infrastructure, not on individual stalls. From the AFMA announcement and supporting context, the grants are designed to support: • Market establishment and expansion Funding is aimed at helping new farmers markets launch in under-served regions, or enabling established markets to expand their operational footprint. This includes markets that already demonstrate demand, not speculative pop-ups. • Governance and operational capability A strong emphasis is placed on markets having defined structures — clear management entities, documented rules, compliance systems, and accountability. This reflects a long-term shift away from informal or ad-hoc models. • Producer access to market The grants are intended to strengthen direct-to-consumer channels for WA farmers and food producers, particularly those who rely on farmers markets as a primary route to market. • Long-term sector resilience Rather than short activations, the program supports markets that operate consistently and are embedded in their communities over time. What this tells operators clearly: funding is aligned to institutional maturity, not scale, hype, or volume. What we now know works — based on evidence Across Australia and New Zealand, similar programs over the past decade have produced consistent outcomes. The WA approach reflects those lessons. 1. Markets with strong governance attract support Markets that can demonstrate insurance coverage, food safety coordination, stallholder agreements, and clear leadership are far more likely to align with funding priorities. Informal markets struggle not because they lack community support, but because they lack structural clarity. 2. Producer-led markets outperform mixed models Farmers markets with a genuine grower base are consistently favoured by policy bodies. Markets that drift too far into general retail or lifestyle categories lose their alignment with food security, regional development, and agricultural policy objectives. 3. Consistency matters more than size Weekly or fortnightly markets with a predictable presence outperform large but irregular events when it comes to funding justification. Longevity, repeat attendance, and embedded community use are key indicators. 4. Markets framed as public infrastructure are taken seriously Funding bodies increasingly view farmers markets as part of local food systems, not entertainment offerings. Markets that position themselves accordingly — in language, governance, and practice — gain credibility. What does not work — and continues to cause confusion 1. Expecting grants to flow to traders These WA grants do not provide direct financial support to stallholders. There are no equipment subsidies, stall fee rebates, or trader payments built into the program. Any trader benefit is indirect, coming from better-run, more stable markets. 2. Operating without compliance maturity Markets without clear insurance arrangements, food safety coordination, or council engagement are structurally misaligned with the intent of the funding. Volunteer energy alone is no longer enough. 3. Ambiguous public communication One of the biggest weaknesses remains how funding is communicated. The language of “growth” and “support” often leads traders and new organisers to assume personal or immediate benefit, when the reality is structural and long-term. This gap between policy intent and sector understanding continues to create frustration. What this means for market operators For operators, the WA grants are less about the money and more about the message. The signal is clear: • Structure matters • Governance matters • Consistency matters Markets that want to survive — with or without grants — must operate as credible, professional entities. Funding is no longer about enthusiasm alone; it is about readiness. What this means for traders For traders, it is important to be realistic. These grants will not put cash in your pocket. What they can do is improve: • market stability • operational quality • long-term viability Better markets create better trading environments — but they do not replace the need for sound individual business planning. A broader shift the sector should not ignore Western Australia’s approach mirrors a national trend. Farmers markets are increasingly treated as part of food security, regional resilience, and agricultural policy, not as weekend lifestyle events. This shift brings opportunity — but also higher expectations. Markets that evolve with this reality will find support. Those that don’t may find themselves excluded, regardless of popularity. Source Australian Farmers’ Markets Association (AFMA), WA grants to grow farmers market sector in the West, July 2025 https://farmersmarkets.org.au/wa-grants-to-grow-farmers-market-sector-in-the-west/