The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Dont forget the farmers...

Dont forget the farmers...

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
As a country business owner, I have great sympathy for the points that CG makes. However, with respect to water, land and agriculture I think it's past time that we take a very hard look at whether or not certain types of agriculture will ever be sustainable in parts of the country where they currently barely survive.

Yes, it will be difficult for many to walk off the family farm, but the fact is that there was a demographic trend in this direction even before the current water crisis. While I certainly feel for the poor bastards who try against all odds to survive against drought, poor soils and rapacious transnational agribusiness, perhaps the time has come for us to get real about the true prospects for agriculture in unsustainable parts of the country.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 3:10:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goddess, I guess I am not really looking at kickstarting a rural recovery at this point, just short-term survival! Certainly longer-term solutions need to be looked, but if we dont do something drastic, we are looking at not only losing large numbers of farmers in the worst affected areas, but also the death of country towns. The flow-on effect is starting to become very heavy for a large number of country busines owners (and ultimately their employees).

CJ, I know where you are coming from. We need a reassessment of the capability of some areas in light of this drought, which has rewritten the history books. One of the issues that is going to come out of this is how to help those farmers whose land values are likely to fall (some significantly) once a revaluation of the lands capacity is made.

James, perhaps as part of the re-evaluation of land use, we could look at the potential for carbon-capture by the soil, or planting drought-tolerant shrubs/trees to assist in carbon-capture, then remunerate farmers for looking after these carbon sinks (eventually this can become a part of a carbon-trading scheme, but might need support in its early days). The other alternative is more along the lines of what you have suggested, and remunerate farmers for conservation of the land. Again, there will be an issue of ensuring that remuneration is enough to survive on, but not so much as to artificially inflate land values. Europe appears to have gone down this path, and recognises that farmers can contribute more than just production, that the community as a whole benefits from their custodianship of the land.

We need to come up with some creative solutions to the issue, both to solve the deepening short-term crisis, and to address the issues that this has raised in the long-term.
Posted by Country Gal, Thursday, 30 August 2007 10:19:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Country Gal,

I had a few questions about the water rights/allocation issue.

Who do farmers buy water rights/allocations from?
What exactly are they buying?
Is it a contract for the supply of water?
Have farmers considered legal avenues to reclaim their money for unused/unavailable water?

Thanks
Posted by Tristan, Thursday, 30 August 2007 11:20:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Tristan,

Hope I address all your questions....note these are in relation to NSW - am not 100% on the other states

1. Water is bought from State Water (responsible for delivery and maintenance of systems). Often through a bulk intermediary such as Murray Irrigation.

2. There are two components to water costs - entitlement charge (designed to cover the cost of infrastructure) and usage charge (designed to cover the cost of delivery.

3. Its an entitlement to a certain amount of water based on full availability, and access to less water if overall allocations are cut (eg due to drought)

4. Not sure, I imagine there are some that have considered this option, but cost would be a limiting factor. Not sure of the legal entitlements under the supply agreement either. These could potentially vary between valleys (ie river systems)

If you look at the stats on the State Water website and the IPART website (that set the prices for the next 4 years from 1/10/06), the following interesting information comes out:
- State water delivers 14000Gl pa, 5000GL to bulk users (irrigators) and 9000GL to the environment. So irrigators get 35% of water flows. I am not sure whether town water supplies are included in this.
- Environmental compliance costs are borne 50% each by users and government (despite the fact that the environment gets 65% of the water, so I argue that the government (people) should be paying for this.
- Fixed charges (entitlement charges) comprise 70% of cost initially, 50% in 06/07 and 40% from 08/09 - so we are moving in a good direction as far as not paying for something that you dont get.
Posted by Country Gal, Thursday, 30 August 2007 12:49:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country_Gal

I knew why I had that thought, there was/is a pilot programme out west doing exactly what we are discussing.

This is the first article I could find out about it:

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1734603.htm
Posted by James Purser, Thursday, 30 August 2007 12:55:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting read James. I must have missed that Landline. I've lived out in the country they are talking about.

Some other issues flow from this:
1. $10,000 is not enough to live off, but it does contribute towards the cost of conservation. There needs to be some decisions made about what is conservation and what the community is willing to pay for. So long as farmers can make a living from balancing conservation and production, the idea may work.

2. Destocking is not always the best solution. Anyone who had seen the masses of kangaroos descend on destocked paddocks out in that western district in 2002 would know that simply destocking is not going to preserve your groundcover. IN addition to that, if you completely destock, rather than retain and feed your breeding stock, then you risk a number of things. (a) introducing weeds and diseases onto your property (not such an issue if you regularly buy stock, but if you produce your own lines then you are taking a big risk), and (b) degrading of quality of stock - you can only buy in someone else's culls.

I found the comments about ripping claypans interesting - that has the potential to cause wind erosion if you dont get the timing just right. My family tackled the many claypans on their property (that had been there since at least 1898 when purchased) by a gradual process of tipping the tails from lamb-marking onto the pans. The decomposing tails caught seed and gave it a chance to strike. Not a pretty solution (and not one you want too close to your house - the smell aint great), but avoids the risk of erosion and gives you a use for the by-product. Dad wont rip rabbit warrens for the same reason and sticks to fumigating instead.
Posted by Country Gal, Thursday, 30 August 2007 3:24:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy