Reality bites the “grand visions” of Northern Development – again
|
Today the Northern Australia Land & Water Taskforce will release its latest Report into the development of large-scale agriculture in Australia’s north. The Taskforce has effectively put the kybosh on any expansion of irrigated agriculture and the development of dams across our great northern rivers. The idea of developing a bounteous “food bowl” that could ensure Australia’s food security long into the future has been a recurring political dream for decades. But like most dreams they usually get mugged by the grim realities of science and economics – or just turn into nightmares. And there is no shortage of examples of previous failures of broad-scale agriculture across the north to fuel a healthy skepticism about these “grand visions”. But the lure of grand northern development for politicians and the uninformed is simple and attractive – “We’ve got lots of water, lots of land and there must be something we can grow on that.” It is an easy political sell – most Australians know so little about anywhere west of the Great Dividing Range or north of the Tropic of Capricorn that you could tell them that kangaroos hopped down the streets of Darwin, Broome and Cairns and they’d believe it. The Land & Water Taskforce is the most recent of a long line of government enquiries and investigations that have tried to find a way to unlock the mysterious economic potential of northern agriculture. Established by John Howard in 2007, the first chair of the Land & Water Taskforce was southern farmer and politician Senator Bill Heffernan. Shortly after his appointment in 2007 Heffernan told the Sydney Morning Herald about his personal “grand vision”:
But for all Heffernan’s skills as a booster of broad-scale agriculture and development in the north he was dumped as Chairman of the Taskforce soon after the Rudd government came to power. And reality started to bite big-time as the science came in. As NT Environment Centre Coordinator and Taskforce member Stuart Blanch told the ABC in September last year following the release of a key CSIRO report into water resources in the north:
But for many in the north there is little new in the Report’s recommendations – there has long been a healthy skepticism about these grand visions in these parts.
As Bruce Davidson pointed out as long ago as 1965 in his thorough examination of the prospects of northern agricultural and pastoral development in his book, The Northern Myth, it is not just about land and water:
A year later in his book The Struggle for the North, J. H. Kelly wrote:
But all is not (totally) lost – as the NT Environment Centre’s Stuart Blanch told the ABC, we need to be a bit more imaginative in our assessment of the north’s potential. The north can be: “… a great place for nature conservation refuge, it can be a great storer of carbon in its forests, it can be a great global tourism and fishing icon,” he said. |
|
|
|
13 Comments
A pretty weak rebuttal of the Northern Rivers myth, if it is indeed a myth. Surely the onset of disruptive climate change in the Murray-Datling Basin is forcing a re-evaluation of Bruce Davidson[’s 1965 dogmatic opportunity-cost economics conclusion quoted here? A ”given combination of land, labour, water and capital” is not doing so well these day along the climate-stressed Murray, Murrumbidgee, Lachlan or Victorian feeder Rivers. For goodness’ sake, get real!
And the other argument put by Stuart Blanch that ‘We simply don’t have the amount of water and land up here to spread irrigation without doing major damage to our rivers, and to the countryside”” is a typical Greens-oriented philosophy of change nothing in nature, do nothing in nature. The Murray Darling food basin -wilting now because of disruptive climate change and poor water management policies, but in its heyday a magnificent human achievement which grew and sustained flourishing rural communities we can be proud of - would never have been buiilt under that philosophy.
I am not a believer in the northern myth, but if it is going to be debunked, you’ll need stronger arguments than this. I am sure that 30 to 50 million Asian peasant farmers used to doing it tough would find ways to grow their food sustainably in our northern rivers region if they had to. They do it now, in equally dry and inhospitable rural regions in countries like India or Cambodia. I have been there, and seen it.
Tony, how long did the Murray-Darling “heyday” last? 100 years at most? How many agricultural civilisations do we know of that only lasted 100 years? That isn’t even an eyeblink. However, the ecological damage done to the Murray-Darling will be - well, forever to the point where it won’t even be damage anymore but a completely reconfigured ecosystem. Why would we want to do the same thing to the north which is literally the last remaining intact tropical savanna in the world? And as for India and Cambodia - they have mountains that hold snow pack and generate fertile soil for the lush floodplains of the Indus and Mekong, rivers that are orders of magnitude larger than any river system in northern Australia.
I don’t think Stuart was suggesting doing nothing to nature - in fact what he’s proposing when he says “carbon sequestration” is very interventionist - nothing less than broad-scale fire management to reduce late-dry-season fires and increase carbon sequestration. Perhaps it’s time to start listening to the “typical Greens-oriented philosophy”, maybe they have something to say.
I second Tony Kevin’s broad query. Maybe it is true but I am no wiser as to why farming is impossible across the top of Australia. On the other hand, like Syzygium I am wary of the likes of Heffernan who, after his ilk wrecking the MDB (and WA wheatbelt) by running purely short-termist extractivist farming, would happily do the same in the north — if the government helped with the usual endless subsidies of course. His pleas of “feeding the extra billions of the world” is particularly suspect.
Also I do not understand how the north could be a great store of carbon in forest, yet be unsuitable for any sort of farming.
I can answer the second part easiest - for much of the north, most fires occur in the late dry season (August - November) when fire temperatures are hotter and burn more biomass, leading to more carbon being released into the atmosphere. If we were to burn earlier in the dry season (and it has to be “us” as there are no natural sources of ignition at this time of year), less biomass will burn. So, investing in more widespread controlled burning in the early dry season across the north would reduce carbon emissions and, eventually, increase carbon sequestration as tree cover increases. This might also have knock-on benefits for biodiversity and employment in remote communities. Those interested in learning more can check out the West Arnhemland Fire Abatement project (WALFA) at http://www.savanna.org.au/all/walfa.html.
The second, I’m less knowledgeable about, except to say, the soils are very poor, mean evaporation exceeds precipitation for 7 or so months of the year, and it has been tried, and tried again - as far back as the first settlements in the early 1800s.
Humpy Doo, Ord cotton. Nuff said.
If you haven’t actually been into the Gulf region or flown over it, make a little armchair visit via Google Earth. Yes, the rivers have massive flows in the wet, but as for any suitable topography for building large-scale even moderately deep dams to minimise evaporation losses - there isn’t any. It is mind-bendingly flat.
As I understand it many of the historic failures in the Ord had to do with pests, and the fact that it is quite a different environment to what Australian farmers are used to. That doesn’t mean it cannot be done, just that it cannot be done in the same old way.
As for the water argument, and the flatness, ok. But Canada and the US central plains are frozen over for about 4 months of the year and that does not stop these being among the world’s largest producers and exports of grains.
The poor soils may be more difficult to counter though the world is going to have to conquer that issue because nutrients are being lost from all soils subject to modern intensive agriculture.
Clearly a lot of agriculture in Australia should never be expected to be the same as in Europe but it doesn’t seem we displaced Europeans have the nous to adapt — just to exploit until nothing is left.
“The North Will Not be Mocked”. Well that was the mantra for a week or so from my boss (Chief Agronomist of the old NTA) after he regaled us with a story over afternoon tea of a copper mine in the Daly river and how after 10 years of effort the ship hit a reef and sank off QLD so nothing got to market.
Me, a young agronomist running a few trials on Tipperary - that was OK as only American money was being wasted, yet was concerned about Scot Creek and the loss of Australian monies. Not all of the failures were due to the environment, but also to the lack infrastructure and knowledge both technical and experiential
If we are going to develop, walk slowly. Send the promoters south, but keep their money. Look carefully at the local conditions, (rat plagues, yes as well), as things are not oftennot like what you may be accustomed too.
There are not the huge areas of relatively flat ground for broad area cropping. Yet niche farming systems should work. Likewise, what is this fixation on large scale irrigation? Do not neglect the potential for dryland farming or for local water harvesting.
Those developments were like trying to grow wheat in the wheat belt of WA with out any infrastructure, CBH, and little knowledge of trace elements. New land agriculture.
Technology has moved on, ZeroTill allows cropping with much less erosion. That was a huge problem, creeks silted up in 2 -3 years. Development should have been limited to less than 0.5% grade for full cut out. Also what do we grow - cellulose for fuel? Some grasses (weeds) grow very well.
Talk very carefully with those who were there. Some of the stories are not quite as the public record would suggest.
Grand plans - ” The North Will not be Mocked” will fail. Good land title and security, (not a small issue), some rummaging of the archives, bring experienced farmers and R&D people in. But also look at the social and shipping costs. There is also the small issue of the subsidies of agriculture screwing the prices down. And of course re read Davidson in this context. He was a very good lecturer.
A review of the history of development in Esperance would be useful as well with respect to innovation, ownership and resourcing.
A couple of quotes from Davidson’s The Northern Myth point to two issues (of the several in addition to the focus on water in the Taskforce report) that he says will always constrain agricultural development in the north.
At p. 41 “The most striking feature of the climate of tropical Australia is that the growing season is no longer than that found on the fringes of cultivation in India and Africa and is far less reliable” and from p. 61 “The total area of land where development might be possible in the Kimberleys and the NT is only twice that found in Tasmania and is in three distinct and isolated areas, the Fitzroy irrigation area and the Ord irrigation areas in WA and the Katherine-Darwin area in the NT.”
Davidson’s work may well be 45 years old and dated in parts but, as HolmesJC notes, “he was a very good lecturer” and many of his observations are based on rigorous research and consideration and can still inform debate on these matters today.
Thanks Bob Gosford for a very useful story. Not least informing some of the underpinning heat but less light in the Qld Wild Rivers saga.
The recent speech by Mr Pearson to an event with the US ambassador on tv last night, obviously being positioned to meet Barak Obama as a fellow coloured jurist, calls up the whole Wik extinguishment, let the developers run wild agenda up there.
Pearson has gone from a ferocious defender of native title to a significant critic - and that discussion is profound, interesting and indeed historic. All good fodder for a sophisticate like … our current POTUS. No doubt. (speaking as a satellite of modern rome to be sure, to be sure).
No, there aren’t too many suitable dam sites. But there are a lot of highly porous aquifers. It might be worth looking at the possibilities for storage of large volumes of wet-season runoff.
Also, poor soils are widespread in northern Australia, but they’re not ubiquitous. Many of the black soil plains and areas of outcropping or subcropping Cambrian basalt are potentially quite fertile.
RE porous aquifers - Additional to my comments above, saw that on the Tipperary Sorghum project where poor R&D and a miss match of assumed flows and actual delivery resulting in a drop from 90K gph to 30K gph resulting in a lot of dry sorghum half way to heading. With out good knowledge, can get into strife.
Caution in development please, yet local water harvesting may assist. Very easy to stuff up the environment though. Not a place for corporate large scale agriculture, need the detailed care and on ground presence which make family farms more robust.
Poor soil?, compared with some WA productive wheat belt sands, many are quite good. Just not on a slope for dryland farming. Access can be difficult in wet, as creeks can yoyo with each night’s storm and getting to the next paddock is not always possible, if you do not get bogged first.
A pleasure during the wet is to find that just ripe volunteer water melon before the crows or pigs do. Just make sure you dump some seed for the next crop. Yes, the pigs selectively ate some of my trials as some herbicides made the sorghum sweeter.
In 1980 I worked on Tipperary Station for a couple of weeks Hay cutting (Sugar Grass??) using old left over John Deere tractors. There is vast potential to grow improved pasture/hay crops to feed greatly increased cattle numbers using cell grazing. But the land in the Daly Basin can not be developed because of a land clearing moratorium. Not wholesale clearing but selective clearing keeping away from water courses.
For 17 years I have tried to grow commercial citrus 60 Kms from Darwin. I may and it is a big may succeed with one type of red grapefruit and one type of mandarin but at 55 either I or the trees will die first.
A contractor is using part of my land to grow trial high quality hay crops. He is succeeding but it is only a niche market.
Mangoes are the great success story. Even I can grow them. They are ideal, tough forgiving trees. In this environment commercially they only need irrigation for 3 months. There are many large family owned commercially successful large orchards.
Very many Australians of vietnamese and cambodian extraction make a living growing asian vegetables, living in caravans and sheds, using a grow , leave a mess and move, grow again methodology.
Dylan Walters