Introduction
9.1
Australian farmers manage 51 per cent of the nation’s land mass and the National Farmers Federation (NFF) noted that ‘farmers are at the frontline of delivering environmental outcomes on behalf of the Australian community.’ While this certainly creates challenges it also creates opportunities through the potential of carbon farming. Reliable access to water is the other key environmental challenge which could impact on the sector’s progress towards the $100 billion by 2030 target.
9.2
This chapter will consider issues surrounding agriculture’s use of land, water, and the environment and how these could affect the sector’s growth potential. Specifically, it will look at: water use and potential options to increase access, efficiency, and storage; the potential impacts of climate change; options to reduce carbon emissions and sequester carbon through carbon farming; access to land; improving the health of Australian soils; chemical use and regulation; and access to pollination by honey bees.
Review of the Evidence
Water Access and Use
9.3
The Murrumbidgee Valley Food and Fibre Association highlighted the importance of water in driving agricultural growth estimating that each megalitre of water in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area delivered an economic value of up to $6213.
9.4
The Ricegrowers Association of Australia (RAA) also highlighted the indirect impacts of water policy stating that the current policy settings for irrigated agriculture are creating a level of uncertainty that is ‘delaying that succession of family farms through to the next generation and slowing the innovation to take us through to the goal of [$100 billion by] 2030.’
9.5
The Griffith Business Council (GBC) argued that while there were parts of the country that could be developed with new crops the ‘real opportunity –the low-hanging fruit is by bringing the most productive areas back into full production.’ The GBC argued that water management was the key barrier to fully utilising existing areas stating ‘the water is there; it just needs to be managed properly’. The GBC added that technology existed that could allow for more accurate monitoring and management of the Murray-Darling system but that there was a lack of compliance, stating ‘the laws are there; we just need to enforce the laws.’
9.6
Dried Fruits Australia (DFA) highlighted the particular importance of water to horticulture, as horticulture involves permanent plantings and so water is needed to keep the trees or vines alive for future years. DFA added:
Availability, deliverability, reliabilitythey are the key messages. For all growers in horticulture with permanent plantings, whether its grapes, citrus, or almonds, the reality is that water availability, reliability, and deliverability is critical. If we don’t have that, none of us have industries.
9.7
The Australian Table Grapes Association (ATGA) described the impact water shortages were having on the horticulture industry in New South Wales:
...family farmers are turning off their permanent horticultural plantings, not because their operations are unviable but simply because there is no water in the lower Darling. How, as a nation, can we be expected to reach $100 billion in agricultural production by 2030 when family farmers do not have access to water? Without changes in water policy, Australia will dismally fail in its ambition of growing agriculture to $100 billion by 2030.
9.8
Similarly, Citrus Australia described water policy and infrastructure as impeding development of the citrus industry, stating that ‘in a period where the citrus export trade is at its peak and delivering some of the highest returns on investment in the Murray Valley, growers are currently turning off irrigation to their permanent plantings.’
9.9
Farmers for Climate Action (FCA) highlighted the impact that climate change is set to have on water access, stating that it will result in ‘less water availability for irrigators, river communities and the environment. These changes will require farmers, industry and government to invest in improving preparation, response and recovery from periods of reduced inflows.’
Box 9.1: Rainfall in Australia
The Committee commissioned research from the Parliamentary Library on rainfall trends in Australia. The Parliamentary Library drew on research undertaken by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.
Northern Australia: The northern Australian ‘supercluster’ region includes most of northern Queensland as well as the northern half of the Northern Territory and the Kimberley region. Natural variability in this region is ‘projected to remain the major driver in rainfall changes in the next few decades.’ While there is uncertainty in the future projections of total rainfall in northern Australia, there is a ‘high confidence’ that there will be ‘a future increase in the intensity of extreme rainfall events.
Southern Australia: The southern Australia supercluster region includes Victoria, Tasmania, southern New South Wales, southern South Australia, and southwestern Western Australia. In this region natural variability is predicted to dominate over global warming trends in the years to 2030. Nevertheless, there is a high confidence of winter and spring rainfall decreases, with projections of 15 per cent decreases by 2030. There is also a high confidence of increased intensity of extreme rainfall events.
Water efficiency
9.10
Charles Sturt University (CSU) stated that Australia was ‘not using our water as smartly as we could’ and that there was significant potential for water savings, particularly in urban areas. CSU also highlighted the potential of water recycling and noted that in ‘Israel 80 per cent of irrigation water is recycled.’
9.11
The Australian Fresh Produce Alliance (AFPA) stated water innovations in the horticulture sector have not only focussed on efficiency but also on capture, reuse, and recycling of water. The AFPA added that ‘over the last decade the citrus industry has almost halved its use of water per hectare of crop by investing in highly precise and accurate drip irrigation.’
9.12
The RAA suggested that a two per cent efficiency increase in water management across the Murray Darling Basin could translate to 400,000 megalitres of extra water available to the rice industry in NSW. In addition, the RAA stated that ricegrowing had become much more water efficient in recent years and now used ‘drill sowing rice and flushing rather than ponding lie you would see in Asian countries’.
9.13
Protected Cropping Australia highlighted the water efficiency of hydroponically produced protected crops, stating that fruit and vegetables grown in the open ground average 38L of water for each dollar produced, whereas hydroponic crops use only 0.6L per dollar.
9.14
The Central NSW Joint Organisation (Central NSW JO) advocated for the upgrade of the Wyangala Dam due to the improvements in water security it would bring despite not increasing the overall quantity of water available. This could allow a greater proportion of high-security water allocations, which could provide the certainty farmers need to make investments such as building greenhouses to grow higher value crops.
9.15
Tasmanian Irrigation (TI) drew attention to the importance of water security for farmers, stating:
Farmers need high-reliability irrigation water to underpin their ongoing investment, to expand, to diversify, to value-add, resulting in the creation of additional jobs and enhancing business profitability and much-needed investment back into our regions. Effectively what TI delivers is not just water but reliability; its certainty. That’s what we sell, and that’s what people buy.
Water Trading
9.16
The Australian Nut Industry Council (ANIC) stated that the Murray Darling Basin Plan is critical to the success of the nut industry and described it as generally working well ‘to allocate scarce water to those crops that produce the highest revenue to the community.’ The ANIC added, however, that it was concerned about a lack of transparency around the actions of traders and brokers. Further, the ANIC was concerned about the issuing of new licences which it suggested put in jeopardy the surety of supply for existing irrigators, it added that it ‘supports a moratorium on new water licences until a review of delivery capacity is undertaken.’
9.17
Citrus Australia described the purpose of market trading systems for water to be to ‘efficiently manage the allocation and reallocation of water among competing users.’ Citrus Australia, added however, that there was a need for a ‘compulsory central trading platform’ as speculation in the water market was creating problems, stating:
An unregulated water market (with legislation that has enabled speculators to take advantage of our most important resource) represents a strong impediment to growth for the citrus industry. Currently, foreign ownership and the unconscionable conduct of some water traders and brokers, allows profiteering through speculation on the water market. At the same time, regional communities suffer, families lose generational farms, unemployment and mental health issues rise, and the environment suffers irreversible impacts. Citrus Australia is of the strong view that water should not be traded as a commodity and that some regulation is needed to remove speculators.
9.18
The AFPA also recommended the implementation of a ‘water policy which provides clear direction as to the security of water rights, their trading and how such rights are used in the production of agricultural commodities.’
9.19
DFA suggested that there was a need to review the assumptions behind the water trading system in the Murray-Darling Basin, stating:
... we’ve got a highly variable basin with anywhere between 1,000 to 40,000 gigalitre inflowsan entirely variable system. It might be timely to review the assumptions behind the introduction of that cap and trade system.
9.20
Urannah Water Scheme (UWS) highlighted the challenges for farmers in competing with industrial water users in Queensland stating that in one area:
There are 15 large-scale mines that use most of the water. They only use that water once every five to seven years but will pay $6,000 a megalitre to lock that up. And so, when you think about regulatory change ... you've got your large industrial users locking up a lot of expensive water ... You have pipes transporting maybe 6,000 megalitres a year, when it can transport 22,000. Why can't we use that water for ag? How do we create a better trading environment? That's the current policy settings, from the National Water Initiative down to the state government. But a miner is not going to change their behaviour for that one-in-seven-year risk that they do need that water back.
Water Projects
9.21
The Australian Government’s Delivering Ag2030 plan includes an additional $2 billion in resourcing for the National Water Infrastructure Fund, increasing total Government investment in the program to $3.5 billion. The Fund will provide investments in water infrastructure over a 10 year period and includes commitments to fund more than 20 water infrastructure projects.
9.22
UWS reported that it was in the completion phase of its final business case for a $3 billion project that would include ‘a new dam, two water pipelines, a renewable energy hub, and ... a $200 million, 22,000 hectare irrigation scheme.’ The UWS is located in the Bowen Basin in northern Queensland. UWS stated that ‘we know dams for dams sake don’t stack up, its only when they are combined with a true vision for broad scale regional economic development that has direct food and energy outcomes that a project can finally progress past the feasibility phase.’
9.23
UWS highlighted the cost of the regulatory approvals needed to build a dam, stating that ‘there’s $100 million dollars there in land, legals, vegetation management, adaptive management, and trying to work out how my aquatic ecologists don’t get eaten by a crocodileall those types of things from a safety perspective.’
9.24
TI described its model to develop irrigation projects in Tasmania, stating it uses a ‘public-private partnership model that has proven to be a great success ... we have already delivered 14 major irrigation projects and we have another under construction and a further 10 on the drawing board.’ TI added that its first tranche of projects involved a $249 million investment that delivered 78,000 megalitres of reliable water, the second tranche of project which is underway is planned to cost $168 million and deliver 27,700 megalitres of water. The third tranche is expected to cost $496 million and will deliver at least 78,000 megalitres.
9.25
TI described the cooperation between state and federal governments and industry as the key factor in the success of the schemes, stating ‘we work out a model that says: if the public invests this amount and the private sector puts this amount with it, normally about 25 per cent of the capital value, then overall this will have an economic benefit to the state.’
9.26
Another important factor is the success of the scheme has been the focus on minimising environmental impacts. TI stated that it either builds off-stream storage or dams on small tributaries but not on major rivers. TI added that:
we work diligently to ensure that developments in our irrigation systems are environmentally sustainable. We have implemented monitoring, mitigating, and minimising any impact of long-term irrigation on threatened species and the broader environment.
9.27
TI also highlighted how critical building community partnerships were to the process of delivering a project. TI added that it seeks to get ‘broad support early on’ and in most cases a push for development by the local community is needed before the project even reaches the stage of asking irrigators to express an interest in purchasing water from the scheme.
9.28
Murray Valley Winegrowers (MVW) stated that there was a need for additional water storage in Victoria and New South Wales to provide greater water security. MVW added that ‘we can’t take any more water out of the river but we could improve the reliability ... it’s not that we need any more irrigation, we need to improve that security by allowing farmers to bank their carryover water in a secure location.’
9.29
The Northern Territory (NT) Government stated that there has never been any plans to damn iconic rivers in the NT but that there was an opportunity to develop off-stream water storage, especially on tributaries of major rivers. The NT Government explained that the NT gets rainfall levels at least as high as Tasmania but that:
…all runs off within a short period of time; the majority of it goes out to sea. There needs to be some science to determine what is sustainable and what can be harvested, and whether that can be taken off during a high flood event and stored off the river … off-stream storage does present a real opportunity to harvest those large flows.
9.30
The Northern Territory Farmers Association stated that it did not support damming iconic rivers but rather smaller cost-effective infrastructure closer to farms. Similarly, the Kimberley Pilbara Cattlemen’s Association (KPCA) noted that there were currently a lot of discussions around water allocation in the Fitzroy River catchment. KPCA added that:
No-one intends damming the river. It's quite a sensitive topic on cultural and environmental grounds. However, people are wanting to have discussions around good, sensible approaches for sustainable development around surface water, groundwater and good water allocation. It's the off-river storage concepts.
9.31
The National Party of NSW advocated for the development of the Burdekin‑Murray water scheme, a major development that would involve raising the height of the Burdekin Falls Dam, piping water 130 kilometres over the Great Dividing Range, and then using canals to distribute the water into the 22 rivers within the Murray‑Darling system.
9.32
The National Party of NSW advised that currently around 80 per cent of the water in the Burdekin goes over the top of the dam wall and that by increasing the wall a further 9 metres it would be possible to harvest an additional 2,500 gigalitres of water per year. The National Party of NSW stated that the upfront cost of the project is $16 billion with overall economic costs of $18 billion. The project is forecast to deliver economic benefits of $64 billion and therefore deliver a Benefit/Cost Ratio of 3.5.
Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Climate Impacts on Agriculture
9.33
Farmers for Climate Action (FCA) noted that ‘Australian farmers are adaptive land managers with an extensive history of managing climate variability.’ Nevertheless, FCA added that ‘agriculture is more vulnerable to climate impacts than other economic sectors, and projected productivity declines are likely to impact all sectors.’
9.34
AgZero 2030 stated that ‘while Australian farmers are incredibly resilient and innovative when adapting to climate risks, the projections are serious and there are limits to adaptation. [Climate] Mitigation also needs to be factored into Australian agriculture increasing its production in the decade ahead.’
9.35
The Australian Farm Institute (AFI) notes that while the effects of climate change will vary across agricultural sectors, the ‘overall impact is undoubtedly negative and a barrier to improving the sector’s combined value growth rate.’ The AFI added that:
A nationally coordinated policy approach could help address the common issues and build sector-wide resilience. Without transformative, systemic change to adapt to and mitigate climate change, it is unlikely that Australian agriculture will achieve or sustain the required growth to reach the $100 billion target.
9.36
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA) described climate change as ‘possibly the biggest hurdle to reaching the target’ of $100 billion by 2030. The TFGA added that:
Australia’s national climate projections indicate Australia will experience more increases in temperatures, more frequent and longer lasting heat waves, decreased cool-season rainfall in southern regions and increases in the number of fire danger days.
9.37
CSIRO stated that climate change is already impacted on the Australian agricultural sector and will continue to do so ‘regardless of what happens to atmospheric global greenhouse gas levels.’ CSIRO added that ‘the increasing frequency and severity of extended dry spells, associated with increased unpredictability of unseasonable heatwaves and frosts, will impose a noticeable handbrake on growth in farm-gate output, particularly in southern Australia.
9.38
The Australian Society of Plant Scientists reported that the World Bank has projected that Australian agriculture will see a 2.7 per cent drop in yield by 2050 due to the impacts of climate change.
9.39
FCA suggested that recent productivity improvement on farms have been offset by deteriorating conditions, ‘put simply, farmers are working harder to stand still.’ FCA highlighted research by the Australian Farm Institute that found that the following impacts would be experienced by key agriculture sectors:
Beef production in Queensland and the Northern Territory could decline by 19 per cent by 2030 and 33 per cent by 2050
Up to 70 per cent of wine growing regions could be unsuitable for grapes by 2050
Cotton yields could decrease 17 per cent by 2050.
Heat stress could cause cows to reduce milk production by 10 to 25 per cent, or up to 40 per cent in extreme cases. In addition, milk composition can be affected, with a decline in protein, and there is increased risk of udder infection.
9.40
Australian Wool Innovation noted that while ‘Australia has always suffered droughts; climate change is exacerbating their effect on agricultural production.’ Similarly, AgZero 2030 stated that increasing temperatures were exacerbating drought, ‘increasing evaporation on an already drying landscape, worsening fire risk and resulting in productivity losses of plants and livestock due to stress.’ AgZero2030 also noted that the impacts of frosts were increasing ‘with more frosts over a longer time period in inland WA.’
9.41
Rabobank noted the ‘importance of assessing the implications of farm sustainability performance on business profitability, and potential implications for future access to finance.’ Rabobank highlighted that financial institutions factored in the impacts of a changing climate into their risk frameworks and increasingly food processors and manufactures were including sustainability criteria in their supply chain contracts.
9.42
FCA reported that the Reserve Bank had recently identified three main financial risks due to climate change, stating that these were ‘physical risks, transitional risks, and liability risks.’ FCA added that some farms were at risk of becoming ‘uninsurable’ due to climate change.
Reducing Carbon Emissions
9.43
The agriculture sector is Australia’s fourth largest greenhouse gas emitter contributing 12.7 per cent of the country’s total emissions. The NFF’s 2030 Roadmap sets a goal for the agriculture sector to be ‘trending towards carbon neutrality by 2030.’ The NFF suggests that this can be achieved through actions including ‘a strong focus on carbon neutral technologies’ and adoption of the latest research and development.
9.44
The University of Sydney suggested that Australian agriculture is currently emitting greenhouse gases through the loss of carbon from soils and methane production from animals but suggested that the agriculture sector should be able to be ‘at least carbon neutral if not carbon positive.’ In addition, the University of Sydney suggested that if the sector does not improve its carbon emissions there was a risk that it could lose some of its markets as consumers become more concerned with climate change issues.
9.45
The red meat sector has set a strong carbon emissions target, aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. The Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC) stated that the industry had already reduced emissions by 57 per cent between 2005 and 2016 and that research undertaken by the CSIRO suggested that carbon neutrality by 2030 was achievable. The RMAC noted that it is likely to require $200 million in investment into research to achieve the target and stated that government must support the industry in its efforts to achieve carbon neutrality.
Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services
9.46
The NFF has set a 2030 target for ecosystem services to be providing a net benefit equal to 5 per cent of farm revenue.
9.47
NQ Dry Tropics stated that carbon sequestration can be achieved through a number of methods including avoided deforestation, reforestation, grazing herd management, and through soil carbon sequestration. The Soil CRC provided a description of carbon sequestration in soil stating that it is:
…how you increase the amount of carbon in the soil after you take account of the net input and decreases for a season. In any year there will be inputs of soil carbon into the soil through the plants, the plant residues, the plant roots et cetera. There will also be outputs though natural decomposition processes, and you tend to get this balance. If you can manage your system so that you are sequestering carbon, you get a net positive increase in your soil carbon, and that is there, according to some definitions, for a long period, many years.
9.48
The Soil CRC described three main ways to sequester carbon into the soil stating:
The first is increasing the inputs, so leaving the stubble behind, not burning the stubble, and growing bigger crops and pastures—bigger crops and pastures means more roots, and a lot of it comes through root inputs into the soil. There is a range of ways of increasing your biomass production, including lengthening the growing season or going from annual to perennial species where possible. The second is by decreasing the rate of decomposition and by reducing tillage. Cultivation leads to decomposition of soil organic matter. The third is the addition of external inputs, be they manures, mulches, compost, biosolids, biochars et cetera.
9.49
The Australian Land Conservation Alliance (ALCA) stated there was a need for an better understanding of natural capital wealth in order to support farmers to develop ‘revenue streams based on increasing income from flows from ecosystem services.’ In order to achieve this, ALCA stated there was need to develop an ‘accessible and comparable natural capital measurement and accounting framework’.
9.50
ALCA also noted that there were a number of regulatory barriers to farmers participating in ‘emerging markets like carbon, biodiversity and water quality offsets or credits.’ In particular, ALCA called for the opening up of the carbon sequestration market in the Climate Solutions Fund and for regulatory changes to allow ‘income stacking opportunities where farmers could sell more than one ecosystem service onto different markets (e.g. carbon and biodiversity).’ ALCA suggested that there should be a review of the barriers presented by Commonwealth and State policies to greater use of ecosystem services by farmers.
9.51
ClimateWorks Australia suggested that the ‘stewardship of natural systems on private land is valuable and helps to contribute to the health of Australia’s overall economy.’ ClimateWorks Australia added that mainstream business accounting techniques could be adapted to incorporate natural capital, stating that ‘a range of approaches to measuring and valuing natural capital already exist or are emerging, and land managers could be supported to understand and apply them.’
9.52
NQ Dry Tropics reported that there were currently effective methodologies to increase soil carbon but the cost of measuring the changes was reducing the potential economic gains for farmers. NQ Dry Tropics explained:
The problem is scale. You’re talking about fractions of a per cent change in terms of soil carbon. You need to be able to scale that up to make it worthwhile and you need to have methodologies that aren’t crippled by the cost of measurement. That’s one of the big challenges with soil carbon at the moment: the methodology is probably viable, but the costs of being able to measure it, validate it and demonstrate it, in terms of carbon credits, are crippling.
9.53
RMAC stated that ‘more needs to be done to incentivise carbon projects that deliver environmental, economic, and social co-benefits such as improvements in biodiversity, soil health, water quality, and employment.’ RMAC added that consideration should be given to supplementary policies that support carbon projects such as ‘tax deductions for livestock producers who purchase greenhouse gas avoidance technology such as livestock supplements that reduce enteric methane emissions.’
9.54
The Soil CRC added that carbon sequestration in soil can deliver a range of benefits including increasing ‘nutrient availability, soil structural stability, water‑holding capability, and soil biological health’.
Land Availability
9.55
The Northern Territory (NT) Government described the how the bulk of the land in the NT consists of two types of land tenure:
Aboriginal freehold land, which is close to 50 per cent, and about 44 per cent that is pastoral lease. That pastoral lease predominantly is subject to native title. Most native title is developed by precedent, so what we see is the courts setting some of the precedent, which consent determinations and other things are determined by. The Aboriginal freehold land is once again federal legislation under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 ... so there are two major pieces of tenure. Most of the development opportunity in the Territory is centred around how we can develop both of those estates effectively.
9.56
Northern Territory Farmers Association (NTFA) highlighted that the restrictions on pastoral leases can make it difficult for some agricultural sectors to access land. The NTFA stated that ‘we have vast tracts of land, but, predominantly, that land is locked up in a pastoral estate. We need to identify and create some precincts and break some of that land up.’
9.57
Similarly, the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association (NTCA) highlighted the need to be able to diversify the activities that are undertaken on pastoral leases. The NTCA stated that 70 per cent of pastoralists in a recent survey had indicated that they would like to diversify, including growing feed for cattle. As an example the NTCA noted that pastoralists currently had to import hay into the NT.
9.58
The NT Government noted that one of the challenges in diversifying the land on pastoral leases is that converting the land tenure can trigger native title. The NT Government did note that it was possible to extract part of a pastoral lease for alternative uses and that recent legislative changes had made it possible for pastoral lease holders to sub-lease parts of their land for other agricultural activities. If the development exceeded 10,000 hectares, however, this would require an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA).
9.59
The NT Government added, however, that while the impact of native title is a ‘real and perceived issue, it can be resolved.’ The NT Government highlighted the Seafarms Group’s Project Sea Dragon as a good example, stating ‘they are in one of the most culturally and environmentally sensitive parts of Australia and they’ve got an ILUA and an environmental assessment, so it can be done.’
9.60
Protected Cropping Australia (PCA) reported that their businesses were suited to peri-urban locations on the edges of cities. This was due to the ‘high labour requirements, reliance on specialist service and ancillary industries and fragile and perishable crops.’
9.61
PCA noted, however, that this could conflict with neighbours in these areas who see the large protected cropping structures as ‘not compatible with their lifestyle expectations.’ In addition, local councils in these areas tended to be less familiar with agricultural production and these types of developments. The PCA, therefore, called for the development of supportive regulatory frameworks and ‘innovative approaches to land use planning’ to provide the industry with the certainty of land tenure it needed.
9.62
The Ricegrowers Association of Australia (RAA) advocated for government policy to ensure that new horticulture developments are ‘planted within existing areas developed for irrigation and that any change in land use is compatible with agriculture by ensuring water resources are protected, food safety and biosecurity are not compromised and that the ability of farmers to implement modern farming practices is not restricted.
Biodiversity
9.63
ALCA called for the creation of a $1 billion National Biodiversity Conservation Trust Fund. The objective of this fund would be ‘enabling the critical contribution of farmers and other landholders to improve and protect landscape function, reducing Australia’s rate of extinction and meeting Australia’s biodiversity targets.’
9.64
The ALCA added that the trust could work with existing state-based land stewardship programs such as the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Trust which in 18 months had created conservation areas of 36,000 hectares, and approximately $70 million would be flowing to farmers to manage these areas. Other similar state agreements include the Tasmanian Midland Conservation Fund and the South Australian Heritage Agreements.
Soil Health
9.65
Soil CRC stated that, with some exceptions, Australia’s soils are ‘inherently fragile, infertile and subject to degradation’ and added that:
We’ve done a great job so far over the last 100 to 150 years to eke as much productivity as we have out of our inherently infertile soils. Along the way issues have arisen relating to various forms of degredation, which now, generally speaking, many farmers are onto and have adapted their management to compensate for that. But, going forward, if we are to increase our productivity even further and to ask more of our soil resource base, then there’s additional R&D that’s needed and a greater focus on how farmers do manage their soils to support that.
9.66
The Soil CRC stated that farm soils should be thought of as the third dimension of a farm because while a property may not be able to expand into neighbouring properties, a farmer may be able to increase productivity by accessing deeper into the soil.
9.67
Mr Huck Shepherd, Managing Director of Fertitech an agronomy and fertiliser business, drew attention to the critical importance of soil health and the interactions between crops and the microbiome of the soil. Mr Shepherd stated that only when a plant is in soil with a healthy microbiome ‘combined with adequate minerals in the soils is it able to withstand frosts, have better water use efficiency, resist pests and diseases and a host of other challenges that nature throws up.’
9.68
Mr Shepherd added that a drive towards nutrient dense food was beginning from consumers and this, in turn, would allow producers to move away from a focus solely on yield, towards a greater focus on soil health.
9.69
NQ Dry Tropics stated that although the income diversification benefits of carbon farming can be difficult to achieve because of measurement difficulties, as mentioned above, there are other significant benefits to increasing soil carbon. NQ Tropics explained that its work had shown that:
... if we improve soil carbon we improve soil health. If we improve soil health, we have the potential to double and triple farmgate returns. Our work with graziers to date has shown significant benefits in terms of productivity if we can improve soil health. It improves pasture. It improves soil water retention. It’s got so many benefits.
9.70
For pastoralists, NQ Dry Tropics suggested that grazing management and increasing soil carbon led to increased grass growth and:
...within a couple of years we're talking about doubling carrying capacity. Even without improvements in animal performance from longer growing seasons and other things, that's a huge return for them in terms of potential production, the value of their country and the running cost per animal.
9.71
NQ Dry Tropics also highlighted these practices can increase water efficiency by rehydrating the soil which has longer term benefits than dams, which in hotter areas are very susceptible to evaporation. NQ Dry Tropics stated:
Evaporation from surface stored water is massive—two metres plus a year, depending on where you are. The focus of the rehydration stuff is moving from surface storage into getting that and storing that in the soil and trying to make use of that while the opportunity is there with the plants. If we just hold it up in dams on property, that water would evaporate very quickly.
9.72
Similarly, Australian Wool Innovation stated that:
Strong, healthy soils with deep carbon levels retain water, support strong, nutrient rich plants, plus promote biodiversity in soil microbes and plants. By building up ground cover and soil organic matter, graziers can increase the infiltration and retention of water in the soil which limits moisture evaporation and considerably reduces runoff.
9.73
In the Delivering Ag2030 plan, the Australian Government announced that it is developing a National Soil Strategy which will be completed by June 2021.
Chemical Use and Regulation
9.74
CropLife Australia (CropLife) cited a 2018 Deloitte Access Economics report which estimated that $20.6 billion of Australian agricultural production is attributable to the use of crop protection products. CropLife described Australia’s regulatory system for agricultural chemicals as being ‘scientifically competent and technically proficient’ but highlighted concerns with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) ability to ‘regulate chemicals efficiently, predictably, and consistently.’
9.75
CropLife suggested that processes to reform the APVMA had not resulted in ‘real regulatory efficiencies’, and stated that:
... the APVMA’s continued inability to finalise more than two-thirds of the more complex agricultural chemical applications within timeframe denies Australian farmers access to new and innovative products that the plant science industry provides.
9.76
Similarly, RAA stated that the rice industry aims to minimise its environmental impacts but achieving this requires access to ‘chemicals with new and safe modes of action.’ Accessing new chemicals requires ongoing investment in research and development as well as a ‘timely response from the APVMA for registration and or permit approval for chemicals that will control current and new rice pest species.’
9.77
Citrus Australia explained that as Australia makes up only around 1 per cent of the global citrus industry it is a very small market for AgVet companies and ‘the cost of regulatory approvals (with the associated research and development costs) often prohibit investment in the Australian market. For that reason, the Australian citrus industry often relies upon older chemistry.’
9.78
Citrus Australia added that older chemicals such as chlorpyriphos and glyphosate are under ‘a high level of global scrutiny (in terms of chemical residues) by retailers and regulators overseas in Australia.’ This combination of restrictions on older chemicals and a lack of new chemicals coming into the market was leaving growers with a smaller number of options.
9.79
The Soil CRC stated that the proposal to ban glyphosates was a ‘very large threat’ to the health of Australian soils, adding:
It is through the use of herbicides, such as glyphosate, that we have been able to develop farming systems that have enabled us to move from large amounts of cultivation to virtually no-till practices. In achieving no-till we've been able to maintain soil in situ, reduce erosion and maintain organic matter. A whole range of productive benefits for our soil have been made possible with the use of herbicides, such as glyphosate.
9.80
In contrast, Gene Ethics and Friends of the Earth (GE and FoE) were concerned that the regulation of AgVet was not sufficiently protecting human health and the environment. GE and FoE called for regulatory review processes that were ‘open, transparent and precautionary’ and relied on independent scientific evidence rather than industry-generated data.
9.81
Further, GE and FoE called for the re-instatement of the Chemical Assessment and Re-Registration Scheme which was revoked in 2014.
GE and FoE stated:
Thousands of agrochemicals, approved decades ago, without modern data or testing methods, require review to protect human health and the environment. Key trading partners require periodic re-registration e.g. the USA requires chemical review every 15 years and Europe a maximum of 10 years. Scientific evidence of adverse chemical impacts on human and health and the environment is accumulating.
Pollination Services
9.82
The NSW Apiarists Association (NSWAA) stated that while the value of the honey and bees products nationally was $94 million per year, the value of pollination to agricultural industries was estimated to be $4 - $6 billion. NSWAA stated that honey bees can deliver ‘measurable productivity gains through yield increases wherever they pollinate.’ Perhaps the most significant reliance on bees is in the almond industry, which the NSWAA described as ‘dependent on honey bees’ and added that, by 2025, this industry alone will require the use 60 per cent of Australia’s commercial bee hives.
9.83
The NSWAA highlighted access for their bees to floral resources as the most crucial issue facing their industry, stating that ‘without access to a range of flowering species capable of delivering floral rewards in the form of nectar and pollen, a honey bee colony will perish.’
9.84
The NSWAA described some of the challenges facing apiarists, stating that climate change is beginning to have an impact on bees, and in addition many beekeeping sites are being lost. The NSWAA explained:
We are losing resources. Farmers knock down a few trees this year, a few trees next year, because they’ve got a bigger header and all that sort of stuff, and over time it’s not viable to have bees on that farm anymore.
9.85
The NSWAA stated that apiarists need access to state forests in part because this provides a safe haven for bees when farms are using insecticides, partly due to the varied pollen diet in forests leading to healthier bees, and partly as it is necessary for the production of honey which provides vital income for apiarists.
9.86
The Australian Honey Bee Council (AHBC) agreed that apiarists need access to forests and drew attention to a program in Queensland to remove honey bee hives from national parks as they are not a native species. The AHBC doubted that honey bees caused any harm to native species, stating:
... they have been here since European settlement. They’ve adapted in this environment very, very well. There is talk about cross-hybridisationthat sort of thing. From the research that’s been done over the years, and there has been quite a bit done, the overall impact from commercially managed honey bees is benign.
9.87
The NSWAA stated that without access to forests apiarists cannot expand and so will not be able to meet the expanding requirements of agriculture. The NSWAA also noted that most of agricultural industries that are growing quickly are those that benefit from pollination.
Committee Comment
9.88
From droughts to floods to fires, farmers in Australia have always needed to be ready to face adversity and through these challenges they have developed the adaptive practices needed to succeed in the Australian environment.
9.89
For most Australian farmers there are few more pressing issues than access to water. The Committee’s inquiry began in a period of intense drought on the east coast and the Committee heard that many producers, especially in the Murray-Darling Basin, were struggling with the viability of their businesses due to the difficulty of accessing water. Fortunately, during the course of the inquiry the drought broke in many parts of the country, however, accessing sufficient reliable water will continue to be an issue in the coming decade. The allocation of water in the Murray‑Darling has long been one of Australia’s most complex policy challenges and so providing any recommendations on how this system could be altered is clearly beyond the scope of this inquiry.
9.90
The Committee was, however, pleased to hear from a number of organisations working to increase access for farmers to reliable supplies of water. In particular, the Committee was impressed with the work that has been undertaken as part of the Tasmanian Irrigation Scheme. In its first tranche of projects the scheme delivered 14 irrigation projects and it has two more tranches of projects to complete. The delivery of these schemes has been achieved through partnerships between Commonwealth and State Governments and resources from both the public and private sector. A dedication to building community support and minimising environmental impacts has also contributed to the success of these schemes. The Committee believes that there are lessons that can be learned by this experience in Tasmania and hopefully this scheme can act as a model for other parts of the country.
9.91
Australian farmers have long managed to succeed despite this country’s often unforgiving climate. Nevertheless, climate change is likely to increase the frequency of dry spells and droughts and the intensity of extreme weather events, all of which will add significantly to the risks faced by Australian producers.
9.92
The Committee was pleased to hear that most agriculture sectors are planning for how they will adapt to the challenges of a changing climate. The red meat sector, in particular, has been making major reductions in its greenhouse emissions and has adopted an ambitious target to become carbon neutral by 2030.
9.93
One of the few positive outcomes from a changing climate is how it has focussed research onto the opportunities presented by carbon farming. Carbon farming and payment for the provision of ecosystem services is likely to become increasingly common within Australian agricultural businesses. There is still, however, a need for further development of market mechanisms to provide incentives to farmers. Additionally, the cost of measuring carbon improvements is currently prohibitive to many businesses but it is likely that these costs will decrease over time.
9.94
Improving the health of Australia’s fragile soils offers the potential of delivering significant productivity and sustainability benefits. Impressive improvements in water retention, stock carrying capacity, and farmgate returns have been achieved through soil carbon sequestration and associated soil management practices. These techniques have the potential to be implemented at a much broader scale. The Committee welcomes the announcement by the Government that it is developing a National Soil Strategy.