There are a few comments about the cost to govt of providing the Murray Darling Basin with more environmental water. More specifically that farmers are being "over-compensated".
1, Farmers who choose to sell do so at market price. They wear the devaluation of their redundant on-farm infrastructure at no cost to govt. As do other farmers who don't sell entitlement yet find their development devalued because other farms sold with little or no water have lost value, leading to equity pressures with lenders. Uncompensated.
2, Irrigation in the MDB generates in excess of $5billion of produce a year, making me think that the tax govt receives from MDB irrigation activities is in excess of the $1billion a year govt intends using to strangle irrigation in the Basin. Ironic that farmers in the basin effectively could be paying for their own dismantling and "compensation".
3, the govt, in the form of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, will actually hold an investment at the end of it all. An investment in water entitlements that will increase over time, moreso with a lower trading base of available entitlement.
Net cost to non-MDBA resident taxpayer - slight.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Murray Darling Basin Plan
The eventual release of the MDBA plan at 4.00pm on a Friday afternoon demonstrated the political undertones of such.
If agriculturalists, in this case predominately irrigators, had any illusion as to their importance to society this should surely set the record straight. As the CEO of the MDBA stated environment is mentioned in the Water Act over 250 times, and Agriculture 4 times.
What I as an irrigator find hard to understand is how only 3 years ago 1500GL was in the upperband of estimated requirements to "save" the rivers, and now 4000GL is a compromise, with 7600GL being optimum. Especially since there has been no chance to accumulate 1500GL of water and see it's improvement, at whatever that level would be.
Some have been critical of emotion displayed by farmers and their communities and can't help wondering if it's because they don't understand the sense of community that small towns and disticts evoke. This IS a big deal for rural towns who depend on irrigated agriculture. It will be the final push for some and will mean friends and even family members moving away.
You'll have to forgive raw emotion toward a plan yet to spell out the rationale behind the figures, and indisputably wrong on figures already published. These are real people and the "precautionary principle" appling to the basin plan should apply to them too.
If agriculturalists, in this case predominately irrigators, had any illusion as to their importance to society this should surely set the record straight. As the CEO of the MDBA stated environment is mentioned in the Water Act over 250 times, and Agriculture 4 times.
What I as an irrigator find hard to understand is how only 3 years ago 1500GL was in the upperband of estimated requirements to "save" the rivers, and now 4000GL is a compromise, with 7600GL being optimum. Especially since there has been no chance to accumulate 1500GL of water and see it's improvement, at whatever that level would be.
Some have been critical of emotion displayed by farmers and their communities and can't help wondering if it's because they don't understand the sense of community that small towns and disticts evoke. This IS a big deal for rural towns who depend on irrigated agriculture. It will be the final push for some and will mean friends and even family members moving away.
You'll have to forgive raw emotion toward a plan yet to spell out the rationale behind the figures, and indisputably wrong on figures already published. These are real people and the "precautionary principle" appling to the basin plan should apply to them too.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
BHP and Phosphate
The current BHP takeover attempt of Potash Inc confirms my belief that Phosphate fertiliser supply is going to become one of the greatest issues facing urbanised populations.
We can't synthesize P, so it is a finite resource, and current use rates suggest only measuring current known deposit lifespans in centuries.
We know we can make Nitrogen, and replace fossil fuels but what do we do if we anticipate another few hundred millenia of human existence.P has to be mined and transported from diminishing reserves. Subject to both fuel price increases and the laws of supply and demand.
While the financial impact in the short term maybe slight (to first world consumers) at some point the cost of returning nutrients from cities to the land that supports them must be taken into account.
We can't synthesize P, so it is a finite resource, and current use rates suggest only measuring current known deposit lifespans in centuries.
We know we can make Nitrogen, and replace fossil fuels but what do we do if we anticipate another few hundred millenia of human existence.P has to be mined and transported from diminishing reserves. Subject to both fuel price increases and the laws of supply and demand.
While the financial impact in the short term maybe slight (to first world consumers) at some point the cost of returning nutrients from cities to the land that supports them must be taken into account.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Feeding the World
Any illusion that the world is swimming in food must surely be shattered when analyzing the effect a modest downgrade of the global wheat crop has had in recent weeks. An approximate supply cut of 5% has increased prices by some 50%, though things are settling a little now.
This is after 2 record crops in the previous 2 years, and a crop this year still predicted to be in the top 10 of production highs.
This is after 2 record crops in the previous 2 years, and a crop this year still predicted to be in the top 10 of production highs.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Biofuels and food production
My thinking on Bio-fuels is that rather than being a threat to food availability, they may be a saviour if should something catastrophic happen to some of the worlds major crop producers.
The reason I say this is because a significant amount of feedstock must be stored somewhere to keep the factories running months after harvest - until the next harvest comes around. What we have is a stockpile that has a use (rather than a "just in case") that can be commandeered for food if necessary.
The demand from biofuels creates the demand and profitability in the short term to gear up to the grain production that will be required in the future as population expands. It would be preferable to continue this way and be ahead with production than trail from behind. The implication being hunger if we can't catch up.
The reason I say this is because a significant amount of feedstock must be stored somewhere to keep the factories running months after harvest - until the next harvest comes around. What we have is a stockpile that has a use (rather than a "just in case") that can be commandeered for food if necessary.
The demand from biofuels creates the demand and profitability in the short term to gear up to the grain production that will be required in the future as population expands. It would be preferable to continue this way and be ahead with production than trail from behind. The implication being hunger if we can't catch up.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Foreign Ownership of Australian Land and Water
There is a political call for registration of farm sales to foreign interests.
I don't have an issue with that, once Australian investors and farmers see how atractive our resources really are they may have more confidence to invest themselves.
It is interesting that during a period of high local currency value and a consequent disadvantage to foreign buyers, that interest in Australian farming assets is so strong.
Unfortunately homegrown buyers have to contend with an interest rate several percent higher than other nations and are competing with superannuation and fund monies that don't have to service debt during droughts and floods.
What I do wonder is what politicians wish to do about foreign ownership, presumably there is some limit they have in mind. And what that means for sales when that limit is reached.
Some other views at Agmates.
I don't have an issue with that, once Australian investors and farmers see how atractive our resources really are they may have more confidence to invest themselves.
It is interesting that during a period of high local currency value and a consequent disadvantage to foreign buyers, that interest in Australian farming assets is so strong.
Unfortunately homegrown buyers have to contend with an interest rate several percent higher than other nations and are competing with superannuation and fund monies that don't have to service debt during droughts and floods.
What I do wonder is what politicians wish to do about foreign ownership, presumably there is some limit they have in mind. And what that means for sales when that limit is reached.
Some other views at Agmates.
The Disconnection of Farming and Food
It is becoming more and more apparent that the gap between farmer and consumer is widening. Not so much in the sense that the consumer doesn't know "where milk comes from" but that they have opinions on how you should run your farm.
The quantity, quality and affordability of produce has bred a level of complacency almost to the point where farming in Australia is seen as a mistake, unless it is organic produce, sold via farmers markets after being pushed there by wheelbarrow. The wheelbarrow is an exaggeration, but you get my drift.
Maybe it's only the vocal minority, maybe I'm too precious, but somewhere in our existence we have to accept that 7 billion people will have an unavoidable impact on the environment that we are part of. Whether having 7 billion plus people is sustainable or not is not the issue I'm tackling, we're all here now and have to manage. What I am sure is that we wouldn't all survive without agriculture, or the transport sysytems used to distribute it's production.
A current catchcry is for sustainability in farming, when the very thing that makes farming unsustainable in the natural sense is the concentration and consequent disposal of nutrients by cities. Even a low yield organic model of production exports nutrients.
The quantity, quality and affordability of produce has bred a level of complacency almost to the point where farming in Australia is seen as a mistake, unless it is organic produce, sold via farmers markets after being pushed there by wheelbarrow. The wheelbarrow is an exaggeration, but you get my drift.
Maybe it's only the vocal minority, maybe I'm too precious, but somewhere in our existence we have to accept that 7 billion people will have an unavoidable impact on the environment that we are part of. Whether having 7 billion plus people is sustainable or not is not the issue I'm tackling, we're all here now and have to manage. What I am sure is that we wouldn't all survive without agriculture, or the transport sysytems used to distribute it's production.
A current catchcry is for sustainability in farming, when the very thing that makes farming unsustainable in the natural sense is the concentration and consequent disposal of nutrients by cities. Even a low yield organic model of production exports nutrients.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)