One of the key roles of the Tropical Savannas
CRC is to provide a neutral meeting place where different savanna
land users can talk over issues of mutual importance. In January
2000, the Centre held a workshop to discuss one of these issues:
land administration policy across the north and its attendant
issues.
Is multiple land use a good idea? What are the
issues involved in a new system of land leases? In this issue of
Savanna Links, we published articles from three of the delegates
covering general, pastoral and tourism viewpoints.
Below is an opinion piece on pastoral issues
and land tenure and adminstration from Roger Landsberg , a
grazier from Queensland. Click in the contents section on the left
to view pastoral and tourism viewpoints. Proceedings of the
workshop are available from the CRC.
Roger G. Landsberg, pastoralist, Trafalgar Station,
Queensland
Roger Landsberg sees the need for change, but considers
diversification may not be available for all rural enterprises.
Instead he asks: what resources and policy support do you need to
run a pastoral operation in north Queensland so it is economically
and ecologically sustainable.
Introduction | Sustainability | Impacts and
requirements | Government policy |
Geographic location | Managerial ability | Conclusion |
In recent times there has been a marked increase in domestic and
international interest in how our lands are used and managed. With
the world's population approaching 6 billion, feeding and housing
this many people is going to have a massive impact on the world's
natural resources.
Although underpopulated relative to land area, Australia is the
oldest and driest continent with extremely fragile soils. Two
hundred years ago, Europeans, accustomed to stable, high-quality
soils, implemented their farming methods in Australia. The legacy
of those methods is massive degradation in the form of soil erosion
and acidification, salinity and reduced water quality. After 200
years of trying to manipulate the environment, some producers are
now learning to work with Mother Nature in a productive as opposed
to a destructive manner.
Sustainability is a new word that has appeared in the rural
vocabulary during the last 10 years. There is still some confusion
as to whether it means economic or ecological and protagonists on
both sides of the argument will probably keep that quandary going a
little longer. Essentially, for a property to be sustainable in the
long term, it has to be returning a profit with no adverse impact
on the natural resource. This is a difficult process as the weather
is a major contributor and is beyond human control. The other major
contributor is commodity prices and Australia is a net exporter, so
farmers are generally at the mercy of the global economy, competing
with goods produced in other countries, usually on better soils and
usually subsidised by government. As this is only a discussion
paper, I won't be going into detail, but I hope to explore some
options in what is required to be a successful, sustainable
pastoral enterprise in North Queensland.
There are a plethora of processes, impacts and inputs required
for a successful pastoral enterprise. The weather and commodity
prices have already been mentioned, but as they are beyond the
influence of the enterprise manager, they will be discounted and
only the things that can be influenced at a national, regional or
local scale will be discussed. Policy issues such as land tenure,
taxation, water allocation, vegetation management and interest
rates are major impacts.
Market availability, community services, freight costs, soil and
vegetation types, property size and neighbours are major factors.
Land, stock, economic and personnel management are issues that the
enterprise manager has to deal with directly and therefore have the
biggest impact. I also believe a sustainable operation is one that
is paying its way, without ecological damage and without outside
enterprises contributing. Diversification assists one's personal
financial goals but because it not readily available to all rural
enterprises, it should not be allowed to muddy the waters of what
constitutes a sustainable enterprise.
Essentially, all these issues can be grouped under three main
headings and it is these that are the main requirements for a
sustainable pastoral enterprise in north Queensland. They are
government policy, geographic location and managerial
capability.
There is currently a mish-mash of government policies that have
been hastily prepared, usually for single-issue requirements. There
does not seem to be a policy line for agriculture consistent with
promoting sustainability. The question has to be asked: do the
people of Australia have a policy on what is required of rural
Australia? If agriculture is to remain, then property viability has
to be addressed.
1. Land tenure
The tenure issue goes wider than the topical subject of native
title and coexistence. The main requirements from a producer's
point of view is long-term security, not necessarily freehold, with
as little interference as possible from outside interests. This
issue also encompasses matters like property size, property build
up, National Park acquisition, property values and land use. The
changing tenure and use of land can lead to massive demographic
changes in areas, which will have a flow-on effect on rural
communities. Property sizes need to be bigger to be viable living
areas today. How do we do this? Does government resume leases and
re-allocate or do we let the market do it for us? If we are going
to let the market determine viability then we need to borrow
against our land, of which we will need long-term security.
2. Interest rates and subsidies
I don't have a lot of faith in government schemes so I prefer
the market option. Government would have to abolish the so-called
drought subsidies to allow the free market to operate properly.
Land is generally overpriced due to the acquisition of land above
market value, like National Parks. Subsidised interest rates also
tend to distort the market. Unreal market prices and subdivision
also force rents and rates higher, creating more cost imposts.
3. Vegetation and water management
The current permit system for tree clearing and water drilling
in Queensland is under review and new regulations are to be put in
place based on regional ecosystems. The consultation process has
been extremely emotive and negative and producers are finding it
difficult to accept restrictions on practices, that up until
recently were lease requirements. I believe that clearing has a
role in enhancing carrying capacity of land, where there is minimum
degradation risk. At a property scale, pasture development on
smaller blocks of land allows stocking at a lower rate on native
areas. I also believe as people become better educated to the
processes involved with soil and vegetation, including the role of
fire, stock management and the costs associated with timber
management, clearing will become less of an issue in the future in
the northern grazing lands.
Most of the above issues require a cultural change and a
paradigm shift away from what has been the mindset in rural
Australia for decades. This massive change in lifestyle and the way
we do business could take generations to happen.
The geographical location of a property has a huge impact on
whether a property is sustainable or not. This can be offset by
managerial ability to a degree, but areas like Cape York, unless
huge regional development takes place, are not going to sustain
grazing properties. The soils are largely poor in quality, which
necessitates large supplement inputs and market access is limited.
The large property size and wet nature of the Cape requires high
mustering costs, therefore limiting herd quality improvement which
also impacts on market access. The sheer size of the freight bills
to and from property is enough to make the enterprise
non-viable.
There are other areas in North Queensland where the soils are
marginal, there is less rain and the distances from services are
high, but they can usually be overcome by managerial skill and a
better road network.
The ability to plan and implement a management program is by far
the greatest requirement for a sustainable enterprise. The manager
has to holistically integrate five systems; personal goals,
economic, stock and land management and information.
1. Personal goals
Most properties are family owned and operated so the goals of
the family have to be clearly delineated in the property management
plan. If the aspirations of the manager and/or the family are
beyond that which the property can provide, then action should be
taken whether to sell and upgrade or seek another career.
2. Land management
The capability of the land has to be determined with regard to
the personal goals of the landowners. Carrying capacity should be
calculated at a conservative level to allow for dry years and any
development options should be considered only after proper
investigation of possible ecological ramifications and budget
capability.
3. Stock management
Stock type and numbers should be determined allowing for
marketability, land type and rainfall variability. The stock have
to be managed for the market that is going to be the most
profitable. For example, there is no point in trying to raise
steers suitable for the Japanese market on a property near
Normanton in the Gulf of Carpentaria as the soils are too poor for
adequate growth and the nearest export abattoir is Townsville, 900
kilometres away. It would be more appropriate to sell young or
"store"* steers to the live export market as they can be sold at
around 15 months of age and can go to Karumba, 80 kilometres away
or Townsville or Darwin. It is also a relatively short trip to
saleyards at Cloncurry or Julia Creek. The point is that the
manager has more market options with a younger animal but has to be
able to manage the increase in risk due to the higher breeder
numbers required.
4. Economic management
Careful management of budgets and cash flows in keeping with the
overall property plan are more essential today with declining
margins associated with the global economy, rising costs and a more
discerning consumer. With the introduction of the GST, there are
going to be major cash flow implications every quarter, so careful
planning and accounting processes are going to be necessary.
Because of the various applications of the tax, electronic record
keeping will be the most efficient means of keeping track, but will
require a huge up-skilling of most rural managers. The producer of
today and in the future will have to forsake more time in the
saddle for the office chair if he wants to remain viable. Property
workforces are smaller, so rural workers need a wider range of
skills to perform the many tasks required. Because of the training
involved in attaining these skills and the conditions required to
attract people to the bush, labour costs are higher.
5. Information and technology
We are bombarded today with a vast amount of information in
various forms. Research and product information arrives in the
mail, is on the television, is repeated on the radio and takes up
newspaper space. As more of us get Internet access the information
overload is crippling. The successful producer will be the one who
has the ability to glean what is going to be useful to his
operation and not get diverted off on a tangent. An operation does
not have to be hi-tech to be successful. In fact, the opposite can
apply. Paying strict attention to the basics of genetics,
nutrition, marketing and expenditure and ignoring fancy add-ons,
can lead to increased profitability. We, as producers, have to
improve at identifying research needs and improving communication
channels with researchers.
I believe there is a future for pastoralism in northern
Australia. There is currently sufficient market diversity for
grass-fed product and I am hopeful of improvement in the future due
to the expanding populations and declining agricultural industries
in Asia. There is no room for complacency though, as nations like
Brazil and Argentina are poised to make huge impacts on the world
beef markets. Australia's location and growing awareness of
ecological responsibility should still give us a market
advantage.
With the consumer generally becoming more dissociated from the
bush and the hardships of the rural dweller, those of us who want
to protect our way of life, must become better at protecting the
dirt beneath our feet. We complain of regulation and of gutless
governments, but perhaps it is in our interest if we made our own
hard decisions instead of leaving it to someone else. The world has
changed, is changing and will continue to do so at an alarming
rate.
We will have to change with it.
