Innovators in Environmental Innovators in Environmental Management in the Queensland Management in the Queensland

Sugar IndustrySugar Industry

Malcolm K. WegenerMalcolm K. Wegener

School of Natural and Rural Systems Management

The University of Queensland

Innovators in environmental Innovators in environmental management in the Australian sugar management in the Australian sugar

industryindustry Three case studies:Three case studies:

– Ross Digman, TullyRoss Digman, Tully– Mario Porta, InghamMario Porta, Ingham– Robert Quirk, CondongRobert Quirk, Condong

Development of artificial wetlandsDevelopment of artificial wetlands Introduction of green cane harvesting and trash Introduction of green cane harvesting and trash

blanketing and reduced nitrogen applicationblanketing and reduced nitrogen application Economic principlesEconomic principles

– How to analyse? How to analyse?

Case study 1: Ross Digman, TullyCase study 1: Ross Digman, Tully

Developed first artificial lagoon on his property in 1990Developed first artificial lagoon on his property in 1990– Recreational fishermanRecreational fisherman– Observed destruction of wetlands from early stage development of Observed destruction of wetlands from early stage development of

Tully River Station for canelandTully River Station for caneland– Recognised loss of valuable nursery areas for young fishRecognised loss of valuable nursery areas for young fish– Wanted to start people thinking about destruction of wetlandsWanted to start people thinking about destruction of wetlands– Produced and gave away 60 sets of documents and 300 videosProduced and gave away 60 sets of documents and 300 videos

Tully River tragedyTully River tragedy Habitat in crisisHabitat in crisis

– Helped financially local farmers who wanted to put in lagoonsHelped financially local farmers who wanted to put in lagoons– Long involvement with Long involvement with Riversdale-Murray Valley Water Riversdale-Murray Valley Water

Management SchemeManagement Scheme

Ross Digman case studyRoss Digman case study

Five artificial water bodies created to deal with Five artificial water bodies created to deal with runoff from his propertyrunoff from his property– 0.2 ha silt trap upstream of other lagoons0.2 ha silt trap upstream of other lagoons– 0.25 ha lagoon constructed in 19900.25 ha lagoon constructed in 1990– Third lagoon, nearly 0.4 haThird lagoon, nearly 0.4 ha– Fourth lagoon, 0.28 haFourth lagoon, 0.28 ha– Landcare lagoon, 0.3 ha (on an adjacent property) Landcare lagoon, 0.3 ha (on an adjacent property) – 113 ha total area113 ha total area– 95 ha assigned caneland95 ha assigned caneland– Planted 20 m strip of trees along Tully R. and another 3 Planted 20 m strip of trees along Tully R. and another 3

ha block of trees on the propertyha block of trees on the property

Ross Digman case studyRoss Digman case study

:Landcare lagoon constructed in 1993 on :Landcare lagoon constructed in 1993 on Henry/Maingay properties $10 500Henry/Maingay properties $10 500– $3 500 (one-third of cost) contributed by RD$3 500 (one-third of cost) contributed by RD– Landholders contributionLandholders contribution

Henry $3 000Henry $3 000 Maingay $700Maingay $700

– Landcare $1 100Landcare $1 100– Recreational fishers contributed the balanceRecreational fishers contributed the balance

Ross Digman case studyRoss Digman case study

Objectives of Riversdale-Murray River Objectives of Riversdale-Murray River Water Management SchemeWater Management Scheme– Allocate SIIP funding for “solving the flooding Allocate SIIP funding for “solving the flooding

problems” in the Lower Tully-Murray flood plainproblems” in the Lower Tully-Murray flood plain Local support to straighten and “improve” Murray R Local support to straighten and “improve” Murray R

to carry more water from the flood plainto carry more water from the flood plain Videos produced by RD were able to focus attention Videos produced by RD were able to focus attention

away from straightening the river to more away from straightening the river to more environmentally friendly worksenvironmentally friendly works

35 lagoons constructed, with assistance from SIIP 35 lagoons constructed, with assistance from SIIP fundingfunding

Ross Digman case studyRoss Digman case study

Economic evaluation of wetlandsEconomic evaluation of wetlands RD’s first wetland (0.25 ha) constructed in 1990 RD’s first wetland (0.25 ha) constructed in 1990

paid for itself in 3 yearspaid for itself in 3 years– Soil from excavation spread over low-lying cane landSoil from excavation spread over low-lying cane land– Extra 600 tonnes cane per year produced on land that Extra 600 tonnes cane per year produced on land that

never previously grew canenever previously grew cane– At early-1990s prices, this was sufficient to pay for At early-1990s prices, this was sufficient to pay for

constructionconstruction– RD did not construct the wetland for economic reasonsRD did not construct the wetland for economic reasons– Other costs and risks associated with lagoon buildingOther costs and risks associated with lagoon building

Mario Porta case study:Mario Porta case study:

Ingham canefarmer Mario Porta constructed their first Ingham canefarmer Mario Porta constructed their first wetland in 1996-97 soon after taking control of Burnsidewetland in 1996-97 soon after taking control of Burnside

cost $65 000cost $65 000 Strong opposition from his own fatherStrong opposition from his own father Four more wetlands added over the past 8 yearsFour more wetlands added over the past 8 years

– Home property, $30 000Home property, $30 000– Home property, $120 000 (with $20 000 assistance)Home property, $120 000 (with $20 000 assistance)– Large SIIP-funded wetland at Cordelia (family donated 2 ha of land)Large SIIP-funded wetland at Cordelia (family donated 2 ha of land)– Lagoon at Bambaroo, driest part of Ingham canegrowing areaLagoon at Bambaroo, driest part of Ingham canegrowing area

Total expenditure over $250 000 on constructing wetlandsTotal expenditure over $250 000 on constructing wetlands Further development on hold while sugar prices are so lowFurther development on hold while sugar prices are so low

Personal backgroundPersonal background

Mario Porta started to manage family cane Mario Porta started to manage family cane farm in 1995 when they acquired Burnsidefarm in 1995 when they acquired Burnside– Home property, 1 000 haHome property, 1 000 ha– Burnside, former cattle stud, bought 1995 Burnside, former cattle stud, bought 1995 – Cordelia, near coastCordelia, near coast– Bambaroo, 70-80 km south of InghamBambaroo, 70-80 km south of Ingham

Total area managed, 2 000 haTotal area managed, 2 000 ha Cane production, >107 000 t, largest in Cane production, >107 000 t, largest in

Ingham. Also run cattle.Ingham. Also run cattle.

Motivation?Motivation?

Desire to create economically viable and Desire to create economically viable and environmentally sustainable cane farmenvironmentally sustainable cane farm

Influenced by many factorsInfluenced by many factors– Latter years at high school (unsustainable harvest of Latter years at high school (unsustainable harvest of

timber in Malaysia, greenhouse gas emissions, hole in timber in Malaysia, greenhouse gas emissions, hole in ozone layer, etc)ozone layer, etc)

– Close neighbour (Allan Larsen)Close neighbour (Allan Larsen)– Video produced by Ross DigmanVideo produced by Ross Digman– Advisers in DNR&M, BSESAdvisers in DNR&M, BSES– Catchment coordinatorCatchment coordinator

Adverse attitudes in sugar industry Adverse attitudes in sugar industry to natural resource managementto natural resource management

Large expenditure on land clearing in the pastLarge expenditure on land clearing in the past– Inconsistent to start wanting to plant treesInconsistent to start wanting to plant trees

Most landholders cleared right up to creek banksMost landholders cleared right up to creek banks– Porta family left vegetation buffer along creeks on Porta family left vegetation buffer along creeks on

Cordelia farm when it was clearedCordelia farm when it was cleared– Strong opposition from Mario Porta snr to developing Strong opposition from Mario Porta snr to developing

wetlandswetlands Eventual recognition of what Mario had createdEventual recognition of what Mario had created

Benefits from wetland developmentBenefits from wetland development

Personal satisfactionPersonal satisfaction– Property “looks better”Property “looks better”– Improved capital value in long-termImproved capital value in long-term

Investment not recovered in short termInvestment not recovered in short term

– Better productivity from nearby, low-lying landBetter productivity from nearby, low-lying land– Value of trees in connecting waterwaysValue of trees in connecting waterways– Increased number of bird speciesIncreased number of bird species– value of harvestable timber ignoredvalue of harvestable timber ignored

Changing attitude of growersChanging attitude of growers

Mario Porta started with a different outlook Mario Porta started with a different outlook to most growersto most growers– Decisions not motivated by short-term profitsDecisions not motivated by short-term profits

Many growers in Ingham are now thinking Many growers in Ingham are now thinking like himlike him

Most growers with typical 10 000-12 000 t Most growers with typical 10 000-12 000 t production could incorporate a water production could incorporate a water storage to act as silt trap and stop nutrients storage to act as silt trap and stop nutrients leaving the farmleaving the farm

Analytical approach to decision-makingAnalytical approach to decision-making

Alternative management options are usually Alternative management options are usually available to solve most problemsavailable to solve most problems

Adapt management to achieve acceptable Adapt management to achieve acceptable economic and social outcomeseconomic and social outcomes– PlantingPlanting, Harvesting , Harvesting , nutrient management?, nutrient management?– Analytical approach to problem solvingAnalytical approach to problem solving

Understand why opposition exists to current Understand why opposition exists to current canegrowing practicescanegrowing practices

Discuss problem with DNR&M staff, other partiesDiscuss problem with DNR&M staff, other parties Work pro-actively to solve problem, not reactivelyWork pro-actively to solve problem, not reactively

Case study 3: Robert QuirkCase study 3: Robert Quirk

Only grower in Condong mill area to practice Only grower in Condong mill area to practice green cane harvesting and trash blanketinggreen cane harvesting and trash blanketing– Opposition to trash blanketingOpposition to trash blanketing

too wet, too coldtoo wet, too cold Evidence to support this assumption?Evidence to support this assumption?

RQ developed technique to sweep trash off RQ developed technique to sweep trash off cane rowscane rows– Expects to harvest 70% of farm greenExpects to harvest 70% of farm green

Still need to burn some paddocksStill need to burn some paddocks

Case study 3: Robert QuirkCase study 3: Robert Quirk

Reduced nutrient applications by 25%Reduced nutrient applications by 25%– 4 bags per acre, N:P:K mix 32:2:104 bags per acre, N:P:K mix 32:2:10– Reduced to 3 bags per acre, N:P:K 36:0:10Reduced to 3 bags per acre, N:P:K 36:0:10

Nitrogen reduced, P eliminated, K reducedNitrogen reduced, P eliminated, K reduced

– Highest cane production ever in 2005Highest cane production ever in 2005 Less rain, more caneLess rain, more cane

– Leaf analysis indicates P and K still higher than Leaf analysis indicates P and K still higher than necessary for adequate nutritionnecessary for adequate nutrition

Case study 3: Robert QuirkCase study 3: Robert Quirk

Nitrogen fertiliser trialNitrogen fertiliser trial– 0, 0.5, 1, 2 bags per acre0, 0.5, 1, 2 bags per acre– Replicated strip trialReplicated strip trial– No difference in yield, or ccsNo difference in yield, or ccs– Highest yield from zero fertiliser treatmentHighest yield from zero fertiliser treatment– Ratoon cane showing no lack of fertiliser at this stageRatoon cane showing no lack of fertiliser at this stage

Same N levels in each treatment (leaf samples)Same N levels in each treatment (leaf samples)

– ANU monitoring N losses to atmosphereANU monitoring N losses to atmosphere 0.9 kg /ha/day measured last year0.9 kg /ha/day measured last year Fewer losses this yearFewer losses this year Increased losses after rainIncreased losses after rain

ConclusionsConclusions

A number of innovative canegrowers are A number of innovative canegrowers are prepared to try new environmental prepared to try new environmental management approachesmanagement approaches

Good environmental management does not Good environmental management does not need to reduce farm incomeneed to reduce farm income

Robert Quirk: “the more environmental I Robert Quirk: “the more environmental I become, the better my economics are”become, the better my economics are”

Conclusions 2Conclusions 2

Some canegrowers are prepared to undertake Some canegrowers are prepared to undertake innovations in environmental managementinnovations in environmental management– Do they evaluate these investments in economic terms Do they evaluate these investments in economic terms

or against other criteria?or against other criteria?– Farmers can identify a range of economic benefits from Farmers can identify a range of economic benefits from

environmental innovationenvironmental innovation Some private benefits, some private benefitsSome private benefits, some private benefits

– Economists need to understand the complex Economists need to understand the complex relationships that exist between profit and environmental relationships that exist between profit and environmental improvementimprovement

– Challenge for agricultural economistsChallenge for agricultural economists Help to identify sustainability measures for primary producersHelp to identify sustainability measures for primary producers Triple-bottom-line indicatorsTriple-bottom-line indicators

Personal reflectionPersonal reflection Evolution of agricultural economists attention over Evolution of agricultural economists attention over

past 40 yearspast 40 years– from farm management to resource economicsfrom farm management to resource economics

Early 1960s emphasis on farm accountingEarly 1960s emphasis on farm accounting– ACCRA code for farm accountingACCRA code for farm accounting

2005 IASB accounting methods2005 IASB accounting methods– What does this mean for farm profit?What does this mean for farm profit?– How should we evaluate environmental innovations?How should we evaluate environmental innovations?

What are best indicators of farm sustainabilityWhat are best indicators of farm sustainability– Environmental sustainability – nutrient balance, water?Environmental sustainability – nutrient balance, water?– Social sustainability – rural communitiesSocial sustainability – rural communities