SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT STATE POLICY ON THE PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

Due to my interest in the basalt derived soils of the north west coast of Tasmania I will be making reference to my local area, i.e. the Flowerdale/Inglis River valley area and particularly, the Meunna/Preolenna district.

Any policy based on the protection of agricultural land should be landuse based: either the existing landuse or the potential landuse of the highest value to the community. The criteria delineating highest value should be weighted to the environmental and social outcomes rather than the economic and technological/scale outcomes to the community.

 Locally we are concerned to preserve for best use the basalt derived soils. Under this landuse criterion agriculture, rather than industrial plantation establishment, would be the highest value use. Agroforestry (where farm forestry is integrated with agricultural activity to compliment and enhance farm operation) has a higher value over forestry.

 Forestry plantations should be excluded from prime agricultural land because of:

• its conflict with agricultural use in denying light to neighbouring pasture, retarding growth, and, in the application and runoff of herbicide on a large scale over a short period thus contaminating surrounding waterways and properties. Nil MRL levels for the triazine group in meat exported to the USA is the “best practice” benchmark.
• large scale purchase of existing dairy/cropping properties on prime agricultural land is resulting in the destruction of farm infrastructure including housing, sheds, fencing and hydro installations and the obvious reduction in capital value. A family and community’s lifetime investment destroyed.
• industrial plantation establishment on agricultural land is a denial of the higher levels of annual income capability of that land to the local community. It is an economically inferior use which locks up the land for up to 30 years with a once only income return. Current uses (dairying and cropping) give annual returns.
• plantation establishment and destruction of farm infrastructure results in the denuding of the rural community of people and services (local government, school bus, deliveries, etc.)

 The Private Timber Reserve declaration is designed to deny local government control over landuse issues on land in its jurisdiction. From Private Forestry Tasmania’s own handout: “on land declared a Private Timber Reserve the local government cannot insist on a development application for operations subject to an approved Timber Harvesting Plan.” Despite the ‘front’ of advertisements calling for objections to the declarations, the timing excludes the statutory need for councils to consider these declarations case by case or in consultation with the community affected and the limited and untested definition of ‘prescribed’ persons, unmentioned in the advertisements. Further, under development application processes, if the developer commenced work before the planning consideration and decision period expired there would be real concerns about due process. It is a joke that land listed in intentional Private Timber Reserve advertisements are already being bulldozed for plantations before the granting of the reserve status. If the reserve process is designed to replace council’s processes then it is the perpetration of a vicious joke on our community.

 There is already huge conflict in the rural community over best use of land within the agricultural sector without even adding in the plantation factor. The long rotation needs of seed potato growers and the perennial nature of pyrethrum conflict with intensive pasture management for dairying and the relatively short rotational needs of poppies, onions, peas, etc. There is also an added interest in the high rainfall north west in intensive horticultural pursuits providing high value annual returns to the community on small acreages, e.g. in the Wynyard district, cut flowers (perennial and annual), cherry and chestnut orchards and multi cropping of vegetables and herbs.

 Not all landowners are treated equally in landuse decisions: in the current situation the plantation industry is pretty well doing as it pleases regardless of its effects on the local community and on local council’s own policies and plans. Moreover, the cavalier use of herbicides on a large scale poses threats to the viability of established agricultural enterprises and the associated private investment.

 In summary, industrial plantation establishment is not a desirable use of prime agricultural land and should be excluded from the “agriculture” definition and from the listing of desirable uses.
 
 

What is the attraction of high quality agricultural land to plantation developers?

• high quality basalt derived soils are still considerably undervalued as private forestry companies are paying depressed “dairy” prices.
• the versatility of the soils are not understood and not promoted or recognised by agricultural extension services (DPIWE).
• the potential long-term problem of phytothera infection on recently cleared (felled) land. Forestry industry has never observed machine hygiene or recognised the seriousness of the disease promoted through machinery style clear felling techniques.
• government tax policy promotes industrial plantation rollercoaster juggernauts through 100% of establishment costs deductable in Year 1. Orchards which have a higher annual value must spread establishment deductibility over the productive life of the tree (e.g. 8 years hazelnut, 15 years chestnut, etc.) Until 1996/1997 even this deductibility was not available to the orchardist. Where is the level playing field?

 Tasmanian government policy in both forestry and agriculture is directed to the “big end” of town:
 
 

• vertical integration in potatoes, pyrethrum, poppies, etc. Even walnuts where individual enterprise and risk is discouraged through promotion of “rental schemes” for tree establishment.
• Private Forestry Tasmania deals almost exclusively with field foresters from major plantation and chip companies and does not seek out farm groups to promote farm tree planting despite the slapped together brochure material.

SOCIAL ISSUE STATISTICS:

 

	1995			June 2002
	Preolenna	Meunna	Total	Preolenna	Meunna	Total
Number of Properties	24	6	30	13	0	13
Vacant Dwellings/Rental	3	0	3	8	0	8
Potential Number of Families	27	6	33	21	0	21

Total loss of 187 jobs in 5 years from district:

1 dairy farm job supports 7 jobs downstream

From Preolenna/Meunna 26 dairying jobs have gone plus 5 potential jobs (min.) from vacant properties.

Gross calculations on estimated income:

Plantation 200 hectares

$5100 a hectare at harvest in 30 years: $1,020,000

Dairy farm 200 hectares

$850 a cow p.a. from 300 cows (1.5 p.h.) over 30 years: $7,650,000

Dairy farm 200 hectares with intensive pasture management and inputs

$850 a cow p.a. from 500 cows (2.5 p.h.) over 30 years: $12,750,000

 In 1995 there were 16 major dairy, cropping and grazing properties in Preolenna/Meunna, by 2001 this number will be reduced to NIL.

In summary:

 Colleen Dibley

 Preolenna TASMANIA

 Submitted in 1997 and redrafted and submitted in November, 1999