Cropping land policy discussion has promising start

THE State Government this week released its policy framework for protecting strategic cropping land (SCL) from permanently destructive mining activities.
The Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Stephen Robertson, is to be congratulated for striving for a policy that strikes a balance between the myriad of planning issues surrounding mining development and agricultural production.
For the first time, we are embarking on a path that recognises that good farmland is rare and valuable.
We are a State rich in mineral resources; but these resources can be mined only once. By protecting our most productive farming country we will ensure we have the ability to continue producing food and fibre (and wealth) long after the underground minerals are gone.
Conversely, destroying our best land by ripping up the ground and creating an open-cut coal mine would be irresponsible and short-sighted given the very long timeframe of production that can be delivered from this land. This policy is an important step toward recognising that.
Looking at the maps this week, the SCL ‘trigger area’ is about four percent of Queensland. This is an increase from the original two percent put forward in the government’s first discussion paper.
QFF looks forward to working constructively with the government and its members on the finer details of the maps and surrounding policy. We know there will be challenges ahead as well.
While this policy appears to secure a good level of protection against strip-mining, it is less clear how much it would afford protection from other activities such as coal seam gas (CSG). The policy indicates ‘alienation’ of cropping land as an activity that results in farming being unable to occur for 50 years or more.
With CSG, individual wells are expected to exist for about 20 years, and the wells are comparatively small when compared with open-cut coal mines.
Therefore, there is question mark over how SCL would be protected from gas mining activities particularly any impact on water resources, and the debate about what constitutes alienation will be complicated.
Neverless, the cumulative impact of tens of thousands wells and numerous projects and tenements across the Darling Downs could have disastrous impacts on the agricultural sector and to somehow mitigate these impacts through project design and condition will be important if the planning system cannot accommodate the complexity.
An individual gas well alone may not alienate a piece of land, even though it would add to the difficulty to farm the area around it.
However, 40,000 wells could have highly alienating impacts via the cumulative impact on property values, the potential impact on the underground water, and the sheer frustration of farmers as they attempt to navigate their machinery around a patchwork of gas wells.
This potentially will lead to an insidious and eventual alienation of cropping land and the farm sector that, if not balanced in the future, could be as devastating as an open-cut coal mine.
On top of that, there are also question marks over the relationship between SCL and timber plantations and urban development needs.
QFF will be raising these issues and many others in the months ahead. In the long term, our goal is to ensure a balance between the interests of two of Queensland’s most important industries: agriculture and mining.
Although it can be easy to be critical, the State Cabinet on this occasion has struck out on the right path by showing a clear intent to balance the ledger.
Both of these industries are crucial industries for the long-term prosperity of this State. That’s why this policy framework is so important and why QFF will be working with the government for an outcome that is acceptable for all stakeholders.