SCL criteria not perfect but we must move forward

OVER the last 18 months I have used this column on many occasions to discuss the important proposals surrounding the State Government’s Strategic Cropping Land (SCL) policy.
It has been a slow process. Discussion papers have been followed by submissions, which have been followed by committees which have generated more discussion.
Decisions have been at a premium and subsequently hard to come by.
Last week another a rung on the ladder was climbed. Minister for Environment and Resource Management Kate Jones released the Government’s proposed criteria for the identification of SCL.
These criteria were to be released as a final after the draft criteria were released for discussion in the last quarter of last year.
As well as being up for public discussion these draft criteria were also field tested with the view of verifying their veracity in terms of usability and scientific rigor.
That has been where the process was up to, with stakeholders being informed that the first round of field testing was completed and further in field testing was proving difficult due to the extensive and lengthy wet season.
The expectations were that we would see a final report from the field testing and advice on a final set of criteria sometime early this year.
The gap between these steps and what was released last week can only be filled by our own speculation.
But there is certainly some obvious difficulties in terms of the scientific certainty, policy equity and political appetite and these difficulties appear to be too hard for the Government to resolve
In my mind though, it is time for a reality check.
The criteria released last week and indeed the trigger maps that will form the first stage of the policy are not perfect.
The mapping is imprecise and some of the data used to develop them is dated.
But this can be dealt with as the trigger map simply starts the process and it is the criteria that are really important.
In this case, though, the criteria do not recognise the fully diversity and range of the agricultural industries in Queensland. Some of our most productive farming systems exist profitably on soils that will not be captured by these criteria.
These are only the questions that exist while we consider the two first steps in a final policy on SCL.
The identification of what land is SCL is critical but we must also work on how the policy is applied, what conditions it would enforce and what thresholds would need to be met for it take effect.
But it is time for us to get on with the job on SCL.
While further discussion might be noteworthy, fairer and indeed yield a “tighter” set of criteria, it might all come to nothing because for every week we delay, further damage is done to the soil that is so crucial to our farming businesses.
This policy is designed to only apply in those circumstances where the proposed development will permanently destroy the productive capacity of the soil.
In turn, while it does not apply we continue to lose these soils to be covered by houses, dug up for coal or drilled for gas.
Whether we believe the criteria are perfect, or that the maps capture all the “right” areas or indeed “my” area, is one thing but it is another to search for a perfect system when it does not exist and in the searching we lose the very thing we set out to protect.
To be effective we need Government to put a stake in the ground are recognise how important these soils are.
This recognition must come in the form of an appropriate plan for their protection.
Australian farmers will be asked to produce twice as much food off the same amount of land (or less) within 40 years.
The challenge of increasing productivity is great enough without also losing any resources security that may exist to invest against.
The Queensland Government has been very effective and deliberate at talking up its credential and prospects for growth in gas and minerals resources.
It is time our politicians listened to their communities and balanced the bullish rhetoric by also putting in place the SCL policy swiftly and in such a way as to secure our future beyond the resources boom.