Agriculture Policy
These
comments are in addition to the main foundation document of CFAWSA ,
the 13 page submission to the Victorian Government regarding the "50 Year
Plan" for water in Northern Victoria.
DOWNLOAD: Formal Comment on Victoria's Northern Water Strategy.
The submission includes recommendations for review of rural water allocations (including re-definition of "stock and domestic").
Other contents are summarised at: MAIN ISSUES |
Discussion
Three main factors have brought Australia to a Food and Water Security "crunch point" :
| 1) |
|
Australian governments have virtually no Food Security policies, leaving "markets" to sort most of it out. |
| 2) |
|
Australian
governments have been slow to realise how far climate change has
actually set in already, and the disastrous social damage unfolding in
country towns and regions. |
| 3) |
|
Australians have been willing to allow governments to behave this way. |
Weather
Australia's climate systems have radically altered, with El Nino/La
Nina moisture cycles now over-ridden by pollution in the northern
hemisphere. CSIRO estimates of long-term rainfall reduction for the
next fifty years has already taken place.
Our climate entered an historical drying phase in the 1970's which has
not been acknowledged ... instead described as "just a long drought".
See independent weather forecaster Kevin Long's research documents at www.thelongview.com.au
Agriculture Policy Questions
The are some basic questions that could be asked:
| - |
Where are the "Food Security" policies of Australian Governments? |
| - |
To what extent can governments intervene in agricultural production and
food distribution when things like water are totally commercialised and
market driven? |
| - |
Will we have to establish emergency hydroponic food production systems in cities to feed people? |
| - |
Is agricultural research and development still heading towards corporate Genetically Modified crop systems? |
| - |
Has Australia headed the UN's call to reject GM as a food security
measure and instead pursue organic and low-technology methods? |
| - |
Can farming and food systems survive given the global financial
collapse? Do we need to issue new forms of credit and currency to keep
the food wheels rolling? |
| - |
Is the green push for "CO2 reduction" and tree plantations going to eliminate more productive food growing land? |
| - |
Are
the reductions in some farming sectors (e.g. wine grapes, milk powder
export) actually a necessary development as we restructure our
agriculture towards domestic "food sovereignty"? |
|
|
" Critical Human Needs "
The New Water
Rationing System
EXTRACTS FROM THE
CFAWSA SUBMISSION
TO THE VIC GOVT
As
a category of security for water allocation, “Critical Human Needs” is
only just being grappled with as a political concept in Australia.
There may be ongoing conflict between various levels of government,
communities and industries as the detail and full implication of this
“water rationing mechanism” emerges.
“Critical
Human Needs” clearly acknowledges the necessity for water to be
regarded as a “common good” to be guaranteed and provided by
governments to its citizens, at least for basic survival purposes.
With
“Critical Human Needs” now being the highest level water security
available (in effect being a new “High Security Bulk Entitlement”
system) - every industry will be trying to squeeze itself through the
door as essential to the national security interest.
“Critical
Human Needs” signals that there must be a return to a basic “planned
economy” such as water rationing and governmental directives to
industry in order to meet these survival benchmarks.
“Critical
Human Needs” sets the platform for significant and direct government
intervention in water markets, agricultural systems and broader
industry in the near future, perhaps invoked under emergency or “state
of disaster” legislative powers.
The question remains: “Who will guide the precise practical definition of Critical Human Needs”?
In
theory it will be the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA),
created by the Federal Parliament through the Water Ammendment Act
2008. However, the MDBA will need to be exceptionally well-informed in
order to make its critical decisions.
Will the
MDBA be informed from the “top down” or the ground up? By vested
economic interests or the grassroots community? Behind closed doors,
or in rigorous open debate?
READ THE FULL COMMENTARY
|
|
|
