Sustainable cane farming achieves a viable and stable income for growers and mills and is generally locally developed. While sugar price and returns continue to fluctuate due to uncontrollable world markets and seasonal variability; income averaging through self-planned income equalisation deposits dampens variation in income.
With a stable industry able to invest and repay loans, farm debt can be serviced and many loans are created within the local urban/rural community. Economic stability is enhanced with the retention of locally controlled peak and assignment, self regulation on-farm and a flexible orderly industry regulation.
Economic viability and stability are created by both increasing returns and reducing input costs.
The primary increase in income comes from local and regional value adding and alternate products from raw sugar. Alternate products are seen as the major vehicle for vertical expansion to create higher value from existing production without unacceptable environmental impact. Outside jobs and alternate crops take a minor role. Total input costs drop dramatically despite some new additional tasks through different fertility and pest management approaches, increased fuel efficiency, shared employees, and increased efficiency of human and physical resource use. Healthy soil and plants now handle problems that farmers had spent money to treat. Further research assists these goals by development of new varieties, some genetic engineering, improved practices and materials, and improved extension on-farm for prompt adoption. Substantial non-farm employment opportunities and paid farmer research and demonstration avoid a declining human resource base for farming cane.
Social Environment
Sustainable cane farming creates and exists within a rewarding local and global lifestyle and ensures that the skill and culture of farming persists. It also promotes improved
personal/psychological health for community members.
With a mix of small family farms, cooperative family farming of larger holdings, and some larger farms; there is a structural diversity that offers choice. While farm population probably remains static, off-farm employment increases through value adding/alternate product industries, shared farm employees, reforestation/Landcare jobs, and non-farm jobs that assist farmers (ie. farm tourism, EPM scouts, etc). Women take a larger role that is clearly recognised, often in financial planning. Farmers find increasing satisfaction in their role as a result of involvement in and income from on-farm research and demonstration. As a result of stable, viable income and increased social responsibility, farmers see themselves with pride and with a secure status in the community. The joy of farming returns as a result of economic viability, less toxic chemicals, cooperation with environmental needs, and the increased visual aesthetics of the region. Farmers have less stress and more leisure time. Where continuous crushing is retained, off hour services, better scheduling, or other solutions ease the disruption to family life.
The skills of cane farming are securely passed on to new farmers, now quite interested due to the clear incentives of income, lifestyle, and security. Transfer of skills is largely local: farm and
recognise that the best learning is from those with experience. Some farmer-teachers generate additional income by teaching at regional TAFE/schools and computer aids assist new farmers.
Adoption of preferred or new practices is enhanced by industry coordinated on-farm research and demonstration and enjoys legislative, tax, and/or other incentives.
The urban communities in the region are increasingly aware of the needs of cane farming and strictly limit development of prime cane lands, favouring higher density redevelopment in existing towns. Urban and rural people cooperate in making community based loans, keeping more resources in the local community. Health and safety awareness is increased through effective communication. The recognition of wide social benefit from" a major export industry allows external funding of large capital structures like irrigation/drainage systems and tax allowances for sustainability structures and practices.
Institutional Environment
In sustainable cane farming, government, industry, statutory organisations and other institutions become much more accountable to and led by the local farming community, using a democratised ICM as the essential framework. There is increased representation and lobbying to all levels of government to enhance communication and increase grower participation in decision making.
Government support for ICM and sustainable practices is in place, but not as direct financial aid.
Government is encouraged to respond by eliminating sugar imports, increasing effectiveness of anti-dumping legislation, providing investment allowances and tax incentives while interfering with growers as little as possible. Taxes generated in the region are used in the region.
Regulation becomes much more local, with Mackay sugar crop supporting various propositions that are not as useful to other regions, such as partial acquisition that allows value adding or alternate products to be marketed directly. Some regulations remain useful for orderly production and processing. Growers and millers reach agreement locally.
Research, development, and extension for sustainable cane farming differs substantially from present practices. While centralised coordination and research continues for laboratory, confidential commercial, or high technology work, the majority of industry research and extension occurs on real farms. With increased R & E funding both from within the prosperous local industry and from wider social support, "user pays" often turns into "user paid" when farmers are modestly remunerated for on-farm R & E work. Growers are fully involved in research prioritisation and extension planning work, using commercial whole farm systems as the focus and sites. Growers self help groups at mill area and cell group levels create very cost efficient extension that is quickly taken up by their neighbours.
Statutory service agencies show increased accountability to their grower/supporters, possibly moving to voluntary funding. Extension to explain research results and further development of computer aids become priorities.
COLLABORATION MAP TO SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABLE CANE FARMING IN MACKAY
"Who Does What in the Coming Decades?"
Darker shading and higher number in square indicates increased number of responses (from nine groups)
C Growers ACFA ASMC
BSES QDPI Prod Bds Committees Com/lnd Agribiz Harvest Contrs L Community
Industry Organistions, QLD Sugar Corp.
Canegrowers Association Australian Cane Farmers Association Australian Sugar Milling Council Sugar Research Institute Mackay Area Corporate 4 Co-operative Cane Mills
Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations QLD Department of Primary Industries Regional Cane Protection and Productivity Boards and their Mill Artea Commercial and Industry Business Interests (Fertiliser, equipment etc) Commercial Cane Harvester Owner/Contractors Local Communities and Mackay City
11.4 Collaboration Map To Sustainability Cane Farming In Mackay
With an extensive selection of sustainability indicators to monitor progress, the next objective was to attempt to define the nature of a successful cooperative effort in Mackay to increase sustainability. A collaboration map was constructed by each focus group by cross referencing major action goals from the indicator work with all potential agents responsible for implementation. The purpose was to examine "who will do what?" to avoid duplication of effort, to ensure full coverage of needed work, and to observe where resources will need to be dedicated to achieve success. For each action/outcome, participants were asked to assign primary and secondary responsibility on the basis of "who can best address the solution, observe the indicators, and implement the desired outcome." Two-three agents were identified for each goal. Beyond these first responsibilities it was assumed all other segments would cooperate and support those with primary and secondary responsibility. A minor interest in trying to plot responsibility over a number of time frames (immediately, year 2000, 20 year future, 50 year future) did not appear productive-as most actions were seen as fairly immediately needing attention. During the exercise, the three research and extension organisations were often seen as one "multiple personality" agent of responsibility, generally retaining their present division of labor in their roles.
Observations The first and most visible conclusion from the collaboration map is that it is the growers themselves that have predominate responsibility in achieving increased sustainability.
Perhaps this is rightly so as they derive income from their operation, their heirs take over the resulting farms, and their continued presence on the land with the necessary skills and knowledge is vital to good farm management. This massive responsibility also speaks of a concomitant right to acquire and manage resources from the rest of society, such as large irrigation dam infrastructure investments and research/development funding. The growers of Mackay recognise their responsibility as the most appropriate major force in increasing sustainability and will need support from all other sectors. Clearly, they can't do it alone, but they need to be in charge.
Research and extension organisations are seen as the most appropriate agents for collaboration toward increased sustainability. They have slightly different tasks but approximately equal responsibilities among themselves during the exercise, it was clear that their role was one of responding to needs on the farm, as agreed by the farmer and assumed increased representation to and accountability from institutions was accomplished, largely through the actions of the membership/representative bodies such as ACFA/Canegrowers/ASMC in speaking for the growers.
Commercial segments (harvesters, material & equipment manufacturers, and marketing efforts) were seen as taking roles in providing new tools, materials for pest control, new fertilisers, appropriate equipment, IPM scouts, and development of value added products.
Governments were seen as having a role in channeling financial support through large infrastructure investment that benefits all of society, such as the current Teemburra Dam proposal.
They have a further role of facilitation or "getting out of the way" by providing investment allowance or tax credit for beneficial investments on the farm like conservation structures. They have a role in education and the passing on of farmer skills beyond the farm based education ideas, as in the local TAFE. Local government seems less important than the wider local community in assisting progress toward sustainability, but the role of local government and the ICM framework in water supply and drainage scheme development was clearly important.
Keeping It Sweet - ACF So potentially responsible bodies like SRI appear to have very little to do with sustainability beyond general support or occasional specific problem solving.
11.5 Strategies Inherent in Achieving Outcomes.
Controlled Erosion With growers and research organisations taking a primary role in developing on-farm practices as described in the scenarios, local government also has a role in the way it manages, or fails to manage, road drainage systems, planning controls on conversion of farmland to other uses, and the essential interplay between rural and urban water supply & waste planning.
Vertical Expansion In addition to key participation by growers and research, development of new products will involve considerable effort by the mill processors and the QSC marketing arm.
Commercial interests may take a role in development of new products from sugar or development of inputs that reduce costs such as biological innoculants. Government is seen as taking a facilitative role through policy planning, infrastructure funding, tax incentives, etc. to support increasing returns for existing lands.
Social Responsibility In developing and communicating increased social responsibility of cane farming, the local community is important to set standards and provide immediate feedback to growers. While there is some help from researchers, the representative organisations are placed in the position to receive comment from society and communicate growers' response back to society.
Increased Soil H e a l t h , Decreased C o m p a c t i o n , a n d t h e T r a n s i t i o n to Biological/Mineral Fertiliser A p p r o a c h e s It should be clear from descriptions in Phase II and III indicator work that these will be benefits.
Increased W a t e r Supply While some growers can independently develop additional water supplies through on-farm dams, irrigation bores, water harvesting schemes or other practices, participants saw a major role for all levels of government. This was seen as both leaving more dollars in growers hands to implement sustainable practices and also their support for large scale projects like the current Teemburra Dam. Similarly increased drainage was seen as often beyond the farm (albeit with significant work done on farm). With state sponsored drainage schemes and local government commitment important. Water retention, improving efficiency in irrigation and reducing water contamination are largely accomplished as discussed in the scenarios by growers, research, and extension but with a commitment by state water resources water quality monitoring programs.
I m p l e m e n t a t i o n of I P M In addition to action by growers and researchers, significant action could be taken by private industry such as providing IPM scouts to assist on-farm monitoring, development of new commercial products (chemical, biological, and mineral) and independent consultants.
Breeding for Sustainability is seen as action by mills and growers to identify needs enhanced by communication of needs via representative organisations.
Stable Viable Economies fall broadly across many agents of responsibility and evidence the multitude of opportunities for achieving progress in this outcome. While each has responsibility, again farmers see themselves at the center of achieving this goal, but not as the sole recipient of its
Psychological Health is similarly widely spread across the groups with the strongest responsibility within the local community where interaction is strongest. This also points to the primacy of local community standards over outside standards from cities or centralised bureaucracies. Again, governments take a supportive role in indicating support for agriculture and consulting with the sugar industry rather than taking unilateral action (like eliminating tariffs). Mills directly govern whether or not they go to continuous crushing and its attendant social disruption.
Transfer of Farming Skills falls first to those with the exiting skills and their strategies of training children, apprentices and staff, with the assistance of extension agents. Educational opportunities also fall to representative organisations to promote, lobby, and facilitate the availability of structured courses and to the government TAFE system.
Increased Representation and Accountability (Institutions) Government must be accountable and accept representation, as do industry bodies and both are directed by growers and their representative grower and miller organisations. The lobbying role of Canegrowers Association is especially clear.
Effective research and Extension is equally divided between growers and key service agencies, many of the strategies are presented in the earlier scenarios and indicators sections.
Keeping It Sweet - ACF