Dam it, farm it (Image: Getty)
The government wants to dam northern rivers to create a giant food bowl ā but no one knows how it will effect the environment or Indigenous people
AUSTRALIA has a daring plan: to convert its tropical north into a huge āfood bowlā. The area being considered spans 3 million square kilometres. The plan offers many benefits, but the environmental risk has not yet been properly measured and may be huge.
Advertisement
Developing the north is a major aim of the Liberal party governing Australia. They want to double the countryās agricultural output by mid-century. In a last June, they said: āNo longer will northern Australia be seen as the last frontier: it is in fact, the next frontier.ā They are now preparing a .
At first glance, north Australia is promising. It gets 1 quadrillion litres of rain a year. Most falls in just four months, so the idea is to build dams to store these wet season rains, and irrigate the land during the eight bone-dry months.
There is clearly potential, says of the CSIRO in Brisbane. Aquifers alone could sustain 60,000 hectares of crops, according to a 2009 . Then there are the rivers. Dams on just two, the Flinders and Gilbert, could support 50,000 hectares of crops, .
Stone says 1.7 million hectares could conceivably be irrigated. But he says the government will probably miss its target. āIād be surprised if we could double Australiaās agricultural output.ā
A key problem is that most of the rain evaporates fast, so only 20 per cent or so enters rivers. āIf you took all of that, then there would be zero stream flow,ā Stone says. Perhaps only 1 per cent would be available for irrigation.
The . Yearly rainfall can be half or twice the average.
Then there are the downsides. Northern Australia contains ā the only significant area in a wealthy, stable country. Each wet season, rivers overflow and flood the savannah, and life blooms. The region is home to 40 per cent of Australiaās reptiles and 75 per cent of its freshwater fish, .
This environment will suffer if it is farmed. Yet the government wants to relax environmental regulations ā to cut the āgreen tapeā. Prime Minister Tony Abbott has said ā.
The trouble is, the āwastedā rain is all used somewhere, such as supporting fisheries. For example, damming the Gilbert river would cut the water flow to nearby wetlands by 10 per cent.
We donāt know how these pros and cons will add up, says of Charles Darwin University in Darwin, Australia. āWe couldnāt tell you exactly how much you can take out before you start to degrade fisheries or reduce the number of turtles that Aboriginal people harvest.ā
ĀWe canāt tell you how much you can take out before you degrade fisheries or reduce the turtle harvestĀ
One thingās for sure: Australia wonāt get something for nothing.
ĀGeese ate the seedlings, crocodiles threatened workers and the rice that did grow was too far from marketsĀ
Invading the north?
Everyone acknowledges, at least in principle, that the development of northern Australia must benefit Indigenous Australians. They already own and claim land rights over 80 per cent. They are concentrated in the north, where they make up 16 per cent of the population, despite being only 2 per cent of the countryās total.
Indigenous Australians have been enormously disadvantaged since the arrival of Europeans. Their life expectancy is 12 years shorter, and they are incarcerated 12 times as often as other Australians. They only got the right to vote in 1962.
For the government, redressing the balance means āā. The trouble is, Indigenous Australians may not benefit from those opportunities, says of James Cook University in Townsville.
Her research suggests they have less to gain from development than non-Indigenous people, and more to lose. They have few connections to the economy, so are unlikely to get jobs. Moreover, some Indigenous people rely on harvesting wild plants and animals, and irrigating crops threatens that ().
Nevertheless, some Indigenous groups have expressed support for developing the north so long as their interests are prioritised. Stoeckl says this is essential. āNew ādevelopmentsā need to forge strong financial links with existing residents, Indigenous and non-Indigenous,ā she says. āOtherwise, the ādevelopmentā will be similar to what the Europeans did when conquering the new world.ā
Lost in the Fogg
Fogg dam is an object lesson in how not to develop northern Australia. It was a gung-ho attempt to create a food bowl, one that unequivocally failed.
The dam was built in 1956 . But the project flopped for all the reasons that are now recognised as problems in developing the region. Native wildlife like ate the seedlings, crocodiles were a risk to workers, and the little rice that did grow was far away from markets.
One story illustrates how badly wrong Fogg dam went. After the dam was built, it took eight years to build the channels for irrigation ā because the flood plain was too wet for bulldozers.
Instead of a big farm, the region is now a wildlife park, home to animals like , and a reptile and amphibian research lab.
Success, sort of
The Ord river scheme shows how developing Australiaās north will go: a partial success at best.
It is the countryās largest dam and artificial lake. The main dam (above) was .
Some hate it. The Wilderness Society says it āā. They point out that food crops, mostly rice and sugar, failed. They have been replaced with sandalwood. Worse, 42 years on, the dam still hasnāt made back its cost.
Others see it is a clear win. Ex-prime minister Kevin Rudd stood on the dam when he announced .
In truth it is a fairly typical new irrigation project, says Peter Stone from the CSIRO in Brisbane. After lots of trial and error, it is finally working out. He says there is nothing wrong with growing sandalwood if there is demand. āItās not my business what farmers grow.ā
The right sort of dam
The Flinders and Gilbert rivers are right next door to each other but they are strikingly different in their physical characteristics. The Gilbert would be suited to a large in-stream dam, while the Flinders could only support lots of small off-stream dams, .
Like many of Australiaās northern rivers, they support massive flood plains in most wet seasons and shrink to trickles in the dry season. Together, they could support about 50,000 hectares of irrigated land in about 85 per cent of years.
From an ecological point of view, in-stream dams are much worse, says of Charles Darwin University in Darwin, Australia. Many fish, especially in the rivers that feed into the Gulf of Carpentaria such as the Flinders and Gilbert, need to move up and down the rivers. They canāt do that if there is a dam in the way.
Not visionary but useful
The Burdekin dam supports the largest irrigated area in northern Australia: 80,000 hectares, . The water comes from a combination of surface water and groundwater. Some of the water from the dam is used to top up the groundwater, preserving it for the long term.
Further developing the Burdekin is an obvious thing to do, but probably not as attractive to politicians who want to present their ideas as āvisionaryā, says ecologist of James Cook University in Queensland. āThe Burdekin is underutilised,ā he says. āIt has spare water and thereās spare soil downstream.ā
Even The Wilderness Society agrees. They say further developing existing, proven farmlands, rather than moving to risky greenfield sites, is a .
This article appeared in print under the headline āThe taming of a vast wildernessā
