Environmental Issues and Economic Change in Australia - Coursework Example

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND ECONOMIC CHANGE IN AUSTRALIA By Student’s Name Code + Name of Course Professor/Tutor Institution City/State Date Environmental Issues and Economic Change in Australia Introduction Australia has adopted structural adjustment policies from late 1980’s to nurture commercial liberalism that are founded on market systems. Currently, there are minimal exertions advanced to Australian’s economic safety for agriculture (Stern 2007, p. 17). Australia has persistently promoted for a liberalized worldwide trade in agriculture. Australia’s environment has very unfavourable for agriculture due to its poor soils and low and unpredictable levels of rainfall (Pritchard & McManus 2000, p. 29). Water insufficiency is rampant in the country and its utility has grown into a crucial matter of natural resource. This essay analyses water accessibility and utility by agriculture in Australia. Additionally, its ecological effects are reflected alongside the range for application of market systems in the effective distribution of water. There are more ecological issues topics such as pollution of water, the use of agricultural chemicals, land clearing agricultural expansion and the effects of land degradation. These issues ultimately affect Australia’s economy and GDP. This essay will recommend a major program, which is applied alongside other mechanism, all which are meant to promote land and environmental conservation. The program entails co-management between local groups in communities (mainly agriculturalists) and public co-operation and the government as the means of promoting environmental management. Market based systems of land management have not been encouraged in Australia. The view is founded on the conception that market instruments are insufficient on their own to handle numerous environmental issues generated by agricultural progress (Leviston et al. 2001, p. 22). Policy-makers have to reflect on different varieties of ways, none of which are considered as perfect (Stern 2007, p. 19). Background to the Problem Physically, Australia is relatively different from the greater part of Europe, especially Eastern and Central Europe. Europeans started settling into the country after USA’s independence in 1788 upon the establishment of the first British colony (Deegan & Gordon 1996, p. 187). Although state interventionist policies and state enterprises grew in significance after the Second World War, Australia’s economic system continued being mixed, but was at no time communist. Beginning the end of the 1980’s, Australia has adhered to policies meant to raise greater dependence on market systems. These policies have comprised fewer domestic and international trade restrictions, the approaches for reducing the public sector’s size, and the privatisation of public businesses (Pritchard & McManus 2000, p. 37). These programs have influenced agriculture in Australia, which have turned into a significant subject of the forces in the Australian market. Generally, the Australian administration rarely attempts strengthening its falling agricultural businesses but it gives incentives to farmers impacted or those engaged in rural-areas firms to abandon farming and secure jobs in other economic activities. The competitive model has advanced the foundation of Australian policies in Agriculture. In the agricultural case, assistances are usually given for amalgamation of lands under these situations. The fishing rights as well as the government may buy fisheries and boat licencing. The main emphasis Australia’s government seems to have been for advocating efficiencies in the economy instead of, for instance, supporting rural areas in various ways (Deegan & Gordon 1996, p. 189). The numbers working in Australian agriculture are falling. In 2009, Australian agricultural sector 288,500 persons were employed working fully, while 312, 700 worked part-time (Leviston et al. 2001, p. 22). These figures represent 3 % of the Australian workforce. Generally, the comparative economic significance of farming in Australia has showed a persistent falling pattern and now represents for a very small percentage of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product. Nonetheless, such economic pointers are not a completely adequate guide to the economic relevance of agriculture (Pritchard & McManus 2000, p. 42). For instance, in most rural areas of Australia, farming remains a huge source of livelihood. It also generates essential products for human life, as well as substantial indirect employment. Underlying Economic Issues in Australia With Reference To Environmental Degradation There are extensive economic costs incurred through reduced incomes obtained by land users due to lower productivity of land. These originate from unsound government policies and poor land uses (Lawrence, Richards & Lyons 2013, p. 30). These costs are witnessed either by the land users who degraded the environment or from other users who use the sites frequently. Indirect economic costs are suffered via offsite effects generally affecting people other than those who result to degradation. For instance, water and wind erosion. The underlying economic issues associated with environmental degradation could be categorized as proximate or fundamental causes. For example, Australia’s population spread. Australia is an extremely urbanised state and nearly two-thirds of its citizens live in its major cities. A bigger segment of its population engages in tertiary industry. The country’s semi-arid and arid regions are very thinly populated A descending pattern in agronomy comparative to other sectors is a collective attribute as nations grow. Such a tendency can eventually occur in Eastern and Central of Europe. This element is being linked with increases in the levels of agriculture in Australia’s farms, capital rise in agriculture, increasing levels of labour productivity and rising ecological challenges (Dixon, James & Sherman 2013, p. 22). Simultaneously, the energy of intermediary local buyers of agricultural commodities in the markets like big processors and supermarkets has risen bringing anxieties amongst vegetable growers and dairy farmers, who report increased oppression. Additionally, Australian agriculture faces rising environmental stress because of inadequacy of water and society apprehensions regarding its influences towards the environment. The climate in Australia is unsuitable for agriculture. Apart from Antarctica, it is the driest region in the universe. A huge part of Australia is dry receiving rainfall of below 250 mm (on averagely every year) and more land is semi-arid (receiving rainfall of 240-500 mm annually). Moreover, rates of evaporation can be high and the rainfall amount uncertain and variable (Lawrence, Richards & Lyons 2013, p. 31). To worsen the matters, Australia lacks fertile soils. Most soil in Australian are intensely weathered, infertile or very ancient by international criteria, and with insufficiencies in nitrogen and phosphorus The soils found on plains are more productive and newer. Extremely little are regarded soils fit for agricultural activities. Some proximate causes of environmental degradation comprise of several environmental matters that have are outlined by the Development of Australian Agriculture. These includes various programs that have been implemented to meet the challenges. Water pollution, water availability, degradation of soils, land clearing and the use of GMO made animals, the Landcare enterprise as well as other management means that have been designed to improve agriculture. Water scarcity: inadequate water has turned out a severe challenge to the Australian environment, indicated by persistent scarcity on a bigger chunk of the country (Barrett 1925, p. 12). The drought has resulted to low levels of water in reservoirs and restrictions of water-use have been put in place in many capital towns as well as other regions. It is hypothesized that the persistent drought situations in Australia could be due to climate change brought by global warming. The country’s yield from watered agriculture land could fall severely if the drought experienced in the country continue for much longer (Dixon, James & Sherman 2013, p.28). There are and have been uncertainties regarding if the water for irrigation in the country is being used in economical ways. Substantial focus is, thus accorded to improvement and extension of arrangements to marketing rights of water utility, and tradable permit schemes. However, these systems will fail socially effectual water use unless more focus is accorded to the ecological spill overs or externalities produced by various agricultural forms (Dovers 2013, p. 19). For instance, cotton and sugar cane farming are documented to render severe influences on water‘s value e.g. it is believed that sugar cane production will have led to rising levels of nutrients in Great Barrier Reef zone that might generate into worsening in reefs in the area. Another challenge is the amount of water, which should be set aside for the environment. If full quotas for human water consumption are high in relation to quantity, then the natural water bodies and rivers levels are expected to reduce with severe consequences for nature. The major questions asked here is whether natural bodies of conservation bodies should be given water quotas or if they are to be allowed to participate in the water industry. The single major inland watercourse of Australia is the Murray-Darling River System. This water system is greatly used for irrigation motives. The administration of the water reserve is complex due to its situation in four states in Australia. Subsequently, political trans-boundary issues occur complicating the management of its water resources (Lawrence, Richards & Lyons 2013, p. 36). Upstream states are bound to ‘hog’ the water at their disposal. If regional promotions of marketing water rights can or cannot assist in resolving this challenge is yet to be established. Nonetheless, it is evident that water is turning scanter within most regions of the country and that principles or consumer-payments are employed to manage consumption of water use on a large scale. Agriculture, Water Pollution, and Chemicals Use: Australian soils lack phosphorus and nitrogen. Thus, chemical fertilisers are used in areas that are more productive agriculturally to improve yields. For instance, between 1997 and 2009 saw the application of nitrogen fertiliser more than three times, while the application of phosphorus increased twice as much in Australia. Run-off from nutrient rich water linked with the use of these kinds of fertilisers augments dangers of eutrophication and algal blooms in waters (Dovers 2013, p. 21). Additionally, use of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides in Australian farming increased considerably during this era. In the cotton situation, there were predominant rising anxieties of contamination of water originating from the application of pesticides (Hussey & Dovers 2007, p. 18). Soil Degradation: Acidity, salinity, and sodicity affect most soils in Australia. These situations occur randomly in Australia and can be worsened by agriculture activities. For instance, forest clearing can augment the incidences of drought and salinity and make water bodies to turn more saline. In situations where cereals and alike produces could be previously planted, salinity conditions make it hard to grow these crops. Soil may turn bare in patches due to increased salinity. Moreover, flora and fauna may be greatly impacted by the augmented salination of water bodies. It is approximated that the yearly expense of these soil situations to Australian agriculture exceeds $2.5 billion Australian dollars. There are qualms concerning if Australian agriculturalists return adequate biological substance to the earth surface. Only a few farmers in Australia engage in green manuring. Most of them burn or feed animals of their refuse from plants instead of ploughing it back into the land. Hence, lands are predisposed to a deteriorating structure and may lose humus. Clearing of Land and its Environmental Effect: A substantial volume of clearing vegetation in the environment to pave way for agricultural activities has happened in the country. It is projected that in the cold temperate of Eastern Australia, nearly ninety percent of plant life cover has been cleared from the time when Europeans settled. In Australia in entirety, there has been clearance of over 25 per cent of forest cover and woodland. The wide-ranging clearance is for improved pastures and cropping. Nevertheless, plant cover has also been removed to enhance the obtainability of food for cattle and other domestic animals (Dixon, James & Sherman 2013, p. 47). Land clearing minimizes wildlife’s biodiversity and has more substantial environmental effects. However, farming is almost nearly unmanageable without changing natural situations. The commercial gains of farming have to be related with its ecological effects. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006), as cited in (Hussey & Dovers 2007, p. 18) highlighted that clearance of land is a major stress on bio-diversity, and an approximated one to two thousand birds lose their habitation permanently for each a hundred hectare of woodland removed. Nearly 15 per cent of total greenhouse discharges from Australia are projected to originate from vegetation removal (greenhouse fumes are discharged from the decaying and burning vegetation matter and from soil disruption, which discharges carbon dioxide). Vegetation clearance takes a significant part in environmental degradation, the spread of intrusive species, and deteriorating quality of water (that are significant to the atmosphere, and which could render charges to the country’s economy. Until current periods, the federal government of Australia supported clearance of land. Acquisition of land for the Crown government was usually on condition that the cleared plots and tax concessions were accorded. Vegetation clearing was regarded a symbol of economic progress (Hussey & Dovers 2007, p.39). Nevertheless, in current era, tax inducements have been removed and Australian administrations have tried to maintain land clearing. Similarly, the scenario applied to livestock environmental preeminent practices, minimum tillage, weed control, salinity, and erosion control. A state backed ‘Quango’ (an NGO) (or Quasi), Landcare Australia Limited, sponsors and promotes the movement of Australian Landcare and is after corporate funding. However, a big segment of the available cash for Land care are managed by the Australian state administration in its agricultural, fish, and forestry departments. Therefore, it is likely that the charges for the transaction entailed in financing are great. Additionally, the number of farmers that have embraced practices of conservation farming is unclear because of the actions of land management groups and government agencies. A Theoretical and Critical Evaluation of the Suggested Policies Currently, the Australian administration has committed to commercial liberalism founded on the marketing system. Policies of economic improvements have propped up in the farming segment and other sectors to raise more competition in the market and tap market focus operations (Huang, Keisler & Linkov 2011, p. 12). In the international platforms, Australia has maintained in support of a liberalised worldwide trade, especially in connection with farming. Australia maintains advocating for minimized safety of agriculture in locations like the European Union. The Australian PM considers liberal trade as effectual and considers that a more liberalised worldwide trade will positively benefit the environment. Nevertheless, negative environmental effects are also possible. It is evident that in the country, marketing improvements have not adequately met numerous natural resource and environmental challenges originating from agricultural expansion. These include land clearing, water consumption, water pollution, and soil dilapidation as well as damage of flora and fauna. The country is going towards the delay of aquatic schemes as a way of addressing the challenge of water insufficiency. Whereas these arrangements could generate in using water in prudent ways, they will be very far away from perfection if the effects produced by water consumption are unallowed. A specific problem is the quantity of water to set aside for the operationalization of nature bionetworks and their locations. The question asked here is thus, who is to decide this and how? (Bateman, Mace, Fezzi, Atkinson & Turner 2011, p. 177). Most of the environmental challenges linked with Australian agriculture, for instance land clearing, persist being addressed by governmental approaches, or are never commendably examined completely like nutrient enhancement of surface run-off water in several regions. In addition, operation and management have trialled for many years as a means of tackling soil degradation challenges using the Australian Landcare Program This considers it unwise and impractical to depend on price instruments on their own to address ecological challenges linked with agricultural expansion (Huang, Keisler & Linkov 2011, p. 15). Price instruments, similarly to most tools for allocation of social organization of resources, contain some restrictions. This hardens program choices given that it is essential to select between flawless policy approaches. A Summary of the Optimal Solution to the Challenges Established The National Landcare Program constitutes fundamentals of indirect management and co-operation. It could be remarkable to contrast its character and performance with programs applied in the European Union to encourage farms to voluntarily generate agro-ecological products. It is, nevertheless, not easy to apply the program in land clearing. This is because the Australian federal administration has established extra initiatives in current decades to inspire viable agriculture and for conservation of naturally occuring resources. These schemes comprise reinforcement from the ‘Nationwide Action Plan for Water Quality and Salinity’ and the Natural Traditional Trust. Once again, it is possible that considerable amounts of the resources are taken up by the public service of Australia itself. From a different perspective, it might be discovered that whereas in japan and Europe the multi-functionality of agriculture and its constructive ecological spillovers are considered as an aim for relocations of revenue to agrarian markets, which is fewer in Australia similarly to America (Callan & Thomas 2012, p. 19). Australia has generally approved market-led schemes in the recent past in connection to its agrarian industries. The Australian has concentrated on giving essential adjustment reinforcement to farmers to manage its changes in the market, e.g. through grants given to agriculturalists to abandon dairying and production of sugar cane provided low incomes recently recorded and to assist with the amalgamation of farmlands within these set ups. In specific, there is almost no effort exerted on land facilities as an incentive for farming and rural sustenance in Australia, differently from the European region (Pannell, et al. 2012, p. 377). Nevertheless, in several areas, agriculture landscapes openly have facilities worth in Australia e.g. damage to the sugar cane farmlands and their potential alteration to other amenities such as housing estates within the final few controversial ages in northern Brisbane coastal region. The damage was due to the closure of a domestic sugarcane plant. Most Australians and travellers appreciated the verdant sugar cane sceneries. However, it is argued that the Australian administration drought reprieve for agriculturalists is improving agriculture within the country (Callan & Thomas 2012, p. 28). It is argued to be a motivator for growers to maintain farming on marginal land and to be assist the incompetent ones to sustain farming. Large amounts of finances for reprieve from drought are accorded to Australian farmers starting 2007, and financing persisted to 2011 culminating in assistance totalling AUS$1.8 billion. Still, there is doubt about whether the prevailing drought situations are exceptional or if they are moderately caused by altering weather trends due to increases in the levels of greenhouse gases within the air. With climate transformation, growers ought to adapt to it. The income level support created for farming in Europe surpasses that for farmers of Australia. In 2009, OECD approximated revenue established that the farm subsidies from consumers and taxpayers represented 34 per cent in income of the European Union and 5 % of farm revenue within Australia (OECD 2006, pg. 33). The OECD has undertaken fact-founded analyses of policy tools and different instruments to assist the Australian government to come up and implement effective and economic environmental policies. The organization focuses on policy instruments such as tradable limits, taxes, and voluntary means in order to contribute to integrating economic growth and environmental protection. The OECD has and is designing policies, which encourage and incentivise waste prevention, recycling and minimisation. Current work pays attention on advocating for sustainable materials management in order to reduce the generation of wastes (Pannell, et al. 2012, p. 380). Nevertheless, with the rise in the sum of states in the European Union, governmental compressions are expected to be spawned and this will ultimately generate into minimized revenue sustenance for European growers. There might be mounting prominence on market effectiveness as a support of farming policies in the European Union, both due to external and internal political pressures, such as those pronounced in the World Trade Organization. Secondly, there is likelihood of rising concerns regarding the transaction costs levels entailed in interfering farming programs, specifically the expenses enacted on agriculturalists in attaining revenue sustenance as well as the public administration expenses of such arrangements (Bateman et al. 2011, p. 178). These apprehensions may additionally corrode reinforcement for the European Union’s prevailing agricultural schemes. Hence, in the end, the European Union’s agricultural guidelines may draw closer to used in Australia. Nevertheless, the speed of transformation within the European Union’s farming program is projected to experience difficulties sue to the considerable rural adjustments necessitated by joining member countries in the European Union coming from Eastern and Central Europe. There exists significant difference in the agronomic development phases in the EU countries (Callan & Thomas 2012, p. 36). Bibliography Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006b. Year Book of Australia, 2005. Agriculture. Characteristics of Australian farms. (Updated 24/1/2006). Available at: htpp://www.abs.gov.au) [Accessed 04/11/2014]. Barrett, J 1925. Save Australia: A plea for the right use of our flora and fauna. Melbourne: Macmillan. Bateman, J, Mace, G, Fezzi, C, Atkinson, G & Turner, K 2011. ‘Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments.’ Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 177-218. Callan, S & Thomas, J 2012. Environmental economics and management: Theory, policy, and applications. Cengage Learning: Stamford. Deegan, C & Gordon, B 1996, ‘A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations.’ Accounting and business research, Vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 187-199. Dixon, J, James, E & Sherman, P 2013. Economics of dryland management. Routledge. Dovers, S 2013, ‘The Australian Environmental Policy Agenda.’ Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 114-128. Huang, B, Keisler, J & Linkov, I 2011, ‘Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends.’ Science of the total environment, Vol. 409, no. 19, pp. 3578-3594. Hussey, K & Dovers, S 2007, ‘International perspectives on water policy and management.’ Managing water for Australia: The social and institutional challenges, Vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 141-154. OECD, 2006. Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation. OECD: Paris. Lawrence, G, Richards, C & Lyons, K 2013, ‘Food security in Australia in an era of neoliberalism, productivism and climate change.’ Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 29, no.2, pp. 30-39. Leviston, Z, Leitch, A, Greenhill, M, Leonard, R & Walker, I 2011, ‘Australians’ views of climate change.’ Canberra: CSIRO Report. Retrieved November 04, 2014. Pannell, D, Roberts, A, Park, G, Alexander, J, Curatolo, A & Marsh, SP 2012, ‘Integrated assessment of public investment in land-use change to protect environmental assets in Australia. Land Use Policy, Vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 377-387. Pritchard, B & McManus, P 2000. Land of discontent: The dynamics of change in rural and regional Australia. UNSW Press. Melbourne. Stern, N 2007. The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University press: Cambridge. Read More