- Sub Main Menu
- sunshine coast
- noosa
- coolum
- national
- world
Windy min 12° - max 23° Tackling our caneland quandary
12:00a.m. 22nd May 2008
Farmer Howard Prentis, Sunshine Coast Canelands Action Group spokesman Jay Chandler and CSIRO scientist Dr Stuart Whitten are keen to find a use for Coast caneland. Photo: Michaela O'Neill/174873
A new CSIRO report has recommended action on finding sustainable uses for the Sunshine Coast’s 13,000 hectares of caneland.
At a meeting in Valdora, CSIRO scientist Stuart Whitten described the caneland volume as “enormous”.
“It’s one-tenth the size of Brisbane, and the size of the city of Darwin,” he said.
The report presented four options, one being where current ad hoc farm sales and partial development left a lot of unmanaged or abandoned land, while the next two involved unlikely government funding to improve eco-systems.
The fourth – and preferred – option involved the community “thinking outside the paddock” to bring about a balance of development, niche farming and other productive uses of the land while protecting flood plains.
Sunshine Coast Canelands Action Group spokesman Jay Chandler said promoting mixed use of the land was the answer.
“It does not have to be all development,” he said.
“But to continue to think it can remain as it is, is denying reality.”
He said people needed to “think beyond the paddock”.
“All farmers are environmentalists – but if we want to keep it liveable it means trade-offs,” he said.
He said development could be kept out of the flood plains, as only 7900 hectares was in low-lying areas.
Farmers Howard Prentis and Murray Oakes said the report was a step forward, but both have moved part of their land into alternative crops, as well as having shares in Biocane.
“I don’t want to see wall-to-wall housing on the land – (and) I’ve seen the floods that go over it,” Mr Prentis said.
But he said after five years of cane equipment lying unused, the start-up costs for cane farming would be substantial.
Mr Prentis’s farm in Maroochy River has already been partially diversified into lychee and ginger production.
Mr Oakes said it was unlikely his kids would be able to farm the land, no matter what happened.
“The land value has risen to the point that if you want to farm, it’s better to sell here and buy somewhere else,” he said.
“And agricultural cost inputs have gone through the roof because of China’s insatiable demand and the US grain situation.
“Our costs have increased 40% in the last six months.”
Mr Oakes said he was currently growing pineapples.
Sunshine Coast Environment Council manager Ian Christesen said he encouraged creative thinking but was hesitant about involving developers co-operatively.
“I am concerned about the fourth option,” he said.
“It is fraught with dangers and could open a Pandora’s box.”
Mr Christesen said any agreement involving developers had to be made in “watertight” fashion.
Coast councillor Vivien Griffin, in whose division nearly all cane land falls, said she hoped a partnership could be created between the council and farmers.
“It is not good enough it has languished in the too-hard basket for so long,” she said.
What is the best solution to make use of the Coast's caneland? Post a comment to share your ideas.
Recent Comments
If future development was conditioned to insist the flood prone portion of the land parcels were turned into public open space (at the developers expense), then our community would greatly benefit.
I am puzzled why the perception that we don’t want the old canefields developed.
In my opinion it would stop hectares upon hectares of trees being removed in other areas being subdivided, utilize the existing road networks linking the coast and hinterlands, improve the visual qualities of the coast and hopefully improve the water quality entering our rivers.
As for the cane fields themselves, is the crop suitable for turning to Ethanol? If so, could a fuel be produced and sold to Maroochydore Airport? Branson recently flew one of his planes on Bio-Ethanol (as a publicity stunt admittedly) and we'd have the chance of the world's first (?) carbon-neutral airport.
After all if most of the caneland is north of the Maroochy river, a buffer between Maroochy and Noosa would make good common sense.
I believe there are community groups working on similar issues at the moment.
Now back to the story, our world renowned CSIRO has suggested a viable option that uses the land for crops, some housing and other niche farming activities. But rather than embrassing this the first words out of the SCEC Mr Christensen are that it is "fraught with danger", "pandora's box" and "hesitant working with developers".
BooHoo. You can't seem to work with anyone who doesn't see it your way. Give them a chance because if we leave it to the SCEC then nothing will happen, anywhere, guaranteed!!!! The region should look at the idea then make a decision based on the plan and not "the sky is falling" scare tactics and statements pedled by some people who just will not accept we are growing.
If you embrace the idea and be part of the planning then who knows, maybe everyone will be happy.
This is a wonderful idea and is not the first time that it has been suggested - recently I mean. Sugar can definitely be turned into ethanol through a very simple process called fermentation. It's being done all over the world...from sugar cane, corn syrup and grapes.
The problem, I think, was something to do with the Commonwealth Government not being prepared to lower the excise (tax) on alcohol for fuel - making it uncompetitive as a petroleum substitute.
Eugene - Now it's not Stockwell's any more, it's Richard Florida's Biosphere now ? But you are right. Most of the caneland is north of the Maroochy River. All the available land south of the river has houses on it already.
What with the farmers already producing CowCandy for cattle feed for export, this would be better alternative for employment and value adding than just building and developing over VERY productive farming land.
This would reduce the need for importing oil and reduce our trading deficit.
Who needs more cement and bitumen
Then there was some issue with the fact that one of John Howard's relatives owns an existing ethanol factory.
That's history ! No need for either of those to be problems any more. Howard is gone and Rudd is getting his alcohol excise from alcopops now. Let's have another look at it.
Just a thought. Edward deBono taught me to think laterally. That's what I'm doing.
Better to look at uses that benefit the whole community/environment and if that means a trade off with a small amount of development , sounds good to me
I suggest that if the community wants to keep the former cane lands as a community asset they stop blaming the farmers and land owners for wanting to transition by the only way open to them. The only way into a future that can give them a return involves some form of development.
Not one of them is advocating wholesale and inapropriate development. They are seeking some flexibility and oppenness to good development proposals that meet community and environmental needs. The only other options are huge public investment (at least $100M per year) to subsidise 'your' cane farm dreams; or else to abandon vast tracts of land to inevitable and disastrous degridation.
If you want public funding to protect 'your' view of the sunshine coast, then see if you can make it happen. Personally, I already pay enough tax and would far prefer a privately funded solution.
I suggest you read the CSIRO reports, actually talk to farmers, research the ethanol industry - Brazil in particular (you definitely don't want to be a cane farm worker there, or someone dependent on the rainforest that has been cleared to make scale canegrowing possible).
Check out the many, many research papers on industries like bamboo and hemp. Consider that Australia hasn't adopted any of the options mentioned because they are not viable even in far more suitable agricultural areas than the Sunshine Coast.
Do these things and you may finally recognise that much of the former cane land cannot support agriculture. However, if the local and state government will work with landowners - the former cane land CAN support a world leading approach to sustainable development that would accommodate community, commerce and the environment rather than weeds, pest and petulence.
Hardly justification for your rants and personal insults in favour of Developing the land I wouldn't have thought.
There is a lot of land there - 13,000 hectares in fact - which should be more than enough room to accomodate several of these ideas. Not just one which you happen to have a passion for.
13,000Ha is big, I agree. To us!.
Some is suitable for agriculture, much is not (around 7,000Ha). So what to do? moreover, who will pay for it?
A failure to grasp the issues in a dispassionate manner will see this problem manifest itself to the detriment of both the environment and the economy.
The argument to leave the cane land 'as is' for future agriculture is just head in the sand stuff. It has been five years since the closure of the Mill and the SEQ Plan locking out any suitable alternative plans to be proposed for the cane land.
In the mean time we have a Maroochy inspired (sic)local area plan that tells us that urban densification is the answer to land supply issues.
Some of the cane land could be developed without losing another tree in areas that surely have a higher environmental and asthetic value such as Coolum, Mons, Forest Glen and West Buderim.
Development in carefully selected areas of former cane land could fund managed green open spaces, rehabilitation of wetlands and regrowth and protection of forest corridors. All while invigorating communities who would gladly source locally grown produce from genuinely arable land.
There could be well designed lakes, wetland sanctuaries for pondage and storage to balance floods, as well as dry times.
Maybe some carbon credit funded farm forstry could be in the mix, too.
Sounds like good planning to me.
As an aside, and not to stifle genuine discussion on alternatives. Ethanol is niether economically viable or realistic for the sunshine coast. Many economists and environmentalists also argue that it is not the solution for the fuel crisis or the environment in either an Australian or a global context.
Brazil has an ethanol industry that has been subsidised by billions of dollars since 1975 at a great cost to her people and the environment.
To put the 13,000Ha you mentioned as suitable for 'several of these ideas' into context, the Brazillian sugar crop is grown on 6 Million Ha.
The labourers who cut the cane, mostly by hand, are kept in abject poverty (wages of less than $2 an hour) and often not paid by corrupt landowners. Try googling 'cane cutting in Brazil'.
To remain competitive in the world sugar and fuel markets Brazil is also growing its industry at the rate of the Australian sugar industry every year.
I am all for what ever joint use of the land best serves all of us and I really wish all sides would work together rather than immeadiately saying no and shutting themselves off to rational discussion.
Perhaps your houses could all have a Cane patch in the yard and a still in the garage ? Or a cow candy mill for the more responsible citizens.
The swampy bits could grow rice.
Then we have an Everglades Swamp themepark.
Bamboo.
Hemp.
Lotus roots for the chinese gourmets.
What about some yabbie farms.
Harvestable timber forests.
Confounded's ideas on lakes, wetlands and open green space would be very well received.
What else is there? Yes, could we have just a few hectares of sugar cane as well so that our scientists can do some ethanol trials.
Seriously, if you have such large areas of cleared soaks, Vanga's idea may be worthy of serious consideration. It seems that rice is going to become very scarce given the hammering mother nature has given the world's major rice growers and consumers.
As soon as all the caneland has houses on it the price of petrol will hit $2 per litre and the Government will establish an incentive package to encourage the use of ethanol as a petroleum substitute.
Face reality and then start coming up with good integrated landscape ideas that combine a mix that benefits everyone.
Might be a reasonable idea to move some of the growth and proposed higher density out of established suburbs and onto cleared excaneland.
No one has ever suggested building below the established building level- let professional hydrologists work that out and then add a bit for safety. It's not that hard.
The report finds what it was supposed to find, that
* the most beneficial outcome for for former cane farmers is urban sprawl, but in the guise of Masterplanned Developments
* former cane land is too expensive to buy to farm, but somehow if it can't grow houses a lot of it will be abandoned to go back to the wild
* dwellings could be be built on each of the 500 cane farm titles that don't have one on them now, but that would somehow be a bad thing because fragmentation below the average 4.4 titles per farm would fail to maximise the profits of masterplanning them into a gazillion suburban blocks.
Have your say
We welcome comments on our stories and blogs - after all it's your site. Please note comments should be on-topic and not abusive. Comments are checked before publication.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
Your comments will be checked, for legal reasons, before being posted live.
Thanks again for contributing to the Daily's online community.
We value your views.
Comment again