NRM PROBLEMS AND PRACTICES DESCRIBED BY FARMERS

As 84% of land in the MDB is used for agriculture (based on the 2005-06 ABS Agricultural Census), most NRM activities are undertaken to improve economic and environmental conditions on agricultural land. For 2004-05, the ABS conducted an NRM Survey which sought information from Australian farmers about the NRM issues affecting their agricultural land holding, activities undertaken to address issues, and the financial cost and time spent to undertake preventative or remedial activities.

The main NRM issues and related problems identified in the 2004-05 NRM Survey have been divided into five broad groups: native vegetation, weeds, pests, land and soil, and water (table 5.2).

5.2 Main natural resource management issues affecting Australian farms - 2004-05
	NATIVE VEGETATION	WEEDS	PESTS	LAND AND SOIL	WATER
	Vegetation thickening	Decreased production	Decreased animal or crop production	Erosion	Surface and groundwater availability
	Excessive native vegetation	Decreased farm value	Damaged native vegetation	Soil acidification	Water quality
	Declined quality	Increased fire risk	Decreased biodiversity	Compaction
Source: Natural Resource Management on Australian Farms, 2004-05 (cat. no. 4620.0)

NRM issues on farms

In the MDB in 2004-05, the vast majority of farms (92% of farms) conducted some NRM activities for preventative or remedial reasons, consistent with the proportion of all Australian farms (table 5.3). This level was greater than the proportion of farms reporting NRM issues (87% in the MDB and 86% in Australia), due to farmers managing issues before they become problematic (i.e. for preventative reasons). For each NRM issue, the proportions of farms reporting NRM issues and conducting activities, as well as average expenditure and average effort, are generally similar in MDB farms compared to all Australian farms.

5.3 NRM issues identified on farms and management by farmers, Murray-Darling Basin and Australia - 2004-05
	Farms reporting an issue (% of total farms)(a)		Farms undertaking management activities (% of total farms)(a)(b)		NRM expenditure (average $/farm undertaking management)		NRM effort (person days/farm)
	MDB	Aust.	MDB	Aust.	MDB	Aust.	MDB	Aust.
Native vegetation(c)	(d)46	(d)45	(d)61	(d)62	5 400	5 000	31	32
Weeds	76	73	83	80	12 200	11 200	41	39
Pests	71	69	78	76	8 100	7 300	43	39
Land and soil	48	46	61	58	13 200	12 000	54	51
Water(c)	42	38	35	33	9 100	7 400	27	24
Any issue	87	86	92	92	32 200	28 200	132	121
(a) Number of farms was approximately 53,900 for the MDB; 129,900 for Australia.
(b) Activities undertaken for remedial or preventative purposes.
(c) Data for the Lower Murray Darling region excluded due to confidentiality issues.
(d) This is the proportion of farms with native vegetation on their land, not the proportion of total farms. Number of farms with native vegetation was approximately 33,000 for the MDB; 81,800 for Australia.
Source: Natural Resource Management on Australian Farms, 2004-05 (Reissue), cat. no. 4620.0; ABS data available on request, Natural Resource Management Survey, 2004-05

NRM activity, expenditure and effort on farms in the MDB

In 2004-05, more farms in the MDB undertook management activities for weeds (83% of farms) and pests (78%) than for other NRM issues (table 5.3). Water issues were managed least (35%). A similar management pattern is exhibited nationally and this might suggest that the control of pests and weeds is a more common farming activity and related directly to agricultural output, than problems associated with water.

Interestingly, for some issues, more NRM activity translates into more NRM expenditure, but this is not always the case (table 5.4). In 2004-05, the proportion of MDB farms managing weeds was higher than for any other NRM activity. MDB farms spent more on managing weeds ($545m), and this activity had a relatively high average expenditure per farm ($12,200), when compared with other NRM issues. By contrast, although a large number of MDB farms managed pests (42,200), they recorded a relatively low average expenditure per farm ($8,100). Average expenditure on land and soil problems was higher than any for other NRM issue ($13,200 per farm), however fewer farms needed to undertake land and soil activities, compared with activities addressing weeds and pests.

Of the estimated total 6.6 million person days spent managing NRM issues, most effort was spent managing weeds, pests, and land and soil (approximately 1.8 million person days spent on each of these three issues). Similar to the trend for average NRM expenditure, most effort (54 person days per farm undertaking NRM activities) was spent on land and soil activities. MDB farms reported the lowest effort expended on managing water issues (27 person days per farm on average) of all the NRM issues, equivalent to half of the effort put towards land and soil activities.

5.4 NRM issues identified on farms and management by farmers - Murray-Darling Basin - 2004-05
	Farms reporting an issue		Farms undertaking management activities(a)		NRM expenditure		NRM effort
	no.	Proportion of total farms (%)(b)	no.	Proportion of total farms (%)(b)	Total ($m)	Average $/farm undertaking management(c)	Total person days ('000)	Person days/farm undertaking management(d)
Native vegetation(e)	15 200	(f)46	20 000	(f)61	108	5 400	627	31
Weeds	41 000	76	44 600	83	545	12 200	1 842	41
Pests	38 400	71	42 200	78	340	8 100	1 824	43
Land and soil	26 000	48	32 900	61	433	13 200	1 762	54
Water(e)	22 700	42	18 600	35	170	9 100	497	27
Any issue	47 100	87	49 800	92	1 603	32 200	6 579	132
(a) Activities undertaken for remedial or preventative purposes.
(b) Number of farms was approximately 53,900 for the MDB.
(c) Average NRM expenditure per farm undertaking NRM activities.
(d) Average NRM effort (in terms of person days) per farm undertaking NRM activities.
(e) Data for the Lower Murray Darling region excluded due to confidentiality issues.
(f) This is the proportion of farms with native vegetation on their land, not the total farms. Total farms with native vegetation was approximately 33,000 for the MDB.
Source: Natural Resource Management on Australian Farms, 2004-05 (Reissue), cat no. 4620.0; ABS data available on request, Natural Resource Management Survey, 2004-05

NRM issues reported by irrigated and non-irrigated farms

In 2004-05, almost 90% of MDB farms reported being affected by an NRM issue (table 5.5). Overall, irrigated and non-irrigated farms reported similar proportions of NRM issues. Non-irrigated farms were more likely than irrigated farms to report being affected by land and soil issues: 50% of non-irrigated farms, compared with 43% of irrigated farms.

Despite many farms in the MDB being affected by drought conditions in 2004-05, water issues were less commonly reported than other NRM issues (6,700) by irrigated farms in the MDB. The frequency of reporting water issues was not very different between non-irrigated and irrigated farms (43% and 40% respectively).

It is difficult to determine why irrigated farms report similar levels of water issues as non-irrigated farms. One possible reason is that farms that would normally have irrigated in 2004-05 could not irrigate, and reported themselves as a non-irrigated farm.

5.5 NRM issues identified on irrigated and non-irrigated farms - Murray-Darling Basin - 2004-05
	Irrigated farms		Non-irrigated farms
	No. reporting an issue	Proportion of total irrigated farms (%)(a)	No. reporting an issue	Proportion of total non-irrigated farms (%)(b)
Native vegetation(c)	3 400	(d)43	11 800	(d)47
Weeds	13 100	79	27 900	75
Pests	11 100	67	27 300	73
Land and soil	7 200	43	18 800	50
Water(c)	6 700	40	16 000	43
Any issue	14 600	88	32 500	87
(a) Number of irrigated farms was approximately 16,600 for the MDB.
(b) Number of non-irrigated farms was approximately 37,300 for the MDB.
(c) Data for the Lower Murray Darling region excluded due to confidentiality issues.
(d) This is the proportion of farms reporting that they have native vegetation on their land, not the proportion of total farms.
Source: ABS data available on request, Natural Resource Management Survey, 2004-05

Water issues affecting farms

The effect of discharged water on river and wetland health is one environment issue relevant to the MDB. Saline water discharge and elevated levels of nutrients discharged from irrigation drainage into rivers or groundwater can produce algal blooms and reduced water quality. This affects not only biodiversity, but also human settlements because of a reduced ability to use the water for drinking, recreation or downstream irrigation. Water availability is another issue of importance for sustaining livestock and growing pasture and crops. Specific water issues affecting farms are described in the following section.

In 2004-05, the two most significant water-related NRM issues in the MDB identified by farms reporting water issues were the availability of surface water (69%) and groundwater (33%) (table 5.6). Other issues, like toxicity events and excess nutrient loads, were reported by less than 8% of farms identifying water issues.

5.6 Water issues on farms - Murray-Darling Basin - 2004-05
	Farms reporting a water issue
	No. of farms	Proportion of farms reporting water issues (%)(a)	Proportion of total farms (%)(b)
Surface water availability	15 700	69	29
Groundwater availability	7 400	33	14
Water clarity	2 200	10	4
Excess nutrient load	1 500	7	3
Toxicity event	200	1	-
Other surface water quality problems	2 000	9	4
Other groundwater quality problems	2 100	9	4
Other issues	4 600	20	9
- nil or rounded to zero (including null cells)
(a) Number of farms reporting water issues was approximately 22,700.
(b) Number of farms was approximately 53,900.
Source: ABS data available on request, Natural Resource Management Survey, 2004-05

Farmers conducted a variety of activities to address the water issues occurring on their farms. The most common activities employed were:

• earthworks, drains and water pumping (42% of MDB farms undertaking water activities);
• planting trees and shrubs (28%); and,
• removing stock from waterways (23%).

Relatively fewer farms carried out water testing (11%) (table 5.7).

5.7 Activities conducted to address water issues on farms - Murray-Darling Basin - 2004-05
	Farms reporting an activity
	No. of farms	Proportion of farms undertaking water activities (%)(a)	Proportion of total farms (%)(b)
Earthworks, drains and water pumping	7 900	42	15
Tree and shrub planting maintenance	5 300	28	10
Removal of stock from waterways	4 300	23	8
Monitoring of groundwater table	3 300	18	6
Fencing to protect riparian zones	3 200	17	6
Water testing	2 100	11	4
Other activities	1 800	9	3
(a) Number of farms reporting water activities was approximately 18,600.
(b) Number of farms in MDB was approximately 53,900.
Source: ABS data available on request, Natural Resource Management Survey, 2004-05

Location of water issues affecting farms

The proportion of farms reporting water issues in the MDB differed depending on where in the Basin they were located. Surface water availability was more problematic for farmers located in the northern part of the MDB with more than 38% of farms reporting this as an issue in the following NRM regions: Western, Namoi, Border Rivers, Condamine and South West NRM regions, as well as in the Australian Capital Territory and Lachlan (map 5.8). By contrast, in the southern MDB, less than 20% of farms reported surface water availability as a problem, more specifically in the Mallee, SA Murray Darling Basin, North East and Goulburn-Broken NRM regions.

Groundwater availability was generally more problematic for farms in the northern New South Wales NRM regions. Those regions where more than 19% of farms had an issue with groundwater availability were: the Western, Namoi, Condamine, Australian Capital Territory and Central West. Less farms reported groundwater availability as an issue in the other NRM regions (map 5.9).

Previous Page