ecosystems and resource base (including soils). Much of the additional production
must come from the intensification of land and water consumption currently under
productive use. This is becoming more challenging against an increasingly changeable climate. Framing an energy-water-climate change ‘nexus’ for Queensland’s
agricultural sector allows for the identification of critical interlinkages between
natural resource management and factors such as agricultural productivity and provides an opportunity to identify the implications from uncoordinated decision
making or government programmes. Domestic policy settings are critical determinants of agricultural productivity as they shape farmers’ incentives and capacity to
innovate and improve productivity. The imperative of a strong, sustainable and
resilient agricultural sector is essential to provide social and economic value to
Queensland’s rural areas and provide food security. As such, there must be state-/
economy-wide agricultural policy settings which create conditions conducive to
innovation to ensure an efficient and effective agricultural sector.
The adoption of best practice management approaches for land and other
resources (water, energy, soil, nutrients) is an integral component of sustainable
agriculture. The high inputs into the intensive agricultural sector (irrigation water,
energy, soil nutrients, fertilisers, etc.) and natural capital impacts (soil degradation,
fresh water use) make reduction, where possible, a priority if we are to protect agrifood supply systems and sustainably manage increasing demand for fibre, foliage,
fuels and other elements of the bioeconomy. Queensland’s agricultural sector is
subject to competing policy and economic drivers. A circular economy approach
must minimise upstream inputs (energy, water and fertiliser) and downstream
residues and wastes (such as food wastes and manures) and ensure that nutrients
are returned to land. A focus on the provision of evidence and modelling data in
making innovative and adaptive decisions is critical for agricultural businesses.
These models have important implications in policy planning and development
towards minimising the impact of climate change on farming practices through
biosecurity risks. Government departments and funding should facilitate knowledge
and information access, so that agricultural businesses and their advisors can frame
climate change adaptation actions and policies which focus on driving productivity,
seizing opportunities and at the same time managing risks, particularly those associated with declining natural resources, rising input costs and increasing regulation.
This will require consistent and holistic cross-government agency and
multidisciplinary policy to address the competing demands on natural resources
(including water and soils) whilst maintaining productive farming systems. It is
assumed that a ‘circular economy’ approach for agriculture offers benefits to
Queensland’s agricultural sector from an economic, social and environmental perspective – but this adoption could be at the expense of economic and value-added
opportunities offered through the bioeconomy, whilst a purely bioeconomy
approach, which may maximise on-farm returns by valorisation of by-products,
risks diverting critical and, in some cases, limited nutrients from the biosphere.
There has been limited research to date to document and collect evidence relating to
the effects of existing and emerging contaminants on the agroecosystems and what
140
G. Davis
must come from the intensification of land and water consumption currently under
productive use. This is becoming more challenging against an increasingly changeable climate. Framing an energy-water-climate change ‘nexus’ for Queensland’s
agricultural sector allows for the identification of critical interlinkages between
natural resource management and factors such as agricultural productivity and provides an opportunity to identify the implications from uncoordinated decision
making or government programmes. Domestic policy settings are critical determinants of agricultural productivity as they shape farmers’ incentives and capacity to
innovate and improve productivity. The imperative of a strong, sustainable and
resilient agricultural sector is essential to provide social and economic value to
Queensland’s rural areas and provide food security. As such, there must be state-/
economy-wide agricultural policy settings which create conditions conducive to
innovation to ensure an efficient and effective agricultural sector.
The adoption of best practice management approaches for land and other
resources (water, energy, soil, nutrients) is an integral component of sustainable
agriculture. The high inputs into the intensive agricultural sector (irrigation water,
energy, soil nutrients, fertilisers, etc.) and natural capital impacts (soil degradation,
fresh water use) make reduction, where possible, a priority if we are to protect agrifood supply systems and sustainably manage increasing demand for fibre, foliage,
fuels and other elements of the bioeconomy. Queensland’s agricultural sector is
subject to competing policy and economic drivers. A circular economy approach
must minimise upstream inputs (energy, water and fertiliser) and downstream
residues and wastes (such as food wastes and manures) and ensure that nutrients
are returned to land. A focus on the provision of evidence and modelling data in
making innovative and adaptive decisions is critical for agricultural businesses.
These models have important implications in policy planning and development
towards minimising the impact of climate change on farming practices through
biosecurity risks. Government departments and funding should facilitate knowledge
and information access, so that agricultural businesses and their advisors can frame
climate change adaptation actions and policies which focus on driving productivity,
seizing opportunities and at the same time managing risks, particularly those associated with declining natural resources, rising input costs and increasing regulation.
This will require consistent and holistic cross-government agency and
multidisciplinary policy to address the competing demands on natural resources
(including water and soils) whilst maintaining productive farming systems. It is
assumed that a ‘circular economy’ approach for agriculture offers benefits to
Queensland’s agricultural sector from an economic, social and environmental perspective – but this adoption could be at the expense of economic and value-added
opportunities offered through the bioeconomy, whilst a purely bioeconomy
approach, which may maximise on-farm returns by valorisation of by-products,
risks diverting critical and, in some cases, limited nutrients from the biosphere.
There has been limited research to date to document and collect evidence relating to
the effects of existing and emerging contaminants on the agroecosystems and what
140
G. Davis