|
A more positive approach
The built environment can drive, rather
than just respond to, industrial and
social transformation. It can increase
production of public goods and estab-
lish projects that improve life quality,
instead of creating wealth differentials.
We need a rethink of ‘supply and demand’.
We can design to increase the ecological
base and public state without reducing
options, choices and basic freedoms.
338
Positive Development
Box 50 Organic Waste to Farms
Gerry Gillespie
Every economy is underpinned by the quality of its soil. Up to 70 per cent of all industrial
inputs come from the soil. Yet around the world, soil is being mined in a linear, dead-end
process. It takes between 60 to 90 minerals, nutrients and trace elements to grow a plant,
and this is removed from the land with every crop. Agriculture is not sustainable, therefore,
unless quality organic products – with their nutrients and biology – are returned to the soil
to restore the biological activity and nutrients lost through cropping. Values accruing to the
farmer by returning quality products to the soil include reduced water and fertilizer costs, soil
compaction, and salinity, along with increased productivity, nutrients and carbon. Research,
including trials undertaken on behalf of the Department of Environment and Conservation in
NSW, Australia, show that dollar values from compost products can be attributed to yield, water
savings, nutrient delivery and carbon. There are also a range of community values including
carbon sequestration, nitrous oxide reduction and CO
2
reduction.
The single largest component of the waste stream, by weight, is organic material. Including non-
recycled paper it can be as high as 60 per cent of the total waste stream. This organic material
is essential to sustain food production. In typical resource recovery operations, however, this
market is the last thing considered. The collection, processing and marketing of organic wastes
are undertaken in a segmented, sequential manner. Compost firms take the product, but their
true capital gain is only realized when they sell it. But farmers currently do not see compost
as adding value to their business. When the cost of transport is combined with the cost of
spreading it on the land, the price appears prohibitive.
By looking at the problem from a whole systems perspective, we can create a net positive
system that pays for itself, benefits all parties and improves the health of the soil. For example,
if the farmer/collector/processor were a single contractual identity – a ‘soil cooperative’ – the
material collection and part of the processing would be paid for up-front by those using the
waste. Once collected by the soil cooperative, the product would be transported to the
land, where it would be made into a range of solid or fluid products – modified to agronomic
standards, depending on local soil and crop applications. A price would then be set for the
product by the soil cooperative’s members. A low price for members and a low cooperative
joining fee should see membership increase rapidly.
To provide security of investment in the return of quality compost products to agriculture, an
ongoing stream of material must be guaranteed. The average individual in Australia, for example,
produces up to one litre of organic wastes per day, and commercial and agricultural wastes can
all contribute to the compost products produced. Security of inputs can be achieved by patent
-
ing the collection infrastructure and structure. The proposed soil cooperative will generate
‘patient funds’ to enable the poorer farmers to stay on the land and to build financial capacity.
These funds will make it possible to tolerate slow payment caused by climatic changes and
provide drought proofing for its members. It can lift the community capacity of landholders
who may be asset rich but financially poor.
This structure also creates the potential for carbon trading. As humic levels rise, so does the
carbon sequestration level. Humic compound levels can be registered by the soil cooperative
prior to product application. Part of the benefit can be retained by the cooperative and real
tradable benefits paid to farm members. Farm credits could be provided for nitrous oxide
reduction levels. The Federal Government could match the payments to farmers made by the
soil cooperative to meet greenhouse gas targets. This would enable farmers to increase the
value of the farm as a tradable entity. Relationships with large corporations requiring carbon
credits could be developed as the scheme progresses. At a later stage, the cooperative could
trade with large corporate partners both in Australia and overseas, with Zero Waste Australia
serving as the certifying body. The cooperative will foster a symbiotic relationship between
the urban and rural community, thus linking the economy back to the true producer of com
-
munity wealth, the farmer.
339
Boxes
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
