Soil governance in the agricultural landscapes of New South Wales, Australia

Abstract

Soil is a valuable natural resource. In the state of New South Wales, Australia, the governance of soil has evolved since Federation in 1901. Following rapid agricultural development, and in the face of widespread soil degradation, the establishment of the Soil Conservation Service marked a turning point in the management of soil. Throughout the 20th century, advances in knowledge were translated into evolving governance frameworks that were largely reactionary but saw progressive reforms such as water pollution legislation and case studies of catchment-scale land and vegetation management. In the 21st century, significant reforms have embedded sustainable use of agricultural soils within catchment- and landscape-scale legislative and institutional frameworks. What is clear, however, is that a multitude of governance strategies and models are utilised in NSW. No single governance model is applicable to all situations because it is necessary to combine elements of several different mechanisms or instruments to achieve the most desired outcomes. Where an industry, such as the sugar industry, has taken ownership of an issue such as acid sulfate soil management, self-regulation has proven to be extremely effective. In the case of co-managing agricultural soils with other landuses, such as mining, petroleum exploration and urban development, regulation, compliance and enforcement mechanisms have been preferred. Institutional arrangements in the form of independent commissioners have also played a role. At the landscape or total catchment level, it is clear that a mix of mechanisms is required. Fundamental, however, to the successful evolution of soil governance is strategic investment in soil research and development that informs the ongoing productive use of agricultural landscapes while preventing land degradation or adverse environmental effects.

Saving the ground beneath our feet: Establishing priorities and criteria for governing soil use and protection

“…Amundson [ 251 ] sums up soil governance in the US as a complex patchwork of transient interventions, as opposed to long-term solutions. Other authors describe comparable situations elsewhere, for example, in the EU [ 252 , 253 ], in South America [ 254 ], in Australia [ 255 ], in Russia [ 256 ] and in other examples already cited in this article. Fromherz summarizes many of the existing soil governance initiatives, as well as the failures, and makes an impassioned appeal for a dedicated, legally binding international soil governance instrument on the basis that, ‘…individual states lack both the power and the incentives to make these changes.’ [ 257 ].…”