Jump to content

Floods and droughts


studiot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeomans ideas along with Harappans and other related land hydrology techniques are gaining ground around the world amongst farmers, not so much Govt. with little recognition or assistance for the private land owners under taking the projects, though in Australia there are carbon credits that can be used for the larger tracts where this work is being done. Its not economical  for smaller tracts to take advantage of the carbon credits due to testing costs atm.

The research though is ongoing, mostly privately funded and so far geared to drought 'proofing' and regenerating private lands. The Australian Govt. research institute C.S.R.I.O does support a lot of the actual lab. work and there are often incentives for larger tract owners.

The benefits of regenerative land works are greater overall productivity, greater resilience to both drought and flood and exponential increase in carbon intake and storage in soils. Interest in land hydrology and regenerative systems is growing  around the world.

An Australian group is putting out podcasts for members where successes can be shared and duplicated, carbon credit systems explained and information can be disseminated.

Ground up solutions seem to work best from my perspective. Govt. bodies have an over view, but don't have the intimate  knowledge to direct effective actions for local ecosystems. Incentivizing  local actions and providing support where its seen to be needed IMO work faster and more economically with more co-operation and enthusiasm.

Media could play a more a much more effective role, by show casing  projects and results for emulation, incentivizing local projects and enthusiasm for real ground up actions. Demonstrations of value need to given, before their effectiveness can be recognized. We seem to caught up in negative loop. Value demonstrations given by media are predominantly negative. The solutions called for by a public so negatively  informed will continue to be reductive.

 

The public could also use better information before calling for out right banning of things such as livestock production, while its use in more integrated and diverse systems is essential to long term management and soil health of both grasss lands and open forest. The corporate intrusion  into farming practices and supplies has seen huge increases in out put by farmers, but these seem to be temporary, leading to land degradation and increasing need for more chemical and fertilizer resources to maintain. The costs increase, while out put falls due to depletion in soil health.

I think if these systems got more media promotion, it would increase their support and uptake, Maybe Govts. would then be called on to implement larger scale systems closer to habitation.

Works are often disadvantaged or rendered impractical through legislation targeting the poorest examples of farming practice. With out examples of success to emulate, reductionist measures will appear the only obvious solution.

 

Edited by naitche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, naitche said:

world amongst farmers, not so much Govt. with little recognition or assistance for the private land owners under taking the projects, though in Australia there are carbon credits that can be used for the larger tracts where this work is being done. Its not economical  for smaller tracts to take advantage of the carbon credits due to testing costs atm.

Many thanks for all that new information.   +1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.