Farming

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/62785/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Productivity Commission’s latest draft report on the regulation of agriculture highlights the need to get the balance right, as to when the government should and shouldn’t intervene in this industry, and then how to intervene.
The report is part of a nine-month public inquiry into the regulatory burden on farm businesses. It covers a wide range of issues from land and water use to labour and foreign investment.
Agriculture is fairly unique in that market competition is pervasive. Competitive markets provide the incentives and rewards for businesses to find cost-effective production methods, develop new products valued by buyers, and to adopt technology. At the same time, agriculture has to compete against alternative uses of limited national natural resources, labour and capital, and the sector has to pay market rates for these inputs.
Markets work well only with well-defined property rights, ranging from weights and measures for the products produced, through to the rights and responsibilities of owners in the use of land, water, labour, transport infrastructure, and other key inputs. Here, the Productivity Commission’s report questions current regulations on some property rights. For example, they restrict decisions on the potential use of land for agriculture versus for the environment, urban use and mining, and they restrict the opportunities for non-resident investment in agriculture much more than investment in mining and manufacturing.
The commission proposes that regulations should balance the opportunity costs of alternative uses of land, or restrictions on the use of land. For example, the value of land regulated for use for agriculture should be compared with the value to society if instead the land was restricted to the provision of the environment, mining or urban growth.
It also proposes the government intervene to correct market failures. This could include for example the effects of the exercise of market power, external costs and lack of information necessary for buyers and sellers to make informed decisions.
Examples of external costs include run-off of chemicals to rivers and the ocean, irrigation in some areas increasing salinity downstream, and biosecurity. Often Australian food markets do not provide buyers with required information about the production systems used, for example organic or GMO, about food safety and nutrition.
As the Productivity Commission notes, regulation is not the only form of government intervention and often it is not the best way to correct a market failure. For example, the creation of government environmental water managers with water property rights similar to those used by irrigators for the Murray-Darling Basin seems to be a more effective way to restore a balance of water use between irrigation and the environment, than previous restrictions on water available for irrigation.
Sometimes government failure, either from lack of information or the dominance of political considerations, can result in regulations with larger social costs than those for the market failure. Essentially this is reflected in the report’s argument that some regulations are counter productive, such as the banning of GMO and regulation the sugar industry again.
Where regulation is a proposed solution to the market failure, a next step is to design the regulation. The objective is to balance the benefits and costs to society, and not just for agriculture, of the restrictions imposed on the products produced and the production methods used.
In many cases these social benefit cost assessments will be very challenging and with legitimate debates on key costs and benefits. Regulations on animal welfare illustrate. There are challenges in providing robust measures of animal welfare and even in obtaining estimates of the different values and attitudes people place on different levels of animal welfare.
Forthcoming information about the side effects of new chemicals and production methods, as well as the evolution of society preferences, likely will justify adapting and changing regulations over time as new information becomes available.
A particular area of excessive regulation cost affecting Australian agriculture identified by the Productivity Commission concerns over-lapping, and sometimes conflicting, regulations across the three levels of government.
Greater inter-government cooperation over the design and conduct of regulations is what the Productivity Commission draft report proposes and the government would do well to listen.
John Freebairn is professor, Department of Economics, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-freebairn-90" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Government needs to get balance right in regulating agriculture

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/78100/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Australians were once world champion beef-eaters but now you’re much more likely to find chicken than steak on Australian dinner tables.
Total meat consumption per capita in Australia has been stable since the 1960s, at around 110 kilograms per person per year.
But the type of meat consumed has changed significantly, with chicken and pork both now far outstripping beef, mutton and lamb, according to historical data from researchers Wong et al and more recent data from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES).
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/06/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-16%20at%201.32.34%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/06/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-16%20at%201.32.34%20PM.png" alt="">
Source: <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264999315000656" target="_blank">Wong et al and ABARES</a> 
(The apparent spike in beef consumption in the late 1970s is linked to Australia’s beef export trade crash and much of this spike was thought to have gone to pet food and by-products rather than the dinner table).
Whereas chicken was once a rare meal, eaten on special occasions, today the Australian chicken industry produces around 600 million chickens a year. Most are consumed domestically.
The per-capita annual consumption of chicken meat in Australia increased ten-fold from 4.6 kilograms per person in 1965 to 47 kilograms in 2016. The industry projects growth to 49.2 kilograms a person by 2019–20.
From the 1960s on, public health messages steered people away from red meats. There was also a rapid proliferation of fast food franchises selling chicken - notably the entry of Kentucky Fried Chicken in 1969.
Similarly, pork consumption has been bolstered by re-marketing. Once considered a red meat, pork was reinvented as “the other white meat” through a marketing campaign categorising pork as lighter and healthier, alongside chicken (and due to changes in breeding, pork meat really has lightened in colour over recent decades). While not as steep an increase as chicken, pork consumption in Australia has nearly tripled since the 1980s.
However, a major driver of these changes has been price, linked to massive changes in production.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/06/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-16%20at%201.34.41%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/06/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-16%20at%201.34.41%20PM.png" alt="">
Source: <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6401.0Mar%202017?OpenDocument" target="_blank">ABS CPI TABLE 9. CPI: Group, Sub-group and Expenditure Class, Index Numbers by Capital City</a>
After adjusting for inflation, chicken per kilo costs less than a third of its price than it did in the early 1970s, while real prices for other meats have been comparatively static. The Australian Chicken Meat Federation, which represents chicken producers, reports that over the five years to 2014–15, chicken meat was on average 50% cheaper than pork, 59% cheaper than lamb and 65% cheaper than beef.
Since the 1960s, most Australian chicken and pork production has become rapidly industrialised and automated in large intensive indoors operations. Piggeries and broiler farms have typically become specialised, intensified, high technology factory farm complexes. Intensification of chicken production has increased efficiency, in turn steadily decreasing the retail price of chicken. Around 70% of chicken meat is supplied by two privately owned processing companies, the Australian Chicken Meat Federation says.
Chicken farms in Australia have increased markedly in size and intensity. Our research on planning disputes shows farms of the 1970s housed around 10,000 chickens. Now, while nearly 600 million broiler chickens were slaughtered in Australia in 2014-15, there were only around 750 broiler farms, a decline from the 1990s. The average chicken farm now has nearly 120,000 chickens at any one time and some run into millions. The number of pork farms has also dropped, consolidating into larger operations.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/06/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-16%20at%201.36.11%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/06/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-16%20at%201.36.11%20PM.png" alt="">
Global meat consumption continues to rise rapidly as more countries – notably China – increase their consumption of meat and dairy products. Australia imports very little meat due to strict quarantine, but is a major exporter of beef, sheep and goats.
Sheep and cattle farms are more extensive, more common, and produce fewer animals than pork or chicken farms. There were over 66,000 cattle farms and around 39,000 sheep farms in Australia in 2015-16. Cattle farm numbers and the overall cattle herd declined slightly, although this belies the formation of two extremes: at one end large and export-focussed grazing, while other areas have seen a proliferation of sub-commercial, small-scale, scattered “hobby” grazing. The national sheep flock also declined, and is transitioning away from wool production to meat and dual-purpose breeds.
These transitions in production and consumption of meat result in some rural and semi-rural landscapes shifting to expansive, remotely-managed holdings in areas with declining population. Closer to cities, hobby farmers and amenity migrants sit in often uneasy proximity to industrial scale production.
As other countries take up Australia’s traditional fondness for meat, global as well as domestic forces continue to change the nature of farming and Australian rural landscapes. That, in turn, also affects the price and type of meat Australians consume.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-taylor-97922" target="_blank">Elizabeth Taylor </a>is Vice Chancellor's Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, RMIT University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-butt-229215" target="_blank">Andrew Butt </a>is <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-butt-229215" target="_blank"></a>Senior Lecturer in Community Planning and Development, La Trobe University.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Three charts on Australia's declining taste for beef and growing appetite for chicken

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Australian government’s intervention in the dairy crisis by offering concessional loans to struggling farmers has prompted suggestions that other types of regulation - such as a dairy floor price - might be needed.
The dairy industry was deregulated more than a decade ago; perhaps it’s time Australia looked to other countries for models to fix the system.
The current situation facing the Australian dairy industry is the same the world over. The European Union and the United States come to mind, as milk supply outweighs demand. But they provide assistance to their dairy farmers through subsidies or other support that helps to keep them viable.
Canada does not compete internationally in the dairy sector as it maintains a supply management system introduced in the early 1970s. Dairy is not subsidised, as government provides no support, and the price paid to farmers is negotiated among stakeholders.
When I explained this Canadian supply management model to Victoria dairy farmers, as part of my research earlier this year, they rejected the idea. However the current situation may cause some of them to reconsider this position.
While the Canadian model works for Canadian farmers, a supply managed system would be more difficult for those in Australia given that about 40% of Victorian dairy is exported and exports don’t happen with supply management. But Australia’s share of the global market is decreasing over time, despite the best efforts of Australian dairy organisations and farmers, and the number of farms continues to decline. Perhaps Australia will end up with a system resembling a supply managed one through market mechanisms.
I interviewed a total of 45 farmers and dairy stakeholders in Australia during February and March of this year, nearly half in Queensland and the remainder in Victoria and Tasmania. I was interested in how the Australian dairy model works, especially as it is cited by the business press in Canada as one that we should adopt given their dislike of Canada’s regulated system.
What is the supply management model? Briefly, it matches domestic demand with domestic supply and exports are non-existent. The system is based on quotas - for example a kilogram of milk solid costs C$25,000 in the province of Ontario where I live, and it represents about one cow’s worth of production. Producers need at least 50kg of milk solids to run a decently remunerative operation.
Stakeholders representing producers, consumers, processors, the restaurant association and others meet annually to determine price, not government. Included in this is a profit guarantee for farmers that allows them to make long-term decisions and maintain a middle class lifestyle while milking on average about 70 cows. It also means they are immune to this latest global crisis, and to future ones.
And if supermarkets decide to use milk as a loss leader, it is the deep-pocketed supermarket that takes the hit, not the farmer. The price paid to the latter is guaranteed by negotiation, which creates stability.
Clearly, this is not how it operates in Australia where the supermarkets, according to one Queensland dairy producer, “must bruise the farmers to give them a loss leader.” Nor is the price consumers pay for milk in Ontario out of line with that charged by Coles and Woolworths, the real regulators of Australian dairy. Southern Ontarians pay the equivalent of the infamous A$1.00 per litre – A$4.00 for Canada’s four litre container, and have done so for years.
I found in my research that Victoria’s dairy farmers are in favour of privatisation and deregulation. They talked a lot about efficiency and how they are among the world’s more efficient farmers, and Canadians must surely not be, given their system.
Perhaps this is true if efficiency is measured by getting the greatest amount of milk for the least input. But Australian dairy farmers fall behind by other parameters.
Ontario dairy farmers, for example, employ robotic technology at a much greater rate than their Victorian counterparts. New dairy barns are being put up all over the province and a majority of them install robots to do their milking. Ontario now has hundreds of farms using milking robots.
The situation in Victoria could well come to that of New Zealand’s, where cows may be culled and the survivor’s rations severely cut back, as farmers are unable to feed supplements in such an adverse economic climate.
In an interview, as part of my research, one New Zealand dairy farmer told me he was into “starvation mode” for his cows because of cost. He was feeding them with grass only and when that ran out, there was nothing else. He was certainly running an efficient farm, but at a significant cost to his own mental health and to that of his cows’ wellbeing and ability to provide milk.
One Victorian farmer told me that even before the announcement of cuts to the milk solids price, he and his colleagues “farmed at the margins". When prices are robust, so are farmer’s livelihoods, but when they collapse, as they always do in a commodity situation, so do their livelihoods.
This results in another vicious cycle of dairy farmers quitting the industry which leads to further instability. As another interviewee told me, following the cut:
“We will wait and see and hang on for dear life.”
Might the future of Victorian dairy be Queensland, where farmers suffered much of what their Victoria counterparts are now experiencing more than a decade ago after deregulation, and dairy is now a niche industry?
As one Queensland interviewee emphatically instructed me about Canada’s model:
“Don’t give away [the] regulated system!”
Now is the time for Victoria to consider the advice of this farmer and introduce more regulation.
Bruce Muirhead is professor of History and the associate vice president, External Research , University of Waterloo and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bruce-muirhead-269512" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Time to get regulation back into Australian dairy?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/67912/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Aquaculture is in the spotlight again, with an ABC investigation raising concerns over the sustainability of the expansion of Tasmania’s salmon-farming industry.
Controversies over fish farming are newsworthy and emotive, particularly when company profits and communities are at stake. Unfortunately, independent scientific evidence is often used selectively or even ignored in these debates. 
Science is an essential tool for managers and regulators when planning industry expansion, and Australia’s aquaculture industry does have a strong research base. 
Fish farming can be sustainable, but only if it takes proper account of scientific research – and only if that research moves fast enough to give an up-to-date picture of the risks.
<h2>Demand for sustainable aquaculture</h2>
The ever-growing demand for seafood, combined with the limited opportunity to increase catch from wild fisheries, means we need more aquaculture. Farming already produces roughly 50% of the global seafood supply, and farmed fish production now exceeds that of farmed beef. 
Intensive aquaculture is relatively new, with supply rising tenfold since the mid-1980s. It is thus unique among food production sectors in that its initial expansion has taken place in an era of unprecedented scrutiny from government, environmentalists and the community. 
This scrutiny is warranted, given that many fish farms are in coastal waters considered as a multi-use, common resource. In Australia, the industry is subject to high environmental standards and constantly evolving management.
Intensive aquaculture has several inherent advantages over other forms of agriculture (besides the intrinsic health benefits of seafood). These include efficient food conversion (it takes just 1.3kg or less of feed to produce 1kg of salmon, compared with 1.8kg for chicken and 2.6kg for pork); relatively limited use of fresh water; and the absence of fertilisers. 
However, there are also significant sustainability challenges, including limiting marine feed ingredients; waste management; the use of drugs, colourants and other chemicals; impacts on wild marine species; management of fish health and welfare; site selection; and societal attitudes. 
The aquaculture research community is acutely aware of these challenges. At a World Aquaculture conference in Adelaide in 2014, the program was dominated by issues related to sustainable development.
<h2>Planning for the future</h2>
In the forseeable future, world aquaculture production is projected to grow at least at its current and long term rate of 6.5% a year. Australia’s industry, while representing less than 0.1% of world production, is growing even faster: more than 7% a year over the past decade. 
Given cost constraints, this future expansion will be mostly inland or in coastal marine environments. Scientific input will be crucial if this expansion is to be managed in a sustainable way.
For example, coastal aquaculture operations are exposed to conditions that create good years and bad years. Understanding the spatial and temporal variation in these conditions is critical. It is not in the industry’s interest to risk growing fish in marginal conditions. 
Conditions are also becoming more challenging as a result of climate change – the oceans off Australia’s southeast are among the fastest warming on the planet.
Enlightened aquaculture businesses are trying to anticipate these conditions by working with scientists including CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology to understand future environmental risks on a range of timescales. 
Seven-day ocean forecasts and medium-term outlooks covering several months will help the industry make decisions about cage locations, stocking density, diet, disease management, and when to harvest.
<a href="/images/2016/11/07/image-20161031-27102-1uht7n5.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/11/07/image-20161031-27102-1uht7n5.jpg" alt="">
Monthly forecast of ocean temperatures for the east coast of Tasmania for the coming months Author provided
<h4> </h4>
<div class="enlarge_hint"> </div>
Meanwhile, longer-term planning, on time scales of years and decades, will be informed by climate models. For example, the industry can aim to breed fish to cope with changing conditions such as warmer water. 
Of course, forecasts are never 100% accurate, meaning that aquaculture businesses still need to account for risk and uncertainty. 
<h2>Planning for now</h2>
Science is clearly crucial for effective future planning. But it is also important to ensure that current management is the best it can be, and that current risks are managed. 
In the case of finfish aquaculture, the potential for localised impacts on the seabed around sea cages is well known, and monitoring and management strategies well established. 
The potential for adverse effects on the water in and around cages is also important, and water column monitoring is increasingly a management requirement. 
Broader ecosystem interactions – such as changes in fauna and flora on reefs around cages – are progressively being recognised as an issue for many aquaculture regulators and managers. 
As scientists’ understanding of these risks increases, regulators and managers can implement strategies to protect a broader suite of environmental assets and values. 
However, there is no “one size fits all” management approach for this rapidly growing industry, and strategies need to be considered in the local context (ecological, social and economic). Science can provide a better understanding of a particular scenario, but it is up to managers to use this information wisely – and to exercise caution where risks are not well understood. 
<h2>Fast responses</h2>
Management may aspire to be “best practice”, but it is important to recognise that this does not mean that it will be static or finite. Management should respond to changes in the environment (both natural and social) and should adjust as the science and understanding develops.
It is important to acknowledge the different but complementary roles that science and management play in aquaculture planning. Scientists seek to understand the situation (such as the current or future environmental conditions) and share that understanding impartially and objectively. Regulators and managers need to make decisions with a much broader mandate, and as such need to consider factors beyond the science alone. Good planning needs to recognise the value of both.
Aquaculture development and policy needs to be able to trust the science, which in turn, must be delivered in a timely manner, to ensure long-term sustainability of this industry.
Graham Mair is director of Marine Sciences and Professor of Aquaculture, Flinders University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/graham-mair-209191" target="_blank">here</a>.
Alistair Hobday is senior principal research scientist - Oceans and Atmosphere, CSIRO and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alistair-hobday-12414" target="_blank">here</a>.
Catriona Macleod is associate professor, University of Tasmania and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/catriona-macleod-104361" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Sustainable aquaculture is possible, with the right science

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/69146/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Our food systems are under increasing pressure from growing populations, diminishing resources and climate change.
But, in a new report, we argue that city foodbowls – the agricultural land surrounding our cities – could supply more secure and sustainable food. 
The final report of our Foodprint Melbourne project outlines a vision for “resilient city foodbowls” that can harness city waste to produce food, reduce dependence on distant sources of food and act as a buffer against increasing volatility in global food supplies. 
But to do so we need to start planning now. Food is a basic human need – along with water, housing and transport – but it hasn’t been high on the planning agenda for Australia’s cities.
<h2>Growing food, and jobs</h2>
Australia’s city foodbowls are an important part of the nation’s food supply, particularly for fresh vegetables. 
Melbourne’s foodbowl produces almost half of the vegetables grown in Victoria, and has the capacity to meet around 82 percent of the city’s vegetable needs. 
Nationally, around 47 percent of highly perishable vegetables (such as lettuce, tomatoes and mushrooms) are produced in the foodbowls of the major state capitals, as well as eggs, chicken and perishable fruits such as berries. 
New analysis by Deloitte Access Economics has shown that Melbourne’s foodbowl contributes A$2.45 billion each year to the regional economy and around 21,000 fulltime-equivalent jobs. The largest contributors (to the economy and to jobs) in Melbourne’s foodbowl are the fruit and vegetable industries. 
Other research estimates that agriculture in Sydney’s foodbowl contributes around A$1 billion to the regional economy. The flow-on effects through the regional economy are estimated to be considerably higher. 
<h2>City foodbowls at risk</h2>
City foodbowls are increasingly at risk. Our project has previously highlighted risks from urban sprawl, climate change, water scarcity and high levels of food waste. 
Melbourne’s foodbowl currently supplies 41% of the city’s total food needs. But growing population and less land means this could fall to 18% by 2050. 
Australia’s other city foodbowls face similar pressures. For example, between 2000 and 2005, Brisbane’s land available for vegetable crops reduced by 28%, and Sydney may lose 90% of its vegetable-growing landby 2031 if its current growth rate continues.
These losses can be minimised by setting strong limits on urban sprawl, using existing residential areas (infill) and encouraging higher-density living. 
However, accommodating a future Melbourne population of 7 million (even at much higher density) will still likely mean we lose some farmland. The Deloitte modelling estimated this will lead to a loss of agricultural output from Melbourne’s foodbowl of between A$32 million and A$111 million each year. 
<h2>Protecting our food supply</h2>
Australia’s city foodbowls could play a vital role in a more sustainable and resilient food supply. If we look after our foodbowls, these areas will strengthen cities against the disruptions in food supplies that are likely to become more common thanks to climate change. 
The New Urban Agenda adopted in October 2016 at the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, or Habitat III, emphasises the need for cities to “strengthen food system planning”. It recognises that dependence on distant sources of food and other resources can create sustainability challenges and vulnerabilities to supply disruptions.
Resilient city food systems will need to draw on food from multiple sources – global, national and local – to be able to withstand and recover from supply disruptions due to chronic stresses, such as drought, and acute shocks, such as storms and floods. 
Our final report presents a vision of a resilient city foodbowl for Melbourne. 
In this future vision, highly perishable foods continue to grow close to the city. City waste streams are harnessed to counter decreasing supplies of water and conventional fertilisers, and increased investment in delivery of recycled water creates “drought-proof” areas of food production close to city water treatment plants. 
<a href="/images/2016/11/24/image-20161122-14968-19xg9lo.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/11/24/image-20161122-14968-19xg9lo.jpg" alt="">
<h4>Eco-Innovation Lab, Author provided</h4>
If Australia’s cities are to retain their foodbowls as they grow, food will need to become a central focus of city planning. This is likely to require new policy approaches focused on “food system planning” that addresses land use and other issues, such as water availability.
We also need to strengthen local and regional food systems by finding innovative ways to link city fringe farmers and urban consumers – such as food hubs. This will create more diverse and resilient supply chains.
Rachel Carey is research fellow, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rachel-carey-94761" target="_blank">here</a>.
Jennifer Sheridan is researcher in sustainable food systems, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jennifer-sheridan-179405" target="_blank">here</a>.
Kirsten Larsen is manager, Food Systems Research and Partnerships, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kirsten-larsen-104756" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

The key to future food supply is sitting on our cities’ doorsteps

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63639/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The year 2016 is crucial for both food and cities. In October, UN member states will convene for the Habitat III conference in Quito, Ecuador, to discuss guidelines for sustainable urban development for the next 20 years.
In relation to food, 2016 has seen increased interest in bringing food to centre stage of many non-traditional domains. For example: this is the International Year of the Pulses; food waste is getting more attention, such as the announcement of the first global standard to measure food loss and waste; and food and agriculture lie at the very heart of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
At the 2016 Global Forum for Food and Agriculture (GFFA), UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said:
"Ensuring that everyone in expanding urban areas has access to nutritious food is critical to achieving the goal of zero hunger set out in the 2030 [SDG] Agenda."
Sustainable diets are gaining traction, and many governments are demonstrating high-level commitment.
<h2>Will the new urban agenda put food on the table?</h2>
On the road to Quito, the zero draft of the New Urban Agenda bears only oblique references to food systems.
Food (security) has been “sprinkled” over physical and social infrastructure, natural resources and ecosystems, sustainable consumption, resilience, urban planning, land and mobility. It is conspicuously missing from urban basic services and altogether from heritage and culture.
This omission has occurred despite common knowledge of food’s profound impacts. It shapes rural landscapes, provides spaces for buying, selling and eating food in cities, and is integral to everyday individual and collective identities.
If the New Urban Agenda carries a promise for change, sustainable and equitable food systems in cities will perhaps only be a side dish at Quito.
<h2>Cities' role in food systems is growing</h2>
The Milan Urban Food Policy Pact is testament to the increasing realisation of the need for urban planners to make food systems central in city planning. More than half of humanity lives in urban areas.
According to the UN, nearly 70% of the global population will live in cities by 2050, making urbanisation one of the 21st century’s most transformative trends.
Of the 124 signatories to the Milan Pact, Melbourne is the only Australian signatory. Although the pact’s framework for action is voluntary, it provides strategic opt ions to those cities aiming to achieve more sustainable food systems.
Melbourne is also part of the 100 Resilient Cities project, which sees food shortages as a potential threat to urban resilience.
Increasing recognition of the multiple dimensions of food in cities is driving the urban food debate. It encompasses nutrition, ethics and social justice, and sustainability.
In Canada, the US, South America, the UK and a few cases in Australia (notably Melbourne), municipal governments are increasingly seeking ways to promote synergistic relationships between food consumers and producers. But this process remains sporadic and non-systemic.
<h2>Australian cities are complacent about food</h2>
Australians are predominantly urban dwellers. More than 80% of the population lives in the 20 largest cities.
As well as the horde of other issues for urban food systems, Australia has one of the most concentrated food retail sectors in the world dominated by the supermarket duopoly, significant health disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, and a serious and growing issue of food waste.
All of the SDGs have targets that are directly or indirectly related to the daily work of regional and local governments, the closest administrative units to communities. In 2015, there were 571 local governing bodies across Australia. This is the level of government best placed to link the global goals with local communities.
It is at the municipal level that the socioeconomic and environmental problems associated with food systems first become evident. In Queensland, for example, the 2011 floods showed the potential impact of disaster on urban food systems.
Despite a renewed national focus on citiesin Australia, food systems remain a secondary consideration. Neither the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) nor the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) has food for the cities in their strategic plans. Researchers such as Paul Burton and Meg Montagueallude to the “complacent attitude” to urban food systems in Australia.
The City of Melbourne is notable in promoting integrated local government planning on key factors that influence food systems – transport, housing, economic development and land use. Several local governments have trialled micro-level initiatives to improve health and reduce inequities, or reduce ecological footprints. Most cities are lagging, though, when it comes to food systems.
<h2>Battle will be won or lost in cities</h2>
Food systems are perhaps not as visible as other areas of urban development. They are, however, an essential element that involves many aspects of cities. These include:
<ul>
<li>
transport and infrastructure (connecting consumers, retailers and producers);
</li>
<li>
housing (access to affordable nutritious food);
</li>
<li>
recreation;
</li>
<li>
economy (food sector businesses and employment); and
</li>
<li>
culture and identity.
</li>
</ul>
Food is a new policy arena for city governments, but cannot be separated from housing, water and sanitation, energy, employment and all the other rights related to a life of dignity that local governments promote. Urban food systems are poorly understood, though. Often there is no clear jurisdiction or mandate by which city planners can manage these systems.
The challenge is to broaden the scope of policy debates beyond food supply chains and urban agriculture, to include strategic plans and reforms to tackle food systems.
This could help to identify strategic leverage points that can affect the way food business is done in cities and have significant impacts on diet-related diseases, large urban carbon footprints, food waste, social injustice and the negative impacts of supermarket power.
Indeed, the battle for sustainable development will be won or lost in cities.
Grace Muriuki is program manager, Food Systems Program, Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/grace-muriuki-253591" target="_blank">here</a>.
Geoffrey Lawrence is emeritus professor of Sociology, The University of Queensland and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/geoffrey-lawrence-2886" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Urban food systems may be just a ‘side dish’ at Habitat III

<html><body>
<h1> </h1>
GUEST OBSERVER
Having been a lawyer looking after farmers and graziers for almost 40 years, I have focused on the future of family farms all my professional life – indeed, my practice and those of the other lawyers in our Agribusiness team depends upon it.
The issues facing agriculture in Australia are well known – droughts, floods, fire, depressed prices, labour shortages, too much debt, government interference (tree clearing and live export bans to name but two), declining terms of trade, the high Australian dollar, the average age of our primary producers etc etc.
As a general observation, while undoubtedly the average age of our primary producers is high, the next generation are well placed to capitalise on the world's increasing need for protein and Asia's growing prosperity – they are technologically savvy and have access to resources, training etc (that their forebears could only look upon with envy) to ensure that the farms of the future will be sustainable both financially and environmentally.
I was asked a few years ago what I thought was the biggest issue facing primary producers and my considered response was "lack of communication". Farmers and graziers are, by their very nature, stoics – they have to be to cope with the myriad of challenges thrown at them. They know how to "tighten their belts" in bad times and battle through.
Producers though, in my experience, largely do not communicate about issues worrying them – droughts, debts, relationship issues, mental illness etc. These issues and the lack of communication particularly come to the forefront when we are addressing succession planning for family partnerships. My view, until recently, was that such partnerships have limited lives as the next generation takes up the "family farm".
My view though has changed and I was intrigued to read an article in Beef Central some time ago about two Mallee grain growers and their venture into "collaborative farming".
These two farmers started with a blank canvas and designed the ideal farm for their area. They worked with no preconceptions or restrictions and focused only on what mix of land, plant and labour would be required to create the most efficient and profitable farming business for their area.
They have combined their assets and skill base with a corporate focus that has enabled them to achieve a high level of scale, efficiency, profitability and flexibility that simply would not have been possible if they had remained as individual farming units.
Irrespective of what industry or profession you are in, it is an ever competitive and challenging business environment out there, and we all (lawyers included) have to look at ways to drive efficiencies, reduce costs and to ensure the business models are sustainable.
At Thynne + Macartney, for example, many of our lawyers now work remotely, reducing our need for high cost premises and allowing us to consolidate on a smaller floor plate. We also recognise the different strengths of our people and although we are still a legal partnership, we have moved to a corporate management model.
Having been raised in Mitchell on a property consisting of any number of 160 acre blocks carved up after World War 1 for soldier settlements, and in a wool growing era where adjoining properties all had their own woolsheds and supporting infrastructure, I can see opportunities for our farmers and graziers in "collaborative farming".
The basic idea is that you look to others in your or related industries and put yourselves into businesses where you add the most value and be more profitable. A breeder operation, for example, can form a business partnership with the operators of a backgrounding block (and in turn, the operators of a fattening block / feedlot) where resources (whether it be land, manpower, plant, livestock or whatever) can be applied to best advantage to make the combined operation more flexible and profitable than the individual operations could ever hope to be.
As has been said before, "it's not rocket science".
One of the Mallee farmers, John Gladigau, is said to have identified seven core principles for "collaborative farming":
Be strategic – Start off with a blank piece of paper and design your future.
Differentiate between agribusiness and real estate – Most farmers and graziers run two enterprises: a real estate business and an operations business – both have to get a return. Arguably some of our large operators in the beef industry are grappling with this issue.
Use resources efficiently (machinery, labour and infrastructure).
Create cells and replicate them, ie a scalable unit as the most efficient mix of land, machinery, infrastructure etc.
Create an environment of "win-win"– Win-win relationships need to be built between all of the stakeholders throughout the businesses.
Engage specialist services – The days of being a master of all trades (if they ever existed) are well and truly over. Recognise your limitations. There are areas where you need to bring in others because of their different skill set.
An independent voice is needed – Recognise that personalities, especially in a collaborative business where families are brought together, can destroy the business. The one essential element is to have an independent voice. Look at the corporate world where it is common to have an independent chair / directors on the board.
How then do we establish a "collaborative farm"? The key issue here is that "there is no model, there are no rules". You need to create a business that works for you and your partners. Having said that, the basic template is to set up a new company, put the various properties together, lease the properties and plant and sell your livestock to that new entity. There are legitimate steps that can be taken to minimise transactional costs, ie stamp duty, livestock transaction levies and income tax on any such restructure.
In summary, I am convinced more than ever that "the family farm has a future". The crucial issue here though is that the form of the family farm in future may well be more complex. It is of course a complex environment in which we all live and operate.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Bill Loughnan is partner,  Thynne &amp; Macartney and can be contacted <a href="https://www.thymac.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
<div> </div>
</body></html>

Collaborative farming – the future for family farms?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Once upon a time, chicken was a luxury few could regularly afford. It was a rare meal reserved for special occasions.
Yet since 1965 the per-capita annual consumption of chicken meat in Australia has increased ten-fold from 4.6 kilograms per person in 1965 to 44.6 kilograms in 2012.
The retail price of chicken per kilogram has decreased steadily in real terms from around A$9.67 in 1986 to A$5.67 in 2009. The arrival of Kentucky Fried Chicken in Australia in 1968 coincided with rapid increases in consumption. Today, Australians consume more than 600 million chickens per year.
The vast majority is produced in intensive “broiler” farms. How does chicken production and consumption on such a scale affect the foodbowls on the outskirts of our cities?
Intensive chicken farms need to be within about one hour of processing sites. Farms also need to be close to feed supplies and hatcheries, as they are run as highly integrated systems.
Partly because of this, the chicken meat industry in Victoria is concentrated within about 200 kilometres of Melbourne. Similar patterns occur in other Australian regions.
As the industry has sought efficiencies of scale, the size of farms has increased. Whereas farms of the 1970s might have housed 10,000 chickens, they now routinely hold 80,000 to more than one million chickens, producing five batches of chickens per year. Yet as producers have grown, the numbers of suitable urban fringe spaces – close enough to processing plants, but far enough from neighbours and sensitive land uses – are dwindling.
One reason is the growth in popularity of peri-urban areas to live in. “Counter-urbanisation” or “tree-changing” has been underway since the 1970s. Whether in Germany, the US or the Netherlands, it seems rural and peri-urban residents have little desire to live near a “monster chicken factory”.
In a recent paper we analysed 59 planning appeals related to broiler farms in Victoria between 1969 and 2013. Concerns about the farms have included odour, noise, dust, vermin, truck traffic, impacts on tourism, and water use and pollution.
<a href="/images/2016/03/14/image-20160224-16425-1lijx2i.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/14/image-20160224-16425-1lijx2i.jpg" alt="">
Broiler farm planning disputes appear to channel more intractable issues than odour control. It is possible that, on some level, having one million chickens not smell is unsettling in its own way.
As more chicken meat is produced, and in ever more technologically intensive ways, conflicts over farm applications inevitably unlock community disquiet about factory farming. The allowable forum for legitimate opposition, however, is narrow.
Intensive farming is often simply inconsistent with community expectations. The “unknowns” of industrialised agriculture are normally hidden from view in bucolic images on food packaging, and in the marketing of rural real estate as a “lifestyle” choice. Responses to the reality of broiler proposals – however technically well planned – sometimes seem rooted in the loss of this comforting, romanticised view.
In Victoria, the solution has been to regulate away the noise, smell and dust of a farm, mandate separation distances and even set aside areas with clear “rights to farm” and those with rights to “the good life”. The recent announcement of an inquiry in Victoria into the industry has a strong focus on resolving conflicts through siting and separation.
Yet the use of such an approach in Victoria has raised concerns about creating “sterilised” regions where no uses but industrial farms are permitted. Opponents to industrial farms also express concerns that proponents exploit loopholes and that a codified buffer distance privileges intensive farms rather than resolving conflicting land use issues.
On the other hand, less control arguably generates more conflict, as in parts of Canada and Texas. There, industrial, corporate-run farming operations dominate vast, generally lower socioeconomic areas. But as farms expand, divisive neighbourhood battles are still fought out.
Our research indicates that the use of buffer spaces around farms, guidelines and rights can achieve only so much. Despite the presence of clear guidelines, a recent proposal for a 1.2 million-bird farm in Baringhup, near Castlemaine, has led to more than two years of planning dispute and may result in Supreme Court action.
Conflicts between opponents and proponents of intensive farming will continue in rural areas. Fanning the flames is the growing demand for low-priced chicken (and an ongoing chicken nugget price “war”).
Local governments and decision-makers in Australia remain under-resourced to deal with opposition to the increasing scale of broiler farms. By advocating for a new understanding of what a rural and an urban area “means”, planning is at the coal face for negotiating politically acceptable outcomes to such conflicts. Yet a look at the images used to market farm products reveals what an uphill struggle this is.
 
Elizabeth Taylor is vice chancellor's Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-taylor-97922" target="_blank">here</a>.
Andrew Butt is senior lecturer in Community Planning and Development, La Trobe University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-butt-229215" target="_blank">here</a>.
Marco Amati is associate professor of International Planning, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marco-amati-209638" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation
</body></html>

Done like a chicken dinner: city fringes locked in battles over broiler farms

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Suddenly, getting workers onto farms is a top political priority.
Over the weekend, and again in parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced plans to get more backpackers working on farms.
We don’t yet have the details, but for a month the media have been reporting that he is considering “longer visits for travellers on working holiday or backpacker visas”.
Backpackers who have had a visa for one year can already get an extension for a second year if they have worked on a farm for three months. Some 36,000 did it last year.
What’s apparently proposed
The government seems to be considering increasing that extension from one to two years.
Another suggested reform is to lift the current six-month ceiling on any single stint of employment while in Australia on a backpacker (working holiday) visa.
In my assessment, based on analysis and research over several years, these are not only bad ideas, but also ideas that would undermine all three of Morrison’s claimed objectives in the field of agricultural work.
Morrison’s three objectives
First, he has gone out of his way to stress that he wants to end worker exploitation on farms, saying: "I want to be absolutely certain that those going to work in these areas and environments are properly looked after and properly catered for."
Yet the backpacker visa scheme is broken.
The Fair Work Ombudsman undertook an inquiry into it in 2016. It found that “many backpackers are being subjected to underpayment or non-payment, unlawful deductions, sexual harassment, unsafe working conditions and other forms of exploitation”.
“Overseas workers seeking regional work to satisfy the 88-day requirement and obtain a second-year 417 visa are particularly vulnerable to exploitation,” it reported.
The working holiday visa scheme is one we should be trying to fix or shrink, rather than expand.
Second, Morrison has made it clear he wants to get more Australians working on farms. On Monday he told parliament: "Where there is a job in Australia, our view is that an Australian should do that job where an Australian is available and fit and ready to do that job."
But at present no labour marking testing is required before farmers hire a backpacker. Current backpacker visa arrangements require no preference whatsoever for local workers.
Third, Mr Morrison has declared as recently as this month that the Pacific region has to come first when it comes to providing seasonal jobs.
"The Pacific Islander Scheme has the priority in our program. Of course it does."
This makes sense. Pacific island nations are poor, geographically isolated and strategically important.
But backpackers on working holiday visas compete for jobs with Pacific Islanders brought in under the Seasonal Worker Program.
Backpackers complete with islanders for jobs
The recent growth in the Seasonal Worker Program (6,400 between 2013-14 and 2017-18) corresponds closely to the decline over the same period in the number of backpackers who used farm work to get a second-year visa (9,600).
Yet there are still four times as many backpackers on farms as seasonal workers.
This means that, all else being equal, a 10% increase in the number of backpackers on farms would cut the number of arrivals from the Pacific under the Seasonal Worker Program by 40%.
Unlike the backpacker visa, the (Pacific) Seasonal Worker Program requires labour market testing, and the research suggests that the workers it brings in are less exploited than backpackers. This isn’t surprising, because the Seasonal Worker Program is a more tightly regulated scheme.
More than 90% of the farm workers on the backpacker scheme are from rich countries. Not a single Pacific island country is able to use it.
We’ll need to make a choice
My point is simple. The prime minister cannot claim that he wants to stamp out exploitation, get more Australians onto farms and prioritise the Pacific, while at the same time supporting changes to the working holiday visa that would result in more backpackers working on farms.
It’s an important decision for us as a nation. Farmers will always want a mix of seasonal workers and backpackers, but we need to get our priorities right.
Do we want more Pacific Islanders, or more rich-country foreigners, picking our fruit and vegetables?
Our special interest in the Pacific and the strong safeguards already in place for the Seasonal Worker Program suggest that it should be the former.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105123/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Stephen Howes, Director, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/bringing-in-backpackers-is-not-the-right-way-to-get-more-workers-onto-farms-105123" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Bringing in backpackers is not the right way to get more workers onto farms

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Two years ago we were celebrating just about the best year for farmers ever. Now many farmers – particularly in New South Wales and southern Queensland – are in the grip of drought.
It underlines just how variable the Australian climate can be.
While attention is focused on responding to the current situation, it is important to also think long-term. In our rush to help, we need to make sure well-meaning responses don’t do more harm than good.
The drought policy debate
The recent drought has stimulated much empathy for farmers from the media, governments and the public. Federal and state governments have committed hundreds of millions of dollars in farmer support. Private citizens and companies have also given generously to the cause.
While there appears to be overwhelming public support for helping farmers through drought, concerns have been raised by economists as well as farmer representatives – including both the former and current head of the National Farmers’ Federation.
A central concern is that drought support could undermine farmer preparedness for future droughts and longer-term adaptation to climate change.
Another concern is that simplistic “farmer as a victim” narrative presented by parts of the media overstate the number of farmers suffering hardship and understates the truth that most prepare for and manage drought without assistance.
Sensationalist media coverage can also damage Australia’s reputation as a reliable food producer. Images of barren landscapes, stressed livestock and desperate farmers send the wrong signals to customers and trading partners.
An acute policy dilemma
The tension in drought policy is real.
To remain internationally competitive Australian farmers need to increase their productivity.
Agricultural productivity depends on two main factors. First, innovation – adopting new technologies and management practices. Second, structural adjustment – shifting resources towards the most productive sectors and most efficient farmers.
Supporting drought-affected farms has the potential to slow both these processes, weakening productivity growth.
This gives rise to an acute dilemma: should we support farmers in distress, or support the industry to be the best it can be?
Factoring in climate change
While it is difficult to attribute any specific event to climate change, it is clear Australia’s climate is changing, with significant consequences for agriculture.
Australian average temperatures have increased by about 1℃ since 1950. Extreme heat events have become more frequent and intense. Recent decades show a trend towards lower average winter rainfall in the southwest and southeast.
Research by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences shows climate change has negatively affected the productivity of cropping farms, particularly in southern Australia.
This research also shows evidence of farmers adapting to maintain productivity and reduce their sensitivity to climate.
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/dbKqj/2/" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="100%" height="400"></iframe> <img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169422/original/file-20170516-7009-16srh7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Key southwestern and southeastern agricultural zones have been especially impacted by climate change. ABARES
<hr>
There is still much uncertainty over what climate change will mean for agriculture in the future.
However, the evidence we do have points to more frequent and more severe droughts, if only because of higher temperatures and evaporation rates.
Farming isn’t like other industries
Although businesses in other industries are expected to manage risk without assistance, agriculture has some special aspects that help build a case for a government policy response.
First, risk in agriculture is generally greater than in other industries. Farmers are vulnerable to variation in international commodity prices as well as droughts and other extreme events.
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/yeSqZ/3/" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="100%" height="311"></iframe>
<hr>
Second, most farm businesses are also farm households.
While many other risky industries are made up of large corporate businesses (generally with diversified assets and ownership), agriculture is dominated by family farms.
Third, financial markets both in Australia and internationally struggle to provide viable risk management products for farmers – particularly drought insurance.
This means farming is an unusually risky business. Farmers must therefore be more conservative about financing and operating their businesses, which constrains investment, innovation and ultimately productivity.
Helping farms without making things worse
In 2008 a Productivity Commission review recommended a national farm income support scheme.
This led to the Farm Household Allowance program.
It provides a fortnightly payment, usually set at the rate of the Newstart unemployment allowance. There is also a financial assessment of the farm business and funding to help develop skills or get professional advice.
Those welfare programs provide an important safety net for farm households. Because they provide targeted support to households, rather than businesses, they result in fewer economic distortions than alternative approaches.
Past reviews have consistently recommended against subsidising farm business inputs or supporting output prices. This includes providing subsidies for livestock feed.
While these measures might provide short term relief, if they become routine they risk weakening the incentives to manage farms properly, by for instance destocking sheep and cattle ahead of likely droughts.
Looking to the future, it is possible insurance could have an important role to play.
While drought insurance has failed to thrive in Australia to date, advances in data could allow more viable forms of insurance to emerge.
In particular, index-based insurance products where payouts are based on weather data rather than an assessment of farm damages.
Such insurance, if done well, could provide farmers with better protection from climate risk, while also supporting adaptation and productivity growth – effectively sidestepping our current drought policy dilemma.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105281/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Neal Hughes, Senior Economist, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES)
Steve Hatfield-Dodds, Executive Director, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES)
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/helping-farmers-in-distress-doesnt-help-them-be-the-best-the-drought-relief-dilemma-105281" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Farming

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Farming

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News