e-mail: biala@optusnet.com.au website www.elspl.com.au

Most of the agricultural sector in Australia is facing a bleak economic and environmental reality. This situation has prevailed for the best part of the last decade and prompted many pleas and promises, and some activities, to "Save the Bush". The decline of the rural sector, i.e. of the rural economies and communities is one of the major problems for Australia today.

This is not to say that the highly populated urban centres in Australia would not have equally critical issues to deal with. One of these pressing problems is waste management, more precisely waste reduction and the diversion of organic materials from landfills, hence the reduction of methane and leachate emissions. Even if the organic material was successfully separated at source and converted into a valuable product, the lack of viable markets for compost was often perceived as a major obstacle to the progress of composting in Australia. This prompted a considerable number of reports and market development activities over the last few years, however without really solving the problem.

In may aspects the rural decline and the urban waste management problem have very little in common, yet exemplify clearly the current state of Australian Society. However these two problems still may have a common cure: composting and the use of compost. The composting of municipal organic materials and the agricultural use of the compost has certainly the potential to solve the urban waste management problem and at the same time aid the rural sector in a number of ways, hence creating a win-win situation for both sectors involved. At the same time such a scenario could deliver a wide range of benefits to the Nation as a whole in its strive for sustainable development.

The development and establishment of structures and systems for the processing and use of organic materials which promise the delivery of substantial benefits to both the urban and rural sector requires a critical assessment of the structures and mechanisms currently in place.

In Australia, the way in which organic materials are processed, marketed and used was mainly developed in the urban centres, with a large proportion of the generated compost being marketed to the landscaping industry and the residential sector. This has worked reasonably well up to a certain point but with an increasing diversion of organic materials from the waste stream new markets had to be found for the additional compost.

Broadly speaking, currently the processing of organic materials is set up in such a way that the operator of the processing facility charges a gate fee to the local authority or anybody else who delivers organic materials for composting to the site. These charges cover all processing and associated costs and include a profit margin, hence generating income for the composter. What is often not covered by the gate fee, it seems are the costs for marketing, transport and application of the compost, since it is anticipated that the farmer (or other end-users) has to cover these costs.

Where the market is able and willing to absorb these costs the system works well and compost should be supplied to these markets. There is sufficient documentation to show a wide range of beneficial effects that can be attributed to the use of compost and some of the tangible effects can be expressed in monetary terms (nutrients, organic matter, potential disease suppression, tilth, reduced erosion etc.). Hence, compost should have a price. However, not all potential user groups are able or willing to pay the full value of the product. In the case of farmers this is mainly due to high additional costs associated with the use of compost (transport, application), the likely need for additional nitrogen fertilisation in conventional agriculture and alternative products which are currently cheaper on a nutrient supply basis (chemical fertilisers). In addition the use of compost according to good agricultural practice often shows relatively little immediate financial returns even though it may do so in the longer term. This situation may be different where compost is used as mulch in high value crops such as vine grapes.

If compost use does not show immediate and substantial returns most farmers are very reluctant to spend money for compost, particularly given the current economic climate for agriculture. And the question remains as to why farmers should pay part of the bill for the solution of mainly urban waste management problems? Shouldn’t the "polluter" or "user-pays-principle" be applied also in this case and the waste generator be asked to also cover transport and application costs, at least to the point where compost use is cost neutral for the farmer? In fact, rather than being a commodity which is uneconomic to use, compost and composting could be a saviour for farmers and provide relieve from economic pressures. There are two fundamentally different ways in which this could be achieved.

This option has been discussed above and essentially means that waste management charges for generators of organic waste (householders, commerce and industry) cover not only the collection and processing costs but also a certain proportion of transport and application costs. Once compost use is made economically attractive for farmers, agricultural compost use may increase sharply and possibly result in considerable gains for the nation as a whole through a win-win situation. Farmers who are using compost can reduce their fertiliser input since compost generally supplies adequate Phosphorus, Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium and all micronutrients for most field crops. Nitrogen supply however, is often considered inadequate for conventional farming and has to be supplied additionally. Many trials have shown that fertilising regimes that combine organic and soluble fertilisers result in higher yields than when the two options are used exclusively. In any case, farmers will experience a real reduction of production costs due to reduced fertiliser inputs and in addition gain a wide range of other than purely nutrient derived benefits which can not yet be quantified in monetary terms.

This option where waste management charges cover all costs to the farm gate or even to the field, could

• result in substantial agricultural compost use,
• accommodate the "user pays principle",
• solve a huge, predominantly urban waste management problem,
• prevent future environmental problems and associated costs (methane emission from landfill, incineration, degradation of agricultural land),
• support the farming industry and
• could therefore form the basis for a new alliance for sustainability between urban and rural communities.

Currently, many farmers are actively looking to supplement their diminishing income – and on-farm composting can be one such option. Of course, farmers see the use of compost quite differently, depending on whether they are asked to pay for its purchase and application or whether they can derive income from its production and still have a valuable product they can use. At a recent meeting of farmers in the UK, one presented his on-farm composting operation saying it’s his most profitable enterprise. There, the Environment Agency as regulating body makes provision for on-farm composting by providing a site licence exemption if the operation does not process more than 1,000 m³ at any one time (equal to approximately 3,000 tonnes per year of organic waste material) and if all the produced compost is used on the farm.

It is obvious that on-farm composting has its legal and logistical limitations. However, on-farm composting can deliver many advantages, such as:

• facilitating the proximity principle,
• providing local solutions for local problems,
• reducing transport costs (waste and compost),
• excluding marketing costs and associated problems,
• ensuring the production of high quality compost, since the end product will be applied to the farmers own fields,
• utilising farmers’ skills in managing biological /mechanical systems
• incurring relatively low processing costs by using the farm’s existing infrastructure

Therefore, on-farm composting can be the ideal solution for rural and semi-rural councils. Even a city with approximately 100,000 residents could easily have its organic waste fraction processed in an on-farm composting scheme. Only three or four farms surrounding the city would be needed to process the source separated organic waste materials. There are various ways in which farmers could share large machinery in order to keep operating costs at a minimum or how several farmers could jointly operate and run a larger composting facility.

However, as with any other composting operation, the gate fee would have to cover processing costs and make the operation profitable for the farmer. In this case no extra expenses for transport, purchase or field application would have to be paid. Farmers who take up on-farm composting receive additional income rather than having to pay for the use of compost. This may improve their financial situation considerably and therefore prove to have the potential of becoming a driving force in rural-development schemes.

The on-farm composting scenario seems like a smart way in which the urban population can support the farming community and, at the same time bring about major environmental and social gains while solving one of their own major problems in a very cost effective way. It is time to realise that compost has the potential to become the facilitator for a new rural – urban alliance for sustainability.