An independent assessment that the Northern Territory government commissioned to find out whether a green group’s report falsely claimed developing a major cotton industry could damage rivers and aquifers, has found most of its conclusions were correct.
Key points:
- A Pew Charitable Trust report found plans to expand the NT cotton industry could damage wetland biodiversity
- An analysis of the report, commissioned by the NT government, found it was supported by scientific references
- The NT government says it wanted to “obtain an objective assessment”
The Pew Charitable Trust’s 2022 A Fork in the River report found taking more aquifer water and floodplain harvesting to support the cotton industry could have major impacts on wetlands in the territory.
It called on the NT government to put a moratorium on granting extra water to industries in the Daly River and Roper River areas, and to dump its new rules allowing five per cent of floodplain waters to be harvested in dams.
Pew NT manager Mitch Hart said the NT government had been “talking down the environmental impacts of the cotton industry”, and Pew was calling for it to “realise we’ve got a unique opportunity not to repeat the Murray Darling mistakes”.
Pew has now discovered, through a Freedom of Information request, that in 2023 the NT government gave Charles Darwin University (CDU) a $35,000 contract to check whether the green group’s report claims were based on reputable scientific references.
The university found “the majority of the report was supported by the references used”.
That included the Pew report’s conclusion that harvesting 500 billion litres of water from Daly River floodplains could have “major impacts on wetlands and rivers”, such as reducing fish and bird breeding.
Mr Hart said the CDU assessment showed the NT government was overly concerned about “groups that are putting pressure on, on this issue”.
“It’s looking to trip them up, rather than getting on with the work of providing open transparent data about why it’s making decisions about increased water extraction and why it is allowing more land clearing,” he said.
The Pew report’s findings were based on the cotton industry’s prediction that 20 per cent of the NT crop may need to be irrigated, while the other 80 per cent could be grown using rain.
Minor criticisms made
CDU levelled minor criticism at the Pew report in its assessment, saying that in some instances its “interpretation of references tended towards the greater potential consequences”, and that more context could have been provided in some sections.
One example was that the Pew report’s findings were based on the cotton industry’s prediction that the area to be planted could be up to 2,000 square kilometres, rather than on the NT government’s stated aim of having a cotton and horticulture industry covering 1,000 square kilometres of land.
In response, Mr Hart said: “I think that is what the precautionary principle is all about, and we have to take at face value what’s been put in the public domain by industry”.
CDU declined to comment on its assessment because of a confidentiality clause in its government contract.
Government says probe commissioned ‘to obtain objective assessment’
NT Chief Minister and Industry and Trade Minister Eva Lawler said CDU had been asked to probe the Pew report “to obtain an objective, peer-reviewed assessment of its contents and assertions and to confirm or rebut the science, assumptions and interpretations made about the Top End’s development impacts”.
When asked, she denied that she thought the environmental movement had made alarmist claims about the potential impacts of the cotton industry’s water use.
“No, I think the environmental groups are passionate around the environment, and governments need to be held accountable around environmental issues,” Ms Lawler said.
“We absolutely want to make sure the territory’s pristine environment is maintained — we all want our rivers to continue to flow and not be impacted — but we always have to balance that with future development.”
NT Farmers Association president Simon Smith said the new cotton industry would probably grow more slowly than many were predicting, and that farmers would be careful not to damage the environment their operations relied on.
“We’re happy to have honest conversations, but we’re very uncomfortable that there’s misinformation and very emotional rhetoric put out there about damming territory rivers,” he said.
“Certainly development comes with some small cost, and we acknowledge that capturing overland flow does reduce some of the overland flow into rivers, and the way that pans out will be different on each property depending on the topography.”
He said the industry wanted the community to balance environmental considerations with the economic.
“I think environmentalists need to have a look at the fact that farmers too care about the country, and farmers try and do things sensibly,” he said.
“But we also, as a territory, need to see development.
“Cotton presents as a great industry up here, and people need to step back and have a look at what the cotton industry is and what it can do for the territory.”
