**1. Introduction**

Changes to traditional land uses can be contentious, increasingly so when paired with the ongoing challenges of climate change and energy security. In Australia, land use change has a long history as management of landscapes has occupied a central position in our politics ever since re-settlement of the continent over 230 years ago ([1], p. 1). Historically, the agricultural, manufacturing, service and mining sectors have long operated alongside one another to

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

underpin the economic diversity of the nation with rural regions more specifically playing a vital part [2]. Over time, however, as power has devolved from the Federal government to the States, management of the biophysical environment—land, soils and water in particular have taken on greater significance as increased 'scarcity' created by human induced pressures, has become more widely recognised and communities have begun to demand more active responses from government to address these challenges.

in the form of civil disobedience campaigns and blockades. While these campaigns have been mostly against the placement of extractive projects in areas considered to be culturally, ecologically and agriculturally important, they also speak to a larger debate currently being waged throughout Australia [6]. This debate, seeks unproblematically to frame the future of rural places as essential nodes in an ever-expanding fossil fuelled pipeline where economic imperatives drive and surpass all other values that are not seen as being in the 'common' or 'economic good' of the nation [7, 8]. As Peck and Tickell ([9], p. 383) suggest, key to this argument is an all "pervasive metalogic" that draws on appropriate policies to justify its reasoning

Unlikely Alliances in the Battle for Land and Water Security: Unconventional Gas and the Politics…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78795

289

This chapter focuses on one rural region in NSW. It reports on the emergence of an unlikely alliance forming between farmers, environmentalists and concerned others in the fight to protect productive land, soil and water from unwanted land use change. Framed by de Rijke ([10], p. 41) as the advent of "agri-gas fields", the chapter considers how the socio-economic and cultural boundaries between place and matter are being contested within the different visions that exist for the region's long-term future. Beginning with an overview of strategic planning in NSW and recent changes to appeal rights, the chapter also contemplates how space is instrumentalised by government for political purposes [11] and how it can also be used by others to challenge and reframe the arena of

When the NSW State government first released its Strategic Regional Land Use Plans, they were heralded as a suite of law reforms which would address what the government itself saw as flaws in the planning process [12]. These plans were to represent the 'government's proposed framework to support growth, protect the environment and respond to competing land uses, while [also] preserving key regional values over the next 20 years " ([3], p. 8). Framed as a way to ensure that land identified as 'Strategic Agricultural Land' – i.e. – highly productive land requiring extra protection mechanisms, the government put in place what it called a 'Gateway Assessment process' [3, 4]. It also appointed a Gateway Assessment Panel of experts (GAP), who would assess the merits of 'State Significant' mining and coal seam gas

proposals on strategic agricultural land and then issue a certificate of approval [13].

application for a Gateway Certificate no matter how questionable the project [12, 14].

While the Gateway Assessment process was to mark a significant improvement on previous planning efforts in regional NSW, it did not, however, redress the imbalance between the State's perceived economic 'needs' and the social and environmental needs of specific rural regions [12]. In fact, the Strategic Regional Land Use Plans (which were later to become policy) further entrenched this imbalance by rendering it impossible for the GAP to refuse an

Under the Gateway process, the GAP is required to make an upfront assessment of the impacts of a mining/CSG proposal on agricultural activities and water sources. On what basis, however, can this assessment be undertaken if the impacts are cumulative or as of yet unknown [12, 14, 15]? Since CSG mining is still a relatively new industry in Australia, it is possible that

and effectively silence or marginalise other alternate voices.

**2. Strategic land use planning and change**

decision-making.

In an attempt to 'balance' strong economic growth with protection of agricultural lands, the New South Wales (NSW) State government in 2012 introduced strategic land use plans for the Upper Hunter and New England regions [3, 4]. While these were designed to promote 'coexistence' of diverse land uses, they also set in place long-term strategic goals which focused heavily on increasing the spatial dimensions and needs of energy industries.

For example, in the Upper Hunter and New England regions alone, 11 Petroleum Exploration Licences (PELS) mainly for coal seam gas (CSG, referred to elsewhere 'as coal-bed methane') have been issued, covering a total of 461,000 ha of prime agricultural land [5] (**Figure 1**). This total does not include the minerals titles that also exist in these regions and elsewhere which cover approximately two-thirds of the State.

The increased emphasis on extractive land uses (other than those agricultural in nature) has been met with widespread opposition from farmers, local communities, environmentalists and concerned others, who over the past 5 years in particular have responded with resistance

**Figure 1.** Upper hunter and New England region PEL zones.

in the form of civil disobedience campaigns and blockades. While these campaigns have been mostly against the placement of extractive projects in areas considered to be culturally, ecologically and agriculturally important, they also speak to a larger debate currently being waged throughout Australia [6]. This debate, seeks unproblematically to frame the future of rural places as essential nodes in an ever-expanding fossil fuelled pipeline where economic imperatives drive and surpass all other values that are not seen as being in the 'common' or 'economic good' of the nation [7, 8]. As Peck and Tickell ([9], p. 383) suggest, key to this argument is an all "pervasive metalogic" that draws on appropriate policies to justify its reasoning and effectively silence or marginalise other alternate voices.

This chapter focuses on one rural region in NSW. It reports on the emergence of an unlikely alliance forming between farmers, environmentalists and concerned others in the fight to protect productive land, soil and water from unwanted land use change. Framed by de Rijke ([10], p. 41) as the advent of "agri-gas fields", the chapter considers how the socio-economic and cultural boundaries between place and matter are being contested within the different visions that exist for the region's long-term future. Beginning with an overview of strategic planning in NSW and recent changes to appeal rights, the chapter also contemplates how space is instrumentalised by government for political purposes [11] and how it can also be used by others to challenge and reframe the arena of decision-making.
