Coal Mining: A Land Use in Conflict or Co-operation?Author(s): Diana DaySource: Area, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Jun., 1986), pp. 172-173Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20002329 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 02:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:49:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172 British-Bulgarian seminar

During the seminar formal and informal discussions took place about the form which further contacts between geographers in the two countries should take. It is envisaged that a further seminar should be held in Great Britain, although there seems little possibility of bringing this about in the next few years because of other international commitments. At present it seems reasonable to plan to hold the next meeting in three or four years time, provided suitable financial support can be obtained.

In the meantime it was felt that genuine active co-operation could be achieved by means of individual and small-group contacts, working on specific research topics and possibly financed by the various opportunities for international exchange already offered through the British Council, the British Academy and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The senior Bulgarian geographers present welcomed this proposal, which they promised to support. From the British side this agreement was seen as a positive step forward in the development of co operation between geographers in the United Kingdom and Bulgaria. It remains to be seen whether this preliminary suggestion can be converted into actual co-operative projects, but at least the proposal was incorporated into the final communique which was agreed at the end of the meeting.

Preliminary suggestions for co-operative research projects which would involve British geographers working for a short period in Bulgaria and Bulgarian geographers working in Britain should be made to Professor J H Johnson, who would be happy to assist in steering them towards appropriate fund-providing agencies and Bulgarian contacts.

James H Johnson University of Lancaster

Coal mining: a land use in conflict or co-operation?

Report of a Seminar on Coal Mining as a Land Use organised by the Australian Coal Association in Brisbane, Australia, 8/9 September 1985

Around 120 participants mainly from the public sector and the mining industry gathered for this seminar sponsored by the Australian Coal Association. In 1980 the Association commenced sponsorship of a series of seminars on coal mining and the environment. Fifteen papers in five sessions were based on the relationship between coal mining and other land uses, how other land users view the expansion and development of the coal industry, environmental aspects of

mine development, post-mining land uses and rehabilitation techniques. Different state legislation and attitudes to rehabilitation were clearly revealed and these have

created a range of problems. Where there is no urgent demand for inland mined lands such as in the Hunter Valley, NSW or Bowen Basin, Queensland there is a slowness to move to one or several conjunctive post-mining land uses. A call for a National Land Use Policy was made in the keynote address by John Burton (University of New England). It was suggested that more interest should be taken in multiple objective planning including the sequential aspects of

mining and post-mine uses. Conflicts between agriculture and new areas of surface mining were highlighted in terms of land, labour, transport and water supply and quality. Post-mining land uses for small coal mines along the eastern Australian coast were more diverse including urban subdivisions, parklands and recreational facilities. A problem emerging in this context was the lack of liaison between mining developers and local councils. Poor planning has led to housing developments over coal resources, sterilising some reserves in the Moreton coalfield, Queensland. Similar problems are faced in some NSW coal districts.

The extent of mining development needs comparison however with agricultural impacts on runoff, soil loss and groundwater quality. In Queensland mined land has not been returned to grazing or crops and long lease times; remoteness and non-enforcement of lease conditions all play a part in this. Salinity problems dominate in Queensland and NSW. In the Hunter Valley,

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:49:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Coal mining as a land use 173

NSW, naturally highly saline groundwaters and marine sediments pose water quality hazards during and after rock breakup and contouring. Stability of post-mine landforms is more of concern in higher rainfall areas of Queensland. Industrial compliance to legislation was not seen as the only answer to environmental problems and an appeal was made to mining companies to improve their public image. It was apparent that there were too few geomorphological, hydrological and ecological studies of coal mining impacts in Australian coal basins. The Seminar presented an interesting expose of: some very closely allied views held by industry and pollution control and mining agencies; the continuing problems of large scale surface mine rehabilitation; the potential for post-mine land uses and the factors which mitigate against this; and the differing problems which face the mining industry, government and local communities in each state. The papers for the Seminar titled Coal Mining as a Land Use are put out as a volume by the Australian Coal Association, Sydney.

Diana Day Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies

The Australian National University

Poverty and deprivation in the 1980s: 'Breadline Britain' and 'Poor Britain'

This series' and its associated publication2 developed out of a major review of poverty in Britain in the 1980s, providing the next stage in research after the classic survey of poverty in the 1970s by Townsend,3 as the impact of a recession, increased unemployment and the continued growth of social inequality has increased the gap between the 'rich' and the 'poor', with a marked spatial reorientation of wealth towards the South East.4 Against this back ground, the survey of 'Poor Britain' set out to investigate the dimensions of poverty. The study was based on over 1200 interviews by MORI and presents a consensus of what constitutes a socially determined minimum standard of living. Such questions as 'who are the poor?' (the elderly, the young, single-parent families, the disabled, separated families and the long-term unemployed), 'what does it take to be poor?' and 'what does it mean to be poor in the 1980s?' were asked. Through the use of illustrative case studies of each group in poverty, the series set out to explore how the Welfare State fails to meet the basic necessities of these groups. The basic message of the series is clear, that up to 7- million people fall below the 'poverty line' established by the stratified sample of the British population interviewed. The plight of those people who fall through the safety net of the Welfare State is presented in the first programme, with successive programmes explaining poverty issues in greater depth.

The history of poverty in British society is reviewed from the pioneering work of Rowntree in developing the idea of a 'poverty line' through to the development of the Welfare State,

which is increasingly called into question for its inability to meet the needs and demands of a post-industrial society in the 1980s. The series singled out certain components of poverty such as living standards, housing, work and leisure and invited leading academics to explain how inequality and the unfair distribution of resources in society adversely affect the least able in society.

The series would be useful in the context of undergraduate work on contemporary social and urban issues, presenting the conceptual and theoretical issues associated with poverty against the background of the harsh realities of being poor in the 1980s.

The book accompanying the series2 expands upon these themes in greater detail. The implications of the study are, however, presented against the need for a greater understanding of what it actually means to be poor. As Halsey remarked, 'their yardstick of poverty makes sense of the way we now live. It constitutes a powerful indictment of present policy and offers a clear guide to the action required in a responsible democracy.'5

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:49:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions