Bobbie Brazil

  “Knock, Knock, Knock! Who’s there in the name of Beezlebub? 
 Here’s a farmer that hanged himself on the expectation of plenty” 

The Farm Environment can be viewed as a microcosm of the Australian Environment. Both are multi-dimensional.
Significantly, each includes not just the physical and climatic environment but also the economic, political and cultural environments-global and local markets, assorted financial drivers, legislative and regulatory regimes, policy frameworks, the  technology revolution, and peer, community and family expectations. All are brought to bear on the modern farming business.
 Responding to the many demands of each of these imperatives is increasingly an exercise in contradiction and constitutes in one view an almost schizophrenic context.
This paper will consider current farming practice from a practitioner perspective and include an analysis of the symbiotic and antibiotic aspects of farming today. 

Sustainable Agriculture and NRM: What Role for Governments in an era of Globalisation and Environmental Consciousness?

Neil Byron

Rural Australia faces profound social, economic and environmental changes. 

The directions are clear even if the causes and policy options to address them are poorly understood. With the trend towards large-scale corporate farms and micro hobby-farms surrounding provincial towns, while mid-sized family farms become fewer, who is going to look after the country and for what purpose?

Global markets exert intense pressures to produce food and fibre commodities at the lowest possible costs, with maximum productivity, using best available technologies.

Meanwhile, environmental concerns find their way into Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements between governments, and trade negotiations in the WTO. Such international treaties can influence the choices available to Australian governments, and so shape the economic and environmental context within which Australian agriculture must operate.

Consumers are also seeking a direct say in how food and fibre are produced, through “Green Consumerism”. So the paper examines voluntary certification/accreditation initiatives (and Environmental Management Systems); what opportunities they present for primary producers; and what role if any, governments have in this area.
Who is going to pay for the country to be looked after, how and how much?

Margaret Alston - Director, Centre for Rural Social Research - Charles Sturt University

Globalisation, international policy manipulations such as the US farm bill and national policy responses have received a great deal of media coverage in recent times.  These international and national events are having a major impact on agricultural production in Australia.  But what do we know about the impact at farm gate level?  Just who is doing the farming in Australia in the 21st century and how are these people responding to major world politics? 

This paper will focus on the social aspects of agricultural production in Australia noting social trends and drawing attention to the changing social relations of agriculture.  The dominance of farm families, the role of corporate agriculture, ethnic diversity, the importance of women and the practice of farm transfers will be canvassed in this paper.

Adaptive Management at the regional scale:Break-through innovation or mission impossible?  A report on an american experience.

George H. Stankey, Ph.D.  Pacific Northwest Research Station - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Corvallis, Oregon - USA

In 1993, then-President Bill Clinton convened a “Forest Conference” in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States, with the purpose of addressing the contentious political debates over management over the region’s forests.  Concerns with endangered species protection, coupled with public sentiment to protect old-growth forests (ca. >100 years) had clashed with traditional commodity and economic interests, to produce severe political disputes, economic dislocations, and ineffective public institutions.

A team of scientists were charged with developing a set of options to “break the gridlock.”  They focused on a 10 million hectare area of federally-owned land across the western portions of the states of Oregon and Washington, and a portion of northern California.  The eventual selected alternative was grounded in the precautionary principle, reflected in the predominant allocation of lands to a series of terrestrial and aquatic reserves; less than 20% of the area was deemed open to traditional harvest and economic activities.

However, the plan also contained an evolutionary strategy.  The initial allocation was strongly reserved-based because of the high levels of uncertainty and risk regarding management of the bio-physical and socio-economic systems.  Over time, however, as knowledge about these systems emerged, the allocations and management rules could change.  The “engine” driving such change was adaptive management.  To facilitate an adaptive approach, the plan also allocated 10 Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs) across the region, with the objective of fostering experimentation, collaboration, and innovation.

For the past 2 years, an evaluation of this regional application of adaptive management has been underway. Results are not encouraging, but also not inconsistent with the experiences in adaptive approaches reported in other resource sectors or other political-legal systems. Barriers to adaptive management arise from a complex web of statutory regulations, competing organizational objectives and mandates, a lack of programs to build organisational capacity, prevailing norms and belief systems, an aversion to confronting risk and uncertainty, and an absence of leadership. Such conclusions have not surprisingly prompted calls to “slay the messengers”, but they also provide key information regarding the kinds of organisational transition, structural changes, and education and training required to move adaptive management from rhetoric to reality.

Lessons from Developing a Water Sharing Plan:  A Reflection on Achievements and Disappointments.

Kathleen H Bowmer
Independent Chair Murrumbidgee River Management Committee

The Minister for Land and Water Conservation recently placed the draft Water Sharing Plan for the Murrumbidgee River on public display. Once finalized and gazetted under the Water Management Act the Plan will be binding for ten years.  To quote the Minister “ The plan will provide a decade of security for all water users and secure provisions to the environment. For these reasons, we need to get it right”

The plan contains a series of Ministerial comments to highlight recommendations that are not consistent with government policy, as well as dissenting reports from six members of the committee. There is the threat of legal challenge to the plan and fighting funds have been set up by some community and commodity groups to challenge the plan. Yet by August 1998 the Committee had achieved a hard- won consensus on the contentious issue of allocation of water for the environment.  What went wrong and why?

In my opinion some of the critical issues and events that contributed to dysfunction of committee processes include:  lack of clarity of goals (including changing goalposts)); poor definition of roles (including tension between community advice and ministerial decree, and confusion about the roles of other committees and Boards); lack of 
resourcing; a poor knowledge base (especially on the state of river health, environmental benefit of water allocation, and socioeconomic impact); and undue haste. 

 On the positive side a range of non-flow options for improving river health have been developed   and the committee have learned a great deal about their region, their river and about each other’s agendas. The regional and individual responses to water trading and sharing are beginning to be debated.  Attitudes have changed and the link between on- farm behaviour and catchment scale impact is firmly on the agenda. It would be a shame to stop now and lose the investment that many dedicated people have made over the last five years. 

The challenge is to demonstrate that local solutions can work inside an overarching set of state and national policies and principles. My view that this is still possible, and will become more important as we face new challenges in landscape restoration and water redidtribution. So it is important that we adopt the principles of adaptive management and look to the future having learned from past mistakes and successes. 

Agriculture at the crossroads: planning an environmentally, socially and economically vibrant future 

Sonia Fedorow and Dr Peter O’Brien, Bureau of Rural Sciences

Most of us can agree on the key drivers for Australian agriculture – those factors that, for better or worse, will most powerfully shape the future.  They are likely to be:
 

• Nature of products – consumer preference for particular product qualities and production processes; evolving through-chain quality management; and servicing the global consumer.
• Nature of farming - changes in the size and intensity of enterprises and the impact of innovation and technology on production methods.
• Market access –the internationalisation of trade regulations and the changing nature of trading blocs and access.
• Diseases and pests - domestic and international movement of plants, animals and products; changed production systems; evolving resistance and pathogenicity; and the emergence of new diseases.
• Natural resource management – declining resource condition; access to critical resources such as soil and water; and sustainability imperatives.
• Social attitudes and values – community attitudes to the right to farm or clear; urban attitudes to land degradation; domestic and international attitudes to food from genetically manipulated organisms and to animal husbandry.

While it is relatively easy to agree on the drivers, it is far more difficult to see how the drivers, individually or in combination, will develop over time to shape the future of Australian agriculture. 

However, we can use them to construct some plausible possible futures for Australian agriculture and to test today’s strategies. We can also look for signposts that might signal that a particular future is unfolding.

Learning from Experience

Ian Thompson - Executive Manager - Natural Resources Management - Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry – Australia

In November 2000 all Australian Governments agreed to a National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality to address Australia’s pressing problems of increasing salinity and declining water quality.  The Action Plan is built on four key elements that are now fundamental to approaches to improving natural resources management and use.  These elements are:  focussing investments through targeted integrated plans to achieve action at the regional or catchment scale; continued partnerships between governments, industry and the community; improved governance frameworks and building the capacity of individuals and groups.

The 1990s were the Decade of Landcare.  Government programs during this period pursued sustainable resources use and management through voluntary approaches.  Program support was provided for raising awareness, facilitating group formation and providing information.  Evaluation indicates that these programs were most effective in raising awareness, motivating action and scoping issues. 

However, reports such as the Murray-Darling Basin Salinity Audit and the National Land and Water Resources Audit indicate that significant resource management issues still threaten the long-term sustainability of Australia.  Recent research indicates that achieving the scale of change necessary to place Australian agriculture on a more sustainable footing requires action that goes beyond past approaches.

To address our current understanding of the resource management issues facing Australian agriculture, the following is needed: strategic action at the catchment scale; profitable farming systems designed for the Australian environment; information to target action to priority issues and areas; investment frameworks that capture resources beyond government and beyond the individual land manager; institutional frameworks that encourage more sustainable resource use and empowered regional communities to take action to improve natural resources management.

The National Action Plan and the extended Natural Heritage Trust programs are designed to encourage and support these approaches.  The landcare movement will remain an important delivery vehicle for catchment plans but increasingly the focus will shift towards integrated larger scale action.  The National Land and Water Resources Audit has been continued as a key vehicle for monitoring the status of the resource base.  Market-based instruments will be trialled as mechanisms for encouraging better resource management outcomes.  The COAG water reform agenda is a key example of an institutional reform aimed at improved resources management. 

Over 60 per cent of Australia’s landmass is in private hands.  Partnerships between governments, industry and the wider community will be part of achieving sustainable resource use and an improved natural environment.  These are essential for a competitive and sustainable agricultural sector that promotes the development of viable rural and regional communities.

The environmental, social and economic features of Australian agriculture today and in the future

Ted Lefroy CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Private Bag 5 PO Wembley 6914 WA
Ph (08) 9333 6442 

Few places on earth have confronted environmental penalties as great or as soon after the introduction of agriculture as Australia. The question of why this has occurred is briefly examined, followed by some speculation on the difference between what could and what might occur in response. One goal of the current era of sustainability, achieving well-adapted and resilient land use systems, is examined from two perspectives, environmental responsibility and economic performance. There are both ecological and economic arguments pointing to a perennialisation of agriculture, but for different reasons and with different likelihood’s of success. The ecological case for developing land use systems that functionally mimic Australia’s native ecosystems faces two significant challenges. The low levels of annual production typical of Australian plant communities adapted to dryland farming areas and the high cost of transition suggest a suite of relatively high value products primed by off-farm investment. Economic arguments for an increasing trend in perennialisation are based on agriculture being pulled by opportunity and pushed by terms of trade into enterprises that feature higher levels of intensification and investment but lower flexibility. Finally, trends in two major drivers of change, environmental policy and international trade, are examined for clues to the future shape of agriculture in Australia and the likelihood of achieving the promised marriage between social equity, economic performance and environmental responsibility. 

Productive solutions to complex problems in the grains industry

John Harvey - Grains Reserch and Development Corporation

The recent performance of the grains industry in Australia has been outstanding.  The industry has grown from a $3.3 billion industry in 1990-91 to a $8.4 billion industry in 2001/02.  Productivity growth has been higher than in any of the other broadacre sector averaging 3.2 % annum, or 32% in 10 years!

Most people would acknowledge that these excellent results are at least in part due to the industry’s longstanding commitment to research and innovation. In a recent survey of grain growers, 72% believed that turnover had increased, in the past five years, as a result of grains industry research.

Given the industries recent performance it would be easy to feel complacent.  But having attended the “Crop Updates” in Perth and the “GRDC Adviser Update” in Bendigo earlier this year, there was a clear message that - there are many challenges confronting the industry. In most cases, the complexity of these challenges is daunting.

For example, if the cost-price squeeze continues as expected, the industry will need to increase productivity by 30 % over the next 10 years, just to tread water!

Our customers are more demanding.  In addition to tighter grain quality specifications, customers are wanting to know: if the product is GMO free? Does it contain chemical traces? Is it quality assured? Where and how was it grown? Was it produced in an environmentally friendly manner?

And in relation to the environment, there are those in the community (and particularly in the scientific community) saying that we need a revolution in broadacre agriculture. “European farming practices are fundamentally unsuited to our fragile and ancient land.  We need to develop farming practices that are uniquely adapted to the Australian continent”.

The GRDC commitment to sustainable farming systems is currently about $24m per annum.  The GRDC currently supports a comprehensive network of participatory on-farm research activities across all regions.  This research involves growers, makes research more relevant and reduces the need for separate, slow and expensive technology-transfer processes.  Participation rates in these projects are high: typically about 10%, but in one case as high as 46%. Each project generally runs about 10 on-farm research trials during the season.

Several research result summaries produced have been widely distributed to growers, advisers and researchers within their targeted grain production areas.  In many cases, information generated from research is also delivered to growers through action learning modules.

Several of the projects have begun evaluating their performance, and have completed impact assessment studies. Some preliminary results from the Central Queensland Farming Systems Project will be highlighted.

Linda Ford - Rak Mak Mak Marranunggu - Northern Territory University

The presentation is of Rak Mak Mak Marranunggu (RMMM) knowledge and experiences through our spiritual connections to care for our country: Kurdinju. My knowledge base will be described as a ‘narrative journey’ three languages: Mak Mak Marranunggu, Marithiel, and English. 

MMM’s have connections with the land over thousands of years and hundreds of generations. This will be a short journey where we will briefly visit the past, present and future. The focus areas are Case Studies,  Environment and Identity, Land Management and Aboriginal Enterprise.

The current practice of land and water management is integral to our cultural heritage and wellbeing.  The MMM’s future is underpinned by the past and current management of our natural resources. Hence the title of the paper: “Emerging Environmental Relationships: The Clan’s Totem, Ngirrwat, and Place”.  The narrative describes the complex nature of operating in a cross-cultural context through Agriculture for the Australian Environment.  The future offers resilience to the Australian environment.  For the future an understanding of knowledge traditions needs to be explored and examined in order to plan for the most desirable outcomes that sustains MMM cultural wellbeing.

To explore the cross-cultural contexts and relate the evolving theoretical and practical methods of agriculture I have collated a series of multiple topics about the same people, environment and place. The narrative base is an oral traditional practice of Aboriginal story telling. The Dreaming stories underpin our theoretical approaches that are reflective in our current practice that include other knowledge traditions. That is Agricultural Science as part of our inquiry.

Learning to live (and farm) like Australians

Andrew Campbell

The story of Australian agriculture is one of adapting – adapting from the known and familiar to the unknown and unfamiliar.  We have persisted for more than 200 years in trying to realise the visions and aspirations of the early European settlers using essentially the species that arrived on the first fleet, and the farming systems based on them.  These systems are profoundly maladapted to Australian landscapes, ecosystems, biota and climates, and their legacy has been mixed.  They have historically made great contributions to the economy and to society and they have generated good livelihoods for many.  But we are only just beginning to count the long term ecological debt that has been incurred, and we are as yet incapable of calculating its value. 

Further, the National Land & Water Resources Audit has revealed that today relatively few farm businesses and a tiny proportion of rural landscapes (mostly irrigated) generate most of the profit made in agriculture.  Vast swathes of the sixty percent of the continent used for agriculture and pastoralism are not generating profit consistently – certainly not enough to reinvest in natural capital or to pay the repairs and maintenance bill that has accrued, or to attract or retain young people, or pay for high quality services.  If only the climate were as predictable as farmers’ terms of trade.

So the quest for sustainability in rural Australia is not just an environmental imperative, it is an economic must. 

This paper argues that we need to rethink our attitudes to environmental issues, which are usually conceived as ‘problems’ to be ‘fixed’ at great cost, mostly to the long-suffering taxpayer.  Rather, we need to see environmentally-inspired innovation as an economic opportunity, a strategic re-positioning with long term pay-offs in a world where all our competitors and most of our markets are or will be struggling with similar dilemmas.  The paper sketches some of the changes in values that will be required along such a journey, and some of the implications for the way we do things now. 
Rather than living and farming like colonists intending to move to another vast island when this one is used up, we need to start to live and farm like Australians, as if we intend to stay, for good.  The paper explores what living and farming like an Australian might mean, for families, for landscapes and for economies.

John Williams - CSIRO Land and Water

Australia’s geological history has created a unique, very ancient, very flat continent that has accumulated enormous amounts of salts in the soils, regolith, lakes and groundwater. Most of our rivers and groundwater systems are sluggish, with only a small capacity to move salt from the continent. Most of the soils are old, highly weathered, well leached and generally low in nutrients and organic matter. Thus our farming systems must be able to work in a landscape that is old, flat, dry, nutrient-poor and salty. Unfortunately, our current farming based around annual crops and pastures, does not work well in such a landscape. It leaks far too much nutrient and water past the roots of the plants and releases too much carbon into atmosphere thus depleting the initially low stores of soil organic matter. The consequence is that much more water enters into the landscape than drains from it. Groundwater then rises as the landscape fills with water causing the abundant salt stores in the landscape to be moved to salinize valley floors, rivers,  and wetlands. The leakage of valuable nutrients accelerates the rates of soil acidification at the same time contributing to increased loading of nutrient to rivers and waterways. Meanwhile the loss of soil carbon drives physical, chemical and biological degradation of the soil.

The essential design criteria of sustainable farming are to ensure that present-day flows of water, nutrient, carbon and energy match the magnitude of these flows that evolved in the genesis of the biogeochemical process that make up the landscape functionality. It is the mismatch between these flows of energy and matter that drive the fundamental land and water degradation. The challenge is to build an ecologically sustainable landscape consisting of a mosaic of commercial land uses that yield food and fibre coupled with native ecosystems that provides a suite of Ecosystem services which are valued and paid for by stakeholders and beneficiaries.  This will require innovative and inclusive approaches that permit fair comparison of market and non-market values. The development of the concept of valuing and marketing ecosystem services as part of this process will be increasingly important.