**4. Thoughts on two meetings regarding the Australian family farm**

Concerned about the issue of land degradation and the decline of farming families, a forum entitled *Cross boundary farming* was held in September 20071 . The forum was advertised widely in the area (local press, Charles Sturt University Internet, a community radio station, contacting interested parties by mail). Just over thirty people of different professional status and from different regions attended. The organisers invited Professor David Brunckhorst (academic, landholder and participant in a common property) to be the main speaker. Rep‐ resentatives of the National Farmers Federation2 , of the National Party and of the Greens3 , a property lawyer4 , two members of the local farming community5 , and two Charles Sturt University academics6 were invited to present their views or that of their organisations. The local member of the Labor Party was invited but could not attend. Apart from the speakers, forum participants included members of the Wagga Wagga City Council, a representative of Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority7 , a member of the Riverina Country Women's Association, a hobby farmer, an organic farmer turned restaurant owner, a previ‐ ous dairy farmer, a member of the Department of Primary Industries, Ballarat, Victoria8 , and

<sup>1</sup> Financially supported by the Institute for Land, Water and Society and the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Charles Sturt University.

<sup>2</sup> Mr Bill Baker, Brucedale, NSW

<sup>3</sup> Ms Rachel Siewert, Green Senator, Western Australia; Ms Melanie Pavey, National Party, Member of Legislative Council.

<sup>4</sup> Mr Bill Thompson, Cummins Hendrick, Coolamon, NSW

<sup>5</sup> Mr Tony Dunn; Mr Paul Nolte, Wagga Wagga

<sup>6</sup> A/Prof Deidre Lemerle, A/Prof Ian Gray

<sup>7</sup> This authority was established in 2004 to make sure that local people have a say in local resources management.

Charles Sturt University students and academics. Overall the forum represented a good cross section of the local community. The participation of two national politicians gave the forum and its underlying objective special importance.

seems that personal gains are more important than community and / or environmental inter‐

But an article by Marshall (2004) showed a different picture. He discussed his experiences in working with a jointly owned irrigation company in the Murray Darling Basin, an existing common property regime, which led him to conclude that preparedness to co-operate in im‐ plementing agreed plans is "more sensitive to socially oriented factors like perceptions of community benefits … than it is to the private materialistic considerations - like distributive

May be the difference in outcome can be related to the difference of ownership, for instance private property versus common resource? Overall it is argued here that contemplation of, and investigation into the legal complexities of a successful common property resources sys‐ tem and the rules that are needed to guard against free-riders, sit uneasily with the indi‐

**4. Thoughts on two meetings regarding the Australian family farm**

, two members of the local farming community5

Concerned about the issue of land degradation and the decline of farming families, a forum

widely in the area (local press, Charles Sturt University Internet, a community radio station, contacting interested parties by mail). Just over thirty people of different professional status and from different regions attended. The organisers invited Professor David Brunckhorst (academic, landholder and participant in a common property) to be the main speaker. Rep‐

local member of the Labor Party was invited but could not attend. Apart from the speakers, forum participants included members of the Wagga Wagga City Council, a representative of

Women's Association, a hobby farmer, an organic farmer turned restaurant owner, a previ‐ ous dairy farmer, a member of the Department of Primary Industries, Ballarat, Victoria8

1 Financially supported by the Institute for Land, Water and Society and the School of Humanities and Social Sciences,

3 Ms Rachel Siewert, Green Senator, Western Australia; Ms Melanie Pavey, National Party, Member of Legislative

7 This authority was established in 2004 to make sure that local people have a say in local resources management.

. The forum was advertised

, and two Charles Sturt

, a

, and

, of the National Party and of the Greens3

, a member of the Riverina Country

were invited to present their views or that of their organisations. The

ests.

fairness and business security" (p. 271).

290 Environmental Change and Sustainability

vidualism that remains strong in many Australian farmers.

entitled *Cross boundary farming* was held in September 20071

resentatives of the National Farmers Federation2

Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority7

4 Mr Bill Thompson, Cummins Hendrick, Coolamon, NSW

5 Mr Tony Dunn; Mr Paul Nolte, Wagga Wagga 6 A/Prof Deidre Lemerle, A/Prof Ian Gray

property lawyer4

University academics6

Charles Sturt University. 2 Mr Bill Baker, Brucedale, NSW

Council.

The objective of the forum was to stimulate discussion whether cross boundary farm‐ ing or the common property system could benefit contemporary Australian farming families. Brunckhorst provided an overview of his involvement with the *Tilbuster Com‐ mons*. He discussed the economic and ecological advantages, and the environmental and economic improvements the project had achieved during its five year existence. He also made clear that a common property resources system needs strict rules and that, despite legally binding regulations, problems can occur and unexpected difficul‐ ties can arise. Brunckhorst also mentioned the problem of free-riders and the impor‐ tance of social capital, trust and reciprocity, which are important elements of a common property resources system.

The president of the National Farmers' Federation pointed to the sharing of large equipment amongst farmers and to the benefit of co-operatives. He did not believe that the common property resources system would be viable in Australia, pointing to the psychologically in‐ grained individuality and independence of the farmer and of the farming community as a whole.

The member of the Green Party raised serious concerns regarding the sustainability of the environment, advocated that cross-boundary farming offers economic and ecological advan‐ tages, but she could understand if farmers opted for an approach that was easier to put into practice than the common property resources system. The importance of the family farm in relation to Australia's economic well-being was emphasised.

The latter point was agreed to by the representative of the National Party: farming families are a very important part of Australia. Regarding the common property resources system, a pessimistic view was presented; it was thought that farmers under present climatic circum‐ stances were acting appropriately but that the government fails farming families and should provide financial assistance to those in difficulties. Financial help is important because overseas farmers [USA and Europe] are highly subsidised.

The Charles Sturt University academics pointed to the psychological stress that would occur if farmers and their families were to form closer relationships with other people. They may share the same aspirations and hopes, they could be strangers or long-time friends and neighbours; but it would be difficult to initiate strict rules and regulations. Would trust and reciprocity endure or would participants eagerly observe each other in anticipation of free-riding? The academics also pointed to the fact of climate change and that many years of drought have had a negative effect on the Australian environment and on farming. It was suggested that the farming community took a more long-term, sustainable approach.

<sup>8</sup> Had travelled considerable distance to participate in the forum.

The property lawyer presented concerns regarding succession planning if the common property resources system was implemented. He made the point that this issue would be the greatest impediment to overcome. There was no suggestion on how to solve the problem: if cross-boundary farming was taken up, each case needed to be assessed at its own merit. There was no suggestion that one rule could apply to all.

Despite disapproving comments and discussions, some positive ideas emerged. One of the councillors of the Wagga Wagga City Council suggested the following:

Cross-boundary farming may be an appropriate venture for the land holders on the East Bomen Road and may reduce noxious weeds. Councillor W. also suggested that the introduction of community title could be considered in the Local Environmental Plan review in order to provide the community the opportunity to jointly purchase community land. Thus individuals could be joint shareholders in ventures from environmental initiatives to farming (Wagga Wagga City Council, October 2007).

After several attempts to find out whether any action had been taken regarding this proposal, a reply included the following messages:

Council's previous Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan do not indicate that provisions were

implemented for Cross Boundary Farming in 2007.

In addition, Council's introduction of a new Wagga Wagga Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan in

2010 has no provisions for Cross Boundary Farming (Wagga Wagga City Council, 2012).

A more positive outcome had been anticipated. In a way, the answer of the Wagga Wag‐ ga City Council covers the lesson learned from the forum: no change in attitude or be‐ haviour is likely. There was consensus amongst the participants that productivist farming methods need to be changed so that rural sustainability and maintenance of the family farm can be achieved, however, the way in which to achieve this could not be de‐ termined. The common property resources system was not appealing because of legal implications and inherent difficulties, but the loss of the farmer's independence seemed to be of equal importance for not wanting to implement the system.

The above forum took place in 2007. Since then, further droughts and floods have devas‐ tated Australian farmlands. Have these natural disasters changed the attitudes of farm‐ ers? According to Don Boadle (personal communication, June 2012), a workshop on *The* *Future of Family Farming* was held in June 2012 in Wagga Wagga. Boadle reported that the meeting was well attended by local residents. Most participants were interested in succession planning and joint ventures, mainly based on leasehold that stopped short of common property system arrangements. There was also anecdotal evidence of collabora‐ tive arrangements among farmers on the Northern Table Lands in New South Wales, typically involving joint purchase of expensive plant and equipment. According to Boa‐ dle there is, at this point in time, no indication that the Australian farmers are prepared to surrender their independence and individuality to take up a system that will restrict them, even though it may provide some relative advantage.

The pessimistic attitudes at these two meetings are similar to those experienced by Brunck‐ horst and Marshall (2006, pp. 191-219) (as discussed earlier). These authors stipulated cir‐ cumstances, conservatism and time as important reasons for farmers not wanting to commit to common property resources system:


The outcome of the meetings indicates the division between academia and the farming in‐ dustry.
