**5. Discussion**

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

Despite disapproving comments and discussions, some positive ideas emerged. One of the

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

After several attempts to find out whether any action had been taken regarding this proposal,

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

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

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

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*

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

to be of equal importance for not wanting to implement the system.

councillors of the Wagga Wagga City Council suggested the following:

was no suggestion that one rule could apply to all.

292 Environmental Change and Sustainability

Council, October 2007).

a reply included the following messages:

implemented for Cross Boundary Farming in 2007.

The findings of this research suggest that many Australian farming families are struggling to survive because of fluctuating markets, ten years of drought and two years of major flooding. The number of family owned farming businesses has declined substantially during the last thirty, forty years, and the social fabric of the farming industry is deteriorating with‐ in the global, competitive market system. Australian farming was previously linked to a life‐ style, today farming has to be considered within the market-driven global society as business.

Considering the environmental, economic as well as individual difficulties experienced by farming families, it was expected that some joint venture would be appealing to the Australian farming sector. However, this assumption is incorrect. Independence is highly valued and many farmers prefer to get out of the farming industry, are trying to find employment either in a related field, (managing a farm for someone else, work as farm labourer or in feedlots) or elsewhere in the labour market. An example is the story of a student: He was a fourth gener‐ ation dairy farmer who was greatly disappointed with the overall system9 , discouraged by the year long drought, sold the business, and started to study. He successfully completed a PhD and is now employed as an academic. When asked whether he would have liked to enter into a common property resources system, his answer was a categorical *no.* It has to be realised that not every farmer will have the opportunity of such a career change, however, it is hard to determine a system that would prevent a small scale farmer from leaving his/her property. Family farming has been an important aspect of the Australian economy, and, unless more transnational and corporate farming businesses are accepted10, will remain an essential part of society. But, as Pannell et al. (2006) established, innovations are likely to be adopted only when they have a high "relative advantage" (p. 1407), indicating that economic factors drive their decisions (p. 1411). Similar opinions were established by Brunckhorst and Marshall (2006, pp. 205-206) when they tried to introduce group farming (embedded in the common property resources system) in the *Furracabad Valley* in New South Wales. These authors determined that conservatism of the farming community plays a significant part of not wanting to change habits.

Where to from here? The lesson learned in relation to rural sustainability and the maintenance of the family farm is that corporate farming is not a viable option: the financial resources are not available. Co-operative farming also presents the problem of investment: in its present form it cannot support the family farm and restructuring of the agricultural sector needs substantial amounts of additional capital which would lead to new co-operative forms (Oczkowski, 2006). Since the rules of the common property resources system seem not practical or are too challenging for farming families, here are some thoughts that advocate improved sustainability of the land which would, in turn, mean a chance to maintain the family farm (economic and ecological benefits). It is the so-called adaptive ecosystem management network which is described by Manring and Pearsall (2006). The system requires networking between public, private, and non-profit organisations. It is called inter-organisational networking, and is a system that does not involve legal processes but good will, trust, reciprocity and organi‐ sational learning, it is consensus building through collaboration. Applying the system to the Australian farmers, they would have to make "balanced, multivariable decisions about how best to conserve ecosystem integrity while sustaining ecosystem services" (n. p.). Individual farmers have specific interests and knowledge in relation to the sustainability of the land and expectation of maintaining the family farm, all of which they could negotiate with other stakeholders. The system would include the *public*, which is interpreted here as meaning an official organisation, i.e. the appropriate council; the *private*, which is interpreted here as meaning members of the farming family, and *non*-*profit* stakeholders, meaning other farmers or landholders. All of these people would form an inter-organisational network. Working with the council may provide input into future planning, so may negotiations with non-profit stakeholders. Manring and Pearsall (2006) find that these networks are the basis of "many ecosystem management initiatives", using "certain forms of network and collaborative decision making" (n. p.), the outcome would be a sustainable environment.

<sup>9</sup> The squeeze of the price for milk by large supermarkets

<sup>10</sup> Chinese foreign investment into the farming industry is at present vigorously debated.

Looking at the Australian farmers, they will lose some of their highly valued independence and individuality. On the other hand, it could be argued that the conservation of the envi‐ ronment is very important, that anthropogenic land cover change (removal of native plants and using the land for farming) had a significant effect on the global and regional climate (McAlpine, Syktus, Deo, Lawrence, & McGowan, 2007, p. 1) which, in turn, produced droughts and flooding. Extending this argument, land degradation could be reduced if groups of farmers used their social capital and would network to look after the environ‐ ment, i.e. improve sustainability. *The Tilbuster Commons* definitely demonstrated several pos‐ itive ecological and economic outcomes.
