**1. Introduction**

The title of this book is *Environment and Sustainability.* Having had an interest in the sustainabil‐ ity of the Australian environment as well as in the Australian family farm, it did not take long to expand on some ideas that had been discussed in a journal article regarding cross boundaryfarming (Muenstermann, 2009). Cross-boundary farming is embedded in the common proper‐ ty resources system. This is a literature review regarding four different farming methods in Australia, i.e. family farming, co-operative and corporate farming, with special emphasis on farming using the common property resources system. Some thought will be given to the op‐ portunities these different methods can offer the small family farm. This chapter will also look at the results of a forum regarding cross-boundary farming, which was held in 2007, and at the attitudes of farming families in relation to their sustainability as a production unit, expressed at a meeting which was held in 2012. Both events took place in the regional city of Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia. The city has a population of 63,000 and is surrounded by farms, many are for sale, which provides an indication that change is necessary.

Australia produces beef, cotton, dairy, dried fruit, grains, rice, sheep meat, sugar and wool (National Farmers Federation, 2012). According to the National Farmers Federation (2012), there are approximately 134,000 farm businesses in Australia, 99% are family owned. In 2010/11, there were 307,000 people employed in the farming industry. The National Farmers Federation found that "the complete agricultural supply chain, including the affiliated food and fibre industries, provide over 1.6 million jobs". The gross value of Australian farm production in 2010/11 was A\$48.7 billion, which was 3% of Australia's GDP. These figures are increased to A\$155 billion or around 12% of GDP when processes that food and fibre go through once they leave the farm are added. The Australian Natural Resources Atlas (2002) finds that "in 1996 the median gross farm establishment (farm business) income was estimated

© 2013 Muenstermann; licensee InTech. This is an open access article 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. © 2013 Muenstermann; licensee InTech. This is a paper 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.

at A\$96,400 (using 1996 dollars and farms with at least \$5000 gross income)" (p. 1). Considering that farm maintenance, seeds and crops, feed for animals and household as well as living expenses have to be paid, farming income is low.

All of these figures demonstrate the importance of Australian agriculture and of the family farm, the contribution to the Australian economy and the high percentage of farm businesses that are family owned, i.e. 99% (National Farmers Federation). Unfortunately, as Alston point‐ ed already out in 1991, the family farm is under increasing stress from fluctuating markets and severe droughts in many parts of Australia. Since 2000, Australia has been subjected to severe droughts and since 2010 Australia has also been subjected to severe floods. Farming and min‐ ing will suffer reduced production because of the floods, commodities like wheat, sugar, horti‐ culture and coal are already increasing in price (ABC Rural, December 29, 2010). Between 1971 and 2006, the number of farming families has declined by 46% (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006), from 190,466 to 102,606. Farm production in 2002/03 had a downward impact on GPD of 1%, which indicates a decline in chain volume terms of 28.5% (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004). In comparison, the corporate farming sector (any agricultural business with an annual income greater than A\$2 million) is growing fast. Although overall corporate farms only pre‐ sented 1.5% of all farms in 2006, the number increased by 55% between 2001 and 2006 (Clark, 2008). Corporate farming businesses increased further: by 2011 the number was 2,601; an in‐ crease of 791 or of 44% (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 29.6.2012, pp. 14-15). Corporate enter‐ prises now make up 1.8% of all farms. According to Clark (correspondence 2012),"in 2006 corporate farming generated an estimated A\$7.7 billion (20%) of farm production. In 2011 cor‐ porate farming generated A\$18.9 billion (39%) of farm production".

The findings are important because they relate to rural sustainability and to the future of the Australian family farm. A report by Cara Waters (June 26, 2012) considers "The end of the family farm? 72% of family farms don't earn enough to support the family on them". Farming has always been associated with life style, it was never considered a business only. Could a common property resources system save the Australian family farm from its fate? Looking at the outcome of this research it seems that the individualistic and independent Australian farmers do not want to be 'saved' by such a scheme. However, it is argued here that such a system has some merit.

Australia's best known common property system, the *Tilbuster Commons*, failed after five years despite being economically and environmentally successful. Reasons for the failure could be related to interpersonal relationships. This chapter will look at Elinor Ostrom's philosophy of the commons and at lessons learned from the *Tilbuster Commons*. The purpose of the chapter is to establish the significance and usefulness or otherwise of different farming methods to create sustainable rural societies and economies.
