24
ST EWARDSHIP: THE KEY
TO THE FUTURE

As we know, the community expects farmers to take good care of whatever piece of the environment is under their control. As we also know, farmers need to make a living from their land. Now, there is clearly a fundamental gap between community expectations and the ability of farmers to meet those expectations and still make a living. Can the gap ever be closed? I am sure that it can, and I have no doubt that the best way of closing it is by adopting a system of stewardship payments to farmers. The concept is not new, of course. For some time now stewardship payments have been made to farmers in the United States, Britain and certain other European countries. In Australia, the National Farmers’ Federation has been calling for the introduction of stewardship payments for several years, so far with little success.

The scheme I have in mind—which I think is roughly the same as the scheme advocated by farmers generally—would work like this. The federal or state governments would pay farmers a regular, ongoing fee for setting aside land for the environment and managing it in an agreed way. I am not referring here to ordinary farming practices that also happen to be environmentally sound, such as leaving stands of trees as shade and shelter for their stock. Leaving the stands of trees benefits the stock—and therefore the farmer—as much as it does the environment. Rather, I am referring to conservation work undertaken by farmers that produces no financial return for them. An obvious example in Lanark’s case is the 65-acre (27-hectare) wildlife habitat, which we call the Other Side Reserve, that we set aside many years ago.

Of course, it might be argued that the habitat would improve the value of the property if ever my son wanted to sell it. In other words, a 65-acre wildlife reserve might seem an attraction to a potential buyer, especially one who was interested in native plants and conservation. The truth is, though, that I set aside over 5 per cent of my land for the benefit of the environment. In other words, I did it for the general good. Should farmers like me be compensated with government money for sacrificing personal gain in the interests of the general good? I am certain that they should be. This is not so much to reward the small minority of farmers who have already done their bit. Rather, it is to encourage other farmers who have made no specific contribution to the environment, in most cases because they could not afford the financial cost, to do the same.

It all comes down to this: farmers are the only people capable of conserving and improving the environment. Governments cannot do it. In a country as big as ours, governments would probably need to employ a work force of a million people to manage and maintain the environment. For the same reason, organisations like Landcare and Greening Australia cannot do it either, no matter how well intentioned they may be. The job is far too big for them. Only farmers can do it, for the simple reason that they are the people on the ground. They occupy and control the land; they own and operate machinery that would be needed for environmental work; and they sit on local councils. It has been estimated that farmers (who represent only a tiny proportion of Australia’s population) control about two-thirds of the Australian land mass. Looking after the environment is a massive responsibility for such a small group of people.

Of course, if farmers were a wealthy lot with plenty of spare time and spare money on their hands, then maybe they would be able to do, perhaps out of a sense of community spirit, what needs to be done to preserve and enhance the environment. In fact, though, most farmers nowadays are doing it very tough financially. They are so hard-pressed trying to make ends meet that most of them do not come close to being able to afford the time and money required to look after the environment in the way it should be looked after. The only way they can afford to look after it properly is by being paid to do it, preferably under a stewardship scheme.

Payments like these would not be handouts. They would be payments for a service provided to the community—indeed, to the nation as a whole. I would argue that farmers who spend time and money caring for the environment are really providing a service for the world, for the environment is obviously a global concern.

It must be stressed, too, that the payments would not be for the whole of the farm. They would apply only for the areas set aside under the terms of the stewardship deal. As part of the deal, a covenant could be placed on land set aside as wildlife habitat, and this covenant would remain after the property changed hands. The covenant would be concise and include a carefully considered, long-term management plan. Would the presence of such a covenant reduce the market value of the property? I am sure it would not. On the contrary: I believe that, as time went on and people became more environmentally conscious, it would increase the value. The presence on a property of a wildlife refuge would make the property more attractive to a majority of potential buyers.

In 2008 a group from the Royal Geographic Society of South Australia visited Lanark to inspect our conservation work. One of them took me aside and explained to me that he had been engaged by a farmers’ organisation to prepare a proposal for a system of stewardship payments, which, I assumed, was to be presented to the state or federal government. He asked me how much I thought our contribution to the environment at Lanark was worth. In other words, he said, what kind of stewardship payment would my son David need to be paid for continuing the kind of environmental work we had done at Lanark?

I replied, a little tongue in cheek, that a dollar an acre might be enough. He looked surprised so I explained the point that I was trying to make. I told him that if David were to be paid even one dollar an acre, a paltry sum, this would at least demonstrate to every other farmer in the district that what had been done at Lanark was worthwhile—that it was really something of value. He saw my point, but he admitted that the annual payment he had in mind was more like $100 per acre of that part of the farm permanently set aside for environmental purposes.

Stewardship payments must not be confused with farm subsidies. The two things are quite different. Stewardship fees would be a specific payment to farmers for a specific service provided—namely, caring for the environment. Farm subsidies, on the other hand, are just that: subsidies to help cover the cost of farming operations. I suspect many Australian farmers would not wish to receive subsidies of the type paid to farmers in the US, even in the highly unlikely event of the Australian Government ever being willing to pay them.

Stewardship payments have one key advantage: they would be politically acceptable. By this I mean that Australian voters as a whole, most of whom live in towns and cities, would be happy for farmers to receive stewardship fees, provided they were paid only after strict conditions were met, whereas they would probably not be happy for them to receive farm subsidies. Urban Australians still cling to the old and entirely false idea that people on the land are well off, so they would see farm subsidies as a form of welfare for the wealthy. I believe they would happily accept the idea of stewardship payments, however, because by and large urban dwellers are environmentally conscious—they have an emotional attachment to the bush. They want the countryside they drive through on holidays to look well kept and attractive—which effectively means they want Australia’s rural environment restored and protected—and they would be willing to pay for it with taxes. If the Minister for the Environment were to introduce a stewardship payments scheme tomorrow, I have no doubt he would be applauded by a majority of voters in towns and cities.

As things stand now, conservation work is reckoned to be the responsibility of the farmer who owns the land in question. Let me cite a recent example in our part of Victoria. A farmer I know in the Hamilton district has a rare plant called curly sedge (Carex tasmanica) growing around a seasonal wetland on his property. This species has survived only in certain parts of Tasmania and Victoria, and even in these areas it is considered a threatened species. The problem is that its habitat (it grows around the edges of swamps and streams) has been shrinking, largely because of more and more incursions by grazing animals. Recently, an officer from the relevant government department came to see the farmer about protecting the curly sedge. Until then, the farmer had never heard of the plant. He had seen it growing near a creek but had no idea what it was. The department officer explained it was imperative that the curly sedge should be fenced off from stock, and he assured the farmer that the department would pay the cost of the fencing material.

It was up to the farmer, though, to erect the fence. But erecting a stock-proof fence around and through a wetland, which invariably involves the construction of a crossing and gateway for access across the stream, is an extremely time-consuming job for farmers working on their own. Protecting the curly sedge would thus have occupied many hours of the farmer’s time, which he could ill afford. As it was, he was battling to keep his farm afloat financially. So he said to the department officer, ‘Thanks, but I don’t think I’ll worry about it.’ The department officer, who probably imagined he was offering the farmer a good deal by agreeing to pay for the fencing material, was clearly taken aback. ‘I’m sorry, but you have to worry about it,’ he said. ‘This plant is endangered.’ But the farmer refused.

Now, some people on hearing this story might well feel appalled at the farmer’s attitude. In fact, I happen to know that the farmer in question is extremely responsible and caring when it comes to looking after the environment. He simply could not spare the week or two it might have taken to erect the fence. He was certainly not indifferent to the fate of the sedge. Far from it; he could see that the grazing regime he had been operating in that area for the previous 25 years was allowing the sedge to survive and even flourish in the wetland.

Moreover, he could not be sure it would continue to flourish if he fenced off the swamp and changed the grazing regime. I checked with the farmer just before I began this chapter, and he told me the curly sedge was still growing happily.

Yet imagine how different things might have been if a stewardship payments scheme had been operating. Then, the farmer would have been under an obligation to do all he reasonably could to protect the sedge, which may or may not have involved the erection of the fence. Between them, the farmer and department officer could have monitored the sedge’s health. If after a time it became clear that the sedge had to be fenced off, then the farmer would have been obliged to do the fencing and the department to supply the fencing material. Then, if fencing the area meant his sheep were deprived of water, the department would have provided a solar-powered pump to supply water from a nearby creek to a trough in the next paddock. In other words, it would have been a cooperative effort between the community, as represented by the department officer, and the farmer. I believe this is precisely the kind of cooperation that is needed if we in Australia are to restore our environment to an acceptable state.

There are other steps that the Australian Government could take to restore and protect the environment in rural Australia. For one thing, it could approve the waiving of all rates and taxes imposed on land that farmers set aside and manage solely for the benefit of the environment. Most if not all of the charges so waived would have been imposed by state and local governments, and it would be up to the Australian Government to reimburse them for it. By definition, the land that farmers set aside for the environment would cease to be productive land. It would be easy enough to identify non-productive land of this kind from aerial photos. The same method is used to identify farm forestry areas under the Forestry Rights Act. Alternatively, the land set aside for environmental reasons could be assessed by the local government valuer, which may be an even better idea.

Finally, let me suggest an initiative that I am convinced would do wonders for the environment in Australia and would also prove popular with voters—the creation of a program along the lines of the Civilian Conservation Corps that President Franklin Roosevelt established in the US during the Depression. In 1983 I read a book about the CCC, as it came to be known, and made the following note in the margin: ‘It is fifty years this month since President Roosevelt formed the CCC. I think the conditions are now much as they were in America then. How can I initiate a program like this?’

The CCC was a program that not only provided work for up to half a million young Americans at one time but made it possible for some major conservation projects to be undertaken and completed. For instance, it was reportedly responsible for planting three billion trees in the US over a ten-year period. Before setting it up, Roosevelt knew that urgent action was needed to deal with both spiralling unemployment and massive environmental degradation in the US. He got things moving with amazing speed by marshalling the heads of key government departments. As a result, the first CCC camp was established only weeks after Roosevelt signed a bill to create the program. Previously unemployed people joining the scheme were issued with ranger-style uniforms. By all accounts, a strong camaraderie developed between them. By contrast with military training, the CCC was seen as a peaceful yet positive program. It achieved tremendous results in the US in reversing deforestation and erosion.

I believe that with some small modifications the Australian Government could replicate the CCC. In my view it is an ideal blueprint for our time. It would give large-scale conservation work in Australia the impetus it desperately needs. In practical terms, it would also give the relatively small number of people who own and work our rural land—the nation’s farmers—the help on the ground they need. In return, I am sure that those who joined the scheme, many of whom, probably, would have been unemployed before, would gain a great deal in knowledge and other ways from the farmers they work with. All concerned would benefit, the environment most of all.