soil-conservation-people-religion-and-land.pdf - South West NRM

conflict of views between graziers'
view of themselves and the view taken
of graziers by others. This dichotomy
of images reflects important differences
in social values and is thus
of importance in the evolution of
attitudes to the land and expectations
of the level of support warranted by
landholders.
Thus a group of producers may see
themselves as embattled, resilient,
independent, self-sufficient individuals,
not only persevering through
repeated onslaughts of climate and
pests, but also financially
disadvantaged through tariffs and
labour awards. Such a self-image
tends to justify the view that
conserving the land for the benefit of
other groups at future times cannot
be seriously contemplated - at least
not without significant financial
assistance to do so.
This same group of producers may
be seen by other community groups
as a privileged class, an elite rural
minority, self-sustaining through its
association with selective schools and
historic family ties. In the eyes of
others, this image is seldom deserving
of special financial assistance.
In practice, a breakdown of
population in the rural districts,
shows that while these stereotypes are
not as common as is often thought,
there is a distinctly stronger social
grouping in the grazier cpmmunity
than in the more closely settled
farming communities nearer the
coast.
It is these variations in the rural
community which cause city-dwellers
and politicians to confuse the images,
and thus the perceived merits, of
landholders as a group. This
confusion leads to unresolved
political conflicts concerning the need
for land use controls and financial
incentives to encourage sound land
use.
Democracy's poor
record in land use
planning
The community affected by land
degradation is of course the whole
population, not just the landholder.
Sooner or later, the price of
exploitation of the soil must be paid
by the community at large through
reduced production and increased
product prices.
Unfortunately, democracy tends to
give the voters what they want in the
PAGE 8
short term, not what they need in the
longer term. Future voters have no
effect on present elections. It is thus
no wonder that a democracy based
on a three-year term, does nothing to
encourage statemanship or reward
visionary policies. It is for this reason
that the old truism about learning
from history still stands:
"What men learn from history, is
that men don't learn from history."
Thus it is, that we do not heed the
warnings of tne ancient Roman
writers such as Virgil and Varo on the
dire consequences of cropping steep
slopes or of overgrazing natural
pastures. Each community and each
generation seems doomed to have to
learn its own lesson and to gain its
wisdom at the expense of the land.
The Australian need today is for a
combination of the principles of
sociology and ecology in a
perspective-making subject which is
best termed social ecology. This new
discipline must form the basis of a
new realisation that our nation's
future depends on the implementation
of social policies whiqh
recognise the ecological necessities of
balanced land use.
The evidence of degradation is so
widespread that we are forced to ask
whether democracy can handle our
ecological requirements for
maintaining land potential. In short,
we can no longer allow the
economic pressure of the market
price to continue to cause us to live
off our 'land capital.'
The time has come to recognise the
central significance of Routley's three
progressive views of man's relations
to his land:
e Man the tyrant (arrogance and
exploitation;
e Man the steward (adaptation and
dependence);
e Man the co-operator (madland
partnership).
This evolution reflects our
movement from a man-centred value
system to an eco-centred symbiosis.
Land ethics -
education for change
Aldo Leopold was one of the first
to elucidate the concept of the land
ethic, which he claimed, changed the
role of man from conqueror of the
'land community' to a mere member
of that community. Land ethics
* -
expands our ethical behaviour from
relations between man and man, to
relations between man and land.
The writer has repeatedly called for
an education policy which teaches
appreciation of specific, historic,
social and ecological truisms at all
levels in our education system.
Additions to our school curricula
could change the Australian view of
madland relations and in one
generation our nation could embrace
a new stewardship ethos by
integrating the following concepts in
our schools:
(i) The shortsightedness of an exploitative
approach to land
resources.
(ii) The productive potential of
conservation farming vis-a-vis
total protection and antidevelopment.
(iii) The equivalence of good
farmers and applied ecologists
in aiming for sustained
production.
(iv) The dependence of man on
natural ecosystems despite
technical advances.
(v)
The closed and finite nature of
global ecosystems of which man
is part.
(vi) The lessons of history which
demonstrate the socioeconomic
disasters which
follow land degradation.
(vii) The optimism and challenge
reflected in successful casestudies
of conservation
farming.
(viii) The need for individual
freedom in land use decisions to
meet the criteria of 'the
common good,'
(ix) The need for political vision
and the long-term view of
. permanent production systems.
(x)
The appreciation of soil erosion
as a problem affecting the
whole population, not a
problem of the rural sector.
(xi) Development of pride and wellbeing
from the stewardship of
stable land.
(xii) Recognition that landholders
are temporary trustees not
consumers or end-users of land.
THE AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FARMER
I
i I
I
e
I
f
I