Understanding rural landholder responses to climate change

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 3: On-farm changes made by landholdersMucklefordChanges by farmers (N = 30) Changes by non-farmers (N = 6)(13 = Muckleford, 16 = Kamarooka)(5 = Muckleford, 1 = Kamarooka)Increase water capture (bores for groundwater,clean-out & expand dams) and water efficiency(install pipes & troughs, recycle).Develop low-input & low-management farmingsystems (increase in sheep for wool +/– meat,reduce cattle) to reduce financial risk, improveecological sustainability & match lifestylepreference (reduce workload on farm, willing touse contractors).Increase area of lucerne (deep-rooted perennialpasture for grazing +/– hay).Develop products for niche markets that are suitedto dry conditions & pastures (e.g. milking goats,wine grapes, native seeds).Reduce revegetation of native plants.Increase weed control (greater prevalence of weedsin district).KamarookaIncrease water capture (bores for groundwater,clean-out & expand dams) and efficiency (pipes &troughs, recycle).Refine farm business (e.g. analyse value ofpurchasing fertilisers & water, alter timing oflambing & shearing, timing of cropping, reducelabour, use of contractors, lease machinery,develop niche markets – organic pig meat).If access to reliable & sufficient water, increaseirrigated cropping and pastures (e.g. lucerne), andincrease beef cattle.If dryland farming (i.e. no/little access to irrigationwater), then increase sheep (wool & lambs) andreduce cattle, and increase dryland cropping(convert failed crops to hay).Increase area of lucerne (deep-rooted perennialpasture for grazing +/– hay).Alter cropping practices (e.g. increase in „dry‟sowing & minimum tillage).Expand farm area by leasing (land pricesincreasingly above perceived agronomic potential).Increase off-farm investments (assumed to be nonfarminginvestments).Increase water capture (bores forgroundwater, clean-out & expand dams)and water efficiency (install pipes &troughs, recycle).Reduce livestock (often, removing alllivestock permanently).Reduce revegetation of native plantsand encourage natural regeneration.Increase weed control (greaterprevalence of weeds in district).Lease land to neighbouring farmers.24
4.2: Research Question 2: Are adaptations by privatelandholders consistent with NRM practices recommended byagencies?All interviews explored landholder attitudes, values and management of nativeremnant vegetation. In presenting the findings from our analysis of interview data wefirst provide an overview of key findings for each topic, then a comparison oflandholder management against a set of „best practices‟ for regional NRM. Again, wepresent information for each zone separately.4.2.1: Perspectives on native vegetation from Kamarooka landholdersNature of native vegetationMost informants in the Kamarooka zone recognised remnant vegetation on theirproperties. Informants typically identified standing trees, though a smaller numberalso discussed native grasslands separate to their treed areas. Only a couple ofinformants described their remnant vegetation in terms of a system of trees,understorey and grasses.Value of native vegetationA small number of informants valued native grasses as providing stock feed in drytimes, though this generally seemed to relate to grasses growing in wet areas that hadnot been cropped, or along creeklines associated with trees. More commonly, nativegrasses seemed to be in conflict with other land uses. For example, respondents saidnative grasses needed to be controlled in cropping areas and that much higherproductivity could be gained by grazing stock on improved pastures, particularlylucerne.A wide variety of values were expressed for remnant trees, with some values repeatedby numerous informants. Most informants highlighted the „utility‟ values of trees asshelter for livestock (wind and shade) and as habitat for beneficial birds and insectsthat helped in the control of pests, thereby reducing the need for applying expensivechemical sprays. Native trees were also seen as an important part of effective weedcontrol strategies on roadsides and areas of the property not actively farmed. Manyinformants mentioned the biodiversity value of trees (both remnant and planted), butthis value was often connected to the pest control function of birds and insects ratherthan other values of biodiversity, such as existence value.A number of informants held strong views about the importance of managing weedsand pest animals and these views could be in conflict with remnant vegetationprotection. One example was where a landholder wanted sufficient space to operate aboom spray in treed areas so they could control weeds. Another example was aperceived conflict between brolgas and „bushes‟ where the landholder believed thatpromoting bush regeneration would provide habitat for foxes which would then killthe brolgas. „We have brolgas here. I said to the greenie fella, (from CMA) just getrid of the foxes. You need to get rid of their habitat, get rid of the lignum bushes –what does he want, bushes or brolgas?‟The beauty or aesthetic value of trees and a treed landscape was often mentioned,though for some, this could also be related to improved property values. However,some informants expressed more personal and intrinsic values, including the value ofwildlife coming back onto their property. Informants said they had planted vegetation25
Page 2 and 3: Understanding rural landholder resp
Page 4 and 5: Executive SummaryThe projectThis re
Page 6 and 7: conserve soil moisture). Informants
Page 8 and 9: Personal situation of landholders i
Page 10 and 11: List of FiguresFigure 1: Factors in
Page 12 and 13: Section 2: Background2.1: Issues fo
Page 14 and 15: and motivations) - these come toget
Page 16 and 17: Furthermore, while some external ex
Page 18 and 19: Section 3: Methodology3.1: Introduc
Page 20 and 21: In consultation with project partne
Page 22 and 23: esearch team, provided with informa
Page 24 and 25: KamarookaMucklefordSheepCroppingPig
Page 26 and 27: ainfall contributing to crop failur
Page 28 and 29: Other farmers were continuing with
Page 30 and 31: 4.1.4: Responses to the challenges
Page 32 and 33: purchased direct drill equipment to
Page 36 and 37: specifically to establish wildlife
Page 38 and 39: vegetation management. For example,
Page 40 and 41: competition for limited soil moistu
Page 42 and 43: hiatus in planting, including throu
Page 44 and 45: informant‟s beliefs and understan
Page 46 and 47: Drought was also affecting the emot
Page 48 and 49: Reduced water allocationIncreased w
Page 50 and 51: a product of the external operating
Page 52 and 53: employing contractors; and adopting
Page 54 and 55: eeding of chickens for meat (requir
Page 56 and 57: The availability of improved inform
Page 58 and 59: to sign up again (futures contract)
Page 60 and 61: we provide an overview of our findi
Page 62 and 63: elieved in climate change „… if
Page 64 and 65: commercial farming activity in the
Page 66 and 67: Muckleford IntervieweesAs with the
Page 68 and 69: MucklefordFour of the ten Mucklefor
Page 70 and 71: Kamarooka landholders were also gen
Page 72 and 73: Landholder characteristicsPersonal
Page 74 and 75: ReferencesBarr, Neil, Roger Wilkins
Page 76 and 77: Appendix 1: Interview scheduleEcosy
Page 78 and 79: Question 3A: What are the major cha
Page 80 and 81: Question 4: Remnant vegetationI wou
Page 82 and 83: Size of your property? __________ H
Page 84 and 85:
YOUR RIGHTS:You do not have to part
show all

Understanding rural landholder responses to climate change

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?