chapter 6 9.1.09...maribyrnong rivers. low rainfall is a perennial problem for agriculture in the...
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter 6
Focus on three GWRegions
Previous chapters of this report have developed general principles for understanding
landholders’ NRM behaviour and agricultural activity in the green wedges, while drawing
some comparisons between the three focus GWRegions. This chapter examines these three
regions in greater detail. It applies and synthesises the principles developed in previous
chapters, and combines these with on-ground observations specific to each of the three focus
regions. The understandings presented below are nonetheless less detailed than would be
available to individuals working, for example, in local government for each of these areas:
their greatest value derives from the comparison of the three focus GWRegions to one
another, and to broader trends apparent in the PPW region.
6.1 Western GWRegion
The Western GWRegion consists of the rural areas of the City of Wyndham and Shire of
Melton, and combines three official green wedges: Werribee South, Western Plains North and
Western Plains South. The original inhabitants of the area were the Kurnjang balak people,
meaning ‘people of the red gum’ (Melton Shire Council 2007b). White settlement occurred
during the 1830s, with sheep graziers establishing properties as large as 40,000 ha on the
grasslands. Further development was influenced by the discovery in 1851 of gold in Ballarat
to the west, creating a major trade route along what is now the Western Highway.
The Western GWRegion is bounded by Port Phillip Bay to the south and the Calder Freeway
to the north. Growth corridors extending along the Geelong and Western freeways mark the
divisions between the three official green wedges. Beginning west of Melbourne’s Western
Ring Road, the region extends west almost to Bacchus Marsh. Areas of major urban growth
include Rockbank, Toolern Vale, Tarneit, Point Cook, Truganina and Wyndham Vale (in the
City of Wyndham) and Caroline Springs and Burnside (in the Shire of Melton).
The Western GWRegion is part of what Gardner (2002) has described as the Western Plains
bioregion, characterised by its largely flat topography, rocky volcanic soils, low rainfall and
rare and endangered grasslands. It provides much of the catchment for the Werribee and
Maribyrnong rivers. Low rainfall is a perennial problem for agriculture in the region, which
sits under a ‘rain shadow’ and receives only 500–550 mm of rain annually, compared with up
to 700 mm over most of Melbourne and 1000 mm or more in the Yarra GWRegion. This
severely limits the potential for agriculture in the area (discussed below).
DPI & PPWCMA
128
The introduction of the green wedge zones in Melbourne 2030 (DOI 2002) received an
ambivalent—and in many cases hostile—reception among the landholders and the two local
councils in the Western GWRegion. This is due to widespread expectations that the area
would be the site of substantial urban development, along with the limited capacity for
viable commercial agriculture in the region. Compared to the other two GWRegions, the
Western GWRegion has substantially fewer planning overlays constraining land use (see
Figure 51 below compared to the analogous figures in Sections 6.2 and 6.3). There is also little
land zoned for rural conservation or for rural residency compared to the other two
GWRegions.
Planning Zones
Farming ZoneRural Living ZoneGreen Wedge ZoneGreen Wedge A ZoneRural Conservation ZoneSpecial Use ZonePublic Land ZonesBusiness ZoneCommonwealth LandComprehensive Development ZoneIndustrial ZoneResidential ZoneRoad Zone
Western GWRegion boundry
official green wedge boundaries
urban growth boundaries
Planning OverlaysAirport EnvironsDesign and DevelopmentDevelopment Contributions PlanDevelopment PlanEnvironmental AuditEnvironmental SignificanceHeritageIncorporated PlanLand subject to inundationPublic AcquisitionRestructureSignificant LandscapeSpecial BuildingVegetation ProtectionWildfire Management
3 0 3 6
Kilometers
Figure 51. Zoning map with overlays for the Western GWRegion
(data source: Planning Scheme May 2008)
SQUARE PEGS IN GREEN WEDGES?
CHAPTER 6
FOCUS ON THE THREE GWREGIONS
129
6.1.1 Land use and landholders
In 2001 the Western GWRegion contained 95,400 ha of rural land which was home to 6600
people (CPH data). This population density (69 people per 1,000 ha) was 6.7% higher than it
had been in 1986, but remained far below the average population densities for the three
GWRegions studied (142 people per 1,000 ha, see Table 4 and Figure 8 in Chapter 2). This low
population density is partly due the region’s larger than average property sizes (Figure 52
below), partly to the low proportion of rural residency as a land use (the lowest of all six
GWRegions, see Table 5 in Chapter 2 and Figure 53 below), and partly due to the high level
of absenteeism (discussed below). The low proportion of rural residential land in the Western
GWRegion may stem from the generally lower amenity appeal of the Western GWRegion,
and perhaps also from the difficulty of obtaining permission to build residences on small
rural properties (discussed below).
What kinds of people own land in the Western GWRegion, and how is it used? Some of the
descriptions of landholders given by service providers interviewed in this region became
categories in the typology used in this study: land speculators, lifestylers and absentee
landholders. Other descriptions did not become categories in our typology, though their
subjects are represented in various places in our typology: experienced farmers, new
innovative farmers (e.g. an organic carob grower) and horse owners (not necessarily
lifestylers).
Land use data (Table 5 in Chapter 2 and Figure 53 below) indicates that, although grazing is
the dominant land use in all GWRegions, it is most dominant in the Western GWRegion (64%
of land use compared to 54% of land use on average). Among the six GWRegions, only
Sunbury and the South East have comparable proportions of grazing land. Yet, unlike the
South East GWRegion—where a substantial proportion of grazing is commercial dairy
farming—grazing in the Western GWRegion is mostly non-commercial (usually beef or
horses). The major exception is the very large irrigated beef and sheep grazing operation
associated with the Western Treatment Plant (near Little River in Figure 53)40. This is
technically public land operated by Melbourne Water. The lack of any commercial imperative
for the dominant private rural land use in the Western GWRegion raises a critical question—
what is the principal reason for land ownership in the region? In particular, is this grazing
land used for rural residency or land speculation?
40 Western Treatment Plant grazes 15,000 cattle and 40,000 sheep on over 8,500 ha of irrigated pasture
(http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/sewerage/western_treatment_plant/western_treatment_plant.asp
accessed 05.09.08).
DPI & PPWCMA
130
4 0 4 8
Kilometers
N
Property sizes (ha)Less than 22 - 88 - 2020 - 4040 - 100100 - 250250 - 500Greater than 500
Figure 52. Property sizes in the Western GWRegion
(data source: property layer, Vicmap, DSE)
Although the answer includes both these ‘uses’ (and some others), it appears that land
speculation is a major reason for owning land in the region. Preliminary analysis of rates’
data from the City of Wyndham (incorporating the southern half of the GWRegion) suggests
that approximately half of all rural properties (a third by area) are used neither for
agriculture nor as a residence (i.e. no ‘land use imperative’), and one service provider
suggested that the true area of rural land ‘managed’ by absentee owners in Wyndham is
closer to 50%. Service provider interviews indicated that some absentee land was used for
agriculture (especially grazing and cropping), but that some was owned purely as a tax sink
SQUARE PEGS IN GREEN WEDGES?
CHAPTER 6
FOCUS ON THE THREE GWREGIONS
131
or speculative investment. Some such owners live on neighbouring rural land or in town,
while some live overseas. Absentee owners include families and large corporations.
As noted in Chapter 4, the telephone survey data indicates that in the Western GWRegion,
even those landholders who live or work on their rural properties have higher anticipation of
urban development than other GWRegions, with 46% indicating they would be pleased at
the prospect of urban development, versus only 11% in the Yarra and 21% in the South East
GWRegions (see Table 13 in Chapter 4). According to one service provider, the consequence
of this desire for development is that 90% of Melton’s rural landholders feel “disadvantaged”
by the imposition of the green wedge policy in the area, and “quite angry” with the state
government (service provider interviews). In the Shire of Melton this anger partly stems from
expectations of development raised by a previous strategic planning exercise (service
provider interview).
According to ABS data, the Western GWRegion between 1986 and 2001 experienced higher
levels of urban land development than any other GWRegion, with the total rural area
shrinking by 10%, compared with the GWRegion average reduction of only 6% (see Table 4
in Chapter 2). Many landholders in the area anticipate that the green wedge policy (and
associated UGB) will be abandoned if a change of state government occurs; “they think
Melbourne 2030 is more like Melbourne 2010” was the observation by one service provider.
Land speculators in the region include ‘family’ speculators and also ‘professional’
speculators, the implications of which are discussed below.
What is the mixture of commercial and lifestyle uses among landholders included in the
telephone survey (being those contactable by telephone on their property)? Table 32 shows a
quantitative estimation of the landholder typology for the Western GWRegion, showing the
numbers and area of each type and ranked by area. Note the area data needs to be
interpreted with some caution due to the relatively small sample size for the Western
GWRegion (n = 140) and large property sizes—especially in the ‘struggling farmer’ category.
The problem of large properties acting as ‘statistical outliers’ was addressed by calculating
total areas using median sizes rather than mean sizes41. With this caveat established, it can be
noted that over half of the area surveyed was owned by struggling farmers (commercially-
oriented farmers who generally operate at a loss; often large grazing properties, sometimes
combined with cropping). AAC data indicates that grazing (not including dairy or horses) in
the Western GWRegion produced only $96/ha in 2001, compared to $13,000/ha for vegetable
growing in the same region (which relies on irrigation), and $454/ha for grazing in the South
East GWRegion (which benefits from superior rainfall).
41 The median is the size of the property which is in the middle of the range when ranked according to size, whereas
the mean is the average of all properties (meaning that the inclusion of a single large property can dominate the
mean).
Figure 53. Land use in the Western GWRegion (data source: LUD)
SQUARE PEGS IN GREEN WEDGES?
CHAPTER 6
FOCUS ON THE THREE GWREGIONS
133
Table 32. Rural landholders in the Western GWRegion, not including absentee
landholders (data source: telephone survey)
Type of landholder % of all landholders* % of total area†
Struggling farmer 4 53
Amenity lifestyler 25 11
Horse lifestyler 20 8
Part-time farmer 11 7
Green lifestyler 14 5
Hybrid farmer 7 5
Resident land speculator 9 5
Commercial farmer 6 3
Non-farm business 4 1
Green commercial farmer 1 1
Total in survey 140 landholders estimated 2,940 ha
Note: Absentee land not included in this survey could approximate 50% of the Western GWRegion.
*Due to rounding of percentages to nearest whole number, this column totals 101%. †This area and the derived percentages-by-area were estimated using the median area for each landholder type across
all three GWRegions. This method was used due to the skewed area distributions present for some types. Note that
due to the use of median areas (rather than mean areas), the sum of areas from each of the three individual
GWRegions calculated for the three tables in this section does not equal the area of the three GWRegions, shown in
Table 23.
After struggling farmers, the types of landholders which occupy the greatest area are various
lifestyle landholders (amenity 11%, horse 8% and green 5%) plus part-time farmers (7%).
These four types are also the most numerous in the region. Commercial farmers are
conspicuous by their small numbers (6%) and area (3%), while resident speculators are more
common than in the other two GWRegions (though it is the absentee speculators that most
distinguish this area, and these are not represented in the telephone survey data). The
Western GWRegion also has the highest number (but not area) of horse lifestylers (20%),
consistent with the service providers’ observations and Melton’s claim to being the ‘Heart of
Thoroughbred Country’ and the ‘Home of Harness’ (racing) (Melton Shire Council 2007a).
6.1.2 Agriculture
The limited potential for agriculture in most parts of the Western GWRegion is also reflected
in the agricultural statistics. This data indicates that in 2001 the EVAO of the region was $63.4
million or 7% of the total for PPW region. In contrast, the Yarra and South East GWRegions
produced 21% and 27%, respectively. Commercial agriculture in the Western GWRegion is
much less diverse than the other two regions, with 83.8% of the value of production
generated by just two industries (74.6% from vegetables and 9.2% from intensive animal
production, see Figure 54). It is also much more concentrated spatially, with the Werribee
green wedge accounting for 59.8% of the EVAO of the Western GWRegion (for vegetables the
figure is 74.8%). This spatial concentration (see Figure 53) is one point of advantage over the
other GWRegions, given that it concentrates the commercial industries geographically, and
so minimises the ‘right-to-farm’ issues that often result from mixing commercial agriculture
with rural lifestyle living. The AAC data indicates that in 2001, nearly half (44.8%) of the
farms in the Western GWRegion were in the official Werribee South green wedge.
DPI & PPWCMA
134
The impressive ratio of EVAO to land area for horticultural production in the region (75% of
EVAO from 5% of the area) illustrates the high value of water and quality soils, and the
dearth of these in most areas of the Western GWRegion. Even though vegetable growing is
commercially oriented, it is under substantial pressure from supply chains, overseas
competition, and the limited availability and quality of irrigation water. None of the
commercial farmers in the Western GWRegion indicated they were highly profitable during
the telephone survey, and 28% indicated they were generally operating at a loss.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% area 87.3 4.9 1.9 0.9
% EVAO 9.8 74.6 1.9 9.2
% farms 25.9 54.5 5.4 5.4
Grazing Vegetables Horses Intensive animal
Figure 54. The most prevalent agricultural industries in the Western GWRegion
(data source: AAC 2001)42
As with vegetable growing, the intensive animal farming industry is a prime example of the
relatively successful strategy of intensification in peri-urban areas (see Chapter 5). Intensive
animal production in the Western GWRegion produces 9% of the region’s EVAO from only
1% of the land area. However, these farms can compromise the amenity value of an area,
with several of the landholders interviewed in the area complaining about nearby broiler
chicken operations (actual or proposed). One interviewee reported his wife’s declaration that
she would refuse to live on the property if a proposed broiler farm nearby went ahead
(landholder interviews).
However, intensive animal production can make a positive contribution to nature
conservation by providing a haven for native vegetation in the ‘buffer zone’ required
between them and adjourning properties. As one service provider put it “the native grasses
don’t mind a bit of stink”. This type of commercial agriculture has potential for expansion,
42 The proportion of EVAO, land area and farm numbers were all less than 5% for all other agricultural industries in
the Western GWRegion. Data for these industries is shown in Appendix J, along with data on the change in these
measures between 1986 and 2001.
SQUARE PEGS IN GREEN WEDGES?
CHAPTER 6
FOCUS ON THE THREE GWREGIONS
135
depending on planning and ‘right-to-farm’ constraints, particularly if it can flourish in the
absence of good soils or good rainfall. Expansion of this industry may be assisted by
clustering such operations away from areas marked for rural residential areas, though
expansion will also depend on how markets for chicken eggs and meat judge the ethical
acceptability of intensive production methods (Parbery, Wilkinson & Klugman 2005).
While vegetable growing and intensive animal production are the largest industries from an
economic point of view, grazing (not including horses and dairy) dominates agriculture as a
land use, occupying 87.3% of the total agricultural area. As discussed above, grazing
operations are largely not economically viable independent of off-farm income (accounting
for only 9.8% of the total EVAO for the GWRegion), and as a land use is generally combined
with lifestyle living or land speculation.
The telephone survey data confirmed the large number of horse owners in the Western
GWRegion—20% of all landholders surveyed were horse lifestylers (as discussed above). The
fact that horse establishments only account for 5% of the farms recorded in the AAC (Figure
54) reflects the fact that the EVAO of most properties with horses is lower than $5,000, which
was the cut-off threshold for inclusion in the AAC in 2001.
Historically, cropping has been important in the area, and the service provider interviews
suggest that there are still a small number of economically viable croppers, mostly involved
in sharecropping. The AAC data indicates that cropping in the region experienced a decline
of around 50% in farm numbers, area and EVAO between 1986 and 2001, and now makes
only a minor contribution to the region (see Appendix J2)43. The telephone survey data
revealed that: 9% of respondents in the Western GWRegion conducted some cropping
activities on their property; these properties were much larger than most (being among the
largest), and; 63% of businesses with cropping activities were ‘generally operating at a loss’.
In addition to well-established farm industries, such as cropping, vegetables and horses, the
Western GWRegion has seen the emergence of some newer and more experimental forms of
agriculture, such as almonds, olives, carob and viticulture. These innovative landholders
were described by the service providers as being younger, having business savvy and
sometimes an organic philosophy which helped them to exploit niche markets (though their
overall level of production and area of land use is probably minor).
6.1.3 Landholders and NRM
The Western GWRegion has some of the most serious and persistent NRM problems in the
PPW region and—unlike in most other parts of the PPW region—the condition of some
natural resources continue to decline (PPWCMA 2007a, 2007b). The major NRM issues for
this region are weeds, loss of endangered native vegetation, animal pests (especially rabbits),
43 Note that some of the apparent reduction in the area and value of cropping between 1986 and 2001 may be due a
change in the base map used to calculate AAC data for these years. While most of the six GWRegions experienced
little change in their base map (see Appendix D2), the 2001 base map for the Western GWRegion excluded an area
included in 1986 and which, according to 2004 land use data, included cropping activity. In general, the AAC data in
this report has not been adjusted to reflect such changes in the base map, most of which are minor. Differences in the
1986 and 2001 base maps are shown in Appendix D2, and land use for areas that have changed can be identified
from Appendix F.
DPI & PPWCMA
136
erosion (particularly of the waterways), and poor water quality and availability (service
provider interviews). Large areas of the Western GWRegion are subject to serious weed
infestations, particularly of serrated tussock. This issue is the subject of extensive local and
state (and some federal) government programs, such as those coordinated by the Victorian
Serrated Tussock Working Party. Other problem weeds include Chilean needle grass,
Paterson’s curse, artichoke thistle, African boxthorn, spiny rush and prairie ground cherry.
Weed control issues are interrelated with the management of rare and endangered native
grasslands because weeds can displace grasslands (and vice versa, depending on the
circumstances), and also because native grasslands can be damaged by inappropriate weed
control methods. This research has uncovered claims that some landholders deliberately
destroy protected native grasses on the pretext of controlling weeds, in the hope that this will
increase their chances for subdivision and development of their property (service provider
interviews). Threatened species in the area include the matted flax lily, the earless dragon
and the golden sun moth.
Figure 55. A serrated tussock-infested paddock in the Western GWRegion owned by an
absentee landholder who does not respond to government control orders
(data source: service provider interviews 2006)
What are the implications for NRM of the social makeup of rural land in the Western
GWRegion? Can this social makeup help explain the parlous state of natural resources in this
area, and what do they imply about future strategies for NRM? The principles developed in
Chapter 4 provide some answers to these questions. Most importantly, the generally low
attachment of landholders to their rural land—manifested as high numbers of absentee
landholders and relatively strong development speculation—would appear to undermine
SQUARE PEGS IN GREEN WEDGES?
CHAPTER 6
FOCUS ON THE THREE GWREGIONS
137
landholders’ willingness to invest in NRM, and in some cases causes them to actively
degrade the natural assets on their properties.
The service providers indicated that absentee landholders are often difficult to contact (some
were overseas), and unresponsive to efforts to engage them. One source estimated
landholders that will not voluntarily control their weeds are twice as common among
absentee landholders as among non-absentees. These inert landholders may be the worst
managers of weeds, but are not necessarily the worst NRM managers overall. As discussed in
Chapter 4, that title may go to those landholders who actively degrade their natural
resources—in particular native vegetation—in the belief that this will facilitate the urban
development of their property. In this situation, the dynamics of NRM capacity discussed in
Chapter 4 operate in reverse: high awareness and resources increase the effectiveness with
which landholders can degrade natural resources where they are so inclined (i.e. ‘developer
NRM values’). The service provider interviews suggested that such is the case among
‘professional speculators’, who use their sophisticated understanding of the planning scheme
and other regulations to avoid legal controls on clearing native vegetation.
6.1.4 Strategies for future land use
The Western GWRegion presents many challenges in terms of future rural land use planning.
There are a number of factors that combine to present a formidable barrier to promoting
positive rural land management, including the dearth of commercially viable agriculture, a
high level of absentee landholding, low sense of attachment to the land and a weak sense of
community, high expectations for urban development, and substantial hostility to
government.
While the introduction of the UGB and green wedges is likely to have dampened
expectations for urban development, the effectiveness of the UGB in discouraging land
speculation depends entirely on landholder perceptions of its stability. For some landholders
even demonstrated bipartisan political support for the existing UGB will not be convincing.
Such landholders may only be convinced by witnessing the stability of the UGB despite
changes in government.
The fostering of effective NRM in the Western GWRegion will require not only the signalling
the permanence of the UGB and green wedges—and therefore the future rural status of
existing rural land in the green wedges—but also more radical and innovative approaches
than the other GWRegions. This may include renewed engagement with landholders and
local councils to arrive at some mutually acceptable approach to future land use, which
would ease hostility and bring greater ‘buy in’ among landholders and local councils. Useful
approaches to explore may include tradeable development rights, such as have begun to be
explored by the PPWCMA (Morgans 2006). This would help address landholders’ perceived
‘loss of development rights’, as documented in the original consultation documents for
Melbourne 2030 (DSE 2006a). Some of the service providers interviewed were sympathetic to
some landholders’ view that they were being asked to maintain (commercially unviable)
open spaces for the benefit of urban dwellers, asserting that if Melbournians want green
wedges “let them pour some money in … it seems only fair” (service provider interview).
DPI & PPWCMA
138
In terms of rural land uses, the research in this study suggests a number of options for the
Western GWRegion. Firstly, it may be that some established commercial broadacre industries
can survive in the region, such as a limited amount of professional sharecropping. Another
option, and one which has been widely canvassed, is to increase the agricultural potential of
the area by developing recycled water infrastructure (examples of which include the
proposed Balliang project and the very large irrigated grazing operation associated with
Western Treatment Plant). This would boost agricultural production in the area, though
perhaps only on a relatively small amount of land (given water is most likely to be used for
intensive operations, such as vegetable growing). Overall, planning decisions should
consider the possibility that economic viability may improve in the future, given changes in
agricultural technologies (such as irrigation), and in the prices of farm inputs and outputs
(such as transportation).
Greater value could potentially be derived from limited water resources if these intensive
enterprises hybridised their agricultural activities with other business opportunities, such as
tourism and hospitality (e.g. viticulture). While this GWRegion does not have the dramatic
aesthetic qualities of the Yarra GWRegion, it does possess its own grand beauty, which could
be effectively marketed and incorporated into a vision for the region. This vision could
incorporate recreational uses, such as horse riding, dirt-bike riding, bicycle riding, walking,
paintball and others. Creativity will prove vital in developing a critical mass of tourist and
recreational events and facilities to establish the region as an active destination for urban
visitations, to realise the potential of the green wedge in providing open space for recreation.
Given the established dominance of the equine industry in the area, this would appear to be
an obvious starting point to generate a reputation and industry in active recreation.
The high ecological value of the endangered grasslands in the Western GWRegion suggests
that some of these areas should be retained (and financed) purely for their ecological value—
either through direct government acquisition of key areas, or through the application of
offset schemes and other market-based instruments for ecosystem services (e.g. BushTender).
This ecological use could be productively combined with some of the recreational uses
described above, or even for ecotourism (although the demand for grasslands-based
ecotourism may be limited given it generally has a lower aesthetic appeal than, for example,
forests). In many cases, these conservation activities could complement, and potentially form
part of, the recreation and tourism activities described above.
Finally, one positive use for some rural land in the area may be lifestyle farming (without
subdivision below 40 ha). The region currently has the lowest proportion of rural residential
land of all the GWRegions, according to land use data (see Table 5). In the absence of any
commercial imperative for land use, rural residential use may offer the best means of
cultivating landholders’ attachment to land, and thereby a commitment to retaining and
managing the land as permanently and positively rural. During the landholder interviews,
two landholders from the Western GWRegion expressed frustration at not being able to
obtain a permit to build a single house on their rural properties. A condition of building a
house under the planning scheme for the Shire of Melton is that the land be serviced by
appropriate infrastructure for electricity, water and sewerage (Green Wedge Zone, Shire of
SQUARE PEGS IN GREEN WEDGES?
CHAPTER 6
FOCUS ON THE THREE GWREGIONS
139
Melton Planning Scheme 2008). It may be that support for the development of such
infrastructure (reticulated or otherwise) can encourage appropriate lifestyle farming in the
area. Though such infrastructure may marginally reduce the ‘ruralness’ of the landscape, the
research in this study indicates that such a dilution may be a lesser evil than the neglect and
active degradation that, reportedly, currently characterises much rural land use in the region.
6.2 Yarra GWRegion
The majority of the Yarra GWRegion is coextensive with the Shire of Yarra Ranges, but it also
incorporates small parts of the Cardinia, Knox and Maroondah municipalities. It consists of
most of the official Yarra Valley and Yarra and Dandenong Ranges green wedge and a small
part of the Southern Ranges green wedge (see Figure 6 in Chapter 2). This study
distinguishes ‘inner’ (nearer to Melbourne) and ‘outer’ (further from Melbourne) halves of
the Yarra GWRegion and discussion and analysis is largely confined to the inner GWRegion,
since the outer area is mostly forested public land.
The original indigenous inhabitants of this region are the Wurundjeri people, who relied on
the Yarra River and its banks for foods, such as eels, fish and numerous varieties of native
animals and plants. The earliest settlers included the Ryrie brothers, who drove stock from
the Monaro in New South Wales to establish a station at Yering in 1838, where they also
established the region’s first vineyard. Other prominent industries were also established
early in the region’s history. Monbulk became known for its fruit growing from the mid to
late 1800s. Forestry began with the establishment of several large sawmills, and a railway
was established in 1901, connecting Lilydale and Warburton. The path of the original railway
is now used by walkers, horse riders and cyclists, and forestry is still important in the region.
The major rural industries are tourism and agriculture, particularly horticulture, floriculture,
viticulture, and intensive animal production.
Much of the region is hilly and forested, with the large population mostly concentrated in
parts of the inner Yarra GWRegion. The outer Yarra GWRegion is dominated by public land
which incorporates an important water catchment for urban Melbourne, much of which is
closed to all other users. This is one reason why the proportion of private rural land is so
much lower than the Western and South East GWRegions, making up only 37% of the rural
land in the Yarra GWRegion (inner and outer GWRegions).
The region attracts residents and visitors due to its natural beauty and is associated with a
number of well-known artists, such as painters Tom Roberts and Arthur Streeton, opera
singer Dame Nellie Melba and respected landscape designer Edna Walling. The natural
features still attract artists to the region, as well as supporting a strong tourism industry.
Local councils in this regions have been broadly supportive of the introduction of the green
wedges because the objectives behind them largely accord with plans and aspirations already
developed for these areas (including opposition to further development for urban or rural
residency).
DPI & PPWCMA
140
6.2.1 Land use and landholders
In 2001 the (inner) Yarra GWRegion contained 113,140 ha of rural land, which was home to
16,770 people, most of whom live in a limited area used for rural residency (Figure 56). Its
population density of 147 people per 1,000 ha was fairly high compared to the other six
GWRegions, but also declined by nearly 1% between 1986 and 2001 (possibly due to
decreasing household size, especially among retirees).
Who owns rural land in the Yarra GWRegion, and how do they use it? The land use data
indicates that although grazing is the dominant land use—as in all six GWRegions—there is a
smaller proportion of land used for grazing in Yarra (38%) than any of the others (which
average 53.8%, see Table 5 and Figure 56). One reason for this may be high land prices in the
area (making ‘extensive’ agricultural pursuits prohibitively expensive). Another is the high
amount of land used for nature conservation or production from relatively natural
environments (collectively 23%), almost five times more than in the Western GWRegion, and
three times that of the South East GWRegion (land use data). A final reason, and perhaps the
most important, is the high proportion of rural residential land (16%, compared with 9% each
for the Western and South East GWRegions).
The importance of lifestyle landholders was confirmed by the telephone survey data, which
suggests that the characteristic feature of the Yarra GWRegion is the dominance of the
landscape by different kinds of lifestyle landholders (50% by area), including the highest
proportion of area anywhere of green lifestylers (20%), amenity lifestylers (19%) and horse
lifestylers (11%). This is consistent with the land use data; it simply indicates that grazing in
the region is largely a lifestyle pursuit (e.g. cattle, horses).
Table 33 shows that although the Yarra GWRegion is dominated by lifestyle landholders—
and in this respect similar to the Western GWRegion—it has many more part-time farmers,
accounting for the equal highest proportion of area (20%). However the proportion of area
occupied by commercial farmers is small compared to the South East GWRegion (9% in the
Yarra GWRegion versus 30% in the South East GWRegion).
Figure 56. Land use in the Yarra GWRegion (data source: land use data)
DPI & PPWCMA
142
Table 33. Rural landholders in the Yarra GWRegion, not including absentee landholders
(data source: telephone survey)
Type of landholder % of all landholders* % of total area†
Green lifestyler 23 20
Part-time farmer 13 20
Amenity lifestyler 24 19
Horse lifestyler 13 11
Hybrid farmer 8 9
Commercial farmer 7 9
Non-farm business 7 5
Green commercial farmer 3 3
Struggling farmer 2 2
Resident land speculator 1 1
Total 385 landholders estimated 3,275 ha
Note: Absentee land not included in this survey could approximate 15% of the Yarra GWRegion.
*Due to rounding of percentages to nearest whole number, this column totals 101%.
†Due to rounding of percentages to nearest whole number, this column totals 99%.
6.2.2 Agriculture
The AAC data shows that in 2001 agriculture in the Yarra GWRegion was much more
productive than in the Western GWRegion and not much less productive than the South East
GWRegion, generating $187.5 million, or about 21% of the total value of production for the
PPW region. It was much more diverse than the Western GWRegion, with 95% of the Yarra
GWRegion’s total EVAO coming from a combination of nurseries, fruit, intensive animal
production, grapes and vegetables (Figure 57). By comparison, 95% of the total EVAO in the
Western GWRegion came from vegetables, grazing and intensive animal, as discussed above.
The greater diversity of agriculture in the Yarra GWRegion is principally due to the high
rainfall, as well as good soils, meaning that commercial agriculture is not limited to those
areas which have access to irrigation. Agriculture in the Yarra GWRegion in 2001 had the
highest value of production per hectare ($7,507/ha) of any of the six GWRegions studied
(AAC data, see Appendix J1), and tends to be on much smaller lots (Figure 58) than in most
other GWRegions—possibly due to the high land prices. Many farming industries in the
region are associated with particular ethnic groups, such as Italian strawberry growers and
Dutch flower growers.
SQUARE PEGS IN GREEN WEDGES?
CHAPTER 6
FOCUS ON THE THREE GWREGIONS
143
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
% area 42.8 20.9 10.9 8.4 5.6 2.3
% EVAO 2.3 13.6 26.7 28.8 5.2 21.2
% farms 15.7 19.4 23.6 27.8 7.7 2.1
Grazing Grapes Fruit Nursery VegetablesIntensive
animal
Figure 57. The most prevalent agricultural industries in the Yarra GWRegion
(data source: AAC 2001)44
The telephone survey indicated that the Yarra GWRegion had the highest level of landholder
attachment of the three focus GWRegions, as landholders were the least likely to own their
property primarily as an investment, and far fewer indicated they would be pleased at the
prospect of urban development (see Table 13 in Chapter 4). This is consistent with the high
amenity appeal of the area and its relatively low levels of urban development (the lowest loss
of rural land between 1986 and 2001, at only −4.9%). However it should be noted this region
had already been subject to very high levels of urbanisation and rural residential
development, with 4.0% of the official Yarra green wedge being urban land (compared to an
average of only 1.7%). Another indicator of the relative ‘maturity’ of planning and
development in the Yarra GWRegion compared to the Western GWRegion may be the more
extensive planning controls on land use in the Yarra GWRegion (Figure 59) compared to the
Western GWRegion (Figure 51). It is not intended that the detail of this complex figure be
discernable, though it is apparent that substantial areas are protected as ‘significant
landscapes’.
44 The proportion of EVAO, land area and farm numbers were all less than 5% for all other agricultural industries in
the Yarra GWRegion. Data for these industries is shown in Appendix J, along with data on the change in these
measures between 1986 and 2001.
DPI & PPWCMA
144
4 0 4 8
Kilometers
N
Property sizes (ha)Less than 22 - 88 - 2020 - 4040 - 100100 - 250250 - 500Greater than 500
Figure 58. Property sizes in the Yarra GWRegion
(data source: property layer, VicMap, DSE)
SQUARE PEGS IN GREEN WEDGES?
CHAPTER 6
FOCUS ON THE THREE GWREGIONS
145
Planning Zones
Farming ZoneRural Living ZoneGreen Wedge ZoneGreen Wedge A ZoneRural Conservation ZoneSpecial Use ZonePublic Land ZonesBusiness ZoneCommonwealth LandComprehensive Development ZoneIndustrial ZoneResidential ZoneRoad Zone
Yarra GWRegion boundary
official green wedge boundaries
urban growth boundaries
Planning OverlaysDevelopment PlanEnvironmental AuditEnvironmental SignificanceErosion ManagementHeritageLand Subject to inundationPublic AcquisitionRestructureRoad ClosureSignificant LandscapeVegetation ProtectionWildfire Management
3 0 3 6
Kilometers
Figure 59. Zoning map with overlays for the Yarra GWRegion
(data source: Planning Scheme June 2008)
DPI & PPWCMA
146
6.2.3 Landholders and NRM
The natural resources in the Yarra GWRegion are generally in a much better and more stable
condition than in the other two GWRegions studied according to the PPWCMA Catchment
Condition Report 2005–2006 (PPWCMA 2007a). The area retains 60% by area of its original
native vegetation compared to only 4% in the West GWRegion and 13% in the South East
GWRegion (due in part to the area’s importance as a water catchment for urban Melbourne).
Yet the service provider interviews indicate that the incremental loss of native vegetation on
private land—particularly understorey vegetation—continues to be a problem, along with
pest plants and animals. Other problems identified by the service provider interviews
included erosion, nutrient management, water quality and environmental flows. While there
are large areas of protected native habitat, there are also endangered species such as the
helmeted honeyeater, the Leadbeater possum and some eucalyptus species.
Can the social makeup of the Yarra GWRegion help explain the relatively good condition of
natural resources in the area? The most striking point of difference to the other two focus
GWRegions uncovered by this research is the much higher attachment of landholders to their
land in the Yarra GWRegion compared to both other GWRegions, and especially to the
Western GWRegion. This is manifest as lower levels of absentee landholders according to the
service providers (no rates data was available) and much lower approval for urban
development. This is consistent with the suggestion from the qualitative research that higher
attachment encourages greater investment in NRM, although this was not reflected in the
quantitative measures of NRM activity used in the telephone survey (NRM activity in the
Yarra GWRegion was only somewhat higher than the other two GWRegions, with 47% of
respondents in the Yarra GWRegion having high NRM activity versus an average for all
three GWRegions of 42%).
Two other factors are potentially important. One is the higher prevalence of ‘green’ NRM
values compared to the other two GWRegions (the most important reason for valuing natural
features for 21% of survey respondents in the Yarra GWRegion, compared to only 9% in the
Western GWRegion and 18% in the South East GWRegion), which was shown in Section 4.7
to be associated with higher ‘NRM activity’—especially for activities oriented towards nature
conservation. Conversely, landholders in the area are less motivated by commercial factors
than those of the South East GWRegion (though more than those in the Western GWRegion),
which Section 4.7 indicated is associated with lower levels of NRM activity. As with green
NRM values, however, commercial agriculture (and brown NRM values) provide an
incentive for some forms of NRM but not others.
6.2.4 Strategies for future land use
In the Yarra GWRegion, established long-term plans appear to already be largely consistent
with NRM and green wedge objectives. This entails a mixture of intensive and ‘hybrid’ (e.g.
with tourism) commercial agriculture and lifestyle living. The ongoing success of this
mixture will depend on active management of the mutual expectations and impacts of
commercial and lifestyle landholders. Synergies between these groups should continue to be
actively developed (e.g. viticulture and tourism).
SQUARE PEGS IN GREEN WEDGES?
CHAPTER 6
FOCUS ON THE THREE GWREGIONS
147
The trend towards further intensification in farming requiring built infrastructure such as
glasshouses, shedding and plastic ‘igloos’ is somewhat at odds with the high amenity value
of the region, and Thatcher (2006 p. 27) has suggested that this has the potential to become a
substantial problem in the Yarra area.
6.3 South East GWRegion
Most of the South East GWRegion is made-up of the rural areas of the City of Casey and of
the Shire of Cardinia. It is mostly coextensive with the official Southern Ranges and
Westernport green wedges, but also takes in part of the official South East green wedge and
the Yarra Valley and Yarra and Dandenong Ranges green wedge (see Figure 6 in Chapter 2).
The area is part of the original territory of the Bunurong people and includes the boundary
with the Wurundjeri people to the north. Early European settlement began in the late 1830s,
with pastoral activities remaining the focus of the district's activity for many years. The first
community societies and associations were established in the 1850s.
The region is partly bordered by the foothills of the Dandenong Ranges in the north and by
Westernport Bay in the south. It is divided, between north and south, by the South Eastern
growth corridor, with rapid development occurring along the Princes Freeway dividing the
two official green wedges that make up most of the GWRegion (see Figure 6 in Chapter 2). To
the north the landscape is hilly and often forested, and has much in common with the Yarra
GWRegion. To the south, the landscape is generally flat and more open. Before it was
drained, the Koo-Wee-Rup swamp was the largest in Victoria (Yugovic & Mitchell 2006
p. 323). The area remains susceptible to flooding and waterlogging (see Figure 60) and
borders with the internationally listed (Ramsar) wetlands of Westernport Bay.
In 2001 the South East GWRegion had the largest rural area of all the six GWRegion
(150,660 ha of rural land) and was home to the most people (23,880—see Table 4 in Chapter
2). Its population density was the third highest in 2001, though it experienced a decline from
1986 to 2001 of 2.6%, possibly due to decreasing household size (as farmers age and retirees
move to the area). However this population decline does not include substantial population
increases in newly urban areas. The City of Casey, in particular, has experienced rapid
development and population growth since the 1980s (ID 2008). Though the South East
GWRegion lost only 4% of its rural land between 1986 and 2001 (compared to an average of
5.7% across all six GWRegions), since the 1980s the City of Casey has been a key area for
urban expansion, with vigorous new development around Cranbourne, Narre Warren and
Berwick amongst other locations (ID 2008).
Agriculture in the South East GWRegion includes substantial commercial dairy farming,
intensive animal production and vegetable production, with approximately 70% of
Australia’s asparagus grown in the area surrounding Koo-Wee-Rup (the large ‘special use
zone’ shown in pink in Figure 60 protects land especially suitable for horticulture). One
challenge for green wedge planning in the area is the close admixture of commercial
agriculture, lifestyle living and urban development. The South East GWRegion appears to
have higher amenity appeal than in the Western GWRegion but less than the Yarra
DPI & PPWCMA
148
GWRegion, with the number of lifestyle landholders being intermediate between these two
regions. Landholders in the South East GWRegion have had mixed reactions to the
introduction of the green wedges, some welcoming the protection of prime agricultural land
from further urban encroachment, and others protesting at their loss of perceived
‘development rights’, which for many farmers was part of their retirement plans.
Planning Zones
Farming ZoneRural Living ZoneGreen Wedge ZoneGreen Wedge A ZoneRural Conservation ZoneSpecial Use ZonePublic Land ZonesBusiness ZoneCommonwealth LandComprehensive Development ZoneIndustrial ZoneResidential ZoneRoad Zone
official green wedge boundaries
South East GWRegion boundaryurban growth boundaries
Planning Overlays
Design and DevelopmentDevelopment Contributions PlanDevelopment PlanEnvironmental AuditEnvironmental SignificanceErosion ManagementFloodwayHeritageIncorporated PlanLand Subject to inundationPublic AcquisitionRestructureRural FloodwaySignificant LandscapeSpecial BuildingVegetation ProtectionWildfire Management
5 0 5 10
Kilometers
Figure 60. Zoning map with overlays for the South East GWRegion
(data source: Planning Scheme June 2008)
SQUARE PEGS IN GREEN WEDGES?
CHAPTER 6
FOCUS ON THE THREE GWREGIONS
149
6.3.1 Land use and landholders
The land use data suggests—misleadingly—that the South East GWRegion is somewhat
similar to the Western GWRegion, with large amounts of grazing land and substantial other
agriculture (Figure 61). Yet in contrast to the Western GWRegion—where the land identified
as ‘grazing’ land is mostly used for land speculation or lifestyle living—grazing in the South
East GWRegion includes substantial amounts of commercial farming, in particular dairying.
Also, the land used for intensive commercial agriculture (especially horticulture) is
distributed throughout much of the southern areas of the South East GWRegion, rather than
being concentrated largely in one area as in the Western GWRegion (compare Figure 61 with
Figure 53). This seems likely to make the management of ‘right-to-farm’ issues much more
challenging in the South East GWRegion.
The telephone survey data and AAC data both confirmed the importance of commercial
agriculture in the South East GWRegion. As can be seen in Table 34 below, the telephone
survey data indicated that the greatest proportion of the landscape is occupied by
commercially oriented farms, with 30% commercial farmers, 16% part-time farmers and 7%
struggling’ farmers together accounting for 53% of the land area.
Table 34. Rural landholders in the South East GWRegion, not including absentee
landholders (data source: telephone survey)
Type of landholder % of all landholders* % of total area
Commercial farmer 9 30
Part time farmer 14 16
Amenity lifestyler 23 12
Green lifestyler 21 11
Green commercial farmer 2 7
Struggling commercial farmer 4 7
Horse lifestyler 11 5
Resident land speculator 4 5
Hybrid farmer 7 4
Non-farm business 6 3
Total 471 landholders estimated 6,386 ha Note: Absentee land not included in this survey could approximate 20% of the South East GWRegion.
*Due to rounding of percentages to nearest whole number, this column totals 101%.
Figure 61. Land use in the South East GWRegion (data source: LUD)
SQUARE PEGS IN GREEN WEDGES?
CHAPTER 3:
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
151
6.3.2 Agriculture
The AAC data provides greater detail on agriculture in the region. It indicates that a
substantial proportion of the agricultural area in 2001 was made up by dairying and
horticulture, although grazing remained the largest contributor, as in all three GWRegions
(Figure 62). The presence of dairy, in particular, marks a strong difference from the other two
GWRegions, since it is one of the few (largely) economically viable extensive farm industries
remaining in the region. This makes the dairy industry important for ‘on-site’ NRM issues
such as native vegetation. The diary industry also made an important economic contribution
to the region in 2001 (15.6% of EVAO), though not as large as vegetable growing (40.6% of
EVAO) or intensive animal production (22.3% of EVAO).
As has been observed above, the South East GWRegion contributed 27% of the total EVAO
for the PPW region in 2001—much higher than the Western GWRegion (7%) and more than
the Yarra GWRegion (21%). This large share is in part due to good productivity (and good
rainfall), but also because the South East GWRegion is larger than all others. As noted above,
the Yarra GWRegion in 2001 had the highest productivity of all the six GWRegions—
$7,507/ha—compared to $3,754/ha for the South East GWRegion (third highest, after the
Yarra and Peninsula GWRegions) and $850/ha for the Western GWRegion (second lowest,
ahead of the Sunbury GWRegion, see Appendix J1).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
% area 40.7 31.5 16.4 2.5 2.5 1.6
% EVAO 4.9 15.6 40.6 22.3 10.7 5.0
% farms 34.6 22.3 19.1 7.0 8.3 3.7
Grazing Dairy VegetablesIntensive
animalNursery Fruit
Figure 62. Agricultural in the South East GWRegion (data source: AAC 2001)
Despite these strengths, which stem from the region’s generally good soils and rainfall and
flat terrain, the ACC data indicates that the total area of agricultural land recorded by the
ACC declined by 18% between 1986 and 2001. This reflects the vigorous urban development
occurring along the region’s growth corridor (including a substantial expansion of the UGB
in late 2005), and ongoing gentrification.
DPI & PPWCMA
152
For most farm industries, the changes in area and number of farms between 1986 and 2001
were similar to those shown for the whole PPW region in Table 29 (Chapter 5). For example,
the dairy industry experienced a decline in farm numbers and area of −47% and −31%
respectively (compared to −48% and −38% respectively for the whole PPW region), reflecting
some loss of dairy land to other uses, and some aggregation of dairy farms in response to a
range of economic pressures experienced between 1986 and 2001: deregulation, increasing
land prices and right-to-farm issues (see Figure 47 in Chapter 5). The total EVAO for the
dairy industry increased by only 113% over the same period: substantially less than inflation
(around 169%).
The vegetable industry fared better in the South East GWRegion than the average for the
PPW region, increasing its area somewhat (6%) compared to a 16% decrease in area for the
PPW as a whole, and experiencing a less dramatic decline in farm numbers (a −21% reduction
compared to −43% for the PPW region). The total EVAO for the vegetable industry increased
(137%) more than for dairy, though still less than inflation, consistent with the difficulties that
vegetable farmers are facing due to supply chain pressures (especially supermarkets) and
competition from overseas imports among other factors.
Nurseries flourished in the South East GWRegion more strongly even than for the PPW
region more broadly, with the total farm area increasing by 146% and total farm numbers
increasing by 45% (compared to increases of 29% and 31% respectively for the whole PPW
region). During the study period (1986–2001) the total EVAO for nursery production in the
South East GWRegion increased by 362%.
As in all areas, viticulture also grew dramatically, though from a much lower base than in the
Yarra GWRegion (the change in the total number of farms, area and EVAO for all agricultural
industries in the area is shown in Appendix J).
6.3.3 Non agricultural land uses
The telephone survey data indicates that, aside from commercial and part-time farming, the
major land use in the South East GWRegion is amenity lifestylers (12% by area), with green
lifestylers also important (11% by area). Many of the amenity lifestylers indicated they grew
or grazed something on their property, which reinforces the importance of agricultural
pursuits in the region. The service providers indicated that many lifestylers are former
commercial farmers who have retired or down-scaled their operations, often moving into
beef grazing from dairying or even horticulture. Other lifestylers include urban professionals
and retirees for whom “income doesn’t matter” and an increasing number of ‘tree changers’
who want a “bit of space in open country” and whose values may conflict with farmers in
‘right-to-farm’ issues.
The telephone survey data indicates that the area occupied by ‘resident land speculators’ is
equal to the Western GWRegion (5%, compared to 1% in the Yarra GWRegion), though only
20% of all survey respondents in the South East GWRegion indicated they would be pleased
with development in their area (compared to 46% in the Western GWRegion). The service
provider interviews suggested—without firm data—that a lower proportion of land was
owned by absentee landholders in the South East GWRegion (speculatively estimated at 20%)
SQUARE PEGS IN GREEN WEDGES?
CHAPTER 3:
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
153
than in the Western GWRegion, and that land speculation was less prevalent. There were,
however, “quite a lot” of absentee landholders who “pop out on weekends to see if the cows
are still alive” (service provider interview).
4 0 4 8
Kilometers
N
Property sizes (ha)Less than 22 - 88 - 2020 - 4040 - 100100 - 250250 - 500Greater than 500
Figure 63. Property sizes in the South East GWRegion
(data source: property layer, Vicmap, DSE)
6.3.4 NRM issues
This region is afflicted by a number of NRM issues, some quite serious (PPWCMA 2007a,
2007b). One service provider suggested that the (literal) root of many of these problems lies
with the extensive loss of vegetation from the region, initially for agriculture and later for
urban development (see Figure 11 in Chapter 3). In addition to the loss of biodiversity, this
loss of vegetation has also led to salinity and erosion in some areas. Erosion is particularly a
problem in the Southern Ranges green wedge, whose streams run into Westernport Bay
where sedimentation is destroying important sea grasses. These seas grasses act as fish
nurseries for several economically important fisheries in the area, in addition to their
ecological value as part of an internationally listed (Ramsar) wetland. Other problems
DPI & PPWCMA
154
include eutrophication of water, weeds, animal pests (especially foxes, rabbits and domestic
cats). The area is also home to the growling grass frog and the brown banded bandicoot.
The analysis in Chapter 4 suggested that individuals with a commercial imperative and
brown NRM values were more likely to actively manage their natural resources—at least in
order to increase productivity. It is therefore surprising that landholders in the South East
GWRegion had lower NRM activity than average (33.5% versus average of 41.5%). This may
indicate shortcomings in this measure of NRM activity, or it may point to complexities in the
relationship between commercial agriculture and NRM activity. For example, the service
provider interviews indicated that while commercial farmers were “very focussed, very
organised [and] understand what they’re doing” in relation to production-oriented NRM
(such as selected forms of soil, water and weed management), they were often much less
interested in conservation-related NRM. Vegetable farmers in particular “don’t want
diversions” and feel they need “every inch of soil” (service provider interviews). The service
providers’ perceptions of whether commercial farmers or lifestyle landholders were better
land managers consequently appeared to depend in part on the service providers’ own NRM
values—more conservation-oriented service providers perceived lifestylers as the better land
managers, while production-oriented service providers saw farmers as the better managers.
Thus, some service providers identified hobby farmers and lifestylers as being more open to
Landcare issues, and “willing to admit to not knowing”. Some participate in every program
available and show a “greater interest in the environment than some of the farmers who’ve
been there forever” (service provider interview). They are “very good to work with, very
keen to learn, very keen to have their property in the best possible condition” and generally
have a “fabulous long-term view about improving the farm” (service provider interview).
The exception to this, according to one service provider, was horse owners, who were
generally not interested in accommodating native vegetation. NRM issues were also “not on
the radar” of absentee landholders according to the service provider interviews—few were
members of Landcare and many “won’t spend a cent” on NRM issues.
6.3.5 Strategies for future land use
The future prospects for the northern areas of the South East GWRegion (the Southern
Ranges green wedge) appear—on the basis of its topographical and demographic make-up—
to be more similar to the Yarra green wedge than to the Westernport green wedge (for
example compare land use as shown in Figures 56 and 61). In the southern areas of the South
East GWRegion (the Westernport green wedge) the long-term vision for rural land could
accommodate commercial agriculture, in particular the protection of land suitable for
horticulture and dairying. Further losses of quality agricultural land through movement of
the UGB would be especially unfortunate in this area (at least compared to the Western
GWRegion), and the use of buffer zones between commercial agriculture and lifestyle living
should be further explored for this area. However protection and (non-financial) support for
commercial agriculture could be contingent on improvements in NRM practices for nature
conservation. The South East GWRegion would appear to have substantial potential for
further ‘hybrid’ activities that combine agriculture, its input and output industries, and
tourism, hospitality or recreation.
SQUARE PEGS IN GREEN WEDGES?
CHAPTER 3:
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
155
Farmers in the South East GWRegion have been requesting assistance from DPI to help with
the future of agriculture in the area. These farmers are facing increasing pressures from
urban development and from non-farming neighbours who complain about the effects of
smells, noise, sprays and the visual impact of large areas of shedding. Dairy farmers are also
concerned that the increasing urban traffic makes it difficult, and dangerous, for dairy cows
crossing roads in order to be milked.
DPI & PPWCMA
156