Short-term emergency or recurring climatic extreme: a rural town perspective on drought policy

Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 290–302 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2012.00774.x

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Short-Term Emergency or Recurring Climatic Extreme:A Rural Town Perspective on Drought Policy andPrograms

Louise E. Askew and Meg ShervalUniversity of Newcastle

Drought is most often encountered as a long-running and recurring climatic extreme; onethat can have devastating environmental, social and economic impacts. While drought is aroutine feature of the Australian climate, the politics of drought are often highly reactive, anddrought support programs are notoriously ad hoc and ineffective. In the context of emergentglobal recognition of climate change, drought has received renewed political attention thatpresents significant opportunities for change. In this paper, we review the context of droughtpolicy in Australia. Yet we seek to provide a unique contribution to current debates byconsidering the perspectives of those people at the forefront of drought; in particular, thosepeople living and working in small rural towns in drought-affected areas. The aim of thepaper is to use a case study to present an account of drought policies and programs fromthose who are the targets of such interventions.

Key words: Drought, drought policy, climate change, Australia

Drought is a familiar and recurrent climaticextreme in Australia, and has subsequentlydeveloped an extensive record of political re-sponse and government intervention. Histori-cally drought was framed as a climatic abnor-mality and, as such, treated with disaster reliefpolicies in a similar way to floods, earthquakesand cyclones (Botterill 2005). However, sincethe early 1990s this approach to dealing withthe inherently long-term and chronic problemsof drought has been noted as generally inef-fective and problematic (e.g. Edwards et al.2009; Productivity Commission 2009). Signif-icant changes to drought policy ensued as a re-sult of successive policy reviews and pressurefrom influential stakeholders including socialservice agencies, NGOs, academics and the in-dustries and areas affected by drought. Yet, therecommendations and changes to drought pol-

icy have not always been effectual in imple-mentation – in the actual programs of supportoffered to drought-affected areas.

The need to address the often problematicgap between drought policy and practice is nowurgent in the face of an increasing awarenessof the projected outcomes of climate change.Although recent heavy rainfall events through-out much of Australia have bought with themflooding and an end to drought, long-term pro-jections indicate that climate change will likelyresult in the increasing intensity, duration andfrequency of droughts throughout certain partsof Australia; namely the largely agricultural ar-eas of rural inland Australia (Whetton et al.2005; Hennessy et al. 2008). It is thereforevital to address the ways in which drought isunderstood and approached as part of politicalresponses and formal policy interventions, and

C© 2012 The AuthorsAustralian Journal of Public Administration C© 2012 National Council of the Institute of Public Administration Australia

Askew and Sherval 291

how these interventions can be more supportiveof drought-affected areas in the long-term.

Recent policy reviews and academic de-bates have made significant advances towardthe recognition of drought as a form of cli-matic extreme which is long-term, recurrentand unique in its social and economic impacts(e.g. Drought Policy Review Expert SocialPanel 2008; Productivity Commission 2009).It is our aim as part of this paper to build onthese ideas of drought by drawing on researchundertaken in the regularly drought-affectedtown of Mildura, in north-west regional Vic-toria. Although this area has been subject tothe recent heavy rainfall and flooding eventsaffecting much of Australia, the case study pro-vides an on-the-ground insight into the expe-riences of drought and how these experiencesshape perceptions of drought policy and sup-port programs. We argue that it is importantnot to wane in our attention to this issue duringtimes in which the drought breaks, but to con-tinue to question the effectiveness, equity andlong-term outcomes of current drought supportprograms, as part of drought-affected contexts.

Addressing Drought in Rural Australia:History of Drought Policies

Australia is renowned as one of the driest con-tinents and as having one of the world’s mostvariable rainfalls; ensuring drought is a regu-lar occurrence (Smith 2003; Hennessy et al.2008). In this context, policies and programs toaddress the impacts of drought have had a longhistory and have been developed and adoptedacross all levels of government. Indeed, droughtpolicy has existed in various guises since theearly 1900s, largely as a part of agriculturalpolicy frameworks (James 1973). Throughoutmuch of this early policy history, drought wasthought of as a climatic abnormality – a short-term, one-off disaster (Botterill 2005).

It was from the late 1980s, that this disas-ter management view of drought began to bequestioned in academic and policy circles. In-deed, it was during this period that drought wasremoved from national disaster relief arrange-ments, and a task force was initiated to shape

the most appropriate response to these chang-ing perceptions of drought. As a result, the Na-tional Drought Policy (NDP) was establishedin 1992 through collaboration between Stateand Federal Governments. The NDP was basedon principles of self-reliance, risk managementand an understanding that drought is an in-herent and recurring feature of the Australianenvironment (Nelson et al. 2010). However,provisions were included in the policy for ‘Ex-ceptional Circumstances’ (EC), whereby agri-cultural producers and landholders in areasdesignated as extremely drought-affected wereable to apply for specific or added governmentassistance (e.g. interest rate subsidies, commer-cial borrowings, small grants and exit grants)(Botterill 2005).

Successive reviews and amendments of theNDP have continued to refine approaches todrought policy by further clarifying EC dec-larations and processes, adjusting interest ratesubsidies and grants, and increasing access tocommon social and income support services(see Table 1 for a summary of key drought pol-icy reviews and recommendations). However,many of the key features of the NDP and ECprovisions remain engrained in current govern-ment approaches to drought support and farmmanagement, and continue to present a rangeof problems, including:

• widespread inconsistency, abuse and nor-malisation of EC declarations;

• continuing support for unviable and/orpoorly managed farm businesses underEC;

• increasing focus on government interven-tion rather than self-management and sus-tainability; and,

• evidence of widespread welfare gaps in thefarmer support system(Botterill 2005; Burke 2010).

In the context of expanding global attentionto climate change and its impact on climaticextremes such as drought, these problems ofdrought policy and support programs are cur-rently at the fore of political debate. Govern-ments at every level are producing strategieswith a view towards preparing all sectors of the


292 Short-Term Emergency or Recurring Climatic Extreme September 2012

Table 1. Key drought policy reviews

Reviews Key Recommendations / Findings

Drought Policy Review · Drought separate from natural disaster reliefTaskforce Final Report (1990) · Governments should implement a National Drought Policy

· Against the use of transaction-based subsidies / rebates· State/territory assistance from drought purposes be provided through

general concessional loans· Provision of grants / interest free loans limited to extreme conditions

Drought Policy Task Force · Transaction-based and interest rate subsidies be phased outReview of the NationalDrought Policy (1997)

· Improve farm financial & resource planning via education programs

· Encourage farmers to build cash reserves during good seasons· Research and development on the effects of prolonged drought· Introduce a Farm Family Re-Start Scheme targeted at farmers unable

to access payments from other sources· Counselling services be managed by state governments and provided

at an early stage of drought· Amend and combine Income Equalisation Deposits and Farm

Management BondsMcColl et al. Mid-term review of

the 1992 Rural Adjustment· Remove interest rate subsidies and grants to farm businesses for

productivity improvement or for EC supportScheme (1997) · Replace RAS with an improved scheme addressing the issues of

management skills, farmer re-establishment, savings and welfare· Introduce Farm BIS and the Farm Re-establishment Scheme· Introduce a single instrument combining IEDs and FMBs· Higher priority should be accorded to research on climate change,

variability and predictionDrought Review Panel

Consultations on National· Most stakeholders would support a shift in government focus

towards drought preparedness at the expense of business supportDrought Policy (2004) · Less in favour of business support (ECIRS, transport subsidies)

· Transaction-based fodder / freight subsidies seen to have adetrimental effect on farmers in other states

· EC process as a whole seen as too demanding, complex, confusing· Off-farm income / assets limits for EC support seen as restrictive· Criticism by stakeholders about perceived differences in

administration of ECIRS between states· FMD and FarmBIS schemes strongly supported· Rural Financial Counselling Service highly regarded

Agriculture and Food Policy · Phasing out of interest and other transaction-based subsidies byend-2012

Reference Group Creating OurFuture (2006)

· Maintain FMDs

Hennessy et al. An assessment ofthe impact of climate change

The joint assessment by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) andCSIRO reports:

on the nature and frequency ofexceptional climatic events(2008)

· the extent and frequency of exceptionally hot years have beenincreasing and are projected to continue, with exceptionally hotyears likely to occur every one-two years, on average, from2010–2040

· due to large inter-decadal variability, exceptionally low rainfall yearsare projected to increase in southwest Western Australia, the SouthAustralian agricultural region, Victoria & Tasmania

· exceptionally low soil moisture is projected to become morefrequent in line with increases in exceptionally low rainfall years.

(Continued)



Table 1. Continued

Reviews Key Recommendations / Findings

Expert Social Panel on Dryness The Expert Social Panel consulted across the country and found:It’s about people: changingperspectives on dryness (2008)

· there is widespread distress in drought-affected ruralcommunities and too many farm decisions are made under stress

· while it is hard to separate the social impacts of drought fromlong-term trends contributing to decline in some ruralpopulations, drought adversely impinges on the wellbeing offarm families

· policy needs to address the social needs of farm families, ruralbusinesses and communities in ways that do not inhibit theefficiency of agricultural industries

· the connection between the farm as a place of work, residenceand family tradition has important implications for theeffectiveness of institutional support

Productivity CommissionGovernment Drought Support

· Most farmers are adequately self-reliant to manage climatechange

(2009) · The National Drought Policy’s (NDP) Exceptional Circumstance(EC) declarations and related drought assistance programs donot help farmers improve their self-reliance, preparedness andclimate change management

· Governments need to commit to a long term reform path thatrecognises that primary responsibility for managing risks,including from climate variability and change, rests withfarmers

· All farm households in hardship – regardless of cause or location– should have access to an income support scheme that isdesigned for farming circumstances

· Similar recommendations from the previous reviews of the NDPhave not been adopted. To ensure that this new policy directionis credible and enduring: the NDP should be replaced withextended objectives for Australia’s Farming Future; anintergovernmental agreement with independent monitoring andfinancial incentives for complying with agreed commitmentsshould be established

Source: Adapted and updated from Productivity Commission (2009)

community to exist in a future with less water.The Australian Government’s national frame-work, Water for the Future, comprises TheWater Act (2007) and advances the previousimplementation of the National Water Initia-tive (NWI) by the Council of Australian Gov-ernments (COAG) (Department of the Environ-ment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, DEWHA2009). Similar policies are in place across moststate, territory and local governments, all witha focus on long-term planning for water se-curity, modernisation of irrigation and supplysystems, recycling and conservation of water.

This revised focus on long-term planning andfuture climatic change has initiated further re-views of policies used to address drought im-

pacts. As a result of the three most recent policyreviews (Drought Policy Review Expert SocialPanel 2008; Hennessy et al. 2008; Productiv-ity Commission 2009) (see Table 1), the gov-ernment is now faced with a number of rec-ommendations that recognise, even more thanprevious efforts, the critical importance of mov-ing beyond crisis management approaches. Im-portantly, the three reviews have reinforced theurgent need to rethink the NDP, particularlythe EC provisions, which are argued to be in-effective and inequitable, and perversely en-couraging of poor farm management practices(Drought Policy Review Expert Social Panel2008; Productivity Commission 2009). In ad-dition, the reviews suggest that the government



programs used to support drought-affected ar-eas need to reaffirm the overarching policy per-spective that prolonged periods of drought arenatural – thus investing in the social and eco-nomic well-being of those rural areas at theforefront of climate change, with or withoutdrought events. Such an approach will need toinvolve long-term, sustainable, and flexible ap-proaches to supporting these regions, centredon climate adaptation and research.

Policy is a key mechanism for driving mit-igation and adaptation to climatic change andextreme climatic events such as drought. Yetfor policy to be effective, it needs to be flexibleenough to persist through the various scales andsites of government, Non Government Organ-isations (NGOs), and businesses, and as partof diverse local contexts within which policyaims may become confused and conflict withexisting practice. Research on various formsof environmental management and adaptationconsistently point to the significance of lo-cal governments and communities in achievingpolicy aims and effectively shaping policy tolocal contexts (O’Toole 2001; Brunckhorst andReeve 2006; Urwin & Jordan 2008). It is imper-ative then that drought policies, such as those toemerge from the NDP review, set the tone foradaptation yet provide the flexibility and re-sponsiveness to local contexts that will providethe foundations for robust drought adaptationstrategies and support programs.

In the following section, the paper elaborateson the local contexts of a rural town as onesetting in which drought and future climaticchange and variability will have significant ad-verse impacts. It is vital to explore these localcontexts in order to understand how programsof drought support might work, or be tailoredto suit the particular challenges faced by theserural locations.

Investigating the Impacts of Drought inPlace: A Methodology

Small towns and communities in ruralAustralia1 are currently undergoing significantchanges. For those in drought-affected areas,extreme drought events combined with ongo-

ing drying have created damaging impacts onthe viability and well-being of small inlandtowns that are largely dependent on agricul-ture – a process likely to be exacerbated un-der projected impacts of anthropogenic climatechange. Moreover, many of these small inlandtowns have populations on the cusp of viabil-ity, suffering from a continuing loss of youngpeople, an ageing population, and declines inbusiness and educational opportunities (Forth2001; Barr 2005). Within these already strainedrural contexts, the social and economic impactsof drought are often severe (Drought PolicyReview Expert Social Panel 2008). It is there-fore crucial to research small rural towns asthe dynamic contexts in which the immediateimpacts of drought are experienced, and wheregovernment programs addressing drought willbe targeted. It is in these drought-sensitive lo-cations where insights into what to address,what to change and how to understand and learnabout drought are most likely to be advanced(Golding and Campbell 2009).

This paper has been developed from researchconducted on the socio-economic impacts ofdrought on small rural towns, and draws onone particular case study: Mildura in north-western Victoria, Australia (see Figure 1).2

The use of this case study provides the ca-pacity to examine the complexities of droughtimpacts as part of dynamic social and eco-nomic settings, revealing the ways in which pol-icy measures and programs to address droughtimpacts are perceived and used (Golding andCampbell 2009). Although the case study offersan exemplar of the local impacts of drought, it isalso used to provide insights into what is occur-ring in other drought-affected locations in Aus-tralia, developing a holistic consideration of thecomplex impacts of ‘drought in place’ and howthese experiences might assist in developingeffective drought support mechanisms acrossAustralia.

The data used in this paper is collected pri-marily from 35 interviews conducted in the casestudy location with representatives from localand regional organisations, government agen-cies, local councils, private business, the com-munity and farming enterprises. The interviewswere undertaken through semi-structured



Figure 1. Mildura city and region

questions, as a means of effectively and per-sonally engaging people from diverse agencies,groups and backgrounds. In talking with peo-ple across the case study site, climatic trendsand rural challenges are given meaning as partof dynamic local contexts, providing under-standings of the ways in which people livingand working in these rural locations actuallyexperience drought. Moreover, from these ex-periences, we are able to reveal how govern-ment support schemes are typically viewed andengaged by farming families, the aspects ofgovernment drought-support that are seen assuccessful, the critical elements that facilitateeffective rural support, and some possibilitiesfor developing effective policies for droughtsupport and adaptation into the future.

Experiencing Drought and More inMildura

Mildura, a rural region of approximately 58,000people, has a long history of agriculture whichcontinues to function as the main sector of

the region’s economy (MDC 2009). For Mil-dura, regular and long-running drought eventshave affected the health of the local MurrayRiver, and most particularly, the water supplyand security for engrained traditions of irriga-tion agriculture throughout this region – theimpacts of which have been devastating so-cially and economically for many of the farm-ers in this region. Indeed, traditional irrigationsettlements have been privatising, subdividingand modernising infrastructure in an attemptto maintain the efficiency of the irrigation sys-tem. Water allocations from irrigation suppliescontinue to decline and fluctuate and producersare increasingly opting to exit their landhold-ings (RM Consulting Group 2009). Moreover,the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA)recently released the Draft Basin Plan (MDBA2011) which sets about to further reduce irri-gation supplies in an effort to preserve the riverwater quality and flow. The traditional beliefin irrigation supply is engrained in the Mil-dura region and is associated with a sense ofsecurity. As noted in the Productivity Commis-sion Inquiry (2009:xx) “irrigation drought is



uncharted territory” and with this comes rapidchange, uncertainty and fear.

In addition, these challenges to water securitycome at a time of record low commodity pricesfor some of the main agricultural products ofthe region – wine grapes – which have suffereda severe downturn due to global oversupplyand market competition. As a result, the Mil-dura region, particularly wine grape producers,are increasingly experiencing low incomes, un-manageable debts, and an escalating number ofgrape growers leaving the industry. Indeed, re-cent research conducted by the Mallee Catch-ment Management Authority (2009) suggeststhat the area of crops (largely wine grape crops)across the Mildura region that were deliberatelyleft without irrigation reached a high of 26% in2008–09, with local reports of large amountsof crops left unpicked. A decision by growersnot to irrigate crops is profound and reflectsthe enormity of financial stress incurred by acombination of economic and environmentalpressures.

Producers of the region are also confrontinga series of fundamental changes to the farm-ing sector including the expansion of farms andfarm trade, declines in farm succession, and in-creasing uncertainty around crop selection andinvestment. Some of these issues are a direct re-sult of drought and a drying environment; how-ever, others are related to trade and agriculturalmarkets well beyond the scale of the region,with the combination of these changes hav-ing serious impacts on the social and economicwell-being of some farmers. Government ser-vices and support programs in this drought-affected region are being stretched to the limitsas they attempt to cope with the complexity ofissues facing the Mildura region.

Indeed, the most prominent theme emergingfrom these drought-affected contexts is that thechallenges confronting the region are not justa product of drought – to understand them assuch would not only underestimate the extentof the region’s challenges but also severely in-hibit the ability to coordinate a sustainable andproactive government approach to addressingthem. With current debates and major policy re-views questioning the effectiveness, equity andlong-term outcomes of current drought sup-

port programs, it is crucial to examine theseprograms as part of everyday drought-affectedcontexts: what works, what is necessary, whatneeds to be changed or removed, and what is themost effective direction for future governmentsupport?

“Notoriously Reactive”: Drought-SupportServices in Mildura

Drought support has been increasingly ac-cessed in Mildura as a result of the chang-ing agricultural contexts being confronted bymany farmers in the region. For Mildura, gov-ernment drought-support is largely comprisedby the National Drought Policy (NDP) and ECprovisions (although as of March 2012 this areais not under EC declaration).

While there are many Commonwealth Gov-ernment drought-support programs available,most of the following analysis focuses on theEC Relief Payments (ECRP), EC Interest RateSubsidies (ECIRS) and EC Exit Grants (seeTable 2).3 Similar to other farming regions,Mildura also has access to a range of othernational support programs (e.g. Rural Finan-cial Counselling Service – facilitated throughstate government and regional organisations;and the Small Block Irrigators Exit Grant –now concluded), and programs provided specif-ically by the Victorian Government, such asunder the Future Farming strategy (Departmentof Primary Industries Victoria 2011). Althoughthere are clear distinctions between programsat a policy and governance level (see details inTable 2), it is important to note that the dis-cussion below focuses on the perspectives offarmers and people within a farming regionand subsequently the distinctions between thesesupport programs are not always clear – withmany labelling all programs in their entirety asthe ‘drought industry’.

First, many farmers in the Mildura regionhave accessed an exit grant, in cases wherefarms have become unviable under current eco-nomic and environmental pressures. Both ofthe common exit grants available to the re-gion, the EC Exit Grant and Small Block Irri-gators Exit Grant (now concluded), have beenproblematic. The EC Exit Grant, which offers



Table 2. Recent national drought policies and programs

Policy Framework Household Programs Business Programs

National DroughtPolicy (NDP)

EC Relief payments (ECRP) EC interest rate subsidies – farmers and smallbusinesses (ECIRS)

Interim income support forfarmers and smallbusinesses

Professional advise and planning grant(concluded)

Small business incomesupport

EC exit grants

Agriculture –Advancing Australia(AAA) (concluded)

Farm Help income support(concluded)

FarmBis (concluded)

Farm Help redevelopment grant (concluded)Farm Help advice and training grant (concluded)Farm Management Deposits

Australia’s FarmingFuture (AFF)

Transitional income support Climate Change Adjustment Program

Climate Change Adjustment ProgramRe-establishment grants (concluded)

FarmReadyBuilding Farm Businesses (pilot program WA

only)Farm Planning(pilot program WA only)Stronger Rural Communities (pilot program –

concluded)Farm Social, Family and Exit Support Programs

(pilot programs WA only)Beyond Farming (pilot program WA only)

Other CWA emergency drought aid(concluded)

Transport subsidies

Murray-Darling Basin Irrigation ManagementGrant (concluded)

Rural Financial Counselling Service (RFCS)Small Block Irrigators Exit Grant (concluded)

Source: Adapted and updated from Productivity Commission (2009)

funds of up to $150,000 to exit farming produc-tion, has been subject to broad criticism basedon the inequitable distribution of EC fundingacross EC declared areas. However, the SmallBlock Irrigators Exit Grant has been the subjectof both more uptake and condemnation. TheSmall Block Irrigators Exit Grant was directedat irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin, of-fering $150,000 for exiting farming produc-tion and up to $30,000 for removal of perma-nent plantings and irrigation systems (DEWHA2009). The scheme is intensely criticised bymany in the region due to the provision that allpermanent plantings, irrigation systems and in-frastructure be removed from the land, with noirrigated farming activity to be undertaken for

a period of five years after exit, as explainedhere:

We question the logic of ripping everything outand leaving it bare for 5 years. What’s the costemotionally and financially? What’s the environ-mental impacts of all that . . . pests, disease, bareland . . . erosion. And the community will suf-fer, because you take out up to 160 farms, nolonger buying all the farm inputs, no longer pay-ing rates . . . the rest have to pick up all of thiswhich impacts on the community.(Manager, Environmental Services – MilduraRural City Council, MRCC4)

The “hotchpotch” (CEO – Mildura Develop-ment Corporation, MDC) of dried-off farms



in the region is viewed as both a severe en-vironmental hazard and as having significantlong-term economic and social impacts on thewell-being of the region. Many intervieweesspoke of the emotional effects of seeing driedoff farms, and the frustration with the lack ofplanning and foresight to replant these stripswith native vegetation. Although the schemefinished in June 2009, there is a strong percep-tion that the negative effects of the grant willbe ongoing, with many wary of the economicoutcomes for the region and the long-term en-vironmental impacts.

Second, farmers in the Mildura region arealso increasingly coming into contact withdrought financial support services. Govern-ment and NGO service providers are now ac-knowledging the serious impacts of the currentfarming conditions in the area, with rapidly de-clining farming family incomes, and increasesin social and economic indicators of distress.As a result, there is an increasing relianceon government financial assistance particularlythrough the EC provisions for the region (e.g.ECRP, ECIRS), as illustrated by an intervieweehere:

The most spectacular financial impacts have beenin the irrigation areas where we’ve basically got awelfare disaster looming in the Mildura district.(Senior Social Researcher – DPI)

Many of those working in drought supportservices describe a burgeoning “welfareindustry” in the Mildura region (Director–Sunraysia Mallee Ethnic Communities Coun-cil, SMECC), created and sustained byreactive government support programs. For aCoordinator within the RFCS, the “welfaresystem” is providing much needed assistanceto farmers but is not the most effective ap-proach, with farmers becoming increasingly re-liant on government-funded financial support–“you can’t blame the farmers, if it’s there youtake it . . . but we do see it causing social prob-lems” (Coordinator – RFCS).

Government support for farmers in this re-gion is crucial. However, the traditions of Ex-ceptional Circumstances, and the exit grantsand social support services that come underEC, need to be re-examined. Both are designed

from a crisis management approach, which sus-tains short-term responses and creates furtherproblems of welfare dependence. Exit grants,although supporting those seeking to exit farm-ing, take a largely short-term approach to landmanagement and do not plan for the economicimpacts on the region including the drain on lo-cal skills base, increasing unemployment, anddeclines in local business. Moreover, socialsupport schemes, whilst again helping thosein crisis, should not represent the only mech-anisms for farmers as they encourage long-term welfare dependence and potentially cre-ate further social problems. These impacts ofcurrent government approaches to drought sup-port need to be acknowledged as part of moreholistic and consistent government assistanceschemes for these rural areas.

Successful Drought Strategies for theFuture: An on-the-Ground Perspective

In discussing these short-comings of currentdrought support programs, interviewees alsoidentified ways in which the region could bebetter supported by drought policies and pro-grams. Indeed, interviewees often describedthose practices and programs that they ob-served as ‘successful’–those that were mosteffective at engaging farmers and providinguseful, long-term assistance for the region asa whole. Four key factors are noted as funda-mental to the provision of effective governmentsupport in the region:

• collaboration between service providersand practitioners;

• undertaking community-led projects andprograms;

• supporting proactive, consistent and long-term approaches to service provision; and,

• developing practice-oriented research anddevelopment schemes to support adap-tation and future sustainability for theregion.

First, collaboration and partnership betweenservice providers was viewed as essentialfor facilitating effective and respectful ser-vice provision in close-knit rural towns. Many



interviewees noted the common criticisms di-rected at government drought support programsas being short-term, overlapping and discon-nected. Indeed, the ad hoc nature of governmentresponses to date have created disproportionatedrought support networks, with a lack of ser-vices in some areas and an overlap and excessin others – often cynically labelled ‘the droughtindustry’ (Drought Policy Review Expert So-cial Panel 2008). Service workers sought tocounter these criticisms through promoting ac-tive connections between service providers andthe community, as illustrated here:

I think here, all drought service providers met andworked in a collaborative way to identify whatit is we can do. So it depends upon the abilityof the people in a particular area to be able towork in a coordinated manner, and nine-tenthsis communication, so as long as you’ve got thatright, you can do some really creative things.(Manager–Mallee Family Care)

You go to a meeting and it’s like ‘oh, you’refunded for the drought, and you’re not funded forthe drought’ and people are confused. There’s alot of criticism around that, so it’s about provingthe connections work. So one of the most crucial[elements] is the networking, to keep those linksopen . . . so that there is no overlap in terms of theservices provided.(Counsellor–Mallee Family Care)

Service providers note that partnership work-ing is vital to effective service delivery in thisregion, and the need to engage often scepticaland hard-to-reach farmers. Of particular con-cern is the need to overcome many of the crit-icisms directed at drought support services asbeing short-term and overlapping, by ensuringthat they deliver funding and programs in waysthat are respectful, sustainable and supportiveof farmers and the broader community.

Second, support workers in the region notedthe success of community-led, creative and in-formal approaches to service provision. Reach-ing and engaging farmers who are withdraw-ing from the community and often physicallyisolated is immensely challenging for supportworkers. Most challenging for farmers has beenovercoming preconceptions about Centrelink(which delivers the drought household support

programs and some preparedness measures),with many initially embarrassed and shamefulto use such services due to engrained traditionsof ‘the stoic farmer’ (see Botterill 2009). A keymethod of improving the connection of agen-cies with communities and farmers has beenundertaking more collaborative approaches toservice provision and programs, as illustratedbelow:

[The council] have created informal opportuni-ties to get together to support each other. Peo-ple are more reluctant to go to workshops withlabels like ‘depression’. Whereas having a cupof tea and piece of cake together, they are thesorts of things that seem to work and they are thethings the community keeps asking for. It soundsso simple, but it’s the break from the daily grindthat really works.(Manager, Community Development – MRCC)

People are sick of hearing the word ‘drought’ and‘water allocation’ and ‘climate change’. They justwant to talk about something else. And that’s whythose informal social opportunities work so well,where they get out and have a chat . . . and if theychoose to bring up what’s happening at home,then that’s their choice.(Community Development Officer–MRCC)

Workers and community members alike de-scribe this approach to community engagementand support as one of the most successful, as itnot only provides a social outlet, but also buildsstrong service relationships between providersand the community.

Third, service providers spoke of the needfor a more proactive, consistent and sustain-able approach to service provision and supportin the region – one that promotes adaptationand self-sufficiency in the face of ongoing dry-ing and agricultural change. Although policyreviews have been advancing the issue of self-sufficiency for farmers for decades, the droughtsupport system remains paralysed by reactive,short-term funding and programs. Intervieweesexpress these issues below:

Historically, drought funding has always been no-toriously reactive. Whereas with climate change,they’re putting people on and going on about pre-thinking, planning, what sort of services do weneed in place? So I think if we could focus onthat, rather than ‘oh, we’ve had a drought’. And



the funding is always short term. I mean we’retrying to attract good staff into those positions,but no-one wants a job that is for 6 months. Andfor the client base, there is no continuity for themeither.(Counsellor – Mallee Family Care)

There is a concept on the land called ‘preventativemaintenance’, so regular services of machineryetcetera. We need this approach with drought, sowhen times are good, that is a time when thisinformation and support should still be provided.There’s a lack of good policy directing the how,where and why the money gets spent. It is veryreactive.(Manager – Mallee Family Care)

The nature of short-term, emergency-focusedgovernment responses is that strategic planningand investment is not prioritised. The need forproactive assistance in rural areas is critical forthe future of these regions. The most successfuldrought support programs have been the moreproactive and long-term approaches aimed athelping those farmers undergoing change andthose who wish to exit out of farming. Aidingfarmers to plan, transition between, or out offarming in a respectable and professional man-ner is vital for maintaining the health of thecommunity and region.

Finally, another key element of effective gov-ernment support identified by workers andfarmers is that of practice-oriented researchsupport services and programs. Again, despitethe political debates and policy reviews empha-sising strategic planning and research-basedfarming practices, Mildura and the surround-ing region has been affected by a series of clo-sures of government research facilities: a Com-monwealth Scientific and Industrial ResearchOrganisation (CSIRO) agricultural research fa-cility at Merbein and the DPI Dryland researchstation at Walpeup. Interviewees describe theeffects of these closures below:

Having those [research] facilities just helps somuch with an overall socio-demographic, whenyou’ve got people that have got their PhDs behindthem and are engaged in that learning and passingthat learning on to the community, and all of asudden that’s lost. We tried to place the argumentthat this area is at the heart of some of this climatechange and variability, why wouldn’t you start

engaging that science in these areas? But, wedidn’t win.(CEO – MDC)

We keep hearing the importance of R&D whenyou’re adapting and changing, if you don’t havethat component, then you start to fall behind.Government argues that there are now privateproviders who give the same service, but farmerswithout the dollars to pay for it miss out. So theinformation that needs to flow through to farmersto make decisions is not there.(Senior Planner – Department of Planning andCommunity Development, DPCD)

Practice-oriented and industry-based research,training and education are all recognised as be-ing vital to supporting adaptation and mitiga-tion to climate change and drought. Yet, in anarea at the forefront of such climatic changesand events, these readily accessible researchand training services are dwindling, with sig-nificant effects on the future of farms in theregion. Indeed, many interviewees noted thesuccess achieved on farms in the vicinity ofthese research stations, which were constantlytrialling and using new on-farm technologiespromoted by research staff. In addition, theexit of these services has a largely unacknowl-edged affect on the morale of the community as“yet another person or service leaves” (ProjectOfficer – DPI), draining the diversity and en-ergy of the community and its leaders.

The picture that local farmers, governmentand NGO workers, and community represen-tatives reveal is often one of distress, sadnessand deterioration – conditions that require im-mediate attention and support. Yet all acknowl-edge that the short-term welfare and exit grantprograms supported by Exceptional Circum-stances (EC) provisions are far from ideal inthe longer-term outcomes for farmers and theregion as a whole – promoting welfare de-pendence and avoiding long-term planning andmanagement of farming lands and practices. Atpresent, those workers engaging with EC ‘on-the-ground’ are merely attempting to utilise itin the most effective ways they can, to try andgain relief for those farmers who are struggling.

There are many apparent criticisms of someof the short-term and crisis management re-sponses to drought services, yet it is crucial that



such criticisms do not result in an immediateend to social support services to these farm-ers. We argue instead, that what is needed isa transition of government support to drought-affected rural regions – one that includes short-term social support measures with long-termplanning and programs that facilitate strug-gling farmers’ to move on to more viable, orentirely new futures, in a dignified way. Therecent reviews of the NDP, and a range ofsubsequent pilot programs between the Com-monwealth and Western Australian Govern-ments, support these assertions with a focus onfunding strategic, integrated and ongoing farmbusiness planning programs, ongoing tax man-agement practices through Farm ManagementDeposits (FMDs), and temporary income sup-port based on demonstrated individual needand facilitated through Centrelink outreach ser-vices (Keogh et al. 2011) (see previous Table 2for examples). Key to such a holistic approachwill be to broaden the focus on drought andfarmers, to notions of ongoing drying and morewide-reaching support for the rural communi-ties and towns so intimately bound with thefarming industry.

Conclusion

In light of impending revisions to the droughtpolicy framework, it is vital to put current gov-ernment programs and support practices in theirrural, drought-affected and lived contexts. Forgovernments and agencies working in this areaof climatic and rural change, the challenges areextensive. Critical health and well-being needsare evident and require immediate support.However, long-term planning and investment inalternative futures is severely wanting. Indeed,it is the historical emphasis on short-term cri-sis management responses that has created andexacerbated many problems facing these farm-ing regions. From an on-the-ground perspec-tive, it is clear that ongoing welfare subsidiesalone are not sufficient to help farmers in thelong-term, but must instead form part of morestrategic policy frameworks that support farm-ers and rural communities to transition to newfarming systems or out of farming entirely–

in ways that raise self-esteem, develop skillsand maintain dignity.

Endnotes

1. In this article we define small regional townsin rural Australia as those consisting of pop-ulation levels of approximately 50,000 or lessthat contribute disproportionately to Australia’sagricultural productivity.

2. This article presents a selection of findingsfrom a larger research project funded by theNational Climate Change Adaptation ResearchFacility (NCCARF) as part of the Synthesis andIntegrative Research Program: Historical CaseStudies.

3. While there are many drought support pro-grams, most government expenditure is on theECRP and ECIRS. Expenditure on these pro-grams increased substantially in recent yearsand in 2007–2008, the Commonwealth Gov-ernment spent just over $1 billion on just twoprograms (Productivity Commission 2009).

4. All interviewees are indentified by positiontitle and, where applicable, the title of the or-ganisation they represent.

References

Barr, N. 2005. ‘Understanding Rural Victoria.’ Vic-toria: Department of Primary Industries.

Botterill, L. 2005. ‘Late Twentieth Century Ap-proaches to Living with Uncertainty: TheNational Drought Policy.’ In L. Botterill and D.Wilhite (eds). From Disaster Response to RiskManagement: Australia’s National Drought Pol-icy. Dordrecht: Springer.

Botterill, L. 2009. ‘The Role of Agrarian Sentimentin Australian Rural Policy.’ In F. Merlan and D.Raftery (eds). Tracking Rural Change: Commu-nity, Policy and Technology in Australia, NewZealand and Europe. Acton, ACT: ANU E-Press,59–78.

Brunckhorst, D. and I. Reeve. 2006. ‘A Geographyof Place: Principles and Application for Defining‘Ecocivic’ Resource Governance Regions.’ Aus-tralian Geographer 37(2):147–166.

Burke, T. 2010. ‘ABARE Outlook Opening Ad-dress.’ ABARE Outlook Conference 2010.Canberra: National Convention Centre. Available



at: http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2010/s2824380.htm [Date accessed: 2/3/10].

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritageand the Arts (DEWHA) 2009. ‘Murray-DarlingBasin Small Block Irrigators Exit Grant Package.’Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/water/programs/entitlement-purchasing/small-block-irrigators.html [Date accessed: 4/2/10].

Department of Primary Industries Victoria (DPIVictoria) 2011. Mid-term Evaluation SummaryReport. Melbourne: Department of PrimaryIndustries. Available at: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/about-agriculture/strategy-and-policy/future-farming [Date accessed: 2/9/2011].

Drought Policy Review Expert Social Panel 2008.‘It’s about People: Changing Perspectives on Dry-ness.’ Report to the Minister for Agriculture,Fisheries and Forestry. Canberra: Australian Gov-ernment.

Edwards, B., M. Gray, and B. Hunter. 2009. ‘A Sun-burnt Country: the Economic and Financial Im-pact of Drought on Rural and Regional Familiesin Australia in An Era of Climate Change.’ Aus-tralian Journal of Labour Economics 12(1):109–131.

Forth, G. 2001. ‘Following the Yellow Brick Roadand the Future of Australia’s Country Towns.’ Re-gional Policy and Practice 9(2):4–10.

Golding, B. and C. Campbell. 2009. ‘Learning tobe drier in the southern Murray-Darling Basin:Setting the scene.’ Australian Journal of AdultLearning 49(3):423–450.

Hennessy, K., R. Fawcett, D. Kirono, F. Mpelasokaa,D. Jones, J. Bathols, P. Whetton, M. StaffordSmith, M. Howden, C. Mitchell and N. Plummer.2008. ‘An Assessment of the Impact of ClimateChange on the Nature and Frequency of Excep-tional Climatic Events.’ Canberra: Bureau of Me-teorology and CSIRO.

James, P. 1973. ‘Economic Policy for Drought.’ InJ. Lovett (ed.). The Environmental, Economic andSocial Significance of Drought. Sydney: Angusand Robertson.

Keogh, M., R. Granger and S. Middleton. 2011.Drought Pilot Review Panel: A Review of the Pi-

lot of Drought Reform Measures in Western Aus-tralia. Canberra: Commonwealth Government.

Mallee Catchment Management Authority (MCMA)2009. 2008-09 Drought Impact: Irrigation StatusReport for the Sunraysia Pumped Irrigation Dis-tricts. Final Report, 7 May.

Mildura Development Corporation (MDC) 2009.Mildura Region Economic Profile: An Analysisof the People, Economy and Industries of the Mil-dura Region. MDC, Mildura.

Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) 2011.Proposed Basin Plan. Canberra: CommonwealthGovernment.

Nelson, R., P. Kokic, S. Crimp, H. Meinke andS. M. Howden. 2010. ‘The Vulnerability of Aus-tralian Rural Communities to Climate Variabilityand Change: Part I –Conceptualising and Mea-suring Vulnerability.’ Environmental Science &Policy 13(1):8–17.

O’Toole, K. 2001. ‘Competition or Collaboration:Local Economic Development, Sustainability andSmall Towns.’ In M. F. Rogers and Y. M. J.Collins (eds). Future of Australia’s country towns.Bendigo, Vic: Centre for Sustainable RegionalCommunities & La Trobe University.

Productivity Commission 2009. GovernmentDrought Support Inquiry Report. Canberra:Australian Government, February.

RM Consulting Group (RMCG) 2009. NorthernLoddon Mallee: Aspirations and Priorities. Mel-bourne: Regional Development Victoria (RDV).

Smith, D. 2003. ‘Climate Extremes in Australia: TheRole of Risk Management.’ Interaction 31(1):7–13.

Urwin, K. and A. Jordan. 2008. ‘Does Public PolicySupport or Undermine Climate Change Adapta-tion? Exploring Policy Interplay Across Differ-ent Scales of Governance.’ Global EnvironmentalChange 18:180–191.

Whetton, P. H., K. L. McInnes, R. N. Jones,K. J. Hennessy, R. Suppiah, C. M. Page, J.Barthols and P. J. Durack. 2005. ‘Australian Cli-mate Change Projections for Impact Assessmentand Policy Application: A Review.’ Canberra:CSIRO.


Short-term emergency or recurring climatic extreme: a rural town perspective on drought policy

Documents