Chapter 6 9.1.09...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

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


CHAPTER 6


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)


CHAPTER 6


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.


CHAPTER 6


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


CHAPTER 6


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


CHAPTER 6


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


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†


Part-time farmer 13 20



Hybrid farmer 8 9




Struggling farmer 2 2


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.


CHAPTER 6


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


Figure 58. Property sizes in the Yarra GWRegion

(data source: property layer, VicMap, DSE)


CHAPTER 6


145

Planning Zones


Yarra GWRegion boundary


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.


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).


CHAPTER 6


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



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)


CHAPTER 6


149


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


Part time farmer 14 16




Struggling commercial farmer 4 7



Hybrid farmer 7 4


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)


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%)


CHAPTER 3:


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


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.


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.


CHAPTER 3:


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

Documents

Chapter 6 9.1.09...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