Editorial
Stewart Lockie
Professor of Sociology, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra
Frank Vanclay
Rural Sociology, Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research, University of Tasmania, TAS
PP: 001 - 001
Article Text
In 1989, the Commonwealth Government responded to a joint submission from the Australian Conservation Foundation and the National Farmers Federation by establishing the National Landcare Program. At the heart of this program was the promotion and support of community Landcare groups; localised groups who take responsibility to deal with problems besetting the sustainability of agriculture and rural communities. Since then, Landcare has grown beyond anyone's expectations. There are now something like 2,200 groups nationally, and almost 30 percent of Australian farms are represented in one of these.
Understanding Landcare is fundamental to a sociological understanding of contemporary Australian rural society. Although much has been written on Landcare, it is spread across a number of disciplines and media. Some is technical, some is procedural, some political, some economic and some social. We would argue, with most of our contributors, that Landcare is a fundamentally social process with profound social implications. It is, therefore, appropriate and timely to bring together some of the work trying to come to terms with these social implications.
This special double edition of Rural Society deals with Landcare policy. Responses range from reviewing the effectiveness of the Landcare Program in meeting its objectives; critiquing the assumptions or formulation of the program; to explorations of the social, political and environmental implications of Landcare. A theme running through the papers is a concern with the language associated with Landcare, and how it describes and explains social relations. This involves more than looking at 'the reality' behind 'the rhetoric'; contributors identify key Landcare concepts, such as 'empowerment', 'participation', 'partnership', and 'community', and how they may explain away power relationships amongst the myriad actors involved in Landcare. Relationships explored by contributors to this edition include those based on gender, governance and capital.
Though it continues to receive popular and media acclaim, it is increasingly common to hear people talk of frustration with Landcare. Farmers complain that Landcare is of little value in helping them get 'works on the ground', while facilitators and coordinators question their effectiveness as 'change agents'. There are no simple solutions or policy fixes that will alleviate these frustrations. We suggest that a sociological understanding of the Landcare phenomenon can lead to more appropriate interventions. Projects such as the development of a national communication strategy for Landcare must take account of the issues of power raised by contributors here. Failure to do so will lead only to new frustrations and heightened concern that Landcare does not, in practice, live up to either its participatory and egalitarian rhetoric, or its potential to transform the Australian landscape.
eContent Home
