Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION AND AIMS 1 . 1 THE CONTEXT There is a nostalgic view still evident that the countryside has a quality of changelessness(Armidale Express 16/2/2002:3). In many ways this was expressed in the landscape paintings of the English countryside by John Constable during the early nineteenth century (Gadney 1976). His Salisbury Cathedral from the Meadows (1829), The Hay Wain (1821) and Wivenhoe Park (1817), as shown in Plate 1, depict landscapes that are are synonymous with this bucolic view of rural society. PLATE 1. Constable's Wivenhoe Park', Essex,1817, now the site of the University of Essex (Source:Gadney 1976:50). However, like all facets of life, the countryside has never been static but in a constant state of evolutionary change brought about by the human need to create a productivist landscape(Walmsley 2002). The only constant is change itself. 'Wave front' analysis looks at history as a succession of rolling waves of change focussing attention not on continuation but on discontinui ties innovation and breakouts(Toffler 1980:29). 1 Quite significant changes occurred in the rural landscape during the Agricultural Revolution in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Until this time farming practices in the English countryside had changed little from the Middle Ages with plowshares made of wood and fields laying fallow every three years. Scientific advances with the introduction of machinery, such as the iron seed planting drill, the threshing machine and the 'enclosure' of land formerly subject to communal use, accelerated the rate of change in the countryside(Kerridge 1967). Another example can be seen in the clearance of the Highlands of Scotland during the early nineteenth century whereby the land was forcibly depopulated in favour of sheep(Prebble 1969). The twentieth century saw this process of evolutionary change continue at an exponential rate, particularly in Britain since the 1970s. Here the rural transformation can be clearly identified with the construction of motorways, the grubbing out of hedgrows , the harvesting of water and the expansion of urban areas (Blunden & Curry 1985). Indeed, Freeman(1967:2) noted that in some parts of England, particularly in the Southeast and Midlands, people were wondering just how much of the rural landscape would be left by the end of the 20th century. In the United States too, it has been estimated that 1 million acres(400,000 hectares) of farmland have been lost each year to urban sprawl. On the Great Plains this has resulted in many remote rural areas haemorrhaging population at rates of 10 to 20 percent over recent decades with the median age of the remaining residents in the 60s«Mitchell 2004:8). In Washington there has now been a call for the establishment of a rural heritage program to help 'save' the American countryside(National Trust for Historic Preservation 2004b). This concern for the future of rural heritage has also been expressed in China as the nation's cities encroach on the countryside(People's Daily 2003). In Canada too, the change to the rural countryside due to restructuring since 2 the 1950s has seen a 70 percent loss of all farms. There has been the elimination of virtually all farm input manufacturing. The grain elevator system at prairie delivery points, for example, has been reduced by 80 percent(Troughton 2003:28). The once extensive rural landscape has now been partially emptied with flow-on effects to village schools, churches and traditional rural social life. In Australia the impact of changing social, political and economic conditions on farming has resulted in the average age of farmers rising to 57 and the children of farmers often showing a disinterest in continuing with the family farm. Thus, in 2003 farming in NSW was described as a "sunset industry" (Peters 2003) while the Australian Bush Heritage Fund was established by interested parties in order to 'buy back the farm' - the purchasing of farm properties in order to maintain biodiversity and the rural genre(Landline 2003). Clearly, what we have come to think of as the traditional agricultural landscape and the family-owned enterprises that have moulded it, is under great pressure in many parts of the globe. The Clarence Valley of northern New South Wales, the geographical focus of this thesis, has witnessed some of these dramatic changes to the rural landscape since the 1970s, changes initiated mainly by the restructuring of the once ubiquitous dairy industry. Yet this densely settled, diverse agricultural area is regarded by residents and visitors alike as authentic Australiana (Derrett & Welch 2001:3). This scene is epitomised in Plate 2. The evolution of the dairy industry in this valley from the late nineteenth century has been marked by many changes brought about by exogenous and endogenous forces. This includes technological developments and domestic and international political decision making including the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC) and recent 3 PLNT§ 2 Rural Landscape on the Dorcigo Plateau, Clarence VallQy, 200). deregulation policies. This has resulted in difficult f i nanci al decisions being made at the farm level which have also been sUbject to the twin environmental problems of flood and drought. During the 19305 over two thousand commercial dairy farms operated in the valley - this has now declined to just ten(Daily Examiner 6 / 1/2001:1). Because the dairy industry was such a dominant activity in the region for over 70 years it has l eft its mark on the landscape and the community. The relics of this productivist landscape can still be found in the a rea and as such, forms part o f the assets of the 'cultural heritage' for the community. These assets, in turn may provide the basis of a post-productive landscape, whereby some farmers may be enticed fram their perceived traditional role as producers of an agricultural commodity - milk - towards supplying an agritourism service to an i ncreasingly mobile consumer market (Walford,2003a:51). In Europe, for example, the Common Agricultural Policy(CAP) of the European Union(EU) pays farmers not to produce agricultural output. Tourism rather than farming has become a 4 major rural activity in some areas(Walmsley 2002:433;Ilbery et al.1996:306). By 1989 over 1,800 farmers in the UK had opted to take land out of production during the previous two years under a'set-aside' scheme with the land beiny earmarked for woodland, non-agricultural use and fallow (Robinson 1990: 161). In south-east England (sussex, Surrey and Kent), however, this move to a post-productivist landscape has not occurred as farmers have continued to intensify and specialise their agricultural operations (Walford 2003b:501). In many parts of the globe since the 1970s industrial heritage tourism has revived abandoned factories and mines such as in the USA(Rudd & Davis 1998}, Canada(Summerby-Murray 2002) and Australia(Cegielski et al.2001; Department of Mines and Energy 1996). Similarly, diversification and pluriactivity may be options for a flagging dairy industry in the Clarence valley in what might be called rural heritage tourism. Agritourism is a relatively recent innovation within the tourist industry and has become widespread in the USA(Adam 2002 i Nickerson et al. 2001) and Europe(Tagliabue 1998). Rural tourism in Australia is a concept that has been established for several decades(Dept.of Industry, Science and Plgte ). The 'Big Banana' at Coffs Harbouc, opened in 1964 (20031. 5 Tourism 1996) with attractions such as the 'Big Banana' at Coffs Harbour NSW(see Plate 3), which opened in 1964 and the -Big Pineapple' on the Sunshine Coast of Queensland which opened in 1971. These are two examples of working enterprises associated with 'highway tourism'. However, it has been suggested that care must be taken with tourist attractions similar to these that they are not based on 'transported' cultural objects to attain a highway location(Walker 1991). 1.2 RESBARCH AIII & OBJBC'ZIVBS ··tJ.jti·iJt~·····" .·.~A.·.·.;c;;,ifll~:~~•• t.~•• t:... ·.;,·· ·.• ·:·.t~,,.;.·.~·i::r .•• ·.•. ··c .. <:Q.• ldc.c.c .•...•.•.•· •• _ .•• ;; ••.•••• t1.~••. ~.~R ••• · ~~:,~i~ta.;""~t:'$'()f'·l:~..,)c ·"ll..c.ilii~~;'X~~~~ .. ::: ..... :<-:-:.:: .......... ::-: ..... ;. ...... :.... .....::.,. ... \ .i,.t:ij··~<> ... '. .. .'. In order to achieve this aim, five key research questions have been identified: 1. What is the 'cultural heritage' of the Clarence Valley dairy industry? 2. How has the agritourism industry been developed for economic development in areas outside the Clarence Valley both in Australia and overseas? 3. To what extent does agritourism already exist in the Clarence Valley and what potential is there for the cultural heritage assets of the dairy industry to be successfully developed along similar lines to those in other areas for agritourism ? 4. If this is a potentially viable undertaking for the Clarence Valley, what strategies would need to be adopted in order to bring this to fruition? 5. will the development of a dairy heritage agritourism industry in the Clarence Valley help to preserve dairying as an active industry in the Region? 6 Figure 1 Local Government Areas of the Clarence Valley (Prior to ATJaJgamation :in February, 2004) G!'_!;!.fiQ[1 _MacJ~an eristine$_<M!:In! ~nhufSt Area (square km) 83 1049 6800 3166 Population 16,666 17,360 10,636 4,111 (ABS, 20(1) Richmond River T cntcrficld Coprnanhunt Shire Maclean Shire r.nfta ity Pristine Waters Shire Guyra Q' ,' :=>OI£:=.. I£ =,,,.m Dumaresq 7 1.3 SIGNIFICANCE The Lower Clarence Valley encompasses Grafton City and the four shires of Maclean, Copmanhurst and Pristine Waters(see Figure 1). In the year 2000 Ulmarra and Nymboida councils were amalgamated to form the Pristine Waters Council. This was followed by the amalgamation of the four councils in the Valley during February 2004 to form the lClarence River Council'(Coastal Views 26/2/2004:1).