Janet Congues

PhD Student

The Australian National University

Australia

Goulburn Valley

Melbourne, Victoria

• Introduced risk management approach in 1992

• Drought removed from the Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements

• Farmers to manage for drought as they would any other risk to

their business

• Drought Policy Review 2004

• Exceptional Circumstance Declaration triggered if:

1. Drought was extreme

2. Drought considered a once in a lifetime event

3. Downturn in production impacting significantly on

agricultural economics

• Drought Policy Review 2008

• Scientific, social and economic review

• Drought could no longer be considered an aberration but a

normal aspect of Australia’s climate variability.

• National Drought Policy places onus on people

who farmed to manage for drought individually

• Suicide statistics suggest one male farmer

suicided every four days

• Federal Government declares most of Australia

is experiencing Exceptional Circumstances

• Victorian State Government announces drought

package that includes funding for local

government drought workers to support rural

communities to socially connect

Individual response Manage drought as

calculable risk

Independent of government support

Drought inevitable part of climatic variability

Only the viable farm businesses survive

Developing adaptive practices to deal with periods of dryness

Collective response Drought unpredictable

Drought as natural disaster

Sense of urgency to provide support

Suicide prevention strategies needed

Drought an aberration

Things will return to normal when it rains

Social connection

Initial funding - 4 Jan 2007 - 4 Aug 2007:• Created a sense of urgency

• Had to get to the people who farmed quickly

• Women = quickest access to the men who farmed

With extended funding through to 24 Dec 2009:• No end in sight for the drought

• Normalising of drought and climate change = loss of funding

• 2008 Drought Policy Review reinforced risk management

approach

• Arm rural communities to fend for themselves

• Accessing women deemed best way

to get mental health and well-being

information to men

• Assumption: women are the

glue that holds farming

families together during times

of drought

• Does this negate men’s

responsibility for caring for

their own mental health and

well-being?

Aims of SWSF

• 500 women

• 5 events

• 5 weeks

• Designed by local women for

their local women

• 2 components – well-being

information and activity of

choice – they chose pampering

“More days of laughter and pampering please, we need to know

people care,” (Greater Shepparton City Council 2008b, Appendix).

“Empowering women to look after themselves so they can care for

family and community – women are very strong creatures with a lot

to give,” (Greater Shepparton City Council 2008b, Appendix).

“Great event to catch up, and listen to people talk on their

profession and also to enjoy pampering,” (Greater Shepparton City

Council 2008b, Appendix).

“If farming conditions remain as they are at present – there will be

even more need for people to get together and share hardships,”

(Greater Shepparton City Council 2008b, Appendix).

1. Neoliberal narratives reinforcing a risk management approaches

to drought, failed to support people who farmed in the Goulburn

Valley to deal with the extremity of Australia’s Millennium

Drought (2002-2010).

2. Opportunities to connect socially gave people who farmed an

opportunity to not feel so isolated and to better understand the

way drought was affecting others (2007-2009).

3. This brief presentation is part of my thesis titled ‘The

knowledge of women who farm: drought in the Goulburn Valley,

Australia, 2006-2010.

4. Further reading: Congues, J. 2014, ‘Promoting collective well-

being as a means of defying the odds: drought in the Goulburn

Valley, Australia’, Rural Society, vol. 23, iss. 3.

Any questions?