Both points are relevant to my argument that it is more than the land itself that is transferred. Iaquinta et al. (1999) point out that as life expectancy increases, the transition time changes. In addition, in developed countries, the ‘empty nest’ and the fluctuations of agricultural production also mean that, in many cases, the next generation has already left the farm well before there is any serious contemplation of transfer. It is often difficult to entice the younger generation to return to the property and, in many cases, current farmers are often reluctant to pass on the stress and uncertainty. Research in Queensland and New South Wales in the mid 1990s highlighted the dilemma that many farmers felt about their role as ‘stewards’ for their children on the one hand, and the demands and stresses they were themselves experiencing on the other, which they felt reluctant to ‘pass on’ as an inheritance (Stehlik et al. 1999).

We are already well aware that rural land management tends not to be able to afford employed labour. In the WA south coast region, evidence suggests that any instrumental ‘transfer’ of property is therefore more likely to be a sale—often to a neighbour^[6]—who of course is usually also within the age range that we are considering. This is linked to a trend towards larger properties in the north-western part of the Albany hinterland. The other aspect of timing is that changes in agricultural production—evident in the south coast particularly in relation to plantation timber, grape production for wine and smaller properties with more ‘boutique’-style horticulture—appear to be more attractive than traditional broadacre systems, and can, of course, be carried out closer to the regional centres (thus enabling a combining of lifestyle with off-farm income potential). Across the Great Southern region itself, the median size of properties has reduced by about 16 per cent in the past five years. The pressure is on those who are currently on the property to remain there.

Iaquinta et al. (1999) ask: ‘[H]ow does population ageing influence the ages of donors and recipients? Do the family life stages of persons involve change with population ageing? Is the recipients’ life cycle situation important in relation to agricultural production?’

This aspect is of importance if we are considering ‘rural futures’. The transfer by the older generation of social and cultural capital—other than financial capital (that is, the farm)—is very important in relation to any sustainability of the rural sector. As we are all now well aware, social and cultural capital are essential to the integration of networks, trust relationships, mutuality and the essential health of any community. This has become an overt issue for those who are focusing on research of increased production:

One of the positive advantages of the Albany hinterland is that it is relatively accessible to Albany and Denmark and the ‘drive-in/drive-out’ opportunities could well encourage more intergenerational transitions. Nevertheless, at present, the transition is a fragile one, with there being no strategic planning either within agriculture or within the NRM sectors, while the governance of both sectors remains essentially in the hands of the older generation, and the younger generation does not demand its place at the table. Iaquinta et al. (1999:5) ask (in relation to the developing world), ‘[W]hat could the elderly gain from such protracted transfers?…[Perhaps] to create intergenerational exchanges while keeping back enough to assure that the process will continue and that the quality of life in their own ageing period will not suffer.’

Is there a similar trend in the Albany hinterland? We do not know and will not know unless detailed empirical research is undertaken. We need to ensure that any discussions about rural futures and NRM start taking a good hard look at who is involved and how the transition of knowledge and power between the generations is being promoted and encouraged. This is not only at the level of government policy, but practically at the level of service delivery, extension and research.

Iaquinta et al. (1999) ask: ‘Does population ageing influence the composition of assets that are being transferred between generations? Do the exchange relationships change? Does population ageing affect the gender aspect? What is the impact of these on agricultural production?’