Landcare Speaks is primarily established as your opportunity to make input and comment on the development of the Australian Framework for Landcare .
The Australian Government and the National Landcare Facilitator Project team (a consultant to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) are supporting the landcare community in developing this framework by providing the opportunity for all landcarers (including smaller groups and individuals) to contribute. Sessions seeking input on the framework at state landcare conferences or state-based workshops will be sponsored and a National Landcare Forum will be hosted in South Australia in March 2010, where it is planned that the Framework will be presented for wider discussion.
You are invited to contribute through this Blog and to advise others of this opportunity as well. More information on the framework development and background can be found on the National Landcare Facilitator website.
Community Landcare speaks….comments
This is a good document encompassing a variety of views for discussion.
Issues …
Whilst the ‘volunteer’ nature of Landcare is an inherent and essential part of Landcare, managing volunteers’ in a safe and professional manner requires a system and staff structure to facilitate this.
We talk about capacity building and some groups have done this very well, only to be in a position that they have to shed staff due to lack of continuity in resources.
Partnerships are vital to achieving long term outcomes. These partnerships with Councils’, landowners, Regional bodies and Government staff take years to develop, and regrettably can deteriorate very quickly.
Yes,local volunteers need support. “Ground truthing” of larger initiatives is essential, when landholders suspicions about “big government” need to be allayed. Hence the need for co-ordinated, professional back-up, and an assurance of maintenance funding. As many specific, practical small projects also concern local landholders, there is a real sense of despair that these are being submerged by larger issues and funding for these is non-existent. The cost of fuel and the pressures of survival militate against many of our members attending meetings and our monthly newsletter is vital to our survival as a group. It neds support too.( Sec/treas Brisbane Valley-Kilcoy Landcare Group)
I’m trying to get my mind around what a “framework” means. It sounds suspiciously like a Canberra euphemism for apparent action with no resources. The responses reported in the “Community landcare speaks” paper could be equally a framework for motherhood. Where is the involvement of indgenous traditional owners and their unique relationship to country? Where is the impending, overwhelming impact of climate change? Where is the realisation that Australia and the individual states will face at least two election cycles arguing about budget deficits and shortage of funds for everything, let alone NRM (which has usual come in around last anyway)?
Within the proposed timeframe for responses much of southern Australia will be flat strap trying to grow and harvest a crop for the first time in years, or trying to figure out which partner goes out to work to support the dairy cows feed bill, or just surviving. The community who is actually out there at the coal face has little or no time to spend on endless engagement exercises unless there is a reasonable expectation they will produce concrete (ie resources, respect, real influence) results.
I’d very much like to think this will do the job but I fear that it’s just another gabfest which will have little influence on the landcare groups out there doing things in the real world.
Hopefully Marine industries are included in the new landcare framework ! Facilitator assistance for coastal/offshore industry wasnt really covered in the last model and remains a gapping hole. Happy to assist to make this possible.
I’m am interested in how the achievements of the Landcare movement can be communicated using a range of technologies. While the document mentions knowledge-brokering, shared-learnings and communication etc. in response to each question the need for a clear, community-owned communication strategy needs to be a central plank in developing a future framework. I will give it some thought and post comments in the future.
Kevin as a Landcarer here on the mid-north coast of NSW and with a background in Knowledge Management and Process Improvement, I am amazed at the lack of “corperate knowledge” not only about “place” but also “organisation”. A knowledge repository and the encouragement to document what was done, why it was how it was done how it was maintained and what was the outcome and the level of achievement to the objective sought…..
Our ‘corperate knowlege” is much in need of repair I feel. And from my view the starting point would be concensus on a taxonomy of landcaring and a glossary that reflects what we do and what we care about.
And tools….did I forget tools…yes we should have a full toolkit to capture that documentation…..in NSW the Communitybuilders site, or from my old experience the National Health Information Databse provide excellent examples of what can be done.
Hi Larry
I could not agree more. My main concern is that many projects in the Landcare and natural resource management sector are written up into reports at the end of the project and then filed. But I’m not sure where they are filed. I would like to learn from other people’s experiences.
I have been working in partnership with Landcare NSW and their PlaceStories project of publishing digital stories to the web (www.landcarensw.placestories.com). Digital stories is using a story structure of who, why, what, where, how, what did we learn and what would we do differently next time, as a way of documenting projects and sharing experiences. While it is still early days in this project I do believe digital stories and online collaboration can be an effective communication tool to promote and report on projects.
I think the Framework needs to have some emphasis on communicating and collaborating on projects and sharing of knowledge. Through this we can build a more sustainable Australia.
There’s a critical question missing in the “Landcare Speaks” document. A close reading of the answers to Q2 “What should the main elements of a framework include or consider?” show workshop participants want three things:
. clarity about the principles of Landcare;
. commitment by government to community-based action; and,
. clarity about the role that community Landcare plays in the NRM system.
But the questions that follow Q2 don’t pursue the last of these, and that’s the question that has to be asked. Where does community landcare fit in the NRM system? Is it a shell of un-staffed volunteer activity to be kept on hold, in the wings, until government investment targets a particular landscape? Or is it an on-going level of action improving landscapes that needs to operate permanently alongside targeted investment to specific landscapes?
Do we need the people who own and manage a good percentage of Australia to be part of planning for landscapes facing climate change, or do we leave that to government? If we do, then how will government connect to those people, if not through the locally credible medium of Landcare groups? The question to ask is:
“What are the mutual responsibilities, between Landcare and policy makers, funders and regional bodies, that will enable Landcare to make its unique contribution?”
Ross you ask important questions.
And like me you would be very concerned that the Rural and Regional Senate Inquiry on NRM that basically finished in November of 2008 has taken 9 more months to produce a report. And then on that day (Aug 11) the Chair of the committee rose in the Senate and said “bare with us another week (Aug 18) and then “Actually lets make that two months (Oct 26)….thats about a week after all major state conferences except the Northern Territory I think and about two weeks before the closure of comment on the framework (Nov 14 from memory)
Community Landcare….Hhmmmmm !!
I am looking at Landcare groups and what it is which keeps them going when little funding gets through to them. Firstly this blog seems to be in the ‘wrong place’ – when i found this after reading theAug 09 newsletter it didn’t appear that anyone was chatting – so can it be revised to show this thread to all newcomers please. Secondly … well lets get chatting hey! and I think the grass-roots landcares need to be in on this conversation
My problem is i don’t understand what was wrong with landcare. Landcare as a national network was run on the smell of an oily rag. It could deliver on ground outcomes and be an entry point for all agencies covering all manner of environmental messages providing a bridge between the community and regional NRM bodies. The landcare movement seemed to have sound footings and principles valued by the NRM and wider community.
We are now going to hear about new frameworks, and over arching policy about what landcare means in the next decade and how it may optimise and capitalise and be able contribute as only landcare can. In my view when something has been annihilated there is generally a mourning process and we commenerate the passing. Will the new framework take this into account. I don’t believe we have seen the full extent and resignation that grass roots landcare is feeling. I encourage those that see a brighter future than I do for landcare but your life has been made unnecessarily and fundamentally much harder under this current federal government.
Bronte There is anything wrong with Landcare it just needs re-freshing every 10 years, needs several strong spokespeople and a strong supporting commitment from Government. It is more critical in 2009 than in any other time to keep engaging the community as our resources run down, our population keeps growing and Climate Change issues take centre stage. On the international front Landcare is starting to do well after 10 years of hard work by many hundreds of people as different countries see the benefit of the Landcare approach. It is certainly time to revitalise it here in Australia as it becomes a great export opportunity for Australian skills.
It’s a funny old world. have a look at the two docs at http://www.landcarefacilitator.com.au/public/content/ViewCategory.aspx?id=47
Maybe cut and paste, the contents are still relevant.
I’m looking- which documents exactly please??
Hi
having stumbled across this website, its interesting the limited number of responses and conversation on what is a necessary national debate about the future of landcare. Firstly, the context of landcare is needed to be defined in any future framework. Should it still be considered as a network of community groups or should it be allowed to evolve into a recognised natural resource management system that demonstrates sustainable agriculture given farmers manage over 60% of the Australian landscape. It concerns me that this debate is not in the main public arena where more on ground natural resource managers can have a say. From my perspective, having been involved with ‘landcare’ in all its forms since the late 1980’s its time it was allowed to evolve into a recognition system that enables sustainable food and fibre production and ecosystem services with cost sharing of the public good benefits with on ground managers who provide these services. So what capacity is needed to allow this to work? With the death of much of the state agencies extension programs and services since the early 1990’s there is a need for honest brokers of technical knowledge in flora, fauna, soils, water and sustainable production. Its this space that I see landcare groups could provide a vital role in providing the technical capacity and expertise to assist restore and maintain sustainable landscapes and sustainable human communities. From my experience this capacity within landcare groups is not currently present consistently across Australia. Of course this type of capacity needs to be publicly funded to some extent but we need to ensure we get the best possible technical expertise available to assist natural resource managers. A discussion paper that proposed a future direction for sustainable agriculture (recognising this largely as landcare) can be found at:
http://www.une.edu.au/aglaw/Landcare%2011%20Position%20Paper.pdf
I would like to suggest this discussion paper that was supported by a diverse group of stakeholders be considered within the proposed landcare framework
kind regards
Jacky Williams
Some great stuff in the discussion paper – not sure how I never came across it before. I particularly like the concept of Brand Australia which is what I think Landcare should be about.
COMMUNITY LANDCARE SPEAKS
Introduction
I was not at the first discussion that produced “Community Landcare Speaks”, but I have been invited to comment on it. My first reading of it left me overwhelmed – it had everything in it, including the kitchen sink!! Instead of making a critique of what was in the document I decided (perhaps for my benefit before any one else’s) to start with a “blank” document and write what I thought and see how it compares.
Q1. Could a landcare framework assist community landcare?
Of course it could, provided it embodied the framework of a true partnership between the volunteer community (the workers) and the various levels of government (the source of money). If the framework is to be “based on a true partnership” then something like a pre-nuptial agreement needs to be produced based on two independent bodies wanting to cooperative for mutual benefit, but desiring equal status, respect and trust to be the foundation of that partnership. What would such an agreement look like that took into account some form of equality of both sides??
Q2. What should the main elements of a framework include or consider?
The document produces a whole “wish”(?) list of things – to the extent that I am asking myself – if I had to nominate just a few things to put on the list what would they be? What are the basic requirements needed to make the partnership work?
o The framework would have to guarantee a degree of financial independence (and autonomy) from the Government and its main agency in this partnership – the NRM Boards. While money might be available from the Boards to the various Landcare Groups, there should be sufficient income from the governments made available to the Groups to maintain their independent existence. I would see that to include (for each state):
a website,
a regional landcare coordinator (probably part-time) to liaise with all relevant community groups contributing to “landcare” or supporting landscape principles, and
financial support for at least an annual forum in the region.
For each Board, there would be a Community Volunteer Officer position (part- time?) who, together with the Board’s Regional Landcare Coordinator, would be the main people coordinating communication between the two partners. (but of course not limited to just those two).
o When any landcare group receives money from the NRM Board to undertake a project, then the bureaucratic (administrative) requirements will be the responsibility of the Board’s Community Volunteer Officer (receiving assistance from the Regional Landcare Coordinator).
o As the performance of any Landcare Group is assessed (monitored) by the Regional NRM Board so too will the performance of the regional Board be monitored by the regional Landcare Groups with the understanding that required changes by either partner on the other partner are respected and implemented, provided such changes do not interfere with the autonomy of either. Such a mutual assessment should take place at least once a year, and in sufficient time for all assessments to be included in the NRM Board’s Annual Report.
o The basis of implementing landcare (by either partner) should be on the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development. In SA that means the NRM Act Section 7 and the State Natural Resources Management Plan (presently 2006) – see Appendix G.
Q3. What elements of community landcare do we need to preserve?
o A degree of financial autonomy from the regional NRM Boards.
o Sufficient respect for grass roots knowledge to be prepared to support it at every opportunity.
o Regional decisions and regional actions to be given equal consideration, especially when it appears to conflict with State Goverment policy.
Q4. What new and emerging elements do we consider for the future and how?
o The need for greater support for regional use of all forms of renewable energy
o The need for people (in SA anyway) to maximize their capture and use of rainwater ie to build up a greater degree of self-reliance on the use of water, with each NRM region supporting those planning measures that best relate to their regional conditions.
Q5. What do we want landcare to be known for in 20+ years time – vision?
We want “Landcare” to be known as the community actively involved in partnership with Governments, in implementing ecologically sustainable development. Such action will be judged by the extent to which the region is environmentally more resilient, getting closer to a globally fair ecological footprint, and being proactive about climate change (sea level rise, etc) and not just reacting to it.
I really like what you are saying John – and part of the discussion should be on why do many proposals/papers on Landcare feel they have to try to cover so many issues! Is it to keep the waters muddy and put people off – certainly they ‘disengage’? I am a PhD student, my area of interest is in the informal learning that takes place in Landcare groups – with a view to highlighting the benefit of the simple, grass-roots approach.
Hi everyone
Its good to see the interest in the new landcare framework. I guess the recent dust storms over Brisbane and elsewhere provided some interesting press and I was fascinated to see that land management as such, didnt really rate much of a mention. It was almost accepted that the dust was an ‘ act of god’.
Reflecting on the changes the dust storm over Melbourne all those years ago brought about in public policy for natural resource management, I wonder what has changed.
I agree with John Hunwick. There is too much motherhood in the draft statement.
Landcare needs an adequate administrative core, knowledge base and independence if it is to be effective.
It needs to preserve its “initial farmer based focus on
sustainable resource use and management”. Farmers do control and manage a large part of the landscape, with ongoing potential for serious impacts. Landcare potentially has an increasing role here, given the massive cutbacks in traditional forms of government spending on Departments of Primary Industry, land use research and soil conservation services.
To a farmer, a “group ‘learning in action’ approach” to practical landcare could seem like codespeak for ignorance of previous scientific research, lack of resources and motivation to tap and implement its findings, and consequent inefficient reinventing of wheels.
I suppose the principle question do we need a framework, the answer is yes. However I hope the Government is not going to develop policy for a future Landcare model from what is written here, and what has been discussed at a State level. I dont think what is being discussed in these forums is wrong but there is no direction from anyone, lots of motherhood statements, comments that are really operational, no where near enough input and plenty of wants and not the needs of Australia and Landcare into the future. There needs to be more focus on the strategic and bigger picture. Clearly if the commuity can’t set that high level direction then guess who will set it, Government. Landcare has the opportunity to value add the Aust Gov investment in NRM by concentrating on Sustainable Ag as a main focus. Landcare could hang it’s hat on amoungst other things the development and delivery of Nationally consistent recognition systems, the collection of consistent condition assessments across the landscape the delivery of education extension and desision support tools, to increase the economic, environmental and social well being of the productive landscapes that make up 70% of Australia. This should be done with industry on board in a true sence, If we have a truely well defined framework Landcare industry could / should be involved in the development and delivery of a market based ecosystem services market. Again if we, the market dont do it then Government will do it, and there is a high probability that a market failure will ooccur. Lets get a framework up and some key principles and have Landcare continue as the true flag ship it is.
I think I am with Ian on this – assuming that I am not misinterpreting him, so he can disown me if he wishes. There seems to have been a lot of discussion about Landcare as if it will become an organisation, and which presumably means a heirarchy, rules, factions, etc. Landcare’s strength (when it was strong) was that it was a pluralist movement, not an organisation, but with a shared belief in sound land (meaning soil, water, atm etc) management. Within that comon belief we had diverse and adventurous ways of going about this which was what made landcare both unique and important. Much of the first decade involved in-the-paddock/dune/river/etc experimentation that had the great virtue of drawing the scientists out of their labs to improve the standard of experimentation. We probably understand nature a bit better now as a result, so it could be a good time for a next phase.
Talk about NRM tends to obscure the real issue of managing the impact that each of us has on natural resources – ie it is the people. And this is in turn the great opportunity for Landcare which should aim to influence how we value our natural resources and hence how we treat them. Farmers obviously have a big role to play because they manage so much of the resources. But the rest of the population which consumes or benefits indirectly from farm products also have a role to play. They also have to embrace a Landcare ethic which influences how they live their lives through to how they recognise the endeavours of the land managers – the recognition system that Ian mentions.
We need to remember that most land managers will never join a landcare group or participate in an organised landcare activity. But they can still be encouraged to care for the land in ever better ways because they have grown up in a culture that values such things – in other words, they are part of the landcare Movement. This is the challenge for Landcare – to develop that culture that we all feel proud of.
Framework comments:
As an ex- Landcare Network Coordiantor and passionate about community involvement in Landcare at the local, regional, state and national levels, I see the need for a framework as essential for the national government support that is needed to deal with on-going decline in the state of the environment and farming communities. If the framework does not reflect the grass roots of Landcare it will be ignored and the same problems with the system will continue (ie on going declining funding, increasing reporting). I get very sick of people crying that there is no documentation on what Landcare has done over the last 20 plus years. Strange as there have been a report generated for every program and project, so what has happened to that information?
I agree that funding suport need to be given to regional coordiantors, but it also needs to be at the network level. These are the people that have the on ground contact with the largest number of landholders that actually do the works that the government claim as theirs. The regional coordiantors can’t do this (our region is only 2 million ha).
I will state the obvious and say that without adequate support for extension the whole of the current NRM programs will slowly but surely fall over. I think an analagy needs to be looked at between Landcare and the Health system. I don’t think that after 10-15 years of funding we would say that funding should be reduced as everything should be better now. Maybe slashing the treasury budget by 50%? Would this make them be more efficient at producing a budget?
In the region I am in we have seen the slow decline in the number of farmers in the region (2-3%/yr) which in turn reduces the ability of farmers to continue with the NRM outputs that the regional bodies would like. This decline is as significant as the climate change arguments.