http://riel.cdu.edu.au!

If  Landcare  did  not  exist,    we  would  have  to  invent  it   ANDREW CAMPBELL Growing Sustainable Communities; 25 years of Landcare MCG, 15 November 2011

Profound  technical  challenges  

3  

We  need  a  third  agricultural  revolu2on  

4

A  Prime  Ministerial  Mandate  

“To these values of security, liberty and prosperity must also be grafted the values of equity, of sustainability and community.”

•  Equity,  Sustainability,  Community…  

•  Sounds  like  Landcare  values  to  me    

Kevin Rudd, Westminster Abbey, 31 March 2009:

At a G20 meeting in response to the first round of the Global Financial Crisis, suggesting that the free market needs a moral compass:

Where have we come from?

6  

Where  have  we  come  from?  •  25  years  ago  in  Victoria…    you  know  the  rest  •  22  years  ago  na<onally,  Prime  Minister  Hawke  announced  the  

Decade  of  Landcare  and  a  30-­‐fold  increase  in  Commonwealth  funding  for  community-­‐based  Landcare  groups  ($340  million)  

•  A  bipar<san  poli<cal  commitment,  with  a  decade  of  funding  –  Imagine  that…!  

•  1980s-­‐1990s:  the  Landcare  decades  – >5,000  voluntary  community  groups  

–  involving  more  than  one-­‐third  of  all  farming  families  –  oRen  more  than  2/3  

– coopera2ve  work  across  farm  boundaries  

– community-­‐based  monitoring  (WaterWatch,  SaltWatch,  FrogWatch  etc)  

– Landcare  ‘caring  hands’  brand  recogni2on  >85%  in  urban  communi2es  

– Considerable  corporate  investment  through  Landcare  Australia  Ltd  

Widespread  community  engagement  

In schools, with young people

In community-based monitoring

Farm and catchment planning was widespread

Linking farm-scale actions to catchment outcomes – especially river health and groundwater

10  

Where  have  we  come  from?  •  1996-­‐2007:    consolida<on  of  a  na<onal  approach  

–  Scaling  up  to  the  catchment  or  regional  level;      –  56  regional/catchment  bodies  

–  Trying  to  take  a  more  integrated  approach  at  landscape  scale  

–  Na2onal  investment  shiRed  from  millions  to  billions  

•  2007—        asset-­‐based  investment  approach  

–  Iden2fying  environmental  assets  (priori2es)  

–  Business  plan  approach  to  investment  in  the  highest  priori2es  

– Market-­‐based  instruments,  private  nature  conserva2on  etc  

–  Compe22ve  tenders  to  purchase  specific  environmental  outcomes  

12  

•  2010:      Launch  of  the  Community  Guide    to  the  new  Murray-­‐Darling  Basin  Plan  −  Ten  year  drought  highlights  water  alloca2on  problems  −  Top-­‐down  acempt  to  define  sustainable  diversion  limits  for  all  valleys  

−  Landcare  and  catchment  groups  largely  excluded  from  process  

−  Badly  received  by  stakeholders  and  the  community  

−  Chairman  of  the  Board  resigns  

•  Landcare  moribund  in  many  areas  

•  Catchment  (watershed)  organisa2ons  also  struggling  

•  The  Hydro-­‐illogical  cycle  is  alive  and  well  

Where  are  we  now?  

Many  landcare  groups  now  2red  

14  

Three  approaches  from  1980s  –  2010:  

1.  Voluntary,  bocom-­‐up,  neighbourhood-­‐scale  landcare  groups  (5000+)  

2.  Regional/catchment  (watershed)  organisa2ons  (56)  

3.  Targeted  investment  in  environmental  assets,  and  payment  for  environmental  services  (PES)  through  compe22ve  tenders  and  market-­‐based  instruments  (MBIs)  

Reflec<ons  

15  

•  Three  approaches  from  1980s  –  2010:  1.  Voluntary,  bocom-­‐up,  neighbourhood-­‐scale  landcare  groups  (4000+)  2.  Regional/catchment  (watershed)  organisa2ons  (56)  (Mul2-­‐Stakeholder  Plajorms  MSPs)  3.  Targeted  investment  in  environmental  assets,  and  payment  for  environmental  services  (PES)  

through  compe22ve  tenders  and  market-­‐based  instruments  

•  Implemented  in  sequence,  not  in  parallel,  displacing  &  undermining  the  previous  approach,  rather  than  building  on  it.                            HUGE  MISTAKE  

•  These  are  complementary,  not  alterna2ve  approaches.      

•  Bocom-­‐up  approaches  are  not  sufficient,  but  they  are  essen2al  

•  We  have  to  move  beyond  single-­‐issue  approaches  

•  We  have  to  con<nue  to  nourish  the  grass-­‐roots  —  forever!  (a  la  Iceland)  

Reflec<ons  (2)  

16  

Rediscovering  and  Rejuvena2ng  Landcare  First,  some  unhelpful  myths:  

1.  That  we  have  ‘done  landcare  and  it  didn't  work’    –  i.e.,  resource  degrada2on  has  con2nued,  therefore  landcare  failed;  

2.  That  we  have  ‘done  that  and  need  to  move  on’  –  i.e.,  we  have  completed  the  task  of  awareness  raising  and  improving  

knowledge  and  understanding  of  NRM;  

3.  Landcare  cannot  deliver  landscape-­‐scale  change  –  i.e.,  we  need  new  approaches  that  can  operate  at  a  larger  scale  

•  Allan  Cur2s  reviewed*  landcare  impacts  based  on  extensive  empirical  data  over  15  years  

—  Showing  significant  on-­‐ground  benefits  &  value  

•  Other  OECD  countries  would  love  such  an  asset  

* paper submitted to the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning

17

The temporal dimension

17

18

The  shelterbelt  from  previous  slide  in  2005  (20  years  on)  

18 “Helm View” 2005

19

Rowan  Reid’s  Bambra  Agroforestry  Farm  ~1990 ���

20 Bambra  Agroforestry  Farm  ~  2002    

21

22

23

The  more  things  change…    1992  “The primary role of landcare groups is generating commitment to sustainability at a community and individual level.

Commitment is an essential condition — people must want it — but not sufficient. Without commitment, other priorities will always be more urgent.

If commitment is not matched by resources, people will become burnt out by anxiety and frustration.

Without knowledge of where we are going and how to get there, initial enthusiasm will lose momentum.

Without a process for planning for change, involving relevant players… adhocery and false starts will result.”*

24 * Andrew Campbell National Landcare Facilitator Report 1992

The  more  they  stay  the  same…    2011  

25

“The report identifies five critical elements that will significantly strengthen the ability of national governments to make effective adaptation decisions:

1. Early and ongoing public engagement… to ensure that people appreciate the risks, understand policy decisions, and have a voice in how they are implemented and monitored.

2.  Information 3.  Institutional design 4. Resources 5.  Tools”

World  Resources  Ins2tute  November  2011  

An  engaged  community  base  is  crucial  •  Rapid,  oRen  surprising,  on-­‐going  environmental  change  will  

challenge  governments  and  industries,  and  stress  communi2es.  

•  Many  responses  (proac2ve  and  reac2ve)  will  need  to  be  worked  out  at  regional  and  local  levels.    Successful  implementa2on  of  tough  decisions  depends  on  community  support.  

•  This  requires  environmentally  literate  and  capable  delivery  frameworks  at  regional  scale,  involving  community  leaders  and  engaging  grassroots  volunteers.  

•  Convergence  in  climate,  energy,  water  and  food  mandates  an  integrated  planning  &  delivery  framework  

–  Rural  and  urban  

–  With  high  levels  of  community  engagement  

26

The  opportunity  •  Re-­‐engage  the  community  sector  

•  Build  an  environmentally  literate  (and  equitable)  regional  framework  –  For  integrated  regional  planning  –  For  guiding  (not  always  implemen2ng)  public  &  private  investment  –  As  a  bridge  between  government  &  community  

•  Honour  the  path  pioneered  by  Bryan  O’Brien,  Horrie  Poussard,  Rob  Joy,  Rob  Youl,  Pam  Robinson,  Angus  Howell,  Joan  Kirner,  Heather  Mitchell  and  many  others,  tens  of  thousands  of  volunteers  and  picked  up  by  Farley,  Toyne,  Hawke,  Kerin  and  Cook  et  al  

•  Weave  the  three  strands  together:    community  engagement,  regional  integra2on,  strategic  investment    

•  Community  engagement  across  land,  water,  food,  biodiversity,  energy,  carbon,  fire,  disaster  response:    in  schools,  clubs,  industries,  ci2es  

•  Use  web  2.0  tools  &  link  to  Resilience  Towns  &  other  networks  

*  Andrew  Campbell    It’s  Time  To  Renew  Landcare    Agricultural  Science  2/09  pp30:33  

A  7  point  plan  for  renova<ng  NRM*    

1.  Rejuvenate  Landcare  and  Re-­‐engage  the  Community  

2.  Reinforce  the  Regional  Model  

3.  Rewire  Environmental  Informa2on  Systems  

4.  Revolu2onise  Agricultural  Research,  Extension  and  Educa2on  

5.  Reform  Drought  Policy  &  Regional  Services  

6.  Re-­‐unite  the  Carbon,  Water,  Energy,  Food,  Farming  

and  Fire  &  Emergency  agendas  

7.  Redesign  the  Ins2tu2onal  Architecture  (COAG  etc)  

29  

Underpinning  principles  •  Building  Resilience  •  Balancing  centralism  and  subsidiarity  

•  Re-­‐engaging  stakeholders  and  devolving  responsibility  •  Taking  the  2me  necessary  to  sort  through  complex,  contested,  connected  issues  

•  Building,  sustaining  and  using  a  comprehensive  evidence  base  

•  Inves2ng  in  skills,  knowledge,  innova2on  and  leadership  •  Budge2ng  for  longer  term  stability    

30  

•  There  is  much  to  celebrate,  and  cherish  

•  But  the  job  of  learning  to  live  wisely  on  this  ancient  con2nent  is  s2ll  to  be  done,  and  about  to  get  harder  

•  We  need  to  reinvent  landcare,  in  communi2es,  schools,  industries  and  on  the  web  

•  With  an  agenda  broader  than  NRM  •  This  is  about  na2onal  iden2ty,  about  being  Australian  •  Leadership  at  all  levels  will  be  required.    Landcare  has  

trained  two  genera2ons  of  community  leaders  

•  The  people  in  this  room  have  much  to  contribute    

LETS  GO  FOR  IT  

Landcare:    the  next  25  years  

For  more  info  

h_p://riel.cdu.edu.au