Page 1

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  

We need  a  third  agricultural  revolu2on  


A Prime  Ministerial  Mandate   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:

“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     4

Where have we come from?

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   6  

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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; especially river health and groundwater

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   10  

Where are  we  now?   •  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  


Many landcare  groups  now  2red  

Reflec<ons 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)   14  

Reflec<ons (2)   • 

Three approaches  from  1980s  –  2010:   1.  2.  3. 

Voluntary, bocom-­‐up,  neighbourhood-­‐scale  landcare  groups  (4000+)   Regional/catchment  (watershed)  organisa2ons  (56)  (Mul2-­‐Stakeholder  Plajorms  MSPs)   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)  


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


The temporal dimension


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


“Helm View” 2005

Rowan Reid’s  Bambra  Agroforestry  Farm  ~1990



Bambra Agroforestry  Farm  ~  2002  




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.”* * Andrew Campbell National Landcare Facilitator Report 199224

The more  they  stay  the  same…    2011   “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” 25

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  

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

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     29  

Landcare:  the  next  25  years   •  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    



For more  info  


Growing Sustainable Communities: Twenty Five Years of Landcare  

Presentation given by Professor Andrew Campbell at the MCG, 15 November 2011

Growing Sustainable Communities: Twenty Five Years of Landcare  

Presentation given by Professor Andrew Campbell at the MCG, 15 November 2011