3rd Landcare and Catchment Management Forum Proceedings |
|||
IntroductionThe Landcare Network in NSW PartnershipsThe Future of Community Involvement
in Natural Resource Management Issue Development Group – Community Partnerships AgricultureThe Impact of Landcare on Farmer Attitudes The Reality of Sustainable Agriculture in a Market Economy Issue Development Group – Environmental Management Systems GovernmentThe Future of Landcare from a Federal
Government Perspective Role of Landcare in Producing and Implementing Natural Resource Management Policy and Plans.
|
LandscapesThe Australian Museum’s FATE (Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems) Project. Issue Development Group – Native Vegetation Issue Development Group – Salinity Issue Development Group – Weeds FutureFuture of Community Landcare across Australia. Issue Development Group – Planning (Natural Resources and Environment) Issue Development Group - Landcare Future Directions 2001 NSW Landcare Awards
|
||
| Introduction | |||
|
Landcare is at a major crossroad and it is important that we choose the right road to ensure this great network continues to strengthen. After more than a decade of building sustainability through the creation of effective networks and community empowerment it is time for us to take stock. A great deal has been achieved. In the last decade there has been an immense growth in the level of awareness of environmental and naturalresource management. A substantial part of this change can be attributed to the Landcare movement. This has occurred from the smallest community group to the highest level of government. Federal Government is revising its approach to natural resource planning and funding. The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality is ambitious and broad ranging, while the Catchment Management Blueprints in NSW ensure that we focus on natural resource management at a regional level. The realisation of these ambitious plans will depend, to a large extent, on the commitment and dedication of volunteers who are the heart and soul of Landcare. It is natural for such unprecedented change to lead to concern for our own futures and the shape and nature of Landcare. Landcare today takes many forms, including Bushcare, Waterwatch, Rivercare and many others: basically it is people cooperating to care. While this change is occurring we must remain robust and focused while retaining our flexibility. We need to use our experience and skills to implement and influence the onground plans and works at a community level. Landcare as an organisation has developed a set of credentials and a capability that is critical to our government and non government partners in natural resource management. We have succeeded in changing attitudes and behaviour at a grassroots level, and this will continue. Recently the Federal Government requested that the Australian Landcare Council give advice on sustainable agriculture and capacity building. Landcare through its vast network will be able to provide experienced, sound and practical advice. It is the role of Landcare to remain and develop as a major player in natural resource management issues. This forum at Parkes has provided us with a vehicle to discuss, plan and work together. John Klem Chair, State Catchment Management Coordinating Committee |
|||
|
FORUM ORGANISING COMMITTEE In keeping with the spirit of Landcare, the 2001 Parkes Landcare and Catchment management Forum would not have taken place without a number of willing people. Many thanks and congratulations to the members of the Forum Organising Committee for taking on this project and running such a successful and positive conference. The Forum Organising Committee would also like to thank the many Parkes and Districts Landcarers who assisted in ensuring the success of the event, and local businesses who contributed their excellent services to the event. Chair Christopher Cole, Community Landcarer Committee Nina Adams, Farming for the
Future EVENT MANAGEMENT The Forum Organising Committee worked with Aurora Solutions of Dubbo to bring together more than 500 community, government and corporate representatives from across NSW. Click here for map of the NSW Network THE NSW LANDCARE WORKING GROUP The NSW Landcare Working Group is the peak advisory council for Landcare, community, corporate and government partnerships in NSW. Representation on the Landcare Working Group has evolved throughout 1990-2001, and is drawn from the community in all regions, and a range of government and non-government agencies with a role or interest in natural resource management. The main function of the Landcare Working Group is to support and promote Landcare in NSW, and to represent issues from all Landcare groups in rural, coastal, urban and metropolitan regions to government policy units. The Landcare Working Group has the following roles:
The Landcare Working Group:
|
|||
| Partnerships | |||
The future of community involvement in natural resource managementMr Eric Rolls |
|||
|
Throughout Australia, Landcare is doing wonderful work. So are companies such as Alcoa in Western Australia and individuals like the Fentons of Lanark in Victoria’s Western District and bodies such as Australian Bush Heritage and Birds Australia. Unfortunately, such is the wholesale ruination of this country, the work has scarcely begun. Our farming methods are not sustainable; urban development is not sustainable. Our cities, especially Adelaide, could well go the way of the abandoned cities of South America and the great black city of Old Zimbabwe. They ran out of water and consequently out of food. Our present practices will exhaust Australia’s resources. Governments can not be counted on to do much – their thinking is short term. A strengthened Landcare is our main hope, groups of people planning the welfare of the land for hundreds of years, then speaking, not as separate groups, but with one powerful, united voice. It is fair to say that irrigation in Australia has been a failure. Not all the electricity, not all the vegetables, not all the grapes, not all the rice, not all the cotton, not all the sugar, can compensate for the damage already done by flood irrigation. If methods do not improve four million hectares will be salted in the Murray-Darling Basin alone. That is sufficient land to grow one quarter of Australia's wheat and barley. Western Australia is in greater trouble. By a marvellous system of recycled nutrients, the Western Australian wheat land carried some of the heaviest growth in the world on some of the poorest soil. Under government direction farmers cleared more than ninety per cent of the heath. As early as 1924, a railway engineer named W.E. Wood published a paper in the journal of the Royal Society entitled ‘The increase of salt in soil and streams following the destruction of the native vegetation’. Yet as late as 1975 land board inspectors were telling those farmers who tried to save some of the original growth, ‘Get rid of that rubbish or you’ll lose your lease!’ Altogether twelve million hectares of agricultural land will go out of production in the lifetimes of most of the people in this room, an enormous area. Despite the difficulties, this is not going to be a gloomy talk. Some of our problems can be solved, some alleviated. We have most of the knowledge - the scientific work has been enormous. All we need is ruthless determination. Australian soil has been trying to tell us for seventy years that it can not tolerate flood irrigation. In the days of newsreels at the State Theatre in Sydney, I saw a film taken in the Riverina in the late 1920s. It showed a family packing a dray with tables, chairs, pots, pans, waterbags. A few hens with legs tied together swung in a square of hessian slung under the axle. Then the camera panned on the orchard that they were leaving. Dead trees stood in thick white salt. We have to irrigate, we can not grow enough food without it, but all over southern Australia it has to be drip irrigation. Not a drop more water must go on the ground than the crop can use. Drip irrigation is even possible for cotton. Although expensive to install, the enormous cost of levelling ground, building channels and storage tanks can be deducted from the total. It is not necessary to destroy the features of the land for drip irrigation, nor is the very expensive deep ripping necessary. On country that has not grown cotton, the initial expense of drip irrigation could well be lower than conventional methods. Dry land salting is exaggerated by the unnatural constant height of regulated rivers. No longer can salt drain into rivers when they fall to low levels to be swept out to sea in the next flood. Now it has nowhere to go but up onto the land. Before European settlement the Darling River used to reach levels of salt far in excess of today’s levels. That did not matter to Aboriginal Australians or native animals; there were plenty of freshwater springs to supply drinking water. Now the springs are all gone and lower levels of salt in the river are a danger to all life. Rivers have to be allowed to behave more naturally, they have to be allowed to regain their health. Regulation does not suit Australia, it moves by fits and starts. So most of the weirs have to be dispensed with, dams have to be lowered, water has to be taken from the top of dams, not the bottom. Cold bottom water is subjecting river life to an Ice Age. Genetically modified food is not landcare. Tasmania deserves loud applause for its stand against it. Australian farmers have suffered enormous damage by allowing trials of these crops. We had the opportunity to supply the world with the high-priced clean food that is now in great demand. We can still do it but it will take much work to eradicate offending plants. The claims made for these plants are untrue. Yield and convenience are considered above all else, taste is secondary. One of the companies involved in trials here is Aventis Corporation. In the United States that company produced StarLink, a corn genetically modified with an insecticide. Because the modification made it difficult for humans to digest, it was approved for stock feed only. In the year 2000 350,000 hectares of the wretched stuff was sown. Insects transferred the modification to so much natural corn that food makers are now lobbying the Food and Drug Administration to declare StarLink an ‘unavoidable contaminant’. If the administration gives in, it means that an unhealthy food has been foisted on us. Already butterflies are dying in the United States because of transference of genetic insecticidal modification to their food plants. Very recent studies have found that Desiree Potatoes modified to inhibit nematodes altered the intestinal morphology of rats in the very short period of ten days. The aims of modern producers are plants with ‘high response’, a patented hybrid plant's reaction to fertilisers, sprays and genetic engineering. ‘High yield’ goes a lot further in producing good food in quantity: it means the total yield per hectare, the fish, frogs, grasshoppers, ducks, geese, eels, rice birds, straw produced with rice in the flooded bays of China for example. India once produced 30,000 varieties of rice. They had separate varieties for the different heights where it was grown. Where water was in short supply they had varieties that did not require flooded bays. Now unprincipled seed firms have persuaded farmers to grow ten varieties only, all of them needing a great deal of water as well as fertilisers and insecticides. Rice growing is less profitable to the farmers, the rice is of inferior quality. An elementary principle of Landcare must be biodiversity. All is not well with Australian wheat growing. Increasingly people are developing severe sensitivity to wheaten products. The cause is the breeding of wheats with proteins of high molecular weight. These proteins combine with carbohydrates to make the stringy molecules loved by bakers. These long molecules bridge the receptors in the intestines, causing a reactionary flood of histamines and consequent sensitivity. As a counter Buckwheat Enterprises here in Parkes are encouraging the growing of ancient varieties of wheat, Emmer, Einkorn, Spelt and an old durum, Kamut. Farmers are sowing increasing amounts each year. Yield is good, prices are excellent. Macquarie Mills at Narromine mill the flour. These wheats are high in proteins of low molecular weight so they need more attention by the baker, but they have superb flavour, they are easy to digest and they cause no allergies. We now make delicious bread with wholemeal Spelt flour and cracked buckwheat. The Seed Savers’ Network at Byron Bay is doing remarkable work in preserving old varieties of edible plants, in maintaining biodiversity of foodstocks. They have extended their work to several countries including Japan. A movement called Slow Food launched in Italy in 1986 as a counter to McDonald’s tasteless hamburgers. It is now a powerful international force making yearly awards to five people who have done most towards maintaining the quality of food. One of the winners last year was Marija Girenko who was director of the huge Russian seed bank in St Petersburg. During the German siege from September 1941 to January 1944 no food got into the city for 900 days. Thousands of people starved to death including nine workers at the seed bank. Not one seed was eaten. I am one of the international jurors who travelled to Italy to decide those awards. Elaine van Kempen, my wife, and I had the opportunity to taste the dairy products of many regions. The cattle vary from province to province, even from valley to valley. Some are ancient breeds. Each district produces superb cheese of markedly different flavour. Australia does not put enough accent on regional foods. Certainly we have Illabo lamb, saltbush mutton from South Australia and mud oysters from Albany in Western Australia but we need so much more. Regional milk, cream and cheese could save those dairyfarmers ruined by deregulation. The general standard of milk, butter and cream is atrocious, we have excellent cheesemakers who can not make what they are capable of making because they are forced to use pasteurised milk. This damaging process is no longer necessary; TB and brucellosis have been eradicated from all southern dairy herds. A job for Landcare is to campaign for unpasteurised milk. Pauls in Brisbane contracted farmers to produce milk from Jersey herds that they market as ‘Extra Creamy’ to keen buyers. Unfortunately this milk is not as good as it could be because it is pasteurised and homogenised so there is no layer of cream on top. The main consideration for marketing distinctive dairy products is that nothing worth eating can be produced from the milk of Friesian cows. No matter the pasture these black and white horrors produce huge quantities of tasteless milk. Australia produced the best of all dairy cows in the Illawarra Shorthorn. Alas, there are few left. It would be sound land care to revive the breed. They would lift the quality of dairy products to exciting levels. Native grasses, so long neglected, give superb flavour to meat and milk. Members of Stipa Native Grasses Association are having great success in replacing exotics with native pasture. Thomas Mitchell, the explorer, seeing inland grasses for the first time with European eyes, judged them 'very beautiful'. In amazing experiments at the Brisbane botanic gardens between 1874 and 1879, Fred Turner, later botanist to the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, found native grasses generally superior to exotics. He was especially enthusiastic about Curly Mitchell Grass, Astrebla lappacea, with 'ears nearly six inches long [15 centimetres], well-filled with a clean-looking firm grain'. He thought it worth considering as a grain crop. Since it is perennial, low yields can still be profitable, so it now has great possibility as both grain and hay for strategic lot-feeding when a season fails with cattle unfinished. In a hungry world annual cereals are becoming too precious to squander as cattle feed. According to counts by Birds Australia there has been a reduction of forty-five per cent of woodland birds in the last ten years, a catastrophe that might cost us Red-capped Robins, Blue-faced Honeyeaters, Grey-crowned Babblers (the delightful birds we knew as Happy Jacks), Regent Honeyeaters, Grey Butcherbirds with their magnificent voices, numbers of others. The reason is that too much of our grasslands has gone under the plough, those areas of perennial, millet-and-oat-seeded grasses dotted with a dozen or so sappy, sprawling trees to the hectare, such trees as White Box, Yellow Box, Mugga Ironbark and Yellow Gum inland and Swamp Mahogany on the coast. In the whole of Australia there are less than five per cent of these woodlands left, in New South Wales the percentage is probably nearer one. We have to establish connected clumps and corridors of native grasses and the eucalypts that grew with them in the broad belt of country from central Queensland down through central New South Wales and Victoria to the once great Western District. Twenty per cent of every farm under such growth will not only enliven dying country, it will provide more profit for the farmers. Birds and insects do much of the work of chemical sprays. Seagrasses are now disappearing as quickly as the land grasses when they were first trampled with cloven hooves, a disaster for everything in the sea. Byron wrote ‘Man marks the earth with ruin – his control Stops with the shore . . .’ No longer. So Landcare’s job does not stop at the seashore. Seagrasses must have clear water, they must have water of low fertility. Four thousand hectares of seagrasses have disappeared from St Vincent Gulf due to industrial, sewage and stormwater discharges from Adelaide. Hervey Bay in Queensland, once a vast seagrass bed supporting 5000 dugongs, is now barren. Even when conditions are rectified it takes about a hundred years for beds to re-establish. Cane farmers have drained swamp after swamp on the east coast from north Queensland down to northern New South Wales, cotton growers have destroyed the majority of swamps, lakes and billabongs on New South Wales and southern Queensland rivers. These were filters for muddy water and for nutrients. Periodically kilometres of the Tweed River in northern New South Wales are sterilised by sulphuric acid, conveniently attributed to heavy rain not the cane growers who drained swamps and exposed acid sulphate soil. In far north Queensland a swamp drained for sugarcane has leaked four million litres of concentrated sulphuric acid into Trinity Inlet every year for more than twenty years. Coral is suffering as severely as seagrass since it requires the same conditions. But vast areas of coral are also being ravaged by Crown of Thorns Starfish who thrive in the enriched, cloudy water. Coral as a tourist attraction, seagrass as a general breeding and feeding ground for marine life, are immeasurably more valuable than sugarcane. Big areas of sugarcane have to go back to swamp. There are some amazing figures from Australia and the United States on the value of swamps. In Australia coastal swamps of Swamp Oak, Broad-leaf Paperbark and mangroves produce more than $8000 worth of fish, prawns and crabs per hectare per year. The only costs associated with that production are those of harvesting, no other enterprise can match that return. That such swamps were drained for sugarcane is ridiculous. Recent figures from the United States value the tidal marshes in the south-east at $123,500 per hectare, a value based on having to replace their functions as phosphorus and nitrogen reducers with artificial treatment plants. If the wetlands on the Charles River near Boston were removed, it would cost the community an estimated seventeen million dollars a year in the flood damage which the wetlands prevent. Urban development is unsustainable because it is planned by developers for profit, not for the good of the people who are to live there. Too much good soil, land that ought to be growing fruit and vegetables, is lost under buildings. There are solutions: build on poor land where it is available, grow crops on specially designed roof gardens. That is already being done on a big scale in Switzerland and Germany, there are successful demonstration houses in Victoria. Australia can not afford to lose productive land anywhere. Nor can we afford to lose water down unsightly stormwater drains. Restore the creeks that they replaced. Even in Sydney long lengths of creeks can be restored without too much disruption. Clean water can flow again into harbours. Greenhouse tomato growers are anxious to bring in bumble bees to pollinate their tomatoes. Tomatoes are one of a number of plants that enclose their capsules of pollen. They have to be buzzed open by insects that know how to do it. At present the growers have no insects so they are buying vibrators from the sex shops. Surely rabbits, cane toads, starlings, the countless exotic weeds and all the other pests are warning enough. Introducing foreign animals is too dangerous. Anyway our beautiful native blue banded bees are buzz pollinators and in experiments now being conducted at the University of Western Sydney they show great promise. It is the job of Landcare to speak out against yet another dangerous introduction. Two marvellous developments in Australian produce are Soft Rolling Skin wool and the treatment of milling logs by microwave and resin baths. Both are likely to be worth billions of dollars a year. Remarkable breeding produced merinos with soft, loose, folded skin growing heavy fleeces of long, superfine wool on rich pasture. The fineness is unheard of, a bale of 13.7 microns has been sold, ten microns is thought possible. Stress in timber has always been a problem, especially in White Cypress Pine and River Red Gum. When a log is subjected to microwaves the sap boils. Steam under high pressure breaks down the internal structure of the log, making it spongy and so porous that when it is run through a bath of resin, the resin fills every crevice. When compressed to its original size, the timber is extremely strong. This is a wholly Australian invention, it is well protected by patents, and it will change the use of timber throughout the world. Timber will become a different product, cheaply replacing metal for many uses. At present small hardwood logs are unmillable. The internal stresses are too great and the logs break up as the saw rips through them. The new process will allow trees growing so thickly that they are of little use to man or animal to be turned into valuable timber. Well there are some of the jobs of Landcare. Implementing them will distress many members of Landcare. It will also distress governments since the compensation bill will be enormous: those misusing water and draining swamps are doing so legally. But there is no choice. Things are now so serious the decision is simply one of life or death. As a lobby group Landcare will carry much more authority than the Green movement.
|
|||
|
Corey Watts |
|||
|
The Australian Conservation Foundation – Southcorp alliance supports ACF’s advocacy work in salinity and sustainable agriculture, and furthers Southcorp’s interests in ‘whole of landscape’ environmental management systems. The alliance extends the reach of ACF, opens up dialogue across industry and interest sectors, and provides access to campaign resources and tools. The alliance has increased ACF’s campaign capacity, and produced the EcoVine Project and, as a part of the Business Leaders’ Roundtable, the Leveraging Private Investment Report. The Salinity and Sustainable Agriculture Program aims to raise awareness of salinity, advocates for public and private action sufficient to address salinity , and calls for improved environmental performance in agriculture. EcoVine scopes the relationship between viticulture and the environment on a landscape scale – covering issues such as salinity, river health, greenhouse and biodiversity. This project underpins further practical, sustainable EMS planning across agriculture, and develops linkages between farm based EMS and broader natural resource management processes. Leveraging Private Investment puts forward a package of well-known policy instruments to catalyse large-scale private investment in sustainable and profitable land use. Recommendations include tax preferred investment vehicles, an accreditation framework and seed funding for innovations. A potential $1.3b per annum could be mobilised, realising new management and land use opportunities and benefiting farmers, communities, new industries, and environmental interests. The ACF 2051 vision of sustainable rural landscapes links property planning and management systems into whole landscapes, and integrates the social, economic and environmental aspects of production. Economies and production systems are increased and more varied, and rural Australia has been transformed through revegetation and farm forestry. On a global level our markets demand food and fibre produced with no negative environmental impact.
|
|||
|
Community Partnerships |
|||
|
Overview of Session The session covered a wide ranging discussion regarding community partnerships. This included the following topics:
The session recognised that landcare is premised on the basis of partnerships, in particular the partnerships between local communities and government. As such the development and understanding of how partnerships operate, where they could be improved and where new partnerships could be forged remain a central focus to the future of community landcare. While recognising that government (state and federal) were significant partners in community landcare, particularly with respect to the provision of funding, other sectors of the community were also fundamental to the continued success of landcare. These include local businesses (eg. sponsorship of this conference, field days and other activities), local schools (education of younger landcarers), other landcare groups (to form regional structures), and other local organisations (eg. service clubs). Importantly the discussions highlighted the importance of those individuals, groups and community sectors that, at this stage, are not yet actively involved in landcare. This was seen as a major challenge to encourage and create new partnerships. Groups with whom new partnerships could be developed were indigenous peoples, farmers not yet involved in landcare, and local government. It was recognised that in some cases some degree of liaison already existed between community landcare and these groups but that this should be improved. Local government was singled out by some conference participants as one group that had exhibited elements of recalcitrance in the past, however positive examples from local government were also noted and as such the diversity of this sector needs to be acknowledged. Considerable discussion focussed around the issue of ethics within partnerships. While no consensus was reached about what ‘ethics’ meant, the discussion highlighted the need for open, honest, frank and transparent communication and negotiation between partners. Much of the discussion used examples from local government, and the need to improve the nature of relationships between local government and community landcare. Reference was made to ESD, and in particular the guiding cannons of intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle in developing and implementing partnerships. The final area of discussion focussed on the types of structures and mechanisms that could facilitate better and more transparent partnerships. While the efficiency and benefits of developing standard contracts and protocols at a state, or even national level, could be seen such instruments would also need to be flexible enough to accommodate and encourage local group diversity. It was suggested, and generally accepted, that a range of instruments could be developed with an increasing degree of formal structure, for example where simple arrangements between two parties were the goal then a check list may suffice to ensure relevant aspects are covered, however where more complicated agreements are needed then a standard contract may be developed to facilitate such partnerships. In summary the discussion ranged over a great diversity of topics however the three main areas could be seen as;
Forming New Partnerships One of the key issues in relation to forming partnerships is to reach those ‘outside the circle’ of the landcare movement. In this session three key groups were identified as the most important to bring within the current circle of landcare, these were:-
Simply stating this fact is only the first step. In an effort to further involve the above three groups landcare needs to be aware of, and sensitive to, the following points:-
To achieve these outcomes landcare needs to:-
To achieve these aims we need to establish Partnership Ethics and Mechanisms Recognition of Legitimacy Agency staff treat Landcarers as equals in discuss about NRM and development. Being closely involved at the local community level, Landcarers are aware of the importance of ecologically sustainable development with its focus on intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle. Set targets clearly so all understand what is going on. Partnership Mechanisms Need to develop standard documents which can be used by landcare group(s) to define and form partnership mechanisms for a range of purposes. These documents include:-
The tone of these documents needs to be non-threatening. They should be used by landcare groups as a tool, but would not by mandatory. In summary
|
|||
| Agriculture | |||
|
Impact of Landcare on Farmer Attitudes and Adoption Rates of Sustainable Agricultural Practices Brian Scarsbrick,Chief Executive, Landcare Australia Limited |
|||
|
A number of landholder surveys (ABARE and Curtis) over the Decade of Landcare have demonstrated the significant impact that the landcare ethic has had on farmers’ attitudes and adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices. With most of our productive land managed by practising farmers, it is their skills, knowledge, attitude and adoption of conservation practices that will significantly reduce land degradation and accelerate the repair process. Inappropriate agricultural practices in the past have contributed significantly to the massive salinity problems that now face Australia. The loss of valuable topsoil and weed invasion has resulted from the way we cultivate and graze our land. It is patently clear that the change in agricultural practices that occurred over the Decade of Landcare will do at least as much to reverse the environmental problems into the future as the onground repair projects undertaken by landcare groups. Landcare Membership Activities Curtis (1995/98) provided an insight into the 4,000 landcare groups across Australia when he surveyed groups in Victoria. Typical Landcare Group Profile
Three independent surveys have indicated that at least 40% of practising farmers are in a landcare group somewhere in Australia.
Percentage of Landholders in a Landcare Group
This provides a powerful network of influence on the skills, knowledge and attitudes of the farming community. Information Flow Through Landcare Networks The great strength of the rapid growth in the landcare group network has been the flow of landcare information that is reaching the farming community. It is this information flow, together with the support given by the other group members that is so effective in encouraging farmers to adopt more sustainable agricultural practices. The onground repair projects undertaken by group members has also been important as a catalyst in encouraging changes in the way farmers manage their own properties. ABARE (2000) found 70% of members reported that the landcare network provided knowledge of farm practices to treat or avoid degradation. Importantly the landcare group network has had an impact on the skills, knowledge and attitudes of their non member neighbours. Curtis (1994) reported that 36% of non member farmers indicated that landcare groups were an important/very important source of information that affects their knowledge level. Changes in Farmer Attitude Surveys on farmer attitude changes are difficult to undertake and even more difficult to interpret. Reeve (2001) undertook a survey in 1991 and compared it with a survey undertaken in 2000. Attitude Changes Between 1991 and 2000 (Reeve 2001)
Differences in Attitudinal Change - Landcare Members vs Non Members When the attitudes of landcare group members were compared with non landcare group members, Reeve (2001) found that
Clearly there is a diffusion effect from the landcare group network to the wider farming community with almost 50% of farmers looking to the landcare group network for information on sustainable land management.
In some areas (Curtis 1994 Victoria), almost 50% of properties have a family member in a landcare group and therefore the influence and flow on effect can be substantial. This diffusion effect of the landcare group movement’s impact on the general farming community is also supported by Reeve (2001) who reported that the farmers overall had become slightly "more" green in their views about rural environmental issues. Adoption of Conservation Practices Two surveys undertaken during the Decade of Landcare showed convincingly that a farmer who was a landcare group member was at least 50% more likely to adopt a more sustainable agricultural practice than a non member. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics (ABARE) compares the adoption rates of a series of conservation practices between landcare group members and non members. Adoption of Conservation Practices (ABARE 2000) Compared with a non member, a landcare group member was :
Curtis (1994) surveying Victorian farmers also compared the adoption rates of more sustainable agricultural practices between landcare group members and non members. Adoption of Best Management Practices (Curtis 1994 Vic) Compared with a non member a landcare group member is :
Farmers who are members of a landcare group are more motivated to change their agricultural practices to reduce land degradation, improve water quality and the biodiversity of their landscape. The Landcare Greenhouse Challenge An example of the change in farmer attitudes is well demonstrated in the response Landcare Australia received to its rural Greenhouse Challenge pilot trial. A total of 120 farmers in 40 landcare groups over 4 states signed up to estimate their current greenhouse emissions and set a target for reduction over a 12 month period. Farmers in landcare groups in particular are keen to see rural Australia "do their bit’ to help reduce on farm emissions. Clearly, finding a better balance between productivity and conservation is well established in the landcare ethic. Landcare’s Onground Achievements By any measure the landcare movement has been an outstanding delivery network achieving impressive onground outcomes for environmental funding programs. Initially it was individual farmers and others getting together in a landcare group to undertake local environmental repair projects. With the huge local volunteer input, the value for money in these projects has been outstanding. Towards the end of the Decade of Landcare networks of landcare groups developed within river catchments. Larger landscape scale projects that are more strategic and designed to have a greater impact on land degradation and water quality are being developed by landcare networks. These regional networks of landcare groups (called groups of groups or GOGs) often comprise 10 to 50 groups working together under a steering committee and are able to take on large devolved grants to achieve strategic outcomes. For instance, currently there are over 100 GOGs in NSW and 70 in Victoria and they are developing in other states/territories. The landcare movement is ideally placed to take on the regionally focused funding programs which will be available in the future. The often quoted image of the landcare movement comprising individual landcare groups all doing their own small local project is outmoded and a misperception. Landcare groups have responded to the integrated catchment management approach and developed networks of groups, and is now well placed to respond to the regionalisation of funding grants. Conclusion Quantum changes in agricultural practices to gain a better balance between conservation and productivity can best be achieved by supporting a strong active landcare movement. Adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices is higher with landcare group members for a number of important reasons –
The landcare movement needs continued bipartisan support from all levels of government as well as the corporate sector to achieve the country’s natural resource management objectives. Landcare is therefore a uniquely Australian movement that encourages and implements environmental change to the landscape through both onground cooperative group projects and the greater adoption of more sustainable land management practices by the group members on their own property.
|
|||
|
The Reality of Sustainable Agriculture in a Market Economy Neil Dobbin, General Manager Primary Industry Bank of Australia |
|||
|
Farmers are trading in a competitive market – which means that sustainable practices need to be easily adoptable, and involve limited management time. Sustainable practices should not negatively impact cashflow, budget provisions, time to work ratios and land use proportions to income. Farmers seek and respond to change based on the combination of the following social and economic factors;
Landcare is successful with farmers because a number of these factors are inherent to its nature and structure. It requires no immediate financial commitments, provides realistic information and evidence of success. It is farmer and regionally focused within a national framework. Factors such as altruism for the community at large, income sacrifice, and ‘big stick’ legislation are not drivers of behaviour change for the farming community. Government, business, the finance and farming sectors must all take up measures which offer a combination of the above factors, to ensure a sustainable future. These could be offered through measures such as incentives, management and production accreditation, and regulations
|
|||
|
Environment Management Systems |
|||
|
Overview of Session The Environmental Management Systems (EMS) Issue Development Group quickly identified that this is a substantial and rapidly developing natural resource management issue. It is clear that the majority of Landcarer’s are currently poorly informed on the details of EMS – specifically its capabilities and potential pitfalls for Landcare. The group identified a network of EMS extension officers currently operating through NSW Agriculture and encourages Landcare Networks to contact these staff for information. The group agreed that Landcare is in the position to be proactive on the issue of EMS and to ensure that systems that may be developed are suitable and flexible for effective implementation of the system. The group strongly encourages the NSW Landcare Working Group to send a delegate to the November 2001 EMS Conference in Ballina as an initial step to assist Landcare become better informed and be involved in this process. Further Session Information Environmental Management Systems (EMS) is a new topic to most Landcare group members.This made it challenging to our group to discuss the issue fully, however, it clearly points to the fact that there is minimal understanding of EMS within the wider landcare network or of its potential benefits. Through the discussion we identified that the issues revolved around the three themes of:-
There was consensus within the Issue Development Group was that Landcare should be involved in Environmental Management Systems (EMS), at the very least to become better informed;
Recommendation A NSW Landcare Working Group member attends the EMS conference to be held in November in Ballina 2001 (with DLWC support) to ensure ‘Landcare’ is fully informed on the future of EMS.
NSW Agriculture and Environmental Management Systems The Case for Environmental Management Systems We live in a world of increasing regulation, legislation and market specifications. In addition, environmental issues such as salinity, declining biodiversity, weeds, soil acidity, and a host of others, as well as an appalling farm safety record. Add to this the law of diminishing returns, which means margins across agricultural industries are becoming ever tighter. Against this background, Australian farmers must produce food and fibre in ways that do not harm the environment, build wealth and security, and even provide the lifestyle they wish to lead. Chasing increasing levels of efficiency is one way to keep operating in this climate. Australian farmers are, quite rightly, widely regarded as highly efficient, but who would deny that Australian farmers have room to improve? One method of ensuring increases in efficiency that don’t mean you’ll never see the kids is to implement a management system that leads to a series of organised, prioritised courses of action. Stephen Covey (1989) suggests that successful people in business "put first things first." He is talking about working out what issues can we can expect to have any degree of control over and ranking them. Yes, I am talking about planning. Planning may have a bad name because having a plan doesn’t mean things happen on the ground. What is needed in addition to a plan is action. This is where Environmental Management Systems come in. Environmental Management Systems (EMS) are a method of planning on ground works to deal with environmental issues that have a significant impact and over which you have at least some control. The good part is that, in addition to this fine start at planning, having an EMS means you also have monitoring and evaluation systems in place to ensure things are going the way you hoped. EMS has another advantage. Once implemented in your business, the system can be certified against an internationally recognised standard. This is the ISO 14001 standard. Being certified means your systems has been independently audited and proves that the production of food and fibre in your business has not involved any significant, avoidable environmental degradation. There are other standards in the 14000 series, to which EMS belongs, such as standards for eco-labelling and for the audits themselves. Other good reasons to look into EMS in your farm business include:
EMS is a simple process that follows a stepwise method:
NSW Agriculture and EMS NSW Agriculture has now successfully piloted EMS with grain growers from northern NSW. This pilot, in addition to positive anecdotes from the farmers involved, has produced a model for implementing EMS in other regions and with other agricultural industries. Two extension officers have now been employed to deliver EMS to landholders under the NSW State Salinity Strategy. This means that the Department of Agriculture can now deliver this system of managing environmental issues to landholders in areas at risk from dryland salinity. These two officers can be contacted at:
Covey, Stephen R. 1989, The seven habits of highly effective people: restoring the character ethic, Simon and Schuster, New York.
|
|||
| Government | |||
|
The future of Landcare from a Federal Government perspective Ian Thompson |
|||
|
Thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation on behalf of the Commonwealth Warren Truss, the Commonwealth Minister with responsibilities for Landcare, is unable to attend today. Minister Truss is jointly chairing with Senator Hill, the first meeting of the new Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council. Minister Truss wishes the Forum every success. In the short time available today I would like briefly to remind ourselves about where Landcare has come from; highlight some of the lessons learnt from governments and community investing in Landcare; and outline the proposed new directions in Commonwealth thinking in relation to Landcare and overall natural resource management. THE LAST TEN YEARS Where has Landcare come from? It has been ten years since the Commonwealth together with the States and Territories brought forward the Decade of Landcare Plan and longer since the community Landcare movement started. Its original objective was sustainable natural resource management. The plan stated that long-term change was necessary. The Decade of Landcare Plan was a package of measures:
That package of measures is still very relevant in today's climate. It’s a package of measures that is about building knowledge and understanding, raising awareness and empowering individuals and groups to act; and providing assistance in a range of forms to encourage adoption of improved natural resources management. Landcare What have we learnt from implementing programs and our research? . Opinions vary on the success of the Decade of Landcare Plan and its influence on the changing practices that are occurring in rural Australia. In terms of what we set out to do I think we can point to some successes. One significant advance has been the expansion of Landcare as a concept over the decade. Another is the widespread acceptance of the importance of natural resource management as an issue and the acceptance of the responsibility we all have to do something about it. This awareness provides the base on which current natural resource management programs can be built. Landcare is a pervasive term now in rural communities interested in dealing with resource and environment degradation. Different people interpret it in a range of ways. Current research has identified three themes:
How do you define yourself? I don’t think it matters. As long as we all recognise that Landcare is a broad movement and all its forms are directed towards improving natural resources management. The number of Landcare groups has expanded from around 200 in 1990 to over 4 000 today. How many people are involved? A lot, but hard to say given the mixed definition of Landcare, but a range of evidence suggests a minority of Australian farmers defining themselves as actively involved in Landcare - estimates vary from 10 per cent to 30 per cent. Research Insights Landcare’s success, particularly in the field of community involvement, has made it a research topic in its own right. It has attracted a number of researchers including John Carey, Neil Barr, Ian Reeve, Alan Curtis and ABARE staff to examine what it is and what it does and its role in future approaches leading to sustainable resource management. It is always worth thinking about the findings of good research. I would like to share with you some of the findings that I think are relevant to the future of Landcare. First, it is probably unrealistic to expect any voluntary policy tool to achieve any greater degree of penetration of farming groups than has been achieved by Landcare some people are joiners some people are not — some people want to be in a community Landcare group — some want to be in production group such as Topcrop or Prograze or FM500. Nevertheless, community Landcare and the Landcare movement in general remains a keystone in the way we are approaching improved natural resources management. But is ‘Landcare enough’? Research suggests that expanding the capacity of the Landcare movement alone is unlikely to deliver the strategic investments necessary to bring about the changes required in the future. Active Landcare members can provide a network for action — and a well of information that can be drawn on by those outside the movement However, alternative mechanisms need to be looked at to engage those outside ‘Landcare’ and to take the strategic and catchment level approach essential to tackling issues like salinity. Second, we have to be realistic. Accepting and adopting changes to sustainable practices is hard. Farmers here will recognise this. Sustainable practices have a better uptake if they make money and build on current systems — do we have such profitable, adoptable and sustainable systems for all regions — researchers and farmers tell me not yet. In addition to the economics, changes may be promoted by other issues of self-interest — that it is a society expectation, that it is perceived as desirable for example. And, ‘green values’ or altruism can only take us so far — at the end of the day, many farmers have children to educate and overdrafts to service — these needs can constrain ideals for good land management. Thirdly, NRM practices are difficult to promote - changes in farming systems are not speedy especially where such changes involve increased complexity and risk or offer intangible benefits that may not come until well into the future, practices that deliver ‘soon’ or ‘certain’ outcomes and that can be easily demonstrated are adopted — researched linkages between sustainable practices and distant eventual outcomes are not always persuasive, also research suggests that policies to change motivation such as to encourage a stewardship ethic while laudable are likely to have only a small impact unless skills, capacity and incentives are also addressed. Links between environmental beliefs and behaviour are tenuous. Lastly there is how we plan for the future and a future of change. Change is a fact of life in rural industries and communities — to be effective plans, such as catchment plans, need to take account of what the future might be rather than what communities are or where they were. Natural resources management is as much about people managing change, perhaps industry restructuring as it is about agriculture, agronomy or vegetation management. Do we incorporate this into our planning processes as much as we should? In 1992, the then National Landcare Facilitator Andrew Campbell proposed a measure of Landcare success that was based on its ability to generate commitment to change ‘generating commitment to sustainability at a community and individual level’. I believe we have achieved success here. We now need to look at our experience, look at the research, think about the future and plan a new program and policy framework. Landcare is essential but is it a sufficient condition for sustainable resource use? The future Where are we going? The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality flags the approach that governments are taking to improving natural resources management. The plan emphasises
The Government has also announced an extension of the National Heritage Trust to complement the Action Plan. Through the extension of the Trust we aim progressively to:
This investment would be against the key themes of biodiversity, sustainable agriculture and capacity building. Capacity building will be aimed at ensuring that individuals, industry and communities are equipped with the necessary skills, knowledge and information — and are supported by appropriate institutional frameworks. So, where does Landcare fit? Community Landcare is a broad movement, it still has a vital role. Landcare is still critical to maintaining commitment. Landcare can also play a role in maintaining wider community support in non-rural areas. The challenge for the Landcare movement is to continue to embrace change, to build a role in the development of strategies and priority actions and their implementation. In the future governments will be focussing on the catchment or landscape scale to address the big issues — we do need to embrace other community and industry organisations that promote similar goals to the ‘Landcare’ group. We should remember though catchments are aggregates of a range of community groups and resource managers, particularly farmers. Industry groups, Landcare groups are all made up of land managers and farmers and others with an interest in the resource base. They must be there when the plan hits the ground. They all are and remain members of the broad congregation making up the Landcare movement. The new directions of Commonwealth's natural resource management policies and programs are about the bigger picture. The framework will be more strategic but the fundamentals remain the same
|
|||
|
Role of Landcare in Producing and Implementing Natural Resource Management Policy and Plans Mr John Verhoeven, |
|||
|
Thank you for the invitation to talk to you today about the role of Landcare in producing action plans and, most importantly, implementing natural resource management policy and plans. This is a very timely conference, coming as it does at the end of the Decade of Landcare, to reflect on where we have been and where we are going. At the outset I would like to make it clear that in using the term Landcare I do so in the broad sense of the community involvement in natural resource management. As such, in this International Year of Volunteers, Landcare comprises a huge body of volunteers working on the improvement of our natural Resources. Community-Government Collaboration I would like to start by discussing community-government collaboration in natural resource management. I use the word "collaboration" very deliberately here to mean "working jointly with". Often in the past, the Government has been the dominant player in the community-government partnership in natural resource management, and has largely set the agenda. The Department is determined to ensure that this partnership changes to one of collaboration, that is, the community and government working together in a strong and equal relationship. We recognise that the community has a genuine desire, and a legitimate role, to participate in the decision-making, not just to be consulted, which has tended to be our approach in the past. As a result, the Department of Land and Water Conservation is working to support the community to provide advice and recommendations to the Government, and participate more fully in natural resource management. Providing advice to Government Regarding the first of these, providing advice to the Government, we now have catchment management boards, water management committees and regional vegetation committees across most of the State. I want to talk particularly about the catchment boards today. Last year the Government established 18 catchment boards to replace the catchment management committees. That was done, not because the committees weren’t doing good work, but to move away from the traditional planning approach and to strengthen the involvement of Aboriginal communities and Local Government in natural resource management. We wanted a more powerful, strategic approach to community-led natural resource management – one in which the emphasis is on getting things done and making a difference, rather than just plan preparation. This approach is based on three fundamental principles:
To signify this new approach to community-led natural resource management – this move away from traditional planning – we are now referring to catchment plans as Catchment Blueprints. The Blueprint represents, not a change in direction, but amore concise and powerful approach based on setting specific and measurable targets and implementing priority actions linked to investment. The Blueprint will be a document of approximately 10 pages in length and will include:
I am pleased to say that almost all of the boards have submitted their draft targets to the Minister and will be submitting their draft Catchment Blueprint to the Minister in the next two to four months. I have seen the targets and I believe that they are generally on the right track, although some are, I understand, being modified. The boards have been diligent in involving the community in the development of their Blueprints, to the extent that their tight timetable has allowed. This is where Landcare has been important in helping the boards formulate their targets and actions. In that regard, Landcare support staff have been pivotal in helping to link Landcare groups and networks with the work of the boards, and they will continue in this role. Recently the Minister approved an extension of two months for the boards to submit their draft Catchment Blueprints ti him, to allow additional time for community involvement in the development. Increased community participation in natural resource management I said that the Department of Land and Water Conservation is supporting the community to provide advice and recommendations to the Government and to participate more fully in natural resource management. The Department is helping to increase participation in natural resource management through its very significant support for Landcare. This support is provided in tree main areas:
The Department is providing this support because Landcare is successful in improving natural resource management. Landcare has a strong positive image:
These are two issues we will need to consider over the next two days. From Planning to Implementation A major part of the answer lies in the need t make the shift from planning to implementation. We al recognise the importance of planning, not only in natural resource management, but in life generally. Unfortunately, however, there has been a tendency, at least in natural resource management, to regard planning as an end to itself, rather than as a means to an end. In the past we have seen the production of some excellent plans which have gone no further. Everyone breathes a huge sigh of relief that the plan is finished and no one then takes the responsibility to drive its implementation. Catchment Blueprints We are determined that this will not happen with the Catchment Blueprints. The Department is presently developing a detailed process to drive implementation of the Blueprints following their approval by the Government. First, we need to obtain a commitment from all those responsible for carrying out actions to actually do so. The Department of Land and Water Conservation will strive to carry out the actions to which it makes a commitment and we expect other agencies and organisations to do the same. This, of course, includes Landcare, which I see as having an important role. I expect that individuals and landcare groups will continue to carry out paddock-level and local-level on-ground projects. In addition, Landcare’s network of groups will be essential players in carrying out larger sub-catchment scale, or even catchment scale, projects to implement priority actions in the Catchment Blueprints. Another important factor in implementing the Catchment Blueprints will be the development of an investment strategy for each Blueprint. These strategies will be prepared by the Government, in conjunction with the boards. They will show how Government and other funds will be applied to the priority actions in the Blueprint. The boards will be advising on investment priorities and working with the Department to develop the investment strategy. They will also be advising the minister on progress in achieving the targets and actions in the Blueprint. Continuing the theme of "planning to implementation" I would like to highlight some important initiatives of the Government that involve the catchment management boards and Landcare. NSW Salinity Strategy Concerning salinity, the Government released the NSW Salinity Strategy last year, and more recently, the Premier’s first annual report on implementing the Strategy (available on the Government and DLWC website). The Strategy’s objective in the short term, that is, in this decade, is to slow down the rate of increase in salinity. The Strategy has eight key tools to do this:
The inland catchment management boards have played an important role in advising on the salinity targets for their catchment. To the extent that the salinity targets are an integral component of their Catchment Blueprints, these boards will continue to be key to the implementation of the Strategy. Landcare groups in high hazard salinity areas are developing and implementing sub-catchment plans, which will be linked in the Blueprints, to tackle the problem in a coordinated way. Landcare support staff will increasingly be working with the Salt Action teams to assist this process. Environmental Services Scheme Recently the Minister for Land and Water Conservation announced the establishment of an Environmental Services Scheme, as part of a process leading to the development of markets for environmental services. This is described in the brochure available at the Department’s exhibit next door. This exciting initiative will be an important tool in improving the way in which our natural resources are managed. Environmental services are those services provided by natural resources, such as pure air and water, and fertile soil. They are essential for people and communities, and can be restored by activities at property and landscape levels. Currently there is no incentive or mechanism to incorporate the costs and benefits of environmental services into economic decisions and there is no defied commodity, value or market. Environmental services markets are a way of incorporating the value of environmental services produced in parallel with food and fibre. A trial involving 20 properties, 15 inland and 5 on the coast, will commence later this year. The aim of the trial will be to test options for valuing environmental services used or produced in rural areas. I expect that the catchment management boards will include actions in their Blueprints that will progress the development of environmental services markets. Landcare could have an important role in participating in both the trial and, further down the track, in markets for environmental services that develop from the scheme. Conclusions In concluding, I want to stress the important role of the community in developing and implementing the tools and programs to improve our natura resources, such as the Catchment Blueprints, the Salinity Strategy and the Environmental Services Scheme. While the Government also have an important role, it can only do so much. For change to occur at the paddock and local levels in particular, we need you. Experience gained over the past decade has shown that for community participation in natural resource management to be fully effective, community groups need to have access to a support staff member. We would like to pay tribute to the commitment of a large number of past and present Landcare and other community support staff. I see an important, continuing and more focused role for Landcare in the future, particularly in implementing natural resource management policy and plans in this State. Landcare’s value adding includes:
|
|||
| Landscapes | |||
|
The Australian
Museum’s FATE (Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems) Project Professor Mike Archer, Australian Museum |
|||
|
Although an initiative of the Australian Museum established in 1999, the FATE Project is now a whole of Government initiative with many agencies and non-government organisations involved to one degree or another as partners. In its simplest concept, the FATE Project is to be a test of the hypothesis that long-term benefits for biodiversity and rural and regional Australia can be achieved through sustainable use of native resources. FATE will be a dynamic and wide-ranging program of initiatives, both conceptually and geographically, it will have as its first focus the degrading rangelands of New South Wales which are suffering some of Australia’s highest losses in biodiversity and lifestyle of its peoples. We have yet to pick the most appropriate precise location(s) but have been travelling throughout the State, talking with graziers and local communities who have an interest, often as keen as ours because of increasing desperation as well as shared vision, to take part in the FATE Project. Although details of the proposal will change as the Project develops, we intend to select a bioregion within which many graziers would be keen to work with FATE advisory groups to develop wildlife conservancies that operate as a ‘commons’. These commons, as currently conceived, would involve cooperative adjacent properties and a sharing of profits from sustainable harvests on an equity basis reflecting the share of resources each property brings to the consortium. Properties that did not wish to participate would act as experimental controls. Within this bioregion, various initiatives would be explored depending on the attributes of the particular situation but in each case the goal would be to diversify their resource base for greater economic as well as environmental resilience. Despite differences, the private game ranching industry in southern Africa offers useful insights. The African "wild game ranching model" is based on large mammal species that are able to deliver huge economic returns in terms of meat production, breeding stock value and ecotourism. Although Australia does not have as many large species with the same tourist appeal, the ability to develop a successful multiple landuse model based on the utilisation of large kangaroo species for meat production together with cultivation of suitable native plants for commercial products such as food, timber and pharmaceuticals (i.e., consumptive use) and an ecotourism/farm-stay experience that showcases Australia's unique (albeit smaller-sized) fauna and flora as well as Australia's stunning landscapes (i.e., non-consumptive use), presents very significant potential for regional conservation and economic benefits. While the long-term goal would be to maximise both conservation and economic benefits through a progressive shift to dependence on sustainable harvesting of native resources, this would inevitably be a gradual process dependent on the demonstration that there were economic and conservation benefits in the new strategies. The trial might begin with a dedication of 10% of a grazier’s property, ideally adjacent to similar areas dedicated to the same purpose by other members of the consortium, to establish or protect a conservancy of natural bush from which native resources would be sustainably harvested for profit. On the rest of the property, it would be business as usual. Then, if the sustainable harvesting is yielding the anticipated value-adding benefits, this would be encouragement to consider increasing the percentage of the property dedicated to this ‘natural’ purpose, further pulling back from dependence on the monocultures of introduced species on the rest of the property. Together, the particular blend of initiatives should value-add to rural/regional incomes, broaden the economic resilience of those properties and increase economic dependence on healthy natural environments. Ultimately, it should reduce infrastructure needs for individual graziers through sharing of harvesting costs, even reducing the need for fences as more free-ranging or dispersed native resources are shared between properties. The land would begin to heal as a brighter, more resilient future took shape. Marketing concerns are vital and various strategies are now under discussion including ways to market-advantage all products (including sheep and cattle) produced on cooperating properties because they are participating in the FATE conservation initiative. At the same time we are planning native food festivals in capital cities to introduce Australians outside of rural and regional Australia to the wonderful tastes and other values of native resources, a strategy aimed at encouraging new markets and incentives to invest in new conservation-advantaging products unique to Australia. We are very clear in our own minds that marketing aspects of these initiatives are vital if the whole strategy is to be successful. There are some among us who even advocate that market issues should be the primary ones addressed to ensure the success of the rest of the Project. The conservation benefits we expect cannot be taken for granted. Devising and carrying out scientific tests to see if these actually do occur will be the primary responsibility of the Australian Museum and Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney. The scientific model that will be a core part of the FATE Project is now being finalised. One aspect will be initial bench-marking of biodiversity levels followed by long-term monitoring of changes in the amount and nature of biodiversity taking place on control properties as well as participating properties that are changing aspects of their land-management strategies.
| |||