Alexandra Gartmann - Landcare at 25 years of age – can it move out of home?
I started in landcare 25 years ago, coordinating a High School Group to partner with a local landcare
group to revegetate eroding gullies in the Albury region. Landcare to me then, was a hands on
activity for my school peers to engage with, a philosophy to get excited about and a platform to
engage with experts in a field I was passionate about.
17 years ago I started as a landcare coordinator in Calingiri, WA. The task was to grow farmer
engagement in landcare, on-ground impacts, and support partnerships. Engagement grew around
specific issues & activities – releasing bio-control agents for weeds, minimum tillage soil
management, TopCrop for younger farmers, frog monitoring for river health, womens wellness, and
school projects. Landcare was both broad and narrow – with each individual or community self
determining what ‘got their socks off’, focusing on landscape or community issues, or single issues
and approaches.
13 years ago I started with the Birchip Cropping Group, which you have just heard about from
Caroline – wanting to deepen my understanding of production landcare. BCG, like many other
farmer groups, grew from the hands of landcare, with the local landcare group being the first
auspicing body to enable BCG to have an entity for funds. It felt like a natural step – and facilitated
my learning and the development of BCG into wider environmental and social programs, to
compliment the initial focus on production.
These days I engage with landcare at the local level, regional level, state level and national level involved in partnership discussions with local land managers, cultural custodians, regional
authorities, government, corporates and philanthropy. Navigating landcare is now much more
complex than in my early foray.
Today I would like to ask you to think about landcare in the context of Darwinian theory....survival of
the fittest.
What is fittest? By fitness, I mean fit for purpose, for a marathon not a sprint. Fitness of a
movement, of a Landcare group and farmer group, to survive the future. We know plenty of
communities that have not survived, and many groups that are battle weary and scarred. But Darwin
also recognised that, barring a cataclysmic event (and we can debate theories about the end of the
world or major climatic disasters later, lets leave them in the perfect storm category) there will be
survivors and thrivors. Strong, fit, adaptive and transformative will survive.
Landcare has been fit enough to make the 25 year mark. It has achieved enormous impact, has been
an unsung hero, initiated a widespread movement, connected city and rural, changed landscapes,
influenced practice, been exported around the world – and perhaps, has even been the victim of its
own success.
I would like to reflect on past experiences, and challenge you to address the fitness of your group,
engage your business with landcare, and consider how you can help support independence. [SLIDE]
I will talk about
 landcare as a Gen Y?
 Landcare with high brand awareness, but low understanding?
 the multiple benefits of landcare
 and the need for social capital and capacity to successfully navigate complexity.
Lets think about landcare in generational terms - 25 years…. a typical Gen Y.
Commonly assumed to have an emphasis on extrinsic values such as money, fame, and image, and
less emphasis on intrinsic values such as self-acceptance, group affiliation and community. But they
are confident, open minded, tech savy, ambitious and like to be “liked”.
Some believe many Gen Ys have been rewarded for minimal accomplishments (such as mere
participation for example) and have unrealistic expectations of working life.
Your average 25 year old these days still lives at home (well, mine does), hankers for the benefits of
adulthood, but is not keen on full responsibility - so they delay some of the typical adulthood rites of
passage – like marriage or starting a career. But then the socio-economic landscape make it
financially challenging to meet expectations and move ‘out of home’.
I ask - is the group thing less sexy now – given we can have online relationships, and ignore our
neighbour, and we all seem to have a consultant or life coach. Have we started applauding just
because there are 6,000 landcare groups and over 150 farmer groups across the country – without
worrying about impact.
Have we rewarded landcare for not taking risks to move out of home, by drip feeding it with
government support but tie them up in layers of paperwork so there is no time to explore other
supporters?
It is not just a task for the Gen Yer to explore and create opportunities – it is also the responsibility
for the ‘parents’ – NFF, ACF and Govt – to initiate the challenging conversations and support
succession – every farmer knows the challenges of succession planning – but we all recognise how
critical it is to get it right.
What does a 25 year old do – to consolidate that great start, the first quarter century – to ‘fly’ rather
than petter out and fade away?
In the latest edition of Landcare in Focus, National Landcare Facilitator Brett de Hayr says “Landcare
is now a movement made up of hundreds of thousands of people across the country from the city to
the bush, old and young. As a movement of many organisations, governments and individuals, it is
controlled by nobody and owned by all”
A question to reflect on – is Landcare at risk of ‘tragedy of the commons?’ where each of us thinks
the other is taking care of it and giving it first priority?
I was speaking with an agribusiness rep recently – about landcare. “A great brand” he said “we
should all be involved – but I struggle to understand ‘what’ landcare does and what we can do”.
This philosophy, movement and practice has exceptional brand awareness – but does it have a
depth of understanding – and can it have that depth of understanding in the modern complex world.
What do these hands mean? 76% of surveyed land managers in 2012 said landcare needed to
evolve. a clear message about the desire for further innovation.
We all crave simplicity on the far side of complexity – but can we simplify/reduce landcare that
much?
Reality for rural communities is complex & uncertain – the vagaries of weather, seasons & climate
(of which we have had our fair share over the last few months!); the myths & maze of marketing; the
intricacies of intelligent input purchases & decisions; attracting & retaining services ; volunteering
for everything; keeping gardens alive, staying connected etc.
The reality for many of us in rural and regional communities is having a plethora of ‘information and
advisers’ – banks, accountants, succession planners, agronomists, communication and community
development staff, business consultants, husbands, wives, neighbours, media & your gut instinct/
past experience.
We are overwhelmed with information – all to be consumed now, adopted now, the value of the
research assessed now, and moving onto something else now.
We all seek to simplify things. We create sieves, to ensure the crap stays out, but the rigour stays in.
For farmers the sieves are increasingly ‘the consultant’ and the local discussion group, landcare
group or farm system group. Farmer attention is scarce, seeking information relevant to the current
context and close to home. Looking for the relative advantage of one decision over another,
ultimately seeking profitability & sustainability – across the entire business and not just decisions
related to growing or raising the product.
New information or practice needs to be locally validated and tested – demonstrate it works – make
sure it ticks off on the quadruple bottom line – environmental, economic, social and political.
Farmers do not adopt without good evidence and support.
I believe Landcare needs....
Rigour in knowing our
capacities and designing and
creating initatives that will
have impact and influence.
Relevance to ensure actions
are appropriate for the issue
and community.
Relationships that inspire
us to foster a network that
builds on success and
learns from failure.
In the reality of increasing complexity & uncertainty, partnerships, relationships and collaborations
are crucial to developing innovation to meet our needs and aspirations.
Partnerships see us sharing ideas, constraints & solutions – harnessing the collective capacity
plus the occasional odd-bod.
But how do you decide who to partner with? Successful groups like BCG sought partners that
complimented their skill set, someone that has street cred and a reputation for delivering. A
challenge, is that we often know the ‘locals’, those in the same sector as ourselves – so we don’t
think about partnering with those we do not know and do not have any relationship with. We need
people to inspire us, and who inspire industries to build change. We are all guilty of sticking with our
favourite people, or those we work with ‘easily’.
25 years ago Landcare was the result of different stakeholders partnering with 'the enemy'. NFF and
ACF. Could we do that now?
What is Landcare now? 6,000 groups; 56 regions; states & territories, national entities and 20
countries around the world picking up on the practice, movement and philosophy. It ‘IS’ bigger than
the original concept – it has grown organically – it requires a breadth and depth of partnerships to
nourish it – it also requires a sophisticated approach to articulate what it can offer, segmenting its
market and establishing SMART partnerships.
Long term & multi-faceted partnerships with funders, critical thinkers, policy makers & ‘doers’, in
order to banter, analyse & critique –innov
shaping great ideas, to create a practice that makes good business sense & supports viable and
innovative communities.
Landcare has changed the face of Australian agriculture, not just in the landscape, but in the way
extension and adoption are structured – via groups – in 2012 a National Landcare Survey reported
that 73% of Australian farmers said they were part of some type of agriculture related group and of
these the largest grouping was the local Landcare and Farming Systems groups at 32%. Landcare was
arguably the popular birth of ‘groups’ as a model for extension and adoption.
The results indicate that group delivery remains important to the majority of Australian farmers.
Group delivery has over time become specialised and segmented as farmers have focused on the
type of group delivery that best meets their needs.
Some groups focused on specific narrow issues and others took a wider approach, using the group
structure to address a range of issues.
The one third of farmers who are part of local Landcare and Farming Systems groups cited these
reasons for participating;
1) Information tailored to local conditions and issues (29%).
2) hands on field days that are locally relevant (22%).
3) Social networks (12%).
4) Opportunity to see what other farmers are doing (11%).
The WIFM concept in action.
Partnerships between farmers, conservationists, and government, are evolving to partnerships
including business, community and in some cases philanthropy – but are they evolving to the scale
and maturity required?
And then how do we capture and measure the input and benefits each partner contributes or
accrues from the partnership? If we can’t articulate these, we certainly can’t measure them.
Multi-benefits
Our understanding of Landcare in Australia is missing a vital component. Although the
environmental and agricultural outcomes have been well-explored, the many other benefits of
Landcare and natural resource management (NRM) beyond these domains have, for the most part,
been only anecdotally acknowledged. Those intimately involved and converted, know these, but can
easily dismiss them, and then fail to communicate these.
Recognising this, in 2013 the Australian Landcare Council commissioned an investigation of the
benefits of Landcare that exist beyond the biophysical domain. The Multiple Benefits of Landcare
and NRM project was to establish the extent of the evidence base and how to build this further into
a more robust case for investment in Landcare and NRM. 6 areas were identified:
Education – this benefit is well established and understood
There are a range of positive educational outcomes for individuals (for example, continuous learning
and skill development) through to the broader community (for example, spreading awareness and
delivering innovation). Landcare and farmer groups offer both formal and informal educational
mechanisms, and often extended to areas of society that are traditionally difficult to reach.
Social community health and wellbeing – complex array of benefits but considerable
Landcare and farmer groups not only provide an avenue for a very real connection with the natural
environment, but also lead to increased levels of social networking and participation—both of which
can contribute to physical and mental well-being. The agricultural and environmental outcomes of
Landcare—a healthier living environment—also contribute to healthy individuals and communities.
Mudgegoonga fire recovery projects, in North East Vic, demonstrate the capacity for Landcare and
farmer groups to facilitate not only increased contact with the environment, but also increased
participation in physical community activity and social connectedness with others, aiding natural
disaster recovery.
Political and social capital – a vital part of the social fabric & absolutely critical for community
'fitness' and future prosperity
The dynamic social relationships and cohesion that develop through Landcare and farmer groups can
form an intrinsic part of the social fabric, in many cases filling gaps in the community beyond the
agricultural and environmental domain. The benefits—particularly for regional and rural
communities—include enhanced social capacity and cohesion, stronger local governance, the
increased recognition of women in rural communities, and self-empowerment and fulfilment.
Economic – a considerable set of numbers
Landcare and can generate an economic return in the order of 2-5 times the original investment.
This economic benefit arises through access to labour, equipment, expertise and training, financial
assistance, and increased farming profitability. The scale of the economic return is also important,
with Landcare contributing to individuals as well as regions (including Indigenous communities) and
providing a framework for investment and support on a larger scale.
Cultural benefits – increasing connections in new ways that are very old
There are significant benefits a connection with country has for spiritual, social, physical and mental
health—particularly in Indigenous communities. In some cases Landcare has helped to maintain or
increase existing connections, while in others it is has created connections or re-created connections
that existed prior to white settlement.
Resilience
Resilient individuals ,communities and landscapes are the end state of the multiple benefits of
Landcare and groups. Resilience arises through the multiple benefits being evident, heavily
integrated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing, and incorporate the many of the key elements
that research suggests enhance resilience. Landcare promotes the formation of networks that allow
communities to support each other and to can provide services beyond the agricultural and
environmental domain when faced with adversity.
SO, we know there are multiple benefits from the landcare movement and philosophy - My
question, is .... are we mature and experienced enough to leverage these multiple benefits in order
to strengthen grass roots landcare?
Landcare. A unique partnership. It was widely adopted, resourced and successful. Arguably
Australia's most successful innovation and export.
But we now operate in a competitive space, and attracting people to take the time to ‘understand’
and experience the benefits is challenging
On reflection - The loss of critical resources, the introduction of layers of beaurocracy to feed off this
successful model, and changes in the world around us, created an environment where Landcare
went into survival mode, and to some extent is now in endurance mode.
In prep for this talk, I put out a call on twitter seeking views on landcare. The vast majority of
responses were from people who felt disconnected with a movement they had been associated with
– who felt landcare had lost its focus on productive agriculture – sustainable agriculture – had
cushioned the interaction between practical landcare and the larger landcare authorities and
programs.
With the renewed focus on productivity, as strongly articulated at this conference – landcare needs
to consider what, if any, unintended consequences will impact – positive or negative. Is landcare
recognised as an enabler to achieve productivity? And if so, do we invest in capacity.
The future seems a long marathon, and fitness of groups and communities, due to all the things I
have mentioned, are amplified. What 'is' Landcare, how does it have relationships in the age of 140
characters, how does it/ how do we, deliver consumable and relevant content in an ancient
landscape. Can Landcare leverage this age of brevity, a symptom of the busyness of our modern day
lives.
Yes, we can. LandCare is a species capable of surviving and thriving IF we train our fitness for the
marathon and the 'terrain' we have.
As farming and land and sea management systems become more varied and multifunctional and the
processing and delivery chain also become more complex, we need networks and improved tools to
aid decision making.
Information that does not reduce the complexity and uncertainty is useless. Why? Because
uncertainty is a major constraint on decision making. It results in either:
- Paralysis and conservatism (extreme risk aversion) – sticking to what people know
- Desperate decisions and actions (extreme risk taking) – adopting wacky ideas (following
wacky people) as a way to find ‘the’ solution
There are many responses to complexity
- Avoiding, delaying or deferring a decision;
- Taking steps to reduce uncertainty (eg. by gathering more and more information, but not
applying it);
- Avoiding the complexity by reducing the decision to a simple or complicated one and searching
for a course of action that is ‘good enough’ rather than ‘best’;
- Focusing on incremental measures rather than on those involving fundamental changes; and
- Seeking to reduce conflict of interest or perceptual differences through discussion with
concerned people. Hence the saying all talk and no action.
If we want healthy industries in the future we need organisations and information that assists
decision makers – farmers, landscape managers or policy makers - by reducing uncertainty and
complexity. This is a role for a fit Landcare group.
Farm and land management will increasingly demand information for multiple functions – so being
clear on the multi benefits, and not leaving them to others to claim and deliver on, is a lever.
I am not saying this is easy. Darwin did not call it survival of the fittest because it was easy. There will
be casualties, our maturity, as a landcare movement and practice, will determine if we learn and
adapt from those losses.
We have innovation, intellect, creativity and commitment in our communities, and dare I say it – in
the people who make up government departments, and in Landcare. Lets harness it, build new
partnerships with deeper understanding on what landcare can facilitate, and train ourselves to be fit
for purpose, and continue the amazing legacy that is and will be Landcare.
Thank you.