Funding and Facilitation: implications of changing government policy for the future of voluntary Landcare groups in Western Australia

Abstract

Landcare groups in Australia work to increase biodiversity, eliminate invasive species and promote sustainable land-use practices. With the implementation of the Rudd government's 'Caring for our Country' policy during 2008Á09, financial and organisational resources available to these groups diminished. This paper examines whether the National Landcare Program's initial intentions*that agency support could be provided to 'kick-start' the community groups into action with the Landcare groups quickly becoming independent bodies*are ultimately realistic. The results show that the majority of Landcare groups continue to be reliant on government-sourced funding and Landcare facilitators, and that those groups which do not have access to support have reduced their activity levels accordingly. Landcare groups were suffering from a reduced volunteer base, with static or decreasing numbers of participants, an inability to set regular meetings and a lack of volunteers to take up leadership positions. The reliance of Landcare groups on government support suggests that Landcare was an unsuccessful form of statesponsored community participation, making Landcare groups similar to other volunteer organisations in terms of their functional characteristics and reliance on externally sourced funds.

An accidental outcome: Social capital and its implications for Landcare and the “status quo”

“…These trends are influenced in part by the changes in natural resource management funding since the introduction of the Australian Government's regional delivery arrangements in 2002 2 (Compton et al, 2009) and the introduction of Caring for Our Country, the current national natural resource management funding program. It has reduced funds available to Landcare groups which puts them at risk of decline (Simpson and Clifton, 2010) and has "failed to provide a strategy or measures for re-connecting, integrating and re-invigorating the activities of local groups." (Robins and Kanowski, 2011: 100).…”

Nurturing Diversified Farming Systems in Industrialized Countries: How Public Policy Can Contribute

“…Landholders participating in a group were more likely to build shared understandings of their localized problems, gain information from their peers, and implement specific management practices than landholders not participating (Curtis and De Lacy 1996). Peer pressure and community scrutiny helped create new norms of conservation practices (Minato et al 2010), with 85% of participating groups in Western Australia working on biodiversity measures (Simpson and Clifton 2010). However, many Landcare activities did not explicitly address agrobiodiversity protection or ecosystem services, as they were not connected to landscape-scale strategies (Curtis 1998).…”

“…As a result, participation appears to have plateaued, and some groups have vanished, with landholders citing frustration with bureaucratic oversight, contempt for grassroots efforts, and dwindling funds (Prager 2010, Simpson andClifton 2010). Ongoing rural depopulation and weak interest among younger farmers means that fewer landholders now participate (Simpson and Clifton 2010). Over-dependence on facilitators leads to fatigue and thus steady turnover, destabilizing projects.…”

“…Beginning in 2002, institutional changes meant that funding became more erratic and government agencies sought to control the direction of many groups (Prager 2010). As a result, participation appears to have plateaued, and some groups have vanished, with landholders citing frustration with bureaucratic oversight, contempt for grassroots efforts, and dwindling funds (Prager 2010, Simpson andClifton 2010). Ongoing rural depopulation and weak interest among younger farmers means that fewer landholders now participate (Simpson and Clifton 2010).…”

Transition Landscapes and Social Networks: Examining On-Gound Community Resilience and its Implications for Policy Settings in Multiscalar Systems

“…We, and others, argue that unless the social drivers of landscape and particularly those associated with its ecological change are recognized by funding bodies, there is a distinct possibility that such programs will be under or unfunded in the current vogue for auditable and production-centric resource investment (Simpson andClifton 2010, Robins andKanowski 2011). Research by Bodin et al (2006:1) affirmed that "social networks [are] real observable phenomena" and because LC is built on formal and informal networks, we turned to social network analysis as a possible way of demonstrating the existence and importance of this apparently hidden underbelly.…”