Politics Within and Without — The Origins and Development of a Rangelands Landcare Group

Abstract

The 1990s saw a resurgence of interest in land-use reform in the arid and semiarid rangelands of Australia. Scientists and conservationists called for a reassessment of land use in areas now used for extensive grazing of cattle and sheep. Landcare groups formed by pastoralists were criticised for deflecting resources away from questions of land-use reform. While Landcare groups in agricultural regions of Australia have been subject to considerable assessment, analysis of rangelands Landcare has tended to revolve around questions of land use to the neglect of analysis of the operation of the groups themselves. Based on a case study of a pastoral Landcare group in the rangelands, the research reported in this paper found that pastoral Landcare in the rangelands has comparable outcomes to Landcare elsewhere in terms of the creation of opportunities for improved communication and learning among landholders. In addition, this group has developed from an emphasis on single-issue projects towards multi-faceted projects focussed on social as well as ecological sustainability. The analysis also found that political considerations were significant in the formation of the group and remained important for some pastoralists at the time of fieldwork. Finally, rangelands Landcare in this case study has provided a vehicle for reformist pastoralists and their associates to work actively towards influencing their peers to acknowledge land management problems and to reflect on their management practices.

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

“…These groups have lost members who drift away frustrated by a group of people who always talk about the same issues. Landcare groups exhibiting the characteristics of the Inactive Dependents are more likely to be maintaining the status quo (censu Barr and Cary, 2000;Beilin, 2000Beilin, , 2001Curtis and De Lacy, 1998;Gill, 2004;Ledgar, 1995;Lockie, 1996aLockie, ,b, 2004Morrisey and Lawrence, 1997) through 'social status quo' mechanisms.…”

“…These criticisms range from questions of ownership of Landcare, to its effectiveness at delivering natural resource outcomes. Of particular interest is the criticism that Landcare has not revolutionised land management, it is asserted that it has simply maintained the status quo or achieved small incremental change (Barr and Cary, 2000;Beilin, 2000Beilin, , 2001Curtis and De Lacy, 1998;Gill, 2004;Lawrence, 2000;Ledgar, 1995;Lockie, 1996aLockie, ,b, 2004Morrisey and Lawrence, 1997). These authors have speculated about why Landcare has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary in facilitating the adoption of sustainable land management practices.…”

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

“…This qualitative analysis technique is a non-linear, iterative process used for classifying themes derived from the research aims as well as the respondent data (Gill 2004). All interviews were performed during March and April 2009.…”

Making country good: stewardship and environmental change in central Australian pastoral culture

“…Its most significant element has been landholder groups using government and their own resources to tackle land management problems. In central Australia this occurred through the formation of a pastoralist Landcare group (the Centralian Land Management Association, CLMA), which promotes changed pastoral land management and which has acted as a voice for pastoralists (Gill ).…”

“…The key ‘moments’ and the selected data that I present in this paper emerged from this analytical process. In this paper each ‘moment’ is necessarily concise; further or parallel details for themes such as pastoral experiential knowledge and the operations of the CLMA can be seen in Gill ().…”