Download Group 2 Community response to this crisis

A Landcare Point of View
on the
Land and Biodiversity at a time of Climate Change
Green Paper
At a workshop organised by Phillip Island Landcare Group, a diverse group of Landcare people from across
Victoria studied the Green Paper on Land and Biodiversity at a time of Climate Change, and arrived at a
Landcare point of view. The aim of this document is to provide a window into the Green Paper, for
Landcare groups and Networks to use freely as they prepare their own response. The list of actions is not
inclusive and by no means restricts members from identifying other matters and commenting on issues
important to them. We urge Landcare members to read the Green Paper, think about what it proposes
and tell government what they think. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve the policies
that guide the way we manage land and biodiversity. Submissions should be returned to DSE by 30 June
2008.
Copies of the Phillip Island document can be found on the Landcare Gateway. The full Green paper is
available on the DSE website at www.dse.vic.gov.au.
Yours in Landcare
Peter Huthwaite (Phillip Island Landcare Group, convener)
There is a crisis, and we need to change now!
Chapters 1-5. ”… continuing and emerging pressures mean if we continue our present path we will not maintain
our ecosystems and ensure they continue providing essential services.” (Green Paper, p 5)
We applaud government’s recognition of the crisis in land and biodiversity, and welcome the opportunity
to comment on the Green Paper.
To attain broad scale change, government needs to display more leadership. The first five chapters
communicate the scale and the urgency of the crisis, but do not articulate strongly enough the need for
sustained action. Government needs to clearly outline a plan with targets and resources, and say how
outcomes will be measured. Institutional arrangements including planning controls should target
improvement in biodiversity. To have credibility in urging better land management on private land,
government needs to be a good role model itself in management of public land. Where regulation is
required, for example with pest plants and animals, this should be resourced and enforced.
To achieve a significant increase in outcomes, government needs to calculate and secure the funds
necessary for long term action. We do not believe that private sector investment will be large enough in
the future to cover shortfalls in government funding. We also believe that the public has a duty to pay for
the benefit received through natural resource management outcomes. Landcare already generates
substantial private investment, but its capacity is limited by resources. To do more, it needs more
resources.
Government needs to initiate programs promoting the significance of biodiversity, (for example, the
monetary value of ecosystem services), and aligning public values consistent with achieving the objectives of
the Green Paper. Landcare is well positioned to play a part in this communication process, providing an
avenue for government to communicate policy issues and implement them on-ground.
1
Landcare can be a key part of mobilising deep community
response
Chapter 9.1 Landcare and volunteer organisations. “Landcare networks and other community groups
mobilise community efforts in their local areas and facilitate the flow of private funding into natural resource
management…. They provide informed opinion, influence local attitudes and diver many forms of innovation.
Without these groups, government would find it difficult and expensive to influence, support and coordinate better
land management practices and protect priority assets across the state.” (Green Paper, p 73)
We agree that community approaches to natural resource management need to be increased and
strengthened. The structure of Landcare provides a well developed and substantial resource within
communities across the State. It makes a significant contribution towards improving land management and
biodiversity, and is evolving into a professional, skilled and adaptive movement with a unique capacity to
engage, involve and mobilise local communities.
Landcare provides the critical interface between the bureaucratic constraints of government and dynamics
and diversity of communities. It can interpret, translate and communicate to government local knowledge
of people, environment, issues and circumstances, and communicate government policies, programs and
priorities to local communities.
We support the suggested direction and expansion of planning and collaborating at a landscape scale.
Landcare is in an ideal position to facilitate collaborative visioning and planning at a landscape scale. This
collaboration includes all land tenures and various investors. Landcare is also well-placed to be a key player
in research into, and on-ground responses to, climate change.
Q. What kinds of support would help Landcare and other groups to build on current successes?
(Green Paper, p 74)
To meet the crises of biodiversity and climate change, Landcare groups and networks need:
o clear guidelines and strong commitment from all levels of government to develop and implement
landscape scale visions and change,
o access to research and data, and streamlined processes and systems for mapping and data
management, to support consistent planning approaches and tools, and for monitoring and
reporting,
o access to business planning and professional development to build capacity to deliver on-ground
landscape scale programs, be ready for corporate investment and diversify their funding sources,
o security of employment, skill development and a professional working environment for
coordinators and facilitators.
Absolutely fundamental to Landcare’s role at the interface between government and community are
coordinators and facilitators. These people:
o build on the existing momentum of groups and networks as community organisations,
o develop and maintain relationships within community and between all partners (investors,
landholders, policy makers),
o facilitate collaborative visioning and planning,
o coordinate on ground community action.
A level of statewide coordination and support, and a mechanism that provides a voice for grassroots
Landcare across Victoria would further strengthen Landcare.
2
Q. How can government work more collaboratively with volunteers and community groups?
(Green Paper, p 74)
It is time that governments and bureaucracies developed a mature response to communicating with
Landcare. We are community organisations responsive to local and regional issues. Our identity is based
on the landscape and social character in which we operate – we are people who care about what happens
long-term to our landscapes.
Landcare needs to be at the table when policy and program decisions are made, so that implementation at
community level is effective and efficient. The view that Landcare sits at the end of the line to deliver on
policies and programs developed by people in relative isolation from Landcare is inaccurate and demeaning.
Landcare Networks are not just project implementers. They broker resources and fit together community
interests with government’s agenda. They are strategists and advocates for their landscapes and
communities. They maintain action at the local level, and can play a greater role as a catalyst for change in
the community beyond their membership.
We need improvement across many different land uses
The Green Paper recognizes the value of Landcare in delivery of outcomes but under-estimates its
potential to deliver strategies in response to climate change. Landcare operates across the State, and
responds in each landscape to landowners’ land use.
In agriculture, environment improvement depends on management of the resources used in production
of food and fibre:
o soil organic matter and carbon
o ground cover
o pasture perenniality
o biodiversity above and below ground level
o water table level
o water efficiency - production per mm of rainfall
o carbon footprint
o soil nutrients
o revegetation
o remnant vegetation and riparian areas
Each element has significant and measurable environmental value, which must be included in the total
response to the maintenance and improvement of healthy ecosystems. Improvement in the environmental
values of farm ecosystems are being embraced by a growing number of farmers and are critical for
maintaining Victoria’s food production capacity and the economic viability of individual farm businesses.
Chapter 6, which presents actions for enhancing land and biodiversity, is incomplete without a section on
’Managing food and fibre production ecosystems.’
Lifestyle properties are increasing in area and have a significant potential for carbon sequestration,
biodiversity improvement, soil health and water quality improvement. Landcare groups and networks are a
critical point of reference for landholders who do not have a background in land management.
Public land can benefit from carryover of Landcare knowledge from private land to management of public
lands. Conservation management networks provide one good model for the relationship between public
land and private landholders’ knowledge.
3
Urban land Is increasing in area and having significant climate change and environmental impacts. The
effects on agriculture are also profound. Current provisions in land use planning that protect amenity are
failing to protect agriculture as a land use. Innovation in production may change the look of agricultural
landscapes, but it can also deliver healthier ecosystems. Section 7.6 needs to raise the need for revision of
the way amenity operates in land use decision making.
Market-based instruments have to be integrated into
community-based change
Chapter 7. Applying modern tools. “….opportunities exist to develop new markets and address missing
markets … In particular, there is a growing interest in harnessing market forces to encourage investment that
improves ecosystem services.” (Green Paper, p 60)
Payment for work with environmental benefits for the wider community is a powerful new tool, and
Landcare groups have been observing and participating in trials of this approach. Our conclusion is that
Market-Based Instruments (MBIs) run a risk of being too narrow in focus and exclusive rather than inclusive
in their reach.
o MBIs appear to be skewed towards broader landscape issues, with the risk of sidelining locally
important issues and changes that are slower to implement than tenders for specific ecosystem
services.
o Current expectations of landholders duty of care are unclear, resulting in a perception that
landholders are paid through MBI’s for things they were already doing or were committed to doing.
o Landholders can be involved in bidding for payment for ecosystem services in isolation from their
community. Some MBI models have had little knowledge sharing and learning within the local
community. Beyond the tender process, MBIs are all about individual action. This can cut across a
collaborative approach to changing practices and undermine community cohesion.
o Tender processes can be complex and inhibit some people’s involvement.
o Funding of MBIs at the expense of funding for Landcare would undermine long-term community
change in practices.
MBIs are not a panacea. The causes of ecosystem degradation are interconnected, and actions for
improvement also have to be kept closely interconnected. Sustainable agricultural enterprises that manage
to duty of care evolve within each landscape when there is a community of learning that brings together
knowledge, incentive and opportunity. Community learning develops best practice models that work in
each landscape, and communicates these through farmer discussion groups, farm walks, field days,
demonstration farms and opinion within community networks.
Based on Landcare’s experience of change in communities, we believe that if you mix MBIs with community
capacity, you get broader outcomes, and improve cost-benefit through knowledge sharing and additional
volunteer action. Already, the capacity building and education processes in Landcare have contributed
enormously to landholder ability to deliver on MBIs.
Development of MBIs needs to respond to regional and State priorities, but engage with locally specific
issues and involve local communities in setting local priorities. Decisions developed externally or in
isolation from the community are dangerous.
Information sharing in a tender process should not be viewed as collusion. Auction or tendering process
can be adapted to integrate capacity building and knowledge sharing. Longer term contracts can be
generated to allow landholders to deliver longer term outcomes.
4
The Bass Coast Land Stewardship Trial provides one example that integrates MBIs into sustainable
agricultural outcomes. It encourages and supports farmers to manage to their duty of care and achieve
Land Stewardship status. It takes account of the processes of developing landholder capacity.
A workable community-based approach that will lead landholders to Land Stewardship status is as follows:
o Program 1. Information/education – self assessment, action planning, other planning mechanisms
that work locally to generate environmental farm plans.
o Program 2. Continuing practice and incentives – bedding down changes in practice, being supported
to reach duty of care responsibilities, along with project-based incentives to adopt best practice.
o Program 3. Land Stewardship – where landholders can provide environmental benefits to the
community beyond their private benefit. This is where MBI’s can be used effectively using a
Landcare partnership approach.
A call to action for Landcare itself
The Green Paper signals change in government’s agenda. We want to signal changes that Landcare itself
needs to make, to strengthen its contribution ….
o Encourage landholders who have not been traditionally involved, and recruit future generations to
Landcare to ensure continuity of the movement.
o Encourage and foster a permanent change in landholders’ best practice environmental management.
o Improve Landcare organisational structures, and showcase achievements to ensure continuity of
funding and engage new members.
o Take a more rigorous and scientific approach taken to demonstrate successful project outcomes.
o Educate and inform government about the importance of the professional Landcare staff who
support Landcare groups and others working on Landcare projects.
o Challenge government to increase funding, resources and enthusiasm to support Landcare and
community projects via the CaLP act.
o Seek other sources of funding as a movement, instead of each group in isolation.
o Improve our ability to plan strategically, so that we build on strengths and manage weaknesses.
o Position Landcare to link communities and government on the issue of climate change, offering
practical support and action in all landscapes.
o Establish a Victorian Landcare Council to represent Victorian Landcare and provide a pathway for
speak to government on policy and programs.
5
Participants at the Phillip Island Workshop
Peter Huthwaite (convener), Ross Colliver (facilitator, TTDG),
Sally Abbott Smith (Yea River Catchment Landcare President), Karen Alexander (Johns Hill Landcare
Group, Southern Ranges Environment Alliance), Alex Arbuthnot (LAL), Robert Atkinson (Bass Coast
Landcare Network), David Blicblau (Deep Creek Landcare Group), Andrew Brown (East Gippsland
Landcare), Wayne Bryce (Watershed 2000, Central Hopkins Land Protection Association), Paul Burns
(International Power Mitsui), Mike Cleeland (Bass Coast Landcare Network), Ian Clues (Bairnsdale Urban
Landcare), , Nick Dudley (Department of Primary Industries), Brian Enbom (Bass Coast Landcare
Network), Doug Evans (Port Phillip and Westernport CMA) Pat Francis (Australian Landcare magazine),
Joel Geoghegan (Bass Coast Landcare Network), Stephen Guy (Lismore Land Protection Group), Ann
Jarvis (Kiewa Catchment Groups), Lindsay Jarvis (Kiewa Catchment Groups), Alice Knight (Woady Yaloak
Catchment Group), Andrea Mason (Victorian Landcare Network), Paul Martin (Yarram Yarram Landcare
Network), Stewart Matthieson (Upper Barwon Landcare Network), Moragh MacKay (Bass Coast Landcare
Network), Phillip McGarry (West Gippsland Landcare Network), Neil McInnes (Upper Barwon Landcare
Network), Jim Mead (Landcare Education Program), Irene Medley (East Gippsland Landcare Network),
Kellie Nichols (Bass Coast Landcare Network), Geoff Park (Newstead Landcare Group, North Central
Cathment Management Authority), Claire Penniceard, Jim Sansom (Newham and Districts Landcare
Group), Barry Sibly (Bass Coast Landcare Network), Matthew Stephenson (Bass Coast landcare Network),
Sarah Van Stokrom (Bass Coast Landcare Network) Leon Trembath (Yarram Yarram Landcare Network,
Gippslandcare), Julie Weatherhead (Westernport catchment Landcare Network), Darren Williams (State
Industry and Landcare Coordinator DAFF).
Observers; Kevin Love (Deputy Secretary Department of Sustainability and Environment – Chair Project
Control Board Land and Biodiversity White Paper), David Lucas (Senior Policy Officer, Sustainable Rural
Landscapes, Department of Sustainability and Environment), Jo McCoy (Manager Natural Resource
Reform/Project Director Land and Biodiversity White Paper, Department of Sustainability and
Environment), Mick Murphy (Victorian Catchment Management Council, Chair Stakeholder Reference
Group), Mike Nurse (Statewide Coordinator, Landcare and Community Engagement, Department of
Sustainability and Environment)
6