Community landcare in WA Shaping priorities for the next 5 years

A report to WA Landcare Network (Inc.) by Andrew Del Marco, Ironbark Environmental PO Box 945 MT LAWLEY WA 6929

April 2016

Authorship and disclaimer This report was prepared by Andrew Del Marco of Ironbark Environmental for the WA Landcare Network. It is based on literature review and personal interviews and presents facts and professional advice. All opinions are those of the author, and are not necessarily shared by the WA Landcare Network or its funding bodies. Use of the report by other parties is encouraged, in consultation with WALN contact email: [email protected] or visit http://www.landcarewa.org.au/

Cover photo acknowledgements from top right: Peel-Harvey Catchment Council (Green Corps team), Ron D’Raine (Planting at Shell reconnections event Peniup), Amanda Keesing (honey possum), WALN anonymous (plants in hands).

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

2

About this Report This report has been commissioned by the WA landcare Network (WALN). WALN is a collaborative association designed to promote and support community landcare in WA (See p 30). The purpose of the report is to provide a background from which the WALN and other stakeholders such as government can prepare policies and proposals that would help grow and sustain community landcare in WA. There are four main areas which the report has sought to address: • increased and sustained levels of funding to maintain the ongoing organisational fabric of landcare groups, through core funding for administration and management (landcare support); • sustained funding streams to support ongoing local projects; • support services for community landcare groups delivered through a well-resourced state office; and • ongoing mechanisms to provide advice to government that are representative of the broad landcare and environmental sector.

The author thanks the following people who have contributed their time and ideas to this report: Keith Bradby, Director, Gondwana Link Blair Darvill, Project Officer, South West and Peel Coastal Management Group Jen Green, Environment Officer, Shire of Quairading Pat Hart, Chairperson South East Regional Centre for Urban landcare John Holley, Director, State NRM Program Caroline Hughes, Coordinator, Cape to Capes Catchment Group Colma Keating, President, Canning River Residents Environment Protection Association Richard McLellan, CEO, Northern Agricultural Catchments Council Damien Postma, CEO, South West Catchments Council Jill Richardson, Manager Katanning LCDC Neil Riches, Australian Government, NRM Officer Nicole Wasmann, CEO, Shire of West Arthur Peter Weatherly, Avon Valley Environmental Society, Board member Wheatbelt NRM Peter Webster, CEO, Shire of Wagin Leigh Whisson, Regional landcare Facilitator, Wheatbelt NRM Sonia Williams, State landcare Coordinator (Acting) landcare NSW Paulina Wittwer, Chairperson Carnamah LCDC This report has been prepared for the WA Landcare Network (Inc.) with funding from the Australian Government’s National Landcare Programme.

3

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

Acronyms CLF EMRC DAFWA DoP DoW DPaW NACC NfP NRM NRMO SERCUL SOG WALGA WALN

Community Landcare Facilitator Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia Department of Planning Department of Water Department of Parks and Wildlife Northern Agricultural Catchments Council Not for Profit Natural resource management Natural Resource Management Officer South East Regional Centre of Urban Landcare Senior Officers Group Western Australian Local Government Association Western Australian Landcare Network

4

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

Contents About this Report ................................................................................................................................... 2 Contents ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Part A: Setting the scene........................................................................................................................ 6 1.

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.

What is community landcare? ....................................................................................................... 6

3.

The size and impact of the WA community landcare sector ......................................................... 7

4.

The benefits of community landcare ............................................................................................. 9

5.

Community landcare and other NRM players ............................................................................. 11 Regional NRM groups .................................................................................................................. 13 State government ........................................................................................................................ 13 Corporate sector .......................................................................................................................... 14 Local government ........................................................................................................................ 14 Large Not-for-Profit groups/ NGOs .............................................................................................. 15

Part B: What community landcare needs to thrive ............................................................................. 17 6.

Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 17

7.

Professional community landcare facilitation ............................................................................. 19

8.

The benefits of local landcare facilitation.................................................................................... 20

9.

Status of current community landcare facilitation ...................................................................... 20

10.

Sustainable funding for on-ground works ................................................................................ 23

11.

State-wide facilitation of community landcare ........................................................................ 25

12.

Policy and advice to government.............................................................................................. 26

12.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 26 12.2 Advising government ............................................................................................................... 26 12.3 Policy focus .............................................................................................................................. 27 13.

Building a shared vision for community landcare .................................................................... 27

Tables Table 1: Major components of community landcare .......................................................................... 18 Table 2: State NRM Program funding 2008 - 2015 .............................................................................. 24 Table 3: Major common understandings (aims and messages) to build a common vision for community landcare ............................................................................................................................ 28 5

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

Part A: Setting the scene 1. Introduction Community landcare is an important part of the way West Australians manage the environment and natural resources. It enables local communities and landholders to understand and address local environmental issues in partnership with government and the private sector and implement solutions that best fit local conditions. By working at a grassroots level, landcare changes the way that communities, local, Federal and State governments and landholders view and manage their reserves, beaches, farms and rivers. It encourages positive, long-term environmental stewardship. Strong community landcare is fundamental to addressing some of the state’s most complex and challenging environmental issues such as conservation of biodiversity and improved catchment water quality. From beginnings as a community movement in the 1980s, landcare has evolved into a shared approach of the community, government and private sectors. This has made ‘doing landcare’ more complex, but has enabled much more to be achieved. In Western Australia, community landcare has largely operated in an informal policy context, and from the late 1980s has been influenced by consecutive federal and state government funding programs and changing policy priorities1. In general, these shifts in priorities have been: • a change in the context from community landcare to natural resource management; • a ‘fracturing’ of the unified approach by development of various government ‘care’ programs (Bushcare, Coastcare etc.) • funding streams having a greater focus on state and national priorities; • establishment of a regional coordination and delivery model. Each of these shifts, either intentionally or unintentionally, has led to less emphasis and fewer resources for community landcare. This paper seeks to refocus public, government and corporate attention back to where it all starts: community landcare.

2. What is community landcare? Community landcare is made up of a broad range of volunteer community groups and individuals, Not-for-Profit (NfP) groups and supporting professionals that work to restore, improve and/or protect the natural environment and natural resources. Community landcare groups include coastcare, bushcare, rivercare, landcare, catchment, ‘Friends of’, Traditional Owner landcare, biosecurity, and farmers’ groups working on sustainable production, soil health, habitat and land degradation issues.

1

An exception to this policy approach has been the support of LCDC’s (or local groups concerned about soil, land and water conservation), enabled through the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945. Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

6

A community landcare group or activity usually: • has strong links to a community, often a local or district community; • operates at the local or district scale but is flexible to the natural area or landcare issue they are working on. This may include a local reserve, river system, catchment or landscape. Community landcare often has close links to local government, non-government organisations and regional NRM groups.

3. The size and impact of the WA community landcare sector The WA community landcare scene is diverse and dynamic. Groups focus on a wide range of types of areas or issues including coastal areas, bushlands, nature trails, wetlands, creeks and rivers, catchments, biosecurity issues, and farming districts. Some groups continue to operate over decades, while others ‘form, storm, norm, perform’ over a shorter period as resources, targets and activities permit. There is no comprehensive survey of the number, type and coverage of community landcare groups in Western Australia. An estimate of approximately 500 community landcare groups state-wide would not be unrealistic based on statistics showing that over 270 groups are formally registered at present in the following: • 140 ‘Friends of’ groups listed through Urban Nature– predominantly Perth Metropolitan Region • 51 community landcare groups operating within the Peel-Harvey Catchment • 30 groups involved in the CoastSWap network - groups working in the coastal areas of southwest Australia • 28 active Land Conservation District Committees – state-wide (as at 7/10/15, DAFWA website) • 23 community landcare groups in the Cities of Bunbury and Busselton. The Australian Governments review of landcare in WA in 2012 also concluded about 500 community landcare groups at the time (Australian Government, 2015). All seven NRM regions, most local and Not-for-Profit (NfP) groups (networks within and across various NRM regions), and most local governments work with or support numerous community landcare groups. This support varies significantly based on available resources and the nature of the group’s activities at any time. There is no central database of the work and on-ground achievements of community landcare groups. This would be a massive undertaking. To demonstrate the range of achievements of community landcare groups, a number of Case Studies are included in this report. 7

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

Example 1: Conservation of Candy’s Bush Reserve through Traditional & ecological knowledge sharing A project was coordinated by Moore Catchment Council in 2015 to work with numerous partners to manage and increase community awareness of Candy’s Bush Reserve, Moora. The reserve is of high ecological and cultural significance and is an important eco-tourism site for the district. The project’s achievements included: • • •

• •

formalisation and maintenance of a 1 km walk trail around reserve. Land For Wildlife assessment and accreditation of the Reserve production and distribution of a Walk Trail Companion booklet on the Reserve’s natural features and the Aboriginal significance of its plant species. design and installation of 11 interpretative signs which detail the ecology of the site and the Aboriginal importance of the site a number of community and educational events including an official opening of walk trail, Bush Medicine and Bush foods Workshop, and Rubbish collection day.

Through the Project, a new Yued Advisory NRM committee has been formed for Moora which will help streamline information flow for subsequent projects. The communities of Moora and beyond now have a more well-known and valued asset for nature-based tourism, nature study and education on Aboriginal cultural and bush foods.

Before: Aug 2013 - no signage at entrance

Workshop: Bush foods & medicine Dec 2015

After: Dec 2015 – new trailhead signage

Event: Opening of reserve Oct 2015

New Information booklet

Project coordination: Moore Catchment Council. Project partners: Shire of Moora, Yued community, Friends of the Moora Woodlands, Kerkhof Carnaby’s group, Department of Parks & Wildlife, South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council.

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

8

4. The benefits of community landcare Community Landcare is a locally relevant and cost-effective means of managing the environment and natural resources. The great advantage of community landcare approaches are that they often achieve environmental, social and cultural change simultaneously. Landcare has the trust and respect of local communities, landholders and local governments and supports and encourages onground environmental action that might not otherwise occur. Community landcare harnesses extra community resources that might not otherwise be directed to environmental management or care of the land. At a high level, the benefits of community landcare have been independently assessed by academics such as Professor Allan Curtis and others. This work has shown landcare’s major impacts are: • Participation in landcare groups increases awareness of environmental degradation, and knowledge of land and water degradation processes and sustainable practices. • Participation increases adoption of recommended land management practices, participation in training and farm planning, and implementation of on-ground works to ameliorate land degradation. • In studied catchments, 95 per cent of landcare group members and 71 per cent of nonmembers report that their properties have benefited from their participation in landcare activities. • In districts with a landcare group, landholders have higher levels of adoption of sustainable farming practices than those without a landcare group. • Government funding for landholders' on-ground projects generates five times that investment by landholders themselves. (Curtis, 2003; Curtis et al, 2008) Community landcare builds partnerships at the neighbourhood, local and district levels where they are most able to result in on-ground change and behaviour change. These partnerships often involve a local community landcare group working with local government and other parties such as local businesses, Not-for-Profit groups, and other parties such as the local volunteer fire brigade. At an individual and community level, participation in landcare builds and strengthens people’s connection to nature and improves their mental and physical health (Martin, 2011; Fjortoft and Sageie, 2000). This is especially important in urban and per-urban environments where people have fewer opportunities to interact with the natural world. For example, many urban and per-urban landcare groups work with local residents, schools and other community groups to conduct planting days, environmental education and citizen science events. Results that are meaningful to citizens and residents are generated by the work of community landcare groups. People can most easily relate to the revegetation or management of a local wetland, creek or patch of bush. It is less easy for the general public to relate to regional or statescale projects. The multiplier effect of investment in community landcare is significant.

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

9

Noticably: • •

Government investment in community landcare has been shown to attract five times that investment to on-ground projects (Curtis, 2003), or between three to seven times the investment in other studies (Williams, 2014) Investment by Alcoa Australia in six subcatchments of the Avon River attracted five times the funding contributed by Alcoa (Campbell, 2000).

Example 2: Management of rivers, creeks and drains Many of the rivers and creeks of the south west and beyond have declined in condition since European settlement through inappropriate use and management. Drainage channels have also been dug through many waterlogged areas to enable farming and development and create extensive drainage networks flowing into rivers and estuaries. Revegetation, restoration and fencing of rivers, creeks and drains by landcare groups since the 1980’s have started to reverse this decline. The before and after photos below illustrate the impact of landcare work on the Wungong River between 1999 and 2009, a river flowing into the SwanCanning River Estuary, Perth.

Wungong River, 1999

Wungong River, 2009 Photos courtesy: Armadale-Gosnells Landcare Group

10

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

5. Community landcare and other NRM players When discussing a future for community landcare in WA, it is important to recognise the operating environment in which management of the environment and natural resources occurs. Some of the distinctive aspects of this operating environment are that it is complex, involves numerous players, is heavily based on relationships, and when it works well, is fundamentally collaborative. Cooperation and collaboration are fundamental not only because of the very nature and complexity of environmental management, but because of the very limited resources and expertise available in any one sector or group. Figure 1 shows that, even at a high-level, there are numerous sectors that have a role in managing the environment and natural resources in the state. The groups differ in terms of their roles and purposes and the way they are resourced and operate. When strong collaboration and cooperation occurs between these sectors, significant on-ground outcomes can be achieved.

Figure 1: Major sectors involved in management of the environment and natural resources

Figure 2 is included to illustrate the extensive nature of community landcare networks in the state, using one small part of the state, Serpentine-Jarrahdale, as an example. The illustration shows: • • • •

the extensive nature of community landcare groups that can be supported through a single community landcare support centre or network the important connections that link community landcare to government, large NfPs and other organisations that have a role in environmental management the mobilisation of local communities and the return on investment, and the social capital developed through the community landcare network.

To reach its potential, community landcare needs the support of each of the other sectors involved in management of Western Australia’s environment and natural resources. A background to the role of some of these sectors in relation to community landcare is provided below. Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

11

1 2 Figure 2: An example of community landcare in Western Australia, Serpentine-Jarrahdale in the Peel-Harvey Catchment

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

Regional NRM groups There are seven regional NRM groups in WA, and each has been established under agreement with the Federal Government. While state agencies work with the regions where possible, the State government provides limited funding to them and has no formal policy position on their existence or operations. The seven regional NRM organisations in Western Australia can undertake the following: • in collaboration with community, landcare and farming system groups, lead regional NRM planning and prioritisation of NRM activities to support environmental protection and sustainable agricultural practices. These NRM plans are a powerful document that guide Australia Government funding. • deliver nationally important outcomes that assist Australia to meet its national and international obligations • broker partnerships, collaborate with networks and support local stakeholders in delivery of regional NRM activities (including delivering projects with the community) • build local community and industry engagement, skills and capacity in NRM and sustainable agriculture (including the provision of financial and technical support) • support Indigenous participation in delivering NRM outcomes • report NRM outcomes at a regional level and contribute to Programme reporting at the national level. Since their formation, mostly around the 2002 to 2004 period, the NRM regions have generally broadened their role from NRM planning and coordination to include the delivery of projects and fee for service facilitation. From the perspective of community landcare, and supporting community landcarers, this change has sometimes led to competition between local landcare and regional NRM groups. Some community landcare support structures have adapted to the move towards regionalisation, but many more local groups have died, shrunk or become inactive. It is important that a more transparent and cooperative arrangement is established between community landcare and WA’s regional NRM groups (See Section 6.4). State government State government and its agencies play important roles in landcare and environmental management through: • enacting legislation and implementing policies related to the environment and land management • implementing policies to support community landcare and NRM • providing support to community landcare, including resources and funding • managing public lands • creating partnerships to implement projects The state government’s roles in policy implementation and support for community landcare are discussed in other parts of this report, including Sections 4 and 6. Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

13

Corporate sector The Corporate and private sectors play an important role in supporting community landcare through the development of large partnership projects and funding support. Examples include programs such as the Alcoa landcare Project (1989 – 2003), Western Power Greening Challenge (1996 – 2002), corporate investment via Landcare Australia Limited; and Greening Australia’s Living Landscapes sponsored by Alcoa. The corporate sector values partnerships with community Landcare as a practical way of implementing its commitment to care of the environment and demonstrating this commitment to the wider community. The participation of employees in community landcare projects has also been a mutually beneficial aspect of the corporate sector’s participation in landcare projects. As a case study of corporate sector investment in landcare, see Green Gems, a story-based review of the Alcoa Landcare Project 1989-2003 (Pilgrim, 2015). Local government Local governments have a special role to play in community landcare given that they are the level of government closest to the community and are responsible for the good governance of their communities. Many local governments around the state are active participants in community landcare, through direct and indirect financial support of landcare centres, landcare projects and community landcare facilitators. Significant positive outcomes occur where partnerships exist between local government and community landcare groups, with mutual benefits for both parties. For example partnerships between local government and community landcare can enable the local governments to implement local environmental strategies to an extent not possible under operating budgets and staff expertise. The landcare group benefits from being able to achieve their goals and objectives. The WA Local Government Association (WALGA) has published a number of policy statements on NRM over the past fifteen years, the latest in 2010, which recognises and commits local government to: 1. Sustainable management of natural resources 2. Fostering partnerships to enhance sustainable management of natural resources 3. Inclusion in NRM decision-making structures 4. Acknowledging resourcing barriers and constraints 5. Acknowledging Local Government options to achieve sustainable natural resource management. (WALGA, 2010) 14 Working with the local government sector is critical to sustainable community landcare and should be a priority for WALN in the coming years.

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

Large Not-for-Profit groups/ NGOs Groups such as Greening Australia, WWF, and Birdlife Australia play an important role in working with community landcare groups to provide expertise and resources that are generally not easy to find elsewhere, or would cost significant amounts to purchase from the private sector. Community landcare groups partner with NfP groups as and when they require to achieve their objectives. This is part of the dynamic and purposeful approach of many community landcare groups.

15

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

Example 3: Armadale-Gosnells Landcare Group The Armadale-Gosnells Landcare Group (AGLG) provides an example of how landcare groups operate in partnership with other groups, and are built on a philosophy of sharing and cooperation. The Group was established in 1998 and works closely with two local governments, other landcare and volunteer groups, state government agencies, schools and the community. It has a simple and effective management structure supported by local government, and employs up to two staff members. The local community is encouraged to attend most of the Group’s events, and open meetings are held every two months. According to the Group’s chairperson, AGLG is a story of community passion and commitment. Pictured at one of the Group’s major project sites, the Canning River, Kelmscott are (l – r) Shane Hunter and Jen Francis (Community Landcare Officers), and Ken Downsborough (chairperson).

16

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

Part B: What community landcare needs to thrive 6. Overview Through discussions with stakeholders in community landcare, regional NRM groups and government undertaken for this report, the following components of effective and efficient community landcare have been identified. 1) Community landcare groups and/or individuals working voluntarily with others through an organised structure – voluntary, enthused, focused, functional. A characteristic of effective landcare groups is that they have one or more passionate people – champions, people who get things done. 2) An environmental context in which to operate. This context is a local environmental resource or issue (e.g. landscape, issue, species, bushland reserve, catchment, biosecurity issue etc.); This gives the group their identity and sense of purpose. 3) Professional support – credible, committed and local professional support. Good local

facilitators. 4) Resources to implement the solution or manage the natural resource (financial, human and other types of resources; private and/or public). 5) A public policy context – which enables groups to do the work they voluntarily want to do (or at least does not impede the group from doing the desired landcare work). 6) Public accountability and good governance – Groups need to ensure that they use all resources responsibility and to great effect. They must comply with reasonable levels of public scrutiny via regular public reporting. Good governance means that all group activities are well managed, administered soundly and comply with legislative requirements. There may be other components, but these appear to be the most important at shaping successful and sustainable community landcare based on the WA experience since the late 1990’s. Table 1 describes the function of each of these components.

17

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

Table 1: Major components of community landcare

Component Community landcare groups

Function • Groups enable agreed decisions and solutions to be implemented where solutions by individuals may be less effective (e.g. crosscatchment issues). Many issues require innovative solutions, or variable, tailored solutions across a landscape or locality. • Groups mobilise additional resources from outside the group, and more easily bring stakeholders together. • Other Individuals in a community are motivated by group activity, or influenced to change behaviours (changing social norms) An environmental The issue which is the focus of group activity. For example, a landscape, context river, bushland reserve, farming district, biosecurity issue etc. Professional support Professional support (paid and unpaid) enables groups to operate efficiently and effectively, and focus on getting work done. For example, facilitators are equipped and trained to ensure projects are technically sound and implemented to a high standard. Professional facilitators ensure governance, acquittal, administration and legal requirements are met. Above all, facilitators facilitate good planning, partnerships, and project delivery. Resource inputs Landcare solutions require resource inputs, usually a combination of: • Human resources – expertise, specialist advice, labour, problemsolving, volunteer and paid professionals • Financial or equivalent in-kind resources for capital and operational expenses • Data and information (observations, baseline information etc.). A public policy • Public policy includes policy on landcare and NRM generally, and context policy on specific issues. • Policy clarifies the standards by which community landcare should operate, and assists community activity appropriate standard and contribute to strategic or broadscale goals. Public accountability • Ensure investors are confident that resources have been used wisely, and good effectively and efficiently. governance • Different levels of accountability are appropriate for different sizes of groups and budgets. • Public accountability may include operation under a Constitution, regular public reporting, auditing of financial statements, and monitoring and evaluation processes. • Good governance should be appropriate to the operations of the group and cover areas such as employment standards, safety standards and codes of conduct. 18

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

7. Professional community landcare facilitation In the 1990s and 2000s, many community landcare groups were able to directly employ or indirectly access professional officers whose role was to facilitate and support the community group and its work. These officers were often known as Landcare Project Officers, Community Landcare Coordinators (CLC) or Community Landcare Facilitators, and were employed under various management structures by the local community, often in partnership with local governments. CLCs often worked with more than one community group and more than one local government and so were effective networkers and collaborators across administrative boundaries. Community groups had differing relationships with CLCs, ranging from close and operational, to less formal and irregular contacts. Much of the funding for these positions was provided by the Federal Government, with supporting funding from State and Local Governments. In the 2000 – 2005 period, there were an estimated 140+ professional CLCs engaged in WA (John Holley, pers. comm.). A formal professional support network was also formed for Community Landcare Facilitators, convened by the facilitators themselves. During the late 1990s and 2000s government support for community landcare shifted from the local level to regional NRM groups. The Federal and State governments’ aim was to be more strategic and maximise the outcomes for environmental protection and sustainable agriculture. In WA these regional organisations became quite large, often 30-40 staff, and as a result of this shift, many local communities could no longer maintain the CLC positions due to the withdrawal of funding for this purpose. These professionals had enabled local communities to deliver significant on-ground projects which they otherwise would not have been able to do. It is difficult to establish how many CLCs (or similar) now operate in WA. There is no longer a functional Facilitators Network, and facilitators are employed, managed or hosted though a range of different organisations. Best available estimates are that it is likely that there are less than 50 professional CLF’s operating in WA in 2015 (This estimate is based on a review carried out by the author as part of the project during September – October 2015. The number of CLC’s may be reduced further in 2016 as positions supported through Biodiversity Fund projects are completed). It should be noted that not all community landcare groups require access to direct and substantive CLF support as this support may be provided by existing organisations (e.g. Local Government Environmental Officers, regional local government organisations such as the EMRC2, staff from Regional NRM groups, and staff from sub-regional NRM/landcare groups such as SERCUL3). However, the over-riding requirement is that most groups that undertake substantial projects and on-ground works require significant locally based facilitation support that strengthens the local group.

19

2 3

EMRC Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council SERCUL South East Regional Centre of Urban Landcare Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

8. The benefits of local landcare facilitation The benefits of community landcare facilitators have been documented by other state and territory landcare networks, but may be less well documented in WA. In building a case for funding for 68 community-based part-time facilitators in 2010, the Victorian Landcare Council, summarised all of the benefits into three major statements: • • •

Facilitators help communities get more done Facilitators strengthen communities Facilitators support the platform for long-term change. (Victorian Landcare Council, 2014a)

Another benefit of professional facilitation is its ability to influence local government policy and how local and state government manages public lands. Local facilitators often bring different parties together to resolve complex land management issues that often require a bigger picture or whole-of-landscape approach across multiple land tenures and ownerships. Weed and feral animal control initiatives or fire management strategies are examples of challenges that require such collaborative approaches.

9. Status of current community landcare facilitation Where paid community landcare facilitation and support still operates today in WA, often the Executive Officers of local groups, it has focused on the needs and interests of local communities and landholders, and has adapted management structures to the available resources. Based on research and discussions undertaken for this Project, the following observations are provided: 1) Some NRM regional groups value CLF as an effective and efficient means of achieving regional NRM goals related to on-ground outcomes. 2) Some NRM regional groups value CLF as important for its community capacity building benefits, and the intrinsic importance of CLF in engaging local communities, local governments, landholders and maintaining trust, behaviour change and support for landcare/NRM. 3) Some local governments value CLF as a priority need of their local communities, and where possible provide resources accordingly. 4) In many cases professional CLFs are directly or indirectly supported by local governments. (e.g. Quairading, Wagin, Woodanilling, Serpentine-Jarrahdale). This was also the case in the past when federal government funding was available for CLFs, but now local government support is more pronounced. 5) In some cases, CLFs are directly supported by regional NRM groups (e.g. examples in PeelHarvey and the Northern Agricultural Catchments Council). 6) In rural areas: a. Many CLF’s are working on more projects aligned to sustainable agriculture (soil health, productivity issues, agricultural pests and weeds) than projects focusing on other NRM objectives such as biodiversity conservation or catchment water quality. This may reflect external funding priorities as well as underlying interests of local communities. Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

20

b. Many CLF’s have been drawn from the local community, or have become part of the local community. These connections with local landholders and local communities are very important in building trust and respect. 7) In urban and peri-urban areas CLF’s may receive greater professional support, or work with other NRM professionals. They may generally have greater professional opportunities than CLFs in rural areas. 8) Most CLF’s are generally employed on a part-time arrangement. This is often due to reduced available resources and/or advantages of part-time employment for people in regional areas. An over-riding trend is that local facilitation approaches need to be appropriate for the local situation. No one size fits all. To demonstrate this flexible approach, a number of ‘models’ of supporting local facilitators can be found today in WA. All of these models are based on a collaborative approach between stakeholders, but differ slightly in the management structures supporting the CLF positions: a. Local community managed CLF – Serpentine-Jarrahdale, Moore Catchment Council, b. Regional NRM managed CLF – e.g. NACC NRMO’s working out of Perenjori, NRMO’s working in Waroona, Hotham-Williams Catchments. c. Sub-regional groups CLF Model – South East Regional Centre for Urban Landcare (SERCUL), Chittering Landcare Centre d. Large Not for Profits CLF Model – Birdlife Australia, Gondwana Link, Greening Australia. e. Local government managed or orientated CLF model. For example: o Shire of Kalamunda – Where the local government directly employs staff to work with ‘Friends of’ groups, catchment groups and other community landcare groups. o Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council o City of Melville In any of the above models, Local government can and does play a significant role in supporting the work of the CLF and providing contributions towards project delivery. This includes direct funding of staff, provision of offices, vehicle leasing, and contributions to on-ground projects. Current funding for CLFs is drawn from a range of sources including funds accessed by community landcare groups, or from local government, and regional NRM groups. Funds sourced from community landcare groups are usually small and incidental, funds from regional NRM groups are derived from the Federal Government. Where local government funding is available is often provides a long term base which serves to attract other funding. An important consideration in building the case for CLFs is the accountability mechanism to be used to ensure the public’s investment is meeting agreed objectives/outputs/outcomes. For example, the Victorian Landcare Council is promoting the concept of the state developing a set of environmental accounts that will meet the needs of government decision makers, land managers and the wider Australian community. Those accounts will inform choices about effective programs, and allow the NRM sector to build a stronger case for public investment in CLFs and community landcare (VLC, 2014b).

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

21

Example 4: Team Rubbervine: Control of rubbervine in the Kimberley Landcare groups and landcare efforts come in all shapes and sizes. For example, the control of rubbervine in the Kimberley region is being assisted by a number of small groups working with the support of state government, Rangelands NRM, and industry. Key among these groups is ‘Team Rubbervine’ led by John Szymanski. The team consists of a small number of people, including Traditional Owners, to spot infestations and carry out on-ground eradication and mapping. Infestations are detected through aerial survey and the innovative use of volunteers who scan thousands of aerial photos from the comfort of their own homes. The digital aerial photos are created by a special camera and computer system pioneered for the project. Team Rubbervine has removed 99% of the infestations in the Kimberley since 2012 and the project is now set to eradicate the weed from WA. The project is jointly funded by State NRM Strategic grants program and Rangelands NRM. Note: Rubber vine is only known to occur in two locations in WA, on the lower Fitzroy River and lower Lake Argyle Catchment in the Kimberley. The weed has severely cost Queensland in loss of environmental and cultural values, grazing, tourism and recreation. In 1995, Rubber vine was estimated to cost the Queensland beef industry alone 18 million dollars annually. Source: http://www.rangelandswa.com.au/836/99-percent-ofrubber-vine-eradicated-on-the-lower-fitzroy-riverEast Kimberley rangers treat rubber vine at Lissadell Station (Photo: Courtesy Department of Agriculture and Food WA)

22

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

10. Sustainable funding for on-ground works On-ground works are the focus of most community landcare groups. There are many examples of the positive impact of community landcare works on WA’s environment and landscapes. Community landcare groups need funds to undertake on-ground works. These funds are used to create the base from which other funds and in-kind investments are attracted. Funds from both government and corporate sectors are important, and add to the significant contributions that volunteers and landholders make to carry out on-ground works. Community landcare groups spend a considerable amount of time and money sourcing funds to undertake their on-ground works. They may be assisted by CLFs where available. While it is expected that rigorous application processes are required of funding bodies, much volunteer time is spent chasing very limited funding, or re-adapting projects to suit the individual requirements of different funding bodies. In WA over the past 3 years, the major sources of funding for on-ground works accessible by community landcare groups have been: • State NRM Program • CoastWest Grants • Lotterywest • Swan-Canning River Recovery Project • Landcare Australia Limited. Community landcare groups may have also been eligible for other funding through regional NRM groups over this period, but the criteria and purposes of this funding have been more variable, and the duration of the funding opportunities have been limited. This is due to the regional NRM groups being required to match funding to specific outputs and outcomes linked to regional NRM strategies and the expectations of the Federal Government. NRM WA, representing the seven regional NRM groups in WA, estimates that between $4M and $6M is being provided to end of 2018, to support community landcare activity through the regional allocation of the National Landcare Program in WA. Regional NRM groups may also provide support to community landcare groups with funding applications, assist funders with assessments of funding applications, assist groups with planning and delivering projects. The State NRM Program has offered WA community landcare groups the only significant, regular funding opportunity targeted at landcare over the past 7 years. However, the amount made available each year and the release of funds has varied greatly (Table 2) and this has created uncertainty amongst groups and discouraged any long-term approach to landcare project planning and investment. There is a great need for state governments to set in place a long-term policy for the funding of onground community landcare works. The State NRM program provides a sound basis, but funding must be sufficient to ensure strong landcare activity occurs across the State, and protected in a long-term commitment so as to encourage confidence in the community landcare sector to plan for long-term landcare projects. Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

23

Table 2: State NRM Program funding 2008 - 2015

Year 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total

State NRM Program funding ($) $6m $30m $10m $10m $10m ?? (was it $0) $4m $70m

It is a policy decision of the state government to provide this long-term base funding for on-ground landcare works. This will stimulate further investment by communities, local government, landholders and the corporate sector in landcare. The corporate sector should be encouraged by all stakeholders to strategically invest in community landcare where it can see a strong business case and a long-term public commitment to improving an environment, landscape or natural asset. This is over and above any legal or statutory obligations the corporate sector may have to protect the environment. Example 5: The Cape to Cape Catchment Group The Cape to Cape Group is an example of a community landcare group working collaboratively with local and state government, the regional NRM group and private businesses in their area. The Group operates across the Margaret River Region, are guided by a strategic plan and numerous technical plans specific to key environmental assets. Their achievements since 2002 include: • excluding stock from 95% of the main channel of the Margaret River, • working with dairy farmers in the Margaret River catchment to improve dairy effluent management to protect water quality in the Margaret River • preparing 20 control plans for identified populations of Weeds of National Significance and controlling priority populations. The Group’s work was highly commended at the 2014 Australian Riverprize competition. The Group and volunteers are assisted by part-time coordinator and project officers, and sourcing funds to maintain these key staff is the Group’s greatest challenge. Further information on the group’s activities can be found at: http://www.capetocape.org.au/

24

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

11. State-wide facilitation of community landcare State-wide facilitation of community landcare will reap benefits in terms of increased effectiveness and efficiency of landcare groups, and greater cooperation between community landcare and other sectors, including government and regional NRM groups. The main purpose of state-wide facilitation should be to: 1) support communication and networking between volunteers and professionals involved in community landcare groups. This may include technical forums and workshops, mentoring programs and other training programs targeted at community landcarers. 2) provide background support to Landcare Support Officers that benefits both the employee and the community landcare group. 3) assist the community landcare sector to identify issues of common concern, and bring these concerns to the attention of the appropriate level of government, organisation or sector. 4) help community landcare groups resolve issues of common interest, where the most effective and/or efficient solution may be implemented at a state-wide level. Examples of this may include assistance with insurance coverage, matters related to Community Landcare Facilitators, or funding. 5) develop, in consultation with groups and stakeholders, standards of operation for community landcare groups, and help them attain these standards. 6) establish strategic partnerships with other organisations that will benefit community landcare groups state-wide. Currently, the level of state-wide facilitation of community landcare is relatively low. Both WALN and the State NRM Office have some potential to provide state-wide facilitation but this is not a priority under the current operating and resourcing conditions of either group. Under WALN’s objects of association, its roles include representation of community landcare and advocacy for a sustainable future for landcare in WA. WALN’s role in developing a case for statewide facilitation needs to be further explored together with the other initiatives that are raised in this Paper. Continued liaison with the State NRM Office will be important to assess how government may grow its role as a direct facilitator of community landcare beyond funding provider.

25

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

12. Policy and advice to government 12.1 Background There is a great need to provide clear, timely advice to state and federal governments on community landcare. By its nature, community landcare is community driven and relies on wellmotivated and supported volunteers, groups and assisting professionals. Government, through its policies and funding programs, can motivate or deflate this community enthusiasm and investment. Most of the following relates to the state government policy sphere, because of the greater need and ability to influence state government policy in this area. There is no state government policy on NRM, despite previous attempts in 2008 and 2010. This highlights both the opportunity and challenge ahead for WALN and community landcare.

12.2 Advising government WALN has an important responsibility to represent its members on matters of importance to community landcare and can make direct representation to government in a number of ways. WALN is concerned that the WA Government does not have a mechanism through which it can receive the considered opinion and advice of the spectrum of viewpoints that make up the landcare sector. At a state level, the government has three committees, though it is understood that these rarely meet: • WA Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (WA NRM Ministerial Council) • Council of Natural Resource Agencies Chief Executives (CONRACE) • Natural Resource Management Senior Officers Group (NRM-SOG) Membership of each of the above 3 groups is limited to Ministers or senior government officers. There is no equivalent of the Soil and Land Conservation Council, which for many decades brought government and community together to provide coordinated advice and monitor progress on key issues. WALN and community landcarers should work for the establishment of a broad representative body tasked to: • Discuss and decide policy advice to government on matters affecting landcare/NRM • Oversee and provide advice on the operation of the landcare awards and conferences. It is proposed that this body will report directly to the WA Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (WA NRM Ministerial Council) and include membership from: • The Departments of Parks and Wildlife, Environmental Regulation, Water, Agriculture and Planning • NRMWA • WALN/community landcare • WALGA • Large NfP’s working in the landcare arena Executive support to this body should be provided through the State NRM Office. Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

26

12.3 Policy focus WALN, under its objects of association, has a broad mandate to provide policy advice and advocacy on matters of relevance to community landcare, including natural resource management. Given the broad coverage of community landcare and NRM issues, and WALN’s limited resources, it is important that WALN focuses its policy work effort on policy directly or largely focused on the delivery of landcare or NRM. This is important as WALN seeks to establish some enduring form of state government commitment to community landcare. An example of this type of policy development is working with other stakeholders to advocate to state government a new state policy for Community landcare and NRM. Where policy is being formed by government which relates directly or indirectly to the management of the environment or natural resources (such as a policy on clearing, biosecurity, or water resources) WALN should ensure that it does not impede community landcare groups or activities, and preferably supports and encourages community landcare. More indepth policy work on issues related to specific natural resources or NRM issues should be approached with care, and an understanding that is should be a second priority after ‘shoring up’ the sustainability of community landcare in WA.

13. Building a shared vision for community landcare Based on consultation to date4, it is considered imperative that WALN work towards building a shared vision for community landcare with NRM WA, WALGA and the Not for Profit sector. This cooperative approach needn’t commence until after a draft policy position is prepared, but it should be commenced as early as possible in the process. The advantages of a collaborative approach are that it will be more robust when presented to government and politicians who may not understand community landcare and the regional NRM model, or may have alternative priorities for landcare and NRM. A joint approach between the state landcare network and the body representing regional NRM groups has been essential in NSW in gaining state government support and funding for community landcare. Table 3 summarises the major common understandings (aims and messages) that may help build a shared vision for community landcare and NRM with NRM WA and WALGA, corporate sector, state government and the wider community.

27

4

Consultation includes community landcarers, regional NRM CEO’s, and government employees. Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

Table 3: Major common understandings (aims and messages) to build a common vision for community landcare

Partner/ stakeholder group NRM WA

Primary aims and messages • • • •

WALGA

• • • •

NfP sector (incl. Environmental NGOs) Community landcare groups Professional Community landcare facilitators

• • • •

General public

• •

Both community landcare and regional NRM groups must work together to achieve environmental improvement. WALN values the 20% allocation of Federal NRM funds to community landcare and wants it maintained in the long-term. State government should recognise both community landcare and regional NRM groups as important in achieving State environmental objectives. Regional NRM groups must apply the subsidiarity principle whenever determining how best to achieve their objectives and implement their strategies (this may mean projects are delivered through community landcare groups if the appropriate skills, expertise and resources are available at that level). Community landcare values the commitment many local governments make to community landcare. WALN wants to work with WALGA to develop a common policy platform to support community landcare in the long-term. WALN values professional facilitation as a key part of effective community landcare. Local governments have a role to play as natural resource managers, and require the support of state government, community landcare, regional NRM groups and others to fulfil this role. WALN values the important roles that the NfP sector plays in helping community landcare groups achieve their goals. WALN represents and supports the work and operation of community landcare groups as its primary role. WALN recognises that paid CLFs, locally based and managed, allocated to one or more specific community landcare groups, are essential for groups to operate to their full potential. WALN believes that the state government has a primary role to provide core funding for CLFs where there is a demonstrated need, in return for measureable outputs/outcomes. Community landcare is essential for the environment, our children’s future and strong economy. Small investments in community landcare go a long way: every $1 is tuned into $3 to $7. Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

28

Partner/ stakeholder group

Primary aims and messages •

Corporate sector

• •

State Government

• • • • • • • •

Federal government

•

Academia / Research

• •

Young people

• •

Our state government has a great opportunity to do a little more, and gain a lot for the public and volunteers. WALN values corporate sector investment in community landcare. It is critical that new long-term partnerships are sought between landcare and major corporate entities. Community landcare is critical to the state meeting its objectives to conserve biodiversity, improve catchment water quality and increase the value of agriculture. There are an estimated 500 community landcare groups in WA but most of these are struggling to receive the support they require to operate effectively and efficiently. WALN values the efforts of NRM regions to support community landcare and sees a future for both NRM regions and community landcare. WALN values the State NRM Program and its two components: Community Action Grants and Community Capacity Grant. Community landcare needs consistency of funding over the longer-term to flourish and ensure funds are used more efficiently. The level of funds needs to be increased considerably to ensure an equitable and appropriate level of base funding across the state. State governments must give serious consideration to resourcing Community landcare Facilitators in communities where there is a demonstrated need and clear outcomes to be achieved. The State should have a NRM/landcare policy which clarifies the roles of community landcare, NRM regions, local government and state government. WALN values the 20% allocation to community landcare and wants it maintained in the longterm. Academia and researchers play a critical role in making landcare more focused and effective. landcare can assist academia and researchers to identify research priorities and address practical land management issues. landcare programs which support youth people’s connection and understanding of the environment are critical. Programs may focus on educational, vocational and Natureplay outcomes. Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

29

The WA landcare Network (WALN) WALN was formed in 2013 by local landcarers to better support community landcare in Western Australia. Community-based landcare groups are an integral part of the landscape of natural resource management (NRM) in WA, and work alongside regional NRM groups, local governments, state government agencies and other organisations. WALN provides a collective voice for community landcare groups at a state and national level and aims to help groups, volunteers and professionals share knowledge and skills. WALN is an incorporated body with an executive committee of management. Any landcare group in WA can be a member of WALN. See http://www.landcarewa.org.au/members. WALN works with landcare networks in all other Australian states and territories and is affiliated with the National landcare Network. The work of the WALN is funded by the Australian Government.

30

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

References Australian Framework for landcare Reference Group. (2010). Australian Framework for landcare. Retrieved 25 October 2011 from Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: http://www.daff.gov.au/naturalresources/the_australian_framework_for_landcare/framework_for_landcare Australian Government (2015) Operating environment in 2012 for landcare and related community-based groups in each of the states and territories across Australia; accessed on 8 October, 2015 from: http://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/natural-resources/landcare/publications/operatingenvironment-in-2012-for-landcare-and-related-community-based-groups-in-each-of-the-states-andterritories-across; Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Campbell A (2000) Chairman, State Salinity Council, quoted in Natural Resource Management in Western Australia: Salinity Actions, March 2000, page 2. Curtis A, Lucas D, Nurse M and Skeen M (2008), Achieving NRM outcomes through voluntary action: lessons from landcare, Charles Sturt University and Department of Sustainability and Environment. Curtis A (2003) Reflecting on the landcare experience, A report based on information held within ABARE and BRS, Bureau of Rural Sciences, September 2003. Fjortoft, I. And J. Sageie (2000). The natural environment as a playground for children: Landscape description and analysis of a natural landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(1/2) 83-97 Holley John (pers. Comm.) Director, State NRM Office, Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, 2015. Martin K (2011) Putting Nature back into Nurture: The Benefits of Nature for Children - A Literature Review, Report prepared for the Department of Sport and Recreation, Government of Western Australia, by Dr Karen Martin PhD, University of Western Australia. Pilgrim A (2015) Green Gems – Stories of the Alcoa Landcare Project 1989 – 2003, Black Swan Press, Curtin University, Perth. Victorian landcare Council (2014a) The Case for Funding landcare Facilitators, Victorian landcare Council, 23 April 2014, Accessed on 21 September 2015 from http://www.vlc.org.au/continue-funding-for-landcarefacilitators Victorian landcare Council (2014b) Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the history, effectiveness, performance and future of the National landcare Program, 8th August 2014. WALGA (2010) Policy Statement on Natural Resource Management, In: Appendices to the February 2010 State Council Agenda, WA Local Government Association, Perth. Williams S (2014) A Case Study: Landcare in the North Coast Region, Adapted from a presentation by Daintry Gerrand, Amanda Harris and Bob Jarman, Sonia Williams , General Manager Landcare NSW.

Background Paper: Community landcare in Western Australia, April 2016

31