University of Canberra

The Learning Curve:

Midway Review Report

of Groundswell

May 2009

Acknowledgements We would like to thank each and every member of the Groundswell team for their open sharing of insights, challenges and learning. We appreciated the time you gave us in your busy lives. It was a privilege to learn about your work and from each one of you. Barbara and Barbara

Executive Summary

The Learning Curve: Midway Review Report of Groundswell

Barbara Pamphilon and Barbara Chevalier

Australian Institute of Sustainable Communities University of Canberra

May 2009

The University of Canberra’s Australian Institute for Sustainable Communities conducted a Mid-way Review of the Groundswell project between March and May 2009. The review report covers:

• An introduction to Groundswell and the review methodology, • Project milestones, • Stakeholder reflections and lessons—by site and collectively, • Project themes and lessons, and • Conclusion and recommendations.

The Review focused on providing opportunities for the major partners to reflect on their experiences, clarify the lessons learned and mutually discuss and determine what would be needed in the second half of the implementation phase. The Review objectives were to:

1. Reflect on the project implementation to date, 2. Assess the appropriateness of project plans, strategies and outcomes, and 3. Identify any changes or adjustments to project plans, strategies or outcomes.

The guiding questions included:

• How is the project going? • What have we achieved? • Are our plans working? • Do we need to make any changes to our plans? • What difficulties are we facing? • What do we need to do to overcome these difficulties?

The main strategy of the review was a one-day workshop brought together as many stakeholders as were available in a structured process that enabled shared learnings, issues, challenges and solutions to emerge. This strategy was complemented by:

• An analysis of the project achievements to date; • Site visits; • Interviews with other identified stakeholders, and • Interviews with the Project Manager.

Groundswell Following the success of the original City to Soil pilot in Queanbeyan, NSW, the Groundswell project aims to trial the collection and processing of household organic waste into high quality compost in three locations in rural NSW. The vision of Groundswell is “to prove the wider economic viability of the ‘City to Soil’ collection system and establish composted urban organic waste as a cost effective, high quality agricultural input”.

The Groundswell partnership is funded by the NSW Environment Trust and involves Goulburn Mulwaree, Palerang, Queanbeyan City and Lachlan Councils, the Wiradjuri Condobolin Aboriginal Corporation (WCC), the Palerang Agricultural Society, Bettergrow and the South East office of the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change Sustainability Programs division. The three-year project began in late 2007 and is now at the halfway point. The trial sites are:

• Condobolin—a partnership with Lachlan Council and the Wiradjuri Condobolin Aboriginal Corporation;

• Goulburn —Goulburn Mulwaree Council; and • Queanbeyan/Palerang—a partnership with Palerang and Queanbeyan City Councils

Householders in each designated area are provided with bench-top kitchen waste bins and biodegradable inserts. Each site has developed the collection and composting processes in ways best suited to their local community and its opportunities and strengths. For example, Condobolin began a dedicated green waste collection process whilst Goulburn collects the kitchen waste with the monthly green waste process. Queanbeyan/Palerang have yet to commence household kitchen waste collection. All sites are trialling low technology and minimal handling composting processes. Project milestones to date Project report documents were reviewed to gain an overview of:

• project implementation and progress to date against the planning frame; • the achievements and successes, and • any constraints, challenges or issues.

This was then validated through the interviews, site visits and review day workshop. Overall, the project milestones have been achieved in two of the three sites with Goulburn now collecting from 9200 households and Condobolin 1300 households. Composting infrastructure and processes are being refined.

• Groundswell Research Strategy designed and implemented (achieved) • City to Soil collection commenced (achieved in Condobolin and Goulburn; pending

Queanbeyan/Palerang) • First organic compost applied to agricultural land (achieved) • Reduction of waste to landfill (on track)

The major unexpected challenge has been the need for a Development Application including an Environmental Impact Study for the Queanbeyan/Palerang site as it falls in the strictly controlled Sydney catchment area. Although this has led to a 6-month delay in that trial area, in itself this highlights an important issue that may need to be included in any initial project scoping process for the rollout of Groundswell in other regions, that is the consideration of the impact of local and state regulations. The research strategy has been designed collaboratively by the Steering Committee, ensuring that key questions and data are sourced (asking stakeholders ‘what do councils and farmers need to know at the end of the project?’). Achievements to date include:

• EOI process for Groundswell research team conducted and team established • Current cost of waste management for councils report • Before analysis of waste stream • Initial impact of City to Soil collection on general waste through kerbside audits • Data collection and record keeping systems established and on-going.

The research strategy is on target given the stages of the project in the different sites. The initial program logic planning framework has proven to be robust and yet flexible to local settings and needs.

ii

Stakeholder reflections and lessons – by site The findings represent feedback and reflections from the interviews with individual stakeholders from each site and from the collective discussions on the review day. Condobolin The Condobolin trial is a partnership between WCC (responsible for collection of bins, developing the composting and for end-use marketing) and the Lachlan Council (providing the composting site and community engagement support). The TAFE NSW Western Institute through training and support for Certificate II and III in Asset Maintenance (Waste Management) for interested WCC staff supports the composting process training. Overall the Condobolin process has been challenging at a number of levels but its hallmark has been of an active problem-solving approach with highly valued learning to date. The choice of an Aboriginal agency has brought specific benefits and important lessons in this Condobolin trial: Aboriginal training and employment opportunities; philosophical coherence and the potential to be a model and guide for other Aboriginal communities. Groundswell, with its focus on the natural cycle of returning organic waste to the soil, is highly coherent with the Aboriginal world-view and philosophy. Initially the WCC had hoped to have full responsibility for the total collection, composting and product sales/use process, however due to lack of appropriate equipment and OH&S issues, collection has now been sub-contracted. Although this is a disappointment for some in WCC, because the collection process may have provided employment opportunities for Aboriginal locals, it has provided a reliable collection routine. Community engagement has been effective with high participation rates and very low contamination rates (less than 1%). In areas where contamination has been regular, WCC staff have dealt with this issue directly by speaking to residents and certain homes no longer receive this service. An effective process for prize selection undertaken by Council staff encourages community involvement. The Condobolin composting is conducted at the edge of the local landfill site and despite a number of challenges with the site, initial composting has begun and the product is of very good quality. Extra funding was sourced by WCC for building a handling shed and creative solutions for sieving have been developed. Similar creative solutions are now being considered to enable suitable machinery and tarps to be sourced. While the compost is not yet ready for end-use or sales, further testing and refinement of the process will enable a top quality process and product to be developed. Longer-term plans are for a trial of compost to go to a market garden at the Wiradjuri Study Centre (under development by WCC) that will provide employment and benefit families and the local community. The commercial viability of the process is vital. Stakeholders see that they can start in Condobolin through this trial and eventually expand to the wider Shire. The following issues in the Condobolin trial were identified:

• Site improvements, machinery purchase (and training) and enhanced processes are developed as a priority (which would also encourage young workers to join again)

• Consider ways to further attract Aboriginal participants • Re-invigorate community engagement so participation rises and contamination falls • Ensure that cost benefits are well documented for Council.

iii

Goulburn Council began a green waste collection 19 months ago with monthly kerbside collections. Groundswell began in October and residents now add their kitchen waste to the monthly green waste collection. 100 tonnes of green waste per month are collected on average. Overall, Goulburn is actively engaged in the development of a quality product and processes and stakeholders are happy with their progress. Composting is located at the council landfill site. Existing staff sort, wet, inoculant spray, windrow, cover, and leave the compost for 6-8 weeks and contamination rates are better than average (1-1.7%). The first batch of compost is currently being tested and is ready for application. The process has been notable for its lack of odour. The 1000 tonnes of green waste should produce 300 tonnes finished product, which might service two local farms that have been selected (from 20 who expressed interest) and are fenced off and ready to roll out. The agronomist will come on board in another eight weeks. Ideas for accelerating the process are being considered, such as blending the compost with sediment from dredged ponds. The management of seasonal trends such as variations in content and volume, and times of higher winds (Sept-Oct), have required adjustments that will be also relevant to other local government areas The process has attracted attention from other local governments and there have been visits from waste management staff from NSW and Queensland councils. Goulburn has been able to use existing council equipment and staff. Heavy-duty tarps have been found to last 12 months compared to plastic ones (2 months). Extra training and machinery may be required. Machinery availability, maintenance and repair are costs that Goulburn would advise other councils to consider in advance. Space is also becoming an issue as the three months of composting consumes half the worksite. Moving the final stage to another site is under consideration. While the process is not yet cost-effective at this stage, the commercial opportunity of organic fertilizers relative to the rapidly increasing price of non-organic fertilizers is keenly anticipated. The Groundswell project manager with the support of committed and engaged council staff have conducted the community engagement, especially via radio, advertisements and regular prizes. Overall community engagement has been effective, with the project being well received by 90% of the Goulburn population. There is a need now for further education to reduce the contamination which is found in certain areas of the city.

The following issues in the Goulburn trial were identified: • Screening solution is an immediate need • Determine machinery requirements and maintenance for next stage • Appoint specific staff to Groundswell • Develop ways to motivate existing staff (?Certificate IVs, greater responsibility e.g.

for testing) • Ensure that cost benefit is well documented for council • Further community education to maintain high quality waste/reduce contamination

Queanbeyan/Palerang The collection and composting process in Queanbeyan and Palerang has not yet commenced as the farm chosen for the compost site falls within the Sydney catchment area and thus requires a development application. This critical and predictable process has required a great deal of work which is seen as valuable learning by the Groundswell team. The delay may require the Groundswell trial to be extended 18 months in these two shires.

iv

Stakeholders see the Groundswell model as important and value the trial approach and the possibilities for business and job creation. The inclusion of the time and resources of an organic farm is valued. Overall the Palerang people are relaxed and positive about the process and informed about the project, the process and the delays, having been more involved to date. Meanwhile, Queanbeyan to some extent has been on the sidelines, waiting to begin. Both areas will integrate Groundswell into their existing waste collection strategies: Groundswell will be integrated into Palerang’s new best practice waste strategy plan (2005–2025). Palerang collects general waste (mixed with organics) and recyclable waste in the three towns. Groundswell will be a third run of the truck (1900 bins) @ $80,000 per annum. Palerang hopes to be processing 900 tonnes of green waste a year. Similarly, Queanbeyan – as the original pilot site for City to Soil – already collects green waste, and is thus well set-up to begin the collection and composting system. They plan to conduct the trial in an area of Queanbeyan (Karabar), which has 800 homes, about 1/8th of Queanbeyan, with the aim to lead to a further roll-out across Queanbeyan. Collection will be once a fortnight. The choice of on-farm processing for the composting site, after the first choice (Queanbeyan Waste Minimisation Centre) had space and zoning issues, was seen as an excellent decision that has added another important component to the overall Groundswell trial. However there was some concern about the transport costs to the site from Queanbeyan (84 km return). The issue of comparative transport costs will be an important part of the next stage cost benefit modeling that will provide councils with important cost comparisons. Both councils are keen to begin the community engagement and education. They are aware that they can learn from the other two areas’ experience and learnings. There is already some community interest among farmers and citizens via word of mouth, and a sense of readiness and enthusiasm in the teams. Queanbeyan is aware of the challenge of rolling out Groundswell in just one area of the city and is considering how to manage questions from residents. The following issues for Queanbeyan and Palerang were identified:

• Great opportunity to learn from others’ lessons: composting process and community engagement

• Queanbeyan and Palerang partnership may benefit from more mutual discussions and engagement

• Queanbeyan —management of roll-out to only one part of town • Cost analysis—importance of modelling comparative transport costs

Stakeholders’ collective reflections and lessons The Review Day brought together stakeholders from each trial area, researchers and Groundswell staff. At this halfway point in the project, stakeholders were first asked how they would now describe their vision for Groundswell given their experiences to date in their own region. They identified six major aspects of their current vision:

• engagement and education—highlighting the importance of involvement at all levels and with all stakeholders to ensure ownership

• dedicated people—inside Groundswell and supporting Groundswell • creating a nutrient cycle— establishing the economics and simple systems for

efficient and best use of green waste as a resource and of national relevance • quality materials— satisfaction of all stakeholders with the materials at every level • refining processes —constant learning and refining • valuing adding —the model, process and outputs

The team’s current vision is highly congruent with the original vision for Groundswell: “to prove the wider economic viability of the ‘City to Soil’ collection system and establish

v

composted urban organic waste as a cost effective, high quality agricultural input”. Additional components to the vision that they have added are: the notions of value-adding, national relevance and the engagement and education of stakeholders from all levels. Dedicated people and the training and employment opportunities are also central to the current vision of the team. The team identified and then ranked what they saw as the major components of Groundswell’s activity at this mid-way point, followed by an evaluative discussion. Components of Groundswell Average score (1 lowest score; 10 highest) Models and Logistics 6.6 Composting process 6.5 Education and Engagement 6.4 Research 6.3 Staff 6.3 Infrastructure 5.3 Outreach/advisory 5.3 Commercialisation 4.3 Models and logistics The high scores for this component reflected agreement that the three different sites and models were positives in this trial period. Participants agreed that the model would be further refined as the research results became available.

The location of Groundswell on a landfill site was seen as important issue. Participants had different views, and discussed the need for knowledge of and confidence in the contamination history and capping of the sites prior to commencing; the questionable suitability of landfill sites for such a clean product and the public perception of this plus the unpleasant environment for workers and OH&S issues. Composting process The progress towards an effective composting system was highly valued and seen to be pivotal. All participants agreed that the progress in developing solutions to each challenge was excellent. The process of composting without shredding and without odours that Groundswell has developed is groundbreaking and has potentially revolutionary potential. Education and engagement The high scores in this component reflected success in both the community education and the training aspects of Groundswell. Both Condobolin and Goulburn participants assessed that community engagement was going well and that the rollout strategy plan had been effective. Lessons include that timing was important; that the informal approach to community education has been extremely effective but has a high maintenance level; the approach is low-cost and effectively uses existing networks, and that people love the messages about agriculture and jobs. The linking of compost collection into agriculture was one of Groundswell ’s most effective messages. The other aspect of education within Groundswell that gained a high score was the integration of training in waste management leading to a formal qualification. This was highly valued at Condobolin by the current trainees and has the potential to be an important opportunity for others looking for work and qualifications in each local area. Research The integration of research received high scores as it was seen as essential and well designed and will lead to needed data to illustrate the benefits and quality. The main research activity will happen nearer the end of the project. Participants agreed that the three different models add weight.

vi

Staff Whilst the enthusiasm and commitment of the current team led to high scores, participants also highlighted the challenges in enthusing and maintaining waste management staff. Both Condobolin and Goulburn have had challenges here with high student drop-out rates in Condobolin and staff absences a risk management issue in Goulburn. It was hoped that mentoring and further training opportunities will address these challenges in the next stage. Infrastructure The lower scores for this component reflected concerns about infrastructure from the two active sites. Whilst Goulburn has the appropriate equipment, the machinery does not always work, and staff commitment and numbers are somewhat lower than ideal. Condobolin has overcome significant equipment and site problems and is now looking for further equipment to avoid excessive manual handling. Participants also noted the importance of a good working environment for employees. Outreach/advisory This lower score reflected that at this stage of the project it was seen as peripheral, or not relevant to all roles within Groundswell. Participants acknowledged the great interest in Groundswell both within their area, across the country and indeed the world. Commercialisation This low score revealed that many participants did not see that the project as up to this stage yet. All agreed that the process and product would need to be commercially viable, especially for councils. Participants expressed great optimism in the potential commercial outcome of the project’s findings. The final part of the Review Day was to identify improvements that should now be implemented. Participants were given five dots each to determine record their priorities for action. The areas for action are presented below in rank order. Priorities for action No. of dots Education and Engagement 19.5 Commercialisation 10 Research 8 Composting process 6 Infrastructure 6 Models and Logistics 6 Staff 3 Outreach/Advisory 3 Education and engagement • Palerang and Queanbeyan need to roll out the community education and participation • Condobolin and Goulburn need ongoing community engagement activities • An ongoing challenge is how to put systems in place with busy staff Commercialisation • The urgent issue is that compost meets regulatory standards • The research strategy shows when commercialisation should occur • Demonstrations are needed, for example at market gardens and other outlets • Smaller bags of compost could be a large product Research • The importance of reporting and communicating the results as soon as possible and in

an ongoing way was highlighted Composting process • The need to find a long-term technological solution for wind issues

vii

• The need to refine data collection • The need to reach national quality standards • The need to demonstrate cost effectiveness • The need to ensure OH&S standards are met Infrastructure • Condobolin—need machinery and related training • Goulburn—screening process is an immediate need; 5 cubic metre bins, and a trommel

are longer-term requirements. Models and logistics • Queanbeyan and Palerang rollout will enable site and economic comparison of an on-

farm model with the other two models. Staff • Goulburn —needs more staff in key weeks Outreach/Advisory • Relationship maintenance and development • Time required to show visitors around Project lessons Lesson 1: The Groundswell model is effective and adaptable The many and on-going adaptations that are being discovered as the trial develops are providing many valuable and transferable learnings. Whether it be the collection process, the composting process, staffing or machinery issues, it is clear Groundswell has robust processes for urban waste utilisation. Lesson 2: Identification of and attention to quality control and effective processes will lead to high quality compost In order to ensure high quality waste collection, effective community education has been central. Lesson 3: Community education and engagement needs to be timely and on-going Effective and on-going education leads to a higher level of participation as the community becomes committed to supporting the project, knowing that the benefits are immediate and local. Lesson 4: Communication needs to be targeted and regular and inclusive of all community stakeholders The term “community” includes all stakeholders: business, agriculture, residents and local government. Attention to communication to all stakeholders is key. Lesson 5: Training opportunities can be integrated and extended The potential to create new meaningful and on-going employment in a new industry, supported by training and formal qualifications is apparent. Lesson 6: Research and its timely and targeted reporting is a pivotal aspect of the project The ability to show the value of the project beyond the locally committed areas will now require the data from the research strategy and dissemination of results in an on-going way. Lesson 7: Site selection and development need early identification and management Key issues arising from the trial to date mean that Groundswell is now in a position to provide a check-list for site selection and management. Lesson 8: The social and commercial benefits are now visible The trial is identifying a number of potential outlets for the high quality product. Whilst there is a need to have strong data to prove the benefits on a business level, another significant

viii

outcome is the additional value of inherent benefit to communities who can see their own part in the soil enhancement and nutrient cycles. People want to be involved. Key themes Throughout the Review a number of key themes emerged across the broader Groundswell project and relate to action learning, collaborative action and the emergence of new future opportunities.

Action learning is particularly useful in new projects where simple solutions are not available. The Groundswell collaborative and team approach has enabled all participants to share their learning which has enabled more creative solutions to emerge. Delays and problems are seen as challenges rather than failures and thus the lessons can be harnessed and shared. The effective facilitation and leadership, and the strengths-based action learning philosophy and process, have emerged as central to the success of Groundswell to date. Groundswell has captured the attention of stakeholders and there is an emerging sense of collaborative commitment arising from Groundswell. It will be important to clarify the ‘art and craft’ of the successful approach taken to motivate and engage the community—the right tools, the right information at the right time. There are a number of possible futures just out of sight for Groundswell. The composting process is ground-breaking in its low technology and local handling, with further possibilities of integrating other products such as commercial waste into the soil enrichment process. This project has demonstrated that there is a there is an exciting new industry emerging which has the potential to provide meaningful employment and training and enhance local livelihoods. Although this has an immediate application in rural Australia and other developed countries, given its low technology and local training effectiveness, its potential for use in developing countries is significant. The need for local sustainable resource management cycles is a world-wide issue—Groundswell is proving its efficacy in stimulating and maximising local resources, local strengths, local solutions and local opportunities. Conclusion In its first eighteen months the Groundswell project has resonated with communities, councils, waste management teams, farmers and community groups and is now beginning to attract attention nationally and internationally. The second eighteen months will enable the full cycle back to the soil to be completed and the important benefit analyses undertaken. The future of Groundswell is indeed strong. Recommendations It is recommended that Groundswell:

1. examine, document and disseminate the learning arising from the EIS process, the project management process and the community education /engagement strategy

2. assess the research strategy , and extend if required, prior to the final 12 months. 3. facilitate the identification of possible spin-off projects 4. develop a communication plan for the dissemination of findings that arise in the

next eighteen months and beyond the life of the project

“People do get it and do want to be involved”

For further information on Groundswell, contact: Ms Simone Dilkara; Simone.Dilkara@environment.nsw.gov.au; ph 02-62297136; 0447 273 099

ix

Table of Contents INTR ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. GROUNDSWELL.........................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 REVIEW METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................................2 

1.  ODUCTION ..............

2. PROJECT MILESTONES.............................................................................................................................. 3 

STAKEHOLDER REFLECTIONS AND LESSONS................................................................................... 43.1 CONDOBOLIN REFLECTIONS AND LESSONS ...........................................................................................................4

 

3.1.1 Condobolin description and progress .........................................................................................................4 

3.1.2 Condobolin composting process ....................................................................................................................5 

3. 

 3.1.3 Condobolin community education and engagement...................................................................5 3.1.4 The Aboriginal partnership .............................................................................................................................6

3.2 GOULBURN REFLECTIONS AND LESSONS ...............................................................................................................7 

3.2.1 Goulburn description and progress..............................................................................................................7 

3.2.2 Goulburn composting process ........................................................................................................................7 

3.1.5 Issues for consideration.....................................................................................................................................7 

.3 Goulbur ommunity engagement and educa 

3.2 n c tion ...............................................................................8 3.2.4 Issues for consideration.....................................................................................................................................8

3.3 QUEANBEYAN/PALERANG REFLECTIONS AND LESSONS ....................................................................................9 

3.3.1 Queanbeyan/Palerang description and progress .................................................................................9 

3.3.2 Queanbeyan/Palerang collection plans.....................................................................................................9 

3.3.3 Queanbeyan/Palerang composting plans.................................................................................................9 

3.3.4 Queanbeyan/Palerang community engagement ...............................................................................10 

.5 The Groundswell model and its b 

3.3 enefits .................................................................................................10 3.3.6 Issues for consideration..................................................................................................................................10

3.4 COLLECTIVE REFLECTIONS AND LESSONS .......................................................................................................... 11 

3.4.1 Groundswell vision............................................................................................................................................11 

3.4.2 Taking stock.........................................................................................................................................................11  

3.4.3 Improvements .....................................................................................................................................................13 3.4.4 Lessons learned ..................................................................................................................................................14 

4 P

ROJECT THEMES AND LESSONS .........................................................................................................154.1 ACTIVITY LESSONS ................................................................................................................................................. 15

 

4.1.1 Composting technologies ...............................................................................................................................15 

4.1.2 Community education and participation ...............................................................................................15 

4.1.3 Training and Employment ............................................................................................................................15 

4.1.4 Research.................................................................................................................................................................16 

4.1.5 Site logistics..........................................................................................................................................................16 

.6 Commercia 

4.1 l and social value adding .......................................................................................................16 4.1.7 Summary of activity lessons .........................................................................................................................16

4.2 PROJECT THEMES ................................................................................................................................................... 17 

4.2.1 Action learning ...................................................................................................................................................17  

4.2.2 Collaborative action and opportunities ..................................................................................................17 4.2.3. Multiple futures .................................................................................................................................................18 

5 C

ONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................195.1 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 19

 

5.1.1 Maximisation of parallel learning .............................................................................................................19 

5.1.2 Research strategy enhancement.........................................................................................................20 

5.1.3 Identification of possible spin-offs .......................................................................................................20  

5.1.4 Dissemination management ...................................................................................................................20 5.1.5 Summary of recommendations .............................................................................................................20

x

  List of Abbreviations DA —Development Application DECC —NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change EIS —Environmental Impact Study WCC —Wiradjuri Condobolin Aboriginal Corporation List of Appendices Appendix 1: Review Timeline Appendix 2: DECC Staff Interview Appendix 3: Condobolin summary data Appendix 4: Goulburn summary data Appendix 5: Queanbeyan/Palerang summary data Appendix 6: Review Day summary data

xi

1. Introduction Across Australia, urban organic waste that is not home composted by the resident typically ends up in local landfill, leading to a significant loss of valuable organic material and a shortened life and high costs of land-fill sites. To address this issue a pilot program City to Soil1 was developed to collect household organic waste and process this into high quality compost in Queanbeyan, NSW. Its success became the basis for a wider trial, Groundswell, in three locations in rural NSW. This report provides a mid-way review (the Review) of the Groundswell project. The Review began on March 2nd and concluded on May 4th. (see Appendix 1 for timeline). The Review was conducted by Associate Professor Barbara Pamphilon (Project Leader) and Barbara Chevalier (Professional Associate), members of the Australian Institute for Sustainable Communities at the University of Canberra. The report is divided into five sections:

• Introduction—to Groundswell and the review methodology • Project milestones • Stakeholder reflections and lessons—collectively and by site • Project themes and lessons • Conclusion and recommendations

1.1. Groundswell The vision of Groundswell is “to prove the wider economic viability of the ‘City to Soil’ collection system and establish composted urban organic waste as a cost effective, high quality agricultural input”. It is a partnership project involving Goulburn Mulwaree, Palerang, Queanbeyan City and Lachlan Councils, the Wiradjuri Condobolin Aboriginal Corporation (WCC), the Palerang Agricultural Society, Bettergrow and the South East office of the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) Sustainability Programs division, and is funded by the NSW Environment Trust. The three-year project began in late 2007 and is now at the halfway point. The trial sites are:

• Condobolin—a partnership with Lachlan Council and the Wiradjuri Condobolin Aboriginal Corporation;

• Goulburn —Goulburn Mulwaree Council; and • Queanbeyan/Palerang—a partnership with Palerang and Queanbeyan City Councils

Householders in each designated area are provided with the same attractive bench-top kitchen waste bins and biodegradable inserts. However, a feature of the extended trial is that each site has developed the subsequent collection and composting process in ways best suited to their local community and its opportunities and strengths. Condobolin began a dedicated green waste collection process whilst Goulburn collects the kitchen waste with the monthly green waste process. Queanbeyan/Palerang have yet to commence household collection. All sites are trialling low technology and minimal handling composting processes.

1 City to Soil Project Report: Resource Recovery Models: development of markets for household collected organics Queanbeyan, Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) July 2004

1

1.2 Review methodology Given the strong partnership approach of Groundswell, this Review focused on providing opportunities for the major partners to reflect on their experiences, clarify the lessons learned and mutually discuss and determine what would be needed in the second half of the implementation phase. The review objectives were to:

1. reflect on the project implementation to date, 2. assess the appropriateness of project plans, strategies and outcomes, and 3. identify any changes or adjustments to project plans, strategies or outcomes.

The guiding questions included:

• How is the project going? • What have we achieved? • Are our plans working? • Do we need to make any changes to our plans? • What difficulties are we facing? • What do we need to do to overcome these difficulties?

A one-day workshop using Empowerment Evaluation2 methodology was the cornerstone of the Review. This day brought together as many stakeholders as were available in a structured process that enabled shared learnings, issues, challenges and solutions to emerge. This was supplemented by four complementary activities:

1. An analysis of the project achievements to date 2. Site visits 3. Interviews with other identified stakeholders 4. Interviews with the Project Manager

2 Fetterman D.M (2001) Foundations of Empowerment Evaluation. Sage Publications. London

2

2. Project milestones Project report documents3 were reviewed to gain an overview of:

• project implementation and progress to date against the planning frame • the achievements and successes, and • any constraints, challenges or issues.

This was then validated through the interviews, site visits and review day workshop. Overall, the project milestones have been achieved in two of the three sites with Goulburn now collecting from 9200 households and Condobolin 1300 households. Composting infrastructure and processes are under development.

• Groundswell Research Strategy designed and implemented (achieved) • City to Soil collection commenced (achieved in Condobolin and Goulburn; pending

Queanbeyan/Palerang) • First organic compost applied to agricultural land (achieved) • Reduction of waste to landfill (on track)

The major unexpected challenge has been the need for a Development Application (DA) including an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the Queanbeyan/Palerang site as it falls in the strictly controlled Sydney catchment area. Although this has led to a 6-month delay in that trial area, in itself this highlights an important issue that may need to be included in any initial project scoping process for the rollout of Groundswell in other regions, that is the consideration of the impact of local and state regulations. The research strategy has been designed collaboratively by the Steering Committee, ensuring that key questions and data are sourced (asking stakeholders ‘what do councils and farmers need to know at the end of the project?’). Achievements to date include:

• EOI process for Groundswell research team conducted and team established • Current cost of waste management for councils report • Before analysis of waste stream • Initial impact of City to Soil collection on general waste through kerbside audits • Data collection and record keeping systems established and on-going

The research strategy is on target given the stages of the project in the different sites. The initial program logic planning framework has proven to be robust and yet flexible to local settings and needs.

3 the Groundswell Business Plan and the 6-monthly reports to the NSW Environment Trust

3

3. Stakeholder reflections and lessons This section outlines the feedback and reflections from the individual stakeholders (via interviews) and from the collective discussions (via the review day). The findings are first presented by site, as a hallmark of this project is that the three different settings have provided unique lessons and issues. The overall reflections and lessons for Groundswell, particularly as they were highlighted at the review day, are then presented. Direct quotes are presented in italics and summary data for each area is found in the appendices (Interviews: Appendices 2–5; review day: Appendix 6)

3.1 Condobolin reflections and lessons Interviews were conducted with staff of the Wiradjuri Condobolin Corporation, NSW TAFE and Lachlan Council (see Appendix 3 for summary data). A site visit to the composting area was also undertaken.

3.1.1 Condobolin description and progress The Condobolin trial is a partnership between WCC (responsible for collection of bins, developing the composting and for end-use marketing) and the Lachlan Council (providing the composting site and community engagement support). The TAFE NSW Western Institute through training and support for Certificate II and III in Asset Maintenance (Waste Management) for interested WCC staff supports the composting process training. Initially the WCC had hoped to have full responsibility for the total collection, composting and product sales/use process, however due to unexpected issues with the collection process (lack of appropriate equipment and OH&S issues), collection has now been sub-contracted. Although this is a negative for some in WCC (“I’d love to see one day that we had our own truck and do it ourselves”) because the collection process may have provided employment opportunities for Aboriginal locals, it has provided a benefit to a local business that is now able to have a truck on the road for a greater number of days in the week. It also provides reliable collection routine —“ It’s important to keep to a routine so householders know what to expect.” Community engagement has been effective with high participation rates after the initial teething problems were sorted out. Contamination rates are very low, “The first collection sample had less than 1% contamination” and in areas where contamination has been regular certain homes no longer receive this service. WCC staff have dealt with this issue directly by speaking to residents, especially where contamination was deliberate. Prizes have been important to encourage community involvement and there is now an effective process for prize selection undertaken by Council staff. “The town has taken to it – very quickly – this was a surprise as it might have been a struggle – [there is] not all that much contamination.” The Condobolin composting is conducted at the edge of the local landfill site. Despite a number of challenges, initial composting has begun and the product is of good quality. The compost is not yet ready for end-use or sales. “It’s a learning curve for all of us. We’ve come a long way in a short space of time.”

4

3.1.2 Condobolin composting process There have been a number of challenges for the Condobolin team, all of which provide important insights for further development of Groundswell in other areas. Importantly, the team themselves have solved each problem as it has arisen which has led to greater engagement and well-deserved pride in their flexible and innovative solutions, “So much learning!” The site has been challenging as it was not initially suitable for heavy machinery and needed gravelling. The tender process for this was a challenge to all but this has now been completed and an on-going handling process can now be refined. Extra funding was sourced by WCC for building a handling shed and creative solutions for sieving have been developed —“the two workers designed and built sieves superior to the original [commercial] design – brilliant – cost $100 compared to $1400 for the original.” Similar creative solutions are now being considered to enable suitable machinery and ‘tarping’ to be sourced. The compost is not yet “totally organic”[compliant with C1 bio-solids guidelines], as contaminants on the site have been identified. This is currently being investigated. However the compost has been described as “very good – rich…this stuff is top quality.” As one person said it is “black gold”. At this stage of the project, further testing and refinement of the process will enable a top quality process and product to be developed. Longer-term use of the compost is already under consideration with plans for a trial of compost going to a market garden to supply much-needed local fresh vegetables to the town and which would dovetail with the Wiradjuri Study Centre under development by WCC. (Initially the plan was to bag and sell the product with half going to local agriculture, however the volume of product is too low.) The market garden would provide more employment and farmland projects (paddock to plate) would provide employment and benefit families and the local community— “Create projects that create other projects – for us it’s quite exciting” There is a real awareness of the need to be cost-effective—“It has to be commercial”. Stakeholders see that they can start in Condobolin through this trial and eventually expand to the wider Shire.

3.1.3 Condobolin community education and engagement All stakeholders believe that Groundswell is crucial for the district and that education of the community is paramount. “We are living in different times, drought, and we need to be smarter, recycling with green waste: “getting people to think green”, to look after the environment and think about the future (with climate change”). As one Aboriginal informant said “the country is in pain at the moment and hurting and needs to be managed better. The more we can put back in to the soil…” This was echoed in the comment of a non-Aboriginal stakeholder “this ex wheat-belt land has been farmed to death – [we’ve] got to replenish.” The publicity before starting collection was seen to be crucial and the need for further attention to this across the life of the project was noted. A community newspaper is being put together to help people to know when to put their bins out and prize stories will continue to be featured in the local press. It was suggested that schools should also be involved as children can often lead behaviour change in families. WCC hopes to have prizes of bagged compost as the ideal prize. “For me personally, the project is a success. The green bin is full, the other bin is half full.” “People do get it and do want to be involved”.

5

3.1.4 The Aboriginal partnership The opportunity for a local agency to be sub-contracted for the implementation is always of local benefit however the choice of an Aboriginal agency has brought specific benefits and important lessons in this Condobolin trial. There are three aspects that have been highlighted by stakeholders: Aboriginal training and employment opportunities; philosophical coherence and the potential to be a model and guide for other Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal training and employment opportunities Because nearly 1/3rd of Condobolin is Aboriginal, it is crucial that relevant local training and employment is available. This project is seen as an “important opportunity to get connected back to land and country and a way of nurturing the land” and “linked to the liberation pathway program to wean off grog and Methadone”. Groundswell is seen as a meaningful project that contributes as a resource for the whole town. Condobolin “is a community that embraces misery – drugs, alcohol – and we were able to turn that around. A whole of town approach, Aboriginal groups leading the way and not being followers”. Initially, there was a need for “self-belief; that we can do this”. Getting the community to embrace the project, making it work; addressing a lot of challenges and negativity from the white community were challenging. However as one stakeholder said “[the] shire now sees us [WCC] as an asset rather than a liability”. The training initially involved ten young students however only two have stayed on with the composting work with occasional assistance from some of the other students. Four of these students have achieved a Certificate II and are now continuing on with Certificate III in Waste Management. While the dropout is disappointing, the successes are now clear role models for others and leaders in the composting processes; they have “settled the project down …and given the project security”. Further recent enrolments in the Certificate II have indicated a strong interest in the composting training. The training provided by the TAFE teacher has enabled teething problems with the composting to be managed effectively and the trainees reported high satisfaction and a great commitment to the on-going project. Both the teacher and trainees have valued the ‘hands-on learning process’, but do recognise that more time than a monthly visit by the teacher is required. This does appear to be possible given the commitment of the staff member and the TAFE. Philosophical coherence Groundswell, with its focus on the natural cycle of returning organic waste to the soil, is highly coherent with the Aboriginal world-view and philosophy. As one Aboriginal stakeholder said, “it’s a project that’s very closely linked to our culture, epistemology and worldview. [It is] listening/hearing what the land is saying.” This has led to a commitment beyond the much valued employment opportunities. There is a significant meaning for Aboriginal participants who see that although non-Aboriginal people may leave for the cities, Aboriginal people will always stay to care for their land – “[We are] culturally connected to land”. This coherence was well expressed through descriptions such as: “We can be black and green and “Black thumbs with green thoughts”

WCC believe that this model should be introduced to other Aboriginal communities across Australia and there have been discussions with other regions. “It’s a model that that the Aboriginal community can take and deliver into other communities – rural or remote. The site can be used as a model for the future – for western towns (in NSW) with Aboriginal people on contract to local councils. A stepping-stone to another town.” Overall the Condobolin process has been challenging at a number of levels but its hallmark has been of an active problem-solving approach: “It’s all trial and error. It’s all learning.

6

Making mistakes that you learn from is designed to create a bigger thing. We know it’s a pilot. We’ll grow from it. Already opportunities have emerged for us, and continue.”

•

3.1.5 Issues for consideration • Site improvements, machinery purchase (and training) and

enhanced processes are developed as a priority (which would also encourage young workers to join again)

• Consider ways to further attract Aboriginal participants • Re-invigorate community engagement so that participation

rises and contamination falls • Ensure that cost benefits are well documented for Council

3.2 Goulburn reflections and lessons Interviews were conducted with Goulburn Council staff (see Appendix 4 for summary data). A site visit to the composting area was also undertaken.

3.2.1 Goulburn description and progress Council began a green waste collection 19 months ago with monthly kerbside collections. Groundswell began in October and residents now add their kitchen waste to the monthly green waste collection. The collection process is “a big job with 100 tonnes green waste per month on average.” Composting is located at the council landfill site. Existing staff sort, wet, inoculant spray, windrow, cover, and leave the compost for 6-8 weeks and contamination rates are better than average (1-1.7%). The first batch of compost is currently being tested and is ready for application. The process has been notable for its “lack of odour.” “We are all keen to see how this first batch works”. The 1000 tonnes of green waste should produce 300 tonnes finished product, which might service two farms. The two local farms have been selected (from 20 who expressed interest) and are fenced off and ready to roll out. The agronomist will come on board in another eight weeks. The process has attracted attention from other local governments and there have been visits from waste management staff from NSW and Queensland councils.

3.2.2 Goulburn composting process As the composting must be located on a licensed landfill area, part of the main council site that was a capped clean area has been designated for Groundswell. The process has been closely monitored – for example for “different levels of breakdown”. Ideas for accelerating the process are being considered, such as “blending to move it through quicker (e.g. with the sediment from dredged ponds)”. Seasonal variations have also required adjustments as at times of the year there are higher amounts of waste such as “grass and rose clippings, and Xmas trees”. Further, the weather requires consideration especially times of higher winds (Sept-Oct) when regular inspection and adjustment of tarps is essential. The management of these seasonal trends will be also relevant to other local government areas.

7

Goulburn has been able to use existing council equipment and staff, however this has not been without challenge. Operators’ attitudes are variable – “some good, others careless” - and when staff are away there are no relief staff available. There is a need to break down the “process for staff involved” (from collection through to sorting). Further, whilst there is existing council machinery (compacter and kerbside truck plus backhoe) a trommel may now be also needed. Heavy-duty tarps are a success as they last 12 months compared to plastic ones (2 months). Machinery availability, maintenance and repair are costs that Goulburn would advise other councils to consider in advance. Space is also becoming an issue as the three months of composting consumes half the worksite. Moving the final stage to another site is under consideration, as the community may “like the product more if it is not sourced from landfill”. Commercialisation of the product is under active consideration. — “Everyone who is participating mentions that … the price of non-organic fertilizers is going through the roof and this …can be produced for a fraction of the price.” However at this stage the process is not yet cost effective—“No way are we breaking even at this stage”. It is a priority that cost effectiveness “must be there and well explained”

3.2.3 Goulburn community engagement and education The Groundswell project manager with the support of committed and engaged council staff has conducted the community engagement. “A fair bit of time and effort” has gone into community engagement processes by the council (reflected in the number of visits to the composting site and feedback from the community). There has been a lot of attention given to the media, especially via radio and ads. Regular prizes are both an incentive for residents and a form of community education.

Overall community engagement has been good: “It has been pretty well received by the community (90%)” and there is a need now for further education to reduce the contamination which is found in certain areas of the city which are “always a problem… We think we can get the contamination down through education.”

In summary, Goulburn is actively engaged in the development of a quality product and processes and are “happy just to keep going the way we’ve been going.”

3.2.4 Issues for consideration • Screening solution is an immediate need • Determine machinery requirements and maintenance for

next stage • Appoint specific staff to Groundswell • Develop ways to motivate existing staff (?Certificate IVs,

greater responsibility e.g. for testing) • Ensure that cost benefit is well documented for council • Further community education to maintain high quality

waste/reduce contamination

8

3.3 Queanbeyan/Palerang reflections and lessons Interviews were conducted with Queanbeyan and Palerang council staff and one farmer (see Appendix 5 for summary data).

3.3.1 Queanbeyan/Palerang description and progress The collection and composting process in Queanbeyan and Palerang has not yet commenced as the farm chosen for the compost site falls within the Sydney catchment area and thus requires a DA and EIS. This has been a “critical (and predictable) path” and although it has required a “massive amount of work,” this has been seen as valuable learning for the Groundswell team. Given this there is a sense from some stakeholders that the Groundswell trial may need to be extended 18 months in these two shires. “Everything has taken longer than expected – that’s only to be expected.”

3.3.2 Queanbeyan/Palerang collection plans Both areas will integrate Groundswell into their existing waste collection strategies. Palerang has a best practice waste strategy plan (2005–2025) and Groundswell will be integrated into this. Palerang collects general waste (mixed with organics) and recyclable waste in the three towns. Groundswell will be a third run of the truck (1900 bins) @ $80,000 per annum. Palerang hopes to be processing 900 tonnes of green waste a year. Similarly as Queanbeyan was the original pilot site for City to Soil and already collects green waste, they are well set-up to begin the collection and composting system. They plan to conduct the trial in an area of Queanbeyan (Karabar), which has 800 homes, about 1/8th of Queanbeyan, with the aim to lead to a further rollout across Queanbeyan. Collection will be once a fortnight. For Queanbeyan, “It could change our practice. We have a lot of infrastructure.”

3.3.3 Queanbeyan/Palerang composting plans The choice of composting site has lead to a number of learnings. The first choice was the Queanbeyan Waste Minimisation Centre but there was not enough space and zoning was an issue. The next choice of on-farm processing was seen as a “great decision”, and has added another important component to the overall Groundswell trial. However there was some concern about “transport costs/trucks/time” to the site from Queanbeyan (84 km return) – “Captains Flat is the longest trip but overall Palerang is better off in terms of cartage distance/volume… Queanbeyan got the poor end of the bargain and we’ll have to live with it. It suits Palerang4… who pays? Queanbeyan is paying for the expense of travel…if you could find somewhere closer…”” The issue of comparative transport costs will be an important part of the next stage cost benefit modeling. The results of transport costs from Queanbeyan to the farm-site will be able to be compared to other waste management transport costs and will provide councils with important cost comparisons. Other concerns for Queanbeyan include possibility of odour, noise assessment and the probability of council budget cuts in the next two years. 4 Queanbeyan has one of the largest distance to travel to the processing site ie, about 42km. It has 800 bins to collect. Palerang has the following distances (one-way): Braidwood - about 34km with approx 600 bins; Bungendore - about 15km with about approx 950 bins, and Captains Flat - about 53km with approx 240bins.

9

3.3.4 Queanbeyan/Palerang community engagement Both councils are keen to begin the community engagement and education. They are aware that they can learn for the other two areas’ experience and learnings. There is already some community interest “word is getting out!” and there have also been a number of comments from farmers and lay people “interested in how the composting will be done and how they can get the compost.” There is a sense of readiness and enthusiasm – “it would have been nice to be up and running or to have a starting date and wanting to ‘get it out there’ – seeing the benefits – to all the stakeholders”. Queanbeyan is aware of the challenge of rolling out Groundswell in just one area of the city and is considering how to manage questions from residents such as “why aren’t we doing it here?” For them “it is time to sit down and nut out these questions.”

3.3.5 The Groundswell model and its benefits Stakeholders see the model as important and value the trial approach “We’re making headway – a year late, but it’s a prototype of the processes and It’s been much more logistic than we expected.” The possibilities for business and job creation are apparent—“with drought, we may be laying people off. We should be able to reallocate time from individuals doing other jobs” and the inclusion of the time and resources of an organic farm is valued. Overall the Palerang people are relaxed and positive about the process and informed about the project, the process and the delays, having been more involved to date. Meanwhile, Queanbeyan to some extent has been on the sidelines waiting. Hence Queanbeyan has more questions and concerns at this point however the following comments illustrate the overall enthusiasm for Groundswell in these two councils.

• “It’s value adding — that’s the whole point. All we are doing is going is going back to the 1940s — no big deal.”

• “The time is right for these type of things”

3.3.6 Issues for consideration • Great opportunity to learn from others’ lessons : composting

process and community engagement • Queanbeyan and Palerang partnership may benefit from

more mutual discussions and engagement • Queanbeyan —management of roll-out to only one part of

town • Cost analysis—importance of modelling comparative

transport costs

10

3.4 Collective reflections and lessons This section is drawn from the Review Day that brought together stakeholders from each trial area, researchers and Groundswell staff. (see Appendix 6 for full Empowerment Evaluation Report)

3.4.1 Groundswell vision As the project is at the halfway point, stakeholders shared how they would now describe their vision for Groundswell given their experiences to date in their own region. They identified 6 major aspects of their current vision:

• engagement and education—highlighting the importance of involvement at all levels and with all stakeholders to ensure ownership

• dedicated people—inside Groundswell and supporting Groundswell • creating a nutrient cycle— establishing the economics and simple systems for

efficient and best use of green waste as a resource and of national relevance • quality materials— satisfaction of all stakeholders with the materials at every level • refining processes —constant learning and refining • valuing adding —the model, process and outputs

When compared with the original vision for Groundswell5 — “to prove the wider economic viability of the ‘City to Soil’ collection system and establish composted urban organic waste as a cost effective, high quality agricultural input”— the team’s current vision is highly congruent. They have identified additional components to the vision: that is the notions of value-adding, national relevance and the engagement and education of stakeholders from all levels. Dedicated people and the training and employment opportunities are also central to the current vision of the team.

3.4.2 Taking stock The team identified the major components of Groundswell’s activity at this mid-way point. Each component was then ranked individually (1 as lowest score; 10 as highest) and was followed by an evaluative discussion. The components are discussed below and are presented in rank order. Models and Logistics (average score 6.6, all ranking above 5) The high scores for this component reflected agreement that the three different sites and models were positives in this trial period —“a model that is transferable and transportable; an evolving model; a model for the future”. Participants agreed that the model would be further refined as the research results became available.

There were varying opinions on the location of Groundswell on a landfill site and this was seen as important issue for further consideration. The need for knowledge of and confidence in the contamination history and capping of the sites prior to commencing; the questionable suitability of landfill sites for such a clean product and the public perception of this plus the unpleasant environment for workers and OH&S issues were discussed.

Composting process (average score 6.5, all ranking above 5) The progress towards an effective composting system was highly valued and seen to be “pivotal”. All participants agreed that the progress in developing solutions to each challenge

5 Groundswell Draft Business Plan, 01/27/11/2007

11

was excellent. The process was” groundbreaking …composting in a way that nobody is”. If Groundswell can now show why and how the process works (e.g. it is possible to compost without odours and without shredding) it would lead to a “revolutionary process”. As the Project Manager summarised, “Groundswell has reached a level of stabilization and now refining, collecting data and testing with monitoring for contamination is becoming key”. As one Condobolin participant noted, “starting from zero knowledge to what we have now [October to now] is incredible. I’d go and buy 10 trailer loads of stuff.” Education and Engagement (average score 6.4) The high scores in this component reflected success in both the community education and the training aspects of Groundswell. Both Condobolin and Goulburn participants assessed that community engagement was going well and that the rollout strategy plan had been effective. Lessons include that timing was important; that the informal approach to community education has been extremely effective but has a high maintenance level; the approach is low-cost and effectively uses existing networks, and that people love the messages about agriculture and jobs. The linking of compost collection into agriculture was one of Groundswell ’s most effective messages. The other aspect of education within Groundswell that gained a high score was the integration of training in waste management leading to a formal qualification. This was highly valued at Condobolin by the current trainees and has the potential to be an important opportunity for others looking for work and qualifications in each local area. Research (average score 6.3) The integration of research received high scores as it was seen as essential and well designed and will lead to needed data to illustrate the benefits and quality. One participant noted that “our difficulty is not being successful, it [will be] managing our success”. As one researcher said the research was ‘just bubbling away’. The real stuff is going to happen nearer the end.” Participants agreed that the three different models add weight. Staff (average score 6.3) Whilst the enthusiasm and commitment of current staff (“this is mine, don’t stuff it up. I’ve been working hard, under a difficult time”) led to high scores, participants also highlighted the challenges in enthusing and maintaining waste management staff. Both Condobolin and Goulburn have had challenges here: with high student drop-out rates in Condobolin and staff absences a risk management issue in Goulburn. It was hoped that with mentoring and further training opportunities this could be addressed in the next stage. As one participant said, “it is about employment and community – the more people we employ, the better it is.” Infrastructure (average score 5.3) The lower scores for this component reflected concerns about infrastructure from the two active sites. Whilst Goulburn has the appropriate equipment, the machinery does not always work, and staff commitment and numbers are somewhat lower than ideal. Condobolin has overcome significant equipment and site problems and is now looking for further equipment to avoid excessive manual handling. Participants also noted the importance of a good working environment or “young fellows won’t work there.” Outreach/advisory (average score 5.3) This lower score related to the current stage of the project. Participants acknowledged the great interest in Groundswell both within their area, across the country and indeed the world. However at this stage of the project it was not relevant to all roles within Groundswell with one participant warning that “outreach is peripheral. The focus is on the project and it is important not to get distracted.”

12

Commercialisation (average score 4.3) This low score revealed that many participants did not see that the project as up to this stage yet. All agreed that the process and product would need to be commercially viable and that, as one Condobolin participant said, “we still have more work to do to back up the product with documentation.” The Project Manager stressed that it is now critical to gear up to “demonstrate to councils that we can get as much as possible out of the regular bin.” The single issue is for councils not to have any increase in collections (i.e. no extra bin). The project was described by one participant as having “phenomenal potential.” Another commented: “it’s cut and dried that it is going to be commercial. I’ve got no doubt. There is no need to focus on this now. It will look after itself.”

3.4.3 Improvements The final part of the Review Day was to identify improvements that should now be implemented. Participants were given five dots each to determine record their priorities for action. The areas for action are presented below in rank order. Education and Engagement (19.5 dots) • Palerang and Queanbeyan — need to roll out process for community education and

participation: a timetable, community newsletter, contamination issues; how to explain to everyone that it’s a trial in one part of city. Non-trial areas may add their kitchen waste to garden waste. They may only do door knocks.

• Condobolin and Goulburn — for ongoing engagement, need to use audit results, prizes and city visitors as media events, photo opportunities and quotes which are powerful

• Ongoing challenge—how to put systems in place with busy staff. • Future ideas— field days for farmers; Fly Buy, swipe cards and loyalty cards • Need to compile lessons learned for future projects. Commercialisation (10 dots) • The urgent issue is compost that meets standards. • The research strategy shows when commercialisation should occur • Demonstrations needed— market garden and other outlets • Smaller bags of compost could be a large product • Backload on grain trains for Sydney Research (8 dots) • Must report and communicate the results as soon as possible and in an ongoing way

Composting process (6 dots) • need to find a long-term technological solution for wind issues • need to refine data collection • must reach national quality standards • must demonstrate cost effective • need to ensure OH&S standards are met Infrastructure (6 dots) • Condobolin— compound problems in hand. • Condobolin—need is for machinery and related training • Goulburn—screening process (immediate), 5 cubic meter bins, a trommel (longer-term) Models and Logistics (4 dots) • Queanbeyan and Palerang rollout will enable site and economic comparison of an on-

farm model with the other two models. • Should Queanbeyan try to find a new site? Staff (3 dots) • Goulburn —needs more staff in key weeks Outreach/Advisory (3 dots)

13

• Relationship maintenance and development • Time for people to show visitors around

3.4.4 Lessons learned Participants concluded their evaluation by identifying the key lessons learned at this mid-way point. These lessons are presented in the participants’ words. Process lessons

• Be adaptable: start with a plan and be prepared to adapt that plan if it doesn’t seem to be working. We nearly went full circle. Adapt and modify.

• Start with the end in mind and keep focus in mind: [there is] urban waste and opportunities plus all sorts of [other] opportunities

• Be prepared to make mistakes: we made a lot. It’s part of the process. Work on the mistakes.

• Collaboration and partnerships approach to managing waste stream. Community lessons

• Positive promotion [leads to] community engagement • People will happily source-separate their garden waste if given the right tools: this

has been the biggest learning. • Didn’t realize how powerful the message was that food has gone into agriculture • Community education and engagement —community is well and truly on side.

Benefits from being open as possible to community leads to more participation. • Different way of working for waste management. • I think it will go a long way into the future: in a couple of years, people will come and

have a look. Resourcing lessons

• Infrastructure: Is landfill site clean? Do soil tests first! Is equipment suited to shed? Prepare infrastructure better.

• Council allocating adequate staff and machinery. • Potential big picture and what will be in future. Be prepared to resource as well as

waste management. One-word responses to Groundswell at the mid-way point Exciting Exciting Exciting Evolving Expanding Evolving Huge amount of recyclable material Germination Germination of something quite big Groundbreaking Fundamental – back to fundamentals of past agriculture

Opportunity National Soils Policy rather than National Waste Strategy

Connectivity – amazing number of people who ring up/talk about

14

Connection all around the world

4 Project themes and lessons This section brings together the findings of the Review. The first section discusses the lessons arising from the project activities and the second section looks at the higher-level themes arising from Groundswell itself.

4.1 Activity lessons

The seven major lessons outlined below directly relate to the components identified in the last section. Whilst there are consistent components to Groundswell in every trial area, the different settings have enabled adaptations to the model to become apparent. Importantly the trial has shown that the Groundswell model is effective.

Lesson 1: The Groundswell model is effective and adaptable

4.1.1 Composting technologies The many and on-going adaptations that are being discovered as the trial develops are providing many valuable and transferable learnings. Whether it be the collection process, the composting process, staffing or machinery issues, it is clear Groundswell has robust processes for urban waste utilisation. Lesson 2: Identification of and attention to quality control and effective processes will lead to high quality compost

4.1.2 Community education and participation In order to ensure high quality waste collection, effective community education has been central. Further, effective and on-going education leads to a higher level of participation as the community becomes committed to supporting the project, knowing that the benefits are immediate and local. It is also important to acknowledge that the “community” involves all stakeholders: business, agriculture, residents and local government. Attention to communication to all stakeholders is key. Lesson 3: Community education and engagement needs to be timely and on-going Lesson 4: Communication needs to be targeted and regular and inclusive of all community stakeholders

4.1.3 Training and Employment The potential to create meaningful and on-going employment, supported by training and formal qualifications is apparent. This is a ‘new’ industry that can encompass not only the composting process, but also the future outlets using the product, such as market gardens, ‘direct to community’ sales and farm/agriculture businesses. Given the effective involvement of TAFE, a range of training programs could now emerge, especially targeting youth whose employment prospects in country regions are often limited

15

Lesson 5: Training opportunities can be integrated and extended

4.1.4 Research The ability to show the value of the project beyond the locally committed areas will now require the data from the research strategy. The key questions have been determined and others will arise as problem-solving continues in the project. Further the dissemination of results in an on-going way will complement the community education and communication facets. Lesson 6: Research and its timely and targeted reporting is a pivotal aspect of the project

4.1.5 Site logistics The range of issues that have arisen from site selection suggest that this is a key lesson arising from the trial to date. The history of a site, its previous management, its size and working environment, the distance from the collection areas and the issues of zoning and regulations are all now apparent. Groundswell is now in a position to provide a check-list for site selection and management. Lesson 7: Site selection and development need early identification and management

4.1.6 Commercial and social value adding The trial is identifying a number of potential outlets for the high quality product. Whilst there is a need to have strong data to prove the benefits on a business level, another significant outcome is the additional value of inherent benefit to communities who can see their own part in the soil enhancement and nutrient cycles. People want to be involved. Lesson 8: The social and commercial benefits are now visible

4.1.7 Summary of activity lessons

• Lesson 1: The Groundswell model is effective and adaptable

• Lesson 2: Identification of and attention to quality control and effective processes will

lead to high quality compost

• Lesson 3: Community education and engagement needs to be timely and on-going

• Lesson 4: Communication needs to be targeted and regular and inclusive of all community stakeholders

• Lesson 5: Training opportunities can be integrated and extended

• Lesson 6: Research and its timely and targeted reporting is a pivotal aspect of the

project

• Lesson 7: Site selection and development need early identification and management

16

• Lesson 8: The social and commercial benefits are now visible

4.2 Project themes

Throughout the Review a number of key themes emerged. These relate to the broader Groundswell project and may inform any future development. They relate to action learning, collaborative action and opportunities and the emergence of new future opportunities.

4.2.1 Action learning Whilst some have described the implementation of Groundswell as ‘trial and error’, it typifies a much more rigorous process known as action learning. The hallmarks of action learning (sometimes described as action research6) include cycles of action, observation, reflection, analysis, and planning new actions in which participants collaboratively share their perspectives for mutual learning. Action learning is particularly useful in new projects where simple solutions are not available. Groundswell is indeed one such setting. The Groundswell collaborative and team approach has enabled all participants to share their learning which has enabled more sophisticated solutions to emerge. Delays and problems are seen as challenges rather than failures and thus the lessons can be harnessed and shared. However effective action learning teams also requires skilled and effective facilitation and leadership and the Project Manager, Simone Dilkara, was acknowledged across all areas as central to the success of Groundswell to date. “[She] has been a god-send”. Her focus on strengths, opportunities and learning (in contrast to needs, problems and control) are critical success factors. It is important to note that this action learning approach has also led to real ownership in the project and a deeper understanding of the process by participants at every level of the project. The process has congruence with Peter Senge’s five disciplines7 (personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning and systems thinking), which enables organizational and individual learning to emerge. Whilst it might be tempting at the end to produce a Groundswell ‘how-to manual’, it will be important to ensure that the strengths-based action learning philosophy and process is maintained, indeed fore-grounded.

4.2.2 Collaborative action and opportunities Groundswell has captured the attention of stakeholders in different but complementary ways—from the local residents, to council to waste management staff there seems to be an enthusiasm for the project and its potential. The logic of returning waste back to soil, locally, makes sense but exactly how to do it requires effective partnerships and collaboration. The first stage partnerships are working and the challenge now is to ensure that this is sustained. We may be seeing a “tipping point” in local commitment to environmental action or we may have a model that resonates in a deep way or we may have a lucky serendipitous grouping These questions are worthy of further research. However whilst it may be ultimately useful to know why people are committing to waste diversion,8, it is important to note that right now 6 see Dick, B ( 2006) Action Research Literature 2004–2006 Themes and trends Action Research Volume 4(4): 439–458 7 Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (revised and updated). New York: Doubleday. 8See Esbjorn-Hargens,S. (2005) Integral Ecology: the what, who, and how of environmental

17

there is an emerging sense of collaborative commitment arising from Groundswell. The concept applied in this project to motivate and engage the community— the right tools, the right information at the right time—has also been applied by the Project Manager across the whole project management. The next stage will be an important opportunity to consolidate this learning and to clarify the ‘art and craft’ of this type of collaborative action.

4.2.3. Multiple futures There are a number of possible futures just out of sight for Groundswell. The quality and amount of the product will to some extent determine the immediate futures (such as farm use and market gardens) however there is a growing awareness that other innovative applications can now be developed. The process is ground-breaking in its low technology and local handling however again new futures are emerging with the possibility of integrating other products such as commercial waste into the soil enrichment process. Further this project has demonstrated that there is a there is an exciting new industry emerging, which has the potential to provide meaningful employment and training and enhance local livelihoods. Although this has an immediate application in rural Australia and other developed countries, given its low technology and local training effectiveness, its potential for use in developing countries is significant. The need for local sustainable resource management cycles is a world-wide issue—Groundswell is proving its efficacy in stimulating and maximising local resources, local strengths, local solutions and local opportunities.

phenomena World Futures, 61: 5–49 who identifies groups such as the eco-warriors, eco-strategists, eco-holists for example

18

5 Conclusion and recommendations In its first eighteen months the Groundswell project has resonated with communities, councils, waste management teams, farmers and community groups and is now beginning to attract attention nationally and internationally. The second eighteen months will enable the full cycle back to the soil to be completed and the important benefit analyses undertaken. Given that the original program logic has proven to be robust to date, it should provide a useful framework for the final phase. Coupled with the strong commitment of all stakeholders and the highly skilled and effective leadership provided by the Project Manager, the future of Groundswell is indeed strong.

5.1 Recommendations The following section presents recommendations to support further development of the project. Whilst most are within the current scope of the project, some are presented to enable other funding sources or partnership to be considered well before the project end.

5.1.1 Maximisation of parallel learning It has been important that the focus of the project has remained firmly on the production of a quality compost process and product, however three of the related processes are worthy of separate documentation as they would be of particularly utility beyond the project itself. These are the EIS process lessons, the strengths and opportunity approach to project management and the community engagement/motivation strategy.

• The EIS application process has taken massive hours and input for what should be a simple albeit essential process. The team now have grounded knowledge regarding how that process could be more effective and efficient. Without the Groundswell larger team, an application such as this from a smaller group could have foundered and the innovations lost. Hence Groundswell is in an important position to help inform improved government and regulatory policy and process

• The project management approach utilising collaborative action learning, mutual

problem solving and empowerment processes across all stakeholder groups hold many lessons for other settings. Most importantly it has lead to a high level of commitment and engagement which in itself predicts longer-term sustainability. Given that government must fund for sustainability rather than dependence, the philosophy and processes need to be harnessed now for wider dissemination.

• Put simply the community education and engagement strategy is low cost and it

works. However the elements of the design and their relative effectiveness are not yet clearly defined as the project effort has rightly been on the Groundswell message itself. The need for effective community education and engagement for social change actions is a national and international issue. Groundswell has lessons to harness and share.

It is recommended that Groundswell: examine, document and disseminate the learning arising from the EIS process, the project management process and the community education/engagement strategy.

19

20

5.1.2 Research strategy enhancement As the final phase of composting and use has just begun and therefore other stakeholders will now become more closely involved, new data needs may well emerge. The action learning approach taken by the project teams will be a strength in identifying such needs however given that convincing data is paramount, any additions to the research strategy should be identified well before the end of the project. It is recommended that Groundswell: assess the research strategy , and extend if required, prior to the final 12 months.

5.1.3 Identification of possible spin-offs Whilst Groundswell will focus in the next eighteen months on the final stage of compost processing and analysis in a concrete and practical way, there are a number of ‘future dreams’ that are already emerging. It will be important to support some further thinking on these possible spin-offs, especially given the energy, enthusiasm and expertise that is currently present. The potential for the integration into an Aboriginal holistic health and healing national project is just one example. A futures workshop that brings together Groundswell and other interested stakeholders would be one possible process. It is recommended that Groundswell: facilitate the identification of possible spin-off projects

5.1.4 Dissemination management Groundswell is already attracting interest from local government and waste management professionals in Australia and internationally. No doubt as the project results expand, requests for visits, information and support will increase. Further as the final results emerge it will be important to determine priority areas and modes for dissemination. It is recommended that Groundswell: develop a communication plan for the dissemination of findings that arise in the next eighteen months and beyond the life of the project

5.1.5 Summary of recommendations It is recommended that Groundswell:

1. examine, document and disseminate the learning arising from the EIS process, the project management process and the community education /engagement strategy

2. assess the research strategy , and extend if required, prior to the final 12 months. 3. facilitate the identification of possible spin-off projects 4. develop a communication plan for the dissemination of findings that arise in the

next eighteen months and beyond the life of the project

21

Appendix 1: Review Timeline

March

2-6 March 9-13

March 16-20

March 23-27

March 30- April 3

April 6-9

April 14-17

April 20-24

April 27-May 1

Activities 1. Analyse Progress Reports against planning frame Document project history

2. Interview researchers 3. Begin three site visits

3. Continue site visits (2 x 1 day work/travel) (1 x 2 day Condobolin overnight)

4. Run Empowerment Evaluation with all stakeholders (one day)

5. Draft report

Draft report by Friday April 17

Draft report returned by Friday April 24

5. Final report due Friday May 1st.

Set up interviews Set up site visits

Planning

Set up EE day Writing up (ongoing)

Appendix 2: DECC Staff Interview

Groundswell “is the most successful program in the Urban Sustainability Grants.” It’s had hold-ups, but it’s had more short-term gains than expected. Of the 14000 households planned for collections, 11,000 are already running. A very large percentage of the project is already running. ‘very surprised…I couldn’t hope for it [Groundswell] to be going any better’, notwithstanding the delays due to the licencing process, which are internal to government in any case. The development of an “entirely new” composting system is a “much much bigger dividend than we anticipated”. The low contamination levels have confirmed that people are very responsive if they are approached with the right materials. Empowerment of the community “The most important thing in City to Soil was empowerment of people”. The empowerment consists in allowing people to at least have some sort of input notionally into their grandchildren’s future. People realise that no community can survive without soil to feed the population. People know. There are still remnants in people’s consciousness that food depends on soil, and the survival of their grandchildren depends on soil. It’s a more grounded level than normal consumption. Groundswell is ‘tapping into something’. City to Soil had a very similar result. The right tools, information and material People have got a bit tired of ‘recycling’, and there was sheer genius in the people who came up with the idea of giving people the right tools9 and the right information10 to motivate people. The value of the midway review a clever idea, an astute notion, to review the program half way through as it gives all stakeholders and the department an idea of how things are going. This does not usually happen in government projects. most impressive part of the Review Day was the support —the sense of ‘comfort’ even —it provided to all the people in the program – through the exchange of information when people have similar ideas but all have to be socially and culturally developed to suit their situations. Participants have had to have a huge amount of faith in the process, which they have shown. The learning, skills and leadership provided by Simone “Simone has been a god-send’. Simone came from a different background and has had a very steep learning curve about the waste industry. In the 25 years of involvement in the waste industry, it is remarkable that the things that have changed – the changed minds of people in the industry. Simone’s background in community education, development and empowerment was different from people with a waste industry background who tend to have

9 Tools such as the biobag and MaxAir bin 10 In the City to Soil pamphlet, such information ‘buttons’ as: support local farmers, reduce waste costs, reduce waste to landfill, win prizes, improve agricultural soils, and help address climate change. None of these mention recycling.

22

a problem solving mindset. Simone never saw the process as ‘solving a problem’. Seeing waste stream as opportunity was a way of looking that Simone came from. Simone has also had a great deal of understanding of people’s learning process. The composting process that Groundswell has developed is entirely new The composting system enables a commercial product without having to turn or shred it. (It costs $1 a lift to turn over, and normal composting requires turning 8 times.) This no-shred composting process is entirely new! Not like the City to Soil process, which used standard composting methods. Originally, Groundswell had planned to use a shredder. Of the $2million funding, a shredder would cost about $400,000 or be prohibitively expensive to hire. So they thought they needed to find a method without shredding. Following a method of turning but not shredding that had been used in Sydney, they tried using an innoculum (which came out of a conversation with a remarkable biologist called Ken Bellamy). The inoculum begins aerobically and then ferments in an apparently anaerobic way. The question they don’t know the answer to is why there is no odour in the product during the biological process. This is very significant for future interest. The temperature range is also right to ensure that BSE (anti-mad cow disease) will not survive, and thus a much cheaper option compared to other anti mad cow disease methods. It would be possible to start the biological process on a property with very little equipment, rather like a yoghurt starter. What’s different about Groundswell? Its focus on commercialisation is different. The farm is the market. However, the first City to

Soil did not collect food, only green waste. Which is why the Groundswell trial is being repeated in Queanbeyan, as the Council was concerned about collecting and composting food (the ‘yuk’ factor).

Queanbeyan composting site The licence of Richard Graham’s farm depends on the volume of product from Queanbeyan.

Richard has put in a lot of time, energy and investment. However, Queanbeyan could process the compost closer to town, and then send it to Richard’s farm. The distance to farm and cost of transport compared to the longer term benefits are not a big issue. The distances that beef travels, for example, is not scrutinised in the same way!

There is not enough material in domestic/urban/commercial waste to address

agricultural/soil issues in Australia (and the carbon market is as much about soil as it is about agriculture) so empowerment of the community is the main benefit. At the same time, 63% of domestic and 72% of industrial waste consists of organic material. This represents huge potential savings of about $200 per household per annum. Prize money for community motivation can come out of this.

23

Appendix 3: Condobolin summary data Partnership with Council Council provides land rent-free Council marketed the program, helped deliver the bins and rolls of bag, and delivers prize hamper Staff numbers at Council have been a challenge WCC responsible for collection of bins, handling product, and end-use market We anticipated that we’d have those sorts of issues. It’s a learning curve for all of us. We’ve come a long way in a short space of time. The benefits for us, for the shire, Condobolin and Aboriginal people are on many different levels. There is a genuine commitment from Council. Council did lots of publicity – maybe not as much as possible, due to lack of personnel (e.g. prizes not being given out). Back on track now. Barry’s secretary has taken on that role. Shire now sees us [WCC] as an asset rather than a liability. Partnership with TAFE MOU between Lachlan Shire and WCC and NSW TAFE Partnership with Aboriginal agency Aboriginal training and development focus with Wiradjuri Condobolin Corporation Important as 1/3rd of Condobolin population is Aboriginal (pop. 3000 in total) Linked to alcohol and drug liberation pathway program to wean off grog & methadone. Opportunity to get connected back to land and country and a way of nurturing the land Resource for the town Lots of opportunities seen originally but not quite sure. Important to have ownership, active participation/decision-making. The guys have taken to it. The town has taken to it – very quickly – this was a surprise as it might have been a struggle – not all that much contamination. Whole of town approach. How? It’s about doing it. We’ve had to be very proactive. Diligence by us. Condobolin is a community that embraces misery – drugs, alcohol – and we were able to turn that around. A whole of town approach, Aboriginal group leading the way and not being followers. Compost used as an opportunity for education of other Aboriginal groups and communities (Murray Darling).

We can be black and green

Green thinking Black thumbs with green thoughts It’s a project that’s very closely linked to our culture, epistemology and world view - listening/hearing what the land is saying. Challenges—Initially, self-belief that we can do this; Getting the community to embrace this; Making it work; As an Aboriginal group, a lot of challenges; Negativity by white community We’re not there yet but we’re progressing.

Positives far outweigh negatives. It’s been a challenge but it’s been exciting. Turnover of people (WCC – four different project leaders managing the men on the ground). Give them their dues. They’ve put in a hard as they can. Just teething problems Looking after the environment; climate change & drier conditions. Non-Aboriginal people are moving to cities, but Aboriginal people are not leaving their communities. Who’s going to look after land when parents are gone? [We are] culturally connected to land. Training opportunity— The opportunity presented by Gerry Gillespie and Geoff Pryor was for the training nursery to allow an Aboriginal group to play a part in Groundswell .

24

Trainee drop out rate: Ten students began in the 13-week training. Two stayed. Three CDP participants are paid 2 days a week. They have a Cert II and III in waste management. They love it. They were running the nursery. Two staff have done Certificates in Horticulture and Waste Management. Driving licenses. In WCC most do not have driving licences. One of two workers does, the other doesn’t and he has to. Teething problems with composting, but the bloke from TAFE (Dennis Byrne) has been wonderful during the delivery of Cert II in waste management The Certificates are based on existing courses, modified for green waste only. There is a narrower focus on composting only. It’s interesting – hands-on. The training involves making sure someone is watching the compost; covers are on (after wind), inoculation, \ensuring things do get done and commitment. We’ve been heading in the right direction and students have gained skills. A couple have got jobs (confidence) with mining companies and are still working with WCC at Lake Cowal gold mine, cleaning. What students get out of the course: they knew what to do, improved discipline, attitudes changed Place for training Learning process for everyone. For example, it’s Dennis’ first time training Aboriginal people. I’m learning a lot about them – their issues and requirements. I’m very patient – more than I thought I was. Still fine tuning processing and storage area. Ongoing training. More than what I usually do is dealing with different people (e.g. Lisa and Percy at WCC) – which is interesting. I usually only talk to students and head teachers – things are provided. At Condobolin I have to chase everything. I’m very resourceful. I’ve also spoken to the wider community, including elders. Some were positive, some wanted to know more about it at the beginning. I’d like to continue it – training with guys with support from TAFE Things are in place. Once a month visit is not enough at this stage because more seems to be happening. Dennis will just have to ask for more hours. Should be possible. He is confident that the training will be ongoing. The Certificate II in Waste Maintenance (Waste Management) is adaptive to landfill or waste handling. Condobolin is a unique narrowing. Collection— Originally were going to pick up bins, but didn’t have the right equipment to do it or the time; it was chaos. Couldn’t afford $250,000 for a collection truck, so subcontracted the local bin collector who is very experienced; costs $700 for three days a fortnight – a very smart use of dollars.

Original idea to use a trailer, but the logistics wouldn’t work (double handling of bins) which led to purchase of a local truck that is not up to standard. Good ideal but wrong truck. This led to lost faith/support/cooperation from the people at the site (the same bloke who sold them the truck). Local Aboriginal community to do collection, sorting and processing. Trouble with collection led to a contractor being employed – so the Aboriginal community lost a bit of ownership of the process. Reliable collection routine: It’s important to keep to a routine so householders know what to expect. The first collection was on 22 September. Initially it was fraught with problems – with the truck (which cost $15,000, had no brakes – it was dangerous, a nightmare). The subcontractor makes collection reliable. The only negative aspect at the moment: We’d like to collect. The truck was bought in good faith. Serious teething problems in the first two weeks. We are outsourcing, but we’d like to do it ourselves – secure contract for shire. Huge cost. I’d love to see one day that we had our own truck and do it ourselves. In future we’d like one collection a week – alternate green and other waste.

25

Have we lost power over what we collect? A bit, but the subcontractor is very good. Composting process—So much learning! – for example: not double handling the compost; the shed is too narrow for the machinery needed to move the compost inside the building. So either need two pieces of machinery or one plus design a tilt/hydraulic trailer (latter makes more sense)

Now, not quite developing compost totally organic but getting there A recent storm other greenwaste being dumped in the wrong spot and had to be moved. Quantities are smallish for broadscale agriculture. Watermelon farm/orchard 15km up the road maybe. WCC nursery/market garden/Council parks and gardens. Still manually based. Not enough people. Others have been drawn to other work. The screens were developed by WCC and local metal fabricators – WCC designed it. Eugene and Cecil have taken responsibility. Younger ones haven’t taken on the bigger picture, the purpose of composting, the business for WCC. Quality is very good – rich. This stuff is top quality. The first collection sample had less than 1% contamination. Simone thinks it’s fantastic – calls it ‘black gold’. Site Issues WCC has no control over the land. The piece of land on which the new shed was built (that cost $70,000) is owned by the shire The area is not lockable, so contaminants get dumped there There might be arsenic in the landfill underneath (over organic limits). Need to replicate test for contamination. In hindsight, test land before beginning the project. No-one knows what is in the site (for example, it once had a cyanide spill) The shire allocated the land. It had been a metal dump and has a trench. The land was not prepared for the truck (fill on top of the land is not deep enough), which therefore can’t get in (gets bogged). It needs to be filled with gravel and leveled. Have been waiting for this to happen… Getting site gravelled – the delay due to variable quotes. Rewording needed of contract. Then a typo in the addition. Little niggly things. If had a different site, could have had market garden and shed on site e.g. at new learning centre. It’s not possible to grow food on a tip site. In hindsight, would not choose landfill site. It’s not a nice site for people to work in.

Equipment: Not enough equipment (tarps, shovels) Truck to pick up bins did not work and would cost too much to get fixed. Then will need a bobcat and proper tarps (the wind tears the tarps). A shredder/chipper would be ideal.

Contamination: Bins from one area of town were contaminated. Therefore WCC door- knocked and explained the problem, the potential hamper prizes, and that if there continued to be problematic items put in the bins, the bins would be taken away. A couple of bins were taken away. It’s easier to stop it at the street – at the front end. The advantage of a smaller place – we know what we can and can’t do. We know the people. People out there are really keen. Compliance is good. Issues in a couple of areas (knew there would be). WCC did a door knock.

26

Commercial opportunities—Plans for a trial of compost going to a market garden which would dovetail with the new learning/wellness centre. At start, they thought they would bag and sell the product (half to agriculture). But tonnage is not sufficient (scale is too low). Spin-off = organic market gardens. Food is so expensive here. Great outcomes – green waste contracts in NSW. WCC is in a good position to run a tender. Commercial opportunity and learning. It has to be commercial Strengths Education of community (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal). We are living in different times, drought, and we need to be smarter, recycling with green waste: getting people to think green, to look after the environment and think about the future (with climate change). Commercial opportunities – emerging economic framework can be built around this The country is in pain at the moment and hurting and needs to be managed better. The more we can put back in to the soil…. Ex wheatbelt land has been farmed to death – got to replenish. Groundswell works well because the smaller community’s capacity to undertake greenwaste collection and composting is very good. Start at Condobolin and then expand to the Shire.

Hard to go back – data has shown it works.--> why can’t it be done statewide?

WCC: employment, business opportunity, training opportunity to skill people up (for example: the two workers designed and built sieves superior to the original design – brilliant – cost $100 compared to $1400 for the original). A future: compost is only the initial starting point. A market garden will provide more employment; farmland (paddock to plate) would provide employment and benefit families and social. Create projects that create other projects – for us it’s quite exciting For me personally, the project is a success. The green bin is full, the other bin is half full. People do get it and do want to be involved. There is a picture taken by Gerry and Simone of a street with green bins. Where to from here? Logistics: The use of the compound held up by delays in gravelling [this has since happened] Delays in gravelling caused by loss of 3-4 key shire staff, leaving one staff member overstretched. Difficulty of relying on other people – lots of stakeholders. The more links, the more weaknesses. Groundswell integrated into a larger picture. • Continue education program • Method of operation on the site – own loader/shredder • Covering (tarps) • Contamination (education) • A core of people (more than Cecil and Eugene) who feel it’s mine. Future – long-term outcome: developing green waste for the shire.

Need to convince Council at the end of the process with some good figures and stories that it will be COST NEUTRAL/beneficial Half way through a three-year project. See a model evolve. Each area will need to be looked at on its own...each area is different… demographics. A model that is transferable and transportable. It’s a model that that the Aboriginal community can take and deliver into other communities – rural or remote.

27

The site can be used as a model for the future – for western towns (in NSW) with Aboriginal people on contract to local councils. A stepping stone to another town. Summary Advice: Test the site first Avoid landfill site (Simone would disagree) Look at what machinery you need, if you need it at all. Unexpected costs: fence, gravel, and water connection. [Focus on] Community engagement/education; Publicity and getting public on side before starting collection (we put out pamphlets). We could have done better. Ongoing – about when you put your bins out. A community newspaper is being put together to help people to know when to put their bins out. Prizes stories in newspapers. Sell it to schools. It’s all trial and error. It’s all learning. Making mistakes that you learn from is designed to create a bigger thing. We know it’s a pilot. We’ll grow from it. Already opportunities have emerged for us, and continue.

28

Appendix 4: Goulburn summary data Community engagement and communication – done by Simone, Peter and Tina – part of the Council. Ads in paper. A lot of attention to media (radio).

It has been pretty well received by the community (90%)

Community engagement is pretty good.

Collection— Greenwaste collection began 18-19 months ago (not long before Groundswell , which began last October) ;

Priorities: kerbside collections. 2401 garbage bins (bought by residents) collected monthly. Council provides 140 litre bins (monthly collection)

(1-1.7% contamination) – better than average, but a big job

We think we can get the contamination down through education

Certain areas of the city always a problem

Site— must be designated as a landfill ( decomposed concrete and capped landfill) Might be an idea to move the final stage to another site - for community to like the product more if not sourced from landfill

Space it consumes (working area): 3 months of collection lose half worksite

Composting—100 tonnes greenwaste per month on average

Staff – to sort, spray, windrow, cover and wet and leave for 6-8 weeks

We are all keen to see how this first batch works.

We’ve made a few adjustments, for example there are seasonal variations, such as grass and rose clippings, sticks, Xmas trees.

The weather plays a part (Sept-Oct are windy and affect covers)

Heavy duty tarps last 12 months compared to plastic ones 2 months

Trials at Eastgrove – 1 compacter load used plastic.

Two local farms selected ready to roll out (fenced off). Chris Horton (agronomist) will come on board in another 8 weeks.

Need to monitor process – eg different levels of breakdown; look at blending to move it through quicker (eg with sediment ponds dredged)

Had visits from people from Tasmania and Queensland.

1000 tonnes 300 tonnes finished product, which might service two farms.

Machinery —A lot of trouble with machinery – back hoe Marulan – without mechanical aids; Trying to minimize staff and machinery Used existing compacter and kerbside truck plus backhoe. May need a trommell (for sorting)

Staffing issue —using existing staff; collection plus waste staff when they get time; Attitude of operators: some good, others careless;

Strengths Strengths in Goulburn are the collection procedure

Fact that program is directed from soil to soil

Trial and error in the composting process

29

Commercialisation—Everyone who is participating mentions that the Council isn’t flogging it and the price of non-organic fertilizers is going through the roof and this can be produced for a fraction of the price.

Challenges Space is a key factor as we get more stuff

No way are we breaking even at this stage.

Advice to other Councils?

• Break down process for staff involved from collection to sorting • Own resources – or if contracting it out, try to determine costs • Cost effectiveness must be there and well explained • Don’t underestimate the resources required

Happy just to keep going the way we’ve been going.

30

Appendix 5: Queanbeyan/Palerang summary data

Palerang —are relaxed and positive about the process and probably better informed about the project, the process and the delays, having been more involved to date. Queanbeyan—left on the sidelines waiting, plus having the poor end of the bargain with the distance to the site plus associated costs. Hence Queanbeyan has more questions and concerns at this point. Local context Palerang: in 2005, Palerang developed a waste strategy system (by consultants URS). The 2005 report (a good, general document) was adopted by council until 2025, and is now being implemented. Waste/streams/recycling is best practice. This involves shutting seven landfills (some small, unmanned and inefficient) at Nerriga, Majors Creek, Braidwood, Captains Flat, Macs Reef Road and Bungendore. These will be replaced by a system of minor transfer stations and one major one at Bungendore. All minor transfer stations will go to Bungendore, and all will be sent to Woodlawn (which is in Palerang). Woodlawn takes some Sydney waste, is state planned and approved, and privately owned. There’s an 80:20 chance that Canberra’s waste will go to Woodlawn. The transfer station at Captains Flat is being built. Landfill has been closed and is in the process of being covered. Building the Bungendore transfer station ($2-3 million) was approved 2-3 weeks ago and is being designed right now. Due to open at the end of 2009. Still in the pipeline is closing two more landfills. The site A challenge has been the process in Palerang of getting the site licensed. The approach we took (on-farm processing) was the 2nd choice. The first choice was the Queanbeyan facility with a last minute change in that there was not enough space or zoning. The Waste Minimisation Centre (WAMI) at Queanbeyan is too small, and might be upgraded or funding for another site be found. On-farm processing was a great decision, but the new site had to go through authorities regarding waste management. Approval process EIS and Development Application (DA) were needed as the farm site is in the Sydney catchment area A critical (and predictable) path in the whole program is/was the DA approval for Richard’s place. This in itself (from experience) is a costly and time consuming process. The DA includes an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which is an extensive and specialised document. It appeared that this would be the most difficult site/location to have ready for disposal and processing of the organic materials given that we were trying to have all sites ie Condobolin, Goulburn and Palerang/Queanbeyan ready roughly at the same time. Thus it required that special effort.This has been a learning experience for the Groundswell team Simone has been at the forefront of learning processes, eg. (DA) for approval. Richard didn’t have to deal with authorities (EPA).Early on he provided drawings and diagrams of the site in a sophisticated way that helped Simone. Richard spent over 200 hours on the DA – writing, drawings, meetings. A fair amount of interest in the area, from the DA (they ran an ad). Received a number of comments from farmers and lay people interested in how the composting will be done and how they can get the compost.

31

Start dates—Queanbeyan are hanging back and waiting for the DA. They are waiting for a starting date to begin the educational material and roll out of bins and bags. Are getting a lot of inquiries – word is getting out! It would have been nice to be up and running or to have a starting date. We feel we’ve been left out while others have been [busy..] It’s dragged on for 18 months …limbo But it’s exciting. Collection plans Palerang is not big: 1900 (Bungendore + Braidwood + Captains Flat) plus 800 (part of Queanbeyan). 12,700 in Palerang Council area; 4-5,000 in the three towns, the rest being rural. Palerang collects general waste (mixed with organics) and recyclable waste in the three towns. Groundswell will be a third run of the truck (1900 bins) @ $80,000 per annum and Groundswell will process this. Queanbeyan already collects greenwaste, since 2001 (but not kitchen waste). Now another trial in one portion – Karabar - of the city (800 homes, about 1/8 of Queanbeyan (14000 all up). This area is a repeat of the City to Soil area [but now on a bigger scale of composting than City to Soil was] – success will lead to a roll out across Queanbeyan. Collection will be once a fortnight. It could change our practice. We have a lot of infrastructure. Distances to Site Queanbeyan has one of the largest distance to travel to the processing site ie, about 42km. It has 800 bins to collect. If you could find somewhere closer… Queanbeyan looked for something closer than Richard Graham’s farm (90 km return). Have a look at another site? Palerang has the following distances-- Braidwood - about 34km with about 600 bins. Bungendore - about 15km with about 950 bins. Captains Flat - about 53km with about 240bins. All the above figures are one way. Captains Flat is the longest trip but overall Palerang is better off in terms of cartage distance/volume. Community engagement The thing later on (Simone has money for this) is education of the population, of the results and of how we’re going – ‘get it out there’ – seeing the benefits – to all the stakeholders (Palerang). Promotional stuff – Queanbeyan don’t know what they’re doing in Goulburn. We’ll need a few months, a newsletter…

Queanbeyan will need good/better publicity than elsewhere because only one section of the city is being done. Something in the paper Concern about the rest of the city asking, why aren’t we doing it here? Perhaps it is time to sit down and nut out these questions. Composting Palerang will be processing 900 tonnes a year yet looking at all EIS indicators and location (because the site is part of Sydney catchment). Palerang audit showed 54% of the general waste was organic. (They should have audited the recyclable waste too.) Palerang (organic farmer) have learned less from what we’ve done compared with a farmer who had never done composting.

32

Concerns Queanbeyan: Odours are a concern Transport costs/trucks/time to Richard’s farm Now noise assessment has to be looked at by Simone. Who pays? Queanbeyan is paying for the expense of travel. Over the next two years, there will be budget cuts. We will need to look for $$ for next year. (Farmer) The Groundswell project will probably need to be extended 18 months especially in our shire (pragmatics not major concern). Potential Successes: The committee is working well together – pragmatic, practical, good cooperation, sensible, good use of time. Enthusiasm is good in the group. The other areas are going really well The TAFE course So many possibilities Reduced landfill Rethinking what people are throwing out Employment; Possibilities for business and job creation; With drought, we may be laying people off. We should be able to reallocate time from individuals doing other jobs. The contribution of time and resources of an organic farm Spinoffs: Events in Queanbeyan such as the Regatta are ‘waste-wise’ events with 3 bins. Could waste wise events produce be sorted at Groundswell ? Model— Understanding that it is a pilot, therefore with different sites and delivery. It’s value adding – that’s the whole point. All we are doing is going is going back to the 1940s – no big deal. The Groundswell process and design is pretty simple in term of engineering. Everything has taken longer than expected – that’s only to be expected. The time is right for these type of things I think it’s going to be very positive. We’re making headway – a year late, but it’s a prototype of the processes It’s been much more logistic than we expected.

33

Appendix 6: Review Day summary data

Groundswell Empowerment Evaluation Session Goulburn 31/03/09 10am-5pm Facilitators: Barbara Pamphilon., Barbara Chevalier.

Participants: Groundswell staff: Simone Dilkara, Gerry Gillespie, Condobolin: Lisa Hibbert, Cecil Coe, Eugene Coe, Barrie Toms, Dennis Byrne Goulburn: Andrew Galland, David Long Queanbeyan: Natasha Abbott Palerang: Brian Blackburn Researchers: Michael Reynolds, Chris Houghton Apologies: Condobolin: Percy Knight; EIS: Frances Greeshaw; Queanbeyan: Vanessa Palmer; Palerang: Richard Graham

ONE WORD ABOUT HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT GROUNDSWELL TODAY........................................ 35 WHAT AT THIS MIDWAY POINT IS YOUR VISION FOR GROUNDSWELL /CITY TO SOIL IN YOUR AREA? ................................................................................................................................ 35

Engagement and education .......................................................................................... 35 Creating a nutrient cycle ............................................................................................... 35 Dedicated people .......................................................................................................... 36 Quality satisfaction ........................................................................................................ 36 Refining processes........................................................................................................ 36 Outcomes...................................................................................................................... 36

DISCUSSION OF VISION ....................................................................................................... 36 TAKING STOCK ASSESSMENT OF THE GROUNDSWELL PROJECT ........................................... 37 IDENTIFIED COMPONENTS.................................................................................................... 37

1. Education and Engagement...................................................................................... 37 2. Infrastructure ............................................................................................................. 37 3. Composting process ................................................................................................. 37 4. Outreach/advisory ..................................................................................................... 37 5. Research................................................................................................................... 37 6. Staff........................................................................................................................... 37 7. Models and Logistics................................................................................................. 37 8. Commercialisation..................................................................................................... 37

PARTICIPANTS’ RANKING OF GROUNDSWELL COMPONENTS ................................................. 38 Education and Engagement Issues .............................................................................. 39 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 39 Composting process ..................................................................................................... 40 Outreach/advisory ......................................................................................................... 41 Research....................................................................................................................... 41 Staff............................................................................................................................... 42 Models and Logistics..................................................................................................... 42 Commercialisation......................................................................................................... 43

IMPROVEMENT/ACTION PLANS............................................................................................. 44 Education and Engagement ......................................................................................... 44 Commercialisation ........................................................................................................ 44 Research ...................................................................................................................... 45 Composting process .................................................................................................... 45 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................... 45 Models and Logisti ....................................................................................................... 45 Staff ............................................................................................................................. 45 Outreach/Advisory......................................................................................................... 45

KEY LESSONS LEARNED ...................................................................................................... 45

34

One word about how you feel about Groundswell today Condobolin Lisa Exciting Condobolin Cecil Pretty good Condobolin Eugene Exciting Condobolin Dennis Involving/evolving Condobolin Barry Evolving Goulburn Andrew Expanding – from what originally thought in Goulburn, e.g. site

size Goulburn David Apprehensive Groundswell Simone In awe Groundswell Gerry Connection all around the world; Opportunity ( National Soils

Policy rather than National Waste Strategy); Groundbreaking Palerang Brian Germination; Fundamental – back to fundamentals of past

agriculture Queanbeyan Natasha Waiting Researcher Michael Exciting – synergies with other projects

Connectivity – amazing no. of people who ring up/talk about Researcher Chris Germination of something quite big. Huge amount of recyclable

material

What at this midway point is your vision for Groundswell in your area?

Engagement and education Summary: 1. Community engagement – involvement – awareness – ownership - through education and prizes 2. Engagement with stakeholders 1. Engagement with community at all levels

• Requires education of the community to be successful • Education and involvement • Education (2) • Ownership by community is critical • Awareness • [Awareness of] contamination • Change behaviour – back to basics • Prizes

2. Engagement with stakeholders e.g. waste industry

Creating a nutrient cycle Summary: Establishing the economics and simple systems for efficient and best use of green waste as a resource is of national relevance Of national relevance

• An efficient resource; use logical • Simple systems needed • Establishing the economics • Reduce waste to landfill • Makes no sense to bury compostable material underground

35

Best use • Reuse green waste • Finding a place for compost product in agriculture or other uses • Taking resource from cities to where it’s needed • Clean product [links to community education/contamination] • Quantity

Dedicated people • Skills • Employment (2)

Satisfaction [with quality of materials] • Community • Users • Organisation • Staff • Council • Environment

Refining processes Constant learning/fine tuning

• Contamination • Under-resourced • Site location • Machinery

Ongoing • Consolidation • Expansion • Convincing

Outcomes Value adding A recipe Cost-benefit] Marketing product and outcomes requires simple messages Market garden

Discussion of Vision Condobolin We’re moving forward towards a purpose Palerang Brian Value adding stage Condobolin Dennis Value adding all along; Options for marketing Groundswell Gerry Longer term goal is predicated on research by Michael & Chris; National relevance: building a rainbow to the pot of gold City to Soil identified 12-12 distinct benefits (Sara Beavis, ANU) Removal unit in new government policy of carbon sequestration Eliminating ‘yuk’ factor in waste streams There are not many groups who are doing this; many are collecting waste but don’t know why (the value: landfill, nutrients, carbon) Huge untapped quantity that comes into the gate. A small refinement/step improve quantity, sooner rather than later (part of the process) Not just waste – all waste streams Bigger cyclical process. In 30 years’ time we will run out of mine-able phosphorus (key element of cell). It takes 60-90 mineral elements to build healthy cells

36

37

Urine = 40% phosphorus Sewage system in Queanbeyan – a simple system. Use of product not touched yet. Sydney is producing too much (composted material). Need to demonstrate an economic model Collector, processor and famer tender together, i.e. market for product.

Taking Stock assessment of the Groundswell project

Identified components

1. Education and Engagement • Ongoing • Information • Ownership • Skills development • Employment • Markets

To/with/for • community • media • organizations • stakeholders

2. Infrastructure • staff • resources • equipment • facilities • materials handling

3. Composting process

4. Outreach/advisory

5. Research

6. Staff

7. Models and Logistics

8. Commercialisation

38

Participants’ ranking of Groundswell components (0-10, where 10 is working well) C= Condobolin; G. Goulburn; GS= Groundswell ; Res=researcher; P= Palerang; Q=Queanbeyan Dots: improvement priorities * refers to training Average C. Q. GS Res G. G. Gw Res C. C. C. P. C. DB NA GG MR DL AG SD CH CC EC LH BB BTEducation and Engagement 6.4 8 6 6 7 5 7 7 8 8 7 6 3 5 Dots 19.5 (total) 2 * 3 3 1 2 2.5 1 1 * 2 * 11 Infrastructure 5.3 6 3 4 6 4 7 6 6 5 8 3 7 6 Dots 6(total) 2 1 2 1 Composting process 6.5 8 8 7 6 5 6 7 9 6 5 6 5 7 Dots 6.5(total) 1 1 2.5 1 1 Outreach/advisory 5.0 6 4 5 4 5 7 9 5 5 6 4 3 3 Dots 3(total) 2 1 Research 6.3 7 8 3 5 6 8 9 8 6 4 7 7 5 Dots 8(total) 1 2 2 1 2 Staff 6.2 8 5 6 8 2 6 6 7 5 5 8 7 8 Dots 3(total) 2 1 Models and Logistics 6.6 6 7 5 8 5 6 8 7 7 6 6 8 8 Dots 4(total) 2 1 1 Commercialisation 4.3 6 4 4 4 4 7 8 6 2 4 1 3 3 Dots 10(total) 1 2 3 2 2 Groundswell components sorted by total rankings Average rating Components sorted by what needs improving TotalModels and Logistics 6.6 Education and Engagement 19.5 Composting process 6.5 Commercialisation 10 Education and Engagement 6.4 Research 8 Research 6.3 Composting process 6.5 Staff 6.2 Infrastructure 6 Infrastructure 5.3 Models and Logistics 4 Outreach/advisory 5.0 Staff 3 Commercialisation 4.3 Outreach/advisory 3

Discussion of Groundswell components

Education and Engagement Issues Rankings 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 3 Average 6.4Dots: 19.5 Education and training (Condobolin) vs. community engagement and educating the public Ongoing education and engagement vs. education as an outcome of Groundswell Education Plan Three Condobolin participants who voted 8 were thinking about education and training as a strength and the value and need for ongoing training, especially for young people, whereas another Condobolin participant who voted 5 was thinking about community and media, but would give training a 9. Regarding community and media, he thought the message out to people had started out well, but overall was mediocre; the Council should have done and could do more. Participation and contamination had fallen a bit, and there was a need for ongoing community engagement. One participant who voted 7 thought some aspects had been excellent. Groundswell ’s plans for how to ‘roll out’ the program had been very effective and had started out very well. For example, the linking of compost collection into agriculture was one of Groundswell ’s strongest links. There was a need to do more now. A challenge was how to put systems in place with busy staff. A Goulburn participant who voted 7 for ‘a fair bit of time and effort’ that had gone into community engagement processes [by the Council], which was re-elected] in the number of visits to the composting site and feedback from the community. Another participant who voted 7 observed, as an outsider, that people could be harsh on themselves. From all conversations and meetings that he had observed, things are going really well. Simone noted that while an impression that a lot of money had been spent on publicity out of $2 million may have been created, only $15,000 had been spent on promotion: $4000 on stickers for Goulburn; $3-4000 for instruction leaflets. They had relied on everyone’s links, energy and time, resulting in barely spending anything. We know our messages are right on A Palerang participant mentioned inquiries from the community were happening even though community engagement hadn’t started. We will be doing a lot.

Infrastructure Rankings 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 4 3 3 Average 5.3 Dots: 6 Only two sites were discussed, as the other two have not yet started. Goulburn (a 7 vote) has got all the infrastructure there: machinery, site, staff, and is using existing resources. The machinery does not always work, and staff commitment and numbers is a bit lower (6) than ideal. A Condobolin participant voted 8, but mentioned the problem with machinery (the truck) and the importance of a good working environment or young fellows won’t work there. Also, more senior guys were needed to keep the young there.

39

Another Condobolin participant, ranking infrastructure 9, pointed out that they had started from scratch (unlike Goulburn) and as soon as the gravel was put down (which had been delayed partly due to massive staff loss in Council), as soon as we get the next bit done, it’ll jump to an 8 or 9. A further Condobolin participant, who had also ranked infrastructure 6, agreed, and said more equipment was needed. A lot is now manual handling. The last Condobolin participant also mentioned the lack of equipment and the disastrous purchase of a truck (though it was noted, not with Groundswell funds, but WCC funds). While the shed was great, they still couldn’t get into the compound, with the result that people dumping were recontaminating their compost. In hindsight, the tip site was not appropriate due to contamination and should have been tested before starting. They cannot afford to test all the piles. The Condobolin project has still got a way to go though not regarding staff. Materials, equipment and machinery were the issues.

Composting process Rankings 9 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 Average 6.5Dots 6.5 All rankings were above 5. A Condobolin participant noted starting from zero knowledge to what we have now [October to now] is incredible. I’d go and buy 10 trailer loads of stuff. One of the researchers noted that the composting process was pivotal. A problem to be overcome was that the material could not be shredded, and Simone and Gerry had come up with a solution – it had been a leap of faith. A Condobolin participant mentioned that they had no one to compare it with. In Goulburn, the main problem was the wind blowing the tarps off – otherwise the ranking was 9. This was an issue in Condobolin too. Gerry noted that the composting process was unusual and they still did not know why there was no odour. If they could prove that it is possible to compost without odours, it would lead to a revolutionary process, for example in TAFE. The Queanbeyan participant simply said: It works. Simone added there’s so much riding on what happens in the composting process on the ground. She described an amazing exciting journey to design and create a product that solves a project. It was groundbreaking – they were composting in a way that nobody is. They had reached a level of stabilization and were now refining, collecting data and testing and monitoring for contamination become the key.

40

Outreach/advisory Rankings 9 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 Average 5.0Dots 3 The main outreach and advice was being done by Simone, who said that the coastal councils are very interested in Groundswell ’s community engagement and composting processes. Shoalhaven is trying out Groundswell ’s composting process for their wet collections: food, nappies and organics. Other interest has been expressed by an Ipswich Co.and Gippsland Water. After an article in Land, 20 farmers wanted compost. Gerry and Simone had presented in New Zealand. The Department of Defence wants this process in all their bases. Groundswell is being nominated for an industry award for composting. Gerry commented that: it is piling up all the time, and they would be going to a NZ conference in June and another in Wales. We are achieving outcomes in this area well before we expected to. [Things are lighting up people’s imagination, one of the facilitators remarked.] Other participants mentioned that they had not been aware of these outreach activities outside of their area, or they hadn’t reached that stage yet. The Queanbeyan participant suggested that: We need to get back to our new Council and tell them that this is what we are up to. The Palerang participant agreed, saying, their Council has changed a bit, and new councils were an opportunity to educate. The Goulburn participant reports to Council every few months with an update. One researcher was of the view that Outreach is peripheral. The focus is on the project and it is important not to get distracted.

Research Rankings 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 3 Average 6.3Dots 8 The Queanbeyan participant ranked this component highly (8) as it was a major part of the project, of the funding and It’s all happening. A Condobolin participant agreed It’s really important. Simone spoke of loving the collaborative process of designing the research strategy, asking ‘what do you and farmers need to know?’ The Palerang participant said the audit was also useful. Gerry said, We’ve hardly begun. We’ll get startling results in another 12 months’ time. The potential was unrealized at this stage. Our difficulty is not being successful, it’s

41

managing our success. It will carry itself forward, potentially changing the entire waste industry internationally. It is a big vision. It’s on track. There was a need for humanity to focus on where food comes from. There is no other project that focuses on the relationship between urban and rural. The other researcher said the research was ‘just bubbling away’. The real stuff is going to happen nearer the end. Three different models add weight. This conversation caused one of the Condobolin participants to say that they thought they were more behind than they were. Another noted that the Condobolin project had developed a new stream of education literally from scratch [the Certificate II and III in waste management]. Any TAFE can now pick this up.

Staff Rankings 8 8 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 2 Average 6.2Dots 3 A Condobolin participant said there had been big staffing issues at first [attrition of trained people]. Cecil and Eugene were really committed and settled the project down. They had given the project security and were keen to take it to the next stage (developing the market garden). Another participant from Condobolin pointed out that young ones get bored sometimes with the manual handling. Another added: Qualifications plus machinery will give something to brag about. Another Condobolin participant noted the sense of ownership – This is mine, don’t stuff it up. I’ve been working hard, under a difficult time. [A facilitator said: A turning point will be jobs in this area (of composting)] For Wiradjuri CC, it is about employment and community – the more people we employ, the better it is. Cecil and Eugene are now mentoring. The low scores: Goulburn: 24 staff at the tip: 2-3 are often on leave, then Groundswell is put in the background. This is a risk management issue. When everyone turns up it works smoothly.

Models and Logistics Rankings 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 Average 6.6Dots 4 All rankings above 5. A Palerang participant said: of the three different locations, other than Palerang/Queanbeyan, two have been sorted and tested and developed. Regarding the distance (60K) to the composting site/farm, Queanbeyan got the wrong end of the stick and we’ll have to live with it. It suits Palerang The Queanbeyan participant was interested in the fact that the Condobolin people had said it doesn’t fit at a tip site. The Goulburn participant was pretty confident their landfill site had been well capped, so contamination was unlikely

42

Gerry observed that there are some ‘old ways of thinking’ in the trial’ in ‘extending existing systems’. However, ‘green field sites’ and building facilities for green waste were the future. These would be environments better for people to work with. Simone pointed out that there were opportunities at the tip sites for conversations and change. At Condobolin, despite problems with the contractor at the tip, ‘our model suits us in Condobolin’, Gerry noted that above 70 degrees was safe for BSC (‘mad cow disease’) and spoke of the ‘phenomenal potential’ of the project. One researcher wondered what the quantity is going to be. For example, if the community really buy in Goulburn, there may be a need for a bigger site? Gerry responded that that will be driven by what the researcher and agronomy science will show. A Condobolin participant thought that with a small shredder, they could have used what was dumped over the weekend. Gerry pointed out that a shredder needs two staff. A contractor in Cooma was noted as being very cheap.

Commercialisation Rankings 8 7 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 1 Average 4.3 Dots 10 Gerry again mentioned the ‘phenomenal potentials’, the avenues to investigate, the carbon market. A Condobolin participant who ranked this component 1 said it was early days and hadn’t started yet. It was going to have to be commercial. Another Condobolin participant said: we know were we’re going; we still have more work to do to back up the product with documentation. A researcher said that it was cut and dried that it is going to be commercial. I’ve got no doubt. There is no need to focus on this now. It will look after itself. The Goulburn participant was enthusiastic that the product was going back onto the land, onto a viable agricultural enterprise, providing fertilizing benefit. Simone commented that critical to councils was how to gear up to demonstrate that we can get as much as possible out of the regular bin with city to soil and now Condobolin collection is more regular it has reduced garbo bins’ content. We may have enough evidence from existing trials for Palerang to decide to swop so the bigger bin is the recycling bin. We know people like the bags and baskets. The single issue is for councils to not have any increase in collections (i.e. no extra bin).

43

Improvement/Action Plans Components sorted by dots (needs improving) TotalEducation and Engagement 19.5 Commercialisation 10 Research 8 Composting process 6.5 Infrastructure 6 Models and Logistics 4 Staff 3 Outreach/advisory 3

Education and Engagement 19.5 dots The purpose is:

1. Participation in diverting organic waste 2. Reducing contamination, and quality control

The timing of the education: before, ongoing and at the end The roll out strategy was developed by the steering committee. Timing is important! The informal approach to community education has been extremely effective but high maintenance. People love the messages about agriculture and jobs. Before: Palerang and Queanbeyan need the roll out process for community education and participation: a timetable, community newsletter, contamination issues (what can and can’t be put in the bins) Ongoing: Audit results, prizes and city visitors all provide media events, photo opportunities and quotes which are powerful. At the end: Results of finding beyond the pilot strategy – lesson learnt at the end of the pilot Down the track: field days for farmers. At present, can’t meet supply! In the future, there will by Fly Bys, swipe cards and loyalty cards.

Commercialisation 10 dots The research strategy shows when commercialization should occur. Research will show data from trials – ongoing and at the end Documentation and demonstration e.g. of market garden Spread over more than one outlet (than market garden) Smaller bags of compost could be a large product Backloads on grain trains Potential to change agriculture in the Condobolin region Gerry thought the commercial potential is ‘very big’. It’s going to lead into very large agricultural market that you can’t control – you can only control your part of that market. (Gerry) Simone said: there’s enough in place. The urgent issue is compost that meets regulatory framework requirements.

44

Research 8 dots The research component was seen as important and essential. Reporting and communicating the results as soon as possible and in an ongoing way, and being open to opportunities, were highlighted.

Composting process 6 dots The main issues were quality (reaching national standards), cost effectiveness. A long-term technological solution for wind and tarps will come later

Refining data collection was also a priority.

Ongoing quality control includes site characteristics (such as surface, contamination, size), OH&S for composting and National Standards– they are onto it.

Infrastructure 6 dots In Condobolin, the compound problems (gravelling) are about to be fixed. An immediate need is for machinery (a bobcat) and related training. The WCC has money for this. Condobolin staff have designed their own highly effective screens.

The screening process is an immediate issue for Goulburn for the first pile of compost for the researcher. They will consult with Charles Sturt University (Wagga). Ultimately there will be 5 cubic meter bins, a trommel and flipscreens.

Models and Logistics 4 dots Once the EIS has gone through, Queanbeyan and Palerang will roll out. This will lead to site and economic analysis enabling a comparison with an on-farm model with the other two models.

Sustainability issues?

Should Queanbeyan try to find a new site?

Staff 3 dots Goulburn needs more staff in key weeks due to problems with staff being on leave or not turning up. Training is in hand.

Outreach/Advisory 3 dots Keep on with the ‘extraterrestrial’ activities!

Relationship maintenance and development

A model for the future.

Key lessons learned BE ADAPTABLE (Barry): start with a plan and be prepared to adapt that plan if it doesn’t seem to be working. We nearly went full circle. Adapt and modify.

POSITIVE PROMOTION (Andrew): Community engagement. Council allocating adequate staff and machinery.

PEOPLE WILL HAPPILY SOURCE-SEPARATE THEIR GARDEN WASTE IF GIVEN THE RIGHT TOOLS (Simone): this has been the biggest learning. Didn’t realize how powerful the message was that food has gone into agriculture. City to Soil collaboration partnerships approach to managing waste stream. Benefits from being open as possible to community leads to more participation. Different way of working for waste management.

45

START WITH THE END IN MIND AND KEEP FOCUS IN MIND (Chris): Urban waste and opportunities plus all sorts of opportunities (e.g. in industry) and amount of waste.

ONE PORTION OF THE CITY (Natasha): how to explain to everyone that it’s a trial city. Non-trial areas may add their kitchen waste to garden waste. May only do door knocks.

INFRASTRUCTURE (Lisa): Is landfill site clean? Do soil tests first! Is equipment suited to shed? Prepare infrastructure better.

POTENTIAL BIG PICTURE (Gerry): and what will be in future. Be prepared to resource as well as waste management.

I THINK IT WILL GO A LONG WAY INTO THE FUTURE (Cecil): in a couple of years, people will come and have a look.

BE PREPARED TO MAKE MISTAKES (Eugene): we made a lot. It’s part of the process. Work on the mistakes.

COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND ENGAGEMENT (Dennis): Today gave me a wider view. At Condobolin, community is well and truly on side.

46