Landcare: Where to now?

Professor Allan Curtis

Overview

• Confront the revisionists

• Celebrate success• Get the partnership

right• Sustain the groups• Identify new

opportunities

Confront the revisionists

Done that, lets move on

Didn’t work, didn’t fix the problems

Not strategic (vegemite approach)

CMAs can engage landholders directly

Celebrate success

• Mobilised a large cross section of rural population

• Facilitated dialogue, learning, planning and action

• High level of success across all outcome measures

Celebrate success

A small investment in landcare through NLP:A catalyst for change in agricultural inputs

A cost effective delivery mechanism for large programs Landcare has demonstrated that it should be

part of the mix of policy options employed

What might be the future for Landcare?

• Place for learning about sustainability, including how to adapt to drought/ climate change

• Way to effectively engage the next generation of land managers in learning about NRM

• A cost effective way of accomplishing change at the district scale

Getting regional NRM partnership right

• Regional bodies do the regional planning, allocate priorities, ensure accountability

• Landcare engage landholders in learning, planning and action at district scale

Realistic expectations of the partnership

• Now have a more sophisticated arsenal• CMA Boards and staff have difficult tasks• Acknowledge the benefits of regional

model• Emphasise value of networks• Focus on sustaining groups

Sustaining groups

• Resources needed to support volunteer organisations

• Leadership• Internal organisation • Positive group culture

Changing social context: a Landcare opportunity

Era of rapid change in almost all regions• Large turnover in property ownership• Influx of new owners and non-farmers• Many absentee owners• Uncertainty around adaptation to climate

change• Suburbanisation of many landscapes

Property turnover: Corangamite catchment

• State government property sales

records 1995-2005

• 25% of properties have been sold

in the last decade

• 50% will change hands (2006-

2016)

• 93% had lived outside the district

where their property is located

prior to purchasing their property

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Pe

rce

nt

Percent of properties being sold each year in the Corangamite catchment

Where are they coming from?

Alpine

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

rop

erty

sal

es

LOC

ALW

MEL

OTHER

Where are they coming from?

Moorabool

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Pe

rce

nt

LOC

CMA

GEL

MELB

VIC

INT

OS

CORP/UNKNOWN

Stable social structure?

Topic Wimmera Corangamite Ovens in NE Vic

Goulburn Broken Dryland

Median length of residence

46 years 34 years 38 years 23 years

Intend to sell all/ most property

18% 38% 30% 36%

Want to acquire more

land

43% 23% 35% N/A

Turnover next 10 years

36% 50% 47% 45%

Family succession will occur?

Topic Wimmera Corangamite Ovens in NE Vic

Goulburn Broken Dryland

Intend to pass on in family

71% 63% 57% 58%

Have a succession

plan

35%(at least halfway)

26%(at least half

way)

34%(family agreed)

31%(family agreed)

Occupation, income and profitabilityTopic NE Vic Lachlan QMD

% farmers 58% 59% 65%

Profit on property 61% 75% 43%

% total income above $50K

35% 49% 32%

% total income from on-property

39% 46% 44%

% turnover next 10 years

47%(38 yrs median

residence)

38% 35%(32 yrs median

residence)

Most landholders are farmers?

• Wimmera – 80%

• Corangamite – 53%

• Ovens – 58%

• Goulburn-Broken – 54%

• Also, in some areas non-farmers hold most of the land: land which is often critical to NRM.

Farm income crucial to viability?

Topic Wimmera Corangamite Ovens in NE Vic

Goulburn Broken Dryland

On-property profit

86% 61% 61% 62%

On / off property income

On-property 2.4 times Off

N/A Off-property 1.5 times On

Off-property 3.5 times On

Increase in property

value past 10 years

100% 100% 100% 100%

TopicNew property

owners (19%, n=79)

Longer-term property owners

(81%)

Farmer as occupation 23% 61%

Median area land managed 44 ha 160 ha

Median hours week farm work 16 hr/week 40 hr/week

Median days paid off-farm work/year

200 days/year 0 days/year

Make an on-property profit 35% 68%

Median profit range Less than $10,000 $30,000 to $40,000

Member of Landcare 24% 37%

Principal place of residence 61% 81%

Median Age 47 57

Social & farming differences

Property turnover changes the landscape

• Viability of networks and local organisations• Drought policy when lose experience• Industry extension/ training implications• CMA and landcare plans: Who’se values drive

the plan• Local government • Injection of new people, ideas and resources

• Landcare has been a success• Landcare an important part of policy mix for

effective regional NRM• Focus on articulating roles and responsibilities• Need to sustain groups• Help regions address changing social realities

Conclusion