|
Landcare: development in Victoria | LC0027 |
Robert Edgar, Frankston
December, 1999 |  |
To view the Adobe Acrobat file, you will need the Adobe Acrobat reader. |  PDF 80 kb | |
This Landcare Note charts the initiation, growth and development of landcare in Victoria.
Beginnings
It is not possible to give a specific date for the start of landcare in Victoria. The present situation has evolved over many years. Land degradation in the form of weed and rabbit invasion was recognised in the nineteenth century. The initial response was in the form of legislation and regulations requiring landholders to undertake “simultaneous destruction” of the proclaimed weed or pest.
Soil erosion caused by both wind and water, emerged as a major public issue during the 1930’s. This resulted in the formation of the Soil Conservation Authority (SCA) in the period following World War 2. An important early decision made by the SCA was the adoption of an educational approach to working with landholders. Field officers were trained in extension methods and a program of appropriate financial incentives was developed to encourage landholders to adopt conservation farming methods. Enforcement of the legal provisions within the Soil Conservation and Land Utilisation Act was seen as a last resort.
The Eppalock Catchment project was established in 1960 to minimise silting of the Eppalock Reservoir on the Campaspe River in central Victoria. Much of the catchment area for the reservoir was severely eroded and extensive soil conservation works were required to reduce the movement of soil into the river. Cooperation in the program was obtained by working with groups of landholders on a sub catchment basis. Government paid for the cost of some works (eg. diversion banks) and low interest loans were provided to the landholders for pasture improvement and other productive works.
Following the success of the Eppalock Catchment Project in gaining the cooperation of a high proportion of landholders, the SCA proceeded to establish similar group conservation area projects (GCAs) in other parts of the State. Between 1960 and the early 1980s more than 100 GCAs were established in Victoria. In the establishment of a GCA participating landholders were required to enter into a formal agreement with the SCA. The agreements concerned the planning, implementation and cost sharing arrangements for the project. SCA employees and contractors were responsible for constructing erosion control works and the landholders were expected to use sound farming practices.
Developments
GCAs were well accepted by the farming community but a number of concerns gradually emerged. Some landholders failed to maintain the expensive erosion control structures on their properties because they saw them as belonging to the Government. In the minds of some landholders, the large public investment in soil conservation had relieved them of responsibility for the erosion problem on their farm.
An evaluation in the late 1970s confirmed that all was not well with the GCA program. The study found that ‘…farmers dependence on the Authority for erosion control increased rather than decreased’ Brewin (1978). This echoed the observations of the American conservationist, Aldo Leopold, who noted some 40 years before, that the State College extension service saw its role as simply to make ‘…Illinios safe for soybeans’.
The SCA progressively relaxed the formal requirements for the establishment of GCAs. This enabled the establishment in 1982 of the Warrenbayne Boho Land Protection Group with a strong local committee that played a major role in the planning and implementation of the works and extension in the project area. The success of this group provided an important model for the development of landcare.
The high level of environmental concern in the urban community at this time was evident in the spirited community debate over the use of 2,4,5-T for blackberry control. The dramatic dust cloud that rolled into Melbourne in February 1983 further heightened community interest in land degradation.
Recognising the community interest, rural industry leaders were keen to demonstrate their concern for environmental issues. A positive step was taken as a result of the 1980 conference Focus on Farm Trees. Following the conference the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association in cooperation with the Garden State Committee fostered the development of a group approach to tree planting on farms. Over the next 10 years a network of more than 120 Farm Tree Groups were established by local communities in rural areas across the State.
The establishment of the Potter Farmland Plan project in Western Victoria in 1984 provides a further example of rural landholders acting to protect and enhance the environmental health of their land.
These developments coincided with a period when, in the broader community, there was a strong move towards local planning and management of education and community service projects. The establishment of the Victorian Salinity Program also provided a strong focus for stakeholder participation in the development and implementation of regional plans. The organisational climate was thus supportive of the development of self-directed groups and the farming community was ready for participation in conservation projects.
Establishment
The formation of the Department of Conservation Forests and Lands in the mid 1980s brought together the individual agencies that previously had been responsible for the government soil conservation, farm tree growing and vermin and noxious weed control programs in the Land Protection Service.
The Minister for Conservation, Forest and Lands, Joan Kirner, recognised that a common requirement for solving land protection problems was gaining the cooperation of neighbours. She requested the development of an integrated land protection program with a strong community base. This resulted in the Department joining with the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) to establish the landcare group program.
The program was launched on a badly eroded hillside, Mt Stricta, near St Arnaud in North Central Victoria in November 1986. The St Arnaud area was chosen for the project launch through the work of the local conservation sub committee of the VFF.
Growth of the program was slow in the period 1986 to 1988, but rapid expansion followed the First Landcare Community Conference at Bendigo in 1988. The conference brought together landcare group members from all parts of Victoria. The conference bubbled with enthusiasm as group members described the success of their projects and proudly displayed posters with coloured photographs and diagrams illustrating problems and solutions.
The establishment of the Community Landcare sub-program within the National Soil Conservation Program provided a further stimulus to the development of landcare groups. The sub-program provided funding for demonstration areas, education programs and group support.
Many of the early landcare groups directly traced their origins back to former group conservation areas. Up to this time the vermin and noxious weeds programs had tended to rely on legislation and regulations to encourage landholders to control rabbits and weeds. Rabbit poisoning was on an ad hoc group basis but this had not resulted in the same level of group development as was evident in the soil and farm trees programs.
This deficiency was overcome through the implementation of initiative programs in 1988 for ragwort control in South Gippsland and for rabbit control in areas of the State where rabbits posed a serious and on going problem. Community based facilitators were employed within both programs to encourage group development. Both these initiatives were successful in achieving high landholder participation in ragwort and rabbit management control. The effectiveness of the programs gave a further boost to the landcare group concept. When they overcame the immediate weed or rabbit problem many of these groups turned their attention to other land management issues including revegetation, salinity and erosion control and stream management.
Growth
There are now more than 900 active landcare groups in Victoria. No two groups are the same. There is no such thing as a typical group. Groups vary in size, focus, formality, public profile, level of activity, organisational structure and amount of funding that they seek.
Landcare developed a strong community base but was seen to lack a strategic focus. Groups formed where the locals wanted them, but not necessarily where the need was greatest from the State or National viewpoint. Areas where degradation was severe often lacked the community resources and leadership to tackle their problems through landcare or by any other means.
Government faced the dilemma of fostering and servicing the enthusiasm of active groups while not neglecting those parts of the State with major land degradation problems. During 1991-93 the community participated in the development of the Victorian Decade of Landcare Plan and nine Regional Landcare Action Plans. These provided the framework for setting local, regional and state priorities.
Regional Assessment Panels, with a majority of community members, were established to assess applications under State and Commonwealth funding programs. A State Assessment Panel assesses Statewide priorities and provides for coordination across regions.
Nine regional Catchment Management Authorities and the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment and Land Protection Board have now been established under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. Each has now developed strategic plans for their region and provides support for the work of landcare groups in their region.
Second Generation Landcare is now underway to take the movement into the new millennium.
Further information
See Landcare Notes
LC0002: Landcare: working together
LC0026: Landcare: reading list
The advice provided in this publication is intended as a source of information only. Always read the label before using any of the products mentioned. The State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.
|
