Community Landcare Research Articles

Vale Landcare: the rise and decline of community-based natural resource management in rural Australia

For almost two decades, community Landcare groups and supporting institutional bodies were the focus of agri-environmental policy in Australia. Despite the successes of Landcare, the programme faces challenges securing funding in an era of agri-environmental policy that preferences economic mechanisms, such as market-based instruments, for devolving funding. This longitudinal study examines how Landcare group activity and membership in one catchment have changed over the last decade. Community Landcare groups in the study area were in ‘sleeper mode’ or had ceased to exist, partially as a result of funding and structural arrangements and several other factors that undermined both community Landcare groups and the regional Landcare network.

Building community capacity and social infrastructure through landcare: a case study of land grant engagement

In the struggle to remain true to their technical assistance and civic engagement missions in an era of shrinking budgets and increasingly complex accountability claims, land grant universities have developed different engagement strategies to contribute to the development of surrounding communities. Drawing on Flora and Flora’s (in Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci, 48, 1993) assertion that a strong and “entrepreneurial” social infrastructure is critical for facilitating lasting change and development in communities (particularly rural communities), this article presents a case study of a land grant university’s engagement with a community landcare group from the perspective of building social capacity in surrounding communities. This case explores Virginia Tech’s involvement in facilitating and supporting Catawba Landcare using three theoretical frames—Ronald Heifetz’s concept of “holding environments” as a safe and facilitated space where social learning can occur; ecological and social entrepreneurship and the roles and functions required to support these forms of entrepreneurship; and the concept of learning action networks in which otherwise disparate partners are linked under common goals and collectively learn how to manage the situation at hand. Using these three theoretical frames, this paper posits landcare as a model of engagement for land grant universities thus contributing to the construction of social infrastructure.

Participation in community Landcare groups in the Philippines: a social capital perspective

Participation in community Landcare groups in the Philippines: a social capital perspective

Participation in community Landcare groups in the Philippines: a social capital perspective

Membership in Community Landcare groups in the Philippines can be seen as an accumulation of social capital by farmers to improve their access to, and ability to implement, soil conservation and agroforestry technologies. An improved understanding of the factors affecting farmers' decisions to invest in such forms of social capital is likely to be helpful to agencies concerned with supporting these collective conservation farming efforts. A logistic regression model, based on household survey data from one municipality in central Mindanao, was used to analyse factors influencing farmers' investment in social capital in the form embodied in membership of a local Landcare group. The results indicate that the assumption of homogeneous and cooperative communities that underlies many community-based resource management approaches may not be valid in practice. Both individual and group-level characteristics lead to different degrees of investment in community-based activities such as Landcare. Differences between individuals affect their willingness to invest time and resources in social capital formation; middleaged farmers with somewhat less education but more land and a greater focus on farming were more likely to participate in Landcare groups. Differences between communities further affect individual incentives to accumulate social capital; some local communities were more likely to encourage individual members to augment their stocks of social capital, including through Landcare membership. Programs to assist rural communities in the formation of social capital for beneficial collective action need to allow for such individual and community differences.

The role of social capital in the promotion of conservation farming: the case of ‘landcare’ in the Southern Philippines

Abstract‘Social capital’ refers to the relationships of trust, communication, and cooperation that facilitate collective action in a community. It is particularly relevant to soil conservation in developing countries, which requires collective efforts to raise awareness of soil degradation, provide effective training in soil conservation practices, and implement soil conservation measures on individual farms. The Landcare Program in the Southern Philippines promotes simple conservation practices in upland environments through establishing and supporting community landcare groups and municipal landcare associations, thus augmenting the social capital of farmers in these locations. An evaluation of the Landcare Program in Barangay Ned, South Cotabato, based on a survey of 313 farm households and case studies of nine landcare groups, shows that, despite extreme isolation and difficult working conditions, farmers responded by rapidly forming landcare groups and a landcare association, and adopting contour barriers on their maize farms. They utilized the bonding social capital inhering in their local communities to build stocks of bridging social capital, linking them to information, training and resources from outside their immediate locality. A logistic regression model of the factors affecting adoption of contour barriers shows that farmers who had undergone the practical, farmer‐based training provided by the Landcare Program, and who were members of a landcare group, were significantly more likely to adopt conservation measures. These results confirm the value of investing in social capital to promote soil conservation. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Social capital and soil conservation: evidence from the Philippines*

The formation of social capital is hypothesised to enhance collective efforts for soil conservation. The Landcare Program in the southern Philippines promotes simple conservation practices in upland environments by supporting community landcare groups and municipal landcare associations, thus augmenting social capital. A study was conducted in 2002–2003 to evaluate the Landcare Program, using a mix of quantitative and qualitative techniques. In the present paper, the relationship between social capital formation and adoption of soil conservation in the Municipality of Lantapan is investigated. It is concluded that the Landcare Program as a whole created a valuable stock of bridging social capital, rapidly accelerating the adoption of contour farming measures, but that on-going support is needed to maintain this capital stock.

Landcare and Livelihoods: The Promotion and Adoption of Conservation Farming Systems in the Philippine Uplands

Slow adoption of conservation farming systems in the Philippine uplands is a major problem. To address this, the landcare approach, based on community landcare groups, is being piloted in several locations. The results of a study to evaluate the impact of the Landcare Program in Barangay Ned in Southern Mindanao are presented. The sustainable rural livelihoods approach was used as a framework for the evaluation. The study focused on two impacts, the adoption of conservation practices and the formation and development of landcare groups, drawing on four data sources—project reports, key informants, a questionnaire survey, and case studies of landcare groups. The Ned Landcare Program has been associated with rapid adoption of conservation farming practices and the rapid formation of landcare groups linked in an association. The main effect of the Program was to enhance human capital through practical, farmer-led training and extension, enabling farmers to incorporate soil conservation and agroforestry technologies in their farming systems, with desirable outcomes for livelihood security and environmental sustainability. The social capital formed, especially through the landcare association, was crucial to these outcomes. Ongoing partnerships with adequately resourced facilitating agencies were required to maintain the Landcare Program in the long term.

Remnant vegetation, landholders’ values and information needs: An exploratory study in the West Australian wheatbelt

Summary An exploratory study of landholders in the central wheatbelt of Western Australia provides a useful snapshot of values, uses, management, information sources and requirements of landholders in relation to remnant native vegetation in agricultural landscapes. Landholders valued their remnant vegetation for ecological, aesthetic, functional and community reasons. Most actively managed it for nature conservation, although almost half grazed stock in their remnants. In terms of information sources and needs, the most widely used sources were Community Landcare Coordinators, other landholders and government departments. Landholders wanted hydrological, weed control and biodiversity information, plus a suite of other information. A third of landholders were characterized as having a broad, ecosystem‐based awareness compared to the other two‐thirds who had a more limited, site‐based awareness. Each group had different information needs. These findings have clear implications for information provision to landholders.

Exploring Burnout in Australia's Landcare Program: A Case Study in the Shepparton Region

The community Landcare program represents an important element of Australia's approach to sustainable development. However, there is increased concern about burnout in volunteer Landcare participants. Until now, investigations of burnout in Landcare had largely failed to draw on international literature relating to the burnout concept. This article reviews findings from a regional case study of Landcare participants that used a modified version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). Survey findings demonstrated that the modified version of the MBI was valid and reliable. A small proportion of individuals were experiencing high levels of burnout, and results indicate considerable potential for burnout to increase.

Landcare in Australia: Burned out and browned off

Australia has relied heavily on voluntary approaches to managing critical natural resource issues. Community Landcare groups are an important element of this strategy and have been widely acclaimed as an Australian success story. Landcare group activity has mobilised a large cross-section of the rural community and contributed to improved resource management. These volunteer groups are now an important delivery mechanism for on-the-ground work funded through large government programmes, including the billion dollar Natural Heritage Trust. At the same time, research reported in this paper suggests that government cuts to extension staff supporting Landcare and ongoing management issues are contributing to burn-out of group members and are undermining group effectiveness. Australia may be nearing the limits of voluntary approaches to natural resource management. At the very least, there needs to be more coherent, professional management of Landcare. Australia ha contado fuertemente con enfoques voluntarios para el manejo de temas críticos del recurso natural. Grupos Comunitarios de cuidado de tierras son elementos importantes de esta estrategia y han sido ampliamente aclamados como una historia de exito Australiana. La actividad del grupo de cuidado de tierras ha mobilizado un gran sector de la comunidad rural y ha contribuido a la mejora del manejo de recursos. Estos grupos voluntarios son ahora un importante mecanismo de reparto para trabajo de tierra financiado por grandes programas de gobierno incluyendo el Fondo de Herencia Natural del billon de dólares. Al mismo tiempo, la investigación descrita en este documento sugiere que recortes del gobierno al personal que apoya el cuidado de Tierras y temas de manejo en curso estan contribuyendo al desgaste de los miembros del grupo y socavando la efectividad del grupo. Australia puede estar acercandose a los límites de enfoques voluntarios al manejo de los recursos naturales. Por lo menos, se necesita una manejo mas profesional y coherente del Cuidado de la Tierra.

Renegotiating Gender and the Symbolic Transformation of Australian Rural Environments

A notable feature of contemporary approaches to ameliorating rural environmental degradation (such as Australia’s National Landcare Program) is the involvement of women to a degree not witnessed in other mainstream farming issues and organisations. At the same time, rural women’s networks are calling for greater recognition of the contribution women make to agriculture and rural communities – to recognise women as ‘farmers’ in their own right – and for a broadening of the agri-political agenda to give greater recognition to non-‘ production’ issues such as social services, workplace health and safety and environmental care. Given the traditional construction of agricultural labour processes in highly masculinised and phallocentric terms, this raises a number of questions regarding the degree to which rural environments are undergoing a sort of symbolic transformation. More specifically, we might question the degree to which these developments provide evidence that human relationships with rural environments – as embodied in the labour process and other day-to-day activities – are being reconceptualised and restructured. To explore this question, we explore data from a variety of sources including ethnographic research conducted with community Landcare groups and organic farmers, and textual analysis of the popular rural press. We conclude that while the renegotiation of gender relations in the labour process is in itself culturally and socially profound, a range of other sociocultural processes may stand in the way of fundamental transformation of the relationships with rural environments implied in those labour processes.

Community Movements and Corporate Images: “Landcare” in Australia1

Abstract Australia's National Landcare Program is popularly seen as a successful attempt to address rural land degradation in a cooperative and coordinated manner. Involving everyone from community Landcare groups to the corporate sector and government agencies, “landcare” is seen to have become something bigger than the program that spawned it. In lieu of convincing evidence that Landcare has transformed agricultural practices in a demonstrably sustainable direction, this high level of involvement is itself cited as a measure of success. Such a view, however, pays little attention to competing conceptualization's of what “landcare” actually means, to the power relationships between those involved, or to the multitude of other social projects in which those involved are engaged. The failure to address these issues masks the extent to which Landcare both contributes to the further intensification of farming practices, and is used as a signifier of environmental and social responsibility in the greening of the corporate images of its sponsors. By sponsoring Landcare initiatives companies gain licensed access to use of the Landcare Australia logo and may position themselves as responsible corporate citizens, irrespective of the environmental effects of their own products and manufacturing processes. A form of “green consumerism” is thereby constituted through which consumption is directed not towards the products of farmers attempting to produce more sustainably, but towards the companies that ostensibly support their efforts to do so.

Landcare particpation in Australia: the volunteer perspective

There are over 4000 community Landcare groups involving over 120 000 volunteer members working to achieve more sustainable use of Australia's farming lands and to conserve biodiversity. After reviewing the achievements of the community Landcare program the authors discuss their research investigating Landcare participation in terms of the theory of volunteerism. This research indicated that Landcare participants: were younger, more educated and more involved in other community groups; and were motivated by task orientation, a desire for learning and for social interaction. These results are consistent with the theory of volunteerism. Voluntary groups are not self-managing or costless. Given the resources invested through Landcare, particularly via the $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), it is critical that these groups are properly managed and adequately resourced. At present there is no systematic approach to the management of Landcare groups, and critical policy and management issues threaten to undermine their effectiveness. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

The State, Rural Environments, and Globalisation: ‘Action at a Distance’ via the Australian Landcare Program

Contrary to the suggestion that transnational capital has largely subsumed the agency of Australian governments and farmers in shaping rural environments, in this paper I argue that new, often indirect, forms of action have developed within the context of globalisation and neoliberalism. These may be described as forms of ‘action at a distance’, oriented towards shaping both the environment within which people make decisions and the ways in which they are likely to respond to that environment. Since 1989, the National Landcare Program has mobilised around 30% of farm businesses to participate in community Landcare groups based on principles of self-help, cooperation, and localised action. This has initiated a new phase of negotiation over the delimitation of objects of governance, and facilitated the deployment of novel forms of state influence. Of particular importance have been technologies of knowledge that promote the further intensification of agriculture as environmentally rational and responsible, a trend reinforced by the vast bulk of neoliberal agricultural policy. Although neoliberal policy and local Landcare action appear contradictory, they do appear consistent with the self-understandings of Australian farmers as independent and self-reliant—understandings that render more direct forms of state intervention problematic. It thus remains to be seen how profoundly Landcare will reshape rural landscapes.

Beyond a ‘good thing’: political interests and the meaning of Landcare

[Extract] If any one question plagues those who seek to evaluate or comment on Landcare - not to mention those attempting to initiate Landcare groups or programs - it is the seemingly innocuous question of just what Landcare is. Even the most cursory perusal of documentation on Landcare will reveal at least two things; firstly, that the term 'Landcare' means many things to many people; and secondly, that the idea of Landcare is closely related to many other concepts and projects. If we look solely at this edition of Rural Society, for instance, we find that Landcare is examined as a government program by Curtis and De Lacy; a form of extension and information system by Carr; a means of enacting governance by Martin; and as the network of community Landcare groups, and supporting institutions, by Campbell. Further, the paper by Ritchie shows that the concept of Landcare has travelled across the Tasman, but has changed even further along the way. The question we might ask is whether the dilemmas this diversity poses for professional evaluators - who work best with clear goals and criteria - are of any consequence for anybody else. Contemplating the meaning of Landcare no doubt seems as esoteric for many people as the meaning of life; an interesting question to puzzle over late at night with a good bottle of wine, but somehow remote from the day-to-day projects and issues which confront their lives. Indeed, six years into the Decade of Landcare we may well conclude that the time for pondering meanings is well and truly over if Landcare is to make an indelible mark on our landscape by the turn of the century. It could, on the other hand, be argued that we need some sort of common understanding about what Landcare is so that we might all 'pull in the same direction', aligning our individual and communal goals to satisfy an agreed upon notion of the common good. Listening to some, we may even conclude, somewhat paradoxically, that we need to suspend our discussion of what Landcare is in case the ensuing debate threatens any consensus we may already have, even if this extends little beyond the banal observation that Landcare is, without doubt, 'a good thing'. All of the above positions obscure real, and legitimate, differences in the interests of participants in Landcare, and consequently the importance of their position taking practices in associated discourses. Some of the 'battles' over meaning associated with Landcare are fairly obvious and have been discussed by numerous other authors. Others are a little less clear, and require us to think more about the relationships between Landcare, and social and cultural change more generally. This paper will begin with a brief outline of the theoretical perspective which informs this analysis. The fieldwork on which most of the ensuing discussion is based was conducted through 1993 and 1994, and involved a range of methods aimed towards ethnographic understanding of the research problem, namely, both open-ended and structured interviews, and participant observation. These methods were deployed in the context of a case study conducted in one Local Government Area in the mixed cropping/grazing zone of south west NSW, and through involvement with the wider 'Landcare community'. They were undertaken as part of PhD research which will be completed shortly.