Landcare and better agriculture

There has been an explosion of landcare activity since the Decade of Landcare was announced in 1990 with an allocation of $340 million to tackle land degradation and develop more sustainable land management practices.

Landcare has proven difficult to define. It can be a group, an ethic, an activity or a funding program. Landcare groups and activities vary from valley to valley and even within the one valley.

Landcare has been hugely successful in engaging farmers in thinking about better land management practices. In designing new programs or projects to promote better practices it is useful to look at those aspects of landcare which have been identified as critical to its success. These aspects of landcare success grew from the commonsense, result-oriented approach of practical people. They are seldom formally acknowledged, yet are consistent with the cutting edge of extension theory and practice.

Local issues, local solutions

This has been a useful catchphrase for landcare, and although sometimes derided as ignoring the regional or global imperatives, contains some essential grains of truth. People’s concerns are primarily local: at the scale of the farm, family and local community. The alternative to addressing issues with which people are concerned is to address issues with which they are unconcerned!

Begin where people are

Change in any direction can only proceed with a first step, and that step must inevitably be made from where people are currently situated. Whether with knowledge, awareness, skills, attitudes or practices, if the first step is too big it may not be attempted (or even seen as a desirable step to take).

People are important

Landcare’s respect for people is reflected in the recognition of the importance of process in achieving outcomes. As a result, group processes are egalitarian, democratic and voluntary. A diversity of views is a result of fellow community members being regarded as individuals who are positive, responsible, intelligent, cooperative and competent.

Celebrate success

Tackling land degradation and developing sustainable land management practices is a huge task. Like eating an elephant, you can only do it one bite at a time. There are always plenty of people pleased to tell you how much of the elephant remains to be eaten. If people are biting off the little bit of Australia for which they are responsible and doing what they feasible, then that is worth celebrating.

Be flexible and practical

Landcare has always had a ‘flat’ organisational structure with no complex or unnecessary hierarchy. Structure, organisation and rules, like plans, are only useful to the extent that they help you to do things better.

Value knowledge

Landcare has provided a ‘space’ within which scientific and technical knowledge could meet with local, practical knowledge.

Landcare in Australia: founded in local action. ( see Youl et al)

The farmer-initiated groups mentioned above (Learning from Farmers, Stipa, Central West Conservation Farmers, Birchip Cropping Group and SoilCare Inc) have several factors common to their success:

The groups are driven and organised by farmers
The issues which are addressed are determined by the farmer members
The topics for trials and demonstrations are determined by the farmer members
The groups collaborate with agriculture departments, research organisations and private providers to gain reliable information
The groups collaborate with departments of agriculture and research providers to ensure that any trials which are conducted are rigorous and meaningful.

Because farmers drive the activities it is almost inevitable that the factors critical to the success of Landcare are incorporated. Local issues relevant to farmers are raised and discussion begins from the current understanding of local farmers. The local knowledge and concerns of farmers is thus incorporated in the ways in which issues are addressed by the groups. And, it goes without saying, the solutions will need to be practical.

These factors which are critical to success mirror the factors identified by Heisswolf et al (2003):

Processes need to be flexible to cater for the different needs of different producers and different groups
Programs should build constructively on what producers are already doing
Profitable practices and innovations should be identified as they are adopted more readily
Producers need to be able to adapt sustainable practices for local conditions
Adoption of new practices is a continuous process and occurs through a number of avenues (eg self-directed learning, peers, experience)
‘Real’ participation of producers and stakeholders is a key to success.