Landcare’s role in building adaptive capacity and resiliencePrepared by the 2016 National Landcare Advisory Committee

The National Landcare Advisory Committee (NLAC) is a broad selection of key natural resource management stakeholders that provides advice to the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board (comprising the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and the Minister for the Environment and Energy) about the National Landcare Programme (NLP).

More information can be found at: http://www.nrm.gov.au/national-landcare-programme/board-and-committee

© Commonwealth of Australia 2016

Ownership of intellectual property rightsUnless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).

Creative Commons licenceAll material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode.

Inquiries about the licence and any use of this document should be sent to copyright@agriculture.gov.au.

Cataloguing dataThis publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: Hamparsum J, O’Neil C, and Walker D, 2016: Landcare’s Role in Building Adaptive Capacity and Resilience, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra, March. CC BY 3.0.

ISBN XXX-X-XXXXX-XXX-X (printed)ISBN XXX-X-XXXXX-XXX-X (online)

This publication is available at agriculture.gov.au/publications.

Department of Agriculture and Water ResourcesPostal address GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601Telephone 1800 900 090Web agriculture.gov.au

The Australian Government acting through the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources has exercised due care and skill in preparing and compiling the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence and for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying upon any of the information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Landcare Programme is the Australian Government’s major contribution to help deliver community-led natural resource management, sustainable agriculture and Indigenous land management outcomes. This report from the National Landcare Advisory Committee examines Landcare’s role in fostering adaptive capacity and resilience in the rural and wider community, and identifies why this is increasingly important.

The report demonstrates that building adaptive capacity and resilience in communities can increase the capability of local communities to manage their own environment effectively. This will increase the impact of government investment in Landcare now and into the longer term.

Through this report, the National Landcare Advisory Committee affirms that:

Farming and natural resource management is becoming tougher and there is a strong perception, both globally and locally, that relying on the same adaptations that have traditionally sustained agriculture and the environment will not be enough in the face of environmental, climatic and market changes.

Building adaptive capacity and resilience is crucial to the future management of Australian natural resources. Without increased resilience, the symbiotic relationship between healthy landscapes and productive agriculture will continue to decline over time.

Adaptive capacity and resilience empowers farmers, landholders and their communities to help them to better deal with and solve core problems by taking a systems approach, which accounts for the environmental, economic and social factors involved. This relies on them building on past learnings and exploring new alternatives.

Developing adaptive capacity and resilience is not a ‘one-size fits all’ approach. It involves a range of tools or behaviours that communities can use to tailor their own responses.

Building adaptability and resilience now is more cost effective than reactive or reparative responses down the track. It is a good investment with high efficacy considering farmers manage over 50 per cent of Australia’s landmass and its natural resources.

When given the flexibility and support to progress their innovative ideas, Australian farmers have demonstrated that they become highly adaptive, which builds high levels of resilience.

Landcare has over 5,400 groups actively engaged in community education and capacity building across Australia, with activities directly engaging 40 per cent of farmers, with flow on effects to 75 per cent of farmers.

Landcare is a very successful and established framework. Its core business is building adaptive capacity and resilience, thereby supporting improved agricultural productivity and profitability, ecosystem services, and the health of communities.

Landcare networks offer an excellent direct entry point to improve natural resource use and increase capacity to make transformative changes by utilising learning from past management experiences and exploring new alternatives at a grassroots level.

Landcare’s established network with linkages to landholders, industry and community members should be utilised as part of the strategy to manage natural resources and facilitate sustainable productive agriculture and healthy landscapes across Australia.

Furthermore, the National Landcare Advisory Committee recommends that:

1. Landcare be strongly supported and funded as a well-established platform to underpin future adaptive capacity and resilience of farmers, landholders and their broader communities.

2. Resilience and adaptive capacity concepts are adopted in the strategic design of a future National Landcare Programme with particular consideration to the design of delivery arrangements that target and facilitate innovation and adoption amongst those land users that are not traditionally ‘early adopters’ of sustainable practice changes.

3. The design elements of the future programme should assist communities to generate fresh innovative local and regional responses to natural resource management challenges using best management practices that can be fostered and shared across communities using a range of knowledge sharing platforms.

4. Consideration be given to aligning resilience concepts across other related policy areas such as drought, biosecurity and emergency preparedness.

Table of ContentsLandcare’s role in building adaptive capacity and resilience

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................1.

1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………..………………………...………………………..5.

2. KEY CHALLENGES CONFRONTING AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE AND LAND MANAGEMENT....................................................................................................................................................................7.

3. WHAT IS ADAPTIVE CAPACITY/RESILIENCE AND WHY IS IT SIGNIFICANT TO MODERN AGRICULTURE AND LAND MANAGEMENT?..........................................................................................................8.

4. RESILIENCE THINKING: ENGAGING FARMERS AND LAND MANAGERS TO BUILD ADAPTIVE SOLUTIONS………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………….11.

5. LANDCARE’S ROLE IN BUILDING RESILIENT COMMUNITIES AND LANDSCAPES……………….12.

Appendix..................................................................................................................................................................... 15.

Appendix A: GLOSSARY…………………………………………………………………………………………..…....16.

Appendix B: OVERVIEW OF RIVERS…………………………………………………………………………….17.

Appendix C: CASE STUDIES…………………………..……………………………………………………………18.

1. No Till/Conservation Farming Systems

2. Mingenew and Irwin – Facilitating Intergenerational Change

3. The Nrm Spatial Hub - Technologies and Tools for Enabling Resilience

4. Barossa Improved Grazing Group Winter Pastures Project

5. Big Picture Thinking At Little River

6. Resilience to Adverse Climatic Events through Native Pasture Trials

7. Balnggarrawarra Rangers

8. Blackwood Catchment - Community Partnerships

Appendix D: Resilience behaviours and Landcare’s influence…………………………………………22.

Appendix E: References………………………………………………………………………………………………24.

Executive SummaryThe National Landcare Programme is the Australian Government’s major contribution to help deliver community-led natural resource management, sustainable agriculture and Indigenous land management outcomes. This report from the National Landcare Advisory Committee examines Landcare’s role in fostering adaptive capacity and resilience in the rural and wider community, and identifies why this is increasingly important.

The report demonstrates that building adaptive capacity and resilience in communities can increase the capability of local communities to manage their own environment effectively. This will increase the impact of government investment in Landcare now and into the longer term.

Through this report, the National Landcare Advisory Committee affirms that:

Farming and natural resource management is becoming tougher and there is a strong perception, both globally and locally, that relying on the same adaptations that have traditionally sustained agriculture and the environment will not be enough in the face of environmental, climatic and market changes.

Building adaptive capacity and resilience is crucial to the future management of Australian natural resources. Without increased resilience, the symbiotic relationship between healthy landscapes and productive agriculture will continue to decline over time.

Adaptive capacity and resilience empowers farmers, landholders and their communities to help them to better deal with and solve core problems by taking a systems approach, which accounts for the environmental, economic and social factors involved. This relies on them building on past learnings and exploring new alternatives.

Developing adaptive capacity and resilience is not a ‘one-size fits all’ approach. It involves a range of tools or behaviours that communities can use to tailor their own responses.

Building adaptability and resilience now is more cost effective than reactive or reparative responses down the track. It is a good investment with high efficacy considering farmers manage over 50 per cent of Australia’s landmass and its natural resources.

When given the flexibility and support to progress their innovative ideas, Australian farmers have demonstrated that they become highly adaptive, which builds high levels of resilience.

Landcare has over 5,400 groups actively engaged in community education and capacity building across Australia, with activities directly engaging 40 per cent of farmers, with flow on effects to 75 per cent of farmers.

Landcare is a very successful and established framework. Its core business is building adaptive capacity and resilience, thereby supporting improved agricultural productivity and profitability, ecosystem services, and the health of communities.

Landcare networks offer an excellent direct entry point to improve natural resource use and increase capacity to make transformative changes by utilising learning from past management experiences and exploring new alternatives at a grassroots level.

Landcare’s established network with linkages to landholders, industry and community members should be utilised as part of the strategy to manage natural resources and facilitate sustainable productive agriculture and healthy landscapes across Australia.

Furthermore, the National Landcare Advisory Committee recommends that:

Landcare be strongly supported and funded as a well-established platform to underpin future adaptive capacity and resilience of farmers, landholders and their broader communities.

Resilience and adaptive capacity concepts are adopted in the strategic design of a future National Landcare Programme with particular consideration to the design of delivery arrangements that target and facilitate innovation and adoption amongst those land users that are not traditionally ‘early adopters’ of sustainable practice changes.

The design elements of the future programme should assist communities to generate fresh innovative local and regional responses to natural resource management challenges using best management practices that can be fostered and shared across communities using a range of knowledge sharing platforms.

Consideration be given to aligning resilience concepts across other related policy areas such as drought, biosecurity and emergency preparedness.

1. INTRODUCTION

Modern life is characterised by change, and the rate and magnitude of changes occurring today have increased interest in being able to effectively deal with it. This includes learning, adapting to change, and harnessing new opportunities created by change to thrive over the long term.

Successfully adapting to change involves several elements. A community’s ability to deal with change is shaped by its vulnerabilities (weaknesses), its resources (strengths) and its ability to respond or adapt. Vulnerabilities are components that affect a community’s ability to respond or adapt to a change. The ability (capacity) of a community to modify or change behaviours to better cope with its vulnerabilities is known as adaptive capacity (Maguire and Cartwright 2008). General receptiveness to change, or the ability to deal with change ‘adaptively ‘is understood as ‘resilience’.

In this report however, the focuses is on the importance of building adaptive capacity to underpin business and community resilience , to meet the challenges confronting Australian agriculture and the broader environment. The starting point is considering these challenges. The discussion then focuses on the concept of adaptation and resilience at the individual, community and farming network levels. This concept underpins the ability of communities and landscapes to respond effectively to the growing and changing environmental and economic pressures, and circumstances.

Finally, the report looks at the role of the National Landcare Programme (NLP), the Australian Government’s key Landcare and natural resource management investment, in facilitating adaptive natural resource management outcomes and building resilient communities. Landcare is an enduring icon of the Australian agricultural and environmental landscape. The community-based movement started in the 1980s to tackle degradation of farmland, public land and waterways. The movement has expanded and evolved significantly since. It continues to achieve significant results in raising awareness, developing understanding and enhancing management of Australia’s natural resources.

The report introduces issue-specific terminology that is used across multiple academic fields. For clarification, a glossary of key definitions is provided at Attachment A. The report also includes case studies of Landcare initiatives that support resilient agricultural communities and landscapes (Attachment C). The case studies demonstrate the practical implementation and integration of adaptability, and its associated traits that build resilience.

The insights gained will help ascertain the value of the Australian Government’s investment in Landcare and the NLP and help inform the design of the next phase which is due to be implemented from 2018-19 onwards.

2. KEY CHALLENGES CONFRONTING AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE AND LAND MANAGEMENT

Farmers manage over 50 per cent of Australia’s landmass and its natural resources. As land managers, whether working on private or public land, farmers face many challenges and must be capable of implementing practical and effective natural resource management.

Whilst most land managers well understand the links between natural resource management, agricultural competitiveness and profitability, strong evidence supports ongoing funding to increase up take of best management practices that build resilience. More broadly, it is increasingly accepted that a healthy environment is essential to community and societal wellbeing (Wilson 1984). In short, without effective natural resource management, the prospects for agricultural competitiveness and profitability is diminished, particularly over the medium and long term as circumstances change (Bennett et al. 2014).

Circumstances, or the combined environmental, economic and social context of Australian farming and broader landscape management, are dynamic and varied in scale and scope. Although this is not limited to Australian agriculture and land management, change itself has become a constant, and the rate and magnitude of change is prompting widespread action to better understand and influence it (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012).

There are different factors of change. Some are characterised as ‘shocks' in that they are sharp or intense and largely unexpected, such as extreme weather events (for example a cyclone or flood), or a major pest or disease outbreak in Australia (such as Foot and Mouth disease). Other factors are known as drivers. These apply pressures that build over time, slowly altering the output or capacity of a system. Examples include access to potable water and its quantity/quality, soil degradation and acidification, changes in public attitudes (social licence), or shifting policy demands (national or international).

Australian agriculture and the broader landscape face an ever-evolving mix of singular and interconnected shocks and drivers. Some examples are outlined below – for a detailed overview refer to Appendix B:

Environmental drivers: these include the ongoing impact of natural disasters, climate variability and biosecurity risks to name a few.

Market drivers: these include impact of global market demands, currency interest rates and scrutiny of farmer’s licence to operate, population growth increased and competing landuse resource access.

Social drivers: these include declining rural communities and the associated loss of rural infrastructure, skills and labour shortages, disconnection with the environment causing loss of community well-being.

The frequency, intensity and impacts of shocks have increased over time, while the effects of drivers have not diminished. In short, farming and land management is becoming ‘tougher’ and consistent with this, there is a strong perception, both globally and locally, that relying on the same adaptations that have traditionally sustained agriculture and our landscapes will not be enough in the face of environmental, market and social changes (Grafton, Mullen and Williams 2015, Marslen 2014) To be able to respond to shocks and drivers and thereby cope with associated changes, farmers and land managers (and their associated communities), increasingly need to be flexible and innovative (Wilson et al. 2013). Being flexible and innovative relies on the adaptability of the individual, the industry and their collective recognition and response to threats to their business resilience, which initially at least, is a mindset (Dahlhaus et al. 2014). Examples of adaptations include:

recognition of and response to drivers of change mitigation and protection of these impacts of highly productive agricultural land establishing and maintaining market-based mechanisms to protect threatened ecosystems property and commodity diversification opportunities new or integrated agricultural ventures, including new partnerships to explore new products

or markets for agricultural produce, and new land use solutions

An excellent example of this type of response is the emergence and ongoing success of myBMP within the Australian cotton industry over the last two decades. In the early 1990s, Australian cotton growers were being heavily for their environmental record and their social license was under review within the community. In response, the industry, in conjunction with its individual farmers, established a set of best management practices and standards to address these concerns. The system provided farmers with performance indicators that would improve profitability and enhance the natural environment, the workplace and the broader communities in which they operated (Higgins and Adcock 2009).

Cotton Best Management Practices (myBMP) is now a grower-driven environmental management program that has transformed the way cotton is grown in Australia. Over the last two decades, the cotton industry has proactively managed its actions and risks through promoting the on-farm implementation of best management practices. The adoption by industry of the myBMP programme has delivered a more sustainable cotton industry; one now regarded as maintaining the world´s best practices in cotton production and additionally, continues to provide a model for change for other sectors of Australian agriculture (McIntyre 2011).

The programme demonstrates the Australian cotton industry’s commitment to growing cotton in harmony with the natural environment. The collective action of the industry and its individual farmers to address the social and environmental concerns has resulted in increased productivity and profitability, improved community support, reduced chemical and water use, and additionally, mitigated the negative impacts of cotton production on the natural resource base (Redfern 2015).

Importantly, the system has allowed Australian cotton produced under the myBMP program to be marketed as “Better Cotton”, an international standard for sustainable cotton production. This has provided access to new markets, and helped promote the credentials of Australian cotton to its international markets.

3. WHAT IS ADAPTIVE CAPACITY/RESILIENCE AND WHY IS IT SIGNIFICANT TO MODERN AGRICULTURE AND LAND MANAGEMENT?

Resilience is an increasingly popular term (and attribute) associated with managing system variation, be it in an individual, organisational, community or ecological system based context. It captures both toughness to overcome adversity and the flexibility to rebound and renew. Resilience has become increasingly prominent in studies of social, economic and environmental systems, including sustainable natural resource management, where people and natural systems are interdependent (Griffith et al. 2013, Ingalls and Stedman 2016).

Examples of the application of resilience include:

Business resilience: the ability an organisation has to quickly adapt to disruptions while maintaining continuous operations and safeguarding people, assets and brand equity.

Ecological (environmental) resilience: the amount of disturbance an ecosystem can withstand without impacting or changing self-organised processes and structures. These changes can be shock disturbances such as natural disasters, or incremental man-made changes such as overgrazing, salinity, water scarcity.

Social resilience (community or industry): the timely capacity of individuals and groups–family, community, and enterprise–to be more generative during times of stability and to adapt, reorganise, and grow in response to disruption.

Psychological resilience (farmer or family level): an individual's ability to adapt to stress and adversity. Stress and adversity can come in the shape of family or relationship problems, health problems, or workplace and financial worries, among others.

In the context of this paper, resilience is used to describe a framework for managing the natural resource system. This includes maintaining and improving that system by identifying vulnerabilities and then building capacity to address them. Collectively, it is embodied by the term ‘resilience thinking’.

In practical terms, resilience thinking describes the idea that resilience enables agriculture (be it an individual, a business, an industry, region or landscape) and the ecosystems to address drivers and absorb shocks – and thus avoid that system crossing critical thresholds (or tipping points) into irreversible new states (Figure 1). Further, in the context of this report, it refers to our ability to understand and manage the magnitude of these changes without tipping that system into an alternate state that supplies different ecosystem services (Resilience Alliance 2010, Walker et al. 2012). When managing for resilience, the key objective is to create or maintain the distance between where the system is currently – and where the threshold and associated impacts commence (Resilience Alliance 2010, Walker et al. 2012).

The section below – from Figure 1. Drivers of change up to – but not including - the paragraph that starts This example demonstrates to be boxed and separated within the final document

Figure 1. Drivers of change impacts on system stability and ability to adapt to, resist or absorb shocks (Griffiths and Philippot, 2013).

Salinity is well known to many Australian land managers as having a significant adverse effect on their productivity and profitability. In most Australian landscapes salt is naturally present, as we live on a very old continent with many of our soils derived from ancient marine sediments. The process of managing salinity demonstrates the significance of recognising thresholds and adapting practices to limit the impact on productivity and broader ecological systems. Under ‘natural’ conditions the established native vegetation utilises rainfall, and prevents the soil profile from becoming saturated, thereby holding the salt ‘down’ below the plant root-zone and keeping the depth to the water table relatively stable. The plants established in the system have evolved and adapted to live in this particular landscape and climatic conditions over thousands of years, and their genetic traits allow them to grow and reproduce.

When the depth to ground water for a given land type is relatively stable, and the land use is sustainably operating within the system’s environmental limits, unexpected changes (shocks) or short term increases on natural resources (drivers) can change this system. However, the resilience of the system allows it to reorganise and address short term impacts and maintain system integrity (Walker et al. 2012).

Continuing with the example, if the water table level within that system changes, perhaps through tree clearing, new infrastructure development, or other change in land management practice, the water table rises and ground water is drawn closer to the surface (by capillary action).

A. The natural system is relatively stable and able to easily respond to shocks/system flux.

B. The natural system is being used sustainably and is resilient enough to adapt/recover from shocks or changing system demands by changing practices/managing resource use.

C. The system is susceptible to shocks and accumulated impacts of multiple drivers – its ability to adapt/recover/respond to shock is poor and increasing difficult to absorb change/pressure. Stopping or repairing this decline may not be practicable beyond this point.

D. Unexpected shocks or accumulated impacts from multiple drivers leads to a system shift from which it is unable to recover or maintain its usual state/or environmental services.

This limits oxygen availability in the root zone (through waterlogging) and increases salt concentrations in the soil profile (salinisation). The resultant waterlogging and salinised soil will increasingly affect the ability of the land or farmer to sustain the current ecosystem or land use. As the system’s threshold is crossed (tipping point), the ability of the system to maintain crop production and ecological services becomes degraded and less resilient. Flow on effects from this are dynamic and interlinked, and will filter throughout the broader environment applying additional pressure to other systems (Griffith et al. 2013).

High levels of salinity in water and soil may cause native vegetation communities to become unhealthy or die. This may lead to a decline in biodiversity or loss of endemic species. These changes may also increase the system’s susceptibility to natural disasters, such as increase fire vulnerability or prolong drought impacts - all of which potentially alter ecosystem services. Salinity may also impact the pasture or groundcover. Reduced groundcover makes soil more prone to erosion, which can pollute water with increased sediment, making it unsuitable for animal or human consumption and threatening the ecosystem, and the services and species it supports (Pitman and Lauch 2003).

Increased salinity does not just impact on the ecological services of a system. Increasing salinity also acts as a driver of agricultural change as it reduces crop yields and impairs the growth and health of pasture species. Lack of attention to these drivers can undermine the capacity of the land to sustain a viable and profitable farming business, requiring the local industry to either change farming methods or adapt their business to the regime shift and explore alternative business models. Individually, a farmer may have the ability to manage or adapt to the changes on his or her property, but due to the dynamic nature of ecosystems, unless surrounding farmers make similar changes, the actions will not be enough to halt the long term impact on the productivity of the whole community (Resilience Alliance 2010).

Loss of farm productivity arising from salinity may also affect the broader community. As salinity manifests itself on individual farm profitability or drives changes to ecosystems, the impacts flow on to the local economy through increased infrastructure costs and the loss of affiliated commercial opportunities. As such, the impacts of salinity on farming and the broader environmental, economic and social systems range from impaired agricultural production, decreased ecosystem services and water quality, and increased costs associated with replacing civil and agricultural infrastructure.

This example demonstrates the impacts of a system shift in an ecological or agricultural system. A system shift creates new parameters that cannot be easily quantified due to the highly integrated nature of these social (individuals, people, families, communities) and environmental (natural resources, ecological and agricultural) systems. The adaptive capacity of the community to recognise and work together to address the drivers of change is therefore critical. This understanding is becoming more common, although it is not widespread. For example, it is much more cost effective to develop an understanding of the tipping points of a system, and then build the ability to address the drivers of change within the known system, than it is to speculate on a total paradigm shift and the unknown environmental, social and financial implications (Bennett et al. 2014).

A central aspect of resilience is bottom-up response to crises. This is about the significant reserves for learning and innovation that are often revealed in crises.

Indeed, it is well accepted that some of the best and most constructive innovations often come from disaster-hit or disaster-prone communities (Moburg et al. 2012). Consequently, studies on responses to social and natural disasters increasingly stress the need for governments and other organisations to “take a step back and ‘listen and engage’, rather than ‘orchestrate and plan’ on their behalf” (Moburg et al. 2012).

Resilience (capturing resilience thinking) is very applicable to modern agriculture and land management, which as discussed earlier, operates in an environment in which there is significant and increasing complexity and uncertainty. Resilient communities are empowered to help themselves deal with persistent natural resource management problems, which by their nature have social, environmental and economic aspects (Griffith et al. 2014). These problems are entrenched and often dynamic.

The ongoing demands of declining soil health and land condition, increasing pressure on waterway and wetland system health, compounded through climatic and market variants, can often benefit from innovative preparedness and responses where traditional or one-dimensional approaches have limited effectiveness. By drawing on the inherent capacities within the community to build adaptive capacity, resilience based approaches are proving more effective than relying on external interventions to overcome environmental/agricultural vulnerabilities (ELD 2015, Maguire and Cartwright 2008). This points to the importance of resilience, and building and maintaining it at the grassroots level, to ensure effective natural resource management.

The case studies illustrate collaboration and home grown, self-directed innovation to address issues impacting their business or industry. This is resilience thinking in action. The case studies demonstrate farming communities working together to successfully address profitability and productivity constraints within their business or industry by addressing local natural resource management problems (Attachment C).

The examples chosen cover multiple farming systems and groups, not necessarily drawn along commodity lines, but with a common focus on sustainable profit drivers. The issues addressed vary from high variation in seasonal yields, long term decline in yields and carrying capacity, decreasing farm profitability and related environmental system impacts, such soil erosion, declining land condition and salinity. Since the early 1980’s, Landcare has assisted Australian farmers adapt their farming systems, resulting in a large network of farmers with demonstrable changes that support more resilient farm businesses. In addition, Landcare initiatives have assisted ecosystems to withstand shocks and drivers.

These changes – or adaptations to system vulnerabilities (drivers) – have made the individual participants more profitable, increased productivity and improved their preparedness for and ability to recover from drought (build drought resilience). At a landscape scale, these changes have collectively improved industry profitability and built commodity resilience to climate variability, extreme weather events and allowed increased competitiveness. In keeping with the symbiotic relationship between healthy landscapes and productive agriculture, these changes have provided important environmental benefits that have increased the buffer for ecological system services that in turn increase resilience.

Specifically, these changes have increased farm soil water infiltration thereby decreasing rainfall runoff and soil erosion. This not only enhances drought resilience, but is also improving the overall health of local waterways and wetland systems.

The principles of collective (group) learning are intrinsic to what is understood as resilience. The case studies demonstrate the success of locally ‘grown and owned’ farmer driven group extension models to increase adoption and innovation, as well as increase capacity within the Landcare groups. This has led to community ownership of and action towards more complex issues within their areas of influence. This empowerment builds deeper confidence to invest more of their own resources (time, money etc.) in the groups, which in turn builds confidence to engage with new stakeholders to innovate further for new solutions, source new funding prospects, or develop new market opportunities.

A wide range of behavioural indicators can imply resilience. Cabell and Oelofse compiled a list of 13 behaviour-based indicators of resilience which, when individually present, imply that the system is more capable of persisting in its ability to meet food, fuel and fibre needs well into the future (Cabell and Oelofse 2012 – see Attachment D).

Other researchers advocate that resilience is associated with multiple behaviours. Johnson-Lenz, for example, established that resilient farm businesses share six common attributes, which can be used to determine resilience at a group or network level (Johnson-Lenz 2009). These attributes, are consistent with those highlighted by Cabell and Oelofse, and include:

constantly reviewing their environment (e.g. social, economic, climatic and landscape)

making contingency plans

building flexibility into business plans

maintaining excellent communication networks

willingly experimenting and innovating and sharing knowledge and learnings, and

knowing and sharing common goals

4. RESILIENCE THINKING: ENGAGING FARMERS AND LAND MANAGERS TO BUILD ADAPTIVE SOLUTIONS

While resilience thinking strengthens farmers and land managers ability to prepare and respond to challenges, not all landholders have the same willingness or ability to participate in developing business resilience at an individual or localised group level. Resilience thinking is now being used by some regional natural resource management (NRM) organisations to engage this cohort, particularly where incremental or linear responses to singular aspects of natural resource management issues are no longer deemed credible nor appropriate (ELD 2015, Marshall 2012).

This has involved engaging local people in planning, programme and project implementation processes, seeking new partners to engage with and strengthen existing groups, and the power of growing regional ownership to build local responsibility and support (Bennett et al. 2014). In this ‘localised’ method of ‘bottom up’ adaptation planning, the regional NRM group participates as the ‘enabler’, ensuring an interface between multiple stakeholders across the natural resource management stakeholder landscape, whilst negotiating the most feasible strategies that are both attractive and acceptable to a particular farming community (Ingalls et al. 2016).

The Namoi Catchment Management Authority (NCMA) was one of the first to adopt a resilience thinking framework, and others including Goulburn-Broken Catchment Management Authority have also adopted it. As part of its Catchment Action Plan published in August 2011, the Namoi Catchment Management Authority (NCMA) ran an extensive examination of ongoing natural resource management drivers for their region with local groups and custodians. This engagement process clearly identified 16 critical thresholds of concern, where crossing the threshold would ‘trigger irreversible and undesirable change to the socio-ecological systems in the Catchment’ (NCMA 2013). In this example, NCMA acted as a broker between local, state and national governments agendas, as it understood key stakeholder needs within the natural resource base, and was active in developing social understanding within the broader community (Moburg et.al 2012, Metzger et al. 2010).

In this way, funding was targeted to the activities that mattered most to improving the condition of the natural resource base, and collaborative learnings were applied and refined. Community ‘buy in’ offered feedback from the bottom up to identify and then assisted in building solutions and ownership required to address the findings. Interventions were designed and targeted to ensure that no thresholds would be crossed. In one example, in response to an identified driver, Namoi’s Catchment Action Plan developed and implemented a smart phone application to assist landowners to identify how close they are to the 70 per cent threshold for groundcover. In addition, the grazing app included tips for improving management practices to increase groundcover. This has been particularly effective for engaging and building new understanding for graziers, thereby helping increase their resilience to drought and soil erosion, while increasing productivity (NCMA, 2013).

This approach demonstrates how existing community partnerships can assist in establishing a diversity of new community owned solutions, including from new stakeholder participants (Marshall et al. 2013).

National data linkages can further extend and support farm and land practice adaptations. For example, the recently developed NRM Spatial Hub programme can integrate data into the development of the NCMA grazing app (and other apps created from similar drivers) to enhance industry findings (see Attachment C). This further increases the capacity of the farming community to improve their ability based on regionally relevant, scientifically robust data evaluation, thus making them more aware of threats associated with seasonal climatic fluctuations and regional market opportunities.

Having established that fostering adaptive capacity is important to building and maintaining resilient Australian landscapes and communities, it is now time to consider the role of Landcare.

5. LANDCARE’S ROLE IN BUILDING RESILIENT COMMUNITIES AND LANDSCAPES

Landcare has a long history of success in community capacity and awareness building and thus offers an established and credible platform for increasing community adaptive capacity. The link between the Landcare movement and positive community outcomes is well documented (Toyne and Farley 2000, Campbell 2009). In essence, Landcare creates more cohesive and effective communities, with increased social capital, by acting through networks, establishing trust, and promoting bonding and reciprocal relationships. This process builds the ability of a community to adapt and respond to changes. Building adaptability has long been understood as Landcare’s core business (Maguire and Cartwright 2008).

Over 5400 Landcare groups are actively engaged in community education and capacity building across Australia. The land management and capacity building activities directly engage 40 per cent of farmers, with demonstrable flow on participation evident across nearly 75 per cent of farmers (Taylor and Landsberg 2010). It also engages many members of the broader community in environmental projects, which are developed and delivered at a local level. Volunteers in these Landcare groups are a major element of the social mobilisation strategy used in Australia to manage natural resources and facilitate sustainable agriculture and land use (Carey and Webb 2000, Gooch 2008, Youl et al. 2006). The ability of these groups to overcome problems, identify potential drivers, deal with new issues as/before they arise, keep going under pressure and adapt to change demonstrates resilience (Lebel et al. 2006, Gooch and Warburton 2009, Beilin and Reichelt 2010).

It is difficult to imagine a more effective way to deliver natural resource management capacity development and improve on ground outcomes across Australia. Put simply, Landcare networks offer an excellent point to improve natural resource use and increase capacity to make transformative changes by utilising learning from past management experiences (experiential learning) and exploring new alternatives (experimental learning) at a grassroots level. These networks, promoted by Landcare, involve a range of landholders, industry and community members in order to deliver productive agricultural and landscape outcomes.

This process creates stronger and healthier rural communities that are better prepared, and ultimately better able, to cope with change.

The case studies illustrate how local communities and Australian farmers are being more flexible and adaptive in how they respond to natural resource management issues, and how this is facilitated by engaging with Landcare. The case studies demonstrate examples where members of the community willingly show creativity and innovation (for identifying solutions or adaptation options); willingly test and experiment with their management options; those who recognise and respond to effective feedback mechanisms; are looking for, testing and using adaptive management approaches in their day to day practice; and are best able to reorganise as required and manage risk.

The case studies included in this report also identify common key indicators of resilience that closely align with the academic literature (see Attachment D). The four common behaviours identified through the case studies at a farm or farming group network level saw participants actively:

building or expanding infrastructure

undertaking regular business planning

providing and maintaining a resource buffer, and

developing social networks

The case studies highlight that ‘early adopters’ or local influencers are generally community leaders and unite successful farming and Landcare groups more broadly together. Capacity building (developing or improving capability) or sharing capacity (recognising and building onto existing knowledge of self or others) at community level is best achieved through information sharing, developing the existing resource base and utilising a recognised collaborative network (Marshall et al. 2013, Metzger et al. 2010).

The case studies also demonstrate that Australian farmers and other Landcare groups have successfully built high levels of resilience when given the support and opportunity to progress their ideas. Landcare’s role in developing and utilising these traits is critical.

6. REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION

This report has examined Landcare’s successful role in fostering adaptability and behaviours that build resilience, which thereby supports farmers and land managers to effectively deal with ongoing changes in environmental, market and social circumstances.

The National Landcare Advisory Committee believes that flexibility, adaptability and resilience, as fostered through Landcare, are increasingly important to sustainable agriculture and landscape management, and that without increased resilience, agricultural productivity and profitability and associated ecosystem services will be under increased pressure over time.

The ways that Landcare fosters resilience include:

Landcare is a recognised and long standing network that assists farmers, land managers and communities to adapt to changing conditions by empowering them to help themselves, and

Landcare is an excellent model for collective learning and maintaining social (and other sources of) capital to approach difficult natural resource management issues at the local level. This can involve:

o sharing case studies and approaches, which can be done relatively easily and applied across multiple regions and nationally

o addressing natural resource management issues that matter the most through transformative actions that account for the multiple social, market and environmental factors involved

o promoting innovation through ‘planning by doing’o complementing NRM organisational activities and plans where Landcare can be the

delivery mechanism and change agents at the local scale

In light of these benefits, the National Landcare Advisory Committee recommends continued and stable future funding for Landcare (and the associated NLP). This is a delicate issue given funding pressures across all levels of government, which is only likely to continue in the foreseeable future.

The Australian Government has made a series of decisions over recent years to reduce funding for natural resource management programmes. The effects of the funding cuts are not clear at this juncture. However, by implication, the savings mean NRM activities funded by the Australian Government are reduced, which in turn potentially diminishes efforts to foster resilience (Marslen 2014). This is further exacerbated by reduced funding by state governments.

In an environment of constrained funding, progress against NRM programme objectives necessitates prioritising funding to the issues that matter most and by the most effective means. This also includes moving away from activities not as well aligned with strategic priorities and that are less effective. The National Landcare Advisory Committee considers that resilience is a very useful and important framework in this context, as at its core, resilience is about going beyond simple and short term solutions, regardless of the shock or driver involved, and building adaptive capacity so that people can help themselves. Of further note, building adaptability is more cost effective then reactive or reparative responses, which means it is a good investment.

The Committee thereby recommends resilience and adaptive capacity concepts are adopted in the strategic design of the NLP post June 2018. To ensure a proactive mindset that can address the significant and increasingly complex and uncertain drivers of modern agriculture and land management on both private and public land. Consideration should be given to delivery arrangements that better target the available funding to the most pressing NRM problems and facilitate innovative local responses aligned with Australian Government priorities. Such responses may include the adoption of new tools, technologies and improved practices, encouraging new partnerships and linkages, and ensuring that all levels of NRM activity, including Landcare groups, industry, regional and research organisations, are aligned and actively collaborating. An important element in this is extending resilience thinking to land users that are not traditionally ‘early adopters’ of sustainable practice changes.

When local research and practical examples of resilience and adaptive capacity are analysed, it is clear that Australian farmers, land managers and local communities well understand the linkages between healthy natural resources, agricultural productivity and profitability and community well-being. Each cannot exist without the others. It is also clear that if we build the adaptive capacity of Australian farmers, land managers and the wider Landcare community, we will be providing a significant ‘tool’ in the tool box for them to better cope with the increasingly complex and uncertain environment within which they operate.

By building adaptive capacity, we would increase the ability of farmers, land managers and local communities to bring innovative and flexible thinking to tackle both the old and new NRM issues that they face. This resilient mindset would in turn foster both toughness to overcome adversity, and the flexibility to rebound and renew. This would be a prudent investment in our agricultural and environmental future.

Appendix 1

Attachment A: GlossaryAdaptive Capacity: is the capacity of a system to adapt if the environment where the system exists is changing. In this document, it is developing capability within the community to adapt to the system changes.

Capacity Building: developing the skills required to ensure community wellbeing, environmental protection and sustainable natural resource use for the long term economic and social success of Australians.

Diversity: Includes three interrelated aspects: variety (how many different elements), balance (how many of each element), and disparity (how different the elements are from one another).

Drivers: Any natural or human induced impact that directly or indirectly induces a change, such as political ideological, climate, globalisation, trade and policy, biosecurity issues and land use issues.

Ecosystem Services: The benefits that people obtain from ecosystems, including direct products (e.g. water, crops), processes that regulate environmental conditions (e.g. floods, climate), as well as recreational, aesthetic and spiritual benefits.

Feedback: the effect of one variable on other variables often via dynamic and complex

Multi-Scale: A study or process that includes two or more different levels/types/organisations.

Natural Capital: defined as the stocks of natural assets (which include geology, soil, air, water and all living things and their interactions). Natural capital provides a wide range of ecosystem services that are critical for human life.

Resilience: a toughness (or capacity of a system – be it a landscape, a community region or industry) to overcome adversity and the flexibility to recover or rebound after shocks or disturbances.

Resilience Thinking: describes a system framework for research (managing collective agricultural components within the natural resource system) and how this research is applied to help assess and improve or sustain a system (identifying and building adaptive capacity within the systems components to address weaknesses).

Shocks: severe changes to drivers or variables outside the expected (or known) range. For example, natural disasters, ongoing drought, policy change impacts on natural resource access (fodder harvesting), export or market trade bans.

Thresholds (or tipping points): the point at which a variable, that when crossed, will change the feedback to other variables irreversibly.

Attachment BEnvironmental drivers

the impact of extreme weather events/natural disasters (droughts, cyclones, floods, fires etc) climate variability and associated impacts on natural resources and environmental services declining productivity and profitability (increased resource demand/declining resource base) equitable use of natural resources, diminished ecological services, legacy issues biosecurity risks/threats/impacts on ecosystems/animal communities changing land use, competing resource use, property rights, declining regional communities decline in water and soil condition/availability (scarcity) and cost per hectare

Market drivers

increased global market interconnectivity (geopolitical and social impacts) reactive commodity and currency rates (access/demand/ specifications) emerging societal goals/ethics - increased scrutiny of farmers’ license to operate growing global middle-class/increasing amounts of disposable income/online purchasing

behaviour declining terms of trade - return on investment/increased production – but not financial returns geopolitical conflicts/ agriterrorism and affiliated market feedbacks

Social drivers

declining rural community and associated decline in rural infrastructure, labour shortages declining productivity and profitability from increased costs and affiliated externalities changing community perception/ownership of industry aging demographics and the impact on long term consumer behavior in developed nations internet activism/ marketing - influence of unregulated social media marketing on social license food, health and ethical trends impacting/driving demand

Attachment CCASE STUDIES

1. NO TILL/CONSERVATION FARMING SYSTEMS

Location: South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland

Groups: SANTFA, WANTFA, MSF, CAAANZ, VNTFA, Conservation Farmers Inc. (QLD and Northern NSW), Central West Conservation Farmers Association (Central NSW)

Background:In the 1960’s and 1970’s, conventional tillage in broad acre cropping systems had several effects on Australian farming and food production, including: high variations in seasonal yields, overall long term decline in grain yields and profitability, soil erosion and attributed air pollution. No Till farming systems were developed in the 1970’s in response to several major soil erosion events across Australia. A major result of the No Till campaign has been the buildup of a network of farmer networks, and larger regional and state networks, as part of the Landcare movement.

Outcomes: No Till farming systems have been extensively implemented across the broad acre cropping areas of Australia – for example, there have been high adoption rates in the northern area of WA wheatbelt, the SA/Vic Bordertown/Wimmera region and the NSW/Vic slopes.

Other demonstrated outcomes for farmers include improved resilience to drought, increased productivity and crop/soil/water efficiency, more efficient use of time and resources at seeding plus improved timeliness of seeding in response to rainfall events and soil moisture, improved ground cover, and healthier soils. Farmers now have additional tools and knowledge in their land management toolkits to more effectively address soil erosion, crop residues, productivity implications of seedling phenology, weeds and pests, and agronomy requirements. Changes in farmer behaviour across these areas have measurably improved the profitability of broad acre cropping systems in Australian and built resilience to seasonal variability and extreme events.

The Future:No Till practices are a systems approach and are continually evolving in response to emerging issues, new technology and machinery, plus farmer learnings and expectations, consistent with resilience thinking. Emerging issues include increasing incidents of herbicide resistant weeds, evolving biosecurity issues and soil fungal diseases, including Rhizoctonia.

Farmers are continuing to build on their knowledge/practices, and in response to new ‘stress factors’ are continuing to change their on-farm practices, consistent with increased resilience. For example, No Till farmers are now frequently seeding earlier and incorporating dry sowing, which were not part of earlier No Till ‘best-practice’ systems. New technology including complex seeding systems and paddock/yield mapping are continuing to be developed and incorporated into No Till systems to build on the benefits provided and to address emerging issues.

The use of the farmer driven group extension model which allowed the rapid adoption of No Till systems across southern Australia has increased the capacity of Landcare groups to take ownership of, and action towards, more complex issues, to develop partnerships with appropriate stakeholders to identify solutions, source funding and extend outcomes to farmer groups.

Demonstrated behaviour-based indicators of resilience:The No Till farming system and its affiliated farming groups have long demonstrated their ability to identify and adjust their industry’s farming practices in response to evolving environmental and economic drivers of change. No Till farming continues to influence the industry with likeminded farmers sharing knowledge and skills and then building on the known knowledge through innovation and experimentation. The combined strengths gained from these localised solutions has built a more profitable and productive industry and allowed their collective skills to influence agricultural science and natural resource management globally.

View full project case study: https://grdc.com.au/uploads/documents/GRDC_adoption_of_no-till.pdf

2. MINGENEW AND IRWIN – FACILITATING INTERGENERATIONAL CHANGE

Location: The shires of Mingenew and Irwin, Western Australia

Group: Mingenew-Irwin Group Inc.

Background:

The Mingenew Irwin Group (MIG) is an incorporated not-for-profit organisation covering approximately 300 000 hectares within the shires of Mingenew and Irwin, with about 95% of farmers, and farm related business, in the Mingenew area being active members. MIG was formed by local farmers in 1994 based on a recognised need for locally driven research and development as environmental conditions continued to decline. MIG currently has 22 significant trial and demonstration projects supported through the Australian Government’s investment in Landcare and in a research capacity by universities and engaged students. Of note is the Anameka saltbush project, which is assessing the grazing potential of native pastures in fragile soil environments. The saltbush projects are an example of research improving adaptive capacity and intergenerational learning: hallmarks of resilience thinking.

Outcomes:

Due to the extensive involvement of the farming community in the MIG, there has been widespread adoption of more productive and sustainable agricultural practices demonstrated through trials. For example, farmers in the MIG are now more ‘drought ready’ due to the adoption of demonstrated improved pasture methods and grazing management. These practices have also been adopted in other regions with similar conditions. In total, MIG members contribute some $165 million annually to the economy. The outcome of improved viability and productivity of the family farm through the activities of this group has made a significant contribution to positive intergenerational change in the region. Anecdotally, MIG has one of the highest percentages of university qualified farmers in WA who have returned to the family farm. These young farmers use new technology such as drones to build onto knowledge passed from their parents, and previous generations. Some examples of individual project outcomes include:

1) Healthy Farm project: helped farmers identify problem areas (wind and water erosion, biodiversity decline, chemical contamination of soil and water, herbicide resistance) and to document procedures in order to investigate improved management.

2) Reducing sedimentation in the Irwin River by rehabilitating the Nangetty clays present on the Irwin River Station.

The Future:

MIG will continue to engage in community led research and trial innovative practices to assess their suitability for adoption in their region. MIG has established working partnerships with a range of research organisations, industry, sponsors and private funding entities to contribute and assist towards the discovery of innovative approaches which suit the conditions. The development of a network to address adaption and innovation is a major component of resilience thinking. Future projects include trials to develop and apply pasture cropping and cell grazing building on and including the current research on native saltbush pastures. Future research plans include student exchanges with overseas universities to continue to develop knowledge and investigate land management methods in use in other marginal agricultural land around the world.

Demonstrated behaviour-based indicators of resilience:MIG has established a highly successful and visible community network that strives to adapt their business practices to meet regionally specific issues. By being innovative, MIG has utilised research to best suit local environmental conditions.

Local experimentation processes allowed for trials to influence and grow participation within the group. The higher than usual uptake of new or amended practices within the broader community has helped establish a more drought resilient catchment. The demonstrable success of these actions has developed broader networks and partnerships, allowing MIG to share its findings and expand the understanding of other farming groups.

3. THE NRM SPATIAL HUB - NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND TOOLS FOR ENABLING RESILIENCE

Location: Australian Rangelands

Group: Australian Rangelands NRM Alliance, States and NRM Regions

Background:

The rangelands cover approximately 80% of Australia, with grazing of natural vegetation contributing to at least 60% of the land usage. Improved management of groundcover has been identified as an effective means of increasing native vegetation health, decreasing soil loss and contributing to more resilient and profitable enterprises in the Australian rangelands.

The Australian Government has enormous amounts of land and climate information which has previously been unavailable to land managers due to the difficulties in capturing and sharing large and complex data sets in remote locations. The NRM Hub now allows users to look back ~30 years and understand the impacts of climate variability and land use decisions over time, and incorporate this knowledge into their decision making. It also provides an easy to use platform to share information between property managers, consultants, NRM Regional staff, and the Australian Government. Early adopters in the grazing sector have demonstrated that digital mapping and monitoring is a fundamental component of property planning and management.

Outcomes:

The NRM Hub is providing graziers, Landcare groups and NRM organisations on-demand access to: a) satellite monitoring; b) easy to use tools for the development and maintenance of digital land management/grazing plans; and c) consistent monitoring of land condition and pasture biomass from paddock to national levels. The NRM Hub has developed, and is demonstrating, the benefits of mapping technologies specifically for rural property infrastructure planning. The system offers non-specialist users access to the entire Landsat satellite archive (including data from Commonwealth and state governments, CSIRO and universities) to assess land condition and make decisions about safe carrying capacity, infrastructure development, and pasture management. This project has completed “the last mile” in adopting and developing new technologies that are needed for operational use.

Russell Lethbridge, from Werrington Pastoral Company, is one of the early adopters: “Using these technologies recently to plan water infrastructure in response to the drought took just a few hours to do what would have taken weeks previously. My son and I were a thousand kilometres apart using the on-line system. The satellite ground cover products have demonstrated the impacts of my investments, and are going to help me improve my pasture budgeting in the future” (Pers. Comm with Russell Lethbridge).

One of the major lessons learnt from the NRM Hub Team has been the critical role of regional extension staff. These technologies will not be broadly adopted by landholders without the trusted support of extension staff guiding landholders in the process.

The Future:

The NRM Hub provides a foundation for improved decision-making, improved productivity and more sustainable and resilient landscapes, businesses and communities. Stage 1 of the NRM Hub has only “scratched the surface”. There are opportunities for drought proofing, forage budgeting, supply chain management, carbon markets, banking, biodiversity conservation, SOE reporting and others. The challenge is developing a suitable and sustainable funding model based on a public-private partnership.

Demonstrated behaviour-based indicators of resilience:

The Hub allows land managers to look back 30 years and understand the impacts of climate variability and land use decisions over time. This allows farmers to incorporate the information into future decision making and support their knowledge and learning with robust scientific data.

The ability to constantly review their environment (e.g. social, economic, climatic and landscape) and make contingency plans based on a real time, scientifically robust database allows farmers to build flexibility into business plans. In addition, the Hub can mitigate farm risk when trialling or implementing new ideas.

View full project case study: http://www.nrmhub.com.au/media/

4. BAROSSA IMPROVED GRAZING GROUP WINTER PASTURES PROJECT

Location: Adelaide and Mt Lofty Ranges and SA Murray- Darling Basin NRM

Group: The Barossa Improved Grazing Group (BIGG)

BIGG is a community-driven network of livestock production and farming groups, including sheep (North Rhine Sheep Group), beef (Mt Pleasant Beef Group), dairy (Barossa Mid-North Dairy Discussion Group) and two (Angaston and Koonunga) local Ag Bureaux.

Background:

The initial project resulted from an informal gathering of producers from various livestock groups who identified their winter pastures as a major profit driver to their farming enterprise. The aim of which was to improve the capacity of farmers to enhance the condition of their land and sustainably improve the productive capacity of pastures and increase the number of producers participating in achieving good NRM outcomes.

The main objective was to get producers from different commodities with a common profit driver talking, learning, sharing and taking action to improve the productive capacity of winter pastures while enhancing the Natural Resource Management (NRM) outcomes. This is achieved through development of individual producer ‘activity plans’ which meets their own needs/ situations and delivers improved winter pastures and NRM Outcomes. Focus areas include soil testing, pasture species selection, pasture quality and quantity, stocking rates and rotational grazing.

Outcomes:

BIGG evolved in 2012 after receiving a project grant from the Adelaide and Mt Lofty Ranges NRM Board that encouraged local producers to improve their pasture productivity.

This was achieved through working with producers to develop individual action plans that addressed on-farm issues such as soil nutrition, pasture species selection and grazing management. These action plans were implemented and learning’s successfully shared between producers and the wider community through pasture walks, monthly newsletters and media articles. The project spiked regional interest in productive pastures and also the impetus to build and cultivate relationships with a range of state and national stakeholders, industry partners and local businesses.

Since 2012, BIGG has established 17 projects, including monitoring soil moisture in grazing systems, using innovative electric fencing for grazing management, recovery of native pastures after local bushfires and the effect of soil borne root diseases on the productivity of sub-clover pastures.

Its projects are ‘driven from the ground up’ and coupled with its strong commitment to extension, BIGG was awarded the 2014 Ag Excellence Alliance Sustainability Award in South Australia. Further, in March 2014 BIGG were awarded the 2014 Ag Excellence Alliance Sustainability Award by its peers (sponsored by DEWNR), as ‘an outstanding locally based grower group for its achievements in delivering greater NRM outcomes’.

The Future:

BIGG is committed to delivering greater productivity and NRM outcomes for its members through the adoption of innovative practice. BIGGs vision is to be a trusted and valuable network supporting innovative, sustainable and resilient grazing businesses. With new projects in the pipeline and a membership base of over 270 subscribers (and growing), BIGG aims to extend its reach and impact in the future.

Demonstrated behaviour-based indicators of resilience:

BIGG has successfully built the ability of the broader agriculture community using common and shared requirements.

The integration of multiple industry groups to address common issues allowed excellent cross industry innovation. Achieving this integration of ideas and knowledge required strong leadership and clear and open communication.

The ability to receive direct feedback on trials and innovation from the participants allowed the farmers to understand the innovation or practice change from a grassroots level – not the standard technical extension process. The use of industry peers has been critical for the ongoing success of the group and has built a more resilient farm community – and farming community.

View full project case study: http://biggroup.org.au/

5. BIG PICTURE THINKING AT LITTLE RIVER

Location: Yeoval and Cumnock Central west of NSW – a catchment encompasses 320,000 hectares

Group: Little River Landcare

Background:

Little River Landcare (LRL) Group started out in 1997 when a group of progressive and proactive land managers in the region realised the potential of amalgamating 14 small, localised Landcare groups to work together. The group members realised that although natural resource management is key to the environmental health of the area, this cannot be achieved without the ability of land managers to think clearly, understand challenges, and belong to a community - a critical component of resilience thinking.

With this as a guiding ethos, the LRL Group not only runs educational programs and funds on-ground environmental and sustainable primary production projects, but also focuses on helping tackle social and health issues in the community which affect land managers, including mental health, depression and suicide.

Outcomes:

The LRL Group focuses on bringing people together and continuously sharing the message that mental illness is serious but no different to being treated for blood pressure. Normalising mental health as a component of a healthy farming community is achieved at a community level through regular Community awareness days, well promoted Mental Health First Aid training, and workshops with the Black Dog Institute.

The Future:

The LRL Group continues the message today. Every event still features at least one speaker who touches on mental health issues. An information sheet about mental health, including contact numbers and access points for key services, is dropped into mailboxes across the catchment by the LRL Group at regular intervals. There is no plan to stop delivering the message that mental health in rural communities matters.

Demonstrated behaviour-based indicators of resilience:

LRL has demonstrated the success of knowing and sharing common goals across the broader landscape through amalgamation of 14 smaller Landcare groups. The joining of skill and experience across commodity drivers has provided increased capacity and allowed innovation of new concepts from other farmers.

The union of these groups has enhanced extension and communication networks. The collective has used group findings to build capacity, beyond farm knowledge sharing, to important areas such as mental health.

View full project case study: http://www.littleriverlandcare.com.au/publications

6. RESILIENCE TO ADVERSE CLIMATIC EVENTS THROUGH NATIVE PASTURE TRIALS

Location: Mitchell, Queensland on the Maranoa River

Group: Jeff Campbell, Mitchell and District Landcare Group

Background:

A local farmer in the Maranoa River catchment, Mr. Jeff Campbell, noticed the quality of the pastures deteriorating and the carrying capacity of his property significantly declining. He began to question the long term viability of the property and seek ways to turn around the damage. Changes to the current grazing systems were needed.

The regional NRM group saw an opportunity to assist the farming community to monitor and adapt to changing land conditions. Australian Government funding, through the National Landcare Programme, was utilised to establish a research partnership with local farmers, research and development organisations and local governments. The knowledge gained through investment and engagement, driven by local objectives, resulted in time controlled rotational grazing trials with specific modifications for the local conditions. To achieve this, trial paddocks were taken from a set stocking rate in one paddock, to disaggregating the mob across 24 smaller paddocks. Different shorter grazing periods were experimented with, to achieve a grazing pressure which did not reduce the pasture beyond a point where it could not regenerate. Significant investment in fencing and an increase in water points in each ‘cell’ paddock were also incorporated. This inclusion was found to decrease the damage the cattle did to the topsoil by walking long distances on already degraded pasture to access water.

Outcomes:

An increase in land condition and carrying capacity has occurred over time, resulting in better resilience of the pastures to fire, drought or heavy grazing.

The country still has to be managed for drought conditions. It is now understood, and commonly practiced, that livestock and land need to be constantly managed to maintain a healthy and economically productive condition. By focusing on maintaining pasture as an essential service, farmers are able to avoid market price shocks driven by panic sales, and have the capacity in their grazing system to destock whilst in a ‘forward condition’. Maintaining a critical level of groundcover also means that pastures are able to respond more quickly to rainfall events, providing buffering capacity during transitional periods, and/or drought.

The Future:

In the Australian rangelands there are always transitional periods depending on the type of management and external and environmental influences. “It is never static, and your management decisions need to adapt to those influences” (Geoff Campbell Pers. Comm.). New technologies and an environmental management system will continue to be investigated to provide land managers and graziers with more tools for the variety of challenges they face now and into the future. The recording and documenting of the rangeland environment, and the management employed, will demonstrate to domestic and international markets the region’s ability to adapt and respond quickly to changing climatic conditions and therefore underpinning its continued viability.

Demonstrated behaviour-based indicators of resilience:

Maranoa Landcare members saw a need to change practices to address loss of productivity and profitability. A regional review of their local environment identified an opportunity to monitor and adapt to changing land and market conditions.

The knowledge gained through investment and engagement of NRM concepts, driven by local objectives, resulted in more sustainable grazing practices. The ongoing group continues to innovate and share outcomes as their individual learning grows.

New technologies and an environmental management system continue to provide land managers and graziers with more tools for the variety of challenges they face. This group demonstrated how increasing the ability of the individual can strengthen profitability and build drought resilience.

View full project case study: http://placestories.com/story/13012

7. BALNGGARRAWARRA RANGERS

BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION OF THE GAARRAAY NATURE REFUGE

Location: Gaarraay Nature Refuge, QLD

Group: Balnggarrawarra Rangers

Background:

Balnggarrawarra Rangers work with local catchment groups, scientists, and Traditional Owners to preserve the biodiversity of the Gaarraay Nature Refuge. Importantly, it has also connected Gaarraay Traditional Owners back to country. The Balnggarrawarra Ranger group has adopted a strategic approach to achieving on-ground project outcomes - identifying partners with a common interest in conserving the high biodiversity values of the property and with complementary capabilities and contributions. In relation to the access track project the rangers successfully applied for a grant through Northern Gulf Resource Management (NGRM) to improve fire management and soil erosion in the Nature Refuge on Melsonby Station.

Outcomes:

The project has enabled the Traditional Owners, rangers, elders and school students to participate in field trips and events on-country to grow knowledge of country, harvest bush tucker and restore traditional cultural practices. This linked to NGRM's overarching funding objectives of building the resilience of Nature Refuges across Northern Queensland. The Group secured input from a range of disciplines to achieve best practice outcomes from their on-ground projects. Planning of the access track project involved intensive consultation with Cape York Landcare and with leading expert, fluvial geomorphologist, Dr Jeffrey Shellberg, to design climate-resilient works that successfully reduced soil erosion. This included training for rangers in the construction of "whoy boys" and other techniques to control sediment run-off. Similarly, on-ground burns involved the use of a multi-disciplinary approach to planning and implementation. Fire management was planned in consultation with Dr Jeremy Russell Smith who is an expert on burning in sandstone country, as well as using the knowledge and expertise of local Traditional Owners. Implementation involved long on-ground walks by rangers complemented by aerial incendiary ignitions

The Future:

The project incorporated disciplined financial management, involving a 1:1 contribution arrangement - funding: labour and Traditional knowledge - with NRMG (a first for the group). The project was successfully delivered within budget and supports the potential for future financial benefits for Traditional Owners who have aspirations to develop rock art tourism as a source of sustainable income.

Demonstrated behaviour-based indicators of resilience:The project incorporate social benefits, providing training and technical skills development for rangers. In providing access to country for Traditional Owners, the project delivered associated social and health benefits. The most significant challenges for this partnership project have been technical. As this was the first erosion mitigation project to be undertaken at the Melsonby site, there was uncertainty about how the sandy soils would hold up to earthworks required for the access tracks. The Group adopted a strategy of engaging appropriate expertise in the design of the earthworks in order to mitigate this challenge. This has required modification of soil erosion techniques used elsewhere. For example, the "whoy boys' used in the track construction have required larger volumes of soil for stabilisation.

The area has a high exposure to extreme weather events - and a severe cyclone event during the wet season produced extreme rainfall over the project area.

This however resulted in some damage to the tracks, has provided an opportunity for continued modification and learning. As a relatively new ranger group the Balnggarrawarra Rangers have needed to quickly develop the technical skills required for soil conservation works. This challenge was successfully met due to the engagement of appropriate expertise and the strong motivation of the rangers to learn.

http://nationallandcareconference.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/QLD-Australian-Government-Partnerships_Kelly.pdf

8. BLACKWOOD CATCHMENT - COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Location: Blackwood Catchment, Western Australia

Group: Blackwood Basin Group.

Background:

The Blackwood Basin Group (BBG) has been coordinating community-managed Landcare projects across the Blackwood Catchment for over two decades. The group builds close partnerships with other community groups to undertake vital projects that rehabilitate and protect the area. This approach has allowed the group to develop long-term partnerships with industry, government bodies and the community. Over time, the group has managed over $16 million of projects.

Outcomes

Throughout its long history, the BBG has achieved catchment-scale improvements by identifying and addressing priority issues such as salinity, habitat fragmentation and erosion. In the past, the BBG has guided strategic investment and activities throughout the Blackwood River Catchment, including Zone Action Plans that have led to the Thiess International Riverprize being awarded to the BBG. From on-ground data collection to future regional planning, the community is central to the activities of the BBG. Partnerships are a key aspect of the group that can be demonstrated in the Waterbird Project that has forged partnerships with industry, local government and agencies, Murdoch University, four schools and nine community and volunteer groups. The success of these partnerships is a management committee made up of seven key stakeholders who meet quarterly to discuss projects, provide expertise and experiences, as well as listen to feedback from other groups. From its partnerships, the BBG has involved school groups and the community to learn about biodiversity and cultural awareness. These include the group’s nestbox program, macro-invertebrate resources and a bushtucker walk.

The Future

The BBG Committee is comprised of voluntary community and stakeholder members who provide advice and guidance on operational and strategic matters, and act as a conduit to their broader communities across the 2.2-million-hectare catchment. The BBG reaches out to everyone in the community with the assistance of its communication plan which enables it to attract new members to be involved in future programs.

The group also focuses on building community understanding and skills to foster a Landcare ethos, now and into the future. Over 400 members receive a quarterly newsletter, another 400 receive the monthly eNewsletter, and a regular page in community newsletters distributes to over 2000. The BBG exhibits at four agricultural field days during the year with interactive displays to engage children and adults alike in Landcare practices and projects.

Demonstrated behaviour-based indicators of resilience:Along with many Landcare groups, the dramatic changes in the funding delivery model and dollar value has created major challenges for the BBG over the years, leading to reduced capacity, job insecurity and diminished ability to deliver projects across the catchment. Learning from this, the group has established strong relationships with community and partner groups to ensure it remains relevant to the community and is able to attract sponsorship from business.

http://nationallandcareconference.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/WA-Landcare-Community-Group-Willett.pdf

Attachment D

Resilience behaviours and Landcare’s influence

RESILIENT BEHAVIOURAL INDICATORS (Cabell & Oelofse 2012)

INDIVIDUAL LAND MANAGER PERFORMANCE INDICATORS LANDCARE INFLUENCE ON INDICATORS

Socially self-organised Farmer/landholder is able to organise grassroots networks and institutions such as production groups, co-ops, farmers’ markets and community custodian groups (Friends of etc.)

Regional coordinators are information brokers.

Explore opportunities to market/share/expand using co-op models.

Support initiatives to strengthen farm planning and financial literacy.

Provide localised feedback to inform policies and planning.

Ecologically self-regulated Farmer/land manager understands landscape capacity and amends practices in response (maintain pasture cover, incorporate perennials to address nutrient deficiency/pasture productivity, provides habitat for/manages impact of predators and parasitoids, use ecosystem engineers and align production with local ecological parameters.

Develop understanding and ability through workshops, extension and experimentation.

Assist preparedness through recognition of potential threats/shifts to their business and assist local adaptation in recovery following natural disasters adverse events.

Appropriately connected Farmer/land manager willingly collaborates with multiple suppliers, outlets, information sources and fellow farmers.

Establishing and facilitating the expansion or establishment of groups.

Connect farming communities to appropriate support services and trusted information sources.

Collate localised feedback to inform policies and planning.

Functional and response diversity

Farmer/land manager recognises the diversity of features within the landscape and the on farm implications; diversity of inputs, outputs, income sources, markets, pest controls etc.

Exposing groups to new ideas and opportunities.

Strengthen farming and community networks and support opportunities to learn from others (inside and outside their profession).

Spatial and temporal diversity

Farmer/land manager recognises benefits of landscape patchiness of on farm management and across the landscape, mosaic pattern of managed and unmanaged land, diverse cultivation practices, and crop rotations.

Assist preparedness through recognition of potential threats/shifts to their business and assist local adaptation in recovery following natural disasters adverse events.

Provide localised feedback to inform policies and planning.

Exposed to/ managing Farmer/land manager utilises leading biosecurity management Strengthen community networks and support opportunities to learn

impact of disturbance practices. from others from both inside and outside their profession.

Understands and adapts management for local natural capital limits

Farmer/land manager builds (does not deplete) soil organic matter, recharges water, little need to import nutrients or export waste.

Assist preparedness through recognition of potential threats/shifts to their business and assist local adaptation in recovery following natural disasters.

Reflective and shared learning

Farmer/land manager regularly participates in extension and advisory services; collaborates with universities, research centres, industry groups and NRM stakeholders; cooperates and shares knowledge with others; reliable record keeper; demonstrates a baseline knowledge about the state of the agroecosystem.

Connect farming communities to support services and trusted information sources.

Provide localised feedback to inform policies and planning.

Build develop knowledge in natural capital to balance constant search for increased productivity.

Globally autonomous - locally interdependent

Farmer/land manager manages exposure on commodity markets and reduced external inputs; seeks to increase sales within local/new markets, participates in/recognises existence of/ farmer co-ops, develops close relationships between markets and consumers, and shares resources such as equipment.

Strengthen farming and community networks and support opportunities to learn from others (inside and outside their profession).Support local initiatives that strengthen individual planning and financial literacy.

Honours legacy Maintenance of plant/animal productive genetics, engages with elders, incorporation of traditional cultivation techniques/knowledge with modern techniques and emerging science.

Connect farming communities to support services and trusted information sources.Developing understanding and ability through workshops, extension and experimentation.

Builds human capital Farmer/land manager invests in infrastructure and institutional education, supports social or supplementary learning events in farming communities, supports preservation of local knowledge.

Encourage new partners (directly/indirectly affiliated with NRM) to deliver workshops and events that shape personal wellbeing.Support local initiatives that strengthen individual planning and financial literacy.

Reasonably profitable Farmer/land manager (and their employees) earn a livable wage; business does not rely on distortionary subsides or overutilisation of resources.

Strengthen farming and community networks and support opportunities to learn from others from both inside and outside their profession.Support local initiatives that strengthen individual planning and financial literacy.

Our food future: trends and opportunities

Attachment E

References

Beilin, R. and Reichelt, N. (2010): Community Landcare: a key player in building social-ecological networks? Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Beilin, R. Reichelt, S. King, A. Long, A. and Cam, S. (2013): Transition landscapes and social networks: examining on-ground community resilience and its implications for policy settings in multiscalar systems. Ecology and Society 18(2): 30.

Bennett, E. Carpenter, S. Gordon, L. Ramankutty, N. Balvanera, P. Campbell, B. Cramer, W. Foley, J. Folke, C. Karlberg, L. Liu, J. Lotze-Campen, H. Mueller, N. Peterson, G. Polasky, S. Rockström, J. Scholes, R. Spierenburg, M. (2014): Toward a More Resilient Agriculture. Solutions. Vol 5, No. 5. pp. 65-75 - http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/237202.

Cabell, J. and Oelofse, M. (2012): An indicator framework for assessing agroecosystem resilience. Ecology and Society 17(1): 18.

Campbell, A. (2009): It’s time to renew Landcare. [online]. Agricultural Science, Vol. 21, No. 2, Jul 2009: 30-33. informit.com.au/document Summary dn=97665385583: 1030-4614. [cited 07 Jul 16].

Cary, J. and Webb, T. (2000): Community landcare, the national landcare program and the landcare movement: the social dimensions of landcare. Bureau of Rural Science, Kingston, ACT.

Dahlhaus, P. Thompson, H. McKenna, K. and Milne, R. (2014): Building Resilience in Farming and Agribusiness - Victorian Adaption Sustainability Partnerships. Centre for eResearch and Digital Innovation, Federation University, Mt Helen Vic 3350.

ELD Initiative (2015): Report for policy and decision makers; reaping economic and environmental benefits from sustainable land management. ELD Secretariat, Friedrich-Ebert, Bonn Germany.

Gooch, M. (2008): Voices of the Volunteers: an exploration of the influences that volunteer experiences have on the resilience and sustainability of catchment groups in coastal Queensland. DOI:10.1080/08941920801967880, Saarbrucken, Germany.

Grafton, Q Mullen, J and Williams, J (2015): Australian Agricultural Future: Returns, Resources and Risks. Australian Council of Academic Learned Academics, Securing Australia’s Agricultural Future Project, SAF07. Online: http://www.acola.org.au/PDF/SAF07/returns%20resources%20and%20risks.pdf

Griffiths, B. and Philippot, L. (2013): Insights into the resistance and resilience of the soil microbial community. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2012.00343.x 112-129. 1 March 2013.

Higgins, S Adcock, L (2009): Australian Cotton Industry Best Management Practices Program: New Beginnings for BMP. ACIC BMP Committee Chairman1 General Manager – BMP Program. Online: http://www.insidecotton.com/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/2615/Adcock%20%26%20Higgins.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

1

Our food future: trends and opportunities

Ingalls, M. and Stedman, R. (2016): The power problematic: exploring the uncertain terrains of political ecology and the resilience framework. Ecology and Science 21 (1):6. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss1/art6/.

Johnson, P. and Lenz, T. (2009): Six Habits of Highly Resilient organisations: http://home.trg-inc.com/sites/default/files/Six%20Habits%20of%20Highly%20Resilient%20Organizations%20%EF%80%A7%20P%26P.pdf.

Kamel, H. Mass, S. McIntyre, G. (2011): Delivering Regional Extension in Queensland Cotton Farming systems – Central Queensland. Cotton CRC, PO Box 993 Dalby Queensland. https://www.mybmp.com.au/key_features.aspx

Lebel, L. Anderies, J. Campbell, B. Folke, C. Hatfield-Dodds, S. Hughes, T. and Wilson, J. (2006): Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems. Marine Sciences Faculty Scholarship. Paper 52.

Maguire, B. and Cartwright, S. (2008): Assessing a community’s capacity to manage change: A resilience approach to social assessment, Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Marshall, N. Capon, S. Curnock, M. Edgar, B. Race, D. and Scherl, L. (2012): Handbook for enhancing social resilience in the Monsoonal North of Australia. CSIRO Land and Water, Townsville, Australia.

Marslen, T. (2014): Declining Research and Development Investment: A Risk for Agricultural Australia. Global Food and Water Crises Research Programme, Future Directions International Pty Ltd. WA 6009, Australia.

Metzger, M. Rounsevell, A. Van den Heiligenberg, H. Pérez-Soba, M. and Soto Hardiman, P. (2010): How personal judgment influences scenario development: an example for future rural development in Europe. Ecology and Society 15(2): 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art5.

Moburg, F. Sturle Hauge, S. Shultz, M. Perrson, A. (2012): What is resilience? An introduction to social-ecological research. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University and Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Mistra, Sweden.

NCMA 2013: General resilience assessment of the Namoi Catchment 2010 – 2020. Namoi CMA, NSW Government. http://www.beltempo.com.au/documents/CAPSuppdoc3.pdf.

Pitman, M. and Lauch, A. (eds.) (2003): Global Impact of Salinity and Agricultural Ecosystems. Salinity: Environment - Plants - Molecules, 3–20. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Redfern, R (2015): Australian cotton’s myBMP environmental program. Cotton Australia 2016. This material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License (CC BY CC BY-NC 4. Cotton Research and Development Corporation, ABN: 71 054 238 316

Resilience Alliance (2010): Assessing and managing resilience in social-ecological systems: A practitioner’s workbook, https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=0643098127.

Ruzicka, A. (2016): Land clearing and its impacts. Bush Heritage Australia, ABN 78 053 639 115. Level 1, 395 Collins St, Melbourne, VIC 3000 Australia

Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

2

Our food future: trends and opportunities

Taylor, J. Landsberg, R. and Ash, A. (2010): The Australian Landcare Model: Lessons from 20 years of community-based conservation. UQ, Gatton, Queensland and CSIRO, Queensland, Australia.

Toyne, P. and Farley, R. (2000): The decade of Landcare looking backward looking forward. Discussion paper (Australia Institute); no. 30. Australia Institute Deakin, A.C.T, 2000.

Walker, B. Carpenter, J. Rockstrom, A. Crépin, J. and Peterson, G. (2012): Drivers, "slow" Variables, "fast" variables, shocks, and resilience. Ecology and Society 17(3): 30.

Wilson, R. Charry, A. and Kemp, D. (2013): Performance indicators and benchmarking in Australian agriculture: synthesis and perspectives. Charles Sturt University, Schools of Accounting and Rural Management. Orange NSW, 2800 Australia.

Youl, R. Marriott, S. Nabben, T. (2006): Landcare in Australia – founded on local action. ISBN 0-9775240-1-9al. Published by SILC and Rob Youl Consulting Pty Ltd, Australia.

__________________________________ oo0)8(0oo_____________________________________

Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

3