The Australian Master TreeGrower Program— Providing a sound foundation for Australian agroforestry —

RIRDC Publication No. 09/157

The Australian Master TreeGrower Program

Providing a sound foundation for Australian agroforestry

by Rowan Reid and Wayne Deans

October 2009

RIRDC Publication No 09/157 RIRDC Project No. 000613

ii

© 2009 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved.

ISBN 1 74151 954 3 ISSN 1440-6845

The Australian Master TreeGrower Program – Providing a sound foundation for Australian agroforestry Publication No. 09/157 Project No. 000613

The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances.

While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication.

The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors.

The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.

This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the RIRDC Publications Manager on phone 02 6271 4165.

Researcher Contact Details

Rowan Reid The University of Melbourne Burnley Campus 500 Yarra Boulevard, Richmond VICTORIA, 3121 Ph: (03) 92506827 Fax: (03) 92506885 Mob: 0409609939 Email: rfr@unimelb.edu.au Web: www.mtg.unimelb.edu.au

Wayne Deans The University of Melbourne Burnley Campus 500 Yarra Boulevard, Richmond VICTORIA, 3121 Mob: 0430 218 212 Email: wdeans@unimelb.edu.au

RIRDC Contact Details

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 2, 15 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600

PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604

Phone: 02 6271 4100 Fax: 02 6271 4199 Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au. Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Electronically published by RIRDC in October 2009 Print-on-demand by Union Offset Printing, Canberra at www.rirdc.gov.au or phone 1300 634 313

iii

Foreword Agroforestry is the participation of farmers in the protection, establishment, management and/or utilisation of trees and forests on their land. Agroforestry is undertaken by Australian farmers in the pursuit of a range of environmental, social and economic benefits. The widespread adoption of agroforestry is a means to support agricultural productivity; increase the resilience of farming businesses in the face of increasingly uncertain climate and market conditions; reduce the environmental impacts, both on and off the farm, of agricultural management; and enhance regional biodiversity, aesthetic and cultural values.

The Australian Master TreeGrower Program (MTG) is our training program to give farmers the knowledge and skills to benefit from agroforestry. It has been a remarkable effort, more than eighty regional 8-day courses across Australia involving more than 1700 participants, 100 presenters and 30 partner organisations. During this latest 3-year program the MTG has also worked with the Otway Agroforestry Network and other groups to developed and pilot the Peer Group Mentoring (PGM) concept in which experienced landholders are engaged to support and assist other farmers in their agroforestry pursuits.

In 2007, Wayne Deans, an anthropologist, was engaged by the MTG to undertake a thorough evaluation of the program including a review of past evaluations, course participant before and after surveys, observations of program activities, discussions with partner organisation and regional program coordinators, and a statistically valid telephone survey of past participants. The results demonstrate that the MTG is very much more than just a short educational course for farmers: The Australian Master TreeGrower Program is an outstanding example of an integrated extension program aimed at supporting farmer adoption of a complex and multifaceted natural resource management practice.

There are lessons arising from the MTG for those involved in natural resource management extension, policy and research. To support the adoption of complex and multifaceted land management practices extension programs and activities must engage farmers, interest groups and government agencies over an extended period of time and acknowledge the contribution and interests of all those involved. In particular, the review of the MTG highlights the importance of farmer-to-farmer communication and the development of information networks that provide a mutually respectful communication link between landholders and the researchers, policy makers, industry and government agencies that influence their land management decisions.

This project was funded by the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program (JVAP), which is supported by three R&D Corporations - Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), Land & Water Australia (L&WA), and Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation (FWPRDC). The Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) also contributed to this project. The R&D Corporations are funded principally by the Australian Government. State and Australian Governments contribute funds to the MDBC.

iv

This report is an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1900 research publications. It forms part of its Agroforestry and Farm Forestry R&D program, which aims to integrate sustainable and productive agroforestry within Australian farming systems. The JVAP, under this program, is managed by RIRDC.

Most of RIRDC’s publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online at www.rirdc.gov.au. Purchases can also be made by phoning 1300 634 313.

Peter O’Brien Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

v

About the Authors Rowan Reid (B Forest Sc (Hons); M Forest Sc)

In 1985, Rowan co-authored the book Agroforestry in Australia and New Zealand which is widely acknowledged as the first of its kind in Australia. He has since become a leader in the development of agroforestry education and extension having developed the first undergraduate and post graduate subjects in agroforestry and the Eureka Award winning Australian Master TreeGrower Program.

Rowan has worked in many countries including New Zealand, Thailand, Vietnam, India, Kenya and Fiji and has travelled to many more to learn from their experience. He has shared his knowledge in hundreds of articles in newspapers and magazines, in his presentations at numerous conferences and field days, and through hosting thousands of visitors on his own farm (Bambra Agroforestry Farm).

Wayne Deans (Assoc Dip. Business (International Trade); B A (Hons)

Wayne was a researcher on the 1999 review of the MTG. His interest in Australian forestry and timber began when he worked with Melbourne furniture maker Nicholas Dattner on the release of the ‘Roots’ magazine in 1993 which highlighted the beauty, robustness and value in Australian hardwoods. He has produced marketing reports on Australian native timber furniture’s export potential into Japan, and studied the capacity of farm forestry to overcome problems of salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin.

After completing his undergraduate degree he undertook anthropological fieldwork on the South Korean island of Cheju studying local farming practices in relation to international markets. He was the recipient of a Korean Government Scholarship (NIIED), attended Pusan National University and was a visiting scholar Cheju National University (University Museum). He has lived for extended periods in Japan where he has looked at farm forestry practices on small landholder allotments in mountainous regions.

vi

Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the participation of the many hundreds of farmers, forest owners, private industry members, researchers, extension staff, non-government organisations and government agencies that have contributed to or participated in the activities of the Australian Master TreeGrower Program.

Rowan would particularly like to thank a number of individuals who had a significance influence on his knowledge and understanding of agroforestry practices and, through him, an influence on the MTG itself. These include Andrew Stewart (Vic.), Noel Passalaqua (NSW), David Jenkins (WA), Annabel Kater (NSW), Richard Moore (WA), Andrew Campbell (National), Jim Donaldson (National), Jim Finley (USA) and John Bliss (USA). He would also like to acknowledge the contribution that Peter Stephen made to the development and delivery of the MTG while acting as the co-coordinator from 1998-2003.

Special thanks go to the many organisations who contributed funds to the MTG over the years. In additional to the support provided by The University of Melbourne as hosts of the MTG we also thank the Myer Foundation, the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program (since 1997) and Land & Water Australia (in addition to JVAP since 2006) who have all provided core funding to support the development and extension of the MTG.

vii

Abbreviations ASN Australian Sandalwood Network

CMA Catchment Management Authority

FWPA Forest & Wood Products Australia

GA Greening Australia

JVAP Joint Venture Agroforestry Program

LWA Land & Water Australia

MTG Australian Master TreeGrower Program

NGO Non Government Organisation

NRM Natural Resource Management

OAN Otway Agroforestry Network

PGM Peer Group Mentoring

RIRDC Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

viii

Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ ii

About the Authors ................................................................................................................................. v

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................. vi

Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................. xii

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 Who are the Australian Master TreeGrowers? ........................................................................... 1

2. Knowledge transfer, capacity building and community development ................................ 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3 The MTG regional course........................................................................................................... 3 The framework for regional MTG courses ................................................................................. 6 After the MTG course............................................................................................................... 11 The Peer Group Mentoring Concept......................................................................................... 11

3. Is the MTG meeting its development and output objectives? ............................................ 13 Approach to the problem .......................................................................................................... 13 MTG - a delivery model for extension ..................................................................................... 14 The Australian Master TreeGrower objectives and goals ........................................................ 15 Methodology............................................................................................................................. 16 The MTG participants .............................................................................................................. 19 Economic impacts of forests on farms...................................................................................... 26

Economic outcomes..................................................................................................... 26 Funding vegetation work for MTG participants .......................................................... 28

MTG experiences ..................................................................................................................... 31 What participants say about the MTG...................................................................................... 36 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 44

4. Peer Group Mentoring........................................................................................................... 46 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 46 Farmer-to-farmer extension...................................................................................................... 48 The PGM concept and agroforestry development .................................................................... 50

5. The MTG as an extension package ....................................................................................... 65 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 65 The MTG as an extension program .......................................................................................... 65 Conclusion – more than just another crop .............................................................................. 109

ix

6. The future for the MTG....................................................................................................... 110 Who owns the MTG? ............................................................................................................. 111 The flexibility inherent in the MTG model ............................................................................ 112 Adaption and evolution .......................................................................................................... 116

References .......................................................................................................................................... 120

Appendix 1 – Before Survey ............................................................................................................. 123

Appendix 2 – Post Course Survey.................................................................................................... 124

Appendix 3 - Telephone Survey Questions...................................................................................... 126

x

Tables Table 2.1 The location, partners and participants in the 21 regional MTG programs run during

the most recent JVAP funding period ....................................................................................................5

Table 3.1 Survey respondents by State ..............................................................................................................18

Table 3.2 What is your purpose in establishing and managing trees or vegetation on your farm? (Re-categorised) ...................................................................................................................................25

Table 3.3 Obstacles on which education and institutions may have a bearing ..................................................32

Table 4.1 Agroforestry Peer Group Mentoring projects, partners, activities and outcomes ..............................47

Table 5.1 Participation in the active management of forests on farms ..............................................................82

Table 5.2 Stated criticisms of the MTG.............................................................................................................87

Table 5.3 Associations and affiliations identified by interview respondents...................................................100

Figures Figure 2.1 Location of the 85 regional MTG courses conducted since 1996 showing (in bold)

the 21 programs delivered during the most recent JVAP funding period..........................................4

Figure 3.1 Participant gender............................................................................................................................19

Figure 3.2 Participant landholding/income type ...............................................................................................19

Figure 3.3 How long have you been actively participating in tree growing or vegetation projects? ................20

Figure 3.4 Type of farming undertaken by participants....................................................................................21

Figure 3.5 Type of tree and vegetation activity ................................................................................................22

Figure 3.6 Change in planting by landholder type............................................................................................23

Figure 3.7 Change in planting (not plantation) .................................................................................................23

Figure 3.8 What is your purpose in establishing and managing trees or vegetation on farm?..........................24

Figure 3.9 What is your purpose in establishing and managing trees or vegetation on your farm? .................25

Figure 3.10 Economic effect of trees/vegetation on farm...................................................................................27

Figure 3.11 With respect to the establishment and management of trees have you received any financial support? ...........................................................................................................................................29

Figure 3.12 Financial support -Funding Body....................................................................................................29

Figure 3.13 Financial support - Type of project supported.................................................................................30

Figure 3.14 Financial support - Type of work supported ...................................................................................30

Figure 3.15 What are the main obstacles for you in your tree growing and vegetation projects? ......................31

Figure 3.16 Have there been any changes in your region/catchment that affect tree growing or vegetation activities?.........................................................................................................................................33

xi

Figure 3.17 Are you involved in a landcare group or tree growing network? ....................................................36

Figure 3.18 From my involvement with the MTG I now see greater opportunities for tree growing to contribute to positive landscape change ......................................................................................37

Figure 3.19 From my involvement with the MTG I am now more aware of the risks associated with establishing and managing trees and native vegetation. ..........................................................37

Figure 3.20 From my involvement with the MTG I now have greater confidence to plan and design tree growing projects............................................................................................................38

Figure 3.21 As a group have you stayed in contact since the MTG?..................................................................39

Figure 3.22 Have you recommended the MTG to others?..................................................................................39

Figure 3.23 Those that had NOT recommended MTG-comment.......................................................................40

Figure 3.24 Having done the MTG are you more likely to talk about tree growing to others? ..........................40

Figure 3.25 How have you used the information you learnt, or the experiences you had during the MTG? ........................................................................................................................................41

Figure 3.26 Any other comments regarding your experience in being a participant in the MTG ......................41

Figure 4.1 Farmer decision making: With the decision maker represented by the inner circle this petal diagram shows who they consulted or sought information from when making a decision about (in this case) dairy expansion options...................................................................................................49

Figure 5.1 Graphical representation of the Transfer of Technology Model .....................................................90

xii

Executive Summary What the report is about

In 1996, with support from the Myer Foundation, Rowan Reid ran the first Australian Master TreeGrower course in partnership with the Otway Agroforestry Network. Most of the participants were farmers but there were also nurserymen, contractors, government extension agents and Greening Australia field officers. Over the next year courses were run in Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Based on the success of this pilot program the RIRDC/LWRRDC (now LWA)/FWPRDC (now FWPA) Joint Venture Agroforestry Program began funding the Australian Master TreeGrower Program (MTG) in 1998. Then, in 2006, in addition to their contribution through the JVAP program, Land & Water Australia provided additional funding to broaden the scope of the program to involve native vegetation management more generally. In 2007, the MTG adapted the Otway Agroforestry Network’s Peer Group Mentoring program and trialled it in two regions of Western Australia. The MTG is also associated with the provision of professional development, regional and national workshops, information networking and ongoing support for past participants.

Whilst focusing on the research and development work undertaken during the last 3-year JVAP funding period, this report summarises 13 years of research and development undertaken as part of the Australian Master TreeGrower Program.

Who is the report targeted at?

In addition to researchers, extension agents and policy makers working in agroforestry, farm forestry, private forestry or vegetation management on farms generally this report will be of interest to anyone interested in participatory extension theory and practice particularly where it involves farmers. The report also provides an excellent background for those considering partnering in the delivery of a regional Master TreeGrower course or Peer Group Mentoring Program.

Background

The Australian Master TreeGrower Program has delivered more than eighty 8-day MTG courses across Australia involving more than 1700 participants, 100 presenters and 30 partner organisations. During the course of this latest 3-year program the MTG has also worked with the Otway Agroforestry Network and other groups to developed and pilot the Peer Group Mentoring concept in which experienced landholders are engaged to support and assist other farmers in their agroforestry activities. In his capacity as national program coordinator, Rowan Reid has also worked with regional networks, catchment management authorities, state agencies, industry groups and others to assist them develop and deliver agroforestry and native vegetation management related policies and programs. In addition to this, the MTG has contributed to more than 100 field days, conferences and seminars, provided refresher courses and field days for past participants, and provided a telephone/email information support service for past participants and the general public.

Aims/objectives

The aims of this JVAP project which has supported the MTG program since late 2005 were:

1. Encourage well-informed innovation and investment in multipurpose agroforestry on farms;

2. Collate and disseminate local and scientific NRM knowledge and experience relevant to agroforestry;

3. Build new or strengthen existing formal and informal regional communication and collaborative networks;

xiii

4. Identify and support those who can contribute ideas leadership and insight to agroforestry R&D projects; and,

5. Evaluate and report on participatory extension methodologies related to vegetation management on farms.

This report covers the activities of the MTG program and reviews its impact as a publicly funded participatory extension program supporting the application of forestry and native vegetation management practices on farmland for economic and environmental benefit.

Methods used

The Australian Master TreeGrower project and this review cover a number of activities:

1. The 8-day regional MTG course – 21 conducted since late 2005 involving 413 participants.

2. Workshops and meetings with regional, state and national stakeholders to encourage them to adopt participatory diagnosis and design principles in the development and delivery of their programs (including 7 regional workshops involving CMAs and State Agencies since 2005).

3. Development, delivery and participation in numerous field days, conferences and workshops to provide practical knowledge, the theoretical basis for our activities, the results of the project and to promote the MTG program and JVAP.

4. The development, delivery and review of the Peer Group Mentoring concept through the development and delivery of 3 regional PGM projects.

5. The involvement of Wayne Deans, an anthropologist, to undertake a thorough evaluation of the MTG including a review of past evaluations, course participant before and after surveys, observations of program activities, discussions with partner organisation and regional program coordinators and a statistically valid telephone survey of past participants.

6. A major review of the philosophy, practice and impact of the MTG program since its development in 1996 using the data gained from Deans’ research, and drawing on the many independent reviews of the MTG and comments provided by past participants and others associated with the program. The MTG approach was then tested against the 27 social principles of extension developed by Vanclay (2004).

Results/key findings

The results demonstrate that the MTG is very much more than a short educational course for farmers: The Australian Master TreeGrower Program is an outstanding example of an integrated extension program aimed at supporting farmer adoption of complex and multifaceted natural resource management practices.

There are lessons arising from the MTG for those involved in natural resource management extension, policy and research. To support the adoption of complex and multifaceted land management practices extension programs and activities must engage farmers, interest groups and government agencies over an extended period of time and acknowledge the contribution and interests of all those involved. In particular, the review of the MTG highlights the importance of farmer-to-farmer communication and the development of information networks that provide a mutually respectful communication link between landholders and the researchers, policy makers, industry and government agencies that influence their land management decisions.

xiv

Implications for stakeholders

Agroforestry and other complex natural resource management practices require comprehensive , multifaceted and integrated extension packages that are credible to the farming community and independent of particular industry or government agendas. The role of the university as the custodian of the program suggests that there is a role for academic educational and research organisations in the development and delivery of agricultural extension, especially when they are able to form mutually supportive partnerships with state and regional organisations.

For governments and industry seeking changes in private land management in order to achieve environmental or economic outcomes, this research highlights the importance of forming constructive partnerships with other organisations and groups - even if they represent an alternative interest - and present extension programs that are primarily focused on assisting landholders achieve their own goals first. The extent to which this will lead to greater production of forest products or improved environmental outcomes will party depend on the ability of governments and industry to facilitate or directly deliver real rewards to those who, either working alone or in partnership with others, deliver the benefits being sought.

Recommendations

This research has demonstrated that the MTG model works in building social capacity that ultimately results in adoption of agroforestry practices, the development of better regional programs and improved environmental outcomes. It is clear that the MTG is able to evolve over time in response to changing environmental and economic circumstances and the interests of the wider community, industry, government and the landholders themselves. The program also provides a mechanism for developing strong partnerships between national research and educational institutions and programs (including the University of Melbourne, JVAP, CSIRO and the CRCs) and regional agricultural and forestry extension services.

Rather than continually developing new programs to support natural resource management that involve trees, shrubs or forests on farms, governments should support the continuation and further development of the MTG as a means of participating in and influencing the content of regional and state extension initiatives. The MTG has developed a proven structure that produces tangible outcomes for eco-systems services. Evaluation of the program shows that it is:

• Grounded in empirical research

• Using established methodologies for delivery

• Transferable across regions

• Accountable for delivering returns on educational investment

• Adaptable to support the conflicting goals and trade-offs of the large stakeholder base in NRM

• Novel and innovative

• Building on and empowering existing interactional infrastructures (past MTGs, CMA, GA, Landcare, community groups, educational institutes, government initiatives and policy)

• Ethical and of the highest standards

National agroforestry research and development organisations should use the MTG as a means of establishing and engaging in a dialogue with farmers, industry groups, regional extension agents, landcare groups, catchment management authorities and state agencies in order to share research results and identify research and development needs.

xv

The focus of agroforestry research and development should be on the potential for trees and forests to support landholder needs and aspirations, underpin the viability of family farming, support regional catchment management and community goals, provide a mechanism for establishing joint venture projects between landholders, industry and investors and contribute to achieving national carbon sequestration and environmental goals.

The MTG has demonstrated that, with some support and training, there is a potential to involve landholders in research and development. These peer group mentors play a role in the validation and adaptation of R&D to suit regional interests. We recommend that R&D organisations allocate resources to support the participation of farmers in the design and delivery of their programs.

The research also demonstrates that ‘non-commercial’ or ‘hobby’ farmers - including retired farmers, and the many professionals and tradesmen moving into agricultural areas - are playing an important role in trialling commercial tree species and management options which reduces the uncertainty about the innovation for their ‘real farmer’ neighbours. As a group, these people can be engaged to provide quality peer mentoring and play an important role in supporting regional farmer networks. We therefore recommend that extension programs aimed at improving land management do not discredit or disenfranchise landholders, within the target regions, on the basis of their primary production status.

There is also an opportunity to develop other programs that parallel or complement the MTG covering other aspects of private land management such as crop, stock and pasture management, native grassland conservation and management, small-acre farming systems and integrated catchment management.

1

1. Introduction Who are the Australian Master TreeGrowers? In 1996, with support from the Myer Foundation, Rowan Reid ran the first Australian Master TreeGrower course in partnership with the Otway Agroforestry Network. Most of the participants were farmers but there were also nurserymen, contractors, government extension agents and Greening Australia field officers. Over the next year courses were run in Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Based on the success of this pilot program the RIRDC/LWRRDC (now LWA)/FWPRDC (now FWPA) Joint Venture Agroforestry Program began funding the Australian Master TreeGrower Program (MTG) in 1998. In addition to their support as a partner in the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program, Land & Water Australia provided additional funding in 2006 to broaden the program to involve native vegetation management more generally and extend the new Peer Group Mentoring concept.

Eighty-five regional MTG courses have now been conducted around Australia involving more than 1700 participants, 100 presenters and 30 partnering organisations. As national MTG coordinator, Rowan Reid (with support MTG staff Peter Stephen (1998-2003) and Wayne Deans (2007-9)) has also provided many refresher courses for past MTG participants; conducted regional workshops with stakeholder groups; contributed to numerous field days and seminars; presented at local, national and international conferences; published popular and peer reviewed books, chapters and research papers; and contributed to a number of television and radio presentations.

In 2006 the MTG program participated in the development of the Peer Group Mentoring concept with the Otway Agroforestry Network. The idea involves engaging landholders who have experience in agroforestry design and management in assisting and supporting other landholders in their projects. This can involve helping farmers explore ways in which growing trees might enhance their properties, actively working with them in the design and implementation of agroforestry practices, searching out information and potential partners on behalf of farmers or simply providing encouragement to maintain their forests. Based on this experience the MTG program developed a PGM training program and set up two pilot projects in Western Australia.

As part of his academic position in the Department of Forest and Ecosystem Science at The University of Melbourne Rowan has recently developed a block-release, masters-level subject in agroforestry and farm trees which is available for extension professional or those wishing to work in agroforestry. This provides a very real opportunity for professionals to gain direct access to recent agroforestry research and the extension experience of the MTG program. Rowan has also brought his private interests in agroforestry to the MTG including his family’s Bambra Agroforestry Farm and his role as voluntary editor Australian Agroforestry magazine. Rowan has helped promote the MTG program and JVAP research through the hosting thousands of visitors to his property, the hundreds of articles for magazines he has written (including a regular feature in Town and Country Farmer) and his numerous conference, workshop and field day presentations.

Today, the Australian MTG is very much more than just a short course in forestry for farmers. It is a comprehensive extension package involving many national, state and regional organisations and hundreds of individuals. Yet, the MTG remains focused on ensuring that the development of forestry and native vegetation management on farms is driven by the aspirations and opportunities of Australian farmers and underpinned by the best available scientific, market and practical knowledge. The program does not promote particular species, products or management options. It simply encourages farmers to truly aspire to be ‘master tree growers’ in their own right and provides some of the skills, support networks and confidence to launch them on that lifetime journey.

Measuring the impact of the MTG is not as simple as counting the number of ‘graduates’ or assessing the change in tree cover on their farms. As noted by Bauer et al. (2003) much of the value of the MTG

2

lies in the knock-on influence of those involved. In this respect the MTG is a complex extension package that is having an influence on the way agroforestry is understood, practised, researched and promoted across Australia.

Nonetheless, the MTG does seek to enhance landowner participation in the design, management and evaluation of appropriate vegetation management options for their own circumstances. If establishing and managing trees and shrubs does offer farmers real economic, environmental and social opportunities we would expect an increase in the forest cover on farms and improved forest management to result.

The significance of the title ‘Master’ is in the acknowledgment of the knowledge and experience that the participants bring to the program and the potential they have to influence others within their region. A master in any field will concede that they can never know it all. Master TreeGrowers recognise that knowing the right question to ask (and who to ask) can be more important than knowing an answer. And, they appreciate that every farm and every farmer is different so what is right for one may not suit another. The right answer is usually: ‘it depends’. What follows is a process of knowledge gathering, networking, debating, experimenting, observing, measuring, evaluating, adopting and reflecting.

The development of the MTG and the results of a number of internal and external reviews have been well described in previous JVAP publications (Reid and Stephen 2007 and Reid 2008a). Working from this foundation, this report delivers the results of the most recent and most detailed evaluation to date of the regional MTG courses (Chapter 3). Chapter 4 then describes the development of the MTG Peer Group Mentoring project and reports on three pilot PGM projects. The PGM concept was first developed and applied to agroforestry development by the Otway Agroforestry Network of which Rowan Reid is actively involved. Based on this experience the MTG Peer Group Mentoring project was initiated with two new pilot programs in Western Australia.

Acknowledging that the MTG is more than just an education course for farmers Chapter 5 discusses the attributes that we believe underpin its success as an extension program using the 27 social principles for agricultural extension provided by Vanclay (2004) as a framework. The aim is to articulate what the MTG is why it seems to work and to provide guidance for the future development and delivery of natural resource management extension and education programs.

Rowan Reid discusses silvicultural options with Master TreeGrower participants

3

2. Knowledge transfer, capacity building and community development Introduction The MTG program has developed on a foundation provided by an 8-day regionally delivered education course for farmers and those who work with them. The philosophy underpinning the design and delivery of the courses is reflected in the educational material developed by the program, the work we have done with regional networks, government agencies, research organisation and catchment management authorities, and the undergraduate and postgraduate agroforestry subjects delivered at the University of Melbourne. It has also provided a natural expansion of the MTG into other aspects of agroforestry extension and development including the research and development of the Peer Group Mentoring concept.

This chapter outlines the activities of the MTG program in detail.

The MTG regional course Eighty-five regional MTG courses have now been conducted around Australia involving more than 1700 participants, 100 presenters and 30 partnering organisations (Figure 2.1). In practice, the MTG program provides a short regionally based educational course (of approximately 50 hours) for farmers and those who work with them with the aim of:

• Improving the design and management of agroforestry and native vegetation projects on participants’ own properties.

• Helping participants understand the interests of governments, catchment authorities, industry groups and community organisations in agroforestry and native vegetation management and encourage mutually beneficial partnerships.

• Facilitating the involvement of participants in the development and promotion of agroforestry and native vegetation management within their region by providing a wide range of knowledge, skills, experiences and networking opportunities.

• Assisting regionally based forestry and natural resource management professionals by providing: the opportunity to work alongside leading researchers and practitioners; links to a range of national and state information and support networks; and, the opportunity to build strong personal relationships with a group of committed local landholders.

Each regional MTG course is presented as a partnership between The University of Melbourne, the participants and one or a number of regional partner groups or organisations. The regional partners maybe landowner groups, government agencies, catchment management authorities, non-government organisations (such as Greening Australia or Australian Forest Grower branches) or industry bodies.

Whilst every program is different (reflecting the different issues and opportunities in each region) there is a commonality in purpose and style. To ensure this consistency and uniformity across Australia the MTG has developed a framework for regional courses to follow. How regions ‘fill-in’ the framework is flexible and depends on regional land management constraints, the interests of regional partners and the requirements and interests of the participants.

The framework does assume that the emphasis of most regional programs will be on the design, evaluation and management of multipurpose forests on farms that reflect the interests and aspirations of the landholders and regional stakeholders. Depending on the market opportunities within the region

4

program may focus on the production of commercial tree products or the provision of off-farm environmental services in return for financial support or, as is most common, both. In most cases, the participants are also interested in the establishment and management of forests to support agricultural production, improve their property value, enhance wildlife habitats and control land degradation. We believe the program framework is flexible enough to ensure all participants find the course valuable, irrespective of their particular interests. Notably, the framework does not work well for stakeholder groups that aim to promote particular practices at the exclusion of all others.

Although the basic framework sets out eight one-day sessions totalling around 50 hours, regions may wish to adapt this structure to suit their own circumstances (such as a mix of evening seminars and afternoon field trips). In order to allow for participatory learning and reflection the course should be delivered over a period of at least a month, preferably two. This also allows time for adapting the course content in response to landholder interests and for participants to build relationships within the group.

Figure 2.1 Location of the 85 regional MTG courses conducted since 1996 showing (in bold) the 21 programs delivered during the most recent JVAP funding period.

TTaassmmaanniiaa ((11)) Midlands- July 99

WWeesstteerrnn AAuussttrraalliiaa ((1166)) Bridgetown- Aug 97 Duranillin- Aug 98 Albany- Oct 98 Kojonup- March 99 Wellstead- Aug 99 Busselton- Feb 00 Esperance- March 00 Denmark- Sept 01 Kataning- April 01 Northam- Feb 02 Esperance- Aug 02 Moora- Sept 02 Avon – Mar 03 Bridgetown – Aug 03 Serpentine – June 05 Perth – June 09

NNoorrtthheerrnn TTeerrrriittoorryy ((11)) Darwin - Oct 00

QQuueeeennssllaanndd ((1155)) Nambour- Oct 97 Beaudesert- Aug 99 Ipswich- Nov 99 Mackay - Feb 00 Mackay - Feb 01 Boonah- March 01 Cairns - June 01 Mackay - Feb 0 Rockhampton - May 02 Mackay - Mar 03 Rockhampton - Mar 03 Mackay – April 06 Far North Qld – Oct 2006 Brisbane (South) Mar 09 Brisbane (North) – Mar 09

NNeeww SSoouutthh WWaalleess ((3300)) SW Slopes- Aug 97 Eden- Dec 97 Dorrigo- April 98 Hunter Valley- Oct 98 Wagga- Nov 98 Hastings- June 99 Armidale- Oct 99 Young- Feb 00 Goulburn- July 00 Hunter Valley- June 01 Gloucester- June 01 Nambucca- Feb 02 Wagga- March 02 Little River – April 02 Nambucca – Aug 02 Sth Tablelands- Sept 02 Port Macquarie- Oct 02 Holbrook – April 03 Bollanola – July 03 Macleay – March 04 Broken Hill – Oct. 04 Belingen – March 04 Holbrook – Dec 05 Hunter – June 06 Port Macquarie – April 06 Manning – Nov 06 Kempsey – May 07 Moree – May 08 Dorrigo – May 08 Hunter – May 08

SSoouutthh AAuussttrraalliiaa ((22)) Adelaide Hills- April 02 Adelaide Hills – May 06

VViiccttoorriiaa ((2200)) Otways- Dec 96 NE Victoria- Aug 97 Gippsland- Dec 97 Ballarat- June 98 Seymour- April 99 Geelong- June 99 Colac- Oct 00 Kyneton- June 01 Gippsland- Aug 01 Wimmera- July 02 Bacchus Marsh- July 02 Wimmera – Aug 03 NUFG – Aug 03 Upper Goulburn – Oct 05 Bendigo – Dec 05 Otway – May 06 Gippsland – Oct 06 Bendgio – Sept 08 Otway – Dec 08 Wimmera – July 09

5

Table 2.1 The location, partners and participants in the 21 regional MTG programs run during the most recent JVAP funding period

Location Local Partner No. of grads

Comments

Upper Goulburn – Oct 05

John Woodley with support from local industry. Local government and the Goulburn Broken CMA

45 First program to be run by an individual who sought local sponsorship from industry, Councils and the CMA. Largest Regional MTG program

Bendigo – Dec 05

Run by the State Government Agency

35 Run by government agency in support of their farm forestry extension program

Holbrook – Dec 05

Murray CMA with support from Computershare

16 First program delivered with corporate sponsorship. Supported by past MTG participants

Adelaide Hills – May 06

Computershare Mount Lofty Private Forestry Australian Forest Growers (local branch) PIRSA and ForestrySA

20 The MTG seen as important in promoting landholder participation in the local AFG branch. Excellent support from sponsors, partners and participants with links to the local CMA.

Otway – May 06

Otway Agroforestry Network Corangamite Catchment Management Authority

20 Strong regional group well supported by CMA programs. Outstanding integration of the MTG program into the delivery of services to members.

Mackay – April 06

Local AFG Branch Central Queensland Regional Forestry Association

19 Isolated area with developing private forestry opportunities. MTG important in building the profile of the local AFG branch and the developing PFDC

Hastings – April 06

Mid North Coast Farm Forestry Hunter –Central Rivers CMA

11 Supportive CMA keen to use the MTG to develop an agroforestry culture in the region. The strong ‘small catchment’ demography means that it is difficult to run larger regional programs in the area (links to Manning course)

Hunter – June 06

Greening Australia - NSW Hunter –Central Rivers CMA

14 Program focused on managing native forest regrowth. Despite low numbers this program is likely to result in a franchised Native Forest Management MTG program in NSW and SE Qld coordinated by GA.

Gippsland – Oct 06

Gippsland Private Forestry GAN – AFG Branch DevTree – Peter Devonshire

16 Important traditional private forestry region that has a long history of small scale forestry. This program was able to engage with many private timber industry players including processors, harvesting contractors and consultants.

Far North Qld – Oct 2006

Private Forestry North Queensland

12 Cyclone Larry interrupted plans for the FNQ MTG but it was considered important to go ahead with the program in order to support affected landholders, promote ‘lessons from Larry’ and highlight new opportunities. A group of up to 10 indigenous landholders attended various components of the program (only one is included in the final figure).

Manning – Nov 06

Hunter –Central Rivers CMA 15 Supportive CMA keen to use the MTG to develop agroforestry in the region. The strong ‘small catchment’ demography means that it is difficult to run larger regional programs in the area.

Kempsey – May 07

Northern Rivers CMA Mid North Coast Farm Forestry

19 Led by an independent regional farm forestry network this MTG program aimed to support and develop the group and build its links with the regional CMA

Moree May 08 Border Rivers Gwydir CMA, GA Exchange

21 Led by an officer of the CMA this programs focused particularly on biodiversity.

Dorrigo May 08

Mid North Coast Farm Foresters

20 Led by an independent regional farm forestry network this MTG program aimed to support and develop the group and build its links with the regional CMA

Hunter May 08

Hunter Farm Forestry and Hunter Regional Landcare

15 Led by an independent regional farm forestry network this MTG program focused particularly on private native forest management

Bendigo Sept 08

Northern United Forestry Group and the North Central CMA

20+ Led by an independent regional farm forestry network this MTG program aimed to support and develop the group and build its links with the regional CMA

Otways Dec O8

Otway Agroforestry Network, Corangamite CMA

16 Led by an independent regional farm forestry network this MTG program builds on the success of the Otway PGM program

Brisbane (South) 09

AgForests and SE Qld Catchments

17 First MTG programs run with AgForests and SEQCatchments

Brisbane (North) 09

AgForests and SE Qld Catchments

22 First MTG programs run with AgForests and SEQCatchments

Perth – June 09

Trees South West and AVONGRO with support from Forest Products Commission

20 The MTG seen as important in promoting landholder participation in the local AFG branch. Excellent support from sponsors, partners and participants with links to the local CMA.

Wimmera – July 09

Wimmera Agroforestry Network with support from the Wimmera Catchment Management Authority

20 The MTG seen as important in promoting landholder participation in the local AFG branch. Excellent support from sponsors, partners and participants with links to the local CMA.

Total 21 Regional Programs during the most recent funding period

413 Partnerships with State Agencies, CMAs, GA, PFDCs, AgForests, AFG branches and regional landholder groups

6

The framework for regional MTG courses The framework, as outlined below, provides a guide to regional program coordinators and partner organisations. It includes a description of the preferred content of an 8-day course and the order of delivery. The framework also identifies where Rowan Reid, or his nominee, is involved in the presentations. The actual program for each course is adapted in negotiation with the national MTG coordinator and may ultimately look quite different whilst still retaining its meaning and purpose.

PART ONE: Mastering trees on farms – 1 day

Purpose: Raise the profile of the MTG amongst regional partners, sponsors, industry and landholders within the region and identify potential co-investors and participants. Introduce the concept of multi-purpose forest design and management and identify participant aspirations, interests and information needs.

Suggested program for Session 1:

Regional MTG coordinator introduces themselves, the local sponsors and the University of Melbourne presenter (Rowan Reid). Rowan then presents an introduction to multipurpose farm tree design and management using case studies including one of his own experience and others of leading proponents. Following morning tea Rowan then invites participants, partners and regional stakeholders to share their interests in trees and native vegetation management and thereby highlighting the diversity of motivations, interest, experience and perspectives amongst the group.

Finally, he introduces the MTG, identifies the sponsors and their interests, outlines the national support available to participants and regional groups then passes over to the regional partners who outline the possible course content, dates, venues, costs, transport options and safety on the course.

During lunch participants are invited to sign up to the program and collect their MTG hat, books and folder of local notes, maps and contact information. An afternoon field trip to the properties of one or two key participants or past Master TreeGrowers in the region provides a basis for looking at local issues and opportunities and the application of agroforestry design. Landholders conduct the tour, with notes if possible, covering their motivations, experience and plans for the future. This provides other participants with a clear idea as to what is expected of them when they present their experience later in the program.

TIPS FOR THE 1ST SESSION: Select a venue that is comfortable, easily accessible, has adequate parking and is not closely aligned with a particular organisation (neutral territory). Weekdays are usually best starting after 9.30 am to allow people to get children to school. Prepare a list of participant's names and addresses to be compiled and distributed (with their permission). Name tags are useful especially for the first few sessions. Provide good food suitable for a range of tastes: set the standard by providing lunch thereby encouraging people to stay together. Ensure plenty of time is available for introductions and sharing of experiences in a relaxed environment.

MTG EVALUATION: Rowan distributes a ‘before’ survey (Appendix 1) which seeks information about the participants’ experience and interests in tree growing. He also seeks their permission to collect personal contact details for use by the national MTG coordinators. All surveys and requests for information have been passed by The University of Melbourne’s School of Land and Environments Human Ethics Committee.

7

Far North Queensland Master TreeGrowers inspect a tropical rainforest timber plantation

PART TWO: Farm trees for conservation and profit – 3 days in total

Purpose: Introduce and review markets for wood products, non-wood products and environmental services; provide participants with skills in tree and forest measurement; and, provide theoretical and practical information on the biology and management of forests for the provision of products and services.

Session 2 Markets for tree and forest products and services

This includes visits and presentations covering local, regional and national tree and forest products and services sought by industry, government or the community. The emphasis is on off-farm consumer and stakeholder needs, product and service specifications, demand and supply trends, pricing, and trading mechanisms. Topics could include timber, non-timber products, water, carbon credits, biodiversity values and community concerns and will reflect local opportunities and the interests of participants identified on Day 1. Presenters might include regional catchment management authorities, forest product processors, water authorities or others who are potential purchases of the products and services provided by farm trees and native vegetation.

Rowan Reid is usually not present for the second session. If he is it is only as a participant and not as a presenter.

Possible program for Session 2: Presentations by local industry, agencies and community organisations then tours of processing plants (sawmills, export facilities, water treatment plants, tourism enterprises, local craftsmen, bush food processes etc). The aim is to identify the market opportunities and trading methods for a range of possible off-farm products and services that arise from the establishment and management of trees and native vegetation on farms.

8

Markets include any product or service that a farmer can sell as a result of growing trees.

TIPS FOR THE 2ND SESSION: Many processing plants are noisy with small areas. Try to get an overview from the guide before entering the plant. An introduction to the process and techniques may be beneficial. Concentrate on industries that are realistically within the capability of the landowners involved and relevant to their interests (transport distances, scale, land quality). Don't try to cover all markets for forest products and services in a single day. It is better to use a couple of examples to illustrate the importance of market specifications then incorporate other visits and presentations into later sessions to cover other opportunities.

Session 3 Tree and forest measurement

Discussion and practical exercises in tree and forest measurement including the use of the Australian MTG diameter tape which is provided to each participant. Methods and techniques will reflect product and service options: Wood production, carbon accounting, biodiversity values, recharge control etc. In all states other than Western Australia Rowan Reid is involved in the presentation of this session.

Possible program for Session 3: Rowan presents an introduction to tree and forest measurement and distributes the MTG tape to participants – emphasis is on measuring standing biomass and competition in forest stands in relation to wood production, carbon sequestration and other product options. Other presenters may be asked to cover specific product (such as bush foods, fodder, essential oils etc) or environmental service measurement (such as monitoring biodiversity, water quality or recharge control). Where there are regional differences in the techniques used to measure forest values (such as biodiversity) these will be covered by local presenters.

During the day participants will undertake a field based exercise in tree and forest measurement which will include the establishment of a sample plot and the use of the MTG tape to measure height,

9

diameter and basal area. Following the exercise the group usually returns inside for a review of data and presentation on the principles of forest growth and management delivered by Rowan and others.

TIPS FOR THE 3RD SESSION: This session is used to introduce the tree and forest management principles and therefore the ideal field site maybe one with at least 2 areas that differ in their spacing, species, or management. Participants can then measure the various sites and use this data to illustrate silvicultural principles. Incorporate the properties of participants where possible and encourage them to complete their presentations while on site. Use the exercise to show how to set up permanent monitoring sites on farms.

Session 4 Tree and forest growth and management

This session usually involves presentations and field trips covering tree and forest growth and management options appropriate for the products and services being considered locally. Actual topics will vary greatly from region to region and may include: vegetation classification and identification, planning and legislative requirements, establishment and regeneration options, spacing and competition management, species mixtures, silvicultural treatments (thinning, pruning etc), use of fire, harvesting methods (varying with interests and vegetation types). In many areas the program tackles native forest management as well as revegetation. Presenters for this day are usually regional professionals and experienced practitioners who are able to use locally available sites or participants’ properties to illustrate relevant forest management options.

TIPS FOR THE 4TH SESSION: Farm, public and industrial sites can be visited, with the emphasis on illustrating how the different management options affect tree growth and the provision of products and services. Invite forest managers or landholders to explain their management regimes with regard to the products, constraints, resources and objectives of their organisation. Where possible reinforce the measurement and monitoring skills covered on Day 3.

PART THREE: INTEGRATING TREES INTO RURAL LANDSCAPES – 3 days

Sessions 5, 6 and 7

Purpose: Review regional opportunities and approaches to integrating trees and native vegetation management into farming landscapes for both conservation and profit.

Content: During these three sessions, field tours should involve inspections of participants’ own properties and key regional examples with invited specialists who are able to facilitate, contribute and encourage discussion on ‘themes’ (such as salinity, marketing, biodiversity, taxation, farm planning, shade and shelter etc) that are relevant to the participants’ interests or regional opportunities. A mix of lectures, workshops and field tours with 2 or 3 experts participating for the whole day seems to work best. As many of the participants as possible should be given the opportunity to conduct a short tour or presentation of their own properties or experiences.

TIPS FOR SESSIONS 5, 6 & 7: Leave enough time to discuss the issues at each site in detail. Four site visits is probably the most that might be covered in one day. Ask each landowner for suggestions as to who they would like to invite to their property as an ‘expert’ to participate in the problem solving and design. Match up sites with similar interests so that the ‘expert’ can assist more than one landowner. For participants without land ask them to arrange or prepare a presentation utilising other sites of interest (such as trials and demonstrations that exist in the region). Allow the invited experts the opportunity of make short presentations (inside) but try to limit these to less than 30 minutes so there is plenty of time for discussion at the field sites.

10

Bess Secomb leads a tour through a plantation of young Red Ironbark during the 2005 Bendigo Master TreeGrower Program

PART FOUR: SHAPING FUTURE LANDSCAPES – 1 Day

Session 8

Purpose: Review the motivations and interests of participants and discuss the evaluation of agroforestry opportunities. Finish by engaging participants (with regional catchment planners and other stakeholders) in a review of the research and development needs for agroforestry in the region and the prospect for development of sustained regional information networks that involve landholders and interest groups.

Content: Rowan usually attends this session and presents on the economic aspects of tree growing. If required he may also provide a presentation on the use of trees for shade and shelter on farms. With a facilitator, the group then discusses the regional agroforestry and native vegetation management opportunities and needs. A short period of reflection on the course content and value is useful before closing. Rowan will also ask participants to complete an ‘end of program’ survey. Finish with a celebration dinner or lunch (maybe with a guest speaker) and the presentation of the MTG certificates and gate signs (by Rowan and the coordinator) to graduates.

TIPS FOR SESSION 8: This final session is different. Encourage an air of celebration by choosing a different venue, providing something special for morning tea or lunch. Avoid having a long list of presenters. If there is a interesting field trip (such as a special forest, farm or garden) or a dinner ensure that partners are invited and made welcome. Sponsors and key local presenters should also be invited. If there is to be an evening speaker try to ensure they are of interest to all those present.

MTG EVALUATION: Rowan distributes a ‘post course’ survey (Appendix 2) which seeks information about: the participants experiences and evaluation of the MTG; their future goals and aims in farm forestry; how the program was conducted; and, recommendations for the program.

11

Dorrigo Master TreeGrowers – one of the first courses in New South Wales

After the MTG course The MTG seeks to encourage and support viable regional landholder groups that can provide ongoing support and an active information network for participants. Where this has been possible the MTG participants play a key role in maintaining the networks. However, in areas where there is no landholder group, or the agroforestry, landcare or farm forestry networks are poorly run or weak, participants often feel that they are unsupported.

Rowan is the voluntary editor of the magazine Australian Agroforestry which is offered to regional groups at a discount to pass onto their members. The magazine is owned by a not-for-profit incorporated community group based in Victoria. Australian Agroforestry plays an important role in maintaining the link between the MTG and the participants and showing support of the regional groups.

At the invitation of regional groups, or even individual Master TreeGrowers, Rowan has participated in many local events including field days, seminars and dinners. He has also run workshops and refreshers days on tree measurement, silviculture and shiitake mushroom production. These events are important in supporting past participants, maintaining and extending their information networks and introducing the program to more people.

There are now many regions around Australia where the 8-day MTG course has been repeated on a regular basis in partnership with strong community based landholder networks. These include the Hunter Valley (Hunter Farm Forestry Network), New South Wales north coast (Mid North Coast Farm Foresters), the Otway Agroforestry Network, the Gippsland Agroforestry Network, North Central Victoria (Northern United Forestry Group), the south west of Western Australia (Trees SW), the Western Australian wheat belt (AVONGRO), and tropical Queensland (AFG branches). Not surprisingly these areas represent the most active and well supported farm forestry and native forestry management networks (both informal and formal) that provide for ongoing relationships between practitioners, extension agents, researchers and policy makers.

The Peer Group Mentoring Concept Based on the success of the Otway Agroforestry Network’s Peer Group Mentoring Program the MTG has taken the concept national with two new pilot projects in Western Australia. The PGM supports and formalises the role of landholders and regional groups in the delivery of extension, development of regional policy and programs and the two-way flow of information with researcher, many of whom have been presenters in local MTG courses. The PGM concept is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.

12

David Jenkins (centre), one of the first Master TreeGrowers in Western Australia, worked for many years helping run a number of regional courses and is now a Peer Group Mentor.

13

3. Is the MTG meeting its development and output objectives?

By Wayne Deans

Approach to the problem The first regional MTG course was conducted in 1996 and ten years have passed since the first major evaluation of the MTG in 1999. At that time farm forestry and agroforestry development in Australia were in their infancy scientifically, academically, socially and practically. Like the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program itself, the Australian Master TreeGrower Program is one of only a handful of research and development initiatives in this field that have been a constant over this recent period of public and private investment in multipurpose tree growing on Australian farms.

This presents an excellent opportunity to test longitudinally attitudes to agroforestry and how the MTG has influenced landholder participation in the establishment and management of trees and vegetation. The inherent long term nature of forestry means that such longitudinal studies are required in order to fully represent the life cycles of most projects. This can mean spans of 80 years or more particularly in low to medium rainfall areas or where trees have been established to combat generations of land degradation or biodiversity loss. In fact, unlike conventional forestry plantations, agroforestry can be intergenerational and has a cyclic life that does not necessarily end at harvesting. Hence, despite the relatively long time frames covered by this study it is, in itself, only a snapshot, albeit an important one in that it helps us understand the foundation that has been created for the future development of agroforestry and farm forestry in Australia.

The principle aims of the MTG monitoring and evaluation program are:

• To monitor and evaluate the MTG as means of meeting accountability to the funding bodies.

• To act as a feedback mechanism for utilisation in future program development.

• To test longitudinally the effectiveness of the MTG.

This research follows on from the previous evaluation of the MTG. The first extensive appraisal was conducted in 1999 (O’Meara and Wright, unpublished) concluded that,

The MTG is an innovative program that is well designed, well run, and greatly valued by its graduates.

They found that, as a model for extension, the MTG effectively delivered outcomes through participatory learning, that were regionally relevant and that its target audience engaged fully with the Program and reported high levels of fulfilment with their participation. They concluded that that the MTG was:

Stimulating the active involvement of farmers in the establishment, management and marketing of trees and forest products;

Encouraging enhanced landholder participation in regional and national farm forestry research and extension; and

Developing and implementing a course delivery model that satisfies participant’s needs. (O’Meara and Wright (1999) in Reid and Stephens 2007:38)

14

Dr. Tim O’Meara has been involved in the monitoring and evaluation of dozens of development projects around the world between 1997 and 2008 and recently had this to say about the MTG (pers. comm.):

I can say without reservation that the MTG as I monitored and reviewed it during the period from 1997 through 2000 is the best project I have seen in terms of its design and implementation and likely also in its benefit-to-cost ratio. It is also the project most enthusiastically and genuinely endorsed by the people who enrolled in the MTG courses.

The fundamental research problem for this evaluation is to test that the MTG is meeting its development and output objectives. The MTG defines agroforestry and farm forestry as:

the protection, establishment, management and utilisation of native vegetation and multipurpose trees and shrubs on Australian farms by farmers acting alone or in cooperation with government agencies, community organisations, private entities or other partners.

This Chapter summarises the theoretical foundations on which the MTG is built and explicates its development and output goals. The results indicate that the MTG is meeting its output objectives. They also show that the MTG develops substantial and long-term social capital amongst its stakeholders that may be drawn upon in the delivery of eco-system services. Importantly, the research highlights issues in the delivery process that are crucial to running a successful MTG and delivers an assessment of its relevance to participants.

MTG - a delivery model for extension According to Reid and Stephens (2007) “farm forestry extension theory and practice in Australia have largely focused on distinguishing between strategies for communication transfer, education and decision support” (Reid and Stephens 2007:5). They, and others (Black et al., 2000, Race et al., 2001), acknowledged that having a diversity of extension services and a range of providers is necessary to meet the needs, interests and opportunities of stakeholders.

They go on to explain (Reid and Stephens, 2007),

some see farm forestry as a collection of discrete technologies that can be presented to farmers for their acceptance or rejection, while others consider the innovation itself to be more of a process by which farmers define and implement forestry practices. Whereas some may see their role as a salesperson or instructor, others assume the role of facilitator or educator.

Essentially, Reid and Stephens argue that there are two approaches being adopted in farm forestry research and extension in Australia:

• The promotion of perspective-dependent solutions; and

• The facilitation of farmer and stakeholder participation and learning.

According to Reid and Stephens perspective-dependant solutions are often driven by the view that there is a particular problem to be overcome (e.g. salinity, spacing regimes to maximise expected yields), and it is this position of how to overcome a particular type of pre-defined problem that generates perspective-dependant solutions. Although well intentioned, the focus on a single perceived problem, that excludes the variances in farmer knowledge, capital, ecology, and aspirations, is at risk of leading to ‘one-type fits all’ solutions. They conclude, in congruence with Campbell (1994), that “these approaches to land management problems are unlikely to be effective”. (emphasis added) (2007:10).

As an alternative they propose an approach based on facilitating farmer and stakeholder participation and learning. Mindful of the heterogeneity of farmers, the farming enterprise and farm forestry, they posit farm forestry extension as a process which enables farmers to have a central determining role in

15

their participation in forest establishment and management. Furthermore, they claim in so doing, “requires that farmers take greater responsibility for decisions” (2007:p11). They argue,

this thinking seeks to shift the focus of extension away from getting farmers to grow forests in order to solve the problems that others perceive as critical, to one of empowering rural communities to the point that they are able to articulate, design and implement forestry practices that best meet their own individual and community needs

They point out the degree to which (2007:11),

the outcome of such a process will also meet the needs or interests of particular industry sectors, governments agencies, conservation groups or other outsiders will largely depend on the degree to which there are shared goals, a capacity and willingness amongst farmers to act, adequate rewards for farmers who provide the services or products sought by others, and the degree to which penalties are imposed for non-compliance.

Adelaide Hills Master TreeGrowers debate land management options

The Australian Master TreeGrower objectives and goals Before beginning the evaluation it was important to establish the MTG’s objectives and goals. Based on the published reports and discussions with Rowan Reid the following program logic was articulated in March 2008.

The goal of the MTG:

Development of resilient farming landscapes that can deliver the range of economical, social and environmental values sought by current and future generations.

The development objective of the MTG:

Greater participation by farmers in the protection, establishment, management and utilisation of remnant native vegetation and multipurpose trees and shrubs on their farms.

16

The output objectives for the MTG:

• Individuals having the confidence to establish and manage vegetation on their own land for the reasons that they believe are important.

• The MTG activities engage with landholders, industry and government (directly or indirectly) and enhance farmers’ and other stakeholders’ understanding and capacity to design, establish, manage and support the use of vegetation on farms for a range of reasons.

• The program encourages the development of information and support networks regarding vegetation design, establishment, management and the marketing of related products and services.

The underlying assumption is the same as that proposed by a team of leading rural extension researchers (Pannell et al., 2006:1408): that farmers will adopt and maintain agroforestry and farm forestry practices if there is an expectation, on their part, that it will allow them to better achieve their goals.

Methodology The research was conducted over two distinct realms. The first was data obtained from interviews with key stakeholders in the programs, and the results from pre and post course surveys. The second was via a comprehensive telephone survey of past participants conducted over a 6 month period from September 2008 through February 2009. Statistical data presented in this paper is garnered exclusively from the telephone survey. Use of post course surveys is confined to participant comments as the results have been presented in previous published reports (Reid, 2008a).

The use of telephone surveys was decided on as the most efficient and cost effective means in obtaining data from the geographically dispersed sample of past participants. A formal surveying technique using a questionnaire that acquires substantial qualitative data provides a more complete picture of attitudes. This type of formal surveying method has several advantages (World Bank, 2004):

• Findings from the sample may be applied across the wider the target group or population

• It may be used to provide baseline data against which the performance of the program can be measured and compared

• The ability to compare different targets across time

• Comparing changes over time in the same groups

• The capacity to provide a key input to a formal evaluation of the impact of a program

A functional advantage of telephone interviewing is the ability to ‘probe’ respondents for further elucidation of answers. This allows for greater flexibility of data collection, more complete responses, and clarification of question meaning (Malhotra, 1993). A purpose built CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) system using MS Access was designed for data entry purposes. The use of a computer based telephone service (SKYPE) was employed for all calls, which turned out to be very cost effective.

17

Telephone questionnaire design

Telephone Survey questions were developed in close consultation with Rowan Reid to ensure they were measuring appropriate and necessary information. The following is a list of primary issues that were identified as necessary to understand in order to address the Research Problem:

• MTG Delivery experience

• Participant experiences during and after the program

• Land use and vegetation practices

• Landscape and personal farming history

• Economic attitudes to farm forestry

• Farm productivity and farm forestry

• Rate of vegetation change since completing the program

• On farm labour demands for farm forestry

• Financial support for farm forestry

• Obstacles to farm forestry

• Networking and social capital

• Changes which are perceived to affect farm forestry practices

A total of twenty (20) questions were selected (see APPENDIX 3 for the complete list of questions). The questionnaire (Appendix 3) consisted of:

• Three scaled question using a 5-point Likert scale (Q.1-Q.3)

• One multiple choice (with 3options) (Q.4)

• Two value question (Q.6, Q.7)) with additional comments noted

• Four Yes/No questions with additional comments noted (Q.15-Q.18), and,

• Ten open ended questions (Q.5, Q.8, Q.8a, Q.9, Q.10, Q.11, Q.12, Q.13, Q.14, Q.19)

Ethics approval was obtained through the University of Melbourne’s ethics procedures. Ethics approval # HREC 0826693.

Telephone interviews

The Sample consisted of the MTG past participant data base. This database consisted of 993 people with telephone numbers. Interviews were conducted with participants who had completed the course between the years 1997 and 2006. However, due to gaps in the database record the weighting falls between August 1997 and August 2003 (46 out of 48 Regions surveyed).

Interviews were obtained by phoning the sample members and after a brief introduction, stating the purpose of the call, permission was sought to proceed with the interview. If the respondent granted permission to proceed the plain language statement was read out and consent via verbal agreement was noted in accordance with ethics procedures.

18

A total of 250 interviews were obtained. These 250 interviews represent approximately 16% of all MTG past participants and 48 MTGs. 2516 calls were placed to achieve this total. Responses reflect the geographic spread of past MTGs. There was however a greater response from Western Australia as a percentage of past participants. This was as a result of the sample having less available telephone numbers for other States. Table 2.1 lists the respondents by State.

Table 3.1 Survey respondents by State

State Responses Percentage of return sample

Tas 1 <1% NT 3 1% SA 6 2%

Anonymous 20 8% Qld 29 12% Vic 54 22% WA 68 27%

NSW 69 28%

Data analysis

The vast majority of data obtained in the telephone survey was through open-ended questions and are of a qualitative nature. Data coding and re-categorizing of open-ended data is often an imprecise task. We inevitably bump up against the problem of square pegs in round holes.

Each answer must be read and searched for thematic content, then re-read and categorised under these themes. Given the option to speak freely, respondents will shift from topic to topic, often not addressing the question but offering opinions and ideas that are most incisive, and useful to another subject area. Due to this, extensive cross question analysis is required to wring out the value in the answers over the entire survey. The methodological problems this creates are umpteen.

An example of the methodological problems with categorization

Many participants had a negative, a positive and an uncertain comment all in the one answer. As this was the case, attention was paid in allocating a valued response appropriate to the answer, which at times meant accounting under each category. By example, we can see this in the following quotations:

It’s negative at the moment. But the expectation is we will make a profit either when we harvest or when we sell. It improves the capital value —-better than bare paddocks. It’s like a park land and I think we would get a higher outcome because of the look of the property. (Anonymous Participant)

It comes at a cost. Whether you get that cost back is something hard to know. Just recently farm values have dropped about 25% -now is not the time to be cashing in on it. It goes a long way to justifying it when I put all the positives together. Capital value, it increases it. The farm is going to be more appealing. It’s not going to be bought by someone who is solely income reliant. (Wagga Participant)

Here, allocation was made for both the negative, uncertain and positive values attributed by these landholders. Multiple and conflicting ideas to the same question must be described.

Key-words were assigned to the issues raised. These key words may then be sorted by closed-ended criterion variables. Once coded the use of the query function in the Microsoft Access database enables one to make refined searches, counts and cross tabulations. Frequency tables were constructed using the categorised data. Irrespective of the methodological inconsistencies inherent in this task the utility afforded by it makes it worthwhile.

19

Note: there is no data in this Chapter on Question 11 of the survey (Can you describe the history of your farm?).

The MTG participants

Respondent demographics

Twenty-eight percent of the MTG participants surveyed were female (Figure 3.1). Most are land holders with mostly off-farm income (52%) (Figure 3.2). Landholders with mostly on farm income represent 32% of responses and those with no significant farm or forest landholding represent 11%. Participants who stated they had ‘No significant farm or forest landholding’ completed an expurgated version of the survey (see Appendix 3). Naturally, issues of land management, grants, labour, land history and so on are not relevant to these participants. However, issues on their experience in doing the Program, opinions on tree and vegetation management, and any other involvement they have with tree and vegetation management were elicited.

Figure 3.1 Participant gender

Figure 3.2 Participant landholding/income type

20

Experience with trees and vegetation

MTG participants have a great deal of experience in tree and vegetation management. The mean period over which participants had been actively involved in tree growing or vegetation projects is 18.8 years (Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3 How long have you been actively participating in tree growing or vegetation projects?

Participant farming activities

Farming practices amongst participants is diverse. This diversity nourishes the input that participants bring to each program. Participant’s diverse farming and life experiences have long be seen as an essential ingredient in the success of the MTG.

Participants were asked to describe the type of farming they were involved in, and, how their tree growing projects integrate with this farming activity (Q.5 See Appendix 3). Answers were categorised under 16 different farming activities (see Figure 3.4).

Two activities (plantations and remnant vegetation) were given separate categories in order to delineate them from primary production, and thus, the total number of answers exceeds the total record size.

21

Figure 3.4 Type of farming undertaken by participants

MTG participant tree and vegetation activity

In evaluating the MTG’s capacity to deliver objectives to both funding bodies we should anticipate that participants are actively engaged in planting and managing vegetation for a mixture of income, biodiversity, landcare, native vegetation management and farming productivity. An analysis of the data shows this to be the case.

Participant plantings

Figure 3.5 displays the variance in participant planting and management activities at a gross level. Three activity types are registered: vegetation; plantation; and shelter. ‘Vegetation’ encompasses biodiversity, conservation, landcare, riparian, and bush blocks, which are seen as distinct from plantation, and other vegetation associated with farm productivity. Shelter covers all elements of vegetation that directly affect or relate to farm productivity. What stands out in this data is that the majority of people (88%) plant and manage for reasons associated with biodiversity, landcare and conservation. However, just as importantly, participants plant for both farm productivity reasons and income in about equal measure (Plantation 55%, Shelter 59%). A small percentage (3%) (n=7) have plantation only with no other farming activity.

22

Figure 3.5 Type of tree and vegetation activity

Changes in land planted

The issue of how much land has been planted by MTG participants has long been a question asked. Participants were asked to estimate the percentage of their land-holdings, under trees or forest, both prior to participating in the MTG and presently (see Appendix 3 Q.7). In this way we were able to get representative data on land planted by participants.

This information does not take into consideration the considerable variability in land holding, and the land management practices on each participant’s land. When cross analysed against the type of tree and vegetation practices being employed we have been able to get a more complete picture of participant plantings. At a methodological level, asking participants what percentage of their land they had planted rather than how much land they had planted side steps potentially sensitive issues of privacy.

MTG participants have planted land

Master Tree Growers report a substantial change in the percentage of their land under tree and vegetation management after completing the MTG (see Figure 3.6). Participants with mostly on-farm income had a greater percentage increase in land planted but only marginally (56%). Those who have mostly off-farm income report a 53% increase.

Participants with mostly on-farm income historically have come from areas where broad acre farming is more prevalent. It is therefore more likely that participants with mostly on-farm income have planted a greater area of land.

23

Figure 3.6 Change in planting by landholder type

Change in area planted (not plantation)

Forty four percent (44%) (n=99) of participants who report no association with plantations show a 36% increase in land planted (see Figure 3.7). This figure provides evidence that a substantial proportion of MTG participants plant vegetation for a range of on farm and societal reasons that are distinctly not related to profit making ventures from plantations.

Figure 3.7 Change in planting (not plantation)

24

Purpose in establishing and managing trees and native vegetation

Understanding the purposes in landholder planting and managing activities is useful on several fronts. It provides primary evidence that may be used for NRM management and policy decisions, it is an indication of the effectiveness of the MTG in meeting its development objectives, and it highlights the complexity of landholder decision making processes.

When asked, ‘What is your purpose in establishing and managing trees or vegetation on your farm?’ participants provided on average almost five (5) different reasons (see Figure 3.8). Although some reasons are tautological and some are sympathetically related, the overwhelming conclusion to take away from this list is that landholders plant and manage trees and vegetation inside a complex matrix of purposes and desired outcomes.

Figure 3.8 What is your purpose in establishing and managing trees or vegetation on farm?

Variability and complexity are the dominant themes. Landholders show an awareness of the benefits of multi-purpose vegetation management and design. False dichotomies of profit versus conservation are not apparent in these results. It bears witness to the idea that landholders are fully aware of how their micro management decision making processes are affected by, and in turn, affect eco-system structures. Evidence from the MTG, both in the current study and results from the previous ten years, suggests that most landholders consider the growing of trees within a matrix of benefits and goals. Some adhere to the notion of forestry in its pure sense, but even then, they are more likely to list a range of reasons for planting trees.

Economic factors such as income, capital value of the farm, and investment are not the primary driver for about half of all participants. Some of the harder to quantify reasons such as aesthetics, future of the environment, and lifestyle score on par or higher than economic reasons. However, planting trees for the shelter of crops and livestock could logically be viewed as an economic decision—as the

25

intended result of planting is to improve the primary production processes of the farm. With careful management of these trees a range of benefits is achievable. Furthermore, any decision to invest in trees for the betterment of the farm - be it shelter, soil erosion, or water quality has flow on effects at a regional level. A neighbour may equally benefit from the shelter provided by wind breaks if the positioning is appropriate, and farmers downstream may have improved water quality due to filtering further up the catchment.

Participants reported in equal measure the importance of shelter, income and biodiversity (n=133). Issues closely related such as, conservation (125), and landcare (110) also scored highly. It is a useful exercise to re-categorise participant responses for this question (see Figure 3.9). Table 2.2 lists the categories and the specific subject areas that form these categories. Subject areas are listed in Figure 3.8, from 1 to 25.

Table 3.2 What is your purpose in establishing and managing trees or vegetation on your farm? (Re-categorised)

Category Responses Subject area

Social, aesthetic, family

110 4,10,20

Agricultural values 169 1,6,711,25

Land and water degradation

234 13,15,17,18,21

Wildlife conservation value

269 2,5,22,23

Tree products income and personal use

329 3,8,9,12,14,16,19,24

Figure 3.9 What is your purpose in establishing and managing trees or vegetation on your farm? (Re-categorised)

26

Trees as infrastructure

For many MTG participants tree and vegetation establishment and management form part of farm infrastructure. It effects farm productivity in perceived and measured ways, much as a dam, a fence or a dog does. This assertion is supported by the data and analyses of the economic effect that farm forestry plays on farms. The inclusion of farm forestry as a definitive aspect of farming infrastructure creates enormous opportunities, and naturally opportunity costs. Let us look at what a few landholders say about the matter:

To start with it’s the same as any investment or capital improvement it sets you back. How do I quantify the benefit? When it’s cold you see the cattle behind the stands. Some of the earlier plantings I am able to graze in them. I think overall I think it increases carrying capacity. (Kyneton participant)

But we grow more sheep, because of the windbreaks. When they had no shelter—they had to eat more, and the grass doesn’t grow much quicker. We have 15 km of windbreaks. (Wagga participant)

Its improved it [economics]. Shelter for animals and the pastures grow better. Capital value—its improved the aesthetics of the land—I reckon that makes a difference. I leased the land out, and a lot of people reckon plantations are in the way, but the bloke is happy that he can shear at anytime as they have shelter. (Ballarat participant)

When respondents talk of shelter they do so within the framework of the farming enterprise. They acknowledge its financial and biodiversity benefits. To this end, many participants have a clear idea that the two are mutually beneficial. For example:

Biodiversity is giving short term profit. We have segregated areas where we are growing trees for habitat. But our whole farm is a habitat. The tree areas also have understory species, which have bird species. Those birds have an impact on our ability to grow pasture. They determine our ability to grow different pastures. Competition amongst the species doesn’t matter—the birds-whatever causes it—we are very confident these areas that all habitat helps our pasture productivity. We have done some measures and we think we have doubled our productivity. The more land we take out of our direct agriculture use we get a quantum leap in productivity on the remaining land. (Hunter participant)

The trees mainly provide shelter and so this has been a tremendous boost for stock protection on windy days. You see the sheep sheltering. We have noticed the shelterbelts—further out where we have got paddocks there is a much greater yield where we have shelter.” (Wimmera participant)

Economic impacts of forests on farms Participants were asked to evaluate how their purposes in establishing and managing trees and vegetation affected farm economics (Q.8a. See Appendix 3). Results from this question are shown in Figure 3.10.

Economic outcomes

There are three outstanding results to highlight from this data. The first, is the number of participants (40%) (n=89) who place a premium on the economic interplay between farm forestry and primary production. These figures support the position stated above that farm forestry forms part of farming infrastructure. The second, is the 32% (n=71) of participants who consider that their vegetation practices are having a positive impact on the land’s capital value. The third, is the high percentage (20%) of participants who report ‘No Effect’(n=45) and the 13% (n=29) who ‘Can’t quantify the effect’. It seems extraordinary that landholders believe that vegetation on their land has no economic

27

effect. Minimally it has opportunity cost, and capital inputs. Even a bush block with no management activities has Council rates to pay.

Figure 3.10 Economic effect of trees/vegetation on farm

Overwhelmingly the view from these results is that of uncertainty. Participants who have a negative or uncertain impression of the income generating capacity of farm forestry often have a positive view of its capacity to add to the farm’s capital value or its positive impact on farming productivity. Delving into what participants actually say about these matters provides a more thorough picture of how these issues manifest, and the uncertainty surrounding farm forestry economics. The following quotes highlight the range of outcomes being experienced on the economic front:

a) POSITIVE

We believe the value of the property is increased because of the mosaic nature of the landscape. Its scenic attractive. We gain shelter for stock. We value the timber for both commercial potential and its conservation values. More sustainable use of the landscape. (Gippsland participant)

Positively in many areas. At the moment I put inputs in and they are deductible. Also its growing and putting down capital. I am very aware of the capital value of the farm. I have planted thousands of hectares out as part of our landcare group and a lot of people are aware of the capital value. I know that landholders make a big point in trying to make a big input into the land values of the property. Also there is a problem in seeing it that way and that is fires—and I may lose my capital. (Adelaide Hills participant)

We haven’t lost anything in income through putting in trees. We think we have slightly increased our income because of the shelter. Capital Value- I don’t know. I would hope so. It depends on what people want the land for. If they wanted it for mixed farming it would be an advantage. (Wimmera participant)

We haven’t lost anything in income through putting in trees. We think we have slightly increased our income because of the shelter. Capital Value— I don’t know. I would hope so. It depends on what people want the land for. If they wanted it for mixed farming it would be an advantage. (Wimmera participant)

Most of our income doesn’t come from the farm. That doesn’t mean what we have done hasn’t increased the value. It’s now more valuable that what it was. They could be used for hardwood or firewood. This will continue even if there is a drought. (Seymour participant)

28

When we planted our trees we weren't worried about whether we were going to get an income it was more about making a better property. We won some AFG. When we sold the property—the trees on it sold the property. We had 1200 cricket bat willows they were valued at $300,000. (Gippsland participant)

b) NEGATIVE, UNCERTAIN or NEUTRAL (with some positives)

It’s negative at the moment. But the expectation is we will make a profit either when we harvest or when we sell. It improves the capital value —-better than bare paddocks. It’s like a park land and I think we would get a higher outcome because of the look of the property. (Anonymous participant)

It doesn’t have any economics. I am an investor. It has the potential to have an outcome in the future. The economy changes quickly—it may or may not have value 10-15 years in the future. Capital value-positive effect. (Kyneton participant)

It’s just a forest. Forest economics is very lumpy. You have annual cost. Capital value-in my circumstance it has to have a positive effect. But that goes against the trend. Most of the MTG participants will have off farm income and they won’t have any marketing and harvesting experience. (Adelaide Hills participant)

I'd say short term its probably balancing—long term I hope it will make the place more profitable. It’s not going backwards. I can see an increase in biodiversity. But who puts a value on that? (Busselton participant)

In the short term it is probably devastating economically-it’s soaks up a lot of time and money. Although I expect it to improve. In terms of the long term viability I am sure it will be an asset. With the commercial trees I am not sure, we have put in a small number—only 500 seedlings, and probably end up with 150 so it’s hardly superannuation it’s probably more use to my kids. On a long enough time frame I think the wildlife stuff will have an economic benefit. Our corridors link National Park and Forest Conservation area. (Bridgetown participant)

Makes me poorer. Capital value - I think it will eventually, I think the general aesthetics. It will come around that people will recognize it. (Wimmera participant)

Didn’t make a lot of difference because before we started planting we had to get rid of rabbits and by the time we got rid of them we were able to run just as many sheep on this ground. Capital value, I would say it would increase. (Wimmera participant)

It ties up areas where we would be raising sheep. We were keen to see trees grown on cleared land rather than taking trees out of the native forest. Tying up carbon. Capital value, it benefits it. I think if we were to sell the trees would add value. (N.E. Vic participant)

At the moment it’s hard to quantify, because there are no numbers—you can’t quantify stock NOT lost. We get some grazing in them. Capital value, positive perhaps. They are due to be harvested in a few years so there is guaranteed income and cost. (Geelong participant)

It doesn’t affect it really we just let them grow. Capital value, positive effect. The land has been rehabilitated, the land value is increasing and the potential for someone to buy it is increasing. (Ipswich participant)

At this point it hasn’t had any measurable effects. Capital value, you have an established plantation with the possibility of income down the track, and the aesthetic value. (Wagga Wagga participant)

Funding vegetation work for MTG participants

MTG participants report they have received grants, subsidies and joint ventures from numerous bodies for an assortment of projects that cover many different capital inputs.

29

Funding, in one form or another, has been received by 60% (n=149) of participants (see Figure 3.11). Thirty percent (30%, n=76) said they had never received funding and often have strong opinions on the self determination of their own land. The remaining 10% of participants fall under the bracket of ‘No Landholding’.

Figure 3.11: With respect to the establishment and management of trees have you received any financial support?

Numerous funding bodies have delivered financial support to MTG participants. Figure 3.12 below, separates Joint Venture arrangements from other funding (such as Grants and Subsidies), and thus, has its own category. Joint ventures have been taken up by 10% (n=18) of participants through 13 separate funding institutions, both government and private. The National Landcare Program has been the provider to 26% (n=49) of landholders in the survey. Undisclosed bodies make up a further 24.3% (n=45). Respondents were not pressed to nominate the funding body, which resulted in this block of Undisclosed bodies.

Projects supported by this funding fall amongst the expected areas of: vegetation (33%) (which includes plantings for biodiversity, landcare, conservation and bush blocks); plantations (28%); and shelterbelts (19%) (Figure 3.13).

Amongst these projects the type of on-the-ground works that were funded include: fencing (26%), provision of trees/seedlings (24%), and assistance with establishment (15%). Extension services registers a rather meek one percent (1%) (Figure 3.14).

.

Figure 3.12 Financial support -Funding Body

30

Figure 3.13 Financial support - Type of project supported

Evidence presented above shows that 60% of landholders have taken up some form of funding, which is an indicator that participants are generally engaged in funding opportunities and the research that comes with accessing such funding. Each MTG has one or more partner organizations and it is from these bodies that information about service incentives emanate from.

In the document sent to each partner organisation and regional coordinator prior to the commencement of each program ‘How to Run an Australian MTG’ (Reid, undated), it is stated that one purpose for DAY 1 is to “identify potential co-investors”. On DAY 2 time is allocated for presentations from agencies. On DAY 8 time is apportioned for “engaging participants (with regional catchment planners and other stakeholders) in a review of the research and development needs for agroforestry in the region.” Development and presentation of this material is the responsibility of the local regions. Having partner organizations such as farm forestry networks and catchment authorities provide a platform for the dissemination of such information.

Figure 3.14 Financial support - Type of work supported

31

MTG experiences

Obstacles to farm forestry

Gaining a vantage point to assess the obstacles for participants in their tree growing and vegetation projects was considered necessary for Program development, evaluation of participatory extension methodologies, and broader research and policy implications.

Participants report an extensive list of obstacles (Figure 3.15). National and regional issues were identified alongside environmental and social obstructions. Drought and Water (24.4%), closely followed by Time (23.6%) and Money and Finance (22.8%) have been the major obstacles highlighted by participants. From an evaluation perspective these results have no bearing on the MTG’s effectiveness or relevance. Indeed, some of these obstacles [Neighbours complaints (1.2%), Lack of Land (2.4%), Health and age (4%), Labour (8.4%)] are social problems which are ontologically defined from person to person. They are issues that are beyond the reach of extension or policy. Similarly, issues such as Land Price (1.6%), Fires (2%), Landscape and soils 2.8%, Other weather (6.4%), are beyond the control of any individual and only marginally steerable inside the rubric of institutions. Economic and environmental externalities have a large influence on these factors.

Therefore we must focus on only those obstacles where policy, education and communication can make a difference. Twenty participants (8%) see NO obstacles to their vegetation activities. This leaves 10 obstacles that institutions and education can have a bearing on (Table 3.3). Now, as we can see from this list, these obstacles were only considered to be a hindrance by a relatively small percentage of participants. Much of the MTG addresses these concerns at one level or another-but perhaps could be looked at afresh in light of these results.

Figure 3.15 What are the main obstacles for you in your tree growing and vegetation projects?

32

Table 3.3 Obstacles on which education and institutions may have a bearing

Obstacle % of participants

Markets/Economics (35) 14.0%

Predation-animals/insects (28) 11.2%

Government hindrance/lacking (25) 10.0%

Weeds (16) 6.4%

Competition with farming (14) 5.6%

Fencing (13) 5.2%

Lack of information/knowledge (9) 3.6%

Wrong species planted (8) 3.2%

Dieback (3) 1.2%

Regrowth (1) 0.4%

Competition with the farming enterprise is complicated as it introduces issues of knowledge, skill and capital demands on each individual, some of which may be able to be addressed through education and policy and others that cannot. The two highly intractable obstacles, markets and government are beyond the horizon of the MTG as it is presently instantiated.

This leaves us with seven issues (predation, weeds, fencing, lack of information, wrong species, dieback and regrowth) which may be addressed through education and extension programs. One might even question the meaning of the obstacle, ‘Lack of Information and knowledge’. Is this an issue of an individual’s incapacity to research or a genuine obstacle founded in the lack of research and development on the subject under inquiry? Most likely it is a little of each. Decision making models for the landholder in the Master TreeGrower Program are mostly constrained to the bio-physics of trees. For example, tree measurement, carbon, varying silvicultural regimes, establishment, direct seeding, planting, and weed control. However, information about the wider aspects of farm forestry is provided with a view that the landholder may choose to incorporate multi-purpose forestry in the manner they see fit. Areas such as marketing, harvesting cycles, catchment issues, species choice, arrangement and placement of tree stands, and benefit analysis are all discussed with the view that the farmer is the instrument of decision and action. Natural variation in landholder knowledge and practices is assumed and encouraged.

These obstacles have broader implications for policy, funding, research and development, education, and other forms of extension.

Changes in region or catchment that affect forestry activity

Regional and catchment changes have impacts on the functional and self-organising characteristics of landholders’ farm forestry activities. Participants show an acute awareness to these changes. This is hardly surprising, as local geographic, social and political events occur within the frame of reference of one’s immediate living and thinking domain.

Analysis of the data for this question faced the same categorisation problems to those outlined in the methodology (see above). Participants identified changes that impart positive and negative outcomes on their enterprise (Figure 3.16). The stand out figure in these results is that 34% of participants see ‘No Changes’ in their region that affect tree growing and vegetation management activities. What this says or does not say about perceptions toward shifts in one’s region is open to debate. However, mostly we are left with a big hole.

33

Figure 3.16 Have there been any changes in your region/catchment that affect tree growing or vegetation activities?

Community and social issues, governance, environment, and local land use changes are themes which form the bulk of these acknowledged changes. Policy makers will be pleased to see the rather small returns for issues surrounding Government Policy and Funding. However this graph does not adequately represent these issues. As most of the questions were open ended people tended to provide answers that swept across the scope of issues. For example, they might make a comment about Government Policy or Funding to the question, ‘what is your purpose for planting trees’. In fact 28% of participants made negative comments about Policy and 7% made negative comments about Government funding. Issues raised include: insecurity with harvesting rights; lack of government direction in farm forestry; restrictions on management; lack of R&D; dismantling of extension services through successive government changes; and, a host of other concerns. The following quotations represent a cross section of concerns raised by participants in this area:

If I was to say what would be the most significant things to develop them it would be government policy to develop the market, so the signals coming through to growers would be stronger.(WA participant)

There are too many government restrictions and problems in setting up harvesting. I am not talking about milling. Harvesting and selling the product for fair price--big business has taken over completely.(Busselton participant)

There are a lot of restrictions. There is a lot of funding out there but it goes to groups or committees that are set up to get those funds that check all the boxes from a checks and balances view. If for example the project were to involve any type of farm forestry you wouldn’t get a cent for because the WA farm forestry has already got them all. If you are in the South coast forget funding. (Denmark participant)

Challenges are to get government commitment to funding for R &D for commercializing local species. Also the chopping and changing of policy. We have policy confusion. We need long

34

term continuity of programs. I am concerned about the regional model as it doesn’t give farm forestry due weight.(Bridgetown participant)

Lack of government assistance. Not for plantations, but for aesthetic value, fencing off creeks. There is not enough help offered. If the government were to do anything about farmers to grow trees they need more incentive. They aren't getting enough help. If farmers are prepared to put their time in --but assistance for fencing off creek lines. People don’t own 5m out from the creek. We've had to pay for a creek frontage for 100 years on our property that was owned by the government.(Gippsland participant)

I have received about $90,000 in grants and one of the problems with grants is that they are taxable and that gives you the permission to apply to the commission to apply for you all your losses as deductions in the year that you pay them. For someone who isn't a farmer that isn't easy to get. It all hinges on running a business. If you don’t earn over $20,000 as a business then you can’t claim your loses. This was designed to get rid of the hobby farmer. You have all the expense in the first years, and you don’t get to claim that as a deduction in the first years, because you aren't making anything. (Bacchus Marsh participant)

The lack of local government, where the management is there is very little knowledge. It’s a huge barrier to anyone doing it legally. There is very little extension knowledge any longer. In terms of getting more vegetation into farms and linking up remnants across landscapes there isn't the initiative or impetus there. (Ballarat Participant)

A lot of people are frightened they won’t be able to harvest them. The greenies say you can’t touch them. We have lost a lot sugar cane land to managed plantations.(Mackay participant)

Been able to clean up the site, I have got a lot of trees with disease and way back they used to log timber and what they did is they took out all the nice timber they needed at that time. Then 50 years later they took out the trees they needed and left all the diseased trees. Over a period of a 100 years these trees have thrown out seed that isn't good. You see trees everywhere-but 90% are no good. There are no good seed trees. All the trees that are regrowth are grown with disease. The trees that I've got that have disease--every 5th or 6th have it. You can’t log it, the mills don’t want it. It’s not doing anything. If I was allowed to knock out the ones that are diseased and plant others from good root stock I would have a useful forest. But the laws don’t allow to cut down trees. (Nambucca participant)

We put up with this nonsense where if a tree goes over 3m you can’t touch it-so you can’t apply the correct selective pressure. I can't manage it in a way so I can establish millable logs over big areas--allow the self management -but be able to come through and thin them --I have to come in way too early and take out a heap of trees--because of the rules. Lake Macquarie Council is a disgrace in terms of the lack of holistic thinking.(Hunter participant)

NSW government attitude on natives. They won’t recognize exotics do the same things and probably better. They are missing the boat completely, if it’s not native it’s not nice. (Goulburn participant)

The Council. They don’t really understand farm forestry or revegetation works. They can pay lip service to it. They might say it’s a terrible fire risk. We have people call our trees bird perches, from people who grow fruit. They claim it’s a place where birds can perch and cause a problem with crops. They have concerns about fire. We have onsite visits from council to see what measures we have made about fire. We have had visits from the CFA as well. But the council often leads with the kicking foot. Even though the property is approved for this purpose, but what it comes down to is an education thing. We had the council screaming at us about having pine trees, and they wanted to know what our land use approval was and we said softwood and the council inspector thought we had broken the permit, they just didn’t know.(Anonymous)

The local shire is formulating a new policy where they are going to raise taxes. If a tree farmer harvests once every 13 years because it might damage the road. But the farmer who moves cattle around all the time doesn’t have the same taxes on them. They just look at the money

35

you are getting in go. They aren't looking at the benefits you get from the trees. And all they want to do is raise fees.(Esperance participant)

They have reduced our DPI people. We just won’t see any more work that they will do. We are in the north central region of Victoria and the funding is not there. We were a targeted area for salinity now it’s just gone by the wayside. There is no government priorities at all. It has taken 10 years of momentum to get where we are---and there is no one there to help now.(Wimmera participant)

Affiliation with Landcare or tree growing networks

Membership in a Landcare group or tree growing network was acknowledged by 58% of participants. Statistics on Australia wide membership in Landcare are surprisingly hard to find. Landcare’s website and Annual Report do not document these. One figure, found from a Neilson Poll in the late 90’s suggests somewhere between 10 and 30%. If this is the case, MTG participants have on average a higher membership association with such organizations (58%) (Figure 3.17).

36

Figure 3.17 Are you involved in a landcare group or tree growing network?

The MTG has spawned the development of several Farm Forestry Networks (Otway Agroforestry Network (VIC), Hunter Farm Forestry Network (NSW), and Mid-North Coast Farm Forestry Network (NSW)), AFG groups (Ballarat AFG and Capricorn AFG) and Peer Group Mentoring Programs (Otway Agroforestry Network (VIC), Trees South West (WA), Sandalwood Network (WA). Creation of the MNCFF came about as a direct result from the first Nambucca MTG. Participants were so enthused and motivated by their experiences in the MTG that they set up an informal network then later formalised it. Dawn Thornton, program coordinator for the MNCFF, noted,

The network would not have existed without that first course. The bulk of our members have done MTG courses.

The utility of the MTG is held in high esteem by members of the MNCFF and local landcare groups. Alex Statzenko, who has coordinated four MTGs, put it this way:

The MTG course is definitely the most popular course and the most highly regarded farm forestry or NRM course of the various groups that organize them up here. In terms of how it influences the people in the network, it would definitely be their main source of knowledge and information, it is quite often their source of thinking about farm forestry... In my experience it is highly regarded by the people that do the course.

What participants say about the MTG Tests to measure participants overall impressions of the MTG, how they rate the experience of being involved in the course, and whether they are communicating this information into their community were conducted. Eight questions were employed to garner these details. Three scaled questions, three yes/no questions with comments noted, and two open ended.

The three scaled questions utilize presumptive statements to which participants were asked to provide their degree of agreement using a 5-point Likert Scale from ‘Strongly Agree’ to ‘Strongly Disagree’. The statements are as follows:

From my involvement with the MTG I now see greater opportunities for tree growing to contribute to positive landscape change.

From my involvement with the MTG I am now more aware of the risks associated with establishing and managing trees and native vegetation.

From my involvement with the MTG I now have greater confidence to plan and design tree growing projects

37

Respondents reported favourably to each of these questions and only a small percentage (<3%) had disagreement with any question (Figure 3.18, Figure 3.19, Figure 3.20). High levels of agreement such as this show a fundamental success in the programs ability to communicate inform and influence landholder land management practices.

Participants report slightly less agreement to having greater confidence to plan and design tree growing projects. This is an area that may be looked at to either strengthen program design or for the development of follow-up courses to the MTG 8 Day Program. A small number of people (2.8%) mentioned the need and desire for a follow-up to the 8 Day Program.

Figure 3.18 From my involvement with the MTG I now see greater opportunities for tree growing to contribute to positive landscape change

Figure 3.19 From my involvement with the MTG I am now more aware of the risks associated with establishing and managing trees and native vegetation.

38

Figure 3.20 From my involvement with the MTG I now have greater confidence to plan and design tree growing projects.

Having the capacity and confidence to act on learnt skills has been identified as a major output objective of the MTG. Technical data such as, tree measurement, basic tree science, end user log needs, sawmilling practices, planting concepts, and interests specific to any group are all touched upon over the 8 day course. Some groups may have greater consideration on riparian management, others will take more time looking at the science of windbreaks, and so on. There is insufficient time to be able to do anything other than cover the basics of the locally relevant technical domains.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the course delivers a pallet of data in order to make participants aware of the range of issues involved. The MTG is not a substitute for a forest science degree, but it has distilled many of the necessary technical aspects of tree and vegetation management into useful packets. Providing practical knowledge rather than full scientific knowledge is the key. A prescription for outcomes is not assumed in the MTG. Delivering the program in such a way that it allows the participants to garner knowledge, skills and confidence to manage and establish trees or vegetation for the reasons they see as important is fundamental to the delivery methodology. However, there are identifiable NRM themes that the program seeks to highlight and it provides skills for the development of these. These include the roles trees and vegetation establishment and management play in landscape change, income generation, adding capital value to the farm, infrastructural carrying capacity, conservation outcomes and other environmental services.

The eight days are simply not enough time to cover every aspect of tree growing. What it does seek to do is to make participants aware of the issues so that they are armed to deal with the complexity. Furthermore, the geographical spread of programs, the huge variety of species found in the disparate areas, and the heterogeneous nature of farming enterprises makes the delivery of such material time prohibitive.

The social and networking aspects of the MTG are often spoken of by participants as being just as important, or more important than the delivery of technical details. This networking is shown to have been solidified across time with 63% of participants maintaining contact with the other participants they completed the Program with (Figure 3.21). Of those participants who said ‘NO’ to this question 8% made comment that they still see a few people now and then. Another 2% said they had moved away, and 2% said that they participated in a program outside of their district.

39

Figure 3.21 As a group have you stayed in contact since the MTG?

The perceived value of anything can often be measured by the degree to which people are willing to recommend it to others. That 74% of participants have recommended the MTG is testament to its overall impact (Figure 3.22). Of the 93 participants who reported NO to this question 35 provided additional comments (Figure 3.23). Of these, 6% said they had mentioned it, and 11% said they would if someone asked. A further 11% made the comment they “didn’t know the MTG was still operating” which may be looked at in terms of the ongoing communication of the MTG post-Program.

Informing community attitudes and making a positive contribution within one’s region to farm forestry has been a principal of the Program since its inception. With 88% of participants acknowledging they are more likely to talk about tree growing having done the MTG this position is certainly supported (Figure 3.24).

Figure 3.22 Have you recommended the MTG to others?

40

Figure 3.23 Those that had NOT recommended MTG-comment

Figure 3.24 Having done the MTG are you more likely to talk about tree growing to others?

An additional two open ended questions were utilised to pull together participants experiences of the Program. The first asked participants, how they had used the information they had learnt or the experiences they had during the MTG? Approximately 50% stated that the program had provided them better overall knowledge, understanding and confidence about trees (Figure 3.25). Technical information in the program about establishment and management of vegetation was acknowledged as being useful to around a quarter of the participants.

It is interesting to note that 11% of participants found the MTG beneficial for employment or their professional activities. One early criticism of the MTG was to do with the use of the word ‘Master’ in the Program and how the program was undermining ‘solid training’ in the field of forestry (Reid and Stephen 2007). This result inverts the concern, and shows that the program is capable of providing value to participants in their professional NRM management roles.

A final question asking for any other comments regarding their experience in being a participant in the MTG was used to allow them to express any other thoughts that they had not previously covered (Figure 3.26).

Much as the result in the 1999 evaluation, participants enthusiastically commend the delivery, veracity and utility of the program. They speak of it as being a positive, worthwhile and enjoyable experience (65.2%). The vast majority of comments were all highly positive. Overall, people reported having either a positive, educational or informative experience in 86% of these comments.

41

Figure 3.25 How have you used the information you learnt, or the experiences you had during the MTG?

Figure 3.26 Any other comments regarding your experience in being a participant in the MTG

42

Site visits and guest presenters

Site visits and specialist presenters are an integral element in the delivery of the MTG. Site visits include present and past participant properties, businesses such as sawmills, national, state and regional parks and waterways, nurseries, and other properties of regional significance. Presenters are drawn both from within the region of the Program and from other parts of Australia depending on the expertise required.

The value in site visits cannot be underestimated. They solidify the knowledge learnt in the classroom environment, encourage dialogue and understanding of the practical elements of tree and vegetation management, and are a source of group bonding for the participants. Feedback about site visits is very positive. Comments regarding site visits show the importance participants place on them:

Very useful for understanding the practical aspects. (Hunter participant)

Perfect-fitted the course content like a glove. Hear the theory then immediately see it put into practice. Site visits and field trips gave an extra invaluable dimension to the lectures. (Hunter Participant)

Trips were reinforcing what we learnt and so we could put into practice some measuring type activities and so we were able to get hand on advice and discuss problems privately with the experts. (Moree participant)

The trips to the plantations and mills helped to reinforce classroom discussion and clarify other matters. (Dorrigo participant)

Guest presenters cover a broad range of issues to meet the needs of individual programs. Presentations usually include written material and involve substantial discussion. Presenters are either paid or provide their services free when the presenters believe the program works hand in hand with their own or organisations’ interests.

Having guest presenters is both informative and adds a practical element to the program. Annabel Kater, coordinator for the Hunter Program explains it this way:

It’s a long time, 8 weeks, having one teacher. It helps to have the outside influence come in and give them some inspiration. Technical stuff can be delivered by locals.

The choice of presenters is left to the coordinator although Rowan Reid is always willing to help out with his own contacts should they be required. For example, during the Moree Program (08), Neville Bonney, who has had 40 years experience with native seed collection and propagation, was flown from South Australia at the expense of the MTG and was paid $500 from the Border-Rivers Gwyder CMA. Annabel Kater believes paying presenters is worthwhile, saying, “I think that is the crux — to pay presenters.”

Presenters skills, knowledge and passion are held in high regard. Some comments about presenters include:

Their enthusiasm was infectious. The passion they bring is a positive feeling. Presentations succinct, informative, presented in easily understood form. (Hunter participant)

Absolutely fantastic! It was both very educational-learned stacks of new things-and also 'hands on'. I liked the practical and theoretical components of the course. (Hunter participant)

All excellent, highly knowledgeable and I know that their subject depth is ongoing, for further inquiry, feedback or help. (Moree participant)

Very qualified, passionate and informative in their fields of expertise. Delivered in expert manner. (Moree participant)

43

Obtaining participants

The selection process for MTG participants has changed over the years. Originally, the Program targeted farmers who had already made a commitment to farm forestry. Those that could make a positive contribution and influence farm forestry development in their region. This was never stiffly imposed, but rather, the local coordinator was left to decide on the appropriateness of any given participant. Nonetheless, the self-selective nature of MTG participation has always been apparent.

These days the selection process is less constrictive. Potential participants now need to show an interest in farm forestry which may be evident by their desire to participate in the MTG.

The methods to obtain enrolment in the MTG differ for each course. Newspaper advertisements and editorials, and, information from regional groups are used extensively. Invitation from the Coordinator or regional extension officers aligned with the regional group involved in the delivery of the program is also utilized. Some farm forestry networks such as OAN, MNCFF and HFFN have people on their waiting lists for future courses.

Some proportion of the positive results that participants report about their MTG experience must come down to the self-selective nature of enrolment. Hypothetically we can pose the question, are people with an established interest in conservation, landcare, stewardship and farm forestry more likely to participate in the course? It would seem logical for this to be the case.

Having cells of likeminded people capable of developing social capital has important flow on effects at a community level. Small scale actions are critical for the emergence of innovation and social learning (Arroyo and Preston, 2007). The ongoing task for the MTG is to both foster this important existing group and expand its reach into rural communities. Pierre Louis (Hunter Program) agrees, suggesting:

I’d like that the MTG gets a little bit more taken by a number of land owners, I am not sure how to go about that. All the CMA's should be strongly lobbied to take on that initiative. Not just my CMA but others have understood the full potential behind the MTG. There is an education value that is missing at the landowner level.

Timing the running of a MTG course is dependent on the local farming cycles, weather, and other social constraints, such as school holiday periods or festive seasons. For instance Leah McKinnon (Moree Program) said,

I don't think I could have got them into it if I said that it was longer. Cropping scheduled and rain affected numbers.

A number of MTGs were stalled during 2007 due to the drought. Conducting MTGs in Tasmania in winter is not conducive to comfort or access, nor is conducting them in the wet season in the north.

The 8-Day course

Having an eight day course has many advantages for developing cohesion amongst the group. This cohesive development is considered to be elemental to the success of the course by the national program managers, the partner coordinators, and the participants themselves. Sharing of knowledge, visiting properties in the region, having a forum to discuss issues of interest, and simple friendship and likeminded camaraderie may be the single biggest factor in explaining the positive responses that the MTG is able to achieve. The eight days provides sufficient time for this group cohesion to develop. Annabel Kater (Hunter Coordinator) described it as follows,

That’s about the 5th course I have run and it’s quite incredible the turnaround at week 4 or 5…I have seen that as a formula for adult education it works. I don’t know what it is about it, it clicks with people. You get people saying at week 4 --my eyes are open. It seems to be the interaction of the group and the technical stuff. They are all passionate people anyway. It seems to be a great formula…I think a lot of it is the peer group issue as well. A lot of them

44

aren’t natural farmers they may be city people who have come to this, and they have done a lot of thinking and this lets them come to each other’s properties and see what others do. There is that peer group.

Alex Statzenko (Dorrigo Coordinator) holds a likeminded view on this issue,

The two courses I have been fully involved with they do get that sense that we are in a group and in this together. That is one of the most positive things that comes out of the course. If you get a group of people that are going to support each other and the concepts I think that increases the prospects of success. If you have a group that you belong to then its a huge benefit.

Pierre Louis (Hunter Program) also has seen the criticality of developing the group dynamic, he says,

I think the structure is very sound but it depends very much on the participants. If the participants are completely involved then it helps, the content is not sufficient.

Peer group input, site visits to participant properties to see what others in the district are doing, the social aspect of the course, and a sense of an inclusive purpose all work to build up a strong group sense.

Costs

Indicative costs to run a MTG are laid out in the national MTG document, ‘Guidelines for the development and delivery of regional Australian Master TreeGrower courses’. Accordingly, it is suggested that the partner organization should budget for around $16,000. Another $10,000 of in-kind support is provided from the University of Melbourne.

Providing precise costs to run a MTG is problematic as each course has its own unique requirements. Some regions may be able to obtain the use of buildings for meetings as a gratuity, and others will need to hire rooms. Transportation will depend on the resources available to the group as a whole and what the coordinating partner organization has to offer. Similarly, the costs of materials such as photocopying may be able to be offset with resources from the partner organization. A substantial budget item for any MTG is food and drink.

The value of the food and drink as a tool to encourage group interaction appears to be crucial to the successful running of a MTG. This will include refreshments and lunches on each of the 8 days, and often involves a final day dinner as an end of course celebration. The local partner organization sets the enrolment fee for participants, so the figure will vary with each region.

Conclusions Based on the evidence of this study the MTG is meeting and exceeding its development and output objectives.

A testament to the MTG’s capacity to affect landholder decision making over time is evident in these results. Participants who completed the course between 3 and 13 years ago still hold the program in high esteem and greatly value its techniques, information and ongoing support. Less than nine percent (9%) of participants had any critical comment about the Program, and of these people almost all still found the program valuable.

The MTG provides a platform for community linkages and as a conduit for information between farmers, extension bodies, government agencies, catchment authorities and landcare organizations, as well as a host of other organizations and individuals.

45

As a platform for extension the MTG structure succeeds at all levels. Balancing scientific and technical extension with landholder and community aspirations is the hallmark of its broad acceptance amongst its participants.

The diversity of participants in any MTG, each person bringing with them a unique set of problems, aspirations, beliefs and land types, creates the outcome of the program as much as the overlying structure delivered through extension. Local content is established and delivered alongside the overlying structure delivered by the University of Melbourne. This flexibility in the MTG’s structure meets long called for demands in the extension literature that participative extension include local content and control.

Summary of findings

MTG Participants:

• Define their purposes for vegetation design, planting and management activities inside a complex matrix of economics, landcare, biodiversity, primary production, and social values.

• Are acutely aware of the sympathetic risks, costs and benefits in vegetation management and the interplay with eco-system services.

• Have increased the vegetation planted on their land by over 50% since completing the Program.

• Consider the economics of farm forestry uncertain. However, they acknowledge the positive economic benefits being obtained from vegetation on their primary farming activities and acknowledge the benefits to biodiversity.

• Develop community networks and social capital amongst stakeholders that may be drawn upon in the delivery of ecosystem services by its partner organizations.

• Retain and use the information from the Program across time.

• Have improved knowledge, capacity and confidence to design, plant and manage multi-purpose vegetation projects.

• Report positively on all aspects of the program.

46

4. Peer Group Mentoring Introduction Landholders considering an investment in the establishment, management or protection of trees and native vegetation on their properties commonly seek out information from other landholders and value their views. Acknowledging this, many aspects of the design and delivery of the Australian Master TreeGrower course have sought to facilitate peer support and enhance the quality of the information being disseminated by the landholders in their own networks.

The shared learning experiences conducted early in the course (such as the mill visits, measurement exercises and forest inspections) are important in that they help consolidate the group and breakdown any concerns individuals may have about differences in their backgrounds, affiliations or experience. The latter sessions build on this by encouraging the group to identify issues pertinent to their particular circumstances and allowing them to collectively verify and validate the information presented. Rowan has always encouraged regional coordinators to schedule visits to as many of the participants own properties as is possible, or at least allowing participants to present their own projects and plans to the rest of group. Whilst some may feel they have little to offer in terms of practical experience these farm visits are critical in building empathy, trust and respect within the group.

In 2005 the Otway Agroforestry Network (OAN), the host of many local MTG courses, teamed up with the MTG to explore the concept of peer group mentoring further. They proposed to train, then pay, past MTG participants to act as peer group mentors (PGMs) who would support and assist other landholders considering or actively investing in agroforestry. To date, twenty landholders have acted as PGMs providing one-on-one support to more than 65 landholders. They have also been involved in running regional farm walks, representing the network at local meetings and contributing to regional newsletters.

Jennifer Morrow, an Otway Peer Group Mentor, discusses agroforestry options with a landholder

47

Recognising the potential to extend the concept, the MTG then developed two pilot PGM projects in Western Australia in two very different areas. The aim of the pilot projects was to test the OAN model of engaging experienced tree growers to act as paid peer mentors who would work with other landholders through the design and implementation of agroforestry and native vegetation management projects. The MTG provided guidance in the development of PGM projects, helped deliver extension training for PGMs, contributed to technical sessions, provided funds to support training and delivery, and participated in workshops to review the concept.

In 2007 an introductory PGM discussion and training day was conducted for a group of landholders involved in the Australian Sandalwood Network in the Avon region of the Western Australian wheat belt. The MTG then provided $10,000 to AVONGRO (a regional farm forestry development group) to fund the project including paying the PGMs to act as mentors. In 2008 a third PGM project was initiated with a group of sawlog growers in south west WA with the support of funding from the local catchment management authority. Both groups have since participated in technical training sessions and PGM review workshops and are receiving ongoing support from the MTG to continue and expand their PGM projects.

In all cases the candidates for the PGM training were selected by the regional host. Most were past MTGs and were familiar with Rowan and the MTG approach. This chapter reviews the concept of peer mentoring in agricultural extension and reports on the three PGM pilot projects (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Agroforestry Peer Group Mentoring projects, partners, activities and outcomes PGM Pilot Programs Training and Review Activities Outcomes

1. Otway Agroforestry Network (14)

Federally funded through the Corangamite CMA. MTG provided Rowan’s time and costs.

• 2005 – 12 participants (mostly past MTGs) came together at Beech Forest to formalise the site visit process that was to develop into the PGM project

• 2007 – 17 participants attended a 2-day PGM training course at Apollo Bay led by Dr Digby Race.

• PGM Service Manual developed containing proposed processes, responsibilities, payment and reporting systems and supporting reference material

• 2007 – technical training day for mentors in tree measurement and marketing

• 2008 – Dinner meeting with mentors to discuss and review processes and roles

• 2008 – tree growth, plot establishment and measurement training session for mentors

• 2008 – Dinner meeting to develop skill matrix, resource needs and the way forward

• Mentors completed more than 35 site visits to new member’s properties with management team members and were made available for follow-up support.

• Directly assisted 33 existing members who wanted advice or to share experience on the design, establishment or management of agroforestry projects.

• Establishment of ‘satellite’ extension projects in areas with low participation

• Group attendance at the Albury AFG conference • Assistance in the design and delivery of the

Heytesbury MTG course to demonstrate the role of PGMs

•

2. Australian Sandalwood Network (21)

Partly funded by the MTG ($10,000 plus Rowan’s costs) and administered by AVONGRO with the support of the WA Forest Products Commission.

• July 2007 Introductory training day • Feb 2008 Technical training day with Dr Geoff

Goodall • March 2009 Refresher and review workshop

• Although only a few of the Sandalwood PGMs undertook mentoring of other growers under the program the enthusiasm remains high

• One PGM approached more than 20 landholders and assisted many with their applications for host species

• Some had received PGM payments for presentations at field days and seminars

3. WA Sawlogs Growers (8).

Funded by the South West Catchment’s Council and administered by Trees South West with the support of the WA Forest Products Commission.

• Feb 2008 Introductory training day (Bunbury) • Winter 2008 – Technical training for PGMs led by

Bob Hingston in tree measurement and silviculture • Dec 2008 – PGM Review Meeting

• Six PGMs undertook a total of 14 paid mentoring visits during 2008. 10 of the visits were self generated (not referred).

• One PGM took it on themselves to promote the project locally with success

48

Farmer-to-farmer extension The PGM model is based on sound extension principles and clearly complements the extension approach adopted by the MTG. In their review of the adoption of conservation practices Pannell et al. (2006) argue that:

• social and information networks would be important influences on the decision to proceed to trial (2006:1409)

• the more difficult the decision, the more the decision maker will engage and re-engage with their personal support network (2006:1411)

• peer expectations of continued commitment or personal support and encourage will reinforce commitment and provide a buffer against setbacks (2006: 1411)

• one should expect adoption behaviour to be influenced by the personality of the decision maker, their social networks, personal circumstances and family situation (2006:1411)

One further quote from their paper has particular resonance with the PGM concept:

A history of respectful relationships between landholders and advocates for the innovation, including scientists, extension agents, other landholders and private companies, is positively related to adoption through enhanced trust in the advice of the advocates ( Pannell et al., 2006:1412)

Internationally, the importance of engaging local landholders as partners in the delivery of agricultural extension programs is well established. Early (pre-1990s) farm forestry extension programs in the developing world have been criticised as being “top down’ and having a rigid structure that saw landholders as passive recipients of predefined forestry designs (Glendinning et al., 2001). Whilst participatory extension models soon became fashionable in development programs overseas, often supported by Australian expertise and funding, the top down technical approach remained the dominant extension adopted by federally funded farm forestry programs in Australian (Reid and Stephen, 2007). At the heart of the participatory models was the recognition of the importance of facilitating and strengthening farmer-to-farmer dialogue (Glendinning et al., 2001).

Glendinning et al. (2001) reviewed a large Swedish extension program that sought to encourage the adoption of farm forestry practices by subsistence farmers in eastern India. They found that the role of the peer group was significant in influencing the adoption of farm forestry practices amongst one quarter of the respondents. More importantly, they note that the farmers “checked with leading farmers and village leaders” (2001:293) when sourcing materials, asked them about possible negative impacts and sought verification of claimed benefits. More importantly, farmer-to-farmer dialogue was identified one of the most important of the “three or four multiple information sources” they found were associated with enhanced adoption rates.

Unfortunately, there are few studies from modern agricultural economies that have examined the influence that neighbours and family members have on a farmer’s decision-making and even fewer successful attempts to develop effective mechanisms for harnessing it. One very useful study by Phillips (1985) highlighted the important role that intimates and non-expert acquaintances, many of them being other farmers, had on the major decisions taken by dairy farmers in New Zealand.

Phillips found that although professionals or experts were effective at introducing new ideas and information to a farming community (the fuel) they actually played a very minor role in terms of validation and support. The best the conventional extension agent could expect to do was provide good information, which was timely, holistic in nature and empathetic to the learners’ objectives. Whilst technical expertise may get them in the gate, Phillips suggests that it was the extension agent’s

49

interpersonal communication and helping skills, and their ability to build trusted relationships with the farmer and their intimates, that largely determined their effectiveness. People vary in their social distance from the learner. The main factor is the degree of intimacy: how well the person is known, trusted and liked. On first meeting, a stranger cannot help but be near the outside, but as the individual gets to know the stranger, and watches them interact with others, trust can develop.

Figure 4.1 Farmer decision making: With the decision maker represented by the inner circle this petal diagram shows who they consulted or sought information from when making a decision about (in this case) dairy expansion options. From: Phillips (1985)

Pannell et. al. (2006) identify a number of aspects of the linkages between landholders and others that appear to be related positively to successful adoption including

• The existence and strength of landholders’ social networks and local organisations and membership of organisations such as catchment groups;

• The physical proximity of other adopters;

• The physical distance of the property from sources of information about the innovation; and

• A history of respectful relationships between landholders and advocates for the innovation, including scientists, extension agents, other landholders, and private companies.

Intimates: Family, business partners and close friends

Associates: Peers, contractors, trusted acquaintances, neighbours, personal advisers, bank managers, etc

Experts: Government officers, researchers, academics, leading farmers, etc

50

The PGM concept and agroforestry development Rowan participated in most of the training and review meetings involving PGM participants in the three pilot projects: Otway Agroforestry Network (OAN) (1), Australian Sandalwood Network (ASN) (2) and the south west WA sawlog growers (3) (Table 4.1). More formal evaluations involving written responses from PGM participants (Projects 1 and 3) and a telephone survey of landholders who received a visit from a PGM (Project 1) were undertaken by the partner organisations involved. This chapter provides a preliminary review of the PGM concept based on Rowan’s notes, distributed results of regional evaluations, minutes of meetings and comments forwarded to Rowan by regional partners and participants. The source of the comments is only identified by the program they were involved in (either P1, P2 or P3).

What is the aim of the Peer Group Mentor?

Whilst the aim of the OAN is to facilitate and encourage multipurpose tree growing on farms as a means of making farming more sustainable, at the workshops, participants and leaders stressed that the role of the Peer Group Mentor service (PGM) was to support landholders in ways that help them achieve their own land management goals. If recipients of the PGM service chose not to establish or manage forests that was not to be seen as a failure. In fact, it might actually be good in that it saved them money and time.

At the initial workshop the Otway mentors felt that they were contributing to the building or shaping of an agroforestry culture within the region and an associated body of knowledge about tree growing and how it might develop in the region. Mentoring would enable the incorporation of local experience and expertise, provide a mechanism for two-way communication within the organisation and accelerate learning amongst those involved.

Mentoring is a way of learning what we don’t know and what would be good for us to learn (1).

We are about cultural change – not just trees in the ground (1)

Brainstorming the purpose of the PGM they identified some other roles including: to inspire and enthuse, lead by example, build confidence, improve success rate of projects, and grow the network. The Otway group then settled on a statement of purpose:

To increase the capacity of the OAN to effectively support landholders and the wider community to achieve their goals by integrating multipurpose trees into the farming landscape.

After being introduced to the PGM concept the South West Sawlog growers group identified what they thought were the strengths of the model and discussed it’s suitability to their region. There was clear recognition of the role and value of farmers learning from other landholders and that they believed they were already, because of their own tree growing activities, acting as mentors anyway. They warmed to the fact that the PGM model was acknowledging and rewarding this.

It is a great way to encourage neighbours, friends and land managers in your own community to integrate trees for multiple benefits with their farming activities (P3)

They recognised a potential contribution they themselves could make to building a collective of ideas and of providing a more localised experience for the client. As well as encouraging other farmers to see the potential for trees on their farms they also felt they had a role to play in sharing their concerns about the risks associated with growing or not growing trees:

Using practising farm foresters to give examples and experiences in similar areas can save prospective practitioners a lot of time and money. Learning from others and seeing results can save a lot of heart ache as well as giving inspiration (P3).

51

Unlike the Otway group, both the Western Australian groups were identified as having a direct association with a particular tree species or product type (sandalwood or eucalypt sawlogs). The south west participants recognised this as a risk and suggested that the program is not just about sawlogs and that it was important, as mentors, to cater for all types of tree growing whether it be for production or not. They even suggested that they change the name of their project to the tree growing mentoring service. Like the Otway mentors, they felt that their role was to help landholders achieve what they want rather than promote the interests of the industry, government or other sponsors. This highlights a possible conflict between the interests of the supporting agencies which are likely to be focused on the promotion of particular species, products or environment services and those of the landholder community.

The key to mentoring is to assist the landholder to get where she/he wants to go (P1)

The identified aim of the Avon Sandalwood Peer Group Mentoring project was to instil confidence in the wider adoption of sandalwood plantations by using experienced local growers to support landowners who are thinking about becoming sandalwood growers. For those in the fledgling Australian Sandalwood Network (ASN) it was also seen as a means of encouraging growers to take greater ownership of the developing sandalwood industry, influencing the direction of research and development programs.

What is a Peer Group Mentor?

At the initial training the participants in all three projects were encouraged to explore what it meant to be a Peer Group Mentor, how this might differ from a consultant or extension agent and the characteristics of a good mentor.

Most participants were quick to recognise that a peer group mentor did not need to be an expert in all aspects of tree growing (P1). It was more important that PGMs recognised their role within the community as a source of knowledge that was gained from their involvement and practical experience in growing trees (P2). In distinguishing mentors from experts there was no suggestion that they were inferior. In fact, the mentors recognised that they played an important role in validating (or dismissing) expert information provided in information sheets or presented at seminars and field days (P2).

All land managers that I have been in contact with as part of the program have commented on the unique nature and innovative approach. They also appreciate that the mentor is not an ‘expert’ coming to tell them what they should be doing, but is someone they usually know and respect as having local experience in tree growing. (P2)

What mentors bring to the program is their experience as a local tree grower, their involvement in regional tree growing information networks and their commitment to their region (P1). In fact, it was the similarity between the PGM and the clients that was seen as their strength, rather than their superior knowledge:

Mentoring is the equivalent of likeminded people getting together to discuss possibilities (P1)

A mentor acts as a sounding board enabling people to learn from others mistakes rather than reinventing wheel (P1)

Emphasise the importance of listening to the member rather than going in as the expert (P1)

Someone who takes a “neighbourly” approach to giving advice rather than coming across as an expert (1)

52

The participants then identified some of the possible characteristics of a Peer Group Mentor as someone:

• who was recognised as an experienced grower, who is willing to share their knowledge and experiences with others (P1,P2, P3).

• with a desire to help and support other landholders achieve success in their projects (P1),

• with an appreciation that what is appropriate for one landholder might not suit another and that people differ in the type of support and mentoring they need (P1,P 2);

• committed to the (group) and their region, to regional development and who has a good understanding of their locality (P1,P2, P3).

• with skills in communication and interpretation so that they can read both the people and the physical, social and economic landscape in which they work (P1, P2);

• with the ability to seek out information and expertise appropriate to the situation, or at least the ability to direct landholders to others who may be able to help (P1);

• with an enthusiasm for new ideas but a willingness to emphasise the risks associated with new ventures (P1, P2)

• involved in relevant associations and groups which enable them to access technical and professional information appropriate to the situation. They should be able to direct the landowner to appropriate information sources (P2).

• respectful of confidentiality relating to the landowner’s property, social or financial situation

It was felt that although mentors did not require an official qualification they should be selected on the basis of the credibility they hold within their community as practitioners (P2). They should also have participated in the PGM training sessions, particularly those which discussed the role of a mentor and their responsibilities (P2).

The Sandalwood PGM group during a training day involving sandalwood researcher Geoff Goodall

53

What Peer Group Mentors actually do

The site visit and other activities

The critical starting point is for the mentors to meet the landholder on their own property so they can better understand their interests, needs and aspirations and with a view to providing landholders with a realistic picture of what can be done (P1).

In addition to this other types of activities identified as being appropriate for mentors included: hosting a tour of the mentor’s own property; taking the client to another farm or forest that they thought was relevant to their needs or interests; preparing tree orders or facilitating contractors; fielding phone calls from landholders; working directly with the landholder on the project (setting out fence lines, planting, pruning etc); doing some follow up research on the behalf of the landholder; assisting with funding applications or arranging meetings with industry, government or other potential partners; establishing or conducting ongoing monitoring (photo points, growth measurements etc); organising landholders to attend group activities; and, organising and presenting at local farm walks, seminars or other group activities.

One of the sandalwood mentors said that they had found it useful to invite recipients to visit their own property first, particularly when they knew the client was new to growing sandalwood. This provided them with the opportunity to demonstrate their own experience and illustrate management options. Interestingly they added that people are more likely to listen when you show them your own mistakes.

Although some others in the sandalwood group had not done any one-on-one mentoring they had been employed to present at field days and seminars and it was generally accepted that this would constitute a PGM activity. Similarly, one of the most active PGMs in the Otway group had infiltrated a dairy discussion group and was a regular attendee.

The dialogue

Many mentors recognised that their role as a ‘peer’ was essentially about listening to landholders, building enduring relationships, motivating them to explore opportunities and brokering information. Where they felt that a landholder was considering a large investment in agroforestry or there was some uncertainty about the nature of a problem or the possible solution, mentors saw that they had a role in encouraging them to seek specialist advice or even facilitating this.

Ask lots of questions to get the landowner to come up with solutions rather than telling them what the solutions are (The old story of teaching someone to fish – supply for life - rather than giving them a fish to solve an immediate problem) (P1)

It’s important to provide positive affirmations to landholders for what they have done or are about to embark on (P1).

At the first meeting with the landholder it is important that the mentor clearly explains their role and assesses the landholder’s need or desire for engaging with a mentor. They must also make a judgement as to whether they are the most appropriate person to act as the client’s mentor. The Otway mentors are encouraged to work in pairs if it is felt that it might help. For example, one PGM might be a neighbour or a farmer with similar experience to the client (such as both being dairy farmers) whereas the second might have particular experience with the agroforestry practice being considered (such as shelterbelt design). This view was supported by the other PGM groups and was also recognised as a means by which the more experienced or confident PGMs were able to mentor the new or less confident mentors.

The assistance provided by mentors is not always limited to agroforestry. An experienced long-time farmer in the sandalwood group found that although invited on to a property on the pretence of working with Sandalwood found that, particularly for new landholders, they spent more time assisting them with general property management planning for their whole farm.

54

The question of how to respond to landholders who clearly wanted to undertake practices that the mentor felt was unnecessary, unethical or even unlawful was discussed. It was generally felt that the mentor could only seek to discourage such actions by highlighting the possible implications. With the support of the PGM coordinator and the group it was also felt that services would be withdrawn. There was no suggestion that a PGM should report illegal behaviour.

When discussing their role as a mentor it became apparent that there was a ‘language’ associated with mentoring that helped mentors, and the client, to clearly distinguish the role of the mentor from one of an expert or industry advocate. The discussion about language was useful in allaying the fears of some mentors that they were being asked to give advice and that they might be liable (legally or ethically) for having done so. For example, rather than providing specific advice mentors would suggest and guide farmers by saying something like: “I think…”, “This is what I do but others do this”, or “You could try it this way…”(P2).

Language is also important in demonstrating that the mentor is listening to the client’s interests, appreciates where they are coming from and is there to help them decide on a solution that best suits them: “Yes, that seems to be a big issue for you, given that it is possible, how do you think you could go about preparing for it?” (P1)

Whilst generally enthusiastic about their own agroforestry activities mentors felt it was important to be clear about the risks and uncertainty inherent in most growing trees. As landholder, they recognised that farmers are initially sceptical of new practices and that highlighting the inherent risks or negatives helped distinguish them as mentors from industry advocates.

What can stop/block a mentor program?

The groups identified a number of possible causes of problems that might be a risk to the program, the mentors, the clients or the group as a whole:

• If the mentor lacks confidence in their role, has poor communication skills or is unable, or unwilling, to commit sufficient time to the project;

• If there is a poor match between mentor and landholder based on personality, resulting from different values or disagreements on the project might result in a lack of trust, respect, empathy or honesty;

• If there is insufficient or untimely support for the mentor in terms of resources, encouragement or access to information that they can then convey to the client;

• If the client receives unwanted advice, is overwhelmed by too much information or the level of detail provided, or believes that the mentor has little to offer;

• If meetings are not conducted at a time suitable for both parties or if any follow-up/response is untimely; or,

• The group has insufficient mentors or resources to satisfy the demand

The issue of indemnity was raised at all the meetings. The sandalwood group developed a waiver form explaining the purpose of the service that clients would be asked to sign. However, having initially sought this, many of the peers were reluctant to get landholders to sign the form because they felt that it was undermining their peer relationship and adding an unnecessary formality to the project.

With respect to issues of privacy, it was felt that it was important that the client understand that particular information relating to their own properties and proposed activities might be held by the group (including copies of any reports) but it was not clear whether this would require signed consent.

55

Presumably the clients would only show sites, or discuss projects, that they were willing to divulge or would clearly identify what aspects they wanted to keep private.

There was some discussion in all groups about the prospect of real, or perceived, conflicts of interest. Many of the mentors are involved in private businesses that are related to the interests of the mentor groups such as tree nurseries, contracting businesses, seed collection, private farm tours and consultancy. Those mentors involved in such activities often raised this concern themselves and those of them who had conducted visits often advised clients to use other providers in order to avoid the risk of being seen as benefiting directly. The Otway group has sought to prevent problems arising from perceived conflicts of interest by providing clients with a comprehensive list of nurseries and other service providers that is not restricted to members of the group.

There were a number of mentors that have, or intend to, work as agroforestry consultants in their own right. Having distinguished the role of mentors from that of consultants most participants appear to be comfortable with the distinction. There was even a suggestion that the PGM model might discourage individuals from going private as pseudo-consultants thus reducing the cost to clients, the need for indemnity insurance and any risk to the reputation of professional consultants.

Administration of a PGM service

Host organisation

Each of the PGM projects is managed locally by a coordinator (individual or team). The coordinator allocates mentors to clients, is aware of the amount of time and the type of activities being undertaken, and processes claims for time and mileage.

The Otway program is coordinated by the Otway Agroforestry Network, a not-for-profit community group established by landholders to encourage the sustainable integration of trees into farming systems. The group has received funding through federal government programs since 1993 and has had a long commitment to farmer-to-farmer extension. As a founding member of the group Rowan has been involved in the development and delivery of the Otway PGM model.

The Australian Sandalwood Network is nominally the host of the Sandalwood PGM but in practice the coordination and support comes from AVONGRO, a community based organisation initially established as a Private Forestry Development Committee. The MTG provided $10,000 to AVONGRO to fund the development and delivery of the Sandalwood PGM. The primary aim of AVONGRO is to increase the awareness and adoption of tree crops as an integral part of regional landscape management which addresses natural resource management (NRM) issues across the Avon River Basin. The Australian Sandalwood Network is an incorporated growers group dedicated towards developing the Australian Sandalwood (Santalum spicatum) plantation industry in southern WA.

The SW Sawlog PGM project is hosted by TreesSW, which was also established as a Private Forestry Development Committee but continues with a strong community base. TreesSW obtained funding from the South West Catchments Management Authority to initiate the PGM project. The MTG provided for Rowan’s involvement in the development, training and review of the service and has provided ongoing support to maintain and expand the PGM project.

The clients

For the PGM model to be credible and effective it is important that both the mentors and the clients are confident that the advice and assistance given is independent and primarily given in the interests of the landholders. In the case of the Otway and Sandalwood projects the mentors are expected to be paid up members of the local network and the clients are expected to join in order to receive the service. Having a host organisation that is itself a landholder group may reduce the risk of clients believing that the project is more interested in promoting a particular species or management option than helping them make a well-informed decision that is appropriate for them.

56

Where there is no existing landholder group interested in hosting the PGM service, or the group is unable to administer the program, then it has proved necessary for an industry or government agency to take on the role (such as TreesSW or AVONGRO). In the Western Australian pilot projects the organisations involved have taken a ‘silent partner’ role in the PGM service providing valuable administrative support. Having each previously supported a number of MTG courses both organisations are very familiar with the philosophy of the MTG and appreciate that if farmers in their region see a value in agroforestry and the program is effective this will help them achieve their organisational goals. There have been no suggestions of any attempt to influence the work of the mentors.

Selection and allocation of mentors

Whilst PGMs are generally encouraged to seek out potential clients it was generally felt that the mentor should first advise the coordinator of their intentions, methods and activities to ensure that they fit with the expectations of the project.

There has been one mentor in each of the two Western Australian programs who have been very pro-active in directly approaching potential clients. One ‘used’ the offer of free sandalwood host plants that were being made available by the local CMA as means of raising the topic with farmers then proceeded to assist those that were interested in filling out the application forms. One of the sawlog mentors actually advertised the PGM project in the local paper and fielded calls from many respondents subsequently visiting a few.

In WA there was some concern about the lack of requests for their time. They recognised that it might take time to develop a demand for the service and that this would require some security of funding. The Australian Sandalwood Network did publicise the PGM service through their newsletter but the most successful means of promotion has been direct contact with existing or potential growers. Participants in the WA Sawlog group and the Sandalwood group suggested that each group develop a brochure profiling the experience of the PGMs so that landholders could judge the potential value of the service and even select their preferred mentor. The Otway network regularly promotes the program as part of the membership package for new members suggesting that there is an advantage of linking the service with membership of a landholder group.

What can the management team do to assist mentors?

The Otway Agroforestry Network prepared a PGM kit for mentors that provided written information on the roles and responsibility of mentors, forms that were to be completed in order to receive payment and a range of technical information. The same information was provided electronically on a CD. The idea of having a folder was that further information could be added. AVONGRO and TreesSW prepared similar packages for their mentors.

The types of information that the mentors thought might be useful included:

• detailed maps of the region including, where possible, soils, rainfall or other site limiting factors

• a package of fact sheets

• a database of skills amongst the mentors and supporters

• a range of locally relevant case studies

• visual information and images to help get help interpret people’s vision

• access to properties that are good examples, provide visions

57

• list of useful contacts, nurseries, contractors etc

Given the diversity of experience and range of views amongst the mentors themselves it was suggested that each group have a package of general fact sheets on key aspects such as tree establishment and management. Using the fact sheets the mentor could then suggest how the landholder might vary from the standard or generic practices given their particular situation or interests. For example, a fact sheet on establishment might advise the use of chemicals whereas the mentor may suggest an alternative if the landholder was adverse to chemical use. This provides some protection for the mentor while allowing for differing opinions and approaches.

Just as important for the mentors was ongoing support and communication. Whilst all the participants were keen to be involved they also needed the coordinators to appreciate that they were also busy and may not always be available when required.

The mentors valued highly the technical training days and ‘get-togethers’. The Otway Network runs specific activities, including dinners for mentors which add to the feeling of being valued. However, when PGM meetings were few and far between there were concerns that most of the time might be spent ‘rebuilding’ rather than developing the group. There was a suggestion that the PGMs could be included in a closed email group or online discussion forum in order to share experience, seek advice or make suggestions. The Otway group also ran a session where the mentors developed a database of skills and experience that documents the collective knowledge within the group that could be shared.

Having established the initial group of mentors through direct invitation, those who were thought to have the interest and skills, the mentors themselves felt that it was important to maintain the integrity of the group. The gatherings were seen as a means of introducing new mentors to the group and building their knowledge of the program and they did recognise that rather than participate in a formal training sessions the new mentors could be supervised by the more experienced mentors prior to working alone.

Time commitments and payments

There have been discussions within all groups about how much time and support the mentor might be expected to provide each client. In all cases there was an expectation that the mentor would initially spend up to 3 hours with the client at their own discretion but that, with the support of the project coordinator, this could be increased if there was the expectation of value for the group or a specific need. Having made a visit the client would be able to access the mentor on the phone with the understanding that calls would be limited to a reasonable length and the mentor would be paid for their time.

In all the programs the mentors are asked to submit invoices for payment after the completion of a task. They are also asked to provide information on what they did including, in some cases, a written report or photographs. Where public money is being used to support the service, it was generally accepted that the clients should be willing to provide some details of their proposed or existing projects so the group could demonstrate the impact of their activities (without disclosing private information).

The rate of pay and the cost of mileage were negotiated within each group. Payment for time varies from $30 to $40 with the mileage rate being based around local government or tax office rates (between about 50c and 70c per kilometre). Interestingly, all projects have found that there are some mentors that are reluctant to submit invoices or are slow to complete their paperwork. More than one landholder has expressed their uneasiness in charging for their time when they are enjoying themselves and not actually doing physical work (P1).

58

How mentors help hosts, sponsors and researchers

Regional landholder groups, such as the Otway Agroforestry Network and the Australian Sandalwood Network rely on the enthusiasm of their leadership group, attracting new members to take up voluntary leadership roles and maintaining the continued support of their membership. The PGM model seems to be contributing to all these needs. The success of the Otway Agroforestry Network (more than 300 members) is partly attributed to the work of the 20 PGMs who provide a local and relevant local face to the group.

An experienced sandalwood grower expressed concern that there was an expectation amongst new growers that growing sandalwood simply required a one off investment. It was suggested that the PGM program had a role in demonstrating the need for ongoing management and the importance of staying informed. In this way the PGM might help maintain memberships.

The sandalwood growers also highlighted the fact that their membership and expertise was spread over an enormous area of the Western Australian wheat belt. As a result, many members, including those committed to the group, were unable to regularly attend events and felt isolated. The PGM service was seen as a means of breaking down the distances and building personal relationships within the group that would serve to encourage and maintain membership.

Having mentors spread across the area provides a local ‘face’ to the group and prospect of developing ‘cells’ of activity. (P2)

Super mentors

Associated with both of the Western Australian PGM projects are highly regarded ‘experts’ who have publicly stated that they see the PGM service as a way of them reaching more farmers and thereby improving the quality of agroforestry management. They acknowledge that being able to direct ‘novice’ enquiries to PGMs was a means of reducing the demands on their own time. There was also the potential for PGMs to undertake a reconnaissance trip out to a local site and provide feedback to the experts to help them determine if they were required.

Geoff Woodall is a leading researcher into sandalwood and a strong supporter of the PGM concept. Geoff spent a technical training day with the sandalwood mentors providing specialist advice and he later attended the review meeting and subsequent farm visits. He told us that he had received 183 calls for advice in 2007 and that the program would allow him to pass the practical or novice enquiries onto mentors. He also appreciated the opportunity to work with a specialist group which was up-to-speed rather than have to repeatedly assume little or no previous knowledge at every gathering.

59

Bob Huxley, Sandalwood PGM shares ideas with ‘super mentor’ Geoff Goodall (right)

Bob Hingston is a possibly the most highly regarded eucalypt sawlog silvicultural practitioner in Western Australia. Over the last 25 years, through his work with a succession of government agencies and regional industry groups, he has amassed a wealth of experience that he willingly shares with hundreds of farmers. Whilst initially a little sceptical about the PGM concept Bob has come to fully embrace the concept as a means of spreading the message and lifting the quality of silvicultural management on farms. This was acknowledged by the mentors:

The Peer Mentoring Workshop is a great opportunity to strengthen our South West farm forestry network and support Bob Hingston, Farm Forestry Development Officer, throughout the region.

I can only guess at this, but suspect that it strengthens the networks by which knowledge about growing and managing eucalypts for sawlogs is shared, and increases the reach of the sole full time farm forestry development officer.

What it means to be a PGM

Based on the discussions at the workshops and review meetings, and the experience of those who had undertaken work as mentors, the participants were able to reflect on what it meant to them personally to be involved in the PGM projects. Many highlighted the satisfaction and positive feeling resulting from being recognised as having a contribution to make, being rewarded for the informal work they felt they were already doing in their community, having the opportunity to do something practical towards improving the landscape and supporting their community, and having the opportunity to contribute to helping a new industry succeed. They were doing something they themselves believed in and gained satisfaction from being able to help others.

It’s been a great opportunity and a privilege to contribute to rural revegetation, and to stimulate people to consider the positives of tree growing (P3)

I believe that it gives each of us more creditability when talking to others about the tree planting idea, as we are identified as having done the hard yards and have done something others would like to but are hesitant without seeing it done first (P3)

60

In addition to the payments they received as mentors there was recognition that being involved in the program could help promote their other business activities or act as a stepping stone to getting a more regular job with the group or another organisation. One landholder who had sought to develop their farm as a working demonstration noted that:

In the past we have used our property for farm visits. To have the support of funding makes it easier to accomplish. People are generally unwilling to pay for it (P3)

The mentors recognised that they benefited from being able to visit many properties and acknowledged that they themselves learnt from their clients. They also valued the privileged access the project provided them to so-called ‘super mentors’ was invaluable. They also suggested that the PGM service helped fuelled their enthusiasm to manage and maintain their own projects. For many, the prospect of having other farmers visit their own farms was sufficient encouragement to prune their trees, control the weeds or expand their plantings.

I have found the program of exceptional value to me personally, as I have limited knowledge and expertise in farm forestry. The concept of getting knowledge to the point that one can discuss issues with peers is a great learning experience (P3)

Many enjoyed the social aspects of the PGM project which not only included meeting many other landholders but also feeling part of the ‘team’.

Interaction with likeminded peers is always stimulating. Passing on experience to potential growers is rewarding to both parties (P3).

Rewarding to share knowledge and experience with new growers. Plus meeting and exchanging ideas with other group members has been a pleasure (P3)

61

Arron Edwards, Sandalwood Peer Group Mentor

Challenges and weaknesses of the PGM model

In addition to the obvious challenge of accessing and maintaining ongoing funding and organisational support for the project those involved in the pilot projects did identify other issues:

• Many of those identified as potential mentors are already very busy. Although they would like to help and support the concept they are worried that they will be unable to commit the time required to do the job justice.

• Within each group of mentors there was clearly a range of views about the best practices or species and the appropriateness of different methods. This had the potential to create confusion amongst clients and conflicts amongst the team.

62

• The mentors themselves acknowledge that there was a risk of ‘misguided enthusiasm’ and a real concern about mentors ‘pushing their own agenda or vision onto others’.

• In Western Australia the area being ‘serviced’ by the two projects was very much larger than that in the Otways. This raised concerns about the costs and time required and the value of mentors working in areas outside their past experience.

• Where the mentors are expected to provide ongoing support there has been some uncertainty about how long to wait before following up and visit and not wanting to pester the client.

There is a lot of power in a group like this that has the passion and expertise (P1)

What the users think of the PGM service

The Otway Agroforestry Network conducted a random telephone survey of the recipients of their PGM service. The interviewer asks two simple, open-ended questions:

• "What have you found useful about the Peer Group Mentoring service"

• "What do you think could improve the service"

The response was reported in the Otway Agroforestry Network newsletter:

The majority of landholders were full of praise for their mentor. They found the service very useful, especially choosing species for the site, sourcing trees, learning how to prune trees and sourcing assistance with finding contractors to do the work if need be. Having someone to discuss ideas, glean information from, and work side by side to get them started (simple things like how to plant a tree) has been an invaluable assistance.

Suggestions for improvement to the service were varied. Only two landholders wanted more contact with one feeling that they had not had follow up of the initial site visit (the mentor had unsuccessfully tried to make contact over a period of time). Most suggestions were directed at sourcing information particular to their needs.

Some specific points:

• Mentor - good, great to be able to speak to someone who knows what to do with site. Recognised some good quality timber already on the property, this was an added bonus that had not been previously known.

• Local knowledge was very helpful

• Mentor rang to advise of Government grants that had become available – this was great as he would not have found this out otherwise.

• Pleased with PGM who was fantastic, very enthusiastic and has continued to follow up regularly.

• Working alongside them and actually showing how to prepare and plant a tree was fantastic. A lot easier than they thought!

• Initial contact good - but due to retirement of initial mentor rapport not as good rapport with his replacement.

• Client felt that in would be really useful to have follow -up every 6 months.

• Has found the whole experience terrific

63

• Cannot compliment PGM enough. She has been fantastic and really enthusiastic. Her knowledge and expertise has been really useful. Has helped source trees and has helped physically and has continued to follow up calls to make sure all going well.

• Site report was great. Initially the site visitor was helpful in finding people/contractors to do ripping and mounding and sourcing trees.

• Generally found the whole experience very positive and useful. And is full of praise for their PGM

• Has found service helpful especially leaning how to prune trees.

• Helped with resources such as lending equipment to prune trees.

• Found it useful re opportunities that were coming.

• Has had fairly informal relationship with PGM but has found other members of OAN very helpful.

• Generally found service helpful and hope it continues.

• Having trouble finding exact trees for location, may need someone with more expertise

Mentor examples from the Otway Agroforestry Network

Provided by David Curry, Otway Agroforestry Network PGM coordinator (Pers. Comm.)

Matt Armstrong

Matt has established an OAN satellite operation in Apollo Bay where he is leading site visits with other mentors in the area (there are 3 others). Matt completes the site reports following site visits using input from the mentors who have photography, mapping and plant propagation skills as well as their farming and tree growing expertise. Five visits and reports have been delivered in this way with one of the mentors taking responsibility for follow up support.

Matt is also a member of the Apollo Bay School Council and has been actively involved in their sustainability program including the establishment of a small hardwood plantation on school property. All mentors in the area are members of the Landcare Network leading to joint visits to properties and the integration of productive trees into landcare plantings. Landcare Coordinators have expressed their appreciation of the forestry experience and expertise the OAN mentors have been able to pass on to them and their members.

John Sinclair and Neville Page

John has been a dairy farmer in the past and is assisting dairy farmer members establish shelterbelts on their farms for shade, shelter and a timber product. John has attended the initial site visits with a member of the OAN management team and once they have received their site report has followed up to see what assistance they may require. Several farmers, being time poor, have requested John to order trees, prepare sites for planting and then assist with the planting. This has meant projects have been established that otherwise would not have been. Farmers have paid John for the work he has completed on larger projects which go beyond the “mentoring” role.

John has also teamed up with Neville Page, another retired dairy farmer and PGM, for the largest projects he has been asked to manage. Dairy farmers assisting other dairy farmers has worked extremely well where there may have been doubt and/or hesitation about the advantage of planting out productive land with trees. John and Neville have assisted 12 Dairy farmers in this way.

64

Jennifer Morrow

Jennifer has assisted and continues to assist five members in the East Otway area. This area has a mixed population with some new landholders buying land for a ‘tree change”. Many ‘tree changers’ have had limited experience on the land or growing trees. Jennifer has attended the initial site visits with a member of the OAN Management Team and followed up with advice on getting started on a project, weed control, planting techniques, pruning trees in preparation for high quality hardwood, accessing appropriate contractors and accessing accountants with knowledge of forestry taxation.

Two projects which would have struggled to get off the ground or would have stopped midway due to difficulties experienced are thriving as a result of Jennifer’s enthusiastic follow up and advice. Jennifer has also been to a couple of ‘family planting days’ to ensure the process is well managed and appropriate species end up in the right places. Contact with landholders is maintained and often assistance can be given with a short telephone conversation.

Richard Gilbert

Richard is a farmer, tree grower and tourism operator in the Pennyroyal Valley, south of Deans Marsh. Richard is a mentor for five members in the area and has assisted with the design of plantations, on-site visits with management team members, and has also taken responsibility for report writing and assisting members understand and plan their projects in manageable “bites” or stages following receipt of their site report.

The area is a tourism precinct so some new landholders have an interest in combining farming with tourism. Richard has been able to give advice on both farming and tourism having combined them himself for approximately 20 years. One new member has specifically requested assistance with the establishment of a cell grazing design for her farm in conjunction with the establishment of productive tree growing, Richard has been able to assist with this having raised beef with a cell grazing set up for the previous 5 years.

Richard is also on the executive of the East Otway Landcare group and has been able to recruit several new members to Landcare and OAN as a result.

65

5. The MTG as an extension package Introduction Over the last 13 years much has been written about the Australian Master TreeGrower Program. Aspects of the MTG, particularly the regional courses, have been continually reviewed internally since 1997 with before and after surveys of participants and occasional review meetings involving funding agencies, partner organisations, researchers, industry representatives and program coordinators. As reported in Reid and Stephen (2007) there have also been a number of independent national reviews that have closely examined the MTG without any involvement from those delivering the program. Then there have been numerous references to the MTG by observers, participants and partners over the years in regional and national magazines, conference presentations, research and development reports, academic paper and refereed papers.

In one of the federally funded reviews of the MTG, Bauer et al. (2003) recognised that the MTG was very much more than an educational program for farmers and that its impact should not be measured as such. They concluded that the MTG has caused four types of change to the agroforestry businesses of participants and to the industry generally:

1. an increase in the number of trees planted;

2. an increase in the adoption rates of productivity–boosting site and species selection technology among Master TreeGrowers;

3. the ‘echo effect’ — agroforestry technology is transferred from MTG participants to other agroforesters by example and other knowledge transfer; and

4. changes in the reasons that farmers plant trees.

They conclude that: The Master TreeGrower Program has been well–received by farm foresters, due to the opportunity for networking with other farm foresters in addition to increasing their knowledge base and ultimately, increasing farming returns. They also estimate the MTG had provided a return on public investment of around $16M and a benefit investment ratio of 11:1 as a result of increased tree planting and improved forest management.

Whilst the positive reviews and publicity is welcome the authors acknowledge that there are individuals, organisations and regions for which the MTG has been less successful. This chapter presents the views of the authors about the success or otherwise of the MTG and the possible reasons for this.

The MTG as an extension program The practice of forestry, and even more acutely agroforestry, is a social system. Forests on farms are not simply groups of trees in paddocks. Trees without social players have no meaning. Guiding the development of complex, multifaceted, land management systems like forestry, land protection and nature conservation requires a focus on the agents of change - people. Agricultural development and extension projects are about people, their social patterns and institutions, their knowledge and beliefs. People are the scaffolding around which systems take shape (Nelson, 2003:466). As Michael Cernea (1995:344), former senior advisor for Social Policy at the World Bank, points out, “when the social determinants of development are left out…..projects display an unrepressed and not at all funny propensity — they fail”

66

To help structure the discussion of the MTG, within the context of modern agricultural extension theory in Australia, the authors have chosen to use Vanclay’s (2004) list of social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Vanclay opens his paper stating:

Agriculture has long been thought of as a technical issue involving the application of science, and the transference of the outputs of that science via top down process of technology transfer. It is not.

Agriculture is farming, farming is people. The survival of agriculture is dependent on the survival of viable rural communities. Sustainability has multiple bottom line implications, containing environmental, social and economic dimensions.

The criteria and indicators for sustainability in a physical sense are generally understood. The economic indicators are also well established, although rather limited. What is lacking is an awareness of the social issues.

He then goes on to outline 27 key social principles that he believes provide a basis for understanding how the vast majority of the Australian landscape, that is under the control of farming families, is managed and the success or otherwise of extension projects that seek to influence this management and its environmental or economic impact.

What follows is a brief description of each principle, as presented by Vanclay, and a reflection on its relevance to agroforestry generally and the MTG in particular. The discussion draws on evidence from the many reviews and observations of the MTG, including the latest study (Chapter 3), and the observations, reflections and beliefs of Rowan, the one person who has been involved in the program since its inception.

67

Principle 1. Farming is a socio-cultural practice

Vanclay: Farming becomes a way of life, a way of making a living that acquires a meaning far deeper than almost any other occupational identify.

On the first day of each new MTG Rowan uses the example of Andrew and Jill Stewart’s farm and his own family’s involvement with farming and forestry to demonstrate that he appreciates that being involved in farming land, or growing a forest, is a very personal journey. This wasn’t the case in early years of the MTG. Back then the first session began like most would expect a course in farm forestry to begin: with an emphasis on promoting the rational reasons why farmers would want to grow productive trees – to make money. Recognition of the complexity of farmers’ relationship with their land came when Rowan bought Dr Jim Finley, a forester from Penn State University (USA), out to tour the country during the MTG Agroforestry Expo in 1999. Rowan described the lesson he learnt through David Jenkins, a leading MTG from Western Australia, in his keynote paper to the Australian Forest Growers conference in 2008:

David Jenkins and I planted our first eucalypts for pruned sawlogs in 1987. David has since experienced all the highs and lows of tree growing. A highlight, for me at least, was in 1999 when David joined us in Apollo Bay to hear Dr Jim Finley from the Pennsylvania give the final presentation of our Agroforestry Expo.

Whilst Jim doesn’t know much about eucalypts, and I’m not sure he’s pruned anything bigger than a Christmas tree, I’d brought him out to talk to farmers about something else: about what it means to own a forest. Jim spoke about how we, as tree growers, invest some of ourselves in our forests, write a history on the landscape with trees and leave a legacy for our children and the community.

When Jim finished David was the first to speak. With some emotion, he thanked Jim then said it was the first time in all his years as a tree grower he’d heard a forester touch on what he himself had always known: farm forestry was more than growing wood for money and it was OK to be emotionally involved with your forest - to care. (Reid, 2008)

With a new confidence drawn from this experience and reinforced by similar views expressed by hundreds of other participants, the MTG now proudly acknowledges that for most, if not all farmers their involvement in agroforestry and native vegetation management is founded on a belief that growing trees is something that fits with the deeper meaning that underwrites their involvement in farming and land ownership. Acknowledging this, it follows that farmers won’t be interested in tree species, product options or management techniques that do not reinforce this meaning.

I don’t aim to sell the properties I hope they stay in the family. If I value that then the money that has gone in it has been successful, but really it’s a labour of love. (Dorrigo)

Principle 2. Farmers are not all the same

Vanclay: This means there are no single problems, no single solutions, no single extension strategies, and no best medium than extension should solely utilise

Two important recent reviews of farm forestry extension theory and practice in Australia have emphasised the distinction between communication transfer, education and decision support (Black et al. 2000, Race et al. 2001). Both argue that there is a role, indeed a necessity, for a complementary suite of extension strategies covering all these aspects in order to satisfy the interests and opportunities facing the diverse range of contributors and recipients. Encouraging a diversity of approaches and providers is seen as far preferable to having a single extension voice or method (Race et al. 2001).

On the opening day of all MTGs, and in many publications, Rowan has stressed that he believes there are essentially two approaches to agroforestry design. The most common is the ‘best-bet’ approach where landholders are simply presented with a narrow range of predefined management options devised by others. If it were this simple then there would be no need for an 8-day course, strong

68

regional networks, ongoing and effective communication between farmers, industry members and research or the peer group mentoring concept.

Unlike most education or training programs, the MTG purposely avoids the suggestion that there are ‘best bets’ or ‘recipe’ approaches to farm forestry. Whereas conventional courses for farmers often involve a series of ‘how to’ steps, from how to plan, how to plant, how to manage… the MTG, right from the outset, encourages landowners to take responsibility for their own design and activities. (O’Meara and Wright 1999, unpublished)

Rowan regularly quotes Andrew Campbell (1994:200) who wrote the following after serving as the first National Landcare Coordinator: “the complexities inherent in sustainability and the primacy of farmers in making land management decisions means that a recipe approach to land management recommendations won’t work.” Fortunately, the alternative is not only practical, it is also less risky and more likely to result in outcomes that reflect the individual needs, aspirations and opportunities of the farmers involved. It simply starts from the basis of what the landholders wish to achieve and seeks to design agroforestry solutions to match their particularly circumstances (Reid and Stephen 2007).

During the first session Rowan places the emphasis on changing the way we grow forests to fit them into the individual’s own social, environmental and economic ‘landscape’ by adopting a diagnosis and design approach (Reid and Stephen, 2007). In his most recent review of the adoption of agroforestry in Australia, Race (2009:333) says of the MTG approach that it encourages “members to take ownership of problems and solutions, creating viable agroforestry systems that are adapted to the local context rather than simply following generic recipes from elsewhere.” The significance of this has also been noted by other observers:

This attention to local relevance and individual requirements is an outstanding feature. (AgInsight and Agknowledge, 2002)

However, the MTG model is not right for everyone. Some landholders do want the answer, the best-bet. They prefer to place their trust in an expert and follow their management recipes. In our experience these are likely to be people who are new to farming and who are yet to fully appreciate the complexity and uncertainty inherent in biological systems and the economic, social and environmental values they provide - especially those grown over long time frames. This was highlighted in the previous chapter, where it was reported that some of the sandalwood mentors were frustrated by landholders who couldn’t see the value in maintaining their membership of the sandalwood network. They had simply wanted to access the current best-bet information on species, planting methods and management. They saw tree growing as simply a technology to accept or reject.

Of course, not all landholders want to, or can afford the time to, participate in an 8-day course on tree growing and management. In fact, one of the difficulties in establishing new courses is that many landholders initially question the length of the course. In Western Australia the partner organisations developed a 3-day introductory MTG course that exposed farmers to a range of farm forestry options. After running fourteen 8-day courses in less than six years in Western Australia the demand for the longer program fell away when the 3-day option was provided.

Whilst the 3-day course had Rowan’s blessing to use the MTG name (but not the sign, hat or certificate) he remains concerned that those involved in the development and delivery of the program may not fully appreciate the significance of the change in approach. In Western Australia there has been a history of experts and industry groups developing farm forestry options and promoting these as best-bets or recipes. These include oil mallees, sandalwood, pruned eucalypt sawlogs and brushwood. During the 3-day course, just as in the longer MTG, these options are presented and the technology underpinning their development demonstrated. But, what the shorter course lacks goes to the heart of the MTG’s success.

Those who have observed any of the programs will acknowledge that, after a run of 3 or 4 days of shared learning, the group forms a bond of mutual respect that is significant in supporting the more important learning that occurs in the latter sessions, particularly where these involve the sharing of

69

personal experience rather than relying on the knowledge provided by the presenters. In the present review (see Chapter 3) it was noted that the 8-day program is crucial for developing group cohesion and the trust and sharing of knowledge that comes from this. It is unrealistic to expect the same level of trust and involvement in the 3-day version of the course. The significance of this has also been noted by reviewers who have spoken to MTG participants:

Having a review and reflection opportunity between workshops also helped to maintain continuity in learning and embed lessons (Coutts et al., 2005:40).

Nearly every participant involved in this course finds the programme enjoyable, effective and value for time and money (Frost, 2004).

In an endeavour to demonstrate to potential participants and partner organisations the importance of the 8-day course Rowan has encouraged regional partners to promote the first session as a ‘try-before-you-buy’ option. Where this has been done the majority of those attending do commit to the full program and make every effort to attend every session - or apologise sincerely if they are unable to.

Vanclay’s 2nd principle also refers to the different learning styles of landholders and the need to employ a range of medium. Whilst a significant proportion of the MTG is of a ‘classroom’ format the coordinators have also stressed the importance of social interactions during breaks, meals and travel time, practical exercises, farm walks, industry tours and other formats (Reid, Unpubl.).

The value of mixing hands-on sessions with classroom learning was highlighted (Coutts et al. 2005).

Nonetheless, the MTG is not an appropriate or practical extension strategy for all landholders who want to grow trees - neither is it meant to be. Yet, in association with the activities of regional landholder groups, competent extension agents, industry promotions, incentives, policy instruments, mass media, web services and the use, formally or otherwise, of past MTG participants as peer group mentors, the MTG has the potential to influence the actions of many:

This is called the ‘echo effect’ of the MTG (Bauer el al., 2003)

Principle 3. Adoption is a socio-cultural process

Vanclay: Adoption takes place in a social context with farmers discussing their ideas with other farmers...(and).. occurs when the idea or practice has become part of the normative concept of ‘good farm management.

By the end of the program most participants have developed a reasonably sophisticated farm forestry ‘network’ – part formal and part informal – that is important in providing ongoing support:

Participants now feel more confident that they can approach the appropriate people for help with a particular marketing or technical problem related to farm forestry. (O’Meara and Wright, 1999)

All the reviews have recognised that the MTG has been extremely successful in stimulating farmer interest, enhancing their knowledge and skills and spreading this knowledge into the wider farming community. Some participants become active in providing advice, or at least talking to other farmers about tree growing, through their involvement in regional groups, conducting field days on their own land, their work as contractors or nurseryman, or as PGMs. Whether this flow of information between landholders and other practitioners is acknowledged or not, it is a critical part of the extension process. The 1999 MTG review identified three major areas of landholder participation in extension:

• Sharing farm forestry knowledge and technical skills with each other and with their neighbours;

• Sharing of knowledge of markets with each other and with their neighbours; and

70

• Expanded networking activities following the MTG (O’Meara and Wright, 1999)

The case study projects identified that one of the benefits of the Master Tree Growers course is the discussions between participants, which often continue after the course has been completed with the groups sometimes continuing to meet.(Roth and Molony, 2008:39)

What is more difficult to prove is the extent to which this peer communication leads to greater revegetation of cleared farmland, better management of farm plantations and native forests or increased production of timber and other forest products and services on farms other than those of the participants.

An indirect benefit of MTG is that participants will establish social networks, increasing the word of mouth transfer of agroforestry information. Many of the 15 per cent of participants who did not own a farming property took part in the program because they were in the business of passing farm forestry information on to others, such as nursery owners, government farming advisers and private consultants. The MTG course, according to comments from these respondents, improved the quality of information they pass onto clients. This has the potential to lead to increased benefits as the value of the service they provide increases, both in terms of economic advice given and methods of obtaining other goals.(Bauer 2003:63)

The MTG overtly supports and encourages these social networks through the use of the term ‘master’, the MTG hat which is given to participants on the first day and the gate sign they receive on ‘graduation’:

I have hung the sign on the gate. From time to time that prompts interest and I tell them about the MTG and what an enormous help it was… Generally it’s been very successful. You can’t just go out in the paddock and stick a tree in and wonder why it doesn’t grow. I have been able to explain to people what I did. (Gloucester participant)

This community development has immediate effects on the regional development of farm forestry. It instils and confers legitimacy on landholders in their decision to establish farm forestry projects. When landholders see neighbours, friends, and associates establishing and managing trees which have tangible outcomes there is less scope for social ridicule and greater opportunities for cross pollination of ideas. Social ridicule within farming communities occurs and is not merely constrained to whispers and gossip as this Albany participant attests:

Tree growing is now accepted where 10 years ago it wasn’t by farmers and the community in general. It is now accepted as a legitimate farming enterprise. I actually received abusive phone calls --"how dare you plant your whole farm out to trees". It has created a lot of employment. It has allowed a lot of farmers to stay on their farms, and others an opportunity to retire with some money. (Albany participant)

The acceptance of alternative farming practices within a community takes time. The significance of the research presented in Chapter 3 is that it involved interviews with landholders who undertook the MTG up to 13 years earlier. Through direct experience, local validation, personal association with those involved and observations of change within their own region, mainstream views do alter over the course of time and opinions can change from contempt to admiration:

When we started we viewed as heretics and I think that has changed. That never impeded what we wanted to do anyway. But now we are perhaps looked upon as having the finger on the pulse at the time I needed to. Lots of mainstream people are thinking maybe we should put in trees. The environment among my peers is supportive now where in the early days it was quite antagonistic. We have tried to remain completely independent of the politics. (Ballarat participant)

71

This anonymous participant sums up the importance of community acceptance and how real change can occur through cells of likeminded people communicating and exchanging ideas:

There is a lot more tree growing in our catchment than there used to be. It looks great when people have got trees. The message must be getting through - when we came and started planting trees we were looked at like we had two heads - now everyone has got trees. (Anonymous)

Similarly, this Dorrigo participant relates their experience in achieving social acceptance for new ideas within their region:

Politically when we first started there was a lot antagonism because it was the end of the hardwood commercial forests. A bloke from Greening Australia got together a bunch of farmers to put in trials for farm forestry, which we put in before the MTG, but after we found the MTG we got much better at it and then got a lot of acceptance in the Dorrigo community, but before that anything with conservation in it was a bit of a red rag. The farming community’s attitude changed and they saw farmers could grow trees with a long term future for them. (Dorrigo participant)

Benefits to the farming enterprise are more clearly evident in this atmosphere of mutual understanding and are therefore more likely to be adopted as this Gippsland participant highlights,

A lot more enthusiasm, because people can see by our tree growing what the benefits are in cattle husbandry. The quality of cattle in warm sheltered paddocks rather than freezing in paddocks

The flow on benefits of such processes do seep into the corners of farming communities. Another Dorrigo participant concisely sums this up when they note,

It’s become more acceptable. Even brown farmers now see the point of fencing creeks and growing native vegetation. (Dorrigo participant)

Principle 4. Profit is not the main driving force for farmers

Vanclay: Appeal to economic incentives alone is not sufficient to bring about change.

Possibly the greatest misunderstanding inherent in most rural extension programs is that farmers farm solely for the money and that the financial drivers are the most important. This has led to the simplistic assumption that farmers will be responsive to innovations that demonstrate increased profits relative to their existing practices irrespective of the impact it might have on other values.

Of course profitability is important, but, if an agroforestry practice undermines existing values, creates new problems or uncertainties or threatens the deeper meaning underlying their involvement in farming (Principle 1) then landholders are unlikely to be interested and committed to the project irrespective of the promise of higher income:

Interestingly though was the fact that a proportion people were not seeking financial gain, rather altruistic and environmental reasons were their principal motivators (Frost, 2005).

Fifty percent of all MTG participants who are engaged in tree growing and management activities on their farms do so for reasons other than the primary profit that can be directly attributed to the trees. Notwithstanding this, agroforestry projects do cost money. Approximately 50% of MTG participants have off-farm income which some have suggested accounts for a lack of commercial emphasis in their tree growing projects (Emtage et al., 2006, Maczkowiack et al., 2008). However, of the 92 participants who have mostly ON-farm income, 46% (n=43) of these did not declare income or capital value improvement as the purpose of their agroforestry projects. This, unsurprisingly, is not the entire story. In the telephone survey of past MTG participants reported in Chapter 3 Deans notes that: Participants reported in equal measure the importance of shelter, income and biodiversity (n=133). Issues closely

72

related such as, conservation (125), and landcare (110) also scored highly. Are we to conclude from these findings that MTG participants are particularly altruistic in their farm forestry projects?

A number of studies of farmer participation in tree growing (Wilson et al., 1995, Alexander et al., 2000) have suggested that while very few Australian farmers (about 1%) grow trees for commercial timber production many do grow trees for shelter (75%), land protection (50%). nature conservation (30%) and aesthetics (10%). Of the participants in the MTG there is a greater interest in the commercial potential of trees than these studies would suggest but this does not seem to come at the expense of other short term or personal benefits (Reid, 2008a). In fact, participation in the MTG may actually increase the range of values that individual farmers seek from their reafforestation projects – or at least their willingness to acknowledge these publicly:

The trees are popping up where it is unprofitable to grow sugar cane. I am taking our short rows and planting trees there--because it’s not profitable. Also places where it is too stony-we are putting trees there. With the view that the trees will be shelter after a few years, with the cows amongst it. (Mackay participant)

Mostly now we are running stock-cattle, but a few sheep. We only grow crops for the livestock. The bird life improves which helps with our insects. We are now biodynamic. We don’t use sprays. Having the birds around benefits us. The windbreaks are good-the crops stay greener longer. (Wagga Wagga participant)

There is evidence to suggest that, particularly in the more developed countries, the motivations of family forest owners and farmers are shifting away from a focus on production alone to a suite of economic, ecological and amenity functions (Elands and Wiersum, 2001; Acheson, 2008)). This shift in motivation may reflect a reduced reliance on agriculture as the sole source of family income, increased education levels or changing community values. More than half the MTG landholders surveyed by Deans gained the majority of their income off farm. Before dismissing these families as all being ‘hobby farmers’ or somehow less deserving of extension support it is worth noting that the majority of families who own farmland in the highly modified and potentially most productive tree growing areas on the eastern seaboard would fall into this category (Barr, 2009).

Another reason for the increasingly diverse range of motivations for growing and owning forest lands may lie in the recognition that forests can actually complement agricultural production or other primary reasons for owning land (such as aesthetics, residential or recreation). In Chapter 3 Deans refers to notion of ‘trees as infrastructure’ to explain the way past participants described the role their forests play as a component of the whole farming enterprise

The more land we take out of our direct agriculture use we get a quantum leap in productivity on the remaining land. (Hunter Participant)

73

Annabel Kater (right) discusses silvicultural options for multipurpose native forest

management during the Hunter MTG

Andrew Stewart, whose case study has become a feature of the MTG course explains the economics of tree growing in the video Rowan uses on the opening day in this way:

I see using commercial trees and habitat trees as part of the risk management strategy for our property. We have trees integrated into the landscape for their multiple values, but if, at the end of the day for whatever reason the trees aren’t harvested they’re still performing jobs for the farm. The money we get from harvesting timber is a bonus. We prune and thin just so we can keep that opportunity alive. (Andrew Stewart (MTG) quoted in video used in Day 1).

74

Andrew Stewart explains how he used whole farm planning principles to integrate commercial trees into the farm

There has been a succession of economic studies, often promoted by farm forestry extension programs, that compare the discounted returns from conventional agricultural crops or stock against those anticipated to result from a conversion of the land to forestry. Firstly, it is a false dichotomy for most farming families to present forestry as an alternative income stream to conventional agriculture or grazing because of the time frames involved. Secondly, the multifunctional and infrastructure development view of trees and forests challenges conventional forest economics which only values forests on the basis of their income production potential by suggesting that the impact on the capital value of the farm as a whole may actually be more important (Reid, 2008b). Land owners make decisions about forestry that are not mechanistically defined by the economic principle of yielding the highest discounted revenue on trees (Jones and Price, 1985; Knight, 1998).

To start with it’s the same as any investment or capital improvement it sets you back. How do I quantify the benefit? (Kyneton participant)

Here is something that I never get sick of. You know, I‘ve lived on this farm for 22 years and it just gets better and better, It gives us a great feeling every time we come up here. It’s a beautiful landscape and it’s improving every year. How do you value that? How do you quantify that? I guess, in simple terms this is the place we live, this is our life. People try and design a good life in many different ways, and often it revolves around income. But, you know, improving the landscape value gives you a better feeling about where you live. It’s not something that you can value with money, it’s just a feeling. It’s where you live, and if it improves your quality of life it’s a great thing. (Noel Passalaqua, MTG, talking in a video used by Rowan in the final session of every MTG course)

Economics has always been an important component of the MTG courses and is usually presented by the national coordinators themselves (Rowan or, in the past, Peter Stephen). In the first two editions of the MTG manual (The Farmer’s Log and The Farmer’s Forest) there were chapters explaining how

75

farmers could use discounted cash flow analysis to determine the profitability of their plantations (Reid and Stephen, 2001). Rowan, whilst still explaining how time erodes the profitability of long term forestry projects, has adapted his economics presentation to emphasise the capital nature of farm tree growing. He concludes by suggesting that conventional forest economic tools, as used in the majority of farm forestry evaluations (such as in Thompson and George, 2009) may be largely irrelevant for those considering integrating forests into farming systems for a range of benefits:

A mature forest is not like a piece of antique furniture or a vintage car – you cannot go out and buy one to replace the one you’ve lost. For a farmer to grow timber waiting is not just a cost, it is unavoidable. Time still needs to be lived. Rather than just being a source of income, forests are a capital asset, part of the farm’s infrastructure (Reid 2008b).

Principle 5. It is hard to be green when you are in the red

Vanclay: Sustainability requires an economic dimension as well as a physical dimension

There is no doubt that the control of land degradation, improvement of water quality and the provision of native habitat are strong motivations amongst MTG participants for investing in agroforestry projects (Chapter 3). It is also clear, particularly amongst the peer group mentors (Chapter 4), that this desire to be ‘green’ is not confined to projects, or outcomes, within their own property boundaries.

They are looking at their plot and wondering how to make money and help the environment. (Katanning participant)

Certainly people are more aware of the environment these days. And there seems to be more interest. A lot of the older farmers have died off or sold off. The fact you need trees for animals. (Wagga Wagga participant)

Vanclay highlights the importance of identifying and facilitating the potential for landholders to incorporate an economic dimension into their conservation programs. Whilst most extension services focus on promoting either the environmental or the economic benefit of trees and native vegetation, they rarely acknowledge the opportunity to design and manage forests that deliver both. For landholders, their involvement in the MTG is often the first time they have heard of multipurpose or multifunctional forestry: growing trees for conservation and profit. For many, hearing this is a relief:

From ecological perspective people are more aware of the need to grow trees. From an economic point its diversifying the farm. (Avon participant)

There is no economic disadvantage to growing trees. Salt is encroaching a bit - and the trees have assisted. (Wellstead participant)

Greenskills has been involved in running two MTG and I was a coordinator. I was also a participant. The MTG allowed us to look at biodiversity and commercial tree growing. (Bridgetown participant)

Nonetheless, there is an upfront financial costs associated with a tree establishment or forest management practice. Importantly, these are closely associated with the scale of the project. There is an assumption underlying many forestry extension programs that there is a minimum scale of operation (say 10 hectares) and a need to commit to a narrow range of species or product options in order to achieve the necessary economies of scale. In addition to this there is an expectation that establishment will be done ‘properly’ which usually means using industrial scale equipment such as bulldozers.

Not only do these criteria increase the ‘entry cost’ of participation they also makes it difficult for landholders to undertake the majority of the work themselves. The resulting need to ‘lock up’ large areas in any one year and ‘fork-out’ a large sum of cash in order to ‘play the game’ ultimately reduces affordability and increases the landholders’ exposure to the obvious, at least to them, risks (climate, fire, disease, loss of markets etc.). The same is true for large scale, or apparently desperately urgent,

76

environmental projects that are supported by catchment management authorities or government agencies such as fencing out watercourses or revegetating recharge areas. As Pannell et al., (2006:5) suggest even landholders with a low emphasis on generating additional cash income are unlikely to be attracted to adoption of practices that would involve large economic losses.

In the short term is probably devastating economically-its soaks up a lot of time and money. Although I expect it to improve. In terms of the long term viability I am sure it will be an asset. (Bridgetown participant)

It comes at a cost. Whether you get that cost back is something hard to know. (Wagga Wagga participant)

The MTG approach argues that agroforestry is an adaptable innovation. In designing projects it is important that they reflect the landholder’s own resource set and their attitude to risk. For many, being able to do the work themselves using their existing equipment is critical. More importantly, for both the novice and experienced grower, there is much to be gained by starting small: learning about the adaptability of the species to their particular sites; gaining the management skills required and the appreciating the time involved; and having the opportunity to experience the impacts of the trees on other enterprises and values.

I would strongly urge people if they buy land that they sit on it and look at for at least a year before they decide what to do. I think I was to gung-ho and moved too quickly. I didn’t really know that block of land, didn’t know what was potentially good and bad and it was a lot of time and energy wasted. (Boonah participant)

It is also possible to use forestry as a means to transitioning into a new style of farming. For example, older farmers can use the factors of slow growing times, increasing competition with pasture, less-intensive labour demands, and long term lumpy cash flow of farm forestry to their benefit:

I wanted to be able to travel and between changing over operations, we sold off our cattle so we could travel. I started tree planting and planned tree planting. (Anonymous participant)

Where the rotations are much shorter, and the volume of production more critical in determining the viability of harvesting and marketing (such as in the pulpwood industry or even the carbon market) there is a place for partnerships with industry or off-farm investors to help landholder achieve the required scale without carrying all the risk. The MTG provides the opportunity for joint venture partners to present to a group of landholders or identify potential candidates, who have some appreciation of the importance of product specifications, marketing chains and silvicultural management (see MTG framework).

There has been more tree planting in our valley, people have become more conscious of preserving trees, and joint ventures with State Forests. (Anonymous participant)

Principle 6. ‘Doing the right thing’ is a strong motivational factor

Vanclay: Farmers conform to a notion of ‘good farm management’. This notion is a complex entity and includes ideas about farming practice and environmental management or stewardship.

What an individual and their community consider ‘good management practices’ or ‘good stewardship’ is organic and changes over time. These are notions constructed from within a paradigm that mean an individual’s farm management practices can be, and continually are, measured against other farms within their district, or industry sector. Personal networks, an individual’s capacity to research and acquire new information, and positive or negative feedback from peers all play a role in informing, validating and supporting farming practices. Whilst government policy and legislation may reflect the prevailing views of the wider community, the community that matters in this context may be quite local or specific. How the landholder reacts to this pressure to conform will vary.

77

Self determination for MTG participants was a strong theme in the research. Doing the right thing on one’s own land is not always in the best interest, or achieves agreement from the wider community. When it comes to making choices and decisions many express the opinion that doing it themselves, in the manner in which they see fit, is the best way. For example,

I did it all on my own. I am a great believer in what I believe in--if you do then you make the investment yourself. (Avon participant)

In recent years we don’t want them here looking over our shoulder, we want to control our property, we don’t want them telling us what to do. (Anonymous participant)

The same goes for the advice provided by extension agents and other experts, and the conditions tied to receiving incentives or joint venture opportunities:

I told them I would like to get some certain species in this area-wide spaced--and this director said-'This is stumbling block'--they said they won’t fund anything that is not native to this particular spot. There Eucalyptus viminalis all over the place, but they don’t grow right on my property. I will pay for my own seedlings and I will see if they help me with the work and do all the work myself. (Dorrigo participant)

A lot of the projects came with caveats-and I would rather keep control.(Kojonup participant)

That’s all I got out of the landcare group-being told what type of trees to plant that were never going to do well in this area. I was disillusioned. And telling me how to plant them,-how many rows and spacing. I thought it was a waste of time what they wanted. (Anonymous participant)

In areas where agroforestry is new there is often a vacuum in terms of landholder and community understanding of what is ‘good management’. Rowan has noticed that many novice tree growers at the start of the MTG clutch onto relatively simple, yet largely irrelevant, concepts to define the quality of a forest - such as the straightness of the planting rows. Over the period of the course the group begin to define and articulate what ‘good management’ means in their area. Whilst this often centres on technical aspects such as notions of what is good planting or pruning practice, the most important concept, and the one most strongly promoted by Rowan, is one acknowledges that ‘what is appropriate will vary for each and every landholder in the group’. This is not only responsible extension practice it simply makes commonsense to encourage people to act according to their own unique ecological, economic and social conditions.

I have this thing about not wanting to grow trees in rows and rows.(Colac participant)

I believe that you have got to follow what the land is already doing. If your country is producing a certain type of tree in a natural form and you try to change the system it doesn’t work.(Mackay participant)

I think if farmers did the course they would be more aware. It’s not a course that pushes an agenda.(Anonymous participant)

Whether for conservation, agricultural services or commercial products, forests require ongoing management. Whilst a landholder may gain knowledge about what work is required and when, the most important factor affective whether they do it is their motivation to act. This is particularly important where the work provides no immediate financial return (follow up weed control, pruning, thinning etc) and there are many other urgent jobs on the farm. Knowing that there are others in the community that you respect and you know can see the work that is required provides a strong motivation for acting. Seeing the MTG gate sign every time you drive into your own farm only serves to heighten this. Farmers talk of the need to prune and thin their trees, maintain fences or undertake other forest management activities in case other MTG participants visit or drive past.

Peer expectations of continued commitment or personal support and encouragement will reinforce commitment and provide a buffer against setbacks (Pannell et al., 2006:6)

78

Principle 7. Farmers don’t distinguish environmental issues from other farm management issues

Vanclay: There is only one farm. Farming practices have both production and environmental outcomes. Extension advice must be integrated.

Complex situations, of are common in natural resource management, can be considered in a variety of equally rational ways and at many different scales. Trees on farms can be legitimately linked to land degradation, downstream water quality and quantity, regional biodiversity, native forest logging, demand for timber products, the national trade deficit in forest products, the future of small rural communities, the viability of agricultural industries, world weather patterns and host of other issues. Whilst government policy, legislation, extension programs and industry targets might be based on addressing the big issues, landholders will only adopt practices that compliment and support their existing goals at the farm or family level.

This suggests there is danger in justifying or promoting practices on the basis of their national, regional or industry benefits alone (such as the Plantations Vision 2020). An effective extension program is one that seeks to marry the needs and interests of the farming community with those of the sponsors. This can be extremely frustrating as sponsors begin to feel that their program is concentrating on issues that they believe are irrelevant or are ‘watering down’ those they see being of greatest concern. In the MTG, which is reliant on working with willing partners, we have recognised this as a risk.

The original MTG was developed with the support of the Myer Foundation. They believed in the argument that helping farmers achieve, with trees, what they wanted would deliver environmental and social benefits for the wider community. Whilst the JVAP program accepted this, there has always been an expectation that the MTG would also promote commercial tree growing and the use of their research projects. The MTG was also expected to provide JVAP with publicity and promotion. Whilst negotiating the Land and Water Australia funding there was some discussion as to whether this would require a separate program (such as the Master Vegetation Manager or the use of a green hat) in order to distinguish the environmental and native vegetation emphasis they sought. Regionally, the MTG has worked with a large number of organisations with interests ranging from forest protection to native forest harvesting and from indigenous revegetation to industrial plantation development.

Fortunately, all the sponsors and partners of the MTG have appreciated the importance of the MTG being ‘farmer-first’ in its approach. Whilst providing an opportunity for partners to present their interests, there has been, to our knowledge, no cases where an organisation or individual representing an alternative view has purposely excluded from a program. This, we believe, has been critical to developing credibility and confidence in the program and underpins much of its success.

Principle 8. There is a strong desire to hand the farm on to one’s children in a better condition than they themselves received it

Vanclay: This motivation exceeds any rational economic decision...it makes any investment in improving the farm worthwhile. When farmers believe that their children will not return to the farm the motivation for investment is diminished.

It is true that a high proportion of the MTG participants are over 50 years of age and many will never realise the economic or even environmental values of the trees that they grow. We have heard hundreds of elderly farmers tell of their discomfort at the environmental impact of their many years of productive farming. Now, with a reduced need to generate income to support a young family, they see an opportunity to ‘put something back’ for the next generation.

Grandkids schooling they may get something. (Hastings participant)

79

Long term financial benefits for myself and for my kids. I like trees. I am sure I will use some of the trees for myself but I can never see myself cutting them all down. There is a visual value to them. (Nambucca participant)

At my age I won’t see the end result. If the kids hold the land they will. (Wagga participant)

The prospects that farmers see ahead for the next generation is an important factor that determines where the MTGs are run and who participates. If their children are not interested in the farm, or the family believes that it offers no future, they are unlikely to be interested in the MTG unless they believe growing trees will provide ‘joy’ in the latter years whilst enhancing the capital value of the farm in case they need to sell up.

But rather than focusing on the age of the individual participants a more interesting aspect underlying this particular principle is how farmers often see themselves as part of continuum of family ownership and management of a particular farm. Many MTG participants talk of an intergenerational attachment to their property and carry with them a stewardship ethic that suggests they have a need to pay off past debts resulting from generations of misguided, but well intentioned, land management practices.

I am a 3rd generation farmer, been in the family since the 1920's. It went through extensive clearing, virtually no trees at all. I have tried to reverse that by putting the trees back. (Goulburn participant)

It’s been 4 generations -128 years in the family. Great grandfather would have cleared the trees. The dryland salinity was the driver that was the original issue, then biodiversity, aesthetic issues. (Ballarat participant)

I am the 5th generation. The family was here in 1840, they did a lot of clearing and chopped everything down. It’s run sheep the entire time. Pasture improvement the last 50 years. The tree planting has been my generation. (Goulburn participant)

Our family have been here for over 100 years. It was part of an original station in this area. It would have been settled in the 1840's and clearing took place. Actual cultivation was done up to the 1900's for growing grain. It was cleared when my grandfather got it…I farmed up until I started growing trees, then I leased out the land. I am retired from farming but the tree planting was always in the plan. (Wagga participant)

It’s been in our family over 80 years now. It was 99.99% cleared when it came into our family. I started tree planting in 1982 as a result of observations made in the 1982 drought and have now planted over 200,000 trees and shrubs. In Christmas 1982, our place was bare, and I went out to take some photos and I noticed that the grass that was along the highway had filtered the organic that had blown off our property, and thought I need to start doing something different. I know several other people with a similar story. Takes the depths of despair to motivate us to do something strongly. I have fared much better in this drought. We have changed our management drastically our place is looking pretty good. (Goulburn participant)

For others there is family history of planting trees of which the current owners take on as a matter of pride:

It’s an irrigation farm, always has been. Been in the same family for 5 generations. My father got us planting trees. It was only the 1st generation that cleared the land. Between when the first generation cleared and the generations in between there wasn’t any planting and no more clearing was required. There is a percentage of farmers who can’t see the benefit of trees. My guess is that most of them now think it was stupid thing to do, and they are planting trees now. I don’t think there is many that trees will make a difference but we feel good about doing it. You have only got to look around our area and there is more trees than there ever was. You have to say people want to see them around. There is a minority who can’t see the point of them. (NUFG participant)

This principle highlights the importance of extension programs allowing landholders to define their own purpose for growing trees. What they need is an understanding of the processes of degradation

80

and decay that have occurred in their area and the role that trees and forests can play in improving the opportunities for the next generation:

Long term rotations of up to 30 years don’t really present a problem to me because, well really…I think there’s an opportunity there because, whilst the trees are there improving the farm productivity and environmental integrity of the property they’re growing into timber … we’re currently making our living from prime lambs and beef and the trees are assisting in that process so we have assured income, but the next generation, they’ll gain the benefit of harvesting those trees then perpetuating the system by replanting (Andrew Stewart – MTG video used on Day 1 of every course)

Principle 9. Sustainability means staying on the farm

Vanclay: Agencies tend to regard sustainability in terms of biophysical issue and sometimes in terms of economic issues. For farmers, sustainability is meaningless unless it involves the ability to stay on the farm.

From the preceding point we can see that farmers conduct themselves in a manner that engenders a future on the land. Participants are not merely altering the landscape they are consciously creating an environment for the future which fosters the capacity to maintain the farm and provide lifestyle choices. As this Western Australian participant observes,

It was taken up in 1909. It’s been in our family ever since. It’s been cleared conservatively. We still have got a lot of timber compared to a lot of others. It’s a farm we wish to stay here and derive and income from but it also has to be a pleasing place to want to stay and work. (WA participant)

And staying on the farm is not all about the land’s productivity. Farms are not just businesses they are also homes and backyards, albeit rather large ones, where families live, work and play. Even on a working farm there is no reason why the whole property does not have to be run for commercial production. Just as city people tend to their gardens for the utility of pleasure, and workers in offices appreciate a window with a view so do landholders seek an attractive environment as this Western Australian observes:

The pleasure of running a farm with lots of young diverse species is very hard to put a value on that, it makes your farm pleasant, and your workers. (Kojonup participant)

81

MTG participants consider a range of tree product options

Principle 10. Women are an integral part of the farm

Vanclay: Farms are often complex partnerships involving many people in the running of the farm and farm household. Even where there has been a strong division of labour, the role of women in the private sphere has been essential to the survival of the farm.

Reid (2008) reports that, up until the end of 2005, 25% of the MTG participants were women. In the recent telephone survey of past participants 28% of the respondents were female. Acknowledging that forestry is a very ‘male’ domain, our guide to planning and delivering an MTG (Reid, Unpubl.) suggests that landholders be encouraged to bring their partners or other family members along to any of the sessions and, in particular, to the final dinner and presentation. Even if the partners or other family members don’t share the participant’s enthusiasm it is important that they, as family members, are acknowledged and see the value the program provides. For many though, growing trees is a shared family activity:

We felt as a family we could do something practical. Everyone helped in planting 70,000 pine trees. We came up with different ideas and were very active in forestry. (North East Victoria participant)

Deans (Chapter 3) explored this in more detail by asking interviewees who was actively involved in the establishment and management of their tree projects. More than 40% noted that partners or other family members were involved in providing labour (Table 5.1)

82

Table 5.1 Participation in the active management of forests on farms

Labour group Count %

I do-Only 81 37% I do-with Contractors or hired help 32 15% I do- with undisclosed help 14 6% Family Only 24 11% Family -with Contractors or hired help 14 6% Family and undisclosed help 2 1% Partners* Only 38 17% Partners-with Contractors or hired help 12 5% Partners with undisclosed help 2 1% 219 *Partners include husband and wife and couples 27 -No farm or forest 4 - no answers

Principle 11. Stage in lifecycle of a farming family and family composition are significant factors

Vanclay: It affects their need for household income and commitment to the future.

Landholders approach their participation in the MTG from their own position in life. Younger participants, or those seeking to develop or enhance their career or tree-related business (nurseryman, contractors, extension agents etc) naturally seek technical expertise from both the experienced farmers and expert presenters. They also value networks that include researchers and potential clients and tend to be interested in learning about other regions, outside their past experience. In Chapter 3 Deans reported that 11% of participants had found the program to be of benefit in their employment or professional activities. Although the course does not provide any formal qualifications it does offer training that can assist the person already employed in forestry or those wishing to make a move into the field:

Being a professional forester it has improved my understanding of growing trees on farms, and sort out what motivates farmers. (Anonymous participant)

It’s an introductory kind of thing. It’s open to people who have shown an interest in trees of all types. They could be tree growers or nurserymen. You are catering for a broad group. (Ballarat participant)

Although we have never asked it is clear from our own observations of running the programs that a large number of the landholders involve in the MTG are older than fifty. This clearly reflects a number of factors including the priorities of farmers at different life stages and their interests as well access to disposable funds and time to invest in new tree growing or even the land required.

Thank goodness for MTG because it keeps interest going. There is not a lot of interest in forestry from the young people but the MTG keeps interest. (Goulburn participant)

83

The MTG attracts people at various life stages

We are finding that there are many MTG participants who have been working in government or professional jobs for many years that are able to retire with increasingly large superannuation packages and the prospects of many years of good health. Not being dependent on farming for income means that planting and managing trees provides a reason for farming and possibly even purpose to their lives. These same people often seek hired help and contractors, some of whom they meet through the MTG. Mature participants, seeking knowledge for their own use, don’t tend to seek formal qualifications but they do value the knowledge provide by others.

One of the very important segments of the MTG is that participants are actively participating; they give of their experiences to others... It’s not a formal academic thing and I think it has a great deal of value. (Cairns Participant)

Stage of life does have an influence on the type of agroforestry practices that are most attractive to the landholders. Pannell et al., (2006:7) point out that if a farm is not to be passed on to the farmer’s children, and if the benefits of conservation practices are not expected to be fully reflected in the farm’s sale price, then older farmers may have less incentive to invest in something that will be primarily of benefit to the subsequent owner. As Reid (2008b) argues, the impact of particular agroforestry options on the capital value of the farm may be more important than its income generating potential. Many farmers believe that the industrial plantation models (large scale, uniform tree crops on high quality land) are likely to reduce land values despite being designed to maximise income potential, but even more prevalent is the view that the industrial model is destroying communities and marginalising traditional farming practices:

I planted my farm with trees and its now unsellable. You can’t sell it to anybody. I can’t afford to farm it and fence. The speculators came in and leased the trees, they'll never make any money out of it.

I have a guaranteed income until I'm dead. Its jobs for the boys. The directors are getting money for jam. I only done it for survival. I am not interested in growing trees. (Anonymous participant)

84

There is the constant battle about the woodchip mill and integrated harvesting. That is having an effect on private property because the chip mill is approaching them. Private landholders with native forest have been approached by South East Fibre Exports to "improve their forest". It may be happening with less regulation than what is happening in state forest. (Eden participant)

The land values just got so high that tree companies were purchasing land and there wasn’t the return for investors, and caused the companies to go bankrupt, that’s poor management. We've got carbon credits coming in and that is going to impact on land availability. It’s been great there could be tax investment into agroforestry but it created a false market. You get poor managers and they go stupid with the money they have. It gives agroforestry a bad name. Greedy little businessman jumping on the bandwagon. There is not tight enough management. Directors aren't held accountable. If we could tighten up the laws and make these guys liable. (Wellstead participant)

The company planted-Bunnings. When it came to planting they picked the eyes out of it. They just planted everything. They didn’t even know whose land they had planted. It’s all a racquet. (Anonymous participant)

Once a place a been sold to the bluegum companies landcare ceases to occur. The other is less landholders with that personal interest in trees. If the farm has been passed down and you flog it to the bluegum company they are not interested in landcare. (Denmark participant)

The bluegum schemes were looking at 550mm plus. That has changed the landscape not far from us. It has removed a number of people out the district but has allowed them to retire out farming. Relocation of people to the town centre, and reduction in people being involved in the fire department. (Wellstead participant)

A lot of trees have been planted in the area. It’s gone to forestry. I think this is happening on the west coast of WA. Farm produce is pushed down in price and tree people are prepared to pay the money. (Wellstead participant)

People trying to reduce their tax is the thing that is driving trees into the land that is unsuitable for it. That is going to affect things in years to come. (Eden participant)

The biggest social change has come about from the Tassie Bluegum plantations. Family farms being sold and the family moving off. That’s decimated one of our local communities. (WA participant)

I am concerned about the regional model as it doesn’t give farm forestry due weight. When we go into to attract partnerships with landholders, we are competing with a move away from wool and fiber to cropping. (Bridgetown participant)

There is an argument that the time taken to grow a forest matches the human life cycle: younger farmers can plant and manage trees while they have the ability then retire into a forest. In many countries this provides a means of passing the agricultural business to the next generation while they are still young enough to want it:

I would rather work wages and leave the farm like a superannuation. (Cairns participant) Dependent on it now. It’s virtually superannuation. (Wellstead participant)

85

Principle 12. Non-adoption is not the cause of land degradation, rather practices actively promoted by extension in the past have significantly contributed to degradation

Vanclay: Many extension staff believe that non-adoption of practices they promote is the main barrier to sustainable agriculture.

In the last MTG report to JVAP Reid and Stephen (2007:17) wrote: The premise of many farm forestry research, development and extension programs is that there is a particular problem that the promoters believe must be overcome, such as: Farmers aren’t growing enough trees to combat land degradation, or, Industry hasn’t access to enough timber to remain viable in a competitive international market. This, they argued, has led to extension programs that were ‘perspective dependent’ and, as such, often seen as irrelevant, risky, narrow or invasive by farmers who naturally had a different range of issues and values they wished to address:

The research and development programs arising from the perspective-dependent solution approach are predictable: Research is limited to refining and evaluating options against pre-defined performance criteria in order to identify the right answer, best-bets, or recipes for success. Communication is seen as simply selling the message better than the competitors (e.g. tell farmers timber production is more profitable than agriculture). Extension focuses on re-educating those who don’t share the same priorities or providing instructions to farmers in the implementation of the preferred options (Reid and Stephen 2007 p 18).

Peter Devonshire gives participants a history lesson about the growth of another relatively ‘unattractive’ pine plantation during one of the Gippsland MTG courses

Farm forestry has a long history of such programs. Victoria is littered with small plantations of pine established with government loans that will never be viable (Hurley, 1996). There is a risk that more recent programs will repeat the same mistakes and be viewed as a form of land degradation. The

86

alternative, as described by Reid and Stephen (2007), is to shift the focus of extension away from getting farmers to grow forests in order to solve the problems that others perceive as critical, to one of empowering rural communities to the point that they are able to articulate, design and implement forestry practices that best meet their own individual and community needs. The degree to which the outcome of such a process will also meet the needs or interests of particular industry sectors, governments agencies, conservation groups or other outsiders will largely depend on the degree to which there are shared goals, a capacity and willingness amongst farmers to act, adequate rewards for farmers who provide the services or products sought by others, and the degree to which penalties are imposed for non-compliance.

Principle 13. Marginal farmers are not marginal because of their management ability but rather because of their structural location

Vanclay: This includes the size of farms, the activities they undertake, how much income farmers make, changing world events, government policy. They are marginal because they were structured to be marginal.

As highlighted by Barr (2009) there are large areas of farmland, often in the more productive regions, that are unviable as traditional agricultural enterprises. Because of their location the land value is very much greater than its productivity would suggest. Although areas like the north coast of NSW or the hills of SE Queensland are amongst the best tree growing areas in Australia it is unlikely that growing timber or any other tree product could pay for the land. Accepting this, as many of the landholders do, frees them up to consider what types of forest management might match the interests of those who own the land and the market opportunities that are developing in these areas.

One alternative approach, which has been discussed at MTGs in these areas, is to explore the prospect for younger participants who have very little land and no prospect of purchasing more in the short term establishing and managing forests on other people’s properties in a way that allows them to builds up a viable forest estate. This is just one example of how the networks developed during the program might facilitate investment in new forests over time.

Principle 14. Farmers’ attitudes are not the problem

Vanclay: Surveys show that they have positive attitudes about environmental management generally but have concerns about whether the management practices being promoted as sustainable are, in fact, sustainable or profitable.

As Vanclay (1992:118) points out: “the protection of Australia’s farmland does not require promotion of changes in farmer attitudes, but it does require an increase in farmers’ knowledge of the land degradation processes and symptoms.” The MTG aims to provide education and support whilst not directly challenging the legitimacy of the farmers’ own aspirations and priorities. This approach certainly contrasts with much of the forestry promotion and education in Australia that remains focused on trying to change farmers so that their values better match those of the profession or industry (see Commonwealth of Australia 1997 as an example, and Chapter 3 for a critique of this approach). From the first day of each program the MTG stresses that tree growing and the management of forests can be done in many ways and that the most appropriate option for each landowner will depend on their unique set of motivations, aspirations, concerns and resources.

In an agricultural setting, rapid adoption tends to follow when there is a match in the attitudes and capability of farmers and the innovation (Pannel et al., 2006). Rather than try and change farmer attitudes the MTG engages with a group of farmers, extension agents, researchers and other supporters to explore, over time and across a region, the potential to adapt, redesign and implement agroforestry options that do fit with landholders own attitudes and aspirations:

I was with a neighbour the other day, we were looking at a big blackwood that had fallen down. She said to me, “I was worried about you when you came [to live in this area] – I thought you were going to try and change people”. So, while the landscape has changed as a

87

result of widespread tree growing in the immediate areas, the people haven’t. This is because what has been planted is an extension of those people, or their commitment [to the region]. Rather than trying to change the farmers, we have been working to change forestry to suit farmers. (Quote from Reid in Borschmann et al. 2005: 71)

This principle raises questions about the use of public money to support farmer actions that are in essence focused on achieving private good outcomes. It is possible, for example, that the MTG could facilitate revegetation options of forest management methods that had substantial negative public outcomes. It is our view, based on many studies of landholder motivations and our own research into the aspirations of MTG participants that, on balance, anything that helps farmers achieve the values they identify from growing and managing forests will ultimately deliver substantial public benefits. Unlike industry, government, conservation groups or other ‘off-farm’ investors, the diversity and complexity of farmer interests and aspirations tends to ensure a diversity of activity that mitigates the risks so often associated with forestry development.

Between 1990 and 2002 forest cover in the Yan Yan Gurt Catchment increased from just 6% to 21%. More than 20 families have planted trees with at least 10 managing their trees for sawlog production. What makes the catchment interesting is not the scale of the revegetation but its diversity. Such diversity is not contrived. It simply reflects the diversity of aspirations and interests amongst the landholders, industry players and their supporters.

Tree plantings owned by farmers, and dispersed through the farming landscape, are acceptable to this rural community. Family and farm forestry not only makes a significant contribution to future wood supply but also ensures that commercial tree growing has local community support, underpins sustainable agricultural production and delivers real environmental benefits (Reid and Lawrence, Undated).

Principle 15. Farmers construct their own knowledge

Vanclay: Information is evaluated against other information, knowledge and beliefs. Nothing is accepted without evaluation.

Both Alexandra and Hall (1998) and Black et al. (2000) point to the diagnosis and design approach to farm forestry project promoted by the Master TreeGrower Program as an important aspect to the development of farm forestry in Australia. Alexandra and Hall (1998: 6) argue that: “lifting the design skills of farmers (or their advisers) so that options can be incorporated into whole farm planning and catchment planning will be a critical component of any national efforts to accelerate farm forestry adoption.” Black et al. (2000:89) say that by actively “involving landholders in understanding and applying basic principles, the diagnosis and design approach contributes more effectively to the development of a culture of continuous learning about agroforestry.”

But there are also risks associated with this approach if the participants don’t appreciate or understand it. Examples from outside the region or in industrial plantation areas are often used during the MTG course to illustrate principles and practices - it maybe that some participants feel that the program is actually promoting these as locally relevant. In the telephone interviews some landholders expressed strong criticisms of the MTG and those involved its delivering. Fortunately, the numbers are small but every criticism is valid and has been taken seriously. Wayne categorised the criticism into five groups (Table 5.2) and provides them all for the sake of completeness.

Table 5.2 Stated criticisms of the MTG

Criticism of MTG % of Respondents MTG is south-eastern Australia focused and does not adequately reflect the local conditions

2%

The MTG is only focused on high rainfall areas 2% The MTG is only focused on profit or plantations 2.4% The MTG is not focused enough on ‘real’ plantations 2.4% Information is wrong, misleading or insufficient 2%

88

1. MTG is south- eastern Australia focused and does not adequately reflect the local conditions

Of the criticisms leveled at the content of the MTG, much of it resides in the perception of the Program being too focused on south-eastern Australia (particularly amongst Queenslanders). Furthermore, people in the south east make the finer distinction of the program being too focused on areas south of the Great Dividing Range.

Rowan came and demonstrated a few things and he referred to areas down in the south in the State. It looks fantastic but when you get over the divide it’s a lot harder especially in these drier years. The success is nowhere near what you can get in the south. (Wimmera participant)

It was Victorian based. It had a Victorian flavour to it. Didn’t give you a lot of feel for North QLD conditions with tropical forestry. That may have changed. (Cairns participant)

We have these different people, and it’s all money for the University. If I am going to open my property I want outcomes. It’s absolute bullshit. What I don’t agree with is where it is not specific to the areas. For example getting them over at areas where there is high rainfall and we bring them here they don’t grow. We need people coming in from DPI and DPR and saying this is a list of trees from your area, the mills are linked - they need this timber for ongoing markets. None of that information was made available to us with the MTG. It’s just a social warm and fuzzy…How can people be bought in from another State that is only relevant to their area. You need to have DPI say with the joint venture people what they have learnt. You need people who are highly qualified, people who are respected by others. I was pretty disappointed with the delivery with the MTG. (Beaudesert participant)

I think there was possibly more local content could be provided. It has been some years since I did it. Things may have changed. (Nambucca participant)

It was simply in an area that wasn’t applicable to semi-tropical LD conditions. I get the feel it was more a moderate climate view of how things worked. (Boonah participant)

2. The MTG is only focused on high rainfall areas

All the following criticisms are from Western Australian participants. In WA the MTG courses have been effectively run under franchise by a state government department or regional plantation committee. Although Rowan is involved on the first and last days there may have been a perception tht the program was promoting a narrow range of options. Incidentally, all these criticism are from programs conducted prior to the recent emphasis by FPC on low rainfall woody crops such as sandalwood and oil mallee which may also explain the concerns.

I don’t know if they have had many more in the dryland areas. My argument was you were preaching to the converted in the high rainfall areas and this program needed to be done in the dryland areas. I don’t know how much that has happened. The program I ran was different to the one I did in Albany. When I did the course it was very much aimed at the high rainfall areas. The most important thing was that it needed to get in the dryer areas. (Albany participant)

The other thing a lot of the places we went to and providing information were from further west of us with higher rainfall. (Katanning participant)

I found in my 400mm rainfall its very challenging you need a lot of patience. A criticism of MTG is it aimed at the high rainfall, yet the potential with patience and understanding to have MTG in more arid area is probably not considered. I felt a bit disenfranchised. (Esperance participant)

The MTG that I went to certainly concentrated on high rainfall and they said the next one will be low rainfall which is 400mm and lots of WA is less than that, so they didn’t know rainfall. (Avon participant)

89

You are missing an opportunity by just looking at the easy part of the landscape and there is the potential to look at MTG in the lower rainfall but you have to forget about the past and look at new ways. (Esperance participant)

3. The MTG is only focused on profit and plantations

These criticisms, and the next group, highlight the difficulty in presenting a balanced program. All but one of the concerns noted here about the emphasis on profit relate to programs conducted in Western Australia and may reflect the perceived interests of FPC and the other sponsors or their bias in the choice of topics and sites.

Hopefully you have much greater focus on revegetation for the environment sake rather than trees for making money that was disappointing. (Wellstead participant)

If it’s there and available it gives people more knowledge of how important trees are in our environment. Sometimes people think timber will make a lot of money but it’s a lot of hard work to make that money. If they have more benefit with other things like salinity it will benefit the landscape. (Wimmera participant)

To take the group and put them in the State Forest and teach them I think was just pathetic. We are 80 years away from that. We are just starting to plant trees in the ground. We don’t need to learn what forestry people are doing. (Bridgetown participant)

I did it because I thought it would help my revegetation projects but it didn’t-it was more interested in looking at forestry as a means of income. (Wellstead participant)

The tree growing program was more oriented toward commercial situations and that was not mine. I was not interested. I didn’t like these plantations with rows and rows. We did not discuss at all the aesthetics, it was all directed toward making a dollar and discussing the questions about whether the government would let you harvest your crop. It was directed toward people that wanted to earn money. (Bridgetown participant)

People are focused on profit drivers. It was spruiked as making significant income but I don’t think it has over this region. (Kojonup participant)

4. The MTG is not focused enough on ‘real’ plantations

The concern for us underlying some of these comments is the suggestion that the MTG has been viewed as promoting the commerciality of particular practices, or at least not encouraging farmers to evaluate the options on the basis of their own performance criteria and risk profiles.

If they want the MTG to survive the government has to support not only the plantation committees and the networks more strongly, those two are critical to delivering outcomes on the ground. They need to pull their finger out and do something. It’s a good program but its hobby farm stuff, it’s not farm stuff. (Avon participant)

I did but wouldn’t now because it’s useless. If it’s going to be a sustainable products, it’s a Mickey Mouse project. If you are going to grow timber for forestry then you need to be a forester and grow thousands of acres. The MTG is not the future of timber growing. We need foresters trained in politics. (Anonymous participant)

If I had of it done it to my whole farm I would have gone bankrupt. I think the MTG needs to take into consideration the viability of what they are promoting. It’s all nice to have a lifestyle farm, but if you have to make a living out of it its different. They have got to be a bit more commercial. Otherwise there was a lot of interest in it. It broadened your outlook on the forestry industry. I don’t regret having done the course. (Albany participant)

Anybody who started out on the MTG contemplating probably wouldn’t do so as it is rather negative. The general gist of the MTG was that it wasn’t a good financial thing to do. (Esperance participant)

90

I don’t think the way the MTG is running really relevant to encouraging new comers in the industry, on small private landholding. If you look outside of that you can say that it’s important for native tree management when the trees are established. If have tube stock there is no need to measure a tree. (Bridgetown participant)

The emphasis on agroforestry within the MTG was perhaps a bit based on faith than real prices. Most of the people who have done MTG and have gone into sawlogs are feeling depressed about it. (WA participant)

5. Information is wrong, misleading or insufficient

I was looking at it to do paddocks and then when I saw the way it was done I didn’t agree with that so didn’t go ahead. They were planting these trees by the acres and acres, and putting these holes in and planting and saying you water them once, and that’s rubbish and it just turned me off. It might have worked in a different climate. (Boonah participant)

There has been a lot of natural revegetation. But occurring insidiously over time. There are about 270 acres, and I reckon over 100 of that has been natural revegetation. Not the stuff that would make Rowan happy. When you step in, you can make an enormous improvement on nature. I have looked at all things we did in the MTG and thought one of my bug bears with this power system is all the high powered pruning. Humans always want to twist things a bit. (Colac participant)

As an academic I guess would like to know more about silviculture. That’s my beef on it. My other thing would be stronger section on economics. To give people the skills to market what they are growing. To give people here is one way to set up a cooperative, or here is a business structure where you could involve the local MTG participants in it. They aren't going away saying I don’t know how to get into the market. (Adelaide Hills participant)

I thought it was intense the work Rowan was doing, and that people wouldn’t be able to give it that much time. I wonder if we should have planted the trees closer than he suggested rather keeping it clean. (Hastings participant)

Principle 16. Effective extension requires more than the transfer of technology, it requires an understanding of the world views of farmers

Vanclay: Where non-adoption occurs, obviously a real commitment to the innovation does not exist and non-adoption is a sensible strategy. Extension needs to be relevant to the needs of the farmer and needs to put their needs ahead of the institutional priorities if it is to be successful.

Of course, there are problems and opportunities within the field of revegetation and forest management that can be researched and promoted using simply technology transfer (TOT) model as shown in Figure 5.1 (Ison et al., 1997). For example, the use of fertilizers, herbicides, new genetic material, tools and electric fencing are all solutions to problems that are relatively simple. However, agroforestry as a whole is much more complex and requires a method of delivery that acknowledges the variance in landholder conditions and constraints and the uncertainty as to the most appropriate outcome.

Figure 5.1 Graphical representation of the Transfer of Technology Model

Recognising this is possibly more important in agroforestry than any other agricultural enterprise because of the long-term nature of the investment and the inherent uncertainty. Pearson et al. (2000:14) argues that “risk communication must consist of dialogue between government/industry and community rather than just monologues by industry or government alone.” Knowledge, they suggest,

Research TransferKnowledge Adoption Diffusion

91

does not necessarily change beliefs and that what is needed in farm forestry extension is a “process by which the salient issues can be identified, evaluated and mitigated through industry-government-community partnerships” (Pearson et al., 2000:14) The MTG is therefore less about the transfer of knowledge and more about initiating an environment of continual learning and participation.

Principle 17. Famers have legitimate reasons for non-adoption

Vanclay: (1)Too complex, (2) Not easily divisible into manageable parts, (3) Not compatible with farm and personal objectives (4) Not flexible enough (5) Not profitable (6) Capital outlay is too high (7) Too much additional learning required (8) Risk and uncertainty is too great (9) There is conflicting information (10) Don’t see that there is a problem (11) Lacking the physical infrastructure (12) Lacking the social infrastructure.

Attributes of the innovation

Pannell et al., (2006:8-11) focus on relative advantage and trialability as the two most important characteristics of an innovation that are likely to drive, or suppress, its adoption by farmers:

Relative advantage means “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea (or practice) it supersedes”. Relative advantage depends on the landholder’s unique set of goals and the biophysical, economic and social context where the innovation will be used. Relative advantage is the decisive factor determining the ultimate level of adoption of most innovations in the long run.

Trialability does not merely refer to the ease of physically establishing a trial, but encompasses factors that influence the ability to learn from a trial, such as the complexity of the issue being addressed.

Because agroforestry and native vegetation management cover a suite of practices it is clearly possible to adapt the design of a project in order to enhance its attractiveness: the scale of the project can be reduced thereby limiting exposure to risk and allowing landholders to use their own labour and

The real question is “Why was it rational for past landholders to allow this to happen?”

92

equipment to reduce the costs; new species and techniques can be trialled as part of existing plantings before having to make a large commitment; land with little or no alternative use can be targeted such as rocky soils, creek lines or isolated paddocks; or, the emphasis can be placed on the short-term, on-farm values such as shelter rather than the long-term timber outcomes.

However, many foresters and conservation biologists will argue that reducing the scale of the project will undermine its economics and ecological viability to the point that it is worthless. Similarly, they argue that mixing the objectives, such as trying to produce quality timber from a shelterbelt or conservation planting, will fatally compromise all the values. In his first day presentation during Rowan does provide examples of multipurpose forests, including his own farm, to illustrate possible strategies to reduce risk. Later, in the economics presentation he demonstrates the cost associated with given up the annual returns provided by high quality agricultural land in order to commit it to a long term plantation forest for income.

The obvious problem associated with tree growing as an innovation is the time it takes for a forest to reach maturity, both economically and environmentally, particularly in medium to low rainfall areas. This is a critical point that many foresters tend to dismiss by using discounted cash flow analysis to account for the cost of time. However, as Rowan says “a mature forest is not like a piece of antique furniture or a vintage car – you cannot go out and buy one to replace the one you’ve lost. For a farmer to grow timber waiting is not just a cost, it is unavoidable. Time still needs to be lived.” (Reid, 2008b).

Conflicting information

Vanclay suggests that conflicting information reduces adoption. However, rather than censor presenters in an attempt to control the advice provided to participants the MTG actively encourages a diversity of opinions. Other than his own role, Rowan has very little involvement in the choice of presenters and makes a point on the first day of making sure participants appreciate that it is up to them, both individually and as a group, to challenge presenters and draw their own conclusions. This is one of the reasons why we consider it important that the program run for longer than just a few days. Still, on the final day many participants joke that they have ‘more question than answers’. Such is the nature of education.

Allowing regions to choose their own presenters, free from censure from the national coordinator does not always work. Presenters vary in their capacity to engage people in public speaking, their ability to sense the mood of the audience and in their technical knowledge. We usually pick up on this from comments in the post course surveys and comments such as this:

(Name of presenter) was a very dull presenter and did not fulfil the expectations as set out in the email. He made a boring subject more boring, he could have more energised. I did not find (name of presenter) presentation very accurate from a planting point of view. (Dorrigo participant)

Physical and Social infrastructure

The MTG can do little to build the physical infrastructure required to underpin the establishment, management and marketing of forest products and services. However, what Vanclay is stressing is that the social infrastructure may be just as important. This touches on aspects of the MTG that have been discussed elsewhere in this report. Suffice to add this observation by Tim O’Meara (anthropologist) in his review the program:

People obviously enjoy participating in the programs and they commonly develop friendships with their fellow MTG group members… The evaluation revealed that enjoyment and friendship enhanced participant’s enthusiasm and their commitment to the group, which in turn increases the likelihood that networking within the group will continue.(O’Meara and Wright, 1999)

93

Mackay MTG participants learn the ‘MTG Salute’

Principle 18. Top-down extension is inappropriate

Vanclay: (1) extension has uncritically accepted the products of industry and has seen as its task to promote these (2) this has led to considerable social and ecological impacts (3) the adoption-diffusion model does not cater for environmental innovations which may not benefit the individual farmers (4) farmers’ local knowledge has been marginalised (5) ignored the social, political, cultural and historical context of agriculture and adoption behaviour.

Critical appraisal of the ‘products of industry’

The MTG framework is a deliberate attempt to discourage regional partners from promoting their favourite or pet agroforestry technologies. Of course, this is not always possible as individuals share their enthusiasm for particular species, management options or products. As we have seen, there is always a risk that participants will feel that they are being pressured to adopt a practice in which they are not comfortable. Rowan’s role in ‘book-ending’ the program is purposeful: his first session presentation seeks to distance the ‘ownership’ of the MTG away from the local agencies and place it firmly with the group itself. At the end of the course he emphasises the importance of landholders evaluating management options against their own performance criteria rather than allowing others to be the final adjudicator.

Partway through the program (outside WA at least) Rowan reinforces this need for the participants to be able to read a forest for themselves when he presents them with the MTG diameter tapes and introduces them to the language of forestry (diameter at breast height, basal area etc). It is not critical to him that they have a full understanding of forest measurement. What is more important is the symbolic ‘handing-over’ of the closely guarded domain of forestry technology and the associated jargon to the landowners and the implied confidence that they can, if they need to, collect and interpret such data.

94

Local knowledge

All participants in an MTG bring a wealth and diversity of experiences to the program. The self reported average history of active participation was almost 19 years with less than 25% having less than 10 years experience. In the early years the program actively targeted landholders with experience. It is essential that this indigenous knowledge is recognised, respected and built upon throughout the program (Frank and Chamala, 1992). Farm walks and business tours led by the participants are an important element of the program as they not only demonstrate the importance of adapting forestry designs to suit individual circumstances but also allow for the sharing of knowledge and experiences. Here participants (learners) also become teachers by telling their own stories and sharing their experiences and interests. This builds empathy, trust and confidence among the participants and increases the likelihood that the interpersonal relationships established are maintained.

Much of the success of the MTG has come from this focus on the farmer as the causal agent in the design process. Whilst an expert might be able to interpret the physical aspects of their farming systems (the soils, water flows, climate, plant species etc) they are unlikely to be privy to the very personal, yet just as important, personal, family and economic circumstances that will also govern the choice of the most appropriate agroforestry practices.

The knowledge is held by the landholder and is likely to be unique to them, to some extent. It will probably be based on a mixture of scientific information, personal experience, and cultural influences. Culture includes laws, social norms, ideologies and other human-devised factors that influence behaviour (Pannell et al., 2006)

Establishing and expanding landholder information networks

The extension ideal is the development of a ‘social capital’ which Woolcock (1998:155) describes as “encompassing the norms and networks facilitating collective action for mutual benefit.” This is the purpose of the networks, both informal and formal, that develop or are strengthened by the program. As Woolcock (1998:154) points out:

The latest equipment and most innovative ideas in the hands or mind of the brightest, fittest person, however, will amount to little unless that person also has access to others to inform, correct, assist with, and disseminate their work.

There is evidence that Landcare members have greater awareness of degradation issues, are more knowledgeable about resource management and have significantly higher levels of adoption of best bet practices (Curtis and De Lacy, 1996; Wilkinson and Cary, 1992; Barr, 1999). Farmers who have lived and worked in a region for many years will have their own practical and technical networks which provide knowledge on topics such as markets, crops, pasture, weeds and the weather. In some cases their tree growing networks will simply be an extension of their existing ‘farming’ networks.

Obviously, new comers are in a more difficult position. Based on her interviews of past MTG participants, Frost (2005) reports an unexpected (to her) outcome arising from the regional delivery for people who had recently moved into a region. She notes the “people tended to have more ‘local knowledge’ about soil types, weather conditions and land capability” which enabled them to feel “far more accepted by the more established residents of their community”.

Likewise, these networks act as a conduit for information between farmers, extension bodies, and government agencies and can be significant in helping industry and government achieve and communicate their interests. Course coordinator for the Dorrigo program, Alex Statzenko (MNCFF), highlighted this point by saying:

There is a low awareness of the CMA and what they do. [A] feature of this group was that a lot of them were new to the area, so a lot of them had little idea of what the institutional framework is around here… so I had the CMA guys giving them a run down on their role and what they do.

95

The Hunter region program administrator, Pierre Louis, has a similar view on the issue of how the MTG can enhance the CMA’s goals:

The more people that know about FF in the manner that the MTG is promoting the better because there will be a chance to decrease depletion of the native forest use and misuse. The CMA realise that as well. There was some reluctance at first in investing in farm forestry by the CMA but they realise it has benefit.

In 2008 at the Moree MTG, Rod Williams, from the Border-Rivers Gwyder CMA, presented on behalf of the Authority during the first morning session of the first day. He made the case for how the running of a MTG in the district aligned with the Authority’s objectives and how this symbiotic relationship was beneficial, He stated:

I would be more willing to support it to other CMA's. What it did do it bought together a group of people from right across the catchment that now have a common purpose. I think it would be shame to not have that group work together. I think the CMA now has a group of people that would be beneficial to the CMA in the future whatever it we do.

Moree MTG participants learning about natural pest control

Principle 19. The 80-20 rule is a self-serving delusion

Vanclay: the story that 20% of the farmers produce 80% of the wealth is used to legitimate the provision of extension services to the top 20% (role models, trickle down, diffuse and recalcitrant laggards).

Whilst this ‘delusion’ maybe justified for those focused only on the production of forest products it is clearly ludicrous as a basis for allocating extension services related to natural resource management. Irrespective of the productivity or viability of individual farming enterprises what happens on that land does impact on regional and national environmental values.

96

In respect to the development of agroforestry there is another aspect that is often overlooked by those who argue that research and development should be targeted to ‘real’ farmers. Based on our experience it is clearly evident that ‘non-commercial’ or ‘hobby’ farms are playing an important role in trialling commercial timber species and management options and reducing the uncertainty about the innovation for their neighbours. As described in Chapter 4, many of the Peer Group Mentors are individuals who have ‘retired’ from full time farming. Whilst retaining their credibility and practical local experience these individuals provide a means of communicating with farmers who are too busy to go to regional field days and seminars, let alone 8-day MTGs.

The development of a regional critical mass to achieve environmental and commercial values can only be built on a foundation of social capacity and experience. The exclusion of any individual, or discrimination on the basis of the size of their farming ventures or their primary production status (as is common with government funding for farmer education), threatens to undermine the recognition and mutual respect required in participatory extension programs like the MTG. It is simply unfair to make assumptions about the future role that an individual will play within their community.

The Hunter Valley MTG course during a farm walk on a participant’s property

Principle 20. Science and extension do not have automatic legitimacy and credibility

Vanclay: farmers are sceptical and dubious about the stated claim, the high credibility the research institutions had as been lost.

Because of the long timeframes, the limitations in our understanding of natural systems and the inherent uncertainties associated with markets, climate and other threats, it is essential that farmers appreciate and accept the inherent risks associated with growing trees on farms. Trees die, markets fail, and farmers’ aspirations and resources often change over the life of the forest. Ignoring or hiding the risks under the shroud of authority or professional expertise may entice unsuspecting farmers to

97

make large commitments to forestry, but risk a substantial backlash should their high expectations not be achieved. Under these circumstances, failures tend to be blamed on the extension advisers, industry advocates or the professions. Landholders themselves are unlikely to accept fault unless they acknowledge their responsibility as adopters and are confident that the advice they receive included a review of the risks involved.

The MTG stresses that farmers must be accountable for their decisions and critical of the advice they receive from experts and peers. It is their responsibility to assess the risks, identify possible uncertainty and to acknowledge this when making their commitment. In light of the uncertainty, most participants choose to design multipurpose options in which the prospects of commercial production, however promising, are seen as a bonus on top of the environmental, social or agricultural benefits of the trees. There is something powerful in accepting responsibility for you own learning and actions. Coutts et al. (2005:4) note that “providing opportunities to acknowledge and celebrate successful completion of courses adds value to participation and learning”

With respect to the credibility of the MTG itself it is important to appreciate that this has not come overnight but has taken many years constant word of mouth recommendations from past participants and trusted agents. People do appreciate and bestow credibility on the program coming from a recognised and respected educational institution such as the University of Melbourne.

It’s obviously has some good science behind it and has converted that into what is practical for people to deal with. The MTG can’t deal with government regulations but it gives you an understanding of where that is at. Your course-hopefully-because you are a University-you have influence. (Hunter Program participant)

I think the concept is good it takes in your own local area. You can combine your experience with the teaching from people from university. (Eden participant)

It’s a very non threatening way of giving people information and the thirst for knowledge and the direction to go and get the knowledge. I think it’s one of the good things that Melbourne University have been involved. Its pitched at the right level generally. Its inclusive of a whole range of knowledge and because of that people participate in a good way. (North East Vic participant)

Even for this Victorian farmer who has a less than flattering view of the University of Melbourne he was nonetheless pleased to see the institution supporting local communities,

It was an excellent program and was pleased that Melbourne University was a part of it. Melbourne University's name is now mud when it comes to institutions that have been around a long time, and I think their agenda is not one that supports local communities. (Gippsland participant)

The program can proudly show through its post course surveys, and the numerous appraisals, including the present study, that landholders value in equal measure its technical lucidity, honesty, locally based content and adherence to adult learning principles. One need only list the comments from participants to prove this:

It’s one of the best programs -- the best investment of the JVAP. If we use that model and work harder to get people to think about their relative inputs and outputs and scale, they will make better decisions. (Adelaide Hills participant)

At the time it was a great program and provided us with the confidence to do what we have done. We were only 2 years in when we did it. Looking back now 10 years later-I don’t think we would have achieved without having gained the confidence of what we gained through doing the MTG. WE have a achieved a lot and I put most of the cause of that success in the program. (Ballarat participant)

98

Thank goodness for MTG because it keeps interest going. There is not a lot of interest in forestry from the young people but the MTG keeps interest. The MTG gave me more focus. (Goulburn participant)

I have done 4 MTG now. When you go back you can always learn extra. Rowan Reid is very interesting and very good. He travels all the way from Melbourne. It’s very rewarding you can see you have achieved something when you see the trees growing. (Hastings participant)

The MTG has been an excellent information source. A lot of people who didn’t know much about trees-they certainly have got a lot of help from the MTG. (Mackay participant)

I think it was absolutely fabulous, and an amazing program…It was different to a Landcare program. It gave you a much broader perspective and greater depth of knowledge. (Beaudesert participant)

It’s an important part of the MTG--relating experience and knowledge. (Cairns participant)

I would almost say it’s essential if you are looking at growing saw logs. (Bacchus Marsh participant)

Doorigo MTG participants celebrate ‘graduation’

Principle 21. Representation is not participation

Vanclay: the farmer representatives are seldom representative of all farmers.

Part of the motivation to develop the MTG arose from concern about the very few practicing farm foresters who were paraded as examples for others (through field days, case studies or with awards) or who were acting as representatives of landholder views on the many boards and committees. At the time, farm forestry extension projects generally focused on the establishment of ‘demonstration sites’

99

on the farms of sympathetic landholders to provide a basis for encouraging adoption. Since 1993 when he and Andrew Stewart gained federal government support to establish the Otway Agroforestry Network Rowan has argued that the landholders themselves must be seen as the ‘demonstration’ particularly if they had been actively involved in the design and implementation of the projects (Reid 2007).

The danger in relying on a few examples to illustrate the potential of agroforestry lies in the fact that it allows other farmers to dismiss the practice by focusing on the differences between their own farming systems, personal circumstances or interests, rather than the opportunity to develop elegant designs that reflect their own situation (Reid and Stephen 2007). By engaging a group of 20 or so farmers in each MTG course the diversity amongst the participants, and therefore the potential to demonstrate how agroforestry can be adapted to suit particular interests, is emphasised. This is reinforced by the PGM project that encourages the mentors to work through the design process with the recipients.

Of course, the MTG itself has been criticised by some who believe it is effectively promoting the interests and practices of a small number of landholders including Rowan himself.

A real concern, and not just of mine, is with the way Otway Agroforestry Network and MTG and more recently Australian Agroforestry appear to be merging, and all using your same 'right' line. If this was also the line put to [government] then that is a real issue, and then maybe a charge of arrogance would be justified. (MTG participant and timber industry member, Vic)

It is impossible for any one individual to sincerely represent a wide range of interests. Hence, the MTG seeks to encourage participants to run their own show and celebrate the diversity of local examples. This has not always gained favour amongst either industrialist or conservationists in Australia, but it has been an effective strategy in engagement of people in every State and Territory from widely different backgrounds, in both dry and wet landscapes, on large and small properties, with very different land classes, and strongly divergent views and interests.

Whilst it may be true that farmer representatives do not possess a common voice for all farmers it is also equally true that non-representation is certainly not participation. The MTG seeks to support the participation, and therefore representation, of as many landholders as possible in all types of organisations. In the telephone survey report in Chapter 3 it was found that 58% of MTG participants were engaged in community groups in their local district. Certain areas such as North Central Victoria and Otways in Victoria, the Hunter and Mid North Coast regions of NSW and parts of Queensland have developed cells of tree growers which are assisting each other through networking opportunities. In some cases landholders link directly into state or national groups such as the Australian Forest Growers through their regional branches (Such as Ballarat and Mackay). An increasing number of MTG participants are also joining in with timber production and marketing cooperatives such as SMARTimbers or FFORNE in Victoria.

100

Table 5.3 Associations and affiliations identified by interview respondents Group (number of participants >1) People who gave response yes -146 Number who noted multiple associations -32 Apologies for any errors in organisation names or spelling Australian Forest Growers (10) Bellinger Valley Landcare Golden Valley Tree Park. Napoleon Enfield Landcare

Group. Ballarat AFG Group (6) Bendigo Creek Flood Plain

Group. Greenskills. Natimuk Urban Landcare

Group Wimmera Agroforestry Network (6)

Beverley Naturalist Club. Gresford Landcare Group. Never Never Catchment group.

Hunter Farm Forestry Network (5)

Blackwood Basin Group. Haddon Landcare group. Otway Barham Landcare Group.

Gippsland Agroforestry Network. (3)

Blackwood Environment Society

Hannam Vale Landcare. Phillips Brooke Catchment Group

Harden Murrumburrah Landcare Group. (3)

Blackwood River Landcare group.

Harnham Landcare group Rolands Plains Landcare Group.

Kyeamba Valley Landcare Group. (3)

Bungendore Landcare Group Highland Landcare Group. Sarina catchment Landcare group

Mid North Coast Farm Foresters. (3)

Busselton Landcare Groups. Hollisdale Landcare Group. Save our Waterways.

Minyip Landcare group. (3) Byabarra Landcare Network. Inverrary Creek Landcare. Sixth Creek Catchment Group.

Northern United Forestry Group. (3)

Cobargo landcare group. Jerrawa Creek Landcare Group.

Sunbury Landcare Group.

Smart Timbers. (3) Capel Land Conservation district committee

Kanagulk Landcare Group. Tamar NRM

South East Forest Foundation. (3)

Central QLD Forest Association.

Kaniva Landcare Group Tambellup Landcare District Committee.

Southern Tableland Farm Forestry Network. (3)

Condamine Landcare. Kojunup Landcare Group The International Wood Collectors.

Toowoomba Valley Landcare. Corangamite Farm forestry Project.

Lal Lal Catchment Landcare group

The Lismore land protection group.

Wolombi Valley Landcare group. (3)

Cowra Landcare Group. Leigh district Landcare group. Timber 2020 group (Albany)

Beaudesert Landcare Group. (2)

Crowlands Landcare Group. Lismore Land Protection Group.

Torquay Landcare Group.

Bellingen Landcare Group. (2) Deep Creek Landcare Group. Loddon Vale Landcare Group. .

Trees for Evaland and Atherton lands.

Camden Haven Landcare. (2) Donald and District Landcare Group.

Macleay Landcare group. Trentham District Landcare group.

Dorrigo Mountain Top Landcare Group. (2)

Donald Landcare Group. Macleay Valley Landcare Inc. Tungkillo Harrogate Landcare Group.

FFORNE Group. (2) Esperance Land Conservation District Committee.

Malmsbury Landcare Group. Vic Central Plantations.

Lady Smith Landcare group. (2)

Far south coast conservation management network.

Mangoplah Landcare group. Victorian Landcare Council.

Land for wildlife. (2) Far South Coast landcare Association.

Margaret River Olive Growers Association

Wollaton Wildlife and Landcare Incorporated.

Otway Agroforestry Network. (2)

Farm Forest Growers of Victoria.

Mepunga Farm district Group Tumbleton Creek Landcare.

Oil Mallee Association. (2) Fish Creek Landcare. Mila Landcare group. Whiteheads Landcare Group.

Upper Macleay Landcare Group. (2)

Flynn Landcare Group. Molyullah Tatong Landcare Group

Williams Landcare Incorporated.

Australian Sandalwood Network

Fowlers Wagga Landcare Group.

Mt. Bolton Beckworth Landcare group

Willunga Hills Face Landcare Group.

Australia Agroforestry group. Geocatch. Millvale Pyalong West Landcare Group.

Woady Yaloak Landcare group

AVONGRO Geograph Catchment group. Mulwaree Pond Landcare Group.

Woodside Landcare Group.

Balingup Landcare Group. Gloucester River Landcare Nadialock Landcare group. Wooroloo Brook Landcare Group.

Baynton Sidonia Landcare Group.

Nagambie Landcare group

101

Principle 22. Promotion of awareness through the use of dramatic images is counterproductive

Vanclay: they do not perceive themselves to be at risk because the land degradation they experience is nowhere near as severe as the images being depicted.

In our experience the most powerful images are before and after photographs that demonstrate examples where landscape change has been achieved by farmers tackling land degradation or exposure, This is particularly so where the photos show evidence of enhanced, or at least maintained, agricultural productivity in adjacent areas or an attractive outcome. What they clearly demonstrate is the opportunity and potential for individuals to make a difference in a relatively short time despite the long time frames associated with enhancing biodiversity or producing commercial timber.

Rowan’s Bambra Agroforestry Farm – before (1987) and after (2001)

102

Andrew Stewart’s Yan Yan Gurt Creek before (1994) and after (2009) - note the gate post

Principle 23. Put degradation into perspective

Vanclay: degradation is a value judgement made about what is an unacceptable rate of change.

Pearson et al. (2000:20) suggests that an important element of the way forward for farm forestry is to “approach change to farm forestry as the people will: it only occurs when there is enthusiasm for change.” In rural communities that are already committed to the continuation of many of the social, economic and environmental elements of their land use, this enthusiasm is more likely to be secured if we adopt the “paradigm of co-operative landscape design” (Pearson et al., 2000:20). This is where we seek to ensure that forestry fits into the rural landscape without threatening the values and rewards currently provided from the existing land uses.

103

Aldo Leopold (1953), an early landscape ecologist in the USA, spoke about ‘intelligent tinkering’ as a guiding principle for the management of complex ecosystems. Using the analogy of a complex machine, Leopold stressed the importance of keeping every cog and wheel in the engine, even if you don’t understand or appreciate its role. The aesthetic and social elements of the agricultural landscape are often ignored, or dismissed as irrelevant, by authorities focused on the promotion of the commercial or environmental benefits of revegetation. What is frustrating is that with appropriate design and management, forestry has an enormous potential to help fulfil the central aspirations of industry and government without threatening the ‘unseen’ values well before its get to a point of competition or disturbance.

For many MTG participants plantation forestry can be a form of land degradation

Principle 24. The best method of extension is multiple methods

Vanclay: When the diversity of farmers is appreciated there can be only one answer: multiple methods of extension are required to deliver the message to the diverse range of farmers and to reinforce the message.

Traditionally, extension work in rural conservation and farming practices in Australia has centred on two primary sets of problems: the bio-physical or technical aspects of the innovation and the subsequent issues of adoption. This work has attracted substantial policy support, funding, academic scrutiny, and has results in the development of a range of innovations that are seen as means to overcome perceived problems. Studies on adoption of these land management practices have been particularly insightful in identifying farmer goals, constraints and expectations.

Much of the literature has focused attention on the failure of extension to achieve substantive outcomes as evident by low rates of adoption of conservation or farming practices. Pannell et al. (2006) give an excellent overview of adoption studies in Australia. They conclude, that extension which directs its activities at communication, education and persuasion commonly fail if the “innovations being promoted are not sufficiently attractive to the target audience” (Pannell et al.,

104

2006:1421). They are particularly critical of extension services which lack credibility, reliability and legitimacy.

Taking the results from the previous 13 years of the MTG in concert with the findings from the present study it is reasonable to conclude that the innovation (the diagnosis and design of personally appropriate agroforestry projects) being delivered is attractive to the target audience. Participants report positively on all aspects of the program.

Farmers are encouraged to learn the skills, seek out the knowledge and form networks that will give them the ability and confidence to design, establish and manage multipurpose farm forestry systems and negotiate the sale of farm forestry products and services. Although the program includes the Transfer of technology (e.g. measurement methods) and Problem solving (e.g. the design project) there are elements that are aimed at providing Education (e.g. visiting sawmills to learn about timber markets) and facilitating Human development (e.g. sharing ideas about the future development needs for farm forestry in their region) (Coutts, 1994).

Whilst Frost (2005) notes “the course has made a valuable contribution in improving the skills and capacity of people who wish to become involved in agroforestry” the MTG is not an alternative to other forms of extension, education and support. Indeed, the MTG aims to provide an intellectual framework for understanding the extension needs of the farming community and initiates or strengthens the participant’s personal information networks.

As a program of participatory extension the MTG and the emerging PGM initiative could be seen to fall under the emerging strategy for learning known as Education for Sustainability (EFS) (Skoien, 2006). EFS sees community groups as a potentially significant suppliers of education for sustainable development. Through engaging in activities, such as public awareness raising, advocacy and lobbying, community education and participatory learning, these community groups become key stakeholders in sustainable development. Although the MTG does not directly promote advocacy for any particular outcome an unintended result of its delivery has been the development of community based farm forestry networks. By employing it’s theoretically based principles of Adult Education it does aim to provide Australian landholders the tools and knowledge to be able to make better, more informed decisions about landscape management. The MTG does not promote tree growing for the sake of trees. Rather, it hold’s the view that,

If establishing and managing trees and shrubs does offer farmers real economic, environmental and social opportunities we would expect an increase in the forest cover on farms and improved forest management. (Reid and Stephen, 2007)

The MTG delivers outcomes in line with five convergent themes in contemporary EFS literature, these being: (1) participation; (2) critical thinking; (3) local relevance; (4) holistic, interdisciplinary and systemic approaches; and (5) values-driven approaches (Skoien, 2006). The MTG acknowledges, “the role of the farmer as the principle decision maker and the one who is ultimately responsible” (Reid and Stephens, 2005:77). In so doing, it is able to walk the thin line between education, participation, relevance and change.

Principle 25. Group extension is not a panacea

Vanclay: each farm is different and farmers use awareness of the differences of their farm as a way of justifying why a certain practice may not be appropriate to them. Individual extension is needed to assist in on-farm issues. The credibility of the person giving advice is an important factor in the weighting that famers assign to that advice. Group facilitators, who never provide on-farm advice, rarely develop credibility.

Building locally relevant information networks

The key aspect of making groups work is in placing the emphasis on the group supporting each other’s learning rather than simply reducing the costs of program delivery. Coutts et al. (2005:40) suggest that

105

an important aspect of the MTG is the value gained from having “individual project associated with a group learning situation to better personalise the learning”. Landholders come to the program with their own problems and opportunities in mind. From the first day they are encouraged to share their own interests and to seek knowledge from each other as well as from the ‘experts’. The participants are encouraged to make a personal presentation to the group which, wherever possible, is done on their own farms.

Coutts el al. (2005:40) also recognise that participation in locally relevant MTG courses can “short-cut acceptance and development of important networks to newcomers to a locality or industry”. An important aspect of making group learning work is the acceptance and celebration of the diversity of interests, knowledge and experience within the group. Frost (2005) stresses that “this diversity appears to be a strength of the course”.

Bauer et al., (2003) place a lot of emphasis on the ability of the MTG model to deliver ongoing and significant impacts through what they all the ‘echo effect’: An indirect benefit is that participants establish social networks, increasing the word of mouth transfer of agroforestry information (pp 63). In this respect Bauer et al., (2003:63) note the importance of including extension agents, nurseryman, contractors and consultants (approximately 15% of participants do not own land): “The MTG course, according to comments from these respondents, improved the quality of information they pass onto clients.” They go on to estimate that, on average, each MTG course has a “long-run effect of increasing adoption rates 23 per cent” (p 64).

Principle 26. Extension is likely to have only a small impact

Vanclay: This does not mean that extension is ineffective or unsuccessful. It just means that there need to be realistic expectations about the degree of change that can occur.

Many of the concerns and criticisms of the MTG clearly relate to the concerns farmer share about the markets for their products, their ability to access them and the availability of suitable infrastructure. There also concerns related to local and state land management legislation. Of course the MTG cannot address these issues directly. However, the program does provide participants with a voice and a platform to express these views even if it leads to criticism of the MTG itself.

Principle 27. Farmers need to feel valued

Vanclay: Australia is asking its farmers to make a significant personal investment for what is largely a public benefit. They need to know that this contribution is appreciated and valued by the broader community. Some form of co-funding is important. Tax relief schemes do not benefit most farmers and many grant schemes don’t achieve their intended objectives.

The use of the title ‘Master’ is recognition of the participant’s knowledge, experience and personal commitment, and is used to link, encourage and reward. The small ceremony at the end of all MTGs, with the awarding of the MTG certificate of participation and MTG gate sign, is an ‘official’ acknowledgment of the participants’ potential and rewards them for their contribution of knowledge, enthusiasm and participation. Social research suggests this is extremely important for those participants that have little formal education.

On Vanclay’s point about the need for co-funding we see a need for a detailed response:

Whilst revegetation and forest management can be shown to be profitable (either directly or through enhanced agricultural production), the time involved and the inherent uncertainty mean that most farmers cannot justify the investment (White and Black, 1999). It’s a stalemate that has thwarted natural resource management for decades and led to a succession of extension programs that are essentially designed to offer a direct financial incentive to landholders that is sufficient to encourage them to adopt, adapt or expand their practices beyond what they would generally consider viable, practical, attractive or even sensible. Essentially the aim is to influence adoption practice that farmers would otherwise view as an ‘ugly’ investment.

106

The ugliness the farmers are fleeing is not inherent in forestry. It only seems that way to them because it’s so hard for them to isolate what it is that makes plantations so ugly. But forestry is just the growing of trees and can’t by its own nature be ugly or there would be no beauty in rainforests or gardens which also include growing trees. The real ugliness of plantation forestry lies in the relationship between the foresters and the forests they develop. (Paraphrasing Pirsig (1974) Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Chapter 25)

It is important to distinguish what is meant by direct incentives. These are offers of free trees, equipment and support, or an offer to reimburse these, to landholders who adoption predefined practices. They are not the same as market based incentives that are made available to all landholders who produce provide a particular product or environmental service (Reid 2004). We agree with Giger (1999) who argues that direct incentives are actually incompatible with participatory development because, almost by definition, they influence the “strategic behaviour and attitude” of landholders.

But, what concerns us most, and why this discussion is relevant here, is that the use of direct incentives undermines the credibility and effectiveness of extension agents and programs like the MTG. Having worked with landholders building their capacity for independent action and establishing relationships between them and beneficiaries, the introduction of a large direct incentive project immediately changes the message. Incentive schemes imply that forestry is uneconomical (in that it needs a subsidy) and that there is only one way to do it (the way the promoters are prepared to support). Over the years many of the regional MTG courses have been affected in this way including in Far North Queensland (due to the Federally funded CRRP program) and in Victoria (due to a succession of state government programs including the WestRFA and Sawlogs for Salinity).

If asked what is holding them back from planting more trees, landholders will, quite sensibly, say that it is the shortage of cash and that ‘a grant’ would help (Harrison et al., 2001). Indeed, many MTG participants spoke of the desire and necessity for incentives to establish farm forestry which they saw as capital intensive:

I think it has its difficulties but I think if there is a community advantage, property owners have difficulty in investing in this type of thing because of the long time span and I think that help is critical. (Adelaide Hills participant)

Funding is absolutely necessary as it too much of a capital outlay for farmers to do. (Wagga Wagga participant)

If incentives are sufficiently high enough to outweigh the opportunity cost of not taking them, then, rational actors will choose to take the incentive. However, in practice, concerns about fairness, longevity, conditions, covenants, contracts and process mean that government programs that rely on incentives rarely achieve their targets and are commonly discredited by both those who receive the money and those who don’t:

I see an awful lot of money spent along roadsides where the public can see it. I see people getting paid good salaries. There is more money goes into administration than work on the ground. I have spoken to farmers and apart from money for fencing, a lot of farmers say that the money is available if it can be viewed by the road, it’s easier to get. (WA participant)

I applied for one grant there and they refused it on the grounds that I had native grasses and they considered these had superior requirements over trees. They didn’t say I could do anything with it. So the position is the use of the land is concerned it is frozen. DSE said I couldn’t grow trees, because of the grasses. If there is a shortage of native grasses and they want to protect them fair enough, but the land is frozen and I can’t develop it or use and there is no compensation. (Ballarat participant)

When farmer is able to get money from a hectare that gets planted they don’t want to pay for it themselves. They lose interest, as the company will just come in and do the work. The farmer sort of rights off that bit of land in terms of his involved. (Denmark participant)

107

A lot of growers are planting because they want to revegetate and when the time comes to harvest I don’t know if they will. They take up the grant with ambivalence. (Anonymous participant)

The MTG promotes the notion of farmers being rewarded for the provision of the production and services sought by the community and industry (which is not the same as providing a grant). The second session of the course introduces participants to local and regional ‘buyers’ of tree products and, where possible, organisations and mechanisms that may provide payments for environmental services (such as carbon or biodiversity).

I believe the governments have to get behind us more if they want better creeks and rivers they should be paying farmers to plant that area and maintain it. We have done it on the farm because we think it’s the right thing. Just because you own it doesn’t mean you should have sole responsibility for caring for it. We should be paid to maintain them-we are responsible of them. But we should support them financially as well. (Mackay participant)

A farm visit to a participant’s property during the Mackay MTG

Interestingly, having been involved in the MTG, many landholders gain a greater appreciation of the importance of extension agents, infrastructure development, regionally relevant research and landholder networks and see these as preferable to ‘another government grant scheme’.

They have reduced our DPI people. We just won’t see any more work that they will do. We are in the north central region of Victoria and the funding is not there. We were a targeted area for salinity now it’s just gone by the wayside. There is no government priorities at all. It’s taken 10 years of momentum to get where we are and there is no one there to help now. (Wimmera participant)

108

The lack of local government, where the management is, there is very little knowledge. It’s a huge barrier to anyone doing it legally. There is very little extension knowledge any longer. (Ballarat participant)

Regional plantation committees—the government has decided not to fund anymore I think it’s pathetic waste of money. The governments fund these things and then walks away from them. We fitted in with the 2020 vision and others and then they scrap it…The Department has slashed the people who have been in farm forestry. Why bother? (North East Vic participant)

It’s all about politics. Last year the Gonwana Link got there revegetation project funded by SCRIPT? Team. It’s a worthy project. They got funding 2 years ago, $600,000 to do direct seeding in one year on some of the land they have in trust. Where the entire upper Kent catchment received $130,000 and did more work… Its farmer participation that makes the difference. The upper Kent project has now been closed down due to lack of funds. (Denmark participant)

There was a period from 2000-06 when there was a period of support. More recently we have hit the withdrawal of state and government funding. Both landcare and farm forestry have stopped dead. (Ballarat participant)

Funding of NRM and landcare officers. Depending on the funding, if you can attract the funding for your area you can source the funds that help you put in trees. These Officers don’t know where their funding is. They don’t have security of employment. You have landcare officers then the funding ceases they have to move off, then all the projects are up the spout. (Avon participant)

If there DPI staff they are usually gone by that stage. The last 2 courses had support from DPI staff and they are all gone. It would be nice for some consistency. (Wimmera participant)

We haven't really been involved. They pulled the pin on farm forestry stuff in this area and Greening Australia stuff. The funding isn't there now. (Hunter participant)

One thing that we are concerned about is the withdrawal of the support staff from the DPI. WE used to have 2-3 in Horsham now there is no one. We are members of the Wimmera Agroforestry network and are now working more with the CMA and getting help from them. We aren't getting any help from DPI.(Wimmera Participant)

The Water Board pays lip service to the importance but there is no money. The management structure doesn’t not allow for a liaison officer to pay any interest to land holders--it’s too hard too washy. Even though they know where there is issues—say on our place an erosion problem, 5 years on they are still doing nothing. (Beaudesert participant)

Six years ago we had 4-5 staff employed full time focusing on forestry and agroforestry and now we don’t have any. Changes in the State government to have only 4 people in the State to do with agroforestry. (Wimmera participant)

There was a small incentive in the SA incentive to establish trees -wasn’t a great deal. The biggest benefit from that was the advice and they sent someone out to survey the property after we planted the trees. (Anonymous participant)

The aggressive promotion of predefined solutions to narrowly defined problems, with equally narrowly defined performance criteria, strips the inalienable right of the farmer to choose options that best meet their own unique conditions. Worse still, many of these schemes reward farmers who have neglected their environmental responsibilities. For example, recognition of the importance of water courses has resulted in massive and expensive efforts in their restoration (Brooks and Lake, 2007; Smith, 1998) with the investment targeting often those with the worst land management history. We acknowledge that complex social groups with contractual and coercive relationships rarely distribute the ‘vehicles’ of service and values equally (Sorokin, 1947) and that, at times, the need of the whole outweighs the necessity for the equality of distribution. Nonetheless, reinforcing aberrant behaviour with reward is hardly a formula for social cohesion and advancement and, with respect to agroforestry

109

and native vegetation management practices on farmland in Australia, has undermined the work of many outstanding individuals and programs – including the MTG.

Conclusion – more than just another crop Vanclay: Farm management practices are physical manifestations of cultural expression which are loaded with social meanings and significance, they are not solely technical.

The future of agroforestry lies in embedding the science and technology of the innovation in this complex social environment and seeing what comes out: Rowan talks of ‘handing-over’ some of the forestry management tools and associated theory to the farmers in the expectations that they are not only capable of understanding the concepts, but will utilise the techniques in the day-to-day management of their farms. The ultimate outcome of the MTG approach should be forestry development that is defined by, and is a reflection of, the culture within the farming community and the interests of stakeholders.

Although in time the program may also accelerate or even redirect the inevitable cultural change occurring within dynamic communities, it is not the intention of the program to induce dramatic cultural shifts or to change farmers’ attitudes. Attempts to do so are so often strongly rejected by the communities or tremendously damaging and disruptive (Barr and Cary, 1992).

Possibly the most important aspect of extension is engagement. Unlike many students, the participants of the MTG courses are personally volunteering their time, at some personal cost, to participate in the program. It is important that they see value for themselves and their community. In her conclusion, Frost (2005) states. “Nearly every participant involved in this course found the programme enjoyable, effective and value for time and money” and that “most people continue their enthusiasm for the topic long after the course is completed”

I thought it was an excellent program, and would love to see it--how to grow trees --I would like it to be part of the school children's education. Or anyone's education. (Anonymous participant)

As an extension strategy the MTG satisfies most, if not all, the principles outlined by Vanclay. Despite the costs and small number of participants (relative to the total number of farmers in what might be considered the ‘target population’) the MTG is helping develop a foundation of understanding that is providing leadership and support for thousands of other farmers and a wide range of professionals, researchers and industry members across the country. In the conclusion of their collaborative paper on the adoption of conservation practice David Pannell, Graham Marshall, Neil Barr, Allan Curtis, Frank Vanclay and Roger Wilkinson (2006:13) call for more programs that employ participatory processes arguing that:

Working with landholders forces researchers (and extension workers) to recognise that their own goals may be different to landholders’ goals, and reduces the risk of them making incorrect or over-simplified assumptions about what landholders’ goals really are. In a participatory project, the research/extension can be adapted in response to this improved understanding. Such interaction also increases landholders’ knowledge of the research and their ownership of, and faith in, the results. It may help landholders to understand and appreciate the goals of researchers. Participation also helps to develop better programs and recommendations by making better use of local knowledge so that recommendations are more often corroborated by subsequent experience, and in this way promotes landholders’ trust in R&D and extension over the longer term.

The MTG fits the bill.

110

6. The future for the MTG For more than 13 years the MTG has been conducted as an active participatory research program. Other than subtle changes to the style and content, the structure, purpose and delivery of the regional MTG courses has remained relatively constant since Rowan Reid first presented the original concept to the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program in 1997. In a funding and political environment that operates on a three or four year cycle the longevity and consistency of the MTG has provided a unique opportunity to study the long term impacts of a nationally delivered natural resource management extension program for farmers and those who work with them.

The evolution of the MTG, its influence and involvement in many and varied associated activities (such as publications, academic courses, conference presentations and workshops) and the recent development of the Peer Group Mentoring concept, demonstrate that the MTG is more than just an educational program. It is also becoming more than just an extension package. The MTG is a brand that is increasingly becoming recognised and valued across Australia and internationally amongst those interested in the role of trees and forests in underpinning the viability and sustainability of rural landscapes.

This report has presented the social research data, the independent reviews and the theoretical substantiation based on the current thinking amongst some of Australia’s leading rural extension researchers. It demonstrates that the MTG is having an enormous influence on the development of agroforestry, farm forestry and native forest management on farms across Australia. In particular the MTG is attributed with:

• Increasing the area forests on participants’ own properties;

• Encouraging greater integration of tree growing into farming systems for multipurpose outcomes;

• Improving the quality of tree and forest management as judged against the needs and aspirations of the landholders;

• Providing leading agroforestry and vegetation management practitioners the recognition and the platform required to share their experience and provide leadership within their communities;

• Improving the quality of the dialogue about agroforestry and vegetation management practices and opportunities that occurs amongst farmers, extension agents and industry.

• Facilitating closer partnerships between landholders and a wide range of revegetation and forest management stakeholders including industry, government and catchment management authorities;

• Encouraging and supporting the development of regional agroforestry and farm forestry networks focused on landholders interests;

• Increasing the knowledge and skills of hundreds of professionals, including extension agents, researchers, policy makers and planners, who work in or with rural communities on land management, forestry and conservation;

• Bringing farm foresters the most recent research knowledge, interpreted in their language and context.

111

In the light of changing government policy and institutions, uncertainty surrounding the existence of many of the regional and national partners and their ability to participate in the program, questions surrounding the involvement of The University of Melbourne in agricultural outreach, and issues surrounding the value, or otherwise, of the having a single person so closely associated with the development and delivery of the program, it is worth pondering the future of the MTG.

The MTG is receptive and willing to change. This has been demonstrated by the willingness of the coordinators, both nationally and regionally, to involve a wide range of partners, to conduct open and public reviews of the program and to support independent reviews of its methodology, delivery and results. Frost (2005) seems to recognise this when she says: “the diligence and commitment to evaluation the impact of the course on stated objectives and regular review of the course content and delivery has also been significant in its ongoing improvement”

The latest such review was held in early 2009 when the MTG and the Otway Agroforestry Network (OAN) hosted the 2-day national MTG Muster. The OAN were responsible for the first ever MTG course which was run back in 1996 and were responsible for the development of the Peer Group Mentoring concept that was later trialled in Western Australian by the MTG. During the Muster past participants, peer group mentors, regional coordinators, sponsors and many others shared their ideas about the achievements or otherwise of the MTG; suggested changes to the administration, delivery and content; and explored future funding and partnership opportunities. Participants were asked if they would provide comments for publication directly to Rowan after the event. Some of these are noted below.

Who owns the MTG? The MTG is a brand. Formally the logo and the name are registered and owned by Rowan Reid himself, having developed it privately prior to the program receiving any government support. The development of the brand has been supported by a substantial contribution from a wide range of investors including:

• The Department of Forest and Ecosystem Science, The University of Melbourne which has paid Rowan Reid salary since the inception of the program

• The Federal Department of Agriculture Forests and Fisheries Farm Forestry Program who, in the mid 1990s supported the development of the Graduate Certificate in Forest Science which led to the development of a national network of farm forestry extension agents who were later involved in the development of the MTG

• The Myer Foundation who provided $107,000 in 1996 to establish the concept and deliver seven regional MTGs as a pilot program

• The Joint Venture Agroforestry Program who have, since 1997, contributed over $1M of competitive research funds for the development, delivery, review and promotion of the program

• Land & Water Australia who joined the program as sponsors in 2003 in order to allow the MTG to explore non-commercial agroforestry development

• State government agencies around Australia including those responsible for private forestry, agricultural and natural resource management

• The Federal Department of Agriculture Forests and Fisheries and the many Private Forestry Development Committees, regional programs and other initiatives that they have supported.

• The Australian Forest Growers whose national networks and regional branches have supported the MTG and hosted many regional programs

112

• The many catchment management authorities that have sponsored regional MTG and, more recently, PGM projects.

• The many regional landcare groups and agroforestry networks who have hosted, or arisen out of, regional MTGs and activities; and

• The thousand or so individuals who have been involved as participants, presenters, coordinators, reviewers, partners, hosts and supporters of the program over the years.

As custodians of the program The University of Melbourne and Rowan Reid acknowledge that the MTG is owned by all these people and is charged with serving the interests and needs of Australia’s rural farmland and the human and natural communities who depend on the products and services it provides.

The flexibility inherent in the MTG model The MTG is a participatory development and communication extension model which is largely delivered at a community level. Local coordinators, presenters and participants superimpose the structure and philosophy of the MTG over their own unique socio-ecological situation. The 8-day delivery model is structured in such a way that it has a number of defined units that are run across each course, but retains sufficient flexibility to develop units (days) that match the requirements of each different program. The PGM projects have a less formal structure allowing them to develop independently in each region. Whilst increasing the risks, and possibly the challenges faced by local coordinators, the flexibility of the MTG structures and the emphasis placed on regional leadership and regional interest is an important feature:

The MTG fits in to my project about raising awareness of biodiversity. Improved natural resource management options. It’s not just about trees. This was the first program that was focusing on biodiversity. It’s not a very good area for timber production. If it had of been only agroforestry I wouldn’t have run it, because my program is about biodiversity. It was a format that could be used for expanding ideas, which is what it’s about. I treated it as biodiversity and multifunctional landscapes. (Leah McKinnon (BRGCMA), Moree program)

This course that we run was focused on native forest and most of the people are land owners with a bit of forest on their property. So they aren't necessarily looking for production but improving the natural asset that they have. So the course gave them that, and also, how to improve their sustainability and biodiversity. Conservation and profit; this is one of landcare's main principals. Landcare can enhance biodiversity with profit. (Pierre Louis, Hunter Region Landcare Network)

People have all different ideas about forestry and growing trees on farms. People like to divide things up between native and plantation. I was a little confused how we separate the plantation and the native forest. How do we get this just to be about native forest?. But, I felt having a bit of both worked well --whether [it is] managing plantations or native [vegetation] works really well together. All the knowledge on harvesting and pruning. It works that they see farm forestry whatever they want it to be. (Annabel Kater, coordinator for the Hunter program)

Being an educational program (rather than a promotional package) allows the MTG to provide a platform on which both conservation and production are equally encouraged. The Moree MTG showed that natural resource management education is crucial to both biodiversity and production. Rod Williams, the Border Rivers-Gwydir CMA Program Manager (West) explained it this way:

I think it fits very well, particularly in biodiversity—what it does is it introduces a new concept for land users to think about biodiversity. It brings the concepts of biodiversity in a non-threatening way. I guess the reality is you mention biodiversity to primary producers and they cringe. I think biodiversity has as many meanings as there are people in the room. Because it’s couched in certain ways it can be seen as a threat to production. A program like the MTG can start an alliance between biodiversity and production systems. When people talk about

113

biodiversity and conservation and locking land up for that purpose, producers get concerned. People tend to forget that 90% of the landscape is used for production. And I am delighted to see the MTG bridging the two.

We are aware of the concerns of many within the forestry profession and even some involved in farm forestry itself, who believe the MTG lacks the commercial focus and technical emphasis they would like to see in a farm forestry course.

I disagree that the approach and philosophy of planting trees regardless of any later eventual profits is the 'right' way to go. It may be fair enough for some fraction of planting, or for some regions and certain landowner disposable income levels and attitudes (higher productivity, smaller acreage and predominantly liberally educated, with some off-farm income) but it will not be something that can carry the more large-scale and rapid expansion of 5 million ha of plantings, or 170,000 ha a year for 30 years, across the rainfall regions down to and below 300mm that we need. (MTG Participant involved in Timber marketing)

The problem is that this ‘Master’ is not directly in the industry and is not up to date with any recent changes in technology and markets. Their ideas are often based on personal biases and the wrong information could easily become impregnated in a particular region. Some of these ‘Masters’ will also have a vested interest in that if they have been planting for some time they may have set up nurseries/seed collections and will tend to persuade others to use their stock. I have already seen this happen! (Professional forester 1997)

The MTG is an outstanding success. I have observed…

1. The world faces many new challenges. In this context agroforestry is a window of opportunity for many. What’s eight days over two months to the enthusiast?

2. MTGs are a community brought together by a common purpose.

3. A real sense of camaraderie connects us.

4. If common purpose is the life-blood of MTGs then the camaraderie gained during the MTG is the oxygen which keeps the show alive.

5. MTG relies upon ones natural curiosity about what is going on ‘over-the-fence’.

6. MTGs learn by questioning their peers.

7. MTG is not elitist.

8. MTG is highly visible and it works. (MTG Vic.)

The regional coordinator

The role of the regional coordinator carries the greatest responsibility for the development and delivery of the regional MTG courses and should therefore take credit for the success of their programs. Often it is a single person who works on a full or part time basis with a state agency, NGO (such as Greening Australia), a regional landholder group, or a catchment management authority. The regional coordinators are responsible for gathering local participants, developing the regional flavour of the program, organising food, drink, venues and transport, photocopying and distributing course materials and developing budgets. Regional coordinators also must find and secure the services of local businesses, experts or specialists to act as presenters. They must ensure safe, fair, equitable and financially judicious practices are seen to throughout all sessions.

To keep the MTG relevant to the issues of participants it is critical that the coordinator develops an understanding of these issues and develops a program that meets their requirements. To achieve this much of the program can only be constructed after the first session when the coordinator has the

114

chance to talk with the participants and develop some understanding of the group needs. This has both a positive and negative aspect to it. Positive, insomuch that it engages the coordinator to ensure that the program is tailored to the local participants requirements, and negative due to the burden it places on the coordinator to develop a full course in a short time frame.

We strongly urge against any calls to decide on local content prior to the commencement of each program. The organic development of the program at the local level, allows for participants stated interests to be inquired into. Site visits and presenters meet participant concerns and interests. The high percentage of people who report positively on the program reflects this. This does mean there is an added burden on coordinators to secure the services of presenters but in most cases they will know prior to the program which coordinators are likely to be required.

People who have the skills and knowledge to fulfil these roles are often active and busy, and thus time demands increase the organisational functions of the coordinators. Annabel Kater (Hunter Program), puts it simply:

The coordination role — it’s quite a big job…The success [of the Program] really depends on the local running it - and they have to be well voiced in how you do it-and that can be a bit ad hoc. I think it would be very hard to run one without outside support for the first time.

However, most coordinators, particularly on reflection, think that the organic nature of the program is a positive. The coordinator for the Dorrigo Program, Alex Stazenko, says,

The way the MTG is set up, from the coordinators point of view, there is so much freedom for the coordinator to line up the presenters that he or she thinks are relevant, and for them set to the topics for 5 out of 8 days of the course…. One of the most innovative things about it is the way there is a structure in terms of the concepts but also practically in the Rowan coming up for 3 days. You get set up with the structure but can develop it to the local environment and issues. On the practical side the flexibility of it. Compared to most NRM courses that are run up here the support and resources available from the MTG. Just the fact there is a website. They have a section for coordinators that’s a real bonus. The support to the coordinator.

Communication and information supplied to the coordinators from the program manager, Rowan Reid, involves telephone conversations, emails and 16-page document titled: Who are the Australian Master TreeGrowers? However, Wayne Deans found that there was agreement from all coordinators he has spoken to that a more concise document outlining the structure, indicative costs, expectations, and roles and responsibilities would be useful.

The newly developed Masters level subject called “Agroforestry and Farm Trees” that Rowan delivers as a two-week block release provides an excellent educational and preparatory opportunity for regional extension agents to not only learn about the science of agroforestry but also gain an appreciate for the approach that Rowan uses in the MTG courses. The subject can be done as part of the National Forest Science Masters or separately under The University of Melbourne’s Community Access Program.

The role of the National Coordinator - Rowan Reid

Your passion and commitment to farm forestry in Australia is awesome, and I can see that you are ready for the MTG and the PGM to 'devolve' from your guidance so to speak. I hope you will remain as a guiding light and inspiration for us all. (MTG and PGM Western Australia)

The MTG has now been operating from the University of Melbourne for 13 years under the guidance of Rowan Reid, and with assistance from Peter Stephen for five years from 1998. Rowan’s knowledge, skills, passion, capacity to communicate and enthusiasm for the MTG has been the hallmark of its success. Almost to a person, Rowan is spoken of in the highest regard. His delivery role during the 3 or 4 days he is present at any one program is considered by many to be the highlight of the course. Rather than having myself (Wayne Deans) single him out it is best left to those who deal with him in his capacity as National Program Manager:

115

Rowan is inspirational, and really a balanced point of view. Great speaker! (Dorrigo participant)

Rowan Reid is very interesting and very good. He travels all the way from Melbourne. It’s very rewarding you can see you have achieved something when you see the trees growing. (Hunter participant)

And the mentor--Rowan seems to really work. I don’t know what it is but the 3 times he comes they just seem to lap up what he does. They feel like they are part of a bigger movement. (Annabel Kater, Hunter program Coordinator)

Rowan Reid is very interesting and very good. He travels all the way from Melbourne. Its very rewarding you can see you have achieved something when you see the trees growing. (Hastings participant)

I think Rowan’s intervention in the course is essential, and someone else could do it as long as it produces the same effect. Rowan is a very passionate man. (Pierre Louis, Dorrigo program)

The great thing about Rowan is that he motivates and enthuses people. As a coordinator you don't have to do that because Rowan does. (Dawn Thornton, Dorrigo Program Coordinator)

Rowan is very knowledgeable and has a great ability to impart this knowledge to course participants. He is interesting to listen to and very inspirational. (Dorrigo participant)

You Rowan are one of the most inspirational and effective communicator of the benefits of Agroforestry in all of Australia and you are ably backed by many who use your MTG model as a basis for encouraging tree growing for profit and conservation.(Upper Goulburn Program Coordinator)

But, there are others with a different view:

I feel that the MTG should not be a vehicle for promoting (your) personal philosophies, or philosophies that may be developed within the Otway Agroforestry Network or any other group.(MTG participant, Vic)

Clearly, Rowan is the single greatest asset to the MTG. However, in so being he also represents its greatest risk. If the MTG does not have the capacity to function beyond the immediate influence of Rowan then its capacity to withstand change, and its future sustainability could easily and quickly be eroded. Indeed, the infrastructural and social capital that has been developed over the 13 years could cease should Rowan decide, for any reason, to cease his role in the MTG or he loses the support of his employer, possible sponsors, professional colleagues or even the participants themselves.

Rowan, speaking for himself, is less concerned. In 2000, he left Australia for 4 months sabbatical at Pennsylvania State University. During that period the MTG continued to deliver regional courses under the guidance of Peter Stephen. Peter, with qualifications in agricultural science and farm forestry and some experience as a forest owner himself, presented, in his own way, all the components of the program usually presented by Rowan. Evidence from the before and after surveys, the recent telephone surveys, and the many independent reviews suggest there was no difference in the enthusiasm of the participants or the value of the programs delivered under his watch.

In 1999, Rowan approached Peter directly inviting him to act as the national coordinator after observing him run an MTG in the Southern Tablelands of NSW. Although he has never advertised the position, since Peter left Rowan has been looking for someone to take on a similar role. Of course there are many competent and skilful extension professionals in Australia. Unfortunately many are currently unavailable or unable to take on the role. Many of these people are, however, involved in the regional delivery of the MTG and, should it continue, will be more formally engaged in the future as state or regional MTG coordinators.

116

As a model for natural resource management extension the MTG is an established and proven system (at least with Rowan delivering it) that has a demonstrated record of success across the breadth of Australian farming landscapes, an undeniable capability of producing tangible outcomes in terms of forestry, landcare and catchment management, and an enviable creditability at a government, professional and farm gate level.

In light of this, it is appropriate to ask, what can be done to ensure the continual development and growth of the MTG into the future? Clearly this will largely depend of its capacity to access funding and the availability suitable people around Australia who can join in the delivery of the extension model. It will also require ongoing work to establish tangible and solid relationships with Catchment Management Authorities, commercial and state forestry services, and landcare groups. Expansion of the MTG may also require some formalising of elements of the delivery model so that they are easily reproducible. At the same time maintaining flexibility in the delivery approach is necessary to meet varying needs from region to region.

The Role of the University of Melbourne

Rowan has, particularly through the Forest Products Corporation in Western Australia, explored the partial ‘franchising’ of the MTG. Whilst Rowan still presents on the first and last day, local foresters deliver the measurement component of the programs. Although the individuals involved are enthusiastic about the MTG and its approach, FPC is a state government agency. When acting as the lead agency, rather than simply a regional partner, government agencies and their employees may be perceived as having a particular role or bias. Acknowledging this suggests that there are some risks of relinquishing the MTG brand and that the role played by the University of Melbourne itself is significant:

The feedback from the 150 participants is overwhelmingly positive, as indicated by responses documented in Program evaluations by Stephen and Reid. When asked to list farm forestry activities that stood out in their mind, the most common and the most positive response was their involvement in the Master TreeGrower Program. The University of Melbourne deserves to be recognised for instigating such a highly successful extension initiative. (Richard Moore(2001) whilst CALM Farm Forestry Researcher,)

The MTG [graduates have] really blossomed since the Program. They are integrated property managers now. The MTG has credibility because of the University’s association with it, and the course gave participants the skills and paper to prove it. (O’Meara and Wright 1999, unpublished).

The report concluded that: Program participants benefit from the MTG’s close association with the [former] School of Forestry at the University of Melbourne, which provides recognition and legitimisation to local tree growers, who often feel somewhat isolated and out of step with their neighbours because of their farm forestry activities. (O’Meara and Wright 1999, unpublished).

Thank you for your pioneering work and the University coming to the bush. (Katanning WA, April 2001)

No, it’s very exciting what is happening in WA. Nice to have Melbourne Uni’s informed knowledge and experience. (Wellstead WA, August 1999. Participant interviewed in July 2000)

Adaption and evolution The MTG has demonstrated that it is able to adapt and evolve as the needs and interests of the sponsors and participants change. The program began with a strong focus on farm forestry for timber production in traditional timber production regions in temperate Australia. The Federal Government investment into forestry in Far North Queensland provided a platform for the development and delivery of ten programs in the tropical north (including in Darwin). As the JVAP began to provide

117

research appropriate to medium to low rainfall areas the MTG was able to expand into the wheat belt of Western Australia and the drylands of western New South Wales. With the support of Land & Water Australia programs have been conducted that have less focus on commercial production.

In practice, for most participants, irrespective of where their land is located, commercial timber production is seen as a by product of owning and managing forests for a wide range of values. For most, the time frames involved in commercial timber production, and the uncertainty regarding market access, price and the impact of harvesting on other forest values mean that any return from selling timber would be seen as a bonus:

I see using commercial trees and habitat trees as part of the risk management strategy for our property. We have trees integrated into the landscape for their multiple values, but if, at the end of the day for whatever reason the trees aren’t harvested they’re still performing jobs for the farm. The money we get from harvesting timber is a bonus. We prune and thin just so we can keep that opportunity alive. (Andrew Stewart (MTG) quoted in the video used on Day 1 of each course).

However, there are few, if any, farms in Australia that would not benefit from greater tree cover or improved management of their existing native or planted forest. Reid and Stewart (2006) argue that as much of ten percent of every farm could be put under multipurpose forests with having any negative impact on agricultural production. More recent research (Reid, 2009) suggests that this could be comfortably increased to as much 20% over time as farmers begin to ‘harvest’ the value from the commercial and environmental services their forests provide.

With most of our agricultural landscape devoid of trees it would seem that as long as farmers and their families own the land, programs like the MTG have a role to play. This includes: identifying and educating individual landholders and extension agents; supporting regional development through the formation of landholder information networks and peer group mentoring programs; providing a mechanism to facilitate mutually respectful two-way communication between researchers, policy makers, regional planners, NRM professionals, contractors, nurseryman and, most importantly, the landholders who ultimately make decisions about how our landscape is managed.

May the Master Treegrower concept evolve and develop to the point where government itself, and not just a few of it's employees, recognise it's true value and flexibility in meeting so many desired outcomes both economically and socially in our rural communities around Australia. (Regional MTG coordinator)

I spent Sunday and Monday with the Chittering MTG Group and thoroughly enjoyed it. It is such a stimulating and diverse group and there was lots of thought provoking discussion both as a group and between individuals. As tends to happen I think, the MTG provides an opportunity for people think about where they are heading with their lives and trees. I particularly enjoyed listening to the individual presentations – fascinating to hear where people have come from and why they are interested in learning more about trees. It was a reminder of just how valuable the Program is. (Richard Moore, FPC 2009)

118

Otway PGM, Matt Armstrong (centre), leads farmers through a design exercise during a MTG course

We have left the final word to Matt Armstrong, a participant in both the first MTG course and the first PGM project:

As promoters of agroforestry to the farming community we are asking for behaviour change. I think most of us underestimate how substantive a commitment we are asking of landholders. Landholders all work within paradigms that often have been unchallenged for decades. Effectively, we are asking them to step away from the security of their paradigm and adopt ours. Why should they? As a minimum they will need two good reasons:

1. The message

We accept the compelling story we have to tell, and expect them to find the story just as compelling. This assumes they share the same values, constraints and aspirations for their landholding as we do. We can go forward on the basis of this assumption or we can ask them to outline their values, aspirations and constraints and then assist them to write their own story on their landscape.

That is my single strongest memory as a participant of the first MTG course in the Otways. To recognise my role was not to design my agroforestry solution for a landholder but to help the landholder design their solution. After 15 years of involvement, I recognise it remains a central theme of the network's approach and I would suggest is central to the network’s success.

2. The messenger

The second essential ingredient in achieving behaviour change is a trusted messenger. The best way I can explain this is anecdotally. When my nine-year-old son came to me with the message "I am worried about our future I think we should take action on climate change” the impact was so much more powerful than receiving the same message from someone like the Prime Minister. And I mean no disrespect to the Prime Minister.

For me this highlights the strength of the peer group mentor approach, quite apart from it being an effective teaching/learning strategy. The PGM approach can be an effective way to overcome the subtle cultural differences that others described during the discussion. After all

119

isn’t that the ultimate goal, changing our rural culture (read cultures) to one that embraces the significant role trees can play in a productive and sustainable modern agriculture.

The PGM approach is likely to be more effective in an area where there is significant momentum already elsewhere it will need more oomph. In other words the strategy won't just work by itself. The relative success of the strategy will always depend in part on the local characteristics. With apologies to Winston Churchill, it may not always be the best strategy, I just can't think of a better one.

Cheers

Matt Armstrong (MTG 1996, PGM 2006)

120

References Acheson, J. (2008) Maine: On the Cusp of the Forest Transition. Human Organization, 67, 125-136. AgInsight and Agknowledge (2002) The intangible contribution of the Master TreeGrower Program.

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Alexander, F., Brittle, S., Ha, A., Gleeson, T. and Riley, C. (2000) Landcare and farm forestry:

Providing a basis for better resource management on Australian Farms. ABARE report to the Natural Heritage Trust. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Alexandra, J. and Hall, M. (1998) Creating a viable farm forestry industry in Australia – what will it take. RIRDC Publication No 98/74, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Arroyo, V. and Preston, B. (2007) Change in the marketplace: business leadership and communication. In Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change & facilitating social change. (Eds) Moser and Dilling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barr, N.F. (1999) “Social Aspects of Rural Natural Resource Management.” Outlook 99. (1): 133-140.

Barr, N.F. (2009) The house on the hill: the transformation of Australia's farming communities. Land and Water Australia,

Barr, N. and J.W. Cary (1992) Greening a brown land. Macmillan. Bauer B. and Gordon, J. (2003) Evaluation of the Agroforestry and Farm Forestry Program: An

overview of all projects - stage 1 A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation RIRDC Publication No 03/041

Black, A. W., Forge K. and Frost, F. (2000). Extension and advisory strategies for Agroforestry. RIRDC Publication No. 00/184, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Borschmann G., Salt, D., and Rooney, M. (2005) A vision splendid. Greening Australia, Canberra Brooks, Shane S., and Lake, P. Sam. (2007) River Restoration in Victoria, Australia: Change is in the

Wind, and None too Soon. Restoration Ecology Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 584–591 Campbell, C.A. (1994) Landcare, communities shaping the land and the future. Sydney: Allen and

Unwin. Cernea. M., (1995). Malinowski Award Lecture. Social Organization and Development and

Anthropology. Human Organization, Vol.54, No. 3. Commonwealth of Australia (1997) Plantations for Australia: The 2020 Vision, Canberra. Coutts, J. (1994) Process paper policy and practice – a case study of the introduction of a formal

extension policy in Queensland, Australia. Wageningen Agriculture University, The Netherlands.

Coutts, J., Roberts, K., Frost, F. and Coutts, A, (2005) A review of extension in Australia in 2001-2003 and its implications for developing capacity into the future. A report for the Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building.

Curtis A.L. and De Lacy T. (1996) Landcare in Australia: does it make a difference?’ Journal of Environmental Management. Vol.46. no.2 119-47.

Elands, B. H. M. & Wiersum, K. F. (2001) Forestry and rural development in Europe: an exploration of socio-political discourses. Forest Policy and Economics, 3, 5-16.

Emtage, N., Herbohn, J. and Harrison, S. (2006) Landholder typologies used in the development of natural resource management programs in Australia - a review. Aust. J. Env. Man. 13:79-94

Frank, B. and Chamala, S. (1992) Effectiveness of extension strategies. In: G. Lawrence, F. Vanclay and B. Furze (eds) Agriculture Environment and Society: Contemporary Issues for Australia. Macmillan, South Melbourne, Vic:122-140.

Frost, F. (undated) Master TreeGrower Program . Component of the National Extension/Education Review, http://www.couttsjr.com.au/pd/reports/Master-TreeGrower-Program.pdf

Giger, M (1999) Avoiding the shortcut: Moving beyond the use of direct incentives – A review of experience with the use of incentives in projects for sustainable soil management. Development and Environment Reports No 17. Centre for Development and Environment,

121

Institute of Geography, University of Berne, Switzerland. http://www.cde.unibe.ch/programmes/mandates/pdf/incentives_e_short.pdf

Glendinning, A., Mahapatra, A. and Mitchell, C.P. (2001) Modes of communication and effectiveness of agroforestry extension in eastern India. Human Ecology 29(3):283-304

Harrison, S.R., Herbohn, J.L., Emtage, N. and Smorfitt, D.B. (2001) Landholder attitudes to forestry incentive schemes in North Queensland, in A. Grodecki (ed.), Managing and Growing Trees: Farm Forestry and Vegetation Management, Kooralbyn, 19-21 October 1998, Department of Natural Resources and Greening Australia, Brisbane, pp. 406-411. Hurley, P.J. (1996) Government assistance for private forestry – the Farm Forestry Agreement Scheme in Victoria. Aust. For. 49(3) 181-188.

Ison, R.L., P.T. Maiteny and S. Carr. (1997) Systems methodologies for sustainable natural resources research and development, Agricultural Systems, 55(2): 257-272.

Hurley P.J. (1996) Government assistance for private forestry – the Farm Forestry Agreement Scheme in Victoria. Aust. For. 49(3) 181-188

Jones J., and Price N. (1985) Farming Systems Research. Human Organization, Vol. 44, No.4 pp.322-331.

King, C.A. (2000) Systematic Processes for facilitating social learning: Challenging the legacy. Thesis presented to the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

Knight, J. (1998) The second Life of Trees:Family Forestry in Upland Japan. In (Ed) Laura Rival., The Social Life of Trees: anthropological perspectives on tree symbolism. Oxford, New York: Berg.

Leopold, A. (1953) Round River. Oxford University Press, Oxford Maczkowiack, R., Herbohn, J., Harrison, S., Emtage, N. and Slaughter, G. (2008) Farm forestry

experiences - Development of the Australian farm forestry financial model in south-east and north Queensland. RIRDC Publication No 08/096

Malhotra, N. K. (1993) Marketing research : an applied orientation, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall.

Nelson, Harold (2003) The Legacy of C. West Churchman: A Framework for Social Systems Assessments. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. Vol.20, 463-473 (2003

O'Meara, T. and Wright, J. (1999) Evaluation of the Australian Master TreeGrower Program. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra (unpublished).

Pannell, D., Marshall, G, Barr, N., Curtis A,, Vanclay, F., and Wilkinson. R,. (2006) Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 2006, 46, 1407-1424

Pearson, C., Coakes, S. and Aslin, H. (2000) Social research to support successful farm forestry. In: Socio-economic research to support successful farm forestry. RIRDC Publication No. 01/13, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Phillips T.I. (1985) ‘The development of methodologies for the determination and facilitation of learning for dairy farmers.’ Masters of Agricultural Science Thesis, School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne.

Pirsig, R.M. (1974) Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company

Race, D., Buchy, M. and Fulton, A. (2001) A dynamic context: Farm forestry extension in Australia. Paper presented at the IUFRO Working Party (S6.06-03) Symposium Forestry Extension - Assisting Forest Owner, Farmer and Stakeholder Decision-Making 29th Oct – 2 Nov 2001. http://www.anu.edu.au/forestry/IUFROFE2001/index.html.

Race, D. (2009) Adoption of agroforestry in Australia. In Nuberg, I., George, B. and Reid ,R. eds 2009 Agroforestry for natural resource management. CSIRO. pp323-340

Reid, R. and Stephens, P. (2001) The Farmers Forest - multipurpose tree growing on Australian Farms. The Master TreeGrower Program, The University of Melbourne

Reid R. and Lawrence, B. (2003) The web of Trees. The Otway Agroforestry Network 12pp Reid, R. (2004) Direct Subsidies for Agroforestry Technologies - Is it a case of The Emperor’s New

Clothes? Presentation to the 1st World Congress of Agroforestry – Working together for sustainable land-use systems. 27 June to 2 July, Orlando, Florida, USA.

122

Reid, R. (2007) Multipurpose Tree Growing – Helping farmers do what they really want to do. Case study of a partnership between the Otway Agroforestry Network and the Australian Master TreeGrower Program. Paper presented at the Tamar Biodiversity Conference, Launceston 26 to 28 June 2007.

Reid, R. (2008a) Tree change - The Australian Master TreeGrower phenomenon. RIRDC Publication 08/129

Reid, R. (2008b) Farmer forestry – liking the time and realising the opportunity. Paper presented at the Australian Forest Growers Conference, Albury 2008

Reid, R. (2009) Trees in Grazing systems. In Nuberg, I., George, B. and Reid ,R. eds 2009 Agroforestry for natural resource management. CSIRO. pp219-238

Reid, R. (Unpublished) Who are the Australian Master TreeGrowers?: Guidelines for the development and delivery of regional Australian Master TreeGrower courses. http://www.mtg.unimelb.edu.au/coordinators.htm

Reid, R. and Stephens, P. (2007) The Australian Mater TreeGrowers Program: Development, delivery and impact of a national outreach and education program (1996-2004). A report for the RIRDC/Land and Water Australia/FWPRDC/MDBC Joint Venture Agroforestry Program. RIRDC Publication No 06/029.

Reid R. and Stewart A. (2006) Ten percent multipurpose tree cover for every farm: A low risk, high opportunity first step. Paper presented at the Australian Forest Growers Biennial Conference 22-25th October 2006, Launceston

Roth, I and Molony L-A (2008) Survey of Farm Forestry Stakeholder Information Needs, RIRDC Publication No 08/148

Schirmer, J. (2000) It’s not easy being green: Perceptions of the 2020 Vision for plantation forestry in Australia. In: Race, D. (ed) Socio-economic research to support successful farm forestry. Selected papers and abstracts from the ANU Forestry colloquium, 28 February 2000, Canberra: 22-39.

Skoien, P. (2006) Identifying opportunities for education for sustainability : current practices of community-based environmental groups. PhD Thesis. Griffith University.

Sorokin, P. (1947) Society, Culture and Personality: Their Structure and Dynamics. Harper and Brothers. New York.

Stewart and Reid (2008) Ten Percent of every farm under multipurpose tree cover presents no risk and lots of opportunity. Paper presented at the International Landcare Conference 8-11th October Melbourne

Thompson and George (2009) Financial and economic evaluation of agroforestry. In Nuberg, I., George, B. and Reid ,R. eds 2009 Agroforestry for natural resource management. CSIRO. pp281-308

Vanclay F. (2004) Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Aust. J. Exp. Ag. 44(3):213-222

White, C. and A. Black (1999) Practical farm forestry – whole farm case studies. RIRDC Publication No. 99/99

Wilkinson, R. and Cary, J. (1992) Monitoring Landcare in North Central Victoria. Melbourne: School of Agriculture and Forestry, The University of Melbourne.

Wilson, S.M., Whitham, J.A.H., Bhati, U.N., Horvath, D. and Tran, Y.D. (1995) Survey of trees on Australian farms: 1993-4, ABARE Research Report 95.7, ABARE, Canberra.

Woolcock, M. (1998) ‘Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework.’ Theory and Society, Vol. 27, No. 2. (Apr., 1998), pp. 151-208.

World Bank (2004) Monitoring and Evaluation: Some tools, Methods & Approaches. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

123

Appendix 1 – Before Survey 1. Which of the following best describes your situation?

2. What have been your main reasons for wanting to plant or manage trees on your land?

3. Describe your involvement, or interest, in tree growing and vegetation management

(Note how many years you have been actively involved in each activity)

4. Where have you got your information about tree growing or vegetation management in the past?

5. Do you see a need, or an opportunity, for more trees or better vegetation management on farms in your area? (Please describe)

6. How did you find out about the MTG?

Landholding with mostly on-farm income. □

Landholding with mostly off-farm income □

No landholding. □ if no, please go to question 3

□ Word of mouth □ Newspaper □ Regional/community group

□ Extension officer □ Invitation from coordinator □ Other______________________________

124

Appendix 2 – Post Course Survey Now that you have completed the Master TreeGrower course please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements (Tick only one box per question)

Question 1 through 11 use a 5-point Likert scale as follows:

1. I now have greater practical knowledge of how to grow and manage trees.

2. I now have a greater awareness of the scientific information about trees and vegetation management that is available.

3. I now see greater opportunities for tree growing to contribute to positive landscape change.

4. I am now more aware of the risks associated with establishing and managing trees and native vegetation.

5. I now have greater confidence to plan and design tree establishment and management projects.

6. I now have greater appreciation of the importance of actively managing trees and native vegetation in order to achieve conservation outcomes.

7. I now have a greater appreciation of the role trees can play in generating income.

8. I now have a greater appreciation of the potential for well-designed and managed forests to increase land values.

9. I now have a greater appreciation of how product quality and market costs will impact on the prices paid for forest products and environmental services.

10. I have learnt some new and useful skills in tree and forest measurement.

11. I am now better equipped to work as a contractor, community group facilitator, nurseryman, extension agent or in some other capacity if I so choose (please leave blank if you have no interest in such work).

12. Which of the following best describes your situation?

Questions 13 through 16, and, 18 through 21 use a 10 point scale (where 1 is ‘Not Likely, and 10 is ‘Highly Likely’.

□ Strongly disagree □ Disagree □ Neither agree/nor disagree □ Agree □ Strongly agree

Landholding with mostly on-farm income. □

Landholding with mostly off-farm income □

No landholding. □ if no, go to question 18

125

LANDHOLDERS ONLY:

13. How likely are you to increase your investment in tree growing or vegetation management activities in the future?

14. How likely are you to grow trees for the purpose of producing and selling forest products?

15. How likely are you to grow trees or manage native vegetation for the purpose of enhancing biodiversity?

16. How likely are you to grow trees for the purpose of improving water quality in your catchment?

17. For what other purposes do you now want to grow trees or manage native vegetation on your land?

ALL PARTICIPANTS:

18. How likely are you to recommend the MTG to others?

19. How likely are you to share your tree growing and management experiences with others?

20. How likely are you to become more involved in groups or organisations related to tree growing and native vegetation management?

21. How likely are you to maintain contact with the MTG participants you met through the course?

Please give your reasons for your answer to Q21.

Q22. What are now your main reasons for wanting to see more trees, or better management of vegetation, on farms in your region?

Q23. Are there any comments you would like to make regarding the presentations or presenters?

Q24. Are there any comments you would like to make regarding the site visits or field trips?

Q25. Finally, are there any other comments that you would like to make regarding your experience as a participant in the Australian Master TreeGrower Program?

126

Appendix 3 - Telephone Survey Questions

1) From my involvement with the MTG I now see greater opportunities for tree growing to contribute to positive landscape change.

2) From my involvement with the MTG I am now more aware of the risks associated with establishing and managing trees and native vegetation.

3) From my involvement with the MTG I now have greater confidence to plan and design tree growing projects

4) Which of the following best describes your situation? a) Landholding with mostly on-farm income b) Landholding with mostly off-farm income c) No significant farm or forest landholding

If c) -> 4a)What is your involvement with trees and forests?

GOTO -> Question 12

5) What type of farming do you do, and can you describe how your tree growing or vegetation

projects integrate with this activity? 6) How long have you been actively participating in tree growing or vegetation projects? 7) Estimate the percentage of your land-holdings under trees or forest both prior to participating in

the MTG and presently. 8) What is your purpose in establishing and managing trees or vegetation on your farm?

8.a How does this purpose affect farm economics (probe)

9) With respect to the establishment and management of trees who does the work (yourself, family members, contractors etc)

10) With respect to the establishment and management of trees have you received any financial support (joint ventures, grants, etc)

11) Can you describe the history of your farm? 12) How have you used the information you learnt, or the experiences you had during the MTG? 13) What are the main obstacles for you in your tree growing and vegetation projects? 14) Have there been any changes in your region/catchment that affect tree growing or vegetation

activities? 15) As a group have you stayed in contact since the MTG? 16) Have you recommended the MTG to others? 17) Having done the MTG are you more likely to talk about tree growing to others? 18) Are you involved in a landcare group or tree growing network? 19) Finally, are there any other comments that you would like to make regarding your experience in

being a participant in the MTG?

The Australian Master TreeGrower Program— Providing a sound foundation for Australian agroforestry —

RIRDC Publication No. 09/1507

By Rowan Reid and Wayne Deans

The Australian Master TreeGrower (MTG) Program has delivered more than eighty 8-day courses across Australia involving more than 1700 participants, 100 presenters and 30 partner organisations. During the course of this latest 3-year program the MTG has also worked with the Otway Agroforestry Network and other groups to developed and pilot the Peer Group Mentoring concept in which experienced landholders are engaged to support and assist other farmers in their agroforestry activities.

This review of the MTG highlights the importance of farmer-to-farmer communication and the development of information networks that provide a mutually respectful communication link between landholders and the researchers,

policy makers, industry and government agencies that influence their land management decisions. JVAP was managed by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC). The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) manages and funds priority research and translates results into practical outcomes for industry.

Our business is about developing a more profitable, dynamic and sustainable rural sector. Most of the information we produce can be downloaded for free or purchased from our website: www.rirdc.gov.au, or by phoning 1300 634 313 (local call charge applies).

Contact RIRDC:Level 2

15 National CircuitBarton ACT 2600

PO Box 4776Kingston ACT 2604

Ph: 02 6271 4100Fax: 02 6271 4199

Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.auweb: www.rirdc.gov.au

Most RIRDC books can be freely downloaded or purchased from www.rirdc.gov.au or by phoning 1300 634 313 (local call charge applies).

www.rirdc.gov.au