Landcare: Where to now ? Professor Allan Curtis

Overview Confront the revisionists Celebrate success Get the partnership right Sustain the groups Identify new opportunities

Confront the revisionists Done that, lets move on Didn’t work, didn’t fix the problems Not strategic (vegemite approach) CMAs can engage landholders directly

Celebrate success Mobilised a large cross section of rural population Facilitated dialogue, learning, planning and action High level of success across all outcome measures

Celebrate success A small investment in landcare through NLP: A catalyst for change in agricultural inputs A cost effective delivery mechanism for large programs Landcare has demonstrated that it should be part of the mix of policy options employed

What might be the future for Landcare? Place for learning about sustainability, including how to adapt to drought/ climate change Way to effectively engage the next generation of land managers in learning about NRM A cost effective way of accomplishing change at the district scale

Getting regional NRM partnership right Regional bodies do the regional planning, allocate priorities, ensure accountability Landcare engage landholders in learning, planning and action at district scale

Realistic expectations of the partnership Now have a more sophisticated arsenal CMA Boards and staff have difficult tasks Acknowledge the benefits of regional model Emphasise value of networks Focus on sustaining groups

Sustaining groups Resources needed to support volunteer organisations Leadership Internal organisation Positive group culture

Changing social context: a Landcare opportunity Era of rapid change in almost all regions Large turnover in property ownership Influx of new owners and non-farmers Many absentee owners Uncertainty around adaptation to climate change Suburbanisation of many landscapes

Property turnover: Corangamite catchment State government property sales records % of properties have been sold in the last decade 50% will change hands ( ) 93% had lived outside the district where their property is located prior to purchasing their property Percent of properties being sold each year in the Corangamite catchment

Where are they coming from?

Stable social structure? TopicWimmeraCorangamiteOvens in NE Vic Goulburn Broken Dryland Median length of residence 46 years34 years38 years23 years Intend to sell all/ most property 18%38%30%36% Want to acquire more land 43%23%35%N/A Turnover next 10 years 36%50%47%45%

Family succession will occur? TopicWimmeraCorangamiteOvens in NE Vic Goulburn Broken Dryland Intend to pass on in family 71%63%57%58% Have a succession plan 35% (at least halfway) 26% (at least half way) 34% (family agreed) 31% (family agreed)

Occupation, income and profitability TopicNE VicLachlanQMD % farmers58%59%65% Profit on property61%75%43% % total income above $50K 35%49%32% % total income from on-property 39%46%44% % turnover next 10 years 47% (38 yrs median residence) 38%35% (32 yrs median residence)

Most landholders are farmers? Wimmera – 80% Corangamite – 53% Ovens – 58% Goulburn-Broken – 54% Also, in some areas non- farmers hold most of the land: land which is often critical to NRM.

Farm income crucial to viability? TopicWimmeraCorangamiteOvens in NE Vic Goulburn Broken Dryland On-property profit 86%61% 62% On / off property income On -property 2.4 times Off N/A Off -property 1.5 times On Off -property 3.5 times On Increase in property value past 10 years 100%

Topic New property owners (19%, n=79) Longer-term property owners (81%) Farmer as occupation23%61% Median area land managed44 ha160 ha Median hours week farm work16 hr/week40 hr/week Median days paid off-farm work/year 200 days/year0 days/year Make an on-property profit35%68% Median profit rangeLess than $10,000$30,000 to $40,000 Member of Landcare 24%37% Principal place of residence61%81% Median Age4757 Social & farming differences

Property turnover changes the landscape Viability of networks and local organisations Drought policy when lose experience Industry extension/ training implications CMA and landcare plans: Who’se values drive the plan Local government Injection of new people, ideas and resources

Landcare has been a success Landcare an important part of policy mix for effective regional NRM Focus on articulating roles and responsibilities Need to sustain groups Help regions address changing social realities Conclusion