Fostering Involvement—How to Improve Participation in Learning

Fostering Involvement—how to improve participation in learning

Part I – Report

Part II – Case Studies

A report for the Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building

by Jennifer Andrew, Roland Breckwoldt, Alastair Crombie, Heather Aslin, Dana Kelly and Tanya Holmes

July 2005

RIRDC Publication No. 05/105 RPM-2A

ISBN 1 74151 168 2 ISSN 1440-6845

Fostering Involvement—how to improve participation in learning: Part I Report; Part II Case Studies Publication No. 05/105 Project No. RPM-2A

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 industries. The information should not be relied upon for the purpose of a particular matter. Specialist and/or appropriate legal advice should be obtained before any action or decision is taken on the basis of any material in this document. The Commonwealth of Australia, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, the authors or contributors do not assume liability of any kind whatsoever resulting from any person's use or reliance upon the content of this document.

This publication is copyright. However, the Cooperative Venture encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact the Publications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186.

Researcher Contact Details Dr Jennifer Andrew Resource Policy & Management PO Box 4758 KINGSTON ACT 2604

Phone: (02) 6232 6956 Fax: (02) 6232 7727 Email: [email protected]

In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form.

RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 1, AMA House 42 Macquarie Street BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604

Phone: 02 6272 4819 Fax: 02 6272 5877 Email: [email protected]. Web : http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Published in July 2005 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint

ii Foreword

The Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries (CVCB) aims to build capacity in rural industries to enable more sustainable and competitive industries. Improving rates of adoption of R&D outcomes is a priority and enhancing participation by farmers in a broad range of learning activities is a key component of this.

This report delivers initial research on participation by farmers in learning activities. It aims to improve understanding of non-participation in learning activities, to increase the accessibility of learning activities and the involvement of the farming community. It examines factors that inhibit farmers’ participation in learning activities, with a view to developing new processes for encouraging participation, extension and learning

It comes in two parts: the report and its accompanying case studies. These case studies should be read in conjunction with Part 1: They provide examples of what is happening in specific areas and industries and what people think about farmers’ participation in learning in a variety of different settings.

This study identifies four primary factors influencing participation and these are supported by the case study evidence: • relationships between the learner and the learning ‘environment’ • social and structural factors inhibiting participation • the learning and educational experience of the farmer • situational, institutional and dispositional barriers to participation

Finally, the study provides strategies to encourage participation and learning and a guide to increasing participation in learning activities.

This report is a result of a flagship project funded by the CVCB. The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation manages the CVCB on behalf of The Federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Australian Wool Innovation; Meat & Livestock Australia; Dairy Australia; Land & Water Australia; Murray-Darling Basin Commission; Grains Research and Development Corporation; Sugar Research and Development Corporation; and Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation.

Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/Index.htm purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop

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

iii

Fostering Involvement—how to improve participation in learning Part I – Report

vi Part I Contents

Summary ...... ix 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background...... 1 1.1.1 Project 2: Fostering Involvement...... 1 1.1.2 The report...... 2 2 The research approach ...... 3 2.1 The underlying assumptions ...... 3 2.2 The method ...... 4 2.2.1 The annotated bibliography ...... 5 2.2.2 The framework of analysis...... 6 2.2.3 Testing and refining framework...... 6 2.2.4 Case study development and analysis...... 7 2.2.5 Synthesis of findings...... 8 3 Participation and non-participation in learning...... 9 3.1 Participation, learning and knowledge...... 9 3.2 Some models, typologies and theories of participation...... 11 3.2.1 The economic and human capital perspective ...... 12 3.2.2 The needs hierarchy theory...... 13 3.2.3 The congruence model...... 15 3.2.4 Force-field theory and the expectancy–valence approach ...... 15 3.2.5 The chain of response model ...... 17 3.2.6 Life transitions theory...... 18 3.2.7 Reference group theory...... 20 3.2.8 Social participation ...... 21 3.2.9 The general activity model...... 23 3.3 Non-participation ...... 24 3.3.1 Barriers to participation ...... 28 3.3.2 Action research ...... 34 3.3.3 Participation in what? ...... 36 3.3.4 Industry’s role in participation...... 38 4 Building a framework of participation...... 40 4.1 Technical participation and learning...... 40 4.2 Experiential participation and learning ...... 41 4.3 Farmer-led participation and learning...... 41

vii 5 Findings...... 44 5.1 The primary factors relevant to non-participation...... 45 5.1.1 The relevance of learning experiences...... 45 5.1.2 Relationships...... 46 5.1.3 The view of learning and knowledge...... 46 5.2 Competing demands and values...... 47 5.3 Roles and responsibilities...... 47 5.3.1 Intervention in established networks and information sources ...... 48 5.3.2 Prevailing and ‘threatening’ concerns...... 48 5.3.3 Partnerships...... 48 5.3.4 Supporting farmer-led participatory processes ...... 48 5.3.5 Alignment of environmental and production requirements and planning...... 49 5.3.6 Including farmers...... 49 5.4 Strategies for participation and learning ...... 50 5.4.1 Building trust and orientation ...... 51 5.4.2 The conditions for learning...... 51 5.4.3 Reflection on learning to stimulate further learning ...... 52 5.4.4 Feedback...... 52 5.5 Increasing participation in learning activities: a guide...... 52 5.5.1 Expressing the benefits of learning in terms that have meaning for individual farmers ...... 53 5.5.2 Localising learning ...... 53 5.5.3 Intervening in group and individual learning settings...... 54 5.5.4 Time and costs for farmers as central factors in determining interactions...... 54 5.5.5 Two-way and open interaction...... 54 5.5.6 Extension officers’ training supporting a greater understanding of social learning and the farmer context ...... 54 5.5.7 Build relationships with individuals ...... 55 5.5.8 Always follow up on what is needed ...... 55 5.5.9 Monitoring and revising learning programs as change occurs in an area ...... 55 Appendix A The role of the knowledge broker...... 56 Appendix B Capturing value along the supply chain...... 63 Appendix C Extension officers and participation...... 74 Appendix D Learning opportunities for farmers...... 92 References...... 95 Further reading...... 100 Part II Extension, communication and information supporting farmers: case studies...... 103

viii Executive Summary

This report presents findings of a research project on farmers’ participation in learning. It is one of six documents prepared for the Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries (CVCB) Project 2—Fostering Involvement. The other five documents (which appear as Volume II of this publication) present the results of case studies carried out in Bega Valley Shire, Greater Shepparton Shire, and Carrathool Shire; one desktop study of Indigenous land managers in the rangelands; and another examining extension associated with the sugar industry in Mackay, Queensland. The case study reports should be read in conjunction with this volume: they provide examples of what is happening in specific areas and industries and what people think about farmers’ participation in learning in a variety of different settings.

The work is targeted at those who fund rural research and development, service providers who wish to engage farmers in learning based in both government and non-government settings and others who have an interest in farmer learning and encouraging greater participation in learning activities.

Background

This project was commissioned by the CVCB as a result of a wide ranging review of extension and learning in rural industries (Fulton et al 2004). In that review the authors summarised the position regarding the understanding of farmers’ participation in learning as follows:

“Barriers to participation in learning or change opportunities may be factors related to an individual, their spouse, their family situation, and the characteristics of their farm, business, rural community or industry. They may also be related to the content, accessibility or delivery of the learning or change opportunities presented to the farmer.

The research on barriers to participation is limited in its depth and breadth, particularly in terms of understanding who is participating, why and what can be done to address barriers to participation. Little data has been collected on actual farmer participation in learning and change opportunities. Little is therefore known about potential untapped opportunities or problems with current provisioning. Further work is required to increase the awareness of the need to collect participation data. Reasons for and against participation in all forms of learning opportunities need to be further explored. Only in doing this can appropriate education products be delivered in an effective manner.”

Aims and Objectives

The project was designed to answer the following questions:

• What is participation, how can it be defined, and who does the defining?

• What are the factors that influence farmers’ participation and non-participation in learning?

• What prompts participation?

• In what ways do specific people want to participate in learning?

• What are possible roles and responsibilities for organisations and groups associated with rural extension?

• Can we generalise about these and other aspects of participation in learning opportunities?

Method

The terms of reference for the project reflect an interest in why farmers choose not to participate in learning and how industry, government and other organisations can respond to this. As a result, the report does not emphasise current levels of participation in programs.

The project approach involved the following main steps:

• compilation of an annotated bibliography

• development of a framework of analysis

• development and testing of the framework—through a questionnaire and informal interviews and discussions

• case study and fieldwork analysis

• establishment of extension strategies and synthesis of findings.

Although concentrating predominantly on formal, organised learning, the study is an attempt to respond to the importance of informal learning, although this is much more difficult to appraise than formal learning. The study also recognises that people move in and out of formal and informal learning situations during their lifetime, according to their needs and interests. The research method considers those circumstances in which people decide to seek out learning, again recognising that the field is too broad to be dealt with in depth. In taking this approach, the study responds to Forrester and Payne’s (2000, p. 3) warning that models of participation that consider only formal learning through organised activities and events and manage to capture only a ‘snapshot’ of participation at specific points in a person’s life fail to take account of the complexity of adult learning.

Researchers have given much attention to the term ‘participation’. Commentary on the term is part of the literature of a number of different disciplines and fields—political science, developmental studies, economics, social psychology, rural extension, sociology, philosophy, health studies, recreation and leisure studies, education, consumer practices, time management and allocation, and interdisciplinary studies. An overview of some of the models and theories of participation is presented here in order to identify what they offer for improving our understanding of farmers’ participation in learning.

Key findings

Broadly, the models and theories of participation identify four primary factors influencing participation:

• relationships between the learner and the learning ‘environment’

• social and structural factors inhibiting participation

• the learning and educational experience of the farmer

• situational, institutional and dispositional barriers to participation.

These points are supported by the case study evidence. Farmers tend to choose to participate or not participate according to their experiences, the experiences of people they trust and value, and the patterns of information seeking they are accustomed to. This seems to be because they are acquainted with and feel confident about participating or not participating in particular learning environments. This is especially relevant when considering that the delivery of many government and industry programs tends to focus on

x group-based participation, rather than one-on-one contact.

The farmers who demonstrated that they were least likely to participate in or seek out learning that did not produce direct on-farm production benefits tended to obtain information through links and services they knew well and could trust. The first source of information many of them mentioned is the family. For these people, confidence in individuals and information services was generated through historic links and positive and reliable relationships. This was most evident in the interview responses of sugar growers in the Mackay area. Such a finding is supported by the work of Kilpatrick et al. (1999, p. 33).

Implications

Bearing in mind the four primary factors influencing participation in learning, as just listed, the following paragraphs summarise the strategies which stakeholders might adopt for fostering involvement.

Expressing the benefits of learning in terms that have meaning for individual farmers

Farmers tended to participate in learning when direct on-farm benefits to their business were evident; this was evident from the Mackay, Shepparton, Carrathool and Indigenous landowners in the rangelands case studies. As a result, before learning events take place extension providers need to identify and describe the benefits of learning in terms that are relevant to the individual enterprise. An example of such an approach would be a value chain–oriented one, whereby production, environment and quality are all considered as central to developing learning that has meaning for individual farmers and is responsive to the demands of current farming practice.

Localised learning

Many of the available learning programs are organised in such a way as to respond to local needs and conditions. This does not just mean that learning is to be situated in local areas: it means localising in terms of issues, organisation (through local farming groups or other social groups) and responding to the community’s time and relevance demands. Local people should also be involved in the development of learning opportunities.

Intervention in group and individual learning settings

Intervention in more personal interactions—such as individual farm settings and families and use of stock and station agents and accountants as learning providers—is necessary if people who tend to not engage in group processes are to be involved in learning beyond their current systems. The cost of this level of intervention is high for the service provider, whether it is government or industry.

Time and costs as central factors

All farming enterprises have considerable demands associated with on-farm work, but account must also be taken of other demands that are part of farming—for example, travel time, family responsibilities, maintenance of farm equipment and infrastructure, holidays, changes in the weather, ‘staffing’, and office work. The value placed on the learning opportunity must be such that other demands are put aside in order to participate.

Two-way, open interaction

It is necessary to use differing learning opportunities to foster wider community discussion and identify areas in need of attention. There should be a two-way communication channel between farmers and government and industry. Identification of opportunities should come through an understanding of how different communities interact and communicate.

xi Extension officer training to support a greater understanding of social learning and the farmer context

There is a need to formalise extension officers’ training in social learning processes and participatory approaches. A number of extension officers noted this as a particular concern. Training could be through distance education, whereby course requirements are geared to the individual extension officer’s work setting.

Understanding the farmer context includes understanding what farmers want to know. It is clear from the case studies that farmers’ participation in learning is not determined by a lack of education, extension, information and training experiences and programs; rather, it is determined by the difficulty of being able to ‘match’ the available learning experiences with what the learners want. There is an important role here for a learning or knowledge broker.

Building relationships with individuals

For the extension officer, travelling to properties and getting involved through face-to-face communication with farmers can generate an understanding of the local context and the local people. These interactions can be built on over time and can help establish dialogue and a genuine understanding of how extension can help farmers in a particular area. Finding out what they want to know by listening and watching what they are doing is important. Relationship building comes at a high cost for both the service provider and the extension officer.

Following up

Following up on what is needed is fundamental to forming solid and beneficial relationships in local areas. This is often a difficult thing for extension officers to do because it takes time and they need to move on to other work duties.

Monitoring and revising as change takes place in an area

It is important to take into consideration changes in production, natural resource management, threats to livelihood, and changes to family and social circumstances that might affect participation. An understanding of these circumstances can be reflected in learning opportunities.

xii 1. Introduction

1.1 Background

This research project was funded under the Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries Cooperative Venture, which was established by research and development corporations to improve capacity building in rural industries in Australia. The Cooperative Venture has funding for five years, from 2001 to 2006. It invests in R&D that focuses on increasing the understanding of learning, improving organisational arrangements to support rural human capacity building, and inspiring innovative farming practices. The goal is to give all primary producers the opportunity and skills to obtain the information and education they need if they are to embrace innovation.

The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation manages the Cooperative Venture on behalf of the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Meat and Livestock Australia; Dairy Australia; Land and Water Australia; the Murray–Darling Basin Commission; the Grains Research and Development Corporation; the Sugar Research and Development Corporation; and the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation.

Initially, three projects were funded to support the Cooperative Venture’s goal: • Project 1: A National Extension/Education Review—what works and why? This project was established to identify current ‘best practice’ in rural extension, education and training and so assist in the design and delivery of learning initiatives. • Project 2: Fostering Involvement. This project, which is the subject of this report, aims to improve understanding of non-participation in learning activities and to increase the accessibility of learning activities and the involvement of the farming community. It examines factors that inhibit farmers’ participation in learning activities, with a view to developing new processes for encouraging participation, extension and learning. • Project 3: Optimising Institutional Arrangements. This project was designed to promote and rethink rural extension and education through government, industry and community groups, so that they respond to new and changing environments and improve rural learning and practice. The project developed strategies for anticipating social, economic and technological changes that will influence the learning environment during the next 20 years. These changes have important implications for interest groups, industry and government.

1.1.1 Project 2: Fostering Involvement

The Fostering Involvement project explores and describes from a number of perspectives the many factors that are believed to encourage or impede farmer1 involvement in the extension programs of government and industry bodies. Among the outputs from the project are the following: • a summary of factors that encourage participation by ‘non-participators’, the reasoning and the context that is required • costs associated with supporting and encouraging participation • the roles and responsibilities of R&D organisations, government agencies, other organisations, and the extension/education2 required.

1 The term ‘farmer’ (or ‘grower’) applies to any decision maker involved in a primary production enterprise. 2 ‘Extension/education’ is used to describe learning as broadly as possible—formal courses and training, informal events and activities or self- reflection, and learning through observation, experience and self-directed tasks.

Five deliverables were specified: • Present major factors and related contextual arrangements and issues of relevance to non-participation, learning and competencies required in and across industries, propositions about drivers and incentives for participation, and propositions about opportunities for industries to respond. • Present information about competing demands and values; social and cultural factors; knowledge and learning requirements; relationships between history of involvement in programs and non-participation; and the role or function of financial, educational, historic, geographical, industry and political factors. Identify competencies required in and across industries and drivers, including incentives, for participation. Propose a number of opportunities for industries to respond to findings. • Speculate on roles and responsibilities of other organisations—such as agribusiness, universities, rural communities, government agencies, environmental organisations, rural finance companies, producer networks and private training providers. • Suggest strategies for participation and learning, responding to on-farm circumstances across industries for participation, incentives and other drivers for change, contextual arrangements, costs and organisational roles and responsibilities. • Develop a guide to increasing participation in learning activities applicable to specific production settings.

1.1.2 The report

This report should be read in concert with the five case studies that were developed as part of the project and are discussed in Volume II. The case studies are summarised here in Section 2.2.4 and provide the basis for the findings put forward in Chapters 2, 3 and 4. That aside, the remainder of this report is organised as follows: • Chapter 2 describes the assumptions and project method. • Chapters 3 and 4 present an analysis and extension framework through which participation and non- participation can be examined and characterised. • Chapter 5 provides a summary in relation to each of the stated deliverables. The summary is drawn from the findings in Chapters 3 and 4.

2 2. The research approach

2.1 The underlying assumptions

The case study approach applied to this project rests on a number of assumptions that are important to a study that is essentially about people and their views of reality, as expressed through their beliefs and practices. It also responds to the Cooperative Venture’s concentration on ‘innovation in R&D’ by questioning the taken-for-granted approaches to research that uphold the objectivist notions embedded in science methods.3

The study aims to improve our understanding of extension in support of better processes for, and by, farmers and extension officers and providers. This means that the approach seeks to provide insights that will help people better understand and respond to aspects of production and natural resource management within a social context. Rather than drawing predominantly on research conducted in agricultural extension in Australia (although some extension research is referred to), the study includes research and participation theories from other disciplines and research areas. It is hoped that through this approach knowledge about participation and learning already gained through extension research can be further strengthened or reappraised.

Two important assumptions underlie the approach to this project: • The beliefs expressed by individuals have merit in that they reflect the ‘reality’ of those individuals, and that in itself has merit. The notions and practices of interested parties are of fundamental importance to this study. • Knowledge is culturally and socially constructed and is associated with the social, political, geographical, historical and community contexts in which an individual exists.

With these assumptions in mind, the study treats people who are key informants as ‘experts’ and holders of legitimate knowledge in and about their own context. Such an approach means that it is inappropriate to judge the information provided by farmers against an externally imposed ‘standard’. A judgment of that nature is inappropriate because it would be based on a view that there is an objective, universally accepted and ‘correct’ way for farmers to think and learn about all aspects of farming. Instead, through the method adopted we are trying to find out what farmers think about in relation to learning as a result of their lived experiences. This also means that understanding is gained about knowledge born of learning through the practice of farming in different circumstances and settings. A framework of analysis is used to characterise— but not pass an objectivist judgment on—different forms of participation and learning.

The five case studies that form part of the project are subjectivist and interpretive in approach. Statements by people interviewed are ‘legitimised’ through an explanation of context: an effort is made to be as transparent as possible about the setting in which the statements apply.

Among the crucial methodological and substantive questions guiding this inquiry are the following: • What factors shape producers’ decision making? • What is participation, how can it be defined, and who does the defining? • What are the factors that influence farmers’ participation and non-participation in learning? • What prompts participation? • What concepts of extension are held by government, industry and farmers and how do these correlate with extension theories, extension practices, views on research, and concepts of knowledge and expertise? • What values are missing or marginalised through the process of extension and does this affect participation?

3 A number of social researchers use the term ‘social science’, but it is avoided here so that there will be no confusion between what is referred to as ‘science methods’ and ‘social research methods’. In the context of this study, ‘science methods’ refers to approaches that are underpinned by an objectivist epistemology and aim for prediction and control from a neutral stance using experimentalist or modified experimentalist methods. This is debated in, among others, Mrazek (1993).

3 • Should industry and government define extension—through their policies, strategies and research agendas—and therefore define what is important to farming? • Ought government and industry seek higher levels of participation in environmental extension or cater for those people who value the environmental aspects of production? • In what ways do specific people want to participate in learning? • What are possible roles and responsibilities for organisations and groups associated with rural extension? • Can we generalise about these and other aspects of participation in learning opportunities?

2.2 The method

The project approach involved the following main steps: • compilation of an annotated bibliography • development of a framework of analysis • development and testing of the framework—through a questionnaire and informal interviews and discussions • case study and fieldwork analysis • establishment of extension strategies and synthesis of findings.

Figure 2.1 illustrates these steps and shows the information flow from one component to the next.

The study methods used were observation, interviews, website synthesis, semi-structured questionnaires, conversations and discussions, photographic recordings, and document and archival analysis and synthesis.

4 Figure 2.1 The research approach

Papers and other literature Develop the annotated and websites posted on the bibliography web for other extension researchers to view

Formulate preliminary extension framework from Formulate issues from issues annotated bibliography

Develop questionnaire for Gain feedback from extension officers, primary extension officers, primary producers, researchers and producers, researchers and extension providers based on extension providers and issues revise issues and framework

Develop interviews for case Write up case studies and study sites and approach to examine major issues—both case studies research and extension based—and add any literature used to the Re-examine annotated bibliography case studies and other feedback Revise issues and framework from informants Feedback throughout from the Write up final report, including case studies, Steering issues and final framework, outlining: Committee and • a guide to learning and participation peer support • application to particular production settings • determinants of change • social and cultural considerations • costs • organisational arrangements

2.2.1 The annotated bibliography

The annotated bibliography provided the following: • an understanding of past and current participation research and theoretical frameworks that have been applied to issues associated with participation • issues that are relevant to the subject • the basis for a framework for proceeding with the project.

An added benefit is that, through posting the annotated bibliography on the RIRDC website, the information

5 was available to other researchers and extension officers for their work purposes. This meant that the conduct of the project itself provided an educative service to those interested in similar topics.

The aim of the annotated bibliography was not to cover all literature relevant to the topic; instead, it was to include articles that represent the depth and breadth of discussion associated with participation and non- participation in learning. Literature was predominantly drawn from electronic databases, journals, reports and other written publications.

Clippings from The Land and Stock and Land were collected in order to examine media coverage of extension activities and extension officers in New South Wales and Victoria. Information about agricultural courses and computer packages was also gathered to support the development of a framework and for the case studies. Finally, the North Queensland Register and Queensland Country Life were searched, via the Rural Press website, specifically for articles on the sugar industry and sugar-related extension.

2.2.2 The framework of analysis

The framework—devised essentially from the annotated bibliography, interviews and questionnaire responses from extension officers and farmers and interactions with other researchers and the Joint Venture Steering Committee—provides the basis for a characterisation of different views of extension and identification of factors that might affect participation. It is through the framework that different forms of participation and learning become intelligible; this means that the framework acts as a device to help advance understanding of participation in learning without a belief that it represents reality.

The framework is divided into three participation and learning perspectives: • technical • experiential • farmer-led.

The distinction between these perspectives, as considered here in relation to participation and learning, is depicted in terms of their fundamental differences in terms of the following: • views about knowledge and how people learn • roles and relationships between participants (learners), extension providers, and extension officers (who may also be participant learners) • the purpose of participation and learning • organisational arrangements and function of the ‘learning environment’ • the decision-making structure • control and power relationships.

This framework derives from the research findings discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.

2.2.3 Testing and refining framework

A questionnaire and informal interviews and discussions were used to test the framework. Feedback from 33 extension officers, three extension providers, five researchers and five farmers (other than those interviewed for case studies) was used to refine the framework of participation and learning.

6 2.2.4 Case study development and analysis

Bega Valley Shire, Greater Shepparton Shire, and Carrathool Shire were chosen for case studies because they offered access to different rural industries and contexts. Two further case studies were developed—one a desktop study focusing on Indigenous land managers in the rangelands and the other examining extension associated with the sugar industry in Mackay, Queensland.

Devising an approach for a study that requires input from people who had chosen not to participate in organised learning obviously has its difficulties. For instance, a number of farmers described themselves as ‘non-participants’, yet as the interviews proceeded they named several courses and other programs they remembered attending. Further, with a number of farming practices now requiring certification through completion of training (such as chemical-handling courses), ‘non-participation’ had to be redefined. Farmers need to attend courses to be able to do things that in many industries are considered essential to the running of an enterprise. There were exceptions to this, though. Farmers who worked in industries or off-farm during the week and farmed part time, usually on weekends, tended to pay for people to do work that required accreditation; hobby and leisure farmers, who tended to use land for other purposes, with minimal primary production, would buy in expertise in preference to attending courses themselves.4 Further, introduction of the goods and services tax had led many people to participate in courses to learn about electronic preparation of statements. Many Indigenous landholders, particularly those owning their traditional land, engage in a multitude of land uses, and learning is culturally embedded and integral to these people and their past. Additionally, Aboriginal people who acquire land with support from the Indigenous Land Corporation are required to take land management training or courses. So ‘non-participation’ in structured and semi- structured learning seems to be almost non-existent.

Because of these considerations, a number of different methods were used to contact and receive feedback from a variety of farmers. These are discussed in each of the case studies in Volume II; in summary they include the following: • identification of key extension officers in an area for their input into identification of ‘non- participants’—the Bega Valley Shire and Mackay sugar case studies • farmers nominating other farmers in their area as potential study participants—although not necessarily as ‘non-participants’ in learning • identification of individuals mentioned in Rural Press publications who were involved in specific industries in case study areas • identification of farmers known to the researchers in case study areas • categorisation of courses and other learning as relating directly to production and financial aspects of farming and as others in which learning is associated with natural resource management.

Efforts were was made to include many different people under the label of ‘farmer’—women and men of different ages, farmers with English as a second language, generational landowners, corporate land managers, Indigenous landowners, landowners who gain their income from other sources, and so on. Table 2.1 shows the number of extension officers and providers and farmers interviewed for each of the four field-based case studies.

Table 2.1 Number of people interviewed for the case studies

Extension officers Case study and providers Farmers Total Bega Valley Shire 8 7 15 Greater Shepparton Shire 7 6 13 Carrathool Shire 11 19 30 Mackay sugar 11 12 23 Total 37 44 81

4 This was mainly evident in Bega Valley Shire and to a lesser degree the Mackay sugar case study.

7 2.2.5 Synthesis of findings

The findings from the interviews, informal discussions and case studies are examined in terms of different participation models. Project outputs are generated from this examination, in keeping with the Cooperative Venture project requirements. The findings are presented in the chapters that follow, beginning with a theoretical discussion about learning and participation and some of the arguments underlying people’s desire to participate.

8 3. Participation and non-participation in learning

This chapter presents some of the differing views and theories about participation and non-participation in learning, as identified from a review of the literature; the interview and questionnaire responses of extension officers and providers, researchers and farmers; and the five case studies.

The term ‘participation and non-participation in learning’ is treated with caution. For a researcher to label an individual a ‘non-participant’ says more about the researcher’s conception of participation and learning than providing insight into the question of learning. All people learn, and they learn through different means and mechanisms; in this way all people are considered participants in learning.

This project concentrates on areas of learning that government and industry extension programs can help support through increased accessibility and a greater understanding of what farmers want, what they are willing to participate in, what would motivate them to participate, and why they might wish not to participate.

3.1 Participation, learning and knowledge

To ‘learn’, according to the Macquarie Concise Dictionary, has several different meanings: • to acquire knowledge of or skills in by study, instruction or experience • to memorise • to become informed of or acquainted with • to acquire—for example, a habit • to acquire knowledge or skill.

‘Learning’ means ‘knowledge acquired by a systematic study in any field or fields of scholarly application’ or ‘the modification of behaviour through interaction with the environment’. The definition of ‘participate’ is ‘to take or have a part or share’. So, to participate in learning can mean to take part in learning, whether learning is through systematic study or through interaction with the environment. Learning through interaction with the environment is akin to experiential learning—learning by doing.

If the dictionary definition of these terms is to be accepted, a ‘non-participant in learning’ is an inappropriate term since all humans are capable of systematic and environmental learning. For the purposes of this study, however, ‘non-participation’ applies to people who choose not to participate in government and industry rural extension programs. It is taken for granted that these people are learning through other mechanisms, and it is not presumed that those who do participate in rural extension are necessarily more ‘successful’ in their farming.

The term ‘know’ is used in a number of different ways: • an acquaintance—‘I know her’ • an ability—‘I know how to do this’ • a proposition—‘I know that …’

These three uses of the term are interlinked, but for this examination of knowledge it is the second and third uses that are important. Theories about how knowledge is acquired can be broadly categorised as based on two distinct views: • Knowledge is viewed as objective, regardless of whether the knowledge is in relation to concepts or ideas or things that have an objective existence. • Knowledge in relation to concepts and ideas is viewed as subjective and culturally and socially constructed. Even the selection of what is considered appropriate knowledge is deemed a value judgment.

9 ‘Participation’ has been described as a popular concept that, like all concepts, has a different meaning for different people: ‘It has been variously described as a buzz word, a slogan, a sham, a contested value-laden concept, anarchistic, radical, efficient, inefficient, the means, and [the] end’ (Bryson & Mowbray 1981, quoted in Multicultural Mental Health Access Project 1996).

Although the concept is contested, writers from the 1960s onwards (see Smith n.d.a; Pateman 1970; Midgley et al. 1986) appear to consider its value through two major themes: • Participation accounts for justice in decision making: people have some say in, and influence on, collective decisions (Smith n.d.a). • Participation has an educative value. Through participation people learn (Smith n.d.b; Beetham 1992).

The aspiration of participation, as described, has legitimacy through our democratic system as well as through a belief that participation is part of change and community development. According to Buchy and Hoverman (1999, p. 7), the literature on participation and participatory processes, which values these major themes, is drawn from two disciplines of thought. The first of these is the discipline of political science, in which participation is discussed in terms of democracy and citizenship.

Dahl (1965, p. 8) explains that the democratic system provides a widely shared opportunity for adult citizens to participate in decisions. Furthermore, the legitimacy of government is, as Creighton (1983, p. 3) puts it, ‘derived by the consent of the governed’. This ties citizens’ participation to legitimisation of government decisions. Putland et al. (1997, p. 300) argue:

The idea that greater public participation in the activities of governments is desirable has achieved currency because of features of bureaucracies themselves. The complexity of administering to relatively large, highly urbanised societies has created bureaucracies which are centralised, remote from, and therefore less able to respond to, the detailed needs and priorities of local communities.

Mansbridge (1995) believes there is a link between participation and the making of ‘better citizens’ but that proof of this is elusive:

The kind of subtle changes that come about, slowly, from active, powerful participation in democratic decisions cannot easily be measured with the blunt instruments of social science. Those who have actively participated in democratic governance, however, often feel that the experience has changed them. And those who observe the active participation of others often believe that they see its longrun effects on the citizens’ character.

The demand for more participatory, democratic and equitable administration has increased as the welfare state’s influence over citizens has grown. Furthermore, greater concern with the establishment of methods of accountability is part of contemporary public participation. Healthy Participation (Macklin 1992, cited in Multicultural Mental Health Access Project 1996) identifies a democratic approach to participation focusing on three principles: • public participation at a number of levels • a focus on consumers and communities, rather than providers’ and funders’ interests • an open system—information, public accountability, and transparent decision making.

Curtis (1995, pp. 22–33) discusses community participation and its perceived benefits and limitations, citing a number of authors who ‘articulate the fundamental contradiction of public participation seeking to provide the public with direct input into policy development within a representative democracy’. Yet, he argues, the participation results in increased conflict and problems (p. 25), which would seem inevitable if people with differing perspectives are given the opportunity to participate in decision making. If changes are made to expand (or even control) public participation it is difficult to see how the community can participate without extending deadlines and completely overhauling systems of working (Andrew & Robottom 1998, p. 50). In general, bureaucratic processes such as policy development and legislative operations allow only limited opportunities for community participation. In such cases, where participatory processes are used as a ‘tool’ to persuade the community to do as government policy determines, the participation is through passive acceptance of information, skills or practices. This form of participation is akin to participation for social acceptance.

10 A further criticism voiced by a number of authors is that participation can be about maintaining the status quo (Multicultural Mental Health Access Project 1996; Andrew & Robottom 1998, p. 50), particularly when power relationships within a participatory process remain unchallenged. Questions associated with hegemony and participation are well represented in the literature (see, for example, Arnstein 1969; Brown & Tandon 1983; Painter 1991; Synapse Consulting 2000).

The second central theme associated with participation comes drawn from literature relevant to development theory. For example, Freire (1993) and Shiva (1991, 1994) reflect a notion of participation that stems from ideologically based views about the relationship between the environment (milieu) and citizens. This is further exemplified by Putland et al. (1997, p. 301), who state that consultation, which is an aspect of participation, must ‘be valued for its developmental as well as instrumental capacities … Viewed thus, it may allow people to influence the processes that deeply affect them …’

These two themes can be brought together to provide a distinct understanding of participation. For example, a number of United Nations reports produced in the 1970s—such as Popular Participation in Development (1971) and Popular Participation in Decision Making for Development (1975)—demonstrate a commitment to participation that reflects both democratic and developmental aspirations. Popular Participation as a Strategy for Planning Community Level Action and National Development, (United Nations 1981, p. 5), defines community participation as ‘the creation of opportunities to enable all members of a community to actively contribute to and influence the development process and to share equitably in the fruits of development’.

Although broad, the definition does offer an understanding of how both concepts of ‘participation’ can be applied in a community setting such as rural Australia. Midgley et al. (1986, p. 23) also explore this conjoining of meanings, describing ‘popular participation’ as concerned with broad matters of social development and the creation of opportunities for people’s involvement in the political, economic and social life of a nation and ‘community participation’ as the direct involvement of people in local dealings and decisions.

The research of Putland et al. provides a focus for a form of participation that is developmental rather than instrumental in approach. They call for a ‘reflexive view’ (1997, p. 301) that respects and values considerations such as knowledge, greater understanding, solidarity, trust and sympathy and looks ‘beyond expediency and the immediate products, to the quality of the relationships, structures and systems which promote these enduring values’.

3.2 Some models, typologies and theories of participation

Participation models, typologies and theories are discussed here in terms of their relevance for encouraging greater participation and involvement in rural learning and in order to draw on understanding gained from a variety of disciplines.

Numerous conceptual models attempt to identify factors that influence participation. Authors such as Cross (1981), Darkenwald & Merriam (1982), Rubenson (1988), Courtney (1992), McGivney (1993) and Silva et al. (1998) have contributed much to the discussion. Models and theories are based on differing views about knowledge, learning and participation that have been derived from studies in social psychology, sociology, economics, health, recreation and leisure, adult education, consumer practices, and time management and allocation, as well as interdisciplinary studies. Empirical research has focused mainly on participation in formal, organised courses, with emphasis on who participates and why some people choose not to participate (Livingstone et al. 2001).

McGivney (1993, cited in Smith n.d.b) summarises a number of theories that have been developed to promote participation and overcome identified barriers; among them are the needs hierarchy theory, the congruence model, force-field theory, life transitions theory, reference grouping theory, social participation, and the chain of response model. Having reviewed a number of models, Silva et al. (1998, pp. 11–12) concluded that the basic factors in participation frameworks are general contextual and social background variables, related behavioural and situational variables, and related attitudinal or dispositional variables.

11 There is a measure of overlap between a number of these theories because some make similar assumptions about knowledge and learning. These assumptions are usually drawn from psychological theories. The consequence of this is examined as part of the following discussion of each theory.

Despite the prominence of psychological assumptions—which are questionable as a basis for practices that are culturally and socially embedded, rather than physiological in nature—each of the theories seems intent on understanding participation in a way that does reflect actual experience. Without necessarily accepting the theories’ assumptions about knowledge, learning and behaviour, we discuss their value in terms of those aspects that resonate with the case study findings and observations about participation, which are grounded in more subjective notions of interaction.

3.2.1 The economic and human capital perspective

The economic and human capital perspective provides a framework to help decide whether or not to participate in a learning situation. Gary Becker, an important early proponent of this perspective, applies a capital concept to non-pecuniary aspects of social choice such as ‘schooling, a computer training course, expenditures on medical care and lectures on the virtues of punctuality and honesty’ because these aspects can be viewed as ‘capital investments’ (Boston Globe 14 October 1992, p. 59). This approach assumes that individuals decide what they will participate in by weighing up the costs and benefits of involvement (Silva et al. 1998, p. 13). The following are examples of economic and human capital approaches to participation: • cost–benefit analysis—participation as an investment by the individual, with the decision to participate being made when the benefits outweigh the costs • internal rate of return—participation as an investment in terms of the expected rate of return in increased earnings compared with investment in other avenues. Variables include considerations such as age, gender, race, marital status, location, education and earnings, as well as external factors that could influence earnings • case-based decision theory—participation as a choice, where past problems faced by the individual and their resolution form the basis of evaluating possible involvement (Silva et al. 1998, p. 14).

Despite Becker’s reasoning that social and other non-monetary benefits can be valued through economic and human capital approaches to participation, it is not as simple and as logical as the literature suggests. For example, the valuing and determination of the decision-maker(s) might not account for other people and things (such as environmental concerns) that could be affected by the decision. How are other interests valued in a way that has weighting comparative to self-interest? In many ways, the approach is also counter- intuitive. How can characteristics such as confidence, comfort, trust and disposition be valued as part of this approach? For example, as one Carrathool Shire farmer interviewed for this study said, ‘Time and work commitments are the main reasons [for not participating in courses] but sometimes it’s how you feel on the day that determines your attendance’.

The case study findings point to limited or no positive past experiences in specific learning activities as a reason for lack of confidence and comfort. For example, a number of farmers feel comfortable with learning from family and other farming friends because this has been adequate to meet their needs:

Whole family and all four sons are part of the farm and have a big influence on the day-to-day running of it. Learn through family experience and innovation. (sugar farmer from Mackay district)

For the extension provider, this conceptual framework encourages a comprehensive appraisal of the costs and benefits a farmer might incur in order to participate in learning activities. For example, in a study recently completed by Resource Policy & Management (2003) a number of farmers involved in regional natural resource management planning noted that cost of involvement in various forums needs to be recognised in an equitable manner:

12 Going to a meeting at Three Springs takes two hours. This is my commitment to the process and that is fine, but it’s not paid for, whereas the government department people are getting paid and have government vehicles. I’m prepared to make the commitment but I’d like to see how committed the agency people are, particularly if they were not being paid. Would they go in their own time?

Case study responses also reflected concern about the costs and benefits associated with participation in learning, particularly in terms of weighing up time costs against the relevance and utility of learning to farming:

Cost and distance can be a factor but it really boils down to whether you want to do the course. (farmer from Carrathool Shire) If it is too expensive it is hard to justify, particularly if you are only interested in one aspect. (farmer from Carrathool Shire) During the week I can’t [attend courses] due to lack of time. (lifestyle landowner from Bega Valley Shire) Lack of time, lack of incentive, no perceived financial advantage. If there’s a quid in it or I’ve got to do it, I’ll attend. The returns from agriculture are very low and the person with choices is not going to choose to spend time on something that already has a low level of return … So when I see a course advertised there is no incentive to attend. (farmer from Bega Valley Shire) These factors need to be considered as part of any organised learning. However, to over-emphasise this process could in itself be a costly exercise. For the extension provider this is particularly important, since often the very process of determining the costs of programs, compared with the benefits, is fraught with difficulty. Further, the worth of a program to individual participants is very difficult to ascertain. Kelman (1981, p. 33) puts forward a number of other cautionary points associated with benefit–cost analysis:

1. There exists a strong presumption that an act should not be undertaken unless its benefits outweigh its costs.

2. In order to determine whether benefits outweigh costs, it is desirable to attempt to express all benefits and costs in a common scale or denominator, so that they can be compared with each other, even when some benefits and costs are not traded on markets and hence have no established dollar values.

3. Getting decision-makers to make use of cost–benefit techniques is important enough to warrant both the expense required to gather the data for improved cost–benefit estimation and the political efforts needed to give the activity higher priority compared to other activities, also valuable in and of themselves.

3.2.2 The needs hierarchy theory

The needs hierarchy theory is based on a view that participation depends on the degree to which a person is able to meet a range of primary and secondary needs, as identified by Maslow (1954) in his hierarchy of needs. As basic needs are met, higher needs are triggered, and the balance between negative and positive forces changes as the needs are met. As they progress, individuals become more prepared to participate in learning (McGivney 1990, cited in Smith n.d.b).

Maslow’s hierarchy begins with those needs that are seen to be most basic for human survival and progresses to higher needs: 1. physiological—includes hunger, thirst, shelter, sex and other bodily needs 2. safety—includes security and protection from physical and emotional harm 3. social—includes affection, belongingness, acceptance and friendship 4. esteem—includes internal factors such as self-respect, autonomy and achievement and external factors such as status, recognition and attention 5. self-actualisation—the drive to become what the individual is capable of becoming—includes growth, achieving one’s potential and self-fulfilment (Griffin 2003).

13 Maslow developed his theory by studying the lives of Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Frederick Douglass, Martin Buber, Albert Schweitzer and others whom he believed represented his definition of the ‘brightest and the best’. His theory was very different from the then dominant psychological approaches to the study of human nature presented by Freud and the behaviourist Skinner. The fact that the people from among whom Maslow drew his ‘brightest and best’ were ‘screened’ according to Maslow’s own preconceived, culturally embedded assumptions of ‘brightest’ and ‘best’ brings specific values to prominence.

Maslow’s theory is based on a belief that people are innately good—a belief that was not unique among theorists at the time. His hierarchical concept of prepotency rests, however, on the assumption that everyone has a prepotent need that is the lowest unmet need; in other words, a higher order need cannot be fulfilled until its nearest lower order prepotent need is met. Although other research supports Maslow’s theory about the importance of the motivational forces of physical, safety, love and esteem needs being met, other studies have failed to support such a hierarchical order (Griffin 2003).

In the late 1960s Dutch industrial psychologist Gerald Huizinga tried to validate the principles of the hierarchy in the workplace. He surveyed over 600 managers in the Netherlands, of different ages and educational experience and from production, personnel, research and development, finance, and top management backgrounds. He could not find evidence to support Maslow’s view that individuals had a single dominant need or that the need diminished in strength when satisfied. Daniel Yankelovich, in his Stepping off Maslow’s Escalator, charges Maslow with ‘providing intellectual justification for the selfish individualism of the last two decades’ (cited in Griffin 2003). History supports Yankelovich’s claim that some individuals clearly demonstrate that the more positive attributes of humans are not necessarily dominant in their intent.

It is reasonable to expect that people will take up learning opportunities only if their immediate primary needs are satisfied. This is well supported by research that focuses on the physiological aspects of human needs. Yet, once the complexity of more philosophical aspects of existence is introduced, Maslow’s hierarchy becomes less than useful. For example, many responses from farmers and extension officers reflected historical and associated cultural understandings and practices that appear to have become patterned and accepted because of more complex relationships than Maslow ascribes to the individual. Farmers who were interviewed said their farming practices were influenced by family, neighbours, and ways of doing things that have worked in the past. The following feedback from farmers in Carrathool Shire demonstrates the complexity of influences and attitudes formed by relationships with other people and the influence of historical events:

My father-in-law has influenced our thinking about farming and also watching and learning from everyone around.

Family history of farming and local trusted farmers who inspire you with their own success.

A strong family history of farming and a need and want to keep the enterprise going.

Born into a farming family, which creates a love of the job and a confidence to keep going.

Initially my father, then the practice of objective measurement in selecting and producing the best fat lambs and increased wool production have shaped my thinking to realise long-term economic benefits.

Farming through three droughts has convinced me to change our farming practices.

Water restriction and the cutback in allocation of water by the New South Wales Government has influenced thinking about irrigation techniques.

Perhaps what Maslow offers the field of extension is a reminder that individuals’ basic needs are important and that some people might not participate in learning because their basic needs have not been met. Beyond this, though, to view people as Maslow did seems to ignore those aspects of what makes an individual unique

14 and treats all humans in a deterministic way: there is a need; here is the response; the response will satisfy the need; the individual moves on to a ‘higher’ need. Extension in practice appears to have moved on from this behaviouristic notion.

3.2.3 The congruence model

Congruency is a concept more familiar to the disciplines of geometry and psychology. In geometry it means strong physical agreement or alignment. In psychology it means an alignment of values, beliefs or aims. In mathematics the concept is known as ‘isomorphism’, which means ‘sameness of form’ (Eckstein 1997).

The congruence model shares some similarities with cognitive dissonance theory (see Festinger 1957), which is based on the premise that individuals tend to seek consistency in their beliefs and opinions. When inconsistency, or dissonance, exists between attitudes or behaviours, change must be made to remove the dissonance. According to Festinger (n.d.), where there is a discrepancy between attitudes and behaviour it is more likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the behaviour. He nominates two principles of dissonance:

1. Dissonance results when an individual must choose between attitudes and behaviours that are contradictory. 2. Dissonance can be eliminated by reducing the importance of the conflicting beliefs, acquiring new beliefs that change the balance, or removing the conflicting attitude or behavior.

When considering congruence theory in relation to participation in learning, congruence is applied to complex and dynamic human practices. It is suggested that people are more likely to participate in learning activities when there is congruence between their perception of themselves (their self-concept) and the nature of the learning activity. Boshier (1971), for example, found a correlation between the number of years spent at school and college and the likelihood of taking part in formal learning programs after school (McGivney 1990, cited in Smith n.d.b).

Once again, this theory is logical and—unlike the economic and human capital perspective—can account for emotional as well as contextual considerations. The logic applied, however, promotes a view that participation in learning will follow if there is congruence with self-conceptualisation. Like the economic and human capital perspective, this model tends to see human behaviour as a series of ‘causes and effects’. But experience tells us this might not follow in such a predictable way. For example, one’s self-concept can change on different levels and in different ways in response to myriad factors in one day. Lived experience also demonstrates that on a day-to-day basis unforeseeable difficulties and requirements arise.

Congruence theory does offer extension officers a platform for considering and responding to an individual farmer’s needs through designing learning experiences and access to learning that either avoids incongruence or helps resolve existing or known incongruence. This does, however, require considerable understanding of individual farmers and their contexts—well beyond what can be gained through sporadic interactions. The practical difficulties associated with this are obvious.

3.2.4 Force-field theory and the expectancy–valence approach

Force-field theory and the expectancy–valence approach bring socio-economic factors into participation theory. They draw heavily on the work of Lewin (1947, 1951) and his ‘field theory’, which describes human behaviour and actions as a result of both personal and environmental influences.

Miller (1967), among others, drew together Maslow’s and Lewin’s theories to explain why socio-economic status is linked to participation in adult education. He investigated positive forces and negative forces and their relative strengths and viewed participation in learning as ‘a result of the interaction between personal needs and social structures’ (Silva et al. 1998, p. 33).

15 Rubenson (quoted in Silva et al. 1998, p. 34) contends that ‘deterrents to participation should be conceptualised in terms of their perceived (rather than actual) frequency’ of influence. His cognitive approach views participation as dependent on the interaction of the personal and environmental variables that are effective in the individual’s life. Among the personal variables are past experience, personal qualities and characteristics, and current needs; among the environmental variables are the level of personal control over one’s context and situation, the individual’s and the reference groups’ norms and values, and the availability of learning possibilities.

Rubenson sees the influence of these variables on behaviour being determined by the individual’s responses to each variable. The response, he says, produces ‘intermediate variables’, which are conceived as: • active preparedness • perception and interpretation of the environment • experience of individual needs (cited in Silva et al. 1998, p. 34).

The intermediate variables interact to determine the perceived value of the learning activity (valence), which is the sum of positive or negative values the individual gives to the learning activity, and the probability of being able to participate in and/or benefit from this activity (expectancy), which is the expectation of personal success in the educational activity and the expectation that being successful in that activity will have positive consequences (Silva et al. 1998, p. 34).

The personal and environmental variables identified by Rubenson echo some of the claims made by extension officers and farmers. The following are examples:

Twenty years ago I went on a camping trip with a group of people that included two young German agronomy students who said, ‘You must have worms in the soil’. This, along with other permaculture- based influences, started a seed that would grow into current organic farming practice. (sugar grower from Mackay)

Personally, I learn more through one-on-one conversation with other farmers as you can speak specifically about issues that concern you and generally you take notice of trusted peers who you know to be successful … One-on-one conversations are good but depend greatly on who the person is. Trust and respect are important, and a lifetime on the land has shown me who has the best interest of the land at heart and who achieves the best results. (farmer from Carrathool Shire)

The paperwork involved with farming these days makes it extremely difficult to complete our main objective, which is growing crops for our living. The time in the office to fulfil these tasks means a qualified person to work at least two to three full days a week. This is as well as working manually on the farm. With the introduction of the GST and forms needed to be completed when hiring labour, so much manual time is eaten into. We feel this is a major concern for our sort of farming and would be a deterrent for people to stop work and do courses. We learn mainly from life experiences and seek extra knowledge when needed. (farmer from Carrathool Shire)

An individual’s experience, personal characteristics and current needs seem to be self-evident as reasons for participation or non-participation in learning. Environmental factors—such as the level of personal control over context and situation, the individual’s and the reference group’s norms and values, and the availability of learning possibilities—also seem to offer a broad basis for extension providers to consider participation and non-participation. These considerations are well supported by farmer responses at a number of case study sites. But the force-field theory itself, although identifying factors that accord with lived experience, does not provide for the unpredictable and unforeseen, which characterise human existence. Take, for example, the following comments by farmers in Carrathool Shire. Their need for certainty and immediacy in an environment where certainty and immediacy are elusive is evident:

16 We would seek knowledge for a particular area when needed, as time does not always permit us to do courses when set by government.

Keep interest rates low, keep the dollar low, making sustainability viable. Issues include mineral fuel to ethanol, solar power, wind power, guarantee of water flow while maintaining rivers. Topical information needed about the drought. As long as information is following, we can be very adaptable. Succession is also an issue of concern.

The issues on my farming enterprise are cash flow, productivity and income stability.

The model does not respond well to real situations in which people change their activities on the basis of interactions, events and emotions. Yet it does recognise characteristics that broadly provide an understanding of difference among people.

3.2.5 The chain of response model

Cross (1981) views the chain of response model as links in a chain, with an individual’s participation in a complex chain of responses based on evaluation of the individual’s position in their environment (see Figure 3.1; Cross 1981, p. 125; Silva et al. 1998, p. 36). The more positive the learner’s experience at each stage, the more likely is he or she to reach the last stage—that of the decision to participate (McGivney 1993, p. 27).

Figure 3.1 Cross’s chain of response model

Source: Smith (n.d.a).

As Figure 3.1 shows, the main elements in the chain are as follows:

A. self-evaluation B. attitudes about education C. the importance of goals and the expectations that these will be met D. life transitions E. opportunities and barriers F. information about educational opportunities G. the decision to participate.

The model begins with the individual rather than external forces. The central concepts are self-evaluation (A) and attitudes to learning (B). The assumption underlying this is that the individual making the decision can understand participation. Cross then organises variables from internal psychological to external elements. Social and environmental factors, as background to the individual’s self-concept and relatively positioned

17 with external objects, affect self-evaluation and attitudes. The internal psychological factors interact and influence the valence ascribed to, and the expectancy associated with, a participatory act (C). The expectancy and valence relevant to participation are also influenced by life transitions and developmental tasks that the individual in various life-cycle phases has had to deal with (D). The individual responds to opportunities and barriers associated with learning (E), and the extent to which these affect the chances of participation is in part contingent on the differential effect of motivation on the individual’s view of these variables and the information available for decision making (F) (Silva et al. 1998, p. 36). Although it is difficult to exemplify these conceptual stages through case study responses, it can be assumed that these factors broadly relate to the individual’s participation or non-participation in learning. Farmers responded as follows:

Being a business, we simply see courses as a tax deduction. Courses are important for gaining knowledge and improving practices. (farmer from Greater Shepparton Shire)

Tend to learn things through reading first, then find ourselves discussing the things we’ve read with other farmers. (farmer from Greater Shepparton Shire)

We’re not having a lot of contact with other farmers at the moment because we’re only new to this area. My husband generally likes to talk to others. (farmer from Greater Shepparton Shire)

I read things and question my husband about how we do things compared to what I read. We discuss ideas and question each other. (farmer from Greater Shepparton Shire)

The accessibility of newspapers, radio and informal conversation with neighbours makes this transfer of information useful and important, although there is a definite place for formal courses. Time and work commitments often make attendance at formal courses difficult, whereas magazines and newspapers are available whenever a spare minute comes around. (farmer from Carrathool Shire)

Cross’s model emphasises interactions between the various elements. Although the model gives the impression that it works in a linear fashion, Cross cautions that this is overstated. Nevertheless, a number of authors have criticised the systematic construction because it simplifies and creates a logical order to thinking that does not relate to the interactive dialectic (see Robottom 1995, p. 112), cumulative and somewhat simultaneous nature of the relationship between thought and practice (see Dewey 1933, pp. 199– 209; Smith 1994). Once again, the case studies suggest that, although elements of Cross’s model are evident in responses, the sequencing of these elements does not seem to be supported.

Another criticism of Cross’s model that is applicable to a number of models and frameworks presented here is that the theories Cross draws from are decidedly culturally bound (Smith n.d.b). For example, the notion of ‘self’ is that which is embedded in a Western view of the world. As Rose states, however, and as demonstrated in the case study dealing with Indigenous land managers in the rangelands, this view is not universally accepted:

Western society sees the environment as something that can be acted upon by humans as independent agents. This view is manifested in the way we attempted to know the environment, as an ‘objective’ reality, using science as a tool to uncover ‘reality’ and to discover universal truths. This view of the world is a cultural construction, however, it informs all our decisions and legitimates our actions in the environment. For Aboriginal people who do not share this dichotomy between environment and person, notions such as ‘management’ and ‘control’ of land must have very different dimensions. (Rose 1995, p. 10)

3.2.6 Life transitions theory

The conception of transition in educational theory is linked to UK research into young people’s participation in further education. Life transitions theory is a notion of social psychology, relating to things such as bereavement, family crisis and depression. By 1970 the US Peace Corps was using it for ‘culture shock’ briefings to volunteers (see Williams 1999). The essence of the theory is that participation in learning is often linked to changes in life circumstances, such as job changes, the break-up of relationships, having children, bereavement and retirement (Smith n.d.a). The theory has also been applied to demographic studies (see

18 McDonald 1996). Figure 3.2 illustrates the process.

Figure 3.2 Phases and features of the transition cycle

Source: Adapted from Hopson & Adams, cited in Williams (1999).

The relevance of life transition theory to farmer participation in learning is somewhat removed from the applications and cognitive expression of the theory as described in Figure 3.2. Its relevance is taken in a rather superficial way, in that it presents a relationship between events and participation responses to events. For example, at the time of researching this project water reform was high on the agenda of governments and landholders. Awareness of it was heightened by drought conditions across much of Australia. Farmers from Carrathool Shire wanted to know what was happening in water reform to protect their farming interests:

Water issues are our main concern as without it we’re out of business. There are too many regulations and groups like the greenies getting too much of the say on how to run our waterways. The government should pay more attention to the landholders and not minority groups!

More financial incentives to store fodder and grain for drought.

Help to provide a better understanding between farmers and government regarding irrigation water.

Help to provide for long-term sustainability and viability of water, land, environment, and energy- efficient fuels are all … concerns.

Stop taking our water allocation away from our farms. (farmer from Carrathool Shire)

Water supply through irrigation; stable wool controlling body; better balance between cost of production and returns—for example, fertility, fuel, and husbandry products. (farmer from Carrathool Shire)

The demand for learning that responds to the interests and concern generated by these circumstances is evident.

19 3.2.7 Reference group theory

Reference group theory is based on the belief that people identify with one of the following: • the social and cultural group to which they belong—referred to as a ‘normative reference group’ • a group to which they aspire to belong—referred to as a ‘comparative reference group’ (McGivney 1993, p. 25).

A number of studies discuss the link between the individual’s context and group membership and involvement in learning programs (see, for example, Darkenwald & Merriam 1982, p. 142). In terms of comparative reference groups, individuals can feel they have missed out and as a result seek opportunities to improve themselves.

Surveys have examined why individuals join groups such as Landcare (see, for example, Mullet 1998, p. 27; Kilpatrick et al. 1999; Cary et al. 2001). However, identification and articulation of group aspirations and involvement are unlikely5 because of the methods used in the studies: the studies are usually of short duration (less than three years), which makes such observation difficult; the researcher is usually an ‘outsider’, so the deeper aspects of human relationships are unlikely to be discussed at anything other than a basic level; and it is difficult to separate these sorts of motivating factors from the more ‘technical responses’ from participants without making assumptions (see Kemmis 1980, p. 19).

So what does reference group theory offer this current study? Broadly, recognition of these concepts can guide a framework of participation that contemplates ways of ‘intervening’ in normative and comparative communications (see Kemmis 1983, p. 5). The theory also emphasises the importance of relationships and of social and cultural aspects of learning. This theme is discussed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2.

Reference group theory also seems to provide some rationale for why different farmers look to different people and places for learning, although this link is unsupported by any evidence and is thus highly tenuous. Despite not offering any theoretical assumptions about why people look to different avenues for learning, Kilpatrick et al. (1999, p. 33) do provide some research responses from farm managers about types of learning. These are divided into four learning pattern groups: • Locally focused. The locally focused group seeks information and advice only from local experts such as accountants, government consultants, local farm suppliers, and local farmers. Apart from attending field days, they do not participate in training. • People focused. Such farm businesses consult two or more people, not all local, and use no more than one other learning source—for example, training, media and observation—when contemplating changes. • Outward looking. These farm businesses use a variety of sources, usually including training, media or observation in addition to one-on-one learning from other farmers, experts, or agricultural associations and organisations. • Extensive networking. These farm businesses consult a wide range of sources—typically more than four, including experts, training, other farmers, media, agricultural associations and organisations, and observations.

Perhaps an understanding of why people have tended to seek learning, as characterised by Kilpatrick, is gained through normative and comparative relationships and aspirations, although a simpler explanation could also be—and this explanation does not necessarily conflict with reference group theory—that people seek specific information sources and learning as a result of past experiences (or lack thereof) and their personal and community histories (see Andrew 1997, pp. 382–3).

Associated with the learning pattern groups, Kilpatrick et al. (1999, p. 58) list a number of reasons why farmers are motivated to learn: • improved farm business efficiency—and profitability • improved farm business viability • acquisition of marketing information and skills • compliance with legal requirements • learning to manage risk better

5 See explanation in Section 3.3.

20 • environmental awareness • personal development.

These motivations could reflect a ‘technologisation of reason’6 (see Kemmis 1980, p. 19) in that the explanations of practice that stem from technical bases are better accepted (and expected) socially and culturally and are therefore over-represented because of identification that is considered rational and accepted. (Technical aspects of practice are considered reasonable in our society and ‘make sense’ to others; see Section 3.3.) Yet, if we accept Kilpatrick et al.’s reasons for farmers being motivated to learn, reference group theory is not well supported by the data.

Despite this, the theory does provide some basis for considering social relationships between and among people in different settings. The theory of social participation takes this aspect of learning further.

3.2.8 Social participation

Social participation has been discussed predominantly by Courtney (1992). He moves the discussion about participation in organised learning from a psychological explanation to a social one, arguing that participation in organised learning relates to participation in other forms of social life, such as voluntary groups and sporting groups (Forrester & Payne 2000, p. 2). In his view, significant learning often takes place in organisational settings such as community groups and work, so, if motivation for learning is to be understood, we might be interested in gaining an understanding of what motivates people to be part of organisations or why organisations require forms of voluntary participation (Courtney 1992).

If learning is a ‘discretionary act’—in other words, an act that individuals have freely decided to participate in, like a leisure activity—then, to understand involvement, attention should be directed towards an understanding of what people do freely with their time. Courtney further contends that in order to understand participation, learning involves socialisation or integration of the individual within the larger whole. The motivation to learn might therefore be investigation in terms of the role learning plays in providing or denying access to responsibilities and their attendant social rewards (Courtney 1992).

Courtney’s theory has particular relevance because it generates a view about how extension officers can approach learning in a given community by allying opportunities with occasions or groups where interactions are already occurring, such as sporting groups and voluntary groups. This should be treated with caution, however, because the learning needs to be of specific relevance to the group’s already identified interaction. For example, if a volunteer fire brigade were considered, the learning opportunity would need to complement the group’s interests. Extension officers’ participation in social occasions also provides opportunities to become acquainted with the broader community in which they operate and develop an understanding of interactions and issues.

Social participation theory supports the claim that people learn in contexts where they interact with others in both formal and informal settings. Kilpatrick et al. 1999 (p. 106) add to this claim:

People, particularly experts and other farmers, and experience were the most frequently cited learning source for all changes to practice, and for on-going learning. The main advantages of using people in one-on-one learning situations were identified as contextualisation to a particular farm business, customisation to a particular learner’s needs, availability ‘as and when’ needed, and a way of accessing, sifting and prioritising information from a large number of other sources.

This statement is further supported by findings from the case studies in Volume II of this report. They exemplify the importance of human interaction in learning and make way for the possibility of considering learning opportunities that support contextual and social needs.

Furthermore, the importance of relationships underlying social participation theory has relevance to many learning programs and their organisational arrangements. Meat and Livestock Australia’s Sustainable Grazing Systems program, for example, was broadly organised around farmer committees in high-rainfall

6 This term derives from Heidegger and his philosophy of phenomenological existentialism.

21 areas of Australia. The committee structure itself provided the context for learning for a number of participants, as the following quotes attest (Resource Policy & Management 2001):

I have been through a steep learning curve because I hadn’t been involved in a committee process before. I have met a diverse and motivated range of people who are trying to do things that haven’t been done in the local area. (p. 35)

I became involved because of my interest in rural Australia and, in particular, the grazing industry. It was a chance to meet people and learn from them. I get new contacts for myself and the Landcare networks I am involved in. I receive up-to-date information, chance to visit properties, on ground works/experiments and apply this to our family farm where relevant. Spread the word about Landcare and about rotational grazing. (p. 35)

The group itself has given me confidence and increased my ability to ask questions. (p. 35)

There is a high level of friendship, fun, respect and technical information. We were all mostly strangers when we came to the group. I saw the group as a link between release of technology to farmers and also a way of getting information to farmers. It is important that we have the best information available to make the best decision. (p. 35)

Committee involvement gives me intelligent stimulation through being involved with key producers. Every time you step onto someone’s place you learn something. A major achievement has been the bringing together of Southern Farming Systems, Grasslands Society, and access to Best Wool 2010. (p. 35)

Having interaction with others … also to be involved in research that may help other graziers. (p. 35)

I get some motivation from my peers, reinforcement of many of my ideas, plus the introduction of new ideas and a useful network. I enjoy results from research and the enlightenment of fellow producers. (p. 35)

Seeing that everybody can be involved. We have a diverse range of people with diverse views and we’ve had some people go, but we are prepared to listen and everybody is heading in the same direction … The consciousness of people with varying ideas and people feeling they can contribute is important to uphold. The two-day meeting with social interaction over dinner and so on is also important. (p. 31)

This acknowledgment of the learning that takes place through talking with peers and others with a common interest is reinforced by statements from farmers and extension officers interviewed as part of the current study. Although it is apparent from the statements of many extension officers and farmers that learning is viewed as a one-way process—that farmers learn through extension officers—it is observable that extension officers also learn through their interaction with farmers. As Smith (n.d.b) says, ‘The educator may learn as well as the “learner”—the fundamental focus of the exchange should be the learning of the … participant’. Smith adds that a common mistake is thinking that ‘teaching and educating [are] essentially intellectual’. He sees cooperation, trust, reciprocity, empathy and honesty as part of a context in which a relationship can be built to foster learning. Although the context in which he presents his case is primarily with reference to formal learning institutions and youth work, the argument remains relevant to other learning contexts, such as rural settings.

Rogers (1990) is also a proponent of relationships as a key to learning. He identifies three qualities as central to facilitating learning: • genuineness on the part of the learning facilitator • valuing, accepting and trusting the learner • empathetic understanding.

22 3.2.9 The general activity model

The general activity model combined elements from models derived from psychology with other background and personal situational variables. Cookson (1986, 1988) applied the interdisciplinary, sequential-specificity, time-allocation, lifetime model, or ISSTAL model, of Smith and Macaulay (1980) to identify variables that might affect participation in adult education. The ISSTAL model uses a wide range of variables for studying any kind of discretionary activity. Among the variables are the following: • external contextual variables • social background and social role variables • personality traits—for example, shy, a ‘loner’—and intellectual capacity • attitudinal dispositions—values, attitudes, expectations and intentions • retained information (images, beliefs, knowledge and plan) and situational variables (immediate awareness and definition of the situation) (Cookson 1986).

The general activity model assumes that increased participation occurs because individuals have particular characteristics, such as the following: • higher social status • interactions with people who participate in adult education • membership of voluntary groups • sufficient resources necessary for participation • healthier • greater intellectual capacity.

Cookson stressed the importance of looking at interactions between variables, the sequence of relationships among variables, and a person’s time-allocation priorities (Livingstone et al. 2001).

The case study responses do support a number of these characteristics, although the data collected do not allow conclusions to be drawn about social status, health and intellectual capacity.7 In many instances, farmers who are involved in Landcare and other voluntary groups or who know people who participate in learning appear to be knowledge seekers. Consider the following statements:

Have been very involved in the community, however my sons aren’t interested in attending community activities anymore—times are changing—people seem to be too busy for community activities these days. (farmer from Greater Shepparton Shire)

An involvement in Landcare has been informative but doesn’t have a real overall benefit. We are aware that groups come on farm to help with projects such as tree planting but it has not happened on our farm. (farmer from Carrathool Shire)

I keep in touch with Landcare through newsletters but I’m not an active member. Landcare is important so production remains viable. (farmer from Carrathool Shire)

We are involved in Landcare. We helped to get it started but production and survival are the main concerns. (farmer from Carrathool Shire)

In terms of social influences, as identified as a variable of the ISSTAL model, cultural background and the farmer’s age also seem to influence participation. For example, responses from sugar growers of Maltese background demonstrate reliance on family rather than external groups as sources of information and learning. Because feedback was obtained from only a small number of sugar growers who where born overseas, it is difficult to extrapolate generalisations from this but, like the vast majority of case study respondents, the sugar growers did tend to learn through sources they trusted and could rely on.

The Bega Valley Shire case study also demonstrates that older farmers who have been involved in the dairy industry for a long time tend not to seek out learning opportunities. The study found that a handful of farms

7 If ‘intellectual capacity’ means an individual’s capacity to participate in intellectual pursuits as a result of experience, this too correlates with the case study findings. For example, farmers who have had tertiary training and are comfortable in seeking out research reports tend to feel confident about participating in more formal learning situations. This does not, however, imply that these people are more intelligent than others.

23 have not changed ownership since 1950 and tend to be managed by older people, such as a son who did not leave the district to seek employment. In these instances the property is often debt-free and the owner sees very little need to change and tends not to deal with extension officers. These people do, however, participate in the broader community functions: for example, one works at the saleyards as a stockman every week and is extremely informative about cattle prices; another worked as a herd recorder before deregulation of the dairy industry and interacted widely outside the valley. These two examples demonstrate the influence of a number of ISSTAL variables, including external contextual variables, social background, and attitudinal traits such as expectations.

Farmers see having the resources to participate in learning as an important practical consideration, even though the resourcing is always considered in relation to the benefits of involvement:

We don’t choose not to go to relevant courses. It is more that we don’t go because of work commitments. (farmer from Carrathool Shire)

We consider the costs of conferences because they are generally very costly (with accommodation etc) and it means too many days away from the farm—need ‘relievers’ etc, and this all costs more money. (farmer from Greater Shepparton Shire)

Distance can be a factor but relevance to farm activity is important. (farmer from Greater Shepparton Shire)

The general activity model highlights a number of variables the case studies cannot respond to since such responses would require considerable interaction in case study areas. Social status and health, for example, are difficult to ascertain from an external position and are perhaps better judged through farmer self- assessment. The broad-based characteristics and variables could be further investigated through an industry- by-industry comparison, particularly in areas where considerable change has occurred, as in the diary and sugar industries.

3.3 Non-participation

This section introduces four points that relate to the models, typologies and theories discussed in Section 3.2 and are deemed critical to participation in learning: • relationships between the learner and the learning ‘environment’ • social and structural factors inhibiting participation • the learning and educational experience of the farmer • situational, institutional and dispositional barriers to participation.

Adult education research has given much attention to the concept of ‘non-participation’, although, as found in this current study, there are inherent difficulties associated with investigating why people do not participate in formal extension activities. The first hurdle is gaining the participation of people who have otherwise chosen not to participate in learning. For example, the current study found that people who tended to not participate in extension programs and events other than those they thought were a fundamental requirement of farming—such as chemical-handling courses—were reluctant to provide responses. Others did respond but provided very short and limited responses, regardless of whether these responses were via telephone interviews, face to face, or written. A number of reasons were given for this reluctance to be involved, the most common being that individuals thought they had nothing ‘useful’ to say and that ‘better responses’ could be obtained from other farmers (or their son, daughter, neighbour, and so on). The exception to this was in situations where a trusting relationship existed between the researcher and the person from whom a response was sought.

The second difficulty—and this appears to be the experience of other researchers who have investigated ‘non-participation’ (see Smith n.d.a.)—concerns the tendency for people to respond in a way that ‘fits’ with researcher and survey ‘expectations’, particularly when there has been no long-term relationship between the researcher and the survey participants.

24 Although this aspect of research is not described in any depth in the literature, a number of researchers do implicitly deal with it in discussions of broader methodological issues and the relationship between researcher and respondent. The only literature found that investigates this question in a concentrated way is in the Informal Education Encyclopaedia (see Smith n.d.a), where ‘non-participation’ and the dilemma of finding out ‘why’ are discussed:

The problem for researchers is that simply going up to people and asking them why they have not taken part in education projects and programmes does not necessarily tell us very much. For example, there is some evidence that people may be either embarrassed about their reasons, e.g. around finance and literacy, or lack a detailed analysis concerning the operation of the system.

The encyclopaedia cites the work of Graham-Brown (1991) in order to provide further explanation. Graham- Brown posits that a series of filters exist—both within the formal learning system itself and in the wider economy and society—that tend to reproduce existing social hierarchies. These filters, although in this case specifically relating to the formal education system, have a bearing on the discussion here. For the purpose of this research, Graham-Brown’s education filters have been modified to relate more explicitly to the context of farmer learning, extension and participation (see Box 3.1; for Graham-Brown’s list see the Informal Education Encyclopaedia .

Box 3.1 Extension filters

The following are some forms of selection:

• those overtly defined by government policy—for example, exclusions based on race or language • those created by gaps in extension services—for example, through distance and dispersed populations of people or through few people involved in a specific industry in a specific area • those caused by the inability of particular disadvantaged groups to gain access to services because of language, gender or the community’s poverty or isolation • the way the extension service ‘selects’ through its established process of learning—although it may be accessible to all, the process itself may not make sense to those for whom it is intended • the chances of a farmer attending extension services being dependent on his or her socio-economic circumstances, including the family’s economic situation, the educational background and the perceived relevance of the learning • different types of learning in a particular society being assigned differing social and economic values— for example, academic or vocational, formal or non-formal • the value placed on different types of work and skills—for example, manual as opposed to white-collar work. Source: Adapted from Graham-Brown (1991, p. 50).

The listing in Box 3.1 focuses on social and structural factors that might affect participation in learning rather than what is going on for the individual when he or she is making choices (Smith n.d.a). Although difficult to substantiate, mainly because of the non-participation issues discussed earlier, the filters have relevance to this research despite there being some very important examples of extension that defy accepted social hierarchies. For example, a number of extension and learning practices have been identified as responding to specific Indigenous community needs.8 Additionally, in Victoria’s Goulburn Valley, an ‘ethnic Landcare officer’ was appointed to help people from non–English speaking backgrounds obtain information of relevance to their production interests. A number of programs have also been established in various rural industries to respond to the needs of women and young people; for example, the Women in Dairying Program and the Shaping the Future Together course are designed to encourage women’s involvement in rural industries and to provide strategies to help women and their families.

Extension services have tried to resolve a number of the issues just discussed, but participation is usually limited by the extension available. This is because the extension is oriented to particular ends that have been determined by organisations that do not participate in the day-to-day practice of farming and is aimed at

8 These are cited in the report on the case study on Indigenous land managers in the rangelands (see Volume II).

25 those sections of the rural population that most appreciate and have experiences that are similar to those making the decisions about extension directions. There are many exceptions that counter this claim (some of which are mentioned in the case studies in Volume II) but the contention remains that the learning offered tends not to reach beyond those farmers who self-select to participate. By way of example, consider the following:

Traditionally there has been a low level of formal education among Australia’s farmers, however levels of education have increased from 23% with post-school qualifications in 1983 to 32% in 1995. Though this is still less than the 49% of the Australian labour force that has post-school qualifications (Synapse Consulting 1998). Importantly, those farmers with higher levels of formal education are more likely to seek out and participate in further education and training. However there is mixed evidence concerning the link between formal farmer education and good farm management (Bamberry, Dunn and Lamont 1997; Kilpatrick et al. 1999). Though Gould, Saupe and Kleme (1989) report that better educated farmers were more likely to adopt conservation practices and Reeve and Black (1993) found that they had more favourable attitudes towards using outside expertise in conservation practices. (Cary, Barr et al. 2001, p. 21)

This argument is supported by the case study evidence. Farmers who have been exposed to higher levels of education seem to be more likely to participate in extension activities (such as natural resource management) that go beyond learning opportunities supporting direct on-farm production and business benefit. It seems that this is because they are acquainted with and feel confident about participating in such fora. This is particularly relevant since extension tends to focus on group-based participation rather than one-on-one interaction. Such reasoning fails to comment on or recognise any relationship between participation and the intelligence or the perceived ‘success’ of the individual farmer9: rather, it provides a rationale for considering why a proportion of the farming population chooses not to participate in learning initiatives organised by industry or government organisations.

Interview responses suggest that many farmers do not have a high level of formal education. However, as a number of respondents from Carrathool Shire noted, formal qualifications are considered beneficial to farming:

Today it is important, especially in the area of marketing and administration of the farm.

I have no formal farming qualifications. I do think formal qualifications are important as farming today is more high tech. But commonsense still plays a big part …

Have no formal farming qualifications but believe that qualifications are very important to farming.

Family members don’t have formal farming qualifications but future farming generations need them.

No formal farming qualifications but see a need for business and bookkeeping skills.

No formal farming qualifications within the family but there is a definite need for any young farmers to start with qualifications.

Four members of the family currently running the property with no formal qualifications. Qualifications are important but not necessary.

Formal qualifications are very important to any farming.

No formal qualifications but trained by experienced farmer. Qualifications in some areas are needed.

No formal qualifications but the next generation would be well advised to seek experience, especially in office skills.

No formal qualifications but I realise the important for today’s farmers to have qualifications.

9 For an overview of research into the relationship between qualifications and farm management, see Kilpatrick et al. (1999, pp. 9–12).

26 A number of these respondents point to specific areas of education and training that are required if farming is to meet current demands. A link between literacy and numeracy levels and profitable farming cannot be drawn. In fact, to do so would be highly inappropriate: the case study findings do not support this idea at all. It is suggested, however, that higher literacy and numeracy skills help farmers gain access to, participate in and feel more comfortable with government and industry formal learning opportunities. Nevertheless, this statement considers only farmers’ formal levels of learning that should have contributed to more advanced literacy and numeracy: it does not account for the considerable numeracy skills that are required as part of the day-to-day running of farming enterprises.

Burgess (1971) identified the following as among the characteristics of individuals who choose to participate in the learning experience: • They want to know. • They have personal or social goals. • They have engaged in some activity. • They need to meet a formal, work-related requirement. • They want to get away from what they are regularly doing.

Boshier (1971) noted the following motivators for participation: • a desire to improve skills to better serve the community—in the case of rural communities this could include attending courses to increase skills to better serve a Landcare or other similar community-based group • the need to make new friends • intellectual recreation • professional advancement—either job related or inner directed • dislike of television • enjoyment of learning • an introduction to or further development of understanding • an escape to adult participation—for example, for parents who might spend the majority of their time with children.

Involvement with a formal group or organisation that encourages participation in formal learning activities (a Landcare group, for example) is also recognised as a motivator for participation (see Darkenwald & Merriam 1982).

Although the case study evidence does not refute the characteristics of participation advanced by Burgess and Boshier, the personal characteristic of ‘confidence’ about participating—usually developed through positive experience—was clearly apparent from observations and interactions. As noted previously, farmers who demonstrated that they were least likely to participate in learning that did not produce direct on-farm production benefits tended to seek information through links and services they knew well and trusted. The first source of information many of them mentioned was the family. For them, confidence in people and information services was generated through historic links and positive and reliable relationships. This was most evident in interview responses from sugar growers in the Mackay area. This finding is also supported by the work of Kilpatrick et al. (1999, p. 33).

In many ways, the following list of identified qualities for good participation, as put forward by the Multicultural Mental Health Access Project (1996), recognises the need to build trust, relationships and community networks, thus attempting to resolve difficulties associated with confidence: • community control • clear identification of expectations, desired outcomes and the various agendas • organised in a systematic, flexible and productive way • clarity of criteria for participant selection • openness about the degree of power sharing • access to appropriate information • legislative changes that provide a legitimate context for participation • a political will as a context for participation • adequate time for the range of participatory processes and activities to occur

27 • strong organisation with communities • two-way communication between participants • diverse approaches to participation • establishing community networks • creating and sustaining effective community organisations • appreciation of the expertise of Indigenous groups and of their beliefs, traditions and views • commitment of the program to local ownership and partnership • clear statements of commitments—such as time • reinforcement of participants’ efforts • early identification and open discussion of conflict and barriers to participation, including lack of resources. 3.3.1 Barriers to participation

Kweit and Kweit (1981), among others (see Brownlea 1987, Dwyer 1989, Leighly 1990), identify a number of barriers to participation, including the following: • rules and regulations • the complex nature of organisations • citizens’ perceptions of bureaucracy • tensions between bureaucratic goals and those of participating groups • problems of access to information • problems of language • power differentials • the distinction between rationality and emotion and the value placed on these • scepticism about the expertise of participants • unresponsive views towards participants • lack of official or political support for participation • difficulty determining who are representatives of whom and what • lack of understanding that the process of participation means that it takes longer to achieve goals • lack of understanding or acceptance that participation opens up potential for more conflicts and requires conflict management skills • the encouragement of participation as simply a ‘front’ for professional manipulation.

Further, the Multicultural Mental Health Access Project (1996) noted that, unless it is thoughtfully approached, an invitation to participate can merely bring out ‘professional’ volunteers.

Farmers interviewed as part of this current study mentioned many of these barriers; other barriers became evident during the process of case study development. Two barriers that were well represented in farmers’ responses and are absent from the foregoing list are time (and timing) and a view that the learning needs to demonstrate relevance:

Time constraints are the biggest hurdles—clashes with farming activities. (farmer from Carrathool Shire)

The times that they are held do not suit us in a young family situation. (farmer from Carrathool Shire)

Often out of touch with the real issues that we need discussed. (farmer from the Carrathool Shire)

Appropriate times are important. It is difficult to make it to courses during the day. (farmer from Greater Shepparton City Shire)

The subjects need to be relevant. Farmers are not interested in planting trees if it doesn’t make a dollar. (farmer from Greater Shepparton City Shire)

If I think I can gain something that will help with the farm. (farmer from Greater Shepparton City Shire)

28 These remarks are consistent with the findings of a study conducted by Kilpatrick et al. (1999, p. 139), where training providers noted the following factors as influencing farmers’ attendance at business-management training activities: • time availability—fits in with other farm operations • perceived benefit—how the training will benefit a farmer’s monetary situation • product—relevance and applicability • delivery—short and concise • presenter credibility • priority—training a lower priority than other management concerns • location—should be localised • group training—allows interaction using farmers’ own examples • attitude—exposure to previous training and recognition of a need for training • level of promotion—will directly affect attendance.

Johnstone and Rivera (1965) identified the following barriers to participation: • situational barriers—such as time, money, child care, transport and weather • institutional barriers—factors pertaining to the educational service provider • socio-demographic barriers—such as age, sex, race, income, educational level and geographical location • dispositional factors—such as self-esteem and group participation.

These barriers seem to be confirmed by the case study findings, although a number of them are difficult to substantiate. An example is self-esteem, which people are unlikely to provide verbal or observable evidence of unless the research is carried out over a much longer time frame and there is much more interaction between the researcher and the farmers.

According to Johnstone and Rivera, the situational barriers to participation are a greater problem for the elderly and people of low socio-economic status than for the average middle-class adult (cited in Van Tilburg Norland 1992). Institutional barriers, such as high fees for part-time study and learning locations that are difficult to reach, often exclude or discourage groups of learners; those who are excluded are likely to be people who cannot afford to attend, people who are uneducated, and people born overseas (Van Tilburg Norland 1992).

Similarly, Cross (1981, p. 99) considered barriers to learning in terms of situational, institutional and dispositional aspects. Although there is some overlap between a number of these aspects, the characterisation provides a platform for consideration of non-participation—see Box 3.2.

29 Box 3.2 Perceived barriers to learning

There are three main perceived barriers to learning:

• situational barriers—barriers arising from one’s situation at a given time – lack of money—the cost of studying, the cost of child care, and so on

– lack of time—for example, because of work and home responsibilities and commitments

– lack of transport to the learning venue

• institutional barriers—practices and procedures that exclude or discourage adults from participating – little or no knowledge of the educational opportunities available (McGivney 1993, p. 17)

– inconvenient schedules or locations for programs

– lack of relevant or appropriate programs and learning initiatives

– an emphasis on learning that requires time away from the farm when there are competing demands

• dispositional barriers—barriers related to attitudes and self-perceptions about oneself as a learner – feeling ‘too old’ to learn

– lack of confidence because of ‘poor’ previous educational achievements

– tired of extension—field days, workshops and meetings

– a preference for being alone.

Source: Adapted from Cross (1981, p. 99).

A number of the barriers listed in Box 3.2 coincide with the findings of Kilpatrick et al. (1999, pp. 167–8); for example, male farmers noted the dispositional barriers of age and poor previous educational and training experience. A third barrier—an institutional barrier not represented in Box 3.2 but mentioned by Kilpatrick et al. (p. 167)—is associated with lack of confidence in the teaching because of perceived agendas:

Several male farmers also expressed a disinclination to attend field days and seminars, in particular, those which were sponsored by private organisations who were concerned with ‘pushing their own product’. Such activities covered a wide range of technical and management issues including the use of chemicals and fertilisers, financial planning, succession planning, and marketing.

Female farmers noted the situational barriers of lack of funding and access to child care and an institutional barrier imposed by male-dominated agendas (Kilpatrick et al. 1999, p. 167).

The barriers identified by Cross (1981) are not categorised in terms of gender, cultural background, age or location; rather, they are considered at a level above this. Kilpatrick’s findings are consistent with Cross’s situational, institutional and dispositional barriers: they are accommodated through the three categorisations used. Different people, regardless of gender, age and circumstance, could consider different situational, institutional and dispositional barriers to participation. This does not mean that gender, age and other considerations have no effect for some farmers: for many people they are influential; for others they appear not to be. For example, the Bega case study elicited a response from a female dairy farmer who found that extension programs that are specifically targeted at women are, for her, particularly uninspiring. She

30 contended that an on-farm problem needs a specific solution and whether the farmer is male or female is irrelevant: they just want to know how to overcome that problem.

Table 3.1 shows examples of common stereotypes associated with farming and the diversity of realities associated with each.

Table 3.1 Farming stereotypes and realities

Classification Associated stereotypes Realities Family farm Live on a single property and make a living Many successful families have a number of from agriculture properties and have managers on them, so they act no differently from corporate Concern for long-term management and agriculture natural resource management There is no objective evidence The main worker on the farm is male from demonstrating that a family-owned property an English-speaking background has better natural resource management than others There are examples of family farms managed or cooperatively run by female family members Corporate farm Large properties remote from direct They often have highly trained managers on responsibility and answering to properties who respond to public concerns shareholders and/or centralised management in urban areas No evidence that corporate holdings incur more land degradation than other forms of Profit driven rather than driven by natural ownership resource management City investor Not really interested in agriculture— No evidence for the stereotype and many involved for taxation purposes and capital city investors are indeed interested in gain agriculture The communication and transport networks now available blur the city–country divide A so-called family farmer might be managing the place next door for the city investor Indigenous landowner or Live on the land and manage it People who can speak for land do not farmer always live on it Lifestyle and recreational Not a serious part of the agricultural The total production from so-called landowner or farmer industry lifestylers can be very high on a regional basis Do not take things such as weed control and natural resource management seriously There is no evidence that weeds, for because they are not ‘real farmers’ example, are any worse on ‘lifestyle’ properties. Indeed, the reverse could be the case

31 The diversity highlighted in Table 3.1 shows that failure to respond to barriers to participation is only associated with common stereotypes of farmers. Cross’s situational, institutional and dispositional barriers to participation in learning overcome the problem of omitting individuals because they do not fall within the stereotypical view of farmers.

Studies focusing on barriers to participation, as demonstrated by the sample of perspectives presented here, seem to be overly attached to the identification of personal and situational contributing factors. The reason for this seems logical enough, in that personal and contextual arrangements are immediately evident and influential, as the case studies in Volume II show. However, another influence that could direct attention to personal and situational contributing factors might be the prevalence of theories constructed from psychological assumptions and imperatives that are predisposed to this focus. Sociological studies of barriers to participation have generally focused on social background and behavioural variables, rather than personal, psychological factors. Table 3.2 exemplifies this point, presenting a synthesis of these distinct perspectives from various studies.

32 Table 3.2 Structural factors and perceived barriers to participation in adult education

Structural factors Perceived barriers Cultural attributes Situational barriers • Gender • Costs, including tuition • Age • Not enough time • Social class • Home responsibilities • [Ethnicity] • Job responsibilities • Initial education • No child care • Parental education • No transportation • Urbanisation • No place to study • Friends or family opposed Social participation Institutional barriers • Civic participation • Don’t want to go full time • Leisure time use • Program too long • Courses at inconvenient times • No information about courses • Strict attendance requirement • Courses wanted not available • Too much red tape • Don’t meet requirements • No way to get credit or degree Economic situation Dispositional barriers • Employment status • ‘Afraid I’m too old to begin’ • Occupational status • Low results, not confident • Job tenure • Not enough energy or stamina • Authority role • Don’t enjoy studying • Labour market sector • Tired of ‘classrooms and lectures’ Time management • Don’t know what to learn • Marital status • Hesitant about being too ambitious • Paid working time Supply of adult education • Public policy • Public institutions • Private providers • Type and characteristics of course offerings Source: Livingstone et al. (2001).

The vast majority of perspectives discussed here and in Section 3.2 are based on cognitive models that defer to psychological ways of knowing. Rubenson (1977) argued that participation in learning should progress beyond these models because they do not add to our understanding of how people are influenced in real contexts to participate in learning. Although calling for a change in focus, Rubenson still defaulted to a view of participation that is enshrined more in psychological assumptions about behaviour than philosophical understanding. Philosophical understanding is less interested in cognitive theories of behaviour and instead

33 concentrates on drawing out understanding to improve the social condition, seeking to respond to questions such as the following: • How can communities of people become learning communities? • How can learning respond to and be meaningful to different people within a community? • How can learning reflect the concerns of people within their own context?

Action research is one ‘model’ of participation that seeks to take up these more philosophical questions of practice and provides an alternative to the theories discussed in Section 3.2.

3.3.2 Action research

Action research has been variously interpreted and has been developed and implemented from a range of perspectives (see, for example, Butler Flora et al. 2000 for a list of different interpretations). The interpretation advanced here is the one advocated by Kemmis & McTaggart (1988)10, whereby action research is described as a form of self-reflective inquiry undertaken by participants to improve the rationality and justice of: • their own social or work practices • their understanding of these practices • the situations in which the practices are carried out.

The rationale behind this is based on the view that theories (knowledge) and practices need to be closely linked: ‘Practices are shaped (guided or constrained) by the theories of practitioners themselves, and by the theories of others’ such as facilitators and researchers who are ‘built into the organisational arrangements and relationships within which the practitioners work’ (Robottom 1995, p. 114). It is farmers who engage in particular practices because of their own theories and understanding; they are thus the only ones who can ‘explore the limits and opportunities of their situation’: While outsiders can assist … they come to the setting with their own theoretical perspectives—the practitioner must be involved if the relationship between private theory and personal practice is to be balanced … The practitioner is the researcher: it is the practitioner who proposes the ‘hypothesis’ … who empirically ‘tests the hypothesis’ through his or her own practice, who engages in group deliberation about the relationship of theory and practice, and whose decision it is to act in certain changed ways as a result of that deliberation. (Robottom 1995, pp. 112–13)

This reduces, and even makes implausible, the possibility of a ‘theory–practice gap’. The method of action research involves recurring cycles of three phases: • In the planning phase existing activities are regarded as subject to change: individual practitioners look for ‘dissatisfactions’—areas with room for improvement—in their own professional activities. Areas in which improvement is deemed possible are identified. • In the action phase the plan is put into practice in a particular setting. As well as trying to improve an activity, the practitioner organises a means of monitoring the process. Ideally, the means of monitoring allows for the detection of an improvement (in the practitioner’s own terms) when it occurs. • In the reflection phase information collected during the monitoring process is examined and analysed. In particular, practitioners reflect critically on the relationship between their practice (the monitored action) and their subjective view of what is being practised (the personal ‘theory’ that guides their practice).

In the light of the results of this three-phase action research cycle, the next planning phase is entered.

In this way action research is mediated by praxis11, by practitioners such as farmers through reflection on their professional activities (in this instance, farming). It aims at personal improvement through praxis between thought and action—that is, the individual’s beliefs and associated actions. In a group such as a Landcare group the beliefs and associated actions of different people involved in the group process influence the beliefs and actions of the individual. Action research also aims at program and institutional improvement through praxis applied to the interaction between individual action and societal structure and history—that of

10 This does not mean that other interpretations by Kemmis of action research are viewed in the same way: Kemmis has revised and reviewed his interpretation since this time. 11 Praxis is the relationship between theory and practice whereby the two are inextricably linked.

34 the program or the institution or society at large. It promotes rational decision making in that the practitioner (or group of practitioners) can choose between alternative courses of professional action, the rationales for which have been subject to examination by the practitioners themselves. The recurring cycles of the three phases form the action research ‘spiral’, in which the knowledge (generated through application) from one cycle informs the strategic action of the next cycle (Robottom 1995)—see Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 The action research spiral

Source: Derived from Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, p. 11).

The following are some of the features of action research that are applicable to farmers’ learning and participation: • The subject of the process is identified by the farmers and others who are most affected by the problem at issue. This makes the learning very context specific. • The course of action is directed by and for the farmers and others who are most affected by the problem. As a result, the social, cultural, geographical, historic, personal and economic factors that are part of the context are by design taken into consideration in the process. • There is no predetermined aim that is externally imposed: the process begins with a ‘real’ problem that requires a solution. The evolutionary nature of the action research process means that the problem being dealt with is revised and redefined by the participants as part of the process of planning, acting, observing and reflecting. • The individual needs of participants are accommodated through their active involvement in the process. • The knowledge and practices of the participants motivate the process. • Learning is immediately associated with the context in which it occurs. Concerns about applicability therefore do not arise. • Farmers have developed their individual theories about farming, based on different experiences, histories and influences. An action research approach allows for these differences and is responsive to them. • Power and control over the learning and its direction reside with the participants.

One important difficulty associated with action research for extension providers and government organisations lies in the fact that, because action research learning is highly contextualised, generalisations cannot necessarily be drawn and applied to other contexts. The need for contextual learning is supported by a number of research reports; for example, the Tropical Savannas Cooperative Research Centre’s More Than Can Be Said: a study of pastoralists’ learning (n.d.) supports the notion that learning cannot be generally applied across all contexts:

As different pastoralists see and prioritise issues differently, and learning projects are not undertaken conveniently across the industry, or even a sector of the industry, mass media education campaigns may not be effective and educators and others need to reconsider how they reach large groups of

35 pastoralists concerning such issues. The ‘one size fits all’ courses, or ‘top down’ models of education, would not appear effective in this environment. (p. 2)

Butler Flora et al. (2000) raise the question of the inability to generalise the findings associated with action research in their summary of participatory approaches:

Findings are so site specific, according to some, that it is impossible for researchers to use the findings from one site in other situations. Traditional scientists stress control over the research process so that their findings may be generally applied. There has been a great deal of progress over the last decade in specifying what components of participatory research might be more generalizable … There is, however, still a long way to go before citizen-led discovery is broadly accepted as a basis for action by policy makers and implementers.

They also note the concern that action research focuses too strongly on ‘local knowledge development and local inclusion in the development process and too little on the political and funding context that drives what can be done at the local level’. They argue:

… many projects coalesce around pots of money that have been made available for natural resource protection or management. Additionally, more recent attempts to implement participatory management have focused not just on local processes, but on the ability of local actors to establish relationships at the state and national level to make standards and regulation more relevant for local conditions, secure funding for ongoing work and ensure political support.

Action research does not have to respond to questions associated with whose knowledge counts: the relevant knowledge is that generated through the participants and others as part of the process of finding ways to resolve a problem. So change in practice occurs as a result of the development of new knowledge. Knowledge is neither imposed on nor irrelevant to the participants.

This is far removed from the social psychology models, where participation is viewed as an outcome of a prescribed process of rationality that is generalisable to all people and all situations. Under these psychology- inspired models participation is linked with exposure to and adoption of ‘appropriate’ understanding and practices. In this regard, Robinson’s (1998) description is of interest:

When it comes to behaviour change, there is a distinctly managerial hubris to all this. WE are the managers. We have the TRUE KNOWLEDGE and CORRECT BEHAVIOUR. THEY do not. If we can INJECT our knowledge into the (passive) audience, then they will realise the error of their ways and start behaving correctly.

I call this the ‘engineered awareness’ approach. It’s widespread, especially amongst, well, engineers and managers. It is based on the assumption that AWARENESS BUILDING is the key to behaviour change.

This imposition of learning from one sector of the community to another is obviously not a process action research focuses on. Rather, action research focuses on participants’ identification of a problem that is of relevance to them because they are affected by it.

But what if the participants do not see an issue as relevant to their context but policy creators or broader community interests do? In this situation the role of the extension officer would be to represent and present those arguments to the participants—to bring to decision-making processes unrepresented views and considerations. Or, as the following section describes, consideration of the matter should be promoted in the context of the individual’s own learning environment as interpreted by the extension officer.

3.3.3 Participation in what?

Forrester and Payne (2000) put forward a view that moves away from the participation – non-participation dichotomy. They remind us that what is considered appropriate knowledge is ‘a particular selection, a set of emphases and omissions’ (Williams 1961, as cited in Forrester & Payne 2000, p. 2). Learning, as they see it, is not only about access but also about ‘access to what?’ and ‘under whose terms?’ A number of authors (see,

36 for example, Robottom 1985, Hart 1993) have investigated these questions in terms of the disparity between what is considered appropriate knowledge and learning and matters of power and control (hegemony). All participation theories other than the action research theory fail to take account of power and control in their conceptualisations. At issue are the following: • the selection of what knowledge and learning are viewed as appropriate • relating to the preceding point, practices that are deemed appropriate in response to what is valued as knowledge • organisational arrangements—including financial arrangements—that support what is considered appropriate knowledge and practice.

The theories (derived through policy and research) and organisational arrangements that underlie rural extension tend to be those derived through broader agendas. For example, government rural extension tends to be responsive to governmental-derived policies. The extension officer’s role is to encourage farmers to participate in change that is consistent with these policies. There is at times overlap between the aspirations of government policy and the aspirations of farmers, so it is reasonable to contend that where the overlap does occur the farmers will probably participate and where it does not occur they probably will not.

Self-directed learning Forrester and Payne (2000) are critical of the social participation model advocated by Courtney (1992) on the basis that it fails to recognise self-directed learning as a social phenomenon.12 They argue that most adults regularly engage in independent, self-directed learning and that only a minority seek formal education and training. Because of this, they say that adults learning in formal settings is ‘deeply problematic’ because adult learning ‘… is located in the apparent limited ability of formal providers of adult education and training to engage with the interests and enthusiasms of the adult population across a range of “difference”’ (p. 3). For a consideration of the role of learning they propose a starting point that differs from that adopted by most participation models; their proposition considers the ‘meanings, in context, and cognitive structures that adults bring to their learning’ (Collins 1991, cited in Forrester & Payne 2000, p. 3).

Drawing on the findings of a number of empirical studies, Payne (1999, as cited in Forrester & Payne 2000, p. 3) suggests that there is a pattern whereby ‘… people move in and out of learning just as they might move in and out of other activities. Thus any study of participation becomes a snap-shot rather than a panoramic view based on people’s careers and life histories’. In studying learning programs that have managed to engage communities that might have otherwise been labelled non-participants, Forrester and Payne note three common elements of these programs: • The program organisers began by investigating some of the constraints on and limitations of formal learning opportunities and attempted to respond to people’s enthusiasm to learn. • The program organisers advanced propositions about the circumstances that might prompt non- participants or occasional participants to become regular participants and in doing so improve their individual life chances as well as increase the liveliness of their communities. • The terms of people’s possible participation through learning were seen to be of vital importance (p. 4)— in other words, what circumstances inhibit or support participation?

Considering life-long learning and the role of participation Forrester and Payne (2000) argue that models of participation that consider only formal learning through organised activities and events and manage only to capture a ‘snapshot’ of participation at specific points in a person’s life miss the complexity of adult learning. They suggest that the following four points need to be recognised in conceptualising adult participation in learning: • The extent to which learning, as defined in participation studies and models, encapsulates broader and longer term contexts that shape the learning aspirations of social actions is highly questionable. • Studies that look at learning in the longer context of life histories suggest that individuals move freely between bureaucratic categories such as ‘regular’, ‘occasional’ and ‘non-’ participation during their life and also between formal and informal learning.

12 It should be noted that Forrester and Payne refer to a specific project focusing on self-directed learning, although in this context self-learning is considered in the more general sense.

37 • Other empirical evidence suggests that most adults engage in deliberate learning projects as part of their normal ‘going on’ in the world. This factor has failed to significantly influence approaches to participation studies, partly because of a preoccupation with adult education as a professionalised activity. • More refined models of participation in adult learning are needed. The models should inform the working methods of formal learning providers and recognise the significance of the context people live and work in and the opportunities and constraints they encounter in their daily lives (p. 4).

The previously discussed models of participation that take these considerations into account are action research theory, reference group theory and social participation theory, all of which recognise and respond to the social, cultural and contextual influences on an individual’s participation in learning. This does not mean that aspects of the other models discussed are unimportant: although the assumptions these theories are based on tend to treat the human experience as a linear set of causes and effects, the costs and benefits associated with participation and the satisfaction of individual needs, among other things, should be acknowledged.

Yet how can different rural industries respond to such diverse and individualistic motives for and influences on participation in learning? Section 3.3.4 discusses a process role for industry—one that allows for individual responses to learning whilst contributing to overall industry efficiencies.

3.3.4 Industry’s role in participation

The nature of farming in Australia and its exposure to ‘consumer sovereignty’ and global information networks mean that the social and economic forces generated by world markets cannot be omitted from this discussion of participation and learning. Greater exposure to information—from world market news, research findings and commodity information to weather reports, newspaper articles and sale reports delivered to the home office via the internet13 in an instant—has meant that farmers in most parts of Australia can obtain information and learn as their needs direct.

Decisions about what is grown, where it is grown and how it is grown, harvested and marketed are increasingly driven back down the value chain by consumer preferences, along with tighter requirements for quality assurance, identity preservation, satisfactory environmental management standards, and so on. If we are to engage more Australian farmers in active learning and enterprise development that seeks to build understanding linked with these boarder market demands, learning opportunities must be responsive to individual, local and regional circumstances and contexts. Contextualisation of learning, as farmer feedback attests, is a prerequisite for participation.

Lewin (1951), among others (see Foster 1972), acknowledged the importance of goal setting for effective learning, matching the aspirations of what people believe they can realistically aim for. This is exemplified by action research, where the process itself, if truly farmer-led, guarantees that this occurs. Another way of matching goal setting with effective learning is through whole-farm planning, where the planning helps identify and give expression to an entire set of aspirations that, as part of the process, effectively mobilise learning. Yet the question remains: what will motivate farmers to get involved in whole-farm planning? A role for industry is evident here. It can set some important parameters and develop incentives to introduce farmers to planning.

Global analysis and local action can also be pursued through enterprise and industry planning. In their business vision and plan, a farm management team can depict a view of the relevant industry and its goals. It helps, however, if they are part of an industry that knows where it is at and where it is going and has a clear vision and goals. It is the industry-level plan that should seek to discern and calibrate the significance of the major global forces and trends—whether it be a small emergent industry such as olives or a large and mature export industry such as grains.

13 Other studies have focused on technologies and information services and provide a comprehensive appraisal of information systems and farming communities; see for example, Groves & Da Rin (1999), Simpson (2001) and Hargreaves & Hochman (2004).

38 Thus, in seeking to draw some conclusions about the best ways to increase the engagement of farming families and communities in professional and enterprise development activities, we might begin by looking at the benefits of industry planning: • Cogent industry plans and effective planning processes encourage and support producer engagement in extension by giving some structure and priorities to the matters that need attention and offering leadership in how these can be dealt with. An example is the dairy industry’s restructuring. • Engagement in property management planning and other forms of farm enterprise planning is both a stimulus and a guide to involvement in further enterprise development activities.

The supply side of industry appears to need better market information. At present there is a heterogeneous mix of government, industry and private providers, with various forms of partnerships among these. Producers often complain that their ‘choice situation’ in relation to gaining new knowledge and skills is overwhelmingly complex and often contradictory. Expansion of ‘brokering’ services that can help define needs and find solutions would probably increase participation in professional and enterprise development activities (see Appendix A).

There also appears to be a move away from a commercial business approach to farm learning to a value chain–oriented approach, which considers production, environment and quality (see Appendix B). The demands placed on farmers to consider the natural resource management, health and safety and quality aspects of farming while maintaining an economically viable enterprise have perhaps been influential in this. A role for industry would be to align the ‘demands’ of specific production areas—quality assurance, legislative requirements for natural resource management, and so on, which farmers often describe as impositions on their enterprise—and present these in a way that promotes efficiencies for the farmer. Kim Russell, an irrigation farmer, has developed an example of this approach (see Appendix B). This alignment links all ‘demands’ in a way that supports farming practice, so that farmers see the process as relevant and useful.

39 4. Building a framework of participation

A number of frameworks have been put forward to express different views of participation and learning. A summary of these, drawing on the theories and discussion in Chapter 3, divides participation and learning into three categories: • technical • experiential • farmer-led.

This classification should be treated as a means for gaining a better understanding of participation and learning, rather than as something that exists in reality. It also offers a way of envisaging greater access to different types of learning and of understanding the functions of industry, government and extension officers.

4.1 Technical participation and learning

The technical category is based on what is traditionally called a ‘positivist perspective’; it focuses on objective knowledge, separating ‘factual observations’ from ‘opinion’ (Fay 1975, p. 20). Technical participation and learning is akin to ‘information transfer’ or ‘transfer of technology’. Researchers have criticised this approach, saying, among other things, that it takes for granted objective views of what is considered appropriate knowledge. When teamed with farmer-led learning (see Section 4.3), however, technical learning can be called on when group members feel they need scientific, technical or economic14 information for their purposes; in this way the group’s control over the processes and direction of learning is maintained. Nevertheless, the researchers’ criticism should be recognised, particularly in a society where the resolution of natural resource management problems is so readily described in scientific, economic and technical terms—with social, political, historical and cultural concerns afforded a secondary, sometimes cursory, role.

A technical approach to participation and learning is best suited to information that is presumed to be generalisable to a broad range of contexts. In this way the information is amenable to ‘packaging’ as a brochure or delivery through a train-the-trainer model or other medium and wide distribution. Because of this assumption of generalisability, it is often the approach taken by organisations with broad-ranging responsibilities, such as governments. One of the primary questions, therefore, for organisations that adopt a technical approach to extension is whether the information presented is contextually relevant.

The technical perspective is best served by learning that is scientific, economic and technical because of the perceived generalisability of these disciplines. It is also best for situations that require skills training and technical solutions to on-farm problems or information that is a practical consequence of scientific, technical and economic research.

The vast majority of extension officers that provided feedback for this project had technically based degree qualifications (see Appendix C): almost all were qualified in applied science, science or agricultural science; only three had qualifications in the humanities or social studies—sociology and social geography; literature; and Aboriginal studies. This means that most of the extension officers will probably have an understanding of or a predisposition for a technical approach to participation and learning.

The role and function of the extension officer under this theoretical category is as the translator and disseminator of information, knowledge and prepared solutions from researchers and policy makers to farmers. The importance of this responsibility should not be understated. The case studies demonstrate that many farmers want reliable and accurate scientific, economic and technical information and solutions to on- farm concerns. Yet this demand is fixed within a much broader and more complex setting, where other personal and contextual understandings of the learning environment are significant.

14 In this context, ‘economic’ means Western economic principles, theories and methods.

40 Most organised learning opportunities are technical (see Appendix D). From the case study findings it appears that the majority of the specific information sought by farmers is also technical but ‘localised- technical’ because the local relevance and application of learning are highly valued (see the Carrathool Shire and Greater Shepparton Shire case studies in Volume II).

4.2 Experiential participation and learning

Experiential participation and learning is concerned with ‘practical reasoning’ to do with individuals deciding on a ‘wise and proper course of action to take when confronted with complex social situations’ (Kemmis 1990, p. 221). An example is when farmers are given the opportunity to put into practice particular concepts, understandings, technical skills and other potential farm improvements in an experiential way. Experiential learning is ‘lived experience’: it is about experiencing what is possible.

Zepke and Leach criticise experiential learning, including self-directed learning, and put forward a reconceptualisation of these learning concepts as ‘contextualised meaning making’ (2002, p. 206). They raise a number of questions, some of which are highly contestable, particularly in the context of looking at learning not in terms of creating generalisations and extrapolations about ‘truth’ or ‘correctness’ but instead supporting context-specific learning and improvement (p. 207).

Although not well represented in the participation theories documented in Chapter 3, experiential learning is like life-long learning and self-directed learning, as described in relation to work by Forrester and Payne (see Section 3.3.3), whereby learning is viewed as part of the ‘whole person’ and part of the development of personal values and understandings. In this way, it is individualistic in perspective.

In terms of participation, the experiential perspective can focus on establishing learning environments that encourage, in the individual, confidence and competence. A good example of this form of learning is Meat and Livestock Australia’s Sustainable Grazing Systems program. As part of the regional arrangements for the program, producer networks established sites where they could experiment with propositions about production practices. These regional sites served a number of functions in that they: • acted as a meeting place for people with an interest in the problem at hand • reflected ‘real’ local grazing conditions • helped producers see a response to a particular practice under environmental circumstances they themselves experience and can relate to • were used to generate sets of principles for the management of specific problems • tested scientific researchers’ ‘best bets’ • helped identify, through monitoring and evaluation, what change is taking place over time in response to particular grazing regimes and under local farming conditions.

Other programs, such as the Grains Research and Development Corporation’s Central West Farming Systems Trials also provide for individualised experiential on-farm learning.

Under this characterisation, the extension officer’s role would be as an organiser of events, experiences and learning activities.

4.3 Farmer-led participation and learning

Learning that is farmer-led is fundamentally change oriented and directed by the people whose practice is most affected by a perceived problem. Power and control over decision making and interests thus lie with farmers. An example of farmer-led learning is where groups of farmers, sometimes with other interested parties, discuss, plan and formulate, and respond to problems they see a need to redress. The issue is not externally derived or direct: it is something generated by the farmers because they see it as important.

Farmer-led participation and learning are context dependent: the learning is defined by and for the people involved in it, and the farmers learn through participating in the process of resolving real problems. This

41 theoretical underpinning of the participation and learning is the principles of action research.

Because farmer-led participation and learning require collective decision making, essential to this concept is an understanding of how decisions can be derived that take into account the different interests and values of the people who are interested in devising a solution or solutions to a problem. In this, the extension officers’ role is as facilitator and ‘knowledge broker’. Both these terms have been applied variously to different extension practices, even within the three different conceptions of participation and learning presented here, but the role of facilitator and knowledge broker is defined differently in response to the differing conceptions. ‘Facilitation’ in this sense means to help the group carry out their planning decisions, which means helping with the practical aspects of learning—making what the farmers decide happen. The knowledge broker role (discussed in Appendix A) is also modified to match the theoretical assumptions of this perspective. Together, the facilitator and knowledge broker has (or have) the following roles: • to bring information and people to the inquirers and to synthesise and integrate information that is needed by the group • to understand complex concepts and local interactions and to have credibility in the cultures and communities to which the knowledge is to apply • to bring unrepresented views and perspectives to the learning environment and so facilitate discussion and deliberation • to challenge what is stated as from a position of power rather than as a contribution to improvement • to facilitate innovative ways of equitable exchange of knowledge between people with an interest in a problem and within a learning culture.

Examples of programs and learning opportunities that allow for farmer-led learning are FruitCheque, the Sustainable Grazing Systems program, BestWool 2010, TopCrop, farm walks, the Farming Systems Trials, BeefCheque, Prograze, Target 10, Landcare and EDGEnetwork. A number of these programs also incorporate technical and experiential learning (see Appendix D). Table 4.1 summarises the features of technical, experiential and farmer-led participation and learning.

42 Table 4.1 Technical, experiential and farmer-led participation and learning: a framework

Intent or interest Technical Experiential Farmer-driven Learning purpose Instrumentalist. Learning is Liberal and progressive. Supports Supports critical appraisal of ‘values viewed as a technical task practical interests by increasing and power relations governing the the possibility of communication character of communication and social (Fay 1975, p. 80) between people action’ in real historical settings and real circumstances (Robottom 1985, p. 116) Learning theory Often behaviourist. See Constructivist. See Sections 3.2.7, Has the potential to be reconstructivist. Sections 3.2.1 to 3.2.6 3.2.8 and 3.3.3 See Section 3.3.2 View of knowledge Knowledge viewed as objective Knowledge viewed as subjective Knowledge viewed as a process of (Robottom 1985, p. 121). and understood through the reflection on practice. Recognises that inquirer’s interpretation and social ‘social theory is interconnected with Preordinate commodity, context (Cantrell 1993, p. 83). social practice’ (Fay 1975, p. 94). systematic, personal, objective, devised by experts Intuitive, semi-structured, Generative, opportunistic, personal, subjective, derived from collaborative, derived from inquiry experts Organising principle Technocratic, scientific and Personal experience Based on problems and local concerns (source of authority) economic imperatives Power relationships Reinforces power relationships Ambivalent about power Challenges power relationships relationships What is valued? Scientific, economic and technical Learning that is connected to life Collective action in response to information that is generalisable and work experiences theorising about improving a situation or resolving a problem Interests served Serves technical and bureaucratic Governmental, industry and Farmers, growers and producers interests by seeing extension as a farmers (where these correlate linear model where the results of with government interests) centrally endorsed and controlled research are disseminated for adoption by practitioners (farmers) Role of policy Externally imposed and derived, Externally derived, often Externally derived but critiqued and taken for granted negotiated, may reflect individual reconstructed to reflect locally derived practices within the bounds of theories and practices externally derived theories Government role Authority in knowledge Organiser of experiences Collaborative participant and inquirer Industry role (all Authority in knowledge Organiser of experiences Collaborative participant and inquirer industries) Farmer role Passive recipient of knowledge Active learners through Active generators of new knowledge experience applicable to their local context Universities, stock Authority in knowledge Organiser or invited contributor to Collaborative participant and station agents, experiences and rural financial organisations Extension officer role Disseminator of prepared External interpreters of the Participants in new problem-solving solutions to farming problems— learners’ environments—a networks—a facilitator and knowledge knowledge provider facilitator and coordinator broker Participants Farmers Farmers Local people and others with an interest in the situation or problem at issue Source: Adapted from Robottom and Hart (1993, pp. 26–7).

43 5. Findings

The findings that follow, which are drawn from the foregoing discussion and the five case studies in Volume II, are organised according to the research project’s deliverables and terms of reference.

The first term of reference required that a review of literature, including unpublished current material, be used to develop an understanding of ‘why farmers do and do not participate in learning activities’. Many well-researched studies consider levels of participation in rural industries. This review does not repeat the findings of past extension research and industry reports; rather, it starts from the position that people make choices about whether or not they will participate in learning opportunities. The project focuses on farmers’ reasons for choosing not to participate.

The second term of reference required the development of a matrix or framework, showing the major factors and related contextual arrangements and considerations. The framework is presented in Table 4.1. Appendix D lists a number of courses, programs, seminars and other learning opportunities identified through the case studies and links these to Table 4.1. All three categorisations of participation and learning— technical, experiential and farmer-led—are well presented in program organisational arrangements, and in many cases programs are organised so that farmers facilitate technical, experiential and farmer-led learning.

It is generally assumed that the people who are not participating are those who tend to feel uncomfortable with group processes. The case studies support this, but not to recognise other contributing factors and learning arrangements is to miss the complexity of learners and their settings.

To say there is one clear-cut approach to participation and learning ignores the essence of human difference. The vast weight of evidence points to the very personal experience learning can be for an individual. Extension providers responding to the individual learning needs of farmers must consider the cost implications of this in terms of the following: • provision of extension officers across areas where the job allows time for one-on-one interaction and localisation of learning (see Section 5.5.2). This could mean the appointment of more extension officers and/or the training of local farmers in extension (see Section 5.3.6) • support for extension officers so that they can adequately respond to individual learning needs. This could require processes whereby extension officers can readily gain access to research and other information • development of government and industry mechanisms that recognise the importance of social skills and the ability to interact in a genuine way with a diverse range of people, as well as technical, scientific and economic knowledge of farming. Further, there is a need for people to be able to understand the application and implications of knowledge and understanding on a farm and individual basis.

44 5.1 The primary factors relevant to non-participation

The primary factors relevant to non-participation, as discussed in this report and the five case study reports in Volume II, are as follows: • the relevance of learning experiences • relationships • the view of learning and knowledge.

These three factors are not mutually exclusive: they interconnect in a number of ways.

5.1.1 The relevance of learning experiences

Much effort has been devoted to studying learning’s relevance to participation. Yet to gain a perspective about what is relevant to different farmers at different times and in different contexts is perhaps an impossible task for the extension officer and extension provider.

The action research approach does, however, provide an opportunity for extension officers to participate in processes of change and learning whereby the context of the participating farmers dominates learning and change. The extension officer’s role in this regard is examined in Section 4.3. Relevance in these circumstances is not at issue since the question itself is dealt with in the context in which the participating farmers reside.

But what about farmers who choose not to participate in group learning processes? How can extension officers support them? Section 3.3 provides some advice on this.

Forrester and Payne (2000) argue that most adults regularly engage in self-directed learning but only a small percentage engage in more formal learning processes. The majority see formal learning as problematic because it fails to engage with the variety of interests and enthusiasms brought about by differences in people. Rather than seeing participation as a goal in itself, they see participation as a part of learning that people engage in only when it suits their learning needs. This is true of all people and circumstances: people will tend not to participate in learning if they are not interested in what is being offered.

Drawing on Forrester and Payne’s study of successful learning programs, several points are relevant to this current study:

• Extension providers should begin by investigating some of the constraints on and limitations of structured learning that is offered to farmers and why farmers become enthusiastic about learning. This should include an examination of the settings in which learning could take place and how learning is organised. For example, much structured learning involves group interaction. Many people who do not choose to participate tend to learn through trusted and reliable sources such as family members. Farm visits and interaction on a one-to-one basis over time might lead to extension officers becoming part of an individual farmer’s learning. For this to happen, though, extension providers would have to take into account the time and effort involved in outlining extension officers’ responsibilities and in performance appraisal. • Extension providers should examine the circumstances that might prompt non-participants or occasional participants to become regular participants and in so doing consider how initiatives might improve individual farmers’ lives as well as enliven the broader farming community. • The terms under which farmers participate in learning are important. For example, what incentives could be introduced to make up for time lost on the farm? What travel costs, child care or other support can be provided? What time commitment needs to be made to the learning? Where is the learning going to happen, and will this be an imposition on potential participants? How can the learning deal with subjects that directly relate to every farmer’s on-farm setting, so that the knowledge can be practically applied? How can extension providers help each participating farmer practically apply what they value through learning?

Underpinning consideration of participation and involvement in learning are the questions of ‘access to what?’ and ‘under whose terms?’ These need to be the focus of structured learning initiatives with the individual farmer and their circumstances in mind.

5.1.2 Relationships

The importance of relationships to participation and learning is clearly apparent in the case studies in Volume II and the relevant literature. The notion is akin to Smith’s (n.d.b) expression of ‘education for relationship’ and ‘education through relationship’ and Robottom and Hart’s (1993, pp. 26–7) ‘education for the environment’ and ‘education in the environment’. This is relevant in two ways: • Fostering learning for relationships. The development of interpersonal relationships is the primary reason for fostering involvement (see Smith n.d.b). In the rural context this is important because it is possible to organise learning experiences that create opportunities for farmers to talk with other farmers (within regions, across regions or nationally), for farmers to talk with people who can help with a specific local concern (usually in response to a farmer-identified problem) or for the more traditional external ‘expert’ talking with farmers (in response to a farmer- or agency-identified problem of relevance). • Fostering learning through relationships. Learning situations that have this intent demonstrate that relationships are essential to learning. This view is based on the belief that people will seek information and learning through people who are known to be reliable, empathetic, honest and trustworthy (see Smith n.d.b).

Relationships also respond to the perceived lack of confidence and ease many farmers have with group processes of learning. Building a relationship with individual farmers and their families might help overcome feelings of discomfort and nervousness about attendance and involvement.

Of fundamental importance to the establishment of relationships are issues of power and control. This is discussed further in relation to different views of learning and knowledge.

5.1.3 The view of learning and knowledge

Berger and Luckmann (1973, p. 13) define ‘knowledge’ as ‘the certainty that phenomena are real and that they possess specific characteristics’. When dealing with ‘knowledge’ and views on ‘reality’, however, the context in which they are constructed can influence their status:

What is real? How is one to know? These are among the most ancient questions not only of philosophical inquiry proper, but of human thought as such … Sociological interest in questions of ‘reality’ and ‘knowledge’ is thus initially justified by the fact of their social relativity. What is ‘real’ to a Tibetan monk may not be ‘real’ to an American businessman. The ‘knowledge’ of the criminal differs from the ‘knowledge’ of the criminologist. It follows that specific agglomerations of ‘reality’ and ‘knowledge’ pertain to specific social contexts, and that these relationships will have to be included in an adequate sociological analysis of these contexts’. (Berger & Luckmann 1973, pp. 13– 15)

Given Berger and Luckmann’s contention that collective understandings of reality and knowledge are specifically linked to social contexts, it must follow that the view of reality and knowledge understood by, for example, extension providers, extension officers and farmers is shaped and reshaped by the contexts in which these people exist. Behind every extension program is a particular understanding of knowledge, how knowledge is thought to be constructed, and how knowledge is thought to be promulgated. Views about knowledge, learning, participation and non-participation underlie extension work and provide a rationale, whether consciously or not, for the way programs and activities are constructed. This is based on the assumption that behind every practice is a theory or belief, whether explicitly recognised or taken for granted. For example, farmers could not function as farmers without some theories, notions and knowledge about what is required. To even begin to farm they must already have some ‘theory’ of farming ‘practice’ that shapes what they do and how they do it. Practice, therefore, cannot be separated from theory (Andrew

46 1997, p. 81). This means that views of what is considered to be ‘knowledge’ can differ among the different sectors and even within the sectors and communities.

An expectation of participation in learning means that the knowledge embedded in the learning event must be valued by those for whom the learning is intended, not just those who have ‘produced’ the event. This point is the basis for diverse views about participation and non-participation in learning. The research supports the claim that people who believe in the social construction of knowledge tend to approach extension from a different perspective compared with people who believe that all knowledge—regardless of whether it is conceptually derived or has objective existence—can be viewed and valued objectively. This is central to the question of participation in learning.

Interest in something cannot be manufactured. The circumstances that promote a farmer’s participation, beyond interest that is traditionally bound to production, financial and legislative involvement, need to be connected to where the farmer ‘is at’—that is, where they are in terms of the theories and knowledge that underpin their practice. Although this is not a new finding for the field of extension research, its implications have not been responded to in practice by many industry and government organisations. An expectation that farmers will gain an interest because the learning is important to other sectors, such as urban communities or environmental groups, does not seem to be borne out.

Underlying most learning initiatives are assumptions about whose knowledge counts and what knowledge counts. In most government and industry programs (see Appendix D) the types of knowledge that are dominant are generalisable knowledge bases—the sciences, economics, and technical fields such as engineering. Generalisable knowledge is applicable to all people across all contexts; the context is viewed as not affecting the general principles of these disciplines. In rural extension these forms of knowledge are of considerable importance to many aspects of farming, but they do not take account of the social, political and cultural aspects of existence that are fundamental if the extension officer is to be effective. For example, if the relationship between an extension officer and a farmer is not based on reliable, trustworthy and respected information sharing, the farmer is unlikely to have anything to do with the extension officer. To see participation in learning as a practice that is only about imparting scientific and technical solutions to on- farm problems falls far short of a more complete picture of involvement.

Relationships, as described, should be based on an understanding (knowledge) of issues associated with power and control, rather than a view of equitable power sharing between the extension officer and farmer, since it is ultimately the farmer’s livelihood that is affected by the implementation of initiatives. Respecting different value positions, knowledge and beliefs that are based on myriad ways of knowing is a good start to relationship building.

5.2 Competing demands and values

Competing demands and values are evident as deterrents to participation in structured learning. Following on from the discussion in Section 5.1, however, these competing demands and values differ for different people and include the following: • situational and cultural demands and values—relating to one’s situation at a given time but based on individual and community histories, geography, economic situations, and social and contextual demands and values • institutional demands and values—relating to practices and procedures that exclude, discourage, have been experienced by, and have (or do not have) connectedness to the individual and community • dispositional factors—relating to attitudes and perceptions about oneself as a learner, as underpinned by individual and community histories and contexts.

5.3 Roles and responsibilities

Most of the learning offered by industry, government and educational institutions is group learning, and there is considerable support for farmer-directed learning (see Appendix D). Farmer-directed learning allows for learning that relates directly to the problem that farmer groups and individuals are trying to tackle. Because

47 of this, farmers have tended to call on different people to help them understand aspects of the problem. In this way the role of experts and organisations (such as research institutions, financial organisations, agribusinesses and universities) is determined by the needs of the farmer group or the individual farmer. For example, Landcare groups often link with both government and non-government organisations, depending on the problem at hand. FruitCheque and the Sustainable Grazing Systems program promote collaboration and partnerships based on the specific problem that farmers are confronting; both programs encourage such partnerships. So, beyond recognition of the obvious expertise of the organisation concerned, a specific role for rural support organisation is difficult. For example, financial institutions can help with financial planning, and research organisations can help with on-farm trials and sharing data from research results. The role of industry and government extension providers is to link specific services with the needs of farmers in a timely manner, and to do this they need to be continually aware of the changing needs of farmers.

Where the involvement of people who have otherwise chosen not to take up learning opportunities is of significance, organisations should consider engaging with and intervening in the networks and information sources that are favoured by these ‘non-participants’.

5.3.1 Intervention in established networks and information sources

Farmers’ information sources and networks are predominantly family based (wife, husband, parents, sons and daughters) and farm based (neighbours) and supported by people with a history of involvement in farm decision making, such as accountants and stock and station agents. Farmers make use of these avenues of support because they know them well and have built up a relationship based on honesty, trust and reliability.

It appears that government and industry do not tend to include accountants and stock and station agents as learning ‘brokers’, nor do they directly engage them through extension services in general. These services were identified by a number of people who tended to not participate in structured learning, so there is scope to consider including them in learning that might have a positive flow-on to farmers.

5.3.2 Prevailing and ‘threatening’ concerns

In the Carrathool Shire case study (see Volume II) many farmers said they were interested in water-related matters since this was, and remains, a potential threat to farm viability in the area. Farmers’ responses reflected a concern that they were not being informed about current policy directions and processes; many said they relied on newspaper articles and water efficiency techniques gained through Waterwise programs. Extension should provide up-to-date, in-depth information about matters that are of concern to farmers in their local setting: this is obviously a key to participation and involvement.

5.3.3 Partnerships

Many rural industry and government agencies have established networks and partnerships in rural areas across Australia and more could be done. For example, organisations such as the Indigenous Land Corporation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander regional organisations have a role to play in developing, supporting and ensuring delivery of services to Indigenous communities. Furthermore, Indigenous health, education, arts, environment and employment organisations, as well as specifically rural- based organisations, must be brought into partnership to ensure effective service delivery.

5.3.4 Supporting farmer-led participatory processes

A number of industry and government organisations support farmer-led participatory processes, allowing for learning that is immediately applicable to local circumstances and usually includes technical as well as experiential learning. Section 4.3 outlines industry’s role in providing this support.

48 5.3.5 Alignment of environmental and production requirements and planning

There is a clear role for industry organisations to help farmers with natural resource management and production requirements so that these are handled in such a way that farmers can see efficiencies and value through their own farming practice. An example of this is the process derived by Kim Russell (see Appendix B).

Industry planning should also aim to support farming interests so that plans focus on providing direction that will influence decisions on the farm.

5.3.6 Including farmers

Employment of a number of local farmers to act as ‘intermediaries’ between other farmers and extension services and so encourage participation beyond ‘comfort zones’ would probably result in the participation of farmers who in the past were not interested in the learning offered. Figure 5.1 shows possible roles and responsibilities of farmers as intermediaries in learning situations.

49 Figure 5.1 Farmers as extension intermediaries

GROWERS’ SCOPE OF INTEREST

GROWER INTERMEDIARIES • Selected for their ability to interact with growers—could be identified as ‘leaders’ in the grower community • Paid part-time positions for local growers • Training provided • Interaction and feedback to extension officers about grower concerns • Interact with growers on-farm • Provide practical advice about the implications and application of scientific and technical solutions on-farm

EXTENSION OFFICERS • Provide training opportunities for grower intermediaries • Provide opportunities for intermediaries to give feedback about growers’ concerns and interests • Provide opportunities for intermediaries to deliver advice about the on-farm implications of initiatives to industry organisations • Create opportunities for other people involved in the industry to interact with intermediaries and other farmers to provide exposure to different values and approaches

5.4 Strategies for participation and learning

It is difficult for industry and government organisations to respond to the needs of individual farmers who have chosen not to participate in learning. The reasons for this are complex, and attention is needed at the individual, family and community levels. Programs have, however, been developed to remove many of the barriers to participation that stem from personal as well as social and institutional considerations.

The following principles of learning, drawn from the International Agricultural Centre in Wageningen in the Netherlands, provide a genuine basis for participation in structured learning that attempts to resolve many of the difficulties raised in this report.

50 5.4.1 Building trust and orientation

The first principle of learning is to build trust and orientation. This phase is designed to remove barriers associated with an individual learner’s insecurities resulting from uncertainty about the context. The uncertainty relates to expectations and course requirements, the value of the course, and the course presenters. The participant will also feel dependent because of the foreign environment of the learning situation.

The extension provider also needs to consider the following: • Will the participants be motivated to learn and to contribute from their own experiences? • What exactly do they want to learn? • What insight, skill and knowledge does each participant have already? • How can learning be structured to make it meaningful to the learners? • How can the learning experience resonate with participants’ experience and personal needs?

The learning experience has two elements: • the process part of the training—building social relationships and creating an atmosphere of trust and openness, where participants feel comfortable and accepted and regain identity through understanding that their experiences are relevant to the learning environment and they can share information and concerns • the task part of the training—building a shared understanding about what is going to happen as part of the course and how it is going to be done. This element establishes goals and an understanding of organisational arrangements.

Combining both these elements establishes the basis for trust, openness and honesty and for developing group norms and boundaries that orient the individual towards a clear understanding of how communication, work, decision making and reflection on progress are to be understood.

The facilitator can help alleviate tensions and feelings of insecurity and dependency in a variety of ways: • creating opportunities for farmers to become acquainted with each other and to share information about their experiences, ideas and values, and the things they consider important • encouraging participants to express their feelings about the course situation, so that it becomes possible to work on any feelings of insecurity as a group, and making them see that these tensions are to be expected • understanding participants’ learning needs and responding to them through the learning objectives • clearly defining what has been agreed to be done and what communication processes are to be followed • being aware of ‘positionality’—how you see yourself and act in relation to others—remembering that involvement in learning must benefit the participants and their practice in order to be worthwhile. Participants are giving up their time because they see that the course is worthwhile. • being aware of the influence of room arrangements and group size on building trust and openness within the group. Some people prefer a one-on-one situation and some are not confident talking in a larger group.

5.4.2 The conditions for learning

The learning environment should be one that encourages people to feel comfortable, respected, and free to contribute to the discussion. The following elements will contribute to the creation of a learning environment: • An environment of active people. People learn when they feel they are involved with others in a learning process. • A climate of respect. Respect is encouraged when a high value is attached to what people have to contribute. • A climate of acceptance. Accepting individuals means that they can ‘be themselves’ and express their beliefs without fear of recrimination. • An atmosphere of trust. People need to have a feeling of trust in themselves and in others.

51 • A climate of self-discovery. Learners are helped to find out about themselves and to meet their own needs, rather than having their needs dictated to them. • A non-threatening climate. Individuals should feel they can express different and diverse opinions without fear of retribution or personal attack. • A climate of openness. Personal concerns, feelings, ideas and beliefs can be expressed and examined openly. • An emphasis on the uniquely personal nature of learning. Individuals know that their values, beliefs, feelings and views are important. • A climate in which differences are thought to be desirable. Differences in people are as acceptable as differences in ideas. • A climate that recognises individuals’ right to make mistakes. Learning is facilitated when error or a person changing their mind is accepted as a natural part of the learning process. • An atmosphere that tolerates ambiguity. Alternative solutions can be explored without the pressure of having to find an immediate single answer. • An emphasis on cooperative evaluation and self-evaluation. With the help of their peers, people can see themselves as they really are. 5.4.3 Reflection on learning to stimulate further learning

Reflection during a learning experience can have several functions and purposes. It can provide a guide to what people understand and have learnt, individually and as a group. It can cause individuals to rethink learning because of other interpretations and perspectives on a topic or understanding. For the facilitator, it can provide feedback about what people might need more time on because of a specific interest in the subject or its relevance to practice. Reflection can also reinforce the learning and its association with practice.

5.4.4 Feedback

Feedback without judgment is an important aspect of learning. As part of a learning process it can help explain how progress has been made to particular understandings and practices. It can also help by providing a reassuring environment. And it can provide assurance that what individuals meant to say has been fully appreciated by all. In this way feedback can facilitate learning between participants.

Feedback following the structured learning experience can also help cement relationships by providing further information and follow-up based on a greater understanding of individuals’ needs. If due regard is had to the individual’s time, attitudes and practices, this approach can lead to the establishment of a learning relationship.

5.5 Increasing participation in learning activities: a guide

The following points are drawn from the case studies in Volume II. They offer a guide to participation in learning that is directed towards the needs of farmers and to resolving barriers to that participation. Many of the points have been noted in previous studies (see, among others, Carr 1992, 1993; Curtis 1995; Ife 1996; Kilpatrick et al. 1999; Barr & Cary 2000; Walsh 2000; Kelly 2001). Yet there still appear to be difficulties with the provision of learning services. In general, these difficulties seem to be associated with the aspirations and organisational arrangements of those areas government and industry that provide rural extension services. Further difficulties are associated with broader societal demands on farmers as carers and custodians of natural resources and the associated management responsibilities.

The following are areas where participation in learning appears to be generating sizeable involvement and change. The many local farmer–led, group-based learning initiatives are proving successful among farmers who are happy to learn through group processes with support from different agencies and industry organisations (see Appendix D). Other programs have involved women and families, Indigenous landowners, people from non–English speaking backgrounds and others through courses that respond to identified needs—such as chemical handling and the introduction of the GST. But many people are still not making use of these learning opportunities and would be more likely to participate if time and resources were devoted to

52 one-on-one on-farm visits by extension officers. Others might choose never to participate in learning offered by government and industry on ideological grounds. This raises some broad questions about the requirements of government and industry and their aspirations for the farming sector: • How much time and effort should government and industry devote to individuals involved in businesses that generate private as well as public benefits? • If industry and government are meeting the needs of the majority of farmers and making learning opportunities known and accessible to all farmers, should they be expected to do more? • What level of participation is considered reasonable? • Should farmers have the right to choose whether or not to participate in learning offered by industry and government, as they deem it pertinent? • How can government and industry try to resolve natural resource management issues associated with the individual farm enterprise when the farmer does not recognise that the issues warrant redress?

It seems that government and industry providers should concentrate on understanding farmers’ needs and making sure that farmers have access to learning that responds to their needs. Extension providers should be aware of this as an aspiration, rather than attempting to gain 100 per cent participation from farmers, which is, by and large, an unachievable goal. When resourcing is available and a specific need has been identified, extension officers might be able to find time for one-on-one interaction with farmers over an extended period, although there are obvious practical difficulties associated with this.

An understanding of farmers’ needs and providing access to learning seem a logical ambition for industry and government when considering extension provision, but this does not necessarily provide direction for learning associated with natural resource management issues that are not identified within the farm enterprise. These circumstances provide a basis for intervention through one-on-one contact.

In considering the nine points presented in the rest of this chapter as a guide to increasing participation in learning, some thought should be given to access and the need and reasons for one-on-one interventions.

5.5.1 Expressing the benefits of learning in terms that have meaning for individual farmers

Farmers tend to participate in learning when direct on-farm benefits to their business are evident: see the Mackay sugar, Greater Shepparton, Carrathool and Indigenous landowners in the rangelands case studies in Volume II. This means that before a learning event takes place extension providers need to identify and describe the benefits of learning in terms that are relevant to the individual enterprise.

Production, environment and quality should be considered as central to a value-chain approach that is accessible to all farmers in a way that suits individual enterprises. This is one way industry organisations can develop learning programs that will be meaningful to individual farmers and responsive to the demands that are now part of current farming practice.

The term ‘farmer’ is used throughout this report to include all people engaged in on-farm decision making. In considering this point therefore, it is worth noting that, in order to make learning meaningful to individual farmers, there is a need to be inclusive of people of different ages, cultural backgrounds and gender and with differing farming roles.

5.5.2 Localising learning

Many of the learning programs that are available are organised to respond to local needs and conditions (see Appendix D). Learning is situated geographically in local areas and is localised in terms of subject matter and organisation, such as learning through local farming groups or other social groups. It is also responsive to community demands in terms of time and relevance. Further, local people should be involved in the development of learning opportunities (see Section 5.3.6).

53 Extension officers can gain valuable insights by talking to people who already have long-term connections with local farmers; this will help them develop an appreciation of the social, cultural, political, historical, geographical and environmental facets of the area.

If considered carefully in relation to parallel purposes and synergies, partnerships with groups and organisations that already exist and work with farmers in the district can also help.

5.5.3 Intervening in group and individual learning settings

Intervention in more personal interactions—such as individual farm settings, families, and use of stock and station agents and accountants as learning providers—is necessary if people who tend not to engage in group processes are to be engaged in learning beyond their current systems.

In farming areas, established learning opportunities exist where interaction between farmers and people they know and trust already takes place. Interaction could be with accountants, stock and station agents, the Indigenous Land Corporation and others. To intervene in these situations, extension providers might need to redevelop existing services, information and packages. For example, material could be incorporated in a stock and station agent’s newsletter. Provision of this material needs careful thought, with relevance being of utmost importance.

Many farmers who do not participate in group learning situations are likely to be responsive to one-on-one farm visits by extension officers. The cost for extension providers is, however, likely to be much higher than the cost of group learning processes. There is a need for repeat visits over a considerable period, to build and sustain relationships and trust. Through a one-on-one approach it is possible that other contributors to the farm enterprise will become involved in learning.

Many farm practices (such as chemical handling) now require certification, and in some industries group meetings are required because of the nature of the industry itself—for example, in the sugar industry mills need to establish harvest schedules—and the opportunity exists to build on this initial interaction through follow-up telephone calls and visits.

5.5.4 Time and costs for farmers as central factors in determining interactions

It is necessary to take account of time constraints on and opportunity costs to participants in learning. All farming enterprises entail considerable demands in relation to on-farm work, but thought must also be given to other time demands that are part of farming—such as travel, family responsibilities, maintenance of farm equipment and infrastructure, holidays, changes in the weather, ‘staffing’ and office work. The value placed on the learning opportunity must be such that other demands are put aside so that the farmer can participate.

5.5.5 Two-way and open interaction

Different learning opportunities can be used to foster wider community discussion and focus on problems that need attention. There should be two-way communication between farmers and government and industry. Identification of opportunities should be based on an understanding of how different communities interact and communicate (see also Section 5.4).

5.5.6 Extension officers’ training supporting a greater understanding of social learning and the farmer context

There is a need to formalise extension officers’ training in social learning processes and participatory approaches. A number of extension officers noted this as a need. Training could be through distance education, whereby course requirements are geared to the individual extension officer’s work setting.

Understanding the farmer context includes understanding what farmers want to learn. It is clear from the case

54 studies that participation in learning for the farming sector is not determined by a lack of available education, extension, information and training courses, programs, packages and workshops; instead, it is determined by a lack of and difficulty with ‘matching’ the available learning experiences with what farmers want. There is an important role here for a learning or knowledge broker (see Appendix A).

5.5.7 Build relationships with individuals

For the extension officer, travelling to properties and becoming involved through face-to-face communication with farmers can help build understanding of the local context and people. This interaction can be built on over time and can help establish dialogue and a genuine understanding of how extension can help farmers in the area. Finding out what they want to know by listening and watching what they are doing is important.

5.5.8 Always follow up on what is needed

This very practical point is fundamental to the forming of relationships in local areas (see Section 5.4.4). Following up is often difficult for extension officers because of the demands on their time. One departmental officer in Queensland emphasised the importance of following up with farmers over long periods because individuals need to think about and get to a stage where they feel comfortable with proposed change:

My experience shows that groups work well, people get together and talk, but they don’t walk away from a meeting and straight away make on-farm changes. They need to go through their thoughts with other people. They have a lot of insecurities and they need their confidence boosted to make a change to their practice. Eventually you’ll get change. You need to follow up through one-on-one and telephone calls. (Derek Sparkes, Cairns)

5.5.9 Monitoring and revising learning programs as change occurs in an area

Changes in production and natural resource management, threats to livelihood, and changes to family and social circumstances can affect participation and need to be taken into account. An understanding of circumstances can be reflected in learning opportunities. For example, up-to-date information about water reform in some areas is very relevant and would be of interest to many farmers, particularly irrigators.

55 Appendix A The role of the knowledge broker

The term ‘knowledge broker’ is increasingly being used in domains beyond its points of origin in the commercial management sector and the information technology industry. Despite this broad use of the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘broker’, individually and together, this concept, like any other, is interpreted differently by different people. In order to establish a common, useful understanding of the term, following is an overview of different interpretations of ‘knowledge broking’ and similar terms, a discussion of the risks associated with establishing a knowledge broker system, and some thoughts on possible organisational arrangements to support such a system.

A.1 Why knowledge?

Plato defined knowledge as ‘justified, true, beliefs’ (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995). Other philosophers, such as Aristotle, Wittgenstein and Popper, have paid considerable attention to understanding what knowledge is. Among the associated words are information, expertise, ability, wisdom, consciousness, talent, skilfulness, communication, extension, education and training.

Within a program framework or within an organisation, knowledge can be the foundation of change. According to Lind and Persborn, ‘Knowledge contains two main significances. The first one is can which means to be able to (know-how). The other one is know which implies knowing (know-that) … The can dimension of knowledge is often related to the notion of competence’ (2000, p. 2). The term ‘broker’ has been described as ‘one employed as a middleman to transact or negotiate bargains’ (Crombie 2002).

In devising a working definition of knowledge broker, it should be remembered that knowledge itself is culturally and socially constructed. It should also be remembered that, when dealing with specific issues, different people conceptualise them in entirely different ways (depending on the context in which the person exists) and they might therefore visualise their resolution in entirely different ways. As a result, the task of the knowledge broker is a difficult one: not only must they make decisions about the significance of particular knowledge to meet the demands of natural resource issues; they must also determine the appropriateness of specific knowledge and the value of that knowledge to individuals.

Knowledge within families, communities, organisations and groups, as well as an individual’s knowledge, is strongly linked to actions (Lind & Persborn 2000, p. 1). The ability of individuals, families, communities, organisations and groups to identify and obtain information applicable to their needs is thus crucial to development. How to transfer information in order to develop ability and the optimal arrangements to facilitate this could be considered the role of the knowledge broker.

A.2 Definitions from the information technology sector

An examination of the role of knowledge broker in the IT sector provides some valuable insights for developing a workable definition. According to the Distributed Systems Technology Centre (n.d.), the knowledge broker in an organisation can: • accumulate knowledge about the best resources available • cache the abstracts of the most valuable resources, thus reducing the cost of communications • make the search process simple and transparent • publish information within the organisation • filter information on background and notify users when something interesting for them arises.

Bernard Tan, physicist, composer, Chairman of Singapore’s National Internet Advisory Committee and Dean of Students (formerly Dean of Science) at the National University of Singapore, was instrumental in Singapore’s adoption of BITNET, which resulted in Singapore becoming one of the first nations in Asia to

56 connect to the internet. Tan had proposed that the university join BITNET as a means of overcoming its physical distance from other academic centres of the world. He found that linking into international networks was not enough and suggested that ‘knowledge science’ was needed—incorporating not only computer disciplines such as database management and expert systems but also library science, encyclopaedia organisation, and disciplines such as cognitive science and epistemology.

Tan’s knowledge scientists were, as he said in 1986, ‘dealing with human knowledge as an organised and integrated totality, bound together by the web of inter-relationships which characterise human experience and understanding’. His focus was on Singapore using its understanding of information and knowledge to become a knowledge broker for the world, bringing knowledge and information from source to user.

A.3 Knowledge brokers in commercial contexts

In a commercial situation the knowledge broker’s purpose is:

… to bring a buyer and a seller together. The broker is a specialist in performing the contractual function and does not actually handle the goods … Since a broker business has the purpose to facilitate the establishment of contracts between a buyer and a seller (in a wide scope) the broker business has two different kinds of clients … the mediator between a questioner, i.e. an organisation that needs knowledge for product and production development, and a knowledge resource, i.e. an organisation that can deliver the knowledge. (Lind & Persborn 2000, p. 1)

This provides a basis for considering the role of knowledge broker in rural learning. It should, however, be recognised that, despite the commercial genesis of the term, non-commercial considerations that are a part of rural and natural resource management learning also need to be accommodated.

Shereen Remez, Chief Knowledge Officer at General Services Administration in the United States, describes her role in a commercial organisation. She sees her role as one of leveraging the knowledge of the enterprise:

This knowledge often exists in small groups of people or stove-pipe systems around the agency. [My job is] to leverage that in order to help GSA do its mission better … what’s happened over the last several years is that we’ve become a ‘knowledge economy’ where know-how and expertise are kind of replacing things like tangible resources—like land and oil and factories and industrial machines. People, and what they know, are becoming every corporation and every agency’s most important and I think critical competitive source. So knowledge has become key to the economic growth of our country and to globalization. And I think, as a result, there is a stronger need to manage this knowledge as an asset. This results in a lot more attention to knowledge management. (Chief Information Officers Council 2001)

Remez believes that sharing knowledge across traditional ‘stove-pipes’ is an important goal for knowledge management:

Today in my agency, and in most corporations and in most agencies in the federal government, the knowledge exists. But it exists locally, in stove-pipe systems or within small groups of experts. It doesn’t get shared often. And the result is that the enterprise loses the value of that knowledge.

She says that, although information technology is important in terms of her role, ’60 to 80 per cent of knowledge management challenge still lies in people’. Getting them to share knowledge is crucial and the foundation for developing an ‘enterprise culture around knowledge management’. ‘Just figuring out who needs access to what knowledge’ is necessary, she says.

Remez provides a number of pointers based on the lessons she has learnt: • To start a knowledge management program, support from the top is required. The CEO, the department’s secretary or the agency must be personally involved or this simply will not work because cultural change is a large part of sharing knowledge. • Knowledge is power, and people have been raised to ‘hoard it’. It is important to change this ethic through the creation of personnel structures and incentives and recognition of people in a way that

57 responds to this understanding. • Start with people and let the technology follow. Simply ‘buying a knowledge repository and a bunch of laptops will not get you to knowledge management’. People need to be brought together in communities of practice, and knowledge sharing should be fostered through informal networks. This will go a long way toward creating a culture of free exchange of ideas and knowledge.

Two other concepts that are similar to that of the knowledge broker are ‘knowledge worker’ and ‘knowledge manager’. Bill Bennett (2001) says the first person to use the term ‘knowledge worker’ is thought to be Fritz Machlup, an economist, although the term was popularised by management expert Peter Drucker. Bennett points out that knowledge workers are people who make a living out of ‘creating, manipulating or disseminating knowledge’.

This definition is too broad to be useful: it fails to describe a role that differs from the role of professionals such as teachers, facilitators, extension officers, trainers, academics, writers, editors, and public relations and communications people. Drucker sees two categories of knowledge workers: high-knowledge workers (including professionals such as doctors, academics and teachers, who are mainly interested in developing thinking); and knowledge technologists (who are interested in development as well as thinking, as in the IT industry).

Davies (2000) elaborates on what is meant by ‘knowledge worker’ but causes some confusion by interchanging the term with ‘knowledge management’:

Knowledge management or knowledge workers are usually those charged with taking the avalanche of information available in an enterprise or on the web and making sense of it.

When Bain and Co. surveyed executives … they found that Knowledge Management along with re- engineering were one of the most powerful but dangerous tools around, if put into the wrong hands.

Since then KM has moved from being an IT tool into being more of a definition if a professional who uses networks and information sources to develop knowledge through direct person to person contact. So we are talking about a process rather than a system and probably a reduction in the danger factor.

So, knowledge workers sit over a divide that describes a process of synthesis and innovation, with the need to collect and interpret information in a logical process—a combination of technical and interpersonal skills.

Davenport and Prusak (1998) commented on the need for a structured approach to knowledge management, saying it is a formal initiative to ‘improve the creation, distribution, or use of knowledge … It is a formal process of turning corporate knowledge into corporate value’.

A.4 Credibility, appropriateness and the power of knowledge

Raj Patel (2001), a former researcher for the World Bank, reminds us that the slogan ‘knowledge is power’ is well worth remembering when considering information brokering. He warns about the World Bank Development Gateway, which is a web portal attempting to ‘provide a strictly policed one-stop-shop’ for ‘knowledge for development’, saying that the site has caused a great deal of disquiet among researchers. He points out that the website tends to depict the knowledge of poor nations as inferior to that of developed nations, thus establishing dependence on solutions devised in the First World:

The Bank spends a great deal of time and money investing in giving its products the look and feel of impartiality, and it’s hard to distinguish the genuinely useful from the morass of verbiage. To muddy this further, top academics are contracted to manufacture knowledge under the Bank’s brand. The products of this process are different, however, from the materials that flow from conventional academic journals—only the smallest fraction of the Bank’s output is peer reviewed.

…

58 The World Bank has never been a neutral knowledge broker, it has always been influenced by narrow economic ideologies and the views of the powerful governments which run it. Its new site appears to be balanced and independent, but its structure, editorial approach and governance are again weighted against those who challenge orthodox views.

This example points to the importance of the credibility of knowledge and an understanding of the appropriateness of particular knowledge to particular contexts. The knowledge broker needs to understand this appropriateness and credibility, as identified by and for the people whose practices and theories are most affected.

A.5 An example: knowledge brokers in a research and development context

Canada’s Policy Research Initiative is a model applicable to some of the requirements of the farm learning setting. Although the Initiative’s context and broad emphasis relate to a non-Australian environment, its structure and approach provide some useful lessons for developing a learning model suited to Australia’s farming communities.

The Initiative was established in 1996 to promote ‘horizontal’ policy research capacity; it involves federal and provincial government departments, university policy research centres, and ‘think-tanks’ in government and non-government organisations. The objectives of the initiative are as follows: • to develop cross-cutting, long-term policy research agendas • to build policy research capacity • to strengthen a culture of partnership across the policy research community (Curtin 2000, p. 50).

The Initiative’s success lies in the ability to foster collaboration between policy researchers from different institutions, allowing them to share with and learn from one another. Despite its small budget, the Initiative has generated considerable interest throughout Canada, using the following mechanisms: • the annual national policy research conference, which in 1999 attracted about 750 participants, each paying Can$600 • regional conferences • workshops • a national awards program to promote policy research and brokerage activities • a website established as a resource tool for policy researchers • Horizons, a magazine that summarises recent developments in policy research • Isuma, a refereed journal that focuses on specific topics such as early childhood development and population health.

The results of cross-disciplinary research and policy projects will also be published.

The first phase of the Initiative involved production of a report entitled Growth, Human Development and Social Cohesion (1996). The report, which was developed through contributions by federal government departments and agencies, dealt with medium-term policy planning in the federal government. Another report, Global Challenges and Opportunities (1997), was also published. The second phase of the Initiative focused on forming networks to research the themes identified in the two reports. This research work formed the basis of a third report, Sustaining Growth, Human Development and Social Cohesion (1999). In addition, a partnership was formed with the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, an organisation that seems to be rather like the Australian Research Council. Through this partnership, an in- depth study of major trends identified in the first phase of the Initiative was undertaken (Curtin 2000, p. 50).

As an adjunct to these developments, significant progress was made in establishing knowledge networks, in the federal public service and outside it, to promote ‘horizontal’ research. These networks were sustained through a series of conferences, publications such as Horizons and Isuma, and the website (Curtin 2000, p. 50–1): • About 2000 policy researchers gather each year at regional and national conferences on multi-

59 disciplinary subjects. • The website attracted over 2 million hits in 1999. • The journal and other research products are circulated to over 7000 people.

As part of the national awards program, Canadian individuals, groups and organisations who are working in the policy research field and whose work has helped facilitate and improve the transfer of knowledge are recognised for ‘innovative practices in the integration and dissemination of policy research’. The knowledge broker award states, ‘Knowledge can only achieve its potential if it is accessible to its audience. The synthesis, integration and communication of research to the policy community and public are integral to informing the policy development process’. The selection criteria for the award are an ability to ‘synthesize, integrate and disseminate policy research (to and from one or more sources)’ and to ‘facilitate an innovative way of exchanging knowledge between researchers and policy developers’.

The Policy Research Initiative’s success is attributed to three factors: • considerable support from the head of the federal public service • the ambitious work plan and risk taking of the secretariat—including the establishment of a knowledge infrastructure with very little funding • promotional activities such as the conferences and workshops, the national awards program (which includes an awards dinner that attracts 1000 guests, many of them from the private sector), the newsletter, the refereed journal and the website (Curtin 2000, p. 51).

The initiative has stimulated future-oriented, horizontal policy research in the bureaucracy and its use in planning within government, capacity building in the public service for horizontal research, a widening of policy research through encouraging of researchers from a variety of organisations to come together in neutral venues, and acceleration of the momentum for horizontal policy research among a range of stakeholders.

The Initiative has, however, had its shortcomings. It has not been able to overcome the government’s inability to deal with ‘increasingly complex and inter-related policy issues’ (Curtin 2000, p. 51). In the public service, incentives to support policy making across departments are weak, and departmental heads need to be better engaged in the process. In addition, efforts to date in the public service have been ad hoc. The networks have helped develop shared priorities for research, but there are limitations to the process because it has been difficult to take up matters that cut across networks. It is also noted that different departments have differing capacities to contribute to policy research projects (Curtin 2000, p. 51).

A third phase for the Initiative is envisaged. It will focus on the following: • a systematic approach to initiating and managing horizontal research projects that bring together government and academic researchers • implementation of a human resource strategy to improve policy research capacity in and outside the public service • the fostering of mechanisms for sharing knowledge between interested parties—called ‘a common space’ strategy. The aim is linking researchers to one another, sharing their knowledge, and promoting their work by celebrating their achievement. This will be done by working in partnership with others in an open manner, both across departments and with non-government organisations as a way of leveraging expertise • four horizontal policy research projects, focusing on the four top research priorities. As older projects are completed, new projects on emerging topics will be chosen and launched. This means that a ‘continuously evolving inventory of four to six projects’ will be under way at any time.

According to Curtin (2000, p. 52), there is much Australia can learn from this organisational arrangement: • The Initiative demonstrates the value of having an ‘entrepreneurial broker’ in the bureaucracy, increasing policy research capacity and building knowledge networks across departments and with other sectors. • There is a need for a separate entity to identify and motivate the undertaking of policy research on questions that lie beyond the domain of any single department, agency or discipline. • The Initiative demonstrates the value of promoting partnerships to share knowledge and make good use of scarce resources.

60 • The Initiative shows that it is important to cultivate a ‘common space’, where policy researchers from different organisations, backgrounds and disciplines can come together to share their knowledge. It is pointed out, however, that this ‘capacity to create an environment that encourages the sharing of knowledge requires independence on the part of the knowledge broker’. • Policy research is best conducted at arm’s length from those responsible for immediate policy implementation.

A.6 Knowledge brokers in the natural resource management and rural production sectors

The term ‘knowledge broker’ is appearing in government and other agencies as part of communication efforts, usually promoting the dissemination of research results to identified audiences. Alastair Crombie, a program consultant, uses the term ‘learning broker’ when considering a role that takes on the following tasks: • working with members of farm management teams to help identify information and learning needs, set goals, and find or create solutions • working with providers to help them become increasingly responsive to the distinctive learning needs and interests of farm management teams • brokering and implementing learning solutions.

He believes that farming is becoming increasingly complex and that farmers have little choice but to become ‘lifelong learners’:

They do not need to nor will they be able to learn everything themselves, but will come to rely on expert advisers in certain areas of their business. Nevertheless, the pressure on team members to seek out knowledge, skills and information that is important to the success of their enterprise is certain to continue to grow. (Crombie 2002)

Crombie sees the problem as one where there is far too much information, training and extension rather than too little: ‘How does a busy farmer make sense of this cacophony, set some learning priorities, and make reasonable estimates of the likely return on investment of time and energy?’ This is where he believes a learning broker can help:

As with the insurance broker, a broker needs to fully understand the needs and interests of the customer, and the range of services on offer from a variety of suppliers. Learning brokers in rural production will have to understand both farming people and farming business, and the providers of education, training, information and extension services. (p. 1)

Crombie outlines four important requirements for the learning broker role: • a degree of independence from the main interested parties, which should be reflected in funding and employment arrangements • recognition and trust of both primary producers and the providers of education and training services • high-class facilitation and networking skills, values and attitudes • a ‘can do’ mentality.

It is clear that the positions described as ‘knowledge manager’, ‘knowledge worker’, ‘knowledge scientist’ and ‘knowledge broker’ share a number of characteristics. The roles take on formal and informal processes of synthesis and innovation. They also require the collection and interpretation of information in a logical process, which in turn requires both technical and interpersonal skills, as well as credibility, trust and respect in diverse audiences.

In drawing together a number of the factors discussed in this appendix, the knowledge broker in a rural setting could be defined as having the following functions: • bringing, accumulating and filtering information, knowledge and human resources when required by inquirers and being skilled at synthesising and integrating knowledge and information from source to inquirer

61 • facilitating cooperative and collaborative arrangements between people from different backgrounds and experiences who are working in industry, government, the community and academia • understanding complex concepts and having credibility within the cultures and communities that seek information • helping to develop a culture of sharing information in a way that is equitable and non-threatening • understanding who needs access to what knowledge • informing people in a way that is sensitive to their needs rather than in response to power and control relationships in communities • bringing people together in communities of practice and fostering knowledge sharing through informal and formal networks • facilitating innovative ways of exchanging knowledge between researchers and others.

62 Appendix B Capturing value along the supply chain by Kim Russell

I was invited to speak about supply chain issues at the Irrigation Association Conference held in Dubbo on 8 May 2003. It is important to note that the essence of this approach is to be able to respond to a range of difficulties farmers face today. Management of land and water, commodities, achieving scale, primary processing, manufacture and marketing branded product were recurring themes in the accompanying presentations on fodder and citrus.

This paper was written while I was still involved in the farming business on an irrigated property, Woodlands, at Darlington Point in New South Wales. I have since left that area and live in Canberra, focusing on supply chain management and working at the interface between production and resource management. There is a great need for government, agencies and resource managers who endeavour to effect change to understand the ramifications of change for farmers, their communities and the wider community.

Adding value is a complex and often difficult process, and it is not something that should be entered into lightly. The six steps I see in the supply chain might appear simplistic to some, but following this approach is useful because it helps us recognise that it is not in just one area that we can have influence.

B.1 Introduction

In recent years there have been enormous reforms in land and water management, particularly in irrigated farming—and reform is likely to continue. There is increasing pressure for a greater proportion of surface water flows to be returned for direct environmental purposes, and this directly influences the quantities and costs of water allocated to commodity production. The pressure for change and the focus on water are being felt in rain-fed farming systems as well, with on-farm interception of water being increasingly controlled. There is also the likelihood that climate change will reduce the amount of available water through reduced rainfall across much of Australia, coupled with increases in evaporation. This will compound the pressures on farming to produce satisfactory financial returns, which in turn will directly threaten the prosperity of rural communities.

These challenges, and the way they need to be tackled, are creating great hardship for some, but at the same time they are creating opportunity for others who have the technology, skills, relationships, and business acumen to cope.1 In order to change successfully to meet a challenge, there need to be a desire to change in response to an opportunity or a threat, a plan or mechanism to allow that change to occur, and the resources available to implement the change.

I agree with the general view that all farmers—irrigation and non-irrigation—will need to increase their productivity by at least 3 per cent a year just to maintain their current financial position. The ultimate limit to productivity in Australia is water, and as a result we have become accustomed to equating productivity with the availability of water or the efficiency of its use. Grain growers can already demonstrate that they have maintained this level of productivity increase over the past two decades2, largely because of management techniques and genotypes that use the available water more effectively.

The reality for many groundwater irrigators is that the amount of water available for commodity production could decrease by 25 per cent in the next five years. Reduced allocations will be a serious threat for surface irrigators too. The apparent conflict between requiring more water to stay financially viable and the real

1 Mark Bramston, General Manager, Coleambally Irrigation Co-operative Limited, pers. comm. 2 Dr Brian Fisher, Executive Director, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Press release, 5 April 2000, launching the report Productivity Growth in the Australian Grains Industry .

63 possibility of reduced water availability under both irrigated and rain-fed systems provides what I believe to be the primary challenge to Australian agriculture in the foreseeable future.

In this paper I explore how broad community objectives can be achieved while on-farm productivity objectives are also achieved. Individual farm businesses must be managed in the context of the field, farm, catchment, region and beyond. I draw from my own experience on Woodlands to demonstrate how some of the principles I am proposing have already been adopted and how an integrated systems approach can link on-farm activities to the global marketplace.

B.2 The development of farming in Australia

A brief look at the way farming has developed in Australia might help provide some direction for the future. Each of these developmental ‘eras’ has a number of common threads: • There prevailed a view of the day. • Farmers had a certain capacity to affect and change their environment. • They learnt from information obtained from various people and sources. • They placed a certain value on this information. • They had fundamental motivations, which drove their thinking and practices.

B.2.1 The pioneer

In the beginning of white settlement in Australia, farming industries were forged by pioneers, in an environment that was seen to be robust and resilient. The pioneers had little capacity to change the environment they lived in, and farming was hard work. Knowledge was passed from father to son. It was valued to the point where it was seen as ‘gospel’, so it was not readily challenged and what motivated the pioneers was often mere survival.

B.2.2 The traditional farmer

Then came the traditional farmers, who were seen to be doing the right thing if they changed the environment in which they lived. In fact, they should change it in order to improve it, and they had much greater capacity to do so. Information about what and how things should be done was obtained from the agriculturists of the day. These people were highly valued—after all, they came from the government and other respected bodies. At times they supported as best management practice such activities as ring-barking and concepts such as the ‘rain follows the plough’, both of which resulted in devastating environmental impacts. ‘This was in an era when it was widely thought that all of nature could be shaped by human reason, human will and human artifice.’3 What motivated these farmers largely was the desire to make a satisfactory livelihood for themselves and to hand on the farm to future generations.

B.2.3 The resource manager

Today the best farmers are resource managers. They aim to obtain competitive returns from resources while maintaining and improving their real asset value. The capacity for a modern enterprise to affect its catchment area or the wider environment is recognised as being very important. Conversely, the capacity for an individual farm to have a significant beneficial impact on the environment is limited unless the scale is large; that is, enough farmers need to be doing the right thing together in order to achieve catchment targets or broader environmental objectives.

Trusting and managing information has become more and more problematic as each era has developed. The knowledge and skills required to manage the resources of farming land and irrigation water in this ‘information age’ are complex, and satisfactory returns are harder and harder to make. The business is led by

3 Johnson, Lawrence E. n.d., ‘A philosophical walk along the Heysen Trail’, Flinders University, South Australia, , viewed August 2004.

64 the need to make a profit, yet there is also a need to demonstrate stewardship so that continued access to resources is allowed. This imperative exists in an environment where a wide range of regulatory bodies and natural resource managers, conservation and consumer groups, and employee and other community representatives all have input into how things should be managed.

The information directed at farmers is at times overwhelming, and the value of it—when it actually reaches the farmer—varies according to how it is delivered and the demographics of the community. For example, a small-scale beef farmer in a picturesque valley on the coast north of Sydney would need and value different information compared with a large-scale operation farming dryland beef and irrigated cotton in north- western New South Wales. With all of this in mind, protecting the land’s resources from, for instance, rising water tables and managing farm production while regulators enforce compliance with community expectations is a very difficult and complex task. How the information is gathered, assessed, filtered, stored and used is of immeasurable importance. The information has to be timely, relevant and versatile.

There are many points of view; there is a realisation of the capacity to change beyond redemption of our environment; there is information overload and lifelong learning that not only has a value but is more often associated with a real cost. So the motivation of ‘the resource manager’ is less clear today: mere survival, a satisfactory livelihood or lifestyle, or to hand on the farm to future generations are all legitimate motivations. But all farmers face a challenge, and how we meet it will determine the welfare of our environment and our rural communities.

B.3 The challenge for Australian farming in the next era

What will the next era look like if we are going to cope with such complexity? We will need to act with regard to the wellbeing and best interests of all, yet the capacity for an individual farm, by itself, to beneficially influence the wider environment will be extremely limited. The key questions are: What will motivate farmers to survive and prosper in this new era? Is there an expectation that farmers will simply become altruistic in their endeavours or will there be other motivators that allow these problems to be dealt with simultaneously?

It is my view that, if they are to be successful, commercial farming businesses will have to balance the needs of production, environment and quality, or PEAQ. PEAQ managers will run benchmarked, agricultural investments growing a range of commodities that cover financial, agronomic, environmental and community risks. These enterprises will have the advantages of scale through alliances, without the disadvantages of inflexibility and lack of liquidity. They will effectively target a balance of bulk commodity markets and specialist niche markets to promote the productivity of each farm. Such farms will have links with primary processing, manufacturing and the marketing of quality-assured, branded product. Not all these steps will be owned, but they will be linked using sophisticated information technology and, most importantly, relationships. This integrated supply chain approach will rely on the communication of extremely valuable information, which will underpin these relationships and allow product and market value to be captured all the way along the chain.

B.4 Connecting the farm to the global market

There are high-value international and domestic markets for the products Woodlands grows well. And a few of our markets have shown us the key, which is for us as farmers to participate further along the supply chain, so that we can demonstrate value that a customer is willing to pay for. I propose that there are six steps in providing sound returns for investors in agriculture, and these steps apply as much to family farmers as they do to larger company or corporate farmers (see Figure B.1)

65 Figure B.1 The six-step supply chain approach

InvestmentA balanced dollars spread of investment not all stepsIn a ownedbalanced but Portfolio linked.

Commodity management Achieving scale Primary Processing Manufacture Land& Marketing Water Branded Product

Step1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 $ $ Inputs $ $ & R&D $ $ The management of information between the farm and the market is Critical to Environmental Management and Customer satisfaction.

As the figure shows the key is to link the steps from the farm to the global marketplace. The interface between each step—the ‘white bits’—is critical to the success of such an approach because it is at these points that breakdowns can occur. Such breakdowns are usually in communication or at the point when there is a financial transaction. Management of information allows the integration of on-farm and off-farm activities in order to capture value at each step. This value is gained through either taking a marketing advantage or improving efficiencies.

B.4.1 Step 1: land and water

Management of land and water assets is about whole-farm business planning. Ideally, this starts with selection of a farm according to its land use capability. The fact that many farmers and managers have inherited their property, along with its strengths and weaknesses, means that they have to deal with the land and water resources at hand. Consideration is given to capital cost, the suitability of soils, the security of rainfall or irrigation water, climate and demographics. The capital available through equity and debt is allocated so that advantage can be taken of opportunities to develop within enterprises or to move to new enterprises to achieve better returns and capital gain. The planning process needs to cover setting strategic objectives and key performance indicators to monitor how the business is progressing.

Besides the obvious need to be viable, numerous factors affect farms; among them are market requirements, government regulations and community expectations. The systems model outlined here aims to cope with this complexity and is explained in more detail using a model for an integrated farm management system, as illustrated in Figure B.2.

B.4.2 Step 2: commodity management

Commodity management is crucial in terms of what crops are agronomically best suited and particularly whether the farm is going to operate at the bulk commodity or specialised product level. Many skills are required—marketing, financial planning, risk management, and so on—and factors such as forward contracting, meeting specifications, the timing of sales and deliveries, transport, storage, logistics, hedging and insurance are also important.

66 B.4.3 Step 3: achieving scale

Woodlands was owned by a large superannuation fund, which followed the traditional model of scale using extensive grazing enterprises. The portfolio was worth an estimated $30 million in 1995–96, when irrigated cropping produced 33 per cent of the income, with 9 per cent of the assets on 1 per cent of the land returning a 21 per cent return on investment. By 1998, however, the owners had become disillusioned with the low overall returns and sold the portfolio; Woodlands now belongs to a Swiss-based agricultural company. Regardless of who owns the land, those who manage it must manage efficiently, and analysis of the Woodlands business showed a number of shortcomings: • It was imperative that we cut costs, but no matter how well this was done it was never going to be enough by itself. • We had to improve the efficiency of our water use through better management, but the latest best management practices were being used as part of our quality assurance system and we could not realistically expect significant improvement without a quantum leap in crop management. • We needed to gain access to higher value markets, but there was limited capacity to demonstrate higher value to buyers because, generally, the commodity market dictated the price. • We also saw several options for increasing the scale of operations to gain a marginal improvement, but it was necessary to increase the scale way beyond what we could achieve on our own.

The initial focus for increasing scale was through leasing more land and/or water, share farming, subcontracting, or simply using our marketing skills to trade product on behalf of others. On a broader level, this requires recognising opportunities to add value to crops the region can grow well from a range of options that manage financial, agronomic and environmental risks. Individual farms in a region can take advantage of the benefits of scale through working together in a cooperative way, without compromising their independence. Many rural communities and industries now have the understanding and commitment to work together to achieve prosperity, sustainability and, importantly, the maintenance of the social fabric of their communities. Large scale can also greatly reduce input costs and allow for research and development in an iterative process that continually improves the entire supply chain.

B.4.4 Step 4: primary processing

Primary processing—including grading, packaging, storage, and spreading delivery over time—is often seen as a logical way of adding value. Unfortunately, many farmers also believe a logical way of adding value is to get together and build, say, a flour mill. The problem with this is that they simply move into a more expensive commodity market. There is surplus milling capacity in Australia, so market opportunities can be established and supplied through various types of milling arrangements. This would entail, for example, using genetics to produce a wheat variety suitable for flour, arranging milling, and supplying and satisfying the market with quality and continuity. Such an arrangement can be mutually beneficial for the farmer, the grain trader, the miller, the manufacturer and the customer.

B.4.5 Step 5: manufacturing

Step 5 includes the manufacture of food and beverages, clothing and building materials. This can be done through toll processing for specific markets, without the need to own significant assets. Food service is a growing market for the manufacturing sector and is expanding very rapidly. It offers an important opportunity for farmers to establish ongoing supply arrangements. The key to working in this step is customer satisfaction, and customers are becoming more demanding. Quality, continuity and allowing room for expanding market share are valuable elements of a relationship. This value can be expressed in many ways and is increased as the supply process becomes more transparent.

B.4.6 Step 6: marketing branded product

The final step involves marketing branded product on domestic and export markets. A key factor at this end of the chain is that the relationships between the market and the preceding steps can be ‘owned’, at least partially if not fully, by the farmer. This is particularly important nowadays for such things as identity

67 preservation. If farmers do not start to develop and take ‘ownership’ of these relationships they will be forced to operate only at the commodity end of the chain and will receive for their efforts only commodity prices.

Resources can be harnessed using organisations such as the Riverina Food Group to achieve the scale and presence required for certain markets. These organisations can help build knowledge about supply chains, create links and nurture alliances with like-minded people, and allow a platform for new ideas to be developed and adopted.

B.4.7 control in the supply chain

In the past, these six steps have often been taken through vertical integration, where each one is owned by a single entity. In today’s economic climate, however, the vertical integration model has some difficulty maintaining the efficiencies needed to remain competitive. The Ricegrowers Co-operative Limited is a good example of where farmers chose a commodity, achieved the required scale, and processed, manufactured and marketed the product from the paddock to the packet. The Co-operative is now focused more on building shareholder value than on providing an outlet for a rice-grower’s product, and the result is pressure on efficiencies right through the chain. Efficiency of water use, from an economic perspective as well as an environmental one, is now brining about unprecedented change in the rice industry. The current drought is accelerating the rate of change because of the scarcity of water.

Another way of achieving control in the supply chain is through government regulation, with the use of such mechanisms as vesting powers, but government now views this as inefficient and inappropriate.

In Europe and the United States farmers’ viability is underpinned by subsidies, which have largely been based on price support for producing agricultural products—or sometimes not producing them. These support mechanisms affect land values and the wide range of businesses that depend on agriculture. Insurance and set-aside programs have also had their place, notably in the United States. In Europe in particular, there is now a move to shift the emphasis away from production-based subsidies to the payment of subsidies based on maintenance of the environment—including ‘rural aesthetic’ and rural heritage values, which are essential resources for tourism.

So, there are many options for trying to improve viability by controlling the supply chain in some way, although the resources and nature of current Australian governments mean that achieving viability through subsidy mechanisms is very unlikely. This brings us again to the question of what we want from agriculture in today’s world. The four fundamental objectives—prosperous rural communities, safe food for consumers, protection of environmental resources, and health and safety for the people involved—are sound. They can be met through artificial mechanisms, as discussed, or they can be achieved through harnessing the basic forces behind each one.

B.5 The motivation for change

B.5.1 Production

The business imperatives for farms are to make a return on investment and to maintain and improve the asset base from which that return is derived. It is difficult for farms to attend to other matters if the business itself does not have the necessary physical and financial resources. Farmers are faced with choices in relation to the level of return they obtain from their farm, and these choices govern what practices can be adopted and what can be done to improve returns, capital gain and long-term sustainability.

Investors in farming enterprises have to balance the same imperatives as family farmers—profitability and sustainability. Investors are now looking for investment fund managers that are aligned with particular environmental and social values, so even the capital behind investments in agriculture is influencing the way land and water are managed.

68 B.5.2 Environmental management

Australian irrigators are facing pressure to demonstrate that their practices are environmentally responsible. The European community is consolidating its market power and at the same time demanding that on-farm practices meet ever more exacting criteria, which are being enshrined in a protocol developed by the European Retailer Produce Working Group on what is deemed good agricultural practice. Canada and the United States are also developing protocols to ensure that agriculture does not adversely affect the environment.

Greenhouse gas emissions are a good example of how an environmental concern can be used to improve on- farm productivity and contribute to solving the overall problem. More than 96 per cent of the enhanced greenhouse effect is caused by carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, so it is these three gases that primarily need to be considered. As far as farming and natural resource systems are concerned, these three gases represent the loss of a valuable resource from the production base. Carbon dioxide comes from high- energy photosynthetic product in the production system or energy from fossil fuels brought onto the farm. Loss of methane represents a loss from the energy budget of ruminants, and nitrous oxide represents a loss from the nitrogen budget that underpins effective production. Thus, the approach to the greenhouse problem is to reduce the loss of these three gases—for production, environmental and ultimately social benefit.

Not many environmental problems that we can attend to offer such immediate benefit to farm productivity. On Woodlands, for example, by saving energy we save money and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, by using fertiliser more efficiently we reduce emissions of nitrous oxide, and by growing woodlots we sequester carbon. Many environmental problems, such as salinity require long-term solutions, the basis of which will inevitably be what is happening at the farm level.

B.5.3 Food safety

Japan’s labelling system for genetically modified foods requires an identity preserved distribution system for crops used to make those foods (Horticulture Australia 2003, p. 4).

The EUREP GAP Protocol and the Global Food Safety Initiative are self-imposed retailer checks that have been prompted by the recent developments in genetically modified foods and food ingredients. There is now little evidence that having food safety accreditation will attract premiums, but access to certain markets is obviously dependent on having in operation quality assurance systems that aim to satisfy retailer, and ultimately consumer, demands. As these demands increase and responsibility for food safety is pushed further down the supply chain to the farmer, it becomes ever more crucial that the supply chain approach described here be adopted. These demands must become the basis for two-way communication, which will lead to value being recognised and paid for. There is also a need for farmers to manage the risk of being held accountable for a food safety problem: they cannot afford to leave themselves open to such claims, so food safety systems and proper record keeping are vital to protect them and their customers.

B.5.4 Occupational health and safety

Consumers are taking an interest not only in what is in the food and fibre products they buy but also in the conditions the products were produced under. These are very basic social justice considerations, and it will not be long before they are as much a part of a quality-assured product as the food and environmental safety aspects of production.

Occupational health and safety is becoming more prominent in both industry and farming. In Australia standards such as appropriate pay and conditions are enshrined in legislation, but the ‘she’ll be right’ attitude in the workplace has had to change dramatically in recent times and needs to change even more on many farms.

69 B.6 How will effective change occur?

The underlying measures for each of the farming eras discussed—the pioneer, the traditional farmer, the resource manager, and the PEAQ manager—is that effective change can and will occur only when resistance to change is outweighed by the combined effect of three things: • There is a desire to change in response to an opportunity or a threat. • There is a plan or mechanism to allow that change. • Resources are available to implement the change.

What will be the determinant of change in this new era? The same principles will apply, except in this case they will be based on linking the need to change with other motivators, so that there are clear benefits for the farmer, which in most cases will mean parallel benefits for productivity or profit. These motivators can be linked to provide simple and systematic management information, which can be acted on to meet the wide array of forces affecting farming businesses.

B.7 A systems model for adoption of best management practice

Many different decision-support systems are used throughout Australia to assist with the adoption of best management practice in agricultural industries. They are usually commodity specific, and there are basic similarities between them. The CropCheck system, the system most relevant to irrigated cropping, has been developed mainly by John Lacy and his team at the Finley Office of NSW Agriculture. It offers grower guides and CropCheck cards to assist with the transfer of information to growers and to help them record key steps in crop management. In turn, growers in southern New South Wales and northern Victoria receive a detailed analysis of the extent to which they were able to optimise their management, as measured against a number of ‘key checks’. This information is then used as an aid in the decision-making process the following year. The CropCheck system is delivered mainly by the network of state-based district agronomists and extension officers.

In 1999 the Murray–Darling Basin Commission, in association with Integra, conducted a scoping study of the implementation of pathways for adoption of best management practice. Four distinct pathways emerged: • the intensive single-issue model • the process model • the systems model • the audit and certification model.

The study found that the systems model is the preferred method for complex, multi-faceted problems requiring input from many disciplines, with decisions being made in partnership with an interdependent range of stakeholders. It was proposed that it would be effective mainly for ‘big-picture’ concerns. There are few concerns bigger than the prosperity and health of our river systems.

Independently of this study, the Irrigated Cropping Forum developed its own systems model for adoption of best management practice. This model is based on the premise that irrigated cropping—and, indeed, Australian agriculture generally—needs to deliver on four important outcomes: • prosperous rural communities • safe food for consumers • environmental management • health and safety for the people involved.

Importantly, however, demonstrating delivery of these outcomes at the farm level runs the risk of overburdening farmers with documentation, recording, administration and bookwork. So what became known as the ‘four-card trick’ developed, where a single set of minimal data could be programmed to deliver the requirements for each of these elements, all within a quality assurance and geographic information system framework.

70 B.7.1 Whole-farm business planning

To help maintain productivity improvements, farmers have to clearly identify the key performance indicators they must meet and how changes in practice will have benefits for the bottom line. This is imperative given the problem of water availability and the economic pressures placed on farms. There is a need to develop mechanisms into fully integrated decision-support systems and have them delivered through a network of people involved in the delivery of advice about best management practice.

Figure B. 2 illustrates the notion of whole-farm business planning, which establishes the core business of the farm. Information is gathered and recorded to promote productivity. The same information, however, also accommodates the needs for food safety, environmental management, and occupational health and safety. The education, skills development and training of the operators are designed to take account of all these considerations, and the records for all four factors are stored in the same ‘warehouse’.

Figure B.2 An integrated farm management system using key performance indicators

Whole-farm business plan Key Making the farm financially viable now performance and in the future indicators

CropCheck card Paddock-scale information warehouse Production Food safety Environmental Best management Health and safety practice Best management management practice Best management •Chemical use Best management •Chemical use practice (weeds, insects practice (weeds, insects •Chemical use and diseases) and diseases) •Chemical use •Water use (weeds, insects (weeds, insects and diseases) efficiency •Water use and diseases) efficiency •Water use •Water use •Soil management efficiency efficiency (cultivation) •Soil management (cultivation) •Soil management •Soil management (cultivation) (cultivation) Education, skills and training

Farmers must create the conditions that allow increased whole-farm profitability as well as better environmental management as a result of more efficient water use in the farmer enterprises. There is a need for continuous improvement—within enterprises (vertical movement) and in conversion from one enterprise to another that is more efficient in its water use and therefore more profitable, (horizontal movement). These individual farm processes will allow for vertical and horizontal movement at the regional scale.

B.7.2 The information warehouse

To simplify the process, the paddock-scale information warehouse shown in Figure B.2 is a subset of the whole-farm business plan and so can be readily scaled to the whole-farm level, the regional level, and even the national level and beyond.

A key check in conventional pest management, for example, entails good monitoring of pests, effective targeting, and careful application of pesticides. Attention to these aspects will therefore generate productivity, food safety, environmental, and occupational health and safety benefits.

The commodity-based, production-led CropCheck system is represented as the production card on the left- hand side of Figure B.2. There are a number of key checks (up to 15, depending on the crop); three examples

71 are shown. The process is iterative from year to year, and the immediate benefit is essentially financial return.

The data required for these checks can be engineered with only limited additional input to simultaneously deliver outcomes in food safety, environmental management, and occupational health and safety. There are not four cards: rather, there is one card that will deliver four outcomes. This data set can then be warehoused along with other data such as yield maps (see Figure B.3), soil maps, hydrographic maps, other spatial information such as satellite or aerial images, production costs and prices, food safety records, records required to comply with legislation on chemical use, or records of the training of farm operators and the skills acquired.

No matter what the motive for gathering and recording it, the information can be used for a wide variety of purposes. For example, the amount of information farmers are now required to keep under the legislation overseen in New South Wales by the Environmental Protection Authority is 25 to 30 per cent more than that requested on a CropCheck card. So why not capture this information once and use it for other purposes such as vendor declarations to customers or monitoring the farm’s performance against that of other participants who want to improve their productivity in a similar way?

This process appears to be a sensible one for new era managers to capture best management practice for all production, environment and quality determinants. As noted, its widespread adoption is essential if catchment targets for water users are to be achieved, but the effectiveness of this systems model will depend on the layers of information and benchmarking that occur in what will ultimately be a very important information warehouse.

Figure B.3 Yield maps at the national, regional or catchment, farm and paddock scales

National

Coleambally Regional Land and Water Management Or Catchment Area

Farm

Field

Source: Image supplied by the SST Development Group Australia.

There is no suggestion that all farmers will adopt a single, common system: it is not in our nature to do that. But computers, for example, are put together using a wide range of compatible components, and different individuals use different hardware and software for different functions. There are many individually favoured components that can be put together to create an integrated farm management system that suits individuals’ needs but is sufficiently compatible for it to be part of a community or catchment-scale information

72 warehouse. One of the keys to the success of such a system will be the level of compatibility that is achievable in any group of producers. This compatibility will depend on the systems used, the farmers’ objectives, market forces, and the scale the participants seek to achieve.

B.7.3 Ownership and storage of information

The question of ownership of information and the safekeeping of that information is complex. It will be a matter of trust, and people will store (or bank) information as they do grain, or even money, and, as with money, when the information is used its owner should be paid. Collecting and storing masses of information are certainly not something many people want to be bothered with—just as they do not store their money under a mattress or perhaps all their grain in their own silos. When it benefits them to do so, they use the services of people who specialise in that area. Suffice to say that people will participate only if they believe the information is safe and is used for the benefit of the farmer who supplied it.

B.8 Conclusion

If farmers can see value in recording and storing information to meet their own production, environment and quality needs, they will do so. This information can also be used for the benefit of their rural industries and communities. Value can be added to the information so that catchment or other environmental objectives, such as reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, can be realised. Carbon credits, biodiversity credits and salinity credits can be pooled on a scale that gives them tradeable value.

Government policy is influenced by community pressure and the information that supports that pressure. Such information is often collected by bodies far removed from the rural community concerned. Sound, reliable information that leads to real knowledge is required if government policy is to be influenced. The value of that influence in rural communities is immeasurable.

Only when this information is gathered, stored, processed and used to resolve the problems outlined in this paper will the value of the information be appreciated. This ideal will be realised: • when information gathered at the field level is benchmarked in conjunction with whole-farm, regional, national and international data, so that opportunities to improve the productivity of individual farms are taken up • when those opportunities come together to improve the prosperity of the farm’s wider community • when government and natural resource managers recognise the information’s value in the management of land and water • when customers recognise the information’s value along the supply chain. • when we can demonstrate on a satisfactory scale that our farming practices are such that we will have continuing land and water security.

Through this type of approach farmers will meet the challenge of farming profitably and demonstrating resource stewardship.

73 Appendix C Extension officers and participation

What follows is an overview of information provided by 33 extension officers from throughout Australia. The questions posed were derived from an early draft of the framework presented as Table 4.1 of this report, and the officers responded by way of face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews or an e-survey.

C.1 The contributing extension officers: a profile

The contributing officers were mainly working in natural resource management extension or production extension, or both. Two of them were working in animal health, one of them being a vet. Table C.1 shows the work orientation of each officer. In most of the cases where people said they worked in production extension, they tended to be involved in sustainable production.

Table c.1 Contributing extension officers: type of work

Production extension Natural resource (mainly), including management extension Employer sustainable production (mainly) Other Self—consultant 4 1 Ruminant preventive health and nutrition consultant (1) Government department 12 2 Senior veterinary officer (1) Self—private agronomist 1 Non-government 3 organisation Catchment organisation 1 4 Total 18 10 2

Respondents’ experience in extension was diverse but generally can be divided into environmental or primary industry work. All had considerable experience but in varying fields, with some emphasising different aspects of extension. The following summarises their experience:

Conservation Volunteers Australia, environmental trainer (four years). Greening Australia, program coordinator (one month).

Regional facilitator, [Sustainable Grazing Systems program]. Prior to this a research agronomist with NSW Agriculture.

Department of Agriculture, sheep and wool officer (32 years). Statewide special livestock officer, then management on extension. I became regional leader to the Executive, Department of Ag, focusing on extension. Private consultant since 1996, including two years full time with MLA as national facilitator for [the Sustainable Grazing Systems] program.

In-field experience eight years and four years managing retail agronomists.

Working in the extension field for 10 years. I spent seven-and-a-half years working in the Department of Natural Resources and Environment in Victoria. Held a number of different positions in natural resource management extension. These initially involved dryland salinity, native vegetation retention and Landcare support. Also spent time being involved in the Victorian Property Management Planning program, Farm$mart, which was a more holistic approach to farm management. I have spent the last two years working for a community Landcare group in the Katherine region of the Northern Territory, which is a very different form of extension than the government-sponsored program approach.

74 My experience has mostly developed within my catchment coordinator capacity, meeting the needs of information exchange, interpretation and extension and support to community groups.

Two-and-a-half years with an agricultural consulting firm in Ballarat, Victoria.

Ten years in NSW Agriculture extension, two years in AusAID rural development project in Cambodia as irrigation agronomist, four years as Landcare coordinator.

In pure extension, my experience has been mainly with Greening Australia on their conservation program based in the Queensland Murray–Darling Basin. This work has been predominantly with farmers developing conservation management plans and raising awareness of the issues involved. Prior to this I was involved with the Central Queensland Mine Rehabilitation Group, which operated as an extension arm for the various environmental management divisions of central Queensland mining companies.

Working with farmers from cane, beef, dairy and horticulture in Mary Basin. Founded the Queensland Biodiversity Network in 1994. Worked in the international mining industry in the Philippines and Papua New Guinea related to negotiating processes with landholders 1960–1985.

I have worked as an extension officer for three-and-a-half years, since completing my university degree. The first 12 months of my career involved working one on one with landholders to try and encourage the adoption of deep-rooted perennial pasture establishment for salinity control. Since then my role has mainly involved working with farmer groups, with the aim of helping them to adopt new practices and/or manage their pastures.

Worked for a year with Pivot Fertilisers as a regional agronomist talking to farmers about soils, soil testing and interpreting soil test results. Have worked with [the Department of Natural Resources and Environment] for four years, delivering programs such as BeefCheque (assisting farmers to grow more grass, use more grass, grow more beef and make more money), Prograze (teaching producers about growing grass), soils and fertiliser courses, and giving structured talks to groups as required.

Been involved in leading natural resource management and sustainable agriculture–based extension programs since 1995.

Varied. Extension maize 1987, dairy 1988, 1990, water use efficiency 2001–2002. Adult education, dairy farm management courses 1992 and 1993. Junior football, cubs, scouts.

I have worked in [the Department of Natural Resources and Environment] for last nine years. First four years as a dairy extension officer—educating and working with farmers on dairy management issues—and the last five years working in a business planning role, helping farmers understand planning concepts and thinking processes.

I have spent seven years working in extension and farmer education.

I have been working in extension for nearly eight years. I began as an extension recruit for the horticulture industry, where I received two years of training in extension. I have since undertaken a Certificate 4 in Workplace Trainer and Assessor and have [done] numerous short courses including facilitation and coaching.

Three years salinity extension officer, AgVictoria; two years group facilitator, SoilCare/FarmSmart, AgVictoria; two years group facilitator/executive officer, Natural Resource Management, AgWA; three years, facilitator, Andrew Huffer and Associates.

Thirteen years in tertiary education, including eight with Curtin University of Technology (WA). Higher degree research—succession—family business succession. Qualified mediator, specialising in family business disputes and will challenges. Wife, farming partner and Mother to four children.

Worked as a district veterinary officer for two-and-a-half years, where I organised and presented many field days, did numerous radio interviews and wrote technical publications. Worked as the veterinary extension coordinator for five years and then the communications coordinator for the Wool Program and Agriculture Protection Program for two years. Have been in current position for three years. Have lectured and tutored at university and TAFE. Have edited a chemical training manual and written one.

75 Agricultural Department—Landcare, three years; Agriculture Department—agronomist, two years; agricultural consultant, four years.

Twenty years working with breed society (five years) and Department of Agriculture (15 years) in extension role. Initially focusing on technology transfer of improved on-farm management processes, then ‘graduating’ to more whole farm decision-making processes (including social as well as production and economic issues), and for the last three years working along the supply chain to bring about cultural change in marketing of beef.

Seven years’ experience in beef cattle and grazing systems extension. Training in adult learning principles and decision-support systems through Rural Extension Centre.

Have been involved in extension for six years. Worked with farmer groups in Woolpro, TopCrop, Prograze, pulse grower group and other department groups.

Thirty years as an extension officer with the Queensland Department of Primary Industry and now with the Department of Agriculture, Western Australia—extensive beef production areas of northern Australia.

Field officer, research officer, regional manager involved in agricultural extension, scientific reporting and community groups.

I have worked in this position for two years and have worked elsewhere in the country with similar organisations, for example the Aboriginal Land Corporation and Greening Australia.

I have been involved in communication for two years while working for the Department.

I have spent most of the last 10 years working in local rural communities, particularly agriculture production (livestock) and NRM (through Landcare), and have lived in those same communities for most of my life.

Twenty years in district and industry-based research, development and extension activities.

C.2 Formal qualifications

Four of the officers had no formal qualifications beyond high school, but two of them noted that they had strong connections with the rural community. Three of the four had undertaken or were currently undertaking studies—a bachelor of arts or, in one case, units for a certificate in agricultural extension.

Two respondents had doctorates, one in range management and the other unspecified. Four respondents had a masters qualification and one was doing a masters. Of the four, two had a masters in applied science, one in extension and rural development, the other in agricultural development; the third had a master of science in animal breeding and genetics and the fourth was a master of agricultural science.

Four respondents held five postgraduate qualifications (other than the masters and doctoral qualifications just mentioned) between them. These were in social sciences, rural resource management (two people) and natural resource management. One person was studying for a graduate diploma in secondary teaching.

Those with bachelors degrees achieved the award in the following areas of study: • environmental degrees – Bachelor of Applied Science (Environmental Science) – Bachelor of Applied Science (Natural Systems and Wildlife Management) – Bachelor of Applied Science (Biological Resources Management) – Bachelor of Applied Science (Parks, Recreation and Heritage) (Hons) – Bachelor of Science (Australian Environmental Studies) – Bachelor of Arts (Land Management) – Bachelor of Science (Biological Sciences) • agricultural degrees – Bachelor of Science (Agricultural Science) – Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) (Hons)

76 – Bachelor of Arts (Agricultural Science) – Bachelor of Arts (Agricultural Science) – Bachelor of Arts (Agricultural Science) – Bachelor of Arts (Agriculture) (Hons) – Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Hons) – Bachelor of Science (Animal Production) • other degrees – Bachelor of Arts (Sociology and Social Geography) – Bachelor of Arts (Literature) – Bachelor of Arts (Aboriginal Studies).

Eight respondents had diplomas, with one of them having two. Three people had diplomas in frontline management, three had diplomas in applied science, one had a diploma in an unspecified field of study, one in agriculture and one in extension, and one had an associate diploma of applied science. One respondent had both a diploma of education and a diploma in journalism, proofreading and editing.

Many respondents had done certificate and other short courses, among them the following: • workplace training and assessment—seven people • adult learning—five people • group facilitation, including Working in Groups and Integra and TOP—four people.

A number of other courses and programs had been started or were mentioned as important to respondents’ training and skills: • part completion of a certificate in agricultural extension • units counting towards a certificate or postgraduate diploma of extension • the Western Australian Department of Agriculture’s Better Business Program • Myers Briggs training • Meat and Livestock Australia’s EDGEnetwork skills program • technical qualifications in plant and water biological sciences • evaluation training.

C.3 Qualifications valued by extension officers

The officers found different courses—whether degrees or short courses—of value to their extension work. A number of them said different parts of their formal qualifications were important to the way they do their extension work:

The answer to this question varies as these qualifications have all given me different things. As a person working with farmers in NRM, my Ag degree gave me a greater understanding of farming systems and practices and probably more empathy for farming families. I think this was beneficial in establishing a positive relationship with farming families, which may not have been so easy if I had studied a purely environmental course.

The grad dip I undertook really helped me to understand the degradation that was occurring in the landscape, and it also raised my understanding of the benefits of working and communicating with people, rather than assuming that providing a plethora of technical information will solve all problems.

The studies I am doing now are very useful in tying together many of the different theories and approaches used in extension and giving a broader theoretical basis for my actions. In the past I think many extension people, including myself, have acted intuitively when dealing with people, and perhaps not been aware that other fields such as community development, organisational change, marketing and adult education had been grappling with similar issues and difficulties, albeit sometimes in a different context. Once I became aware that there was this enormous body of work available I felt that my actions were more grounded. The other aspect of my current studies is the

77 personal development focus of them, and I think if you have a better sense of self, you are in a stronger position to communicate and create relationships with those that you are working with.

The biggest impact on my approach to extension would have been the short courses in facilitation I undertook with [the Department of Natural Resources and Environment]—the Technology of Participation course in particular. As well, there were numerous training opportunities associated with the Property Management Planning program, which I found incredibly enlightening.

Respondents said on-the-job-training was very important:

As I have not done any formal extension courses, I would have to say that pure rural experience weighs in heavily in regard to getting the job done. This intimate knowledge of landholder thinking in association with the technical background can achieve most, but not all, aspects of extension.

A long-term (40 years) commonsense approach to life and problems, good negotiation skills plus a willingness and ability to walk a mile in another’s shoes. I also do not try to give farmers my vision that is concocted from my own convictions, but rather offer to them my complementary skills to implement their own identified outcomes.

Degree, essential for most jobs. I have found working with very open and pro-active agronomists the best tool ever to be exploited. A lifetime of work and interaction within rural communities has resulted in my ability to understand and communicate effectively with those people—if you don’t understand the how, why, what, you get nowhere!

Life experience is most important—training is useful to fine-tune your experiences.

Some respondents noted the importance of degree courses that help provide a technical foundation to extension but offer little formal training on the theories of extension. A number mentioned certificate courses as important because the courses provide useful information about adult learning:

Workplace Assessor and Trainer/Adult Learning Trainer—both provided very practical approaches to adults and their learning—the Ag Science degree provided me with some content and a discipline but extension is mostly about people more than it is about the information—the information you can find when you need to—an ability to understand and work with people, and communicate effectively are far more important.

The following other courses and events were mentioned as valuable: • facilitation courses provided by the Sustainable Grazing Systems program • the Australasia–Pacific Extension Network conference—because ‘I had not been in my position (or the workforce) for very long out of university, so discussing extension ideas, techniques and successes in the context of my job was beneficial as I have applied what I learnt’ • Principles and Practices of Extension—short course • Technology of Participation—short course • Running Open Space—short course • diploma of applied science—extension • facilitation skills—TOP • Integra—facilitative leadership training • Myers Briggs training • in-house training in the Department of Agriculture • Gatton’s adult learning • adult learning principles—‘provided a clear framework and some great theory and discipline to operate within’ • courses run through the Rural Extension Centre—Best Prac, group skills, adult learning, marketing, management of extension—‘which have been my guiding light’.

78 C.4 Reasons for involvement in extension

The reasons respondents gave for becoming involved in extension can be divided into three categories: • career opportunity or career satisfaction • lived experience—observation • altruism.

Table C.2 summarises the responses using these categories.

79 Table C.2 Contributing officers’ reasons for involvement in extension

Career opportunity or career satisfaction Lived experience—observation Altruism I wanted to be a parks and wildlife NRM began to emerge as an issue Working with people on the ground was officer or a police officer. I was for me in 1964–65 when I saw the always a goal for me while at university. I saw accepted into my undergraduate impact through drought conditions this as an opportunity to achieve some real degree and have never looked back that sheep had on the environment. outcomes in environmental management. It is It was revealed what poor my belief that we (the environmental management, lack of knowledge and movement) spend far too much time talking lack of skills people had. Also, when and planning and not enough time doing. I was a sheep management Working with people on the ground was specialist, the French and the always a goal for me while at university. I saw Japanese were using skins and wool this as an opportunity to achieve some real and they were complaining about outcomes in environmental management chemicals, plus seeing the Western Division reinforced by Western Australian environmental issues After three yrs at Hawkesbury Seeing good concepts and Always like helping people to learn Agricultural College, Richmond, technologies slowed in uptake by offered a traineeship with NSW poor extension Agriculture Was applying for any and every job As I became more involved in my It’s social equity issue. If I’m consuming food, to do with agriculture after I finished position I learnt a great deal about fibre and foliage then I need to do my bit to university. I pretty much just landed extension and the different tools and help facilitate production of it. Farmers also in extension roles approaches told me they couldn’t do it all themselves and asked me to help them to identify and design mechanisms to integrate productivity and the environment Was seeking a career in agriculture I thoroughly enjoy working with the The desire to help farmers. Coming from a broad range of people living and farming background I was very keen to be working in the Dawson catchment farming myself, but being part of a traditional community. I became involved farming family and having one brother my through my job as catchment parents wouldn’t and still won’t let me be a coordinator. I have come to realise part of their farm. So, the next best option I that extension is not specifically could see was to study so that I could offer a recognised but is a major component service to farmers of what I do When working as a district Original work focus was in research, I sort of fell into extension: I got a job in the veterinary officer it was expected of but enjoyed the interaction with field after applying for a long time for many me to undertake extension activities. landholders in applying research on jobs. What motivated me was that I love I did this enthusiastically as I was farm. Then moved into an extension working with people and enjoyed seeing them keen to inform others and increase leadership function. The motivation excited by their own learning. Making a their knowledge and understanding is seeing the fruits of my staff’s difference to someone’s life was a real buzz of key animal health issues labours resulting in on-ground change and adoption of better management practices and associated landscape change Enjoyed working with people. Didn’t I have an empathy with farmers. I I was frustrated with the research I was doing have the patience required for owned and operated a dairy farm for my PhD as it was very theoretical and far research. Liked the variety and from 1988 to 2000 from being directly useful to farmers. I also challenge of working with people wanted to work with people and issues rather and to see some result from my than the issues in isolation. I saw an advert for work extension officers in the Victorian Department of Agriculture and applied. The rest is, as they say, history Took a job as a district extension A significant role model of a I enjoy working with people and am officer Northern Territory Department of passionate about creating opportunities for Primary Industry and Fisheries crops others to thrive. Having come from a farming extension officer when I was background, I’m also passionate about our younger inspired me to take on the rural communities and landscape career path initially

80 Career opportunity or career satisfaction Lived experience—observation Altruism Wanted a job. Got one in extension; The community and their willingness to just has grown from there change practices and mindsets given education, empowerment and knowledge I was the only person with technical I think for me it was circumstances—no farm skills in beef cattle in district (next to inherit, a father who managed a successful person was 500 kilometres east), so business in London by excellent people skills, ended up working closely with a family environment where people and producers by default. I find working values were number one, a lack of interest in with adults very rewarding and enjoy pure research. Once working in agriculture being a source of information/devil’s two things motivated me to extension: advocate, and facilitator of 1. Keen interest in animal breeding and constructive discussions to help genetics and a realisation that while people have the confidence to take computers etc had resulted in massive up new technology and make good advances in genetic evaluation this was not decisions being realised in our animal industries because of a lack of corresponding advances in producer understanding of genetics—i.e. a great need and opportunity to develop effective animal breeding and genetics extension 2. Growing awareness of the impact of social issues on the rate of adoption of key on-farm production practices. Adoption rate would not be improved by more ‘good science’ and what was needed was a better understanding of why farmers adopt new technology, especially if it required a level of cultural change After suffering personal injury I was Opportunity in remote-area Richmond, north- not able to do a lot of physical west Queensland. Probably Queensland agricultural work so this was the Government political decision as much as most obvious means of keeping anything at the time—1970. Concept of contact with the agricultural industry ‘helping people’ Motivated by working with teams and other individuals to achieve things I enjoy writing and helping the department get key messages out. I am involved with Woolpro and felt participating in newsletter and developing press release articles would be useful

C.5 What do extension officers value about their personal and professional approach to extension?

Respondents provided a range of comments about what they value about their extension work. The responses can be divided into three categories: • technical knowledge—getting the message right • technical extension process—getting the process right • socially critical and philosophical perspective—understanding power relationships, self-determination, contextual arrangements.

Table C.3 summarises the responses using these categories.

81 Table C.3 What extension officers value about their work

Technical knowledge—getting the Technical extension process— Socially critical and philosophical message right getting the process right understanding—facilitating change Interpreting policy into on-ground Make learning fun and active. Get Strong belief in a ‘level playing field’ in actions in terms that are acceptable back to people when I say I will. terms of participation and facilitation. and ‘doable’ for farmers. Encouraging Being open and honest at all times. People need to see and feel that they are them to develop their own vision to Chase up people I have referred to equal. Not pigeon-holing people and integrate productivity and the clients to make sure they satisfy the therefore being able to see things from the environment Offering my clients’ needs. If I don’t know, I find producer/customer point of view and can complementary skills and helping out. Adopt a ‘can do’ attitude. Build work out a point of action from that. them to see how they can best use trust and don’t jeopardise it. Be them. Delivering the outcomes they sensitive to people and their needs. Facilitation is still just about ‘group identify as necessary to them on their Knowing when to choose the right participation’: I use reflective questioning terms. Straight talk and strong moment to let the client know what and use a mix of theory, reflecting and negotiation. Bringing unbiased you need to say (there may be things thinking information to them without placing happening to them that I am unaware qualifications on their uptake of it. of). Always give the client the chance Ensuring the information is to arrange the time and date for a appropriately packaged, free and meeting. Be on time. Be able to easily accessible to them. My salary ‘blend in’ with the client’s (none) is not taking away from on- environment, e.g. if you are going to a ground funding for them cattle station, be prepared to jump the rails and lend a hand for a few hours [This also fits with column 2.] beforehand Genuine interest and concern for Rapport with clients. Practical OK at communication with a range of issues facing farmers commercial experience gives me a people. Helping people to think about what Speaking their language realistic appreciation of client needs they want from a group etc. Helping people Will not give advice that I am unsure and concerns develop and implement their own NRM about, i.e. I will find the answer. strategies Presenting information that is complex Work closely with related industries, i.e. wool brokers and chemical resellers. Invest time with agricultural education institutions [This also fits with column 2.] Knowing your client, knowing your Personally I am a very keen listener Motivated and dedicated to the vision and content, developing a rapport with and have a desire to learn from direction of my work program. Able to your audience, providing energy, others as they hold the wisdom and create respect with the farming community enthusiasm and motivation experience of a lifetime. I am a through the passion and dedication of my leader, which makes facilitating staff and myself. Able to create [This also fits with column 2.] meetings easier. My job requires me partnerships between people and different to work with a very broad range of agencies. Able to excite people about the people and groups and I can do well possibilities through my enthusiasm at this when I practice the attitude of ‘they have attributes which are beneficial and in return cooperation and integration will be better for them’ I am very enthusiastic and positive in I communicate well with my group, Offer constructive and practical options for my thinking. You have to believe in making sure that they are able to farmers looking for information. what you are doing to be able to make the best and most informed Understand issues from a whole-farm inspire others to get involved. decisions about natural resource approach Important to have some technical management in the southern Gulf. I knowledge base to underpin your also enjoy putting together our extension base when working in newsletter, which is quickly becoming agronomy. This takes time to build up. a very well recognised tool for information dissemination in the [This also fits with column 2.] region Networking, information, facilitation, People who understand the whole farming listening, coordination package

82 Technical knowledge—getting the Technical extension process— Socially critical and philosophical message right getting the process right understanding—facilitating change I believe I interact well with my I haven’t been involved in ‘hands on clientele (farmers) and I know how extension’ for three years, being more they think. This translates into the involved in staff training, evaluation and professional aspects of my position, continuous improvement of extension. I whereby I can use this knowledge to think I am a very good communicator and gain the best possible result for listener and use these skills to facilitate nature conservation on farms. Having rather than dictate solutions to people. I grown up and worked on farms, I can pride myself on my ability to see the issue understand the issues and pressures in all its complexity. This makes it easy for facing farmers and can structure the me to facilitate problem solving—both with conservation program to suit their staff and with clients needs and capacity Can bring variety to courses and Ability to communicate—listening, asking programs that we run, so the of insightful questions, facilitation. Getting participants are not doing the same others to feel comfortable and to express thing all the time. Essentially, bring their opinions. Empathy, strategic planning the adult learning principles in to practice I am very amiable. I get along well Relate well on a one-to-one basis. Good with many people. I communicate listening skills. Ability to draw on well—and that means I listen a lot individuals’ experience and expertise. and can understand issues well when Ability to guide people through a decision- I work with people. I can access making process information quickly and I can communicate quite complex topics in a variety of ways, which means I can tap into different learning styles I am a fourth-generation farmer … Good sense of humour. Don’t think I’m an and have married a fifth generation expert. Good facilitative skills in bringing a farmer. Our children could be sixth group together. Good planning skills and generation, so my roots are well and processes. Don’t annoy people with games truly in farming and the rural sector and the touchy-feely side of things which many farmers find intimidating or I have very good communication skills patronising and extensive and comprehensive knowledge of families working together (especially in farming). I have exceptional networks across WA—professional, farming, academic and Ag Dept–based. I am very interested in regional development— and would love to work in this area … and get paid for it I love speaking at seminars, conferences etc and thrive on the opportunity to do so Relate well to people—clients, Have good level of mutual trust and funding bodies, colleagues respect with producers. Generate a ‘safe’ environment to discuss new ideas and [Could also relate to column 3.] interact with other producers. Encourage cross-pollination between producers. Listen to and respect people’s reasons for not doing things and take that on board as a researcher Good group facilitator Facilitation, personal contact, listening, acting on requests, providing refreshing [Could also be included in column 3.] and alternative ideas and my passion for the job [Could also be included in column 2.]

83 Technical knowledge—getting the Technical extension process— Socially critical and philosophical message right getting the process right understanding—facilitating change I am currently promoting the I can communicate openly with landholders importance of internal communication in the rural communities. I understand (too so a united and informed front is well sometimes) their reasoning for taking presented to the farmers. Internal certain approaches. I can provide tools or communication would also build on contacts to the types of information they teamwork and provide an example for require the improvement of external communication. I am also working [Could also be included in column 2.] with project and activity leaders to help them develop media strategies, key messages and extension plans. This helps them to understand the importance of extension, their target audiences and key times for action— action including media releases, radio announcements, workshops, field days, press releases, journal articles, agency publications and presentations Good listener, able to identify the important issues, good organisational skills, like working in teams

C.6 Extension officers’ training needs

Extension officers’ training needs can be divided into three categories: • technical skills and requirements • experiential skills and processes • collaborative and power-sharing skills and self-determination.

These categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they do provide a basis for analysis.

Table C.4 summarises the responses using these categories.

84 Table C.4 Extension officers’ training needs

Technical skills and Collaborative and power-sharing skills requirements Experiential skills and processes and self-determination Computer packages. Budgeting Making the technology relevant to the Facilitating learning groups end user Don’t really know. There are so Training that comes to the producer, Most importantly, as a coordinator and many areas for improvement— particularly in north-west Queensland, facilitator I need to be able to promote probably market research where the ‘tyranny of distance’ is so healthy discussion without conflict on evident topical issues and achieve outcomes and agreement Want to do more on evaluation Want to do more on evaluation and Want to do more on evaluation and and extension theory extension theory extension theory Earlier introduction and More extension methods, decision- More extension methods, decision-making development of evaluation making processes, and working in processes, and working in partnerships to techniques like Bennett’s would partnerships to help people make good help people make good decisions about have helped decisions about adoption for their adoption for their enterprise enterprise Presentation skills at all levels Training that is targeted not only at managers but also station hands and Indigenous youth How to lobby and deal with and Understanding and using the potential Understanding and using the potential role use the media more effectively role of women in extension of women in extension Keeping up to date with both Keeping up to date with both process process (methodology) and (methodology) and context (technical) context (technical) Possibly the lack of pure extension Possibly the lack of pure extension Possibly the lack of pure extension techniques, especially in the areas techniques, especially in the areas of techniques, especially in the areas of of education and adult learning education and adult learning education and adult learning Full understanding of production Facilitation skills Facilitation skills issues An understanding of adult learning Access to different approaches to Access to different approaches to techniques and the various change engagement and planning exercises with engagement and planning exercises with management models that exist community group learning community group learning General extension techniques General extension techniques General extension techniques More training in delivering More training in delivering programs for More training in delivering programs for programs for agriculture agriculture communities, updates in agriculture communities, updates in communities, updates in extension extension delivery extension delivery delivery More adult learning techniques More adult learning techniques More adult learning techniques More on the technical aspects. At Its more about disciplining myself to ‘put this stage I am happy with the into practice’ the new skills I have learnt extension delivery side of my after training soon after the training, or training else I find I do not make maximum use of my new skills Practical hands-on training was Change management severely lacking Gaps in understanding people and Gaps in understanding people and group group dynamics, understanding dynamics, understanding learning learning Probably would benefit from adult Probably would benefit from adult learning training learning training Staff management and accounting How to effectively disseminate large amounts of information to a broad catchment community

85 Technical skills and Collaborative and power-sharing skills requirements Experiential skills and processes and self-determination Training needs to be developed to help Indigenous communities learn how to manage agricultural land sustainably (?)

C.7 Extension officers’ views on why people choose not to be involved in extension programs

The respondents were asked why they thought farmers chose not to get involved in government or industry programs. Their remarks are shown in Table C.5, arranged in the categories of relevance; time, money and travel; mindset; inappropriate process or program design; and distrust.

86 Table C.5 Why people chose not to be involved

Time, money and Inappropriate process Relevance travel Mindset or program design Distrust Because it isn’t Time consuming Some people are Presentations can I suspect there is relevant to them stubborn, and it is hard sometimes be lengthy, also a small element to involve the older repetitive, monotone, of people who generations irrelevant to the dislike/distrust individual, political, government no pushy—by that I mean matter what, and this promoting an idea, may have resulted concept or product that from past comes across as ‘Do it or experiences and else you’ll be in real perceptions trouble’ They have different Travel and Hate groups, very I think these reasons vary Government past goals, they have all inconvenience independent between individuals and dealings or record the answers, they over time. I think there can be a deterrent don’t like the people are some people who prefer to operate in a much more independent way and prefer not to be involved in ‘manufactured’ groups, as in many programs I think as extension Cost For some individuals, It takes all sorts to make We are a community officers we are also their pride can often stop up the distribution curve organisation and unaware of what else them from accessing a of how many people do have gained respect may be happening in program, as they do not what. We usually only for offering a non- people’s lives. We want to be seen to be deal with a few of the government non- often expect that their getting a hand-out ‘innovative types’. These industry perspective whole reason for innovative types change being is focused on around a bit, depending the farm etc, and we on what the focus of the forget they may be program might be dealing with many things like divorce, raising children and ageing parents Advertising might not Lack of time Don’t understand them, Inappropriate information Political nature of outline the benefits not enough action, packages some programs for them to attend production or farmer orientation They see no benefit Money. So many There is also the very You need to ask them, as There is always an to them, they see no producers give a few who, for reasons the reasons vary. Some underlying suspicion link to their personal large amount of ‘in- known only to them, don’t like the format of that there is a hidden and family and/or kind’ funding for a never ever know when programs, some don’t agenda. In terms of community needs comparatively something is on offer, relate to the content of nature conservation, small financial regardless of total media the program, and many it is the concern that incentive from the saturation other reasons as well these projects will be government turned into national parks

87 Time, money and Inappropriate process Relevance travel Mindset or program design Distrust Ultimately, if they are ‘Burnout’. In the Some are quite happy Too many messages with Have had the philosophically north-west of with what they are doing many contradicting each comment that they opposed it is due to Queensland in and don’t see a need to other do not want anything their values and if particular the same change. They believe to do with the they are passionately people are that if they participate in government, involved it is once representatives on a program they will be because they thought again due to their so many pressured to change we were likely to values committees, from their way of farming. pass their information the Landcare Some people do not like on to other agencies group to the their methods or points within the council, swimming of view challenged: there government structure club, regional is only one way to do this strategy group, and it’s my way cricket club etc, that they just do not have the time or energy to commit to other programs Don’t see what’s in it It is also worth Unfortunately some I think the turnover of Distrust of for them noting that these people (communities staff and short span of government people are running even) choose not to programs also is a (especially among very complex become involved hindrance for some when people from a non– businesses on top because the program relationships are English speaking of everything else does not fit with their way important background). of thinking. That is, what Complicated system has been done for to access (don’t generations has know who to contact generally worked in the in the agencies) past. Change is the biggest hurdle to overcome Can’t see sufficient To much effort, too Not interested in the Some people do not like Distrust of agencies benefit for them little time industry working in groups The program fails to Lack of financial Too hard to change, The way the program is Lack of trust or belief meet clients’ needs rewards don’t like people telling presented that they will get them what to do something useful from being involved Age. Many people Lack sufficient relevant Presenters don’t know Very occasionally we deal with in the information to make a topics very well or fail to some people choose agricultural judgment deliver information back not to get involved in community are at to farmers in a way that is government the older end of the readily adoptable programs because of scale. Some may bad past experiences believe that it is a with the government waste of time going and its programs. to a course or Subsequently there participating in a is no trust or respect, program because so they choose to go of their stage of life elsewhere Are not up to date They also choose to They don’t know about it Occasionally the with the latest actively reject our person delivering the technological messages as they don’t extension is not advances. Lost see them fitting into their accepted or contact or system. That is understood by some relationships with completely valid and this is a large staff due to limiting factor turnover

88 Time, money and Inappropriate process Relevance travel Mindset or program design Distrust Competition for Many are simply tired. Not involved in the Have had bad participants’ time is We have had such a design of the program experiences with the biggest issue I struggle in rural Australia government have encountered. since the late 80s when previously, are Seeing the benefits wool collapsed and genuinely sceptical of over everyday interest rates shot up to government tasks critical heights. Since initiatives. There is a then we have had hard perception that over seasons, low prices, and time the government little relief in terms of an will want to take easing of circumstances. ownership of the land It is very tiring and very that projects are exhausting because we carried out on … still need to educate our children, pay for fuel, put the crops in and meet the extra demands of our communities—who are also struggling to survive Time limited Tradition and the age of Not comfortable in farmers groups Time commitment: Not prepared to they are very busy contribute, not interested people in making changes Not enough time, too expensive

C.8 Encouraging people to participate

Extension officers put forward the following ideas as ways of encouraging farmers to become involved in rural extension programs offered by government or industry:

… one must remain realistic and understand that not everyone will be interested in the same things.

Consult with them when you develop the program so that the questions are devised by them.

With NRM programs I think there is potential for the ecosystem services approach, which involves some economic gain. With NRM programs there has been a lot of tinkering around the edges of the issues. I am not sure that we really have sustainable solutions to some of the more severe problems in our landscapes and we need to start being much more radical about what we do. By radical I mean looking at how the current economic and social structures do nothing to assist land managers become sustainable. However, unfortunately most of this is beyond the scope of extension programs and hence we keep tinkering.

Promote the benefits. Provide it for free. Have very localised and specific programs. Contact personally.

Transport to meetings—planes etc—the ‘tyranny of distance’.

Find out what pushes their buttons; connection.

At present it relies solely on financial incentive, but it is hoped that in the not too distant future peer group pressure will prevail.

We’re working on that! Our catchment is taking the approach of whole-of-farm planning supporting water quality (EMS). We are developing a framework for this and hope to be able to score an EMS

89 AFFA [Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Australia] pilot with Canegrowers Qld. We are developing concepts that will ensure farmers receive help from the whole of the community for their identified EMS action.

A massive problem is the lack of translation of policy into action that is designed by farmers themselves.

Policy is driven from top-down issues such as clearing.

Representative process is not working, farmers are out-articulated by oppositional sectors in these processes, and most of the so-called community reps are conservationists—so are some of the facilitators.

One-day workshops are hopeless.

Farmers are not engaged on their own terms by people they trust.

Extension officers are environmental science graduates keen to achieve their own vision and outcomes.

Extension officers do not understand production issues well.

Farmers are a reflective culture, and this is not taken into account.

Offer one-on-one service; ask people what it is that they want to know, a bit of a hook to get them involved. We may not be targeting the right topics of interest, so we need to ask the farmers what it is they want to know (there are a small number of projects around that are trying to take this approach).

Investigate and review barriers to participation. Think outside the square (for example, incorporate our extension messages in TV soapies).

By finding the topic or issue that interests them. By creating legislation that impacts on their management.

If they want to be involved in the program, personalised, one-to-one service could encourage them to be a part of it. A lot of people choose not to be involved because they don’t like group exercises. So one-to-one mixed with group could work, one-to-one on its own (although dependencies on this approach can develop if the extension officer is not careful), small, more ‘intimate’ groups—close catchment groups, and so on.

Personal invitations to be a part of something—also if they helped design an approach they develop a need. I think the approach of helping them think through what their needs are might help uncover some untapped extension participants. But this needs to be up first and then they might see the need to continue their learning.

By being personally contacted under a legit pretext to work on the trust aspect: it could be through social networks, attending livestock sales or local groups. Also by providing opportunities for them to ‘see’ what is happening without having to commit up front—that is, local field days at demo sites, open days, demos of latest technology. The idea would be to encourage people to get to know the individuals who run the programs, so that they could develop trust in their abilities to provide useful information, contacts, and so on.

It’s not necessarily about them but about us—how we do our business, how we typify growers. And who says it’s realistic that they all participate anyway?

Identify further benefits from their own work—for example, moving from a farm to a catchment scale. Showing the benefits in an economic, social and environmental sense to their farm, catchment and community in the longer term.

In Western Australia distance is a real problem. It takes time—even, for example, a breakfast meeting. Personal invitations that link with things such as a sheep sale or a day at the Cooperative

90 Bulk Handling bin or such may work for some.

Depends on what the project is and the reasons for their non-participation: need to define the reasons first and then respond accordingly.

Design the extension well. Understand the needs of farmers.

Most producers respond to $s! Show them very simply and clearly how their involvement will increase their profitability—accepting that for some producers profit is not the key driver of decisions—then they should attend. Again depends on the issue, the current environment, the network of people they do ‘listen to’, and so on.

Make sure it is very clear what the potential benefits of participation are. Remove logistical barriers such as clashes, school bus, and appointments.

Personal contact—explaining benefits, listening to their needs and linking project to this if relevant to them.

Involvement in problem definition and project planning: ‘What is the problem and how do we go about doing something about it?’

Build on the success stories. Encourage members of existing groups to enrol others.

Find their passion and use that as a hook.

Get their attention.

Financial incentives usually help; so does perseverance.

91 Appendix D Learning opportunities for farmers

Table D.1 lists the learning opportunities mentioned by farmers involved in the case studies reported on in Volume II.

92 Table D.1 Learning opportunities for farmers: characteristics

Group, Technical, individual or experiential or Learning examples Focus and provider one on one farmer-led Landcare-based Community-based group interaction with departmental Group (locally Technical activities advisors. Includes natural resource management. based) Experiential Specialist services such as an ethnic Landcare officer are Farmer-led provided to help support learning Prograze Run by industry and state government with a focus on Group (locally Technical beef and sheep pasture and animal assessment and more based) Experiential efficient, profitable and sustainable grazing strategies Farmer-led Target 10 Works in partnership with industry, offering programs in Group (locally Technical pastures, nutrition, soil and fertilisers. Dairy business based) Experiential focus and dairy farm performance analysis Farmer-led EDGEnetwork A joint industry – state department initiative to support Group (locally Technical farm families through learning and obtaining new based) Experiential information to help decision making. Each group selects Farmer-led information most suited to its needs, with areas of interest including livestock, pasture and feed, finance, marketing, business development and developing people skills Saltwatch and Community-based monitoring programs Group (local) Technical Waterwatch but can also be Experiential individual Farmer-led BeefCheque A cooperative project involving the Victorian Department Group (locally Technical of Primary Industries and, the Beef Improvement based) Experiential Association and involving state departments and industry. Farmer-led Designed to increase farm profit through improved pasture use. Information and technology are delivered through discussion groups, farm walks and demonstrations and are based on aspects of action research, focus farms and interactive group learning TopCrop A farmer-focused information network based on Group (locally Technical monitoring and setting targets for crops, pastures and based) Experiential finances to increase profitability and sustainability. Works Farmer-led as a partnership between growers, industry and government to help access and share information and try new technologies BestWool 2010 A joint program through state departments and industry Group (locally Technical aiming to help the wool industry improve profitability based) Experiential through the development of a more skilled and innovative Farmer-led industry. Examples of priority areas identified by local discussion groups are pasture management, business management, sheep productivity, wool marketing, and risk management FruitCheque A state department extension project working with the fruit Group (locally Technical and nut growers to help groups establish priority learning based) Experiential areas and link growers to information. Provides for sharing Farmer-led of information and knowledge and helps growers obtain funds for training and other activities Best Fed Animal health and production based. Run by a One on one Technical Shepparton-based company that sells specific products. They use consultants Drought seminars Run by state department Group Technical Field days Numerous—for supplier information, departmental Individual Technical information, contacts, and so on Milk care course Quality assurance program; includes environmental Group Technical issues such as recycling and effluent

93 Group, Technical, individual or experiential or Learning examples Focus and provider one on one farmer-led Computer courses Including Mistro Finance and Mistro Farm Programs, PAM Group Technical (farm business planning), Quicken, GST workshops, Experiential Phoenix Conferences 2001 Best Nutrition Annual Conference Group Technical Farm walks On-farm, local walk and talk Group Technical Experiential Farmer-led Farm Smart course Dookie College course dealing with long-term planning, Group Technical including succession Chemical handlers Required for the handling of chemicals on farms Group Technical course Front-end loader College course Group Technical forklift course PPP Pasture management Group with Technical some one on Experiential one if requested (locally based) Internet Individual Technical Farmer-led Wool-classing Run by TAFE, skills-based course Group Technical courses Experiential Waterwise on the Run by state department and irrigation organisation, Group (locally Technical Farm and Envirowise presented as part of farm planning based) Experiential Workcover First aid courses Group Technical Murrumbidgee Bush Fencing incentive program One on one Technical Stewardship project (farm based) Occupational health Bayer runs a Tamic occupational health and safety course Group Technical and safety courses for cotton growers because registration is required for use Spray coup Better spraying methods for cotton growers Group Technical workshops Radio and television Including ABC’s Country Hour, Landline, weather and Individual Technical rural news Experiential Stock and station Includes information from the wheat and rice boards Individual Technical agents, accountants , boards Technical Experiential Neighbours, family Individual Farmer-led Books and other Grains, weeds from state department of agriculture Individual Technical publications Newspapers, Local, Weekly Times, The Land, Kondinin group Individual Technical newsletters newsletter, grain buyers’ and stock and station agent’s Experiential newsletters Farming system trials Trials run on properties to test specific assumptions under Individual with Technical local growing conditions some group Experiential (locally based) Farmer-led Note: Many learning examples mentioned by farmers and extension officers included reference to FarmBiz support.

94 References

Andrew, J 1997, ‘Community-based environmental education: Buchy, M & Hoverman, S 1999, Understanding Public government and community; economics and environment’, Participation in Forest Planning in Australia: how can we Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Education, Deakin University, learn from each other?, (with contribution from C. Averill), Geelong, Victoria. Forestry occasional paper 99.2, Australian National University, Canberra. Andrew, J & Robottom, I 1998, ‘Public participation and the politics of environmentalism’, Southern African Journal of Burgess, P 1971, ‘Reasons for adult participation in group Environmental Education, no. 18, pp. 47–53. educational activities’, Adult Education, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 3–29. Aristotle 1963, ‘Ethica Nicomachea’, in W.D. Ross (ed. and trans.) The Works of Aristotle, Oxford University Press, Butler Flora, C, Gasteyer, S, Femandez-Baca, E, Baneji, D, London. Bastian, S & Aleman, S 2000, ‘Local participation in research and extension for conservation and development of Arnstein, S 1969, ‘A ladder of citizen participation in the natural resources: a summary of approaches’, Paper USA’, American Institute of Planning Journal, vol. 57, no. presented at 16th meeting of the International Farming 4, pp. 176–182. Systems Association, Santiago, Chile, 30 November.

Barr, N & Cary, J 2000, Influencing Improved Natural Cantrell, D 1993, ‘Alternative paradigms in environmental Resource Management on Farms: a guide to understanding education research: the interpretive perspective’, in factors influencing and adoption of sustainable resource R Mrazek (ed.) Alternative Paradigms in Environmental practices, Discussion paper, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Education Research, North American Association for Canberra. Environmental Education, Ohio.

Beetham, D 1992, ‘Liberal democracy and the limits of Carr, A 1992, Community Participation in Water Quality democratization’ in D Held (ed.), Prospects for Monitoring: the case of Water Watchers, Working paper Democracy: north, south, east, west, Polity, Cambridge, 1992/6, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, UK. Australian National University, Canberra.

Bennett, B 2001, Just Who Are the Knowledge Workers? Carr, A 1993, Community Involvement in Landcare: the case of

Bryson, L & Mowbray, M 1981, ‘Community: the spray-on Cookson, S 1988, ‘New directions for participation research: solution’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, November, introduction to the symposium’, in Conference pp. 255–67. Proceedings, SCUTREA 1987, Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in the Education of Adults, University of Notthingham, UK, pp. 471–6.

95 Cookson, P 1986, ‘A framework for theory and research on Eckstein, H 1997, Congruence Theory Explained, adult education participation’, Adult Education Quarterly, , vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 130–41. viewed October 2004.

Courtney, S 1992, Why Adults Learn: towards a theory of Farmanco Pty Ltd, Gardiner, E & Cary, J 1997, ‘Development participation in adult education, Routledge, London. of an implementation strategy for accelerating the delivery of regional catchment strategies through the dairy industry: Creighton, JL 1983, ‘The use of values: public participation in a study undertaken for Murray Dairy Inc., the Sustainable the planning process’, in GA Daneke & JD Priscoli (eds), Regional Development Board, and the Goulburn Broken Public Involvement and Social Impact Assessment, Catchment and Land Protection Board’, Goulburn Broke Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Catchment Management Authority, Shepparton, Victoria..

Crombie, AD 2002, ‘Capacity building and adoption of R&D: a Fay, B 1975, Social Theory and Political Practice, George role for learning brokers?’ Unpublished paper prepared for Allen & Unwin, London. Grains Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Festinger, L 1957, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford Cross, KP 1981, Adults as Learners: increasing participation University Press, Stanford, California. and facilitating learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Festinger, L n.d., Cognitive Dissonance, Curtin, R 2000, ‘A fresh approach to policy research’, , viewed October Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, December, no. 2003. 98, pp. 50–2. Forrester, K & Payne, J 2000, ‘Will adult learning ever be Curtis, A 1995, Landcare in Australia: a critical review, Report popular?’ Paper presented at Standing Conference on no. 33, Johnston Centre of Parks, Recreation and Heritage, University Teaching and Research in the Education of Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW. Adults, 30th Annual Conference, 3–5 July, University of Nottingham, UK, Dahl, RA 1965, Modern Political Analysis, Foundations of , viewed Modern Political Science Series, Prentice-Hall Inc., New October 2003. Jersey. Foster, M 1972, ‘An Introduction to the theory and practice of Darkenwald, GG & Merriam, SB 1982, Adult Education: action research in work organisations’, Human Relations, foundations of practice, Harper & Row, New York. vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 529–56.

Davenport, TH & Prusak, L 1998, Working Knowledge, Freire, P 1993, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Continuum, New Harvard Business School Press, Boston. York.

Davies, R 2000, Knowledge for Knowledge Workers, Graham-Brown, S 1991, Education in the Developing World: , viewed conflict and crisis, Longman, London. October 2003. Griffin, E 2003, A First Look at Communication Theory, 5th Dewey, J 1933, ‘How we think: a restatement of the relation of edn, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Boston. reflective thinking to the educative process’, in JA Boydston (ed.) The Later Works 1925–1953, rev. edn. Groves, J & Da Rin, J 1999, Economic Impacts of Farm vol. 8, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Internet Use, Rural Industries Research and Development Illinois. Corporation, Canberra.

Distributed Systems Technology Centre n.d., Hargreaves, D. & Hochman, Z. 2004, FARMSCAPE Online: , viewed October 2003. internet based support for farmers’ situated learning and planning, Rural Industries Research and Development Doray, P & Arrowsmith, S 1997, ‘Patterns of participation in Corporation, Canberra. adult education: cross-national comparisons’, in P Belanger & AC Tuijnman (eds), New Patterns of Adult Learning: a Hart, P 1993, ‘Paradigm of critically reflective inquiry’, in R six-country comparative study, Pergamon & UNESCO Mrazek (ed.), Alternative Paradigms in Environmental Institute of Education, Oxford, UK. Education Research, Monographs in Environmental Education and Environmental Studies, vol. 8, North Drucker, PF 1959, Landmarks of Tomorrow, Harper, New American Association for Environmental Education, Troy, York. Ohio.

Dwyer, J 1989, ‘The politics of participation’, Community Horticulture Australia 2003, ‘GMOs: guiding meaningful Health Studies, vol. 13, pp. 159–65. opinions’, The Gene Technology Newsletter for the Horticulture Industry, February , viewed August 2004.

96 Hosper, J 1970, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, 2nd Lind, M & Persborn, M 2000, ‘Possibilities and risks with a edn, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. knowledge broker in the knowledge transfer process’, Paper presented at 42nd Annual Conference of the Operational Ife, J 1996, Community Development: Creating Community Research Society, 12–14 September, University of Wales, Alternatives—vision analysis and practice, Longman Swansea. Australia, Melbourne. Livingstone, DW, Raykov, M & Stowe, S 2001, Interest in and International Agricultural Centre, Wageningen Factors Related to Participation in Adult Education and , viewed Informal Learning, Human Resources Development October 2003. Canada, , viewed October 2003. study of the educational pursuits of American adults, Aldine, Chicago. McDonald, P 1996, ‘Demographic life transitions: an alternative theoretical paradigm’, Health Transition Review, Kelly, D 2001, Community Participation in Rangeland suppl. 6, pp. 385–92. Management: shaping the future, Publication no. 01/118, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, McGivney, V 1993, ‘Participation and non-participation: a Canberra. review of the literature’ in R Edwards, S Sieminski & D Zeldin (eds), Adult Learners, Education and Training, Kelman, S 1981, ‘Cost–benefit analysis: an ethical critique’, Routledge, London. AEI Journal on Government and Society Regulation, Jan– Feb, pp. 33–40. McGowan, C n.d., NRM Statement—Empowering Rural Communities, no publication details. Kemmis, S 1980, ‘Program evaluation in distance education: against the technologisation of reason’, Open Campus, no. Mansbridge, J 1995, ‘Does participation make better citizens?’ 2, August, Deakin University, Geelong, pp. 19–48. Paper delivered at the PEGS Conference, 11–12 February, , viewed October 2003. Kemmis, S 1990, ‘Curriculum, contestation and change: essays on education’, Draft version, Deakin University, Geelong. Maslow, AH 1954, Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York. Kemmis, S & McTaggart, R (eds) 1988, The Action Research Reader, 3rd edn, Deakin University, Geelong. Midgley, J, Hall, A, Hardiman, M & Narine, D 1986, Community Participation, Social Development and the Kemmis, S 1983, ‘Power and community: communication, State, Methuen, London. commitment and collaboration’, Paper delivered at Community Education Conference, Lorne, Victoria, Miller, HL 1967, Participation of Adults in Education: a force- 8 March. field analysis, Center for the Study of Liberal Education for Adults, Boston. Kilpatrick, S, Johns, S, Murray-Prior, R & Hart, D 1999, Managing Farming: how farmers learn, Publication no. Mrazek, R. (ed.) 1993, Alternative Paradigms in Environmental 99/74, Rural Industries Research and Development Education Research, Monographs in Environmental Corporation, Canberra. Education and Environmental Studies, vol. 8, North American Association for Environmental Education, Troy, Kweit, R & Kweit, M 1981, Implementing Citizen Participation Ohio. in a Bureaucratic Society, Praeger, New York. Mullett, T 1998, ‘A survey of the farming community’s Lamichane, S & Kapoor, D 1992, ‘Nonformal education and response to rising water tables and other farm management rural evolution: multiple perspectives’, Convergence, vol. issues: 1996–1998’, Report to the Goulburn–Murray XXV, no. 3, pp. 44–52. Landcare Network, Goulburn Murray Landcare Network, Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority & the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Leighley, J 1990, ‘Social interaction and contextual influences Victoria. on political participation’, American Politics Quarterly, vol. 18, pp. 459–75. Multicultural Mental Health Access Project 1996, Evaluation of the Multicultural Mental Health Access Project, 1994–96: Lewin, K 1947, ‘Frontiers in Group Dynamics: concept, mental health for all: a cross cultural model of service method and reality in social science’, Human Relations , delivery in mental health, vol. 1, pp. 5–41. , viewed October 2003. Lewin, K 1951, Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, New York. Nonaka, I, & Takeuchi, H 1995, The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

97 Painter, M 1991, ‘Participation and power’, in M Munro-Clark Rubenson, K 1977, Participation in Recurrent Education, (ed.) Citizen Participation in Government, Hale and Center for Educational Research and Innovations, OECD, Iremonger, Sydney. Paris.

Papworth, J 1988, ‘Non-local local government and local Rubenson, K 1988, Paradigms and Ideology in Participation power’, The Ecologist, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 213–22. Research: a comparative analysis, Reproduced from Annual SCUTREA Conference Proceedings, pp. 375–80, Patel, R 2001, Knowledge, Power, Banking, , viewed October 2003. , viewed October 2003. Shiva, V 1991, Ecology and the Politics of Survival: conflicts over natural resources in India, Sage Publications, New Pateman, C 1970, Participation and Democratic Theory, Delhi, & United National University Press, Tokyo. Cambridge University Press, London. Shiva, V 1994, Close to Home: women reconnect ecology, Plant, R 1974, Community and Ideology, Routledge & Kegan health and development worldwide, New Society Paul, London. Publishers, Philadelphia, US, in cooperation with Kali for Women, India. Putland, C, Baum, F & MacDougall, C 1997, ‘How can health bureaucracies consult effectively about their policies and Silva, T, Cahalan, M & Lacireno-Paquet, N 1998, Adult practices? Some lessons from an Australian study’, Health Education Participation Decisions and Barriers: review of Promotion International, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 299–309. conceptual frameworks and empirical studies, Working paper no. 98-10, Mathematical Policy Research Inc., for US Resource Policy & Management Pty Ltd 2003, Mutual Department of Education, Office of Educational Research Learning: bridging the gap between policy and practice, and Development, National Center for Education Statistics, Final report on a scoping study to identify a suite of Washington, DC. mechanisms for delivering integrated NRM messages, Part 1, for the NRM Team, Australian Government, RPM, Simpson, R 2001, The Internet and Regional Australia: how Canberra. regional communities address the impact of the internet, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Resource Policy & Management Pty Ltd 2001, Evaluation of Canberra. Producer Initiated and Managed R&D: the producer network within the Sustainable Grazing Systems key Smith, MK 1994, Local Education: community, conversation, program, Report to Meat and Livestock Australia & Land praxis, Open University Press, Buckingham, UK. and Water Australia, Canberra. Smith, MK n.d.a, Community Participation, , Robinson, L 1998, A 7 Step Social Marketing Approach, viewed October 2003. , viewed October 2003. Smith, MK n.d.b, Relationship, , viewed October Robottom, I 1985, ‘Contestation and continuity in educational 2003. reform: a critical study of innovations in environmental education’, Doctoral thesis, Deakin University, Geelong. Smith, DH & Macaulay, J (eds) 1980, Participation in Social and Political Activities, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Robottom, I 1995, ‘Towards inquiry-based professional development in environmental education’, in I Robottom Synapse Consulting 2000, Participation in Research and (ed.), Environmental Education: practice and possibility, Development for Natural Resource Management: final Deakin University, Geelong. report, Report prepared for the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, Land & Water Robottom, I & Hart, P 1993, Research in Environmental Australia, Canberra. Education: engaging the debate, Deakin University, Geelong. Tan, B 2000, I See a Wisdom, , Rogers, C 1990, ‘The interpersonal relationship in the viewed October 2003. facilitation of learning’, in H Kirschenbaum & VL Henderson (eds), The Carl Rogers Reader, Constable, Tropical Savannas CRC n.d., More Than Can Be Said: a study London. of pastoralists’ learning, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland. Rose, B 1995, Land Management Issues: attitudes and perceptions amongst Aboriginal people of Central United Nations 1955, Social Progress through Community Australia, Report funded by the National Landcare Development, UN, New York. Program, Central Land Council & Cross Cultural Land Management Project, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries United Nations 1971, Popular Participation in Development, and Forestry, Canberra. UN, New York.

98 United Nations 1975, Popular Participation in Decision Williams, D 1999, ‘Life events and career change: transition Making for Development, UN, New York. psychology in practice’, Paper presented to British Psychological Society’s Occupational Psychology United Nations1981, Popular Participation as a Strategy for Conference, January, Planning Community Level Action and National , viewed Development, UN, New York. October 2003.

Institute of Transport Studies 1999, Congruence, Dynamics of Xu, G n.d., Barriers to Participation in Adult Education and Supply Chains Workshop, University of Sydney, October, Training: an empirical study towards a better , viewed understanding of time barriers, Applied Research Branch, October 2003. Human Resources Development Canada, Ottawa.

Van Tilburg Norland, E 1992, ‘Why adults participate’, Journal Zepke, N & Leach, L 2002, ‘Contextualised meaning making: of Extension, vol. 30, no. 3, Fall, one way of rethinking experiential learning and self- , viewed October directed learning?’ Studies in Continuing Education, vol. 2003. 24, no. 2, pp. 205–17.

Walsh, F 2000, Land Use and Management Issues Identified by Aboriginal People in Central Australia and Potential Socio-economic Indicators of Sustainable Land Use, Report commissioned by the Centre for International Economics, Central Land Council, Alice Springs, Northern Territory.

99 Further reading

Abbott, J 1996, Sharing the City: community participation in Follett, MP 1924, Creative Experience, Longman, New York. urban management, Earthscan, London. Foster, M 1972, ‘An Introduction to the theory and practice of Ayer, AJ 1956, The Problem of Knowledge, St Martin’s Press, action research in work organisations’, Human Relations, New York. vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 529–56.

Banks, M, Bates, I, Breakwell, G, Bynner, J, Emler, N, Geertz, C 1983, Local Knowledge: further essays in Jamieson, L & Roberts, K 1992, Careers and Identities, interpretive anthropology, Basic Books, New York. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK. Gooderham, P 1987, ‘Reference group theory and adult Barton, D & Padmore, S 1991, ‘Roles, networks and values in education’, Adult Education Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. everyday writing’, in D Barton & R Ivanic (eds), Writing in 140–51. the Community, Sage, Newbury Park, US. Jarvis, P 1987, Adult Learning in the Social Context, Croom Boshier, R 1973, ‘Educational participation and dropout: a Helm, London. theoretical model’, Adult Education, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 255–82. Hoggett, P (ed.) 1997, Contested Communities: experiences, struggles, policies, Policy Press, Bristol, UK. Brockett, RG & Hiemstra, R 1991, Self-direction in Adult Learning: perspectives on theory, research and practice, Hume, D 1751, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Routledge, London. Section 2. Numerous editions.

Brookfield, SD 1986, Understanding and Facilitating Adult Jones, D 1977, ‘Community work in the UK’, in H Specht & A Learning: a comprehensive analysis of principles and Vickery (eds), Integrating Social Work Methods, George effective practices, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Allen & Unwin, London. UK. Kaufman, M & Alfonso, HD (eds) 1997, Community Power Burkey, S 1993, People First: a guide to self-reliant, and Grassroots Democracy: the transformation of society, participatory rural development, Zed Books, London. Zed Books, London.

Calder, J (ed.) 1993, Disaffection and Diversity: overcoming Levine, K 1986, The Social Context of Literacy, Routledge & barriers for adult learners, Falmer Press, London. Kegan Paul, London.

Colonial Office 1958, Community Development: a handbook, Lindeman, E 1921, The Community: an introduction to the HMSO, London. study of community leadership and organization, Association Press, New York. Courtney, S 1989, ‘Defining adult and continuing education’, in SB Merriam & PM Cunningham (eds), Handbook of Adult Lindeman, E 1926, The Meaning of Adult Education, 1989 edn, and Continuing Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Oklahoma Research Centre for Continuing Professional and Higher Education, Norman, Oklahoma. Coyle, GL 1930, Social Process in Organized Groups, Richard R Smith, New York. Locke, J Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Books 2 and 4. Numerous editions. Craig, G & Mayo, M (eds) 1995, Community Empowerment: a reader in participation and development, Zed Books, McGivney, V 1992, Tracking Adult Learning Routes: a pilot London. investigation into adult learners’ starting points and progression to further education and training, National Cross-Durrant, A 1987, ‘Basil Yeaxlee and the origins of Institute of Adult Continuing Education, Leicester, UK. lifelong education’, in P Jarvis (ed.), Twentieth Century Thinkers in Adult Education, Croom Helm, London. McGivney, V 1993, Women, Education and Training: barriers to access, informal starting points and progression routes, Dewey, J 1916, Democracy and Education: an introduction to National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, Leicester, the philosophy of education, 1966 edn, Free Press, New UK. York. McGivney, V 1998, Excluded Men, National Institute of Adult Dudley, E 1993, The Critical Villager: beyond community Continuing Education, Leicester, UK. participation, Routledge, London. McGivney, V & Murray, F 1991, Adult Education in Follett, MP 1918, The New State: group organization the Development: methods and approaches from changing solution of popular government, 3rd imp. (1920), societies, National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, Longmans Green, London. Introduction by Lord Haldane. Leicester, UK.

100 Mayo, M 1975, ‘Community development: a radical Shand, J 1994, Philosophy and Philosophers: an introduction alternative?’, in R Bailey & M Brake (eds), Radical Social to Western philosophy, Penguin Books, Melbourne. Work, Edward Arnold, London. Sheehy, G 1976, Passages: predictable crises of adult life, Mayo, M 1994, Communities and Caring: the mixed economy Dutton, New York. of welfare, Macmillan, London. Slocom, R, Wichart, L, Rocheleau, D & Thomas-Slayter, B Munn, P & MacDonald, C 1988, Adult Participation in (eds) 1995, Power, Process and Participation—tools for Education and Training, Scottish Council for Research in change, Intermediate Technology Development Group Education, Edinburgh. Publications, London.

Nyerere, JK 1978, ‘Development is for man, by man, and of Steifel, M & Wolfe, M 1997, A Voice for the Excluded: popular man’: the Declaration of Dar es Salaam’, in BL Hall & JR participation in development—Utopia or necessity? Zed Kidd (eds), Adult Learning: a design for action, Pergamon, Books, London. Oxford, UK. Strachan, P & Peters, C 1997, Empowering Communities: a Preece, J (ed.) with Weatherall, C & Woodrow, M 1998, casebook from west Sudan, Oxfam, Oxford, UK. Beyond the Boundaries: exploring the potential of widening provision in higher education, National Institute of Adult Stark, W 1958, The Sociology of Knowledge, Routledge & Continuing Education, Leicester, UK. Kegan Paul, London.

Reid, KE 1981, From Character Building to Social Treatment: Street, BV 1984, Literacy in Theory and Practice, Cambridge the history of the use of groups in social work, Greenwood University Press, Cambridge, UK. Press, Westport, Connecticut. Taylor, MC 1989, ‘Adult Basic Education’, in SB Merriam & Rogers, A 1992, Adult Learning for Development, Cassell, PM Cunningham (eds), Handbook of Adult and Continuing London. Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Sampson, EE 1993, Celebrating the Other: a dialogic account Thompson, AR 1981, Education and Development in Africa, of human nature, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London. Macmillan, London.

Sargant, N 1991, Learning and ‘Leisure’: a study of adult Tough, AM 1967, Learning Without a Teacher: a study of tasks participation in learning and its policy implications, and assistance during adult self-teaching projects, Ontario National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, Leicester, Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto. UK. Tough, A 1976, ‘Self-planned learning and major personal Sargant, N 1993, Learning for a Purpose: participation in change’, reprinted in R Edwards, S Sieminski & D Zeldin education and training by adults from ethnic minorities, (eds), 1993, Adult Learners, Education and Training, National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, Leicester, Routledge, London. UK. Tough, AM 1979, The Adult’s Learning Projects: a fresh Sargant, N with Field, J, Francis, H, Schuller, T & Tuckett, A approach to theory and practice in adult learning, Ontario 1997, The Learning Divide: a study of participation in Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto. adult learning in the United Kingdom, National Institute of Continuing Adult Education Leicester, UK. West, L 1996, Beyond Fragments: adults, motivation and higher education—a biographical analysis, Taylor & Schweder, RA & Bourne, EJ 1984, ‘Does the concept of the Francis, London. person vary cross-culturally?’, in RA Schweder & RA LeVine (eds), Culture Theory: essays on mind, self and Yeaxlee, BA 1929, Lifelong Education: a sketch of the range emotion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. and significance of the adult education movement, Cassell & Co., London.

101

102

Fostering Involvement—how to improve participation in learning

Part II

Extension, communication and information supporting farmers: case studies

103

104

Part II Contents

Introduction ...... 107 Project 2: Fostering Involvement ...... 107 The approach taken ...... 108 Bega Valley Shire ...... 108 Carrathool Shire ...... 108 Greater Shepparton Shire ...... 109 Indigenous land managers in the rangelands...... 109 The sugar industry in the Mackay region of Queensland...... 110 Case study 1: Bega Valley Shire ...... 111 1.1 Background...... 111 1.1.1 Biophysical characteristics...... 111 1.1.2 The social context ...... 112 1.1.3 Land use...... 113 1.1.4 Dairy industry deregulation ...... 114 1.1.5 Agricultural land and natural resource management...... 114 1.2 Extension and natural resource management ...... 117 1.2.1 Extension officers’ views about their skills ...... 118 1.2.2 Participation...... 121 1.3 Extension and land use change in the Tantawangalo valley ...... 128 1.3.1 The situation in 1950 ...... 128 1.3.2 Between 1950 and 1975...... 128 1.3.3 Since 1975 ...... 129 1.4 Issues for extension officers...... 129 Case study 2: Carrathool Shire ...... 131 2.1 Background...... 131 2.1.1 The agricultural context...... 132 2.1.2 Environment ...... 134 2.1.3 The social context ...... 135 2.1.4 The Griffith district...... 138 2.1.5 The Hay district ...... 138 2.2 Extension and natural resource management ...... 138 2.2.1 Participation and non-participation...... 139 2.2.2 Learning activities offered ...... 140 2.2.3 Producers’ responses to learning activities ...... 143 2.3 The main points: a summary of feedback ...... 158 Attachment A Agricultural research establishments providing services in Carrathool Shire ...... 161 Attachment B Industry associations in Carrathool Shire and surrounding areas...... 169 Attachment C Extension programs and services in Carrathool Shire...... 170 Case study 3: Greater Shepparton Shire...... 178 3.1 Background...... 178 3.1.1 Social structure ...... 178 3.1.2 Industries represented ...... 179 3.2 Farmers’ feedback about learning and extension ...... 182 3.2.1 Information sources and courses attended ...... 182 3.2.2 Views about course improvements ...... 186 3.2.3 Presenters and facilitators ...... 186 3.2.4 Costs ...... 187 3.2.5 Learning activities that focus on the environment ...... 187 3.2.6 Primary production courses ...... 188 3.2.7 Involvement in groups, clubs and organisations...... 188 3.2.8 Farmers’ perceptions of how they learn...... 189 3.2.9 The relationship between what is learnt and what is done...... 190 3.2.10 Becoming involved in government or industry programs...... 190 105

3.2.11 One-on-one or group interaction?...... 190 3.2.12 Areas in which government or industry, or both, could help...... 191 3.2.13 Non-participation: the farmers’ perspective...... 191 3.3 Extension officers’ feedback...... 192 3.3.1 Background and experience...... 192 3.3.2 Most-valued qualifications and courses and perceived gaps in education...... 194 3.3.3 Reasons for becoming involved in extension...... 194 3.3.4 What do the extension officers think they do well?...... 196 3.3.5 Influences on extension officers’ thinking about extension...... 196 3.3.6 Essential elements of extension and encouraging participation...... 197 3.3.7 Non-participation: extension officers’ perspective ...... 199 3.3.8 People who do participate in government and industry extension programs...... 200 3.3.9 Encouraging people to participate ...... 201 3.3.10 Why people should participate...... 202 3.3.11 Successful learning activities...... 203 3.4 Conclusion ...... 203 Case study 4: Indigenous land managers in the rangelands ...... 205 4.1 Background...... 205 4.1.1 Indigenous organisations in the rangelands ...... 206 4.1.2 Understanding rangeland management...... 208 4.2 Views about knowledge, learning and extension ...... 209 4.3 Extension in practice...... 215 4.4 What does this mean for extension services?...... 219 Case study 5: the sugar industry in the Mackay region of Queensland...... 220 5.1 Background...... 220 5.1.1 History ...... 220 5.1.2 Production...... 221 5.1.3 Inquiries, reports and legislative changes ...... 223 5.1.4 Organisations involved in the Queensland sugar industry...... 225 5.1.5 Industry features likely to influence extension ...... 231 5.2 The Mackay district ...... 231 5.3 Sugar extension...... 235 5.3.1 The Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, Central District ...... 235 5.3.2 CANEGROWERS ...... 241 5.3.3 The Sugar Industry Change Management Program...... 245 5.4 Growers’ views about extension ...... 246 5.5 Possible directions for change...... 247 5.5.1 Extension research ...... 248 5.5.2 Extension through changed interaction...... 248 Attachment A Courses offered at the Australian College of Tropical Agriculture...... 251 Attachment B Mackay region demographics ...... 252 Attachment C Cane growers’ responses...... 258 Attachment D The Sustainable Grazing Systems Producer Network...... 267 Sources ...... 269

106

Introduction

The case studies presented in this volume form part of Fostering Involvement, a project funded under the Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries Cooperative Venture. The Cooperative Venture was established by research and development corporations to improve capacity building in rural industries in Australia. The goal is to give all primary producers the opportunity and skills to obtain the information and education they need in order to embrace innovation.

The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation manages the Cooperative Venture on behalf of the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Meat and Livestock Australia; the Dairy Research and Development Corporation; Land and Water Australia; the Murray–Darling Basin Commission; the Grains Research and Development Corporation; the Sugar Research and Development Corporation; and the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation.

Initially, three projects were funded to support the Cooperative Venture’s goal: • Project 1: A National Extension/Education Review—what works and why? This project was established to identify current ‘best practice’ in rural extension, education and training and to assist in the design and delivery of learning initiatives. • Project 2: Fostering Involvement. This project, of which these case studies are a part, is designed to improve understanding of non-participation in learning activities and to increase the accessibility of learning activities and the involvement of the farming community. It examines factors that inhibit farmers’ participation in learning activities, with a view to developing new processes for encouraging participation, extension and learning. • Project 3: Optimising Institutional Arrangements. This project was designed to promote and rethink rural extension and education through government, industry and community groups, so that they respond to new and changing environments and improve rural learning and practice. The project developed strategies for anticipating social, economic and technological changes that will influence the learning environment during the next 20 years. These changes have important implications for interest groups, industry and government.

Project 2: Fostering Involvement

The Fostering Involvement project explores and describes the many factors that can encourage or impede farmer1 involvement in the extension programs of government and industry bodies. Among the outputs of the research, which are presented in Volume I, are the following: • a summary of factors that encourage participation by ‘non-participants’, the reasoning and context that is required • costs associated with supporting and encouraging participation • the role and responsibilities of R&D organisations, government agencies, other organisations, and the extension/education2 required.

The case studies concentrate on people who choose not to take advantage of extension programs and activities, with a view to informing government and industry organisations about the needs of these people. The aim is to improve the design and focus of initiatives by improving our understanding of why landholders do not wish to participate in learning activities.

Five areas of study were chosen: • Bega Valley Shire • Carrathool Shire • Greater Shepparton Shire • Indigenous land management in the rangelands • the sugar industry in the Mackay region of Queensland.

The approach taken

The case studies are social studies rather than science-based studies. The approach taken reflects the focus on people and their values, as expressed through their beliefs and practices. It is interpretive in that the purpose is to ‘understand and interpret daily occurrences and social structures as well as the meanings people give to [them]’ (Cantrell 1993, p. 83), and it responds to the following questions: • Why do some rural people not take up learning opportunities? • How can government and industry agencies more effectively and efficiently target those who do not currently participate? In so doing, how can agencies rethink learning opportunities and develop innovative strategies to link into informal networks and knowledge systems? Bega Valley Shire

For the Bega Valley Shire case study the following methods were used: • interviews—with farmers (seven) and extension officers and others involved in delivering services to rural industries (eight) • e-surveys—responses received from extension officers, extension providers and some farmers • a website synthesis—for background information • semi-structured questionnaires—with extension officers, extension providers and farmers • conversations—with people involved in extension and farming in the Shire • document and archival analysis—including newspapers, extension material, policy documents and reports.

Bega Valley Shire was chosen as a trial study—the first field-based study to be undertaken as part of the Fostering Involvement project. The initial approach was through extension officers, who were contacted in an effort to identify ‘non-participants’. None of the extension officers could identify farmers who chose not to participate in programs. It had been assumed that extension officers were involved in local community activities to the extent that they came into contact with farmers through avenues other than their work practice.

Because of the failure to secure names through this method, random calls using the local telephone directory were made. Only five farmers considered to be non-participants in government and industry programs in the last two years were identified. One major difficulty was that individuals initially confirmed that they had not participated in programs, but during the course of the survey (in the form of a conversation) they revealed that they had in fact participated in programs, workshops or field days. As a result, it was decided that selection of farmers to be surveyed would be based on those willing to be interviewed, rather than those who identified themselves as ‘non-participants’.

Roland Breckwoldt, a beef cattle producer in Bega Valley Shire and a director of Resource Policy & Management, contributed to this case study by drawing on over 30 years’ experience of land management in the district. He describes the changes in agriculture in the Tantawangalo valley (which is part of the Shire) from 1950 to the present, including changes in extension and participation in it. From his observations and interviews with extension officers and landholders, a number of matters arise that are relevant to rural industry extension providers in areas where land use has moved from a strong primary industry focus to diverse interests dominated by ‘lifestyle’ and hobby farmers.

Carrathool Shire

The Carrathool Shire case study investigates extension in a local government area that supports a variety of land uses and is relatively sparsely populated. In area, Carrathool Shire is one of the largest shires in New South Wales, at 18 939.5 square kilometres, most of which is dedicated to agriculture. The 2001 Australian Bureau of Statistics census put the Shire’s population at 3333.

The Shire takes in land in both the Central and Western Land Administration Divisions of New South Wales. The Western Lands Act 1901 applies to land in the Western Division, most of which is leasehold title. In the Central Division there is a greater proportion of freehold land.

108

One of the main aspects of extension investigated as part of this case study concerns the difficulties associated with supporting a small population over a large area of land with diverse land uses and interests.

Among the methods used for the study were the following: • interviews—with farmers and extension officers and others involved in providing services for rural industries • e-surveys—responses received from extension officers, extension providers and some farmers • a website synthesis—for background information • semi-structured questionnaires—for extension officers, extension providers and farmers • conversations—with people involved in extension and farming in the Shire • document and archival analysis and synthesis—including newspapers, extension material, policy documents and reports.

Farmers and extension officers were interviewed by phone or face to face or they responded to questionnaires posted to them. Interviews were conducted by Jennifer Andrew (with extension officers and providers) and Julie Campbell (with farmers). Julie lives on a property in the Shire and Jennifer lived on a property in the Shire until the late 1970s. The fact that the interviewers were known to most of the people being interviewed meant that there was a level of trust through shared histories and backgrounds. This itself is of interest for the Cooperative Venture: many of the farmers interviewed said they would not otherwise have participated because of the high demand on their time imposed by questionnaires and surveys.

Seven extension officers and providers were consulted and more than 19 farmers were interviewed.

Resource Policy & Management produced this case study report in association with Julie Campbell.

Greater Shepparton Shire

The Greater Shepparton Shire case study investigates extension in a local government area of Victoria. Among the methods used were the following: • interviews—with farmers, extension officers and others involved in providing services for rural industries • e-surveys—responses received from extension officers and extension providers • a website synthesis—for background information • semi-structured questionnaires—for extension officers, extension providers and farmers • conversations—with people involved in extension and farming in the Shire • document and archival analysis and synthesis—including newspapers, extension material, policy documents and reports.

Farmers and extension officers were interviewed by phone or face to face or they responded to questionnaires posted to them. Eight farmers and seven extension officers provided questionnaire responses.

Resource Policy & Management produced this case study report with support from Top Paddock Consulting, Benalla, Victoria.

Indigenous land managers in the rangelands

Indigenous people are now very significant landowners and managers in the rangelands, and their aspirations and participation in natural resource management are important to both government agencies and rural industries. They are a part of the rangelands and will inevitably become an even greater part in the future.

Government agencies and industry organisations need to seek the involvement of Indigenous people, particularly where these people manage large pastoral enterprises that are part of the broader rangeland landscape. Indigenous people have also been granted land that is marginal and/or degraded by previous pastoral activities. Specific information is needed to help rebuild long-term sustainability. The meaning of country combines with the reality that Indigenous people are landowners who cannot trade as individuals because their land is held under community title.

109

This is the report of a desktop study. It was compiled from published material, community reports, case studies and projects undertaken by Resource Policy & Management that are relevant to the topic.

The sugar industry in the Mackay region of Queensland

The study of the sugar industry in Queensland’s Mackay region used the following methods: • observation in Mackay and the surrounding district—mills, industries other than cane growing, and cane farms • interviews—with growers, extension officers and others involved in the industry • e-surveys—responses received from extension officers and some growers • a website synthesis—for information about industry structure, history and support organisations • semi-structured questionnaires—with extension officers and growers • conversations—with people involved in the industry, others involved in organisations such as mining and environmental programs, and a broker • document and archival analysis and synthesis—including newspapers, extension material, policy documents and reports.

Only a small number of people were interviewed for this case study since the focus was narrowed to concentrate on the approaches of two extension providers in the district—CANEGROWERS and the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations. These two organisations were chosen because of their high profile in the delivery of sugar extension material. Only a sample of their extension activities has been investigated: the study focuses more on the overall approach taken by the two organisations rather than the specifics of the extension material.

Sugar growers were interviewed by phone or face to face or responded to questionnaires that were mailed to them. A number of cane farmers who provided questionnaire responses did so after being randomly selected by means of a drive around the district at lunchtimes and chance meetings and discussion of the project. Cane growers from outside the district were chosen through articles in the print media—the North Queensland Register and Queensland Country Life. In this way it was hoped that a variety of views would be gathered.

Individuals who are identified by name in this case study report gave their permission to be quoted and, in some cases, a number provided further information. Other people were contacted because they were identified through local or industry promotional or news circulars or were recommended by other interviewees as suitable informants. Nine extension, communication or customer services officers, eight growers from the Mackay district, seven growers from elsewhere, and five other people (a grower and Sugar Research and Development Corporation board member; the manager, Products and Services, Sugar Research International; the agricultural manager, Bundaberg Sugar; Robert Troedson from the Sugar Research and Development Corporation; and a cane farms business broker) contributed to the case study.

110

Case study 1: Bega Valley Shire

1.1 Background

Bega Valley Shire is on the far south of New South Wales. With an area of 6052 square kilometres, it is the largest coastal local government area in the state; Figure 1.1 shows its extent. The shire had a population of 29 257 in 2000.

Figure 1.1 Bega Valley Shire

Source: Land and Property Information .

1.1.1 Biophysical characteristics

Geomorphology and vegetation To the east, Bega Valley Shire is characterised by a narrow coastal plain dominated by sand and gravel deposits that support heath, coastal scrub and dry forest vegetation interspersed with lagoons, estuaries and swamps. Parts of this area were cleared for urban development and agriculture and now contain the urban areas of Bermagui, Tathra, Tura, Merimbula, Pambula, Pambula Beach and Eden. The remaining forested areas are now mostly held as national park or equivalent reserve. 111

Behind this coastal system is a low, broken range that rises to about 300 metres, although there are individual mountains such as Mumbulla Mountain, which rises to 775 metres. The coastal range is dominated by dry, shrubby eucalypt forest, with moister eucalypt forest and patches of rainforest in sheltered gullies. Much of the coastal range is state forest or national park or equivalent reserve.

West of the coastal range lies the undulating hinterland, which is dominated by the Bega batholith and supports the Bega Valley dairying and grazing lands. This, the main area cleared for agriculture, is dissected by valleys created by the Bega and Towamba Rivers and Narira Creek. The area is often referred to as the ‘rain-shadow valleys’. The valleys are characterised by dry, grassy eucalypt forests, with forests in the hinterland having a higher shrub component. The main urban centre of Bega and villages such as Bemboka, Candelo and Wyndham lie in this agricultural hinterland.

To the west, the valleys rise steeply to the Monaro tableland. These steeper areas receive orographic rainfall and support moist eucalypt forest and small patches of rainforest. This part of the Shire is mostly national park or equivalent reserve and state forest.

Management, retention and use of native vegetation are important concerns for agricultural areas in the Shire. This includes native grasslands, remnant vegetation, recently determined communities and associations (such as Bega dry grass forest and Candelo dry grass forest) and riparian vegetation.

Climate The shire has a warm–temperate maritime climate with a mild summer. Average summer maximum and minimum temperatures on the coast are around 25°C and 15°C; in winter the average maximum is 16°C and the minimum 4°C. Pasture and crop growth is seasonal, the low temperatures limiting growth from June to late August. High temperatures combined with low effective rainfall limit growth from December to February.

Rainfall is usually slightly higher in summer. The annual averages range from 820 to 880 millimetres on the coast to 1025 millimetres at Mount Darragh and locally to about 1700 millimetres on the higher peaks of the escarpment. The rain-shadow effects in the Bega and Towamba valleys lead to less than 700 millimetres of rain annually. A very distinct rain-shadow area occurs at Kameruka, where rainfall drops to 635 millimetres. In general, however, rainfall decreases with distance from the coast but also increases with altitude. Table 1.1 shows the rainfall pattern for Bega.

Table 1.1 Average annual rainfall: Bega

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 87.6 90.9 74.6 84.3 85.0 93.5 53.0 56.4 42.9 75.7 66.7 78.2 Source: Kemp (2001).

Drought incidence Rainfall in Bega Valley Shire is unreliable, and this has had a major impact on agricultural production. This unreliability, combined with restrictive temperatures for plant growth, means that drought is common. Recent examples of drought periods are 1991 to 1993 and 1996 to 1998. In fact, the seasonal conditions for much of the 1990s were poor. This has led many local graziers to speculate on a change in the rainfall pattern during the last 30 years; they base this mainly on their memory of snowfall, more plentiful groundwater, and a belief that winter temperatures have warmed.

1.1.2 The social context

Population A June 2000 Bega Valley Shire Council estimate of the population was 29 423. The growth rate for the period 1991 to 2000 was 7.9 per cent, with migration of retired people from Victoria a prominent feature. People living in rural areas or more isolated coastal locations in the Shire number 7709, or 27.3 per cent of

112

the population. The age structure reflects an ageing population: 15.7 per cent of residents were aged 65 years or more at the 2001 census; this compares with 12.6 per cent for New South Wales as a whole. The same census recorded 517 Indigenous people in the Shire, representing 1.8 per cent of the population.

Economic conditions The Shire has a low-income population: 82.3 per cent of residents earn less than $599 a week and 41.3 per cent earn less than $200 a week. The Shire’s index of socio-economic disadvantage ranking is 981, which is below the state average of 993 and the national average of 1000. In 1991 the Shire’s index was 993. The Shire’s economic resources index ranking of 938 makes it the second-lowest of the 16 shires in the Southern Region and places it well below the state and national averages.

Education and employment The 1996 census found that 58.1 per cent of people aged 15 years or more in the Shire had no post-school qualifications. Only 6 per cent had an undergraduate or associate diploma and only 15.8 per cent held a skilled or basic vocational diploma.

The 2001 census showed that agriculture, forestry and fishing constituted the second largest employment sector in the Shire (after the retail trade), with 1191 people employed in the sector. This compares with the 1996 figure of 1312.

Women and families There is a relatively high proportion of female sole parents in the Shire: the 2001 census figure was 955 such parents. It is difficult to determine how many of these people work in primary production or are hobby or ‘lifestyle’ landowners.

Recent initiatives such as ‘Women in Dairying’, ‘You Choose: dairy families meeting the challenge’ and the ‘Shaping Our Future Together’ course are designed to encourage women’s involvement in rural industries and provide strategies to help them and their families. Additionally, the New South Wales Rural Women’s Network and conferences and workshops such as the World Congress of Rural Women support women in rural and remote regions. At the last World Congress, in Spain, Mandi Stevenson of Bombala was supported by Meat and Livestock Australia, Australian Women in Agriculture, Agritours and the Rural Lands Protection Board to attend. She presented a paper comparing rural life for women in Australia and other countries.

1.1.3 Land use

Over two-thirds of the land area of Bega Valley Shire is in public ownership. State forests occupy 43 per cent, and national parks and equivalent reserves occupy 30 per cent. The remainder is agricultural land and urban areas.

Sheep The sheep industry is largely confined to outlying areas of the Shire. Sheep are usually run in conjunction with beef cattle, the main enterprises being fine-wool merino breeding, merino wethers, and a number of crossbred flocks supplying lambs for the local market.

Beef cattle Many of the current beef properties were previously smaller dairy farms involved in cream production. With rationalisation of the dairy industry and the closure of numerous small factories during the early 1970s, many of these farmers switched to beef. This accounts for the small herd size and the large number of semi- commercial properties. The level of off-farm employment, both full and part time, is consequently very high.

Beef cattle numbers have fluctuated dramatically during the last 15 years, primarily as a result of severe local droughts and the collapse of the cattle market in the mid-1970s and again in the mid-1990s. In 1976 beef

113

cattle numbers in the Shire peaked at 110 000, but by 1998 they had declined to about 52 000. In 1996–97 meat production from cattle was valued at over $11.7 million.

Most of the cattle sales take place through the Bega saleyards; the nearest abattoirs are at Moruya to the north and Cooma, which processes beef for the export market.

Dairying Dairying is the main agricultural enterprise in Bega Valley Shire, accounting for 81 per cent of the value of agricultural output in 1996–97. The industry is based on 128 suppliers producing milk for the Bega Co-operative. These farms employ 4.5 people per farm and carry on average 220 cows.

The Co-operative processes about 135 million litres of milk. Before deregulation of the dairy industry in July 2000, a further 65 million litres of milk was supplied as fresh milk for the Sydney and Canberra markets. A cheese-cutting and packaging plant is handling an increasing quantity of locally produced product, marketing within Australia and exporting as both bulk and packaged product. The Co-operative employs over 400 people all year and additional staff during the peak spring months.

Before deregulation, fresh milk valued at $35 million and processed products worth $60 million were exported from the region. Growth in off-farm employment in the industry (from 446 people in 1991 to 585 in 1999) and in processing (from 67 people in 1991 to 225 in 1999) has been substantial.

In 1999–2000, 146 million litres of milk was produced. Another 81.8 million litres of milk was purchased by the Co-operative, which produced 14 665 tonnes of cheese, 7428 tonnes of whey powder and 1090 tonnes of butter. Bulk cheddar exports to overseas markets totalled 8654 tonnes.

1.1.4 Dairy industry deregulation

Dairy industry deregulation in July 2000 resulted in falling on-farm prices for milk, and in the first three months after deregulation eight farms in Bega Valley Shire ceased to produce. Average milk income in 1996–97 was 35.5 cents a litre net (not including levies and freight). The flow-on effects of deregulation are likely to include the following: • The downstream industries involve transport operations, marketing and processing operations, most of which are responsive to volume. • There might also be a change in the proportion of total milk production that is processed into cheese. This could arise from the loss of some markets for fresh milk. If a larger amount were processed, the processing would have a larger impact on the local economy.

1.1.5 Agricultural land and natural resource management

Weeds On agricultural land in Bega Valley Shire serrated tussock and African lovegrass pose a major threat; more than 400 000 hectares of serrated tussock grow mainly on the tableland to the west but also in coastal areas. African lovegrass is a serious problem on the coast, covering 24 000 hectares. There are many other weeds, too, but it is these two that pose the greatest threat to the social and economic fabric of the Shire. Along with other weeds they also pose problems for areas of native vegetation. For example, Salvina molesta infests Waliija Lagoon at Moruya and is unlikely ever to be eliminated. This provides a source for contamination of other wetlands in the area.

It is estimated that fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) covers more than 42 000 hectares of coastal land in the Shire and is so widespread it is unlikely to be contained. It will probably become endemic, as elsewhere on the New South Wales coast, and will also probably spread to the Monaro.

Willows are a problem in streams and rivers, and bitou bush is a serious threat to native vegetation on the coastal dune systems. The situation at Tathra is being managed by the local Landcare group and Bega Valley Shire Council. Bridal creeper is also emerging as a problem.

114

Animal pests Feral pigs and goats are fairly common in forested areas and are a potential cause of pasture damage on agricultural land. Rabbits are found throughout the Shire but improvements in methods of control mean a return to the major pest populations of the 1970s is unlikely. Foxes and wild dogs are also a problem.

Wombat numbers are high, and some primary producers obviously see them as a pest species.

Water The Shire’s unreliable rainfall makes water access and management a priority concern, especially where streams and rivers are subject to high rates of extraction for irrigation. The main irrigation areas are the Bega–Bemboka and Brogo areas. The water reform process is working to resolve problems associated with water access, management and quality. Among the main areas of difficulty, as identified by the farming community, are the following: • sharing of water during low flows in order to maintain environmental values as well as equity between riparian users and irrigators • developing river management plans that maximise economic returns • the volumetric conversion process—an unresolved dispute persists in relation to the Bega–Bemboka area • the structure of future water trading on unregulated streams • off-river storages—filling during high flows to minimise the effect of extraction during low flows and the use of incentives • water harvesting rights for farm dams • failure to encourage, coordinate and endorse innovative remedial plans. This is, however, being tackled in the Wandella, Bemboka, Tantawangalo and Bega catchments through action planning and rehabilitation planning projects • increasing water demands from riparian users as a result of subdivision of land.

Although water quality is generally good, problems do arise when overland flows cause turbidity, nutrient movement and faecal coliforms.

Soils Soil acidity is a perennial concern for both granite- and sedimentary-derived soils on the tablelands and the coast. The soils are naturally acid, and traditional farming practice slowly acidifies them further through the leaching of nitrate from the profile, the removal of calcium and magnesium through production (for example, hay and milk) and the addition of organic matter. Fertilisers such as sulphate of ammonia and brimstone sulphur are very acidifying.

Use of deep-rooted perennial grass pastures linked to direct-drill pasture is the most sustainable way of reducing the rate of acidification. Fortunately, agriculture throughout the Shire is based on native or improved perennial grass pastures. Where the soil is moderately acid the initial response is to use more tolerant pasture species such as cocksfoot, fescue and subclovers, although as soils continue to acidify yields can suffer.

Where soils require amelioration, use of materials such as agricultural lime or dolomite is the only alternative. This comes at considerable cost, though, and may be beyond the income-producing capacity of many enterprises. Lime application rates of 3 tonnes a hectare minimum, at a cost of $70–80 per tonne ground spread, are prohibitive for extensive beef and sheep enterprises. This could ultimately prove a serious problem for the region.

Erosion and sedimentation of river systems, primarily as a result of land-clearing practices, is another concern in the catchments. According to the Bega Valley Shire Council’s State of the Environment Report 2000/2001, ‘Sediment studies such as the Bega River Sediment Study and anecdotal evidence concerning deposition rates around water bodies in the Shire such as Merimula Lake have confirmed sedimentation and erosion as an issue of significant environment impact in the Shire’ (2001, p. 4).

Additionally, soil salinity is an emerging problem: small pockets of salting have been reported in the Wolumla catchment. 115

Subdivision The declining terms of trade for agriculture, combined with the rising cost of land in the Shire because of its coastal location and its position in the Sydney–Canberra–Melbourne axis, have led many landholders to subdivide their holdings. The main move towards subdivision began during the early 1970s, when beef prices slumped; the momentum has been increased by a combination of dry seasons and high costs associated with managing land. The Shire is rapidly moving towards a combination of commercial dairies and a great variety of small holdings used for some form of grazing.

The ‘hobby farming’ stereotype is not helpful in understanding land use change in Bega Valley Shire. The many small holdings are owned by people with widely different backgrounds and economic needs and imperatives. The Shire is an area in transition, and many parts of it can now be regarded as a recreational landscape where people pursue rural interests but have other sources of income.

Although many opinions are offered on the impact of subdivision, very few (if any) are supported by evidence gained through well-conducted research. For example, there is no evidence that the new owners of smaller holdings are less diligent in their weed control than the original owners of the larger holding that was subdivided. There is also no evidence of a decline in productivity or the regional economy. What is clearly apparent, however, is that change is occurring so rapidly that neither the New South Wales Government nor Bega Valley Shire Council is able to control the impacts in such a way as to allow for ecologically sustainable development appropriate to the area.

There does seem to be a coincidence between the increase in the rate of rural subdivision and the increase in the number and variety of extension officers in the Shire. In the past, the main source of rural extension was NSW Agriculture and the former Soil Conservation Service. The situation has changed completely now: the wide range of agencies, sources of funding, and the people and their role in extension are discussed in Section 1.2. There is, however, no evidence that the new arrangements are based on anything other than changes occurring in extension services throughout Australia as they move away from production towards natural resource management.

Profitability Perhaps closely related to the trend to increased rural subdivision is a farm population that is ageing. In the Australian agricultural sector there is a skewed age structure, and there are few opportunities for younger people to become involved because the sector is employing fewer and fewer people. Further, the cost of buying land in order to expand enterprises and so achieve economies of scale is prohibitive to most.

As a result of the declining terms of trade, very few properties in Bega Valley Shire are commercially viable. Figure 1.2 shows the distribution of farms by carrying capacity for the Bega Valley and Eurobodalla local government areas. Using the criterion of 4000 dry sheep equivalents, only 2.2 per cent of farms would be viable without an off-farm income if they were engaged in broad-acre grazing.

116

Figure 1.2 Distribution of farms by carrying capacity: Bega Valley and Eurobodalla local government areas, 1999

400 377

350 335

300

250

200 No. of farms 150

96 100

50 37 12 223 0 500–1000 1000–2000 2000–3000 3000–4000 4000–5000 5000–6000 6000–7000 7000+

Carrying capacity (dry sheep equivalents)

Alternative enterprises The Shire has some horticultural enterprises and some new rural industries. Projects such as New Horizons, for example, investigated new and alternative strategies, although many farmers have stayed with the traditional industries, probably for reasons such as climatic restrictions, distance from markets and transport limitations, the economic disadvantage of the region, and resource suitability.

1.2 Extension and natural resource management

In the past two decades the provision of extension services to landholders in Bega Valley Shire has changed markedly. Before this change, there were two main extension providers: NSW Agriculture, staffed with a dairy officer, a beef cattle officer and an agronomist; and the Soil Conservation Service, staffed with a soil conservation officer. All these extension officers had a production orientation. Perhaps this applied less to the Soil Conservation Service, but in any case the focus was on working with farmers to protect productive landscapes. For example, fencing off degraded areas for biodiversity conservation was not a priority.

All this has changed. There are now only two extension officers whose primary focus is agricultural production, although both of these officers regard natural resource management as part of their role. The dairy officer, for example, has become much more involved in things such as effluent disposal, and the agronomist has become involved in a variety of matters relating to soil health. Despite this, there are only two NSW Agriculture extension officers, whereas there are six extension officers from the Department of Land and Water. This latter agency now houses former officers of the Soil Conservation Service as well as a range of positions that reflect new government legislation and programs.

Eight extension officers located in Bega were interviewed for this case study. The following are some features of the group:

117

• The wide variety of extension activities. New legislation and land and water management programs are reflected in the range of extension activities. New enterprises such as farm forestry have provided an opportunity for a new provider. • A variety of tertiary qualifications. There is a pool of highly qualified and experienced people at the regional level. One question must be whether these people and their skills are used to maximum effectiveness and efficiency. • A regulatory role combined with that of extension. The demarcation between regulatory activities and extension activities is now much less evident. The view that extension and regulation should be separated does not hold in contemporary arrangements. • Changing dominance of agencies. The Department of Land and Water now predominates in the provision of extension services.

1.2.1 Extension officers’ views about their skills

Table 1.2 shows what the eight extension officers think their qualifications and background bring to their work.

118

Table 1.2 Extension officers’ views about their qualifications and experience: Bega Valley Shire

Extension How they became involved in The biggest gap in their The biggest influence on their officer Most valued qualification extension training career in extension Their greatest skill A The Graduate Diploma of As a child I had an uncle at Appin Anything you want is on tap these An extension officer in the I have an empathy with farmers Extension—because I could bring who had a dairy farm and dairy days—it’s all on tap. But some Victorian Department of and speak their language. I extension experience to it vendor’s licence and I used to go extension officers would benefit Agriculture who conducted understand how adults learn out and help him from group facilitation training discussion groups in which he helped develop close rapport with farmers—he had wonderful people skills B Hawkesbury Diploma of Interested in agriculture—I did not Common sense. The new Certainly not the Department of I can run my own research and Agriculture have the qualifications for generation hasn’t got a clue what Agriculture. It is all to do with solve problems for farmers. I can research so went into extension life is about. They wind ’em up being self-motivated address real issues rather than and let ’em go straight out of the perceived issues. One of the textbook advantages of being in a remote area is that you get to learn how to solve problems. You need to fix it yourself because no one else will C Degree in Agricultural Science Worked in the Department of There is still a need for good Does not have a supportive work I can present facts in way that 119 Natural Resources, Victoria, and technical information. Experience environment because of the landholders can use to make benefited from mentoring by is also essential, and this is funding arrangement. Must get decisions on. I can also senior officers. Regrets that there missing in a lot of people going support from other people in the encourage people by my is no longer the capacity in these into extension. It takes time to same position in other regions enthusiasm and passion. But I organisations to provide this build up knowledge and empathy and states. can also listen and assess mentoring with landholders. A big failure is situations short-term funding … people do not get the opportunity to develop these skills D Bachelor of Natural Resources, Personally interested in NRM and Scientific and technical Managing bulldozer teams, which I am excellent at one-on-one University of New England working in the outdoors. Joined information on biodiversity. We provided extensive experience in extension because of the ability the Soil Conservation Service, are moving into new areas of implementation of planning in to understand clients’ perspective where the focus was on extension but don’t have the designed works in a commercial and operation. Then good at extension for erosion control technical background information environment. Landholders designing options that suit the backed by face-to-face to support it provided full package advice landholder. I always put the client discussion, planning, design and planning design implementation need first, then incorporate implementation environmental improvement second because I can move towards better NRM because it is always a human problem

Extension How they became involved in The biggest gap in their The biggest influence on their officer Most valued qualification extension training career in extension Their greatest skill E Combination of experience and Joined the Soil Conservation I do not see any gaps because A broad background, including I have realistic expectations and I technical training. The natural Service and worked as a what we are asked to do is so working as a jackeroo— am sympathetic to other points of resource degree gave a good all- facilitator in dryland salinity diverse. But this is part of the experience comes with time, view. I provide good information round background problem because when a new bringing an increasing awareness in line with what people can take field opens up, such as of what the issues are on. I have a practical philosophy vegetation management, then and am straightforward but you need specific training in that sympathetic field F Agricultural background, including I originally saw it as a natural The gap is at the policy level. We I joined a Landcare group in the My relationship with farmers. owner–manager of a farm, has progression in my career path. do not have an extension model. 1980s and this led to a career in Good at dispute resolution and provided an understanding and Now I see it as a challenge to It is not integrated and lacks land protection in salinity and agreement management. empathy with the rural community achieve sustainability in rural direction. One minute it is agronomy in Western Victoria. Working with committees as well industries participatory, the next it is top- Then worked on river as individuals and brokering down. The gap is a strategic management in Gippsland deals between water users approach with goals and outcomes G Certificate in Sustainable Community background and There is a tendency to employ a My father was a compulsive I can do a rapid landscape Agriculture. Absolutely. Plus working as a surveyor lot of bright people with degrees fisherman and I had a primary assessment without a lot of tools experience—I have been around representing landholders’ who lack experience. They tend school teacher who had an

120 for a while interests in dealing with local and to look at the natural resource obsession with nature state government. Then came the issues only, rather than the social challenge of something new. The and economic procedures in a lot of sciences are set but this is a new and open field H A lot is self-taught during Part of the deal in joining the Project and contract I sort of had to learn everything Design and construction. Getting 20 years’ on-job experience. Department is helping management. In the past by myself. I got the job and was things built on the ground. Getting landholders everything was done in house. then thrown into it. I never had things done efficiently. But now there is a need for mentoring and had to struggle by managing people and contracts myself

Following are some features of the officers’ comments: • Experience ranking equally with educational qualifications. The extension officers tended to mention their experience as important, along with their educational qualifications. But the importance of experience was highlighted in responses to the question about the biggest gap in their training. Many of them used this question as an opportunity to criticise the tendency for qualifications to override experience in the appointment of young extension officers and the limitations imposed by short-term funding, which is usually part of project-based appointments. • The importance of mentoring and organisational support. Some extension officers commented that mentoring was an important part of their training. Others mentioned the lack of mentoring and being assigned to extension work without support from their organisation as problems. • An extension gap at the policy level. There is an impression that extension is not supported through to the highest policy levels in agencies. Extension skills could be taken for granted, an assumption founded on the belief that extension is relatively easy and all that is needed is to appoint people to positions and give them a duty statement. This impression should be investigated in further work. • Self-motivation through personal interest. Extension officers seem to take pride in their individualism and their ability to remain motivated in regional positions with very little agency support. This response might be closely related to the question of an extension gap at the policy level. But is this a good thing? What are the intended and unintended consequences of individualism? Does this expose extension officers to the ‘culture capture’ of farmers, rather than that of the agency that employs them? • People skills, not information, as most important. Extension officers’ response when asked to nominate their greatest skill is salutary. None of them said their scientific or technical knowledge was of greatest importance. Instead, they took pride in their people skills and their ability to relate to landholders. They were not constrained by any sense of false modesty when asked this question. Information rated as important only from the perspective of being able to meet landholders’ needs in planning, design and implementation.

1.2.2 Participation

It is fairly clear from the extension officers’ responses that participation or non-participation in extension activities is not a big concern for extension officers. Some said they already face enough pressure, are under- resourced, and are fully occupied meeting the current demand.

• Age and economic capacity for change. Older farmers’ lack of interest in change was mentioned frequently, as was the lack of economic capacity for change. This tends to apply less in the case of dairying because the industry offers a regular income. • The knowledge and awareness gap. Extension officers often noted lack of awareness and the fact that a problem can acquire a level of acceptance and so have an ‘air of inevitability about it’ as barriers to change. • Market segmentation. There are different market segments in relation to extension needs in the Shire and each requires a very different approach: – There are specific industry groups such as dairy farmers. All dairy farmers are well known to the dairy extension officer. Dairying is an industry accustomed to change and adjustment.

– The owners of recreational and lifestyle properties have often come from a business or professional background and want rapid change. They are demanding and often have the economic capacity to change.

– The wide variety of commercial beef cattle producers do not always have the economic capacity to change. This group also displays a high level of acceptance of problems, even though those who have an off-farm income might prefer to spend it on things other than natural resource management.

– Although this was not commented on by extension officers, one woman involved in the dairy industry said that extension programs targeted at women are, for her, particularly uninspiring. In her opinion, an on-farm problem needs a specific solution and it does not matter whether the farmer is male or female: they just want to know how to deal with the problem.

121

• The characteristics of good extension programs. Extension officers know what works. This is an important message for people designing extension programs: seek advice from those who are out there doing it. • Regulation and extension. Perhaps a surprising result was the number of extension officers who said their regulatory role gave them an introduction to people they would not otherwise encounter. They reported that a discussion with a landholder about how to deal with a particular regulation would often lead to an educative interaction and a mutually acceptable on-ground result. • Incentives. A number of extension officers mentioned that direct financial incentives contributing to activities such as fencing off remnant vegetation and protecting riparian zones are a means of encouraging participation. • Rural lifestyle properties and extension on a catchment basis. One extension officer raised the point that when he visits a Landcare group on the Monaro he is highly likely to be speaking to all, or at least the majority of, the landholders in a catchment and that this allows for the development and implementation of highly successful, integrated natural resource management plans. In contrast, when he visits a Landcare group in Bega Valley Shire he meets only a small proportion of the landholders in a catchment because the properties are so much smaller. This makes it very difficult to get together a group that is representative of all landholders.

Table 1.3 summarises the extension officers’ views about participation.

122

Table 1.3 Extension officers’ views about participation: Bega Valley Shire

What are the ingredients What prevents some Is there a common Is there a common How would you Extension of a good extension people from pattern in the people pattern in the people encourage greater officer program? participating? who participate? who do not participate? participation? A It has to be farmer friendly We tend to target people We have some farmers Sometimes people are on In the dairy industry there and they need to with a need so they don’t who come to everything the way out. Quite often has been a long history of understand it. The get involved unless they just because it is on: they they are older people who pressure to change. Countdown Down have one that we can are so keen to learn. But find change too difficult. However, it is a good Under—the national meet. Some people are there is a surprising range Some people have also industry for mastitis control program— also ahead of the game of people involved. The had bad experiences with communication because is an excellent example of and may not need us. most common feature education and suffer from you know every dairy a good program. It Some have literacy and would be that they have low self-esteem. They farmer in your region. involved getting all the numeracy problems and attended a field day or may feel threatened in They must first have a local experts together— we tried to help them in workshop and found it to group extension. One need that you can meet extension, the vets, dairy the Closing the Gap be a success advantage of being in the through a personal technicians—so that the Program district for a long time, like relationship based on 123 advice they gave was me, is that this group of trust. Trust is necessary consistent. Nothing worse people do start to develop because people are than farmers getting trust in you always trying to sell them different messages from something people they have grown to trust. The program then involved six days of workshops that provided the farmers with the opportunity to develop their own plan. We achieved a 60 per cent participation rate

124 C The resources to engage Forestry is a long-term They are all different, with People are limited by We do not have the time landholders and these are industry, so many people no common characteristic funds and the capacity to or resources to spend on (1) skilled staff, (2) good do not have the capacity, being apparent. Many are pay for a long-term timber people who are not information resources or time if they are older, to naive about forestry but crop. Age is a factor, with interested such as publications and become involved in an want to grow trees. Not those over 60 tending to information packages, industry where they have just new landholders be a bit reluctant to get (3) access to good to wait so long for a return. because many of the into it technology—things that Forestry can also be a real successful ones have you can show people, ‘back-flip’ from cutting been here for years (4) on-ground field days trees down to replanting and workshops—people them. The demonstration learn better when they can sites help to create kick the dirt a bit interest

What are the ingredients What prevents some Is there a common Is there a common How would you Extension of a good extension people from pattern in the people pattern in the people encourage greater officer program? participating? who participate? who do not participate? participation? D Provide the full package. If If governments focus too 1. Those who take up rural An ageing rural Build a good extension you are not involved in much on regulation they lifestyle blocks. They have population. service that provides implementation your think they are being told a thirst for knowledge and expert and timely support. advice is too theoretical what to do instead of are not pressured by No desire or ability to Not theoretical but for practical use being supported. Financial economic production change. practical. Without practical constraints prevent many issues. No capacity to change. knowledge and people from participating. experience there is no Some are also at the 2. Those interested in Depressed rural economy product stage of life where there is accessing government and people not worrying no desire to change—gets incentives such as grants about the environment back to an ageing rural towards fencing off population riparian vegetation. 3. Those who need a permit to do something 125 such as clear vegetation— can use this to open an education and extension approach E To bring about change in A lot of them do not They fall into two They think everything is More education and practices it has to be recognise that they have a categories: those who fine. extension. You need achievable, consistent in need. seek advice usually of a continuity, particularly with delivery, and use and technical nature and those They mistrust government. incentive programs. They just accept the way provide quality where there is a There are degrees of information. they do things. compliance role (exact We don’t want to burn apathy and arrogance but effort on people who do State government is not a opposite) and we go and this is only a minority. Have realistic outcomes see them. But this can be not want to change recognised authority for because we don’t have providing quality advice. highly successful because They accept the problem it provides a point of and just think that it is the resources to bring People don’t recognise discussion that can lead to beyond doing anything them in. Extension is a many issues as problems change about funny game because we spend so much time with the converted, but if you can get others to move in the right direction then it’s a success

What are the ingredients What prevents some Is there a common Is there a common How would you Extension of a good extension people from pattern in the people pattern in the people encourage greater officer program? participating? who participate? who do not participate? participation? F One based on action In the landscape of their At the moment there are People whose values and In the past I have set up research that ensures minds is a lot of conflict two distinct farming belief systems are demonstration sites to working within the made up of drought, community groups: opposed to activities such work with the reluctant framework of landholders economic hardship and (1) production farmers as Landcare and who are adopters. It is a challenge and their world view but at social relationships. Some from traditional the not joiners will have those to come up with workable the same time stretching are still worried about farming community and among them who will and acceptable solutions. and challenging them. being seen as greenies (2) people who are not never participate. About It is not a result of peer Retaining some humility is from the traditional half of any group has a pressure but more a important because we are farming community (new mindset that sees a river desire to improve often dealing with things settlers) better off cleared. There is situations on their farms we don’t have answers a clash of values for. This makes demonstrations and case studies important 126 G Coordination. Fear of government Yes and no. There is a A mixture. People may not By reviving the old- getting a hand on their small element that wants see merits in vegetation. fashioned but apparently Clear objectives and basic property rights to do it better. Some like Others just don’t see a successful one-to-one guidelines. to keep ahead of change problem: ‘My river is fine, I extension model backed A checklist or similar tool regulations. Some just don’t have a water by a local team that to judge allocation of want advice. Most are problem’ blends research, advice, incentives. attracted to financial regulation and incentives support for erosion and all in one package An assessment of whether weed control and riparian change is likely to occur fencing. There is no pattern to ownership, property size, age or income

127 not to tell them what to do. I would rather provide guidance. It might be slow but it is the better way

1.3 Extension and land use change in the Tantawangalo valley

This section outlines changes to agriculture in the Tantawangalo valley of Bega Valley Shire from 1950 to the present and provides associated details about changes to extension and participation in extension. It raises a number of points that are relevant to rural industry extension providers in areas where land use has changed from a strong primary industry focus to diverse interests dominated by lifestyle and hobby farmers.

1.3.1 The situation in 1950

In 1950 there were 19 landowners in the Tantawangalo valley, 17 of them living on their properties. One of the two non-residents was Kameruka Estates, which managed its extensive holdings from its main property at Candelo. One noteworthy feature is that 14 of the 19 holdings had a dairy enterprise. With only 20 to 40 cows, the dairies produced cream for the Bimbaya butter factory, mostly seasonally. The following are other features of the time: • Children left school at a young age and were encouraged to leave the valley and the region to seek more reliable employment. • Not all farms owned motor vehicles, and transport was a major barrier to obtaining information and other services. • Social security payments were not readily available, and families lived very frugal lifestyles that involved economic production, bartering and producing many of their food requirements on the farm.

1.3.2 Between 1950 and 1975

The dairy industry changed dramatically in the late 1960s, and by 1972 the struggling Bega Valley industry had been thrown a lifeline in the form of access to the Canberra and Sydney liquid milk markets. But any dairy that wanted to supply these markets had to give up using cream cans and install a refrigerated vat. This was a quantum leap for many small farmers, who lacked the personal and/or financial resources to invest in a modern dairy.

Many small dairies ceased production, introduced a beef bull to their predominantly jersey herds, and ‘graded up’ to a full beef herd. Bega Valley is one of the few places in Australia where the term ‘grady’ is used to describe a beef–dairy cross beast, and the term emanates from dairy farmers using their milking herds as the foundation of their beef enterprise.

The small dairies that were facing economic hardship did not receive a great deal of extension advice. The first dairy extension officer was not appointed to Bega until 1972. Before that time NSW Agriculture employed dairy technologists whose primary role was quality control in butter and cheese production at the factory level, with only minor on-farm contact.

Apart from the very obvious decline in the number of dairies in the Tantawangalo valley, from 14 to four, during this period, there was little change in land ownership and land use. This all changed, though, during the beef crisis of 1973 to 1976.

The first landowner to subdivide (a 320-hectare property) did so in response to his declining fortunes in the beef industry. He had been an insurance broker and had moved to the Tantawangalo valley in 1972 to take up beef cattle production. He made the decision to subdivide in 1978, having failed to recover losses incurred during the beef crisis. He was the subject of a great deal of mirth and derision when he offered the blocks for sale at prices that were unheard of by local farmers. They all said how ridiculous it was paying high prices for small blocks that could run only a few head and questioned who would want to buy a bush block. All eight of the blocks sold within a few months and the vendor bought a laundromat in Surfers Paradise. The following are other features of this period:

128

• The beef crisis of the 1970s and the declining terms of trade were important causes of change. • This period coincided with a time of relatively easy access to social security payments and a very idealistic attitude to rural living in a desirable coastal area, which drove land prices up. • High land prices meant that expanding property size to adjust to the declining terms of trade was not possible for the majority of landowners in the valley. • Better vehicles and better roads made buying a block of land and working in town an option that had not been available before. This also helped to drive up land prices. • Landowners who had previously seen themselves as having no option but to stay on the farm suddenly— and it did happen very quickly—saw a way of gracefully leaving farming.

1.3.3 Since 1975

Between 1975 and 2003 two more dairies closed, leaving only two dairies where there once had been 14. Many of the former dairies that became beef properties were subdivided into small lifestyle lots. The change in ownership of those small lots could become the subject of another study, but it is surprising how stable the ownership is. There is enormous variety in the occupations and incomes of the new landowners; about 25 per cent of them are absentee landowners, living in Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. The following are other features of this period:

• It is impossible to make generalisations and it is misleading to revert to stereotypes when describing the individuals who now own land in the Tantawangalo valley. Some of them work in Bega. Some are retired academics and high-ranking officers in the armed forces. Some are conscientious about weeds— much more so than traditional farmers—while others are less responsible. • A handful of farms have not changed at all. They tend to be managed by older people, such as a son who did not move away to seek employment. The property is probably debt free and the owner sees little need to change. These owners tend not to deal with extension officers, although they still participate in the broader community. One works at the saleyards as a stockman every week and is extremely informative about cattle prices. Another worked as a herd recorder before deregulation and interacted widely outside the valley.

1.4 Issues for extension officers

Some landholders have not made any major changes since the dairies they owned and managed closed in the 1950 to 1975 period. They could possibly be described as having the following characteristics: • They are older, with low levels of formal education. • They have very low levels of debt. • They have few material ‘wants’ and can therefore live on a low income. • The farm may be burdened by succession problems, where siblings cannot agree on their share of the proceeds of a sale. • They have a long history on the property and consider there is not much wrong and not much to learn. It is difficult to see how extension officers can engage with these landholders to promote change in land management, whether it is for production or for natural resource management purposes. Their motivation to change will probably not be the same as that of the lifestyle or hobby farmer, yet these people are important landowners in the district.

For extension officers in Bega Valley Shire, a number of other difficulties have emerged as a result of population growth and change, changed land use, a decrease in property sizes, and landowners’ increased reliance on off-farm income.

Extension officers now have diverse interest groups within a single area, focusing on primary production as well as natural resource management. Further, the increase in population and in the number of lifestyle properties means that more people who often visit their properties only on weekends and during holiday periods are making demands of extension personnel for different purposes and at different times. This is in

129

contrast with people who have predominantly focused on land use for primary production, who might reside on their properties or visit only on weekends and during holiday periods.

Absenteeism itself creates a number of difficulties—not only for extension officers but also for land management groups such as Landcare. For example, weed and pest control programs appear to be more successful when a whole-of-farming-community approach is taken. This is difficult to coordinate when landholders are non-resident.

For extension officers this means reconsidering ways of engaging different people and working out suitable times to visit properties and organise activities and programs. It could also mean segmentation of delivery, although the interaction between landholders with differing views on natural resource management and production could generate educational outcomes too.

It appears that incentives are stimulating change in the area, although some incentives (such as conservation covenant schemes) might be more accessible for lifestyle landholders than traditional primary producers. This is because of the potentially higher match between the land use, the values of the owner, and the aim of the incentive. Perhaps extension officers should consider different approaches to natural resource management, according to the land use.

Finally, extension officers appear to have responded well as the dairy industry has moved from a strong production orientation to a mix of production and natural resource management interests. Like a number of other primary industries, dairy farming has its own set of land management concerns that are integral to practice. To consider extension that connects with the professional as well as the lifestyle values of producers could be a way forward for revising on-farm dairy practices.

130

Case study 2: Carrathool Shire

2.1 Background

Before European occupation, Aboriginal people inhabited the Carrathool Shire area, particularly along the Lachlan and Murrumbidgee river systems. There are also remains of Aboriginal sites some distance from the river systems: these areas might have been occupied during times when water was plentiful. European settlement can be traced back to the 1850s, when staging posts for the famous Cobb & Co. coaches were established throughout the region. Willandra Shire was proclaimed in 1906 and renamed Carrathool Shire the following year.

The Shire is in the south-west of New South Wales. Its 18 939 square kilometres extend from the Murrumbidgee River in the south (close to the township of Darlington Point), north-west to Trida and Mossgiel, then across the Lachlan River and almost to Yathong Nature Reserve, then east almost to Lake Cargelligo and south to adjoin Griffith Shire (see Figure 3.1). The main roads through the shire are the Mid- Western Highway and the Kidman Way. The Parkes – Broken Hill railway line passes through the north of the Shire, and there is the north–south Roto–Griffith line.

Figure 2.1 Carrathool Shire

Source: Land and Property Information .

The main townships and villages are Carrathool, with a population of 100; Goolgowi, with a population of 250; Hillston, with a population of 1100; Merriwagga, with a population of 80; and Rankins Springs, with a population of 112 (Carrathool Shire Council 1999).

131

2.1.1 The agricultural context

Agricultural production in Carrathool Shire has diversified over the years, moving away from sheep and wool because of the introduction of irrigation and reticulated water supply schemes. Cattle and sheep grazing does, however, remain an important activity; for example, there are several large sheep studs in the southern part of the Shire, and a cattle feedlot and abattoir owned by Australian Meat Holdings have been established near Tabbita.

Over 1 500 000 hectares are now used for agriculture; this includes more than 60 000 hectares sown to wheat, rice, barley, vineyards, cotton, vegetables (particularly potatoes and onions) and orchard trees (predominantly citrus)—see Tables 2.1 and 2.2. Use of river and artesian water is widespread.

Dr Sol Goldberg, who owned a property near Hillston, first investigated the use of underground water in the 1950s, sending his manager to Israel to look at practices there. River water is now drawn from both the Lachlan and Murrumbidgee Rivers, with parts of the Shire obtaining irrigation water through the extensive network of canals that characterises the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area.

The Shire’s main population centre, Hillston, is on the Lachlan River. It has a shopping centre as well as a number of agricultural suppliers, automotive engineers, agricultural engineers and wool buyers. The Hillston area supports sheep and wool growing, citrus orchards, cotton, potatoes, lettuce seed farms, melons, onions and extensive cattle breeding.

132

Table 2.1 Agricultural production: Carrathool Shire, 1995–96

Area sown Production Livestock or crop type Number (hectares) (tonnes) Sheep and lambs 709 732 .. .. Cattle 48 821 .. .. Pigs 8 124 .. .. Fruit (excluding grapes)a .. 830 .. Grapes .. 184 155 Wheat for grain .. 81 781 154 993 Wheat for hay .. 146 308 Oats for grain .. 19 358 22 183 Oats for hay .. 1 451 3 799 Barley for grain .. 39 323 67 859 Sorghum for grain .. 1 252 6 501 Maize for grain .. 2 594 27 259 Rice for grain .. 4 291 32 150 Triticale for grain .. 465 935 Mung and other dry edible beans .. 253 240 Soybeans .. 72 147 Lupins .. 5 099 3 327 Field peas .. 4 979 5 437 Chick peas .. 80 38 Canola .. 6 904 7 795 Sunflower .. 240 195 Faba beans .. 97 87 Cotton—irrigated .. 1 326 4 643b Potatoes .. 821 20 731 Pumpkins .. 12.9 147 Melons .. 1.3 15 Onions .. 0.1 2 Vegetables for human .. 836 .. consumptionc Vegetable seed .. 160 .. .. Not applicable. a. Includes oranges, lemons, mandarins, cherries, peaches and plums. b. Seed cotton. c. Includes tomatoes, onions, lettuce, cabbage and beans. Note: Based on 1995–96 Australian Bureau of Statistics census data. Source: Carrathool Shire Council (2000).

133

Table 2.2 Selected agricultural production: Carrathool Shire, 1999–2000

Area sown Production Livestock or crop type (hectares) (tonnes) Grapes 900 n.a. Wheat for grain 85 000 170 000 Barley for grain 25 000 50 000 Maize for grain 2 500 37 500 Rice for grain 5 000 35 000 Other winter crops 8 000 16 000 Cotton—irrigated n.a. >36 000a Potatoes 1 270 47 000 Melons 500 4 000 Onions 100 2 000 n.a. Not available. a. Cotton seed. Note: Based on industry sources. Source: Carrathool Shire Council (2000).

A comparison of Tables 2.1 and 2.2 makes it clear that cotton production has increased considerably in the area, as has potato, melon and onion production. Maize production has decreased as cotton has increased. Despite these changes, grazing remains a significant production focus in the district.

2.1.2 Environment

According to Carrathool Shire Council’s State of the Environment Report 1999–2000, soils in the Shire have been adversely affected by human land use and management since European settlement: ‘Soils have been variously affected by the common forms of land degradation such as water and wind sheet erosion, scalding and gullying in the past. During severe drought, soils in parts of the Shire where ground cover is absent or has been removed, have been subjected to moderate to severe wind erosion’ (2000, p. 14). In more recent times land degradation resulting from soil salinity, compaction and waterlogging has occurred in areas used for more intensive agriculture.

Carrathool Shire is part of the management areas of both the Lachlan and the Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Committees. There are two Landcare groups in the Shire—Jimbaroo at Rankins Springs and Wah Wah at Goolgowi. The sections of the Lachlan and Murrumbidgee Rivers within the Shire are the lower reaches and water quality is therefore connected to activity upstream. The current groundwater quality is not known, although in a 1997 report the New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation rated groundwater salinity as low (Carrathool Shire Council 2000).

Among the important areas of wetland habitat in the Shire are Lake Brewster, the Lower Mirrool Creek floodplain, and McKennas Lagoon. A number of swamps, billabongs and other water bodies—particularly those associated with the Lachlan and Murrumbidgee Rivers and their streams—also provide habitats for flora and fauna.

The main vegetation communities in the Shire are as follows: • bladder saltbush—Atriplex vesicaria • black box—Eucalyptus largiflorens • mallee—Eucalyptus oleosa, E. socialis and E. dumosa • bimble box and white cypress pine—Eucalyptus populnea and Callitris glaucophylla • behal and rosewood—Casuarina pauper or C. cristata and Alectryon oleifolius • tumbledown gum and mugga ironbark—Eucalyptus dealbata and E. sideroxylon

134

• windmill grass and whitetop—Chloris truncata and Danthonia caespitosa. There has been considerable modification to native vegetation in the Shire, the greatest change occurring in the southern and eastern parts as a result of cropping and irrigation:

The changes in vegetation species and abundance and composition associated with grazing, clearing and the introduction of introduced weed species all contribute to a reduction in the condition status and health of the remnant communities relative to the pristine.

This particularly applies to the ground layer vegetation since this is the layer that has been most drastically altered even in the remnant stands that retain a relatively intact shrub and tree layer. (Carrathool Shire Council 2000, p. 25)

There are two national parks in the Shire—Cocoparra and Willandra—and five nature reserves, accounting for 3.6 per cent of the Shire’s total land area.

2.1.3 The social context

Within Carrathool Shire there are two schools in Hillston—a Catholic primary school and a central school, educating students from kindergarten to year 12—and a primary school in Goolgowi. The Council’s library service is based in Hillston.

The village of Rankins Springs is surrounded by land given over mainly to wheat and oat growing and cattle and sheep breeding for beef and wool. Originally situated 10 kilometres north-west of its current site, the village was established in 1869, around the springs after which it was named at the foot of the Conapaira Range. The springs were closed in 1957 and now only appear in very wet weather.

Carrathool is on the flat Riverina plain a few kilometres from the Murrumbidgee River. It was originally a bustling port and railhead, serving Hillston, Cobar, the copper mine at Mount Hope, and the sheep, timber, wool, cattle and wheat producers of the surrounding area. The Depression of the 1930s, the transfer of the Shire headquarters to Goolgowi in 1934, and the development of the highway system in the post-war years all eroded Carrathool’s status as a service centre.

As well as the Shire chambers, facilities in Goolgowi include a postal agency, a police station, churches, a hotel, the Ex-Servicemen’s Club, a bowling green, a swimming pool complex, tennis courts, a recreation ground and a golf course. Table 2.3 provides details of Carrathool Shire’s profile and Table 2.4 shows details of community organisations and events in the Shire.

135

Table 2.3 Statistical profile: Carrathool Shire

Number in Shire NSW Category Shire (per cent) (per cent) Estimated resident population 3 187 .. .. Area (approx. km2) 18 975 .. .. Population density (per km2) 0.17 .. .. Population growth .. –0.04 .. Age group 0–11 years 702 19.7 n.a. 12–24 years 438 14.8 n.a. 25–54 years 1 404 40.7 n.a. 55+ years 643 24.6 n.a. Population aged 65+ years 317 14.8 12.7 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 128 4.1 n.a. People born overseas 147 4.7 23.2 Households and families Single-person household 243 21.5 21.9 Group household 29 2.6 4.0 Other household 859 76 74.1 One-parent families 75 9.3 14.8 Couples-only families 247 30.6 32.6 Two-parent families 472 58.5 49.8 Other families 13 1.6 2.8 Number of households 1 062 .. .. Owned 541 48.9 42.3 Being purchased 157 14.2 22.7 Rented 228 20.6 28.6 Labour force Total employed 1 441 .. .. Total unemployed 93 Labour force participation rate .. 67.9 61.1 Unemployment rate .. 6.1 8.8 Major industries Agriculture/forestry/fishing (no. of businesses) 304 .. .. Small business operations (0–4 employees) (no. of businesses) 392 .. .. Public sector (no. of positions) 202 .. .. Private sector (no. of positions) 1 195 .. .. Weekly income Nil–$199 855 36.3 36 $200–$499 836 35.5 29.3

136

Number in Shire NSW Category Shire (per cent) (per cent) $500–$999 364 15.4 22.4 $1000 or more 75 3.2 6 n.a. Not available. .. Not applicable. Source: Carrathool Shire Council. Note: Based on 1998 Australian Bureau of Statistics data.

Table 2.4 Community organisations and events: Carrathool Shire

Organisation/event Hillston Goolgowi Rankins Springs Carrathool Merriwagga Town agencies Ratepayers and Progress Progress Residents Association Association Tidy Towns Tidy Towns Education Hillston Central Goolgowi Public Rankin Springs Carrathool Merriwagga Public Public Preschool St Josephs Goolgowi Primary Preschool Hillston Preschool Goolgowi Playgroup Hillston Playgroup Service clubs Ex-Servicemen’s Ex-Servicemen’s Club Club Churches Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Uniting Anglican, Catholic, Anglican, Uniting, Catholic, Uniting Catholic, Uniting Presbyterian Gunbar Pioneer, Uniting Community CWA, Lions, Red CWA, NSW NSW Farmers NSW Farmers organisations Cross, NSW and Farmers, Scouts National Farmers, Cubs and Scouts, Masonic Lodge, Probus, Show Society, Hospital Auxillary, Aboriginal Corporation Sporting clubs Basketball, Bowling, cricket, Rugby league, Jockey, golf, Golf, tennis aquatic, bowling, golf, rugby league, tennis, rifle, fishing cricket cricket, tennis, golf, tennis, swimming jockey, netball, rugby league, pony, rugby union Cultural organisations Creative Arts Goolgowi Arts Council, Painters Council of the Plains, Hillston Historical Society Annual events Fishing Festival Yabby Day (Good Carrathool Races Merriwagga Field Friday, Rankin Days (2nd Friday Springs Worm in September) Drowners Fishing Club) Hillston Show Picnic Races Source: Carrathool Shire Council (1999).

137

Griffith and Hay are the large centres closest to Carrathool Shire. People living in the south of the Shire tend to travel to Griffith for major supplies and those living in the west tend to go to Hay.

2.1.4 The Griffith district

A number of agricultural research establishments are located outside Carrathool Shire, near Griffith, and most of them provide services in the Shire. Among them are CSIRO Land and Water, NSW Agriculture’s Centre for Irrigated Agriculture, the Irrigation Research and Extension Committee, and the Griffith Skills Training Centre, which is part of Riverina Institute of TAFE (see Attachment A).

There are also several industry associations located in the area, among them the MIA Council of Horticultural Associations, Riverina Citrus, and the Wine Grapes Marketing Board (see Attachment B). The MIA Land and Water Management Plan is one of the main catchment management initiatives in the area.

Media services available in the area include a local radio station, access to a number of ABC radio services, as well as two commercial television stations and ABC television. The local newspaper is published weekly.

Known for its rich cultural mix, Griffith has a higher than average number of people of European descent, predominantly Italian, as well as sizeable Indian and South Pacific Islander communities.

Griffith is also a rail hub, with lines extending north to Hillston, to Leeton and Narrandera to the south-east, and to Ardlethan and Junee to the east. From Junee the line connects to the main Sydney–Melbourne rail network. A daily door-to-door containerised freight road service provides a direct link between the region and Sydney. The airport offers services to Sydney several times a day.

2.1.5 The Hay district

Because of its location on the banks of the Murrumbidgee River, Hay was originally established as a river crossing for mobs of merino sheep. It is a centre for medium-wool merino production, and a number of major studs are found on the Riverina plains. Culls and older ewes from the area are sought as foundation stock for other breeders.

Beef production is also important—increasingly so with the expansion of irrigation and the feedlot industry. The area has extensive grasslands and large tracts of irrigated holdings producing rice, canola, corn, soya beans and fodder. Irrigated horticultural holdings produce garlic, rockmelons, lettuce, broccoli and tomatoes. Cotton and rice are emerging industries. The area planted to rice expanded from 400 hectares in 1991–92 to over 7000 hectares in 1997. There is a rice receiving depot on the Cobb Highway in South Hay.

Catchment management is guided by the Hay Plains Land and Water Management Plan, and Landcare is active in the area.

The town’s newspaper, the Riverina Grazier, is published weekly. ABC television and the commercial PRIME and WIN stations are relayed through Griffith. Residents have access to five radio stations. A number of government agencies are located in the town, as are several banking institutions.

The University of New South Wales has in the area a field station for sheep research; it is part of the University’s Biological Resources Centre.

2.2 Extension and natural resource management

Almost all the extension available in Carrathool Shire is developed and delivered by organisations and agencies located outside the Shire, in Wagga Wagga, Griffith, Hay, Condobolin and Forbes. Because of the diversity of rural production in the Shire, many industry organisations should have an interest in the area.

138

Attachment C describes a number of the extension programs and services provided in the Shire. The listing is not comprehensive but does include most of the learning initiatives mentioned by the extension officers and producers who provided feedback for this case study.

Nineteen producers from Carrathool Shire were interviewed and/or provided written feedback about their views on participation in learning activities.

2.2.1 Participation and non-participation

Producers were asked what courses, workshops and field days they had participated in during the preceding two years. The following activities were recalled: • wool-classing courses—TAFE • WaterWise on the Farm and Envirowise—NSW Agriculture, Ecowise, Murrumbidgee Irrigators • drought management—NSW Agriculture • a chaff retention course • business systems and computer courses • regulatory, quality assurance and WorkCover courses • field days—NSW Agriculture, wool studs, Elders, MIA Rural Services, stock and station agents, agronomists • a grain marketing seminar and grains information—Australian Wheat Board • a soil fertility course.

Courses focusing on computing and computer-related financial packages were mentioned more often than any other learning activity. Table 2.5 summarises the learning initiatives producers were involved in.

139

Table 2.5 Learning initiatives attended by producers in preceding two years: Carrathool Shire

Primary production Regulatory and/or Computing and based NRM based quality-assurance finance courses Field days Wool classer WaterWise on the Chemical users Internet course NSW Agriculture development (TAFE) Farm (NSW course (GALA) farm field days Agriculture) Wool classer WaterWise (part of Farm chemical Phoenix training, Riverina field day development (TAFE) Farm Plan) course (TAFE) FarmBiz subsidy (run by major wool studs and Elders) Grain marketing WaterWise course WorkCover- Computer workshop Field day on corn seminar (ARMS) (Murrumbidgee accredited chemical (Primary Concepts) (sponsored by MIA Irrigation and course Rural Services) Envirowise) FarmBiz soil fertility Envirowise First aid course GST workshop (NSW Henty and (Coffs Harbour) (WorkCover) Farmers) Murrumbidgee field days

Wool classer update Drought management First aid course GST workshop (local Riverina merino (TAFE) courses (WorkCover) accountants) field days

Grains information Drought feeding Chemical course Phoenix course Field days run by day (AWB) (Department of (FarmBiz run by Ian stock and station Agriculture Rural Connors, agents and Lands) Coleambally) agronomists Wool classing update WaterWise program Quality assurance Computer program (WTO) (NSW Agriculture) course Wool classing update Chaff retention system Chemical course GST course workshop (FarmBiz) (government funded) Chemical course Quicken course (TAFE) Chemical users Phoenix (TAFE) course Phoenix financial package GST seminar (government run) Ag data—Phoenix day on budgeting

2.2.2 Learning activities offered

The rural business studies course Many of the courses producers had attended were offered through the TAFE system.

One extension provider ran a rural business studies course in Carrathool Shire in 2000. It was offered in Goolgowi by the Leeton Campus of the TAFE NSW Riverina Institute. Using laptop computers supplied by the Institute’s Outreach Division, the year-long course was designed to help farmers gain skills in farm-based computer programs for administering their farm office, managing farm finances and operating a farm business. Participants developed a range of business skills—budgeting and reconciling, setting up enterprises, customising programs to suit individual needs, and so on. Among the programs used were PAM

140

2000 and Farmtracker, as well as cashbook financial programs such as like Phoenix 2000+ and Quicken. Classes were held from 7 pm to 10 pm once a week at the Goolgowi Ex-Servicemen’s Club.

The number of laptops available restricted the class to 12 participants. Some people had difficulty finding the time to attend the course, mainly because of the extra pressures associated with the drought. An instructor noted, ‘Nothing had been offered out there before’. He felt that going to the participants and taking laptops, as well as choosing a time that suited most people, helped generate interest in the course. Further, because the course was weekly, people could go away and try different things and then come back with questions. This flexible approach to learning meant that participants received individualised responses to what they wanted to know, using programs they had at home for business management.

The instructor said most of the participants were using computers for their financial records and the course helped them prepare for GST and other financial requirements; they did not necessarily use their computer for other aspects of farm management. Most of the people who attended came from the immediate Goolgowi area. Initially, some people travelled from Hillston and Rankins Springs, but they eventually dropped out because of distance.

WaterWise on the Farm WaterWise on the Farm is a NSW Agriculture program, with some modules supported by the Department of Land and Water Conservation. The program runs field days, farm walks, irrigation tours, information sessions, water management workshops and media campaigns to share best irrigation management practices and success stories. Teams around New South Wales help irrigators obtain funding, information and other support and work with case study farms to show practical ways of improving farm water use. One of the NSW Agriculture WaterWise officers explained, ‘The program aims to increase water use efficiency on the farm by offering irrigation management programs to farmers and if they complete the course they can get access to rural assistance grants’.

NSW Agriculture also works with industry groups to get best-practice water efficiencies written into their guidelines. This includes production lines such as melons and tomatoes, which exemplify best practice in irrigation management. Research is also being done on benchmarking different industry water use efficiencies, and water use efficiency officers are collecting data to help develop the benchmarks. It is envisaged that courses will be accredited through agricultural colleges and perhaps TAFE. NSW Agriculture irrigation officers currently present the courses. Courses have been run in Wagga Wagga, Narrandera, Hay, Balranald, Hillston, Corowa and other country centres. The irrigation areas also run their own courses. For example, Murrumbidgee Irrigation has run a number of courses and farmer participation is good. One officer from NSW Agriculture put it this way:

When the drought started to really hit in July, low allocation of water became the impetus for people to participate: they want to know how to make the most of their water … Some people only do the course so that they can get the incentive. Most have said that they have found it very worthwhile. From a presenter’s point of view, doing presentations in community halls isn’t the best way to conduct a program. Having to worry about getting everything prepared, such as milk and supplies—a comfortable venue is important. I think from an extension point of view, the relevance of the course to the farmer and a really strong emphasis on ‘this will help you improve your bottom line’ is what works. We talk a bit about the environment but, unless they are making money, anything to do with the environment is seen as going to cost them. Otherwise we work with where they are.

Another NSW Agriculture officer said the WaterWise program requires an approach to extension that differs from what most ‘traditional’ extension officers are used to:

The type of person that has become an irrigation officer is one that often enjoys isolated areas and has worked at building up their own clientele over time. They are a bit like farmers—individual, self- reliant, and often liking to have things reasonably defined. This is how most of those people were selected because those qualities were what were needed for the positions. Within WaterWise groups, those assets don’t fit. The teamwork, the extension aspect is difficult. Trying to get them to work as a team is really difficult. Individually the extension officers are really good. The newer recruits are not

141

like this because they come from a different education background. The older ones were recruited under a different regime and it doesn’t match with how we now run programs.

The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service The Cocoparra National Park ranger looks after all school and community programs based in Griffith, Leeton and Narrandera. The Hillston area is covered by an officer who works from the Griffith office of the Service and at Willandra National Park. Education programs have included an artists workshop for the Year of the Outback.

Farmers around the national parks are involved in a number of cooperative programs, such as pest control programs. Barbecues are held with neighbouring property owners and other contact is made to try to build up a relationship to help with management. The farmers are also kept informed through correspondence. A number of property owners were approached about a fencing agreement. Officers try to respond reasonably quickly to property owners’ inquiries, and landowners are not ‘pushed’ into participation. As one officer said,

We leave it up to them to see whether they want to get involved in voluntary conservation agreements and other programs. It is on their initiative. One program that we have been involved with is Farming for the Future, a National Heritage Trust–funded program. Farmers were given brochures through this program and the program facilitator went out and spoke to them. We spent time in Rankins Springs, Lake Cargelligo and Hillston. The program seemed to be successful because the program facilitator was in constant contact with producers. The facilitator was a farmer from Lake Cargelligo, so he was good with farmers.

Greening Australia Greening Australia runs programs in Carrathool Shire from its Griffith office. It recently completed a National Heritage Trust–funded project called the Murrumbidgee Bush Stewardship project, which was a fencing incentive program. A Greening Australia officer said,

There was a high demand for fencing off remnants, and for our program it must be an existing remnant, although we are thinking of extending this, especially in Carrathool Shire, to apply to windbreaks. I had no experience with landholders beforehand, but I just went out and spoke to them about the program and what it had to offer. A lot of them haven’t had contact with Greening Australia or other organisations for a while, so I make certain they have time to chat.

Cotton extension Extension activities associated with cotton are well attended by agronomists but not so by producers:

I run a couple of field days a year—agronomy field days. My cotton field day had about 50 people attending. In the cotton industry the farmers rely on the agronomists (Elders and corporate farms with agronomists) to come along: the farmers don’t come along, we only get a couple. I’m keen to try to promote courses to them so they participate. So I’ll run activities on their farms and I’ll have them as part of the organising committee. If I can start a group with a few key growers that can meet under their own terms, they can function in a self-sufficient way. Farmers need to have ownership of their learning.

One company tried to run a fertiliser – soil nutrition course. They ran only one course in the area. Some Tamic™ occupational health and safety courses are also run by Bayer in the cotton-growing areas. There were about 30 people participating—agronomists and tractor drivers. The motivation to attend would be that they have to be registered to use [Tamic]. We run workshops with spray coups. I organise people to talk about better spraying and I mainly get cotton growers coming along. Attendance ranges from 20 to 50 people. They have to be able to use it. The workshop is very applied. They see it as economically efficient and also they are interested.

142

2.2.3 Producers’ responses to learning activities

One case study participant said he had been too busy in the last two years to attend courses, although he had attended drought management courses, an accredited chemical course and first aid courses provided through WorkCover. Another producer, who runs a sheep and cropping property that has been in his family’s hands for about 130 years, said he had not attended any courses because ‘In the past I have worked the farm basically by myself and have not had the time to attend courses or field days’. He added that he would become involved in government or industry programs only if he was ‘… very interested in the concept or idea and it would have to, in my eyes, have long-term benefits for the farming community’.

This producer seeks professional advice from agronomists, sheep and wool classers, and agents, all of whom have influenced his thinking. Although possessing no formal qualifications, he believes that it is important for ‘today’s farmers to have qualifications’. He said he acts on things that he hears and reads about when it involves purchasing new equipment: ‘Any new equipment I buy is generally well researched beforehand’. He uses newspapers, radio, television, the internet, agronomists, banks, the stock and station agent and the accountant as sources of information. He noted that he would prefer one-on-one contact, especially when the contact is with respected farmers in the district, and sees this as particularly important because he does not attend formal courses. Of note is his interest in Landcare, sustainable farming practices, control of noxious weeds and feral animals, and continued development of new fuels.

Table 2.6 summarises producers’ characteristics and their feedback about involvement in courses and other learning experiences.

143

Table 2.6 Producer’s feedback about learning experiences: Carrathool Shire

Comments on learning Family members’ formal activities: did they lead to Enterprise farming qualifications Information services used Courses attended Costs of attendance change? Wheat, barley, oats No formal farming Phoenix farm management Wool classers development Costs—time off work, Wool classer—revision and sheep for wool qualifications. Today it is (accounting system) program (TAFE) travel important, especially in the computer WaterWise—very 2678 ha under area of marketing and WaterWise on the Farm Wool classers—paid for, beneficial for someone new production administration of the farm Newsletters from grain (NSW Agriculture) applied for FarmBiz to irrigation industry buyers, stock and station Farm owned by family agents Chemical users course WaterWise—subsidised Chemical—update for 76 years Internet—machinery, Chemical users—paid for livestock (stud) etc Books—grains, weeds (NSW Agriculture

144 Radio—ABC Rural News Newspapers—local, Weekly Times, The Land, Kondinin Irrigation farm I have no formal farming Stock and station agents Farm chemical course Farm chemical course— Chemical course gave a producing wheat and qualifications. I do think with newsletter and an (TAFE) direct cost was $120, better understanding of canola in winter and formal qualifications are agronomist who is always indirect cost was travel to different chemicals and rice in summer— important as farming today available in person or by Wool classing development course, which was better safety practices were 3000 acres (1600 is more high tech. But phone course (TAFE) subsidised adopted irrigated). Also runs commonsense still plays a Internet course (GALA) cattle and sheep for big part Radio—Country Hour on Internet course—$90 Wool classing development wool and lambs ABC—weather details etc WaterWise (GALA) program changed the way we prepared our clip My father has been Television—Landline on NSW Agriculture farm field farming the property ABC days WaterWise course was the least useful for 50 years. I have Neighbours and been involved for departmental reps as one, 20 years with NSW Agriculture have field days during growing season (every 4–6 weeks), able to share info with neighbours with discussions and field walks

Comments on learning Family members’ formal activities: did they lead to Enterprise farming qualifications Information services used Courses attended Costs of attendance change? Sheep, cattle, rice and Have no formal farming Stock and station agents, Drought management Travel to and from Chemical course was most cereals for 20+ years qualifications but believe radio, neighbours, basically venues—all courses helpful and led to changing that qualifications are very word of mouth WorkCover-accredited subsidised the way we do things important to farming chemical course Computer course was very A first aid course provided helpful in that I now know by WorkCover what I can do with a computer Sheep, winter cereals, I have a diploma of Many and varied. Woolclasser update Direct costs include GST and computer days oilseeds, legumes, Applied Science Accountants, neighbours, (TAFE), computer workshop travel. Indirect—time were most helpful. We wool, lambs, canola, (Agriculture) from Wagga agronomists, financier, stock (Primary Concepts), GST away from work. Some were able to fulfil GST wheat, barley, oats, Agricultural College agents, reading, radio, workshop (NSW Farmers), programs subsidised by obligations as a vetch television, sheep classer GST workshop (local FarmBiz (wool classer, consequence No other family member accountant), drought GST), others free Myself—28 years. has formal academic feeding (NSW Agriculture (drought feeding, GST— 145 Family in Australia qualifications to do with Rural Lands) accountant) since 1878 and in farming. My wife has Rankins Springs since teaching qualifications 1927 Cropping Family members don’t Media, chemical Phoenix (TAFE, $240); Travelling cost, day off Courses are not always have formal farming representatives, accountant, Phoenix training (FarmBiz work, Phoenix courses relevant to our own farming Family farm for 25– qualifications but future computer program (Phoenix) subsidy, $180) are usually FarmBiz program 30 years farming generations need subsidised them Dry-area grazing farm No formal farming Information gained from Chemical course—FarmBiz, Chemical course—$218 All courses have been dedicated to wool and qualifications but see a trusted stock agents, variety run by Ian Connors (Western Lands farmers helpful and interesting beef cattle need for business and of rural newspapers, (Coleambally); Riverina field were paid to go plus book-keeping skills television, radio day, run by major wool given travel funding) I don’t tend to go to 8500 ha studs and Elders courses that don’t interest Computer program me as even if the course is In the family since course—$2000 free there is still the time 1874 (subsidised) and travel cost factor

Comments on learning Family members’ formal activities: did they lead to Enterprise farming qualifications Information services used Courses attended Costs of attendance change? Dedicated to cropping No formal farming Agronomists, through NSW Quality assurance, run by Quality assurance course An agricultural field day to and livestock (sheep qualifications within family Agriculture, stock agents for NSW Agriculture was $165 but was preview new machinery for and pigs) but there is a definite need prices, newspapers, radio, reimbursed through NSW better sowing techniques, for any young farmers to television—Landline through Agriculture which was held on farm, 2638 acres start with qualifications the ABC was beneficial for us and GST course— local farmers who attended Family has been government funded involved in farming Courses attended were all since 1928 helpful as I chose topics of interest or need Mixed farming Four members of the Computer programs such as Chemical course (FarmBiz) Waterwatch paid by Local field days when dedicated to family currently running the Phoenix accounting and Envirowise agronomists come on farm production of winter property with no formal Woolpak Field day on corn to look specifically at your cereals and summer qualifications. (sponsored by MIA Rural Chemical course around situation are helpful and grains Qualifications are Information comes from a Services) $110 sponsored and often lead to changes 146 variety of rural magazines subsidised by FarmBiz important but not GST (government funded) 15 000 acres necessary and newspapers, plus local Envirowise course was agents and agronomists Phoenix course helpful in confirming Family business since practices that would have 1885 Stock and station agents for Henty and Murrumbidgee happened anyway selling and buying all stock, field days as well as wool preparation Major field days are fun, and sales WaterWise course social days and always (Murrumbidgee Irrigation informative but don’t and Envirowise) change our farm practices unless we can see the machinery or idea actually working in our particular farming situation Cropping and sheep Four years’ study at Accountant, The Land Quicken course (TAFE) Quicken, $249—own We have taken hints from college. Formal newspaper, computer cost each course and workshop, About 22 000 acres qualifications are very program Quicken, internet, Grains information day which has led to many (Australian Wheat Board) AWB (levies) Family has been important to any farming etc changes to our farm involved in farming for Workshop chaff retention Chaff $1000 (WA travel practices 50 years system (in Western own cost) Australia)

Comments on learning Family members’ formal activities: did they lead to Enterprise farming qualifications Information services used Courses attended Costs of attendance change? Cropping and sheep No formal qualifications Financial details (cash book) Phoenix financial package Phoenix program—about On-farm and paddock field (limited) but trained by experienced on computer—Phoenix $1200 to purchase, plus days, plus computer help in farmer. Qualifications in Field days run by stock and at least another $2000 in our own office Two properties about some areas are needed Stock and station agents, station agents and courses 8000 acres in total papers, internet, NSW agronomists Not as helpful in class Agriculture agronomists All others paid for by situation Family has been ourselves involved in farming for Does not always relate to 45–50 years our needs Irrigated cropping, University degree in rural Accountant information, WaterWise program, leads Wool classing—$300 Phoenix—helped with rice, wheat, canola, science stock and station agents, to grants for water and farm maybe subsidised by budgeting on computer beef cattle The Land newspaper, ABC planning and recycling— FarmBiz Qualifications important radio, television less for Murrumbidgee Irrigation Grain market—long-term 3300 acres dedicated but not necessary information GST seminar—no cost benefits; no significant to production Woolclassing update, run changes immediately Ag data—not sure of cost

147 Phoenix by WTO Family has been Wool classing course was involved in farming for ARMS Chemical course—needed ARMS—FarmBiz the least helpful as it was a 25 years to purchase chemicals attachment (maybe compulsory course to Information from Rice Board, $170) maintain wool classing specific from Wheat Board ARMS grain marketing registration, although farm seminar no longer runs sheep GST seminar, run by government agency Ag data—Phoenix day on budgeting FarmBiz—soil fertility (Coffs Harbour)

Comments on learning Family members’ formal activities: did they lead to Enterprise farming qualifications Information services used Courses attended Costs of attendance change? Rice, wheat, corn, Certificate in Agriculture Newspapers—The Land, Chemical users course FarmBiz helped to pay All courses, workshops and canola, sheep and and Irrigation Weekly Times for all four courses field days have yielded cattle Wool classing update discussion of new ideas. Working with other family Computer course The refresher course for Family has been members usually means wool classing was helpful involved in farming for Envirowise one person can get away in bringing up-to-date 46 years for the day to attend information on presentation courses etc Found all courses beneficial Wool and fat lambs No formal qualifications Newspaper—The Land, Riverina merino field days Field day free of charge. Field day gave advice on but the next generation Rural News Information gained more supplementary feeding of Cropping would be well advised to important than worrying sheep and selective joining seek experience, Landline—ABC television about travel costs. It is of sheep

148 Family has been involved in farming especially in office skills Stock agent—advice on reasonably local since 1885—three lamb, wool prices (use generations thus far Woolpac program and advice from Riverina Wool testers) Neighbours Cropping and sheep No formal qualifications Newspapers, radio, None but I realise it is important television, internet, 3280 hectares for today’s farmers to have agronomist, banks, stock Family has been qualifications and station agent and involved in farming for accountant about 130 years

The following are the main features of the producers’ feedback: • Learning activities that had direct relevance to their enterprise were highly valued—for example, field days that took place on local properties and computer courses that related to their financial reporting requirements. • Many people mentioned FarmBiz subsidies and it appears that this is important, although it was noted as such by only one producer. Nevertheless, the mention of it means that there is high recognition of its contribution. • Many people said they went to their accountants and stock and station agents for information. It appears, however, that producers are looking at different information sources, depending on their needs, and that they are using many sources, among them neighbours, different media, agronomists from NSW Agriculture, and marketing and product information. A number of producers also seemed to go to people they relied on for advice; these were people they felt confident with and whom they believed had good knowledge of local circumstances.

The presentation and cost of courses Producers were asked three questions about the presentation and cost of courses: • What sorts of people make the best presenters/facilitators of courses and workshops for farmers? • How would you improve the courses you did attend? • Is cost a barrier to participating in courses, field days and other extension/education activities?

Table 2.7 details their responses.

149

Table 2.7 Course presentation and cost: Carrathool Shire

What sort of people make the best presenters/facilitators of How would you improve the courses that courses and workshops for farmers? you attend? Is cost a barrier to learning experiences? Someone with a detailed knowledge of his or her area and with a No humorous personality to make it entertaining Usually people who have had practical experience—for example, Yes had farming experience—and become presenters or teachers Someone who is not shy and who knows what they are talking Maybe more time for questions It can be, especially in tough times about. Anyone with practical experience and who will also tell you about what can and will go wrong The most professional people—those who were highly skilled One of the GST courses had too many Not really. Time is the essence themselves and were able to impart their knowledge participants Those that had personal experience Mostly, from any course you gain something Yes, if it is too expensive it is hard to justify, particularly if

150 that is beneficial you are only interested in one aspect Presenters who have a background from the land and have Cost and distance can be barriers practical experience Presenters with good, practical knowledge and an understanding All courses I attended were good because I Cost is occasionally a problem of farming practices in the area felt I gained new information or ideas from them all, even if it was only one new piece of information each time Presenters with genuine practical experience who really know Provide courses that are more localised and Cost is no barrier at this time what they are talking about suit your specific situation Honest and knows his topic and is outgoing The Quicken course was too broad and In some cases isolation can make courses and programs needed to be one on one impossible to attend. The times that these courses are run can also be restrictive because of family commitments People who have a good knowledge of farm life. Possibly people They should use real-life examples and Sometimes, but mainly lack of time is the greatest barrier who have been on the land situations—for example, field studies Presenters with real-life experience of farm activity It is a barrier but if the course is necessary money doesn’t seem to matter. The desire to go and time are key factors Experienced presenters with good knowledge of the course Shorten programs—for example, no stopping No, not really, but FarmBiz is a great help for cups of tea Hands-on type of people who have real experience Generally, no

The following are the main points arising from the feedback on course presentation and cost: • It is important to have presenters and facilitators who have credible farming experience that is recognised as such by other producers. This should be teamed with an ability to impart information in a practical way that is relevant to the local context. • Learning experiences need to focus on responding to the needs of individual participants. • Time is an important consideration for producers. This includes time away from the farm to attend learning experiences, the time it takes to get to venues, and the time at which learning experiences are offered. • Cost seems to be relative to other competing demands, including the value placed on the potential learning experience itself in relation to farm management needs.

Broader learning influences and experiences In the case of broader learning influences and experiences, producers were asked about the following: • the main influences on the way they think about farming • any groups that they might belong to, such as Rotary and Landcare • their preferred methods of learning, whether through conversations with other farmers, reading or formal courses • actions that might be taken as a result of what they have read or heard • whether they prefer one-on-one conversations or group interactions.

Table 2.8 details the producers’ responses.

151

Table 2.8 Learning preferences, influences and decision making: Carrathool Shire

Making decisions: how do you learn about something Who/what has influenced your so that you can make a One-on-one or group thinking? Group/club membership How do you best learn? decision? interactions for learning Previous employer No It depends on the activity and the Purchasing of new This depends totally on who is need. More is learnt through trial and equipment after reading or involved error learning about different methods Growing new varieties of grain or pasture after discussions and what has been read There is always a need to Landcare—motivates you to I have not done enough formal Group interactions stimulate improve farming practices, plant trees and gives you courses to have an answer, but I more information and whether it be improving irrigation incentives to do so think I learn best through questions, whilst one on one is layout and increasing yields or conversations with other farmers, good for specific questions that improving pasture. So other and the media provide the relate to your needs farmers who do this are information you want, but courses 152 influential and organisations would obviously expand the such as CSIRO or NSW knowledge you need Agriculture keep you in touch with improving farming practices My father-in-law has influenced No We learn more from other farmers. We acted in response to the Depending on the situation. our thinking about farming, and They are usually local people who drought management course Groups have their benefits, also watching and learning from know their environment and can offer we attended presenting different points of everyone around practical advice. You don’t have to view and different solutions, travel for miles and have it cost you then if you need to know more time and money. Often the best time one on one is more beneficial to learn things is when you are relaxed and not thinking about rushing anywhere else. You can always meet in the paddock, call them when everyone has a bit of time to stop and talk

Making decisions: how do you learn about something Who/what has influenced your so that you can make a One-on-one or group thinking? Group/club membership How do you best learn? decision? interactions for learning My local community, my father, I am heavily involved in NSW I possibly learn more with other Yes, I act on things that I I think that group interactions lecturers at college, friends Farmers Association, Executive farmers but it is a fine line—formal hear and read about but I am have been very successful, Council, Grains Committee. courses have to be provided. very guarded about what although one on one is They help meet a whole range technology or ideas I adopt. appropriate at certain times of people The latest example is in and is in fact necessary response to my stock agent’s advice to shear cross-bred lambs when the weather warms up My father and my family Landcare is helpful I learn through conversations with Farmers are always trying Usually a group at a field day other farmers and through various new ideas, or at least we are gives you a variety of ideas media programs at various times. Family history of farming and I keep in touch with Landcare Conversations with farmers are best I do act on things that I read Group activities are good local trusted farmers who inspire through newsletters but I’m not because you ask about what you and hear about because of because ideas are bounced you with their own success an active member. Landcare is need to know. Sometimes you can benefits to my practices—for around. There is always the important so production remains spare a half hour to have a ‘yarn’ example, keeping weeds to a opportunity for one-on-one 153 viable with the neighbour about farming minimum, parasites on stock, conversation with officers if concerns where you can’t take a and improving wool quality required. Farmers are always whole day off to participate in a and quantity very guarded and need to formal course know [the people giving advice] can be trusted A family background in farming No direct involvement I learn more through one-on-one We do act on issues that One-on-one conversations are and a desire to continue and conversations with other farmers as affect us, such as changing good but depend greatly on improve farming practices you can speak specifically about our ideas on irrigation who the person is. Trust and things that concern you and methods despite the fact that respect are important, and a generally you take notice of trusted a new system was costly to lifetime on the land has shown peers who you know to be set up initially me who has the best interest of successful the land [at heart] and who achieves the best results

Making decisions: how do you learn about something Who/what has influenced your so that you can make a One-on-one or group thinking? Group/club membership How do you best learn? decision? interactions for learning A strong family history of farming An involvement in Landcare has The accessibility of newspapers, I have responded to It does depend on the and a need and want to keep the been informative but doesn’t radio and informal conversation with competitive prices for such presenter, but generally group enterprise going have a real overall benefit. We neighbours makes this transfer of things as chemicals, interaction is excellent to get a are aware that groups come on information useful and important, woolpaks and generally variety of opinions, which can farm to help with projects such although there is a definite place for respond to anything that may then be followed up by as tree planting, but it has not formal courses. Time and work benefit our farming purpose personal one-on-one happened on our farm commitments often make attendance conversations about particular at formal courses difficult, whereas aspects that concern you magazines and newspapers are available whenever a spare minute comes around Older family members, media, All members of NSW Farmers A small amount of information comes After attending the chaff I would prefer one on one income Federation. Provides legal from other farmers, the media and retention course we got a representation, discounts on formal courses chaff retention system up goods and services, and and running information

154 Farming through three droughts We are members of Landcare. Reading The Land and magazines, I only act on things once I has convinced me to change our We are constantly improving our talking to agronomists and other have researched them. For farming practices own environmental practices. farmers (field days) example, we changed from For example, we’ve been flood irrigation to overhead planting native trees at least (centre pivot) irrigation every two to three years around windbreaks etc and leaving grass cover to prevent erosion Born into a farming family, which We are involved in Landcare. Newspapers and conversations are Yes, new ideas are acted on. It depends on the information creates a love of the job and a We helped to get it started, but equally important to provide a For example, we acted as a you seek. Group discussions confidence to keep going production and survival are the balanced point of view result of the Phoenix are helpful, but if you want main concerns program and followed more information you can through various practices, follow up by seeking out one- such as irrigation layout, on-one conversations planting trees and buying stock

Making decisions: how do you learn about something Who/what has influenced your so that you can make a One-on-one or group thinking? Group/club membership How do you best learn? decision? interactions for learning Water restriction and the Members of Landcare, which is Depends. Most times other farmers Probably forced into a lot of One on one is good, but I think cutback in the allocation of water good for advice on sustainability have actually had the experience new technology concerning on-farm field days are better by NSW government has and are happy to pass on advice water—for example, lasering, influenced thinking about recycling, new crops— irrigation techniques because of water reforms Initially my father, then the Landcare helps with Conversations with farmers are Advertising on sheep I prefer group interactions practice of objective conservation and re- beneficial as you discuss specific husbandry products always because of varied ideas given measurement in selecting and establishment and maintenance concerns. Formal courses can be makes me evaluate and by others producing best fat lambs and of farming country and natural valuable—for example, wool classing perhaps update with new increased wool production have grasses courses products shaped my thinking to realise long-term economic benefits New methods of fencing were used Professional advice from No One-on-one conversation with Yes, I do act on things that I I prefer one-on-one contact agronomists. Sheep and wool respected farmers in my district is hear and read about. Any classers and agents have beneficial to me as I have not had new equipment I buy is

155 influenced my thinking the time to attend formal courses generally well researched beforehand

The main points emerging from the responses documented in Table 2.8 are as follows: • For people who are generational primary producers, the family has had a major influence on their thinking about farming practice. • Producers are using diverse sources of information, but time is a limiting factor so sources that fit in well with production practices are used widely. Learning from other local farmers is well recognised. • Many farmers have sought information and researched specific things they have an interest in and see will benefit their enterprise. The majority of farmers could identify major changes they have introduced as a result of seeking and obtaining information. • Many farmers said the choice of learning in group situations or through one-on-one interaction depends entirely on what information is sought, who is involved (‘trust and respect’ are needed), where the interaction is to take place (local is preferred), and the time required.

Non-participation Producers were asked why they might choose not to be involved in an organised program, course, workshop or field day. In response, a number of them cited time constraints as a practical reason for not participating:

Time constraints are the biggest hurdle—clashes with farming activities.

Time—finding time when these courses or programs are on during busy times.

Just not having the time to attend.

Lack of time or bad timing as far as busy periods on the farm.

Time and work commitments are the main reasons, but sometimes it’s how you feel on the day that determines your attendance.

We don’t choose not to go to relevant courses. It is more that we don’t go because of work commitments.

The times that they are held do not suit us in a young family situation.

Time of day courses are put on.

Night-time programs.

Time of courses may not suit farm program.

Difficulty in participating in terms of year-long programs.

In the past I have worked the farm basically by myself and have not had the time to attend courses or field days.

Relevance was another factor raised by a number of producers:

They are not always relevant to our own farming program.

Often out of touch with the real issues that we need discussed.

Lack of relevance.

Cost and distance can be a factor, but it really boils down to whether you want to do the course.

Distance can be a factor, but relevance to farm activity is important.

156

Other reasons mentioned by producers were:

Social stress.

I have already attended similar courses.

Do not agree with the thrust of the course—for example, forward selling of produce.

Encouraging participation Producers made the following suggestions about what would motivate them to become involved in government or industry programs:

A real need to change farming practices.

Anything to do with the job, and if there was anything that could possibly help with the day-to-day running of the property.

My own profitability and perhaps a chance to improve an industry overall.

Government subsidy.

If I felt strongly about an issue that would affect farming practices in my area and me in particular.

Interest in a program that would improve and benefit my farming practices.

Motivation comes from a need to be educated about activities that promote sustainability and profitability.

Suitable time—for example, school hours.

We would seek knowledge for a particular area when needed, as time does not always permit us to do courses when set by government.

Relevance.

Financial reasons and something relevant to our operations.

I would have to be very interested in the concept or idea and it would have to, in my eyes, have long- term benefits for the farming community.

How government and industry could help Producers were asked what they would like government and industry organisations to help them with:

To stay out of it. There are too many rules and regulations now. No one trusts farmers to look after the land that is their livelihood. We don’t need ‘experts’ from Sydney continually telling us how to farm.

Water issues are our main concern as without it we’re out of business. There are too many regulations, and groups like the greenies are getting too much say on how to run our waterways. The government should pay more attention to the landholders and not minority groups.

More information, and up-to-date information, all the time on everything from the weather to new laws regarding environmental issues and innovations and ideas to make the job easier.

More financial incentives to store fodder and grain for drought. The lack of profitability in grain production: costs are too high, although the rise in production costs has levelled off. Am particularly concerned about the cost of fertiliser and our increased use of a range of fertilisers.

Drought relief.

157

Government and industry need to work together more with farmers to get more balanced views into the decisions that affect us. Government could help with banking issues that affect farmers, as banks seem to be a law unto themselves.

Help to provide a better understanding between farmers and government regarding irrigation water.

Help to provide for long-term sustainability and viability of water, land, environment, and energy- efficient fuels are all issues of concern.

The issues on my farming enterprise are cash flow, productivity and income stability.

Reduction of paperwork … the paperwork involved with farming these days makes it extremely difficult to complete our main objective, which is growing crops for our living. The time in the office to fulfil these tasks means a qualified person needs to work at least two to three full days a week. This is as well as working manually on the farm. With the introduction of the GST and forms needed to be completed when hiring labour, so much manual time is ‘eaten into’. We feel this is a major concern for our sort of farming and would be a deterrent for people to … do courses. We learn mainly from life experiences and seek extra knowledge when needed.

Keep interest rates low, keep the dollar low, making sustainability viable. Issues include mineral fuel to ethanol, solar power, wind power, and guarantee of water flow while maintaining rivers. Topical information needed about the drought. As long as information is following, we can be very adaptable. Succession is also an issue of concern.

Stop taking our water allocation away from our farms.

Water supply through irrigation; stable wool-controlling body; better balance between cost of production and returns—for example, fertility, fuel, and husbandry products.

Landcare and sustainable farming practices, control of noxious weeds and feral animals, continued development of new fuels.

An important aspect of this feedback is that a number of the responses relating to conservation and sustainable practices came from producers who did not necessarily participate in learning activities offered by industry and government organisations. Perhaps the reason for this is that these producers want to see conservation and sustainable practices that they perceive as relevant to their on-farm needs and practices that reduce costs and reliance on infrastructure. These costs include fuel and other energy costs.

Water was of considerable concern to the majority of producers interviewed—especially at this time, when much change to water allocations is occurring. Participation in water-related learning activities is high and reflects attempts by producers to respond to this change.

One producer noted the increase in office and financial requirements associated with farming. This comment has been echoed by other small businesses in Australia—particularly since the introduction of the GST. It is clear from producers’ responses that many are reacting by attending business management courses, notably those courses that provide skills in electronic management of financial systems.

2.3 The main points: a summary of feedback

In summary, the main points emerging from the feedback from producers and extension officers in Carrathool Shire are as follows: • Learning activities that had specific and direct relevance to their enterprise were highly valued. Examples are field days on local properties and computer courses dealing with financial reporting requirements.

158

• Many people mentioned FarmBiz subsidies, and it appears that this is important, even though it was mentioned explicitly by only one producer. The fact that it was mentioned suggests there is high recognition of its contribution. • Many people said they went to their accountants and stock and station agents for information. These people could be an important group to provide support to, so that they are not only concentrating on, for example, tax minimisation but are also exposed to up-to-date practical information about natural resource management and extension. • It appears that producers are looking at different information sources according to their needs and that they are using many sources—neighbours, different forms of media, agronomists from NSW Agriculture, marketing and product information, and so on. A number of people also seemed to seek advice from people they relied on, felt confident with and believed had good knowledge of local circumstances. • For people who are generational primary producers, the family has had a major influence on their thinking about farming practice. • As noted, producers are using diverse sources of information, but time is a limiting factor, so sources that fit in well with production practices are preferred. Learning from other local farmers is well recognised. • Many farmers have sought information and researched specific things they have an interest in and see will benefit their enterprise. Most of the producers nominate major changes they have effected as a result of obtaining information. • Many farmers said the preference for learning in group situations or through one-on-one interaction depends entirely on what information is sought, who is involved, where the interaction is to take place, and the time required. • Producers recognised the learning that occurs when groups of people get together to focus on a specific, relevant subject or event. • Producers chose not to be involved in government- or industry-organised learning activities mainly because of time constraints. The timing of the learning opportunities conflicted with: – work requirements on the farm – other things that are scheduled or other demands on the individual’s time—such as spending time with the family – the time commitment required for some learning opportunities being too great. • Relevance was a factor determining participation. Many people considered relevance alongside the time requirement, weighing up the perceived value of the learning opportunity against the ‘costs’, although many of these costs are not measurable—such as spending time with the family, too tired at the end of the day, and health reasons. • Among other reasons given for non-participation in government- and industry-organised learning activities were: – social stress, particularly during drought – the course content having been covered in courses attended previously – the direction of the course or its underlying principles being too far removed from what the individual producer believes. • Producers would be motivated to attend learning opportunities if there was a ‘real’ identified need to change farming practices and if the benefits could be clearly identified or the initiatives could be seen to apply to the practical running of their property. The initiatives would need to fit in with productivity and sustainability requirements and preferably be seen to increase efficiencies and profitability, or both. • Producers would like industry and government organisations to help them with the following: – determining their own direction, rather than being directed by people from government and industry who are not involved practically and economically with local farming – water use reform—there was a feeling that governments were not listening to farmers’ concerns and were responding instead to others who are not economically affected by water reform – provision of practical, up-to-date information—‘from the weather to new laws regarding the environment and innovations and ideas to make the job easier’ – drought relief – financial incentives to change—for example, incentives to store fodder and grain for times of drought

159

– tackling profitability problems where production costs are high and product profitability is low. Associated with this is the question of cash flow and small business financial management – concerns about increased use of a range of fertilisers – systems of communication between farmers and government in relation to use of irrigated water, so that there is greater understanding between the two parties – the development of practical solutions that can be implemented without risking the economic and production requirements of the business and that will lead to long-term sustainability, viable use of water and land, control of pest species, and energy efficiency – solutions to reduce the office demands of running a small business – information about succession planning – stability in primary industries.

160

Attachment A Agricultural research establishments providing services in Carrathool Shire

Among the agricultural research establishments providing services in Carrathool Shire are CSIRO Land and Water, the Griffith Centre for Irrigated Agriculture, the Irrigation Research and Extension Committee, and Riverina Institute of TAFE.

CSIRO Land and Water

CSIRO Land and Water Griffith undertakes a considerable amount of work on irrigation, doing practical research in the field and developing predictive computer tools for irrigation. Figure A.1 shows the main research themes and activities.

Figure A.1 Main research themes and activities: CSIRO Land and Water Griffith

Source: CSIRO Land and Water, .

Also based at CSIRO Griffith is the Resource Management for Sustainable Irrigated Agriculture Research Group, which has the following aims: • to create decision-support tools and guidelines for irrigated crop, water, nutrient, salt, contaminant and stubble management • to develop point, farm, regional and catchment-scale models to assess the impacts of changes in land use on environmental sustainability and economic viability • to improve irrigation and drainage technology

161

• to devise innovative and practical methods for dealing with contaminated drainage water and effluent.

The Griffith Centre for Irrigated Agriculture

The Griffith Centre for Irrigated Agriculture is a major centre for NSW Agriculture in the Riverina. Located near Griffith, it provides facilities to support research, advisory, regulatory and education programs. It aims to secure improvements in the efficiency of production and marketing of quality produce, using ecologically sustainable agricultural practices. This particularly applies to irrigated farming. The Centre occupies an area of 28.8 hectares and comprises offices, a laboratory, glasshouses, preparation areas, storage sheds, and plantings of perennial horticultural crops. It is the ‘shop front’ for NSW Agriculture in the Griffith area and a field station for research conducted from the Yanco and Wagga centres of excellence.

Among the perennial plantings at the Centre are citrus fruits, grape vines, avocado and stone fruits (predominantly prunes).

Extension Officers from the Centre run advisory programs on all aspects of field crop, pasture and irrigation design. These programs are primarily delivered through field days, seminars, discussion groups, written material and individual contact. Specific activities include the following: • The Salt Action Program. This is a strategy for joint action by government and the community to manage and control salinity levels. It has three elements – salt action incentives—grants to promote the adoption of new technologies and to promote and demonstrate best irrigation practice – Water Table Watch—raising community awareness of salinity and high water tables and promoting remediation techniques. A groundwater monitoring installation service is also available – community and school education—provision of environmental information packages to teachers for inclusion in school education programs. • Regulation. The Centre maintains facilities for regulatory programs, particularly the Fruit Fly Control Program.

The Deniliquin Agricultural Research and Advisory Station

The Agricultural Research and Advisory Station at Deniliquin is the main multi-functional centre of operations for NSW Agriculture in the southern Riverina. There is an office and laboratory complex at the Charlotte Street site and a field station of about 100 hectares 10 kilometres north-east of Deniliquin, in the Berriquin Irrigation District. Operations are aimed at a whole-farm approach, rather than treating specific issues in isolation.

The primary soil types at the Station are red–brown earths and transitional red–brown earths. The water table is within 2 metres of the surface over most of the area. Development of the site included a best-practice whole-farm plan incorporating recycling of surface drainage water. Laser levelling was used to redevelop the paddock layout and to provide a combination of slopes, from 1 in 333 to 1 in 25 000.

The aim is to develop and introduce efficient and environmentally sustainable methods of agricultural land management to the irrigation farmers of southern New South Wales.

Extension Officers from the Station run advisory programs on all aspects of field crop, pasture and sheep production, as well as irrigation design. These programs are primarily delivered through field days, seminars, discussion groups, written material and individual contact. Specific activities include the following: • The Contour Irrigation Project. This project involves conducting a survey of irrigators to identify the decision-making processes involved in the selection and management of different types of contour layouts.

162

• Development and implementation of land and water management plans. The objective of the land and water management plans is to improve the sustainability of agriculture and the environment in the southern Riverina. Plans have been developed and are being implemented for four irrigation areas in the southern Riverina. • Property Management Planning. Property Management Planning is a whole-farm management process that integrates personal goals with enterprise production, economics, marketing and natural resource management. A process of business planning for family farming businesses, it is being implemented through the development and delivery of a Property Management Planning workshop series and fostering the development of Property Management Planning groups. • Development of an irrigated soils decision-support system. This project will produce a decision-support system—known as Southern Irrigation SOILpak—based on simple measurements and techniques and their interpretation for management decisions. Particular consideration is given to problem areas identified by landholders. The project will also provide background soils information relevant to southern New South Wales and northern Victoria. The SOILpak will introduce the five main soil groups in the Murray and Murrumbidgee valleys (ranging from sandhill soils to self-mulching clays) and discuss their management in terms of five faming systems—bed farming – summer cropping, rice, pasture, winter cropping, and irrigated forestry. A method of examining and rating soil’s physical state will also be incorporated in the decision-support system. • Wool and sheep meat services. This involves a number of work areas – improved efficacy and efficiency of automotive jetting races—a comprehensive set of recommendations for improving the performance of automotive jetting races is available – improved design and use of sheep-dipping equipment—work is under way to determine the best design and operating specifications for a range of ‘wet’ dipping technologies – quality assurance in wool and sheep meat production—a large number of programs that will help producers improve the quality of their wool and sheep meat products; for example, DRENCHPLAN, LICEKILL, FLYWISE, and a series of workshops designed to develop producers’ understanding of the quality assurance approach to production – Advanced Breeding Services—a specialist unit within NSW Agriculture that provides individualised advice and data-processing services for breeders of wool sheep. • Regulation. Regulatory functions are aimed at husbanding natural resources, monitoring product during production, processing and marketing to avoid pest and disease problems that could jeopardise local and export sales, and administering the various Acts applying to agricultural industries in the area.

Yanco Agricultural Institute

NSW Agriculture’s Yanco Agricultural Institute is a centre of excellence dedicated to assisting agricultural industries and rural communities through research, extension, regulation and education. It works to promote the sustainable production of rice, to improve horticultural production, to facilitate efficient irrigation management, to provide appropriate extension and regulatory services to industry, and to deliver education and training programs for the food and fibre industries.

Research, advisory, education, training and conference facilities are located on the 825-hectare Yanco campus, near Leeton. Research and training are also carried out at the 243-hectare Leeton Field Station.

NSW Agriculture is a major partner of the Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Rice Production, the office of which is located on the Yanco campus. The CRC coordinates a wide range of research and development projects for the Australian rice industry.

Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture is also located at Yanco Agricultural Institute. The College provides a large number of accredited training programs for food and fibre industries and rural communities, both on and off campus.

Both Yanco and Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture are affiliate institutes of Charles Sturt University as a result of the close ties that have been established between the two organisations’ education, training, research

163

and extension programs. Yanco is also linked to other important locations of NSW Agriculture, at Alstonville, Armidale, Dareton, Deniliquin, Finley, Griffith, Gosford, Tocal, Trangie, Orange and Wagga.

Yanco provides to farmers, industry and the community advice on the following: • pasture and cropping agronomy • horticulture • alternative farming systems • sheep and wool production • beef cattle production • pork production • water resource and irrigation management • agricultural environmental services.

The District Agronomist

The District Agronomist provides advice on best management practices for efficient and profitable production of broad-acre crops and pastures for irrigation and dryland areas. The main crops are rice, winter cereals, canola, lupins, faba beans, soya beans, maize, subclover and lucerne.

The District Horticulturists

The District Horticulturists (Citrus, Vegetables and Emerging Industries) provide for orchardists, vegetable growers and nursery operators advice on the establishment, management and marketing of all types of fruit, vegetable and alternative crop production.

The Alternative Farming Systems Officer

The Alternative Farming Systems Officer provides advice on organic and biodynamic farming (all crops and livestock management systems), low-input agriculture, worm farming, composting and alternative (non- chemical) pest-control methods.

The District Livestock Officer (Sheep and Wool)

The District Livestock Officer (Sheep and Wool) provides advice on prime lamb production systems (including intensive lamb production), use of scanning technologies for sheep, and irrigated prime lamb systems. The advice has a heavy focus on improved prime lamb production and marketing systems.

With on-farm trials of feedlot lamb management systems the aim is to investigate ration formulations, hay verses silage, feeding systems, and aspects of management and stocking rates.

The District Livestock Officer (Beef Cattle)

The District Livestock Officer (Beef Cattle) provides advice on beef cattle production and management, particularly intensive beef production.

The Livestock Officer (Pork Products)

The Livestock Officer (Pork Products) develops and delivers extension, education and applied research projects for the New South Wales pig industry and is responsible for the development of quality assurance and quality management systems for sustainable pork production.

164

Agricultural resource management

Water management staff and irrigation officers provide advice about irrigation layout, design, equipment and best management practices. The irrigation management service offered to farmers is a whole-farm integrated service. This complements the agronomic or horticultural advice with engineering aspects such as layouts and systems.

Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture

Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture is run by NSW Agriculture. It has residential facilities for about 150 students and specialises in training for people requiring practical skills. Students attending the College range in age from 15 to 70 years.

The College began operations in February 1963 as part of Yanco Agricultural Research Station, with 38 students in the first intake. The first course, known as the Farm Certificate Course, was a one-year course aimed at the sons of farmers who wished to return to the family farm. In 1965 the College was named Yanco Agricultural College, a name retained until 1981, when it was renamed Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture to overcome the confusion of identity with Yanco Agricultural High School.

The first advanced certificate course was introduced in 1971—the Advanced Certificate in Irrigation. This course was aimed at training people who wanted to manage irrigation farms. The first female students were enrolled in 1972.

In 1974, another course, the Advanced Certificate in Animal Production, was introduced. However, despite satisfactory enrolments in the first two years of the course’s operation, a decision was made to terminate it in 1976 and to offer instead a more general course in agriculture. The new course, the Advanced Certificate in Agriculture, has since been replaced by the Certificate IV courses.

As a result of requests from graziers in the Western Division of New South Wales, a course designed to meet the needs of people in that area was introduced in 1977. Originally referred to as the Advanced Certificate in Pastoral Zone Management, it was later renamed the Advanced Certificate in Rangeland Management, but poor enrolments in the early 1980s prompted the College to suspend the course.

In 1988 the College began curriculum development work in pastoral property management, and in 1989 it began offering two electives in this area in the Certificate in Agriculture course. As a result, in 1991 a new course was introduced—the Advanced Certificate in Pastoral Property Management. This course was re- accredited in 1995 as Certificate IV in Pastoral Property Management.

At the end of 1981 NSW Agriculture carried out a major review of the College. One of the most important changes to be introduced as a result of the review was expansion of the short-course program, which started in 1986 following the appointment of the Manager of Continuing Education. Another change was the introduction of practical work experience with farmers off-campus for all full-time students. A skills training program for first-year students was also introduced in 1986, as well as a similar program for more advanced skills for second-year students.

The College has been progressively having its courses accredited by the NSW Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board. Thus by 2002 the following courses were accredited: • Certificate in Poultry Production—1992 • Certificate IV in Pastoral Property Management (previously Advanced Certificate in Pastoral Property Management—1995 • Certificate in Rural Office Administration—1993 • Statement of Competency Rural Aboriginal Worker—1993 • Certificate III in Agriculture (previously Certificate in Agriculture)—1994 • Certificate IV in Agriculture (previously Advanced Certificate in Agriculture)—1994 • Statement of Competency in Aboriginal Rural Workplace Supervision—1994

165

• Certificate III in Citrus Production—1997 • Certificate III in Agri-food Quality Management—2001 • Certificate IV in Agri-food Quality Management—2001 • Diploma of Agri-food Quality Management—2001.

In 1995 the College adopted competency-based training to conform to the National Training Reform Agenda. All course components must be attempted, and students must achieve a satisfactory level in all areas of their course.

The College has meeting and conference facilities suitable for many functions, as well as a range of accommodation with full catering. All courses are accredited and a number are registered with FarmBiz.

Short courses In 2002 short courses were available in the following areas: • agronomy and horticulture • animal husbandry • farm mechanisation • farm business management • computers on the farm • quality assurance.

The short courses are run by the College’s continuing education section; they are from one to five days long and are aimed at practising farmers. Meals and accommodation are available for the courses held at Yanco. College lecturers, advisory officers, researchers, industry personnel and other suitable people deliver the courses. If a course is not available it can be ‘tailor made’ for a group.

Training in quality assurance In 2002 Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture offered a range of training options covering all areas of quality assurance for the food and fibre industries. There are numerous course modules, many of which are available as stand-alone short courses.

During the accreditation process for the agri-food set of courses, a system was incorporated to allow the addition of further optional and specialist modules. This affords the flexibility to add further industry- specific modules as industries develop.

Training for Indigenous Australians Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture develops its courses in close consultation with Indigenous communities, rural landowners and rural organisations in order to meet the needs of the particular client. On completion of a training-needs analysis, units of competence from national training packages are combined to form a flexible training program. Modules from other accredited courses can be incorporated to develop enterprise-specific training.

Courses are nationally accredited and are based on the current national training packages from the relevant industries. All courses enable successful participants to apply for recognition of prior learning or credit transfers into further nationally recognised courses offered by other registered training organisations. The following are among the courses available: • Rural Production • Horticulture • Conservation and Land Management • Certificate IV in Assessment and Workplace Training • FarmBiz-funded courses.

166

Modules are delivered flexibly on site, in communities on rural properties and/or at the College. Close consultation between the College and the people involved ensures that the cultural needs of Indigenous communities are met.

Courses have successfully been conducted for Indigenous Australians from the Cherbourg, Woorabinda and Charleville communities in Queensland; Murrin Bridge Advancement Aboriginal Corporation at Lake Cargelligo; Sand Hills Advancement Aboriginal Corporation at Narrandera; Wamba Wamba Local Aboriginal Land Council at Swan Hill; Wattle Hill Advancement Aboriginal Corporation at Leeton; Junee Correctional Centre; Yota Yota Local Aboriginal Land Council – Cummeragunja Community at Moama; Narromine Community Development Employment Program; Mildura Aboriginal Corporation (Warrakoo Station); Warrana Aboriginal Employment, Training and Development Corporation at Warren; Broken Hill Correctional Centre; Riverina Juvenile Justice Centre at Wagga Wagga; Orana Haven Aboriginal Corporation at Brewarrina; and in rural and isolated schools throughout western New South Wales.

Riverina Institute of TAFE

Agriculture In 2002 the Agriculture course at Riverina Institute of TAFE was for farmers, farm managers and agricultural consultants. The components were as follows: • Develop management, organisational and agricultural production skills and acquire the knowledge needed to apply these skills to a variety of farming enterprises. • Learn to perform the duties of a competent farmer or farm manager on properties with a range of enterprises, including beef cattle, sheep and wool, pigs, production horticulture, grain and cotton production. • Learn to implement occupational health and safety practices and quality assurance practices to industry standards.

A Diploma, Certificate IV, Certificate III and Certificate II were catered for.

Griffith campus The following courses of relevance to primary industries were offered by the Griffith campus in semester one in 2003: • access – Access to Work and Educational Opportunities—Certificate I (AQF) – Career Education and Employment for Women—Certificate II (AQF) – Foundation and Vocational Education—Certificate I (AQF) – General and Vocational Education—Certificate II (AQF) – Language, Literacy and Numeracy—course – Mentoring in the Community—Statement of Attainment (AQF) – Outreach—Statement of Attainment (AQF) – Outreach Access—Statement of Attainment (AQF) – Pathways to Employment, Education and Training—Statement of Attainment (AQF) – Tertiary Preparation—Certificate III (AQF) – Work Opportunities for Women—Statement of Attainment (AQF) – Work Skills—short course • business and public administration – Assessment and Workplace Training—Certificate IV (AQF) – Business—Certificate II (AQF) – Business Administration—Certificate III (AQF) – Business Administration—Certificate IV (AQF) – Computer Accounting—Statement of Attainment (AQF) – Computing Skills for the Office—Statement of Attainment (AQF) – Financial Services—Certificate III (AQF) – Financial Services (Accounts Clerical)—Certificate III (AQF)

167

– OHS Consultation • community services, health, tourism and hospitality – Meat Processing (Quality Assurance)—Certificate IV (AQF) – Senior First Aid—Statement of Attainment (AQF) – Wine Studies—Statement of Attainment (AQF) • manufacturing and engineering – Engineering—Certificate I (AQF) – Engineering (Fabrication Trade)—Certificate III (AQF) – Engineering (Production)—Certificate II (AQF) – Engineering (Production Technology)—Certificate II (AQF) – Food Processing (General Foods )—Certificate II (AQF) – Food Processing (General Foods )—Certificate III (AQF) – Food Processing (Wine)—Certificate II (AQF) – Food Processing (Wine)—Certificate III (AQF) – Laboratory Techniques—Certificate IV (AQF) – Laboratory Technology (Food Testing)—Diploma (AQF) – Manufacturing and Engineering—Statement of Attainment (AQF) – Welding (MMAW)—Statement of Attainment (AQF) – Welding Supervision—Certificate III (AQF) • primary industries and natural resources – Smarttrain (Chemical Application)—Statement of Attainment (AQF) – Smarttrain (Chemical Risk Management)—Statement of Attainment (AQF) – Smarttrain (Chemical Safety)—Statement of Attainment (AQF).

168

Attachment B Industry associations in Carrathool Shire and surrounding areas

The MIA Council of Horticultural Associations

The MIA Council of Horticultural Associations Inc., a non-profit organisation, aims to promote the long- term sustainable development of irrigated horticulture in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and to promote and develop horticulture’s image as a professionally oriented and conducted business. The Council covers the local government areas of Griffith, Leeton, Narrandera, Murrumbidgee, Hay and Carrathool and plays a central role in the development of policy, the resolution of problems and facilitating the uptake of innovations so that development that occurs has regard to prosperity, health and care for the environment.

In 2002 MIACHA had seven lines of core business: • Water. The Council contributes to the development of water policy. • Labour and training. The Council has considerable involvement in matters associated with work-related training and takes responsibility on behalf of growers for the problems that arise from the labour demands of the horticulture industry. • Regional sustainable development. The Council plays a key role in ensuring sustainable development of the region and provides executive support to the MIA Sustainable Development Committee. • Drainage and chemicals. Drainage and chemicals are a focus of the Council’s activities. The main areas are policy development, research and development, education, and the adoption of best management practices. • Women in horticulture. The Council aims to increase the involvement of women in its activities. • Communications. Industry communications and promotion are two areas that require significant involvement from the Council.

Riverina Citrus

Riverina Citrus has the following functions: • to contribute to the MIA and tri-state fruit fly eradication campaign • to facilitate the adoption of sustainable orchard management practices • to disseminate industry information and citrus production forecasting in the MIA • to initiate promotional activities for citrus fruit grown in the MIA • to facilitate access to new and existing export markets.

The Wine Grapes Marketing Board

The Wine Grapes Marketing Board participates in industry forums where market conditions are discussed and maintains a database of information on the supply of and demand for all varieties of wine grapes produced in the area. The Board has also undertaken promotional activity for the wines produced and supported research into growing practices and new varieties.

169

Attachment C Extension programs and services in Carrathool Shire

Extension programs and services in Carrathool Shire are offered by a wide range of organisations, among them the following in 2003: • FarmBiz • the Rural Assistance Authority • the Ricegrowers’ Association of Australia • the NSW Farmers Association • the Australian Wool Board • TOPCROP Australia • Irrigated Cropcheck • the Merriwagga farming systems trial • the Rankins Springs alternative farming systems trial • Mallee Sustainable Farming • the Grain Growers Association • the Maize Association of Australia • Cotton Cooperative Research Centre extension • the Australian Wool Growers Association • the Rural Training Council of Australia • Rural Skills Australia • the Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Rice Production.

FarmBiz

FarmBiz Australia provide grants to industry associations and companies to develop learning activities to improve the business management skills of people in Australia’s primary industry sector. The program was announced as part of the extended AAA—Agriculture Advancing Australia—package in the 2000–01 federal budget. Its purpose is to increase the competitiveness, profitability and sustainability of Australia’s agricultural industries.

In New South Wales FarmBiz is a jointly funded initiative of the state and federal governments, and it offers financial incentives for farming and fishing business enterprises to participate in management training. Administration of FarmBiz in the state is the responsibility of the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority.

Financial assistance is available in the form of a non-repayable subsidy to help farmers improve their business management skills and thus their ability to deal with financial challenges. FarmBiz funds activities that are registered on the FarmBiz activity database maintained by the Rural Assistance Authority. This database contains a one-page information sheet on each activity, giving details of learning outcomes and activity costs. The training provider must lodge an application with the Rural Assistance Authority to register the activity on the database before starting any training with FarmBiz-funded applicants. Assistance is provided for training and skills development in the following areas: • people management • financial management • business management • marketing • production management • natural resource management.

In addition, FarmBiz subsidises the cost of skills audits on both an individual and a group basis.

170

Financial assistance is available to a maximum of $2000 (plus GST if applicable) per farm business enterprise per training activity. FarmBiz will subsidise up to 50 per cent of costs that are essential to the successful completion of the training activity—with the exception of training activities for target groups, which are subsidised at up to 75 per cent. Among the costs essential to the successful completion of the training activity are professional fees, training materials and manuals, catering, venue hire, and travel and accommodation. The costs of travel and accommodation for the training provider can also be subsidised. To help make the training accessible to all members of the farming or fishing family, FarmBiz subsidises the costs of child care at a facility registered with the Department of Community Services. Where there is a need for respite care and the family does not qualify for assistance from existing respite care program, FarmBiz also subsidises this cost so that family members can attend training. Additionally, FarmBiz subsidises costs associated with literacy and numeracy support for participants.

The Rural Assistance Authority

The New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority administers a wide range of assistance measures for the rural sector. The measures are both Commonwealth and state funded. Although the rural sector is its core client, the Authority is also responsible for small businesses that have suffered loss or damage as a result of natural disaster.

The Authority administers, analyses and influences adjustment and assistance programs that encourage self- reliance, facilitate appropriate change, and mitigate the effects of extreme events while being aware of the welfare of the people in the targeted business.

Among the Rural Assistance Authority’s programs is the Special Conservation Scheme, which is an incentive-based initiative aimed at promoting improved land management practices in New South Wales. Funding is available for the following capital programs: • soil conservation—including control of woody weeds • stock and domestic water supply • capping and piping of artesian bores • upgrading of existing irrigation systems • exclusion netting to prevent flying fox damage to orchards with a demonstrated flying fox problem • livestock effluent control • tile drainage • serrated tussock control • refurbishment and de-silting of ground tanks • planting of perennial species such as lucerne and old man saltbush • hay, grain and silage storage facilities.

A loan of up to 90 per cent of the net cost of the works, to a ceiling of $100 000, can be offered. To be eligible for assistance, the applicant must meet the following criteria: • be the registered proprietor of the property where the work is to be carried out and be in working occupation of the farm. This requirement is waived for assistance for serrated tussock control • show that the farm enterprise provides the majority of the applicant’s total gross income • have net assets not exceeding $1 360 000—or $2 500 000 for capping and piping of artesian bores • demonstrate the works have a significant beneficial impact on the land, the community and the environment and are not purely productivity based • show that the works will complement or improve the natural resource base of the farming enterprise • demonstrate that the farm enterprise has long-term viability and the capacity to repay the advance sought • provide satisfactory security to support the advance sought • demonstrate—for hay, grain and silage storage facilities only—that under normal circumstances the majority of income is derived from livestock and not cropping.

As part of its Water Reform Structural Adjustment Program, the New South Wales Government has allocated $25 000 000 to a five-year Irrigated Agriculture Water Use Efficiency Incentive Scheme, which is designed to help irrigators plan, adopt and monitor best irrigation practices and water-efficient technologies,

171

to encourage better use of the state’s water resources, to minimise negative impacts on the environment from irrigation and to facilitate a more sustainable and viable irrigated agriculture sector in the state.

Increasing on-farm water use efficiency for irrigated agriculture is a primary objective of the Program. Important elements of this are improving decision making through education, training and business management planning, enabling redevelopment through a range of new and existing financial assistance schemes, and providing assistance to people who seek to re-establish themselves outside the irrigated farm sector.

MIA irrigators can obtain financial help with 30 per cent of the cost of doing a whole-farm plan, valued at up to $5000. The following are other schemes: • the Special Conservation Scheme—Irrigation • land and water management plan irrigation incentives • grant assistance for ovine Johne’s disease • MIA PowerPACT.

The Ricegrowers’ Association of Australia

The Ricegrowers’ Association of Australia Inc. was formed in 1930 to unite ricegrowers in seeking a profitable long-term future for individual growers and their industry. It represents over 1700 voluntary members and its role is to develop and implement rice-related policy that is in growers’ best interests and to represent the interests of ricegrowers to federal, state and local governments and their various agencies, the National Farmers Federation, the Ricegrowers Co-operative Limited, other interest groups, and the community generally.

Rice industry research is carried out through the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation program and the Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Rice Production; each year the industry invests millions of dollars in research. Areas of research interest include sustainability of irrigation, crop breeding, plant protection and nutrition, developing best-practice technologies for harvesting and processing, and product development.

The Rice Environment Policy has been developed by representatives from all parts of the industry, with input from a range of interest groups. A commitment to environmental change is reflected in a number of initiatives developed to coordinate improved environment management and stewardship.

The NSW Farmers Association

The NSW Farmers Association aims to provide members with relevant and accessible education and training opportunities, including training in farm safety and industrial relations. The Association schedules training in areas in which members express an interest.

The Australian Wool Board

Unveiled in Hay, New South Wales, on 31 October 2002, the Australian Wool Board’s mobile Wool Innovations Showcase began touring Australia early in 2003. The Showcase presents information about research, development and innovation project outcomes. The Board has produced a range of fact sheets to help disseminate information. The insight series highlights project objectives and outcomes, while the innovators series deals with implementation of project outcomes on and off farm. Beyond the Bale is a bimonthly newspaper sent directly to Board shareholders.

172

TOPCROP Australia

TOPCROP Australia provides the means for the transfer of new technology and innovation between grain grower groups. The following are among the opportunities available to growers: • skills development in crop monitoring and benchmarking crop performance • local group training through ‘in the paddock’ single-issue workshops that focus on specific aspects of production and management • on-farm testing through resources such as the ‘Test as You Grow’ kit • informal grower-led activities such as demonstrations, examining new technologies and comparing different farming systems.

TOPCROP strongly supports the development of training and information packages and crop monitoring systems, in addition to supporting the development of group networks themselves. The aim is to increase the sustainable and profitable production of high-quality grain through self-directed groups.

Irrigated CropCheck

Irrigated CropCheck is a joint initiative of NSW Agriculture and Agriculture Victoria, with support from a wide range of organisations, including the Irrigated Cropping Forum, the Murray–Darling Basin Commission, crop discussion groups, and individual growers. The project aims to help farmers involved in irrigated cropping develop and adopt best management practices by effectively using decision-support systems. The systems identify best management practices for sustainable and profitable production for a range of irrigated crops and show benchmarks, which provide guidelines and indicators for sustainable and efficient irrigated cropping systems.

The project has resulted in production of the Maizecheck, Soycheck, Canolacheck, Fabacheck, Lucernecheck and Barleycheck decision-support systems. These provide objective information to help farmers manage their crops and assess their performance. Adoption of the systems will lead to increased productivity and more efficient use of land and water resources.

The project has also investigated what makes an irrigated cropping farm financially viable, both now and in the future. This study highlighted the importance of understanding the make-up of farming systems and identifying the business performance of each component. It established realistic targets for each part of an irrigated cropping system.

The Merriwagga Farming Systems Trial

In 1999 a long-term farming system trial was established to investigate the consequences of four different cropping practices at Merriwagga, which receives about 300 millimetres of rain a year and has a long history of low-input cropping. In the four different systems the performance of zero tillage and conventional tillage is being compared on alkaline red earth soils.

The Rankins Springs alternative farming systems trial

The Rankins Springs site was established in 2000 to examine the long-term environmental, biological and economic effects of various production systems. This is the main priority of the trial, although other local issues are also being investigated. The trial compares each of the alternative systems against each other, as well as against normal farming practice in the area. An organic system is also being established for comparison.

A number of growers in the district felt that conventional fertilisers and seed dressings were not entirely meeting their needs. They were interested in the various alternative products on the market and were keen to evaluate ways of improving their environmental and economic performance. However, confusion was caused by the variety of methods being advanced and the lack of hard comparison data. A number of farmers in the

173

group have done on-farm trials with microbial, nutritional or tailored products but many of the results have been inconclusive. With new concepts such as ‘remineralisation’ and ‘biological farming’, farmers wanted a clearer picture of the strengths and weaknesses of each system and what works best in local conditions.

The site was primarily set up to trial different farming systems over five to 10 years, with a strong focus on sustainability, which has two main parts—being environmentally sustainable and being economically sustainable. The Rankins Springs group hopes to measure all they physically can to see the improvements the different systems might achieve. Obviously the primary determinants of their success will be the quantity and quality of grain produced and the costs associated with getting to the end of the trial (that is, gross margins and net returns).

Mallee Sustainable Farming

Mallee Sustainable Farming Inc. is a community-initiated project servicing the low-rainfall mallee cropping regions in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. A key to the project’s success is providing opportunities for individuals and communities to participate in identifying production, environmental and social factors that affect the sustainable development of their farming systems.

The project began in 1997, when farmers, agency representatives and researchers from the three states obtained funding from the Grains Research and Development Corporation and the Natural Heritage Trust. Other collaborators are CSIRO, Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment, the Department of Land and Water Conservation, and NSW Agriculture. The project is governed by a diverse board of researchers and farmers from across the region.

Among the areas of investigation are the declining productivity of medic pastures, profitable crop rotations, opportunity cropping, soil water management, identification of subsoil characteristics and management options for mallee soils, crop nutrition and targeted input options, and deep-soil nitrogen monitoring. Much of the information being obtained has never before been available for the low-rainfall Mallee.

The Grain Growers Association

The educational objective of the Grain Growers Association is to develop strong farm businesses through the increased capacity and personal skills of members. This fits closely with the Association’s overall objective for community partnerships:

To build a strong, sustainable grains industry through continually enhancing the productivity of farms, and the skills, knowledge and capacity of growers.

To provide education and training benefits for grain growing families, future industry leaders and consumers of agricultural products.

Grain Growers Association invests in education programs that: provide education directly to grain producer members are driven by requirements of grain producers are specifically tailored for the needs of grain producers provide opportunities for producers to apply what they learn directly to their farm business provide opportunities for producers to network, provide feedback and to follow up at a later date provide the opportunity for face-to-face learning.

In 2002 the Grain Growers Association sponsored Partners in Grain, or PinG, an education program for young people and women that focuses on increasing their confidence, and thus their participation, in farm businesses and industry organisations. The aims are as follows: • to increase the involvement of women and young people in the grains industry by improving their technical knowledge and skills

174

• to provide a supportive community-based environment working towards reducing real and perceived barriers to participation • to identify and deliver programs relevant to the farm business, increasing the confidence and skills of women and young people, leading to greater participation in and contributions to the farm business and grains industry organisations.

PinG was successfully piloted in Victoria and is based on developing self-directed learning groups that enable participants to identify their particular skill needs. Training does not always take place from a group perspective: individuals are encouraged to become involved in activities of particular interest to them. Available programs are used but not duplicated. However, where there is a particular need to adapt material this is done so that the appropriate level of professional development is available. Networking, mentoring and sharing information are a very important part of the process.

Developing skills and confidence will lead to improved farming practices, sound agronomy and business decisions, and a sharing of the workload and information gathering roles. To survive, farm enterprises must acquire a range of skills to deal with the changing environment.

Local groups must identify their own skill and professional development needs. It is essential that the programs delivered are designed to meet these needs, giving due consideration to the real or perceived barriers to participation.

The Maize Association of Australia

The Maize Association of Australia represents the many sectors of the maize industry in Australia and aims to promote and develop the industry for the benefit of all these sectors. Its objectives are as follows: • the interchange of ideas, knowledge and innovation and the cooperation of all parties in the maize industry—from primary producer to exporter • support for the production, development and marketing of maize products • increased public awareness of maize, its uses, products and by-products • improved communication between growers and end users, to promote and increase the many uses of maize. An integral component of this is the Maize Conference, which is held every three years, the location being rotated between the main growing areas • to assist and promote maize research in both the public and the private sectors.

Estimates of maize plantings across the Riverina are around 24 500 hectares, of which the lower Lachlan and Murrumbidgee valleys account for 23 500 hectares. The greatest increase in plantings has been in the Darlington Point, Hillston and Hay areas.

Cotton Cooperative Research Centre extension

The Cotton Cooperative Research Centre extension team is made up of 14 staff located across the cotton regions of Queensland and New South Wales. They work closely with growers and consultants to develop their extension activities. It is critical that their work plans be coordinated and meet the industry’s concerns. The staff are grouped into six focus teams that develop extension activities and materials for use nationally. Members of the CRC Extension Management Committee are allocated to specific teams. An Evaluation and Benchmarking Team has also been established; its task is to examine the rate of technology adoption and changing attitudes towards the adoption of integrated pest management, resistance management, and general changes to the farming system.

Area-wide management is seen as a high priority, and tools are being developed to help the extension staff support the focus teams. Sharing ideas between regions and using economic benchmarking of integrated pest management are valuable in generating interest in area-wide management. Promotion of research outcomes needs to be consistent and well planned to ensure that new technology is adopted throughout the industry.

175

The Australian Wool Growers Association The Australian Wool Growers Association is a national organisation for growers and industry members; it provides access to Australian Wool Innovation, state and federal governments, and through industry avenues.

The Rural Training Council of Australia The Rural Training Council of Australia is a national body established by the industry to act on its behalf in all matters pertaining to the education and training needs of regional, rural and related industries; this includes agriculture, horticulture (production and amenity), veterinary nursing, and conservation and land management (weed management, conservation earthworks, vertebrate pest management, Indigenous land management, and lands, parks and wildlife).

As an industry training advisory body, the Council is complemented by a network of similar bodies established in each state and territory—the Rural Training Australia ITAB network. It plans and designs learning processes to meet industry needs but does not itself conduct training. It provides advice to governments on vocational education and training needs for regional, rural and related industries and promotes training improvement in these industries.

The Council’s objectives are as follows: • to facilitate education and learning directed at improving long-term viability, quality of life and financial returns for all associated with regional, rural and related industries • to act as the principal voice of regional, rural and related industries in matters related to vocational education and training • to acquire, manage, promote and develop a national education and training focus for regional, rural and related industries.

The Council is controlled by representatives of national industry bodies—such as the Cattle Council and the Nursery Industry Association Australia—and representatives of the state and territory industry training advisory bodies, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Workers Union, the Country Women’s Association, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, and the Department of Transport and Regional Services.

Rural Skills Australia Rural Skills Australia supports training in agriculture and horticulture in conjunction with the National Farmers Federation, state farm associations, the Australian Workers Union and the Rural Training Council of Australia. It provides to Job Network members and registered training organisations advice, assistance and training to do with the range of traineeship packages in agriculture and horticulture.

The Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Rice Production The Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Rice Production has been established to improve the economic, environmental and social sustainability of the Australian rice industry and increase its international competitiveness through strategic and tactical research and the implementation of practical, cost-effective programs. It aims to expand the contribution the rice industry makes to the national economy and to the welfare of all Australians by: • generating knowledge to improve the sustainability of the natural resources and systems used to produce rice • developing germplasm, which will be the basis of a sustainable increase in rice yields and quality • developing a more strategic base for rice research in Australia • formally linking key agencies involved in rice research, education and extension and focusing their effort on a common purpose.

176

Education is an important element. The Centre’s education and training program aims to raise awareness of rice-related matters at all levels, including schools, rural and urban communities, and in undergraduate and postgraduate studies. Five sub-programs are coordinated under the education and training program: • sustainable rice production through farmer education and community awareness • extension and information technology methods • sustainable rice production through skills development • professional development for sustainable rice production • studentships.

Sustainable rice production through farmer education and community awareness The aim of this sub-program is to raise awareness of the CRC’s objectives and progress within rural and urban communities. The rice area of New South Wales is well served by the district agronomist network of NSW Agriculture. This network uses the resources of the parent organisation and is supported by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation to publicise research results through pre-season meetings, field days, and more than 200 discussion group meetings. Much of the extension information is delivered through the Ricecheck management program. CRC activities are also publicised through this network.

Extension and information technology methods The aims of this sub-program are as follows: • to explore opportunities to develop and apply ‘new knowledge exchange systems’ such as the internet • to compare and evaluate new and existing extension and communication methods and technologies • to augment existing extension and farmer information exchange systems with improved technologies.

The sub-program commenced in October 1998.

Sustainable rice production through skills development This sub-program operates at two levels; the first aims to develop the skills base for all industry participants at all levels; the second aims to increase awareness of the rice industry, and particularly rice research, through schools and the community.

Professional development for sustainable rice production This sub-program focuses on the tertiary education sector, with the development of modular-style teaching materials aimed at undergraduates and postgraduates. The objectives are as follows: • to provide undergraduate and postgraduate course material and experience for students intending to work in the production and processing industries • to provide postgraduate study opportunities within each of the Cooperative Research Centre’s research programs • to provide training and education opportunities at the postgraduate level, to enable extension and research officers to further develop their qualifications and experience.

While the material was developed to include tertiary teaching programs, its modular design allows it to be readily adapted for delivery in short courses for growers, extension officers, processors, and other service providers.

177

Case study 3: Greater Shepparton Shire

3.1 Background

Greater Shepparton Shire covers an area of 2421.6 square kilometres in the Goulburn Broken catchment in Victoria; the 2001 Australian Bureau of Statistics census puts the Shire’s population at 55 210. The municipality was formed in 1994 by conjoining Shepparton City, the majority of Rodney Shire, and parts of Euroa, Goulburn, Tungamah, Violet Town and Waranga Shires. Moira Shire, the eastern part of Campaspe Shire and the City of Greater Shepparton make up the Shepparton Irrigation Region, which lies wholly within the Goulburn Broken catchment, along with Mitchell, Delatite, Murrindindi and Strathbogie Shires.

Before European settlement, the Yorta-Yorta people inhabited the area. The first Europeans to venture onto the land now occupied by the town of Shepparton were Joseph Hawdon and Charles Bonney, who camped by the Goulburn River while taking cattle from Albury to Adelaide in 1838. The majority of the Shire’s population now resides in the urban centres of Shepparton, Mooroopna and Tatura; about one-third of the population lives in surrounding rural areas and the smaller towns of Murchison, Dookie, Merrigum, Congupna, Toolamba, Katandra and Tallygaroopna.

The Shire’s economic strength rests on its agricultural and irrigation base. Shepparton is the headquarters of the Goulburn Valley irrigation system. Before the recent water allocation changes, the Shepparton Irrigation Region provided water for about 280 000 hectares of land as well as the associated supply and drainage infrastructure (Michael Young & Associates 2000).

The Shire is well serviced in terms of road infrastructure, and Shepparton is an important centre for road transport. Shepparton also has its own regional saleyards. Mooroopna is separated from Shepparton by the Goulburn Broken River and an area of flood-prone forest. The surrounding area produces a substantial proportion of Victoria’s agricultural output—particularly fruit, vegetables, cereals and milk products. Among the local industries are fruit canneries, Campbell’s Soups, a foundry and a woollen mill. The Shire’s primary producers have good access to agricultural education and research institutions and the relevant government officers.

3.1.1 Social structure

The 2001 Australian Bureau of Statistics census found that more than 9.7 per cent (5677) of the residents of Greater Shepparton Shire were born overseas and that Indigenous Australians account for about 3.8 per cent of the population. A large number of residents have their origins in Italy, Turkey, Macedonia, Greece, Albania, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, India, New Zealand, the Philippines and the Middle East (principally Iraq). The 2001 census showed that 5270 people in the Shire speak a language other than English. Figure 3.1 shows the top 10 countries of origin for people settling in Shepparton between 7 August 1996 and 11 January 2001.

178

Figure 3.1 Top 10 countries of birth of new arrivals in Shepparton, 7 August 1996 to 11 January 2001

Source: Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs Settlement Database: applications processed.

3.1.2 Industries represented

Industry history There was a major boost to agricultural production after 1912, when irrigation expanded as a result of the establishment of a water supply from Lake Nagambie. Dairies and orchards began to flourish after World War 1, resulting in the development of milk processing, fruit packing and canning industries. Among the companies of significance were SPC (the Shepparton Preserving Company), which was formed in 1917, and Ardmona, which opened a cannery in Mooroopna in the 1920s. In 2002 these two companies amalgamated to create SPC Ardmona. The enterprise’s core product range is deciduous fruit (pears, peaches, apricots, plums and apples), baked beans, spaghetti and tomatoes. The products are sold domestically as well as being exported to over 60 countries worldwide. The Cleckheaton Woollen Mill was established in 1948 in a transfer of operations from Leeds in England, and Campbell’s Soups opened its factory in 1962.

The famous blacksmith and wheelwright John Furphy came to Shepparton in 1873 and set about establishing a foundry in the town. By 1880 he was manufacturing water carts, which were used by the Australian Army and in camps where the local water supply was unreliable. John Furphy was joined in Shepparton by his brother Joseph, who had been a farmer in the Riverina and, through drought, had become bankrupt. The brothers worked together for 21 years, and it was during this time that Joseph wrote his famous novel Such is Life. The Furphy family still owns the foundry.

Current industry status The Economic Profile of the Goulburn Broken Catchment (Michael Young & Associates 2000, p. 5) states that in 1996 the Greater Shepparton Shire and Moira and Campaspe Shires produced 77 per cent of the farm- gate gross value of production (including forestry and aquaculture) in the catchment. The breakdown is as follows: • total pasture (excluding pastures harvested for seed)—$12 578 936 • pastures harvested for seed—$229 198 • cereal grain—$5 237 878 • non-cereal crops—$146 085 • vegetables for human consumption—$5 189 034 • fruit (excluding grapes)—$117 891 052 • grapes (total value)—$544 099 • wool production—$2 665 582 • milk production—$105 934 835

179

• egg production—$209 249 • livestock slaughterings—$32 676 821 • beekeeping—$154 773.

Total agriculture output amounted to $283 457 542 (Michael Young & Associates 2000, p. 8).

Of all shires in the Goulburn Broken catchment, Shepparton offers the strongest employment opportunities, particularly in the retail, agriculture, manufacturing, and health and community services sectors (Michael Young & Associates 2000, p. 13).

A large proportion of the nation’s dairy farms lie within Greater Shepparton, Moira and Campaspe Shires. These 3000 or so properties support milking herds of 80 to over 1000 cows. Herds of about 150 to 180 cows are the most common, but the number is increasing. The total herd size across the Goulburn Broken catchment is between 350 000 and 400 000 cows. Productivity per cow, and therefore per herd, has increased, although the number of dairy farms is slowly declining (Michael Young & Associates 2000, p. 20).

Within the catchment, dairy farmers supply their milk to a number of local milk factories: • Bonlac Foods at Stanhope and the Murray Goulburn Cooperative at Cobram and Rochester—two of the larger grower cooperatives • Tatura Milk Industries—a smaller cooperative • Nestlé—a multinational company at Tongala and Echuca • Kraft—a multinational company at Strathmerton • Parmalat—a multinational company at Albury.

The Murray Goulburn Cooperative has entered into a venture with Meiji–Mitsubishi, a Japanese company, to form the Meiji–MGC Dairy Company Pty Ltd at Cobram; Tatura Milk Industries has entered into a venture with Snow Brand Tatura Dairies Pty Ltd, a Japanese company. Both have been established to process and package infant milk formula for the Asian market. At the request of Dietitians in Rehabilitation and Aged Care, in 2001 the Meiji–MGC Dairy Company began investigating commercial production of a milk powder that is high in protein and low in fat, to help improve elderly people’s nutrition. The powder was developed by the Australian Dairy Ingredients Centre and the recipe sold to Meiji–MGC Dairy.

Tatura Milk Industries also provides Nestlé with pre-processed raw materials. Box 3.1 shows the changes to Tatura’s production lines and company alliances over time.

Box 3.1 Tatura Milk Industries: an overview

Milk flow Number of dairy farmer shareholders—450 Average supplier—200 cows (supplying 1.2 million litres a year) Annual total milk received (farmers)— 520 million litres Peak daily milk received (farmers)—2.13 million litres

Manufactured product Annual production—80 000 million tonnes

Finance Annual turnover—$270 million Export sales milk—$150 million (55% of total sales)

180

Time line

1907 Tatura Butter Factory and Farmers Produce Company Ltd established in Hogan Street, Tatura. Until 1910 milk is separated at the factory, but subsequently the farm performed this task and sent the cream into the factory.

1910 The factory generates electricity and supplies light to the town of Tatura, which becomes the first town in the Goulburn Valley to have electric lighting. The factory has a well-developed irrigation system in the area and herd size is increasing.

1922 The factory is extended; further extensions are done in 1944 and 1948.

1950 The Milk Project is agreed to and, in anticipation of further expansion, the land known as the Police Paddock is acquired by Crown grant. A merchandise store is established to cater for the dairy farmers.

1951 Tatura Condensaries begins in conjunction with Toppa Ice Cream and Life Guard Milk. A roller drying plant is installed.

1958 Tatura Butter Factory buys the balance of Tatura Condensaries shares from Streets Ice Cream, which had previously purchased the other partners. This marks the beginning of a swing to producing milk products instead of the traditional pigs and cream.

1962 Tatura Butter Factory and Farmers Produce Company Ltd and Tatura Condensaries become known as Tatura Milk Products Limited. The milk intake is 6 million litres.

1960 to 1980 A large expansion of capital equipment occurs.

1980 Tatura Cheese Industries Pty Ltd is established in conjunction with a joint venture to produce 2000 tonnes of cream cheese a year for the domestic and export markets.

1986 Tatura Milk Industries Limited is formed, owning and controlling all the company’s operations.

1988 A Niro CDI 315 spray drying plant is commissioned. This greatly improves the company’s ability to produce a wide range of milk powder products.

1991 A technology exchange contract is signed with Snow Brand.

1993 A wet mix blending plant and Niro MSD 500 spray drying plant are commissioned; this allows for the production of a range of specialised products, including infant formula. Snow Brand builds a $25 million canning plant adjacent to the factory for the packing of baby food products destined for Southeast Asia.

1996 Infrastructure developments to the value of $20 million are undertaken.

2001 A special spray drying plant is commissioned: the mechanical vapour recompression evaporator and self-supporting liquid milk receival can process 60 000 litres an hour.

The Goulburn Broken region is a major fruit and vegetable processing centre. Almost 4.6 million orchard trees have been planted in the Goulburn Valley. Other areas of growth are viticulture and tomatoes. SPC Ardmona, Unifoods–Rosella, Snowbrand and Campbell’s Soups are well established in the area. There are also two large dairy processing facilities. Important secondary industries are mainly related to food processing, manufacturing and transport. The dairy industry is the largest industry in the region.

181

3.2 Farmers’ feedback about learning and extension

Six farmers from Greater Shepparton Shire were interviewed and asked about their extension experiences in the Shire. Their enterprises can be described thus: • part-time farmer—works full time off the farm and has the farm as a side interest, producing beef cattle on a small block of land • family farm dedicated to crops and stock production • wheat, sheep, beef and grape production for at least two generations • mixed farming—wool, beef, winter cereals—on a family property dedicated to production only • dairy farming for two generations • dairy (normally irrigated) farming for four generations but expanded the enterprise in the last generation. The family was cropping and had beef cattle and sheep before becoming dairy farmers.

3.2.1 Information sources and courses attended

Farmers were asked four questions about their information sources and extension activities: • Where did they receive information? • What extension activities had they undertaken? • What extension activities did they believe led to change? • What activities were least helpful?

Table 3.1 shows their responses.

182

Table 3.1 Farmers’ information sources and extension activities: Greater Shepparton Shire

Helpful activities that led Farmer Information sources Extension activities to change Least helpful courses Farmer 1 I have had no recent involvement with field days I am the secretary of our Landcare group, so I am [This person works full-time off farm so it is difficult for her to attend biased courses, and so on.] Farmer 2 Newspapers Have attended the FarmSmart course at Dookie Ag College twice. The FarmSmart course The chemical handlers FarmSmart deals with long-term planning—that is, how to gradually take was very helpful and course was necessary, Agronomists over the running of the farm from parents. The course ran over evening helped us to plan but it is just a heap of Other farmers sessions and was excellent. waffle to basically tell you to read the label Chemical handlers course plus an update course on theory—held during the day. The course was basically about reading the labels … a lot of waffle Front-end loader forklift licence course held at the College during the day … both theory and hands-on Farmer 3 Like to watch Triple P program—a pasture management program (one- to two-year Landline on Sundays project)— facilitated by an independent consultant. Can obtain one-to-one

183 advice for a given situation Read the Weekly Times and Stock and Wheat Marketing Group—provides farmers course, funded by FarmBiz, Land—all pretty excellent much junk though Top Crop—cropping education. Run by Department of Natural Resources One-to-one advice and Environment. Also hold field days on various topics; however, has from independent petered out consultants Use computer programs—PAM (farm business planning) and an accounting Mix with other program (for pure accounting) farmers Computer programs Programs run by the Department Farmer 4 Talking with other Attended Landcare meetings. Not a great deal recently farmers—especially those who are Beefcheck progressive Internet can be time-consuming, even though good info. The family uses Computer programs the computer for internet and email mainly. Use Quicken accounting program. Victorian Farmers Federation introduced

Helpful activities that led Farmer Information sources Extension activities to change Least helpful courses Media sparks interest it and pushed it. They ran demonstration courses. Computer good for record keeping in this case. This course was good, although fewer people in Talking to other the class is better farmers is what influences people’s way of thinking and their practice—it’s too expensive to trial something if you don’t know if it’s going to work Farmer 5 Dairy Farmer Field days—Stanhope field day (predominantly dairy focused); Elmore field Murray Goulburn milk care magazine days excellent for main supplies and lots of info course good for quality informative, new info assurance. Field days are (genetics, and so on), Computer programs good because they’re a articles on people, • Mistro Finance Finance/Accounting. Gippsland herd improvement day out and they’re ads through Murray Goulburn farm (connected to Melbourne University) interesting Local newspapers; • Mistro Farm Farm Recording. From artificial insemination place in 184 Tuesday paper— Numurkah. Track herd test—records the volume of milk per cow plus country news (dairy milk content for each cow. This herd testing is done on a monthly– focus) bimonthly basis, recording tag numbers and taking milk samples from each cow. Farmers can either have someone to set up for them and TV a bit of news then they run it themselves or farmers have the option of paying (which is not really someone to do it for them relevant to farmers); Landline is good Target Ten. Run by the Kyabram Dairy Research Centre. It is a program related to the milking of cows, production of cows and influential variables— Reps and field for example, diet. Target Ten runs all the time, with a variety of courses. It is officers. We used to good for dairy farmers just starting out with new information. Target Ten have a lot of reps also sends out brochures, which come with the milk statement. They also visit us when we run workshops. They were good in the early stages, but now they seem to were dairying in be slipping and getting a bit behind with updated techniques, and so on Gippsland, but here in the Murray Chemical users course. This ticket only lasts three years, which is Goulburn we have frustrating for farmers because they deal with chemicals all the time. Maybe only had two visits. a shorter refresher course for half or one day. Eight years between updates Field officers would be better. It seems reasonable to update annually on something like generally have a CPR, because we’re not using it every day—not like chemicals. And all we broad amount of basically learn is how to read labels. Refreshers would be better than knowledge and are redoing the course.

Helpful activities that led Farmer Information sources Extension activities to change Least helpful courses very helpful. They are Best with Nutrition. Run by Best Fed, a Shepparton company. They provide really good for one- consultants and sell specific products. They discuss things such as what to-one information. we’re feeding the cows and what we’re planning to achieve. We only They have been very stopped using this group about a year ago. Reasons include getting to a active during the point where you feel like you reach information saturation point, and the drought time, which information from consultants is no longer needed. After a while you become has been helpful independent and know how to find the information you’re looking for by The Farm Help yourself. We also found that the consultants always leave after a couple of brochure was years: you just get to build a rapport with a consultant and they move on. excellent due to However, these people usually become independent consultants and are being easy to read, often still living locally, so we are able to still contact the good ones if we cartoon pictures, wish. We also see them at field days. explains stress, 2001 Best Nutrition Annual Conference practical pointers, flow charts, community contacts; 10–15 minutes to read. Useful and

185 have started to apply

Other farmers, newspapers and one-to-one conversations with advisers were the most popular information sources.

The farmers participated in a number of extension activities, the majority of them being production based and including natural resource management, computer-based accounting, and occupational health and safety–based courses. Only two courses were mentioned as leading to change—FarmSmart for planning and a Murray Goulburn milk care course. Only one course, the chemical handling course, was viewed as not being worthwhile.

3.2.2 Views about course improvements

Farmers were asked how the courses they attended might be improved. The responses related to the presenter’s style, timing, and the subject matter’s relevance:

Make them practical and interesting with a good presenter. Courses need to be a short time—two to three hours. The subject needs to be to the point. A good facilitator. Appropriate times—drought seminars that have been run during the daytime; they are going to trial having them at Caniambo in the evenings. Timing of courses best slotted into the evenings. Specific on certain issues and topical at the time—for example, drought at present. Keeping the numbers in a group course to a minimum. Farm walks are good. Looking over the fence and seeing results is what farmers want. Seeing results on paper is not good enough for a farmer. Mostly fairly good. To run on time. To be aware of dairy farmers’ needs. More advertising would pay. Information sent with the milk statement would be effective: we always get our milk statement! A brochure sometimes comes with the milk statement—containing helpful advice, good basic guide, hay information—and is relevant to issues of that time. Farm walks are always interesting and you can learn a lot from them. They are also a means of getting out and socialising. Difficult to answer. I guess they need to establish why people are good farmers and direct courses towards what works and is effective in practice, as opposed to what should work in theory. The Department of Natural Resources and Environment could get funding to provide group of dairy farmers with discussion of issues related to being in the forefront of modern trends. They need more young trainees again to do groups. They don’t seem to have them anymore. All volunteer groups are suffering from people being too busy and chasing the dollar. People want interaction, not another farm group. Sometimes trainers have been the ‘failed farmer’ types and haven’t been such good teachers either. I feel we would learn more from those retired old cockies who have been very successful farmers themselves. Courses need to be well organised. Sometimes they have been a bit poorly organised.

3.2.3 Presenters and facilitators

Farmers were asked what made the best presenters and facilitators of courses and workshops. The vast majority of responses related to the ‘style’ of the presenters and facilitators, as well as their understanding of farming from a practical level:

186

Someone who is down to earth, can relate to everyone, and bypasses the waffle. Easy-going, ability to keep a crowd captivated, have new ideas, serious, useful. Good facilitators are firm, authoritative but not overbearing and have good basic people skills. Bonlac consultants are excellent. They are on the ball, really helpful, provide excellent customer service, contact farmers regularly, and visit regularly. We feel comfortable with them due to their life experience and expertise. People who are switched on to the industry. Someone who makes sure the group is involved and listening. People who make the subject interesting. People who can explain things well. Should be getting retired successful farmers to teach or to at least be available to chat to.

3.2.4 Costs

Only one farmer provided details of the costs associated with learning activities. This farmer noted that information about subsidies is not well known and raised the question of the paperwork required if subsidies are sought:

Murray Goulburn covers the cost of the Mistro Finance Program ( about $300) plus course expenses. It also provides back-up.

Programs such as Farm Help (12-month financial assistance) have been available since 1998 but farmers are only finding out about them now. These government benefits don’t tend to be advertised. Farm Help offers assistance worth $3000; it can be used for advice from a financial planner or for rural counselling. We found out about this in a small brochure that someone delivered.

There is a FarmBiz subsidy available, which provides funding to attend farm-related courses. We used this subsidy to attend the 2001 Best Nutrition annual conference.

Subsidies definitely help: they can assist with up to 75 per cent of the costs.

The farm chemical users course is subsidised.

There are usually different criteria for subsidies, often advertised in brochures. However, to get any assistance, there is always loads of paperwork.

When asked whether cost was a barrier to participation, farmers provided the following responses:

Being a business, we simply see courses as a tax deduction. Courses are important for gaining knowledge and improving practices.

We consider the costs of conferences because they are generally very costly (with accommodation, and so on) and it means too many days away from the farm—need ‘relievers’ and others, and this all costs more money.

Many courses are funded. Field days are inexpensive.

3.2.5 Learning activities that focus on the environment

Farmers were asked what learning activities they had participated in that focused on the environment:

The only program I am involved in is Landcare, which has involved a tree planting project.

187

I have been involved in Landcare, which was once more environmentally focused but is becoming more production focused.

Milk care course (quality assurance) is environmental—recycling and effluent issues.

FarmBiz addressed environmental issues. Courses delivered by a good farm manager and consultants are good.

Individual factories have quality assurance standards that we all have to adhere to. The dairy industry no longer has dairy inspectors. There are no rules for building sheds, and so on—apart from effluent drainage. The industry needs to look at dairy hygiene and building. They tend to look at milk hygiene only.

3.2.6 Primary production courses

Farmers were asked whether they attended courses that were primary production oriented:

No, I work full time in another job (non-agricultural), so don’t get to these things.

Most courses/programs I have been involved in have been production focused.

Drought seminars, as they are topical at the moment.

Best Fed—animal health, production topics.

Count Down 500. We’re going to this soon. It is about mastitis.

We’re going to field days in the United States and New Zealand. There we will hopefully gain a lot of new-age production information.

One farmer said the reason that he might choose not to go to government- or industry-organised programs, courses, workshops or field days was ‘purely lack of time. There is nothing that actually turns us off attending … sometimes sons are just not interested in attending’.

When asked who or what had been influential in their lives in terms of shaping the way they think about farming, two farmers made the following comments:

The influence on my wife’s perspective of farming is her business background. For me, it is a way of life. I enjoy having own business and being own boss.

My father has been very influential in my way of thinking about farming. Indirectly influenced by my sons, of course—both wanting to come home to the farm. Talking to good farmers (retired cockies). Talking to other farming friends. Department consultants have given direction. And from my own motivation.

3.2.7 Involvement in groups, clubs and organisations

Table 3.2 shows the farmers’ responses to a question about their membership of groups, clubs and other organisations.

188

Table 3.2 Farmers’ membership of groups, clubs and other organisations: Greater Shepparton Shire

Farmer Groups, club or organisation Farmer 1 I am a member of Landcare Farmer 2 Member of Dookie Land Management Group (Landcare) Farmer 3 Member of the Landcare group Farmer 4 My father is member of Landcare. Landcare is helpful when it focuses on farm sustainability Landcare would be better off going under another name as it has ‘greenie’ connotations, which turns farmers off joining and attending. The most successful Landcare group is in South Australia: it has given itself another name. They have the reputation for being the leading cropping groups—spend time discussing new ideas Landcare has been successful, but it has become burnt out. It has also been taken over by catchment groups. It is a constant evolving situation and has 20 to 30 different features Many farmers don’t know about the different opportunities out there for them Farmer 5 No. Not involved in any groups at present. Was involved in Rotary for a short time Farmer 6 Lions Club Attended Target Ten groups for a while, but have found it has become worn out. It has had mixed success, which depends on the leader of the group Local recreation reserve Wife has been Brownie leader Involved in school council, tennis club, and boys went to scouts Have been very involved in the community, but my sons aren’t interested in attending community activities any more. Times are changing. People seem to be too busy for community activities these days

3.2.8 Farmers’ perceptions of how they learn

Most of the farmers said they learnt mainly from other farmers, particularly those who are seen to be successful and progressive:

Learn a lot through other farmers.

Talking to other farmers who have trialled the new idea is what develops your interest further.

Media merely sparks interest; talking with farmers is where all the learning is done.

Word of mouth goes a long way. Progressive farmers.

Tend to learn things through reading first, then find ourselves discussing the things we’ve read with other farmers.

We’re not having a lot of contact with other farmers at the moment because we’re new to this area. My husband generally likes to talk to others.

Other comments noted the influence of reading and gaining information from a variety of sources:

Reading about new ideas in the paper sparks your interest.

I read things and question my husband about how we do things compared with what I read. We discuss ideas and question each other.

We tend to get a bit of information from everywhere.

189

3.2.9 The relationship between what is learnt and what is done

Two of the farmers interviewed said that if information is relevant they will put it into practice:

Usually [take] action [on] things that I learn, when I’m interested in them.

Usually try to put into action any education.

Another farmer mentioned that there is a period of consideration and observation before action is taken:

Generally farmers don’t act upon info immediately. We evaluate our situation—and watch what happens with others.

We have started to apply the information we have read in the Farm Help brochure. I have used the internet to access various information, which I have taken on board and kept in mind (considered)—to perhaps use one day.

We will always put things in the back of our mind initially.

One farmer said he sought information but did not necessarily put it into action immediately, even though the information was very practically oriented: ‘We sent off for a video about ‘teat feel’ [treatment for cows drying-off]. It is good to find out information even if it doesn’t work or suit’. Another farmer said they work to a plan and that information must be relevant to that plan: ‘We have a general plan of direction, so if the information we receive is relevant to the plan and the timing is right we will action something directly. Otherwise, we tend keep it in mind and put it into action further down the track when the time is right’.

3.2.10 Becoming involved in government or industry programs

A number of farmers noted relevance and time as important considerations when contemplating involvement in government or industry programs:

Appropriate times are important: it is difficult to make it to courses during the day.

The subjects need to be relevant; that is, farmers are not interested in planting trees if it doesn’t make a dollar

If I think I can gain something that will help with the farm—for example, milk recording.

Two farmers seemed to be motivated by innovation and a sense of improvement: ‘Gaining of knowledge, growing and learning and hopefully improving’ and ‘If the group is foresightful (looking ahead). We need to see what’s happening overseas. Machinery is ahead overseas’.

3.2.11 One-on-one or group interaction?

All the farmers interviewed agreed that there is a place for both one-on-one and group processes and that the purpose of the learning is the determining factor:

Group sessions are good in some respects as it is good to hear things from another’s perspective. One- to-one is good for individual advice—for example, for trouble-shooting a problem spot in a crop.

One-to-one is good on occasions for specific things—for example, fertiliser reps—especially for cropping and pasture establishment. It is much quicker with one-to-one. Group sessions are an advantage in relation to new technology. Group sessions such as computer courses are best in smaller groups—six to eight people at most. Like one to one for specific individual needs.

Like one to one for certain things. Group is good if group is right and has some direction.

190

3.2.12 Areas in which government or industry, or both, could help

Farmers identified a number of areas in which they would like government or industry, or both, to help them. They also commented on how government and industry conduct programs and the content of those programs:

Many of the programs the government initiates are too short-sighted: they don’t run for long enough to generate any outcomes or benefits, thus wasting funding.

The government should spend dollars on ‘doing’ rather than advertising or surveying.

The extension officers know what is needed: they just need the resources and funding …

Consulting staff are constantly changing due to [projects being too short]. You just develop a rapport with someone and they move on. This needs to change, although it is very difficult.

There is always confusion, with funding dollars going into administration and not into the groundwork.

There seem to be fewer and fewer one-to-one consultants available to talk to.

There is a lot of overlap with programs and projects.

There is also a lot of recycling of ideas. For example, they talk about cell grazing today as though it is the latest and greatest, when in fact it was used 30 years ago. However, farmers have slowly slipped back into their old ways for various reasons.

Don’t like to rely on the government. Other concerns were associated with farming practice and land management:

Sustainable farming practices and dealing with these when in survival mode.

Growers want to look after land, and they want help to be able to do this.

There are plenty of opportunities out there. In fact, there is almost an information overload; we just need to be able to fit it all in.

Drought (actually declaring drought); information relevant to the moment.

Business management courses are helpful: they are good for expanding horizons.

Milk recording.

3.2.13 Non-participation: the farmers’ perspective

Some of the farmers interviewed provided comment on what they saw to be the characteristics of farmers who choose not to participate in learning opportunities:

Generation-to-generation farmers. Nothing changes much. Dad has been successful doing things that he always has done, so why should we change?

Generally lack any form of education.

Quite often quiet people and are those happy with the way they farm.

They are often fairly secure and don’t have any debt. Progressive farmers = higher debt loads.

Non-participators are usually ‘old and stubborn’ or younger ones who are from properties of many generations: ignorance seems to spread through generations.

191

A number of extension officers were asked the same question and expressed similar opinions:

These people are simply not interested. This could be due to bad experiences in the past or their views may simply differ from the department’s views.

Younger people tend to be less community minded due to their lifestyles involving money, time, technology, and so on. They are more individualistic.

People who are not financially comfortable or who may be experiencing financial difficulties.

Those who don’t like change or those who don’t see the benefits a particular program may provide for them.

It is difficult to provide a general profile of non-participators by age bracket.

Italians—due to language barriers or cultural factors.

Battling farmers.

Perceive they can’t benefit from attending.

Pride.

Too busy, and involvement in extension programs is a low priority.

Top 10 per cent and bottom 30 per cent of the farmers—in terms of their innovativeness and production generated.

People from non–English speaking background …

Older generation farmers.

… new growers aren’t as prevalent in the statistics; very big growers often don’t, depending on the event. One-off events with prominent speakers attract bigger growers; group-based discussion groups don’t necessarily—or it’s very tight knit.

Those who don’t believe the government has anything useful to offer, those who are so bogged down in the day-to-day struggle of farming they don’t have time to look ahead, and those who just see the need to change for whatever reason. As is evident from both farmers’ and extension officers’ responses, it is impossible to characterise non- participants.

3.3 Extension officers’ feedback

The main extension provider in Greater Shepparton Shire is the Victorian Government: it operates a number of programs targeting specific industries. Industry groups and education and training organisations are also present. Eight extension officers working in the Shire were interviewed and asked about how they approach extension and how they deal with aspects of participation and farmer involvement.

3.3.1 Background and experience

Table 3.3 provides information about the extension officers’ background and experience.

192

Table 3.3 Extension officer’s background and experience: Greater Shepparton Shire

Extension Current employer and officer work emphasis Background and experience Qualifications Officer 1 Department of Natural Position in Farm Forestry (research Bachelor of Applied Science Resources and position—salt and irrigation tree (majoring in Chemistry and Environment—groundwater plantations). Position with NRE as Environmental Science); issues hydrologist, then into extension postgraduate chemistry (soil installing groundwater pumps. I have rehabilitation) been involved in extension for three years Officer 2 Department of Natural Secondary teacher for 22 years Bachelor of Arts; Diploma of Resources and Education; Diploma of Frontline Environment Management; Professional Certificate in Adolescent Counselling; Certified Practitioner of Neuro-linguistic Programming Officer 3 Department of Natural I am a new graduate and have been Started in Bachelor of Agricultural Resources and working with NRE for 10 months. Science and transferred to Bachelor Environment—community Currently working with drainage of Horticultural Science catchment facilitator program (community surface water management program). Also, part of time is spent with farmers in whole- farm planning, automatic irrigation and water re-use systems. I have a farming background Officer 4 Project manager at Working with farmers during research Agricultural Science degree at Department of Natural project with CSIRO University of Melbourne; Resources and Postgraduate Diploma in Agricultural Environment, Benalla— Agricultural consultant—predominantly Economics at University of New project funded by Wool financial planning for farmers England Corporation Landcare coordinator Officer 5 Regional services Been involved in leading natural Degree in Applied Science manager—Northern resource management and sustainable (Biological Resources Management); Irrigation Region agriculture–based extension programs Graduate Diploma in Rural Resource since 1995 Management; Diploma of Frontline Department of Natural Management Resources and Environment Officer 6 State project leader— I have been working in extension for Certificate 4 Workplace Trainer and Fruitcheque, Department of nearly eight years. I began as an Assessor; Diploma in Frontline Natural Resources and extension recruit for the horticulture Management Environment industry, receiving two years of training in extension. I have since undertaken a Certificate 4 in Workplace Trainer and Assessor and have done numerous short courses, including facilitation and coaching Officer 7 EDGEnetwork state I have spent seven years working in Bachelor of Agriculture (Hons); coordinator extension and farmer education Doctor of Philosophy; Diploma of Applied Science (Extension); Department of Natural Diploma of Frontline Management; Resources and Certificate IV Workplace Trainer and Environment Assessor Officer 8 Department of Natural Varied. Extension—maize 1987, dairy Diploma of Applied Science in Resources and 1988, 1990, water use efficiency 2001– Agriculture Environment—water use 02. Adult education, dairy farm officer management courses 1992 and 1993. Junior football, cubs, scouts

193

As is evident, all officers were well qualified and experienced, with the majority holding a degree in a science- or applied science–based subject. No officer had an undergraduate degree in education or extension, although one had a Diploma of Applied Science in Extension and another was teacher trained and held a Diploma of Education. Many also had postgraduate qualifications in various disciplines, some of which are associated with extension and education. A number had done certificate courses in extension, education or training-based programs. One officer expressed the opinion that extension officers need to consider gaining more than a degree to do their work at a level that is respected by producers: ‘Extension officers need to be more experienced than graduate level due to lack of experience or credibility. Farmers don’t find inexperience acceptable, and it can affect the reputation of extension projects’.

3.3.2 Most-valued qualifications and courses and perceived gaps in education

Extension officers were asked what were the qualifications and courses they valued most in terms of helping with their extension work. Table 3.4 documents their responses.

Table 3.4 Extension officers’ most-valued qualifications and courses: Greater Shepparton Shire

Extension officer Qualifications and courses most valuable to extension work Officer 1 The best contribution to my extension skills has been the on-the-job experience Officer 2 Teaching skills, handling people, skills with leading other teachers—that is, skills in motivation and leading Officer 3 The hands-on experience with work Research subject in my degree, which involved conducting a project and presenting outcomes. This improved social skills … Officer 4 Ag Economics Officer 5 The degree was the most valuable, but none of the courses concentrated on extension or adult learning as a discipline Officer 6 Neither. Probably the courses in facilitation have been the most useful. Officer 7 Principles and Practices of Extension (short course), Technology of Participation (short course), Running Open Space (short course), Diploma of Applied Science (Extension), Certificate IV Training and Assessing Officer 8 On-the-job training and some short courses

A number of extension officers valued on-the-job experience highly, as well as extension and degree courses. One respondent noted that the research component of a degree course was particularly useful in providing a project perspective and helping with social skills. Another respondent with a teaching background stated that teaching had helped with people skills and skills in motivation and leadership.

Most respondents considered that the greatest gap in their training was in the area of formal extension training—including facilitation methods, change management and adult learning. One person mentioned a lack of training in farming systems; another mentioned natural resource management.

It was suggested that mentoring and hands-on extension workshops would be helpful for extension officers.

3.3.3 Reasons for becoming involved in extension

Many extension officers said they decided to become involved in extension because they enjoy working with people or because they had been involved in farming:

194

Came to [the Department of Natural Resources and Environment] as a Teacher Release to Industry Placement and stayed on as I liked the work dealing with people.

Enjoy working with people and want to help people, particularly farmers (due to farming background).

My upbringing on the family farm.

Original work focus was in research but enjoyed the interaction with landholders in applying research on farm. Then moved into an extension leadership function. The motivation is seeing the fruits of my staff’s labours resulting in on-ground change and adoption of better management practices and associated landscape change.

I enjoy working with people and am passionate about creating opportunities for others to thrive. Having come from a farming background, I’m also passionate about our rural communities and landscape.

I was frustrated with the research I was doing for my PhD because it was very theoretical and far from being directly useful to farmers. I also wanted to work with people and issues rather than the issues in isolation. I saw an ad for extension officers in the Victorian Department of Agriculture and applied. The rest is, as they say, history.

I have an empathy with farmers. I owned and operated a dairy farm from 1988 to 2000.

It is interesting that, although most of the extension officers have undergraduate qualifications in a science or applied science course, it is the ‘people’ side of the job that is appealing and provides the greatest satisfaction. Whether these extension officers, who have obviously had considerable exposure to scientific methods, have had similar exposure to social research is questionable. This is supported by comments by the extension officers themselves when asked what was the biggest gap or need in their training:

Lacking the technical knowledge of farming systems.

The lack of formal training in ‘group facilitation methods’—that is, learning how to deal with different personalities in groups and dealing with group dynamics.

A lack of formal facilitation training—that is, formal techniques of extension. I currently use my teaching skills for extension.

I believe it would be beneficial to do a ‘whole’ qualification in the area of extension.

No specific extension subjects or experience.

University degree predominantly provided technical knowledge—no knowledge of extension.

Hands-on experience with people who are good role models is helpful.

Hands-on extension workshops would also be helpful.

Natural resource management.

An understanding of adult learning techniques and the various change management models that exist.

Change management.

Facilitation skills.

Courses in extension methods would be useful for improving skills in extension—for example, how to hold meetings, dealing with groups, and so on. Refresher courses to follow these would be good too.

195

3.3.4 What do the extension officers think they do well?

When asked what they thought they did well, most extension officers nominated working with people. Rarely did they mention their substantive knowledge in natural resource management or farming systems:

Listening, respect for the opinion of others, having a rapport with the community, being reputable, and having the community’s trust.

Having a liking for people, the ability to accept people, flexible—working with the way people are. Good listening skills. Matching extension with people’s needs.

Understanding farmers’ backgrounds—problems such as drought and anthrax, for example—so we are prepared to be sympathetic if need be.

To never underestimate the farmers’ knowledge. They don’t mind if extension people don’t know everything and are also willing to impart their knowledge.

I like working with farmers and I’m empathetic to their needs.

Motivated and dedicated to the vision/direction of my work program.

Able to create respect with the farming community through the passion and dedication of my staff and myself.

Able to create partnerships between people and different agencies.

Able to excite people about the possibilities through my enthusiasm.

Ability to communicate—listening, asking insightful questions, facilitation—getting others to feel comfortable and to express their opinions. Empathy. Strategic planning.

I haven’t been involved in hands-on extension for three years because I’ve been more involved in staff training, evaluation and continuous improvement of extension. I think I am a very good communicator and listener and use these skills to facilitate rather than dictate solutions to people. I pride myself on my ability to see the issue in all its complexity. This makes it easy for me to facilitate problem solving—both with staff and with clients.

Offer constructive and practical options for farmers looking for information.

Understand things from a whole-farm approach.

3.3.5 Influences on extension officers’ thinking about extension

Extension officers identified a range of professional and personal influences that had shaped the way they think about and approach extension. Many noted the influence of on-the-job training, as well as significant people, reading, events and histories:

Government goals: what the Ministers want and where we should be heading. The farmers’ needs: by listening to what the farmers needs are through indirect feedback—we have developed packages for landowners as a result of them asking questions about certain things.

The reading and training that I have done have influenced the way I believe extension should be approached—for example, the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator, Hugh McKay and Stephen Covey’s writing on communication, Belbin profiling and neurolinguistic programming.

My farm upbringing and involvement in farming communities.

196

Previous supervisors, key community leaders, other peers who have generated enormous community respect.

An Indigenous forum in Adelaide was a profound insight into the importance of building relationships and trust and commitment. Numerous personal development courses that have helped me break out of the mental models that have limited me … I think that this is the same for all of us. In grappling with what extension encompasses I have come to believe that it is a number of roles that cannot be played by one extension officer. I believe it is the skills, talents and passion of the individual extension officer that make up their version of what extension is and what role they play in that situation.

The biggest aspect I personally have grappled with in extension is my technical competence: it’s not a strength and I think it’s harder with credibility but then I think I’ve managed it by being clear about what I don’t know and what I may have to offer. I have come across few extension people who are great facilitators and technical specialists. I think there is a need for both (and the many other roles) in the area of extension. And in some ways the area of facilitation and change management has been popular in the past few years, and I am concerned with the decline in technical specialists.

The greatest influence has been discovering adult learning principles, action learning, and participatory approaches to research and learning. Also, being involved with the EDGEnetwork development team of consultants taught me a lot about putting these theories into practice and the art of questioning.

3.3.6 Essential elements of extension and encouraging participation

Extension officers were asked what they thought were the essential elements of an extension program and what encourages farmers to participate in government and industry programs. Table 3.5 details their responses.

197

Table 3.5 Extension officers’ views about essential elements of extension and encouraging participation: Greater Shepparton Shire

How to encourage people to become Extension involved in industry and government officers Essential elements of an extension program programs Officer 1 The matching of programs with landowners. When issues are raised that are relevant to landowners—for example, water quality—they are keen to take an interest in these programs. Incentives—for example, landowners were not charged for ground water initially. The use of grants is also an incentive Officer 2 Extension officers need to have a good understanding of People want to improve outcomes and communication principles (formally or intuitively)— want to benefit personally actively listening, establishing what the client’s needs, values and interests are, and looking to match these needs Officer 3 Well set up program Incentives in the form of dollars. Fifty per cent of construction costs and 90 per cent Financial backing through incentive program of survey and design paid for Community Staff need clear technical knowledge of program Surface Water Management Program. Other programs such as whole-farm Sufficient resources—that is, funding. Under-resourcing planning and water re-use systems have can lead to poor image and reputation of programs incentives structured differently. Media and advertising—especially if they have problems, they are more likely to seek help and become involved in programs Officer 4 A good (credible and experienced) extension officer. Farmers need to see that there will be a Needs to be honest, have effective people skills, be benefit to them—for example, woolgrowers empathetic and a good listener and have good technical are interested if they can improve knowledge production with different management ideas Officer 5 Knowing your audience—understanding the issues they Seeking the latest, non-biased knowledge are facing and how they operate source Understanding the system within which your extension Incentives or grants being offered message fits. Understanding what the driver for change is and cleverly incorporating your message in this. For example, if you are seeking improved water use efficiency from an environmental point of view, the driver for change from a landholder’s perspective may well be less labour (more sleep) or improved productivity. Use this information when you are selling your message. Building trust and credibility—may take up to five years, so be prepared for the long haul Officer 6 Understanding the audience and how they see their Relevance. It meets their needs in the way situation. Identifying what level of change is being they want their needs to be met. I think the sought: is it realistic? What can be influenced and what answer to this is different for different mechanisms should be used? Maybe voluntary programs on offer extension is not an appropriate medium for the change that is being sought. The other is the ability to link the strategic, tactical and operational levels of decision making as part of the processes used, if applicable

198

How to encourage people to become Extension involved in industry and government officers Essential elements of an extension program programs Officer 7 Respect and trust of the individuals that run the programs—that is, farmers participate because X is running it and in the past the stuff they have done has always been useful, even if they didn’t think so when it was first suggested. There are the ‘progressive’ producers that do anything that looks vaguely useful, but I think the majority of people get involved because they trust you to deliver something that is responding to their needs Extension Delivering what the farmer is after They recognise something on offer that officer 8 meets a need they have

In summary, for the extension officers the essential elements of extension programs are as follows: • Actively listen, empathise, and get to know producers. • Understand producers’ needs and interests. • Be well organised and resourced and knowledgeable about your program. • Work at building trust and credibility and build a reputation for being reliable. • See links and opportunities that will help promote change.

3.3.7 Non-participation: extension officers’ perspective

Extension officers were asked why they thought some farmers choose not to be involved in industry and government programs. Table 3.6 shows their responses.

199

Table 3.6 Extension officers’ views about non-participation: Greater Shepparton Shire

Extension officer Reasons for people choosing not to be involved in industry and government programs Officer 1 Some people believe they don’t need to make changes and that they don’t have problems: if it has worked for them for 60 years, why change now? Possibly due to inappropriate delivery in the past, people may not be as interested in extension Some people need to see ‘beneficial effects’ of changes before they will become involved in extension programs Depends on individual crisis needs at the time—for example, needing extra water during the drought Officer 2 May feel they are too busy; may feel they lack the skills and knowledge Officer 3 Due to bad experiences—for self, friend or neighbour—in the past with government departments Officer 4 People are often too busy Some perceive these organisations (programs) have nothing to offer Officer 5 Are not up to date with the latest technological advances Lost contact or relationships with staff due to turnover Distrust of government—especially an issue for people from a non–English speaking background Complicated system to access—don’t know who to contact within the agencies Officer 6 They don’t know about it, don’t see what’s in it for them. Time commitment. They are very busy people; they also choose to reject our message as they don’t see it fits into their system, and that’s completely valid. The turnover of staff and short span of programs also is a hindrance for some when relationships are important Officer 7 Lack of trust or belief that they will get something useful from being involved Officer 8 You need to ask them: the reasons vary

3.3.8 People who do participate in government and industry extension programs

The extension officers were asked to describe the people who regularly participate in their programs:

These people are generally great community leaders. They have respect and rapport with community.

People of the older generation. There is an argument currently that these people tend to be more ‘civic minded’ (community minded), possibly due to their experiences with the Depression and World War 2, which pulled communities together. People born after World War 2 have been raised in an era of electronic revolution, which has encouraged them to pursue activities (such as watching TV and sitting in front of a computer) that are more passive and private, and they are not so concerned with forging links with others.

The older generation farmers are often keen to see changes; good business people; can be of varied cultures.

Generally busy people; good operators; successful farmers; people who are keen to learn; more outgoing types; fewer ethnic people.

Have historically accessed information (or incentives/grants).

Are probably in the 30–90 per cent profile of farmers—that is, [the programs] probably miss the top 10 per cent and bottom 30 per cent.

We have a young growers group, mixed groups. It’s very difficult to portray a profile: some are geographically based; some ethnic based; some only come to larger events such as seminars and field days.

200

Generally not the ‘top’ farmers but those that are eager for new information—people changing direction in their business, new farmers, and those that don’t have access to other networks and see involvement in this program as a way of developing those networks.

These portrayals are diverse, and it is difficult to generalise other than to say that the officers identified a variety of ages and economic groups and varied histories of involvement in farming.

3.3.9 Encouraging people to participate

The extension officers were asked how people might be encouraged to participate:

I don’t believe that grants will improve involvement any further.

‘Community planning’ and using agencies as guides or sounding boards. Giving the community ownership enables them to put their own views forward and encourages people to become involved.

People generally are interested in meeting their own needs. To involve people, extension has to identify and respond to those needs.

Deliver material that is in their best interest.

Match extension with people’s values. For example, people in Landcare want a healthy environment for their children.

Whole-farm planning.

Important to understand clients and to develop a good relationship with them.

Important to look after clients from day one. The first point of contact is important—helpful reception.

Highlight the benefits to them—in terms of dollars.

An effective extension officer is more likely to get people involved.

Investigate and review barriers to participation.

Think outside the square—for example, incorporate our extension messages in TV soapies, and so on.

It’s not necessarily about them but about us—how we do our business, how we typify growers. And who says it’s realistic that they all participate anyway?

By being personally contacted under a legitimate pretext to work on the trust aspect; it could be through social networks, attending livestock sales or local groups, and so on. Also by providing opportunities for them to ‘see’ what is happening without having to commit up front—for example, local field days at demo sites, open days, demos of the latest technology. The idea would be to encourage people to get to know the individuals who run the programs, so that they could develop trust in their ability to provide useful information, contacts, and so on.

By finding the topic or issue that interests them.

Face-to-face visits and repeatedly returning with visits, offering chats, follow-up, and making conversation relevant to them. The ‘live success stories’ of other local landowners are very useful for gaining their interest.

Make face-to-face contact, remembering to take into account interests, values, needs. This can be time-consuming but it is the best way to get people along. People are more honest on a one-to-one basis and are more likely to speak about things they are concerned about. Use the ‘free’ BBQ. Use

201

effective wording on invitations for learning activities; make them sound enticing and avoid making them sound intimidating.

Having a clear understanding of personalities and their needs assists with knowing what farmers will be interested in.

Organise educational activities at appropriate times—for example, night meetings. Avoid prime calving time! Day meetings are best organised around milking times.

Use active farmers to motivate non-participating farmers. This is a very powerful tool.

Emphasise the dollar value and the production and knowledge benefits for their farm. Reduce language barriers by employing, for example, Italian-speaking extension officers and advertising programs accordingly.

Some of our extension programs require full participation—for example, in the drainage program—so we have forced interaction.

We have regular newspaper and newsletter articles, which are circulated widely and so presumably pick up some of these.

We now have a dedicated ethnic liaison officer and Indigenous facilitator to pick up some of these non-traditional participants.

Do some market segmentation first. We are trialling this.

Find out what they want before offering a program to them.

I would find a local contact that knew everybody in the geographical area I wanted to work in and use her or him to identify (with the help of a fire map) who was who in the community. I would then find some pretext to visit the non-participators personally, because I think they would not be the sort to respond to a personal invitation to go to a meeting. This visit would be to make contact and generally collect information on who they are and what their needs are. I would then need to analyse this to see what it showed before planning the next steps for involving them and who to involve.

This is just an ‘off the top of my head’ idea. I would probably try doing some focus group work to identify group issues with those who were willing. I think it would all have to be very locally focused to make it relevant to the majority.

In summary, the extension officers felt that participation can be encouraged in two main ways: • making certain that information and programs are relevant to producers’ needs and values • building relationships and trust.

3.3.10 Why people should participate

The extension officers were also asked why they thought people should participate:

The more people engage with their communities the ‘healthier’ we are as a community. It’s all about building social capital.

To increase their farming knowledge—farm improvements, improved practices and production, introduction of environmentally sound practices.

For the big-ticket items we are dealing with, we need wide-scale attitudinal and landscape change. We cannot afford to have a small number of landholders holding us back.

202

Not everybody needs to participate: some are quite capable of sourcing their own information and doing their own problem solving through their own networks. There are, however, a lot of people who don’t know what they don’t know and so could benefit from contact with us and our networks.

They shouldn’t have to.

The exception would be if they were damaging the environment through poor management practices.

3.3.11 Successful learning activities

The extension officers were asked what extension and education programs they think are successful in terms of getting people involved:

The Landcare movement has been effective, but is struggling in some parts for the same reasons that other programs struggle—ageing members, carrying too much of the burden for too long, failure to involve others. Apex/Lions. Landcare. Landcare—has a reputable name and history and is recognised by many. Prograze—production focused; farmers can see benefit; local relevance. FarmBiz—financial planning benefits. Southwest Farm Monitor (farm benchmarking)—directly related to profitability. Target 10 and some of our ‘check’ programs. Landcare. Catchment management programs run in northern Victoria in partnership with the catchment management authorities. Saltwatch with school children. Watertable Watch and community monitoring programs in northern Victoria. If you look at any extension project—even the success stories like Target 10—they didn’t get over 50 per cent of farmers’ ongoing participation, and that’s fine. What are we calling success? And is it realistic? The drink–drive campaign has been ‘successful’ but then they don’t use voluntary mechanisms like those we often rely on. Beefcheck (part of EDGEnetwork), Target 10, TopCrop, Landcare, BestWool 2010, Prograze (part of EDGEnetwork), the now defunct Lamb Marksman program. Target 10 in northern Victoria. One officer suggested that programs need to be amalgamated: ‘There are too many extension programs; they need to be rationalised. Reduce the number of programs and/or combine them’.

3.4 Conclusion

Greater Shepparton Shire is a producer community that has considerable access to agricultural education and research institutions and programs. Although the views put forward by the extension officers and primary producers interviewed cannot be representative of the views and values of all officers and producers in the Shire, the respondents’ comments do highlight issues and concerns associated with participation in learning activities. The following statements can be made on the basis of the case study: • Although the vast majority of producers who contributed responses had participated in a number of extension programs, their depictions of ‘non-participants’ in government and industry extension programs varied considerably. Extension officers’ depictions were equally diverse, making it impossible to draw conclusions.

203

• The relevance of activities and their timing were raised by producers and extension officers as important factors affecting the success of learning programs. Learning from other farmers and one-to-one conversations and advice were viewed as important by producers and some extension officers. • One farmer noted that information about subsidies is not well known and also raised the problem of the considerable paperwork required if subsidies are sought. • All farmers thought there is a place for both one-on-one and group processes and that the purpose of the learning is the main determinant. • A number of extension officers mentioned that on-the-job experience is highly valued, as well as extension and degree courses. • It was suggested that mentoring and hands-on extension workshops would be helpful for extension officers. • All the extension officers interviewed were well qualified and experienced, the majority holding a degree in a science- or applied science–based subject. However, none of them held a degree in extension or education, although two held diplomas—one in extension and one in education. Most of the officers said the greatest gap in their training was in the area of formal extension training, including facilitation methods, change management and adult learning. It is interesting that, although most of the officers had undergraduate qualifications, it is the ‘people’ side of the job that appeals and provides the greatest satisfaction. Whether these extension officers, who have obviously been exposed to scientific methods, have had similar exposure to social research and theory is questionable. This is supported by comments by the extension officers themselves in response to the question about the biggest gap or need in their training. • The officers saw the essential elements of extension as being: – Actively listen, empathise and get to know producers. – Understand producers’ needs and interests. – Be well organised and resourced and knowledgeable about your program. – Work at building trust and credibility and build a reputation for being reliable. – See links and opportunities that will help promote change wherever possible. • One thoughtful comment from an extension officer perhaps sums up a predicament that seems to result from the constraints of their working environment:

I think we are still caught in the dilemma of being technical experts trying to effect change through technical transfer. We know there are better ways and we do practise them, but it is the paradigm most extension officers come from or are given when they join the Department. We have not truly embraced participatory approaches as a complementary tool for technical transfer and tend to ‘educate’ when we think we are ‘action learning’. It is difficult because our funding is often linked to ‘adoption’ rates, with more sophisticated evaluation of outcomes being practised by only a few.

204

Case study 4: Indigenous land managers in the rangelands

4.1 Background

About 16 per cent of Australia’s land area is owned and/or managed by Indigenous people. In the rangelands, the figure is 35 per cent (Resource Policy & Management 2002). According to the National Land and Water Resources Audit, more than 75 per cent of Australia is broadly defined as rangelands. This area covers a diverse group of relatively undisturbed ecosystems—tropical savannas, woodlands, shrublands and grasslands. People in the rangelands generate income from livestock production, tourism and mining. The amount of land owned and/or managed by Indigenous people is increasing as a result of native title claims, negotiated Indigenous land use agreements under the Native Title Act, and land purchased through the Indigenous Land Corporation or using other funds such as mining royalties. A comparison of square kilometres of land under Indigenous pastoral leases in the decades from 1955 to 1995 and in 1999 bears this out—see Table 4.1. It is imperative that government agencies and industry groups consider interactions with Indigenous land managers that are culturally appropriate and beneficial for both the people and the land.

205

Table 4.1 Land tenure in Australia’s rangelands, 1955 to 1999

(square kilometres)

Tenure 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 1999

State-owned Crown land with 72 314 72 345 68 407 60 712 58 686 58 236 assigned uses (transport corridors, stock routes)

State-owned Crown land with no 1 622 623 1 217 053 1 103 368 938 075 807 460 804 167 assigned uses

Defence reserve 225 404 257 431 124 339 129 685 129 617 129 617

Freehold land (non-Indigenous) 539 615 538 998 538 322 532 370 525 296 525 272

Pastoral lease (non-Indigenous)a 2 709 187 2 895 721 2 931 060 2 844 063 2 698 722 2 661 706

Pastoral lease (Indigenous)a 2 754 17 041 55 590 46 635 102 130 109 347

Indigenous landb 344 409 437 571 584 276 708 130 815 516 815 857

National parks (proclaimed and 1 399 10 529 27 909 80 174 143 413 156 982 gazetted)

Conservation lands (not gazetted) 22 341 91 995 100 138 184 136 225 268 244 905

Forested areas (state forest, forest 4 075 5 409 10 511 19 349 32 787 32 787 reserve)

Other reserves (hunting, historical, 759 786 835 877 2 454 2 473 heritage)

Water reserves (wetlands, storages) 309 309 432 981 3 759 3 759

Marine reserves 254 254 254 254 334 334 a. Indigenous pastoral lease and non-Indigenous pastoral lease are the same tenure. These are subdivided, as requested by the Indigenous Land Council, to fully display the scope of Indigenous holdings and management in Australia’s rangelands. b. Incorporates a range of tenure types, including Indigenous land that was administered by the Crown until the 1970s for Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory, until the 1980s for New South Wales, and until the 1990s for Queensland. Although instances of Crown administration still exist, most such land is now administered or owned by Indigenous land trusts or land councils or Indigenous local governments. In some cases historical data erroneously referred to large areas as Indigenous freehold land. Note: Total area of rangelands on which the figures are based is 5 545 314 square kilometres. Source: National Land and Water Resources Audit, , viewed July 2004.

4.1.1 Indigenous organisations in the rangelands

A number of Indigenous organisations throughout the rangelands provide services according to cultural, social, economic, political and environmental needs. Many other smaller community councils and native title management committees also provide similar services, with limited resources.

The Indigenous Land Corporation was established in 1995 to complement native title and accommodate the interests of Indigenous people who were unable to have their land needs met through the native title process.

206

The Corporation buys properties and holds them before divesting them to Indigenous owners. By the end of June 2000 the Corporation had bought 144 properties, with a total area of 5 167 884 hectares; by the end of June 2001 it had divested 92 (see Table 4.2).

Table 4.2 The Indigenous Land Corporation: number of properties approved for purchase, purchased and divested, 1995 to 30 June 2001

Properties approved for Total properties settled Total properties divested Jurisdiction purchase 2000 till 30 June 2000 to 30 June 2001 New South Wales 48 35 26 Northern Territory 22 10 6 Queensland 42 27 19 South Australia 53 21 14 Tasmania 7 3 0 Victoria 36 21 16 Western Australia 54 26 11 Total 262 143 92 Source: Indigenous Land Corporation (2001).

It is commonly thought that organisations such as ATSIC (the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) and the Indigenous Land Corporation should be responsible for and/or fund Indigenous peoples’ involvement in rural industries. For example, in ‘Indigenous access to departmental programs’ it is reported that an interviewee said, ‘There is a view that if it is for Aboriginals then ATSIC should do it. However, for white people they have access to the whole range of government agencies … For blackfellows everything’s expected from ATSIC but it does not have the funds or capacity to provide for all Indigenous needs’ (Resource Policy & Management 2001, p. 21).

The legislation ascribes to ATSIC and the Indigenous Land Corporation very specific responsibilities; they were not intended to take over the roles of other service providers. ATSIC had a low level of funding for supporting land management activity and very limited capacity to deal with the issues involved. The Corporation’s Indigenous land management funding is directed at areas not covered by government agencies. It works with government agencies to develop approaches that are accessible and appropriate to Indigenous clients. Its stated position is that funding should not be used as a substitute for agency services (Resource Policy & Management 2002).1

Table 4.3 summarises the jurisdiction and role of the four main national Indigenous organisations involved in rural enterprises.

1 ATSIC was abolished at the national level in May 2004; the regional ATSIC councils will be abolished by mid-2005. Whatever is to follow ATSIC should take into account the importance of Indigenous landowners and managers in the rangelands.

207

Table 4.3 National Indigenous organisations involved in rural enterprises: jurisdiction and role

Organisation and enabling legislation Jurisdiction Role Aboriginal and Torres National Delivers a business development program that is Strait Islander managed from Brisbane with an annual budget of Commission Major offices in each state and the $36 million. Demand cannot be met. Usually Northern Territory. Numerous regional considers assistance for enterprise development (Aboriginal and Torres offices up to $300 000; requests for more than this are Strait Islander Act 1969) passed on to the Commercial Development Corporation Aboriginal and Torres National Statutory obligation to assist and enhance Strait Islander Indigenous self-management and economic self- Commercial Development Commonwealth government statutory sufficiency. Has a capital base of around $60 Corporation authority million to enter into a range of commercial Managed by a board appointed by the ventures, including agriculture and aquaculture. Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Enterprises must be commercially viable Strait Islander Affairs Indigenous Land National Complements native title and accommodates the Corporation interests of Indigenous people who are unable to Head office and Central Division have their land needs met through the native title (Land Fund and office (administering South Australia process. Purchases properties and holds them Indigenous Land and the Northern Territory) are based prior to divesting them to Indigenous owners Corporation (ATSIC in Adelaide. Eastern Division office in Amendment) Act 1995) Brisbane; Western Division office in Perth Land Enterprise Australia National, with the office in Canberra The property management subsidiary of the (a subsidiary of the Indigenous Land Corporation. Its role is to ensure Indigenous Land that Indigenous landowners receive support in Corporation) land management and training. It also carries out economic assessments of potential property purchases by the Corporation Source: Resource Policy & Management (2002).

4.1.2 Understanding rangeland management

A major difficulty in relation to the needs of Indigenous land managers and owners is the diversity of land uses that are possible on Indigenous land. A non-Indigenous property in the rangelands will usually be involved in a single enterprise, such as pastoralism, and is usually managed by a single family or entity, such as a partnership or company established for that purpose. In contrast, on Indigenous lands, large areas—for example, Arhnem Land in northern Australia and the Anangu Pitjantjatjara lands in Central Australia—might support a number of different, and sometimes competing, uses, such as the following: • traditional and cultural practices, including hunting and gathering as well as customary management and adherence to customary lore • semi-commercial wildlife harvesting, including bartering and small enterprises such as collecting crocodile eggs • commercial pastoral enterprises involving cattle, buffalo or camels • mining leases managed by businesses that pay royalties • small livestock enterprises such as a community or outstation herd of animals for eating • specialist enterprises such as aquaculture or ecotourism • national parks, conservation reserves and Indigenous protected areas that are managed primarily for conservation purposes • land set aside for Indigenous communities.

Further, on a single area of land there can be a variety of uses:

• A pastoral property often comes with a community that occupies the same area; this is quite unlike a non-Indigenous pastoral property owned and managed by one family unit or business entity.

208

• There may be groups, such as traditional owners or young people, who want to use the land for purposes other than that for which it was dedicated and their wishes will have to be accommodated to maintain social cohesion.

The information and extension needs of Indigenous rangeland managers are interwoven in a complex social, cultural and institutional context that is often very localised but does involve state and territory and Commonwealth agencies as well as peak Indigenous organisations. Even if the goals and objectives for information needs were clearly identified, however, extension delivery would be difficult because of the cultural differences and the logistics of involvement in remote areas. Meeting the information and extension needs of Indigenous rangeland managers depends on understanding this background and then making commitments that will place considerable demands on government agencies and industry organisations.

It is also recognised, though, that some of the concerns of Indigenous rangeland managers are the same as those of their non-Indigenous neighbours. For example, Indigenous land managers have expressed frustration at the constant changes in government representatives and programs, as well as a perceived lack of practical application of programs: ‘Whitefellas come out from government mob and other mob and just write down, nothing happens’ (quoted in Rose 1995b, p. 11). White land managers have expressed frustration at the high turnover of departmental staff, particularly when set against the land managers’ long-term, often generational, history of land management: ‘The general Landcare meetings were supported by one person from [the Department of] Conservation but since he retired there was someone else appointed and he came and since he was reassigned to another area we have a third person who has not attended a meeting’ (quoted in Andrew 1997, p. 215).

It could be argued that non-Indigenous land managers also represent a culture that is distinct from that of urban Australia. As Grey and Lawrence note:

Farmers’ actions continue to be guided by a set of values and beliefs which enables them to persevere. Individual farmers’ decisions and actions, alongside the policies and decisions of their political representatives and even governments, can only be understood against a background provided by the ideological climate in which farmers are socialised and their culture is formed and maintained. (2001, p. 72)

Yet the cultures of rural Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians must be viewed as very different, despite the evident similarity in needs. The main reason for this is that all cultures are a consequence of their history, as Aarts and van Woerkum argued: ‘We have to take into account the historical dimension. From that point of view the present is a logical product of the past decades. And the future will be a product of what we are deciding at this point’ (1995, p. 1). This is where the dilemma lies for extension providers: extension itself is the product of a particular culture and its history; to apply the same approach to a different culture may be inappropriate.

Section 4.2 explores some of these considerations and provides insights relevant to extension designed to meet the needs of Indigenous landowners and managers in the rangelands.

4.2 Views about knowledge, learning and extension

Meeting the needs of Indigenous landowners and managers in the rangelands through industry and government extension programs poses a number of challenges, particularly for people who lack an Indigenous cultural perspective. Of greatest importance is acceptance that ‘extension’ derives from and is defined through a particular view of reality and knowledge that does not apply to a traditional Indigenous cultural perspective.

The debate about a suitable response to the ethical treatment of Indigenous knowledge and learning, and therefore extension, is complex and ongoing. It is significant to any study that involves education, extension and understanding of Indigenous land use because it demonstrates that the way people interact and manage

209

land is socially and culturally embedded. As a result, information and communication associated with land management cannot be based on the belief that knowledge of land management is universally accepted or objective:

Western society sees the environment as something than can be acted upon by humans as independent agents. This view is manifested in the way we attempted to know the environment, as an ‘objective’ reality, using science as a tool to uncover ‘reality’ and to discover universal truths. This view of the world is a cultural construction, however, it informs all our decisions and legitimates our actions in the environment. For Aboriginal people, who do not share this dichotomy between environment and person, notions such as ‘management’ and ‘control’ of land must have very different dimensions. (Rose 1995b, p. 10)

The dominant Western view of what is considered ‘appropriate’ knowledge can be characterised as having three primary features: • Rationality. It is assumed that, when dealing with land management, knowledge can be based on what is known and understood and that events are predictable. • Objectivity. It is assumed that land management is understood only in terms of factual information that is neutral and devoid of value judgments. • Truth. It is assumed that, for every question asked in relation to land management, there is only one true answer (Robottom 1985, p. 102).

With this conception of knowledge in mind, information and extension supporting such a view would be: • presented as facts that can be generalised (or universally accepted) across different contexts • presented as facts without acknowledging the existence and influence of the norms, beliefs and patterns of learning established by those whose land management practices are expected to be influenced by the information • presented as technical solutions to land management problems rather than acknowledging the practices and belief system in which land managers in a particular community function.2

Information, extension and communication associated with a view that knowledge is culturally and socially constructed can be portrayed as having two important features. First, information and communication are inextricably linked with the norms, beliefs and patterns of the culture and/or group in which extension takes place. Second, the human values and interests of the group or culture are integral to extension. In his report on a study funded by the National Landcare Program, Rose (1995b) puts forward a similar conception of a traditional Aboriginal view of the environment and the way non-Indigenous people have come to regard it— see Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Traditional Aboriginal and contemporary Western cultural views of the environment

Traditional Aboriginal culture Contemporary Western culture People and culture are an inseparable part of the The environment is ‘out there’, beyond the individual environment The world outside is part of the inner spiritual world and is Science can be used to discover universal ‘realities’ and understood as a religious belief system now commonly ‘truths’ that can be imposed on others referred to as ‘the Dreamtime’ The environment and its management are culturally The environment can be objectified and controlled through determined, and non-Indigenous people simply do not human understanding and interventions that can rapidly know whether this changes at all or only very slowly to change over time—for example, a new regulation accommodate environmental change Source: Based on Rose (1995b).

Walsh (2000) contrasts the dominant ‘classification approach’ preferred by Western science with the ‘holistic’ culture of traditional Aboriginal people. The Western knowledge system is reflected in the way

2 Drawn in part from Robottom (1985, pp. 102–3).

210

government agencies are separated according to the different programs they provide to what are classified as different ‘client groups’. According to Moore (with Davies 2001, p. 112), Aboriginal ecological knowledge is embedded in cultural and spiritual explanations and symbols. The consequences of this can be seen through sacred sites as conservation areas in which resource use is prohibited through supernatural sanctions, food taboos can form part of conservation strategies, or prohibitions against hunting on a dead person’s country allow animal numbers to increase in that region.

Providing information and extension in a way that is suited to Aboriginal people is one of the recommendations made by Rose (1995b), who also proposed the use of categories of land use and management—see Table 4.5.

211

Table 4.5 Information needs, by category of land use or management

Category of land use and management Recommendation and elements relating to information Caring for country Carry out research in order to develop guidelines and recommendations on a range of matters related to sustainable land use planning for Aboriginal land. Such research would establish an Aboriginal context for sustainability by focusing on providing opportunities for Aboriginal landowners to have access to scientific knowledge in order to make decisions about land use and land management Seek to establish programs for information transfer from Aboriginal people to government agencies and the broader public, identifying the information needs of Aboriginal people Seek to establish information transfer programs to provide information to Aboriginal people about the land management concerns and priorities of government departments and their programs and policies. It is recommended that government departments and land management agencies tailor their extension programs to take account of Aboriginal perceptions, recognising that: • the land management priorities of Aboriginal people may be very different from those of non-Aboriginal groups • the issues which drive extension programs may not be recognised as issues by Aboriginal people Land degradation Government departments and land management agencies use the information on Aboriginal aspirations and perceptions in [the source] report to review their programs for Aboriginal land managers, taking into account the need for the information provided to be in a form and at a level that is relevant to its intended users Government departments and land management agencies use the information on Aboriginal aspirations and perceptions in [the source] report to develop communication strategies for discussing land management issues that are not Aboriginal priorities Pastoralism ATSIC and the Central Land Council continue to support the development of pastoral operations that are desired by Aboriginal landowners only where pastoralism: • can be managed sustainably within environmental constraints and within the context of other desired land uses and the aspirations and skills of all community members • is recognised as one part of a suite of activities that may be undertaken on Aboriginal properties ATSIC and the Central Land Council play a pivotal role in the development and implementation of training and education programs focusing on: • training for cattle company directors emphasising liability and legal responsibility • technical and management information for cattle company workers Tourism Aboriginal landowners interested in tourism and related ventures are provided with information and training to allow them to make informed decisions about the nature of their future involvement in the tourism industry Conservation The Central Land Council continue to support traditional owners in carrying out their traditional land management activities through responding to Aboriginal requests for information and assistance with management activities The land councils and representative Aboriginal organisations examine the question of Aboriginal intellectual property and environmental knowledge rights in order to: • increase Aboriginal control over the directions and outcomes of environmental research using Aboriginal knowledge • facilitate the involvement of Aboriginal people in conservation research of benefit to Aboriginal people Feral animals Continued assistance be provided to Aboriginal landowners to develop feral animal capture and use programs concentrating on: • marketing information and assistance • technical and financial management and assistance • the identification and development of avenues for value-adding for animal products

212

Category of land use and management Recommendation and elements relating to information Further research be carried out into the local and regional benefits of feral animals’ use, with special reference to: • the economic implications of income substitution processes • local trading in feral animals and feral animal products Mining The Central Land Council investigate the concerns of traditional owners in relation to mine- site rehabilitation and ensure that traditional owners understand the existing mine sites will be rehabilitated The Central Land Council continue to ensure that traditional owners are given access to appropriate information on the environmental impacts and the likely costs and benefits of mining activities on their lands The Central Land Council ensure that information is available in an appropriate form explaining the roles and responsibilities of the Council, the mining company and traditional owners in all phases of mining activity The Central Land Council continue to monitor the social and cultural impacts of mining and royalty distribution and provide to traditional owners information on these impacts Source: Resource Policy & Management (2002), based on Rose (1995b).

For Rose, Aboriginal culture requires a more continuous social milieu than that demonstrated by contemporary Western society: ‘It is our land and we want to be able to control what happens on our land. Since time began Aboriginal laws never change—but whiteman’s law changes every time a government changes or changes its mind’ (1995, p. 7). This imperative and the need for continuity of people and place are perhaps shared by non-Indigenous land managers and owners in general: they have also had to contend with different government representatives and programs with different emphases and requirements. Trust based on long-term relationships is an important consideration for continuity.

In Working on Country: contemporary Indigenous management of Australia’s lands and coastal regions (Baker et al. 2001) the various authors raise a number of concerns associated with trust, interaction and relationships with Indigenous land managers that are relevant to extension providers in the rangelands: • In order to communicate with Indigenous groups, people need to be aware that culture and the natural environment are inseparable from land and resource management. They also need to understand how Aboriginal social structures and cultural protocols operate in relation to land (Moore with Davies 2001, p. 108). • In commenting on communications with Indigenous people in New South Wales, Moore says that initial contact can present a major difficulty for Indigenous people because they often have a strong sense of separateness, isolation and suspicion of outsiders. It is emphasised that communication will take extra time and effort compared with other community liaison work (Moore with Davies 2001, p. 109). • Suspicion is high because communication in the past has been inappropriate: acceptance is not easily won; nor should it be taken for granted. It depends on establishing trust early on. Consultation should start with a detailed explanation of the proposal and then time should be given for the community to think things over and make decisions; this might take one or two months, or even longer (Moore with Davies 2001, p. 109). • Indigenous people might assess newcomers at face value—on the basis of what they say and what they can offer to the community. They will usually cooperate if there are clear and compelling reasons for doing so (Moore with Davies 2001, p. 112). • Consultation should not be restricted to one or two high-profile people because they may be limited in terms of who they can speak for. Each group must be consulted and provided with feedback (Moore with Davies 2001, p. 109). • The effect of different world views on communication processes is significant. Each group makes assumptions about the other and about the role of government. Among the assumptions often made by Aboriginal people are that non-Aboriginal people are not trustworthy, that non-Aboriginal priorities are not important, and that governments are essentially a resource centre, obliged to provide everything. Non-Aboriginal people often assume that the views of individual Aboriginal people are representative of

213

those of many other Aboriginal people, that Aboriginal people cannot understand complex ideas, that non-Aboriginals know what is best for Aboriginal people, and that the institutions and facilities provided for them should function as they do in non-Aboriginal society. These assumptions lead to communication blockages, causing frustration and conflict. Both groups need to be aware of this (Phillpot 2001, p. 202). • Equipping Aboriginal people with the skills to manage a pastoral property requires not only a historical appreciation of the community but also an awareness of the cultural context in which the enterprise must operate (Phillpot 2001, p. 202). • Conventional communication processes, in which scientists give advice and Indigenous people listen, are never going to be effective: the scientists must consider the Indigenous people as their intellectual equals, and the latter need to be given information that they can combine with their own knowledge (Liddle with Young 2001, p. 148). • Scientists usually favour field days with lengthy, formal presentations by people who are not known to the Indigenous people attending, and the field days are often held far away from their lands: many Indigenous people feel uncomfortable when they are in ‘other country’ (Liddle with Young 2001, p. 149). • Scientists and government organisations rely heavily on written communication, which is inaccessible to many Aboriginal people, and this creates communication barriers (Liddle with Young 2001, p. 148). • A critical factor in the negotiation process is adequate resources. Effective negotiation requires much more than sound communication between people: it requires that parties approach the process from an equitable position. Indigenous people are invariably disadvantaged in negotiations with government or industry. Indigenous organisations’ resources are barely adequate for basic administrative functions, let along complex negotiations over land claims and national parks agreements. Effective participation by Indigenous groups requires money, and inevitably governments are asked to provide these resources. This highlights a dilemma for governments: Should they empower Indigenous groups to be effective in negotiations? Is it more likely that governments will win out if Indigenous groups are the weaker partners in negotiation? Increasingly, governments are recognising the imbalance between Indigenous people and other Australians and providing resources to strengthen the farmer’s negotiating position (Baker et al. 2001, p. 250). • Other forms of communication—such as body language and nuances of expression—must be observed in order to obtain an accurate impression of how negotiations are progressing. Aboriginal people often interpret signs in the landscape as communications of the spirit world portending whether or not people’s actions will have the desired outcome. Unless external stakeholders accept the fundamental importance of such concepts, Indigenous people will always be disadvantaged in negotiating matters associated with land and resource management (Baker et al. 2001, p. 250).

Many Indigenous leaders now believe that, regardless of how well-meaning in intention and application, mechanisms based on welfare payments are fundamentally flawed because they perpetuate disadvantage by creating dependence and reinforcing the lack of self-worth (Resource Policy & Management 2002). Trudgen (2000) shows how attempts at welfare particularly affect Indigenous men, saying that, while white dominance affects all Indigenous people, men have lost every significant role they once had. Tribal law makers have been replaced by police officers; medicine men have been replaced by doctors, nurses and health workers with qualifications in Western medicine. Even the most basic community tasks—such as motor repairs and building maintenance—are still often carried out by white people (Resource Policy & Management 2002).

The provision of welfare assistance to Indigenous people might have unintended consequences that require reappraisal by and for Indigenous Australians and the rest of the population. Among the changes sought will invariably be economic independence. This must be accompanied by new partnerships based on a sharing of power. Indigenous people will become increasingly self-confident as they become recognised landowners and managers—‘as they seek to control solutions to their problems because paternalism, regardless of its guise, has not led them to anywhere near equality by any social, economic or health criteria compared with the remainder of Australians’ (Resource Policy & Management 2002).

214

Rose says that research by the Central Land Council found the need for improved transfer of information on land degradation to Aboriginal people, pointing out that non-Aboriginal pastoralists have access to a wide range of information but ‘Aboriginal people can have difficulties accessing this information, understanding how it should be applied, and obtaining the support and resources to put this knowledge into practice’ (1995b, p. xii).

Walsh (2000) developed a participatory planning process to involve Aboriginal people living in remote areas. It was based on the use of drawings and working in small groups using Aboriginal facilitators who could speak the local languages. Reports were written in plain English and local dialects and relied heavily on photographs and drawings.

Indigenous Australians’ different approach to land management is recognised and has been the subject of various reports, such as those by Rose (1995a, 1995b). It is also evident in efforts by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Indigenous Land Corporation to develop a method of property management planning that is more appropriate for Indigenous people (Bowen & Walker 2000).

There is great diversity among Indigenous people, and it would be wrong to present any stereotype that ignored these differences. Yet there are important similarities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous managers of rural enterprises: ultimately, both are producing products to sell in the same markets and use very similar production systems within the same institutional and government framework. Even taking this into account, though, it is possible to show that the situation faced by many Indigenous people can be contrasted with that of non-Indigenous people when they are involved in land management.

4.3 Extension in practice

A number of projects undertaken by organisations, particularly land councils, provide examples of extension activities involving Indigenous land managers. Of particular note is Walsh’s work. Her 2002 report, Information Needs and Media in Aboriginal Land Management, Kimberley, WA, puts forward a number of suggestions (based on interviews with 24 people, media searches and regional examples) that provide guidance for extension that is culturally appropriate. The report was written for people in government and non-government agencies that provide support services for Aboriginal landowners, users and managers in the Kimberley.

Walsh found that information that reflects Aboriginal views of land is sought; this includes information on place names, water resources, bush food and other resources, and social profiles of Aboriginal land users. Beyond access to information, an important consideration is that people must have a use for the information: if it is not relevant, it will not be used. It is for this reason that land management jobs for Indigenous Australians are needed—to make a difference socially and environmentally and in so doing provide a reason for seeking information.

Several projects have looked at access and the purpose of information and extension, recording activities through photographs and captions that retell the story of particular practices for those involved and others. For example, ‘Cattle Work at Tjutjinpiri and Turkey Bore’ (Breckwoldt 1992) provides an account of a day’s cattle work, detailing yarding, drafting and branding. The following are some features of the document: • Pictures show the landowners and family members carrying out tasks of relevance to their enterprise. • Short captions describing what is happening appear under each photo. • The social and communication aspects of the day’s work are included as part of the story. • It provides a reminder of the learning that took place and how it was enjoyable.

215

• It is produced for and about the land managers. • ‘Extension’ is tied up in the day’s activities. It is not an add-on; rather, it is a meaningful part of the day’s work and the recording of it.

Such an approach accords with Walsh’s observation that reports that have been developed specifically for or by Aboriginal communities vary in their purpose, layout and style but possess a number of common elements: • photo-based, informative captions • text in plain English and the local language • content reflecting local priorities.

The people interviewed for Walsh’s study were asked to rank what media they thought were most effective for communicating between themselves and with Aboriginal landowners. It was found that, in general, most people learn by speaking with each other, through what they see and through what they do. This is an important consideration for extension providers because there is a tendency towards written communication rather than oral, observational or experiential learning.

Copyright and intellectual property must also be taken into account if Indigenous people’s knowledge is to be used. Increasingly, contracts between traditional owner groups, their representative bodies and other agencies are including copyright and intellectual property clauses. Some groups do not want cultural information written about or circulated, and this needs to be respected.

Walsh cites the Kimberley Regional Fire Management Project as an example of a communication strategy developed for an important natural resource management issue. The project was funded under the Natural Heritage Trust and includes activities and ‘products’ such as a website, a CD to be distributed to schools and other groups, field days about burning, information in AgWA Pastoral Memos and other relevant sites, eight radio interviews, three community announcements on radio, one television interview on Landline, and regular presentations to landholder groups and representatives of organisations such as shire councils and land conservation district committees. A number of posters have been developed and three community reports have been compiled for Aboriginal people living near three of the Project’s study sites. Among the media accessible to Indigenous people in the region are local radio, posters and community reports.

The radio clips forming part of the Project included conversations between members of Indigenous families about the use of fire at a bush camp and in other contexts. In addition, the Project’s website lists eight radio interviews on ABC regional radio, the Pilbara and Kimberley Aboriginal Media Network and Goolarri radio. This shows that a single medium can be used in different ways to reach different audiences. Two videos filmed at the Bohemia Downs and Beagle Bay research sites were also being developed to support the Project. Another intended information product is a mapping system that daily faxes to pastoralists maps showing the location of fires on or around a pastoral lease. Other ideas for the project are a music video with a fire song for young people, specific to each Kimberley sub-region, and a travelling movie about fire management.

Walsh’s report also refers to events such as the annual northern Australian Aboriginal rangers conference. This forum allows Aboriginal professionals, rangers, and interested people to learn from each other, staff from support agencies and others. Events of this kind afford government and industry groups a good opportunity to interact and learn from Indigenous people. The following points from Walsh’s report provide insights for government and industry extension providers, researchers and officers: • The most important place for information exchange is among and with people on their country. This means extension officers need the time and resources to travel to and from regions and also within large community areas with members of the community. • External agencies often ask Aboriginal people, particularly staff in Aboriginal organisations, to organise meetings for consultations and to provide information, ideas and opinions. Once a consultation is over, there is rarely any follow-up or feedback. All organisations must accept the responsibility to follow up on their consultations and tell people—particularly those who organised the consultation—what they are going to do as a result and why.

216

• Many Aboriginal people have said they want support to help pass on ecological knowledge to younger Aboriginal people. This may be in the form of vehicles, better school curricula, and the valuing of cultural knowledge. • Many of the interchanges between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people occur in the context of meetings and workshops. To improve cross-cultural meetings, many considerations need to be thought through— appropriate venues; the use of participatory methods; the use of interpreters and local language; plain English; clear concepts and visual material (if appropriate), metaphors and cultural analogies; preparation with one-to-one, family and then wider groups; a short time between talking and action; a broad planning process; and so on. • When there are many people at large events, the informal time when ‘sideline talk’ occurs is often very important. Time and space for this to happen need to be factored into programs. • Radio provides scope for interaction and communication, with possibilities including the use of local languages as much as possible and local speakers teaming up with researchers. Local people heard on air alert other locals and lend credibility. • Possibilities exist for television and video productions. A video called The Muster, a 12-minute presentation about preparation for a muster, with the Chairman of Noonkanbah as presenter, is a good example. The video was made by Kim Carter of Agriculture WA and is to be used for training purposes. Generally, however, video is expensive and time-consuming. A Warlpiri video about sorry business included footage of people’s feet, legs and, rarely, faces; the soundtrack was sparse but the video was powerful and much used by local people. Video companies such as the Warlpiri Media Association Inc. and AVI! Productions in Central Australia have considerable experience. • Maps can be particularly useful tools when working with Aboriginal landowners because many have a strong sense of spatial geography and maps are visual, pictorial products (rather than simply text). Most maps, especially thematic ones, should not stand alone, though: personal support to interpret and use them is required, and a purpose for using them is essential. Maps based on scientific themes such as land units, land systems or vegetation groups require a lot of explanation with Aboriginal landowners. Concepts such as defining vegetation communities and mapping land boundaries do not readily transfer to traditional Aboriginal concepts. People’s familiarity with interpreting contour lines, colours, cross-references, scale and other key elements varies. Training courses are needed to aid map interpretation. Participatory approaches are needed that involve local people in determining and compiling the mapped information. Meaningful icons, preferably developed by local people, need to be used. Maps should include roads, towns and well-known places to provide ready reference points for users. The maps to be used by pastoralists need stations’ names and boundaries. Local Aboriginal place names and Aboriginal names for plants, topography and other content are needed to help reflect local priorities. Air photo mosaics are good field tools for use with local people and can be used to complement thematic maps. • Paintings are a common medium that Kimberley Aboriginal people use to inform the wider world about their country. Places, plants, animals and other elements of country are often portrayed. Western land managers have used paintings to communicate with Aboriginal land managers—for example, the Mining on Your Country brochure produced by Kimberley Land Council. Discussions with Aboriginal organisations would be needed to shed light on the use of paintings as an intra- and cross-cultural communication tool since this is not well understood by non-Indigenous people. • It is very important to incorporate pictures in written media. They should have more than just aesthetic value: they should tell a story. Once again, appropriate use needs to be discussed with those whose images appear. • Community reports have been developed specifically for or by Aboriginal people. In Central Australia some bureaucracies (such as the Natural Heritage Trust and the Indigenous Land Corporation) accept community reports as valid progress reports, applications for funding and land use plans. Women from Balgo and Yaka Yaka made the book Yarrtji: six women’s stories from the Great Sandy Desert, contributing to its design and layout as well. This book contains excellent examples of the use of photos. • There are many features of community reports that could be adapted for use in technical reports and other extension media. Some features are noted here: – The time and cost of producing materials for local people must be factored into projects and programs from the start.

217

– Make the publication photo based, which means taking photos to tell a story, selecting photos, grouping them into subjects, and writing informative captions. Photos attract people; text does not. They also make materials accessible to people with lower English literacy levels. – Photos of people doing things are important. They are needed to illustrate doing the work on the ground rather than the tedium of meetings. – Photos of people on the front cover of publications encourage local people to pick up the document, particularly if they know the people in question. – Try photo layouts that include collages, panoramas and cut-outs to emphasise special things. – Using drawings, including cartoon-type drawings with characters speaking, as alternative picture devices appears to be well received. – Keep the writing brief but informative. – Use captions to tell the story. Important features of captions are the names of people in the photo, where they are and what they are doing. Then write about the concepts the photos are illustrating. – Lay out the relevant text as close as possible to the photo or drawing. – Use the first person and name individuals as often as possible: Aboriginal people want to know who is involved. – Write in plain English—which does not mean simple English or Pidgin. – Write in local languages if that is appropriate. – Arrange translation of English into local languages where appropriate. – Use as little as possible literary devices such as cross-references, tables, symbol codes, and text-to- image lines. – Think about page format—vertical (portrait), horizontal (landscape), A3 or A4. The good and poor features of them (including laying more photos onto a page, cost, and small or large documents) need to be weighed up. – Try large, clear fonts such as Arial or Tahoma in 14 or 16 point. Many Aboriginal people of all ages have poor eyesight. If there are quotes and longer stories, use fonts such as Bookman. – Bind reports carefully. Staples and tape are better than wire. Plastic spines bend and fall apart. Reports will live in handbags, glove boxes and hot places. Many people might read them. Make them strong and durable. – Use a clear plastic cover so the photos on the front can be easily seen. – If the book contains valuable information, laminate the pages if you can afford to, so that they are stronger and last longer. – Establish a process where people involved in the report make all or part of the report themselves. – Sit down with groups, read through and discuss the content of the report as a draft and a final. This is essential for refining the content, checking its accuracy and, once finished, having a tool that people will actually use because they know it and are confident to speak about it. – Preparation of a draft report of about 20 pages can take five to 10 days for one person working full time. This involves compiling photos and captions, writing the text and doing the layout. In addition, time for translations, local checking and re-editing is needed. – Informed permission for the use of photos of people, and sometimes places, is necessary. This involves explaining where a report might be circulated. Walsh found that many people are proud to have photos of themselves or their families included in publications. People are also pleased to see others they know. Further, attitudes are changing in relation to people who have died. There have, however, been instances when people have declined permission to use photos, particularly where someone else profits from their use. • All the people interviewed ranked use of the internet as a low priority. Only three of 25 Aboriginal pastoral station managers might occasionally use web-based information when in town; the remainder did not use it and were unlikely to in the near future. In June 2001, at a map-reading course for the Pastoralists and Graziers Association, it was found that of 90 non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal pastoral leases only 16 (about 30 per cent) had internet access. Organisations in the Kimberley have varying levels of computer use. Aboriginal organisations tend to have fewer computer resources than government ones. Computer skills are limited, the hardware and software are basic, and repairs and maintenance often take weeks. Most offices visited had a personal computer and a black-and-white printer but little else. All people interviewed said that resources and effort to support verbal communication and networking should be allocated in equal quantity—if not greater—to digital and electronic information media. When set up and operating smoothly,

218

the internet is cheap and can give provide people access to environmental information in the absence of libraries, scientific experts, and other information sources in remote and rural places. But the degree to which the information is useful depends on how it reflects local perspectives and how clear it is. CD-ROMs are another possibility for information and extension, although the expense and questions of access and purpose warrant consideration.

4.4 What does this mean for extension services?

Extension providers need to think about how government and industry can devise and introduce organisational arrangements that support Indigenous land managers. A good starting point is building relationships with organisations such as the Indigenous Land Corporation and establishing direct relationships with Indigenous people who are involved in a variety of enterprises. This is best achieved in the following way: • talking to people who have had long-term involvement with Indigenous people • travelling to properties and becoming involved through face-to-face communication and practical interaction on their land • finding out what they want to know by listening and watching what they are doing • always following up on what is needed • maintaining long-term relationships.

These principles could apply equally to non-Indigenous land managers, but Indigenous land management in the rangelands is fundamentally different from non-Indigenous land management.

Many people might also agree that the five principles are well understood as ingredients for ‘good’ extension or education, yet these are the very things that large organisations such as governments and industry have difficulty achieving. The barriers are very probably seen as resource based—not enough money and people to support such interaction. A reappraisal of organisational arrangements is, however, fundamental to improvement, not only for the support of Indigenous land managers but also for the provision of rural services in general. This reappraisal should include consideration of the following: • current and past activities and programs offered through organisations such as the Indigenous Land Corporation, to identify where government and/or industry extension might be required • potential partnerships between Indigenous organisations, government organisations and industry. This could include Indigenous health, education, arts, environment and employment organisations as well as specifically rurally based organisations • current services that are working well and can be extended and supported • events and activities, such as the annual northern Australian Aboriginal rangers conference, that could be supported by extension providers.

219

Case study 5: the sugar industry in the Mackay region of Queensland

5.1 Background

On 25 June 2002 Kerry O’Brien of the ABC’s 7.30 Report introduced a story on the sugar industry in the following way:

After a mere 18-month bumper run, the outlook for Australian farmers is all too quickly turning grim again. With world commodity prices falling, the latest agricultural forecast predicts a 40 per cent slump in farm earnings. One sector already feeling the pain is the sugar industry, which once boasted export earnings of up to $2 billion a year. A combination of record low prices on the world sugar market and a worsening drought has halved those export earnings and now threatens the livelihood of many growers. This week, the federal government is due to receive a landmark report looking at the future of Australia’s sugar industry. It’s not the first time growers have put their hand out for financial support, but they’re saying unless they do get financial help—and quickly—there may be no future to report on.

At a time of considerable hardship for sugar growers, questions are being raised about the long-term viability of the industry under its current structure and the changes that might be needed to support its continuation. Extension has an important role to play if the industry is to move in a new direction. In many ways the industry’s background has shaped current directions.

5.1.1 History

Sugar cane initially came from the Cape of Good Hope to Australia with the First Fleet in 1788. A commercial sugar mill was opened by the Hastings River in northern New South Wales in 1837, and by 1868 nine mills were operating in the state, producing 60 tons of sugar. Between 1839 and 1875 the industry grew, despite occasional world price slumps. Progressively it spread north, with mills opening at Maryborough in 1866 and Mackay in 1868. By 1885 there were 102 mills in New South Wales and 166 in Queensland.

The early sugar enterprises were individual properties with small, farm-based mills or central mills taking cane from the surrounding area. At first, Maryborough was the main centre of sugar production in Queensland, but the focus soon moved to Mackay, where the first crop was established by John Spiller in 1865. The establishment of a sugar mill at Alexandra in 1868 by T.H. Fitzgerald and J.E. Davidson represented the beginning of commercial production in the Mackay district. By the 1880s the sugar plantations were large production units, vertically integrated between farming and milling and using indentured Melanesian labour.

This was possible because Queensland, which had become a separate colony in the late 1850s, passed the Coolie Act in 1862. Workers from the New Hebrides and other Pacific islands were recruited for cotton and sugar plantations at Cleveland, Caboolture and Maryborough. South Sea Islanders—known as ‘kanakas’— were first employed to work on a sugar plantation in 1865. Cheap labour and the abundance of land available for new enterprises meant that people with capital could establish sugar plantations cheaply, employing between 40 and 200 workers for their own mill. By 1874 Mackay had 16 mills and 4927 acres (2011 hectares) dedicated to cane. The district had become an important employment centre for South Sea Islanders. Living conditions for these labourers were poor, and disease claimed the lives of many.

Over time, the plantations of Queensland adopted the centralised mill system. Technological advances had turned milling into a specialised enterprise and, by concentrating on processing and subdividing their land for sale to small holders, mill owners were able to spread their risk. By the turn of the century cane prices and labour disputes had become serious concerns for the industry. Although the prices were fixed by the mills,

220

they were influenced by CSR’s monopoly on sugar purchases. In 1914 an Act to provide for the establishment in any sugar growing area of a board with power to assess the minimum price for sugar cane during the forthcoming season was passed. A central board was established in Brisbane to hear appeals from the local boards.

Before this, in 1900, the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations had been established under the Sugar Experiment Stations Act. The Bureau remained part of the Queensland Ministry of Agriculture and Stock (now the Department of Primary Industry) until 1951, when the Act was amended to remove the Bureau from public service control. A board took over the administrative functions.

During World War 1 the Queensland Government gained the power to acquire all raw sugar manufactured in the state. This arrangement continues today: the Queensland Government acquires all the sugar and the refining companies act as agents, with the duty of refining and distribution. In 1949 the Sugar Research Institute was established to lead sugar milling research and development in Australia.

In the 1950s bulk handling for sugar exports was introduced. Cairns, Mourilyan, Lucinda, Townsville and Mackay were chosen for the construction of large bulk-sugar terminals. Another major change to the industry resulted from the development of mechanised harvesting and improvements in cane transport. The Faulkner cane harvester was demonstrated at Qunaba in 1924, while Fairymead was using a modified Howard cane harvester by 1934. Successful mechanisation of harvesting, though, dates from 1960.

5.1.2 Production

The Australian sugar industry produces raw and refined sugar from sugar cane. According to the Sugar Research and Development Corporation (2002), although the nation produces only about 4 per cent of the world’s sugar supply, it exports about 12 per cent of the sugar traded throughout the world. The net income from Australian sugar sales in 1999–2000 was approximately $1 billion. Unlike other sugar producing countries, Australia exports the vast majority of its sugar: about 85 per cent of its raw sugar is exported, so the industry’s viability is highly dependent on world market conditions. The other 15 per cent of raw sugar is refined for domestic consumption and export. Additional refinery capacity has increased competition in this segment of the market, and exports of white sugar have also risen as a result of this expanded capacity.

Sugar cane is grown primarily on Australia’s east coast, from Mossman and the Atherton Tableland in northern Queensland to Grafton in northern New South Wales; a sugar industry has also been established in the Ord River region of Western Australia. Nationwide production of sugar in 2000–01 was 4.14 million tonnes, down from the 5.48 million tonnes produced in 1999–2000. The most recent ‘bumper’ season was 1997–98, when 5.7 million tonnes of raw sugar was produced from 41 million tonnes of sugar cane grown on 419 915 hectares.

Queensland’s sugar production, area harvested and productivity increased after 1970 as a result of an increase in the amount of land dedicated to sugar. Productivity plateaued between 1970 and 1991 but increased again between 1992 and 1997 (Sugar Research and Development Corporation 2002). Table 5.1 shows details of areas harvested, production and yields in the three sugar producing sites between 1994–95 and 1999–2000.

221

Table 5.1 Sugar cane in Australia: area harvested, production and yield, 1994–95 to 1999–2000

New South Wales Queensland Western Australia Area Area Area harvested Production Yield harvested Production Yield harvested Production Yield Year (’000 ha) (’000 t) (t/ha) (’000 ha) (’000 t) (t/ha) (’000 ha) (’000 t) (t/ha) 1994–95 16 1 825 111.2 347 31 146 89.8 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1995–96 18 1 923 107.8 359 33 898 94.6 1 69 69.0 1996–97 18 2 231 124.0 371 36 232 97.6 1 170 164.7 1997–98 19 2 416 127.0 394 36 790 93.4 3 326 126.7 1998–99 20 2 555 126.0 379 35 587 93.9 3 392 135.5 1999– 2000 20 2 493 123.8 405 35 316 87.2 3 355 123.2 n.a. Not available. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001).

Agriculture’s input to the economy can be measured in a number of ways, one of which is the gross value of production for the year ending 30 June. In 1999–2000, the gross value of Australian agricultural production in current prices was $30.2 billion. Table 5.2 shows the gross value of agricultural commodities produced between 1994–95 and 1999–2000. Table 5.3 shows chain volume indexes of the value of production; these indexes provide an indication of the change in value after the direct effects of price changes are removed.

Table 5.2 Gross value of agricultural production by commodity, 1994–95 to 1999–2000

($ million, current prices) Commodity 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 Barley for grain 622.2 1 276.4 1 308.0 1 032.0 835.5 864.8 Oats for grain 165.8 289.4 226.6 223.3 156.6 118.4 Wheat for grain 2 127.2 4 304.7 4 877.9 3 801.5 4 011.0 4 831.2 Other cereal grains 580.2 733.0 764.9 702.1 810.9 750.4 Sugar cane cut for crushing 1 207.7 1 168.7 1 186.4 1 247.7 1 044.1 881.9 Fruit and nuts 1 426.4 1 498.8 1 667.8 1 586.8 1 763.0 1 761.1 Grapes 511.0 714.4 721.4 998.2 1 200.1 1 118.2 Vegetables 1 491.6 1 616.1 1 662.3 1 812.3 1 864.4 1 861.9 All other cropsa 2 999.6 3 729.0 3 580.5 3 904.3 4 540.7 4 735.1 Total crops 11 131.7 15 330.5 15 995.8 15 308.2 16 226.3 16 923.0 Total value of agricultural commodities produced 23 754.8 27 242.0 28 130.8 28 258.0 28 893.9 30 223.6 a. Includes pastures and grasses. Note: Values shown are those of recorded production at wholeshale prices, as realised in the principal marketplace. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001).

222

Table 5.3 Chain volume index of gross value of commodities produced, 1994–95 to 1999–2000

Crops 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 Barley for grain 57.9 115.7 133.1 127.8 119.0 100.0 Oats for grain 82.6 167.7 147.9 145.8 160.8 100.0 Wheat for grain 37.3 68.6 95.3 76.1 89.2 100.0 Other cereal grains 63.2 81.4 93.0 81.7 103.5 100.0 Legumes for grain 59.6 102.5 102.8 93.1 100.4 100.0 Oilseeds 15.8 25.8 33.0 36.4 75.7 100.0 Sugar cane cut for crushing 85.1 86.2 93.2 98.5 92.6 100.0 Cotton 51.1 59.0 92.6 100.0 96.7 100.0 Nursery production 88.8 96.7 81.8 72.2 94.2 100.0 Fruit and nuts 84.3 84.6 91.1 87.9 86.0 100.0 Grapes 65.5 92.6 80.1 79.1 97.4 100.0 Vegetables 80.3 89.0 88.6 91.6 96.3 100.0 All other cropsa 68.8 102.0 76.7 86.3 97.5 100.0 Total crops 56.9 77.8 89.6 84.1 93.6 100.0 a. Includes pastures and grasses. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001).

5.1.3 Inquiries, reports and legislative changes

The Industry Commission completed a review of Australia’s sugar industry in 1992. Its findings and recommendations dealt with production controls, tariffs and statutory marketing of raw sugar. The Commission’s report recommended the following: • staged removal of all production controls specifically targeted at the sugar industry • removal of tariffs on raw and refined sugar • removal of the Queensland Sugar Corporation’s compulsory acquisition powers and sole marketer status • modification of arrangements applying to bulk sugar terminals.

In relation to production controls, the Commission recommended as follows: • Amendments should be made to the Sugar Industry Act 1991 to abolish the assignment system. This would ensure that no constraints were placed on land that could be used to grow sugar cane or the mill to which cane was delivered, and mills would no longer be required to accept cane. • Delivery terms and conditions should be negotiated between growers and mills, rather than being set by local awards. • The returns to sugar sales should reflect actual prices and marketing costs, rather than a two-pool pricing arrangement.

As a transitional measure, the Commission recommended that the Queensland Sugar Corporation retain the right to compulsorily acquire sufficient sugar to fulfil all existing long-term contracts. Compulsory acquisition should, however, cease at the conclusion of these contracts.

To ease the adjustment to zero tariffs, the Commission recommended that a single transitional payment be made to growers and millers as soon as practicable after compulsory acquisition ended. Until compulsory acquisition ceased, the tariffs on raw and refined sugar were to remain but be reduced by 10 per cent a year to zero. Together, the reduction in tariffs and the cessation of statutory marketing would allow for competition in the supply of raw sugar to the domestic market, which would push domestic prices down to export parity.

223

In relation to bulk terminals, the Commission recommended that: • terminals be privately owned and operated on a commercial basis • equity in each terminal company reflect the contributions to infrastructure made by growers and millers • each terminal provide non-discriminatory access to all parties.

This package of reforms would enable growers, millers and marketers to evaluate alternative strategies and enter into those arrangements that best suited their needs. Competitive pressures would provide an incentive to ensure that production and marketing were efficient.

Since the Commission’s 1992 review there have been a number of developments: • the Commonwealth Government’s sugar industry package in 1993 • a new refiner—Mackay Refined Sugars—entering the industry in 1994 • the cane price formula undergoing a slight adjustment in 1994 • the Ord River Scheme developed as a sugar growing area • increases in land under assignment, which have been attributed to growth in the Queensland industry • the emergence of shortages in milling capacity, although this is no longer necessarily the case.

In 1995 the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments commissioned the Sugar Industry Review Working Party to review the Queensland sugar industry’s regulatory arrangements and the sugar tariff. The terms of reference required the Working Party to review: • the need for a tariff on raw and refined sugar • current legislative arrangements for the promotion and regulation of the sugar industry in Queensland • alternative arrangements.

In 1991 Queensland’s Sugar Experiment Stations Act was repealed and the Sugar Industry Act came into force. The Sugar Industry Review Working Party examined the role of the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations as part of its review of the industry. It recommended that the Bureau become a body corporate but retain its existing powers, activities and functions. These changes were made through the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Act 1997 and took effect on 24 September 1997.

On 10 November 1999 new sugar industry legislation, based on the recommendations of the Sugar Industry Review Working Party, was enacted—the Sugar Industry Act 1999. This Act replaced the 1991 Sugar Industry Act and the 1991 Sugar Industry Milling Rationalisation Act. The sugar industry in Queensland, which accounts for 95 per cent of Australian production, is now regulated by the state’s Sugar Industry Act 1999.

In Queensland the production, supply and milling of cane is carried out through mill-related cane production areas and cane production boards. Cane may be grown only on a registered cane production area. Cane supply and processing arrangements are the responsibility of the local growers and millers and the local cane production board. The Sugar Industry Act provides for the negotiation of collective supply and income distribution agreements at the local level, while at the same time allowing for individual growers or groups of growers to enter into individual agreements, provided they are not detrimental to the collective agreement.

The cane production area framework matches sugar cane production to milling capacity while ensuring that any new land introduced is suitable for indefinite, sustainable cane growing using practices that are reasonable and practical to protect the environment.

The new Act also provides for the compulsory acquisition of all Queensland raw sugar and for single-desk selling. The single-desk selling facilitates closer customer relationships and coordinated and integrated management of storage, handling and transport. In 2000 world sugar prices declined and growers sought assistance from government.

In 2002 the optimum size of cooperatives seemed to remain a vexed question. Clive Hildebrand, former chairman of the Sugar Research and Development Corporation, headed a task force charged with developing an industry report; the task force had been commissioned by federal Agriculture Minister Warren Truss

224

following continuing problems in the industry. The report came out at a time when a combination of disease, low world prices, subsidised competitors and internal problems was threatening the industry’s survival. Despite the multi-million dollar assistance package in 2000, the industry was continuing to contract, with exports down 50 per cent to about $1 billion.

Among the task force’s recommendations—under the headings ‘industry and competition’, ‘the market’, ‘diversification’, ‘environment’, ‘social’, and ‘research and development’—were the following: • The Queensland industry is to establish a ‘mill area’ or ‘mill region’ focus of operations. • A single Queensland industry body is needed that represents all mill regions (farm and mill) in extra- regional matters such as water, transport, health and safety. • The industry must develop local economic leadership for local negotiations, in preference to established sectoral state representational routes. • The industry must build business management skills in the regions and upgrade business management training. • The industry should install a whole-of-value-chain systems approach to all operations. • Within mill areas, a rationalisation of the industry into larger units of farms or farm cooperatives is desirable. • Worldwide benchmarking of industry activities against the strongest competitors is required. • Millers need to work to ensure the early rationalisation of mill areas and feeder farms in Far North Queensland. • Canegrowers should be encouraged to diversify into other areas, such as production for an ethanol industry. • The industry must adopt an ‘engage not defend’ approach to all environmental matters and demonstrate leadership at a catchment-focused level. • The industry should continue to develop and promote voluntary programs such as COMPASS (and beyond) and advance its environmental performance through independent audits. • The industry should work to ensure sustainability through continuing education. • Consideration must be given to an industry-exit program. • Further work is needed on the local impacts of industry change on industry participants and the broader community. • Support must be provided to vulnerable communities in sugar regions, through a review of existing assistance measures and the provision of training and retraining wherever necessary. • Governments should investigate the continuation of supplementary funding for the development of ‘systems thinking’ solutions to consolidate strategic mill area viability. • The industry should be encouraged to leverage its intellectual property base, through seeking suitable funding partners. • The industry and government should work together at least to maintain, and where possible broaden, the researcher base serving the industry (Hildebrand 2002, pp. 46–8).

Copies of the task force’s report were made available to growers through industry organisations such as CANEGROWERS.

5.1.4 Organisations involved in the Queensland sugar industry

Table 5.4 provides an overview of sugar industry ‘players’ and their roles, concentrating on extension services these organisations provide where this is part of their function. Not all agencies and organisations are included; rather, this is a representative sample of the type of support provided. Further examples are given in Section 5.3.

It should be noted that many of the services described tend to focus on providing scientific and technological information for the sugar industry, with a number of organisations mainly supporting the dissemination of information to researchers and industry support organisations. Alongside these organisations are those that provide a direct service to growers; for example, Silo offers growers an up-to-date weather guide, including weather reports and information about rainfall, drought, temperature, rainfall reliability, solar radiation, the seasonal climate outlook, and the meteogram outlook.

225

Table 5.4 Sugar industry organisations and their roles

Organisation Role Department of Agriculture, DAFF is involved with the sugar industry in a number of ways, often working in Fisheries and Forestry, partnership with the Queensland Government. Among its activities are: including the Australian • development of policy and reports Quarantine and Inspection Service • programs and packages such as the sugar industry assistance package (CANEGROWERS), the Sugar Industry Infrastructure Program, and the Sugar Industry Assistance Package (Research) • programs that are supported by the Commonwealth, such as the Sugar Research and Development Corporation. AQIS, within AFFA, has the dual role of consumer protection and facilitating trade by providing a sound, scientifically based and cost-effective quarantine and inspection service. Without this service market access for Australian food products to many countries would be impeded. Source: . The Australian Cane Farmers Australian Cane Farmers Association members receive the following services: cane Association testing; crop insurance; local representation; regional branch content in the Australian Cane Farmer; state and federal representation; industrial relations and workers compensation; general and personal insurance; financial planning; and other publications. The directors and executive staff of the Association represent farmers’ interests on industry bodies such as the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations; regional planning and advisory committees; the Cane Grub Steering Committee; Queensland Sugar Ltd; Sugar Terminal Limited; the Sugar Industry Development and Advisory Committee, Steering Committee, Working Group and various subgroups; the Ethanol Reference Group; the Global Alliance for Sugar Trade Reform and Liberalisation; the Sugar Research and Development Corporation; CP2002; the Research and Development Alliance; and state and federal government and opposition discussions with industry. Membership is voluntary and based on a $1 levy per tonne of cane, excluding GST. There is also a cap on the levy: no business pays more than $1000 per crushing season, excluding GST. There is also a magazine for members. Source: . The Australian College of ACTA has a 300-hectare intensive sugar cane farm that produces over 30 000 tonnes Tropical Agriculture of cane annually. ACTA’s Certificate in Agriculture provides for students wishing to study sugar production and related sectors. The program focuses on participation in all stages of sugar production and operational tasks under supervision. The courses offered are listed in Attachment A. Source: . The Australian Society of Any person, association, society, company or other corporate body interested in sugar Sugar Cane Technologists cane technology is eligible for membership of the ASSCT. The Queensland Society of Sugar Cane Technologists was founded in March 1929, and when CSR mills in northern New South Wales sought closer association with the Queensland Society, a newly constituted organisation called the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists was created in 1979. A conference is held each year and a supporting newsletter outlines the conference focus. Papers and poster presentations of relevance to the industry are delivered. Source: .

CANEGROWERS CANEGROWERS does the following on behalf of growers: • Negotiation. Engage in collective bargaining with mill owners at local and industry level to ensure that growers receive a fair share of industry proceeds. • Legislation. Scrutinise proposed new legislation and amendments to existing Acts that are likely to affect cane growers and, where necessary, advocate changes. • Lobbying. Inform federal and state government politicians and senior public servants, bankers, and business and community leaders of the sugar industry’s status, financial circumstances and needs, exert influence, and make industry- specific submissions where necessary.

226

Organisation Role • Industry management. Play a leading role in determining the structure of the Queensland sugar industry and its production, bulk handling and marketing operations. • Water. Negotiate with government on water pricing, water reform and water availability to ensure that growers can continue to irrigate in a sustainable, cost- effective way. Manage the implementation of a water use efficiency program for the sugar industry, to increase the productivity, profitability and sustainability of irrigated cane farms by improving the efficiency of irrigation practices. • Environment. Work to enhance the long-term viability of the Queensland sugar industry by ensuring sustainable use of soil and water resources. • Marketing. Have input into the Queensland sugar industry’s marketing policy through close liaison with Queensland Sugar. • World trade. Help advance Australia’s trade reform proposals through close liaison with the Federal Government and active involvement in the World Trade Organisation and the Global Alliance of Sugar Trade Liberalisation. • Research. Work with the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, the Sugar Research and Development Corporation, the (now defunct) Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Sugar Production and other industry research providers to improve the delivery of productive, focused research outcomes for growers. • Pests and diseases. Work with government, research bodies and commercial manufacturers to ensure that growers are protected from damaging diseases such as orange rust and sugar cane smut and to minimise the effect of pests such as cane grubs and cane rats. • Cane analysis. Review legislation, develop strategies and provide technical advice on cane testing and analysis and raw sugar quality programs to benefit growers. • Farm chemicals. Represent cane growers in connection with farm chemicals, including the availability of essential products, accreditation and training, rural spray drift policy, review of legislation, development of a chemicals training module for cane growers, and disposal of containers. • Transport. Influence government policy covering the movement of heavy transport on public roads, licences, vehicle dimensions and mass limits, registration, fatigue management, and so on. Develop strategies with mill owners and government bodies for public funding of roads and other infrastructure necessary for industry expansion. • Insurance. Maintain general and crop insurance schemes specifically tailored for cane growers with a preferred insurer so as to deliver premium savings and improved policy conditions. • Farm safety. Represent cane growers in connection with workplace health and safety, ensure that they understand their legal obligations, and help promote safer working practices on farms and at delivery sidings. • Cane firing. Make submissions on cane firing and smoke management to ensure that growers are able to continue with pre-harvest burning of standing cane and post-harvest burning of tops and trash. Inform growers about their rights and obligations and develop guidelines for best-practice trash management.

• Financial services. Deliver financial benefits to growers through the CANECARD buying service, investment and superannuation services, and occupational superannuation. • Communications. Provide timely information to growers and strategic messages to external audiences through the fortnightly Australian Canegrower magazine and other publications, media releases, speeches, and public relations activities. • Industrial relations. Represent and inform cane growers in relation to their industrial relations rights and obligations vis-a-vis farm employees. Maintain a registered Union of Employers. • Tax. Monitor GST and tax reform issues on behalf of growers and act to minimise inconvenience and disruption to growers’ businesses. • Legal matters. Provide legal advice and representation to growers, individually and collectively, on things such as increases in farm unimproved values, native title

227

Organisation Role claims, and disputes with mills. • District services. Provide a wide variety of localised representation, advice and services through a network of district offices and professional staff. District offices provide services relevant to local needs—including payroll and wages, secretariats for industry and community bodies, local government concerns, farm finances, computer training and cane quality. Source: . The Cooperative Research The Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Sugar Production was formed in Centre for Sustainable Sugar 1995, under the Australian Government Cooperative Research Centres Program, to Production research and develop technologies and management practices that will sustain soil and water resources and minimise any adverse environmental impacts of sugar cane production. The CRC ceased operations in June 2003. The Centre’s headquarters were at James Cook University in Townsville. Over 129 professional staff and students attached to the Centre were located in key sugar growing areas, from Mossman in northern Queensland to Harwood Island in northern New South Wales. The Centre’s key result areas were as follows: Environmental impacts. Match environmental management practices of the sugar industry with the expectations of an informed community. Managing natural resources used in sugar production systems. Maintain or enhance productive capacity of soil and water resources used by the sugar industry. Enhancing sugar industry profitability. Enhance the profitability and international competitiveness of the Australian sugar industry. Education and training. Maintain a pool of people trained in disciplines required for a sustainable sugar industry. Enhance industry and community awareness of sustainability. Attitudes and perceptions. The sugar industry is acknowledged as sustainable. The CRC is seen to be an integral part of changing the perceptions of industry and the community. Synergy from collaboration. Research is targeted to meet industry and community needs. Management systems are effective and transparent. The value-adding role capitalises on synergies. The CRC was an unincorporated joint venture comprising 13 parties representing the growing and milling sectors of the sugar industry, research organisations, public research funding support and universities. The participating parties were as follows: • the growing sector—the Australian Cane Growers Council Limited (CANEGROWERS), representing Australia’s nearly 7000 sugar cane growers • the milling sector—Bundaberg Sugar Ltd, CSR Ltd, Mackay Sugar Cooperative Association Ltd, NSW Sugar Milling Cooperative Ltd and Sugar North Limited, which collectively account for 90 per cent of the industry’s crushing capacity • the R&D sector—represented by the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, the CSIRO Divisions of Sustainable Ecosystems and Land and Water, and the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines • the tertiary education sector—represented by James Cook University, Central Queensland University, and the University of Queensland • the public R&D funding sector—represented by the Sugar Research and Development Corporation. Source: . The Australian Sugar Milling The Australian Sugar Milling Council was established in 1987 to represent Australian Council raw sugar mill owners. Source: . The Bureau of Sugar The objective of the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, as outlined in the Sugar Experiment Stations Industry Act 1999, is to ‘conduct research, development and extension activities directed at enhancing the sustainable production of commercial crops of cane and its products’. The Bureau has a range of extension functions, including programs such as Back on Track; the Rural Water Use Initiative and other water quality and water use

228

Organisation Role initiatives; provision of cane variety information; trials with products aimed at cane grubs and orange rust; COMPASS; the code of practice updates; the Prosper program; providing information on the use of mill by-products; and provision of general advice. Source: . CSIRO A number of CSIRO divisions have produced reports and done research supporting the sugar industry. Examples are CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, the Coastal Cropping Research Group, CSIRO Land and Water, and Mathematics and Information Sciences. Research-based work is linked to improved practice. Research papers are available on the various divisions’ websites. Source: . The Farmshed The Farmshed is an information centre for a number of primary industries, one of them the sugar industry. It provides information on sugar futures and key sugar indicators and news items drawn from a number of media outlets. Source: . The International Society of The International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists is an association of scientists, Sugar Cane Technologists technologists, institutions and companies and corporations concerned with the technical advancement of the cane sugar industry and its co-products. The Society has been in existence for 78 years, during which it has organised 24 congresses, usually at three-year intervals. The 2005 congress was in January–February in Guatemala. Workshops are also held in between congresses so that specialists can discuss key issues affecting the industry. Source: . Plant Health Australia Plant Health Australia is the national coordinating body for plant health in Australia. It commissions projects and develops nationally consistent policies to enhance the ability of Australian agriculture to respond effectively to plant pests, weeds and diseases. Source: . Queensland Sugar The bulk of Australian production is marketed through Queensland Sugar Limited, which under state legislation acquires all raw sugar produced in Queensland. The sugar is marketed on behalf of the state’s cane growers and mill owners through a single-desk selling structure, with all net revenues being returned to producers. Queensland Sugar is owned by the state’s growers and millers. The company is accountable to the industry through its 35 members—10 mill owners, representatives of Queensland’s 23 local mill suppliers’ committees, and one representative from each of the Australian Cane Farmers Association and CANEGROWERS. Queensland Sugar’s marketing history dates back to 1923, when the company’s forerunner, the Sugar Board, was established to market raw sugar. Queensland Sugar also manages and operates the industry’s seven bulk sugar terminals. With the small New South Wales industry being largely dependent on the domestic white sugar market for its sales and the Western Australian industry in its infancy, Queensland Sugar is responsible for almost all Australian raw sugar exports. Its operations are funded entirely by the state’s raw sugar producers through a charge against the proceeds of sales; it receives no government funding. Asian markets have become a major focus for exports, and the industry has been building strong ties with refiners in Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan. These four markets and Canada are the principal export destinations. Source: . Queensland Apprenticeship Queensland Apprenticeship Services offers courses in Agriculture (Cane Cultivation) Services (Queensland and Levels 2 and 3; Agriculture (Cane Harvesting) Levels 2, 3 and 4; and Agriculture (Cane Commonwealth Governments) Hauling) Levels 2 & 3. Source: . Sugar Australia Sugar Australia is the leading supplier of quality refined sugar products. It supplies the industrial and consumer sugar markets and markets the CSR Sugar brand. In 2002 Sugar Australia produced over 680 000 tonnes of refined sugar from its two refineries,

229

Organisation Role in Melbourne and Mackay. Source: . The Sugar Research and The Sugar Research and Development Corporation is a statutory body responsible for Development Corporation identifying and funding strategic research and development activities for the raw sugar industry in consultation with the industry. It enters agreements with research organisations to conduct the research. Its mission is to ‘foster an internationally competitive and sustainable Australian sugar industry’. This is achieved through directed funding to meet the research and development needs of the industry. The Corporation’s Research and Development Plan 2003–2008 identified a number of initiatives that directly relate to the provision of extension: Enhanced capacity for continuous improvement through the development of human capital throughout the industry … The systems-based approach taken in this R&D Plan 2003–2008 will realise the many opportunities available from a consideration of the whole value chain. It will use novel multi-disciplinary tools and technologies that integrate across the industry value chain and develop human capacity and associated processes in order to implement more rapid and more radical change across the system as a whole … What the R&D Plan 2003–2008 will deliver … • enhancement of human capacity and partnerships between industry, research and regional communities to underpin change, learning and innovation … Some of the R&D projects of relevance that have in the past been funded are: • the Australian rural leadership program • enhanced adoption of integrated pest management in sugar cane • a pilot study to develop education, with a focus on women in the Herbert River district • raising awareness and adoption of sustainable cane growing practices • the development of an extension network among growers in Tully, with a view to improving industry profitability in a participatory atmosphere • developing the capability to evaluate alternative cane supply arrangements across the sugar industry, using a whole-industry systems approach • developing a new approach to extension for widespread adoption of best management practice • a national irrigation science network • improved transfer to mills of technology developed by the Sugar Research Institute • a yield decline joint venture. Source: . The Sugar Research Institute The Sugar Research Institute is the research and development arm of the Australian raw sugar milling industry. It is not directly involved in extension programs with growers but does undertake a level of extension, which is perhaps more akin to ‘marketing’ with the mills. It conducts research supporting innovation and development in sugar milling and production. Sugar Research International is the Institute’s commercial arm. The following have been collaborative projects of significance: • The Sugar Industry Renewable Energy Project. This project develops technologies that will maximise electricity co-generation outputs of the steam cycle in sugar factories. • ZeaChem. This is a patented ethanol production process. • The Queensland Biomass Integration Group Project. This project aims to increase sugar factory electricity co-generation by increasing the access to fuel from harvesting wastes and from an advanced power cycle known as the ‘integration gasification combines cycle’. Source: .

230

5.1.5 Industry features likely to influence extension

The following summary of the structural arrangements, practices, policies and factors associated with the emergence of the sugar industry provides a backdrop to the features that influence extension directions and activities. It allows us to consider how the industry’s features might influence extension.

• Cane is processed in large central mills. This means that all growers have some connection with the mills and that interaction with the mills is likely to occur to some degree. Extension intervention is then possible at these times of interaction. For example, growers are involved in meetings to schedule property harvesting; they have a vested interest in attending these meetings, so attendance is likely to be high. • Cane is grown on family-sized properties by farmers who in many cases have some level of control over mill operations. This reinforces growers’ interest in mill operations, so it is likely that their involvement will offer extension opportunities. • Government has considerable control over production levels, marketing and pricing and, to some degree, wages and working conditions. Regulatory requirements also offer scope for extension provision. However, the mixing of these roles can be problematic. • The industry is highly mechanised. This affects the cost of production, produces time efficiencies, and results in a less labour intensive industry. Further, other sectors become involved through mechanisation support. • Marketing and production controls remain relatively unchanged or linked in their construction to their historic inception. This could mean that historical practices remain unchallenged and are maintained.

5.2 The Mackay district

Mackay City local government area comes within the area described (or defined) by the Mackay Whitsunday Regional Economic Development Corporation, which includes the Mackay statistical division and seven other local government areas. This is the geographical division used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The region lies about half way between Brisbane and Cairns, extending from the Tropic of Capricorn in the south to about 500 kilometres north of 20°S latitude and inland from the coast for about 400 kilometres to 146°E longitude. It covers 90 119 square kilometres (Mackay Whitsunday Regional Economic Development Corporation 2001c, p. 3). Mackay is the main city in the region, providing infrastructure to support sugar, coal, engineering and associated services, retail, beef, grain, horticulture and tourism.

The coastal vegetation is open forest and sugar cane crops, with some pockets of wet rainforest. To the west, the area associated with the Great Dividing Range is generally characterised by acacia scrub and open pasture. West of the Range is open forest. The climate is sub-tropical throughout most of the region, with heavy rainfall in summer and dry weather in winter. Average rainfall peaks in February; September is the driest month (Mackay Whitsunday Regional Economic Development Corporation 2001c, pp. 5–6).

In 2000 the estimated population of the region was 140 210, more than half of these people living in the Mackay City local government area. The region is home to a large number of Australian South Sea Islanders, descendents of islanders brought from the western Pacific in the 19th century (Mackay Whitsunday Regional Economic Development Corporation 2001b, p. 20). Attachment B provides further information about the region’s demography.

The Mackay Whitsunday Regional Economic Development Corporation describes the impact of the sugar industry in the following terms:

Economically, sugar cane production is the most important agricultural industry in the region.

…

Cane production is nearing the limits of its development potential (due to land and water resource restrictions) and only minor increases in the areas farmed are expected in the future.

231

…

The coastal region surrounding Mackay, a traditional sugar cane growing area, is the largest sugar- producing region in Australia. (2001a, pp. 5, 7)

Table 5.5 provides details of agricultural production in the region.

Table 5.5 Agricultural production in the Mackay Whitsunday region, 1997

Commodity Area (hectares) Value ($ million) Grain 23 580 6.4 Sugar 105 400 318.2 Oilseeds 850 0.3 Peanuts 180 0.3 Nurseries, flowers and turf 104 5.0 Horticultural crops 395 0.9 Source: Mackay Whitsunday Regional Economic Development Corporation (2001c, p. 6)

There are six mills in the region, one sugar refinery, and a large bulk sugar terminal through which passes one-third of the total output of raw sugar from Queensland (Mackay Whitsunday Regional Economic Development Corporation 2001a, p. 7). Table 5.6 provides details of sugar production in the region for 1996 to 2000.

232

Table 5.6 Mackay Whitsunday region sugar production, 1996 to 2000

Assigned area 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Farleigh Area harvested (hectares) 17 968 18 639 17 069 19 578 19 757 Cane crushed (tonnes) 1 771 209 1 673 904 1 701 893 1 398 378 1 051 361 Sugar produced (tonnes) 250 497 243 785 214 945 211 910 131 601 Gross revenue ($ million) 83.8 83.2 75.2 53 32.9 Marian Area harvested (hectares) 22 436 22 777 20 731 23 707 23 532 Cane crushed (tonnes) 2 178 996 2 179 233 2 179 650 2 173 204 1 473 908 Sugar produced (tonnes) 310 365 307 315 273 852 237 993 188 633 Gross revenue ($ million) 103.6 102.3 95.8 59.5 47.2 Plane Creek Area harvested (hectares) 17 148 18 578 16 303 19 872 20 235 Cane crushed (tonnes) 1 503 885 1 646 776 1 547 076 1 768 288 1 129 021 Sugar produced (tonnes) 206 510 248 771 187 998 239 538 146 120 Gross revenue ($ million) 69.0 82.9 65.8 59.9 36.5 Pleystowe Area harvested (hectares) 17 367 17 869 17 236 18 827 19 808 Cane crushed (tonnes) 1 708 050 1 740 528 1 858 152 1 526 192 1 115 842 Sugar produced (tonnes) 244 771 247 840 234 586 224 476 143 937 Gross revenue ($ million) 81.8 83.1 82.1 56.2 36.0 Proserpine Area harvested (hectares) 20 143 21 134 19 605 22 388 22 915 Cane crushed (tonnes) 2 138 504 1 985 695 2 074 903 1 956 154 1 389 676 Sugar produced (tonnes) 290 524 278 829 256 495 268 743 180 052 Gross revenue ($ million) 96.2 95.8 89.8 67.2 45.0 Racecourse Area harvested (hectares) 17 618 18 496 17 692 19 580 20 032 Cane crushed (tonnes) 1 854 276 1 849 926 2 032 246 1 529 759 1 021 442 Sugar produced (tonnes) 262 604 249 062 244 081 240 029 126 833 Gross revenue ($ million) 87.7 84.5 85.4 60.0 31.7 Total Area harvested (hectares) 112 680 117 493 108 636 123 952 116 279 Cane crushed (tonnes) 11 154 917 11 076 062 11 393 920 10 351 975 7 181 250 Sugar produced (tonnes) 1 565 271 1 575 602 1 411 957 1 420 689 917 176 Gross revenue ($ million) 522.1 531.8 494.1 355.7 229.3 Source: Mackay Whitsunday Regional Economic Development Corporation (2001a, p. 8).

The sharp downturn in sugar prices in 2000, a result of strong growth in sugar production and increased exports from Brazil, is illustrative of the market’s volatility. In 2002 producers again struggled with low world prices. The $150 million Sugar Reform Package, announced by the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments in September 2002, was designed to provide assistance and interest rate relief for the industry.

233

Against this background, a number of growers expressed discontent with government–industry arrangements, particularly in relation to deregulation3:

We’d like to see the government support primary producers more.

Changes to the sugar industry have taken it from the envy of most rural enterprises to most likely the worse. Deregulation of sugar and dairying in Mackay has ruined both industries. Farm running costs have already been cut to the bone. With no support, we cannot compete with a corrupt world market. We simply are not receiving enough for our sugar.

Adding to the economic pressures, the Mackay district had experienced major crop damage by rats in 1998– 99, and an orange rust outbreak during 1999–2000 in the central district of Queensland seriously affected Mackay production. In response, however, the Central District Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations developed cane varieties to replace the Q124 variety and the Cane Pest and Productivity Board helped distribute the varieties to growers. The majority of farmers in the Mackay district have had contact with the Bureau and its extension material supporting the release of these new varieties. Growers have also been experiencing drought conditions in recent years.

Four mills operate in the immediate Mackay City area, all owned by the Mackay Sugar Cooperative Association. The mills are at Farleigh, Marian, Pleystowe and Racecourse. Mackay Sugar closed the Pleystowe mill in 2002 because of low production levels, leaving many workers jobless. The mill was reopened the same year, however, and workers were reinstated to process to raw sugar syrup supplied from the other three mills.

When interviewed for this project, a sugar cane broker in the Mackay district said he believed a significant proportion of the smaller property owners would not make it through the current difficult period. He said there was an atmosphere of ‘almost depression’ and that he had grave concerns about the social implications of the downturn. He added that growers were discouraging succession and that, although the older generation can tighten their belts and live on less, younger people are going into other jobs in industries such as mining. Another indication of decline in the industry is the number of properties the broker had listed for sale: the listings greatly exceeded the demand. He said growers who had diversified their investments during the good years would survive the downturn but those small landholders who rely on sugar cane as their primary source of income would struggle.

Alternatives to cane production are being investigated, although one constraint is that the alternatives need to be appropriate to the physical aspects of production; for example, property sizes are too small for many enterprises. Additionally, the alternatives need to be relatively risk free since many growers do not have the capital to support failure. A commercial hemp trial is now under way in the district, and some growers are trialling, thinking about or changing to enterprises such as butterfly peas, maize, cattle and macadamia nuts.

Some of the people interviewed—people who are not cane growers but do know something about the industry—mentioned that it is difficult for cane growers to change from sugar to other enterprises because of the perceived lifestyle benefits. It was often said that growers enjoy many months of fishing because on-farm demands are not consistently high throughout the year. Such a lifestyle would be difficult to maintain with other kinds of agricultural land enterprises.

A number of people involved in the sugar district’s industry believe diversification is what is needed to help growers manage the economic slumps associated with sugar production, although they have differing views about the nature of this diversification. For example, a representative of Sugar Research International said that the problems associated with Brazil and its ability to produce large quantities of quality sugar will not go away. (Brazil has about 12 different by-products from its sugar factories, whereas Australia has about four, the main one being raw sugar.) It was his opinion that, instead of concentrating on a debate about the

3 See also comments in Attachment C.

234

positives and negatives of ethanol production, Australia should be looking at a number of alternatives and different marketing focuses—perhaps concentrating on Asia.

Among the most obvious characteristics of sugar cane farms in the Mackay region compared with other agricultural practices across Australia are the cane growing almost to the road verge, the lack of fencing, and the relatively small size of many of the farms. It is also evident that a sizeable number of the growers are from Malta or of Maltese origin. The involvement of Maltese people in the region’s sugar industry extends back to the first organised migrant group that arrived in the country in 1883 to work as labourers on sugar plantations (Department of Immigration and Multiculturalism and Indigenous Affairs 2003b). It is within this setting that the extension services discussed in Section 5.3 operate.

5.3 Sugar extension

This section summarises the various programs offered in the Mackay region and presents and discusses comments from extension officers and cane growers. It should be noted that individuals’ comments are not necessarily generalisable: they are simply insights from people who are involved in the industry on a daily basis.

The main providers of extension services for sugar cane growers in the region are the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations and CANEGROWERS. Many programs are jointly promoted and delivered, with support from government and other sugar industry organisations. Many growers interviewed said they interact with these two organisations, as well as attend mill-based meetings through Mackay Sugar.

5.3.1 The Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, Central District

The objective of the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, as outlined in the Sugar Industry Act 1999, is to ‘conduct research, development and extension activities directed at enhancing the sustainable production of commercial crops of cane and its products’ (BSES 2002, p. 5). The BSES’s functions, as outlined in the Act, are as follows: • to participate in investigating and evaluating the requirements for research into the growing of cane in Queensland • under the Plant Protection Act 1989, to prevent, control and eradicate pest infestation of cane • to conduct, arrange for or fund research and extension about any matter related to the breeding, production, harvesting, transport or processing of cane and related activities • to develop, or help to develop, methods of sustainable production of cane and related activities • to develop cane analysis standards • to help the commissioner in implementing cane analysis programs • to monitor and improve the quality of cane and cane products • to provide a service for the checking and certification of the accuracy of laboratory equipment used in deciding the relative quality of sugar for the purposes of payments made under the Act • to provide advice on the ability of land to sustain cane crops • to help keep to a minimum any damage to natural resources and the environment that may be caused by the activities of the Queensland sugar industry • to exploit commercially the products of its research, development and extension activities • to collaborate with other research providers, the Cane Protection and Productivity Board and industry in the coordination of local research, development and extension (BSES 2002, p. 6).

The R&D part of the organisation aims to develop solutions to problems affecting the ‘economic, environmental and social well-being of the industry’ (BSES 2002, p. 7). It organises its efforts around five programs—Plant Improvement, Crop Management, Mechanisation Enhancement, Product and Process Improvement, and Analytical Support. In 2002 the BSES also introduced a professional development course to train or refresh staff in the principles of experimentation, experimental design, elementary statistics, and statistical analyses.

235

The BSES Central Sugar Experiment Station is located at Te Kowai, just outside Mackay. It services all of the Central District and has offices in Proserpine and Sarina with a small number of staff.

Extension services The BSES Customer Service Group concentrates on areas that lift productivity and profitability in the short term and responds to the need for increased and reliable cane supply (BSES 2002, p. 8). This direction has been set by the BSES Regional Planning and Advisory Committees, which comprises millers, growers, representatives of the harvest sector and regional BSES representatives. According to a representative of BSES Mackay, the main activities in 2002 were in the following areas: • Back on Track and controlled traffic • irrigation through the Rural Water Use Efficiency Initiative • the early distribution of the Q189A variety of cane and propagation and planting of the SmartSett seedlings of Q205A • trials with anti–cane grub products • working with the Mackay Whitsunday Regional Strategy Group to improve water quality in local catchments • delivery of COMPASS and updates to the code of practice • delivery of the Prosper program through discussion group meetings, field days and farm visits • harvest of further trials with anti–orange rust fungicides • providing information on the use of mill by-products such as mill mud, dunder and mill ash • advice on varieties through variety guides, newspaper articles, shed meetings and discussion with individuals • general advice on all aspects of cane growing.

Box 5.1 summarises some of these initiatives.

Box 5.1 Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations extension services: a sample

Orange rust and new varieties

The cane variety Q124, which was planted extensively throughout the Central District, suffered from susceptibility to the fungal disease orange rust in 1999 and 2000, and the BSES has been instrumental in helping the industry replace the variety with rust-tolerant canes. The BSES quickly released new varieties, which required support information to help growers match the variety to their soil types, the time of harvest, and pest and disease reactions.

The Rural Water Use Efficiency Initiative

As a result of the dry conditions during 2001 and 2002, extra pressure was placed on irrigation facilities, with growers increasing their water use to meet crop demands. The BSES linked this increased demand with the Rural Water Use Efficiency Initiative. Activities included Water Month (October 2001), catch-can tests on irrigators, maintenance of roadside irrigation signs, assistance with incentive schemes, and advice on irrigation and related matters.

CANEGROWERS is also involved with the Initiative through an incentive program that contributes to the purchase of irrigation equipment for growers (CANEGROWERS 2002, p. 4).

Harvesting efficiencies

The BSES produced a number of brochures, among them Harvesting Best Practice: the money issues, and a manual entitled The Harvesting Best Practice Manual for Chopper-extractor Harvesters. These publications were the subject of a ‘great deal of interest from growers and harvesting contractors’ (BSES 2002, p. 34).

236

Back on Track

The Back on Track project, jointly run by Mackay Sugar and the BSES, supports industry in dealing with productivity issues and incorporates processes that are more sustainable. In 2001–02 an evaluation was undertaken of high-density planting and controlled-traffic systems, including a 2-metre bed system with two- and three-row combinations on the beds.

Background and experience of extension staff The BSES at Mackay has a number of extension officers, led by the regional manager/principal extension officer. This manager (Officer C) has 30 years’ experience with the BSES—at Cairns, Proserpine and Mackay. He holds a Diploma of Applied Science (Rural Technology) and a Graduate Diploma of Management and has attended numerous extension workshops. He says the educational experiences that have helped his extension work most were a visit to Ontario in Canada and involvement with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Illinois Cooperative Extension Service. He also values the marketing and organisational behaviour units undertaken as part of his graduate diploma degree. For him, the biggest gap in his training is that he had no extension training early in his career. The greatest influences on his approach to extension come from his experiences overseas and a Queensland Department of Primary Industry extension workshop focusing on marketing approaches. He says Norris Hoag from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food taught him that ‘extension is about creating change’, and whilst in Illinois he learnt about different paradigms for extension.

Two other BSES extension officers provided comments about participation in extension programs. Both have bachelor degrees—one in Agricultural Science and the other in Applied Science (Rural Technology). One has also completed Certificate 4 in Assessment and Workplace Training and the other has attended a number of short courses as part of his continuing training.

Before joining the BSES, Officer B was employed by the Queensland Department of Primary Industry and worked in Rockhampton and Emerald as an agricultural extension officer. His work ranged from dryland and irrigated crops to improved pasture development and the integration of machinery. He has supervised projects and the training of new extension officers and since joining the BSES in 1994 has been involved in a variety of work—including financial and physical record keeping; disease, insect and weed control; nutrition; variety distribution; environmental issues; and harvesting. He also led the Improved Harvesting Efficiency project. Officer B says formal training in group facilitation skills was valuable for him, although he also recognises that ‘16 years of working with farmers has given the necessary experience to help create a good rapport and make progress’. He attributes his interest in extension to his past interactions on the land and two Department of Primary Industry officers who helped shape his views about extension:

I come from the Atherton Tableland. Many of my school friends came from farms and my father owned a few over the years. I enjoyed working on farms and I liked the outdoor life. This led me to pursue a career in agriculture.

When I joined [the Department of Primary Industry] I spent some time with W, who worked in improved pasture extension. He taught me the practicalities of working with and relating to producers. We never sat down with a text book, but I accompanied him on many farm visits and observed the way he operated and asked him plenty of questions. He is a private consultant now and last I heard he was living in Farmborough, near Yapoon. I also learned a bit on cropping from X, who was ex-DPI Emerald and is now a private consultant there. W in particular had great people skills and X was technically very sound.

Extension officers must have a good technical base and be given the opportunity to maintain this. New officers should not be thrown in the deep end but should start with a ‘mentoring’ program, which should be fairly intensive for the first six to 12 months.

Groups work well, and so does one-on-one extension. It’s easy to make groups work if you’ve done the groundwork with individuals. Spending time with individuals often unearths details, important

237

issues, and innovative approaches to problem solving. It also builds trust. Encouraging producers to change requires them to trust you and the organisation you work for.

There is a tendency for all agencies to put employees on two- or three-year contracts, and within many government agencies short staffing, discouraging one-on-one extension, failing to support productivity issues and chopping and changing policy do little to aid improvement in adoption.

The elements of successful extension programs Officer B says the following elements are important for successful extension programs: • good technical information • the right personnel and resources • clear reasons to change practices • timing to meet the current needs of producers • producer involvement and participation from the start • on-farm demonstration of practices • a strategy for wider adoption • motivators for change—a favourable ‘climate’ for change • evidence of change in practices • evaluation.

One of the difficulties he experiences in doing his work is ‘finding the time to keep up with cutting-edge research’.

Officer C believes that sound technical knowledge, good people skills and being a good listener are important to him as an extension provider. Like many extension officers throughout Australia, he started work as an agricultural researcher and switched to extension ‘for the people contact and the diverse range of tasks’ offered. He also thought that ‘career prospects were better in extension for someone without a PhD’.

Like Officer C, Officer A considers that, to be a useful extension officer, three things are needed:

technical knowledge—from training, short courses, and so on

people skills

training can help but mainly comes from on-the-job skills.

For Officer C, successful extension is based on ‘a product that is truly useful and needed, a champion to drive the program, and client participation’:

There must be a real need. For example, they have to be able to see that there is something in it for them. Programs are not successful when they are not sold well: there seems to be little relevance and the perception is that it is unlikely to add value to their business.

Officer B says the following professional and personal attributes contribute to successful extension:

Empathy with growers—understand many of their viewpoints/experiences, which helps with trust. Talk and present on an appropriate level; be understandable. A friendly disposition and ability to be a comic at appropriate times. Follow up requests or enquiries well—a reputation for reliability and thoroughness. Longevity—not here today gone tomorrow, which is important when building relationships.

Similarly, Officer A sees that relating well to cane farmers and understanding their situation and needs are important to success. Communication with all parties—growers, funding providers and those involved in running the program—is the essential ingredient for successful programs, he says.

238

All the extension officers interviewed said that cane growers’ needs and the relevance of and interest in a program or initiative were crucial to the growers’ involvement. Officer B gave the following reasons why growers might choose to participate in industry and/or government extension programs: • relevance to their situation • interest in improving profitability or making better use of time, labour and resources • conserving resources • making operations simpler • comfortable mixing with and relating to others • risk takers—willing to move out of their comfort zone • ready to change • a lifestyle or business change imminent—forced change.

The obverse applies to people who choose not to be involved in programs: • not interested in venturing outside their world • insulated, with no impetus to seek information or change • lack of trust in the organisation advocating change • program not suiting their needs at the time—‘you don’t buy a pram if the kids are grown up and you’ve had a vasectomy’ • shy and prefer to talk to others who have participated • ‘Dad never did it’ • cannot see the relevance of the information to their farming business or too busy running the business.

The BSES approach to extension Among the programs and extension processes the three BSES officers have been involved in are the following: • mainly production and financial extension • focus group meetings for subjects such as nutrition and fertiliser use • discussion group meetings—all issues of relevance to the group • specialised information meetings—rats and orange rust, for example • courses—fertility, irrigation, Quicken and Caneman • financial benchmarking • production of technical manuals such as Harvesting Best Practice and Coping with Low Sugar Prices • specific projects such as Improved Harvest Efficiency.

Officer A said they use a number of extension tools to deliver messages:

We run shed meetings (small groups of 10 to 12), field days (large groups, 100+), bus tours, research trials with growers with data fed back via the shed meeting groups. We also use the media—local rural papers, ABC rural radio and local TV news. Newsletters are also sent to all growers in our area several times each year.

Who participates and who does not? When asked to ‘profile’ people who participate in extension programs, the extension officers provided a variety of responses. For example, Officer A said that, for both those that do and do not participate, there is no set profile: ‘all age groups, good and poor farmers’ attend or do not attend extension programs. Officer B, in contrast, sees participants as: • interested in new technology and ideas • interested in improving their business • often articulate and keen to express their opinions • seekers of information from a range of sources • people who enjoy being among their peers • average to above-average productivity and profitability (generally).

Officer B also profiled non-participants:

239

• do their own thing, often in the absence of input from their peers • slow to or do not respond to advertising • may only respond in ‘do or die’ situations • may listen but rarely ask questions • don’t like venturing out or being in groups.

Officer C said people who tend not to participate in extension programs are ‘some innovators, people with many business interests, people who are or are about to go bankrupt or leave the industry’.

Because the BSES is involved in a number of innovations and activities where growers can see a direct benefit for their productivity, it has some degree of contact with people who might not otherwise become involved in industry-based programs. For example, Officer C judges that most growers—about 90 per cent— are contacted face to face to pick up new varieties, and newsletters are sent to all growers, ‘although some would not be read’. Both Officer A and Officer B gave examples of interactions with people who tend to contact the BSES only when they see no other viable alternative:

When things are desperate or ‘legislative’ some of them appear—for example, orange rust in Q124, access to new varieties and access to EUP rat bait—and sign up for the BSES service fee (98 per cent of growers).

Annual distribution of new varieties.

All growers receive newsletters and media articles and most would attend our annual field day or collect cane from one of our variety plots.

The three extension officers see the following programs and initiatives as successful in terms of generating participation: • the Reduce Cane Loss program—offering a financial incentive • the Sugar Research and Development Corporation’s Improved Harvesting Efficiency Project—good timing for presentation, when dollars are tight • uptake of new cane varieties—‘Some think it will solve all their problems’ • the orange rust disease awareness and fungicide program—a desperate situation • the Rat Pack workshop—a desperate situation • the green cane harvesting and trash retention program (moving to accepted practice)—sold to them through water conservation, reduced labour costs and lifestyle, not as an erosion program • initiatives taking a ‘how to’ approach • all programs dealing with a new problem—one the growers have not faced before. ‘We ran a program to help growers deal with orange rust, a disease never seen in the sugar industry before, and had about 90 per cent of growers participate’ • the cane loss extension program, which involved collecting cane from under extractors to show the amount being lost • BSES field days • BSES discussion groups—the Prosper program.

The extension officers pointed out that the timing of programs is also a crucial factor. Officer B provided the following additional points that he considers important for generating participation: • Collate a list of non-attendees. • Specifically target them with an individual post-out and/or phone call. • Try to time it so their work program is at its slackest and outside school holiday periods. • Organise the events in their localities, not in the centre of Mackay. • Apart from the usual media coverage, use television advertising too, although not too slick and excessive. • Follow up with a phone call post mortem—why they came, what would make them come again or why they didn’t turn up.

240

Participation difficulties On the basis of the feedback received through interviews in the Mackay region, it can be argued that the extension programs that are viewed as directly lifting productivity without a significant cost in time or funds are well attended by people who would not attend programs for which productivity benefits are not clearly identified against costs. For example, many environment-based programs cannot as easily provide growers with certainty about benefits as opposed to costs compared with programs dealing with an imminent threat— such as orange rust or rat infestation. Many environment programs appeal more to less tangible values compared with programs directly relating to productivity: for example, environment-based programs might appeal to values and aesthetics, the ‘greater public good’, or valuing the environment because of specific beliefs, observations or interests.

Whatever the circumstances, the sugar industry is facing considerable criticism from environmental quarters. Some growers are responding; others are not. The current economic climate is also making it very difficult for some growers to make ends meet:

Some growers need to lift productivity but for many that will not be enough. We have many highly productive growers who are starting to struggle financially. Efficiency needs to be sorted through reduced costs, but this is getting harder as the industry reduced many of its costs in the last downturn and cost cutting is now difficult without affecting productivity. The industry will survive but with fewer growers doing more. This smaller number of growers will also need fewer people to service them in terms of fertiliser reps, researchers, and so on, so in the end we will see the loss of jobs as a way to reduce costs.

More cooperation between the agencies servicing the industry and a more positive attitude from leaders is needed for change to occur. The industry adopts new technology very fast when it is relevant. Many providers cry that the industry does not adopt technology but in many cases the technology is flawed or not relevant to them. We must have needs-based extension, not product- based.

5.3.2 CANEGROWERS

Mr D is the CANEGROWERS SUGARPLAN training and education manager. He was raised on a wool and wheat farm in South Australia and in 1990 moved to Adelaide and established a small business. From there he completed a Bachelor of Land Management degree and worked with farmers on the Darling Downs, developing property management plans. Because of this experience, he describes himself as still having ‘a natural resource management bent’. He also has postgraduate qualifications in human resource management and agricultural extension, plus diploma-level qualifications in training and assessment. As well as coordinating all education and training activities for the Mackay district CANEGROWERS, he also attracts grant funding to the organisation. For example, CANEGROWERS Mackay managed to secure close to $300 000 from the Queensland Government to purchase accredited training for the industry in 2002. Changes to the FarmBiz initiative also allowed a further $50 000 worth of training for growers, predominantly for training in rural business management.

Box 5.2 COMPASS

COMPASS is CANEGROWERS’ flagship environmental program. It is a self-assessment program involving a desk audit of business. It is, as the CANEGROWERS training and education manager describes, an ‘entry-level’ natural resource management program that is ‘difficult to sell to growers’.

The program involves a number of other organisations and agencies, among them the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, the Sugar Research and Development Corporation, the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, the New South Wales Cane Growers Association, and the Rural Water Use Efficiency Initiative. FarmBiz Queensland provides an 85 per cent subsidy for the cost of the workshop to encourage growers to attend.

241

COMPASS stands for COMbining Profitability And Sustainability in Sugar. It uses a workbook and facilitated workshops to help growers identify more sustainable farming practices. A key aim of the workbook is for growers to be able to determine whether they are meeting their obligations under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and adhering to the industry’s Code of Practice for Sustainable Cane Growing in Queensland and other best-practice guidelines. Growers assess their farming practices in a range of areas, from fertiliser application to harvesting, riparian management and business management.

On completion of the workshop, growers are asked to provide their overall ranking for the self-assessment process, as well as their individual rankings. They can also provide comments about the workshop and assessment process. This feedback has helped identify areas of practice where growers appear to be managing well, such as harvesting, planting, nutrition and fertiliser use. It has also helped industry identify areas where further gains can be made; among these are chemicals, soil health, and conservation and business management.

Every grower who attends the workshop receives a statement of attendance from the chairman of CANEGROWERS and regular updates on sustainability as it relates to the sugar industry. The program is updated through a steering committee process involving industry and government representatives.

CANEGROWERS extension programs Over 500 people, predominantly sugar industry workers, were involved in one or more of CANEGROWERS’ accredited training activities in 2002. The courses were funded through the Sugar Industry Skills Development Program and covered the following subjects: • cane haulage training—117 participants • computer operation—word processing, spreadsheets, financial recording packages, the internet and email • manual payroll • senior first aid • agricultural welding • industrial vehicle and equipment operating tickets—excavator, bobcat, front-end loader, backhoe and forklift • Certificate IV in Assessment and Workplace Training.

Almost every participant in the cane haulage course secured a haul-out job for the season.

An additional 147 rural producers attended accredited and non-accredited programs funded through FarmBiz. These included: • financial analysis—drawn from the Futureprofit program and delivered by CANEGROWERS • higher level computer operation to assist with budgeting and analysis of the farming business— CANEGROWERS • Maximising Your Training Impact—Mindworks • Strategies for Financial Enhancement—National Institute of Financial Studies • the COMPASS self-assessment workshop—delivered by the BSES.

Nine growers graduated with a Diploma or Advanced Diploma in Agriculture (Rural Business Management) through the FarmBiz-funded recognition of current competency process.

The focus for 2003 was: • a stronger push for off-farm skills such as plant operator tickets and recognition of prior learning, combined with top-up training in areas such as mechanical and light engineering • an ongoing focus on computer skills development, at entry level and at higher business management levels • The formation of partnerships with training providers who are offering higher level business management training and education, such as the National Institute of Financial Studies and Westpac • stronger promotion of the COMPASS self-assessment workshop

242

• management-level occupational health and safety, a package developed by CANEGROWERS and delivered as part of the chemical accreditation course • higher level literacy and language training.

A training expo in February 2003 brought together training providers and potential employers of sugar industry workers. The aim was to draw attention to training and employment opportunities for sugar industry workers seeking to gain additional employment in and outside the industry.

Why growers participate The CANEGROWERS’ training and education coordinator believes that growers participate in training for two main reasons—to enhance their business management skills and to upgrade their skills and so improve their chances of gaining off-farm work. As noted, CANEGROWERS is trying to provide training that will help farmers diversify their interests. The coordinator said:

All sectors of the community, both urban and rural, have moved towards double-income households to maintain a particular belief in ‘quality of life’. The agricultural sector has been no different. The parcel of land has, in the past, provided for the extending family, but the returns now don’t allow for that sort of approach. Whether a company or a family enterprise, it remains about risk management. During the 1970s those in a cash-positive position looked at other investments and they can now live off those at times when there’s a downturn in the agricultural area. We support people who are involved in the sugar industry and in the past we provided training that supported their work in that industry alone, rather than looking beyond the industry. Now we are looking at social, political and environmental concerns—alongside the need to maintain economic stability. This may mean that families keep the farm but supplement their income through other ventures or employment. We need to accommodate these concerns.

The current situation has given us licence to shift our focus. It’s about supply and demand. Our flagship program from 1996 to 1998 was Futureprofit, which we promoted and delivered with a lot of energy, but it was like trying to sell sand to the Arabs. It comprised a series of eight workshops. The time commitment required was perceived to be too much for growers. Those that did it got a lot out of it, but I got the impression that we covered too much in such a short period. We evaluated the program after six months and the feedback was that it was interesting and people could recall information once they were reminded, but it didn’t really stimulate significant change. So we took the best parts of the program and developed new programs.

In his view, ‘compliance and potential compliance are huge motivators for participation’:

When the GST was coming in we ran courses and had huge responses. Also our computer courses get a big response. It’s where people can see immediate benefit. When the GST was announced, we ran a series of mobile computer courses using banks of laptops. Courses were run in local halls and in growers’ homes. The response was overwhelming, and at one stage we were employing five trainers. This was in addition to a manual GST course. It was mostly women attending the courses and this experience has changed their learning focus.

In his experience, these are the programs that receive very strong participation, although he acknowledges that CANEGROWERS is also obliged to support ‘those issues that are seen as public good programs’.

The coordinator believes that word of mouth is not necessarily the best way to generate interest in programs, although he has experienced some exceptions to this. For example, the CANEGROWERS computer courses grew in popularity because people who had attended spread the word. The coordinator contends that this happened because the course focus was on basic skills development, and people felt that they could grasp these and easily explain to others what they had learnt and how it could be applied. But he does not think this is possible for all extension programs and courses:

… development of broader business skills that can’t be instantly used so there is lower demand. Time and resources are needed by the participant to use what has been learnt. It is knowledge you’ve picked up but it is harder to put into action. Green Trash is a good example. Initially a small number of

243

people managed to take it on. Over time a critical mass had taken it up—neighbours looking over the fence. The labour benefits and lifestyle benefits were important to the change. Controlled traffic and dual-row planting are somewhat the same, although it is still early days. Growers will give it a go, but they haven’t had good results at this stage. Like any other new technology, it takes refinement and it takes time.

The CANEGROWERS approach to extension CANEGROWERS’ preferred approach to extension is group delivery; some support is offered on a one-to-one basis, although this is viewed as time- consuming and expensive. The coordinator believes that extension delivery needs to be ‘innovative and multi-faceted’ whilst constantly asking how people can be engaged. This has led him to consider ways of connecting with people’s interests and to also look at why people have engaged in the past. He contends that there is a time and place for different types of programs and that they can be accepted or rejected because they are presented in a way that is not appealing or because people just do not see them as relevant:

When I’m looking at a program I’m looking at the regulatory aspects that underpin the program. We balance it up with offering professional development opportunities. If I promote a program and it doesn’t get up, I don’t throw it out: I keep it for another time and place when it might be more appropriate. We are willing to give different programs a go. We tried a literacy and language program at an entry level. Because of the stigma attached, it didn’t really take off. So we ran another program on the subject of improving public communication skills—public speaking, writing letters, dealing with the media. We received a very favourable response.

Despite this, he argues that the farmers who are really willing to look at alternative land uses are the ones who have come to sugar growing from other industries or with other experience.

The CANEGROWERS programs are promoted through a monthly newsletter, which is further supported by Sugar Times, published every fortnight. The organisation also promotes activities through ABC radio, although what was once a half-hour morning program dedicated to matters associated with sugar cane is now a quarter-hour ‘magazine’-style program. In the coordinator’s view, this is because of the diminution in the regional importance of the sugar industry and the larger urban-based population. He has also tried to supplement the newsletter with email but this has not been entirely successful:

The once-a-month through our newsletter is quite limiting. I was hoping that there might be a replacement through email or the internet, although we are not like some rural industries where isolation has led to a take-up of email. People here can slip into town easily enough because the properties are smaller and closer to town.

In 2000 CANEGROWERS changed to an accredited system of courses, and this has now become integral to its programming. The success of this, the coordinator says, lies with farmers’ recognition that they need off- farm alternatives and that professional development is an important way of gaining qualifications. Women in particular are taking up these opportunities:

A small proportion are becoming ‘training junkies’—mainly women. Women are possibly doing this because it increases their control, increases their self-worth and increases their worth in the business.

In the past the industry was male dominated. The women can contribute to the business. This is a great generalisation, but it appears that when some women want to take on a leadership role the men might vote against them. Other women also work against it, because it is not seen as a traditional role for cane growing women to be part of industry leadership. This is a view held by both men and women in the industry.

The Women’s Network was established in 1993 in response to a perceived need to tackle social problems associated with cane families. The Network works towards raising the profile of the female cane grower

244

and/or partner, provides learning opportunities for the farming family, and interacts at all levels with government and the wider community. It receives support from CANEGROWERS. The nucleus of the group is about six to seven women, with about 60 women involved overall. It is generally acknowledged as being ‘an important part of the landscape’ . For example, the Network has become part of the CANEGROWERS extension infrastructure:

Late last year we redesigned the SUGARPLAN management committee so that it comprises only cane growers. A Network representative sits on the committee. All training and education programs are managed through the committee, and the committee sets the strategic direction. Since the move from an agency-based committee to a growing-based committee, training programs are more client oriented, rather than using a top-down approach.

5.3.3 The Sugar Industry Change Management Program

Six sugar resource officers have been trained and placed in centres across Queensland’s sugar regions. The appointments are part of the Queensland Government’s sugar industry assistance package. The resource officers work closely with industry stakeholders, representative bodies and government to promote change in the sugar industry. One resource officer has worked with the Queensland Government, managing a team providing extension and planning advice on sustainable resource management in the Mackay region.

The Sugar Industry Change Management Program is part of the sugar industry assistance package, which has been coordinated through the Department of State Development. The package includes the following initiatives that have been established to promote industry reform: • the Sugar Industry Innovation Fund—to support new practices and products • the Sugar Industry Change Management Program—supporting a range of areas, including the environment ($10 million) • the Farm Consolidation Loan.

The Change Management Program aims to achieve the following: • provide participants with the business skills to deal with a new, more commercial environment and promote better practices in the industry in a range of areas, including the farm, harvesting, transport and mills • provide for farmers advice and support in relation to new corporate structures to facilitate farm consolidation, such as cooperatives and leasing arrangements • help sugar-dependent communities identify opportunities to diversify their economies and create new job opportunities for those who might lose their employment in the industry • provide training and retraining for industry workers, to either redress skills shortages or allow industry workers to find employment elsewhere.

Regional guidance groups have been established to support sugar industry change. These groups are located in the far north (all mill areas from Mossman to Tully), Herbert, Burdekin, Mackay (including the Proserpine and Plane Creek mill areas), Bundaberg (including the Isis mill area) and South Regional (including the Maryborough, Moreton and Rocky Point mill areas).

The Department of Primary Industry’s extension approach An extension officer working with the Department of Primary Industry in Cairns is one of the six sugar resource officers in Queensland. Over the years he has worked on a number of programs funded by organisations such as the Sugar Research and Development Corporation. He described the Department’s approach as broadly based on ‘participatory action research groups’:

Most extension is group based, with the idea being that you bring farmers together and the Department person takes on a facilitation role. Despite this role, the farmers tend to see you as a technical expert … In our case we set out with project issues and established topic-specific groups, and of course the group came up with different issues and we tackled these as they emerged.

245

He has experienced high levels of grower participation in meetings where the benefit of involvement is readily justified in production terms. The harvesting schedule meetings, for example, attract close to 90 per cent of growers.

Where significant change is required to introduce a new practice such as minimum tillage or controlled traffic initiatives, the task is more difficult:

People have to see an economic advantage to undertake change. This is why minimum tillage will take off. It just takes time. It can be demonstrated that such initiatives have economic as well as environmental benefits. My experience shows that groups work well—people get together and talk— but they don’t walk away from a meeting and straight away make on-farm changes. They need to go through their thoughts with other people. They have a lot of insecurities, and they need their confidence boosted to make a change to their practice. Eventually you’ll get change. You need to follow up through one-on-one and telephone calls.

The resource officer says it is this follow-up with people who are willing to help themselves that is important: ‘Writing leaflets is not going to bring about change. But getting out there and following up with people will eventually result in some change over time’.

5.4 Growers’ views about extension

Fifteen growers (including couples) provided feedback about the industry and different government and industry extension services they might have chosen to use. (Attachment C lists the growers’ responses.) A number of these growers had attended only those courses and other extension activities that offer a direct production benefit or where course attendance was a prerequisite—for example, chemical handling courses.

Although it is not possible to generalise from the growers’ responses, a number of propositions can be advanced4: • Growers and their families who feel most comfortable learning through the communication systems that are accessible through the home (newspapers, television and radio) and their family, neighbours and accountant tend to have had less diverse and briefer involvement in formal learning systems in their past. • Sugar cane growers attach high value to ‘family knowledge’ because of the nature of the enterprise. • Growers tend to rely on individuals and organisations for information where there is a relationship of trust and shared understanding of interests. • Extension that can be readily associated with productivity and economic advantage and is based on a traditional understanding of cane production practices attracts high levels of grower participation. • Extension that can be readily associated with quality assurance and legislative requirements attracts high levels of grower participation. • Extension that provides skills that will help farmers run their business and also create off-farm options attracts high levels of participation—particularly from women.

Extension that does not have ready acceptance or links with growers’ theoretical and practical frameworks will be well supported only when these theoretical and practical links can be made. Even when the links are made, though, risk and capacity are also considerations for growers.

• Many growers dissociate the government representative they have come to know from the government organisation when making statements about government decision making. In other words, growers can maintain relationships with government representatives and not necessarily see those representatives in the same light as they see the organisation—particularly when the organisation is viewed in a negative light. The difficulty for government representatives is that they can be accused of ‘culture capture’ when it is thought they are putting the growers’ case rather than that of the organisation they represent.

4 These propositions are also advanced in the light of interviews with farmers as part of other studies and consultancies.

246

5.5 Possible directions for change

A number of possible directions for change are put forward here in response to the observations, feedback and reading associated with this case study. The scope of the study did not allow for any correlation to be made between income and involvement in extension or learning. Nor did it allow for comment on the allocation of extension providers in relation to growers’ demands. Nevertheless, the study did give rise to some recommendations to help guide future extension investment and research. One of the recommendations derives from reflection on the research method itself, as well as the substantive question of participation.

Overall, the level of participation in extension activities is very high among sugar cane growers in the Mackay region. This can be attributed to three main factors: • the structure of the industry around cooperative mills, whereby it is important for growers to participate in decision making about things such as harvesting schedules • compliance requirements—for chemical handling, for example • the development of initiatives to combat threats—such as new varieties and responses to infestations and disease.

Many of these initiatives come from the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations and are well accepted and supported by cane growers. Despite this, changes to practice in terms of natural resource management activity are not supported to the same extent. Two main reasons for this have been put forward: • Growers cannot readily see the production advantages of some initiatives. • Growers are comfortable with their own practices and see the industry’s current problems as economic in nature and connected with the global market situation.

Although true non-participation in extension is not possible because of the requirement for interaction arising from information needs associated with, among other things, new varieties and harvest schedules, the case study does suggest that information seekers range from people who use very familiar and historically reliable systems of learning to people who seek information externally and use a large variety of information sources. Figure 5.1 illustrates this. Figure 5.1 Participation and non-participation in government and industry extension

Low participation in government High participation in government and industry extension and industry extension

Comfortable with tried and trusted Comfortable with a variety of information sources and learning information sources, situations systems and learning systems

The case study also suggests that growers who tend to participate in extension only when direct production benefits are known and historically understood seek information, make decisions and learn from people with whom they have a long-term, trusting relationship. This includes other family members. These growers also tend to gain information from sources (such as newspapers) that are readily accessible, have been available for some time, and can comfortably be used in their home surrounds. Growers who participate in government and industry extension beyond direct production-based extension tend to have experience of and feel comfortable with a variety of learning situations.

If people who traditionally engage only in extension that is production based and look to information sources they are comfortable with and can trust are to become involved, extension organisations need to tap into these close-knit networks of people through targeted programs specifically responding to on-farm concerns. This might require on-farm demonstration sites or activities that help build relationships over a period. It will

247

require extension to be responsive to the individual’s needs, rather than focusing on the delivery of prescribed programs.

Doing extension work that engages people who traditionally do not seek information beyond their trusted and historically accepted networks calls for considerable ‘people’ skills and a willingness to build a relationship of trust over time.

The extension activities of CANEGROWERS are commendable for their responsiveness to growers’ needs, where the initiatives look beyond adjusting cane growing practices and encourage training and skills development in other pursuits. Such activities offer initiatives that help growers supplement their earnings and reduce their reliance on sugar cane production during poor years. Programs such as computer and finance courses have also appealed to women who are looking to augment the family income; initiatives of this kind can take advantage of growers’ proximity to town centres.

5.5.1 Extension research

One shortcoming of this case study, which is avowedly subjectivist in nature, is that the researcher was an ‘outsider’, detached from the context under investigation. This notion of the researcher as an outsider is consistent with applied science approaches to inquiry, rather than the interpretivist approach taken, which aimed to gain insights into contextual and subjectivist responses to the question of participation.

To have involved local growers in the inquiry as collaborators would have been more consistent with a study that does not aim for scientific rigour and replicability but instead seeks to portray the circumstances and concerns of people involved in sugar extension and growers who are potential participants. Involvement of local cane growers as collaborating researchers would also have meant that the study itself would have been educative for people who are intricately involved in the context being studied, rather than for the researcher or consultant who moves out of that context once the study is complete. The act of reflecting on practice and promoting discussion about this through a collaborative research approach would have embedded learning within the research process itself, rather than distinguishing the act of research from the act of learning.

5.5.2 Extension through changed interaction

Organisational arrangements between people in a workplace or between people involved in the same type of enterprise, such as cane growing, can become increasingly patterned over time and the patterns can become fixed. This also applies to program delivery techniques and infrastructure. The institutionalisation of these structures hinders the generation of diverse extension activities, processes and conceptualisations: they become less spontaneous and less accepting of activities that fall outside conventional practice.

Changing extension roles and encouraging people—both extension officers and growers—to participate in forums that might confront their way of thinking or approach to a practice could result in a reappraisal of thinking and practice over time. Extension should, therefore, encourage and enable people to think about values and the nature of competing claims and to evaluate the relative merits of these claims. This might involve practical demonstrations or field days, as well as continuing discussion, but change will occur only if different views and values and their attendant practices are examined in a way that makes sense to growers. This should take place in an atmosphere of trust and collaboration, acknowledging that ultimately growers take a risk that could affect their livelihood when they adopt a different approach.

In the Mackay region the extension activities that tend to attract participants are those that resonate with participants’ values or those for which attendance is a compliance requirement. This means that the values of both the extension officers and the growers remain intact. Most interactions between growers and extension officers occur in the following ways: • meetings organised through the various industry groups or structures • field days • farm visits at the request of growers

248

• delivery of courses and programs • presentations and courses organised by industry organisations.

All these interactions rely on people ‘self-selecting’ for participation on the basis that they perceive the activity as potentially useful to them. The only process identified that changed the roles and interactions between growers and extension officers was through CANEGROWERS, where growers took on the role of trainers. It is important to encourage growers to participate in initiatives that take them beyond their ‘comfort zone’.

One suggestion is to employ a number of growers to act as intermediaries between other growers and extension services, to encourage participation beyond comfort zones. Formation of relationships is fundamental, and learning should be viewed as a three-way process—involving extension officers, grower intermediaries, and growers (see Figure 5.2). According to Officer B from the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, grower intermediaries are already used informally, and ‘grower champions’ are used to sell the message to other growers. The proposal put forward here would formalise this process as part of organisational arrangements.

CANEGROWERS has also engaged suitably qualified growers to develop and deliver training and education programs. The following feedback from a CANEGROWERS representative provides valuable advice stemming from his experience of program delivery:

I employ six cane growers to develop and deliver a range of accredited and non-accredited training activities. This is proving to be very successful, since their peers view the training being offered as more credible and relevant as a result of practising growers with whom they can easily relate delivering the training.

This approach is a flow-on from having a grower-based training and education management committee (the SUGARPLAN Management Committee).

Over the past 18 months, as a result of directives from the SUGARPLAN Management Committee and a partnership arrangement with a small local registered training organisation, we have been actively engaged in an up-skilling program focusing on some of the nine growers who graduated with the Diploma and Advanced Diploma in Rural Business Management.

The range of skills we have addressed includes gaining an inherent knowledge of the competency- based training and assessment system; development of structured training programs and the associated assessment instruments; management and operation of the training system at a diploma level (all trainers now have a Diploma in Training and Assessment); training delivery techniques; and enhancing technical skills in their areas of expertise, such as occupational health and safety, equipment operation, computer operation and business management.

In recent months I have engaged one of these trainers to attend monthly CANEGROWERS branch meetings to promote the range of training activities available. This has proved very successful in a number of ways. First, it is a more effective way of making growers aware of what is available, as they are more likely to listen to one of their peers than, say, a CANEGROWERS staff member such as me. Second, since only growers are present, they seem much keener to discuss participation barriers. It has emerged recently that due to labour shortages on the farm, growers are very reluctant to take whole days out of their work programs to attend training. However, if more late afternoon or evening courses were scheduled, they would be more inclined to attend. In addition, they want them delivered in localised venues such as halls and clubs.

Whilst this doesn’t appear to be rocket science, I think we need to explore what’s behind this feedback. In the past, countless evening courses have been scheduled in outlying areas, with very few coming to fruition due to lack of interest. By using this branch network approach, and with branch members calling for evening classes in their local areas, they are informally committing themselves to participation because the barriers they raised as reasons for non-participation have been removed.

249

This in itself will not bring a participation revolution: it is just another useful technique that further advances our quest to actively engage growers in ongoing participation in extension activities.

Figure 5.2 The three-way learning process

GROWERS’ SCOPE OF INTEREST

GROWER INTERMEDIARIES Selected for their ability to interact with growers. Could be identified as ‘leaders’ in the grower community Paid part-time positions for local growers Training provided Interaction and feedback to extension officers about grower concerns Interact with growers on farm Provide practical advice about the implications and application of scientific and technical solutions on farm

EXTENSION OFFICERS Provide training opportunities for grower intermediaries Provide opportunities for intermediaries to give feedback about growers’ concerns and interests Provide opportunities for intermediaries to deliver advice about the on-farm implications of initiatives to sugar industry organisations Create opportunities for other people involved in the industry to interact with intermediaries and other growers to provide exposure to different values and approaches

Another possible system of interaction to support growers who are seeking to change their practices comes from the organisational arrangements and extension support of Meat and Livestock Australia’s Sustainable Grazing Systems program—see Attachment D.

Changed interaction to encourage participation should consider the following fundamentals:

250

• Extension should be delivered by people who are willing to form long-term relationships with local growers such that trust becomes important to all parties. • Extension delivery officers should consider the theories and practices of the growers they want to influence and see influence as a two-way process: growers should be able to inform extension officers of their theories and practices, and extension officers should engage with growers to inform them about their theories and practices. • Extension practices should be influenced by the practical, on-farm experiences of growers. • Extension means time and iteration.

Attachment A Courses offered at the Australian College of Tropical Agriculture

Human resource management Computer training Business management General training Skills for Supervisors— Introduction to Word, Developing Financial Machinery Maintenance basic supervisors course Access, Excel Systems and Strategies Recruitment and Selection MYOB or Quicken MYOB— Developing a Marketing Cane Haulout and Training finance planning Plan Harvesting Conflict Resolution Cash Book for Farmers and Legal Requirements of an Chemical Application the GST Employer Certificate IV Training and Computers for the Terrified Cross-cultural Awareness Chainsaw Level I or II Assessment Problem Solving Implementing a Managing Human Backhoe, Front-end Computerised Financial Resources Loader, Grader, Dozer, Management System Forklift Licence Communication in the Computers for Beginners Planning and Writing the Automotive Workplace Business Plan Principles of EEO Advanced Computers Management of Record Office Administration Skills Employment Equity Keeping Anti-Discrimination Act— Scheduling the Tasks Explosives what it means for the workplace Managing Self and Others Budgeting and Cash Flow Workplace Health and Forecasts Safety Change Management Interpreting Financial Handling of Dangerous Reports Chemicals/Goods Time Management Implementing and Basic First Aid Maintaining a Credit Management System Managing People Purchasing and Stock Senior First Aid Control Mail Bag Workshops Occupational First Aid

251

Attachment B Mackay region demographics

The information in this attachment comes from the 2001 Australian Bureau of Statistics Census of Population and Housing.

Table B.1 Ancestry, by birthplace of parents

Both Both parents Father Mother parents born in only born only born born Birthplace Total Birthplace Australia overseas overseas overseas not stateda responses Oceania Australian 24 087 1 783 1 296 260 749 28 175 Other Australian peoplesb 696 43 12 12 50 813 Maori 22 35 29 156 17 259 New Zealander 25 85 68 290 9 477 Other Oceania(d) 460 36 29 66 37 628 North-West European English 15 971 1 771 1 175 3 203 644 22 764 Scottish 1 073 232 127 442 50 1 924 Irish 6 025 482 314 516 141 7 478 Dutch 167 123 76 352 10 728 German 2 538 270 136 431 71 3 446 Other North-West Europeanc 540 111 66 432 24 1 173 Southern and Eastern European Italian 926 225 60 523 34 1 768 Maltese 625 196 82 703 37 1 643 Croatian 3 0 3 30 0 36 Greek 115 40 8 39 7 209 Macedonian 0 0 0 0 0 0 Serbian 11 21 0 67 3 102 Polish 51 16 15 74 3 159 Russian 52 23 0 50 3 128 Other Southern and Eastern 78 52 12 220 6 368 Europeanc North African and Middle Eastern Lebanese 17 4 0 9 0 30 Turkish 0 0 0 10 0 10 Other North African and Middle 5 3 0 22 3 33 Easternc a. Includes birthplace of either or both parents not stated. b. Includes responses of Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and Australian of South Sea Islander descent. c. If two responses are categorised in the ‘Other’ category within the same region only one is counted. Note: This was a multi-response question in the Census, so ‘Total responses’ is not necessarily the sum of responses.

252

Table B.2 Country of birth, by sex

Country Male Female Total Australia 26 421 27 498 53 919 Canada 30 39 69 China—excluding SARs and Taiwan Provincea 12 7 19 Croatia 9 9 18 Egypt 4 0 4 Fiji 9 19 28 France 18 23 41 Germany 121 129 250 Greece 11 7 18 Hong Kong (SAR of China)a 12 8 20 India 29 18 47 Indonesia 9 22 31 Ireland 45 41 86 Italy 112 87 199 Korea, Republic of (South) 0 3 3 Lebanon 3 0 3 Macedonia, FYROMb 0 0 0 Malaysia 14 35 49 Malta 163 157 320 Netherlands 111 85 196 New Zealand 592 573 1 165 Philippines 48 202 250 Poland 11 16 27 Singapore 9 10 19 South Africa 72 79 151 Sri Lanka 17 21 38 Turkey 3 0 3 United Kingdomc 1 009 980 1 989 United States 41 45 86 Vietnam 13 13 26 Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of 34 16 50 Other overseasd 315 365 680 a. SAR denotes Special Administrative Region; that is, Hong Kong and Macau (both SARs of China). b. FYROM denotes Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. c. Includes England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, and United Kingdom. d. Includes ‘Inadequately described’, ‘At sea’ and ‘Not elsewhere classified’.

253

Table B.3 Language spoken at home, by sex

Language Male Female Total English only 28 851 29 786 58 637 Other language Arabic (including Lebanese) 11 3 14 Australian Indigenous languages 20 15 35 Cantonese 29 25 54 Mandarin 4 5 9 Other 0 3 3 Croatian 8 11 19 French 32 31 63 German 85 96 181 Greek 15 23 38 Hindi 10 12 22 Hungarian 3 3 6 Indonesian 4 10 14 Italian 146 128 274 Japanese 9 5 14 Khmer 0 0 0 Korean 0 3 3 Macedonian 0 0 0 Maltese 104 157 261 Netherlandic 44 46 90 Persian 5 4 9 Polish 8 11 19 Portuguese 5 7 12 Russian 8 11 19 Samoan 0 0 0 Serbian 5 6 11 Sinhalese 5 7 12 South Slavic nfd 8 4 12 Spanish 13 19 32 Tagalog 33 123 156 Tamil 9 7 16 Turkish 0 3 3 Vietnamese 9 11 20 Othera 162 193 355 a. Includes ‘Inadequately described’ and ‘Non-verbal so described’.

254

Table B.4 Educational institution attendance: full or part time, by sex

Institution Male Female Total Preschool 462 442 904 Infants/primary: Government 2 375 2 261 4 636 Catholic 738 746 1 484 Other non-government 312 246 558 Total 3 425 3 253 6 678 Secondary Government 1 342 1 319 2 661 Catholic 615 655 1 270 Other non-government 256 257 513 Total 2 213 2 231 4 444 Technical or further educational Full time 140 222 362 Part time 370 534 904 Not stateda 6 4 10 Total 516 760 1 276 University or other tertiary Full time 280 505 785 Part time 355 478 833 Not stateda 3 0 3 Total 638 983 1 621 Other Full time 8 25 33 Part time 83 147 230 Not stateda 3 0 3 Total 94 172 266 Not attending 22 317 22 991 45 308 Not statedb 1 178 1 129 2 307 Overseas visitors 144 195 339 Total 30 987 32 156 63 143 a. Includes people who said they were attending an educational institution but did not say whether full time or part time. b. Includes people who did not say whether they were attending an educational institution.

255

Table B.5 Highest level of schooling completed: people aged 15 years or more, by sex

Schooling level Male Female Total Year 8 or below 2 804 2 871 5 675 Year 9 or equivalent 1 755 1 765 3 520 Year 10 or equivalent 7 442 7 953 15 395 Year 11 or equivalent 1 910 1 851 3 761 Year 12 or equivalent 7 083 7 697 14 780 Still at school 802 829 1 631 Did not go to school 101 111 212 Not stated 1 521 1 732 3 253 Total 23 418 24 809 48 227 Note: Refers to primary or secondary schooling. Excludes overseas visitors.

Table B.6 Non-school qualifications: people aged 15 or more years, by sex

Qualification Male Female Total Postgraduate degree 226 133 359 Graduate diploma and graduate certificate 151 290 441 Bachelor degree 1 229 1 789 3 018 Advanced diploma and diploma 896 1 201 2 097 Certificate 6 841 1 967 8 808 Not stateda 2 028 2 609 4 637 Not applicableb 12 047 16 820 28 867 Total 23 418 24 809 48 227 a. Includes ‘Inadequately described’. b. Includes people who do not have a qualification and people who have a qualification out of scope of the Australian Standard Classification of Education Note: Excludes schooling up to Year 12.

256

Table B.7 Non-school qualifications: people aged 15 or more years, by field of study and sex

Field of study Male Female Total Natural and physical sciences 174 154 328 Information technology 123 61 184 Engineering and related technologies 4 936 211 5 147 Architecture and building 1 556 32 1 588 Agriculture, environmental and related studies 200 61 261 Health 335 1 339 1 674 Education 411 1 275 1 686 Management and commerce 678 1 239 1 917 Society and culture 314 673 987 Creative arts 150 190 340 Food, hospitality and personal services 398 668 1 066 Mixed field programs 6 9 15 Field of study inadequately described 86 65 151 Not stated 2 004 2 012 4 016 Not applicablea 12 047 16 820 28 867 Total 23 418 24 809 48 227 a. Includes people who do not have a qualification and people who have a qualification out of scope of the Australian Standard Classification of Education. Note: Excludes schooling up to Year 12.

Table B.8 Agricultural industry: number of people employed, by age and sex

Age (years) Sex 15–19 20–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65+ Total Males 19 45 114 129 126 101 66 600 Females 6 8 20 31 41 36 15 157 Note: ‘Agricultural industry’ refers to agriculture, forestry and fishing.

257

Attachment C Cane growers’ responses

Information sought F1 and F2 F3 F4 and F5 F6 and F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 and F15

Description of Couple; Maltese Farmer Couple Couple; Maltese Elderly man Organic farmer Female farmer Female farmer Cane grower Farmer Husband and respondent background background who was wife chairman of CANEGROWERS for 12 years and is now working in a salinity and water quality role.

Size and 27 ha cane farm 1240 ha— 220 ha cane 70 ha cane farm 44.7 ha cane 93 ha cane farm. Produce 40 000 Farm grows only 122 ha (high- 122 ha. Are description of 40 ha sugar farm farm tonnes sugar cane tonnage currently fencing enterprise (4000 tonnes) Also runs cattle cane production). No to move out of Fully certified cattle but did cane. Lost 1200 ha beef organic Partnership with have ostriches $50 000 last (1000 head) father-in-law and Rotational for a while! financial year so 258 4 sons and are going back to cropping as part family of organic cattle and fishing management (both industries they have previous experience with)

Length of time 68 years 52 years 80 years 38 years Three Back to six Four generations Second- Second Were cane involved in the generations generations on generation generation and growers for 7 industry mother’s side farmers son is currently years and four on involved father’s side

Educational Son has Year 10 Grade 9 and wife No education University Current study at Left school to Wife was a qualifications education Grade 10 education TAFE for a work the family school teacher; property farm son is now a vet managers course

Who’s involved? Son leases Me; my son and Me working and Husband Son has taken Family-run farm Whole family Whole family. All Used to be in The whole Family affair property from daughter-in-law irrigate, cultivate over the involved. do everything partnership with family, including parents handle the cattle and harvest enterprise in the Husband looks brother but now son and wife last year after irrigation. separate. Wife (who is a Wife tends to do and one business partner) more of the employee (of 35 office-type work years) help to run the farm

Information Newspapers, TV, Receive a cost of Accounting Accounting Telephone, BSES, DPI and Internet is very Internet; one-on- Extension BSES; internet; services used radio, neighbours production from information and information internet and all chemical useful source of one and group officers; internet; radio and other

Information sought F1 and F2 F3 F4 and F5 F6 and F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 and F15 the accountant, department media sources company people; information for meetings; BSES; media; plus details of his representatives (is currently a internet; growers Australian and newspapers and CANEGROWERS; CANEGROWERS 10 best- and 10 university groups; all media overseas prices other media; local mill group; worst-performing student doing sources. and news. CANEGROWERS regional industry farms. We can research). Internet also a group board; field days; see how we are Growers network Courses as good way to face-to-face performing and very useful—part available source bits communication where we might of a local organic needed for with relevant cut costs producers group machinery people development on the farm

Courses None The Rural Internet mapping None Organic farming Many over the Went to a None that could CANEGROWERS Chemical attended Production course organised years, including financial think of recently computer course; accreditation Society by Mackay scholarship for management BSES cane grub organises 4 to 5 Organic Farmers agriculture in course some control course; field trips a year. group and DPI 1987 with time ago that various field days We go on one as part of the Queensland was organised day trip and one FutureProfit University; rural by 3-day trip a year Workshop series. development CANEGROWERS course; Future

259 CANEGROWERS- Profits course run computer with DPI; course CANEGROWERS computer courses in Quicken and Excel; rural office course at TAFE (did not finish as was not learning anything new from it); property managers course at TAFE (as a fall-back from farming if situation does not get better)

What course was Field day Both the Feels that there Found the Mentioned that Self-funded. Paid for the most helpful? computer course are plenty of course of no help cost is always an themselves. and the organic opportunities that as it was too issue, but not the Cost is always a growing course just need to be simple and short main one. Asked factor, but not a Yes, when you were helpful taken and you if FarmBiz is still problem if the are losing get out what you around to pay for course is $50 000 a year put in such things. valuable and thus leaving Mentioned that the industry. farmers are notoriously bad

Information sought F1 and F2 F3 F4 and F5 F6 and F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 and F15 at claiming for such things

Cost—is it an Organics course CANEGROWER Sugar farmers in Chemical control Need to be able impediment to was covered by S courses are general are in a course/informatio to safely and participation? FarmBiz. Cost is very cheap. dire financial n led to no longer effectively apply an impediment, state due to low using chemicals. especially in a FarmBiz used to prices for sugar organophosphat Course a downturn, but not cover 100% and e chemicals on requirement to so much if now covers 75% the farm apply chemicals farmers gain of costs. (This relates something Cost is an issue valuable from more to R&D during a drought heard about at a attending. and poor prices Historically these field day: for product such planting density courses used to as now, but … be free, so trials have been culture is slow to a waste of accept having to money as the pay results have not helped growers)

260 How do you rate Okay, explained Andre Lew Mostly very Chemical the presenters/ things presented the good. Feels that accreditation was facilitators? adequately organics course for many people run by BSES; and was training has led presenter very excellent and to jobs in the experienced. very experienced industry Found people at in the area BSES were very useful and experienced. New people there tend to have plenty of qualifications but less experience

Environmental Chemical course Organic None in The chemicals Has learnt about courses attended production is particular but one was looking water efficiency closely linked to feels at reducing through environmental environmental organophosphat necessity. Only issues. By using ‘friendliness’ is es in the soil. Is got 10 per cent no chemicals dictated by well versed with of their water none can enter economic environmental allocation this the water rationale issues relating to year (another system. Organic sediments and reason to leave production nutrients from the industry), so methods can farms affecting need to have merit with the Barrier Reef. implement conventional Feels that measures to best

Information sought F1 and F2 F3 F4 and F5 F6 and F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 and F15 farmers who can farmers are use what water is integrate some generally an available methods into ‘environmentally their system and sensitive lot’ reduce overall chemical loads and improve the soil

Influences in Family Parents Parents 20 years ago I Father—spend Family Has found the decision making went on a someone else’s need for applying camping trip with money not your Other local so many a group of own! Borrowing farmers chemicals to people that has so far Strong belief in cane has put her included 2 young worked well organic off continuing to German production (but farm. Would like agronomy pointless from a to see less students who consumer sense dependence on said ‘You must as there is no chemicals and have worms in dedicated more sensible the soil’. This organic mill) use by some 261 along with other farmers. Would permaculture- be happier to based influences farm without started a seed chemicals. Is that would grow employing a into current consultant to organic farming advise on practice grazing rotation to control pasture weeds

Memberships Mackay Rural None Not part of Parents are Not a member of Thinks Landcare Is aware of Production Landcare; active with Landcare as it is a good thing Landcare but Society for 20 Landcare but takes up a lot of and sees its never been a years; Service part of with another time that is not effect around the part of it Club member in CANEGROWERS; property with no available to district but not Mackay Member of Sugar cane (only retired farmers working involved Research Group; racehorses) for a dollar but personally part of a does not think it women’s cane to be a bad thing growing group

Meetings None Attend Mackay About 6 3 in the past 2 Regular Has a meeting at attended Sugar meetings; meetings in the years meetings, must least once a attend Mackay past 2 years be at least one a month for local Rural Production month mill Society meetings to plan our trips; CANEGROWERS

Information sought F1 and F2 F3 F4 and F5 F6 and F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 and F15 meetings

How do you Conversations Comparing work Learn more From farmers Learnt a lot Feels that you Years of family From all sources. Learn through learn? with other practices, through courses through talking need to go out experience and Feels it talking to other farmers, fertiliser rates with other and make things the experience of necessary to go farmers as well newspapers, TV, and chemical farmers and happen in order other growers in out and search as reading but radio use with comparing to learn. Has the area is the for information found the BSES neighbours with experiences. Use learnt from most valuable and to conduct most useful similar farms is a a lot of available courses, resource. own research help. Reading methods to experience, Internet is also into issues. Has Country Life research issues. interactions with very useful. looked into cattle market Field trips to look other farmers prices that reports helps at other cane and media. Example: setting consumers are when selling farms have been up trial plots for paying for sugar cattle valuable. Feels strongly testing biological in relation to Courses must that information control of cane prices growers complement is available but grubs would be are getting. what leading- you have to get more useful than edge growers up and go out a course about it. Courses are are doing in the after it rather That way farmers another field and use this than wait for could see for complementary

262 information things to come to themselves how source of resource you the technique information works in their area and watch progress of the system Does not read Queensland Country Life

Action Planting varieties I wait to see an I act upon what I Yes, change Yes. Has Has done Either, but feels associated with of cane that I outcome before read and hear. I must be brought researched into extensive the individual has what is heard or read about that taking action have been to talk about by action. sugar use and research into a lot to do with read suit our farm. with the Qld major users such international how useful their Advice on Minister. Has been part of as Coke and trade of sugar service can be. chemical use Believes strongly the Cottees in (import–export Respects that would cut in grower-driven establishment of relation to claims parity), trade someone with costs change, the Women’s about sugar agreements and lots of relevant supported by Cane Growing content, etc. sugar prices. local experience government Group Would like to sources Followed up on lobby the issue of government for a increasing better deal for grower suicide cane producers. rates. Is unhappy with Very well current peak informed about body international (CANEGROWERS)

Information sought F1 and F2 F3 F4 and F5 F6 and F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 and F15 trade of sugar, prices and subsidy issues

Motivation I leave decision I would get Nothing would Help from Relevance to the Something that Mentioned that Something that Both, but found making to the involved if motivate me to leading-edge business of was going to the COMPASS would result in the BSES most family governments get involved in a growing making a dollar improve the course sounds change of useful come up with government or techniques and from farming. current situation interesting. current policy re sensible thinking industry program innovations that for sugar trade and instead of what is are farmer led. Feels that producers Would like to see subsidy. going on now Programs can planning ahead courses on back up what is is critical to business Also interested in already survival in the management harvesting happening on business and ‘green’ machinery and farms and assist production improved farmers to technology to develop pilot produce a programs such cleaner and thus as organic higher quality growing. product. Less Example is with trash from

263 the harvesting harvesting = machine industry more efficient that sent production engineers out on process and to farms to look better quality at modifications product that the farmers had to make to new harvesters. These farmer innovations were then integrated into the harvester design

One-on-one or Do not Depending on One-on-one Depends on Uses BSES Have not had Can the industry Participates in Either, but feels group participate in who is experience of the officers and much to do with afford extension any group the individual has interaction? groups involved—a person involved. contacts from extension officers? presentations a lot to do with group interaction Have been chemical officers, other from extension how useful their brings more to happy with an companies as than about Feels it is officers, mostly service can be. the group than officer from DPI needed. Looks biological control important to on pest control. Respects one-on-one. who has helped for particular methods involve family Will contact local someone with with facilitation expertise members in extension officer lots of relevant for the organic meetings if he finds local experience group. This (usually the anything unusual officer helped set wife). Need to with the cane. goals and recognise the Mainly uses strategies for the role of the them for pest group and farmer’s wife and and disease

Information sought F1 and F2 F3 F4 and F5 F6 and F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 and F15 sourced funding use their control and for group study relationship with identification tours to look at the business purposes other organic farms

Family influences 3 sons own their The 2 boys are Son-in-law is Son felt that he Three kids are all Whole family and No children but Son is currently Son wanted to own properties interested in the interested in the couldn’t respond employed off the all four sons are brother was a involved, but be a farmer, but farm and they farm to questions farm, as PE part of the farm cane grower, current pricing parents literally help plant and because his teacher, green and have a big now more for sugar is little showed him the irrigate father was the keeper and influence on the involved with incentive for him farm gate and he one that knew miner. No day-to-day milling to want to stay in has now become the enterprise encouragement running of it. the industry a vet. Intends to for them to stay Learn through stay rurally on the farm with family based the current experience and situation being innovation so bad. Can all make more dollars off the farm. One son is

264 keen to farm but makes enough money in the mining industry to farm cane

Changes wanted We’d like to see Changes to the Better price for Better price and No comment to Need to look at Price for product Government In order to break A fair price for That it becomes the government sugar industry our product. Get costs down the industry at linkage from and get rid of subsidies and into European sugar economically support primary have taken it subsidised. Don’t present farmer to trade corrupt world free trade markets the cane viable. producers more from the envy of deregulate us. and provide market industry needs to A peak body that most rural Make by- information to be greener and is more in touch Less enterprises to products out of growers. The show with growers’ dependence on most likely the sugar industry is highly environmentally needs. chemical use for worst. segmented and sustainable disease and pest An investigation control. Deregulation of this could be production into sugar prices sugar and reduced. processes Reliable and dairying in affordable water Mackay has Farmer knowledge supply for ruined both irrigation industries. Farm needs to be running costs valued and have already supported by been cut to the academia bone. With no working closely support, we with the grower. cannot compete Leading-edge with a corrupt farmers could be world market. supported to We simply are

Information sought F1 and F2 F3 F4 and F5 F6 and F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 and F15 not receiving become pilot enough for our farms to sugar showcase growing methods, backed up by scientific research and empirical data. Would like to see a move towards developing a holistic method of farming that includes biological control methods, soil improvement and other elements that could be incorporated in

265 conventional farming. Need to have people to ‘bridge the gap between farmers and officials/ academia. Many farmers can be cut down by linguistics. Facilitation skills an important role for extension officers to have, so growers can be efficient and informed. Must work with growers and help to support change

Further Leave it to the Was too ill to Growers need to Organic farming Farmers need to Feels that comments family continue the be aware of the and biological become more farmers need to interview need to plan. A (non-chemical) business savvy know more about business plan is and learn to have the mechanisms

Information sought F1 and F2 F3 F4 and F5 F6 and F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 and F15 essential. Feels control methods business plans— of trade and you can stay ‘There is no plan pricing (after ahead by worse than NO milling issues). planning for plan!’ Would like to situations before know more about they arise. Has alternative uses no plans to leave for cane such as the industry and ethanol feels capable of production, bio- riding out the plastics, current situation, hardwood and but is diversifying medicinal by doing the products. property managers course Irrigation and (part of the efficient water ‘planning to use always a survive’ process) good area to be informed about. Advances in harvesting 266 equipment. New chemicals and biological control

Attachment D The Sustainable Grazing Systems Producer Network

[What follows is drawn predominantly from a 2001 report prepared by Resource Policy & Management for Land and Water Australia and Meat and Livestock Australia.]

The view of knowledge and improvement represented by the Sustainable Grazing Systems program reflects four assumptions that are broadly accepted in the field of social research: • Theories (knowledge) and practices need to be closely linked: ‘practices are shaped (guided or constrained) by the theories of practitioners themselves, and by the theories of others’, such as facilitators and researchers, who are ‘built into the organisational arrangements and relationships within which the practitioners work’ (Robottom 1985, p. 114). This reduces the possibility of a ‘theory–practice gap’. An example of this is the work done by producers through regional sites: producers are putting their own theories about sustainable grazing into practice. • Knowledge is not generated through scientific processes exclusively; it can be a dynamic process that involves different people interacting and sharing different views, practices and understandings. • Organisational arrangements are supportive of practitioners (producers) taking on an inquiry role where their theories, assumptions and learning can be tested and responded to. For example, the establishment of regional sites allows for regional groups to respond to issues they have derived through processes they have control over. • Organisational arrangements encourage collaboration in terms of knowledge generation and on- ground practice. In this way, the context dependence of producers’ knowledge, the process, the organisational and people knowledge of facilitators, and the science-based knowledge of researchers combine to encourage cross-fertilisation of ideas, ways of knowing, and the influence of non-science aspects such as people, weather conditions, organisational structures and the complexity of on-farm practice.

A feature of the Sustainable Grazing Systems program is that learning and change have been generated through the provision of opportunities for relationships and collaboration between diverse people. The focus is on establishing regional networks that have a large degree of autonomy, working within an open program structure.

Meat and Livestock Australia does not impose a restrictive structural arrangement at the regional level but instead creates a broad framework within which groups can develop their own structure in response to local concerns and context. For example, some committees have developed their own informal and unwritten code of conduct for interaction at meetings, acknowledging everyone’s right to contribute in an inclusive and non-judgmental environment.

Like any community, culture or bureaucratic organisation, SGS regional committees are limited by the knowledge, experience, capacity and abilities of the people involved. The program has, through its organisational arrangements, maximised the potential of all participants by creating opportunities for different people to become involved in regional processes. Among these opportunities are the following: • The open invitation to all producers to become involved in regional committees meant that a mix of landholders had the opportunity to become members. • Paid facilitators are included to support each regional committee. • There is provision for patterned activities that invite interaction or idea sharing between different SGS players. These include national farm walks, national forums, Prograzier, and regional sites. Such activities involve researchers, SGS steering committee members, SGS management committee members, other producers in the region, agronomists, and departmental personnel interested in sustainable grazing systems.

267

The following aspects of the SGS producer network are important to the overall success of the program: • Ownership and control of regional delivery are through the regional producer network. This is achieved by producers holding majority membership on regional committees. The position of chair is held by a producer; and members other than producers need to be invited onto the committee by a producer member. This invitation for interested producers to become involved in the program is endorsed. It encourages new participants. • Regional producer networks are supported by various information systems, including the Prograzier and Prograze courses, regional meetings, farm walks, regional sites, national forums, the national experiment and regionally derived activities such as bus tours to sites and seminars. Facilitators provide additional information and skills, and scientists, agronomists and departmental officers contribute information when invited to activities or as members of a committee. • Organisational arrangements allow for personal as well as professional development. For example, the position of committee chair is rotated every 12 months, and many committee members said they learnt much from the experience of being chair. Producers also noted they learnt much through the informal interactions that took place as part of farm visits and other activities. • Visits to farms and seeing how different producers operate are highly valued. • Paid part-time facilitators are crucial to the success of regional producer networks. These people perform the day-to-day tasks in support of committee decisions and facilitate communication, practical activities and continued networking.

These characteristics must be considered when designing future R&D programs if producer involvement and change are required.

268

Sources

Aarts, N. & van Woerkum, C.M.J. 1995,’The Cantrell, D 1993, ‘Alternative paradigms in communication between farmers and environmental education research: the interpretive government about nature’, European Journal of perspective’, in R. Mrazek (ed.), Alternative Agricultural Education and Extension, vol. 2, no. 2, Paradigms in Environmental Education Research, pp. 1–9. Monographs in Environmental Education and Environmental Studies, vol. VIII, North American Andrew, J. 1997, ‘Community-based environmental Association for Environmental Education, Troy, education: government and community; economics Ohio. and environment’, PhD thesis, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria. Chapman, L. 2002, ‘The link between participation, capable communities and environmental gain’, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001, Agricultural RuralPlan Consultancy Services, Baddaginnie, Commodities Australia, Cat. no. 7121.0, ABS, Victoria (unpublished). Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia 2002, ‘Sugar Industry: trade Baker R., Davies J. & Young E. (eds) 2001, Working on reform’, Question without Notice, 22 June 2000, Country: contemporary Indigenous management of 2.59 pm, Australia’s land and coastal regions, Oxford , viewed July 2002.

Balanzategui, B.V. 1990, Gentlemen of the Flashing Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Blade, James Cook University, Townsville, Indigenous Affairs 2003a, Queensland. , viewed July 2002. Bega Valley Shire Council 2000, Bega Valley Shire Council Social Plan 2000–2005, 2nd edn, Bega Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Valley Shire Council, Bega. Indigenous Affairs 2003b, , viewed July 2002. Environment Report 2000/2001: a supplementary report, Bega Valley Shire Council, Bega. Goulburn Murray Landcare Network, Department of Natural Resources and Environment & Charles Sturt Bowen, L. & Walker, A. 2000, Appropriate Planning University 1999, Providing Improved Support for Tools for Indigenous Communities, Indigenous Land Landcare: a survey of Landcare groups in the Council, Adelaide. Shepparton Irrigation Region, Goulburn Murray Landcare Network, Shepparton. Breckwoldt, R. 1992, ‘Cattle work at Tjutjinpiri and Turkey Bore’, Report documenting a project of Greater Shepparton City Council 2002, Annual Report Anangu Pitjantjatjara land management with support 2001–2002, Greater Shepparton City Council, from ATSIC Community Training Program, unpub. Shepparton.

BSES (Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations) 2002, Greater Shepparton Profile, BSES Annual Report 2001–2002, BSES, Brisbane. , viewed October 2003. Byron, I., Curtis, A. & Lockwood, M.1999, Providing Improved Support for Landcare in the Shepparton Grey, I. & Lawrence, G 2001, A Future for Regional Irrigation Region, Charles Sturt University, Albury. Australia: escaping global misfortune, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

CANEGROWERS 2002, CANEGROWERS Mackay District Hildebrand, C. 2002, Independent Assessment of the Newsletter, November, Mackay, Queensland. Sugar Industry 2002, Report to the Hon. Warren Truss MP, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Indigenous Land Corporation 2001, ILC Annual Report 2000–2001, Indigenous Land Corporation, Adelaide.

269

Integra Pty Ltd 1997, ‘Assessment of the needs of the National Land and Water Resources Audit 2001, dairy & horticultural industries in the Northern Rangelands—tracking changes, Australian Irrigation Region to enable the communities to adapt Collaborative Rangeland Information System, to future change: report’, Integra Pty Ltd, Benalla. NLWRA, Canberra.

Keith, D.A. & Bedward, M. 1999, Native Vegetation of NSW Agriculture 2001, You Choose: dairy families the South East Forests Region, Royal Botanic meeting the challenge, NSW Agriculture, Rural Gardens, Sydney. Women’s Network, Orange.

Kemp, H. 2001, South East Catchment Board Area— O’Brien, K. 2002, ‘Difficult times for sugar farmers’, profile of agriculture, NSW Agriculture, Bega. (Mr 7.30 Report, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Kemp gave permission to use production figures and Sydney, 25 June. some of the descriptive material from his report.) Paris, G. 1984, ‘Canecutters: I cried cutting cane in Liddle, L. with Young, E. 2001, ‘“Bridging the Australia’, Interview with Gino Paris by Sammi communication gap”—transferring information Reindi, Mt Fox, Queensland. between scientists and Aboriginal land managers’, in R. Baker, J. Davies & E. Young (eds), Working on Phillpot, S. 2001, ‘Understanding whitefella secret cattle Country: contemporary Indigenous management of business’, in R. Baker, J. Davies & E. Young (eds), Australia’s land and coastal regions, Oxford Working on Country: contemporary indigenous University Press, Melbourne. management of Australia’s land and coastal regions, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Mackay Whitsunday Regional Economic Development Corporation 2001a, Mackay Whitsunday Regional Resource Policy & Management 2001, ‘Indigenous Statistical Profile—agriculture, MWREDC, Mackay, access to departmental programs’ Final report to Queensland. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. Mackay Whitsunday Regional Economic Development Corporation 2001b, Mackay Whitsunday Regional Resource Policy & Management 2002, ‘Indigenous Statistical Profile—demographics, MWREDC, information needs in Australia’s rangelands’, Report Mackay, Queensland. to the National Land and Water Resources Audit, NLWRA, Canberra. Mackay Whitsunday Regional Economic Development Corporation 2001c, Mackay Whitsunday Regional Robottom, I. 1985, ‘Towards inquiry-based professional Statistical Profile—geography and climate, development in environmental education’, in I. MWREDC, Mackay, Queensland. Robottom (ed.), Environmental Education: practice and possibility, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria. McKillop, R.F. 1996, ‘Australia’s Sugar Industry’, Light Railway Research Society of Australia, Melbourne, Rose, B. 1995a, Aboriginal Land Management Issues in , viewed Central Australia, Central Land Council Cross July 2002. Cultural Land Management Project, Central Land Council, Alice Springs. Michael Young & Associates 2000, An Economic Profile of the Goulburn Broken Catchment (including all of Rose, B. 1995b, Land Management Issues: attitudes and the Shepparton Irrigation Region), Report prepared perceptions amongst Aboriginal people of Central for the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Australia, Report funded by the National Landcare Authority, Michael Young & Associates, Canberra. Program, Central Land Council Cross Cultural Land Management Project, Central Land Council, Alice Moore, C.R. 1986, Kanaka: a history of Melanesian Springs. Mackay, University of Papua New Guinea Press, Port Moresby. Ryan, P. 2002, ‘Threatened flora and fauna species and non-threatened vertebrate fauna in the Goulburn Moore, G. with Davies, D. 2001,’Culture and Broken catchment: status, trends and management’, communication in Aboriginal land management in Background paper to the Goulburn Broken New South Wales: a koori perspective’, in R. Baker, Catchment Regional Catchment Strategy Review, J. Davies & E. Young (eds), Working on Country: Ecolines Environmental Services, Canberra. contemporary Indigenous management of Australia’s land and coastal regions, Oxford University Press, Sugar Research and development Corporation 2002, The Melbourne. Australian Sugar Industry, SRDC, Brisbane.

270

Sugar Times 2003, Central District Sugar Annual 2003, Walsh, F. 2000, Land Use and Management Issues Sugar Times, Mackay, Queensland. Identified by Aboriginal People in Central Australia and Potential Socio-economic Indicators of Trudgen, R. 2000, Why Warriors Lie Down and Die, Sustainable Land Use, Report commissioned by Aboriginal Resource and Development Services Inc., Centre for International Economics, Central Land Darwin. Council, Alice Springs.

Walsh, F. 2002, Information Needs and Media in Aboriginal Land Management, Kimberley, WA, Report to the Kimberley Land Council Land and Sea Management Unit for the National Land and Water Resources Audit, Broome, WA.

271