Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697634979333.pdf (Australia)
Submission: The history, effectiveness, performance and future of the National Landcare Program.

I have been involved in conservation, natural resource management and landcare activities since about 1990, in both paid professional and volunteer capacities.
This includes      17 years working for a national NGO:- o managing volunteers in a broad range of hands-on projects; o developing and implementing projects under various labour market programs such as LEAP, Green Corps, Green Reserve, Green Army et al; o project managing the Great Barrier Reef Coastal Wetland Protection Program – Pilot Program o writing innumerable government and other grants; o developing and managing relationships/sponsorships with corporate partners 3 years as Director (Catchment and Community) for a regional natural resource management body 6 years as volunteer co-ordinator for a local coastcare group, including securing/implementing 3 government grants 20 odd years as committee member/volunteer on various landcare/catchment/conservation groups, currently Tree Kangaroo and Mammal Group 9 years as owner/manager of an 80ha Nature Refuge, including the restoration of approx 5 ha of rainforest and currently partnering with Griffith and Qld Universities on a project trialling natural regeneration techniques.
I believe this gives me a sufficiently broad background to make a submission to this inquiry.

This is a personal submission.
Terms of Reference The history, effectiveness, performance and future of the National Landcare Program, including: a. b. c. d. the establishment and performance of the Natural Heritage Trust; the establishment and performance of the Caring for Our Country program; the outcomes to date and for the forward estimates period of Caring for Our Country; the implications of the 2014-15 Budget for land care programs, in particular, on contracts, scope, structure, outcomes of programs and long-term impact on natural resource management; the Government's policy rationale in relation to changes to land care programs; analysis of national, state and regional funding priorities for land care programs; e. f. g. how the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture have, and can, work together to deliver a seamless land care program; the role of natural resource management bodies in past and future planning, delivery, reporting and outcomes; and any other related matters.
h. i.

National Landcare ProgramSubmission 49 Rather than address each individual ToR my submission will take the form of my personal observations on the overall situation with NRM/Landcare/Environment policy and funding.

I am very well networked locally and I do believe that my views are broadly representative of the local NRM/Landcare community.
To be frank, I am completely fed up with successive governments chopping and changing policy settings, funding guidelines and priorities, program names, application forms, assessment processes ……….. the list goes on and on.

I’m fed up with idiotic timeframes – either short lead times or short times for project completion – as if we can reverse landscape degradation in 12 months.

It saps the energy of community volunteers (and professional staff) and has led to a depressing ‘here we go again’ defeatism.
The latest iteration – the new National Landcare Program just perpetuates this scenario.

I have to ask why this senate inquiry is only looking at the NLP, which itself is “one component of the Clean Land pillar of the Australian Government’s Cleaner Environment Plan”.

It would appear that this Cleaner Environment Plan is the equivalent of the NHT and CFoC –programs, not the NLP.

This plan appears to be full of contradictions.

The NLP has a National Stream with Local Programs?


There is no apparent rationale for the selection of these nationally important local programs.

They appear to have been chosen on popularity or political grounds.

And why are Keep Australia Beautiful and Clean up Australia considered local programs?

The “guiding principles for the new programme are that investment in managing our natural resources be simple, local and long-term.
· Simple - delivered through simplified guidelines and application processes, and reporting requirements.

· Local - deliver practical natural resource management outcomes with a focus on local and regional-scale activities and on maximising community participation in the delivery of natural resource management projects.
· Long-term - an on-going initiative that will continue significant investment in natural resource management priorities.” OK, sounds good, but how does the 20 million trees program fit these principles.

The government is (preferably) seeking a sole supplier to plant these trees across Australia.

Sounds a bit like a one size fits all approach to me, and it definitely has the appearance of a ‘thought bubble’ which is now trying to be massaged into a legitimate program.
The Green Army (which admittedly is not part of the NLP, but is part of the CEP) is another one-size fits all approach.

Worse, it is a faith-based program which I strongly suspect is rooted in the Prime Ministers strong commitment to the concept of service.

I was employed by the organisation which worked with Mr Abbott to develop the original Green Corps program and this was recognised at the time.
The stark reality is that there is absolutely no evidence available as to the cost-, environmental- or social-effectiveness of Green Corps or similar programs.

Following are excerpts from 2 ABC Rural stories of 4 & 5 August about the Green Army The Coalition’s Green Army has been launched with the announcement of 196 projects, with five environmental and employment organisations chosen to roll out the program.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Environment Minister Greg Hunt have announced projects including revegetating river catchments, constructing boardwalks, pest animal management, monitoring threatened species and koala habitat restoration.

"They are things such as this Georges River Recovery Plan, which starts with eight projects this year," Mr Hunt said.
National Landcare ProgramSubmission 49 "It’s working on cleaning up the local environment, giving young people opportunities, and, at the end of the day, leaving things better for 20 and 30 and 50 and 100 years."

* The hourly rate of $10 to $16 an hour has drawn criticism for being lower than the minimum wage.

But Prime Minister Tony Abbott says it's in line with trainee wages.

"This is not a Work for the Dole project.

I want to stress this – it’s an environmental traineeship.
** "It’s the same sort of money that people would get if they were doing any other traineeship in any other field," Mr Abbott said.

Paul Bridgewater, from job agency Manpower Australia, says it's more an allowance.

** Phil Harrison, national program director of the largest provider, Conservation Volunteers of Australia, says the training is invaluable, and the Conservation Volunteers have had thousands of people come through their system.
"I've met young people five or ten years after they've done this, across a wide range of industries.

*** "We employ past volunteers ourselves, e.g.

the threatened species program is managed by a graduate of a previous program, and our general manager is an ex-participant.

"Equally, I've met an accountant who manages their sustainability program, and they started their journey participating in a program like this."
Skillset Operational manager Ashley Bland says that he’s very optimistic about what the Green Army will be able to achieve.

“When nine people and a supervisor get stuck into a project, it’s amazing what you can achieve.

You can plant enormous amounts of trees, build boardwalks, fix tracks, and restore buildings.
“All these things that councils, Landcare networks, community groups, all struggle to find people to do, you can get a Green Army team in there and really make a dent in the work plan quite quickly."

**** *There has been no comprehensive long term monitoring of earlier Green Corps project sites, so the Environment Minister has no basis for claiming long term outcomes.

** There is evident confusion as to the status of the participants.

Mr Harrison even refers to them as volunteers!


*** You can always point to some successful career outcomes for participants (I know some myself) but thousands of young people passed through Green Corps and a couple of individual successes does not demonstrate proof a successful program.

There was no post-program participant monitoring undertaken.

And the greatest travesty in all this is that thousands of young people will be trained up for jobs in NRM that don’t exist.
There has been no demand-side assessment undertaken of this particular sector of the labour market **** Yes, a group of 10 young people can get through an enormous amount of work, but is this the most cost-effective means of achieving this?

It is easy to overlook just how much it costs to put a Green Corps/Army team into the field, with all the associated expenses (eg training, supervision, transport).
I know for a fact that in my region the preferred approach would be to put this funding into real, permanent, long term jobs.

For the same level of investment the community would get the same amount of work done (possibly more) with better social benefits.

I may appear to be labouring this particular program but THE GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN $500 MILLION OUT OF THE ENVIRONMENT BUDGET TO PAY FOR IT!

Green Corps was funded from the youth/employment budget, not from environment.
National Landcare ProgramSubmission 49 I am appalled at the lack of proper monitoring and reporting of outcomes across all programs.

Judging from the media releases it would seem that our politicians think that citing numbers of trees planted or areas of weeds treated or kilograms of seeds (or rubbish) collected is a valid measure of success.
Everyone with any understanding of the landscape restoration process knows that these figures are meaningless; it is the condition of the land in the longer term that is most important.

I have seen too many projects that have failed for lack of ongoing maintenance and attention.

While the reasons for this are largely the fault of short-term funding cycles it can also be due to community churn.

One local group’s committee burns out and a new one takes its place.
They have their own ideas and priorities so past projects can be forgotten.

The waste over time must be hideous, and tragic.

I must stress that I am not saying that there have been no successful outcomes.

There has been brilliant work done by dedicated people which has resulted in positive change; the problem is that there has been no overall measurement undertaken.

In one sense the mayhem that has been NRM/Landcare policy over the last 20 years has not entirely been the fault of government.
The community must take some responsibility for failing to create its own identifiable industry structure to negotiate with government, such as mining, manufacturing etc.

About 12 months ago I wrote the following article for the newsletter of one of my local groups TREAT (Trees for the Evelyn and Atherton Tablelands).

It spells out the situation as I see it.


TOWARDS A NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT/ LANDSCAPE RESTORATION INDUSTRY For a few years now – ever since the “new Green Jobs” became a bit of a buzzword, I have been trying to come to grips with the fact that there is no recognisable “industry”.

This was really brought home to me when I went to a “Green Jobs” roadshow presented by the ACTU, ACF, and Climate Institute.
Most of what they talked about were established trades jobs doing something with an environmental flavour eg electricians installing solar panels, plumbers installing water saving devices etc etc.

I asked them about ‘my’ industry, and they sort of got a bit uncomfortable and said yes it was important but they hadn’t had the funds to look at it, and (this is the kicker) they couldn’t work out how to engage with us – they couldn’t find a peak body or any sort of national structure or anything.

Fair point.
Fair point.

Of course there are (different) National Landcare bodies and the Regional NRM Bodies, but they don’t really fit the bill.

Recently I became aware of a 1989 CSIRO paper written by Richard Eckersley, and it was a bit of a revelation.

REGREENING AUSTRALIA: the Environmental, Economic, and Social Benefits of Restoration.
Way back then he identified the need to develop a permanent skilled workforce viz “The report is not advocating a huge public works program, run by government, that adopts a single system of tree planting across the continent.

To be effective, the program must be tailored to the particular needs of a region, managed at a local level, and carried out using, where necessary, private contractors.

The program would not be a job creation program, undertaken to occupy armies of unskilled unemployed.
The problems and opportunities are real.

To be economically feasible and to achieve its objectives, the program would have to be made as effective and as efficient as possible.
The jobs involved would be as legitimate and as useful as any other (my emphasis), and in many cases would require training and skills.” Jump to 2013 - Richard Eckersley wrote a report for the Australia21 organisation **- REPAIRING AND PREPARING AUSTRALIA’S LANDSCAPES FOR GLOBAL CHANGE: WHY WE MUST DO MUCH MORE: A report on an expert roundtable, held at the University of Melbourne on 21 February 2013, to consider the question: ‘What are the benefits of large-scale reforestation and revegetation, and how can they best be achieved?’ National Landcare ProgramSubmission 49 This report strongly makes some really interesting observations & recommendations: “There was considerable discussion - and agreement – on the need for a landscape regeneration ‘industry’ that would produce the necessary capacity to implement policy, increase professionalism, and provide technical services, education and extension.
‘Success in this whole exercise would be if the ‘revegetation industry’ achieves the same status in Australia as the mining industry.

You can count this as a number of things but it’s a cultural shift in that revegetation and sustainable land management are seen as part of our identity, what we do, both for rural people and city people.

It also needs to be seen as an economic activity based on sustained, long-term investment through public-private partnerships.
In the same way that realising economic benefits from mining depends on public investment in infrastructure, training and skills and private capital in resource extraction, large-scale revegetation and land repair will require public investment in green infrastructure and private investment in a range of benefits.’ ‘If it’s the case that government is going to step up with large amounts of money for large-scale work, then there is a bunch of structural problems in the system.
Indeed, the revegetation industry doesn’t really exist.
It’s a bunch of sheltered workshops and cottage industries around the place.’ ‘We really need to develop a whole level of professionalism.... if you take the mining industry analogy, we need the revegetation services business to be there, with all that technical expertise, just like we would expect from other sectors, rather than it being seen as a job for volunteers.’ A landscape ‘industry’ could provide jobs almost anywhere in Australia, so making an important contribution to social and economic stability in the event of global economic troubles.
This job creation would support rural communities and help the unemployed in urban areas.

The 1989 CSIRO report noted ‘regreening Australia’ could be an important component of guaranteeing people an adequate income in return for doing socially useful work.
The report stimulated programs such as the current Green Corps, which give young people work experience and skills.” The current Green Corps is barely recognisable from the original Green Corps, which commenced in 1997 and was itself one in a long line of similar schemes over 20 odd years.

In any event it is about to be superceded by the Coalition’s proposed new Green Army.

The Coalition will create a standing ‘Green Army’ that will gradually build to a 15,000 strong environmental workforce.
We will create and properly resource the Green Army, as a larger and more lasting version of the former Green Corps.

It will be Australia’s largest-ever environmental deployment.

It will mark the first time that Australia has approached environmental remediation with the same seriousness and level of organisation that we have long brought to bushfire preparedness and other local and regional priorities.
http://www.liberal.org.au/creating-green-army Unfortunately this policy will do nothing to advance the development of our industry.

It will adopt a one-size- fits-all approach, using a standard model with teams of 9 young people plus a supervisor working for 6 months whilst also undergoing (very) basic environmental training.

This number of “trainees” will swamp an already threadbare jobs market.

It’s topsy-turvy, cart-before-horse – pick your own analogy.

What we need are REAL JOBS, not ephemera.


National Landcare ProgramSubmission 49 Ironically the Coalition also has a policy for a new loan scheme to support apprentices.

This policy states that only apprentices employed in occupations included in the National Skills Needs List will be eligible.

The only skill in this extensive list that comes even close to Landscape Restoration is Landscape Gardening, and they are really chalk and cheese; they require very different skill sets.
So 15,000 young people a year will gain work experience and training in a vocation which has very little demand, and the real kicker is that in putting all these teams on the ground they will be taking work away from the few commercial operators currently struggling to make a living who could provide that employment.

The program could be made far more effective by dramatically cutting the number of “trainees” and using the funds to create a proper structure as recommended in the Australia21 report.
This would provide better outcomes for the participants, the environment, and the community.

The new Government really needs to listen to the people who are out there doing this who understand how the real world works.

**Australia21 is an independent, non-profit organisation whose core purpose is multidisciplinary research and inquiry on issues of strategic importance to Australia in the 21st century http://www.australia21.org.au/ At present there are too many vested interests at play.
NGO vs NGO; Landcare Network/s vs Regional NRM bodies etc etc.

Successive governments have (apparently) played favourites, entrenching the situation.

According to the National Landcare Program Consultation Paper:- To ensure there is a local and regional ‘voice’ in the design and delivery of the programme, a National Landcare Advisory Committee will be established.
The committee is to be comprised of expert members from the natural resource management community who will provide valuable input on matters such as investment priorities and community consultation and engagement.

The Committee will provide advice to the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board, comprised of the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Agriculture.
This would provide an ideal opportunity to draw together a full cross-section of the ‘industry’ and importantly including people from local community groups, those most affected by the machinations at the national level.

Thank you David Hudson National Landcare ProgramSubmission 49