|
|
||||||
ENSURING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: WHAT LEVEL OF PARTNERSHIP? |
||||||
|
home page | contact us | partners | clients | papers |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Research, Development & Extension staff |
|||||
THE NEED FOR PARTNERSHIPS: CHANGING RECOGNITION OVER THE PAST DECADEThroughout the past decade, successive governments1 have focused on land degradation and its associated problems as being among Australia's greatest environmental issues. At the same time, all have highlighted the need for shared responsibility and action in addressing these critical problems. Yet the focus of that sharing has shifted over time and with changes in government. In 1989, then Prime Minister Hawke talked of the need for "co-operative action - between individuals and governments" (p.7). His focus was on both individual and shared responsibility, and he stressed the need for "co-operation at local, State, Commonwealth and international levels" and for "the support of the community", without which "many of our more significant problems will remain unresolved." While recognising that individuals, communities and governments were already taking actions to address degradation of our soil and water, then Prime Minister Keating, in his Statement on the Environment, talked of the need for "natural partnerships" in which "the responsibility falls on all of us." However, he too placed strong emphasis on the role of governments, saying "It [responsibility to act] falls particularly on governments, and because we are talking about a precious resource belonging to all Australians, it falls particularly on the Commonwealth Government." (p. 1). By 1996 that emphasis had expanded to encompass "governments and the community", with collaborative action being sought from governments, land owners, resource managers and the community. A further shift in emphasis came with the election of the Howard Liberal-National Government. In launching the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) fund, Ministers Hill and Anderson highlighted the role of local communities, saying that the fund would enable them to "participate in conservation by identifying sites for environmental action and applying for funding to conserve, protect, rehabilitate and better manage local areas." (p.3). Whilst the NHT launch document talks of a natural partnership of Australians which "combines the knowledge and resources of scientists, farmers, Aboriginal people, community and environmental groups, governments and our agricultural industries, working with each other to manage our natural heritage responsibly" (p.4), it also places strong emphasis on directly funding people to "get out there and do the things that need to be done." In discussion with local communities, concern is often expressed that they are being handed the opportunities without adequate resources or empowerment to implement what is being asked of them. More recently, in its discussion paper on managing natural resources in rural Australia2, the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry highlights the need for "a partnership between landholders (including Indigenous Australians), regional communities, industry, local, State and Territory and Commonwealth governments, and the wider community." The discussion paper goes on to state that "Such a partnership needs to be based on a clear understanding of the roles, responsibilities and interests of each party." (p.27). At various points within the discussion paper, emphasis is placed on regional partnerships "based on devolved authority and empowered regional communities." As community expectations of greater participation in decisions that affect their lives grow across all sectors, rural landholders, who are responsible for the management of as much of 70% of our land area, have a growing expectation that they should be treated as part of the solution, rather than part of the problem of land and associated natural resource degradation. However, the responsibilities must truly be shared if the major problems that face Australia’s natural resources and environment are to be addressed. Action learning & researchAt the same time, there is a growing body3 of evidence that landholders have greater respect for their peers as information providers than they do other providers, whether from government, the private sector or the scientific community. Linked with this is an identified preference among rural landholders for 'action learning' or 'learning by doing', the concepts of which come largely from the social and educational fields. As Wadsworth identifies in a recent paper 4 exploring 'participatory action research', essential differences between conventional research ('old paradigm science') and participatory action research ('new paradigm research') lie in the fact that while traditional research follows a linear pathway from hypothesis through fieldwork and analysis to conclusion, action research involves the various players (not merely the 'scientist', but also the 'subjects') in a cyclical process of questioning, planning, action and reflection.
As Fullerton 5 describes it, “Action Research aims to contribute to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework.” As such, action research has strong relevance to the development of adaptive management of natural resources. Adaptive managementThese aspects of 'participatory action research' have strong links with the currently preferred approach to natural resource management. As Alexandra and his colleagues 6 identify, "the cornerstone of adaptive management is a recognition that people do not have full control over or understanding of their environment. Regular revision of management plans to take account of unanticipated changes in outlook or condition is therefore essential." Within an adaptive management framework, this regular revision takes place through an ongoing cycle of Issues identification and Objective setting, setting of targets, action, monitoring and evaluation, and feedback into the process.
Whilst landholders often practice adaptive management in an informal way, delineation of the process provides a more structured context within which change can occur and be managed. Each of these changing expectations has implications for the partners in any landcare or related natural resource management activity. THE PARTNERSWhile those with a legitimate interest in the management of land and other natural resources are numerous, three groups would appear to be critical players. Rural landholdersPrivate landholders and those with long-term / perpetual leases together are, as noted earlier, responsible for the management of approximately 70% of the land in Australia. Many have acquired, often through generations of living and working with the land, an intimate local knowledge of soils, water, weather patterns and related factors. Theirs is a knowledge based largely on hands-on experience and sound powers of observation. Lobry de Bruyn 7 (BRS) refers to this as an 'intuitive knowledge' and highlights the importance of capturing it as part of the process of monitoring and managing for sustainable resource use. However traditionally, wherever landholders and rural research and extension staff have come together, the landholders have deferred to the scientific knowledge of the 'experts'. Ecologists & other scientistsThese are people who have 'expert knowledge' in the discipline within which they are trained. Their role is to provide information based on sound scientific methods. Scientists have generally been required, as part of the process of establishing and maintaining both their professional credibility and in many cases, their research funding, to present the outcomes of their work primarily by publishing it in professional magazines and journals in which it is reviewed by their peers. Over the past several decades, their responsibilities have not included the translation of that research into practical on-ground activities, and they have certainly not been expected to interact directly and establish meaningful dialogue with landholders or others in rural communities. To some extent, that has been the role of rural extension officers. Yet theirs, too has been a role delineated by the boundaries of their own discipline, be that commodity production, soil conservation, or some other facet of rural production. Public land managersWhether from Local government, national parks, soil conservation, water management or other public authorities, public land manages have generally been charged with the dual responsibilities of reflecting the policies and priorities of the government of the day, and at the same time addressing current scientific thinking on resource management issues. The "Trust us, we're from the government and we're here to help you." approach has long been the image borne by many in public land management positions. This is despite the fact that the responsibilities of their particular positions within a given agency have often brought with them biases of interpretation that result in information delivery which is at odds with colleagues from other agencies. Other stakeholdersMany others in the community, both locally and at the distance separating rural and metropolitan communities, also have legitimate interests in the management of our land, water and related natural resources. Included among these are
While people in each of these groups have legitimate concerns that should be heard and addressed in a context of building an ecologically sustainable future, they are perhaps less likely to be directly involved in the formation of partnerships for sustainable land management. AUSTRALIA'S RURAL CULTUREMost of Australia's population is concentrated in a urban and suburban centres. In NSW, for example, only 27% of the population live outside of Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. 8 Associate Professor Margaret Alston from the Centre for Rural Social Research in Wagga Wagga noted recently that
Alston believes there is a "serious imbalance" between rural and city life. Experienced rural counsellors and academics are also of the view that people living in rural areas are disadvantaged compared to their city counterparts.
There is no space to explore these claims further, but they clearly question the common perception that life in the country is healthier, less stressful and generally more desirable. However, social researchers have gone much further in examining the lives of those living in rural areas and found that there are some trends emerging around the elements of a rural culture. Community cohesionPeople in rural areas often talk about the importance of community to them, and community cohesion is generally seen to be a strength in rural communities. Ken Dempsey conducted a detailed longitudinal study of one small rural community he called Smalltown and highlighted some of the factors which produce cohesion as being
Being part of a community, and accepted by that community is a significant benefit for people living in rural areas, and seen to be a compensation for many of the deficits identified by Alston above. Acceptance within a rural community is almost a prerequisite for being able to influence the behaviour of others within that community. Social stratificationHowever, within the overall cohesive community is found a significant degree of social stratification. Dempsey found that "there are substantial class-based differences in access to valued resources and positions and in patterns of behaviour."
However, Dempsey contends that "serious class-based rifts" are lessened, and community cohesion enhanced by
This egalitarian ideology is reinforced by practices such as social activities being organised to bring together the different classes as equals - men drinking together for example. However, recognising that there is a social stratification in rural communities is probably important in determining where to inject efforts in changing behaviour. Suspicion of government/bureaucracyOne of the groups of people that can be particularly isolated and do not form part of a cohesive rural community is government officers. Farmers in particular are often very suspicious of government officials - and their political masters - "telling them what to do". In Smalltown, Dempsey comments on a number of groups within rural communities who are disempowered and marginalised outside the social networks which unite the other members of the community. These excluded categories cover some transients, particularly public servants, women who have breached codes of respectability and the elderly. In the case of public servants, Dempsey contends that they "symbolise the community's external enemies".
Even the language used by outsiders may be considered to be inappropriate or patronising. Landholders frequently complain of the ways in which both scientists and government officers use technical or bureaucratic jargon which makes little sense to them. Western Australian landholder and current Chair of the Land & Water Resources R&D Corporation, Alex Campbell highlighted this concern in a 1995 talk on landholder attitudes towards maintaining native vegetation on agricultural lands15. Campbell talked of the problems created from 'calling it something different so that it is important' and gave as examples 'rangeland' instead of 'pastoral land', 'remnant vegetation' instead of 'remaining bush', 'biological diversity' rather than 'balance of nature'. To this could be added a host of other terms, some of which might be 'ecological sustainability' rather than 'healthy landscapes' and 'understorey' rather than 'grass and scrub'. However, Dempsey also found that if outsider public servants made a decision to "commit their futures to the community" and to form ties with "those 'locals' engaged in 'really productive' economic activity, public servants and other transients become a part of things to at least some extent."
But it is interesting to consider the pressures that are then placed on public servants in areas of government concerned with monitoring environmental degradation. They may be in the process of seeking acceptance from a community and at the same time be responsible for reporting on the activities of those community members. As increasing levels of government funds are providing to rural environmental activity, government officers may again be placed in a difficult position if they are asked to make recommendations about funding which impact on other members of their communities. Traditionalism (especially among farmers)Gray and Phillips (1997) have explored the links between "tradition" among farmers and the restructuring of agricultural industries to ensure sustainability. They define tradition to "consist of any aspects of culture including the practices associated with culture. The only essential element is some notion of an historical process of transmission through generations."
They comment that there has been very little research examining the connection between culture and farm practice related to conservation of farm land18, but claim that "locally derived and transmitted knowledge as a basis for farm operation ... can be seen as a significant aspect of farm tradition".19
Stone (1992) cited in Gray and Phillips (1997)
When social researchers Gray and Phillips looked at what values were important to farmers they found that "Features of farming life related to family, community and lifestyle were widely given great importance, suggesting that traditional values were being maintained."21 However, they also found that
Rural conservatismCrago et al examine the question of the often cited as "rural conservatism". They suggest that
Part of this rural conservatism can also be understood in terms of the long held expectation that landholders can do what they like with their own land. As Hussey24 described in a 1995 conference paper, the "traditional mindset" of farmers results in a "belief in the 'right to farm' unfettered by any 'duty of care' to one's neighbours." For generations, remnant vegetation was considered to be a menace, and farmers were encouraged to remove it. Over the past 20 years, it has become a valued resource, with farmers not necessarily being part of that change in its valuation. Gender divisionsIn Smalltown, Dempsey's analysis emphasised "the sexual division of labour and the economic and social dependence of wives on their husbands"25. He says
For the minority who are dissatisfied with their relationships with men, especially their own husbands, "the price of a sustained challenge [to the men] is too great: they do not want to risk their marriages, the happiness of their children, or their acceptance and high regard in Smalltown. One reason they offer repeatedly for not wanting to risk the latter is the sense of belonging the community offers them.27 Rural women who take on some of these gender divides note that they were "'accepted' into non-traditional (for them) community activities (such as Fire Brigade) on the basis that they adopted a secretarial or communications role. Women who attempted leadership roles, even if they were the best for the job, were criticised for taking a 'man's' role, or felt too intimidate to even try."28 Yet women's contribution to agricultural production and rural communities is considerable. Thirty two percent of Australia's farm work force is female. More than 70,000 women define themselves as farmers or farm managers. In economic terms, women's contribution amounts to at least 28% of the market value of farm output, and 48% of real farm income (i.e. when you include the value of household work, volunteer and community work and off farm wage income earned by people on farms).29 Women's role in the agricultural and pastoral industries is critical, and they have a key role to play in decision making - even if that role is not reflected publicly, or in recognised decision making forums.30 The generation gap(s)Layered over each of these factors separating male members of rural communities from the other potential partners in sustainable land management are the influences of age difference. As is widely identified, the ownership of rural properties rests largely in the hands of older men31. A significant number of landholders are men born in the 1920s and 30s. By contrast, the agricultural R&D community while still predominantly male, is of a younger age, with the majority of those in leadership positions probably born in the 1940s and 50s. Even more stark contrasts come when we explore the age and gender of those primarily responsible for extension work in the rural sector. Many among this group are younger graduates, both male and female. One need only refer to the work of well known social researcher, Hugh Mackay32, to recognise the stark contrasts in culture and perspective that exists between these three age groups, labelled by Mackay as the "Lucky generation', the 'Baby boomers' and the 'Options generation'. As Mackay observes
Yet, it is that recognition and the meshing together of the views of that younger generation, whether as the coming generation of property owners and managers or as the current extension staff and research support staff, with the wisdom of older generations, that must form part of the process in building meaningful partnerships for sustainable resource management. BUILDING PARTNERSHIPSAs numerous authors have observed, successful building of partnerships, whether in private or family life, in business or in natural resource management, relies on a number of critical factors, not all of which currently exist in the relationships between the key players involved in managing our land and other natural resources. NSW National Parks & Wildlife researcher Sue Briggs33, in her recent paper on integrating people with conservation, talks of the need for "communication, motivation and the development of trust between different groups." Briggs also comments on the need for sharing of power, which "requires genuine consultation and exchange of knowledge." She goes on to observe that "It brings people and nature together, and breaks down the incorrect belief that conservation is the sole responsibility of public agencies and their staff." In examining the rebuilding of social capital in rural communities, and the role played by 'learning for farming' in that process, Tasmanian researchers Sue Kilpatrick and Ian Falk34 explore the importance of both "knowledge resources" and "identity resources", with self-confidence, norms, values and attitudes, vision, trust, and commitment to community being key among the identity resources. Farmer and rural community consultant Cathy McGowan35, in her consideration of what can be learned for natural resource management from human services provision in rural areas, highlights the multi-disciplinary nature the issues involved and describes them as being "about relationships and interactions, winning confidence and trust, inter-generational transfers and externalities including the weather, people's sense of stewardship over land, and the meaning of life and death." Thus, as in any enduring partnership
have key roles to play. McKinney & Gerloff36, in their paper on the effectiveness of partnerships between organisations, see trust as an underpinning factor, stating "If a business relationship is to be sustained, trust is a critical success factor." As we have seen in the earlier section, some of the identifiable elements of rural culture relate to a suspicion of outsiders, a resistance to change, and a tendency to rely on those within the community rather than those from outside. The process of building trust needs to recognise these cultural predispositions, and to develop processes which work within them. Shared visionsAnother equally important to the building of successful partnerships is the development of a shared vision. Only recently has this need become a focus of work to achieve sustainable use of our natural resources. Charles Sturt University scientist David Goldney37 has, for several years, espoused the need for a shared vision of what Australian landscapes should look like in the future. Goldney points out that many of our landscapes are substantially altered from their natural state and that, rather than striving to 'restore' them to their natural condition, we need a clear vision of what they will look like when 'reconstructed' in ways that are ecologically sustainable. Neither governments, landholders, nor scientists can form an enduring vision alone. Rather, those with an interest must together define what the Australian 'bush', in all its diversity, should look like when it is managed for sustainability, and together they must then determine how that management can best occur. This theme, initiated largely by Goldney, has more recently been picked up by others. Last year's 'Visions of Future Landscapes' conference, hosted by the Bureau of Rural Sciences sought to "encourage meaningful dialogue between the scientific, artistic, commercial and government sectors concerned with future land management and landscape values ... creating visions of desired future landscapes that satisfy ecological, economic, aesthetic and cultural aspirations."38 CommunicationOne important element in building trust, mutual respect, power sharing and the necessary shared vision, is communication. The use of both common language and mutually acceptable media for communicating play important roles in effective communication was discussed above. But as demand on public resources increases, opportunities for communication based on human contact are becoming diminished. Extension staff within government agencies are less available than in the past and opportunities for one-to-on contact (a yarn over the kitchen table) are less available as demands on government agencies personnel escalate. As McKinney & Gerloff identify, "reliance on electronic linkages to conduct business does not eliminate the need for human communication between the partners". McKinney & Gerloff go on to identify the importance of face-to-face communication as "the richest communication medium since immediate mutual feedback is received, multiple cues are used to convey meaning, natural language is utilised, and emotions are conveyed". Modern communication technologies and access to them are an important part of enabling rural communities to interact with each other, with urban dwellers and with the global markets in which they now compete. However, at a time when trust between the sectors involved in resource management is often low, it is also important that opportunities for face-to-face contact are maintained, either directly or through another person who has links with, and the trust of each of the stakeholders. WHAT LEVEL OF PARTNERSHIP?The level of involvement of each of the partners will likely have less influence on the success of the partnership, than will the ways in which those partnerships are formed. Each of the short case studies outlined below comes from a project in which the authors have had some involvement. Each involves a very different level of landholder participation in the partnership. Yet, each appears to be working as a successful partnership for improving the sustainability of resource management within agricultural production systems. Practical measures to assist biodiversity conservation with sustainable beef production CSIRO scientist Sue McIntyre and her colleagues are running a project designed to develop mechanisms for integrating practical measures for biodiversity conservation with sustainable beef production in the woodland landscapes of southern Queensland. The place of property planning in conserving the broader landscape is one key focus. But so too are practical measures of increasing ground cover, decreasing grazing intensity, retaining native woodland, managing for wildlife habitat and managing water courses. This project is being conducted as controlled research 'experiments' on four working family farms. The landholders whose properties are involved are each being supported by a Management Reference Panel made up of local producers. A Technical Reference Group also provides scientific technical advice to the project team. The property owners, their Reference Panel support groups and the Technical Reference Group, as well as the scientists responsible for the overall running of the project, each have clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and through the project, each group is building a better awareness and understanding of the needs of others who are involved. Grassy White Box woodlands: Taking action now!In the Grassy White Box Woodland: Taking action now! project, (coordinated by the partners in the Community Solutions consultancy business), Action Liaison Officers, who are themselves production farmers, facilitate two-way information flow between other landholders, scientists and government agency staff concerned with the on-farm conservation management of remnant Grassy White Box Woodlands along the western slopes of NSW. The project is assisting landholders in identifying and assessing the conservation significance of their White Box woodland remnants, providing small amounts of financial support as incentives to implement conservation management initiatives, and through the Action Liaison Officers, facilitating exchange of conservation management information between landholders and the various government and non-government agencies that might be involved. The Action Liaison Officers play a pivotal role in this project, ensuring that information flows both to and from the landholders, providing dialogue that is appropriate to all parties, and at the same time building trust of conservation practices in local communities. Resource monitoring to determine productive capability of your landIn northern Australia, a group of producers who participated in a workshop on pasture monitoring, developed and are managing a project designed to encourage beef producers across the north to monitor and record changes in their pasture and soils and to use the outcomes of this monitoring to enhance their management decisions. Working through local producers as coordinators, the project team has established monitoring groups, each with approximately 10 properties participating in regular monitoring and recording of the condition of the pastures, with a view to using that monitoring to assist in adjusting their grazing management to achieve sustainable outcomes. Each property involved in monitoring is supported by research and extension staff from government agencies and increasingly the participants are seeking other ways in which they can integrate their pasture monitoring with other aspects of whole property sustainable management. In this project, not only are the producers equal partners in the project. That actually control and monitoring the direction of the project, while at the same time inviting and valuing the expertise that rangeland scientists and others bring to it. OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHANGES: BUILDING STRONGER PARTNERSHIPSIf the partnerships currently sought both by representatives from government and by landholders and others in their local communities are to succeed, all will have to make changes. Just as relationship consultants and others working in the social sciences frequently highlight the importance of a conscious effort in the building of successful partnerships in our private lives, so too, the participants in partnerships for sustainable resource management will have to work at it. Some of the changes needed are addressed below. LandholdersWool producer and social scientist Denzil Mills40 has identified a need for the rural sector to embrace change. Mills sees as "the only way rangeland managers will survive" as being for them to "move to a constant change paradigm." Mills goes on to acknowledge that this requires a cultural change and that "It is costly, difficult and slow to change culture". Her perception that regional initiatives "induce synergy and collective wisdom", and in so doing, assist in moving land managers from "an independent mode of operation [the rugged individual on whom this country and its rural production depend], towards a cooperative, interdependent mode" is an important step in achieving the necessary cultural change. Increasingly, it is being recognised (see, for instance Alexandra et al41., 1998; Kilpatrick & Falk42, 1999) that if landholders and managers, or others in the local community are to value and have ownership of resource management initiatives, then they must have an involvement from the start. No longer is it sufficient for a learned scientist to bring to the community their professional wisdom and expertise, to show the locals what should be done. Furthermore, as numerous projects have demonstrated in recent times (see, for example Elix et al.43, 1998; Walsh, Landsberg & Rodgers44, 1997; Kilpatrick & Falk, 1999), these changes are more likely to be achieved if women as well as men are directly involved. While this requires changes in approach by government agencies and other organisations, it also requires changes on the part of landholders themselves. Although participants in the 'Missed Opportunities' national project (Elix et al., 1998) identified both stereotyping and male attitudes, and commitments to family and other responsibilities as major barriers to women's participation in leadership and management within the agricultural sector, so too were women's own attitudes and self-confidence. Research, Development & Extension staffJust as landholders will require a cultural change to achieve a sustainable future, so scientists and their support staff and the organisations within which they work, must undergo a cultural change. Over many decades, scientists have been encouraged to become more specialised in their work, to focus on greater and greater detail of their discipline and thus to become more 'expert' in their chosen field of endeavour. Whereas the outstanding scientists of the 19th century were often sufficiently skilled to gain recognition in several divergent disciplines, the information age at the end of the 20th century has reached a point where to be other than a specialist in a narrow and highly technical aspect of one's chosen science is almost to have failed as a scientist. However, it is now being recognised that there are advantages to be had in working collaboratively across disciplines, and even in working with others outside of science. No longer are scientists the 'experts' who can 'deliver' information to those who need it most. They must now become part of a broader team, often spanning disciplines as diverse as sociology, economics, ecology, communications and farming. Yet, wider environment in which the research and development community works is not yet adjusted to this changing role. Funding bodies have only recently begun to give preference to cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral work. Career promotion continues to rely heavily on research publications, and in a user-pays climate of increasing competition for limited R&D investment, this limits the time available for scientists to engage in dialogue with others outside their own profession. Furthermore, as the demand for active participation by landholders throughout the life of R&D projects increases, scientists must overcome their fear of loss of scientific rigor in their work. Scientists are trained to do well-controlled science. They are not trained as specialists in interactive adaptive management, nor are they trained as communication experts. As pressure for landholder participation grows, some in the R&D community, and more particularly some among extension staff, may well feel that their careers are under threat. Just as landholders must be helped and supported to undergo a cultural change which takes away their independence and brings them to a more regional community perspective of living with change, so the scientific community must be helped and supported in a cultural change which sees them become specialist facilitators, engaged in two-way communication through a network of different interactions and media. GovernmentsOver the past decade local communities have come to expect, and even demand, a greater role in determining the decisions that affect their daily lives. When combined with high levels of cynicism and even mistrust for the actions of governments and their agencies, this points to the need for new approaches in which local communities are empowered to make their own decisions. This needs to be supported by technical expertise, both from the local area or from further afield so as to ensure the local perspective is placed in a larger catchment, regional and national context. That governments can play a key role in resourcing these new approaches is evidenced in the success of movements such as Landcare, Coast Care and the host of other local community initiatives which are funded, at least in significant part, by governments but which at the same time focus on delivering sustainable local outcomes. People in local communities now expect governments to facilitate that participation and over the past decade, successive governments have come some way towards acknowledging that need and expectation, working through the community and providing financial support for community initiatives. Yet there is still a strong sense that governments control the process, and increasingly that governments are delegating the responsibilities to local communities without adequately empowering them to accept that delegation. As the recent national discussion paper on managing natural resources in rural Australia 45acknowledges (AFFA46, 1999), governments must avoid simply devolving responsibility to local communities, without at the same time ensuring those communities have the social, financial and educational/information capacity to assume that responsibility. Governments can also do much to facilitate the cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary approaches to R&D discussed in the section above. McKinney & Gerloff (2000) highlight in their paper the importance of building trust between partners in helping to reduce uncertainty, and thus to overcome resistance. As Heather Aslin identifies in her recent paper on community values in western NSW, policy-makers are faced with difficult social and economic questions. If they are to overcome the "disenchantment with and cynicism towards established authority figures" that clearly exists in both urban and rural communities, they "need to absorb some of the newer understandings of the nature of post-modern society and what they imply for dealing with contemporary social issues." And, as McKinney and Gerloff point out "time, personalization, and consistency required for the development of trust are lacking in short-term policies and rotating executives." Nowhere are these short-term approaches more apparent than in government policies, programs and funding cycles, all of which especially require a long-term approach to address sustainability and natural resource management issues. Yet, these are cultural changes for government almost as challenging as the challenges posed for landholders and the scientific community. Urban residentsWhile urban residents may not have the same direct involvement in conserving and managing our natural resources as do landholders, research staff and extension staff or the governments who run policy and programs influencing that management, but they do have a significant interest and involvement in natural resource management. While not a 'silent partner' in the sense that such partners are found in business, they are partners removed form the on-ground action. Those who live in our cities and rural towns make up the majority of taxpayers, and as such they expect to have an influence over government policy and spending. They are also the major consumers of much of the produce that comes from the rural landscapes that we are all seeking to conserve. And, they are often the most vocal exponents of the urgent need for more ecologically sustainable management of the rural landscape. Yet, within even within the largely urban-based environment movement, there are a broad range of perceptions about rural landholders and the ways in which they manage their land. For these reasons, it is important that in forming partnerships for ecologically sustainable use of our natural resources, urban residents, as well as those more directly linked with the land, take up opportunities to come together with the other stakeholders to exchange values, views and visions for the future. All sectors having an interest in the future of our landscape will have to work at developing trust and respect for other points of view, and all will need a heightened awareness of the importance of common language and the differing interpretations possible even when using the same words, let alone when the words used are seen as elitist, bureaucratic or in some other way 'foreign'. THE WAY FORWARDThe whole rural community is operating in a climate of uncertainty and continual change. Some of the important elements of that change, as it relates to natural resource management, include growing expectations
Although the concept of ecological sustainability has been around for at least a decade, many in government and outside are only now coming to terms with the real meaning of integrating social, economic and environmental aspects of our lives and their impacts on the natural resources on which urban and rural populations alike depend for survival. What is cultural translation?This paper has reflected on the considerable barriers that exist between the different groups of stakeholders who are involved in natural resource management, including landholders, scientists, government officers, urban dwellers and environmentalists. It has focused on the concept of partnership and clarified its key components. However, if the different groups of stakeholders are thought of as being culturally divided in a way similar to those who are divided by language, then it makes sense to provide a “translation service” as a key component of helping communication become established, developing trust and working towards common goals. Instead of a language translator being necessary, cultural and "values/interests" translators may be needed to allow communication between farmers and scientists, between scientists and government officers, between environmentalists and farmers, and so on. In each of the research project examples highlighted above, the involvement of cultural translators who have "a foot in both camps" and can understand and appreciate the values and cultural identities of different interest groups is crucial. The Producer Reference Groups in the CSIRO biodiversity project, the Project Management Team and the Regional Coordinators in the pasture monitoring project and the Action Liaison Officers in the White Box woodland project are each playing an essential role as cultural translators. Characteristics of effective translatorsSo what might be the characteristics of effective cultural translators? Translators working in rural communities need to have a real understanding of the geographic and social communities in which they live - in other words, they must be seen by members of the communities as authentic, and preferably they should be respected as opinion leaders, even where they do not occupy an official position as a decision-maker. They should work in the communities in which they live because as the researchers cited above have shown, rural communities often have a strong sense of local cohesion, and a suspicion of outsiders. The issue of gender is interesting. As discussed above, there is a considerable level of gender division of labour, social activity and influence in rural communities, and men are primarily seen to be responsible for farming activity. However, as was also shown, women's roles in most agricultural undertakings are critical and their labour contributes to farm viability and agricultural productivity. So, ideally, a mixture of female and male "translators" would be most effective. However, the research cited in this paper seems to show that women are generally better skilled in those areas relating to cultural translation. Ensuring that the relevant skills are transferred to others (particularly men) is an important strategy. And just as gender is an important consideration, so as discussed above, age relative to those with whom one interacts, or at least awareness of and respect for age-based cultural differences influences the success of an individual as a cultural translator. Rural and environment movement suspicion of bureaucrats was discussed above, and it seems very important that the cultural translators are seen to be distanced from government departments. It is also important that they are not seen to be "judging" any of the stakeholders - but rather supporting and assisting them. The translators need to be articulate, capable of framing their input in language which is acceptable to their target audiences. They need to have a level of environmental knowledge and understanding that is both specific to the area, but also more generally sophisticated, and they need also to have understanding of the constraints under which all parties to environmental debates are operating. Translators also need to be resourced. Too often, networking and communication activities are unpaid and undervalued, whereas this paper proposes that they are crucial to the future of Australia’s agricultural industries and the rural environments that underpin those industries As such they must be adequately supported both financial and in other ways, to fulfil this important role. IN CONCLUSIONThis paper recognises that the answers to rural environmental problems are not likely to come from any one particular source. Clearly neither rural landholder/managers nor scientists have all the answers, otherwise Australia would not be facing massive land degradation problems. Also, governments and those who support them do not have all the answers, as reflected in the conflicting economic and social signals they have provided to farmers over the past 200 years. However, there is a strong possibility that if information could be conveyed to and from rural landholders, and if it could be conveyed in a ways that are acceptable and, more importantly, meaningful to them, then shared solutions might be developed which are capable of being implemented and of bringing about change. All of these stakeholder groups need to recognise that they have a duty of care to protect the environment at the same time as it is used for our mutual benefit. Real partnerships provide a tangible symbol, and a practical solution for meeting community expectations. 'Cultural translators', many of whom might be younger, more highly educated members of farm families, have an important part to play in ensuring that partnerships are formed in ways that are culturally appropriate and practically oriented. Such partnerships will allow the maintenance of individuality within the coordinated processes that recognise and respond to wider needs.
References1 Hawke The Hon RJL (July 1989) Our Country: Our Future. Statement on the Environment. Aust. Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Keating The Hon. P (21 Dec 1992). Statement on the Environment. Aust. Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Keating The Hon. P (24 Jan 1996). Our Land: Conserving Natural Australia. Statement by the Prime Minister. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra. Hill The Hon R & Anderson The Hon J (1997). Natural Heritage Trust: A better environment for Australia in the 21st Century. Environment Australia & Department of Primary Industries & Energy, Canberra. 2 Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry - Australia (Dec 1999). Managing natural resources in rural Australia for a sustainable future. Discussion paper for developing a national policy. AFFA, Canberra. 3 Gilfedder L & Kirkpatrick JB (1995). A survey of landholder attitudes towards the long term conservation of native lowland grasslands. Report to Grassland Ecology Unit, Aust. Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. Goldney D & Watson G (1995). marketing and social issues relevant to landholders' management of native vegetation. In: Price P (ed). Socio-economic aspects of maintaining native vegetation on agricultural land. Occasional Paper No. 07/95. Land & Water Resources R&D Corporation, Canberra. Hamilton SD (ed) (1997). The Box-Ironbark workshop. Proceedings of workshop, 3-4 April, 1997; Dookie College, University of Melbourne. Elix J & Lambert J (1998). More than just the odd tree. Research Report No. 1/98. National R&D Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation; Environment Australia, Biodiversity Group, Canberra. Jenkins S (1998). Native vegtation on farms survey 1996. Research Report No. 3/98. National R&D Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation; Environment Australia, Biodiversity Group, Canberra. 4 Wadsworth Y (1998). What is Participatory Action Research? Action Research International, Paper 2. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/ari-wadsworth.html 5 Fullerton JP (1996).. http://world.std.crm/~lo/96.05/0196.html 6 Alexandra J, Higgins J & White T (1998). Environmental indicators for national State of the Environment reporting: Local and community uses. Australia: State of the Environment (Environmental Indicator Report), Department of the Environment, Canberra. 7 Lobry de Bruyn LA (1999. Farmers' perspective on soil health: Capturing and adapting intuitive understanding of soil health to monitor land condition. Paper presented to 'Country Matters' conference, 20-21 May 1999. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. 8 Heli Harrison, 'Trends in the Delivery of Rural Health, Education and Banking Services' cited in Alston, Margaret, 'Surviving in Rural Communities: A Blueprint for the New Millennium' Conference proceedings, Country Matters Conference, 20-21 May 1999 p 2 9 ibid. p 1 10 Hugh, Crago, Ruth Sturmey and Jenny Monson, 'Myth and Reality in Rural Counselling', ANZJ Family Therapy, Vol 17, No 2, 1996, p 61. 11 K Dempsey, Smalltown (Melbourne 1990), p 309 12 K Dempsey, Smalltown (Melbourne 1990), p 298-299 13 ibid. p 299
14 K Dempsey, Smalltown (Melbourne 1990), p 307. 15 Campbell A (1995). What are landholders' attitudes towards maintaining native vegetation on agricultural lands? Background paper. In: Price P (ed). Socioeconomic aspects of maintaining native vegetation on agricultural land. LWRRDC Occasional Paper No.07/95, Canberra. 16 Dempsey, op. cit. p 303. 17 I Gray and E Phillips 'Sustainability and the restructuring of tradition: A comparative analysis of three rural localities', Social Change in Rural Australia. (Rockhampton 1997) p 277. 18 ibid.. 19 ibid.. 20 ibid., p 278.
21 ibid. p 281-82
22 ibid. p 286 23 Crago, op. cit., p 64 24 P Hussey 'Factors promoting or reducing the maintenance of native vegetation on farms in Western Australia' in Price P (ed). op. cit. p 31 25 Dempsey, op. cit., p 304 26 ibid., p 305 27 ibid. 28 J Elix, J Lambert and others, Missed opportunities - harnessing the potential of women in Australian agriculture (Canberra 1998) p 87 29 ibid.., p 2 30 ibid.., p 88 31 Bureau of Rural Sciences. Country Matters. (Canberra 1999) p 56 ABARE (1999). Australian Beef Industry. ABARE Research Report 99.10, Canberra. 32 Mackay H (1997). Generations: Baby boomers, their parents & their children. Pan Macmillan, Sydney. 33 Briggs S (In press). Integrating people into conservation. Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of NSW. 34 Kilzpatrick S & Falk I (1999). Benefits for all: How learning for farming can build social capital in communities. Paper presented to 'Country Matters' conference, 20-21 May 1999, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. 35 McGowan C (1999). Human services, NRM and rural policy. Paper presented to 'Country Matters' conference, 20-21 May 1999, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. 36 McKinney V & Gerloff E (2000). Inter organizational systems partnership effectiveness. 37 Goldney D (1996). Introductory comments on remnant native vegetation. In: Wakefield S (ed). Remnant native vegetation in the Central West: Winning the battles but losing the war? Conference proceedings, 4 September 1999; Charles Sturt University Environmental Studies Unit, Bathurst. 38 Bureau of Rural Sciences (1999). Visions of Future Landscapes. Conference papers. Aust. Academy of Science Fenner Conference on the Environment, 2-5 May 1999, Canberra. 39 Campbell A (1995). What are landholders' attitudes towards maintaining native vegetation on agricultural lands? Background paper. In: Price P (ed). Socioeconomic aspects of maintaining native vegetation on agricultural land. LWRRDC Occasional Paper No.07/95, Canberra. 40 Mills D (1996). A social perspective on rangeland issues. In: Sustainable habitation in the rangelands. Proceedings of a Fenner Conference on the Environment, Canberra, 29-30 October 1996. 41 Alexandra J, Higgins J & White T (1998). Environmental indicators for national State of the Environment reporting: Local and community uses. Australia: State of the Environment: Environmental indicator report. Environment Australia, Canberra. 42 Kilpatrick S & Falk I (1999). Benefits for all: How learning for farming can build social capital in communities. Proceedings of Country Matters conference, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, 20-21 May 1999. 43 Elix J, Lambert J, Crossley L & Ohlin J (1998). Missed Opportunities: harnessing the potential of women in Australian agriculture. Report to Rural Industries R&D Corporation and Department of Primary Industries & Energy, Canberra. 44 Walsh S, Landsberg R & Rodgers C (1997). Resource monitoring to determine productive capability. Project introduction leaflet. Meat & Livestock Australia, Sydney. 45 Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry Australia (1999). Managing natural resources in rural Australia for a sustainable future. Discussion paper for developing a national policy. Paper prepared for the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management, Canberra. 46 Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry Australia (1999). Managing natural resources in rural Australia for a sustainable future. Discussion paper for developing a national policy. Paper prepared for the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management, Canberra. |
||||||
|
home page | contact us |
partners |
clients |
papers list of papers | Ensuring community involvement: What level of partnership? | top of this page |
||||||
