Abstract

In the experience of the Community Focus Team in the Shepparton Irrigation Region (SIR), Victoria, Australia, the way a community group is structured will determine and in some cases stifle, what the group can achieve. It is important for a group not to confine itself to automatically adopting a particular set up. This paper will look at a range of potential models for group design that could be used by community-based groups. It will also examine how adopting an alternative model can allow a group to achieve their aims more readily and view their accomplishments more clearly.

Media summary

Keywords

Group design, community structures, group models, measuring group success

Organisational structure

The performance of a community group may be shaped as much by the structures and set-up of the group as by factors external to it (laws, regulations, attitudes, values). These internal structures, systems and procedures may constrain or support the organisations performance. The organisational structures include the rules, procedures, roles, networks and their processes and precedents. Sobels et al. (2001) suggest that the way these factors are applied produces a pattern of behaviour in human organisations that determines the productive capacity of the group.

The role of Landcare and Landcare groups

The role of Landcare is to act as a catalyst and create demand for change (Campbell, 1997). It’s about participation, responsibility, cooperation, environmental care; and it’s about doing something (Lockie, 1997). Landcare groups are groups of people that come together to tackle a common problem or take advantage of a shared opportunity (Alexander, 1995). Their principle role is to generate commitment to sustainability at a rural community level and to change social norms in favour of delivering more sustainable systems of land use management.

There are numerous types of Landcare activities run by groups including: meetings, field days and farm walks; hosting tours and organising conferences; writing newsletters, field guides and media releases; property and catchment planning; preparing submissions for government funding; and conducting on-ground works such as vegetation planting, pest animal and weed control and fencing.

Among its achievements Landcare is credited with having enhanced social cohesion; increased the capacity of rural communities to attract government resources; increased landholders’ awareness, skills and adoption of Best Management Practices; and in some instances, made substantial improvements in resource conditions across the local or small watershed scale (Campbell, 1994; Alexander, 1995; Curtis and De Lacy, 1996).

The existing structure and measures of success

The existing model for Landcare groups is to operate within the incorporated group model where people pay an annual membership, a President, Secretary and Treasurer is elected every year and general meetings are organised on a regular basis, typically monthly.

Groups see their success in terms of this structure: How many members does the group have? How many meetings? How many members attend the meetings? How difficult is it to attract people on to the executive? They then focus on how they can improve their results in these areas. For example if people aren’t attending meetings they try to address the issue by inviting more guest speakers or changing meeting time or venue. Groups are measuring their success in terms of how well they perform within their structure. When reporting on their group’s highlights at the Goulburn Murray Landcare Network Annual General Meeting in 2003 Landcare group executive members were saying things such as “We’re only getting the same four or five people to our meetings”, “Our membership has increased over the past year”, “We’d like to attract more members”. In his 2001 Landcare Survey of Groups in NE corner of SIR Longford stated that groups feel that to continue having success they need more members.

These measures of success are also being imposed on groups through the expectations of external bodies. In the Landcare Annual Report for the SIR in 2000 groups were asked to answer questions on the number of meetings held (committee and general), the number of activities and the percentage of members participating. What is the purpose of collecting these numbers and what message are these types of questions sending to the community?

Measuring the performance of the group in terms of how well they match the group set up has lead to a loss of engagement and burnout. Byron and Curtis (2002) identified high burnout in Landcare groups that was related to organisational factors. They concluded that while burnout occurs at an individual level it is largely considered to be a consequence of and best managed by organisational attributes.

Changing the paradigm

Groups and agencies need to change the focus to what they want to achieve rather than making the groups focus on numbers and how well they perform within the traditional group structure. For example the group may decide they want to change attitudes towards land management in their communities shifting the focus from the group to the community. The group can then ask, “What do we need to do to achieve the outcome?” and lastly “How do we set ourselves up for this outcome?”.

Before a Landcare group even forms, at least some of its members must have recognised or become aware of a problem in the district. Since most groups form to do something about an environmental or productivity-oriented issue, the enunciation of that concern is vitally important to group function.

The development of group priorities based on appropriate expectations or indicators of success are important to maintain the engagement of group participants. In the SIR study of Landcare members by Byron et al (1999), respondents who reported that their group did not set priorities had significantly higher burnout on the personal accomplishment subscale.

Measuring success – viewing achievements and success more clearly

Big picture visions can be overwhelming when attempting to evaluate localised action. Assessing the impacts of Landcare is a particularly difficult task. If people are unable to gain a true sense of how their localised action can contribute to the bigger picture there will be increasing levels of frustration, particularly among Landcare group members.

There has been a strong focus on project objectives and outputs, however, the need for ongoing evaluation of Landcare projects has not been recognised and there has been a failure to collect data. Many groups are not currently involved in setting goals or catchment planning (Curtis, 1999).

The gaps in knowledge, lack of project monitoring, and the difficulty in collecting this information would suggest that a model for monitoring Landcare works and landscape change should be devised and implemented by Catchment Management Authorities to measure the impacts of Landcare. Groups need to be given assistance in generating and collecting data that provides more appropriate indicators of success for example changes in vegetation cover or focal species number.

This process would provide groups with benchmarks before they began project and tangible figures to measure their project results against.

Alternative group set-ups

Once the group has decided what they want to achieve they can choose the structure that suits them and their aims. This may not be the traditional group model. There are other potential group designs and other ways of running groups.

Communities are changing. In 1998 40% of Landcare members had off-farm income (Byron et al., 1999). Time for meetings is limited; some leaders in the Goulburn Broken Catchment are currently on the executive of 14 different community groups.

Do Landcare groups need to operate in the traditional manner to fulfil their role?

Networks of Landcare groups have formed in a number of areas. The large scale of networks makes it easier to find talented individuals to take on executive positions. The linkages have resulted in learning, collaboration and the development of competence and confidence for participants (Sobels et al., 2001).

Dairy syndicate groups are another potential model. These are not incorporated, have a single topic focus and have a built in end-date.

An innovation of the Woady-Yaloak Network is ‘neighbourhood groups’ comprising two to seven landholders. The neighbours identify a common problem and get together with a part-time coordinator to submit an application for funding to enable them to carry out the work. When people work at a scale that is appropriate for maintaining effective, trusting, personal relationships they create social capital.

Keep Australia Beautiful has volunteers working within a group that operates under the umbrella of the Local Council or through an established group such as a Lions Club.

The Victorian Farmers Federation Farm Tree and Landcare Association (FTLA) is an incorporated association established in 1986. The FTLA acts as an umbrella body under which Member Groups obtain the benefits of incorporation. Member Groups are released of the statutory burdens that go with being an incorporated association. Membership under FTLA satisfies the need to be incorporated so as to be eligible to receive government and other sources of grants and funding.

It is also useful to remember groups are not the only solution to complex social, economic and environmental problems in rural Australia. You do not have to be a member of a Landcare group to do Landcare.

Conclusion

1. By automatically adopting a particular set up the group is limiting what it can achieve.

2. Think through, plan and establish appropriate group structures and monitor group performance.

3. More funding is required for measuring changes in natural resources and the impacts of Landcare over the long term. Measuring Landcare ‘success’ in terms of groups and numbers of participants is questionable.

4. The process of maintaining the engagement of local people has been largely unexplored and is worthy of further study.

References

Alexander H, (1995). A framework for change: the state of the community Landcare movement in Australia. The National Landcare Facilitator Annual Report. National Landcare Program, Canberra.

Byron I, Curtis A and Lockwood M (1999). Providing improved support for Landcare in the Shepparton Irrigation Region. Report No. 133. The Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, Albury.

Byron I, and Curtis A (2002). Maintaining volunteer commitment to local watershed initiatives. Journal of Environmental Management 30, 59-67.

Campbell A, (1994). Landcare: Communities shaping the land and future. Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Campbell A, (1997). Facilitating landcare: Conceptual and practical dilemmas. Pages 143-153 in S. Lockie and F Vanclay (eds.), Critical landcare. Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW.

Curtis A, (1999). Landcare: beyond on-ground work. Natural Resources Management 2(2), 4-9.

Curtis A, and De Lacy T, (1996). Landcare in Australia: does it make a difference? Journal of Environmental Management 46, 119-137.

Lockie, S, (1997). What future Landcare? New directions under provisional funding Pages 227-239 in S. Lockie and F Vanclay (eds.), Critical landcare. Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW.

Longford S, (2001). Report – Landcare survey of groups in North East corner of SIR. Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Unpublished.

Sobels J, Curtis A and Lockie S (2001). The role of landcare network in Australia: exploring the contribution of social capital. Journal of Rural Studies 17, 265-276