Australian Journal of Environmental Management (2000) 7 (1): 19-27

Abstract

Landcare is essentially a system of volunteer organisations that is loosely coordinated at state and regional levels. The apparent success of Landcare has seen groups become an important delivery mechanism for the Natural Heritage Trust and other initiatives. In this paper the author draws upon research in Victoria to argue that we are approaching the limits of what can realistically be expected of Landcare groups. Data was derived from state-wide surveys of Victorian groups between 1991 and 1998 and three 1999 regional case-studies in Corangamite, Glenelg and the Goulburn/Broken. Survey data highlighted the extent most groups were operating at historically high activity levels and established a significant positive relationship between activity and government funding. Landcare work takes time and energy, particularly for group leaders, and given existing commitments to work, family and other volunteer organisations, it seems unlikely that current activity levels are sustainable. Survey data highlighted important program management issues that must be addressed as part of a more coherent and determined approach to supporting Landcare.

Key words

Landcare, community participation, volunteers, rural development, sustainable agriculture, Australia.

Introduction

Landcare groups are widely acclaimed as an important Australian success story. Landcare has mobilised a large cross-section of the rural population (Curtis 1998). Groups provide opportunities to learn by doing and through interaction with peers (Chamala 1995; Millar and Curtis 1997). Group processes often enable participants to discuss conflicting views in a reasonable fashion and have generally enhanced social cohesion, increased the capacity of rural communities to attract resources from governments and better equipped them to respond to change (Alexander 1995; Curtis and De Lacy 1995). Landcare participation has also increased awareness of issues and enhanced landholder skills and knowledge and contributed to increased adoption of best management practices (Mues et al. 1998; Curtis and De Lacy 1996). There are also examples where group activity has had substantial impacts on land and water degradation at the local or subcatchment scale (Campbell 1994; Commonwealth of Australia 1997). Landcare participants are represented on regional Catchment Management Committees (CMC) and other important fora and are contributing to important natural resource management decision-making (Curtis et al. 1995).

In this paper the Landcare experience is examined using a volunteer perspective. Landcare participation is voluntary, participants are not paid for their labour and they often work on public land or land owned by others. Landcare activity also generates considerable community benefits. Landcare participation is therefore another example of volunteerism and this literature has much to offer those attempting to facilitate the work of Landcare groups (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999a). As Brudney (1990, p. 97) emphasised, “Management of a volunteer program constitutes a legitimate job in itself, which requires a significant investment of time and can benefit from specialised education and/or training.” The reality in Australia is that community Landcare has been loosely coordinated and has operated with small budgets and limited numbers of support personnel. Few senior staff have been directly involved in program management and it is unusual for field staff to have specific knowledge of volunteer management.

Rapidly increasing numbers of groups and the dismantling of state extension services have added to the difficulties of adequately supporting Landcare groups (Alexander 1995). Over time, a number of program management issues have emerged, including concerns about: leadership effectiveness; funding equity between groups; inter-group communications; support for group administration; and group involvement in priority setting and catchment planning (Alexander 1995; Curtis 1998). Curtis (1998) suggested these issues had contributed to very low activity levels for about twenty-five per cent of Victorian groups in 1994/95.

The capacity of volunteers to give their time and energy to Landcare is likely to be further tested by recent attempts to use Landcare as a vehicle for delivering substantial proportions of Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) funds. The NHT is a five-year, $1.25 billion trust funding Landcare and related programs with identifiable conservation outcomes (Commonwealth of Australia 1998). The NHT uses cost-sharing principles that enable community and private benefits from work on private land to be identified and thereby extend the impact of federal funds.

Given this context, and Australia’s reliance upon voluntary approaches to managing critical natural resource management issues (Curtis and Lockwood 1998), it seemed timely to investigate the extent volunteer Landcare efforts can be maintained and to explore ways of providing improved support to groups. Data reported below was derived from four state-wide surveys of Victorian groups between 1991 and 1998 and three 1999 case-studies in the Corangamite, Glenelg and the Goulburn/Broken regions of Victoria. Findings from the state-wide survey provided the context for research using the three regional case studies. The state-wide survey data has been published as a research report (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999b), and more recently, as a paper (Curtis 1999). Readers seeking additional information about the regional case studies are referred to research reports for Corangamite and Glenelg (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999c) and the Goulburn/Broken (Byron et al. 1999).

Data Collection

During 1998 about half of the Landcare groups in Victoria were surveyed to gather data about how groups operate, group needs, the extent of group activity, and factors affecting group activity (Curtis 1999; Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999b). This survey was the fifth survey undertaken in collaboration with the Department of Natural Resources and Environment as part of an ongoing research effort that commenced in 1991.

In April 1999 interviews were conducted with 177 Landcare group leaders (office bearers) in the Corangamite and Glenelg regions of South West Victoria (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999c). This research was intended to assess group needs and inform the development of a larger NHT project providing support for Landcare groups. Interviewees were identified through discussions with regional Landcare coordinators and efforts were made to identify knowledgeable people across the leadership roles. There was a relatively even split between the proportion of interviewees with recent experience as Chairpersons and Secretaries. Leaders were interviewed from almost all groups operating in the two regions. Of the 89 interviews booked in Corangamite, a response rate of 88 per cent was achieved while in Glenelg 88 interviews were booked and a response rate of 94 per cent was attained. Interviewers used a 16 page structured interview schedule and most interviews were from one and a half hours to two hours in duration.

In June 1999 a mailed survey was conducted with a random sample of Landcare members and all group leaders (office bearers) from 47 groups around Shepparton in the Goulburn/Broken region (Byron et al. 1999). Membership lists were obtained from 32 groups with a combined membership exceeding 1200 people. The lead agency provided the contact details for all leaders in the 47 groups. The randomised list of members included some leaders, providing a total of 375 possible respondents (88 leaders). A response rate of just over 71 per cent was achieved. Survey questions explored respondent’s participation in Landcare, the extent of burnout, knowledge of water table and salinity levels and views about the performance of the Landcare Network.

Where possible, topics and questions used in the Corangamite and Glenelg surveys were used in the Goulburn/Broken survey. However, this was not always possible. The research instruments were attempting to achieve slightly different objectives and some topics were therefore not relevant to each instrument.

Findings

Landcare groups operating at historically high activity levels

The NHT came into effect in 1997 and it was decided to compare the frequency that respondents said the two years pre and post 1997 were the most active. Goulburn/Broken respondents who had been a member of a Landcare group for more than two years were asked to indicate their most active year in terms of the time and effort they gave to Landcare group activity. Corangamite and Glenelg respondents from groups operating more than two years were asked to indicate the most active year for their group. Respondents were able to refer to a comprehensive listing of typical Landcare group activities that included onground, community education and administrative work.

An initial comparison showed that significantly more respondents in each region reported higher activity levels in 1997 and 1998 than in 1995 and 1996. Fifty-three per cent of Corangamite, 50 per cent of Glenelg and 33 per cent of Goulburn/Broken respondents said 1997 or 1998 was the most active year; compared to 18 per cent for Corangamite, 23 per cent for Glenelg and 19 per cent for Goulburn/Broken for 1995 or 1996. Given that the number of groups has increased over time, there is increased likelihood that more recent years will be listed as the most active when comparisons are made using all respondents. To address this issue, analyses were conducted with only those respondents with at least five years membership or where their group had operated for five years. These analyses also showed that respondents reported significantly greater activity for 1997 and 1998 compared to 1995 and 1996 [refer Table 1].

Table 1 Landcare activity levels over time

Groups operating/membership* for more than 5 years
Corangamite, Glenelg and Goulburn Broken regions, 1999

	Most active year where group operating/membership > 5 years
Year	Corangamite (n=46)		Glenelg (n=56)		* Goulburn Broken (n=87)
	no. saying this year most active	%: no. saying most active year/ no. groups existing that year	no. saying this year most active	%: no. saying most active year/ no. groups existing that year	no. saying this year most active	%: no. saying most active year/ no. groups existing that year
1994	3	7%	9	16%	8	9%
1995	4	9%	6	11%	12	14%
1996	6	13%	9	16%	13	15%
1997	11	24%	12	21%	23	26%
1998	15	33%	17	30%	16	18%
1999*	2	4%	2	4%	4	5%
Compare 95/96 & 97/98	χ2=11.68, df=1, p=0.0006		χ2=7.34, df=1, p=0.007		χ2=4.84, df=1, p=0.03

* 1999 not an accurate depiction of activity as data was collected during first half of year

Another question asked respondents who had been members of Landcare for more than two years to compare their level of activity in the most recent 12 months with their most active year. Sixty-seven per cent of Corangamite, 46 per cent of Glenelg and 36 per cent of Goulburn/Broken respondents said the most recent year was at least as active as their most active year.

Increased levels of Landcare activity in recent years correspond with significantly increased funding to groups under the Natural Heritage Trust, state government rabbit and weed control programs and from levies imposed on property owners by Catchment Management Authorities. For example, the mean value of reported government assistance with money and materials was $13,966 per Victorian group in 1997/98, up significantly from $8,232 in 1994/95 (t=3.87, p=0.05). A stepwise multiple regression of selected variables from the 1997/98 survey found a significant positive relationship between group ranking on an activity index (F = 11.1, df = 3.89, p < 0.001, R² = 0.27) and government funding; frequency of contact with government contact officers; and the age of the group. Compared to 1994/95 (75 per cent), significantly more groups surveyed in 1997/98 (90 per cent), had activity profiles suggesting they were likely to make a worthwhile contribution to program goals: additional evidence suggesting that increased funding had supported higher levels of activity (χ²=14.99, df=1, p<0.005).

Respondents in the regional surveys were also asked to account for substantial changes in their/their group’s Landcare activity over time [refer to Table 2]. Starting or completing a project scored the highest rating in Corangamite and Glenelg and the second highest rating in Goulburn/Broken [refer Table 2].

Table 2 Accounting for the changes in activity levels of groups/individuals*

Corangamite, Glenelg and Goulburn Broken regions, 1999

Reasons	% respondents saying ‘important/ very important’ reason for change in activity level
	Corangamite (n=48)	Glenelg (n=54)	* Goulburn Broken (n=108)
Changed workload on or off farm	N/A	N/A	73%
Changed family responsibilities	N/A	N/A	52%
Level of group activity changed	N/A	N/A	58%
Change in other volunteer activities	N/A	N/A	36%
People on the executive changed	N/A	N/A	29%
Climatic conditions changed	48%	45%	N/A
Farm incomes changed	57%	68%	39%
Coordinator appointed or contract finished	54%	53%	8%
Members overwhelmed by Landcare work	56%	42%	N/A
Leadership issues	49%	45%	31%
Project started or completed	74%	77%	63%
New issue to manage or issue no longer a concern	54%	38%	42%

Landcare leaders have high administrative workloads

Corangamite and Glenelg respondents were contacted prior to their interview and asked to record their Landcare group administration work for April 1999. April is likely to be a time of moderate Landcare activity as NHT applications have closed and groups are beginning to prepare for onground work in the autumn. Respondents were asked to complete their diary for administrative work related to incoming correspondence, meetings, onground work, project reporting, grant applications, catchment planning and priority setting, lobbying decision makers, newsletters, monitoring, school education and junior Landcare, social activities, coordinating volunteer workers, and attracting sponsorship. All respondents had spent time on administrative work. The mean hours per respondent suggested that the combined administrative workload for the three leadership positions in most groups was 17.2 hours per week (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999b). This is close to a half-time employment position per thirty-five hour working week.

Concern that groups are spending a lot of time on project applications and reporting was confirmed by survey data obtained from Corangamite and Glenelg. Grant applications was rated the second highest topic in terms of energy expended by all group members over the past twelve months [refer Table 3]. Energy expended on grant applications was higher than all onground activities except tree planting/remnant vegetation protection. Reports to funding bodies had the eighth highest rating in terms of energy expended [refer Table 3].

Most respondents said there were areas where administrative workloads had increased. Explanations receiving most support were more complicated grant application and project reporting requirements; more requests for information; and increased level of group activity. Increased administrative workloads was rated by about three-quarters of the respondents as an important factor making it more difficult to get people to take on leadership roles.

Table 3 Importance of group activities by energy expended

Top five activities for past 12 months
Corangamite and Glenelg regions, 1999

Activity of most importance	No.1 Rank	No.2 Rank	No.3 Rank	No.4 Rank	No.5 Rank
	(x5)	(x4)	(x3)	(x2)	(x1)	*Index
Tree planting or remnant vegetation protection	265	96	24	16	6	407
Grant applications	155	84	63	48	14	364
Weed control	100	120	63	32	9	324
Pest animal control	65	56	45	20	13	213
General meetings	50	60	45	38	19	212
Erosion/salinity control	30	44	48	18	6	146
Field days/farm walks	20	36	24	12	16	99
Reports to funding bodies	0	24	30	22	16	92
Catchment planning & priority setting	5	36	30	16	8	86
Responding to requests for information on Landcare	25	12	21	18	8	84
Demonstration sites	30	0	9	10	5	54
Newsletters	5	4	9	22	12	41
Monitoring including Saltwatch & Waterwatch	10	8	18	2	2	40
School education/ junior Landcare	15	8	6	4	3	36
Lobbying decision makers	5	12	9	6	3	35
Coordinating volunteer workers	0	12	12	6	2	32
Supervising staff	10	8	9	2	2	31
Social activities eg. BBQ’s	0	8	6	8	3	25
Attracting sponsorship from non-government sources	0	4	3	0	1	8

* Index calculated by multiplying response by x value and adding

Groups claim support for administrative work is inadequate

In the 1997/98 Victorian survey, almost half of the respondents said assistance with group administration was inadequate (Curtis 1999). This represented a significant increase over the 18 per cent reporting this support was inadequate in 1991/92 [refer Table 4]. The proportion of respondents who thought support with the coordination of on ground work was inadequate had also increased significantly over time, from 22 per cent in 1994/95 to 35 per cent in 1997/98 [refer Table 4].

In 1997/98, 62 per cent of Victorian groups didn’t have access to a paid coordinator and concerns about managing increased administrative workloads were reflected in numerous comments requesting coordinators. These concerns were also reflected in the importance given to funding coordinators when respondents were asked their priorities for the allocation of government Landcare funds (Curtis 1999). Analysis of 1997/98 Victorian survey data also revealed a significant positive relationship between groups employing a coordinator and group effectiveness as measured by activity levels (Mann-Whitney U=3630.0, n=215, p=0.000).

The appointment/finishing up of a coordinator was rated an important influence on group activity by 54 per cent of Corangamite and 53 per cent of Glenelg respondents [refer Table 2]. Very few Landcare groups in the area surveyed in the Goulburn/Broken employ a coordinator and this is the most likely explanation for only 8 per cent of respondents saying the appointment/finishing up of a coordinator was an important influence on activity levels [refer Table 2].

Agency contact staff have played important roles in the establishment and work of a large number of Landcare groups (Curtis 1998). Concerns about the adequacy of support for Landcare groups are strengthened by the finding that the proportion of Victorian Landcare groups reporting rare/no contact with agency staff increased significantly from 8 per cent in 1995 to 15 per cent in 1998 (χ2=4.70, df=1, p=0.030216).

Table 4 Adequacy of government support over time

Victorian Landcare surveys 1991-98

	Government support is:													Significance of
Type of support	extremely adequate				adequate				inadequate					changes over time
	91/92 n=110	93 n=137	94/95 n=160	97/98 n=204	91/92 n=110	93 n=137	94/95 n=160	97/98 n=204	91/92 n=110	93 n=137	94/95 n=160	97/98 n=204	χ2	p
Assistance with group administration (newsletter, submissions, sponsorship)	42%	35%	17%	9%	41%	46%	45%	44%	18%*	19%	38%	46%*	24.16	< 0.000001
Information & advice about land management	39%	30%	19%	15%	59%	63%	66%	69%	2%*	7%	15%	16%*	14.88	0.0001
Coordination of group onground activities (field days, demos, trials)	N/A	N/A	18%	11%	N/A	N/A	60%	54%	N/A	N/A	22%*	35%*	6.42	0.01
Money or materials to manage land & water degradation	22%	13%	12%	6%	33%	41%	29%	43%	45%*	46%	59%	50%*	0.87	0.35
Leadership & management training for leaders	5%	12%	5%	2%	46%	38%	42%	43%	49%*	50%	53%	55%*	0.88	0.35

* Figures used for testing significance of change over time

Limited funding received by most groups

Whilst most groups reported government support in money or materials and there had been a significant increase in mean funding per group, 30 per cent of groups received less than $2,000 in 1997/98. In the current economic climate it seems unlikely that landholder groups can accomplish much onground work with less that $2,000 per year. At the other end of the scale, 16 per cent of groups reported assistance in excess of $25,000. The funds obtained by this set of groups represented 62% of total funds received (Curtis 1999).

Approaching the limits of volunteer time for Landcare

Lack of time to carry out Landcare work was rated as a major constraint affecting Victorian groups by 32 per cent of respondents in 1997/98, up significantly from 21 per cent in 1994/95 (Z= -5.095, p= <0.05). Time constraints on volunteer Landcare members was second only to farm finances, and ahead of declining political support for Landcare, problems with the NHT funding process and the difficulties of enthusing volunteer members (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999b).

Goulburn/Broken survey respondents were asked a number of questions about their commitments to work, family, Landcare and other volunteer organisations (Byron et al. 1999). This data provided strong evidence that many respondents have very little uncommitted time. Seventy-three per cent of respondents said they worked more than 30 hours per week on-farm. The mean for on-farm work was 50 hours per week. Twenty-nine per cent of respondents said they worked off-farm, with a mean of 30 hours per week. When on-farm and off-farm work was combined, 76 per cent of respondents worked more than 40 hours per week, with a median of 59 hours per week.

Information about family commitments and volunteer work with Landcare and other community groups adds to this picture of heavy time commitments. For the previous three months, Landcare leaders in the Goulburn/Broken had undertaken a little over four hours of Landcare work per week and non-leaders had undertaken two hours per week. Forty-nine per cent of respondents said they were contributing to the care of children, and in 75 per cent of cases, they were contributing to the care of more than one child. Ninety-one per cent of respondents had a partner living with them. Forty per cent of partners also worked off-farm with a median of 35 hours off-farm work per week. Eighty per cent of respondents were members of other voluntary groups, with 88 per cent saying that they attend activities at least quarterly in at least one other group.

Linkage between Landcare and other social responsibilities was reinforced by assessments of the importance of factors likely to explain changes in Landcare activity over time. Seventy-three per cent of respondents thought change in their workload was an important factor explaining change in their Landcare activity. Change in family and volunteer group responsibilities were also rated highly as important factors affecting Landcare activity over time [refer to Table 2].

Poor NHT program management impacts on Landcare outcomes

Despite evidence of considerable onground and community education activity by Victorian groups, comparisons of 1997/98 and 1994/95 survey results showed that most types of onground work had declined significantly since 1994/95 (Curtis 1999). There were long delays in notifying community groups of their success in the 1997 NHT process, up to nine months for some programs. In many cases it was impossible for groups to complete the planning required to implement their onground work in 1997. Data from the Corangamite, Glenelg and Goulburn/Broken case studies indicates that NHT funds are now flowing to groups and that onground activity in Victoria has rebounded. The real issue here is that poor program management impacts on program outcomes. Respondent comments on the 1997/98 state-wide surveys highlighted the extent failure to deliver NHT funds on time was perceived as a breach of trust and had contributed to growing disillusionment about government commitment to a Landcare partnership (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999b).

Concerns with NHT processes go beyond the normal ‘teething problems’ that might accompany the start-up of a large program. The 1999 application form was still over nine pages in length with 46 pages of background information that had to be addressed. Project applications continue to be assessed by separate regional, state and commonwealth assessment panels. This is a complex, drawn out process that takes up considerable group energy and discourages groups from applying for funds. Hunt (1999, 4) claimed “New applications for Landcare funding have slumped by 41 per cent in Victoria as community groups struggle to deal with the complexities of the application process.” Whilst most types of onground work had fallen in 1997/98, work on rabbits and weeds were at levels similar to 1994/95 (Curtis 1999). It appears that state government funding sustained activity on weeds and rabbits. These state programs delivered substantial sums of money in a short period based on a simple two-page application form.

Priority setting and catchment planning

Priority setting is linked with more effective voluntary groups (Selin and Myers 1995). In the 1997/98 Victorian survey there was a significant positive correlation between catchment planning and group activity (Mann-Whitney U=3660.0, n=206, p=0.0006). However, 28 per cent of Corangamite, 34 per cent of Glenelg and 39 per cent of Goulburn/Broken respondents indicated their group had not established annual priorities and 57 per cent of groups in Corangamite and 46 per cent in Glenelg were not involved in catchment planning.

Perhaps of greater concern was the finding in Corangamite and Glenelg that most respondents thought priority setting and catchment planning were not important in getting onground work under way. Part of the explanation seems to be that in about a third of all groups there was no documented outcome of the priority setting process and in most groups members didn’t receive a copy of those priorities (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999c).

Recruiting and retaining members

The most successful volunteer organisations are those with strong induction programs and management styles that reinforce the worth of volunteer contributions (Pearce 1993). It appears that many groups in Corangamite and Glenelg have not adopted approaches likely to enhance membership retention. For example:

• Thirty-eight per cent of Corangamite and 42 per cent of Glenelg respondents indicated their group doesn’t follow up with members when there is a pattern of absence from group activities.
• Twenty-eight per cent of Corangamite, 45 per cent Glenelg and 44 per cent of Goulburn/Broken respondents said that in the past year their group had not publicly acknowledged the contribution of individual members to projects or administration.

Most Corangamite and Glenelg groups appeared to have a positive and inclusive attitude to recruiting new members. Notwithstanding these positive attitudes, groups were more likely to rely on potential members approaching the group and asking to join than identifying potential recruits and inviting them to join (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999c). Forty per cent of Corangamite and 28 per cent of Glenelg respondents said their group did not organise for someone to visit new members and explain how their group operates.

There has been little reliable evidence of the extent of members dropping out of Landcare. Mues et al. (1998, 13) reported that across the nation the proportion of broad acre farmers who had left a Landcare group, and were therefore non-members, was about one per cent. This research relied on survey respondents identifying themselves as no longer being Landcare members. Defining Landcare membership can be a complex task. Participation is a fundamental element of membership of voluntary groups (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999a) and for the purpose of this research, it was assumed that if a person did not attend a group activity in a year that they had dropped out of Landcare and were no longer a member. If they subsequently attended a group activity in the following year, they were considered to have rejoined the group. This approach seems more likely to reveal the extent members have dropped out than asking them outright if they are no longer a member.

Applying this definition, survey data revealed a drop out rate for 1998 of 16 per cent in Corangamite and 19 per cent in Glenelg. Approximately 90 per cent of these people had not attended any group activity in the first four months of 1999. Data on recruitment from Corangamite (18 per cent of membership per annum) and Glenelg (15 per cent) was consistent with the state-wide trend (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999b). Most recruits in the Corangamite and Glenelg studies were living locally prior to joining (87 per cent in Corangamite and 95 per cent in Glenelg). With high levels of landholder participation in Landcare it must become increasingly difficult to recruit local people to replace those who drop out. Volunteer literature also emphasises that it is more efficient to devote resources to retention than to induct recruits (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999a).

Pearce (1993) suggested the benefits of social interaction was an important factor motivating people to volunteer and the most important reason volunteers remained with an organisation. Forty-five per cent of Corangamite and 64 per cent of Glenelg respondents said their group had not been involved in social activities in the past year and social activity rated very low in terms of the proportion of group energy devoted to the activities listed in Table 3. As Brudney (1990, p. 93) explained, “At the core of a successful program must be an appreciation for citizens’ motivations for volunteering and employee perspective’s on voluntary action.” Landcare participants join for a variety of reasons and managers and leaders need to be aware of the importance of providing opportunities for social interaction and learning about land and water management, as much as ‘getting the job done’.

Leadership issues

Leadership is considered a critical factor in organisational success (Selin & Myers 1995; Waddock & Bannister 1991). Leadership issues were rated as an important factor affecting group activity levels by 49 per cent of respondents in Corangamite, 45 per cent in Glenelg and 31 per cent in the Goulburn/Broken [refer Table 2].

Where people occupy leadership positions for long periods, leaders may suffer burnout. Groups may also become reliant upon a few individuals, potential members may be deterred by group identification with those personalities, the leadership aspirations of others may be stifled and groups may adopt a narrow range of activities. Having a number of people with leadership experience should enhance group skills and strengthen commitment to group success. On the other hand, it is always difficult to recruit quality leaders to volunteer organisations. If leaders turn over too quickly, say within one to two years, leaders may not have sufficient time to develop leadership skills and there can be reduced accountability for the accomplishment of group tasks (Brudney 1990).

The Victorian survey data suggested that in most instances leadership positions were not being occupied for excessive periods of time (Curtis 1999). Indeed, further scrutiny of the Victorian data suggested there had been increased turnover of group leaders. While the mean length of leadership had remained constant, the rate of new groups forming had slowed and there was an increase in the length of time groups had been operating. For example, the proportion of groups operating more than five years had increased significantly from 35% in 1994/95 to 48% in 1997/98 (χ2=6.40, df=1, p=0.015).

In the South West study, 60 per cent of respondents from Corangamite and 74 per cent from Glenelg said that there is usually no one willing to take on leadership roles in their group. Sixty-eight per cent of respondents in Corangamite and 55 per cent in Glenelg said their group didn’t have an established policy/view about leadership changes. The most common established policy/view was that all positions are open for election at each annual general meeting (80 per cent in Corangamite; 45 per cent in Glenelg). This approach is likely to lead to frequent turnover of leaders. Weighing all the evidence, it seems that rapid turnover of leaders is more likely to be a problem than individuals occupying positions for long periods.

Fifty-five per cent of the 1997/98 Victorian respondents said support with leadership and management training for leaders was inadequate. This level of dissatisfaction has been evident across the past four Victorian surveys [refer Table 4]. Efforts to address this issue through workshops and courses have generally been poorly supported by group leaders. A ‘Technology of Participation’ project established recently in the Glenelg region may provide some ideas of how to proceed with this important task.

Conclusions

Research reported in this paper emphasises the extent rural people have heavy time commitments with work, family and community groups, including Landcare. It is also clear that funding from commonwealth and state programs has been important in contributing to significantly increased levels of Landcare activity over the past two years. At the same time, there have been critical deficiencies in the management of NHT programs that impacted on onground work in Victoria in 1997/98 and on the capacity of some community groups to access NHT funds. At the very least we need a simplified NHT project application form and for state and commonwealth assessments to occur simultaneously. Problems with NHT program management really reflect a more fundamental problem: the absence of a coherent approach to the management of Landcare as a volunteer organisation.

A number of critical group management issues threaten to undermine the capacity of Landcare groups to deliver onground outcomes. Survey data shows that many groups need assistance with leadership succession planning, with priority setting and catchment planning, and with member recruitment and retention. Volunteer Landcare leaders are spending large amounts of time managing groups and this workload is discouraging others from taking on leadership roles. Most Landcare groups in Victoria don’t have access to a paid coordinator. Most coordinators don’t have access to regional or state-based support. Indeed, few staff in the lead agency have specific knowledge of volunteer management. The dismantling of state extension services and the deliberate gearing up of Landcare group activity under the NHT is exacerbating these deficiencies in support for groups. State and commonwealth governments cannot expect the emerging regional catchment management structures to address these issues without considerable investment of resources and expertise. The literature on volunteerism provides a useful place to start for those attempting to address these issues.

Coordinators are an important ingredient in the success of many Landcare groups and in other volunteer programs. At present there is no provision under the NHT to fund coordinator positions that are not project based. A proportion of project budgets, in the order of 10 per cent can be allocated as project administration costs and these funds can be used to employ a project coordinator. Allowing a claim of 20 per cent of project funds would put groups on a par with the overheads of organisations such as Greening Australia and would increase the capacity of groups to fund coordinators. Given the heavy work, family, Landcare and other community responsibilities of Landcare volunteers it seems the NHT reflects an outdated view of the reality of life for most rural Victorians. Individual landholders should not be expected to take leading roles in administering government funded Landcare projects. If the minimum standard of administrative support available under the NHT was a coordinator shared between four or five groups, then there would be about one thousand Landcare group coordinator positions across Australia. This might cost around sixty million dollars per year. One way of looking at this investment is that there are about one thousand park ranger positions across Australia managing the relatively small area of state and national parks.

The argument developed in this paper is that Landcare members are approaching the limits of their capacity to contribute as volunteers. Our response should not be to say that Landcare is failing or that Landcare has reached its potential to contribute to improved resource management. Landcare is a success story and should remain as one of the preferred approaches to improving resource management.

Acknowledgments

Funding from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment and the Natural Heritage Trust has supported research reported in this paper. At various times, Robert Edgar, Viv McWaters, Peter Box, Rob Youl and David Beckingsale made important contributions to the Victorian Landcare group survey process. Helen Anderson, Amanda Thomas, Geoff McFarlane and Helen Oliver played major roles in the 1999 regional surveys. Staff and students at Charles Sturt University, including Dorothy Keane, Marike Van Nouhuys, Terry De Lacy, Phillip Tracey, Ian Byron and Wayne Robinson have made important contributions to aspects of this research.

References

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

Brudney, J. L. 1990. Fostering volunteer programs in the public sector: Planning, initiating and managing voluntary activities. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Byron, I., Curtis, A. and Lockwood, M. 1999. Providing improved support for Landcare in the Shepparton Irrigation Region. Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, Albury.

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

Chamala, S. 1995. Group effectiveness: from group extension methods to participative community Landcare groups. In: Chamala, S. and Keith, K. (eds.) Participative approaches to Landcare: perspectives, policies and programs. Australian Academic Press, Brisbane.

Commonwealth of Australia. 1997. Evaluation of the Decade of Landcare Plan-National Overview. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia. 1998. National Heritage Trust guide to new applications 1998-99. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Curtis, A. 1998. The agency/community partnership in Landcare: lessons for state-sponsored citizen resource management. Environmental Management. 22(4): 563-574.

Curtis, A. 1999. Landcare: Beyond onground work. Natural Resource Management. 2(2): 4-9.

Curtis, A. and De Lacy, T. 1995. Landcare Evaluation in Australia: towards an effective partnership between agencies, community groups and researchers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 50(1): 15-20.

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

Curtis, A. and Lockwood, M. 1998. Natural resource policy for rural Australia: a social perspective. In: Pratley, J. and Robertson, A.I. (eds.) Agriculture and the environmental imperative. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Curtis, A. and Van Nouhuys, M. 1999a. Landcare participation in Australia: the volunteer perspective. Sustainable Development. 7(2): 98-111.

Curtis, A. and Van Nouhuys, M. 1999b. Landcare in Victoria: beyond onground work. Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, Albury.

Curtis, A., and Van Nouhuys, M. 1999c. Landcare support in South West Victoria. The Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Horsham..

Curtis, A., Birckhead, J. and De Lacy, T. 1995. Community participation in Landcare policy in Australia: The Victorian experience with regional landcare plans. Society and Natural Resources. 8: 415-430.

Hunt, P. 1999. Landcare crisis. The Weekly Times, March 10, 1999.

Millar, J. and Curtis, A. 1997. Moving farmer knowledge beyond the farm gate: An Australian study of farmer knowledge in group learning. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 4(2): 133-142.

Mues, C. Chapman, L. and Van Hilst, R. 1998. Landcare: Promoting improved land management practices on Australian farms; A survey of landcare and land management related programs. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra.

Pearce, J.L. 1993. Volunteers: The organizational behavior of unpaid workers. Routledge, New York.

Selin, S.W. and Myers, N. 1995. Correlates of Partnership Effectiveness: The Coalition for Unified Recreation in the Eastern Sierra. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 13(4): 37-46.

Waddock, S. and Bannister, B. 1991. Correlates of effectiveness and partner satisfaction in social partnerships. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 19(2): 74-89.