1 / 30

Regional Systems and Grassroots NRM: Blackwood Basin and beyond

WA State NRM Conference, Bridgetown, 1 April 2008. Regional Systems and Grassroots NRM: Blackwood Basin and beyond. Graham Marshall Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England gmarshal@une.edu.au. Outline of presentation. How did we get here?

pascale-foreman
Download Presentation

Regional Systems and Grassroots NRM: Blackwood Basin and beyond

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WA State NRM Conference, Bridgetown, 1 April 2008 Regional Systems and Grassroots NRM: Blackwood Basin and beyond Graham Marshall Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England gmarshal@une.edu.au

  2. Outline of presentation • How did we get here? • Barriers and bridges to community-based NRM under regional NRM delivery • Research findings from the Blackwood Basin • Adapting to change • Key points

  3. How did we get here? • ‘Decade of Landcare’ sought to kick-start community-based NRM (CBNRM) • Local groups become seen as on-ground implementers of NRM decisions • CBNRM evolves into the purchaser-provider ‘partnerships’ of NHT1

  4. NHT1 criticised for lacking strategic investment and accountability • Regional delivery model (NHT2 and NAP) introduced as the solution • ‘Caring for our Country’ expects regions to compete for funding

  5. Barriers and bridges for CBNRM under regional delivery • Three barriers for regional bodies: • engaging large regional populations • risk of becoming ‘governmentalised’ • investing strategically without antagonising • Might ‘nesting’ offer a bridge?

  6. An example of nesting

  7. Nesting may allow trust to be ‘mediated’ in steps small enough to extend a sense of community ownership

  8. Lessons from the Blackwood Basin • Three case studies: • South West Catchments NRM region; • Fitzroy Basin NRM Region; and • Mallee NRM Region. • Postal survey of farmers in each case (Sept 06 – Jan 07) • 333 responses from the Blackwood Basin (29% response)

  9. Origins of Blackwood Basin Group (BBG) trace to 1992 • Successfully attracted funds from NLP and NHT1 • Established 9 zones for grassroots ownership • South West Catchments Council (SWCC) formed as a federation of prior ‘regional’ groups • SWCC becomes the region’s community-based body for the regional delivery model

  10. SWCC expected to engage community ownership from a population 5.2 times larger than the BBG’s • SWCC faced obstacles in nesting lower-level groups

  11. Research questions: • How does the scale of CBNRM affect farmers’ motivations to engage with it? • Do farmers trust the regional delivery model? • What does it matter for their plans to adopt conservation practices?

  12. What does it matter for farmers’ adoption of conservation practices? • 78% of the Blackwood Basin is used for agriculture • Adoption of on-farm conservation practices is crucial for conserving the Basin’s resources • How important is farmers’ trust in the BBG for their plans to adopt practices it promotes to them?

  13. Yes, farmers’ trust in the regional delivery model does matter for their future adoption of conservation practices • Yes, nesting of sub-regional groups does seem to strengthen farmers’ plans to adopt conservation practices

  14. Adapting to change • Depopulation, ageing, less staff, more off-farm work • ‘New’ groups compete with ‘old’ groups for farmers’ time • Limited and uncertain public funding • Benefits of ‘modularity’ in a nested system • Increased competition for funds mayinhibit • collaboration (and encourage silos) • innovation

  15. Key points • Public-community partnerships should not be confused with public-private partnerships • Regional bodies face significant challenges in engaging community ownership • Nesting is an investment in reducing these challenges

  16. Farmers’ trust in their sub-regional body is one of the best predictors of their plans to adopt conservation practices • Changes in capacities, policies and knowledge require adaptation within CBNRM • Competitive funding arrangements risk inhibiting collaboration and innovation within CBNRM

  17. Please email gmarshal@une.edu.auto request a copy or give feedback Thank you!

More Related