Of the $42 billion splashed around in the Commonwealth’s economic stimulus package, not a cent went to Landcare—an ominous message for the 20-year-old movement as it struggles to find its way through new realities.
"It beggars belief," said David Walker, chairman of Landcare NSW.
"We've got all this money to spend, we could be thinking globally and acting locally by working on the environment and renewable energy, and yet we’re doing what we’ve always done.
"What better way is there of investing in our future than ensuring the productivity, sustainability and resilience of our land, particularly as we confront climate change?"
It's a sign of troubled times for Landcare, which turns 20 this year.
The movement still boasts some 4000 groups, with 53,000 registered Landcarers in NSW alone, and there is huge recognition of Landcare’s "caring hands symbol".
Yet those who have invested their lives into Landcare are fearful for the movement’s future.
Throughout Australia, particularly across the farming communities where Landcare got its start, small Landcare groups are becoming dormant—alive only because a few members pay their fees—or have died a natural death.
The bigger, better organised Landcare networks, better able to fight for funding in an era when applying for a "Caring For Our Country" grant means filling in a 30 page application, are surviving.
But their future is by no means guaranteed.
According to Chris Scott, chairman of the NSW Landcare Committee, Landcare staff on contract currently have no idea whether their contracts will be renewed at the end of the financial year—a state of affairs that has resurfaced year after year, and has cost Landcare the services of those who need more certainty in their jobs.
"These are the people with the skills we need to address climate change in this country," Mr Scott said.
"If we're serious about the environment, we need to treat these people as the professionals they are, and give them a career path."
He too is perplexed at funding priorities.
"There are a lot of 'shovel-ready' projects waiting to go that would deliver dollars straight into regional communities, via contractors and other workers, and help the environment at the same time."
John Laing, president of the Goulburn Murray Landcare Network in northern Victoria, said his committee is becoming increasingly frustrated at being used as a low-cost employer by other regional bodies, while facing further funding cuts to an organisation already "run on the smell of an oil rag".
"We see the rhetoric in the media about doing something for the environment, but each year for a number of years, our funding has been reduced," Mr Laing said. "We're not walking the talk."
Ross Colliver, who with support from the Victorian Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) trains Landcare groups and networks to be more effective, believes Landcare’s once-considerable on-ground capabilities are being eroded.
In Victoria, changes in funding priorities mean that compared to a few years ago, there are now only about half the Landcare facilitators available to the community.
"Facilitators are the interface between communities and the complex world of government," Mr Colliver said.
"Losing them means that the ability of communities to organise activities is reduced, and their ability to tap into government programs is reduced.
"Landcare groups that can organise themselves into networks and collectively put up large scale projects have a chance to compete with the CMAs and government agencies for funding. That means that the well-off are doing all right—just—but those that are not well-off are really suffering."
How to resolve these challenges has been exercising Landcare committees at all levels for years, with no clear sign of a solution.
Ross Colliver suggests that Landcare may need to start funding itself, by being a broker between those on the ground ready to make environmental change, and corporations, philanthropists and the potential carbon credits market, some of whom might be willing to pay for environmental services.
In some communities, Landcare is reinventing itself as a facilitator of ecologically-based productivity solutions for farmers, with a focus on soil and environmental health.
New commitees have been established with the aim of providing a better conduit for communication between Landcarers and government.
But to date, there are no clear answers to Landcare’s core problem: who pays?
Email a friend