corangamite catchment management authority · an evaluation of extension methods of the corangamite...

Bendigo Office:

135 Mollison Street, Bendigo

PO Box 2410 Mail Centre, Bendigo, Victoria 3554 T (03) 5441 4821 F ( 03) 5441 2788

Melbourne Office: Suite 1, 357 Camberwell Road, Camberwell, Victoria 3124 T (03) 9882 2670 F ( 03) 9882 0996

E [email protected] W www.rmcg.com.au

ABN: 35 154 629 943

Corangamite Catchment Management Authority

An evaluation of extension methods of the Corangamite salinity program

Final Report

November 2008

Document Review & Authorisation Job Number: 52 C-01 Document Version

Final/ Draft Date Author Reviewed

By Checked by BUG

Release Approved By Issued to Copies Comments

1.0 Draft 31.10.08 J. McRobert S. McGuinness J. Gaul S. McGuinness L. Oram 1e Draft for feedback

2.0 Final 24.11.08 J. McRobert S. McGuinness J. Gaul S. McGuinness L. Oram 1e Final

Note: (e) after number of copies indicates electronic distribution

We acknowledge the valuable contribution to this report from the following people:

Cam Nicholson & Kate Cossum – input provided to the Management Action Targets analysis

Contact Details: Name: Jencie McRobert Title: Senior Consultant Address: Box 2410, Mail Centre, Bendigo 3554 P: (03) 5441 4821 F: (03) 5441 2788 M: E: [email protected]

Disclaimer: This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services described in the contract or agreement between RMCG and the Client. Any findings, conclusions or recommendations only apply to the aforementioned circumstances and no greater reliance should be assumed or drawn by the Client. Furthermore, the report has been prepared solely for use by the Client and RMCG accepts no responsibility for its use by other parties.

International Standards

Certification QAC/R61//0611

An evaluation of extension methods of the Corangamite salinity program Final report

RMCG Consultants for Business, Communities & Environment Page i

Table of Contents

Executive summary 1

1 Introduction 6

1.1 Background.................................................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Evaluation objectives .................................................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Evaluation outcomes..................................................................................................................................... 7

2 Methodology 8

2.1 Evaluation context ......................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Specific tasks................................................................................................................................................. 9

3 Corangamite Salinity Action Plan (2005 – 2008) 12

3.1 Salinity management actions and targets .................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Groundwater and salinity trends................................................................................................................. 14

4 Evaluation findings 15

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 15

4.2 On-ground achievement ............................................................................................................................. 16

4.2.1 Achievement of program objectives and on-ground targets........................................................ 16

4.2.2 Change in knowledge, attitudes and skills of landholder participants......................................... 20

4.3 Satisfaction with delivery of the program ................................................................................................... 34

4.3.1 Landholders’ perspective............................................................................................................... 34

4.3.2 Extension advisors’ perspective.................................................................................................... 40

4.3.3 Program management ................................................................................................................... 43

5 Main findings and conclusions 46

6 Recommendations 51

References 52

Appendix 1: Landholder interviews analysis 53

Appendix 2: Management Action Targets 65

Appendix 3: Achievement of Management Action Targets 66


RMCG Consultants for Business, Communities & Environment Page 1

Executive summary

This project report provides the findings from an evaluation of the effectiveness of the extension approach being used to implement the Corangamite Salinity Action Plan (CSAP).

The overall purpose of the evaluation is to collect local information from agency representatives and landholders that will enable an objective assessment of the performance of the delivery of extension and incentives to landholders and public land managers in the Corangamite region.

The main findings and conclusions of the evaluation are summarised below:

Achievement of program objectives and on-ground targets

Over a five-year period (2003 – 2008) over 3,100 ha was directly treated for salinity management. The works were undertaken throughout eight target areas representing almost 1.5% of the total targeted land area (approx. 220,000 ha).

Over the three-year period where works targets were agreed (2005 – 2008) between the CCMA and extension provider, these were exceeded in some target areas (Colac-Eurack, Lake Corangamite, Geelong-Lake Connewarre and Lismore-Derrinallum), and not met in others (Illabarook, Morrisons-Sheoaks and Pittong).

In relation to meeting the three-year management action targets specified in the CSAP, Colac-Eurack, Geelong-Lake Connewarre and Lismore-Derrinallum exceeded these targets. On the other hand Lake Corangamite, Illabarook, Morrison-Sheoaks, Pittong and Murdeduke fell short of meeting them.

Landholder satisfaction with the program

Around 110 landholders took up incentives to do work on their properties and almost half of these were interviewed for the evaluation. Given that approximately 50% of participating landholders were interviewed, the evaluation findings are likely to be highly representative of the views and opinions of all program participants.

A significant feature of the evaluation has been a focus on collecting information and evidence of changes in knowledge, attitudes and farm practices arising from landholders’ involvement in the five-year program. Landholders were asked to reflect on their knowledge and experiences now compared to five years ago (pre-program) as a way of evaluating the level of influence the program has had.

A summary of the main findings follows:

The majority of landholders have learnt new information (70%) and they have changed their views about salinity and managing natural resources on their properties (70%) and they are now managing parts of their properties differently (65%).

Multiple outcomes have been demonstrated with the majority of interviewees (60%) also reporting that they had adopted other farm practices because of their involvement with the program, including stock containment, rotational grazing, stubble retention, biodiversity protection and general erosion prevention.



The vast majority are interested in undertaking further (and similar) work (80%).

Almost 50% reported between 5 and 50 ha of salt affected area. Just over 20% had less than 5 ha and the remaining 30% had greater than 50 ha. In general, landholders felt that increasing salinity was more of an issue in their district than on their own farms. Only 15% of landholders reported that salinity was increasing on their own properties, compared to 30% expressing a view that salinity is increasing in the district. Almost half felt that salinity was decreasing on their own properties.

Landholders have a good understanding of the likely reasons for what they are observing in terms of both salinity impacts and trends.

About half of all respondents felt it to be of moderate importance that further salinity works be undertaken, both on their own farms and in their district. Just one quarter of respondents considered it to be highly important that further work be undertaken on their own properties, compared to nearly 50% believing it to be highly important that further works needs to be done in their district. So again, salinity management is deemed a more urgent matter at the district rather than farm level.

Landholders in the Colac-Eurack, Illabarook and Pittong target areas rate the importance of doing further salinity management work on their properties most highly. By contrast, fewer landholders in the Morrisons-Sheoaks, Lismore-Derrinallum and Geelong-Lake Corangamite target areas considered further salinity work on their properties as a high priority.

There was strong agreement that the salinity management projects on their properties had been highly successful (89%) and they indicated that they intended to do more of this type of work (80%). Nearly one third indicated that they would not undertake these types of works without an incentive. Incentives are deemed a very important aspect of the program, particularly in the Pittong, Lismore-Derrinallum and Morrison-Sheoaks target areas.

Almost 50% of landholders indicated that they had had little or no experience with some of the practices they had taken up as part of the program. By treatment, these comprised: less than 20% of those revegetating recharge areas, 40% of those fencing for natural regeneration and around 55% of landholders undertaking discharge treatments (either sowing pastures or establishing trees).

Landholders rated both extension providers very highly. The DPI extension service provided in the Colac-Eurack and Illabarook target areas was rated the highest while Woady Yaloak extension was rated most highly in Illabarook.

The advice provided (by both DPI and catchment group advisors) was invariably described as: sound and well delivered with enthusiasm and interest, practical, flexible, invaluable, well informed, with good follow-up, many good ideas, good guidance, well organised, came with a good understanding of local problems and communicated well.

Extension officers’ role in influencing landholders to undertake works was rated the highest and unexpectedly only a minority of landholders rated local farmers or neighbours as highly influential in getting them involved (14%).

No one was able to pin point any specific weakness of the program. Nearly all interviewees spoke very positively with the main emphasis being on the high quality of the advice provided and the value of the incentives in enabling them to undertake salinity projects. There was almost universal agreement that this type of program be continued (96%).



Drivers of adoption

The results indicate that landholders in the Colac-Eurack, Lake Corangamite, Lismore-Derrinallum and Illabarook target areas rate production increases (arising from salinity works) more highly, whereas landholders in Morrisons-Sheoaks and Geelong-Lake Connewarre rate native vegetation recovery more highly. This largely corresponds with those target areas where landholders are generating most of their income from farming being more production focused, with the exception of Illabarook. There was, however, no correlation between the area of saline land and interest in production benefits found amongst the landholder participants interviewed. Most interviewees rated the threats posed by salinity to the productive capacity of their farms and to the natural environment as low (63%), with between 12 and 14% rating these risks as moderate and around 20% as high. This would indicate that these risks are not the main driving force behind landholders’ decisions around adopting treatments.

The reasons landholders offered as to why they are undertaking salinity works in the Corangamite region were mixed. They ranged from generating more production on previously marginal areas, improving the aesthetics by rehabilitating degraded areas, providing more tree cover through to looking to protect sensitive areas by excluding stock. These findings are informative in terms of tailoring future extension and works activities across the program.

Delivery mechanisms and extension approach

Funding is sourced from the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). The CCMA is responsible for overseeing investment in salinity management in the Corangamite region and it uses the DPI as the primary delivery agent of relevant extension services in the region. The Woady Yaloak Catchment group is also a delivery agent.

There is little or no detail provided in the CSAP or the RCIP agreements about a preferred extension approach or about defining extension objectives. RCIP service level agreements comprise tables of budgets, activities and outputs rather than detailed extension plans for target areas.

A great deal of background work (for the development of the CSAP) went into evaluating landholder attitudes and capacity and these findings were published in various background reports, however, is apparent that there was no communication or extension plan developed for each target area in advance of implementation.

Extension staff were not familiar with the management action targets in the CSAP, which reflects a detachment from the overarching policy document they were implementing. This also is indicative of poor communication between the CCMA to its main service deliverer (DPI).

The level of training and resourcing that would have ensured that extension advisers were fully equipped to deliver on multiple outcomes (for example biodiversity protection) across the region, was underestimated. Appropriate resources and training was not made available to meet these wider objectives of the program early on in the program.

More detailed findings in relation to the extension approach are outlined in the conclusions.



Program management

There was an inability for the CCMA and DPI to collaboratively assess the value and performance of the program at regular intervals over its life. This is further evidenced by the poor reporting of achievements due to the difficulties in inputting works information into the CAMS database. The achievements could not be tracked easily and efficiently over the life of the program.

This has meant that the information the CCMA needed to be comfortable with the performance of the program was not being conveyed by the main extension provider(s), either timely or in an easily understood format.

With changes in personnel in more recent times (past 18 months), it is evident that there is now much better communication and collaboration between the CCMA and DPI and the overall relationship has markedly improved.

This evaluation also provides recommendations that will assist the on-going strategic development of this program.

Recommendations

We propose the following recommendations arising from the evaluation of the effectiveness of the extension approach used in the implementation of the Corangamite Salinity Action Plan:

1. Refocus the program’s objectives towards protecting highest value assets.

More specifically:

• Better definition of high value assets to be protected and placing more emphasis on assets at risk within target areas with the highest salinity risks

• Devise less prescriptive salinity management actions which will lead to greater flexibility in assessing the most appropriate treatment for sites

• Define extension objectives within a dedicated extension plan for each target area or where high value assets are to be protected

• Style extension approaches toward landholders’ preferences and interests around production and environmental protection in different target areas.

2. Broaden the scope of the program to achieve multiple outcomes in addition to salinity control.

More specifically:

• Expand management treatments to include protection of native species, for example, in both recharge and discharge areas, and along waterways, to better achieve multiple outcomes for catchment protection

• Ensure extension advisors are trained and comfortable with all land and biodiversity management possibilities to provide an inclusive and all-encompassing service to landholders



• Commit appropriate resources and training to ensure extension providers are fully equipped to meet these wider objectives of the program.

3. Use of improved program management and delivery tools to better achieve desired outcomes.

More specifically:

• Expand incentives approach to include stewardship payments and tendering between landholders

• Establish service level agreements with extension deliverers that are more directly aligned to the program’s desired outcomes

• Establish mechanisms for improved and more efficient reporting from the program extension deliverer(s), to enable the CCMA to be continually informed about the program’s achievements and progress against agreed outcomes.



1 Introduction

1.1 Background

This project report provides the findings from an evaluation of the effectiveness of the extension approach being used to implement the Corangamite Salinity Action Plan (CSAP).

The CSAP uses an assets-based approach to identify priority areas for salinity investment. There are approximately 17,250 ha of recognised saline areas in the Corangamite Region, of which over half are considered to be primary (natural) rather than secondary salinity (Nicholson et al. 2006).

An asset-based approach was adopted to select 12 target or high priority salinity locations in the Corangamite CMA region. Criteria for their selection are outlined in the CSAP. These included the extent of salt affected areas threatening catchment assets, capacity of asset managers to undertake management actions, including attitudes and willingness to address salinity problems, and availability of technologies to treat salinity in that geomorphic zone.

A salinity extension program has been focused in eight of these 12 target areas over the past four years. The evaluation will enable the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CCMA) and its partners to better understand how well the salinity extension program has performed and identify areas for improvement.

This evaluation also provides recommendations that will assist the on-going strategic development of this program.

1.2 Evaluation objectives

The overall purpose of the evaluation is to collect local information from agency representatives and landholders that will enable an objective assessment of the performance of the delivery of extension and incentives to landholders and public land managers in the Corangamite region.

The following evaluation questions have provided a basis for this study:

What aspects of the delivery mechanism (extension and incentives) were successful or unsuccessful, and how could it be improved?

How well were various extension approaches executed and did the deliverer meet their management action targets?

Was the outlined extension approach followed by regional staff; was there sound program logic; did the program run smoothly; and are there any gaps in the approach being used?

These questions have been explored on a target area and whole of region basis. There were two main deliverers of salinity extension in the region, these being the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) and the Woady Yaloak Catchment Group (WYCG).



1.3 Evaluation outcomes

The value of program evaluation is that it can provide insights to the change that has occurred as a result of participation in a program. The type of change occurring from this type of program can be much broader than changes in profitability or production, but can encompass social benefits, attitudinal changes, and environmental improvement.

This evaluation intends to capture insights into changes that have occurred and to analyse the performance of the delivery of extension and incentives in the region.

The evaluation will provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the Corangamite extension approach and provide recommendations for future program planning and increasing program value. The evaluation will provide recommendations on methods for achieving increased adoption of preferred practices and the most important elements of a future extension strategy.



2 Methodology

2.1 Evaluation context

The evaluation research questions relate to various aspects of the delivery of key elements (extension and incentives) of the salinity program. These relate to: identifying where these mechanisms have been successful and unsuccessful; where they could be improved; and the degree to which the outlined extension approach has been followed by extension practitioners in the region.

There are three relevant categories of salinity program participants in this evaluation. These are:

Program stakeholders - Soils & Salinity Operational Portfolio Group (OPG) members, including CCMA, DPI and DSE staff

Extension providers - DPI extension officers and Woady Yaloak Catchment Group officer

Participating landholders and public land managers in each target area

Data gathering for the evaluation focused on the eight target areas where there has been a funded salinity extension program. These are: Colac-Eurack, Illabarook, Geelong-Lake Connewarre, Lake Corangamite, Lismore-Derrinallum, Morrisons-Sheoaks, Pittong and Murdeduke. Figure 2-1 shows the boundaries of the 12 target areas identified in the CSAP.

Figure 2-1 Twelve salinity target areas – identified in the CSAP



2.2 Specific tasks RMCG has undertaken a participatory social research approach that sought close involvement from each of the participant categories (three in total).

Overall, the research approach sought to combine the comprehensiveness and representativeness of a large number of interviews with the insight and accuracy of an in-depth approach.

Data was collected during July – September 2008 from salinity program participants as follows:

Telephone and face-to-face interviews with participating landholders and public land managers within each target area (51 interviews: 49 landholders and 2 public land managers)

Face-to-face interviews with each of the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) extension officers and the Woady Yaloak Catchment Group officer (7 interviews)

Telephone and face-to-face interviews with Operations Portfolio Group (OPG) members, CCMA, DPI and DSE staff (12 interviews).

Landholder interviews

The DPI provided a list of potential interviewees (with contact details) who had undertaken salinity treatments on their farms. The landholder interviews were an important part of this evaluation and RMCG staff interviewed landholders in their homes or by telephone for a period of up to one hour.

A structured interview approach was chosen that would enable the collection of both quantitative and qualitative information. Set questions were asked in a conversational manner for consistency in data collection and at the same time, landholders were encouraged to talk openly about their situation. This evaluation was intent on finding out whether their involvement has led to a permanent shift in attitudes about natural resource management and in gauging the perceived level of success of the program from their point of view.

A series of questions were designed to structure the interviews (Appendix 1). The aim of these questions was to explore:

Landholders’ attitudes toward and interest in salinity management

Adoption of key practices that will reduce dryland salinity

Landholders’ satisfaction with the program and the relevant extension service.

Additional quantitative questions allowed interviewees to respond according to a 1-10 attitudinal scale on a range of matters to do with the program.

Interviews were conducted to collect data specifically in relation to any change in the knowledge, attitudes, skills and aspirations (or KASA) of landholders in relation to managing salinity. In particular:

Knowledge: did participation in the program increase awareness and understanding and in what areas?



Attitudes: did participants change outlook, perspectives or viewpoints as intended and in what areas?

Skills: did participants improve their skills as targeted and in what areas?

Aspirations: did participants alter ambitions and behaviours as intended and in what areas?

Public land manager interviews

Two DSE staff who had been involved in undertaking salinity works on public land were also interviewed as part of the evaluation. DSE staff were asked similar questions to the landholders, however, the interview was more focused on seeking feedback with regard to their satisfaction with the program rather than their attitudes toward salinity, future intentions and practice change.

Extension staff interviews

DPI extension officers and one catchment group officer were interviewed in relation to their experiences at both the program and project level. The program level questions explored issues around:

Their objectives, expectations and achievement of targets

Their relationship with the CCMA and other program stakeholders

Successful and not so successful elements of the program

The level of influence of the program on landholders’ attitudes, practices and catchment condition

The project level questions explored issues around:

Level of uptake of incentives and projects

Extension approach they used to engage landholders and its success

Their level of satisfaction with the results of on-ground works i.e. establishment, maintenance, attitudinal change.

Stakeholder and agency interviews

Management level representatives from the OPG, DPI, the CCMA, and DSE (as the investor in salinity) were asked about their experiences and opinions on a number of aspects of the program:

The level of impact of the targeted extension approach on dryland salinity and natural assets, e.g. river health and native vegetation within the target areas

The role and effectiveness of the dryland program in complementing other NRM programs

The value for money achieved by the program (compared to other NRM programs)

Effectiveness of program management arrangements

Lessons from the program for future extension programs in the region



Review of program reporting

Additional sources of information relating to the program were analysed including:

Agency reports, data bases, incentive documentation and RCIP agreements

Previous social research surveys and interviews with participants, non-participants and other stakeholders

The most up-to-date extension literature

Data Analysis

Quantified interview data was entered into Excel for analysis, looking at the frequency distribution (counts and percentages) of responses between target areas and the whole sample. Formal statistical comparisons between demographic or target area segments have not been attempted. Statistically based comparisons between target areas, for example, were not considered meaningful given the relatively small sample size (usually between four and eleven interviews) for each.

Interviewer notes and data were entered into Excel and coded into themes that were iteratively tested and sorted to derive key findings. The analysis has mostly focused on describing the opinions of the sample of land managers drawn, which is believed to be a good representative sample (51) comprising around 45% of the 110 participating target area land managers in the region. Frequency counts and percentages have, however, been undertaken on both a target area and whole of sample basis.

Interview findings were then analysed in conjunction with previous findings from recent social research and CSAP background studies.



3 Corangamite Salinity Action Plan (2005 – 2008)

The Victorian Government endorsed the CSAP in 2006. It is described as a second generation salinity management program for the Corangamite CMA region.

3.1 Salinity management actions and targets

There are eight main salinity treatments outlined in the CSAP. The management actions being implemented through the extension program comprise four recharge and four discharge management treatments.

The sanctioned salinity management actions are outlined in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Salinity management actions

No. Groundwater Salinity Management Action

1 Recharge High density tree planting - includes revegetation using indigenous species and/or commercial forestry. Can be broadacre or integrated as treed areas across landscape

2 Recharge Tree planting interception belts - includes revegetation using indigenous species and/or commercial forestry in various width belts, typically 50 – 300 m apart in an alley farming arrangement

3 Recharge Shallow surface drains to intercept lateral flow of perched groundwater - surface drains collecting shallow seepage (< 40 cm deep) preventing intrusion into saline discharge areas, typically arranged across contour on minor grades to allow for safe discharge

4 Recharge Tree planting adjoining or near saline discharge - targeted high density tree planting (indigenous or forestry) into areas with a shallow watertable to achieve draw down through revegetation

5a & b

Discharge Protection and management of discharge areas to allow natural vegetation recovery - involves land class fencing and improved management to allow natural vegetation to regenerate. Can involve periodical grazing and weed control. There are two sub treatments: a) fencing only, and b) fencing with trees.

6 Discharge Protection and management of discharge areas with establishment of additional vegetation - involves land class fencing and improved management of saline areas. There are two sub treatments: a) saline revegetation options which include native grasses/herbs or trees, primarily for biodiversity values, and b) saline revegetation options which include improved pastures, fodder plants, trees (indigenous or forestry) for production values.

7 Discharge Waterlogging control on discharge areas in conjunction with establishment of additional vegetation - involves planning and implementation of altered surface water movement using shallow surface drains to intercept lateral flows of perched groundwater and/or prevent water ponding that restricts plant growth. Usually surface drains are cut to collect shallow seepage or ponded water (< 40 cm deep). These are typically arranged across contour on minor grades for safe water carriage.

8 Discharge Waterlogging control on discharge areas – involves minimising ponding surface water on saline areas to avoid waterlogging that will inhibit plant growth

Source: Nicholson et al (2003), Nicholson et al. (2006)



Examples of salinity management actions being supported through the extension program are shown in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1 Examples of salinity management actions commonly adopted in the Corangamite region

Management action 6 – saline discharge area sown to Tall Wheat Grass Target area: Colac-Eurack

Management action 6 - brackish drainage area planted to trees Target area: Lismore-Derrinallum

Management action 5a – fencing to protect natural saltmarsh communities from grazing Target area: Geelong-Lake Connewarre

Management action 7 – Puccinellia sp. and Tall Wheat Grass sown in conjunction with surface drainage Target area: Pittong

The CSAP proposes a set of management action targets (MATs) for each target area, to be met for the first three years of the plan (2005 – 2008). Interim targets were initially developed in consultation with managers of assets at risk of salinity damage across the region (Nicholson et. al. 2003) and these were later revised following a review of early experiences with implementation (Nicholson et al. 2005). The final MATs as outlined in the Corangamite Salinity Action Plan are shown in Appendix 2.



3.2 Groundwater and salinity trends A recent review of groundwater trends in the Corangamite region (undertaken for a previous study, RMCG 2008) indicated a general downward trend in groundwater levels in bores screened at all depth intervals since the mid 1990s, with a more noticeable falling trend since 2003. These downward trends are apparent in all geomorphic land units. Falls in groundwater levels of around four metres are not uncommon, as indicated in Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2 Groundwater levels east of Eurack

Groundw ater Level - Colac - Eurack

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Feb-88 Feb-90 Feb-92 Feb-94 Feb-96 Feb-98 Feb-00 Feb-02 Feb-04 Feb-06 Feb-08

de

pth

be

low

su

rfa

ce

(m

)

4105

4106

4103

4104

4101

Source: RMCG (2008) – using information residing in the CCMA’s bore monitoring database.

Observations by local DPI officers also suggest that the area of saline discharge is contracting in many districts. On the Volcanic Plains, saline areas in close proximity to lakes are to some extent buffered by the presence of dominant intermediate and regional flow systems and it is expected that they will retain shallow water tables despite the prolonged dry cycle. More significant changes to the water balance are needed to drop the groundwater levels sufficiently to prevent them being groundwater discharge areas. Drying of these natural systems is not desirable given that falling groundwater levels at a regional scale could begin to threaten groundwater dependent ecosystems, including brackish to saline wetland areas and groundwater discharge lakes.

Away from the lakes systems, where less dominant intermediate and regional flow systems operate, there is evidence of even shallow groundwater levels continuing to fall in response to the extended dry and it is likely that current areas of saline discharge will further contract if current rainfall patterns continue.

Groundwater and salinity trends in relation to climate have implications for the CSAP and determining appropriate management actions and associated targets for a future program.



4 Evaluation findings

4.1 Introduction

The overall purpose of the evaluation is to collect local information from agency representatives and landholders that will enable an objective assessment of the performance of the delivery of extension and incentives to landholders and public land managers in the Corangamite region. It is intended that the evaluation will provide recommendations for future program planning and increasing program value.

The following evaluation questions have provided a basis for this study:

What aspects of the delivery mechanism (extension and incentives) were successful1 or unsuccessful, and how could it be improved?

How well were various extension approaches executed and did the deliverer meet their management action targets?

Was the outlined extension approach followed by regional staff, was there sound program logic, did the program run smoothly and are there any gaps in the approach being used?

These questions have been explored on a target area and whole of region basis. There were two deliverers of salinity extension in the region, these being the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) and the Woady Yaloak Catchment Group (WYCG).

Reporting of evaluation findings

The following section presents the main quantitative and qualitative results of the evaluation. The findings are presented as three main themes. These are:

1. On-ground achievement

− Achievement of program objectives and on-ground targets.

− Change in knowledge, attitudes and practices on-farm.

2. Satisfaction with delivery of the program

− Participating landholders and public land managers

− Program investors and agency stakeholders

− Project management

3. Findings and conclusions

1 “Successful” in this evaluation refers to the level of change in attitudes and practices amongst program participants. A significant feature of the evaluation has been a focus on collecting information and evidence of changes in knowledge, attitudes and farm practices arising from landholders’ involvement in the five-year program



4.2 On-ground achievement

4.2.1 Achievement of program objectives and on-ground targets

In practice, the salinity extension service providers for the CCMA agreed on either annual or 3-year management action targets. These did not always reflect the MATs outlined in the CSAP, rather the anticipated level of program resources available for the forthcoming year.

In the case of DPI, a service level agreement relating to regional catchment investment plan (RCIP) projects provided the detail with respect to annual salinity management action targets. The targets usually related to a commitment to achieve a given amount of treated hectares in specified target areas for the coming year. These were determined according to the level of resources intended to be committed over the coming period. In the case of the Woady Yaloak Catchment Group 3-year targets for recharge and discharge control projects within the Illabarook and Pittong target areas were agreed.

The achievement of MATs can be assessed at two levels2:

Achievement against agreed annual or 3-year targets through agreements between the CCMA and the deliverer, and/or

Achievement against the 3-year targets sanctioned in the CSAP

The level of achievement of annual or 3-year agreed and CSAP management action targets has been summarised in Appendix 3.

1) Achievement of agreed targets (through RCIP or other agreements)

Table 4-1 summarises the achievement of on-ground works against agreed targets for each activity type for each of eight target areas funded within the Corangamite region: Colac-Eurack, Illabarook, Geelong-Lake Connewarre, Lake Corangamite, Lismore-Derrinallum, Morrisons-Sheoaks, Murdeduke and Pittong.

Over a five year period (2003 – 2008), approximately 3170 ha was directly treated for salinity management. These works were undertaken throughout eight target areas representing almost 1.5% of the total targeted land area (approx. 220,000 ha).

Around 110 landholders took up incentives to do work on their properties. It is not known what proportion of the targeted landholders this represents. The total area of works (in hectares) over the last three years of the program (2005 – 2008) is illustrated for each target area in Figure 4-1. Some areas exceeded their targets (Colac-Eurack, Lake Corangamite, Geelong-Lake Connewarre and Lismore-Derrinallum), and others did not meet them (Illabarook, Morrisons-Sheoaks and Pittong).

Across the whole program, the agreed targets were well exceeded whereby approximately 2400 ha of works over the three year period were undertaken compared to an agreed

2 It should be noted that the reporting of on-ground works into CAMs could not always be interpreted as exact hectares for each salinity management action, as specified in the CSAP. This means that this assessment of achievement of the CSAP MATs is only approximate.



950 ha (either through an RCIP or other agreement). On a yearly basis, targets were well exceeded each year, as shown in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-1 Total area of on-ground works by target area (2005 – 2008)

Figure 4-2 Total area of on-ground works by year of implementation (2005 – 2008)

The achievement of targets by broad management action or treatment is illustrated in Figure 4-3. The agreed recharge tree planting targets were met, the discharge treatment using fencing to promote natural vegetation recovery was well exceeded and the target for treating discharge areas with additional vegetation (either pasture or trees) was only two-thirds met.



Figure 4-3 Total area of works by treatment (2005 – 2008)

2) Achievement of CSAP management action targets

The on-ground salinity works targets agreed through the annual RCIP process, or other agreements between deliverers and the CCMA differed from the targets reported in the three-year CSAP. The annual agreed targets tended not to be sufficient over the three-year period (2005 – 2008) to meet the CSAP targets. Figure 4-4 and Table 4-1 shows the difference between the agreed targets and the CSAP targets against the level of achievement of on-ground works (by target area).

While the salinity extension effort achieved the agreed targets by the end of the 3-year program, it did not meet the reported management action targets specified in the CSAP.

It would seem that annual implementation targets were negotiated without regard to (and in some cases prior to) what was endorsed in the CSAP. For example the CSAP remained in draft form for some time after implementation commenced.

It is apparent that annual targets were revised and agreed when renewing DPI’s service level agreements via the RCIP process depending on the previous year’s experience with the pace of implementation and the anticipated DPI extension resources available for each target area. On the other hand, the Woady Yaloak Catchment Group targets were agreed covering several years.

The level of take up of incentives was influenced by a number of factors operating in the region. For example, works in Pittong and Illabarook have been hampered by the dry conditions which has meant that the planned EM-38 salinity mapping has not been able to take place which is a precursor to undertaking salinity management works by the Woady Yaloak Catchment Group (Cam Nicholson pers. comm.).



Other factors are likely to include, difficulties in working with communities where there are a large numbers of part time or lifestyle landholders who are less well connected and networked and who were not specifically targeted under this program (e.g. Morrisons-Sheoaks, Illabarook), and in some cases there has been discontinuity with extension staff (e.g. Lismore-Derrinallum, Lake Corangamite) and CCMA staff regionally. Salinity extension was not funded in the Lake Corangamite target area, for example, for around 2 out of the past 3 years.

It should be noted that the area of treated discharge area (for natural vegetation recovery) includes an 800 ha public land site in the Geelong-Lake Connewarre target area. A fencing project funded under the program has meant that the whole of Reedy Lake is now effectively protected from grazing (David Lean, DPI, pers. comm.).

Table 4-1 Agreed works targets, CSAP management targets and on-ground works achieved

Target area Agreed targets

(ha)

CSAP targets

(ha)

On-ground works (ha)

Achievement over 3 years

Agreed CSAP

Colac-Eurack 230 321 582

Geelong-Connewarre 30 303 968

Lismore-Derrinallum 130 138 229

Lake Corangamite 80 293 103

Illabarook 245 304 78

Morrisons-Sheoaks 287 786 167

Pittong 369 1782 3281

Murdeduke - 126 4 -

Overall 957 4053 2412

Achievement of targets

Met or exceeded

Not met

In relation to meeting the three-year management action targets, as specified in the CSAP, Colac-Eurack, Geelong-Lake Connewarre and Lismore-Derrinallum exceeded these targets. On the other hand Lake Corangamite, Illabarook, Morrison-Sheoaks, Pittong and Murdeduke fell short of meeting them.

Federal funding through the National Action Plan (NAP) declined over the three-year program period (2005/06 - $1.2m, 2006/07 - $1.1m and 2007/08 - $0.9m) and it is not clear how this affected the level of achievement of the MATs. It is evident that other factors were more prominent in influencing uptake of incentives than budgetary.

3 Note: Woady Catchment group reported a total of 360 ha of works achieved in Pittong. This figure does not match up with detailed project info provided which amounted to around 280 ha



Figure 4-4 Agreed works targets versus CSAP management action targets (2005-2008)

4.2.2 Change in knowledge, attitudes and skills of landholder participants

A series of questions were designed to structure the interviews. The aim of these questions was to explore:

Landholders’ attitudes toward and interest in salinity management

Experiences with the adoption of key practices that will reduce dryland salinity

Landholders’ satisfaction with the program and the relevant extension service

Additional quantitative questions allowed interviewees to respond according to a 1-10 attitudinal scale on a range of matters to do with the program. The quantitative results for the landholder interviews are summarised in Appendix 1.

Interviews were conducted to collect data specifically in relation to any change in the knowledge, attitudes, skills and aspirations (or KASA) of landholders in relation to managing salinity.

Landholders’ profile

The sample of landholders interviewed represented a range of enterprise types, landholder age groups and farm sizes across the eight target areas. The overall enterprise mix of the sample of landholders interviewed comprised: livestock (35%), cropping (25%), wool production (24%) and other enterprises (16%), including dairy and forestry. This mix is likely to reflect usual practice across the region. The following charts illustrate the spread of three demographic variables (age, farm size and source of household income) across the sample drawn (Figure 4-5 - Figure 4-7). These results reflect the demographic profile of an earlier benchmarking survey of over 500 landholders in the Corangamite region (CSU 2006).



Landholders ranged between 30 years of age and over 60 years. They were predominantly aged between 50 and 59 years (43%).

Figure 4-5 Age distribution of landholders interviewed

A range of property sizes is represented in the sample, however, the majority of holdings was < 500 ha, comprising 65% of the sample drawn. Around 30% of farms were over 500 and up to 2,000 ha, with the remaining 6% over 2000 ha (Figure 4-6). The median property size in the larger CSU study was found to be 130 ha.

Figure 4-6 Farm size distribution of landholders interviewed

Around 60% of interviewees’ main source of household income was derived from farming. This percentage varied between target areas, as indicated in Figure 4-7.



Figure 4-7 Proportion of interviewees with mostly on-farm income versus mostly off-farm

Landholders’ perspectives on salinity and other NRM issues

A significant feature of the evaluation has been a focus on collecting information and evidence of changes in knowledge, attitudes and farm practices arising from landholders’ involvement in the five-year program. Landholders were asked to reflect on their knowledge and experiences now compared to five years ago (pre-program) as a way of evaluating the level of influence the program has had. The results are summarised in Figure 4-8.

Change in knowledge

Landholders were asked whether they felt as though they had learned anything new about managing dryland salinity on their farms as a result of being involved in the program. Over 70% of landholders said they had learnt new information and the most common responses included:

Gained a lot of new information about the production value and management of perennial grasses, in particular, Tall Wheat Grass

A better understanding of the role of trees in reducing recharge and salinity

An improved general knowledge of salinity problems in their district

Some landholders indicated that they were already aware of local salinity problems and how to deal with them.



Figure 4-8 General responses of landholders in relation to their participation in the salinity program

Change in attitudes

Landholders were asked whether their involvement in the program had changed the way they thought about salinity and managing the natural resources on their farm generally. More than 70% said that they had changed their views, and the most common responses included factors to do with:

Becoming more conscious of the salinity issue with it gaining greater prominence in their mind as something to manage on their farm

A greater awareness and a clearer understanding of local salinity problems and how to manage them

Gaining a broader understanding and greater respect for the environmental aspects of their farm, especially in relation to the value of native vegetation and fauna.

Several landholders felt that they already had a strong awareness of the problem and were already planning these kinds of works; however, the incentives enabled them to do this work more quickly.

Managing parts of the farm differently

Around 65% of landholders interviewed said they are now managing parts of their farm differently because of their involvement in the salinity program.

Fencing work funded through the program has meant changes to grazing practices to get better production and pasture persistence. These practices included: smaller and more numerous paddocks, modified stocking rates, rotational grazing, and managing grazing pressure on salt affected or degraded areas. Revegetation of areas with native species and plantations has also meant stock is now being excluded from parts of their properties.

Others commented that the management of their farm operation had not changed but they were now managing the less productive areas better or more sensitively.



Interest in undertaking similar work

Around 80% of landholders indicated that they would be interested in undertaking further (and similar) work on their properties and the most common responses included undertaking further:

Revegetation work on ridges, slopes, and along creek lines

Improved pasture establishment - renovation and sowing of salt tolerant pasture species

Complementary erosion, spiny rush control and revegetation along drainage lines

Drainage works in conjunction with salt tolerant pastures

The reasons landholders offered as to why they are interested in doing more work were mostly to do with:

Adding value to their properties: aesthetics was rated highly, more tree cover, rehabilitating degraded areas, shelter belts

Generating more income (through grazing) from previously marginal areas

Improving the general environment by reducing the impact of stock on sensitive areas (provide cover, reduced erosion and salt scalding).

A few landholders were not interested in undertaking more work because they felt that there was not any further work to do or that they had had insufficient time to look after the works they had already done. Only one landholder felt that the work they had done was not worthwhile and therefore had no interest in doing more. In the main, however, nearly all landholders interviewed were very keen to do additional salinity work on their properties.

Trends in salinity impacts for them and their district

Landholders were asked what area of their properties is visibly affected by salinity. Respondents in each of the target areas had a wide range of affected area on their properties.

Almost 50% of interviewees reported between 5 and 50 ha of affected area. Just over 20% had less than 5 ha and the remaining 30% had greater than 50 ha. These findings are illustrated in Figure 4-9.



Figure 4-9 Area of respondents’ properties affected by salinity

Landholders were asked if they felt that the salinity problem was increasing, staying the same or decreasing in their district and on their own farms. In general, landholders felt that increasing salinity was more of an issue in their district than on their own farms.

Only 15% of landholders reported that salinity was increasing on their own properties, compared to 30% expressing a view that salinity is increasing in the district. About one third of respondents reported that salinity was in a steady state (neither increasing nor decreasing). Around 45% felt that salinity was decreasing on their own properties (compared to 32% in the district), which would indicate that they are seeing results from their own efforts.

Figure 4-10 Observations about trends in salt affected area



Landholders were asked how salinity is affecting their land. They often provided more than one factor. The most common responses (from most to least) were:

Loss of pasture production

Problem weeds, mostly spiny rush

Erosion of bare areas and drainage lines

Effects on natural environment i.e. native vegetation, wetlands and waterways

No visible impacts

Salty springs on their properties

Landholders gave a range of responses with respect to their opinions around salinity trends in their district and on their farms. Some landholders felt that salinity is increasing due to:

Reduced rainfall leading to reduced stream flows and lake inflows has meant higher salinity concentrations

Visual observations of more tree and other vegetation decline, increased erosion and soil health decline

Observed changes in pasture species composition towards more salt tolerant grasses, loss of production

Landholders who felt that salinity was decreasing provided responses to do with:

Drought and dry seasonal conditions (most common response) and therefore a lower water table (a few responses)

People more aware and doing more works to control salinity, including tree planting and perennial pasture species, drainage and raised bed cropping

Pastures are growing in places where they didn’t previously, more growth and production from pasture generally

In the main, landholders had a good understanding of the likely reasons for what they are observing in terms of both salinity impacts and trends.


Landholders in the Colac-Eurack, Illabarook and Pittong target areas rate the importance of doing further salinity management work on their properties most highly, as shown in Figure 4-11. By contrast, fewer landholders in the Morrisons-Sheoaks, Lismore-Derrinallum and Geelong-Lake Corangamite target areas considered further salinity work on their properties as a high priority.



The reasons landholders gave for placing a high importance on doing further work on their properties were mostly to do with:

Continued improvements will mean more pasture production and income

A desire to improve the local environment and make a contribution to better managing and rehabilitating sensitive areas

A desire to continue the work they have started and prevent salinity worsening.

Figure 4-11 Importance of undertaking further salinity – highly important (rated ≥ 8/10)

Importance of salinity compared to other NRM issues

Respondents ranked salinity as lower in priority than NRM issues such as river and stream flows, soil health, and pest plants. It is rated on a par with issues such as pest animal control on their properties. The percentage of respondent rating each NRM issue as highly important is shown in Figure 4-12.

Figure 4-12 Importance of salinity compared to other NRM issues: own property versus district



Level of satisfaction with salinity works

Landholders were asked whether they were satisfied with the results of salinity works undertaken on their farms. There was strong agreement that the works had been very successful (almost 80% of respondents rated their works as ≥ 8/10).

Many believed that the work had added value to their properties in a range of ways, including aesthetically (fixing salt scalds and erosion), environmentally (through enhancing native vegetation) and though increased grazing productivity on improved pasture. A few landholders (less than 10%) were not satisfied with the works and reported that the vegetation had failed due to drought and/or were unhappy with advice provided. The percentage of respondents who rated their level of satisfaction as high (≥ 8/10) is shown for

each target area in Figure 4-13.

Figure 4-13 Level of satisfaction with the success of their salinity projects

Landholders were also asked, in their opinion, what are the most sensible and important actions to take to manage salinity in their district. Responses were varied and the most common responses (most to least) included:

Tree planting (40%)

Pasture improvement (25%)

Government programs – advice, incentives and monitoring (15%)

Protect natural environment (< 5%)

Drainage works (< 5%)

Fencing to manage stock grazing was sometimes mentioned in conjunction with these actions.



Experience with salinity management practices

Landholders were asked about their experiences with the adoption of five key practices:

Recharge areas - revegetation using trees and shrubs

Discharge areas – revegetation using trees and shrubs

Discharge areas - sowing salt tolerant perennial pastures;

Fencing to exclude grazing – to allow natural recovery of vegetation

Surface drainage – with or without pasture establishment

Some typical salinity projects being carried out in the Corangamite region are shown in Figure 4-14.

Figure 4-14 Salinity projects being conducted in the region

Fencing to better manage grazing to encourage regeneration of native saltmarsh species

Field assessment of salt scald and introduced salt tolerant pastures

Recharge planting along rocky ridgeline of mixed indigenous species

Aerial view of a recharge planting near Ballan



Figure 4-15 summarises the percentage of interviewees undertaking these treatments on their properties.

Figure 4-15 Percentage of respondents undertaking five main salinity treatments

Prior experience

More landholders had previous experience with undertaking revegetation of discharge areas (trees and/or pasture) than planting trees to control groundwater recharge or fencing to achieve natural recovery of degraded areas. The majority of landholders taking up incentives to plant up recharge areas or fence remnants had no prior experience with this practice indicating that the program has led to a much greater appreciation of the importance of these treatments.

Almost 50% of landholders indicated that they had little or no experience with some of the practices they had taken up as part of the program. For many of these, their participation in the program was the first time they had undertaken this type of work on their farms. By treatment, these comprised: less than 20% of those revegetating recharge areas, 40% of those fencing for natural regeneration and around 55% of landholders undertaking discharge treatments (either sowing pastures or establishing trees). For the others, they had been adopting salinity management practices prior to the program.

Figure 4-16 and Figure 4-17 illustrates the level of experience and intentions of landholders with respect to the adoption of key salinity management practices.



Figure 4-16 Experience with and intentions of landholders - all treatments

Figure 4-17 Experience with and intentions of landholders - by salinity treatment



Intentions to do more salinity management works

Across the board, almost all landholders interviewed (89%) indicated that the work they had done had been successful and 80% indicated that they intended to do more salinity management work on their properties.

By treatment, intentions to do more work varied. Around 50% of landholders undertaking revegetation for recharge control indicated that they intend to do more, compared with 93% intend to do more revegetation of discharge areas with trees, 73% with pasture and 83% intend to do more fencing for natural regeneration of native vegetation.

Nearly one third of landholders (30%) indicated that they would not undertake these types of works without an incentive. This is not surprising given the relative importance attributed to the incentives element of the program by landholders later in the interview (see section 4.3.1).

Drivers to undertake more salinity management work

Landholders were asked two different questions about their motivations for undertaking salinity work:

How important is it for them to achieve an increase in production of the affected areas they are treating?

How interested are they in less intensive management such as fencing off affected areas and allowing natural regeneration?

The proportion of respondents providing a highly important rating (rated ≥ 8/10) is shown in Figure 4-18, by target areas4.

Figure 4-18 Respondents rating increased production and native vegetation recovery as high importance (rated ≥ 8/10)

4 Note - For this question the results for Lake Corangamite and Colac-Eurack target areas have been combined



The results indicate that landholders in the Colac-Eurack, Lake Corangamite, Lismore-Derrinallum and Illabarook target areas rate production increases more highly, whereas landholders in Morrisons-Sheoaks and Geelong-Lake Connewarre rate native vegetation recovery more highly. This largely corresponds with those target areas where landholders are generating most of their income from farming being more production focused, with the exception of Illabarook (see Figure 4-8, demographic profile).

Landholders were also asked how significant is dryland salinity as a threat to the productive capacity of their farm and as a threat to the natural environment on their farm (or property), on a scale of 1 to 10. The results are summarised for all respondents in Figure 4-19.

Figure 4-19 Significance of salinity threat to farm production and natural environment

Most interviewees rated these threats as low (63%), with between 12 and 14% rating them as moderate and around 20% as high. There was little difference in responses between the target areas with some exceptions. Respondents in Pittong rated both threats to production and the natural environment more highly and Illabarook rated the threat to the natural environment more highly than other target areas.

These findings are informative in terms of tailoring future extension and works activities across the program.

The next section looks at satisfaction levels of the program from the different perspectives of the stakeholder groups.



4.3 Satisfaction with delivery of the program

There are three categories of salinity program participants who were interviewed in relation to their opinions about, and satisfaction with, the program. These are:

Participating landholders and public land managers in each target area

Extension providers - DPI extension officers and Woady Yaloak Catchment group officer

Program stakeholders - Soils & Salinity Operational Portfolio Group (OPG) members, including CCMA, DPI and DSE staff

The findings from these interviews are summarised in the following section.

4.3.1 Landholders’ perspective

Landholders were asked about the importance of their extension provider’s information and advice in helping them make decisions about salinity. Around 55% rated their input as highly important (≥ 8/10), another 30% of moderate importance (5 to 7) and only 14% rating it as low (< 5/10).

Almost 60% of interviewees reported that they had adopted other farm practices because of their involvement in the program. The types of responses included involvement in: Future Plantation Program, Environmental Best Management Practices course, their local Landcare group, Plains Tender, stock containment areas, weed control e.g. box thorn, rotational grazing and stubble retention, soil health and general erosion prevention.

Interviewees were asked how satisfied they are with a number of aspects of the salinity incentives program. The results for percentage of respondents who are highly satisfied by target area are summarised in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 Satisfaction with aspects of the salinity program: percentage rated ≥ 8/10

Target Area Overall program

Incentives application

process Level of

incentive

How the incentive was

paid

Colac - Eurack 63% 63% 75% 88%

Lake Corangamite 75% 75% 100% 100%

Geelong - Lake Connewarre 75% 63% 63% 75%

Illabarook 100% 91% 73% 73%

Lismore-Derrinallum 50% 63% 50% 75%

Morrisons-Sheoaks 71% 57% 57% 71%

Murdeduke 100% 100% 100% 100%

Pittong 100% 100% 100% 100%

Grand Total 76% 73% 71% 80%

The results are illustrated in Figure 4-20 from highest to lowest satisfaction with the overall program, by target area. Landholders in the Lismore-Derrinallum and Colac-Eurack target areas were the least satisfied with various aspects of the incentives program.



Figure 4-20 Satisfaction with the incentives aspects of the regional salinity program (rated ≥ 8/10)

Landholders were then asked to rate their satisfaction with the extension service provided. They were asked about their opinion in relation to the responsiveness of their extension advisor (e.g. timeliness of visits and follow-up) and the quality of the advice received. The results are summarised in Figure 4-21 in relation to the DPI service and in Figure 4-22 for the Woady Yaloak service (Illabarook and Pittong target areas only).

Landholders rated both providers very highly. The DPI extension service provided in the Colac-Eurack and Illabarook target areas was rated the highest while Woady Yaloak extension was rated most highly in Illabarook.



Figure 4-21 Satisfaction rating with DPI extension service provided

Figure 4-22 Satisfaction with Woady Yaloak extension service provided

Word-for-word or literal responses have been included in the findings that will help with understanding landholders’ perspectives on the extension service provided.

For example, a range of comments illustrate the high regard landholders tend to hold for their local extension officer:



“They provided on-ground practical advice, no “airy fairy” talk and got on with the job.”

“Very helpful and understanding of the difficulties in relation to timeframes for planting with the drought.”

“The people involved made all the difference as to whether you did something or not.”

“The advice from Woady extension was invaluable. Our coordinators are agricultural scientists and they give us productive and economic advice as well as environment.”

“DPI have been a valuable resource and not just for salinity.”

Landholders were also asked about the importance of others, in addition to their extension advisor, in getting them involved in the salinity program. The extension advisor’s role was rated highest, followed by local catchment networks, Landcare coordinators and then CCMA personnel. Unexpectedly, only 14% of respondents rated local farmers or neighbours as highly influential in getting them involved.

Around 70% of landholders had participated in salinity related field days and farm walks and 77% had attended workshops or meetings. Nearly 50% had participated in some type of environmental management training (e.g. EMS or EBMP). Around 50% of participants rated these activities as highly useful.

Relative value of extension advice and support versus incentives

Landholders were asked which component of the salinity program did they value the most – the extension advice and support or the financial incentives. The results by target area are shown in Figure 4-23. It is evident that incentives are deemed a very important aspect of the program, particularly in the Pittong, Lismore-Derrinallum and Morrison-Sheoaks target areas. This strong preference for incentives was not reflected in the early questioning about whether landholders would undertake further salinity works without an incentive. Only 30% indicated that they would only do further work with an incentive.

Many landholders expressed a view that the two go hand in hand. The advice is more important initially, however, the incentives enable the works to get done. The incentives were thought to be essential in backing up the advice and support. Many acknowledged that while the advice is essential to get a good outcome it was the incentive that got them to commit to the project fully and carry out the works.

Respondents regularly mentioned that they highly valued the incentives component of the program, with a range of sentiments typically expressed.

“The advice was good but the incentives really get you out there to get the work done – that’s the main motivator.”

“The funding is the most important because I like to think I know what needs to be done and incentives provides the opportunity to get things done – obviously advice is important as well but the funding slightly more so.”

“Without the advice and support the actions wouldn’t have been as promptly instigated – the funding backs up the advice.”



“Its no good if they just give you the money if you haven’t got the information.”

“I value both but probably would go ahead without the funding.”

“The dollars in the pocket are the defining factor for me.”

“Probably would have done work anyway as I have a good understanding of salinity – need DPI staff to OK project.”

“Without the advice from DPI I wouldn’t have gone ahead with it but the funding made it possible.”

“If I was going to do the work myself [without funding] I would still seek the advice.”

“I wouldn’t have done it on such a large scale without funding – couldn’t afford to do it.”

“The incentive allows you to do something that you perhaps otherwise would not have done.”

Figure 4-23 Value of extension advice and support, and incentives

Strengths and weaknesses of the salinity program

No one was able to pin point any specific weakness of the program. Nearly all interviewees spoke very positively about the program with the main emphasis being on the high quality of the advice and the value of the incentives in enabling them to undertake salinity projects.

The advice provided (by advisors) was invariably described in the following ways: sound and well delivered with enthusiasm and interest, practical, flexible, invaluable, well informed, follow-up good, many good ideas, good guidance, well organised, came with a good understanding of local problems and communicated well.



Some further responses included:

“We are not farmers and the advice made all the difference.“

“DPI was enthusiastic and professional, rigorous in their approach but in my view too focused on production and establishing a saw log industry.”

“They are probably overworked – they need more staff on the ground. Its hard to get an extension officer as they are too busy.”

Other comments about the program as a whole included:

“I hope the CMA keeps supporting Woady and doesn’t force opinions on them through tough guidelines. Decisions need to be made at the local level and not by the region.”

“There are lots of departments crossing over – need to rationalise one field officer to do everything, including weeds for example.”

“Would like to see program continued but fine tuned – not so much rigmarole.”

“Everything went according to plan. Extension officers were reliable and there were no problems at all – no mucking around.”

“Its great that they are addressing such an important issue - they are doing well in getting farming community involved.”

“It gets us working with neighbours and gets us all involved so we are seeing large scale impacts.”

96% of respondents said they would like to see this type of program continued in the future. Reasoning was varied but they were mostly to do with ideas around: it’s a good program, salinity is a long term and ongoing problem, it’s been great to have a program like this during a drought, there remains work to do and the government has a responsibility to invest in programs that will improve the environment.

Landholders were also asked what forms of assistance would help them manage salinity in the future and the overwhelming response was continued funding of the current program. Only a small number of respondents indicated that they no longer required advice and incentives in relation to salinity management.

Other suggestions were about more detailed mapping and planning of works (including management as well as establishment), more follow up and monitoring being done by advisors, broader funding guidelines that enable greater local flexibility on projects, and some innovation that would achieve better value for money out of the program – more negotiated (or market based) outcomes.

The level of interest in the program was generally very high amongst participants interviewed. For example, 90% expressed an interest in getting a copy of the evaluation report.



4.3.2 Extension advisors’ perspective

Extension advisors were asked to reflect on their experiences with the program.

Six DPI extension officers and one catchment group officer were interviewed in relation to their experiences at both the program and project level. The program level questions explore issues around:

Their objectives, expectations and achievement of targets

Their relationship with the CCMA and other program stakeholders;

Successful and not so successful elements of the program

The level of influence of the program on landholders’ attitudes, practices and catchment condition

The project level questions explored issues around:

Level of uptake of incentives and projects

Extension approach they used to engage landholders and its success

Their level of satisfaction with the results of on-ground works i.e. establishment, maintenance, attitudinal change

Salinity compared to other NRM issues

Advisors were asked about the relative importance salinity compared to other NRM issues. Salinity was considered very important (rated 4 or 5/5) by a high proportion (80%) of advisors, as shown in Figure 4-24. They felt that salinity management was highly relevant to the target area they were working in. Several other NRM issues were also identified as being of high importance. Extension providers made several comments that the CSAP was too narrowly focused and multiple environmental outcomes could have been achieved by managing a wider suite of threatening processes. For example, some felt there were lost biodiversity outcome opportunities in the Morrisons-Sheoaks Target Area by focusing on plantation timber species rather than indigenous species.

Figure 4-24 Extension advisors views - importance of salinity versus other NRM issues



Figure 4-25 summarises the extension providers’ opinions about the level of influence the program had on landholder attitudes, farm practices and catchment condition. Opinions were mixed, ranging from little influence through to a high influence. Around 30% felt that the program had a high influence on landholder attitudes and farm practices with a further 50% attributing a moderate influence to the program. Several officers believe there is already a measurable improvement in catchment condition that can be attributed to the program, however, several comments were made regarding the difficulty in separating other influences on salinity outcomes (such as drought reducing groundwater levels) of the program. Others thought it was too early to see the biophysical changes from the program.

Extension providers were also asked their opinion with respect to the success of the salinity program in terms of landholder adoption rates of salinity management practices and attitudes about biodiversity and the natural environment. Again, opinions were mixed, ranging from moderately to highly successful.

Several comments were made that the advertising of incentives often resulted in sufficient numbers of landholders taking up incentives to meet agreed targets and there was little need to involve those landholders not already actively managing salinity and/or other NRM issues (i.e. we only got the “low hanging fruit”). This would have meant reduced opportunities to change the attitudes of many non-engaged landholders.

Figure 4-25 Perceived influence of the salinity program on landholders attitudes, practices & catchment condition

The extension providers were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the results or performance of the on-ground projects in their targeted area. Results show 40% were very satisfied with what the program achieved in terms of the successful establishment and maintenance of works. One third felt the on-ground works had instigated further NRM works, however, one fifth were not satisfied that the on-ground works had resulted in substantial attitudinal change (Figure 4-26).



Figure 4-26 Satisfaction with the results of on-ground projects

Overall success of the program

Extension staff were asked what they felt were the most successful aspects of the program. The most common responses included:

The targeted approach and science behind the program meant it was well placed to achieve salinity outcomes.

They had confidence that achievement of the Management Action Targets would help the Corangamite CMA achieve its Resource Condition Targets.

The program provided a vehicle to bring all parties together.

Extension advisors established good working relationships with participant landholders

Incentives enabled landholders to implement their planned works more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.

Incentive rate was relatively high which meant that targets could be met relatively easily.

High involvement of first time incentive users in some target areas e.g. in Lake Connewarre, 75% of landholders using incentives were first time users.



4.3.3 Program management

Management level representatives from the OPG, DPI, CCMA, and DSE (as the investor in salinity) were asked about their experiences and opinions on a number of aspects of the program. They were asked about the level of impact of the targeted extension approach on dryland salinity and natural assets, the role and effectiveness of the dryland program in complementing other NRM programs, the value for money achieved by the program (compared to other NRM programs) and the effectiveness of program management arrangements.

The targeted approach is generally deemed to be based on good science and there was substantial agreement that the salinity management actions being promoted and implemented would lead to an improvement in catchment condition. Several interviewees felt that they are already seeing substantial benefits but it is difficult to quantify the extent of improvement at this point in time. The general consensus was that in the main, biophysical changes will not have registered yet and it is difficult to make a distinction between the impact of the program and the effect of drought on contracting secondary salinity sites.

Program stakeholders had a wide range of views with respect to the success of the salinity program so far. Some of the less successful aspects of the program reported by program stakeholders, including some extension advisors, included:

Shared objectives and relationships between stakeholders

There were a number of difficulties at the project management level:

There is evidence of a lack of shared ownership of the goals and objectives of the salinity program between the CCMA and DPI (particularly early on in the program), for example:

− there are on-going differing views about tradeoffs between meeting production

versus environmental objectives and perceptions that these are out of balance (either way depending on the individual’s perspective)

− there has been little clarification of what the differing extension objectives are (or should have been) between target areas

− there were early arguments about the use of incentives for treatment of salinity where there was public/private land boundary issues due to there being no clear policy (later resolved)

− there were issues relating to offering landholders incentives outside target area boundaries (later resolved using the 80:20 rule)

Unaligned goals were exacerbated by a lack of continuity in salinity program management roles within the CCMA and DPI.

There was an inability for the CCMA and DPI to collaboratively assess the value and performance of the program at regular intervals over its life. This is further evidenced by the poor reporting of achievements.

At times there has been an awkward relationship between the DPI and the CCMA. It is likely that relationship issues provided a barrier to the integration of the salinity program works with other NRM programs.



Annual rather than longer-term contracts between DPI and the CCMA could have slowed momentum throughout the program.

Too few clear objectives or key performance measures were included in service level agreements, which made service levels difficult to monitor and, secondly, results were probably poorly communicated to the CCMA.

Monitoring and reporting

The clumsiness and the inbuilt inflexibility of the state-wide CAMS reporting data base has meant that some staff are reluctant to use it. This is exacerbated by the range of capacity amongst staff to be able to use it efficiently.

CAMS offers only limited capability in terms of defining appropriate reporting outputs which meant that data base users could not easily report against their targets. This was reflected in the difficulty in accessing data to assess the level of achievement of on-ground works (against targets) for this evaluation.

Several interviewees also reported that the MATs within the CSAP are ambiguous and difficult to measure or define, particularly the recharge treatments.

It was also made apparent that so far there has been limited follow up and auditing of the success of works which means that it is difficult to make a judgement about the overall success of the projects.

Extension program focus and execution

The strong focus on salinity management has meant that only moderate effort has been directed towards achievement of biodiversity benefits. No biodiversity protection or enhancement type targets were set, for example.

Some extension providers were hesitant in executing their responsibilities and decision-making powers, which impacted on their ability to work flexibly with landholders. A lack of autonomy and training (in some cases) meant that extension advisors were not always able to be both flexible and entirely comfortable in their assessment of the most suitable salinity management actions for sites. Some of the difficulties included:

Distinguishing between primary and secondary salinity

Concerns about the weediness of TWG while at the same time, it is the most commonly used species for reclaiming saline land

Uncertainty felt by DPI extension officers when applying the TWG guidelines in areas in close proximity to waterways or wetlands hosting native species

Limited alternative species to TWG that will reclaim and increase agricultural production on saline land

A lack of training of extension providers meant that at times they had an inadequate skill set to cover the broad range of NRM issues facing landholders e.g. knowledge about appropriate indigenous species, how to describe salinity processes or how to persuade landholders to adopt practices, given benefits are often downstream.



By their own admission, some extension advisors were probably overly focused on meeting their annual agreed targets at the expense of achieving the best outcomes in terms of protection of high value assets. In some target areas, they tended to dispense incentives quickly rather than seeking to influence those who were not actively seeking assistance and advice. Once their targets were met they would turn their attention onto other programs competing for their time and effort.

There may have been instances where the high incentive level resulted in a lack of buy-in by some landholders although this was not evident in the findings of the landholder interviews.

There was little awareness by extension staff of salinity management action targets as outlined in the CSAP. Their focus was on meeting the works targets specified in their RCIP service agreements rather than the three year CSAP targets. This fed through to the reporting being inadequate to follow progress in achieving the MATs specified in the CSAP.



5 Main findings and conclusions

The main findings and conclusions of the evaluation are summarised below:

Achievement of program objectives and on-ground targets

Over a five-year period (2003 – 2008) over 3,100 ha was directly treated for salinity management. The works were undertaken throughout eight target areas representing almost 1.5% of the total targeted land area (approx. 220,000 ha).

Over the three-year period where works targets were agreed (2005 – 2008) between the CCMA and extension provider, these were exceeded in some target areas (Colac-Eurack, Lake Corangamite, Geelong-Lake Connewarre and Lismore-Derrinallum), and not met in others (Illabarook, Morrisons-Sheoaks and Pittong).

In relation to meeting the three-year management action targets specified in the CSAP, Colac-Eurack, Geelong-Lake Connewarre and Lismore-Derrinallum exceeded these targets. On the other hand Lake Corangamite, Illabarook, Morrison-Sheoaks, Pittong and Murdeduke fell short of meeting them.

Federal funding through the National Action Plan (NAP) declined over the three-year program period (2005/06 - $1.2m, 2006/07 - $1.1m and 2007/08 - $0.9m) and its not clear how this affected the level of achievement of the MATs. It is evident that other factors were more prominent in influencing uptake of incentives than budgetary.

Landholder satisfaction with the program

Around 110 landholders took up incentives to do work on their properties and almost half of these were interviewed for the evaluation.

Given that approximately 50% of participating landholders were interviewed, the evaluation findings are likely to be highly representative of the views and opinions of all program participants.

A significant feature of the evaluation has been a focus on collecting information and evidence of changes in knowledge, attitudes and farm practices arising from landholders’ involvement in the five-year program. Landholders were asked to reflect on their knowledge and experiences now compared to five years ago (pre-program) as a way of evaluating the level of influence the program has had.

A summary of the main findings follows:

The majority of landholders have learnt new information (70%) and they have changed their views about salinity and managing natural resources on their properties (70%) and they are now managing parts of their properties differently (65%).

Multiple outcomes have been demonstrated with the majority of interviewees (60%) also reporting that they had adopted other farm practices because of their involvement with the program, including stock containment, rotational grazing, stubble retention, biodiversity protection and general erosion prevention.

The vast majority are interested in undertaking further (and similar) work (80%).



Almost 50% reported between 5 and 50 ha of salt affected area. Just over 20% had less than 5 ha and the remaining 30% had greater than 50 ha. In general, landholders felt that increasing salinity was more of an issue in their district than on their own farms. Only 15% of landholders reported that salinity was increasing on their own properties, compared to 30% expressing a view that salinity is increasing in the district. Almost half felt that salinity was decreasing on their own properties.

Landholders have a good understanding of the likely reasons for what they are observing in terms of both salinity impacts and trends.


Landholders in the Colac-Eurack, Illabarook and Pittong target areas rate the importance of doing further salinity management work on their properties most highly. By contrast, fewer landholders in the Morrisons-Sheoaks, Lismore-Derrinallum and Geelong-Lake Corangamite target areas considered further salinity work on their properties as a high priority.

There was strong agreement that the salinity management projects on their properties had been highly successful (89%) and they indicated that they intended to do more of this type of work (80%). Nearly one third indicated that they would not undertake these types of works without an incentive. Incentives are deemed a very important aspect of the program, particularly in the Pittong, Lismore-Derrinallum and Morrison-Sheoaks target areas.

Almost 50% of landholders indicated that they had had little or no experience with some of the practices they had taken up as part of the program. By treatment, these comprised: less than 20% of those revegetating recharge areas, 40% of those fencing for natural regeneration and around 55% of landholders undertaking discharge treatments (either sowing pastures or establishing trees).

Landholders rated both extension providers very highly. The DPI extension service provided in the Colac-Eurack and Illabarook target areas was rated the highest while Woady Yaloak extension was rated most highly in Illabarook.

The advice provided (by both DPI and catchment group advisors) was invariably described as: sound and well delivered with enthusiasm and interest, practical, flexible, invaluable, well informed, with good follow-up, many good ideas, good guidance, well organised, came with a good understanding of local problems and communicated well.

Extension officers’ role in influencing landholders to undertake works was rated the highest and unexpectedly only a minority of landholders rated local farmers or neighbours as highly influential in getting them involved (14%).

No one was able to pin point any specific weakness of the program. Nearly all interviewees spoke very positively with the main emphasis being on the high quality of the advice provided and the value of the incentives in enabling them to undertake salinity projects. There was almost universal agreement that this type of program be continued (96%).



Suggestions for a future program were mostly to do with a continuation of what is already being delivered (incentives and advice). Some additional suggestions were made which were to do with more detailed mapping and planning of works (including management as well as establishment), more follow up and monitoring being done by advisors, broader funding guidelines that enable greater local flexibility on projects, and some innovation that would achieve better value for money out of the program – more negotiated (or market based) outcomes.

To some extent the narrow program focus on salinity management is reflected in the landholder’s responses. Landholders only occasionally mentioned practices relating to protection of remnant vegetation or managing their farms to protect environmental values. This is expected, given that only moderate effort was spent during the program in working towards achievement of biodiversity benefits. At the moment, landholders are very focused on tree planting in general and establishment of salt tolerant vegetation (trees and pasture) to manage salinity discharge (mostly) and recharge (in some cases).

Drivers of adoption

The results indicate that landholders in the Colac-Eurack, Lake Corangamite, Lismore-Derrinallum and Illabarook target areas rate production increases (arising from salinity works) more highly, whereas landholders in Morrisons-Sheoaks and Geelong-Lake Connewarre rate native vegetation recovery more highly. This largely corresponds with those target areas where landholders are generating most of their income from farming being more production focused, with the exception of Illabarook.

Most interviewees rated the threats posed by salinity to the productive capacity of their farms and to the natural environment as low (63%), with between 12 and 14% rating these risks as moderate and around 20% as high. There was little difference in responses between the target areas with some exceptions. This would indicate that these risks are not the main driving force behind landholders’ decisions around adopting treatments.

These findings are informative in terms of tailoring future extension and works activities across the program.

Pride has been found to be an important motivator behind landholders’ decisions to invest in salt land management (Land Water & Wool, 2007). For landholders with small affected areas, amenity, personal pride in good management and environmental improvement has been found to be the key drivers of adoption. Landholders with large areas of saline land, tend to be more focused on productive salt land pastures when taking decisions about how to manage the affected area.

There was, however, no correlation between the area of saline land and interest in production benefits found amongst the landholder participants interviewed. The reasons landholders offered as to why they are undertaking salinity works in the Corangamite region were mixed. They ranged from generating more production on previously marginal areas, improving the aesthetics by rehabilitating degraded areas, providing more tree cover through to looking to protect sensitive areas by excluding stock.



Delivery mechanisms and extension approach

Funding is sourced from the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). The CCMA is responsible for overseeing investment in salinity management in the Corangamite region and it uses the DPI as the primary delivery agent of relevant extension services in the region. The Woady Yaloak Catchment group is also a delivery agent.

DPI extension approach

There is little or no detail provided in the CSAP or the RCIP agreements about a preferred extension approach or about defining extension objectives. RCIP service level agreements comprise tables of budgets, activities and outputs rather than detailed extension plans for target areas.

A great deal of background work (for the development of the CSAP) went into evaluating landholder attitudes and capacity and these findings were published in various background reports (Nicholson et al. 2003, 2005). It is not clear whether the DPI consulted these reports when devising their extension approach, e.g. a stewardship payment scheme was recommended for some target areas that would encourage landholders to consider managing affected land for environmental values rather than production.

It is apparent that there was no communication or extension plan developed for each target area in advance of implementation.

Given this situation it would seem difficult to expect a substantive return on changing attitudes as result of the program when an objective around achieving attitudinal change has not been given any particular focus. Notwithstanding, the landholder interviews provided evidence that the program has delivered on this despite there being no explicit plan to achieve it.

The extension approach varied between target areas. It is unclear whether this was modified according to the needs of the targeted landholders or if it was more influenced by the personal style of the advisor and the way they tended to operate in their own communities. For example, in some target areas, landholders were required to have undertaken EBMP to be eligible for incentives whereas in others this was unnecessary. In these target areas, incentives were advertised and landholders contacted the DPI for assistance rather than the DPI targeting who they wanted to become involved. In some cases, advertising meant that advisors could rapidly sign up landholders for projects that would meet their annual works targets, irrespective of whether their efforts would result in the protection of high value assets. In other areas, where recharge salinity treatments were being promoted, extension advisors targeted landholders in mapped recharge areas.

There were very few extension materials produced throughout the program, which is unusual given that it was to some extent overfunded. An indication of the funding status of the program can be gathered from one advisor’s comment that, “we always met the targets and underspent the budget”. Others, however, expressed a desire for up-to-date and packaged materials they could leave with landholders, including information on suitable local species for different sites.



Extension staff were not familiar with the management action targets in the CSAP which reflects a detachment from the overarching policy document they were implementing. This also is indicative of poor communication between the CCMA to its main service deliverer.

There was evidence that extension staff promoted salinity management actions that they were most comfortable with and had expert knowledge in rather than being able to offer the full service or all possibilities for sites. Their preference was also reflected in the type of treatment targets that were negotiated through the RCIP agreements rather than what might have been best for each site.

The level of training and resourcing that would have ensured that extension advisers were fully equipped to deliver on multiple outcomes (for example biodiversity protection) across the region, was underestimated. Appropriate resources and training was not made available to meet these wider objectives of the program early on in the program.

Woady Yaloak Catchment Group extension approach

The Woady Yaloak Catchment Group also delivers extension services to the program. Their extension approach is somewhat different. There is a stronger emphasis on getting landholders in close proximity to work together on salinity management. They operate on longer term planning horizons and take a more collaborative view towards achieving landscape change (often in groups of 2 – 6 landholders adopting a 5 year action plan). They also place a greater emphasis on undertaking more detailed salinity investigations (e.g. EM surveys) and mapping of sites prior to undertaking works.

Program management

There was an inability for the CCMA and DPI to collaboratively assess the value and performance of the program at regular intervals over its life. This is further evidenced by the poor reporting of achievements due to the difficulties in inputting works information into the CAMS database. The achievements could not be tracked easily and efficiently over the life of the program.

This has meant that the information the CCMA needed to be comfortable with the performance of the program was not being conveyed by the main extension provider(s), either timely or in an easily understood format. This has no doubt added to protracted misunderstandings between the CCMA and their main program deliverer.

With changes in personnel in more recent times (past 18 months), it is evident that there is now much better communication and collaboration between the CCMA and DPI and the overall relationship has markedly improved.



6 Recommendations

We propose the following recommendations arising from the evaluation of the effectiveness of the extension approach used in the implementation of the Corangamite Salinity Action Plan:

1. Refocus the program’s objectives towards protecting highest value assets.

More specifically:

• Better definition of high value assets to be protected and placing more emphasis on assets at risk within target areas with the highest salinity risks

• Devise less prescriptive salinity management actions which will lead to greater flexibility in assessing the most appropriate treatment for sites

• Define extension objectives within a dedicated extension plan for each target area or where high value assets are to be protected

• Style extension approaches toward landholders’ preferences and interests around production and environmental protection in different target areas.

2. Broaden the scope of the program to achieve multiple outcomes in addition to salinity control.

More specifically:

• Expand management treatments to include protection of native species, for example, in both recharge and discharge areas, and along waterways, to better achieve multiple outcomes for catchment protection

• Ensure extension advisors are trained and comfortable with all land and biodiversity management possibilities to provide an inclusive and all-encompassing service to landholders

• Commit appropriate resources and training to ensure extension providers are fully equipped to meet these wider objectives of the program.

3. Use of improved program management and delivery tools to better achieve desired outcomes.

More specifically:

• Expand incentives approach to include stewardship payments and tendering between landholders

• Establish service level agreements with extension deliverers that are more directly aligned to the program’s desired outcomes

• Establish mechanisms for improved and more efficient reporting from the program extension deliverer(s), to enable the CCMA to be continually informed about the program’s achievements and progress against agreed outcomes.



References CSU. (2006). Corangamite region social benchmarking survey 2006. Charles Sturt University. Institute for Land Water and Society.

Land Water & Wool. (2007). Sustainable grazing on saline lands. In Land Water & Wool managing for sustainable profit. Australian Government. Land & Water Australia, ACT.

Nicholson, C. (2005). Reflections on asset manager and stakeholder response to implementation: June 2003 – September 2005. Corangamite Salinity Action Plan: Background Report No 8. Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, Colac, Victoria.

Nicholson, C., Anderson G., Stephens M. (2003). Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions. Background Report No 4. Corangamite Salinity Action Plan, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, Colac, Victoria.

Nicholson, C., Anderson G., Stephens M. (2003). Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions. Background Report No 4. Corangamite Salinity Action Plan, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, Colac, Victoria.

Nicholson, C., Dahlhaus PG., Anderson G., Kelliher, CK & Stephens M. (2006). Corangamite Salinity Action Plan: 2005 – 2008. Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, Colac, Victoria.

RMCG (2008). Treatment options for discharge management. RM Consulting Group, Bendigo, Vic.



Appendix 1: Landholder interviews analysis SECTION A: About the farm and farmer

A2 Which one of the following age groups do you belong to?

Target Area 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 + No Response

Total Responses

Colac-Eurack 25% 25% 50% 0% 0% 8

Lake Corangamite 0% 25% 50% 25% 0% 4

Geelong - Lake Connewarre 0% 25% 38% 38% 0% 8

Illabarook 9% 9% 36% 36% 9% 11

Lismore-Derrinallum 13% 0% 50% 38% 0% 8

Morrisons-Sheoaks 0% 14% 71% 14% 0% 7

Murdeduke 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 1

Pittong 25% 50% 0% 25% 0% 4

Grand Total 10% 20% 43% 25% 2% 51

A3.1 What types of farming are you involved in?

Target Area Cropping Livestock Wool Dairy Other Total Responses

Colac-Eurack 27% 47% 27% 0% 0% 15



Illabarook 29% 24% 24% 0% 24% 17



Murdeduke 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 2

Pittong 40% 20% 30% 0% 10% 10

Grand Total 25% 35% 24% 1% 15% 88

A3.2 What percentage of your gross farming income does (farming type) account for?

Target Area Cropping Livestock Wool Dairy Other Total Responses

Colac-Eurack 53% 76% 15% 0% 0% 15



Illabarook 43% 63% 20% 0% 100% 13



Murdeduke 10% 90% 0% 0% 0% 2

Pittong 39% 80% 30% 0% 5% 10

Total Average of cropping 41% 74% 41% 90% 52% 84



A3.3 Is your main source of household income from farming?

Target Area Mostly on-farm income

Mostly off-farm income No Response Total

Responses

Lake Corangamite 100% 0% 0% 4

Pittong 100% 0% 0% 4

Lismore-Derrinallum 75% 25% 0% 8

Colac-Eurack 63% 38% 0% 8

Morrisons-Sheoaks 57% 43% 0% 7

Geelong - Lake Connewarre 38% 63% 0% 8

Illabarook 27% 55% 18% 11

Murdeduke 100% 0% 0% 1

Grand Total 59% 37% 4% 51

A4 Is farming your full time occupation?

Target Area Yes No No Response Total Responses








Pittong 100% 0% 0% 4


A5 Farm size?

Target Area <500 500-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 >3000 Total Responses

Colac-Eurack 63% 0% 25% 13% 0% 8



Illabarook 73% 18% 9% 0% 0% 11



Murdeduke 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1

Pittong 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 4

Grand Total 65% 14% 16% 4% 2% 51



A6.1 How many hectares are affected by salinity?

Target Area <5ha 5-50ha 50-200ha >200ha Total Responses

Colac-Eurack 0% 50% 25% 25% 8

Lake Corangamite 0% 50% 50% 0% 4

Geelong - Lake Connewarre 38% 38% 13% 13% 8

Illabarook 45% 55% 0% 0% 11

Lismore-Derrinallum 13% 63% 13% 13% 8

Morrisons-Sheoaks 14% 57% 29% 0% 7

Murdeduke 0% 100% 0% 0% 1

Pittong 25% 0% 50% 25% 4

Grand Total 22% 49% 20% 10% 51

SECTION B: Attitudes towards and interest in salinity

B1.1 Have you learnt anything new about managing dryland salinity on your farm as a result of your involvement in the local salinity program?

Target Area Yes No Total Responses

Colac-Eurack 75% 25% 8

Lake Corangamite 100% 0% 4

Geelong - Lake Connewarre 75% 25% 8

Illabarook 64% 36% 11

Lismore-Derrinallum 63% 38% 8

Morrisons-Sheoaks 57% 43% 7

Murdeduke 100% 0% 1

Pittong 100% 0% 4

Grand Total 73% 27% 51

B2.1 How satisfied were you with the results of these works undertaken on your farm?

Target Area <5 Low 5-7 Medium 8-10 High no response Total Responses

Colac-Eurack 0% 25% 75% 0% 8



Illabarook 0% 0% 91% 9% 11



Pittong 0% 0% 100% 0% 4

Murdeduke 0% 0% 100% 0% 1

Grand Total 8% 12% 78% 2% 51



B3.1 Are you now managing parts of your farm differently because of being involved in the program?








Murdeduke 100% 0% 1

Pittong 100% 0% 4


B4.1 Are you interested in undertaking further (similar) work on your property?








Murdeduke 100% 0% 1

Pittong 100% 0% 4


Summary of responses

Yes No Total Responses

Learnt anything new? 73% 27% 100%

Changed attitudes? 71% 29% 100%

Managing parts of farm differently? 65% 35% 100%

Interested in doing further work? 82% 18% 100%



B7.1 In your opinion is the salinity problem in your district, increasing, staying about the same or decreasing?

Target Area Increasing Staying the Same Decreasing No response Total

Responses

Colac-Eurack 13% 63% 25% 0% 8



Illabarook 27% 36% 27% 9% 11



Murdeduke 100% 0% 0% 0% 1

Pittong 25% 25% 50% 0% 4

Grand Total 31% 33% 31% 4% 51

B8 How important is it that more treatment of salinity takes place in your district?

Target Area Low Medium High Total Responses








Pittong 0% 25% 75% 4


B11.1 Is the salinity problem on your property, increasing, staying about the same or decreasing?

Target Area Increasing Staying the Same Decreasing N/A Total

Responses

Colac-Eurack 0% 38% 63% 0% 8



Illabarook 18% 9% 64% 9% 11



Murdeduke 0% 0% 100% 0% 1

Pittong 50% 0% 25% 25% 4

Grand Total 16% 35% 45% 4% 51



B12.1 How significant is salinity as a threat to the productive capacity of your property?

Target Area <5 Low 5-7 medium 8-10 High Total Responses








Pittong 25% 25% 50% 4

Grand Total 63% 14% 22% 49

B12.2 How significant is salinity as a threat to the natural environment on your property?









Pittong 50% 0% 50% 4

Grand Total 63% 12% 24% 49

B13.1 How important is it for you to do more treatment of salinity on your land?









Pittong 25% 25% 50% 4

Grand Total 20% 53% 27% 51



Summary of responses – percentage of respondents rating undertaking further salinity work on their own farm versus in the district, as highly important.

Target Area Highly important: district Highly important: own farm

Colac - Eurack 50% 50%

Corangamite 25% 25%

Geelong - Lake Connewarre 50% 13%

Illabarook 45% 45%

Lismore-Derinallum 50% 13%

Morrisons-SheOaks 57% 0%

Pittong 75% 50%

Grand Total 49% 27%

Summary of responses – percentage of respondents rating salinity as a threat to the natural environment versus productive capacity, as highly important.

Target area Threat to natural environment Threat to productive capacity


Lake Corangamite 0% 0%


Illabarook 50% 22%

Lismore-Derrinallum 25% 13%

Morrisons-Sheoaks 29% 14%

Pittong 50% 50%

Grand Total 24% 22%

B14.1 Do you think that your involvement in the salinity program has changed your attitude toward salinity and protecting native vegetation and environmental values generally?








Murdeduke 0% 100% 1

Pittong 75% 25% 4




SECTION C: Adoption of key practices that will reduce dryland salinity

C1 Which of the following treatments for salinity have you undertaken on your farm?

Treatment Recharge areas - trees & shrubs

Discharge areas - trees & shrubs

Discharge areas - pasture sown

Fencing: natural regeneration

Surface drainage Total

Grand Total 15% 53% 20% 11% 2% 51

C2-C7 Summary – percentage of total responses to various aspects of adoption

Aspect of adoption:

Recharge areas - trees & shrubs

Discharge areas - trees & shrubs

Discharge areas - pasture sown

Fencing: natural

regeneration

All treatments

First time this type of work has been done on the farm 17% 56% 54% 40% 49%

Treatment has been successful 88% 86% 91% 100% 89%

Intend to do more of this treatment 50% 93% 73% 83% 81%

Will only do more work with incentive 0% 32% 45% 20% 29%

C8.1 What are your main reasons for undertaking works to reduce salinity on your property?

Target Area To increase

production of the farm

To improve environmental

values

To improve amenity of the affected area

Other

Colac-Eurack 24% 0% 17% 8%

Lake Corangamite 14% 13% 0% 11%

Geelong-Lake Connewarre 10% 25% 22% 14%

Illabarook 10% 19% 39% 28%

Lismore-Derrinallum 14% 13% 0% 17%

Morrisons-Sheoaks 14% 19% 17% 8%

Murdeduke 3% 0% 0% 3%

Pittong 10% 13% 6% 11%

Total Responses 29 16 18 36

Overall 57% 31% 35% 71%



C9.1 How important is it for you that agricultural production is increased on the affected areas you are treating?

Target Area <5 Low 5-7 Medium 8-10 High no response Total responses

Colac-Eurack 0% 13% 88% 0% 8


Geelong-Lake Connewarre 50% 25% 25% 0% 8

Illabarook 18% 9% 64% 9% 11



Murdeduke 0% 0% 100% 0% 1

Pittong 25% 75% 0% 0% 4

Grand Total 24% 27% 47% 2% 51

C10.1 How interested are you in less intensive forms of management such as fencing off and allowing native vegetation to regenerate (with occasional weed treatment)?


Colac-Eurack 38% 38% 25% 0% 8



Illabarook 45% 0% 55% 0% 11



Murdeduke 100% 0% 0% 0% 1

Pittong 50% 25% 25% 0% 4

Grand Total 39% 16% 43% 2% 51

SECTION D: Satisfaction with the program and the DPI/Catchment group extension service

D1 Who was your main contact person for salinity work?

Target Area DPI Catchment Group Total responses



Geelong-Lake Connewarre 19% 0% 8




Murdeduke 2% 0% 1

Pittong 0% 36% 4

Total responses 42 11 53



D2.1 How important was DPI or the catchment group information and advice in helping you make decisions about salinity?

Target Area <5 Low 5-7 Medium 8-10 High Total responses



Geelong-Lake Connewarre 0% 25% 75% 8





Pittong 0% 50% 50% 4

Grand Total 14% 31% 55% 51

D6 How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the regional salinity program over the past 5 years?

Summary - percentage of respondents rating responsiveness of officer and quality of advice as very high (8/10 or higher) DPI extension advisors

Target area Responsiveness of officer Quality of advice


Illabarook 100% 83%


Morrisons-Sheoaks 100% 71%

Lismore-Derrinallum 86% 71%

Corangamite 75% 75%

Grand total 95% 78% Woady Yalloak extension advisor

Target area Responsiveness of officer Quality of advice

Illabarook 100% 100%

Pittong 75% 100%

Grand total 80% 100%

Rating of level of satisfaction with overall program Target Area Overall program

<5 Low 5-7 Medium 8-10 High no response Total responses

Colac-Eurack 0% 38% 63% 0% 8



Illabarook 0% 0% 100% 0% 11



Murdeduke 0% 0% 100% 0% 1

Pittong 0% 0% 100% 0% 4

Grand Total 2% 20% 76% 2% 51



Rating of level of satisfaction with incentives application process


Colac-Eurack 0% 38% 63% 0% 8



Illabarook 0% 9% 91% 0% 11



Murdeduke 0% 0% 100% 0% 1

Pittong 0% 0% 100% 0% 4

Grand Total 10% 16% 73% 2% 51

Rating of level of satisfaction with incentives level


Colac-Eurack 0% 25% 75% 0% 8



Illabarook 18% 9% 73% 0% 11



Murdeduke 0% 0% 100% 0% 1

Pittong 0% 0% 100% 0% 4

Grand Total 10% 18% 71% 2% 51

D3.1 Have you adopted any other farm practices because of your involvement with the DPI or Catchment Group through this program?

Target Area Yes No Total responses



Geelong-Lake Connewarre 38% 63% 8




Murdeduke 100% 0% 1

Pittong 50% 50% 4




D11.1 Which of the following components of the program do you value the most?

Target Area Extension Advice Incentives Both the

same No response Total responses

Colac-Eurack 0% 25% 75% 0% 8



Illabarook 0% 18% 82% 0% 11



Murdeduke 0% 0% 100% 0% 1

Pittong 0% 75% 25% 0% 4

Grand Total 4% 37% 57% 2% 51

D13.1 Would you like to see this type of program continued in a similar way in your area?

Target Area Yes No No response Total responses








Pittong 100% 0% 0% 4


SECTION E: Concluding Comments

E3 Would you like to receive a copy of the final report, which will be available from November 2008?

Target Area Yes No No response Total responses








Pittong 100% 0% 0% 4




Appendix 2: Management Action Targets

Corangamite Salinity Action Plan (2005 – 2008)

Target Location Recharge treatments (ha over 3 years) Discharge treatments (ha over 3 years) 1. High-

density tree planting

2. Tree planting interception belts

3. Shallow surface drains to intercept lateral flow of perched groundwater.

4. Tree planting adjoining or near saline discharge.

5a. Protection & management of discharge areas to allow natural vegetation recovery (fencing only).

5b. Protection & management of discharge areas to allow natural vegetation recover (with trees).

6. Protection & management of discharge areas with establishment of additional vegetation

7. Waterlogging control on discharge areas in conjunction with establishment of additional vegetative cover.

8. Water logging control

Lake Corangamite 81 (private) 81 (private) 131 (private

66012 Morrisons – Sheoaks

9613

15 15

27 (public) 18 (public) Colac - Eurack

66 (private

132 (private) 78 (private)

99 (public) Geelong – Lake Connewarre

81 (private)

111 (private)

12 (private)

Pittong 567 582 66 132 435

54 (public) Illabarook

51 (private)

21

178

21 (public) Lismore – Derrinallum

69 (private)

48 (private)

Warncoort 90 (private)

Murdeduke 87 (public/private) 39 (public/private)

Modewarre 72 (public/private)

48 (public/private)

Lara 21 (public)

Upper West Moorabool

No on-ground targets set until current studies are completed



Appendix 3: Achievement of Management Action Targets Summary of program of on-ground works achievement against annual targets 2003 – 2008

5-year %

No. Target area total ha Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual achievement

1 Colac - Eurack 777 0 195 80 310 50 95 100 177 230 582 exceeded

2 Illabarook 145 0 68 80 31 70 5 50 42 245 78 32%

3 Geelong-Lake Connewarre 1154 186 0 133 20 35 10 800 30 968 exceeded

4 Lake Corangamite 103 0 0 40 31 40 73 0 80 103 exceeded

5 Lismore-Derrinallum 458 0 229 45 47 50 144 35 37 130 229 exceeded

6 Morrisons-Sheoaks 248 56 26 140 18 92 89 55 59 287 167 58%

7 Murderduke 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 -

8 Pittong 281 0 0 189 65 27 369 281 76%

Total 3171 241 518 385 763 322 506 250 1,143 957 2,412 exceeded

No funded extension program

9 Waarncoort

10 Modewarre

11 Lara

12 Upper West Moorabool

5-year %

No. Manaagement action total ha Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual achievement

1,2,4 Recharge - tree planting 508 51 89 105 190 77 111 45 66 371 368 met

3 Recharge - shallow surface drainage 40 0 0 0 40 0 40 -

5a Discharge - natural recovery 1513 77 167 80 397 70 26 50 847 200 1,269 exceeded

5b Discharge - natural recovery with trees247 110 5 8 83 41 131 -

6 Discharge - trees or pasture 785 3 257 200 121 175 238 155 166 800 525 66%

7 Discharge - waterlogging with pasture78 0 0 48 8 22 78 -

8 Discharge - water logging control

Total (ha) 3171 241 518 385 763 322 506 250 1,143 957 2,412 exceeded

2005-2006 2006-2007

2005-2006 2006-20072003-2004 2004-2005

2003-2004 2004-2005

2007-2008 3-year total ha

2007-2008 3-year total ha



Achievement of Corangamite Salinity Action Plan (CSAP) targets 2005 - 2008

Target area

% Achievment

Funded program Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual

Colac-Eurack 0 0 93 306 132 53 96 223 0 321 582 exceeded

Geelong-Lake Connewarre 0 0 180 933 111 35 12 0 0 303 968 exceeded

Illabrook 126 56 0 0 0 0 178 22 304 78 26%

Lake Corangamite 0 0 81 0 81 2 131 101 0 293 103 35%

Lismore-Derrinallum 0 0 90 30 37 48 161 0 138 229 exceeded

Morrisons-Sheoaks 771 127 0 0 0 40 15 0 786 167 21%

Murderduke 0 0 0 4 87 0 39 0 126 4 3%

Pittong 633 185 582 40 0 0 0 132 56 435 1782 281 16%

3 Year total (ha) 1530 368 582 40 444 1269 324 131 374 525 364 78 435 0 4053 2412 60%

Unfunded program

Waarncoort 90 90 0

Modewarre 72 48 120 0

Lara 21 21 0

Upper West Moorabool

All - 3 Year total (ha) 1530 368 582 40 444 1269 324 131 374 525 364 78 435 0 4284 2412 56%

Recharge Treatments (ha over 3 years)

1,2 & 4. Tree

planting (various)

3. Shallow surface drains

to intercept lateral flow of

perched groundwater

5a. Protection &

Management of of

discharge areas to allow

natural vegetation

recovery (fencing only) Total

7. Waterlogging

control on

discharge areas &

additional

vegetative cover

8. Waterlogging

control

Discharge Treatments (ha over 3 years)

5b. Protection and

management of

discharge areas to

allow natural vegetation

recovery (with trees)

6. Protection and

management of

discharge areas &

additional vegetation

Total (ha over 3 years)

No extension

No extension

No extension

No targets set

corangamite catchment management authority · an evaluation of extension methods of the corangamite...

Documents