rural extension and participation in the land management ... · rural extension and participation...

Rural Extension and Participationin the Land Management Tender

Trial on the Liverpool Plains.

Report to the Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee

John Stalyards ArcherOctober 2002

LMT Review October 2002i

Note and AcknowledgmentsThis report is a consolidated version of a dissertation submitted in partial completion

of a Bachelor of Natural Resources Management at the University of New England.

A full copy of this dissertation is held by the University.

I would like to thank the landholders of the Liverpool Plains who generously gave

their time to participate in this study.

I would also like to thank the members of the Liverpool Plains Land Management

Committee who provided me with support and advice during the study.

Many thanks to Julian Prior of the University of New England who provided me

with guidance during the research.

Finally thanks to my partner Christine Kuhnell for her constant faith and assistance.

LMT Review October 2002ii

ContentsList of Tables and Figures iii

Executive Summary iv

Introduction and Aims of the Study 1

Rural Extension in the Land Management Tenders 3

Sociology and Conservation Behaviour on Farms 5

Research Methodology 8

Results and Discussion 10

The Participants 10

The Basis for Participation 19

The Tender Process 22

Creating Procedural Transparency 30

A Model of the Process 32

Conclusion 36

Recommendations 37

References 38

Appendices 40

LMT Review October 2002iii

List of Tables and Figures

Tables

1. Terminal and Instrumental Vales Influencing Conservation Decisions 6

2. Land use statistics for participants in the study 10

3. Key Management Issues and the Number of Interviews in which they were

discussed 14

4. Major Issues in the Formulation of the Bids 27

5. Key to Figure 5 32

Figures

1. The Rural Extension Spectrum 3

2. Modified Attitude Model 5

3. The Basis for Participation 20

4. Sources of Awareness of the Land Management Tenders 22

5. The Land Management Tender Process and its Fundamental Influences and

Outcomes 33

LMT Review October 2002iv

Executive SummaryAuctioning conservation contracts is a recent addition to the tools available for

creating landscape change. The system, which emerged from the United States, has

had significant complexity incorporated into, particularly in the Land Management

Tender (LMT) trial undertaken by the Liverpool Plains Land Management

Committee (LPLMC). Most literature relating to auctioning conservation contracts

is economic in nature but the importance of information exchange in the process

means the rural extension is fundamental to its success. The potential to broaden the

market for incentive funding among landholders is also a potential benefit so

understanding who is participating in the process is also important. This study

investigated rural extension and the participants in the first round of LMTs with an

aim to improve the process in the future.

The LMTs use an integrated rural extension methodology, which is consistent with

the extension task. Landholders need to be characterised in terms of their individual

perspective or Self-Concept, which reflects their experience, self-perception and the

influence of social norms. Ultimately a farmer’s behaviour will reflect how they

perceive ‘good farm management’ in their situation. This construct includes the

influence of farm size, production type, the Self-Concept, financial situation and

their social environment. This is a superior method of understanding than simply

relying on attitudes.

The study drew on participants who submitted a bid in the first round of Land

Management Tenders and used a qualitative research method that incorporated semi-

structured interviews and focus groups. Results showed that the participants were

involved mostly in grazing or mixed farming. Farm size was a fundamental

influence on the differences observed between participants due to its influence on

the financial constraints to their farming activities. A majority of landholders had

been involved in Landcare and many had some form of institutional contact with

conservation organisations.

Management experiences and perceptions of land management problems varied

between individuals according to personal experience and individual situation. The

LMT Review October 2002v

benefits of groundcover maintenance were widely recognised however tree

establishment was only seen as essential by a minority of participants according to

the value they placed on trees and their experiences with regeneration and planting.

The way conservation was seen as integrating with production varied according to

the extent that the landholder perceived conservation as necessarily constraining

productive land use.

The prerequisite for participation in the tenders is previous positive experience with

conservation or a perception that traditional practices require change. This

experience leads the individual to a position where they feel that change is necessary

and they are motivated to do so. Different factors are important in each person’s

decision to make changes to their land management.

Tenderers were motivated by economic gain and a desire to improve the natural

attributes of their properties. Their participation allowed them to overcome key

constraints to undertaking this change on their own, particularly economic and

knowledge related issues. The main benefit of the process is that it will accelerate

the process of change on the participant’s properties.

Changes to the conventional funding model were generally well received,

particularly the incorporation of monitoring and auditing. The risk of alienating

participants whoa re not funded is significantly reduced by the practice of inviting

the participants to discuss their failure and to participate in future auctions.

The extension method used for the LMT trial was highly successful despite the

existence of some uncertainty within the participant group and the LPLMC

extensionists. This was largely due to the availability of one-to-one advice and

interaction between the LPLMC and the participant. This could be further enhanced

by targeting extension activity by improving the understanding of an individuals

level of knowledge and information needs.

The main problem with the process is a lack of procedural transparency, particularly

in relation to how the system functions and how the bids are assessed. The LPLMC

needs to formalize the process by providing participants with a written guide to the

LMT Review October 2002vi

tender that can be used throughout bid formulation. Provision of information about

the degradation issues with avenues for further information gathering is also

important to reduce confusion amongst the participants. In terms of the larger task of

implementing the Catchment Investment Strategy, it is essential that scientific

information be moulded into a form that can be used in extension activities.

Interaction with landholders who exhibit interest in the LMTs but do not bid needs

to be increased. This is vital to bring these landholders into the process of change in

other ways (through informing them of other ways they might achieve their goals) or

to reassure them that if they are not confident about bidding and project design they

will receive enough support to overcome these problems. It is essential that the

LPLMC engage as many landholders as possible in the early stages where motivated

individuals may be limited in number.

The first round of LMTs was well implemented and many of the shortcomings

reflect that it was a trial and something with which the landholders were unfamiliar.

In the future and particularly if the process is to broaden the funding market,

creating more transparency and increasing the level of support to landholders is

vital. However, the process rests on a landholder’s pre-existing desire for change. To

successfully implement the Catchment Investment Strategy the LPLMC needs to

develop ways to create this desire for change in the community. The evidence from

this study suggests that convincing landholders of the personal advantage to their

enterprises will be a fundamental part of this process.

NR 490 – Project Report J.S. Archer1

Introduction and Aims of the StudyAuctioning conservation contracts is a very recent addition to the suite of tools

available to the natural resource management community to achieve landscape

change. The availability of a range of tools will be increasingly important as natural

resource management in New South Wales (NSW) moves beyond the planning stage

and embarks on the crucial task of implementing catchment management plans. The

Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee (LPLMC) is one of the first

organisations in the State to reach this crucial precipice with the completion of its

Catchment Investment Strategy (CIS).

Auctioning conservation contracts emerged from the Conservation Reserve Program

in the United States, as a method for retiring marginal cropping land to reduce erosion

and excess production (Shoemaker 1989). Part of this scheme provided landholders

with assistance, through a fixed grant, to establish grass cover on these lands. In

transferring the system to Australia this contribution to land management costs

became the focus of the process. It was initially introduced in the form of the Bush

Tender scheme in Victoria, aimed at providing incentive funding to landholders to

manage remnant vegetation for conservation purposes (Todd 2002). The subject of

this study, the LPLMC Land Management Tenders (LMTs), extends this system by

seeking to address multiple degradation issues and to integrate projects with

productive uses of the land. This diversification represents a significant challenge to

the LPLMC in terms of the complexity of the LMT system.

The LMTs utilise a first price, sealed bid, reverse auction process where landholders

volunteer to design and cost resource conservation projects in consultation with the

LPLMC. The landholder then submits a bid price to undertake the project and the bids

in the auction are compared and ranked using and Environmental Benefits Index

(EBI). The most beneficial projects are funded and the projects are enshrined in a

contract based on up to three years of project implementation during which the

landholder receives monetary reimbursement. Following this, the contract specifies a

management period of up to seven years during which the landholder must manage

the area in an agreed manner.


An analysis of the literature relating to the auctioning of conservation contracts

reveals that the majority of research has been economic in nature as auctions are a

market institution. Some quantitative sociological enquiry has been undertaken in

relation to the Bush Tenders but this not available in detail for public perusal.

However many of the benefits of the system are sociological in nature. These benefits

include the exchange of information that occurs between the buyer (the LPLMC) and

the seller (the landholder) regarding conservation on private land, the opportunity to

educate and involve landholders in resource conservation and providing flexibility to

the landholder to formulate a personally acceptable project (Stoneham et al. 2002).

The system is also reputed as a method for broadening the ‘market’ for incentive

funding in the farming community.

Information and communication are of fundamental importance in a successful

auction. Auctions specifically exist to overcome an information asymmetry between

buyer and seller (Milgrom 1989). In the case of the LMTs the LPLMC holds

information regarding the priorities for resource conservation in the catchment and

expertise regarding how conservation is best undertaken. Farmers hold information

about their willingness to undertake these activities, the information they require and

their personal opportunity costs for doing so. Rural extension is the method for

information exchange and communication in this situation and is therefore basic to the

auctions success. The way this is achieved will determine the efficiency and

effectiveness of the LMTs.

The aim of this study was to provide information to the LPLMC about the first round

of LMTs that will assist them to better understand the auction process and the people

who have been involved. Specifically the study undertook to:

Characterise the bidding participants in the first round of the LMTs

Review the rural extension methodology

Create a model of the process and its important influences

The successful achievement of these aims will assist in the improvement of the LMT

process for the future as well as providing a basis for future investigations.


Extension in the Land Management TendersA comprehensive review of the rural extension literature suggested that the integrated

extension methodology employed during the land management tenders is highly

appropriate to the situation and context of the undertaking. This integrated approach

employs aspects of each of the components of the rural extension spectrum displayed

below (Figure 1).

Source: Van Beek and Coutts (1992), in Hamilton 1996

Figure 1 The Rural Extension Spectrum

Coutts (1994, cited in Hamilton 1996) outlines the categories of the extension

spectrum:

Technology Transfer: A means of proactively changing behaviour

through the adoption of externally developed technology achieved by

convincing people of its worth.

Problem Solving: Assisting individuals to find solutions to problems

that arise and inhibit their desired performance.

Education: Helping people to better understand their situation and

therefore enable them to take control of improving their situation.

Human Development: Individuals and communities defining problems

and seeking solutions facilitated and stimulated by extension.

Increasingpeople skills

Increasing level of complexity

Human Development

Education

Problem Solving

TechnologyTransferTechnical

know how


The CIS provides a reasonably prescriptive basis for project content, which the

landholder must adopt to be successful, lending the process some elements of

traditional technology transfer. From a problem solving perspective the tender is

assisting the individuals involved to create a solution to a problem that they have

recognized as existing on their property. This also has a human development aspect as

the project is conceptualized and formulated by the landholder based on how they

would like to address the issue. Participants are also given some education regarding

the degradation issues and farm planning.

This integrated approach is essential in the context of natural resource management

problems. While some extension theorists have sought to completely reject the

traditional technology transfer approach, this is not feasible in resource management

extension. Natural resource problems are largely outside the technical understanding

of the average landholder whose expertise is predominantly related to productive farm

management (Vanclay and Lawrence 1996). However, this transfer must be done in a

context that empowers the landholder to make personal decisions suitable to their

situation.

Importantly interaction between the LPLMC and the landholder incorporates group

processes and one-to-one interaction. Preliminary meetings and workshops give

potential participants an opportunity to meet and discuss issues with other farmers as

well as the LPLMC and provide an efficient way of introducing the scheme to the

farming community. Following this, the participant has the opportunity to discuss

their project on an individual basis during the farm visit and by contacting the

LPLMC. One-to-one interaction between extensionist and landholder has become

increasingly rare as a result of reduced government spending. However, as the results

below will show, this is the most crucial element of the LMTs.


Sociology and Conservation Behaviour on FarmsThe study also examined the literature relating to rural sociology in Australia to

provide a basis for understanding the participants in the LMTs. Firstly it needs to be

recognised that each farmer is an individual with differing life experiences,

perspectives and land management goals. A landholder’s goals will be influenced by

economic constraints, stewardship, farm size and attitudes to risk (Guerin 1999,

Lynne et al. 1988).

Attitudes have traditionally been seen as a fundamental influence on conservation

behaviour and changing these attitudes has been an important focus of initiatives such

as the Landcare movement. (Curtis 1993). An attitude can be defined as a degree of

belief that a consequence will occur which is motivated by a stimulus and results in

some form of response. Figure 2 describes this process. What is important to note it’s

the perception screen which influences the way a person perceives the stimulus and

the context/situation screen which influences the response. The influence of these

screens means that no individual will respond to a stimulus in the same manner and

different people may require a different stimulus to form a similar attitude. It is also

important to note that a response is not necessarily behavioural.

Figure 2 Modified Attitude Model (Source: Vanclay 1992)

The conglomerate of attitudes is known as the Self-Concept. The Self-Concept

comprises the views and images a person has about themself and how they see

Stimulus(environment)

Attitude Response(behaviour/opinion)

PerceptionScreen

Context/SituationScreen

KnowledgeInformation

KnowledgeInformationResourcesFinanceAge


themselves in their world (Seabrook and Higgins 1988). This concept can be

described in terms of two fundamental sets of values, terminal values, or the ultimate

objects of behaviour, and instrumental values that involve types of behaviour (Lynne

et al. 1988). Table 1 gives some examples of these values.

Table 1 Terminal and Instrumental Values Influencing Conservation Decisions(Source: Rokeach 1973, cited in Lynne et al. 1988)

Terminal Values Instrumental Values Comfortable life BroadmindedExciting life CapableA sense of accomplishment HonestA world of beauty ResponsibleEquality Logical (rational)Family security IndependentSelf-respect IntellectualSocial recognition Self-controlledWisdom

Assuming adoption of conservation practices will place a financial burden on the

landholder a person who is logical and values a comfortable life will be likely to

respond to monetary incentives to adopt conservation practices. Someone who ranks

responsibility and a world of beauty as important will be more likely to adopt

conservation effort without monetary incentive. Similarly, a person who sees themself

as a productive land user will also be less likely to set aside land for conservation than

someone who sees themself as a caretaker of the land.

External influences are also important. Each individual is a part of the wider

community and social norms, or a person’s perception of those norms, influence

behaviour. How a person perceives that others recognise them and also how they

would like to be seen are fundamental parts of the Self-Concept (Seabrook and

Higgins 1988). For example a farmer who has little personal desire to plant trees may

do so simply so that he or she is seen by others to be contributing to the environment.

Combining these external factors with personal values leads to an individual’s

behavioural norm.


Social norms are particularly important in relation to conservation and environmental

issues. Being in favour of conservation and environmental protection is a socially

desirable position however the normative environment of landholders is more

complex than this. Perceptions that conservation is driven by ‘greenies’ who do not

live in rural areas or that conservation inherently involves land use restrictions means

that the rural community has conflicting normative influences and an individual,

depending on their Self-Concept and immediate social influences, can adopt a range

of positions towards conservation.

Ultimately a farmer’s conservation behaviour will reflect how this goal integrates

with their personal perception of what constitutes ‘good farm management’ in their

situation (Vanclay et al. 1998). ‘Good farm management’ is not an absolute but a

social construct that takes into account each farmer’s unique situation (Vanclay 2002).

This dynamic concept is a combination of physical characteristics (e.g. farm

size/production type), financial situation, their Self-Concept (including their goals)

and their social environment. Attempting to understand a farmer’s personal

perspective on ‘good farm management’ is a much better guide to their conservation

behaviour than simple attitudes.


Research MethodologyThe research took a constructivist, rather than a positivist, perspective in regards to

understanding social systems. Positivism assumes a traditional scientific

understanding of these systems based on the existence of concrete laws and

mechanisms dependent on causal links that can be discovered and understood through

research. In contrast, constructivists perceive reality as a personal construct that

differs between individuals based on social and experiential factors. Whereas a

positivist seeks the ‘true’ construction of society, the constructivist seeks a more

sophisticated and informed construct through research.

Subjects for the study were drawn from the group of landholders who bid in the

auction and the LPLMC extension staff who conducted the trial. The study utilised a

qualitative research method, which was suited to the small size of the subject group

(25) and the need for a detailed understanding of each individual. Semi-structured

interviews were conducted with each subject followed by two focus groups with

select participants. The interview questions were formulated in consultation with the

LPLMC prior to beginning the research and tested in three pilot interviews. Following

these pilot interviews some modifications were made based on the initial responses to

the questions.

The final questions and their pilot predecessors can be found in Appendix A.

Interview questions were developed from the aims of the project and concentrated on

several issues:

The participant’s farm size, production type and their management

goals and constraints.

Their motivation for entering a bid, the success of the extension

method and reflection on the process itself.

The interviewee’s perception of the benefits of land management

change and potential directions for future incentives.

Although the interview was structured by the questions, the interviewees were

encouraged to explore other subjects they felt were relevant and often questions were

not asked in order to explore other issues in more depth.


The focus groups were conducted with groups of four selected interviewees.

Participant selection for this stage of the research aimed to include in each group the

range of views expressed during the interview stage. This selection was constrained

by the venues for the focus groups and the need for participants to be within a

reasonable traveling distance of the venue.

The focus groups were less formally structured than the interviews and focused on the

two key issues that arose from the interviews, creating a set of guidelines and costing

the projects. The facilitator introduced the subjects by suggesting a preliminary

conclusion from the interviews and then the participants discussed the issue. During

discussion, the facilitator asked clarifying questions and suggested ways in which

problems might be resolved to stimulate further discussion. A secondary aim of these

groups was to confirm the results of the interviews by analysing the responses given

by participants who participated in both phases of the research.

Both the interviews and focus groups were taped using a micro-cassette recorder. This

was done with the interviewee’s consent and each participant was provided with an

information sheet and an opportunity to discuss the project prior to commencement of

an interview or group process. To overcome any literacy problems the sheet and

consent form were explained to every participant in detail before commencing the

interview.

The first step in analysis was to fully transcribe the interviews and focus groups. All

names were removed from the transcripts (including references to family, friends etc.)

and each interview was assigned a number in place of the participant’s name.

Following this, the transcripts were read through a number of times and the important

parts highlighted. Using the highlighted copies of the transcripts, electronic subject

files were created by copying and pasting relevant parts of each interview. All

interview fragments were labeled with their interview number so their source could

always be identified. Larger fragments were also preferred in order to keep the

fragments in context. These subject files formed the evidence for each issue discussed

in the results.


Results and DiscussionWhen reading these results it is important to recognise the inherent variation between

interviews that is an natural part of qualitative research. As stated above issues were

not necessarily discussed in every interview and in some cases, questions were passed

over to allow another issue to be explored in detail without breaching the time

constraint. The final few questions relating to incentive development in the future (see

Appendix A) have not been included in the results as examination of the data

suggested that the knowledge of interviewees in relation to these issues was

insufficient for reliable answers.

The Participants

Farm size and production types

The participants came from a range of different farming types and from throughout

the Liverpool Plains catchment. The median farm size was 514.5ha, with 4 properties

over 2000ha (significantly influencing the data) and 2 lifestyle farms of less than

100ha. Table 2 shows the distribution of production types between the farms involved

in the trial.

Table 2 Land use statistics for participants in the study

Land use No. InvolvedMixed (grazing/dryland cropping) 8Grazing 11Cropping (dryland) 1Farm Forestry* 1Organic* 2Lifestyle Farming* 4Main Grazing Industry No. InvolvedBeef 15Sheep 2

*these farms are also included in other Land Use categories

Grazing (mainly beef) and mixed farming are the predominant land uses. Only one

pure dryland cropping enterprise was involved in the study and no irrigators

participated in the auction trial. These statistics are reasonably reflective of land use

on the Liverpool Plains, apart from the relative absence of pure cropping enterprises.

An important factor in this absence may be the fact that the initial meetings held to


introduce the community to the process were held during the harvest time for winter

crops in 2001, a fact alluded to by one of the interviewees. The CIS strategy is also

strongly biased, in terms of direct investment, towards activities such as fencing and

pasture and tree establishment, which will be undertaken on grazing lands.

All of the interviewees were either sole or joint managers of the enterprise and only

one participant was an employed manager. Nine of the twenty landholders, who

owned smaller properties, indicated that some of their time was devoted to earning an

income not related to their farming enterprise. Three relatively distinct groupings of

participants became apparent from this analysis of physical diversity and provide

three basic perspectives:

Lifestyle farmers: who occupy smaller parcels of land and are managing

primarily for personal satisfaction or as a hobby.

Small property farmers: who have the bulk of their equity invested in the

property and may or may not derive the majority of their income from the

land.

Large/multiple property farmers: who rely on farming for their income but

own properties in excess of 2000ha.

The main difference between these groups, apart from their size, is the financial

importance of the farms production to the participant. To the lifestyle farmer,

production is not fundamental for financially supporting their lifestyle (although 2 are

developing avenues for increasing financial returns) and although they may or may

not have a debt attached to the ownership of the land, this would be serviced by off-

farm income. The large/multiple property farmers are reliant on farm income to

support their livelihoods, however they devote their entire time to farming and have

much larger areas in production and an ability to carry and service a greater level of

debt. The small property farmers occupy a range of positions from wholly reliant on

the farm for income to balancing farm management with full or part time work

commitments.


Landcare involvement, funding experience and existing connections togovernment or the LPLMC

Fourteen of the 20 participants had been involved with the Landcare movement at

some time with 12 participants indicating that they had some form of funding for

conservation on their land before. This is consistent with the findings of the Bush

Tender review, which cited involvement in conservation groups as a key driver of

awareness and willingness to submit a bid (Todd 2002). The level of Landcare

involvement in the Liverpool Plains trial ranged from those who are or had been

heavily involved, Chairing local groups and overseeing funded projects, to those who

saw themselves as being only involved “on the perimeters”. Involvement was spread

relatively evenly between farm size and production groups. Less than half of the

participants, and predominantly those who had been heavily involved in the

movement, remained a part of an active Landcare group. There was a range of reasons

for this including the collapse or impending collapse of the local group or a general

dissatisfaction with the processes of Landcare.

Many of the participants were directly connected to the Department of Land and

Water Conservation (DLWC) or the LPLMC itself through friendships or contact with

these bodies as a landholder. These linkages reveal that, although they may not be

directly involved with these groups, a majority of participants have established or are

seeking to establish institutional contacts. Three of the six participants who had not

been involved in Landcare were drawn into the trial initially by this type of

connection.

These results suggest that the participants in the trial could not be conceived of as a

new audience and that, in the first round at least, the tenders have not significantly

altered the market for incentive funding in the catchment. However, the prominence

of people who are actively seeking to become involved and associated with

conservation organisations is not surprising in a trial situation. A study of Iowa

farmers also concluded that institutional contacts were a significant positive influence

on conservation decisions by landholders (Lynne et al. 1988).


Management goals and perception of land management problems

An overriding influence on this aspect of the data was that the discussion was framed

in terms of the participant’s tender and related management issues. The management

goals discussed by landholders during the interviews were therefore extremely varied

because of the variations between tendered projects and because the interviews

encountered a range of perspectives and personal experiences. Personal experience

was fundamental to the way in which the participants framed their discussion and

explained their points of view. Management goals and perceptions of land

management problems were all described in terms of the individual’s particular

experiences on the property, in relation to neighbours or past users of their land or in

relation to courses they had undertaken. Common themes often encompassed

individuals that had different perspectives and held much different views on other

issues. The perspective of the small property farmers was strongly influenced by a

need to maintain revenue to sustain themselves and their families.

The discussion of management goals focused on grazing management which is not

surprising given the dominance of this land use in the participant group and that the

majority of tenders included pasture establishment and paddock subdivision. Six of

the landholders mentioned that they had ceased cropping practices on their properties

due to the recognition that this was unprofitable and resulting in degradation. The link

between poor farm management and land degradation was spoken about by all of the

participants, in many cases this related to previous cropping of their lands or to poor

grazing management particularly in relation to groundcover. Table 3 provides a

summary of the key management and degradation issues discussed during the

interviews.


Table 3 Key Management Issues and the Number of Interviews in which they werediscussed.

Issue No. InterviewsGroundcover BenefitsProduction Related 8Runoff Reduction 5Erosion Reduction 5

Inappropriate Cropping Practices 8

Runoff and Salinity Linkages 6

Tree PlantingsAppropriate and useful 8Conflicting/ Unnecessary 4

Value of TreesAesthetics 4Shade 3Forestry 3Predator Habitat/ Biodiversity 6Salinity/ Underground flow reduction 4

The full range of benefits from groundcover were discussed including the economic

benefits to the enterprise, erosion reduction and benefits from reducing run-off and

the link this has to salinity in the landscape. This suggests that, at least among these

landholders, the benefits of groundcover management are well perceived.

There was some divergence in the way in which trees were to be incorporated on

different farms. This hinged on two key issues: the value placed on trees in the

landscape and experiences with regeneration. People who had positive experience

with regeneration on their lands expressed the view that it was unnecessary to plant:

“We’re not doing any tree planting because we fenced off a little bit ofcreek two years ago and there is great regeneration there, if we fenceoff and just crash graze we don’t need to plant trees”

Several comments were also made regarding the inappropriate and overuse of

plantings. Trees do not integrate as well with production imperatives as groundcover.

Although a range of benefits were mentioned in the interviews, including aesthetic


improvement, shade for stock, water uptake and providing habitat for insect eating

birds, these were not as universally recognized as those associated with groundcover.

These benefits are longer-term in nature and have an uncertain and hard to distinguish

economic value. Tree planting has also been stigmatized as a ‘greenie’ activity;

several of the farmers alluded to this, in particular in association with personal

dissatisfaction with Landcare or other initiatives.

“See the Telstra sale should have solved a lot of problems but it is allabout putting in trees and putting in trees where they are notnecessary”

A basic difference existed between the way different participants discussed the

benefits from activities undertaken with the tender. Comments from two participants

describe this difference:

“The number one priority is it has got to make money and if it doesn’tmake money then you don’t want to know about it from ourperspective”

“I’m doing what I am doing because I think it is right … not muchwater runs off this country anymore … so were already makingchanges that benefit the community and those changes continue”

While all participants cited personal benefits to their enterprise from what was being

done with the tenders, a smaller group also emphasised the role this was playing in

regional landscape change and the important role this factor played in formulating

management goals.

This perspective was also related to the way in which resource management was seen

as integrating with production on the property. The majority of the participants spoke

quite comfortably about integrating better resource management into their enterprises,

often recognizing potential benefits to the farm. This understanding ranged from a

very basic level of integration, based on existing problems, to a holistic approach

exemplified by one large property farmer’s comment in relation to this issue:


“I realized unless I changed I was going to go broke, because ifI made any money in cattle I wasted it farming and I startedthinking, I decided it is no good fighting nature…I had to workwith things that are free”

This comment also reveals the fundamental importance personal benefits played in

the tenders. When the participants were asked during the interviews about the break

up between personal and catchment benefits in their projects, all of them were able to

recognize the personal benefits but few saw the catchment benefits as being

significant. Mostly because they felt the small changes they could make on their

property would not have a real impact in the catchment. Seven participants thought

the real public benefit from participating in the tender would be creating a precedent

for these projects in the farming community. They suggested that if others could see

them as a success more people would undertake similar actions, particularly if they

could demonstrate production benefits. This suggests a strong belief in diffusion

amongst the participants.

“They should set up a lot of these tenders in the eye of the public whereneighbouring farms can see them … so that people that are a littlemore old-fashioned can suddenly realize its worth considering”

Two participants who strongly emphasised the overriding production necessity also

put forward the view that the movement for landscape restoration was being

motivated by “greenie organisations” or that it was a “surreptitious attempt by

sectional interests to get control over land use”. Many of the participants spoke of a

distrust of government, suspicion in the community, or poorly implemented

environmental projects however these were the only participants who discussed a

conflict between conservation and production and aligned themselves strongly with

the negative environmental norm.

There is clearly an important attitudinal influence in relation to these comments.

However, when prompted about the conflict between managing for the environment

and production objectives, one of the production orientated participants made an

explanatory suggestion:

“I guess it depends on the property you are on and the area youare on, for your point of view”


To a certain extent this is true. Four small property landholders who had between

400ha and 550ha all emphasised the financial importance of making the most out of

their limited land and correspondingly described how they could not afford to remove

significant amounts of land from production. The other participant who fell into this

category was an organic farmer and this issue was not addressed during the interview.

He did however state that his farm was not an economically viable enterprise. This

result is supported by the results of a survey of participants in the Bush Tender

scheme. This scheme (which specifically involved reserving land for conservation

activities) attracted a high proportion of larger properties compared with the general

landholding community (Todd 2002). Lynne et al. (1988) also cite farm size as a

fundamental factor in conservation decisions.

Small property owners also described their production and management objectives in

more tentative and negative ways, expressing doubts about their future and their

prospects of success. When asked about their management goals the responses

frequently lacked detail. In contrast, the large/multiple property farmers spoke

confidently about the management of their properties and all but one of them

described long-term plans for the property. Guerin (1999) discusses the importance of

risk and trialability in the adoption of change on farms. For a small property farmer

the initial introduction of a new technology or aspect of management into an existing

system holds much greater risk due to the commitment of the more limited resources

that it requires.

The fundamental importance of personal experiences is clear from the data. Personal

experiences or observations of neighbours and other farmers were frequently used to

explain an individual’s choice of objectives and future directions. These were used in

both positive and negative ways. Several farmers described past mistakes that had led

them to a conclusion that change was required. For example, one farmer talked about

how inexperience had led him to mismanage a salinity problem on his property

despite being aware that it was present:


“We had a small patch, say 5-6 acres, and now we are looking at20 acres. It had mostly a cover of grass on it when we came hereand knowing nothing about it we hit it with a plough … all of asudden we had big patches of nothing and then I went back tolucerne and the patches got bigger and bigger…”

In other cases farmers described how they had seen management practices being

implemented on other properties with success or that they had made changes

independently and felt that these were having positive impacts on their production and

sense of satisfaction with their land management. Formal education played a lesser

role in landholders adopting their various conservation perspectives with 5

participants describing a Holistic Management, Sustainable Growth System,

Agricultural College or University course as an important factor in aspects of their

understanding.


The Basis for Participation

The conclusions drawn from the interviewee’s discussion of their personal goals does

not allow the construction of types or solid groupings, apart from those related to farm

size and financial dependence. The most important aspect of this discussion is the

apparent diversity between the participants suggesting that this type of activity is not

simply reliant on the individual being a strong conservationist. Figure 3 shows a

model that combines the evidence from the interviews with Vanclay’s attitude model

(Figure 2) and the Self-Concept to describe the factors that combine for a landholder

to be capable of productively entering the tender process.

Vanclay’s attitude model is significantly diversified in Figure 3 to represent the range

of stimuli that have been shown to be important by the literature and results. As

described above, personal experience was the fundamental stimuli and therefore

occupies a central position in the model. Personal experiences (as they related to the

decision to tender) were influenced by either recognition of a better way to manage or

poor practices that require changing. Observation of others and educational

experiences were also important in many cases.

The intermediate attitude section has been omitted from the model. Attitudes are

included with the Self-Concept to indicate the importance of attitudes that are

independent of the stimuli. These may include general attitudes to the environmental

movement formed from other sources such as the media.

The landholder’s motivation is also important. Motivation is a complex issue and is

influenced by a number of factors including the perception of the risk associated with

the change, the age of the landholder and the severity of the degradation issue.

Motivation is also linked to personal experience. A positive personal experience with

the change through observation of other landholder’s success or the success of a trial

may override the perception of risk or the age factor.

The response to the stimuli is the desire to implement change evidenced by their

participation in the tender. Arrows describe direct sequential influences while lines

indicate potential influences. For example, observations of other landholders may

influence an individual’s recognition of poor management practices or their

NR 490 – Project Report 20

perception of the risk involved in undertaking change. Even if this is not the case, it is

a direct influence on their personal experience.

Figure 3 The Basis for Participation

Only part of this construction may be important in an

example, one participant has no formal education or seve

property but through the recognition of poor practices a

resource management, his personal experience has g

Another participant has a small farm, is middle aged an

of his recognition of his previous poor management a

degradation on his property he has a strong desire for c

having a difficult time implementing changes on his farm

other farmers who have had success with resource man

good steward of his land means that he remains committe

Just as every part of the model may not be important

negative aspect could theoretically outweigh other asp

PersonalExperience

Desire toimplementchange

PositiveExperiencewith ResourceManagementPractices

Recognitionof poormanagementpractices

Observation orinteraction withothers

Motivation

Education/Courses/LandcareInvolvement

Farm Size

Debt

Stewardship Ethic

ManagementExperience

Perceptionof Risk

Age

individ

re salin

nd pos

uided h

d is in s

nd the

hange.

, howe

agemen

d to ch

in a f

ects. F

DegradationIssue

Attitudes andthe

Self-Concept

J.S. Archer

ual circumstance. For

ity degradation on his

itive experiences with

im into the process.

ome debt but because

extent of the salinity

A third participant is

ver his observation of

t and a desire to be a

ange.

armer’s decision, one

or example, a farmer


may have had positive experience with groundcover management or a salinity patch

on the property but if becoming involved with a ‘greenie’ organisation conflicts

strongly with his/her Self-Concept, they may decline to become involved.

Figure 3 is a construction specific to the first round of tenders. The benefit of this

construction is that extensionists can now use the model to inform discussions with

landholders. If the extensionist can understand why a participant has become

involved, this understanding can be used to guide the extension effort. For example, if

a participant is motivated purely by recognition of degradation and has no firm basis

of experience to formulate a project the extensionist can concentrate on

communication about the basic issues and realize that more effort will be required on

their behalf. Alternatively, the extensionist may recognise a strong base of personal

experience that could be enhanced by the communication of more complex

knowledge that may be outside the individual’s experience.

The interviews and discussions with the LPLMC extension officers suggested that this

process was already underway to a certain extent. Both officers were able to describe

in some detail general trends in knowledge between different participants.

Formalising this process in a discussion with the landholder prior to the farm visit

may be a useful way to enhance this activity.


The Tender Process

The Participant’s Awareness of the Process

Before the auction can take place there needs to be awareness among landholders that

funding is available. Figure 4 shows the frequency that the different sources of

information regarding the LMT process were mentioned during the interviews. This

evidence supports the important role of institutional contacts. Seven of the 16

participants mentioned that they became aware of the tenders directly through these

linkages and that this was their only source of awareness. This information also

suggests the importance of a range of local networks including conservation groups

and neighbours. Media sources were most often mentioned in association with another

source suggesting that these avenues increase awareness but are less effective at

bringing people into the process.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

DLWC/LPLMC

Landcare/GreeningAustralia

Neighbour

Newsletter

Radio/Newspaper

No. of ParticipantsOnly SourceOne of Two Sources

Figure 4 Sources of Awareness of the Land Management Tenders


Participant Motivation and Prior Conception of the Projects

“ I guess it was opportunism really”

Interviewees were motivated out of both economic self-interest and a desire to

improve the natural attributes of their properties. The Land Management Tenders

represented an opportunity to receive financial assistance to fulfill these desires. All

projects were linked with production objectives except for two instances, where the

interviewee had observed a continuing decline in sections of their riparian

environment and simply sought restoration for personal satisfaction.

Apart from two participants who said that they formulated a plan in response to the

opportunity for funding, the interviewee’s described their tender as being part of their

management goals and objectives for the future prior to becoming involved. All of the

participants stated that they would have undertaken part of or the entire project

without the tender funding and had been aiming to do this.

The main advantage of being involved in the tenders was allowing the landholders the

opportunity to overcome their key constraints. Financial constraints were cited by 13

of the participants as the reason they had not started these activities and are the most

important direct advantage to the participants. Knowledge was also cited as a

significant benefit, particularly to the 4 projects involving salinity scalds. All of these

landholders alluded to the fact that they had recognized the serious nature of their

problem and the need for action but were unsure how best to proceed. These factors

combine to highlight the biggest advantage of the funding which is accelerating the

process of change:

“We will still achieve the same goals but what the tender will do is,instead of over 15 years we’ll sort of have it in 3, it’ll help us getthe job done quicker.”


Attitudes Towards the Procedural Advances of the Auction System

The changes to the conventional funding model include the introduction of a directly

competitive environment and the institution of monitoring activities to ensure that

projects are being completed as planned. The bidding and competitive aspects had a

mixed response by the participants. Six participants suggested there was potential for

inequalities to exist between farmers in the region depending on the amount they had

already invested in conservation or the severity of their degradation problems. The

EBI was weighted towards farmers in more severe circumstances however one

interviewee suggested that people in these situations would be unable to compete in a

tender situation because of their lack of capital to invest themselves.

Conversely, 3 farmers, who had made previous conservation efforts, felt that there

should be some way of considering these efforts within the system and that they were

disadvantaged under the current model because of these unassisted efforts.

Significantly, these farmers were all unsuccessful in their tenders. However, this was

on the basis of both the regional occurrence of salinity problems in relation to their

properties, their bid price and in two cases, an inability to provide substantial benefits

in both the biodiversity and salinity categories. This evidence suggests that this is a

perception more than a real procedural issue.

Alienation of landholders who fail to win a contract is a serious risk in the auction

process and is potentially a serious shortcoming of this process in an environment

where enthusiastic landholders, with a desire to address degradation and work with

conservation groups, may be limited in number. Five of the seven unsuccessful

participants were interviewed during the study and the reaction to this was largely

positive in all but one case. The LPLMC informed participants of the results of their

tender by mail and accompanied the letters with an invitation to a face-to-face

meeting to discuss the reasons for their failure. This was a successful strategy for

several reasons outlined by one of the participants:

“When I found out I had missed out …it’s a bit like getting 49%,but when they give you a good explanation and they give youanother crack you’re on the front foot too because they can workout with you what your last report could have done with” .


Communication with unsuccessful tenderers is crucial to avoid alienation. Being able

to invite them to participate in the next round was an important factor in minimising

any backlash. Bidding again puts the unsuccessful participant in an advantageous

situation because they can deliberately modify their proposals to be more competitive

and increase their chance of success.

There was one example of quite a negative reaction from an unsuccessful bidder. This

related to a situation where the participants had developed a very specific technique

for establishing agro-forestry. Although the participants have found this technique

highly successful, a combination of factors and particularly the expense meant it was

not competitive in the auction framework. This participant also said they were

prepared to bid again armed with the knowledge gained from this round. However

further discussion with this participant in a focus group suggests that they would not

be prepared to lower the price. This participant may be better suited to the small grant

scenario where less money is available but the project receives less scrutiny.

The implementation of monitoring activities, to base successive payments on the

attainment of milestones, was the second significant departure from the traditional

funding model. Interviewees responded positively to this aspect of the tenders with

none of the participants expressing dissatisfaction with this initiative. The comment

below typifies the general response:

“I think it is necessary, I know someone who was involved in a grantand they and their neighbours have fenced off the river, one of theneighbours has said that [now] they will be able to graze it more … Ithink there has to be monitoring and auditing”

A strong perception existed among the participants that money was being wasted

under previous funding models. 12 participants discussed this, with 7 relating specific

stories about neighbours, Landcare groups or people in the region who had breached

at least the spirit of a funding agreement.


Success of the Extension Approach

When something is being tried for the first time by a group, particularly where a

process is being taken to new levels of complexity, some level of uncertainty is likely

to exist. One LPLMC extension officer described how this affected the

implementation of the trial:

“We were learning as we were doing it and there was a hell of alot of development that had to go into it and at times a lot offrustration because we couldn’t pass that development ontolandholders quick enough”

The response of the participants towards the process and the way in which it was

implemented was largely positive. Despite the likely existence of a level of bias in

these responses, this reflects a general level of approval from the participants in

relation to the extension approach and the way the tender was conducted. In 8 of the

interviews in which negative comments were made in regard to the process these

were accompanied by an acknowledgement of the importance of the way the LPLMC

extension officers approached the uncertainty. By taking an honest approach and

being upfront about the learning process that they were involved in, the extensionists

created a high level of understanding amongst the tenderers. Trust is fundamental to

extension success in an environment where a lot of fear exists about how

conservation organisations will enforce new ideas.

The most important factor in the extension methodology was the availability of one-

on-one advice. This was shown to be crucial in avoiding alienating the unsuccessful

bidders from the Committee and is of vital importance given that some aspects of

project design are likely to be outside the landholder’s experience and knowledge.

The difference in the reflections of tenderers regarding their experiences in

formulating the tender is quite clearly influenced by the effectiveness of the farm

visit. Comments from two landholders describe this difference succinctly:

“The visit was good …we had a good yarn about a lot of things, hegave advice on the way we were planning our trees. He takes ineverything to do with what you want your tender to be and givesyou good advice about how to go about the tender, and he’s notpersuaded either way, he leaves it entirely up to you”


“It could have been a lot more gutsy than it was … a lot moreconstructive.” “Well when he came out it wasn’t so much to lookand observe. He really came out and took photos and set upmonitoring points”

The flexibility given to the landholders in the development of their projects was also

an important attribute of the trial. Ten of the landholders commented on the

importance of the process leaving the formulation and structure of the projects to the

individual. Landholders who did not highlight this issue were either involved in

salinity amelioration (which required a greater level of input from the LPLMC) or

concentrated on areas where there had been prescription and the problems this

caused. This occurred in relation to several issues but most predominantly tree

establishment. Four participants commented that the way in which they were being

asked to formulate their projects had changed during the process and impacted

significantly on their ability to determine their own projects. The resolution of these

issues is discussed below.

Despite this appreciation of design freedom there was a general dissatisfaction with

the amount of information available to the participants and the transparency of the

tendering and auction process. Table 4 shows a breakdown of the issues that were

commented upon by the interviewees.

Table 4 Major Issues with the Formulation of the Bids

Issue No. Interviews Time to formulate the bid 8Lack of guidelines relating to howbest to design the projects 9

Costing the projectDifficult 5Not Difficult 7

The time that bidding involves was commented upon a by a number of people,

however four of the nine participants who made a comment felt that the investment of

time and work to formulate the project was appropriate. The two reasons for this

included the investment that the LPLMC was making in the projects and to ensure

that the participant knew what the project would involve:


“In the past you got so much money and you went and did it. But insaying that it is probably more efficient in a lot of ways, it justtakes a bit of time getting to that point”

There was also a range of reasons why individuals found the process time consuming,

these included the amount of paperwork, difficulty in costing projects and the lack of

guidelines about how to best formulate a bid. In may cases the time factor was due to

inexperience in relation to aspects of bid formulation.

While an amount of paperwork is inevitable with a process like this, the ability of the

participant to cost their projects successfully is fundamentally important to the

success of the system. There was a range of problems encountered by participants

including difficulty in accessing simple price information (e.g. the price of trees),

uncertainty as to how to price management inputs and uncertainty about making an

assessment of environmental and personal benefits in order to discount the total cost

to a bid price.

Costing was examined in detail during the focus groups. Each participant was asked if

they fully costed their project inputs and how they approached discounting according

to environmental and personal benefits. All of the participants in the groups said they

had fully costed their projects but they took a range of different approaches to

discounting for a bid price. Only two of the participants came to a bid price by

attempting to value public or private benefits. In one case the participant came up

with a percentage figure that he felt reflected the amount of public benefit the project

would provide and in the other case the participant evaluated personal benefits

(including aesthetic values). The other participants took a financial approach based on

what they could afford and also how much they wanted to do the project.

“[I] said well I’ve got some money here … and I costed out fences,trees and labour and I just tried to keep it as cheap as we could”

The absence of rigorous application and procedural guidelines was a significant issue

in the formulation process. This lead to two problems: confusion from the LPLMC

regarding the best way to design and evaluate parts of the projects and confusion

amongst the participants about how the auction system functioned.


“One of the problems we had was convincing them that what wewere doing was fixing a problem on the neighbours place and theytended to say you haven’t got a problem” “We got [the letter] to say you were unsuccessful … if they got intouch maybe there would have been room for rethinking on bothsides … salinity, biodiversity, every aspect was covered, so whydidn’t we get it”

Significantly, one participant said that he was aware of individuals who were

interested in the process but did not submit a project because they were not confident

in formulating and submitting a tender.

This is an issue relating to information provision and procedural transparency that has

arisen because of the complexity that has been introduced to the auction system. What

needs to be recognized is the limited knowledge the majority of landholders have

regarding resource management and that despite using conventional systems the

auction process needs to be more clearly defined and explained. This will become

increasingly critical as the LPLMC attempts to attract participants without the

linkages to resource management groups and more limited management experience.

This issue has been recognized by the LPLMC to the extent that they understand that

they need to help the participants “build their projects better”. The introduction of

field days to show new participants project options and the extension of the farm visit

to a full day should increase the amount of project related information available to the

tenderer and opportunities for discussion with the LPLMC during project

formulation. Particularly if the targeting of information is increased based on an

individuals situation.


Creating Procedural Transparency

Both the LPLMC and the participants would benefit from increasing the information

available to participants about the auction system and how projects are assessed. The

simplest way to do this would be to provide the participants with written information

about the auction and the degradation issues during the preliminary parts of the bid

formulation process. A preliminary suggested format and content for this document is

given in Appendix B.

This exercise would be beneficial for a number of reasons. The most important

benefit would be to create clarity and transparency by formalising the machinations of

the process. Utilising the experience of the first and second rounds, the Committee

will be able to clarify issues so they can present a more unified and consistent front to

the prospective participants. It would also provide a ready reference participants

could use to clarify points of confusion during the long process of putting their

project together. An essential part of this will be providing an outline of the factors

that are used to assess the projects.

Secondly, it allows the LPLMC to create a guide to the degradation issues so that

individuals can assess with greater knowledge the environmental benefits they are

providing. It should also clarify important scientific issues so that participants

understand, for example, why a clumped tree lot, despite taking up a section of a

paddock, provides better biodiversity benefits. The guide needs to provide avenues

for the reader to seek further information; this may include references to web sites or

publications that can be obtained from Government departments and even short

courses that might be useful. The major criticism of the workshop by one participant

was that after the day had finished the participant was enthusiastic and wanted to

learn more about the issues but did not know where to go for more information.

An alternative to creating a simple summary of these issues for the tender guide is for

the LPLMC to create a series of documents outlining the individual degradation

issues and other aspects of the CIS. These documents would form a basis of

information that could be given to farmers who come to the LPLMC independently

for advice and used in future extension activities. Even if this option is too costly, it is


important that the LPLMC takes time to mould the knowledge in the CIS into a form

that can be effectively communicated to the landholder community.

An important factor is to strike a compromise between being prescriptive about how

issues can be addressed and leaving project design up to the farmer. One focus group

highlighted that while some level of greater assistance is required, being overly

prescriptive would be just as harmful:

“They have got their broad principles of biodiversity and salinity [Iwould like to see] an extension of that as to the preferred way ofaddress[ing them] …concepts that the landowner can readily get theirmind around”

“I think a lack of prescription isn’t necessarily a bad thing …whatneeds to happen is the outcome for the LPLMC needs to be tightenedup …I was going to commit myself to what was going to get a higherscore but I didn’t know what was going to get a higher score”

The most important goal of this document is to create understanding among the

participants. It is also fundamental that the landholder’s freedom of design is

emphasised.

The disadvantage of a written document is that it is inaccessible to farmers who may

be illiterate or have poor reading skills. Discussing the content at the meetings and

keeping the information as brief as possible, possibly using a question and answer

format, should nuetralise this issue. The document cannot replace the important role

of one-on-one interaction between the LPLMC and the participants. The information

should not be given to a landholder without being accompanied by an explanation, in

a meeting or one-on-one, regarding their contents and purpose.


A Model of the Process

Figure 5 displays a diagram of the Land Management Tender trial that has evolved

from the study. Table 5 gives a key to understanding the model and the transparent

circle in Figure 5 marks the recommendation discussed above. The purple boxes

delineate the crux of the process including the fundamental prerequisites of a

landholder’s personal experience leading to a desire for change and the steps from

awareness to the auction result.

The first section of the diagram is identical to the basis for participation diagram

(Figure 3) with the secondary influences removed. Upon reaching this point, the

landholders must become aware of the process. Peer recommendation, the media and

conservation organisation links have been demonstrated to be important influences in

this awareness. The landholder then makes a decision to bid. The extension activities

and the landholders experience with similar processes are fundamental to this

decision. During the formulation of the bid these influences are also important, as is

the level to which the project has been preconceived by the individual. The bidders

are then split into successful and unsuccessful applicants by the auction evaluation

with successful applicants proceeding to contract negotiations. These negotiations

were not examined during the study. Unsuccessful applicants who are satisfied with

the feedback they receive will then choose to bid again or may explore other

mechanisms to fund their projects.

Table 5 Key to Figure 5

Purple Boxes The Land Management Tender Processand the Essential Stimuli

Green Ovoids Primary StimuliTurquoise Boxes Extension ComponentsArrows Sequential Linkages

Line Link Between Motivation and PersonalExperience

Red Boxes Losses to the Process and PotentiallyInvolvement with the LPLMC


Figure 5 The Land Management Tender Process and its Fundamental Influences and Outcomes

ManagementExperience

OtherMechanism

Bid Again

?Personal

ExperienceDesire to

implementchange

Awarenessof the

Process

Decisionto Bid

Formulationof the Bid

UnsuccessfulParticipants

SuccessfulParticipants

Decisionnot toBid

?

Education/Courses/LandcareInvolvement

Attitudes/Self-Concept

Observationsor Interactionwith Others Motivation

PeerRecommendation

LPLMC,Govt.Links/Landcare

ExtensionActivities

ProjectPreconception

Experience withfunding, costingand tendering

Media

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Workshop/Field Day Farm Visit

Guide to theProcess and

Issues

Recommendation

Contract Negotiation

LMT Review October 200234

The red boxes show two points in the process where some participants are lost to the

system. The feedback mechanism used in the first round is effectively minimising

the number of dissatisfied unsuccessful bidders. However preliminary information

from the second round of tenders suggests that only a few, if any, of those who

chose not to bid in the first round have become involved in the second (W. Moss

pers. comm. 18/9/2002).

More options need to be created for landholders who attend initial meetings and

decide not to bid. One way to do this would be to concentrate on providing these

landholders with information about other options they might pursue to reach their

goals if they do not feel that the tender is suited to their needs. This may include

providing information about other funding opportunities, Landcare/Greening

Australia contact details or an open invitation to consult with the LPLMC in the

future. It is vital that in the formative stages of landscape change the Committee

makes every effort to maintain contact with these individuals.

It is clear from this diagram that the process is reasonably complex and that direct

extension activities are only one of the primary influences within the auction. In the

future, the influence of LPLMC, Government and Landcare linkages will hopefully

decrease as a factor influencing landholder involvement. This should occur as the

process becomes established in the community and the existing participants

communicate a positive experience to other landholders. The production of a guide

and enhanced information provision should assist this process by making the

auction mechanism clearer to inexperienced participants.

Combined with effective support and advice from the LPLMC extension officers,

the preliminary information about the process will also give less confident or

inexperienced individuals the support and information they need to enter into the

process. Currently the level of interest, suggested by attendance at the initial

meetings, is not being transferred into participation and submission of bids.


The LPLMC needs to create a sense among the landholding community that there is

not a hidden ‘greenie’ agenda. The greatest hindrance to landscape change at this

point is the perception that the process is being driven by unrealistic expectations

and in a manner that curbs productive land use. Vanclay (2002) asserts that ideas

about environmental management are a fundamental part of a farmer’s conception

of ‘good farm management’. Effective landscape change will be driven by extension

activities that engender in this construction ideas synonymous with scientific

knowledge of how best to manage the environment. Natural resource managers also

need to understand, through effective extension, how technical solutions can be

adapted to suit the individual property scale and integrate with the other goals of

landholders.


5. ConclusionWhile the tender/auction system is an innovative way of funding private projects on

private land the evidence from this study suggests that it is still catering to an

existing market. Extending this market is the primary challenge for the future of the

CIS as a mechanism for landscape change. The tenders should provide some social

proof to the landholding community that conservation can be integrated successfully

with production. This will hopefully draw some landholders who remain on the

fringes of the conservation movement into the process. However, because of its

reliance on the precursors of personal experience and a desire for change, it is

unlikely that it will rapidly achieve an expansion of the market for funding and

conservation activities.

Nevertheless, this study has shown that the first round of the Land Management

Tenders was well implemented and provides a solid basis for further evolution of

the process. In the future, the system should provide a useful mechanism for taking

advantage of the existing impetus for resource conservation in the catchment.

Importantly, this will be achieved in a manner that is acceptable to the individual

landholder as well as the funding organisation. It will allow the landholders who are

committed to change to achieve that change much more rapidly than if they were

unassisted.

In the longer term, a process such as this will be driven by the success of other

extension activities that bring landholders to a position where they feel that

engagement with the LPLMC is worthwhile. This is of course a much more difficult

and abstract task. The challenge for the LPLMC is to develop other ways to

influence the landholder’s decision-making processes. The results of this study

suggest that convincing skeptical landholders that there are personal benefits from

better resource management will be a fundamental part of any initiative.


6. Recommendations 1. Target one-on-one extension to the needs of the individual.

Utilising the knowledge from this research the LPLMC should make anevaluation of a farmer’s needs during preliminary discussions so theinformation given to an individual recognises their knowledge andexperience. This will save time and make the extension effort moreefficient.

2. Document the auction process and assessment systemThe literature and results of the research highlight the importance ofinformation to the process. Participants need to be provided with adocument that outlines the process to avoid confusion and to allow themto target their projects.

3. Translate the technical information from the CatchmentInvestment Strategy into a form that can be used in a range ofextension activities.Landholders need assistance and information to understand the issuesand incorporate the best information into their projects and farm plans.The LPLMC has this information but it needs to be translated into aformat suitable for extension. Creating separate information that can beused in a range of activities is a desirable option. It will allow theCommittee to assist landholders who may contact them outside of theformal extension process.

4. Engage landholders who choose not to bid in tenders but expressinterest by attending meetings.Attendance at meetings means that a landholder is interested in someform of conservation. Providing them with other options, informationregarding degradation and an invitation to keep in contact with theCommittee will assist the LPLMC to involve all interested landholders.

5. Concentrate future extension activities on creating a desire forchange in the landholding community.A desire for change is an essential prerequisite to involvement in theauction process. If the committee can create this desire in thecommunity through extension activities then involvement in theauctions and the process of change will follow.


7. ReferencesBlack A.W. 2000, ‘Extension theory and practice: a review’, in Australian Journal

of Experimental Agriculture, Vol. 40, pp 493-502.

Curtis A. 1993, Landcare in Australia: a critical review, Johnstone Centre of Parks,Recreation and Heritage, Report No. 33, Charles Sturt University, WaggaWagga.

Guerin T.F. 1999, ‘An Australian perspective on the constraints to the transfer andadoption of innovations in land management’, in EnvironmentalConservation, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp 289-304.

Hamilton N.A. 1996, Learning to Learn with Farmers: An adult learning extensionproject conducted in Queensland, Ph. D Thesis, Wageningen University,Netherlands.

Lynne G.D., Shonkwiler J.S. and Rola L.R. 1988, ‘Attitudes and FarmerConservation Behaviour’, in American Journal of Agricultural Economics,Vol. 70, pp 12-19.

Milgrom P. 1989, ‘Auctions and Bidding: A Primer’, Journal of EconomicPerspectives, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp 3-22.

Seabrook M.F. and Higgins C.B.R. 1988, ‘Role of the Self-Concept in determiningfarmer behaviour’, in Agricultural Administration and Extension, Vol. 30, pp99-108.

Shoemaker R. 1989, ‘Agricultural Land Values and Rents Under the ConservationReserve Program’, in Land Economics, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp 131-139.

Stoneham G., Chaudri V., Ha A. and Strappazzon L. 2002, Auctions forconservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s Bush TenderTrial, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Canberra.

Todd J. 2002, ‘The Bush Tender Pilot: A Snapshot of Participants’, Draft,Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Victoria.

Vanclay F. 2002, ‘Social Considerations for the Future of Agricultural Extension’,in Natural Resource Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp 2-6.

Vanclay F., Mesiti L. and Howden P. 1999, ‘Styles of Farming and FarmingSubcultures: Appropriate concepts for Australian rural sociology?’, in RuralSociety, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp 85-107.

Vanclay F. and Lawrence G. 1996, ‘Agricultural Extension in the Context ofEnvironmental Degradation: Agricultural Extension as Social Welfare’, inRural Society, Vol. 5, No.1 pp 20-35.


Vanclay F. 1992, ‘The Social Context of Farmers’ Adoption of EnvironmentallySound Farming Practices’, in G. Lawrence, F. Vanclay and B. Furze (eds),Agriculture, Environment and Society: Contemporary Issues for Australia,Macmillan, Sydney.


Appendices

Contents

A. Interview Questions 1A

B. Suggested Content for the Guide to the Land Management Tender Process

and the Catchment Investment Strategy 1B

LMT Review October 20021A

Appendix AInterview Questions

1. Please describe your farm in terms of size, land and production.

2. Have you been involved in Landcare and is this the first time you have undertakena project like this on your property?

3. Where did you hear about the tenders and what was your motivation forparticipating in the tender process?

4. What do you think the Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee was tryingto achieve from the tender funding?

5. A workshop and a visit to your property were part of developing your tender.How helpful were these in assisting you in producing the tender and how mightthey be changed or improved?

6. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of the tender process?

7. Was your application successful and how might you have improved your bid inhindsight?

8. (Unsuccessful applicants only) Have you been given sufficient feedback on thereasons for your project not being funded? How might this feedback be improvedin the future?

9. Will you or would you still undertake the project despite not being funded by theCommittee and will you participate in later rounds?

10. Tenders involve both on-ground actions (planting trees, fencing or pastureestablishment) and changes to the way the land is managed. Which of these doyou think is more important for ensuring farms and the catchment remain viablefor the future?

11. Actions involved with the tender proposal will contribute to the viability of yourfarm in the long term. What aspects of your farm do you think are viable for thefuture and what do you think needs to be improved to ensure viability?

12. What things are hindering you from achieving this long-term viability?

13. Do you think the majority of benefits of better management of your land will beenjoyed by yourself or by the catchment as a whole?

14. The LPLMC is trying to assist and encourage farmers to address catchmentproblems such as salinity, loss of biodiversity, poor water quality and erosionthrough better management of their land. Would more information or learningopportunities help you to do this?

15. Would the availability of more regular funding from something like anenvironmental levy on taxpayers encourage you to do this?

LMT Review October 20022A

16. If your produce could be specially labeled as coming forma sustainable farm orregion and this helped you save money or gave you access to reliable markets,would you be encouraged to improve your current practices?

LMT Review October 20021B

Appendix BSuggested Content for the Guide to the Tender Process and the

Catchment Investment StrategyBasic Components

Use a question and answer format to give a clear impression of what thedocument is trying to communicate.

Use plain English so landholders with more limited literacy can understandthe information. Define jargon such as sustainability, catchment,biodiversity, salinity etc. in simple terms.

Concentrate on best management options for farms and the benefits theyprovide to the landholder and the community.

Emphasise that the LPLMC is not telling farmers what to do on their land butworking with them to find ways to achieve community aims and help themto be sustainable and productive for the future.

List further information sources at the end of each section so landholders canaccess detailed information if they desire.


The Land Management TendersThe aim of this document is to alleviate confusion amongst participants and give lessconfident landholders the assurance that they will be given the support they need tobe involved.

Questions to Answer and Information to Include What are the Land Management Tenders?

o Describe how the Tenders are different to normal funding,particularly in letting farmers have more control over their project.

Why are the Land Management Tenders being run?o Relate to implementing the Catchment investment strategy on

individual farms.o Help farmers with environmental projects and making their

production more sustainable.

What is the Catchment Investment Strategy?o Brief discussion, refer to the separate CIS guide, emphasise important

points.

Why is the tender good for farmers and the community?o Emphasise that it allows the community through the LPLMC to

achieve its aims together with farmers.o Gives the farmer an opportunity to fund individual works and

advance in their goals towards longer-term sustainability.

I’ve never done something like this before, how will I come up with myproject and bid?

o Emphasise that the farmer will put the bid together with the technicalassistance of the LPLMC.

o Outline the workshop/field day and visit and what these will provideo Emphasise the fact that the LPLMC will be available throughout the

process to help the farmer.

What do I need to cost in my bid?o Give some basic guidelines for costing for different projects (e.g.

pasture, trees, fencing) and where to get information about prices.

How will my project be assessed?o Outline in broad terms the method for bid assessment and what the

assessment takes into account.o Emphasise that projects are assessed against each other rather then

the Committee deciding what it would like to fund.


The Catchment Investment StrategyIt is essential that the LPLMC begins to raise awareness and understanding about theCIS in the community so that the community understands that these actions are part

of a long-term plan that will involve long-term support. This document needs toemphasise that the CIS refers to the regional/catchment scale and that each farmer

needs to integrate its objectives with their own to come up with the best formula fortheir situation.

Suggested Questions What is the Catchment Investment Strategy? What does the Strategy want to achieve? How does it relate to my farm? What should I do to help achieve the goals of the strategy? What is an LMU? How do I know what LMU’s I have on my place? How do I put together a plan for my farm? Is the government going to force me to change the way I use my land?

The disadvantage of both guides is the cost of development and printing. The

development should concentrate on creating flexible documents that can be used in

a number of different situations including future tenders and other extension

activities. The use of conventional desktop publishing, for example Microsoft

Office™, will also result in a document that is professional in appearance but

readily altered and printed in a range of forms.

rural extension and participation in the land management ... · rural extension and participation...

Documents