Another broken promise: budget switches Landcare for Green Army
David Walker, Chair, National Landcare Network, comments on the Australian government's pre-election 'core' promises The Conversation
The coalition made two 'core' promises in the announcement of their 'National Landcare Program' in Bendigo in August last year, during the federal election campaign (see http://www.greghunt.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/86/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2640/Coalition-Announces-National-Landcare-Program.aspx).
The first of these was that funding for the merged Caring for our Country and Landcare was to be maintained. Sadly, that has become one of the many broken election promises (http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/politics/barnaby-joyce-sorry-for-480m-landcare-cuts-as-community-projects-are-placed-in-limbo/story-fnkerdda-1226917333891).
The second was that "the Coalition will place Landcare back at the centre of our land management programs".
With the new NLP still being designed by the Departments of Environment and Agriculture in Canberra, the extent to which this promise is honoured is still to be revealed. How much Landcare groups can be involved, with significant cuts to 'future funding rounds' being implemented, is a moot point.
It is indeed a great pity to see the effectiveness and social value of Landcare being continually undermined. The successful Australian Landcare model is now being adopted in about 25 overseas country, and achieving the same transformation in farmers attitudes to sustainability achieved during the Decade of Landcare - the 1990s - as happened in Australia. Now overseas Landcare leaders are scratching their heads and wondering why successive Australian Governments are undoing all the earlier good work.
Landcare has developed a broad community consensus of 'awareness, engagement and action' in making our farming systems more 'productive for the long term, and our nature conservations efforts landscape-scale. Why this social capital should be continually under-valued and eroded defies logic.
And the $4 or $5 to $1 co-contribution by farmers and community members, leveraging the Government's seed funding, has to be among the most astute of Government investments. Why undermine and snub that generosity and commitment?
The Green Army cannot substitute for or replace Landcare.
Landcare has nothing against training programs which interest and skill young unemployed people in working in the environment.
However, once the training has been done, some trees planted and the rubbish picked up, and the Green Army troops moved back whence they came, who will maintain the improvements that have been made.
If the local community - the Landcarers - haven't been involved in the planning and the implementation, and unless the work done fits in with the local vision and ambitions, then there will be no 'ownership', and any benefits will soon degrade.
Better to foster, support and resource that 'aware, engaged and active' community taking ownership of and responsibility for their local landscape.
