Landholders' perceptions of the Australian Government's Reef Rescue Program in the Wet Tropics region of North Queensland

Research Report

Nick Emtage¹ and Krishna Shrestha²

¹ School of Integrative Systems, The University of Queensland
² Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney

ISBN 9781921359491
Report compiled 2009
Published by the RRRC April 2010

MTSRF Project 4.9.4 - Integrating ecology, economics and people in forest and landscapes

Abstract

This report describes the results of a series of interviews of rural landholders in the Wet Tropics Natural Resource Management (NRM) region of North Queensland on the topic of the Australian Government's 'Reef Rescue' program (RRP). Interviews were conducted with fourteen landholders across the region, who were targeted on the basis of the results of analyses of a postal survey of rural landholders undertaken in 2007/2008 (Emtage and Reghenzani, 2008; Emtage and Herbohn, 2009; Emtage, 2009). A semi-structured interview schedule was used to examine landholders' perceptions of:

• The barriers to participation in the RRP;
• Landholders' motivations for participating in the RRP; and
• Their perceptions of classification schemes of agricultural practices.

The RRP was designed to provide financial and training assistance to landholders to adopt management practices that will lead to improvements in the quality of water in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) lagoon. The program was developed by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts (DEWHA) in 2008, and a contract with Terrain NRM Ltd, the Wet Tropics NRM board, was finalised in November 2008 to undertake the first year's operations (June 2008 to June 2009). In October 2008 the Queensland Government announced their intention to impose regulations of land management practices in catchments that drain into the GBR lagoon at some point in 2009. Terrain NRM used consultations with industry organisations and individual landholders to develop a classification scheme of agricultural practices for use in the administration of the program; an extension of the process they had applied in the development of the Wet Tropics regional NRM plan. The announcement of the impending regulation of management practices upset a number of people who had been involved in the negotiations of practice classifications and many in the broader rural community.

Interviews revealed that many landholders have grave concerns for the future financial viability of their industries and their own enterprises and they do not perceive that the reef system is under the level of threat that governments have portrayed. There was also concern that those involved in the cane growing industry would not have sufficient resources to become involved in the program. Most landholders were sceptical about reported links between the degradation of water quality and their practices. Some pointed to their own observations of improvements in the past twenty years, which they linked to dramatic changes in agricultural practices. Others were aggrieved that rural landholders seem to be specifically targeted as the cause of all environmental degradation while other sectors, notably mining and urban areas, are not receiving the same attention. The majority of interviewees claimed that landholders will do all that is within their power to minimise environmental impacts, and that what they need most is a clear demonstration of the impacts of variations of nutrient, pesticide and soil management practices on both the environment and their production systems so they can make appropriate choices.

Landholders' preferred outcomes from possible involvement in the RRP were mostly confined to the desire for training and demonstration of the impacts of practice variations. Most were supportive of the concept of classifying practices on the basis of their environmental impacts, though they had concerns about how these could be used for regulations and the lack of flexibility of the classifications. While some thought that those clearly using poor practices should be 'pulled up', there was also concern for respecting landholders' 'rights' to choose their own management practices. There were concerns raised that the announcement of impending regulations was 'insensitive' and risked alienating landholders. The landholders thought to provide the greatest threat to the environment were older landholders and 'inexperienced' landholders. Suggestions were made that these particular landholders should be approached with suggestions to help them improve practices rather than with threats of penalties.

The preferred agencies for involvement in the RRP included industry research and development organisations (including the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations and productivity boards), industry associations and to a lesser extent the then Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. These agencies were seen to be the most experienced and trustworthy, and which have 'people on the ground' to provide opportunities for inter-personal contact with landholders.

It is concluded that the administration of the RRP by Terrain NRM has been very successful to date under difficult circumstances given delays in finalisation of contracts and Queensland Government announcements. Over the last five or more years, Terrain NRM has built up a network of contacts throughout the region with individual landholders, industry associations and those involved in research and development activities. Terrain NRM employed this network of 'embedded ties' within the community to help promote that program, securing approximately three hundred applications for participation and full subscription of all of the RRP sub-programs in the region in the first year of the programs' operation. 

The report concludes with a series of recommendations to improve the RRP. The primary deficiencies at this point appear to be not the main instruments of the program (i.e. the provision of targeted financial assistance to landholders and support for training partnerships), or the processes that Terrain NRM has used to implement the program, but the lack of maturity of related activities that may prevent some sectors of the rural landholding community from participating. These include a lack of education and outreach activities that could help to address landholders' 'social concerns' relating to participation in NRM programs and the limited definitive knowledge about the mechanisms and impacts of particular practices. Greater efforts are needed to understand and publicise the impacts of practices at a paddock and catchment scale and to monitor water quality in freshwater systems. The existence of a set of locally based, experienced people involved in agricultural research and development is clearly valued and respected by rural landholders. Ensuring that these people and the agencies they are associated with can maintain or increase their research and extension activities will likely result in significant improvements in the voluntary adoption of improved management practices. Greater awareness of the existence of the RRP among the rural community is also required, together with greater awareness of the efforts being made to reduce the impacts of non-rural and non-agricultural activities on water quality to assure rural landholders that everyone is expected to play a role. At present the RRP budget does not appear to allow for the development and implementation of a comprehensive communication strategy. This activity could greatly assist in ensuring that the program maintains momentum after what appear to be a successful beginning.