Soil Governance in Australia and priorities for engagement with farmers.pptx
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•35 views
Footage for the associated seminar: https://youtu.be/Z0Hkt7Sf0VA The talk will focus on the current state of soil governance in Australia, alongside the recently released National Soil Strategy and debate how knowledge exchange on sustainable soil management is progressing. The need to maintain a healthy and functioning soil that is resilient and less vulnerable to climate change and land degradation is an ever-present goal. Yet to achieve this goal requires a critical mass of soil scientists who can effectively undertake research and more importantly people who can communicate such knowledge to farmers so that soil is protected through the use of landscape-appropriate practices. Decades of government de-investment and privatisation have led to a diminished and fragmented workforce that is distant from, rather than part of, the rural community, and farmers are also increasingly isolated with few functional social networks for knowledge exchange. Is it possible to chart a course that can see this decline in expertise and local soil knowledge corrected, and restore to it vitality and legitimacy?
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Soil Governance in Australia and priorities for engagement with farmers.pptx
Similar to Soil Governance in Australia and priorities for engagement with farmers.pptx (20)
More from Countryside and Community Research Institute
More from Countryside and Community Research Institute (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Soil Governance in Australia and priorities for engagement with farmers.pptx
- 1. Soil governance in Australia and the priorities for engagement with farmers A/Prof Lisa Lobry de Bruyn 1
- 2. A little bit about me 1. BSc(Hons), PhD at University of WA on role of ants and termites in soil modification in agricultural and naturally vegetated soils 2. Work on Earthworm activity and composition in Dairy Farms in Northern Tasmania 3. At UNE since 1993 working on a range of land uses and examining role of soil biota, soil health understanding by grain farmers, and use of soil testing in Australia and in NSW, Soil carbon management of long- term practitioners of rotational grazing and effects of trees on soil biota, and teaching UG and PG students 2
- 3. Soil Governance: What is it? Soil governance refers to the policies, strategies, and the processes of decision-making employed by nation states and local governments regarding the use of soil. Governing the soil requires international and national collaboration between governments, local authorities, industries and citizens to ensure implementation of coherent policies that encourage practices and methodologies that regulate usage of the resource to avoid conflict between users to promote sustainable land management. 3
- 4. Regional Organisations (54 regions) for NRM since 2003, and federally-driven Source: Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. 4
- 5. 5
- 6. 6
- 7. (Drought Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hubs) 8 Regional Coordinators Landholders and regional soil and land managers 32 Smart Farms Small Grants Extension activity grantees National Soil Science Advisory Body (SSA) National Soil Science Extension Coordinator Source: https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture-land/farm-food-drought/drought/future-drought-fund/research-adoption-program/adoption-innovation-hubs Soil Science Australia’s role in strengthening soil knowledge and capacity 7
- 8. National Soil Strategy Education, Training and Accreditation Program Soil Extension Activities Basic Soils Refresher (pre-existing) Soil Testing and Interpretation for Extension Soil field analysis and site interpretation Soil sampling for laboratory analysis Soil data interpretation and application Core Competencies Registered Soil Practitioner Accreditation Soil survey, land capability and soil conservation Acid sulfate soils Soil carbon Specialist Competencies (optional) Extension Activities 8
- 9. Snapshot of contemporary role, experience and gender distribution of soil scientists in Australia (2014) N=68 N=100 9
- 10. Loss of experience and expertise in soil In 2011, farmers’ median age was 53 years. Nearly a quarter of farmers were aged 65 years or over, compared with just 3% of people in other occupations. A small proportion of soil scientists are employed in extension (12.5%) and in teaching (6%). 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Under 25 25 - 34 35 - 49 50 - 65 Soil Science Australia membership 2017 survey (n=227) More than 50% of soil scientists are over 50 years 10
- 11. The state of Soil Science human capacity • Organisational change and regionalisation of natural resource management has shrunk expertise for information delivery and engagement • An aging workforce with no succession plan places more pressure on the sector • Soil science education and training is unlikely to fill the gap of soil science expertise loss • Since 1990s research is more focused on specific industries than landscape scale activities, leading to increasing specialisation • A widening chasm between researchers and engagement with relevant audience to research findings 11
- 12. Placement of engagement with research and development Development Research Engagement 12
- 13. Social-ecological system of soil carbon management (SCM) for graziers SCM outcomes Funding support Policy 13
- 14. Understanding farmers’ social networks for information flows and connectivity Education and information related characteristics of no-till adopters Farm manager with tertiary degree (%) 33 Using a paid advisor for agronomic advice (%) 41 Member of a local farmer group focused on cropping (%) 50 Been a member of a no-till or cons. farming group (%) 29 n= 1172 Percentage of farm businesses in a catchment region and who they source information on natural resource management from according to main enterprise (Source: ABS 4627: Land Management and Farming reports, 2011-12) 0 20 40 60 80 Broadacre Grazing 2011-12 NRM regional organisation Landcare Other farmers Source: Llewellwyn and D’Emden (2010) 14
- 15. Who are we engaging with? (Rogers, 1962) 25% 15
- 16. Role of interactive learning opportunities: eg. Soil workshops Capitalising on farmer-to-farmer learning and creating social groups that can continue to meet in an informal capacity 16
- 17. Role of soil information in governance and engagement 17
- 18. Soil data collection from 1982 to 2021, in Queensland under public- funded research programmes 18
- 19. Government-funded soil data collection is patchy and variable, and governance is fragmented
- 20. Relevance of soil data for land management The type of information currently available on soil types and their behavior is limited, and if we take the example of soil testing it is often one dimensional: • Mostly on soil chemical properties (87%) • Little data collected on soil physical (12.5%) and biological (non-SOC) (0.5%) properties • No information on observational indicators for soil monitoring • Soil information collected outside the production zone is rare • Soil samples taken sparsely and at shallow depth 20
- 21. In summary: data on soil type and condition • Soil data collection is tied to funding, and • most soil data points have not been revisited to look at trends or impacts of land management on soil properties • The impact of soil management on soil at the farm-level is often unknown • Soil data is skewed to chemical properties eg Soil pH, SOC and P, measured to a shallow depth • Mapping of soil data is also compromised, patchy and at a scale only suitable for regional-level soil characterisation 21
- 22. Figure 3 Action Learning Cycle (Source: Lobry de Bruyn et al., 2014) Activity undertaken, CMA opportunities presented, administer surveys, enter data into an organizational database. Actors gather data on expectations and prior learning from previous experiences before activity commences as well as observing participants in activity. Design of evaluation survey, Education and training expectations with attendees, produce Evaluation Report, debrief of activity with actors after activity undertaken. Training needs, Design of activity, Review Alignment of Programs, previous evaluation reports, and past evaluations on previous education and training reviewed before learning contract designed, and activity planned. 22
- 23. Role of reflection for sharing lessons learnt • Collecting meaningful data on audience experiences to inform practice • Making time to listen to audience feedback and being responsive • Time to think and reflect equally on “hits and misses” • Organising opportunities to share learning experiences 23
- 24. Face to face connections Online Connections • Requires established social networks • Connect dispersed and unrelated audiences • Forum for sharing experiences and expectations in real-time • Requires dedicated team of experts to curate, organise, and respond • Immediate and direct feedback possible, but underused • Analytics are output-based. More evidence of impact of engagement • Build sense of commitment and shared vision, but difficult to sustain with limited resources • Interactive potential with participant’s own data and legacy data sets underexplored • Limited funding to support networks and high transaction costs for support staff • Visual, and can develop functionality for input and display own data against others • Continuity: follow-up is required to maintain momentum • Inclusive in that all people have ability to comment or share their opinion equally • Small reach and attracting individuals already interested • Large reach with open access and free (so far) 24
- 25. Overall Outcome Build a stronger research-practice nexus that can communicate credible, local knowledge on soils and connects audiences in meaningful ways to policy initiatives and information on soils that increase the capacity to manage soil sustainably for all. 25
- 26. Contact and Sources Lobry de Bruyn, L, Abbey, J (2003) Characterisation of farmers' soil sense and the implications for on- farm monitoring of soil health. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43 (3), 285-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/EA00176 Lobry de Bruyn, L, Prior, J, Lenehan, J (2014) Weaving a Stronger Fabric for Improved Outcomes. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 20 (2), 169-189. 10.1080/1389224X.2013.803991 Lobry de Bruyn, L. & Andrews, S. 2016. Are Australian and United States Farmers Using Soil Information for Soil Health Management? Sustainability, 8, 304. Lobry de Bruyn, L., Jenkins, A. & Samson-Liebig, S. 2017. Lessons Learnt: Sharing Soil Knowledge to Improve Land Management and Sustainable Soil Use. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 81, 427- 438. Lobry de Bruyn, LA (2019) Learning opportunities: Understanding farmers’ soil testing practice through workshop activities to improve extension support for soil health management. Soil Use and Management 35 (1), 128-140. 10.1111/sum.12466 Lobry de Bruyn, L, Ingram, J (2019) Soil information sharing and knowledge building for sustainable soil use and management: insights and implications for the 21st Century. Soil Use and Management 35 (1), 1-5. doi:10.1111/sum.12493 Lobry de Bruyn, LA, North, S, Biggs, A, Oliver, IC, Wong, VNL, Knox, OGG (2022) Australian priorities for soil research and land manager engagement to improve sustainable soil management. Geoderma Regional 29 e00509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2022.e00509 26 A/Prof Lisa Lobry de Bruyn E: llobryde@une.edu.au
Editor's Notes
- Much emphasis is placed on governments to design effective policies and processes, in reality land is privately owned and is affected by the actions of individuals, with of course outside factors affecting how well the internal management is likely to succeed. Most of the land in Australia that has been degraded and continues to be vulnerable is under agricultural management with more than 54% in grazing lands and a much smaller proportion under cropping (4%). As I will explain the role of governance on the ability to promote SLM is hampered by social networks being less active and information that is relevant and credible on best management practices not being as accessible as it once was as governments reduce their workforce and expect private enterprise and landholders to fill the gap.
- For the last 20 years funding of projects and activities has been through regional organisations operating at the State level but federally driven. As you can see some are analogous to catchments but many bear no resemblance to a biophysical entity. The regional organisations operate some a s the 4th tier of government after LGA and in other states have no statutory control. For many the advent of ROs saw a commensurate decline in Landcare than commenced in 1990, and also a splintering of extension staff from their former agency to the new one
- The National Soil Strategy is Australia’s first national policy on soil. It sets out how Australia will value, manage and improve its soil for the next 20 years. It was released in May 2021, and there are three overarching goals: prioritise soil health, empower soil innovation and stewards, and strengthen soil knowledge and capability. The guiding principles and goals are welcomed, but some cynics feel it sounds good but what does it really mean? Especially when within the soil science discipline we can’t actually agree on terms such as soil health or on how to increase and maintain SOC. It is the 1st time in many decades that soil has been placed in a central role, but it is nearly a decade after the Soil RD&E strategy was released so there have been many years of toil to get to this point. The NSAP is to kick start the 20 year NSS with a 5 year action plan that has 6 priorities to be achieved by 2027.
- In tandem with the NSAP there are other Programmes like the RLP with common goals and strategies that are relying on the NSS to be successful. Without it their goals will also flounder. Priority Action One: Improve soil health across land uses, sectors and location through practice change, which strongly links to RLP outcome 5 and 6 which is about greater adoption of SLM practices and improvements in soil condition, and to demonstrate those sustainability credentials. The Regional Land Partnerships (RLP) program is a major component of the National Landcare Program Phase Two. The RLP program is funded through the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Account, established under the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 (NHT Act). The RLP program is providing $450 million over five years from 2018–19 to 2022–23 for services that contribute to the achievement of four environmental and two agricultural outcomes. Fifty service providers have been contracted to deliver 225 projects in 54 regions across Australia. The program comprises 159 environment projects and 66 agriculture projects. Twenty-two projects have been completed as at 9 September 2021.
- SSA has a leading role in strengthening soil knowledge and capacity that is working with the already established Drought Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hubs. NSAP priority action 6: Identify and address shortfalls to ensure a “future pipeline” of soil scientific technical and professional expertise and skills among sectors engaged in soil health. The flow chart illustrates the rather top-down approach to soil governance where projects under federal funding (32 successful ones out of 278 applications) are addressing the low adoption of soil testing and improving soil health awareness and best management practice. Connect to land managers and regional soil and land managers
- The RSP accreditation was funded federally to SSA to develop, and it hopes to provide the knowledge and skills to those people working with landholders and agencies so that any soil data collected in robust and sampled systematically. Feed into the ANSIS and address the shortfall in soil information collection (more on that later). Also harness the land manager as a collaborator in collecting the information.
- Human capital involved in Soil Science and projections. Its not new data but the only data I have. Using experience and role against academic standards. This data is from a 2014 survey of SSA membership and is relatively a small sample with 168 responses. The membership is around 800 so a small sample, but the only one available where gender, and role by experience was captured. The take home message here is there were more highly experienced men in diverse roles, close to retirement (> 30 years), and few women represented in experienced roles (greater than 20 years). For women there were more employed in project officer roles, which are also short-term contracts of between 3 to 5 years. This means that those nearing retirement are unlikely to be training the next generation to take over their role, and the fertile ground where new graduates would join a government department and be mentored in their role is fast disappearing or already gone. Another development in the workforce is a reliance on the private sector to be the go-between the research org or govt dept and the land manager. In a project we are currently involved with at UNE we are relying very much on local agronomists to organise small groups of farmers into a workshop group for us.
- The aging nature of the workforce, both in agriculture and the service industries, leaves a gap in who is undertaking the education and training of those people employed in extension or project roles (CoA 2014). Australia’s farmers tend to be considerably older than other workers. In 2011, almost a quarter (23%) of farmers were aged 65 years or over, compared with just 3% of people in other occupations. The tendency of farmers to work beyond the traditional retirement age may reflect the decline in younger generations taking over family farms. A recent stocktake of Australian Soil R, D & E staff re-enforced the limited investment in soil knowledge exchange showing 12.5% in extension and 6% in teaching, with the majority of staff in research (39%), and postgraduate training (26%) (DAFF, 2011). There is some positives with the training of the next generation of knowledge holders and generators but to ensure their success, they require mentoring by soil scientists remaining in the workforce. This loss of experience and expertise in soil with an aging workforce is a dilemma that could be addressed in some way with succession planning and use of mentoring. Alternately using existing or developing knowledge networks (such as those that currently exist in NSW with retired soil scientists) or remotely accessed nation-wide data bases may in some way address these concerns.
- Organisational change and regionalisation of natural resource management has shrunk expertise for information delivery and engagement. The NSAP last priority was Succession planning but without it the other priorities will also falter. An aging workforce with no succession plan places more pressure on the sector Soil science education and training is unlikely to fill the gap of soil science expertise loss. Currently the NSS is developing training materials to train people to collect soil samples and ID soils so it does conform to a rigorous data set, usable for ANSIS. Since 1990s research is more focused on specific industries than landscape scale activities, leading to increasing specialisation A widening chasm between researchers and engagement with relevant audience to research findings. Priority 4: private-public partnerships and linked to agricultural techniques and tools
- Where do we place the scarce human capital to ensure greater engagement and co-operation? These images are familiar to many of us - a group of landholders listening to a scientist. Engagement is often at the END of a research program, and rarely at the START. The top left picture actually is an instance where the roles were reversed and the scientists were listening to the landholder about their management goals and farming practices. We need to engage in more situations like this where we can validate the use of soil knowledge in the field, BEFORE we do the research and development. The reason is to find out what land managers view as the problems and often how they have tried to address them. Engagement Communicate with stakeholder. Identifies the actual problem. Development Stakeholder involvement in research ideas. Research Provides and proves solutions.
- The causal loop diagram shows the SES of SCM for graziers. It is a rather busy diagram, but you don’t have to worry about the intricacies. Its the outcome of Nurul Amin’s PhD research where he undertook farmer interviews and workshops through the Northern Tablelands with long-term practitioners of rotational grazing. They decided what were the features that helped or hindered theirs SCM, and it is composed of 51 features and their interactions. The red outlined areas in ecological are the SCM outcomes and in social is the governance areas with government control. Farmers are far more focussed on the SCM outcomes that interact with soil health and pasture production and less so on interacting with Government policy on SC, especially earning soil carbon credits through a payment scheme. The other reason for showing this diagram was that farm debt was not a strong motivator for these graziers undertaking SCM practices but the co-benefits and improvements in production potential and soil health were. Service-providers, who also did a causal loop diagram, felt that profit was a driver of practice change. Hence there is a mismatch between what farmers were motivated by and how service providers’ perceive it to be. What I am advocating is undertaking this type of research FIRST, where we unpick the SES for SCM, in this case, but other best management practices, so that any policies and programmes are designed with the landholders in mind, combined with a firm understanding of the science and fit with their present day practices. Success is more likely.
- Another important piece of the puzzle is understanding farmers’ social networks for information flows and connectivity for improving ENGAGEMENT, especially when human resources are stretched or absent. The current situation is there are fewer people to work with local landholders. An largely untested claim is that placing information online can fill the void left by a shrinking local workforce that a land manger trusts. Sure we have greater internet connectivity, making this possible, but the information is largely uncurated, with no explanation, and lacking locally-specific information that is relevant at the farm scale, and directing people to local on-ground contacts. Another prerequisite for making the connection between scientists and land managers requires greater support for developing social networks. Examining the role of existing social connections and how they have enabled people to connect to information either online or through those personal connections. The role of agronomists and further education as knowledge brokers and providers is important and needs to be looked at more closely. For those adopting no-till being a member of a group and using a paid advisor was an important characteristic that defined them as a group. The graph shows that broadcare and grazing farmers in Regional areas were always more likely to seek out other farmers for information (strong ties, affirm what is known) rather than go to the NRM RO or to Landcare (weak ties, acquire new information), but the more worrying trend is the decline in these regional level organisations as sources of information, especially Landcare. At its peak Landcare had 40% of landholders involved, and in the last survey conducted in 2012 membership had slipped to just over 20% of Australian farmers. All this data is also 10 years old so is the situation improved or declined further?
- Who are we engaging with? This graph was developed from Rogers over 60 years ago. Especially information is online. Often we have NO idea. I suspect it is with the innovators and early adopters or people willing to embrace change and new ideas. The recent project on “targeted soil testing to enhance farmer capacity for improving soil health and sustainability” with colleagues at UNE, UQ and QDAF is trying to make sure we do know who the project is engaging with and the impact we might have. We have been collecting baseline data on their soil testing experience. The trajectory of change shown on the bottom axis not a specific timeline. For many innovations it might take up to 40 years. No-till is such an example to get to our current level of no-till adoption, 90%.
- I still believe there are compelling reasons to continue with face-to-face and group experiences in soil, which provide tactile experiences to users and greater immediacy and feedback to providers on engagement and impact with the participants (Ball et al., 2018). The downside is that it is a slow process but in the end change is more likely where there is a personal connection, and opportunity for ongoing support. Many CMAs and LLS are undertaking such activities and it is also a great opportunity to learn more about farmers practice and the reality of their experience with soil. Also for LLS these type of extension activities need to be funded are not part of recurrent funding, so they are also competing for funding with other organisations. NSAP Priority 3: review, extend and promote current and new structures for knowledge sharing, peer learning and collaboration that facilitate soil stewardship among land managers.
- Priority 2: Develop and make tools available to demonstrate the return on investment in improving soil health Priority 5: Develop a harmonised National approach to the collection, aggregation and analysis of soil information
- The bulk of soil sampling effort was made around 1990-2000 (CoA, 2014). Mainly through time-bound funding programmes. Andrew Biggs presented this in a paper also wrote the role of Digital Soil Mapping He raised: One of the largest data gaps in Australia concerns cropping lands. There is a significant absence of data representing soil attributes of cropping lands in soil survey databases. Thus, the use of data from state and territory soil survey databases for DSM will invariably lead to difficulties in depiction of cropping lands, in particular, for dynamic soil attributes such as pH, organic carbon and nutrients.
- What does this mean for the land manager? Each state has electronically stored data, but not every jurisdiction makes it publically available, and almost certainly in different formats. This eg here is from NSW, e-SPADE. It holds all soil data collected over several decades through government activities and research projects, some even with landholders such as the healthy soils for sustainable farms (2008-12). If you live in the area circled by red there is NO information on soil, except you own local soil information. While the area circled by green has a soil-landscape map, individual soil profiles, and land capability layer. I suppose one good question to pose here is how useful is this type of soil knowledge for a land manager, student, or consultant? What can they do with it? It does not embed learnings from the soil data or how it affects soil management. We do know farmers are collecting local soil information, maybe not at an intense level or very often, but it does not form part of this repository, and a farmer rarely holds onto their soil information or it is kept by a private company. The project I am currently involved in wants to change this situation, and get MORE farmers soil testing by showing the value of soil testing in identifying soil constraints to production The expectation that data collected through soil testing, will bring with it a much richer understanding of soils and will be made public for others is being proposed. The data will be added to a National Soil Database – revamping ASRIS (Australian Soil Resources Information System). The National Soil Strategy has identified this opportunity and is investigating options regarding the collation of the large body of private sector data collected in cropping lands by paying people for their historical or contemporary soil data. My criticism of this approach is that it is further outsourcing a govt commitment to fund public good research, with the expectation that into the future farmers will supply soil testing data to support ANSIS.
- For a land manager to understand how their soil behaves in a landscape, and how their management affects it they need soil property data linked to soil function. A soil test is not able to reflect the 3D reality of a soil and how it might behave under erosion events or with cultivation. The type of information currently available on soil types and their behavior is limited, and if we take the example of soil testing it is often one dimensional: Mostly on soil chemical properties (87%) Little data collected on soil physical (12.5%) and biological (non-SOC) (0.5%) properties No information on observational indicators for soil monitoring Soil information collected outside the production zone is rare Soil samples taken sparsely and at shallow depth
- Soil data collection is tied to funding, and most soil data point have not been revisited to look at trends or impacts of land management on soil properties The impact of soil management on soil is often unknown – feedback for the farmer on impact of land management. Soil data is skewed to chemical properties eg Soil pH, SOC and P, and shallow depth Mapping of soil data is also compromised, patchy and at a scale only suitable for regional soil characterisation
- How we learn from past experiences and how we build from what we currently know. Generalised the terms. Parts we do poorly are observing and reflecting. Mostly plan and act, and not completing the loop
- In fact, we can probably learn more from where experiences have failed. However, we need to place a mirror up to our experiences and take the time to reflect on the positives and negatives, and how those experiences can be used to improve on the types of mechanisms and resources available to those wanting to learn about soil, and not simply - failing to learn (Lobry de Bruyn et al., 2014). To improve the way we capture and share the experience and expertise of scientists and practitioners it will involve a change in mind-set where we value equally the soil knowledge of others, including: farmers, scientists, educators, extension staff, commercial sector and the public. We need to highlight for those working on soil and with practitioners how they have adapted their mental model of soil to work with others.
- Face-to face opportunities need to be balanced with online access to soil knowledge and the two mechanisms offer ways of building connections that can compliment each other.. At the same time there is an urgency to address to transaction costs and fatigue experienced in face-to-face by capitalising on positives of online interactivity potential and “anywhere and anytime accessibility”. Oftent the most productive moments are outside the workshop activities when people are congregating around a tea break or lunch. Established social networks required Forum for sharing experiences and to place realistic expectations on how knowledge can inform management Immediate and direct feedback to provider and participant is possible Build sense of commitment and shared vision, but difficult to sustain with limited resources Limited funding to support networks and high transaction costs for support staff Small reach and attracting individuals already interested After the face to face experience follow-up is required to maintain momentum Online connections Connect dispersed and often unrelated groups of people Require dedicated team of experts to curate, organise soil portals, and respond to queries Analytics are output-based – likes, time spent on a page, but need to build evidence of impact of engagement Interactive potential with participant’s own data and legacy data sets underexplored Visual, and can develop functionality for input and display own data against others Inclusive in that all people have ability to comment or share their opinion equally Large reach with open access and free (so far)
- Build a stronger research-practice nexus that can communicate credible, local knowledge on soils and connects audiences in meaningful ways to policy initiatives and information on soils that increase the capacity to manage soil sustainably for all.