Aboriginal Communities and Mixed Agricultural Businesses

Opportunities and future needs

by Jason Alexandra and Jane Stanley

August 2007

RIRDC Publication No 07/074 RIRDC Project No AHM-5A

ii

© 2007 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 1 74151 471 1 ISSN 1440-6845 Aboriginal Communities and Mixed Agricultural Businesses – Opportunities and future needs Publication No. 07/074 Project No. AHM-5A The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances.

While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication.

The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors.

The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.

This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the RIRDC Publications Manager on phone 02 6271 4165.

Researcher Contact Details Mr Jason Alexandra Alexandra & Associates Pty Ltd 16 Homestead Road Eltham Victoria 3095 Phone: (03) 9431 3657 Email: jasona@impaq.com.au

Dr Jane Stanley Focus Pty Ltd P.O. Box 315 Sarina, Qld 4737 Phone: (07) 4943 0549 Email: jstanley49@bigpond.com

In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form. RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 2, 15 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6271 4100 Fax: 02 6271 4199 Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au. Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au Published in August 2007

iii

Foreword Large areas of land in rural and remote Australia are now owned and/or managed by Aboriginal communities. There are many opportunities to develop agricultural enterprises that satisfy these communities’ material, cultural and social needs, as well as their land management aspirations. However there are at present significant institutional obstacles to this form of agricultural development. This project explores some of the opportunities for developing more diverse and resilient agricultural systems by reviewing the prospects, constraints and some practical experiences of developing mixed enterprises on Aboriginal land. The report concludes that strategies for sustainable systems need to include sustained funding, capacity building and mentoring, robust community and commercial structures, sound business and commercial models and governance improvements. There is also a need for targeted Research and Development to inform these new enterprise models for Aboriginal communities. This project was funded from RIRDC Core Funds which are provided by the Australian Government. The following report, an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1600 research publications, forms part of our Environment and Farm Management R&D program, which aims to support innovation in agriculture and the use of frontier technology to meet market demands for accredited sustainable production. Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.html purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop Peter O’Brien Managing Director

iv

v

Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. vi Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Synthesis & Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 2

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rural Industry Strategy............................................. 2 Assessing Social and Economic Performance of Integrated Models .................................................. 2 Models for Regional Capacity Building.............................................................................................. 4 Development and Documentation of Governance Options................................................................. 6 Broader Implications of Emerging Models ......................................................................................... 6 Support for Garden Agriculture and Community Farms..................................................................... 7

National Overview................................................................................................................................. 8 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 8 The Opportunity .................................................................................................................................. 8 Context ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Polyculture Systems .......................................................................................................................... 11 Wildlife and cultural resources.......................................................................................................... 13 Genetic Resources and Cultural Intellectual Property....................................................................... 15 Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 16

Support for enterprise development.................................................................................................. 17 The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Rural Industry Strategy (1997) ...................... 17 A Coherent Rural Enterprise Development Framework ................................................................... 21 Defining Legal Structures for Collective and Private Enterprises .................................................... 24

Case Study 1 Scrub Hill Community Farm ...................................................................................... 26 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 26 Korrawinga Today............................................................................................................................. 26 Business Development ...................................................................................................................... 27 Development History ........................................................................................................................ 28 Building and Infrastructure Development ......................................................................................... 30 Pests and Other Problems.................................................................................................................. 31 Training and Capacity Building ........................................................................................................ 32 Achievements to Date ....................................................................................................................... 33 The Future ......................................................................................................................................... 34 Some Observations and Lessons to Be Learnt .................................................................................. 35

Case Study 2 Minjelha Dhagun.......................................................................................................... 36 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Yugambeh Land Enterprises Today .................................................................................................. 36 Property Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 37 Business Development ...................................................................................................................... 38 History of Farm Development........................................................................................................... 39 Building and Infrastructure Development ......................................................................................... 43 Training and Capacity Building ........................................................................................................ 43 Links to the Scrub Hill Experience ................................................................................................... 44 Some observations and lessons to be learnt ...................................................................................... 45

Issues Arising from the Case Studies................................................................................................. 46 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 48 Glossary................................................................................................................................................ 49 References ............................................................................................................................................ 51

vi

Executive Summary What the report is about This project explored the potential and scope for multi-enterprise agricultural systems developed by Aboriginal communities on their land. Who the report is targeted at This report offers recommendations to the various agencies that provide support and funding for these types of projects, as well as other stakeholders involved in or interested in mixed enterprise agricultural systems and Aboriginal communities. Project Objective This project focused on the development of land-based production systems that support integrated community development. Project Aims and Background In Australia there are many opportunities to further develop production systems which support Aboriginal communities’ material, cultural and social needs and land management aspirations. The project aimed to identify and document:

• Opportunities and constraints to integrated property planning and enterprise development; • Future needs and directions for research and development; • Opportunities for improving government and industry support arrangements; • Prospects for improving training, education and technical support; and • Lessons from emerging models of community based enterprise and land development.

Aboriginal rural enterprise development is important because:

• Significant community and industry development opportunities exist on Aboriginal land; • Over 15% of the Australian continent is owned and managed by Aboriginal communities; • As more Aboriginal people gain access to land, it is important that the resources devoted to

supporting them are used effectively; • Production of food and other material needs is integral to community development and

economic self determination; and • There are significant opportunities for more diverse and locally fulfilling production systems.

Project Methods

The project combined desk-top reviews, interviews and workshops with the analysis and documentation of two case studies. Project documentation was refined via the distribution of drafts and the resultant feedback. The project drew on the experience of two properties in SE Queensland (see chapters 4 and 5) as a primary source of information. To gain an appreciation of current approaches to rural enterprise development, Alexandra and Associates reviewed literature and information on the world-wide-web. Selected informants were interviewed on a wide range of topics, including initiatives in Cape York and the Kimberley where land management and enterprise development are being initiated on much larger scales than the case study properties. This material was used to prepare a project overview and consultation paper. A revised version of this paper forms Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of this report.

vii

Chapters 4 and 5 of this report are based on the two detailed case studies documenting the experiences of two communities that FOCUS Pty Ltd1 has been working with for several years:

Korrawinga Aboriginal Corporation/Dhugamin CDEP at Scrub Hill Community Farm in Hervey Bay, Queensland; and

Yugambeh Land Enterprises at Minjelha Dhagun next to Mount Barney, south of Beaudesert, Queensland.

Chapter 6 is a summary of the issues highlighted by the case studies. In mid 2002 a workshop was held in Brisbane to explore the issues and directions identified in the case studies and the overview paper. A summary of the workshop was circulated and feedback received – this forms the basis of Chapter 1 - Project Synthesis and Recommendations. The Case Studies Scrub Hill is a 23 hectare property on the outskirts of Hervey Bay, Qld, owned by Korrawinga Aboriginal Corporation. The land is stony, with poor soils. It surrounds a disused quarry which is now leased by Korrawinga. It is a strategically positioned hillside property on the approach road into town. Scrub Hill today supports multiple rural enterprises including: cut flowers and ti-tree production; market gardening; a nursery; a poultry farm; bushfood cultivation; an art and craft centre; a trades workshop and farm tours. Chapter 5 details the progress of development at Scrub Hill. Minjelha Dhagun is a property of around 400 hectares situated south-east of Brisbane adjacent to Mount Barney in the Border Ranges National Park. Minjelha Dhagun is spiritually significant for the Yugambeh people, who are now scattered throughout South-Eastern Queensland. Yugambeh Land Enterprises (YLE) was formed to pursue the interests of Yugambeh traditional owners in regaining access to their lands, including Minjelha Dhagun. The Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) bought the property and transferred it to YLE ownership in 1998. The core goals of YLE are to secure land; extend cultural influence and ensure maintenance of cultural lands; promote unity, respect and understanding amongst Yugambeh people; maintain and share spiritual knowledge; assert ownership over Yugambeh lands and promote agreements with non-indigenous people; and to enhance and develop Yugambeh cultural skills. YLE goals for Minjelha Dhagun are to create a sustainable economic and employment base, while retaining the social and cultural values of the property by putting Yugambeh people in touch with their country and culture. At the time of writing (2002) work on site was limited to land management and repair, including revegetation and fencing. The major infrastructure works needed for economic development had not yet commenced. Economic activity was limited to agistment of cattle, with the proceeds being used to pay property rates. However, since acquisition an extensive process of property and enterprise planning has taken place. The property plan identifies a number of different areas that could be used for a range of developmental purposes. Enterprise investigated includes:

• Commercial tourism: • Forestry and timber production • Commercial vegetable cropping • Ti-tree for oil • Bushfoods and traditional medicines • Native and exotic horticulture • Beef production. • Cultural activities including a cultural centre planned as part of the tourist development. • Arts and crafts

1 Jane Stanley is the principal of Focus Pty Ltd and is one of the two project researchers.

viii

None of these business opportunities have been realised at the date of the investigations, and there will need to be a sustained investment in capacity building and infrastructure development before YLE is able to operate on a business footing. Chapter 6 documents the development plans and aspirations of the community. Issues Arising from the Case Studies The case studies demonstrate that the development of production systems and enterprises cannot be divorced from either personal development or wider community development. They also demonstrate significant technical, landuse and organisational constraints as well as the pressing need for concerted strategies for property and business development. These strategies need to deliver:

• Sustained rather then stop-start funding; • Ongoing capacity building including mentoring; • Robust community and commercial structures; • Sound business and organisational models; and • Improvements in governance and institutional strengthening.

Priorities for a national strategic approach include: 1. Appropriate conceptual and funding models for integrated developments, i.e. those that aim to support multiple rural and cultural enterprises, land and community development etc. 2. Support for integrated property and enterprise planning that takes into account:

• cultural and social factors; • land use and enterprise planning; • community aspirations; • natural resources and infrastructure; • capacity building requirements; and • appropriate governance arrangements. • ongoing, competent technical support.

3. A holistic approach to the measurement of progress and the impacts of external funding, including acknowledgement of the multiple benefits such as health, educational and training outcomes. 4. Effective coordination of agencies involved in education and training, health, sustainable landuse, community and enterprise development. 5. Recognition of the timeframes involved in planning and implementing integrated property development. 6. Development of legal and organisational frameworks capable of addressing the complexity of “private” enterprises operating on collective property (see Chapter 3). Project Findings and Implications The case studies revealed exciting social and economic benefits from participating in innovative development models. However, they also document significant shortcomings in current systems for supporting enterprise and land development because of a lack of appreciation of labour-intensive, mixed enterprise models based on integrated approaches to cultural, social and environmental recovery. Government programs tend to focus on one kind of issue – eg environment, business development or training – rather than processes which support integrated development. This is leading to a waste of resources, as the timing (often stop-start) and nature (often single issue focused) of support is often out of kilter with community needs, and because governance systems and capacity building are given insufficient priority. The project identified a range of priority needs for rural enterprise development and offers 14 recommendations (see Chapter 1 “Synthesis and Recommendations”) on the need to:

• review, revise and reinvigorate the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rural Industry Strategy.

ix

• develop more holistic project and program performance assessment frameworks. • develop and transfer successful models of regional capacity building. • improve understanding of options for governance of community properties. • understand implications of community development models being applied in Australia. • provide increased support for home or community food production gardens, particularly in

remote communities. • develop improved arrangements for cooperation amongst external agencies involved in

delivering support in areas like health, training and rural development; • improve capacity to integrate property planning, natural resources management and enterprise

development on specific sites and at Government program levels • adopt strategic approaches to supporting Aboriginal rural enterprise development.

Recommendations The project identified the following needs and suggests some appropriate responses:

1. That relevant Australian Government agencies investigate commissioning a comprehensive review, revision and reinvigoration of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rural Industry Strategy . A second phase of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rural Industry Strategy could build on the lessons of the first phase and related initiatives.

2. That a holistic assessment framework be implemented that tracks the impacts of

projects/assistance on community wellbeing over a realistic time frame. Holistic assessment methods determine the true impacts of integrated development models in terms of economic and social outcomes and community health. These should refer to attempts to develop broader indices of welfare such as the Genuine Progress Indicator, and to Duncan Ironmonger’s work on the value of the household economy.

3. That the objectives of government support programs need to be defined in terms which take

account of the integrated nature of community, enterprise and land development, and performance measures be defined to reflect this integrated approach

4. That further recognition needs to be given to development of Aboriginal community farms as

training, education and capacity building nodes.

5. That programs of support are needed for long term resourcing of the training, education and capacity building nodes based on Aboriginal community farms.

6. That support programs are essential for staff working on integrated land and community

development models incorporating gardening, farming and agriculture and social goals.

7. That all agencies adopt a coordinated coherent model for supporting enterprise and community development.

8. That governance options be carefully developed and tested with advice made available to

Indigenous client groups so that they can establish community based governance structure and business models appropriate to their circumstances.

9. That a national review of the governance and business models used to date, and communities’

experience of using them, is needed to support advice on useful and appropriate models, and the pros and cons of various models and options.

x

10. That legal frameworks are developed that are capable of addressing the complexity of “individual or family and/or community” enterprises operating simultaneously on collective property, including appropriate ways of allocating “enterprise” rights.

11. That funding agencies consider redirecting a proportion of rural development funds into

integrated models of landuse and community development on Aboriginal land.

12. That government consider reviewing underlying concepts of what constitutes effective rural development support.

13. That small scale, multi-crop and garden agricultural systems are recognised as legitimate and

valuable components of future Rural Industry Strategies.

14. That government support and encouragement is needed for community farms and garden agriculture due to their capacity to make important contributions to genuine community welfare.

1

Introduction In Australia there are many opportunities to further develop production systems which support Aboriginal communities’ material, cultural and social needs and land management aspirations. Aboriginal rural enterprise development is important because:

• Significant community and industry development opportunities exist on Aboriginal land; • Over 15% of the Australian continent is owned and managed by Aboriginal communities; • As more Aboriginal people gain access to land, it is important that the resources devoted to

supporting them are used effectively; • Production of food and other material needs is integral to community development and

economic self determination; and • There are significant opportunities for more diverse and locally fulfilling production systems.

This project aimed to identify and document:

• Opportunities and constraints to integrated property planning and enterprise development; • Future needs and directions for research and development; • Opportunities for improving government and industry support arrangements; • Prospects for improving training, education and technical support; and • Lessons from emerging models of community based enterprise and land development.

The project drew on the experience of two properties in SE Queensland (chapters 4 and 5) as a primary source of information. To gain an appreciation of current approaches to rural enterprise development, a literature review was completed and information on the world-wide-web was accessed. Selected informants were interviewed on a wide range of topics, including initiatives in Cape York and the Kimberley where land management and enterprise development are being initiated on much larger scales than the case study properties. This material was used to prepare a project overview and consultation paper. A revised version of this paper forms Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of this report. Chapters 4 and 5 of this report are based on the two detailed case studies documenting the experiences of two communities that FOCUS Pty Ltd has been working with for several years:

Korrawinga Aboriginal Corporation/Dhugamin CDEP at Scrub Hill Community Farm in Hervey Bay, Queensland; and

Yugambeh Land Enterprises at Minjelha Dhagun next to Mount Barney, south of Beaudesert, Queensland.

Chapter 6 is a summary of the issues highlighted in the case studies. In mid 2002 a workshop was held in Brisbane to explore the issues and directions identified in the case studies and the overview paper. A summary of the workshop was circulated and feedback received – this forms the basis of Chapter 1 - Project Synthesis and Recommendations.

2

Synthesis & Recommendations National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rural Industry Strategy The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rural Industry Strategy (ATSIC & DPIE 1997) aimed to provide a strategic framework for rural industries development and the whole of government support for Aboriginal landholders in making effective economic use of their land. The annual reporting required on implementation of the Strategy (arising from its role in implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody) has not been carried out. However, it is understood that many agencies and groups have made use of the Strategy in planning and implementing local or regional projects. Since the Strategy was launched in 1997, there has been a continual increase in the proportion of rural land passing into Aboriginal custodianship, without a commensurate increase in resources to build capacity of Aboriginal landholders in land based enterprise development and sustainable land management. During the same period some interesting models of Aboriginal land use have started to emerge which are successful in social and community development terms and in the creation of non-monetary local wealth. These are challenging some of the dominant preconceptions held by funding agencies, because they appear to “break the rules” of conventional rural enterprise development with their focus on small scale, diverse, labour intensive production. Scrub Hill Community Farm (see Chapter 5) is one such development, but there are others in different parts of Australia. Common features of these models appear to be:

• systems of governance which are strongly community based • an emphasis on diversity of land uses and enterprises, with synergy between these • a strong emphasis on training, employment and community outcomes rather than financial

profit • clear social and cultural benefits arising from bringing communities together and providing

individual motivation (which can have regional as well as local impacts) • Visions or long term goals which integrate individual, community and environmental health.

There are many opportunities for encouraging greater understanding and application of these models, and for strengthening their strategic roles in implementing the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rural Industry Strategy. Recommendation 1. That relevant Australian Governement agencies investigate commissioning a comprehensive review, revision and reinvigoration of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rural Industry Strategy . A second phase of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rural Industry Strategy could build on the lessons of the first phase and related initiatives. Assessing Social and Economic Performance of Integrated Models Assessing the social and economic performance of the emerging integrated models of development is problematic. There is frustration on the part of communities and funding agencies that their performance, and/or the performance of proposed land uses, is being assessed against narrow criteria usually used for assessing conventional rural enterprises. In particular, for project selection and performance measurement a primary focus on monetary profit is often inappropriate. The use of a wider range of assessment criteria, such as the kinds of measures developed for the Genuine Progress

3

Indicator2 - an alternative set of “national accounts”- would be more suitable. Assessment criteria have a large bearing on the kinds of programs and projects supported. Narrow assessment measures tend to narrow the focus of projects and reduce prospects for integrated projects or integration across programs. A more holistic framework for assessing projects, programs, organisations and enterprise performance is required, which takes into account the following factors:

• enhancing value creation in the domestic economy • generating educational and capacity building outcomes • improving health and community wellbeing • the personal and social value of preventing social dysfunction • the importance of improving hope, purpose and motivation.

Each of the above assessment criteria proposed above is now described in more detail: Enhancing value creation in the domestic economy – real wealth creation occurs through the circulation of goods and services within local communities whether or not these exchanges are mediated through monetary exchange. This wealth generation is not necessarily reflected in monetary profits, but is critically important to both local and national economies. Dr Duncan Ironmonger of Melbourne University has done extensive economic research which demonstrates that the value of the “domestic” household, or non-cash, economy is at least equal to the entire formal or monetary economy in Australia3. In disadvantaged rural communities enhancing the non-cash economy’s capacity to generate “wealth” is an important strategy, but one which receives little formal recognition in many programs, project selection criteria or in economic assessments of the value of rural development projects. Unless this is rectified a distorted monetary bias will continue to predominate, to the detriment of many prospective projects which could otherwise generate genuine value. Generating educational and capacity building outcomes – the economic value of projects or programs should be assessed in terms of skill development, work experience, employment readiness etc. Improving health and community wellbeing – the physical and mental health impacts of projects on individuals and communities should be assessed based on the positive impacts of fresh food availability, food security and improved nutrition as well as through changes in individual and community outcomes. The personal and social value of prevention can be assessed based on the value of diversion from socially dysfunctional behaviour and the resultant savings in social and financial costs such as the costs of policing, imprisonment and/or rehabilitation. Improving hope, purpose and motivation is hard to measure but nonetheless is an important feature of integrated models of community and enterprise development. Recommendation 2. That a holistic assessment framework be implemented that tracks the impacts of projects/assistance on community wellbeing over a realistic time frame. Holistic assessment methods determine the true impacts of integrated development models in terms of economic and social outcomes and community health. These should refer to attempts to develop broader indices of welfare such as the Genuine Progress Indicator, and to Duncan Ironmonger’s work on the value of the household economy.

2 The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) incorporates measures of well-being that are missing from more narrowly focused traditional indicators, notably Gross Domestic Product. (TAI, 2000) 3 http://www.economics.unimelb.edu.au/households/hruwww.html

4

Recommendation 3. That the objectives of government support programs need to be defined in terms which take account of the integrated nature of community, enterprise and land development, and performance measures be defined to reflect this integrated approach.

Models for Regional Capacity Building The case studies in Chapters 5 and 6 demonstrate the potential of integrated approaches to community and land development. The two properties are having a significant influence at the regional level in terms of capacity building and this role should be recognised and enhanced. For example, there is considerable in-migration of Aboriginal people into Hervey Bay as word spreads of the community farm on “The Hill”. People move onto the farm for work experience and to be part of an exciting community project, and then often move on to new ventures, equipped with new skills and a capacity to enhance personal and community productivity. It is clear that there are already some well established Aboriginal community farms that could serve as regional capacity building nodes, and that a national strategy that strengthens this function could be highly effective. With greater acknowledgement of this role amongst funding providers, there is potential for community farms to become:

• Centres for training individuals in diverse aspects of land development and management, as a mechanism for skills being shared with and transferred to other properties through these individuals.

• Development models for possible replication or adaptation (with appropriate mentoring support) in other locations.

• Regional nodes for building the capacity of Aboriginal communities for rural enterprise development and land management.

Recommendation 4. That further recognition needs to be given to development of Aboriginal community farms as training, education and capacity building nodes. Recommendation 5. That programs of support are needed for long term resourcing of the training, education and capacity building nodes based on Aboriginal community farms. Recommendation 6. That support programs are essential for staff working on integrated land and community development models incorporating gardening, farming and agriculture and social goals. Recommendation 7. That all agencies adopt a coordinated coherent model for supporting enterprise and community development.

5

Figure 1 describes a simple conceptual model of enterprise development.

1. Current Situation

Desire for greater economic independence and the end of dependence on passive welfare

+

increases in available land and land resources

= opportunities for Aboriginal rural enterprises

3. Community property development and infrastructure development. 4. Greater capacity for robust and independent enterprise creation. 5. Structural arrangements support independent choices taken re business responsibility and

risks while protecting common property and community goals (individual businesses succeed or fail).

6. If successful - enterprises exist which are self sustaining, generating surplus and contributing

to personal, local and national well being.

Figure 1: Enterprise Development Needs

b) Capacity Building Education and training Employment programs Mentoring Management Training Action Learning

(a) Planning and Governance

Strategic Planning Multi Enterprise business models Appropriate Governance/ Structural arrangements Institutional design Business planning

2. Key Inputs

6

Development and Documentation of Governance Options There is a pressing need for the development and delivery of sound advice on governance and contractual models suitable for community owned properties in order to provide suitable “contractual” foundations for a variety of coexisting enterprises. People governing community owned properties and/or operating businesses on these properties often operate in an unusual or “non-standard” legal and business framework compared with “conventional family farms”. For example, until recently4 it has not been possible to mortgage most Aboriginal community land to raise operating capital. Also, there may be many individuals or groups operating or aiming to operate productive enterprises on the same land. Accommodating multiple land use enterprises is likely to require the use of various contractual arrangements such as leases, joint ventures and licences in order to use or occupy land, or develop enterprises with any degree of security. Therefore, appropriate legal and governance frameworks need to be carefully developed and tested. Advice needs to be made available to Indigenous client groups so that they can establish community based governance structures with business relationships appropriate to their circumstances. There are a wide range of possibilities including different joint venture structures and licensing agreements, as well as nested systems of incorporation. These structures need to be examined in detail, so that a range of resilient models that will meet Indigenous aspirations can be recommended. Needs and directions: Recommendation 8. That governance options be carefully developed and tested with advice made available to Indigenous client groups so that they can establish community based governance structure and business models appropriate to their circumstances. Recommendation 9. That a national review of the governance and business models used to date, and communities’ experience of using them, is needed to support advice on useful and appropriate models, and the pros and cons of various models and options. Recommendation 10. That legal frameworks are developed that are capable of addressing the complexity of “individual or family and/or community” enterprises operating simultaneously on collective property, including appropriate ways of allocating “enterprise” rights. Broader Implications of Emerging Models Structural reforms have led to a significant population decline in rural areas, with adverse effects on many regional communities. However, for a range of reasons, it may be necessary to challenge some of the underlying business concepts that are usually applied to assessing the viability of rural enterprises, particularly the need to be highly specialised, capital and technology intensive and thrifty in the use of labour. The circumstances on these community farms are very different to typical rural enterprises, for example there is often abundant labour and a strong desire to generate educational and community outcomes from developing and operating enterprises. While current capacity to assess these integrated outcomes is limited, the case studies suggest that a development approach based on multiple land uses,

4 Recent legislative changes may produce some new tenure options for enterprise development in due course

7

complementary enterprises and integrated community development may provide valuable models for other rural businesses and rural community development. Recommendation 11. That funding agencies consider redirecting a proportion of rural development funds into integrated models of landuse and community development on Aboriginal land. Recommendation 12. That government consider reviewing underlying concepts of what constitutes effective rural development support. Support for Garden Agriculture and Community Farms The project identified widespread support for advancing community farms and intensive garden agriculture. Yet, these are not generally regarded as “legitimate” agricultural or rural industries by external agencies, despite considerable evidence that they make important contributions to genuine community welfare. There has been insufficient focus on supporting gardening and community farms as ways of enhancing the productivity of the household sector, recognising the fact that this may be one of the best ways to generate real wealth and well-being. There has also been limited focus on supporting multi-crop and small scale systems due to the industrial scale and commodity focus of agricultural agencies and their research and development agendas. Recommendation 13. That small scale, multi-crop and garden agricultural systems are recognised as legitimate and valuable components of future Rural Industry Strategies. Recommendation 14. That government support and encouragement is needed for community farms and garden agriculture due to their capacity to make important contributions to genuine community welfare.

8

National Overview Introduction This project focused on the development of land-based production systems that support integrated community development. Agricultural systems contain numerous components such as land, production, and technology. Other aspects include people, culture, knowledge, relationships, rights, responsibilities and the evolution of communities and places. The project found that the significance of adopting integrated approaches to enterprise and community development cannot be over emphasised. Agriculture is essentially a social process: that is, it is about people operating in and using natural resources within a landscape in order to produce goods and services used and valued by people. Therefore material culture and natural resource management should not be divorced from community and culture. This section explores the opportunities and underlying concepts of integrated community and enterprise development. It also looks briefly at the ideas and concepts of permaculture and poly-culture. Later sections explore the nature of support for rural enterprise development and the issues arising from the case studies. The Opportunity Rural enterprises based on Aboriginal land represent a substantial national opportunity with many potential benefits (see for example ATSIC & DPIE, 1997) for the following reasons: Economic self reliance goals – It is the expressed desire of many Aboriginal people and communities to escape from dependence on “passive welfare” and to take greater responsibility for economic self reliance as a key to self determination in line with strategies arising from the Document for Reconciliation. The importance of this was emphasised by Patrick Dobson when he called on Aboriginal communities to stop taking hand outs from Governments “because that’s how they co-opt, that’s how they divide us and that’s how they corrupt us” (Saunders, 2002). More land and resources – There are now greatly increased areas of land, and associated resources, under ownership and control due to the Wik and Mabo decisions and a range of other initiatives over the last two decades. More than 15% of the land area of Australian continent is owned and managed by Aboriginal communities (ATSIC & DPIE 1997), probably now exceeding 20%. Support efforts – There are a large number of individuals, agencies and organisations that are attempting to assist in community and enterprise development. This effort takes many forms and is the mandate of many organisations (see AGD, 2002). Aspirations –Many communities have aspirations to develop rural enterprises based on agriculture, horticulture, wild harvest and pastoralism. Community benefits – Enterprises generate a wide range of benefits in terms of health and well being in addition to “conventional” economic measures (see Chapters 5 and 6).

9

Context The big picture No project on the development of agricultural enterprises by Aboriginal communities can be entirely separated from contemporary debates about economic and community development, about native title and about the meaning of "practical reconciliation". The ways in which people relate to land or “place” are determined by a number of factors including their beliefs; these in turn are conditioned by the institutions of society5. The beliefs and institutions in relation to land, environment and culture are in a period of rapid redefinition in Australia. This is finding expression in major national debates on population and the environment, land tenure and allocation of rights to natural resources. An investigation of contemporary Aboriginal land use and land based enterprises cannot be taken out of the context of Wik, Mabo decisions and the wider “native title” debates (and the resulting responses such as the Indigenous Land Fund6). These two decisions of the high court represent major turning points in the way Australians relate to our land and our history. They convincingly demolished the colonial myth of “terra nullius”, a myth that had infected Australia for two hundred years (Brennan, 1998). They redefined the Nation’s relationships to vast areas of the country and emphasised the limited nature of grazing leases, the prevalent tenure granted for the purpose of pastoralism. As a result of land rights, Mabo, Wik the ILC and other processes, there are now large areas of land (and related natural resources) owned and managed by Aboriginal people, many of whom have aspirations to develop rural enterprises on land which has changed tenure as a result of these decisions. National consultations7 conducted by FOCUS P/L (1996-2002) identified strong interest in community food production and perennial horticulture amongst Indigenous landholders across Australia as part of wider aspirations for development of a range of cropping, harvesting and production systems on Indigenous land. The majority of regional workshops supported community land use and production, identifying local food production, health and nutrition as priorities. It is clearly possible to develop production systems that satisfy local demand and/or cash crops, or a combination of the two. The motivation for their development includes:

• wealth generation and employment with high-value and labour intensive crops - eg fruits, vegetables, oils, medicinal herbs, bush-foods

• satisfying local demands for fresh food eg. improved health and nutrition in isolated communities, as well as improved food security

• improved management of land, vegetation and water resources • development of more stable and robust production systems • diversification of regional production and demonstration of alternative models of landuse • exploration of new crops with specific cultural significance including traditional medicines.

5 The term institution is defined as: systems of governance; laws, and standards; policies; markets; organisations; cultural values, norms and practices of groups. The institutional framework of society, therefore, is the overall network of institutional arrangements which influence group and individual behaviour at various levels. See Appendix 1 for the full definition of institutions used by Land and Water Australia. 6 See http://www.ilc.gov.au 7 These consultations were undertaken on behalf of the Indigenous Land Corporation to assist in preparation of the National Indigenous Land Strategy (revised 2002), and in the preparation of numerous regional plans and homeland plans for a range of ATSIC Regional Councils (Focus 1996-2002).

10

Producing to meet local needs In many remote areas developing production systems that satisfy local peoples’ needs have higher priority than cash or “export” crops. In isolated communities on Cape York products from these systems are being referred to as “import replacements” due to their role in substituting for goods imported into the region (David Epworth pers. com, 2002). These “import replacements” are a local priority because they address important community issues of health and nutrition. Aboriginal people in isolated (and not so isolated) communities are seeking to reinstate the importance of local production for local needs8. This is occurring at the same time as other people are generating “export income” by diverse means from cultural and tourism activities such as selling art works over the internet or offering guided cultural, fishing or “wilderness” tours in remote areas. Later chapters of this report examine the role that Government agencies funded to promote rural industry and community development can play in supporting the aspirations for increasing capacity for local production and for developing income producing enterprises. Food diversity - agriculture systems as cultural hybrids Regardless of the type of tenure, there remain many important questions on how to develop truly Australian land use or “farming” systems. In the author’s view, these continuously evolving systems will inevitability be some kind of “hybrid” of indigenous, exotic and colonial components, just as our current landuse systems are already “hybrids” of indigenous and exotic species, and the combinations of institutions and infrastructure that resulted from the “historical accident” of British colonization overlain on this ancient continent. The mixing of cultures and with it the introductions of their economic species is not new. There is evidence that for many centuries prior to European settlement, Macassan fishing fleets arrived on the North Coast of Australia bringing “with them the astringent fruit of tamarindus indicus which fruited prolifically in places. Tamarind trees serve as botanical markers for their camps….” (Mulvaney1969). Deliberate introductions of cultivated and weedy species increased after the first fleet and continue today. In the 20th century, waves of economic and political refugees enriched Australia’s civil and economic culture. Multiculturalism and cultural diversity are important to the processes of developing “multi-crop, multi-enterprise agricultural systems by Aboriginal communities” because in many respects we are seeing the emergence of “multicultural” agricultural systems: that is systems that are drawing component species from various parts of the world including Asia, Europe and Australia. Never before in the history of the continent has the current mix of cultures, species or genetics occurred, nor therefore have there been the same possibilities of promoting food diversity. For example, in central Australia, food diversity has been deliberately promoted with a wide range of food products being supplied by the Tangentyere Council’s nursery at Alice Springs over the last 25 years. Here people are working with “food production systems” that have date palms and feral camels introduced by the Afghans, rabbits and foxes released by pastoralists and acclimatisation societies thousands of kilometres further south and a range of “tucker” plants like citrus species from China; grapes, mulberries and figs derived from the Middle East and the Mediterranean. All this adds to traditional bush tucker and the major pastoral species - cattle. There appear to be real gains for Aboriginal and other remote peoples by deliberately embracing the opportunities arising out of these kinds of recombined systems, yet relatively limited resources have been devoted to exploring strategies for enhancing their development and application.

8 They are not alone: note for example the rise and rise of farmers’ markets and the “slow foods” movement (see http://www.slowfood.com)

11

The next section discusses the relevance of permaculture as a strategic approach to promoting local production and food diversity. Polyculture Systems

Korrawinga Aboriginal Corporation is establishing a large permaculture enterprise ….structured to support a wide range of individual specialised enterprises including nursery supplies, bee keeping, poultry keeping, vegetable and fruit production, food processing, environmental education and tourism. …ATSIC & DPIE, 1997

Permaculture and Polyculture In many parts of the world, multi-crop or polyculture agricultural systems have evolved that are complex both biologically and in terms of production (Geno and Geno 2001). These systems may produce a range of foods – fish, meat, vegetables, fruits, fungi – as well as herbs, spices, medicines, fibre, fuel and timber. They appear to be resilient in both ecological and economic terms and to better utilise available resources. They also generate symbiotic benefits within the system. They offer a stark contrast to the monoculture production systems and could potentially be important models for resilient agricultural systems in parts of Australia. Permaculture provides a theoretical framework for developing complex, multi-crop polyculture systems (Mollison and Holmgren 1978 and Mollison 1988). Polyculture is a collective term that covers multi-cropping, permaculture, agroforestry etc. These systems are important sources of production for use within the local or “village economy” and in satisfying a range of export markets. Increasingly value is being added by organic and/or fair trade certification. International certification systems have special provision for group, village or small holder certification, where internal controls and “peer review” ensure commitment and QA (Rod May pers com NASAA 2002). In Australia there are numerous small scale "experimental systems" dispersed across many locations as a result of enthusiastic private interest. However, despite recognition of the theoretical potential of small scale multi-crop production there has been little formal investigation and even less substantial R&D into small scale polyculture systems in Australia (excepting the review undertaken for RIRDC - Geno and Geno 2001).

Relevance and Benefits of Polycultures Polycultures are integrated, multi-crop agricultural systems. In an extensive review of the international literature Geno and Geno (2001) found that polycultures can generate the following range of benefits: Economic - More ecologically efficient and resilient production systems that incorporate ecological and cultural sustainability. In theory, these systems are more resilient and robust due to having multiple crops and production streams thus reducing risks from market or environmental disruptions. They can also reduce dependence on external inputs and lower production input costs, through reduction in the need for fertiliser, herbicide or pesticide applications, and/or through achieving a premium price for organically grown produce, or high value crops which cannot be cultivated efficiently under conventional commodity production systems. Very limited research has been focused on polyculture production systems suited to remote parts of Australia and there has not been sufficient examination of overseas’ practices that may be applicable in remote communities. For example, it is traditional practice in drier parts of Kenya to temporarily pen cattle in order to fertilise a plot suitable for cropping and/or gardening. This system uses livestock to harvest nutrients and organic matter from much larger areas to support intensive production and may be an applicable strategy on many Aboriginal properties in Australia.

12

Social –The benefits of these systems include nutrition, employment and satisfaction of developing environmentally stable or regenerative systems of agriculture, as well as being able to enhance local economies through increased self-sufficiency whilst forming the basis for exports. The systems are more resilient to market and environmental shocks due to the diversity of components Environmental – Geno and Geno (2001) found evidence that many polycultural practices/systems are inherently more environmentally friendly as they aim to mimic the functional relationships in natural systems. They attempt to mimic nutrient recycling and successional pathways as well as relying on less external interventions in pest life cycles (less synthetic chemical controls) by using habitat diversity. The polycultures provide landuse and development options/models that are alternatives to the standard models of extensive grazing or intensive single crop horticulture, eg mangos or other tropical fruit crops. The latter frequently rely on intensive pest and disease management regimes. Background to Permaculture Permaculture focuses on creating productive and resilient agricultural systems by mimicking the diverse and complex interactions of nature (Mollison and Holmgren 1978 and Mollison 1988). It is a design based discipline that promotes diversity and resilience of human habitation and production systems including agriculture. Permaculture uses common sense and an understanding of ecology to design ways of improving the performance and resilience of gardens and farms. Permaculture provides a framework for applying design theories relying on some generic principles and insights about people, nature and agriculture. It is primarily focused on creating practical systems of human habitation which are well designed, ecologically sound and combine plants, animals, humans and structures in functional, recombinant ecologies (Mollison 1988). Since the 1970's, Australian authors, educators and activists Bill Mollison and David Holmgren have promoted permaculture in Australia and overseas. Permaculture is an internationally acclaimed Australian “export” because of its emphasis on sustainability, its practical focus and its relevance to the billions of people throughout the world that are still fed from gardens and small farms. Permaculture is an Australian theory that has been adapted and applied throughout many parts of the world because it offers a framework for creatively solving environmental and development dilemmas. Permaculture organisations, farms and teaching centres can be found in many countries, including Botswana, Germany, Zimbabwe, Australia, Pakistan, India, Nepal, USA, Mexico, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, France, Chile, Britain, New Zealand, the former USSR, Vietnam and Fiji. Books on permaculture have been translated into several languages and numerous journals describe the methods. A web search using the words permaculture & indigenous yielded over 4,500 entries9. Bill Mollison has had a profound influence here and abroad, inspiring a generation of people who have been trialling, refining and teaching Permaculture systems. Permaculture courses have been taught to thousands of people throughout the world, who in turn are teaching – via an anarchistic network that has ongoing unresolved debates about professional standards, qualifications and quality control. Mollison has received international awards for science, environmentalism and social justice, including the Russian Academy of Sciences' highest award, the Vavilov Prize yet in Australia, permaculture has often been written off as a “hippy affair”. Nonetheless, it is clear that many ideas about applying sustainability principles to the design of human habitation and food gardening have been disseminated and given expression in many diverse locations. Permaculture has become part of the popular understanding of land use options and it has had considerable influence. For example, Geno and Geno (2001) dedicated their review of polyculture to Mollison. 9 For examples of international permaculture try /www.rosneath.com.au/ipc6/toc.html

13

Permaculture and Aboriginal Land Use In the late 1970’s and 1980’s permaculture ideas quickly found interest and support amongst Aboriginal communities who have applied and adapted the ideas to their circumstances. This is recognised in the Rural Industry Strategy (ATSIC & DPIE, 1997) which states:

“Many Aboriginal communities … have become interested in permaculture, and are adapting its techniques ….in the course of applying permaculture, it is also apparent that communities are giving it their own particular cultural interpretation, ...” The strategy also notes that “There are some emerging mixed use models amongst Indigenous communities, based on producing a wide range of goods for community consumption as well as producing diverse income streams. For example Lake Tyers Aboriginal Trust in the Gippsland area of Victoria contains a pastoral property, poultry venture and small pig herd, as well as a horticultural enterprise. The popularity of permaculture as an integrated land use and land management system illustrates the demand to move away from conventional monoculture…”

One community motivated by the appeal of permaculture was the Korrawinga Aboriginal Corporation who established a large permaculture enterprise. The Korrawinga case study (Chapter 5) takes us through the property’s evolution starting with the intuitive appeal of permaculture and multi-enterprises operating symbiotically on the one property, through to the reality of practical and technical challenges involved in land, business and community development. Just because of the challenges identified, permaculture ideas should not be dismissed as impractical or ill-founded, but rather the social and biophysical complexity of applying them should not be treated lightly. The application of permaculture theory and design frameworks requires the coordination of many processes and disciplines in order to make something work. Taking permaculture ideas as a starting points and building viable businesses requires detailed planning, persistence and development work – and not surprisingly many businesses fail for a wide variety of reasons, not just how good the initial ideas are. One constraint is that permaculture systems can suffer from “management complexity” which can limit business specialisation. Regrettably, permaculture has gained a poor reputation in some Aboriginal communities due to people with limited experience or professional training making exaggerated claims or attempting to apply simplistic ideas to complex situations (Jane Stanley pers com, FOCUS, 2002). Wildlife and cultural resources Wild Harvests The harvesting and processing of wild resources is of considerable interest to many Indigenous people. These enterprises can often dovetail with others and they are of great relevance in many areas. Options for wild harvest include:

• feral animals • native animals • native plants and plant products used for food, craft and medicine • reproductive material suitable for crop development or livestock enterprises • fish and crustaceans.

Work on expanding industries based on feral animals harvesting was undertaken by Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS), This identified considerable opportunity for expansion of these industries (Wilson et al 1992). Since then other projects have investigated industries based on wild harvesting. For example,

14

Dr Peter Whitehead of the Northern Territory University (in publication) has been investigating wild harvesting and cultivation options for Northern Australia. The NTU project aimed to identify opportunities for small-scale enterprises, based on harvests of native plants by Aboriginal people, and to provide an assessment of cultural, economic and ecological sustainability. The project aims:

• to rank the commercial potential of a large sample of native plants on commercial, cultural and ecological criteria

• to identify priorities with a number of Aboriginal communities in the Top End and Cape York • to conduct preliminary harvests and associated surveys of abundance.

Whitehead found that communities showed greatest interest in options involving harvest and cultivation of native foods, but market prices often appear to be too low to generate reasonable incomes after costs of freight. The project investigated trial harvests of Kakadu Plum, Cycads endemic to Aboriginal land, Dioscorea species (yams), and fruits and other items for products directed at tourism markets rather than primarily for consumption as food. An extension of projects like this could investigate the cultivation potential of some traditional plants rather than wild harvest. Wildlife and FATE The Australian Museum is promoting a program known as the Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE). This program seeks to test the concept that enterprises based on wildlife could conserve landscapes and enable natural habitats to recover while providing an income to landowners. It seeks to implement the recommendations of the 1998 Senate Inquiry on commercial use of wildlife. (Senate 1998). FATE is initially focused on the rangelands. In its first stage FATE plans to set up trials that will devolve both the opportunity to benefit and responsibility for managing the wildlife to landholder-led Wildlife Management Conservancies. (Wilson 2001) Should FATE become a major national program, Indigenous land managers have great potential to become Wildlife Management Conservancies. Each conservancy will be able to develop a wildlife management plan that incorporates commercial use, and thus have an incentive to retain landscapes and return to natural environments. It is anticipated that the outcomes will be improved biodiversity conservation outside reserves; more resilient agricultural production systems; diverse primary industries; and increased rural welfare and economic viability, for example through participation in tourism. The process will be monitored by scientific teams and regulated by government agencies. The initiative for the project comes from two observations:

• that current agricultural practices using exotic species and extensive land clearing have contributed to land degradation and salinity, reduced productivity, falling profitability and declining terms of trade

• the Australian landscape is, for the most part, better suited to production of indigenous species than exotic species.

The FATE Project is part of a multi-institutional initiative spearheaded by the Australian Museum. The project has whole of Government support in NSW including the personal support of the NSW Premier. FATE and the concepts underpinning it are an important opportunity to rationalise the sometimes contradictory approaches to conservation and utilisation of native species. This could be significant to indigenous enterprise development based on native species.

15

Genetic Resources and Cultural Intellectual Property Indigenous Crops Indigenous people in Australia may have specific cultural knowledge, including knowledge about uses of plants which are valuable and which could form the basis of new industries. The links between this knowledge and industry development processes are currently tenuous and need to be cultivated if those people with the knowledge, or their kin, are to benefit directly. It is conceivable that a well designed program could result in the development of new crops based on native plants and traditional knowledge. The processes for developing new crops are complex and resource intensive, yet the commercial potential could be sizable. Nature, "indigenous cultures" and genetic resources are modern frontiers. The race for domination centres on “scientific discovery” and the use of international laws which create new rights over biological resources10. Genetic materials such as medicinal plants, which have been the heritage of indigenous peoples for millennia, are now being "claimed" by "explorers" who are essentially pirating cultural intellectual property. Initiatives are required that ensure that the economic benefits arising from Indigenous cultural knowledge flow back to Indigenous people, and that the sustainability of resources for ongoing traditional use is assured. One opportunity worth investigating for Aboriginal communities is to undertake joint ventures that aim to commercialise plants traditionally used by Indigenous peoples. This requires R&D work on a sizable scale in order to seriously enter into the area of genetic selection and breeding and would probably be best undertaken in conjunction with commercial and/or scientific partners. The resulting consortium could choose to use the Plant Breeders Rights Act to protect new crops and any intellectual property “developed”. The scientific and commercial significance of a well designed research and development program could be considerable, particularly due to the fact that the curious and diverse flora of Australia includes many interesting biologically active compounds and no doubt many as yet undiscovered (by science), biologically or medically active compounds. Over the past decade there has been continuing interest in exploring plants used by Indigenous communities for medicines. Duke (1992) for example, argues convincingly that most of the world’s medicinal plants have not been properly investigated. Advances in genetic screening allow for much more rapid screening and several companies are actively doing such work in Australia. Australia has unique and complex flora which has received limited attention in terms of commercial production, however increased investment is worthwhile for a variety of reasons:

• While Australia makes considerable investments in agricultural research, it has made limited investment in native crop research.

• The nature of global markets is changing. • Advances in evolutionary biology and molecular biology provide powerful analytical tools for

product discovery. • It is commercially feasible to grow, rather than to synthesise, a wide range of secondary

metabolites which are generally higher value, lower volume products than common plant products like oils and starches.

10 (For fuller examination of these issues see ABC Radio National Background Briefing, 13th October 2002 on www.abc.gov.au).

16

Research Support for New Crop Discovery The potential value of systematic efforts at developing new crops for specific purposes is supported by the findings of New Pharmaceutical, Nutraceutical and Industrial Product (Michael 2000). This scoping study for RIRDC identified the potential for Australian agriculture to supply new pharmaceutical, nutraceutical and industrial products. It found that few industries will escape the impact of the 21st century revolution in biological and chemical sciences, process engineering and growing consumer demand for improved quality of life. The study found that growth in the demand for natural products as raw materials for new pharmaceutical, nutraceutical and industrial products is assured. Michael (2000) found that:

• 25% of the active components of prescribed pharmaceuticals have their origins in flowering plants. This is a $US30 billion market growing at 6% per annum

• herbal supplements, minerals and vitamins are a $US45 billion market with anticipated growth of 10% per annum

• biological oils may challenge fossil oils in the polymer and chemical markets capturing within ten years 50% of the polymer markets and 15% of the basic chemicals market

• Australia has the potential to supply key cultivated herbs that have significant growth prospects as medicinal herbs.

A paper in the journal Science (Vol 228), Blanadrin, M.F. et al (1985) identified that many higher plants produce economically important organic compounds such as oils, resins, tannins, natural rubber, gums, waxes, dyes, flavours and fragrances, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Their study found that:

• most species of higher plants have never been described or surveyed for chemical or biological active constituents, and new sources of commercially valuable materials remain to be discovered (note this was written in 1985)

• advances in biotechnology, particularly methods for culturing plant cells and tissues, should provide new means for the commercial processing of rare plants and the chemicals they produce

• new technologies will extend and enhance the usefulness of plants as renewable resources of valuable chemicals

• in the future, biologically active plant-derived chemicals can be expected to play an increasingly significant role in the commercial development of new products for regulating plant growth and for insect and weed control

• increased effort in identifying bioactive compounds is justified • it is often the unique combination of compounds that leads to highly sought after flavoured

products. Conclusion Enterprises based on Aboriginal land do not need to be limited to replicating existing industrial crops or existing patterns of specialisation. It is conceivable that, depending on location they could be extraordinary examples of polycultures that combine cultural and artistic activities, and “agriculture” that includes intensive garden production with appropriate wild harvesting and that they focus on generating social as well as financial outcomes. They could also be at the forefront of “new” crop development and with the application of sufficient resources, including research and development, turning these into substantial, innovative enterprises by drawing on both contemporary and traditional knowledge. However, if this potential is to be realised, clarification of indigenous intellectual property and rights to bio-resources is urgently required (Watson, 2002). The mix of production and value adding enterprises will depend on the macro and micro conditions of the location and the aspirations and skills of the people involved. The next section looks at the generic issues involved in supporting enterprise development.

17

Support for enterprise development The history of land rights has shown that we need more effort to ensure that land ownership also adds to the social and economic well-being of Indigenous people. I am keen to pursue an ambitious approach to Indigenous land issues so that the return of land is the start of redressing disadvantage rather than an end in itself (Ruddock, 2002).

The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Rural Industry Strategy (1997)11 Introduction The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Rural Industry Strategy (ATSIC & DPIE, 1997) outlined a bold program to support:

• Greater economic empowerment • Improved access and coordination • Ecologically sustainable development • Better decision making.

The strategy recommends many specific actions to strengthen or establish:

• Support networks • Information exchange • Training • Planning • Resource management • R&D • Funding opportunities • Business development support • Marketing assistance

The Strategy had a stated time frame for implementation of four years (from May 1997) and promised both implementation plans that would provide specific tasks and targets for relevant agencies and annual reports on progress. However, based on the findings of the two case studies, it is questionable to what extent the actions were systematically and comprehensively implemented, and the way they have influenced support for property and enterprise development. Despite this criticism, it reasonable to assume the sheer scale of demand for the kinds of services recommended in the Strategy may be outstripping the capacity of supply. As it is dangerous to generalise from the experience on two properties it is clear that a more comprehensive review is required. The Strategy is now 9 years old and the draft strategy is 12 years old. It would be timely to implement a well resourced review that identifies the extent to which the recommended actions have been implemented and their effectiveness. Such a review could be used to contribute to a revised strategy.

11 The strategy is available at http://www.atsic.gov.au

18

Business Support “Access to finance, advice, employment assistance, training and other support services is of fundamental importance …..” (ATSIC & DPIE 1997)

Support for greater economic independence through the development of businesses is occurring on a wide range of scales from Indigenous “merchant banks” providing venture capital to “micro finance” through small grants and CDEP. For example, Indigenous Business Australia (formerly the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation) is a Commonwealth Government authority set up to assist and enhance Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander self-management and economic self-sufficiency through large scale commercial investments, while the Commonwealth Business Development Program operates fast-track small loans.

The previous CDC’s vision was “a strong Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander business presence actively participating in mainstream economic activities within the Australian business community as a means of achieving greater economic self-sufficiency and well-being for our peoples."

The previous CDC and the current IBA have not substantially invested in agriculture, apparently because agricultural operations are in general too risky and not of sufficient size to be of interest. There seems to be a belief that agricultural enterprises are best established as owner operated businesses (pers.com. from CDC staff, 2000). A review of services on the Internet reveals that there is a wide range of organisations offering business support services. Many of these are government entities like state government business development agencies, agriculture departments etc. Some have services specifically targeting Indigenous people. The Commonwealth Business Development Program (BDP)12 has followed the following objective:

• to facilitate the acquisition, establishment and development of commercially viable enterprises by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

This objective is principally measured by the planned outcome:

• increase in the number and value of commercially viable enterprises owned by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The BDP provides two types of services: Business Support - all Indigenous clients can access support services, such as professional business and marketing advice, training, mentoring and facilitation of access to other public and private sector services. This includes a range of services that need not be associated with the provision of finance. Business Finance - loans, grants and/or guarantees to Indigenous people who are assessed as eligible. The benefit to Indigenous people, arising from acquisition, establishment and development of businesses, is measured by reference to the level of employment generated. CDEP The Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) program has played a central role in the establishment and operation of Korrawinga Aboriginal Corporation/Dhugamin CDEP activities at Scrub Hill Community Farm. CDEP has become increasingly focused on business development. The 1997 review (Spicer, 1997) found that:

“… CDEPs have become increasingly involved in the development of business enterprises to facilitate employment outcomes and income generation. Many see this avenue as the most

12 http://www.atsic.gov.au

19

effective means of lessening dependence on government assistance and providing the key to economic self sufficiency.”

The case studies show both the importance and some of the limitations of relying on CDEP as the main sponsor of business development. At the time of publication, the Commonwealth Government was rolling back CDEP in response to a more buoyant employment market, and encouraging Indigenous people on CDEP to seek mainstream jobs. The long term consequences of this roll back for community development including Indigenous land development have yet to be seen. Extension and Technical Support Improving support services and overcoming communication gaps were identified clearly in the Rural Industry Strategy (ATSIC & DPIE 1997). It stated that:

“…existing programs and approaches to supporting Indigenous involvement in rural industries have been largely unsuccessful to date. The complexity of issues and the differences in culture and skill levels between Indigenous communities and conventional mainstream advisers often makes communication and service provision ineffective. Indigenous people require access to the types of support that non-Indigenous producers have grown to expect, adapted to their particular cultural and environmental needs.”

The Strategy argued for a specific and measurable allocation of 8% of Governments’ rural support services to be directed to Indigenous people’s rural development needs and opportunities.

“The failure of mainstream agencies to address Indigenous needs demands an immediate response in terms of program structure and targeting. Given the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people amongst the rural population, the proportion of Indigenous-owned land and the relatively high level of need, it would be reasonable for an average of 8% of all mainstream program funds to be targeted to Indigenous communities” (ATSIC & DPIE 1997).

However, even if funding increased to the recommended 8%, there is still the issue of the quality of the advice and services, and their ultimate effectiveness in meeting client needs. The quality and accessibility of information were recognised as an issue of importance in the Rural Industry Strategy (ATSIC & DPIE 1997):

“Indigenous communities currently have very patchy access to the large body of information and support which is available from land use and management agencies …. The reasons for this are complex, and include separation of agency functions between government bodies and land councils….. Where information is available to Indigenous groups, it is in many cases either not appropriate or difficult to comprehend, and therefore of limited value.”

The case studies demonstrate that the nature and the quality of the advice received both from government agencies, well intentioned permaculture advisors and private consultants is a major impediment to effective rural development. It is doubtful that Government agencies are equipped to advise Indigenous communities on multi-enterprise land use on any meaningful scale despite over 25 years of permaculture theory (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978) being trialled and more than 20 years of farm planning programs. This shortcoming could be a result of the fact that large scale commercial agriculture has been the focus of most extension and advisory organisations, or that there are restrictive mental models as to what constitutes “real” rural enterprises. Furthermore, there has never been a major effort to document the economic or social value, or to further develop Australian polyculture systems, apart from some initiatives in the field of agroforestry where a very successful R&D program has been in operation for over a decade. The Joint Venture

20

Agroforestry Program managed by RIRDC13 has increasingly been focusing on issues and regions of relevance to many Aboriginal land owners in Northern Australia (see Turvey & Larsen 2001 for a review of Agroforestry R&D priorities for Northern Australia). In their review of polyculture Geno and Geno (2001) attempted to survey existing organic growers in order to identify systems in use in Australia but had a disappointing response to the survey. They did however identify a wide range of examples of polyculture practices being applied that had not been found in their international literature review. The development of serious capacity to provide advice on polyculture or multi-enterprise planning and development from within Government is unlikely without major shifts in policy directions, program structure, technical training and research and development. This is not to say that this should not occur, rather that it is necessary to be realistic about the capacity of government and private sector advisors to support complex integrated developments. From the two case studies and the work of Geno and Geno (2001) there are strong arguments for organisations like RIRDC to further the understanding of the planning, training and experimentation undertaken to date. There is little doubt that permaculture ideas have had considerable influence in many parts of Australia, including many Indigenous communities. That there has been limited formal investigation is partly due to the inherent complexity of the systems and the fact that they are not the standard operating model of identifiable industries. Nonetheless, given that there appears to be widespread aspirations for integrated polyculture development amongst Aboriginal communities then it is important that appropriate support, including technical advice, is available. Resources for a range of integrated planning, community development, industry development and adult learning models is likely to be more effective than expecting governments to deliver appropriate support via Primary Industries departments. The likely shortfall in the capacity of governments was recognised in the Rural Industry Strategy (ATSIC & DPIE 1997) which stated that:

"This Strategy recognises that it will often be desirable for Indigenous communities to develop mixed use enterprises integrating a range of land based rural industries, aquaculture and fishing enterprises, cultural industries and tourism with housing developments. Government agencies are normally best placed to give specialist advice and support in relation to particular enterprise types. There is therefore a need to develop new tools for integrated development. Some of the existing community economic development models used overseas have particular relevance…"

Both case studies raised serious questions about the quality and kinds of advice given regarding economic development options, such as the apparently inappropriate advice to develop large scale aquaculture facilities at Minjelha Dhagun.

For more information go to www.rirdc.gov.au and follow the prompts to agroforestry.

21

A Coherent Rural Enterprise Development Framework The literature review and case studies (Chapters 5 and 6) revealed that there is recognition of the need to support integrated community and enterprise development, and indeed this support comes in many and varied forms. However the project also found that this support needs to be better coordinated with targeting of advice to the individual enterprises planned and the wider community and its needs. Figure 2 provides a simple framework for understanding the transition to greater economic independence; it describes a simple conceptual model of enterprise development.

1. Current Situation

Desire for greater economic independence and the end of dependence on passive welfare

+

increases in available land and land resources

= opportunities for Aboriginal rural enterprises

3. Community property development and infrastructure development. 4. Greater capacity for robust and independent enterprise creation. 5. Structural arrangements support independent choices taken re business responsibility and

risks while protecting common property and community goals (individual businesses succeed or fail).

6. If successful - enterprises exist which are self sustaining, generating surplus and contributing

to personal, local and national well being.

Figure 2: Enterprise Development Needs

b) Capacity Building Education and training Employment programs Mentoring Management Training Action Learning

Planning and Governance

Strategic Planning Multi Enterprise business models Appropriate Governance/ Structural arrangements Institutional design Business planning

2. Key Inputs

22

The above conceptual model for supporting multiple rural enterprises may help to identify the range of development needs and the opportunities for improving arrangements for external agency support. The simple model may help to organise thinking and organise support in a strategic fashion so that integrated planning at the property scale is supported by integrated support frameworks at the regional scale. The case studies reported in Chapters 5 and 6 demonstrate the complexity of integrated developments on two specific properties where integrated farm planning, land use and enterprise planning processes took into account:

• biophysical factors – land, water, geology vegetation etc, account factors • cultural and social factors; • community resources, aspirations and dynamics • physical and financial resources • skills and capacity building requirements • access to appropriate external support and technical advice • organisational relationships and governance arrangements.

The complexity of process is further amplified by the way in which the planning must integrate activities over several scales. An integrated planning and development processes needs to occur at the following scales:

• single enterprise – business planning • property – property and community planning • regional – regional plans and processes • state and/or national –national program planning, policy development and review.

Table 1 identifies the scope and range of factors that need to be integrated in planning of this kind. Table 1: Simplified elements of integrated landuse and business planning

Simplified elements of integrated landuse and business planning Land and

related resources

People & community

Business opportunities

Capacity building

Planning Governance

External support

Land Skills

Feasibility Education Landuse planning

Institutional design &

structures

Governments agencies

Water Capital Risks Mentoring Business planning

Institutional strengthening

Business

Vegetation Willingness

Competition & niche

Training Technical support

Capacity for sound

governance

NGO’s

Cycling and revising strategic issues and elements over time

Assessing Performance Given that there are many agencies with a partial responsibility for assisting in improved community outcomes via enterprise development there need to be coherent approaches to assessing overall performance. Extensive literature and well developed practices exist for assessing government program performance, but effective evaluation requires clearly identifying the purpose and objectives of the various programs.

23

Figure 3 offers a simplified framework for assessing the performance of the support structures, services and processes to adequately address the key success factors determining enterprises success. This process must be mindful of the interactions between enterprises and all the issues identified in integrated planning process.

Figure 3: Assessment Framework

Economic independence – end passive welfare + increase in available land and land resources = opportunities for Aboringinal agricultural enterprises

ATSIC, ILC CDEP State agencies etc

Finance and business support –govt industry development.

Business, technical, land planning and management consultants and advisors

Government support via Ag departments RDCs, Landcare and Bushcare

Education and training (formal and informal)

Transistion and support processes and services

Are the current industry development structures and processes effective and adequate? What needs to change?

Key success factors: Skills and resources Institutional and ownership structures Access and use rights to land and natural resources Assessments of business risks and opportunities Business strategies Appropriate business models Business support services Certainty in relationship to land owner Markets

Do we have models of industry development that comprehensively and adequately address the key success factors? Identify improvements in capacity

building and industry development. Develop better transition strategies and enterprise models

OUTCOME - Decisions and risks taken that lead to more robust and viable rural enterprises

Key factors in successful agricultural enterprise

24

Defining Legal Structures for Collective and Private Enterprises Complexity of Integrated Multiple Enterprise The complexity of what is being attempted by Indigenous communities should not be underestimated. Conventional agricultural enterprises are high risk, capital intensive businesses with low rates of return. One of the reasons for simplifications towards monocultures is that they support specialisation of equipment, management skills and marketing. An attempt to design systems with multiple enterprises coexisting on a property adds complexity to property planning and management as well as to the legal and organisational processes involved. Dr Tony Gleeson14 undertook a RIRDC project investigating the multi-level resource use in agriculture and the “most appropriate combinations of uses and users of farm resources including the natural, human, physical and financial resources”. While this project is directed towards agriculture generally, its findings relate directly to integrated development of Aboriginal land. Gleeson states that:

“The factors driving and constraining multi-level resource use are similar to those which drive farming generally - a complex interaction of social, cultural, environmental and economic considerations. The legal framework pertaining to multi-level resource use is and /or is perceived to be complex and changing. This further constrains the development of an efficient market for multi- level resource use. Multi-level resource use will be one of the ways through which the agricultural sector adapts to a more multi-functional and complex operational environment. Opening mindsets to these possibilities will probably be more beneficial than providing particular models of multi-level resource use.”

In this summary Gleeson highlights the value of opening restrictive mindsets and warns against prescriptive models. The planning, development and business operations have to cope with “a complex interaction of social, cultural, environmental and economic considerations” as well as developing suitable “legal frameworks” to support multiple enterprise and community use of land and resources. In short, it is a microcosm of society and its relationships between private and public processes, between several interrelated private enterprise processes and with all of the relationships with wider governmental, environmental and market processes. Successfully creating systems where multiple enterprises operate and coexist on properties will require the design of robust and flexible structures capable of allocating resources, rights and responsibilities, resolving the inevitable tensions and rationing opportunities and sharing costs and benefits. The task of determining which enterprises are compatible and their relationships to one another is not simple because potential enterprises need to be assessed not only on their own business merit, but also in terms of their relationships to other businesses. Are they complementary, neutral or antagonistic to other businesses, either exiting or planned? Then, of course, legal and organisational arrangements need to be set in place that suit all parties.

14 www.rirdc.gov.au

25

For some properties it may be necessary to develop detailed plans which specify business options (eg leases) and create appropriate business structures including specified rights to use certain resources or certain land uses over certain parts of properties over appropriate timeframes. The issues identified by the case studies regarding how to define either collective or private property rights, use rights and appropriate business leases are sufficiently important to warrant further work. The development of a model legal framework for multi-use farms may be a worthwhile investment, serving both Indigenous and non-Indigenous client groups.

Review of potential enterprises for spatial, resource and business compatibility/synergy

Proposed Existing Feasibility Assessment Review – risk, impacts and prospects

Reject Accept Modify to ensure compatibility

Reject Accept

Figure 4: Integrating landuse and business development planning – selection for synergies

26

Case Study 1 Scrub Hill Community Farm Background Scrub Hill is a 23 hectare property on the outskirts of Hervey Bay, Qld, which is owned by Korrawinga Aboriginal Corporation. The land is stony, with poor soils. It surrounds a disused quarry which is now leased by Korrawinga. It is a strategically positioned hillside property on the approach road into town, with the land sloping away from the road towards a wetland area. In the early 1980's it was a farm which contained five houses occupied by Aboriginal tenants. In 1984 it was bought by the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs as a way of securing their tenure. At the time of acquisition, it was not clear what the land at Scrub Hill would be used for, beyond continued occupation (with the possibility of upgrading and/or replacement) of the original houses. Korrawinga was at the time primarily a housing organisation, with some 20 houses scattered through the Hervey Bay area. It also provided some other services catering for the local community of around 500 Aboriginal people. At the time of the purchase there was a strong notion that the property purchase was significant, and that it would need to provide benefits that could be shared by the whole Aboriginal community15. While these aspirations were clear the path and the steps for achieving this were not. Korrawinga has evolved since the original purchase in both its physical development and the roles it plays in generating benefits for the Aboriginal community. Korrawinga Today Korrawinga has played an important role in training, capacity building, employment preparation and education as well generating community wellbeing through improving nutrition, generating optimism and building morale. Korrawinga today supports multiple rural enterprises including:

• cut flowers and ti-tree production • market gardening enterprise • a nursery • a poultry farm • bushfood cultivation • an art and craft centre • a trades workshop • value adding to essential oil production • farm tours.

15 The property’s purchase was also significant because of the history of dispossession of the Aboriginal peoples of SEQ

27

Business Development A significant focus which emerged in the first few years was the production of cut flowers. The Chairperson was a driving force behind this choice of direction, and plantings were made of Kangaroo Paw, Protea and Christmas Bush. In the first year of production of Kangaroo Paw, markets were established in Japan. Proteas achieved markets in Holland. Second grade flowers have been sold to local florists. Christmas Bush is likely to yield even greater returns, but has yet to reach commercial scale production. Recent development has included establishment of a cool room for storing flowers before sale, funded by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Policy Development (DATSIPD). The market gardening enterprise involves cultivation of a variety of vegetables and fruits as a food supply for the community. Produce is sold cheaply to participants as well as being used to produce community meals (see below). Production has been reasonably successful throughout the farm’s history, though undoubtedly bigger yields could be achieved with better soil maintenance and more reliable water supplies. While cut flower production has largely been carried out by men, the market gardening has typically attracted a mixed gender team. The nursery is a shared enterprise between all of the cultivation regimes on the farm. It was seen at the outset as a pivotal core component, and one which required a high priority. In practice it has suffered from not being an enterprise in its own right, and there has been some reluctance to take on nursery management. This deficiency was recognised, and increased training has now elevated its performance, and its status in relation to the other farm components. It has been run by both men and women. The poultry farm is an adjunct to the nursery and has provided a regular supply of eggs as well as an intermittent supply of meat. It has suffered from shared and irregular management similar to the nursery and the program for culling, replacing and feeding stock has been far from optimal. While the original concept was for rotating poultry feedlots around the market gardening area (with consequent enrichment of soils and reduced feed costs for chickens) the current arrangement is a fixed run. There is some debate about whether this component is worth retaining in its current form. Clearly if particular participants were willing and able to take charge of this as an enterprise in its own right, this could be a much more productive and beneficial unit. The bushfood cultivation area is introducing species with traditional food value into an area of degraded forest on the farm, as well as nurturing some naturally occurring species. Some non-endemic species have been introduced because of their potential educational value (for the local community and for tourists). Substantial work has been undertaken in constructing trails through this area and introducing interpretive signage, and the participants involved in this component have been trained in explaining the cultural values of the various species to farm visitors. One of the participants (not actually a CDEP participant but rather a local volunteer, like many others who work on the farm) has used his traditional skills to construct a number of “gunyas” (traditional shelters) as part of the cultural presentations available in this area. A corroboree ground has been constructed, so that traditional dance can be part of the cultural program. This team has to date been male only. An art and craft centre has been built and equipped for a range of crafts with funding pooled from a range of sources (CDEP, Jupiter’s Casino, the Gaming Machine Fund, Australia Council). A large proportion of the Aboriginal community is interested in art and craft production, and there is usually a waiting list for joining the CDEP team. The centre is used after hours for training, and arrangements can be negotiated for its use by non-CDEP artists. Participants include very talented and skilled artists, who provide some training to others, and participants who have varying levels of skill. There is a broad mix of age and gender. The focus of activity is heavily influenced by the more skilled of the participants, and has included fabric arts and pottery at different times. Other art forms include painting on canvas, emu eggs and woodcrafts, burnt decoration of woodcrafts, bone and leather jewellery, and fabric arts. Some fibre arts have been taught, but these are not practised commercially. There has been substantial effort invested in developing systems of managing the stock of materials

28

and tools, cataloguing production and sales, and providing cash incentives to artists whose products are sold. There is some way to go in embedding these systems to the point where they can withstand the regular turnover of participants. There is interest in maintaining a network of local Aboriginal artists (including those who have “graduated” from the centre to become self employed artists) with professional development and marketing support. The trades workshop is an area where farm vehicles and equipment can be maintained, but it also provides a base for woodwork and metal work, manufacturing items that are needed elsewhere on the farm. Decorated wooden furniture and artefacts are also being made for sale, in conjunction with the arts and craft workshop. All of the participants in these activities are men. A workshop has recently been established to process locally produced ti-tree oil in conjunction with other essential oils to produce a range of “branded” soaps, cosmetics and skin treatments. These have been tested and authorised for commercial sale. A particular innovation has been to prepare a backpackers’ kit in a simple calico case, containing insect repellent, after sun spray, soap, shampoo, antiseptic and moisturiser. The farm tours are offered on a regular basis, involving explanation of all the farm’s components. Farm tours have largely relied on one particular participant, Joe Gala, to date. Joe has experience of interpretation tours, and is increasingly in demand off site. Brochures have been printed and distributed to all tourist accommodation establishments in Hervey Bay, and demand for these tours is high. The local tourist information staff and volunteers have been introduced to the tour, so that they can effectively promote it as an important component of Hervey Bay’s range of tourist attractions. One or two tours per week take place at present, but there is the potential to increase this if there is sustained marketing effort, and if more tour guides can be appointed. Development History Planning and Early Steps The Chairperson of Korrawinga developed a personal interest in permaculture, first hearing about it through the media and following up with consultation of text books. Several other community members were encouraged to visit permaculture farms and receive training in the early 1990s. Korrawinga secured three year funding through the Commonwealth Working Nation program for a local training and work program for Aboriginal people. This included establishment of permaculture gardens on several of Korrawinga’s urban housing blocks, as well as a community allotment in town, with the assistance of a couple of local non-Aboriginal permaculturists. As has happened a number of times, a change of Government led to this program being cancelled before its completion. The local permaculturists developed an ideas document for permaculture development of Scrub Hill, and Korrawinga used this to seek funding for a feasibility study and property plan, as well as implementation funding from ATSIC. Feasibility Study and Property Planning After a tendering process, FOCUS Pty Ltd was contracted to prepare the feasibility study and property plan. FOCUS is a Brisbane based consultancy, with business planning accreditation, and associates with permaculture credentials. The feasibility study included a detailed property plan, estimated costings for earthworks and water supply systems, and plain English information sheets on different enterprise options. The concept was for Korrawinga to continue to own and manage the property, with individuals or groups operating their own enterprises under licence from Korrawinga. Instituting a revolving loan scheme to provide “microfinance” for enterprise establishment was discussed as an option. Enterprise opportunities that were identified included a nursery, market gardening, fruit production, bee keeping, poultry keeping, value adding to farm produce, and ti-tree oil production. A network of local contacts (within government agencies and the private sector) who could advise on implementation of various enterprise and management components was provided with the feasibility study.

29

A separate feasibility study was prepared for a food co-operative, which could market and distribute farm produce as well as other foodstuffs bought in bulk wholesale. This was seen as an initiative to promote health and nutrition amongst the Aboriginal community, and to provide work experience in administration, marketing and distribution which would support the farm operations. The food co-operative proposal was put on hold in favour of farm development, and has never been implemented. Plan Implementation and Farm Establishment In 1996, on the strength of the feasibility study and property plan, ATSIC provided funding for the earthworks, water supply systems, fencing, soil preparation and initial plantings. The FOCUS permaculturist was separately contracted to supervise this work, which was accomplished with the assistance of local contractors as well as employment of local Aboriginal people. There was some training of the contractors involved, as they were unfamiliar with the nature of some of the work being undertaken. The earthworks established a series of swales to trap nutrients and moisture, and involved soil improvements to support the initial plantings. A meeting of other government agencies was convened on site by Korrawinga, to encourage multi-agency support as the project proceeded. Advice was sought from the various local contacts nominated in the feasibility study, to assist with project implementation. This was sometimes helpful. However there was sometimes a problem in discerning the quality of advice received, as well as understanding technical content. Some of the advice from government agencies and others appears to have been inappropriate to the particular operating environment at Scrub Hill. A fundamental principle was established whereby the whole local Aboriginal community was encouraged to identify with the project, and participate in its implementation. The Butchulla people are the traditional owners of Hervey Bay, and dominated Korrawinga’s management committee, but there are many people from other parts of Australia who have moved into Hervey Bay. As in many other communities, there are factional divisions, which are particularly strong amongst some Butchulla families, but these were set aside for the present project. Participants were encouraged from the outset to leave their differences at the farm gate. To a large extent this has been successful, and it has meant that the farm has helped to heal some previous rifts over time. While the development within in the boundary of the farm has not been without its dramas, the neighbouring properties also caused some major headaches. The property has for some time been surrounded by cattle grazing and pineapple farms. There was significant conflict with an adjacent cattle owner who regularly (either negligently or deliberately) allowed his cattle to stray onto Scrub Hill, where they created havoc. More recently a crematorium has been built on an adjacent property, which has caused some distress to the Aboriginal residents and workers on Scrub Hill. However, this is not directly visible from Scrub Hill itself. External Support and Funding The initial ATSIC funding was to extend for a three year program, involving progressive implementation of the property plan. This included provision for a farm manager, and a non-Aboriginal permaculturist from outside the region was appointed to this position. This had mixed results – some of the essential implementation work was accomplished in accordance with the property plan, but the appointee was seen as domineering and unprepared to listen to the views of Aboriginal participants. Similar problems were experienced with his replacement, and particular conflicts arose with Korrawinga’s co-ordinator. Subsequent appointment of Aboriginal farm managers (trained and promoted from amongst the farm participants) was much more successful, though not without some different problems. A particular issue that emerged was the intermittent nature of the funding available for the farm manager’s position, which meant the loss of some very capable people when funding ran out. ATSIC’s

30

land management functions were transferred to the newly created Indigenous Land Corporation part way through the three year program, and the ILC did not continue the previous funding agreements. In particular, the ILC was reluctant to fund the farm manager’s position. There was eventual agreement to re-fund this position for a one year period only, but much of the infrastructure originally planned was not funded. Combinations of short term funding have allowed for the farm manager’s position to be recreated for short periods of time. Since the loss of funding for the last Aboriginal farm manager, the job was initially shared between two experienced CDEP team supervisors, and then allocated to one of the supervisors, and some lost ground was recovered. This has been made possible by the generation of internal CDEP funds through growth of the CDEP beyond the farm itself. Korrawinga staff would have benefited from more practical support from the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC). There was some confusion as to whether Scrub Hill is seen by the ILC as an appropriate land use model. This has implications for future funding for this type of development and needs to be clarified. The poor experience of working with the local permaculturists and the two initial farm managers led to some disillusionment with the term “permaculture”, and it was dropped from use in relation to development of the farm. However many of the principles of permaculture continue to be applied, and the farm has retained its initial organic methods of production. Building and Infrastructure Development Funding to completely rebuild the five houses on site was secured from ATSIC’s Community Housing and Infrastructure (CHIP) program. This was a significant boost to the image of the farm, and it established five families as permanent residents and “caretakers”. The original earthworks and windbreaks have provided a useful foundation for ongoing cultivation. However, turnover of personnel has led to some loss of knowledge about the purpose of the original plantings (to provide shelter and establish symbiotic relationships with particular crops) and a failure to establish adequate soil maintenance programs such as composting and mulching. This has meant that farm productivity has not reached its full potential. Recent moves to improve soil maintenance may restore the intended regime. The dams established as part of the initial earthworks have proved to be much more of a problem. The largest dam developed severe acidity problems at an early stage, which made it unusable and unsightly for some years. It has been very difficult to obtain appropriate technical advice so that this problem could be rectified, and the loss of the intended source of irrigation water resulted in severe stress to vegetation and loss of crops in the frequent prolonged dry spells that Hervey Bay has experienced. Lack of revegetation of the surroundings of all the dams reduced their attractiveness and their utility. The failure of the dams to materialise as assets was a considerable disappointment for all those involved in the farm. These problems now appear to have been successfully addressed, at long last. Infrastructure development on the farm has included construction of a large community hall as a base for the CDEP, with a commercial kitchen. The hall is well used for meetings, training and informal gatherings. The kitchen caters for morning and afternoon teas for CDEP workers, tourists and others, as well as providing subsidised nutritious lunches to CDEP participants (using produce from the market garden where possible). Originally the CDEP hall incorporated a small office for the CDEP co-ordinator and two other administrative workers. This rapidly became inadequate, and another purpose built office has now been built. Both the CDEP hall and the new office have been funded as capital components of the CDEP operations.

31

An additional component added to the farm is a children’s playground. This provides a capacity for the children of work participants to be cared for on site. Korrawinga now acts as an umbrella for an Aboriginal child care service in Hervey Bay, which splits its services between a town base and the farm. A kiosk has recently been constructed, as an exhibition and sales area for the farm’s produce including arts and crafts (drawing on DATSIPD funding). Some of the capital for this has been allocated from CDEP funding, but a substantial contribution has also been made through an American volunteer program, which recently sent teams of American children and their parents to take part in development works. Other work completed under this scheme has included construction of a toilet block, a bridge and substantial revegetation works in a degraded area. The revegetation works were assisted by a small grant from the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) administered by Environment Australia. The NHT grant was much less than that requested, with a refusal being given to funding assistance with rehabilitating the farm dams and provision of fencing. It was felt that this funding process would benefit from having more transparent processes. One of the conditions of the NHT grant was support from the Queensland Department of Natural Resources in kind, through provision of a plant specialist to provide training and advice. However, this support was jeopardised when the person nominated was threatened with transfer to another function or redundancy. Korrawinga successfully lobbied for the position to be maintained so that the commitment made could be honoured. The first stage of a sport and recreation centre has been built, jointly funded by ATSIC and the Queensland Department of Tourism, Sport and Racing. This has been a particularly troublesome project, with shifting responsibility between Dhugamin, Korrawinga and the associated Ka’lang Aboriginal Corporation (an elders group). The siting and design of the centre has not been co-ordinated with other infrastructure, and there has been hot debate about the design (with several options being presented but no clear accountability on the decision making process). The project will be a further boost to the significance of Scrub Hill as a social and recreational centre for Aboriginal people of the region, but this will not be achieved without some angst. Pests and Other Problems Managing the American volunteers’ contribution has provided something of a cultural challenge to the community. The initial visit (by parents) coincided with a time when the co-ordinator was absent, and the clash of boisterous American culture with the more reticent Aboriginal norms was very evident. A particular clash was over a partly constructed timber bridge which had been carefully designed and planned by the bushfood team over a substantial period, and which was intended to give a big boost in terms of confidence in team members’ ability to plan and construct things without outside assistance. When the Americans suggested taking over the bridge construction (which was not in the agreed workplan) this led to the bushfood team walking off the site in disgust without asserting control over the situation, which was misread as their approval. The American team then constructed a massively over-specified structure which they ironically called the “Friendship Bridge”. There was some debate about whether to pull this down, given the offence it had caused, but in the end it has become a learning icon. The subsequent waves of American volunteers have been much more closely supervised, and have made significant contributions that are valued. The opportunity for cross-cultural learning appears to have benefited all concerned. One of the down-sides to the permanent residential occupation of the farm (described above) was the introduction of cats onto the farm, in numbers that have been sufficient to impact severely on local wildlife. It has been difficult for the community to deal with this issue, as there has been a reluctance to impose rules on those who have made their homes on the land, but some low key culling appears to have taken place “on the quiet”.

32

Ti-tree production was achieved early on, but then suffered from pest attack, possibly as an indirect result of the cats (loss of birds that would otherwise have controlled insect numbers). Ti-tree oil was distilled in marketable volumes, but the value dropped as part of a severe slump in the industry. The ti-tree production team is now developing value added products including soaps and insect repellent creams, with training in soap making being provided to team members. Training and Capacity Building Korrawinga successfully developed its own on-site training courses in horticulture (involving 15 trainees), tourism (13 trainees), small business (involving 18 students as an ANTA pilot program) and property planning. While TAFE was involved in the delivery of the small business program, courses were not sufficiently tailored, and Korrawinga found it necessary to contract in other providers as needed. Training has included a significant component of on-site work, and has supported property development. Additional labour has been provided through acting as an agency for the Queensland Department of Correctional Services in overseeing community service orders (50 placements). In 1998 Korrawinga received funding from ATSIC for a Community Development Employment Project (CDEP) involving 50 participants working a minimum of 2 days per week and receiving the equivalent of unemployment benefits as wages. This grew to a scheme involving 70 participants until this year (2001) when its size was significantly increased. CDEP provides additional funds for capital, employment of support staff and training. A condition of this funding has been creation of a separate organisation to run the CDEP (Dhugamin) with its own management structure. Perhaps surprisingly, this has been achieved with minimal tension arising between Dhugamin and Korrawinga. Dhugamin employs a co-ordinator, and provides some top up wages to supervisors of six different work teams. The CDEP has removed the need for licensing and seed funding different privately run enterprises, and has provided a vital foundation for enterprise establishment. A possible downside has been the loss of commercial imperatives for self-funding, and a high rate of turnover of participants as those gaining new skills have found full time employment off-site. However the net effects are seen as very positive for the Aboriginal community as a whole, enabling people with little formal training or work experience to become trained and motivated, and building a strong community spirit. The result has been a significant shift of Aboriginal people who have heard about Scrub Hill into Hervey Bay, to take up opportunities to work on the farm as part of the CDEP program. A current challenge for the CDEP is the substantial extension of the program (doubling its size) to include placements in other parts of the surrounding region. This will divert the focus of Dhugamin away from the farm, and the consequences have yet to be seen. Initially, there were a number of issues with the local TAFE College. Recent commitments promise to resolve these issues, but they are included here to highlight the sorts of issues that hampered the training to date. Compared with other TAFE Colleges, the local TAFE did not tailor its courses to the particular needs of Aboriginal clients. For example, there was a reluctance to offer alternatives to written examinations for those with limited literacy, and support programs in literacy and numeracy were not successful. A number of courses were terminated before participants received accreditation, with considerable disappointment and loss of motivation on the part of the students involved. It would appear that the College had not applied the full subsidy recommended by the State Government as an incentive for Aboriginal participation in training programs, and the performance in attracting participation in different courses had been poor. Some other training has recently been provided. This has included sending several Scrub Hill participants to take part in a Rural Leadership course sponsored by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. One of the consequences of providing this type of elite training has been to launch the trainees into alternative employment, at the expense of their continuing involvement on the farm. This is an issue which might not have arisen if Korrawinga had been less reliant on CDEP for its source of labour, as the nature of CDEP is such that a high turnover can be expected (and may be encouraged).

33

Some formal and informal training has been provided to other members of the bushfood team in relation to provision of interpretive tours, but a consequence has often been a loss of these people to work in tourism on Fraser Island, which is seen as a very attractive career path given the cultural significance of the Island to Butchulla people. The main employer has been Kingfisher Bay Resort, using employment subsidies from the Commonwealth Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB). There has been some complaint that employment is not sustained at the expiry of the employment subsidies, which has caused considerable community dissatisfaction with this arrangement, and some return of disillusioned tour guides to work in other areas on the farm. Currently the Butchulla people are developing leased land on Fraser Island for their own tourism and community uses, and CDEP participants are taking turns in contributing to this development. Business plans for the various enterprise components were prepared by an individual consultant in 1999. These provided detailed guidelines on how to develop skills, productivity and profitability in all areas of operation. In practice, the written documentation produced has been found too complex for the individual teams to work with, though the directions suggested are broadly consistent with what has happened subsequently. Funding for mentoring some of the work teams was obtained in 2000 from DATSIPD and DEWRSB’s Indigenous Small Business Fund (ISBF). This allowed FOCUS to provide intermittent support to the art and craft centre and the bushfood team over a period of 15 months, including supporting the teams in undertaking their own work planning. Training in plant identification has been provided to the bushfood team, with the additional support of an expert from the Queensland Department of Natural Resources. Mentoring support has proved to be highly successful in some areas. Additional tasks undertaken have included conducting a skills audit of CDEP participants as a basis for a training plan and to assist work placements, and providing support for other farm components including the nursery, rehabilitation of the dams, and revegetation of degraded areas. A challenge for both Korrawinga and Dhugamin was a requirement by ATSIC for full Indigenisation of the organisations. They had relied on non-Indigenous staff to fill the two co-ordinators’ positions responsible for providing accountability to funding providers and sourcing new funding., ..It is doubtful whether there were qualified Aboriginal people living locally who could have filled these positions. There is strong competition from government agencies and other non-government organisations to recruit those Aboriginal people with management skills and experience who live elsewhere. At the same time it may be a reasonable requirement that the organisations take steps to plan for replacing the co-ordinators with Aboriginal staff over a period of years, including provision of formal training and work placements with other employers. Korrawinga eventually lost funding for its co-ordinator’s position. Dhugamin has so far successfully fought to retain the current co-ordinator, and for the right to appoint to this position on merit. Achievements to Date A formal evaluation of the property development was carried out for ATSIC in 1998, pointing out the physical achievements in developing the site to date and the further work needed to keep it on track. Training, education, capacity building and employment preparation (via the CDEP) have all been important outcomes of the work which deserve recognition. This has been achieved despite some less than ideal relations with the institutions established to undertake these roles. In 2000 a significant achievement was putting together a video which recorded participants’ feelings about their involvement in the farm. This was edited from footage collected over the previous year, involving some people who had moved on as well as others who had stayed. The video provides some highly emotional and obviously heartfelt explanations about what the farm has meant to people who previously had few skills and low self esteem. Work at Scrub Hill had sometimes been the first

34

employment for people who had spent years on the dole, while for others it was the first time they had worked in an environment where racial prejudice did not have to be endured. Some of those interviewed were very highly committed and motivated, working full time for part time pay, and contributing innovative ideas to help the farm’s development. The motivation of participants is not constantly or universally high, and it seems to be affected by waves of energisation. One factor which appears to assist motivation and a sense of achievement is the extent to which all participants identify themselves as one team, rather than separate work units. Attempts to spread information about the achievements of all teams to all participants have had a positive impact when morale has been at a low ebb. Taking all participants on a farm tour to visit other units’ projects has been one way of doing this, and this may need to become a regular event. The Future It is doubtful whether the farm can ever be commercially self supporting – it would appear to be fairly unrealistic to expect a 23 hectare property with poor soils and limited water supply to support a labour force of 70 people in the best of circumstances, and the regular throughput of unskilled people with initially poor self esteem does not optimise productivity. CDEP does not provide effective incentives for productivity, and some participants fail to carry their weight. Nevertheless there are demands from some funding providers that the farm become less reliant on government funding over time. Some improvements can be made to commercial returns, particularly in relation to cut flower production, but it is likely that these will be offset by periodic downturns or unexpected costs in other areas. The economic cost-benefits of the farm need to be seen in terms of equipping marginalised people for participation in the workforce, increasing community cohesiveness, and rehabilitating some individuals from addictions or lifestyles involving crime. The benefits of the farm as a demonstration project for other Aboriginal communities, and a learning resource, are already being felt in other regions. Future directions for Scrub Hill are not well defined, and may need to be clarified in the near future. First, the recent infrastructure development has departed significantly from the original property plan, and has consisted of a series of ad hoc decisions and unplanned siting of buildings. The impacts on site drainage, service provision, access and functional relationships require some rationalisation, so that there is a cohesive context for ongoing development. A revision to the property plan is therefore much needed. However, before this is prepared, there needs to be a review of the strategic directions for Scrub Hill. This needs to address the following questions:

• How does the farm fit into Korrawinga’s full range of activities and services? • How does the farm fit into Dhugamin’s expanded range of activities? • What is the precise interface between Korrawinga and Dhugamin’s interests in Scrub Hill? • What are the objectives and targets for farm production? • What are the objectives and targets for tourism and cultural industries? • What is the emerging training function of the farm? • What other social and cultural programs should be incorporated? • What incentives can be provided to participants for enhanced productivity? • Is CDEP to be the only means of participation in the farm enterprises?

A possible future development is for Dhugamin or Korrawinga to acquire another property so that its commercial production streams can be expanded. This might leave “The Hill” as primarily a training ground for people who can ultimately be deployed elsewhere.

35

Some Observations and Lessons to Be Learnt Some of the experience gained at Scrub Hill that could be relevant to other Aboriginal community farms is as follows:

• Water management is critically important but often downplayed by funding agencies – this can be a significant obstacle to development of other infrastructure and productivity.

• Providing funding for a farm manager is also a critically important component of this form of development, and funding agencies are encouraged to give this a higher priority. It does appear to be readily achievable (as well as preferable) to recruit an Aboriginal person as farm manager or train on the job to fill this position.

• The core functions of property development need to be identified and given high priority by all participants. These include running the nursery, instituting soil maintenance programs, and undertaking environmental repair/rehabilitation.

• Building an effective team requires ensuring that all participants will identify with all the farm achievements, as well as getting a sense of achievement from the work of their immediate work units.

• CDEP can be a very effective funding source in getting enterprises established and a labour force on site. However this does have a downside in terms of likely turnover of participants, and reduced motivation to achieve commercial profitability.

• It may be difficult to adopt rules that affect the behaviour of people living on site unless these are established at the outset, and agreed by all concerned. Rules may be needed to prevent lifestyle choices which adversely impact on the environmental values of the site – such as keeping cats at Scrub Hill.

• Even if an enterprise component is clearly beneficial to the whole farm, and potentially profitable (such as free range poultry farming), it will not be implemented unless there are particular individuals who have a personal interest in running this enterprise type. This needs to be taken into account in any business or property planning.

• A balance may need to be struck between group income and individual incentives, particular in an area affected by the level of personal skill, such as art and craft production, and provision of tours.

• Sustained but low level mentoring to build the capacity of participants may be much more effective in capacity building than funding consultants to prepare advisory reports.

• Property plans need to be constantly revised to provide a framework for implementation, ensuring that greatest value is derived from available resources.

• It is important that training providers be sourced who are able to customise accredited training courses to the particular cultural context, enterprise requirements and the capacity of participating individuals.

• More formalised agreements with government agencies providing support would help ensure continuity of funding. Promises of support from government agencies may not be upheld, and need to be formalised, as indicated by the experience of threatened withdrawal of specialist support by the Queensland Department of Natural Resources.

• There is scope to clarify processes around how to best access land management funding from the Indigenous Land Corporation, and land restoration funding from the Natural Heritage Trust.

• Changes of Government at the Commonwealth or State level can disrupt continuity of funding. Commitments made prior to elections may not be honoured, and funding programs are cancelled with little notice.

Whatever the future commercial success of Scrub Hill, its achievements should never be measured in purely financial terms. The fact that a 23 hectare stony hillside property has been transformed into a highly productive and environmentally benign management regime is remarkable in itself. It is also a significant base for training and work experience involving 70 people, with a range of social and cultural programs providing specific benefits. Any economic assessment needs to take into account the social and environmental benefits generated, including all the employment readiness, problems avoided etc.

36

Case Study 2 Minjelha Dhagun Background Minjelha Dhagun is a property of around 400 hectares situated adjacent to Mount Barney in the Border Ranges National Park (part of the Caldera Rim World Heritage Area). It is undulating country, originally covered by forest, then subject to timber harvesting and subsequent use for cattle grazing. The rural economy in the Beaudesert Valley has relied heavily on dairying as well as rearing beef cattle, but is currently subject to considerable restructuring. This includes diversification of rural production and introduction of some ecotourism enterprises in appropriate locations. The property lies 40 minutes drive south of Beaudesert. The nearest settlement is Rathdowney, some 20 minutes drive away. Minjelha Dhagun is spiritually significant for the Yugambeh people, a language grouping which includes the Birinburra, Bollongin, Gugiiingin, Kombumerri, Minjungbal, Migunberri, Mununjali and Wangerriburra tribal groups. Mount Barney is a highly significant site for Yugambeh men, being used in the past for initiation purposes, and with associated taboos on climbing the mountain. Nearby Mount Lindsay is a similarly significant site for women. Mount Maroon, which overlooks Minjelha Dhagun, is associated with a number of Dreamtime stories, and is known locally as “The Sleeping Giant”. Yugambeh people are now scattered throughout South-Eastern Queensland, though retaining social contact through occasional large kinship gatherings. Yugmbeh Land Enterprises (YLE) was formed to pursue the interests of Yugambeh traditional owners in regaining access to their lands. This included making an application to the Indigenous Land Corporation for acquisition of Minjelha Dhagun. The ILC bought the property and transferred it to YLE ownership in 1998. Although YLE has other land interests, including native title claims, Minjelha Dhagun is likely to remain its most significant holding. It is seen as a spiritual “homeland” for the Yugambeh people. The core goals of YLE have been defined as follows:

• to secure a land base • to extend cultural influence and ensure maintenance of cultural lands • to promote unity, respect and understanding amongst Yugambeh people • to maintain and share spiritual knowledge of Yugambeh ownership • to assert ownership over Yugambeh lands and promote agreements with non-indigenous

people • to enhance and develop Yugambeh cultural skills.

Its particular goals for Minjelha Dhagun are to create a sustainable economic and employment base, while retaining the social and cultural values of the property and putting Yugambeh people in touch with their culture. Yugambeh Land Enterprises Today YLE has a signed up membership list of 75 individuals, of which 46 are financial members. This membership is largely spread around the Brisbane-Beaudesert area. Including all immediate family members, YLE is representative of around 200 people with an active interest in its operations, but it also has a broader responsibility to several hundred other Yugambeh people who are less actively involved. YLE suffers as an organisation from considerable instability, caused in part by the requirements of its incorporation for re-election of committee members on an annual basis. In these early years of considerable frustration and disappointment, committee members are continuously being replaced, leading to loss of corporate knowledge and disruption to initiatives. Changes in committee structure

37

also create havoc with maintaining administration and retrieving paperwork, especially in the current absence of any paid personnel. YLE has succeeded in establishing a presence on site, currently through a CDEP cell of 10 participants under the umbrella of the Brisbane regional CDEP. Work on site is currently limited to land management and repair, including revegetation and fencing. Major infrastructure works necessary for economic development of the property have not yet commenced. Workers on site are largely accommodated in one of the two houses, and the other is occupied by the caretaker – there is a pressing need for more accommodation for workers and visitors. Economic activity is limited to agistment of cattle, with the proceeds being used to pay property rates. Property Characteristics Minjellha Dhagun is part of the volcanic landforms that make up the Caldera Rim, parts of which lie in Northern New South Wales. The mountainous forests have largely been conserved in National Parks, and constitute open eucalypt woodlands with some wet sclerophyll and rainforest species in the wetter gullies. This is the forest cover that originally extended over Minjelha Dhagun. The forest was largely cleared and burnt, with the cleared areas then being used for dairying, small cropping and hay production. Decline in markets for dairy products led to a shift towards beef cattle production, and Minjelha Dhagun was used exclusively for grazing beef cattle when it was acquired. This use has continued, with the property being used for agistment purposes, currently involving around 150 head. Prolonged use for grazing has led to some erosion of steeper slopes as well as loss of wildlife habitat. Around 80% of the land has been cleared. Fire management through regular burning off has led to some deterioration of the largely native pastures with invasion of blady grass, as well as inhibiting rainforest regeneration. Access by cattle to the Logan River banks as well as Mount Barney Creek and its tributaries has led to bank erosion and damage to riparian habitat and water quality. There is a gravel quarry located on a separate parcel of land which lies within Minjelha Dhagun, and this is owned by Beaudesert Shire Council. It is used intermittently to support local roadworks. The quarry has been poorly maintained, with severe erosion and run-off affecting the downslope areas on Minjelha Dhagun. It is also a significant eyesore, all the more ugly because of its location on the access road into Mount Barney National Park, which runs directly through Minjelha Dhagun. There are several distinct land units within the property:

• high alluvial flats along Mount Barney Creek • a north facing gully spreading up into Mount Barney National Park • a north-east facing gully spreading up onto undulating hills • a small steep watershed dropping off steeply into Mount Barney Creek • three east facing gully systems feeding over the alluvial terrace and alluvial flats into the

Logan River • a series of small watersheds feeding from a higher plateau and leading down across alluvial

flats into the Logan River. There is spring activity in the key contour areas (between 190 and 230 m AHD) as well as feeding onto the alluvial flats. The Logan River is a permanent watercourse, and Mount Barney Creek and its tributaries run intermittently. There are several permanent waterholes (natural) and dams (man made). While these sources of water are significant, local climatic patterns typically involve prolonged dry periods, and availability of water is a limiting factor for rural production. Weed invasion has been limited to date, with some occurrence of Bathurst Burr, Ngurra Burr and Ambrosia.

38

The existing buildings on site include two houses (originally on separate properties, which became amalgamated), and numerous outbuildings. Some of these buildings are in reasonable conditions, some are able to be repaired, and others may need to be demolished. Business Development The property plan identifies a number of different areas that could be used for a range of developmental purposes. These are as follows. Commercial tourism: tourist visitation into Mount Barney National Park is already significant and growing fast. Much of the tourism traffic passes directly through Minjelha Dhagun. There is a shortage of camping areas near to the National Park, a reluctance on the part of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to provide these facilities. Provision of campsites is seen as a relatively low cost option to provide an immediate commercial return, and this could be augmented by provision of cabins at a later stage. Gearing up to school based tourism is seen as highly desirable, catering for a regional market within both South-East Queensland and Northern New South Wales. Tourism development can include not only provision of accommodation but also interpretive guided walks, provision of information about the environment and traditional culture in an interpretive centre, and establishment of a kiosk to sell provisions and equipment to tourists, The quarry is seen as an ideal site for establishing a tourism node, and this would turn the current eyesore into an attractive feature. However, there are several alternative sites designated for tourism use, depending on the stage at which the co-operation of the Council in rehabilitating the quarry site can be secured. Timber production: in the short term, there is a considerable need for timber to be worked as building materials, so that the current buildings on site can be repaired. This is essential so that there can be more accommodation on site, to house people who can work on the property. There is much timber that can be re-worked to produce building materials, including waste timber lying around the property (with provision for retaining that which has habitat value), and timber in buildings that will have to be demolished. These resources can be augmented from waste timber and disused buildings on other farming properties in the Beaudesert Valley. A small portable sawmill would be appropriate to support this enterprise component. In the long term, there are areas of Minjelha Dhagun (constituting around 25 hectares to be afforested, plus existing forested areas) that would be well suited to ongoing sustainable timber production. This would be a worthwhile long term investment, and can utilise species that have ecological value within the property development as a whole. Commercial Cropping: the alluvial flats are, for the most, part well drained and fertile, making them highly suitable for commercial market gardening. It is proposed that these be divided into four paddocks totalling 35 hectares, with crops being grown in a rotation pattern that allows for a leguminous crop every fourth year. These flats are subject to heavy winter frosts, but are suitable for most European vegetable types. Ti-tree: there are around 2 hectares of alluvial flats that are poorly drained, and it is proposed that these be used for ti-tree production. Rather than selling the harvested product, it is proposed that the ti-tree oil be used for value adding on the farm, in association with other essential oils and medicinal products. Bushfoods and traditional medicines: an area of 20 hectares has been designated for commercial production of bushfoods and traditional medicines, all of which can be processed to provide value added products on the farm. Part of this area can be used to establish an interpretive bush food walk, which can be part of the tourism resources of the property.

39

Native and exotic horticulture: an area of 25 hectares has been identified as suitable for horticulture, including cut flowers, fruit and nut trees, and some commercially marketable native food and medicine species (such as finger limes and lemon myrtle). Beef production: although cattle production is one of the least profitable options for Minjelha Dhagun, there are aspirations amongst many men and boys for re-establishing skills in the cattle industry, and this has cultural importance. A progressive decrease in the area available for cattle grazing is proposed, but there is potential for creating rotational paddocks on the more confined area, and maintaining a reasonable level of production through improving and irrigating the pastures. This area of 30 hectares could be used for calf rearing, possibly combined with a specialisation in organic beef production. Cultural activities: around 20 hectares of land along Mount Barney Creek has been designated for community use, for cultural and social activities. This is an area which is a favourite for camping, and which is particularly rich in naturally occurring bushfoods. Setting this area aside can ensure that Yugambeh people are able to continue to enjoy staying on the property, being revitalised by its environment without disturbance from tourists. It is important that these resources are not removed in favour of economic pursuits. A cultural centre is planned as part of the tourist development on site. This can be a place for presenting Yugambeh culture to visitors, and for visiting Yugambeh people to learn about their culture. Provision is also made for establishing art and craft workshops on the farm, if there are residents who are interested in these activities. Some of the current outbuildings can be refurbished for this use. None of these business opportunities have been realised to date, and there will need to be a sustained investment in capacity building and infrastructure development before YLE is able to operate on a business footing. History of Farm Development Concept Development The case for the ILC purchase of Minjhela Dhagun was made on the basis of its cultural significance for the Yugambeh people. Having gained access to the property, there was then some support for the notion of development of mixed enterprises along the lines of those established at Scrub Hill Farm. Several YLE members have strong family connections with the Butchulla people of Hervey Bay, and they are familiar with the developments that have taken place there. There were discussions with a number of government agencies about the potential for development of the property. Some of the suggestions made that were strongly rejected, included a proposal for joint venture farm forestry. Other suggestions included highly capital intensive and high risk large scale aquaculture development, which in retrospect appears to have been ill-advised. There were several attempts at property planning before the current plan was prepared. This involved a three year period of frustration for the Yugambeh people, in which they were unable to secure the resources they needed to start managing or developing their property. There appears to have been some initial interest by YLE members in growing vegetables on the creek flats, in the absence of any property plan. An area was ploughed up, and a crop of pumpkins was produced. Unfortunately there seems to have been confusion about what was supposed to be done with the crop, with much of it being given away to friends or relatives of those who harvested the pumpkins, and some arguments arising about what happened to funds from the sale of the crop.

40

Feasibility Study and Property Planning The present property and business plan was completed with the assistance of FOCUS Pty Ltd in March 2001. Fundamental components of the property plan are revegetation of eroded and damaged areas, and effective water management. Revegetation is seen as essential in some of the steeper gullies, and along creek and river banks. This requires some fencing off of the designated areas, particularly to exclude cattle, and provision of alternative watering points for stock. The quarry is seen as a priority for rehabilitation and revegetation, to stabilise the site and improve its visual impact. The water management proposals for the property include creation of a number of dams, and slowing water run-off through use of swales on slopes designated for horticultural production. The dams include two that are designated for supplying water to cultivated areas, and a third large dam that will be primarily used as a back up supply, for irrigating revegetation areas, supplying stock troughs, and for small scale aquaculture production (for community use rather than for commercial production). Fire management is also an integral component of the property plan, with specific guidelines being applied to siting of structures, use of plant species near to structures, establishment of fire breaks and slashing regimes. The property plan provides a practical framework for establishing the various enterprise units described above, including a financial cash flow projection and identification of potential funding sources. Plan Implementation and Farm Establishment Arrangements for agistment of cattle on the property were made without any problem, and have proved to be satisfactory. While the earnings from this are small, they are at least reliable and they cover the most pressing outgoings such as paying rates. A caretaker and his family took up residence in one of the two existing dwellings. This established a presence on the property, which has been valuable. The caretaker is a Yugambeh man who has excellent local knowledge including cultural knowledge, and he is experienced in pastoral management. Use of the second dwelling has been intermittent, with bad experiences arising from letting it out, and some concerns that Board members were reserving it for their own “holiday home” use when access became more restricted. More recently it has become a group home for the 10 workers on site, and has been successfully managed despite the overcrowded conditions. The strain on the infrastructure has been apparent, however, with the occupants frequently running out of water (relying on one rainwater storage tank). The first substantial development of the property was achieved through a Community Jobs Program project funded by the Queensland State Government. This enabled a team of 10 workers to be established on site for a six month period, to carry out riparian restorations work. The team consisted of Yugambeh men ranging from 17 to over 50 years in age, with a wide range of skill levels and experience. The project has proved to be immensely successful, with the team developing bonds and a strong sense of commitment to the property, and completing its work program well ahead of time. Unfortunately all attempts to secure continuation funding failed. However this gap has been partially filled by CDEP participation, so that a team of on-site workers has continued to work on property management tasks. Rehabilitation work on site is being continued through Natural Heritage Trust funding.

41

External Support and Funding The ILC provided the initial funds for property acquisition, plus some limited funds to repair the two dwellings on the property. Funding for a vehicle was also provided, though there have been problems created by the lack of funding for running expenses. Subsequent to the purchase, further ILC funding in property management and equipment was delayed pending the development of a property plan. Delays appear to have been due to lack of funding to develop the property plan, and confusion about whether the property was cultural recovery or economic development. To progress the project, ATSIC funded the property and business plan from its Business Development Program. Such confusion over terminology highlights the need to formalise and clarify funding guidelines and processes. Some assistance was provided by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries (DPI), which carried out a land capability assessment, and also facilitated community workshops to identify YLE’s aims and aspirations for the property. This fell far short of a property plan, and provided very poor mapping resources. The land capability assessments carried out by the DPI have been useful in relation to the potential for animal husbandry and cropping. The Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Development (DATSIPD) initially provided some limited funding for a business plan through its Community Development Program. This seems to have been directed to a firm which failed to produce a credible product, placing YLE in a position of possible breach of the grant conditions. The reason for this is not clear, but it signals that Aboriginal landowner groups need to be wary of the credentials of their consultants. The terms of employment sought by these particular consultants appear to have sought to bind YLE to continued employment on a profit share basis, which is clearly beyond the bounds of the intended arrangement. Lack of any successful outcome from the DATSIPD funding has so far been an obstacle to further funding support from that agency. The Community Jobs Program project involving riparian restoration was funded by the Queensland Department of Education and Training, with some in-kind support from the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, and additional support from local Job Network provider Mission Employment. This supported a workforce on site for six months, also supplying materials and equipment. External agencies with a potential to assist YLE in developing Minjelha Dhagun were invited to a community meeting on site in December 2001. This enabled some initial briefings to be given. A workshop involving agencies which had potential to provide funding support for implementation of the business plan was convened in Brisbane during February 2001, to broker support in a way which would be effective for YLE and efficient for the agencies concerned. This was well attended, and produced some useful discussion of respective roles and responsibilities. FOCUS conducted additional research into funding programs that could provide additional resources, and held discussions with Beaudesert Shire Council and Palen Creek Correctional Centre (which is located near to Minjelha Dhagun) about their possible involvement. Agencies were invited to a second community meeting held on site to launch the property and business plan. Unfortunately this was not well attended, perhaps because the workshop was held on a weekend (which was necessary to fit in with community requirements). Arising from these various discussions, the type of support available to YLE appears to be as follows: The ILC agreed to fund the purchase of basic equipment and upgrading of infrastructure. However this will extend only to items that can be justified in terms of property management, not enterprise development

42

The Area Consultative Committee supported a funding application through the DairyRAP program, which is directed to properties in regions that are subject to restructuring of the dairy industry (whether or not the properties themselves were dairy farms). However the Department of Transport and Regional Services (which administers the DairyRAP program) refused the application, on the basis that YLE was unable to provide matching funds from its own resources (rather than from other government or ILC grants). The DairyRAP funding could have provided resources for basic water supply infrastructure. The National Heritage Trust has provided materials for riparian restoration, but no funding for labour. Assistance with the labour component has been sought from Greencorps and the Green Reserve, though the eligibility requirements for this program create some considerable difficulties (being targeted at either a very young or a relatively old age group, neither of which is particularly relevant to the aspiring Yugambeh workforce). The Commonwealth Department of Employment, Workplace Relations (DEWR) may be able to support business development and mentoring assistance through its Indigenous Small Business Fund, and there is potential for additional assistance to be provided for training through the Structured Training and Employment Program. Logan College of TAFE is very keen to be a preferred training provider, and to customise accredited courses for delivery on site. The Queensland Department of Education and Training declined to provide continued funding through the Community Jobs Program, on the basis that such an arrangement would depart from the usual program guidelines. However there are precedents in other regions for Indigenous client groups receiving a succession of CJP funded projects, and this needs to be further explored. The Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme was not seen as a desirable component of property development by the previous management committee, based on some poor initial experience in deployment of CDEP labour on site. .The desirable long term balance between employment creation and sustainable enterprise development has yet to be worked out. IBA’s Business Development Program may be able to assist enterprise development through provision of loans. There are no grant schemes currently available (as there have been in previous years) but it appears that under certain circumstances IBA can make a grant as an alternative to providing a loan, and it may be possible to make an argument for grant funding on a special case basis. The Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services had a Regional Solutions program which could provide capital for development, but which could not be directed to enterprise components. The current Regional Partnerships Program is less restrictive. Other agencies have expressed a willingness to provide advice and support, but do not appear to have a capacity to provide funding. The Beaudesert Shire Council is so far reluctant to let go of its quarry operations, but appears to be otherwise supportive of the property development proposals. There are no problems anticipated in obtaining approvals for development, and some assistance with promoting tourism products can be anticipated. Neighbouring landholders have also been supportive, offering training, mentoring and job placements. Palen Creek Correctional Centre is keen to establish a working relationship with YLE that allows some use of the property in rehabilitation and work experience programs. This could see some provision of in kind support for repair of buildings, construction of the campsite, including provision of on-site supervision, training and use of equipment. However some YLE members are uncomfortable about encouraging a reliance on labour that largely involves non-Yugambeh people, and which may expose Yugambeh people on site to risk.

43

Building and Infrastructure Development Soon after the acquisition of Minjelha Dhagun, the ILC contracted with local builders to refurbish the two dwelling houses, so that they were fit for occupation. This work has proved to be unsatisfactory – the work was inadequately supervised and delivered very poor value for money, with much essential work being left undone. However, the fact that the work was commissioned has made it difficult for YLE to seek subsequent funding for repair of the houses. The areas around the existing dwellings are designated as living areas for Yugambeh people, including those working on the farm. It is not yet clear how many people will want to live on the farm, but there is potential to generate ongoing jobs for around 25 people, so that accommodation for at least these workers and their families is appropriate. Planning provisions are such that a number of extra dwellings are likely to be permitted. There is potential for re-use and conversion of outbuildings into cabin and dormitory style accommodation, plus stores and sheds. One of the living areas is also designated for development of the nursery (seen as a critically important component of the development), machinery and equipment storage, product storage and processing. The ILC has provided some initial funding for the nursery and for conversion of an existing shed for equipment storage, as well as for the purchase of some essential equipment. Training and Capacity Building One of the limiting factors in the development of Minjelha Dhagun is its management capacity. The management board has experienced considerable instability, with successive Annual General Meetings resulting in factional shifts, and an influx of new members with limited management experience. It is remarkable that in the process the core objectives of YLE for Minjelha Dhagun have remained reasonably constant, and its relationships with external bodies including its consultants have remained largely stable and constructive. A strength of the organisation is its large community base, with over 70 registered members, and effective membership of several hundred when all family members are included. Both community workshops held on Minjelha Dhagun have been well attended, with well over 100 people attending the last workshop. The constitution of YLE is typical of most community based Aboriginal organisations in requiring an Annual General Meeting at which all committee positions are effectively spilled. This is itself a recipe for instability. There has been some assistance in developing the skills of committee members, though ISBF funding from DEWR and the ILC. The next step will be to introduce vocational education and training directed at establishing the various enterprise units. In the long term, there is likely to be a demand for Minjelha Dhagun to become a central place for training and employment initiatives, directed at Yugambeh and other Aboriginal people in South-East Queensland. Logan College of TAFE is interested in becoming a preferred provider of training services for the property, and this could see the emergence of an “Aboriginal campus” on the farm. This could be accommodated within the building to be used as a cultural centre, so that it becomes a broader training facility.

44

Links to the Scrub Hill Experience There are substantial linkages between Minjelha Dhagun and Scrub Hill Community Farm, arising from strong social ties between some Yugambeh families and the Butchulla people of Hervey Bay. There are several families that are prominent on the development of both properties which claim both Yugambeh and Butchulla heritage. In the first instance, this linkage contributed to the awareness of Yugambeh people about the Scrub Hill development, and aspirations that development of Minjelha Dhagun lead to similar benefits for local people. There was much discussion about the way in which Scrub Hill had created a strong sense of community, developed individual self esteem amongst the participants, and provided employment. There was probably less awareness about the ways in which these achievements had been realised. The involvement of FOCUS in the property planning for Minjelha Dhagun was a direct consequence of its involvement at Scrub Hill. The YLE Treasurer at the time was a previous participant at Scrub Hill, and he saw particular opportunities for creating a parallel development. On his insistence, the YLE Chairman approached FOCUS with a request for planning assistance. This followed several unsuccessful attempts to produce a realistic framework for developing the property. FOCUS provided some outline proposals as a basis for YLE seeking funding for its involvement. There was then a period of confusion, with the ILC appearing to be reluctant to see Minjelha Dhagun develop in a similar way to Scrub Hill. FOCUS felt that YLE was discouraged from appointing FOCUS as its planning consultants on this basis. ATSIC then agreed to fund the preparation of the business and property plan, under its Business Development Scheme. While the property and business plan does not bear much similarity to that provided for Scrub Hill, arising from the considerable differences between the two properties, there are some parallels in terms of basic principles applied. These arise from similarities in the aspirations of the clients for:

• Seeking cultural and social development as well as economic development of the lands resources;

• Maximising employment through a relatively labour intensive development model (which is, of course, quite different from a mainstream land development model);

• Providing a range of enterprise opportunities that allows for individual participants to select those opportunities that best fit their skills and ambitions; and

• Aiming for synergy between a combination of land uses, so that overall production is enhanced.

Once the property and business plan was prepared, the strength of linkages between Minjelha Dhagun and Scrub Hill have become even more evident. The formation of the first workforce for Minjelha Dhagun included a number of individuals who had experience of Scrub Hill, including the Chairman of Dhugamin CDEP. During the initial development period there has been a steady trickle of visitors from Scrub Hill to offer advice and voluntary assistance with particular development components. One of the most obvious ways to take advantage of these social and cultural ties would be to develop a formal mentoring relationship between Korrawinga Aboriginal Corporation or Dhugamin CDEP and Minjelha Dhagun. This could include a shared CDEP umbrella, for example. Such arrangements are not supported by existing administrative arrangements, but may nevertheless emerge as logical solutions to Minjelha Dhagun’s development needs.

45

Some observations and lessons to be learnt Some of the experience gained at Minjelha Dhagun that could be relevant to other Aboriginal community farms is as follows: As at Scrub Hill, water management has emerged as a critically important component of property development, but one in which external agencies are reluctant to invest. This severely limits the productivity of the property in the short and long term. Providing funding for a farm manager is proving just as difficult as at Scrub Hill, with similarly problematic consequences for the development of the farm. CDEP was a programs that was able to provide the labour component for community farm development, essential to the early stages of development. The previous YLE Board was fearful that if CDEP became established at Minjelha Dhagun this would work against its achievement of commercially viability, which in the long term may limit its economic sustainability. The experience at Scrub Hill reinforced these fears. Given subsequent developments, the desirable balance between employment creation through CDEP and sustainable enterprise development may need to be re-examined. The difficulties experienced at Scrub Hill in accessing ILC and NHT funding are being repeated at Minjelha Dhagun. This presents difficulties in meeting land restoration requirements, and establishing a suitable water management regime. There do seem to be prospects for establishing a more sympathetic relationship with a mainstream training provide than has been achieved at Scrub Hill. Logan TAFE appears to be very willing to tailor courses and make them accessible to Aboriginal people, delivering a major component on site. In contrast with Korrawinga and Dhugamin at Scrub Hill, YLE has suffered from management instability and consequent lack of experience amongst Board members. This has severely limited its management performance, creating some lack of confidence amongst potential funding agencies. The distance of Minjelha Dhagun from the nearest settlement creates logistical demands which are quite different from those experienced at Scrub Hill. In the early stages of development it has been important to establish accommodation that can be used by local workers, and to provide transport. In the longer term the distance factor will be an important consideration in establishing markets for produce. As at Scrub Hill, successful development of Minjelha Dhagun will not be measured by economic criteria alone. It will not be a satisfactory outcome for the property to become commercially viable if there is not creating of employment for Yugambeh people, and this suggests that labour intensive enterprise options need to be pursued. It will not be satisfactory for economic and employment objectives to be achieved if this is at the expense of social and cultural outcomes. However, recognition of the imperative for holistic planning to meet these multiple objectives requires a significant mind shift on the part of mainstream funding agencies.

46

Issues Arising from the Case Studies Introduction In this section we summarise the issues identified in the two case studies documented in the following two chapters. FOCUS has documented the experience gained by people working on the planning and developing of two properties in SE Queensland which are attempting integrated farm developments:

• Minjelha Dhagun south of Beaudesert; and • Scrub Hill Community Farm near Hervey Bay.

By reviewing the experience on these farms the project has identified a range of priorities for rural business development. Specific Issues Arising From the Case Studies The following list of issues has been distilled from the case studies. A full list specific to each property is included in the last section of each case study. Property design and development

• Support for design and development of farm infrastructure, including water infrastructure, is critical for the development of properties capable of sustaining much greater intensity of activity.

• Water system design, development and management are critically important but often

downplayed by funding agencies – this can be a significant obstacle to development of other infrastructure and productivity.

• Sustained funding for support roles including farm management positions is critically

important to coordinated development, but this is often given low priority by funding agencies.

• Core functions for property development need to be identified and given high priority as these

can be used to support further development.

• Property plans need to be constantly revised to provide a framework for implementation, ensuring that greatest value is derived from available resources.

Institutions, governance and business relationships

• Suitable governance structures are critically important.

• Operating rules are required for business and people living on site.

• Relationships between individual private enterprises and the common property must be well defined.

• The skills, resources and commitments of individuals/families or groups who wish to operate

businesses needs to be taken into account in any business or property planning.

47

• A balance may need to be struck between group income and individual incentives, particularly in enterprise where success is critically affected by the level of personal skill, such as art and craft production, and provision of tours.

Training and capacity building

• CDEP16 can be a very effective funding source in getting enterprises established and a labour force on site. However this does have a downside in terms of likely turnover of participants, and reduced motivation to achieve commercial profitability.

• Building an effective team requires ensuring that all participants will identify with the farm

achievements, as well as getting a sense of achievement from the work of their immediate work units.

• It is important that training providers be sourced who are able to customise accredited training

courses to the particular cultural context, enterprise requirements and the capacity of participating individuals.

• Sustained but low level mentoring to build the capacity of participants may be much more

effective in capacity building than funding consultants to prepare advisory reports. External support

• Engagement and improved coordination of external support services, including from government agencies would lead to better outcomes.

• More certainty of external support would also be gained from:

greater use of formal agreements with government agencies providing support clarification of the respective role of programs relating to land management, land and

heritage protection and land based businesses. simplification of access to land management funding from the Indigenous Land

Corporation, and land restoration funding from the Natural Heritage Trust. development of assessment frameworks that can measure success of integrated

developments that have multiple objectives and multiple outcomes. Performance or economic assessments need to take into account the social and environmental benefits generated including factors such as employment readiness and problems avoided. For example, Scrub Hill achievements should not be measured in purely financial terms. The fact that a 23 hectare stony hillside property has been transformed into a highly productive and environmentally benign management regime is remarkable in itself. It is also a significant base for training and work experience involving 70 people, with a range of social and cultural programs providing specific benefits.

16 CDEP is the Community Development Employment Program

48

Appendix 1 Definition of “Institution” used by LWA The term institution is defined in a broad sense and encompasses: • Systems of governance applying at all levels of society;

• Laws, regulations, codes and standards;

• Policies and programs established by government, industries and communities to influence behaviour;

• Commercial practices including the operations of markets;

• Organisations formed by government, industries, business and communities; and

• Cultural values, norms and practices of groups.

The institutional framework of society, therefore, is the overall network of institutional arrangements which has the capacity to influence group and individual behaviour at various levels. The levels at which natural resource management is practiced can be categorised as national, state, regional, catchment, local government, town or locality, landscape and property. In the institutional sense, the focus of R&D at the different levels includes the following: • The national level including the Commonwealth Parliament, the Commonwealth Government and its

agencies, inter-governmental forums, and national associations representing industry, community groups and movements;

• The state level including state parliaments, state governments and their agencies, and state associations representing industry, community groups and movements;

• The regional level including regional development organisations and catchment management groups (statutory and non-government);

• Local government jurisdictions;

• Local community groups which may be based on towns, issues (e.g. landcare, health, education, etc) and industries (e.g. quality assurance groups);

• Markets in which businesses operate; and

• On-farm or the property level.

49

Glossary The project is based on the following definitions, principles and assumptions: Aboriginal communities - is used to include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Sustainability – this encompasses the concepts of sustainable economics, sustainable natural resources management and ecologically and culturally sustainable development (Balkanu 2001). Sustainability of the communities, enterprises and specific developments is a core assumption underpinning the project. Integrated community development - while the project is not attempting to redefine community development - there is already extensive literature on this subject – it recognised that agriculture does not happen in isolation. It contributes to and benefits from other kinds of community development, whether physical infrastructure or skills development. Integrated planning – the case studies describe properties where detailed and comprehensive processes of planning have been undertaken. This kind of planning attempts to integrate natural resources, physical development, enterprise development and community development. The integrated planning and development processes explored in the case studies provide a model of the kind of processes that should be resourced and encouraged more widely. Consultation and self determination – no pre-conceived agricultural system or model is being unthinkingly promoted, instead processes of planning and implementation are being explored that consider the diversity of possibilities for taking into account sites, resources, skills and the aspirations of the people involved. Multi-crop or polyculture – this is being explored because there is strong evidence that by establishing diverse productive systems benefits are achieved by the synergies between the components. Geno and Geno (2001) have conducted an extensive and comprehensive review of polycultures in the publication17 “Polyculture Production – Principles, Benefits and Risks of Multi-cropping Land Management Systems in Australia”. Multi-enterprise agricultural systems – are defined as those that by design or evolution have multiple enterprises operating from a common land resource or property. We are taking a broad definition so that on the production front these systems could include: Horticulture – fruits and vegetables Floriculture – flowers Aquaculture – water based production of fish, crustaceans and plants Bush tucker crops Medicines and pharmaceuticals Herbs and spices Livestock Wild harvesting of plants and animals Timber and fibre and other building or craft materials We are also taking a broad definition because investigations of agricultural systems must not only focus on production processes but also on the people, their organisations and their social and economic structures (see for example Wagner and Mikesell 1962).

Rural – is used to mean all rural and remote, or “non-urban” activities, and more than simply agricultural or pastoral enterprises. While it may appear that the terms are used interchangeably, “rural

17 RIRDC website – www.rirdc.gov.au

50

enterprises” or “rural industries” refer to the full suite of enterprises and industries in rural areas. “Agricultural” enterprises or industries refers to those focused on production as listed above. Land and natural resources management – those activities or processes focused on managing natural resources whether as part of an enterprise activity or not. Economic and economic benefit - are used with the broadest definition in mind, not simply financial benefit. Therefore improved nutrition and health generates economic benefits by reducing health care cost and improving personal productivity. Enterprise – business or economic activity organised along business lines.

51

References ATSIC and DPIE (1997) National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rural Industry Strategy, prepared by

FOCUS Pty Ltd, Commonwealth of Australia ATSIC www.atsic.gov.au Australian Farm Journal, Bush Magazine (October 2000), Indigenous Communities: Bushcaring For Country

Rural Press Magazines, Melbourne and Environment Australia, Canberra Australian Government Directory (AGD) Indigenous Services Directory www.agd.com.au/indiged.html Balkanu Development Corp (2001) Cape York Development Corporation

www.balkanu.com.au/people/organisations/landcouncil.htm Blanadrin, M.F. et al (1985) Natural Plant Chemicals: Sources of Industrial and Medicinal Materials Science,

Vol 228 Brennan, F. (1998) The Wik Debate: Its impacts on Aborigines, Pastoralists and Miners, UNSW Press, Sydney Duke, J.A. (1990) Promising phytomedicinals. p. 491-498. In: J. Janick and J.E. Simon (eds.), Advances in New

Crops, Timber Press, Portland USA FOCUS (1997) Yapakurlangu Regional Plan, for ATSIC Yapakurlangu Regional Council, Tennant Creek FOCUS (1998) Alice Springs Regional Plan, for ATSIC Alice Springs Regional Council, Alice Springs FOCUS (1998) Papunya Regional Plan, for ATSIC Papunya Regional Council, Alice Springs FOCUS (2000) Gulf and West Queensland Regional Plan, for ATSIC Gulf and West Queensland Regional

Council, Mount Isa FOCUS (2000) Report on National Consultations with Indigenous Land Owners, for the Indigenous Land

Corporation, Adelaide. FOCUS (2001) Gulf and West Queensland Homelands Policy and Plan, ATSIC Gulf and West Queensland

Regional Council, Mount Isa (unpublished) FOCUS (2001) Peninsula Regional Plan, for ATSIC Peninsula Regional Council, Cairns FOCUS (2001) Queenbeyan Regional Plan, for ATSIC Queenbeyan Regional Council, Queanbeyan FOCUS (2001) Townsville Regional Plan, for ATSIC Townsville Regional Council, Townsville FOCUS (2001) Wongatha Homelands Policy, for ATSIC Wongatha Regional Council, Kalgoorlie Geno, B. & Geno, L. (2001) Polyculture Production – Principles, Benefits and Risks of Multi-cropping Land

Management Systems in Australia RIRDC 2001 Indigenous Land Corporation (revised 2002) National Indigenous Land Strategy, ILC http://www.ilc.gov.au International Permaculture examples http://www.rosneath.com.au/ipc6/toc.html LWA Social and institutional R&D program LWA Canberra Michael, D. (2000) New Pharmaceutical, Nutraceutical and Industrial Products RIRDC Publications, Canberra Mollison, B. (1988) Permaculture, A Designers Manual, Tagari Publications. Tyalgum, Australia, Mollison, B. and Holmgren, D. (1978) Permaculture 1, Tagari Publications.

52

Mulvaney, J. (1969) Australian Prehistory Penguin North Australia Business Services in association with FOCUS (2002) Yilli Rreung Homelands Policy and Plan,

for ATSIC Yilli Rreung Regional Council, Darwin North Australia Business Services in association with FOCUS (2002) Jabiru Homelands Policy and Plan, for

ATSIC Jabiru Regional Council, Darwin North Australia Business Services in association with FOCUS (2002) Central Queensland Homelands Policy,

for ATSIC Central Queensland Regional Council, Rockhampton Pearson, N. (1995) Indigenous Wilderness in Cape York Peninsula- The Land Needs Its People, Habitat, Vol 23,

No 4, August 1995, Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne, Australia. Pearson, N. (2000) The Light on the Hill, Ben Chifley Memorial Lecture, Bathurst Panthers Leagues Club, Cape

York Partnerships 12/8/00, http://www.balkanu.com.au/people/noelpearson/lightonhill-12-8-00.htm Ruddock, P. (2002) Indigenous Land Ownership and Economic Development, 3 June 2002,

http://www.atsia.gov.au/atsia/media/transcripts02/mabo_0306.htm Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) (2002) Resilient Agricultural Systems

Program http://www.rirdc.gov.au/programs/ras.html Sachs, W. (1992) Development- A Guide to the Ruin, New Internationalist, Issue 232, June 1992 Saunders, M. (2002) Stop Taking Handouts, says Dodson, The Australian April 6-7 2002, pp 5 Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee ‘Commercial Utilisation of Australian

Native Wildlife.’ (1998) Report of the. Parliament House, Canberra. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/wild/contents.htm

Spicer, I. (1997) Independent Review of the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Scheme,

ATSIC www.atsic.gov.au The Australia Institute (TAI) (2000) Indicators of a Sustainable Community – Improving Quality of Life in

Newcastle, Discussion Paper No. 28, The Australia Institute and Newcastle City Council. Turvey, N. & Larsen, P. (2001) Agroforestry R&D Priorities for Northern Australia, RIRDC Wagner, P.L. and Mikesell, M.W. (1962) Readings in Cultural Geography University of Chicago Press Watson, I. (2002) Plundering the Plants, ABC Radio National, Background Briefing, 13th October 2002,

National Indigenous Radio Service, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s701553.htm Whitehead, P. (in publication) Feasibility Of Local, Small Scale Native Plant Harvests For Indigenous

Communities, Northern Territory University, RIRDC Project: UNT-6A

Wilson, G., McNee, A. and Platts, P. (1992) Wild Animal Resources – their use by Aboriginal communities, Bureau of Resource Sciences, AGPS Canberra.

Wilson G.R. (2001) A design for a Proposed trial for Conservation of Biodiversity to Sustainable Commercial

Use of Wildlife. A scoping study of FATE (Future of Australia's Threatened Ecosystems) prepared for the Australian Museum.