Case Studies of Community Engagement Enhancing Community Engagement

Document Sample
Case Studies of Community Engagement Enhancing Community Engagement Powered By Docstoc
					Case Studies of Community
Engagement: Enhancing Community
Engagement for NRM in the SEQ
Western Catchment



Report prepared as part of the AG-SIP 18 project:
Effective Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western
Catchments

Prepared by: Darbas T, Smith T and Hall C



September 2007




Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments   1
Acronyms


AGSIP      Agricultural State Investment Plan
CA         Condamine Alliance
CSIRO      Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
EMS        Environmental Management System
IPM        Integrated Pest Management
LG         Local Government
LGAQ       Local Government Association of Queensland
NUCC       Non-Urban Consultative Committee
QDO        Queensland Dairy Organisation
QFF        Queensland Farmers Federation
QNRW       Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water
QDPIF      Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries
RIS        Regional Investment Strategy
SEQWC      South East Queensland Western Catchments
SEQC       South East Queensland Catchments
URP        Urban Research Program




2
Executive Summary
Natural resource governance in Australia entails the effective engagement of both institutions
and landholders. However, the peri-urbanisation of landscapes that were formerly devoted to
commercial    agriculture   confounds   traditional   institutional   approaches   to   engaging
landholders such as agricultural extension. Peri-urbanisation, the profitable process of
subdividing agricultural properties for rural residential use, prioritises amenity over
production. Peri-urbanisation is driven by the increasing costs of agricultural production,
relative decreases in commodity prices, as well as the rural nostalgia evidenced by the sea-
change and tree-change migration by formerly urban residents. The complexity of
engagement in peri-urban regions is subsequently two-fold. Firstly, both urban (land use
planning) and rural (land management) organisations are highly relevant to NRM which
creates a communication and coordination problem. Secondly, to achieve on-ground action
the NRM message must reach more socially diverse communities than is typical in regions
devoted to commercially viable agriculture.


This research project “Effective Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments was
conducted by CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems in partnership with South East Queensland
Catchments (SEQC) in order to address the need to better understand how NRM
engagement needs to be undertaken effectively in peri-urbanising regions. A sister CSIRO
Sustainable Ecosystems and SEQC project, Ag14, dealt with the biophysical threat posed by
peri-urbanisation to ecological integrity. Both projects were funded under the Queenlsand
Government’s Sustainable Agricultural State-level Investment Program (AG-SIP).


This report details the last of three phases of research concerning the improvement of
community engagement for NRM in a highly transitional peri-urban region. The first round of
research sought to understand current engagement practice in the South East Queensland
(SEQ) Western Catchments region. The need to overcome the fragmentation of the region’s
NRM engagement practitioner community across 29 organisations, including 10 Local
Governments was identified.      The second round of research developed a typology of
engagement that isolated three distinct landholder audiences for NRM engagement: the
ecocentrically oriented audience already involved in NRM and motivated to reverse
environmental degradation; the production-centric audience of agricultural landholders
motivated by the need to remain commercially viable; and the anthropocentric audience
motivated primarily to increase the social sustainability of their community. This third and
final round of research brings the perspectives of engagement practitioners and participants
together in one framework by evaluating the use of engagement tools in the western


                                                                                               3
catchments of SEQ.


We here report on the employment of four engagement tools by the NRM authority - South
East Queensland Catchments (SEQC) - based on the evaluations of 20 engagement events.
The four engagement tools examined are:
Round tables – the SEQ Round Tables case study is based on three roundtables run by
SEQC, two convened on a subcatchment basis and one convened on a sector (agricultural
industries) basis;
Field days –The case study is based on seven Sustainable Landscape Project field days run
by the Ag 14 research team in conjunction with SEQC, and the Riparian and Cats Claw field
days run by SEQC in conjunction with relevant agencies, Local Governments, and local
groups;
Networks – The Local Government NRM Liaison Network case study is based on 5
meetings of a Local Government NRM liaison network convened by SEQC;
Workshops – The Benchmarking Engagement Practice workshop case study was run by the
Ag 18 research team in conjunction with SEQC and the Sustainable Landscape Planner
Days were run by the Ag 14 research team in conjunction with SEQC.


Findings
Roundtables are an effective engagement tool for bedding down a Regional Investment
Strategy sub-regionally. The effort taken by SEQC to incorporate local knowledge and
expertise into its regional planning process was appreciated by the target audience. The
round tables stimulated awareness, and the development of NRM activities and projects in
the participants home organisations. The roundtable participants were themselves
engagement practitioners involved in catchment and landcare groups, peak industry bodies,
and Local Governments etc. The roundtable process can be strengthened by:
    •   Ensuring enough time to work through the tasks of ground-truthing data and
        discussing the decisions arising from the unity between the NRM body and local or
        sector specific NRM effort;
    •   Ensure the ground-truthing process is supported by detailed data;
    •   Ensure sufficient forward planning to attain high attendance levels;
    •   Provide appropriate follow up on roundtable discussions (for eg. project
        development).


Field days remain an important engagement tool in a peri-urban context. However, it is a
better use of resources to have one large field day that integrates the relevant institutional
stakeholders, is well promoted, attended, facilitated and organised than several smaller and
less successful field days. Specifically, in order for peri-urban field days to be effective they


4
need to:
   •   Present a picture of institutional integration by involving relevant community groups
       and government agencies;
   •   Ensure attendance levels are high and the mix of attendees is balanced by issuing
       personal invitations plus comprehensive advertising to attracted new landholders;
   •   Facilitate discussion that encourages the bridging rather than accentuation of
       differences between landholders;
   •   Keep a tight focus on the specific NRM problem by demonstrating new practices;
   •   Use a site that appropriately illustrates the NRM problem as well as the desired NRM
       outcomes; and
   •   Provide strong follow-up in terms of the provision of resources that will underpin
       subsequent NRM volunteer effort.


NRM Networks are an effective engagement strategy in the face of a shifting NRM
institutional landscape. Maintaining multi-organisational focus on a goal in the face of
institutional change is particularly difficult given that NRM bodies are new institutional players
and face coordination dilemmas with the existing institutional players. Networks are capable
of easing tensions regarding NRM between organisations. An ongoing network that meets
regularly is capable of creating and reinforcing linkages between organisations with NRM
responsibilities within a region. Important factors in the durability of a multi-organisational
network include:
   •   An agreed charter of responsibilities;
   •   A chair and meeting place that rotates around all of the member organisations;
   •   A stable list of delegate attendees with authority to speak for their home organisation;
   •   Ongoing facilitation to develop procedures that encourage joint NRM action between
       organisations;
   •   Use of a formal agenda to link previous, present and future meetings.


The Engagement Benchmarking and Sustainable Landscape Planner Day workshops were
highly successful at communicating research findings to well targeted audiences and
providing a framework to elict the knowledge and experiences of participants. A workshop is
an appropriate and effective engagement tool for the presentation and discussion of novel
information with strong NRM policy and practice implications. The weakness of the workshop
as an engagement tool lies in its one-off status. A workshop’s success is dependent upon:
   •   Clear targeting of the audience to whom the workshop is relevant and a site
       convenient to participants;
   •   Presentation of relevant information that elucidates the participants’ knowledge and
       experience;

                                                                                                 5
    •   Facilitated discussion to elicit the in-house knowledge and experiences of the
        participants;
    •   A follow up report circulated to participants with a summary of discussions and an
        outline of actions to address issues raised at the workshop.
Recommendations
In response to evaluation of engagement events undertaken in the SEQC region to improve
NRM engagement in peri-urban regions we recommend:
    •   Extending NRM engagement to the uninvolved anthropocentic audience by making a
        social case for NRM constitutes an under-explored engagement territory that would
        benefit from further RD&E;
    •   Pursue engagement opportunities that increase institutional collaboration at both the
        policy (e.g. integration of land-use planning with NRM) and operational (e.g. a field
        day) scales;
    •   Invest time in building and maintaining engagement participant data bases in order to
        increase understanding of target audiences;
    •   Clearly identify the target audience, match the engagement tool to the engagement
        task, use forward planning to achieve high levels of attendance at engagement
        events, and ensure an evaluation is conducted, compiled and circulated;
    •   Present information that provides a clear and relevant framework within which
        participants can volunteer and discuss their knowledge, experiences and ideas;
    •   Encourage cooperative interaction and discussion between engagement participants
        that bridge socio-economic or organisational differences;
    •   Ensure appropriate follow-up action to one-off engagement events (such as
        roundtables, field days and workshops) so participants’ consider their investment of
        time and energy worthwhile;
    •   Provide support to engagement practitioners distributed across multiple organisations
        to build their reflective capacity, use monitoring and evaluation and sharing
        information and share experiences using engagement tools such as networks and
        workshops.




6
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................... 3
1      Introduction..................................................................................................................... 8
2      Methods......................................................................................................................... 11
3      Case Studies ................................................................................................................. 14
3.1        Roundtables ............................................................................................................. 15
  3.1.1 Bremer Roundtable................................................................................................ 16
  3.1.2 Lockyer Roundtable ............................................................................................... 18
  3.1.3 Industry Roundtable............................................................................................... 19
  3.1.4 In summary ............................................................................................................ 20
3.2    Field Days ................................................................................................................. 21
  3.2.1 Sustainable Landscape Management Project Field Days ..................................... 22
  3.2.2 The Riparian Management Field Day .................................................................... 31
  3.2.3 Cats Claw Creeper Field Day ................................................................................ 34
  3.2.4 Discussion of Field Days Generally ....................................................................... 37
3.3    SEQ Western Catchments LG NRM Network ........................................................ 39
3.4        Workshops ............................................................................................................... 46
 3.4.1 Community Engagement Workshop ...................................................................... 47
 3.4.2 Sustainable Landscape Planner Days ................................................................... 53
 3.4.3 Discussion of Workshops Generally ...................................................................... 57
4 Discussion and recommendations ............................................................................. 58
  4.1   Engagement Capacity............................................................................................ 58
  4.2   Engagement Practice............................................................................................. 59
References ........................................................................................................................... 63
    Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 65
    Appendix 1.1       Bremer Sub-catchment Roundtable Agenda.......................................... 65
    Appendix 1.2       Bremer Sub-catchment Roundtable Evaluation ..................................... 66
    Appendix 1.3       Lockyer Subcatchment Roundtable Invitation ........................................ 71
    Appendix 1.5       Industry Roundtable Evaluation ............................................................. 76
    Appendix 2.1       Ag14 Field Day Handout ........................................................................ 79
    Appendix 2.2       Ag14 Field Day Evaluation Summaries.................................................. 81
    Appendix 2.3       Riparian Field Day Fier......................................................................... 100
    Appendix 2.4       Creeks, Weeds and Cows Riparian Field Day Evaluation Summaries 102
    Appendix 2.5       Cats Claw Control Demonstration Field Day Flier................................ 107
    Appendix 3         SEQC Local Government NRM Network Evaluations.......................... 109
    Appendix 4.1       Invite and Agenda for the Community Engagement Benchmark ......... 117
    Appendix 4.3       Sustainable Landscape Planner Day Invitation.................................... 126
    Appendix 4.4       Sustainable Landscapes Planner Day Group discussion summaries .. 127
    Appendix 5         Practitioner and Participant Evaluation Sheets .................................... 129




                                                                                                                                        7
1      Introduction
This series of engagement case studies forms the third stage of research for research project
“Effective Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments”. This project was
conducted in partnership with South East Queensland Western Catchments (SEQWC), now
merged with the NRMSEQ regional body to become South East Queensland Catchments
(SEQC), for two and half years between 2005 and 2007. SEQ’s western catchments are
comprised    of   the   Bremer,    Mid-Brisbane,    Lockyer     and   Stanley    Upper-Brisbane
subcatchments. The project was jointly funded through the Sustainable Agricultural State-
level Investment Program (AG-SIP) in collaboration with CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
AG-SIP was funded by the Australian Government’s National Action Plan (NAP) for Water
Quality and Salinity (Australian and Queensland Governments), and is led by the
Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPIF).


The project deals with the improvement of engagement theory and practice for NRM in peri-
urban regions. The rationale for such research was inadequacy of traditional agricultural
extension approaches to engaging landholders to undertake and improve their natural
resource management (NRM) in peri-urban regions (Barr, 2003). Peri-urban regions are
characterised by pressure for rural residential development that results in rapid change in
land use, lot size and demographic profiles. These changes are driven by decreasing terms
of trade for agricultural production and the sea-change/tree-change phenomena. Peri-urban
landscapes are becoming increasingly characteristic along the eastern seaboard of Australia
and thus constitute a significant challenge for NRM. Consequently, the complex challenge of
engaging landholders in these areas to improve their NRM practices has become a pressing
policy concern.


There are many ‘tools’ for community engagement, including those developed for the
extension of agricultural technologies. However, matching the most effective tool to the
appropriate audience and outcome desired is currently poorly understood by both
researchers and practitioners. This peri-urban NRM engagement project sought to address
this need. The project was conducted in a participatory action framework in partnership with
SEQC. A stakeholder based steering committee and an expert based advisory group were
employed. An independent evaluation of the Ag 18 project was undertaken and is publicly
available (Bellamy, 2006). A sister AG-SIP project conducted by CSIRO Sustainable
Ecosystems in partnership with SEQC, Ag14, dealt with the threat posed by peri-urbanisation
to ecological integrity, both in terms of the stability of natural resources in the landscape, and
the preservation of biodiversity (Kearney and MacLeod, 2006[1] and 2006[2]). The


8
relationship envisaged between these two projects was that Ag14 would define the
ecological principles for managing peri-urban landscapes and that Ag 18 would define best
practice for engaging peri-urban stakeholders and land holders.


This case study report is the third report arising out of the Ag 18 project. The first report,
NRM Engagement Practice in the SEQ Western Catchments, is based on a review of
engagement practices being undertaken in the SEQ region by multiple institutions including
state government agencies, Local Governments, agricultural industry associations,
catchment centres and landcare groups. The major findings of this review were that:
   •   Engagement practitioners often preform multiple roles that may be in conflict (eg.
       biodiversity conservation and sustainable production);
   •   Most engagement practitioners have backgrounds in science or planning rather than
       formal training in engagement;
   •   The majority of engagement tools used are top-down (engager-driven), reactionary,
       and largely involve the usual participants;
   •   There are examples of innovation in engagement, such as the SEQ Western
       Catchment Group’s sector liaison officers (engager teams combining local context
       with sector specialisation)
   •   Context (eg. former engagement history, local NRM effort and local environmental
       issues) is a major influence on the success or failure of an engagement initiative.


The second report, Enhancing Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western
Catchment: an engagement typology populated a landholder engagement typology
according to the differing motivations and preferences of landholders. Types were
constructed by selected interviews with industry, Landcare and non-NRM group members
(such as pony and service clubs, parent and citizen committees, rural bushfire brigades). It
was found that:
   •   While the NRM funding arrangements have changed, the culture remains that people
       can only react to funding opportunities, a perception exists that they cannot set the
       agenda;
   •   People participate in communities of interest that are transient (e.g. schools when
       their children are at school);
   •   Non-NRM motivations are anthropocentric, Industry motivations are production-
       centric, Landcare motivations are ecocentric - engagement approaches need to
       reflect these differences;
   •   Agriculturalist, Landcare and non-NRM social networks are currently disconnected
       from each other such that people do not share land management knowledge



                                                                                             9
This third report evaluates the application of engagement tools conducted by, and in
conjunction with, SEQC using a case study format. The application of four major
engagement tools (roundtables, workshops, networks and field days) to various engagement
tasks is covered as well as the contexts, or engagement tasks, the tool was used to address.
One of these case studies, an evaluation of a workshop to benchmark NRM community
engagement for NRM in the SEQC and Condamine NRM regions, is also dealt with in a
separate (fourth) report. This fourth report, A Benchmark of Community Engagement for
Natural Resource Management in South East Queensland and Condamine NRM regions,
delineates the workshop results – the benchmark that was established by the workshop. The
communication of the Ag14 project research findings forms part of one case study contained
in this report (field days).




10
2       Methods
The case studies contained in this report aim to test the recommendations arising out of the
Ag 18 project’s first and second rounds of research. The following sets of recommendations
form the framework for the case study analyses.


Report 1 recommended:
    •   Greater training in community engagement theory to compliment and enhance
        engagement practice;
    •   Include a monitoring and evaluation component to engagement activities (to allow
        greater practitioner reflection and capacity-building);
    •   Continue to support innovative engagement approaches;
    •   Greater coordination of engagement activities among the various engagement
        practitioners and transfer of knowledge among engagement practitioners in the SEQ
        WC region;
    •   Increase the target audience through alternative engagement tools. Match
        engagement tools to the motivations and preferences of engagement targets as well
        as the capacities of engagement practitioners;
    •   Engagement tools must be contextually relevant, where contextual opportunities and
        constraints may either enhance or limit engagement effectiveness (eg. community
        distrust of government, points of community galvanization, and opportunities for
        engagement synergies).


Report 2 recommended:
    •   Provide engagement opportunities regarding NRM funding design to take into
        account factors conditioning the success of NRM funding programs. Such factors
        include the local context (local environmental knowledge and resources, time
        constraints and galvanising issues) and institutional settings (organisational charters,
        administrative processes, staff skill sets, and organisational coordination needs).
    •   Use a palette of engagement approaches that reflect the differences between Non-
        NRM, Industry and Landcare motivations. Non-NRM audiences are anthropocentric
        and a social case for NRM needs to be such as contributing to the community.
        Production-centric audiences require the NRM message to be expressed in terms of
        the long-term viability of enterprises. Ecocentric audiences need the NRM message
        to be tied to addressing environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.
    •   Use engagement approaches that encourage interaction and social network
        formation between industry, landcare and non-NRM audiences.
    •   Build reflective engagement practitioner capacity such that learning about, and

                                                                                              11
         improvement of, engagement practice is supported.


The case study findings in large part validate the recommendations arising out of the first
round of project research – a review of engagement practice in SEQC, and those arising out
of the second round of research – the construction of an engagement typology. The degree
of validation is discussed in the discussion ending this report


Case study selection
The selection of the case studies forming the body of this report was conditioned by the
participatory, partnership based nature of the Ag 18 project. The time and resources
available to SEQC to design and undertake novel engagement events within the timeframe
available to the Ag 18 project was limited by the strain of merging two NRM bodies as well as
limited funds and staff. The Ag 18 research team aimed to add value to the design and
conduct of SEQC’s engagement events but did, however, take the lead on an engagement
practitioner benchmarking workshop.


Case study Methodology
Three sources of information were used to assess each engagement tool application:
participant evaluations, practitioner evaluations and the participant observations of an Ag 18
researcher. Participant and practitioner evaluation sheets (see Appendix 5) were employed
at engagement events in order to capture and compare the participant and practitioner
assessments of the engagement event. The evaluation sheets were single A4 pages. They
were distributed and collected on the day. The sheets were used to collect a combination of
quantitative and qualitative information.


The quantitative information was collected using a rating scale of 1 to 10. The sheets asked
both practitioners and participants to rate the successfulness of the day in terms of:
     •   Content and structure (Did the meeting cover suitable topics in an effective
         sequence?);
     •   Facilitation (Where you satisfied with how the meeting was facilitated?);
     •   Participation (Were there adequate opportunities for participation?);
     •   Application (Do you believe that the knowledge acquired in this meeting will be
         applied? Why?); and
     •   Venue and catering (Were you comfortable and well catered for?).


The qualitative data was collected by provided space to make comments on all of the above
criteria as well as asking a series of open ended questions. The following six open ended
questions were asked of practitioners:


12
   •   What did you like best about this field day?
   •   What were the other aspects of this field day that worked well?
   •   What did you like least about this field day?
   •   What were the other aspects of this field day that didn’t work well?
   •   How could this field day have been improved?
   •   How will you modify future engagement events based on your experiences today?
   •   Four slightly different questions were asked of participants:
   •   What did you like best about this field day?
   •   How could this field day have been improved?
   •   Are there other things you would like to let us know?
   •   What future activities or consultation would you like regarding land management?
The results of each evaluation were collated. These collations are included in the appendices
of this report in the interests of transparency. The collated evaluations are summarised in the
text of the report as part of the case studies.


Each participant observation was conducted by one of three Ag 18 researchers. Participant
observation is a methodology whereby: “A participant observer is placed in a community with
the aim of collecting more detailed information about a community's habits, opinions and
issues and with a view to developing planning and policies that better incorporate the
community's needs and wishes” (Urban Research Program Citizen Science Toolbox). The
Ag 18 researchers were introduced at the engagement event and chatted with practitioners
and participants throughout the engagement events. The researchers, a sociologist,
geographer and agricultural extensionist, brought a range of disciplinary perspectives and
experiences to bear upon their participant observations. The researchers drew also upon the
findings of the first two rounds of research (based on a total of 89 interviews) to assess the
dynamics of engagement events.


These three sources of data where used as a basis for the discussion concluding each case
study in light of the recommendations for good engagement practice generated by the Ag 18
projects first and second rounds of research. Agendas, invitations, fliers are included in the
appendices to indicate how the engagement events were publicly framed and advertised.




                                                                                             13
3       Case Studies
The four major engagement tools and components of those tools examined within this report
include:
Round tables – the SEQ Round Tables case study is based on three roundtables run by
SEQC, two convened on a subcatchment basis and one convened on a sector basis
(agricultural industries);
Field days – a tool which includes farm walks as a component. The case study is based on
seven Sustainable Landscape Project field days run by the Ag 14 research team in
conjunction with SEQC, and the Riparian and Cats Claw            field days run by SEQC in
conjunction with relevant agencies, Local Governments, and local groups;
Networks – incorporating the components of brainstorming, technical reports and discussion
papers, printed information and questionnaires. The Local Government NRM Liaison
Network case study is based on 5 meetings of a Local Government NRM liaison network
convened by SEQC;
Workshops – The Benchmarking Engagement Practice workshop case study was run by the
Ag 18 research team in conjunction with SEQC.


All of these engagement tools were focused upon broadening and prioritising the NRM
efforts of individual landholders, and the organisations relevant to the improvement of that
NRM effort, within the SEQ western catchments. As this research project was conducted in
partnership with SEQC, these were the engagement tools that fitted into the limited
resources available to SEQC to address this NRM body’s pressing engagement and on-
ground implementation tasks.


The case studies are presented through five subsections. Firstly, a description of the
engagement tool or tools employed in the case study is provided, drawing upon the Urban
Research Program Citizen Science Toolbox (available on-line) as a primary resource but
using supplementary sources where necessary. Secondly, a description of how the tool was
applied in this particular case is provided. Thirdly, the contextual background to this
application is provided laying out the engagement needs that the event was intended to
address, the institutional processes the event fitted into and the organisations involved in the
event. The invitations/agendas/fliers are provided as appendices. Fourthly, a summary of the
participant and practitioner evaluations collected is provided with the full collation of these
evaluations available in the appendices. Fifthly, the participant observations are included.
Finally, on the basis of the above five sections a discussion of the engagement event’s
degree of success based on a triangulation of the above data sets concludes the case study.



14
3.1    Roundtables
Engagement Tool
Roundtables are a forum where ideas are shared between participants, usually on a specific
topic. Roundtables can include over 100 participants but become less effective if participants
struggle to be heard. Roundtables are often held on a regular basis for participants to raise
new or unresolved issues. Roundtables have been used in numerous settings, such as:
   •   Business (eg. Wall Street Reporter Roundtables
       <http://www.wallstreetreporter.com/analysts/>),
   •   Community (eg. Australia’s National Youth Roundtables
       <http://www.thesource.gov.au/involve/NYR/previous_roundtables.asp>)
   •   Science (eg. USA NOAAs National Ocean Service Roundtables
       <http://www.oceanservice.noaa.gov/roundtables/welcome.html>).
Roundtables are similar to focus groups, but usually include more participants and are
usually not one-off events.


Application of Tool
A series of 17 roundtables were held across SEQ Catchments from May to June 2006. The
roundtables targeted local NRM experts and organisations capable of ground-truthing
available subcatchment data collated by SEQC and advising on the investment priorities
against which applications for funding projects should be assessed (see Appendices 1.1 and
1.3). The roundtables aimed to “… provide a forum for organisations and individuals to:
   •   critique available data on the state of natural resources in the region and advise of
       local catchment priorities for investment;
   •   discuss the current state of our natural assets and the actions required to address the
       threats impacting upon them;
   •   continue the process of building upon current and identifying new partnerships for the
       investment of Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) and National Action Plan for Salinity and
       Water Quality (NAPSWQ) in South East Queensland; and
   •   review NHT and NAPSWQ investment made in your area in the past and learn from
       and/or build upon the experience”
(SEQC, downloaded from www.seqcatchments.com.au June 2006).




                                                                                            15
Background
The Roundtables were run using a community consultation engagement approach. A formal
presentation of information was followed by small group discussion in order to ground-truth
that information and then discuss future opportunities for developing projects through
SEQC’s Regional Investment Strategy (RIS). The formal presentation provided a RIS update
for participants. A folder was provided to each participant that contained a set of fact sheets
and a comprehensive set of large regional maps showing the condition of natural resources
derived from multiple sources around the region. These maps formed the basis of ground-
truthing SEQC’s resource condition assessment against local knowledge within the small
groups. Three hours were allowed to progress through these tasks.


Three of the 17 roundtables were selected as case studies, two that were held in the peri-
urban subcatchments of SEQ and one that was held with industries relevant to the SEQ
region generally in Brisbane city. These were Roundtable Number 5: Bremer on the 23rd
May 2006, Roundtable Number 8: Lockyer on the 5th June 2006 and Roundtable Number 17:
Industry on the 28th June 2006.


Summary of Roundtables
Roundtable            Sub-region                Date                 Total
Number                                                               participants
1                     Logan/Albert              15th May
2                     Northern                  16th May
3                     Upper Brisbane            18th May
4                     Bremer                    19th May
5                     Bremer                    23rd May             27
6                     Gold Coast                24th May
7                     Brisbane                  2nd June
8                     Lockyer                   5th June             16
9                     Redlands                  6th June
10                    Islands                   6th June
11                    Ipswich City Council      7th June
12                    Boonah Shire Council      7th June
13                    Pine                      8th June
14                    Pine Rivers Council       8th June
15                    Pumicestone               15th June
16                    Noosa                     22nd June
17                    Industry                  28th June            9



3.1.1 Bremer Roundtable

A total of 34 people attended the roundtable, 9 of whom were SEQC engagement
practitioners or CSIRO researchers. Seven apologies were received from interested
individuals who were unable to attend. Participants were drawn from the local River Trust,
Catchment, Landcare, Wetland and native plant groups, local businesses, and agencies

16
such as water authorities, Powerlink, and the Queensland Department of Natural Resources
and Water (DNRW).


The evaluation comments collected from the 3 engagement practitioners running the
roundtable and 19 of the participants in the roundtable process were consistent with each
other (see Appendix 1.2). The wide cross-section of participants was viewed positively as it
afforded participants the opportunity to hear other views, share local information, and meet
like minded people. The discussion generated by asking participants to ground-truth the
scientific data presented was highly valued. Fourteen statements were made in the 19
participant evaluations that the results of the roundtable would be discussed with their local
Landcare and Catchment groups or home organisations, and subsequently used in their
development of projects. The further engagement needs identified by participants focused on
round table follow-up, issue specific roundtables, demonstrations and presentations, as well
as assistance with NRM project development.


The improvements desired for the roundtable process were identified as: the use of better,
more detailed, more localised mapping; more time to work through the specific issues for the
subcatchment; and more time to focus on the desired outcomes of the roundtable.
Practitioners also noted that more timely promotion could have improved attendance,
particularly attendance by the sub-regions’ Local Governments. The practitioners also
commented that provision of a list of attendees would have helped to facilitate networking
among roundtable participants.


The mean scores of the participant and practitioner evaluation scores were high,
demonstrating that this roundtable was generally considered successful.


Participant Evaluations
                   Content/      Facilitation/ Participation    Application     Venue/
                   Structure     Speakers                                       Catering
Mean score
out of 10          7.2           8.4            8               7.6             8.2

Practitioner Evaluations
                   Content/      Facilitation/ Participation    Application     Venue/
                   Structure     Speakers                                       Catering
Mean score
out of 10          7.5           8              8.6             8.3             8.6

The collated participant and practitioner evaluation results are reproduced in Appendix 1.2.




                                                                                               17
3.1.2 Lockyer Roundtable

The Lockyer Roundtable was designed for the SEQC sub-region of the Lockyer Community.
Participants included representatives of CSIRO, University of Queensland, the Queensland
State Agencies of Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (QDPI&F) and the
Department of Natural Resources and Water (QDNRW), Local Government (Esk and Gatton
Shire Councils), Lockyer Catchment Association, Greening Australia, Landcare and SEQC.
There were approximately 16 participants and 6 engagement practitioners in attendence.


There was an agenda in place and the purpose of the Roundtable was explained. There was
plenty of opportunity in both the large group and the small groups for discussion on a range
of topics. For example, discussion generated by the question ‘How do you engage the non-
engaged?’ led to the suggestion that a future project funded by SEQC could incorporate a
workshop dealing with this topic for Landcare Co-ordinators.


Some participants commented that the night meeting time slot allowed their attendance,
although other participants found the night meeting difficult. There were no complaints about
the location as for many participants the Lockyer Catchment Centre was a familiar place to
meet. The atmosphere of this roundtable was positive, assisted by the fact that one of the
roundtable facilitators had previously held a close relationship with this community for over 8
years. Reciprocally, recognition of the value of local knowledge from the facilitators was high.


Not all participants and practitioners filled out an evaluation form. However, the 6 practitioner
and 8 participant evaluations collated (see Appendix 1.4) indicated that the event was
considered successful. The improvements suggested included the use of more detailed local
maps and more time for discussion.


Participant Evaluations
                    Content/     Facilitation/ Participation      Application    Venue/
                    Structure    Speakers                                        Catering
Mean score
out of 10           7.9          8.0             8.5              7.4            7.6

Practitioner Evaluations
                    Content/     Facilitation/ Participation      Application    Venue/
                    Structure    Speakers                                        Catering
Mean score
out of 10           8.2          8               8.2              7.4            7.4

The collated participant and practitioner evaluation results are reproduced in Appendix 1.3.



18
3.1.3 Industry Roundtable

The Industry Roundtable aimed to strengthen the existing industry based NRM network and
develop new connections within this professional network. Participants included 9
representatives from QLD Farmers Federation, the Department of Primary Industries and
Fisheries SEQ Futures and private consultants and 3 SEQC practitioners. An email glitch
concerning the invitations may have impacted on the low number of industry representatives
(SEQC rescheduling another industry roundtable in response to this problem). The
roundtable was held at the SEQ Catchment office in Primary Producers House in central
Brisbane. Its co-tenants include AgForce, QFF, GrowCom and others. Many participants
found that it was a convenient location.


The meeting started on time but went slightly more than three hours. It was not clear if all
participants were aware of the agenda or clear of the purpose of the meeting, however these
matters were clarified at the beginning of the meeting. It was useful for some participants to
be briefed on the outcomes of previous roundtables held across the region in terms of the
development and implementation of SEQC’s RIS. Though for others a summary of the major
potential industry partnerships identified across the region would have sufficed. A potential
future opportunity was identified as a result of this roundtable - the modification of the
QDPI&F Grazing Land Management (GLM) package to suit peri-urban agriculture in SEQC.


The evaluation comments collected from 3 practitioners and 9 participants (see Appendix
1.2) indicated that discussion and information sharing formed the highlight of the roundtable
while poor attendance from industry representatives constituted a set back. The evaluation
scores show that participants felt that the applications arising out of the roundtable were
somewhat weak. In terms of further engagement needs, the industry roundtable participants
wanted better documented and distributed follow-up discussions.


Practitioner Evaluations
                    Content/     Facilitation/ Participation    Application     Venue/
                    Structure    Speakers                                       Catering
Mean score
out of 10           7.7          8.4            7.7             7.7             7

Participant Evaluations
                    Content/     Facilitation/ Participation    Application     Venue/
                    Structure    Speakers                                       Catering
Mean score
out of 10           8            8.2            7.7             6.3             8.8

The collated participant and practitioner evaluation results are reproduced in Appendix 1.5.


                                                                                               19
3.1.4 In summary

The roundtables were an effective engagement tool for SEQC’s task of deploying its RIS
sub-regionally. The evaluations indicated that the effort taken by SEQC to incorporate local
knowledge and expertise into its regional planning process by was appreciated by the target
audience. The round tables stimulated awareness and the development of NRM activities
and projects in home organisations of participants as the participants are themselves
engagement practitioners involved in catchment and landcare groups, peak industry bodies,
Local Governments etc.


Improvements to the roundtable process suggested by the evaluation included:
     •   More time, (participants did not generally believe that three hours was long enough)
     •   More detailed mapping
     •   Better forward planning to improve attendance
It should also be noted that the long-term effectiveness of the round table engagement tool is
contingent upon appropriate follow up on the roundtable discussions by SEQC in terms of
project development.




20
3.2    Field Days
Engagement Tool:
Field trips are organised trips where participants visit physical sites. They are a venue for
providing information and at times, opportunities for participant input. Public input is possible
when other participative activities are combined with the field trip. A popular technique for
environmental, planning and design related participation processes; field trips are especially
useful as a complement to conference presentations, or when written work, such as reports,
are inappropriate. Field trips aim to let people 'see for themselves' the place where a
development is proposed to be placed, or to have a demonstration of a technique, for
example, water quality testing, in the environment where the technique can be tried, and
where it is most able to be seen, remembered, and understood. Field trips provide people
with an understanding about a place and/or practice that allows them to incorporate a new
method into their practice, or to provide informed opinions on a proposal or issue.
Uses/strengths:
   •   Used when the issue being considered has a geographic focus
   •   Used when a large number of stakeholders are involved in the process
   •   Used where participants require information or education and these are best provided
       or explained on-site
   •   Used when a demonstration will be more effective than presentations
   •   Adds transparency and education to the process of participation
   •   Provides opportunity for rapport with key stakeholders
   •   Creates greater public knowledge of issues and processes
(Urban Research Program tool box, https://www3.secure.griffith.edu.au/03/toolbox/)


“Well planned and conducted field days and farm walks are effective forms of education.
Those attending can see and discuss practices, operate equipment or handle the plants and
animals under discussion – all within an informal and friendly setting … Field days are
usually large gatherings where a general invitation has been sent out. They are often held
on research stations or trial sites, usually involve guest speakers, and may be opened by
political figures … Farm walks differ from large field days in their depth of personal
interaction. Because farm walks involve small groups of producers, each person is able to
ask questions about what is seen and discuss it in relation to their own properties”
(Mortiss,1993:56)


Application of Tool
The SEQC field days used as case studies for this report include:
   •   Seven Sustainable Landscape Management Project Field Days, held throughout the

                                                                                               21
         western catchments of SEQ over September and October of 2006 and employed to
         communicate the findings of the Ag 14 research project;
     •   The Creeks, Weeds and Cows Riparian Management Field Day held in Boonah Shire
         in February 2006 to communicate relevant research findings on riparian management
         and restoration, advertise the availability of a spraying unit for treating weeds in
         riparian zones and showcase a riparian restoration project on a small property and
     •   The Cats Claw Creeper Field Day held in October 2006 in Boonah Shire and focused
         on the demonstration of 3 treatment techniques to deal with an intractable weed
         infesting private and public lands.



3.2.1 Sustainable Landscape Management Project Field Days

Background
The purpose of this series of seven field days was to communicate the findings of
Agricultural State Investment Project No. 14 - Adoption of Sustainable Landscape Design
Practices on Small Holdings. The Ag.SIP 14 project is a sister project to Ag.SIP 18 Peri-
urban engagement project. The relationship envisaged between these two projects was that
Ag14 would define the ecological principles for managing peri-urban landscapes and that Ag
18 would define best practice for engaging peri-urban stakeholders and land holders.


The field days were held on the peri-urban properties of landholders participating in the Ag
14 research project by providing case study sites. The half day field days were held by
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems in the following areas: Yarraman, Gatton, Toogoolawah,
Plainland, Boonah, Kilcoy, and Rosewood. The over-arching topic of the field days
concerned landscape management principles and their application to peri-urban settings.
The field days were held over September and October of 2006 during week days. The target
audiences were peri-urban landholders, industry associations, Local Government planners
and engagement practitioners. Two Ag 18 team members conducted the seven evaluations.
The Sustainable Management Field Day handout is reproduced in Appendix 2.1.1.


As can be seen from the following table, participant numbers were relatively low. In one case
the field day did not take place as no participants arrived.




22
Summary of Sustainable Landscape Management Project Field Days
Field Day       Date       Land-use        Sub-topics                   Participants      No.
Rosewood        13/9/06    Commercial      Riparian management,         Media, local      6
                           horticulture    woodland patch               council, land
                                           viability, integrated pest   holders
                                           management
Kilcoy          19/9/06    Amenity         Farm forestry,               DPI,              16
                           agriculture     woodland patch               landholders,
                                           management, fire             council,
                                           management, wildlife         Landcare group
Yarraman        20/9/06    Amenity         Woodland patch               Local council,    14
                           agriculture     management and               landholders,
                                           revegetation, soil           Landcare group
                                           conservation, property
                                           planning
Gatton          12/10/06   Amenity         Fire management,             No participants   0
                           agriculture     creek buffers,
                                           revegetation, wildlife
Boonah          13/10/06   Lifestyle       Fire management,             Landholders,      18
                                           revegetation, wildlife       media, DPI
Toogoolawah     18/10/06   Commercial      Soil conservation,           Local council,    20
                           dairy           revegetation, and QLD        QFF,
                                           Dairyfarmers’                landholders,
                                           Organisation’ Farm           Greening
                                           Management System            Australia, DPI,
                                                                        Landcare group
Plainland       19/10/06   Commercial      Growcom                      Growcom,          11
                           horticulture    Environmental                landholders
                                           Management System,
                                           property planning,
                                           woodland patch
                                           management

Participant observations
Rosewood
The over-arching topic of the field day was the application of landscape principles to peri-
urban settings. The specific topics of the day included riparian management, woodland patch
viability, and integrated pest management. This 121 hectare property is devoted to lucerne
and vegetable production. The field day was held in the shed and then moved out to a
property paddock that was used for IPM as well as a buffer/filtration zone between the
property’s intensive agriculture and the creek. There were only six participants, one left early
and did not submit an evaluation form. There were five practitioners, all of whom completed
an evaluation form.


Attendance on the day was poor and formed a focus for both practitioner and participant
comments. Both groups valued the field day’s informal discussion of the information and
expressed the opinion that advertising to achieve better attendance needed to be improved.
The practitioners were also pleased with the site as looking at the farm in the landscape was

                                                                                                23
effective    stimulant     to   discussion.   Misunderstanding,     confusion,    resentment     and
misinformation regarding the Vegetation Act were expressed by the participants. The Act is
viewed      as   forming    a   strong   disincentive   for   landholders   to   engage   in   native
revegetation/connectivity projects. However, participant comments regarding further
engagement needs were focused on the need for researchers to educate planners and the
need for Local Governments and/or SEQC to educate new landholders about land
management.


Kilcoy
The over-arching topic of the field day was the application of landscape principles to peri-
urban settings. Specific topics included farm forestry, woodland patch management, fire
management, wildlife. A retired couple run this amenity 16.25 hectare property as a cattle
grazing stud. The over-arching topic of the field day was the application of landscape
principles to peri-urban settings. The field day was held in a shed with a view out to the
landscape and did not incorporate a paddock walk. The participants valued the field day
most for the discussion generated but would have preferred a paddock walk to have been
incorporated in to the field day. Disappointment that more locals did not attend was also
expressed. The practitioners also valued the discussion generated and believed the
landscape on view from the site stimulated the discussion. However, some frustration with
the difficulty in demonstrating concrete applications of the knowledge presented was
expressed. The group was also found to be caught up in blame shifting and expressing
grievances regarding rural residential subdivision rather than focusing upon constructive
outcomes. Application emerged as a weak point during this field day both for on-ground
management change and influencing planning processes


Yarraman
The over-arching topic of the field day was the application of landscape principles to peri-
urban settings. Specific topics included woodland patch management and revegetation, soil
conservation, property planning. This 77 hectare property is used for cattle grazing by a
retired couple. The field day was held in a washed out gully and degraded woodland patch.
The participants commended the field day speakers for demonstrating how such degradation
can be repaired and valued the discussion generated on the day. The success of the field
day in participants’ eyes was reflected in requests for more of the same type of engagement
event and interest in seeing the outcomes of implementation of the research
recommendations communicated. Two comments were received on the importance of
engaging new landholders. The practitioners were also pleased with the practical
demonstration by the range of speakers on the day and noted that better attendance would
have been preferable. Holding the discussion in the degradation caused by poor


24
management was extremely effective in focusing attention on what needs to be done rather
than engage in discussions regarding who and what was to blame for peri-urbanisation.


Gatton
The over-arching topic of the field day was the application of landscape principles to peri-
urban settings. Specific topics included fire management, creek buffers, revegetation and
wildlife. This 16.75 hectare property is used for amenity agriculture (horticulture) No
participants attended this field day despite the event being well promoted through the
catchment by CSIRO and SEQC. Phone calls to neighbours had been made by the
landholders hosting the field day on their property, some of whom were expected to attend.
There were no known conflicting engagements on that day of the week. The practitioner
discussion of this engagement failure revolved around the following factors:
    •      NRM issues may not be relevant or high priority at this time;
    •      The field day’s timing during the working week may not have suited those working
           normal business hours;
    •      The field day location may have been too far away/ not easy to get to.
It was concluded that it only takes one of these factors to not work for the engagement event
to fail.


Boonah
The over-arching topic of the field day was the application of landscape principles to peri-
urban settings. Specific topics included fire management, revegetation and wildlife. This field
day was held at a 32.7 hectare property positioned on a vegetated hillside and is used as a
lifestyle block with no commercial activities. The site worked well for engagement purposes.
Participants described it as relevant and attractive example of conservation. Looking at the
landscape from the veranda was an excellent facilitation strategy and the recently burned
woodland formed a strong focus for a discussion of burning as a weed control strategy. The
participants were drawn from those members of SEQC’s developing NRM participant
database with an interest in the topic and resulted in good attendance. There was a high
level of interest and discussion in the social aspects of peri-urban development and changes
in the landscape and community. The informal discussion generated was valued by both the
participants and practitioners with comments by both on how it could have been further
enhanced with tighter facilitation


Toogoolawah
The over-arching topic of the field day was the application of landscape principles to peri-
urban settings. Specific topics included soil conservation, revegetation, and the Queensland
Dairyfarmers’ Organisation’s Farm Management System. This field day was held at a 133


                                                                                             25
hectare commercial dairy with a milking herd of 200 with no tree stands remaining and
containing a Brisbane River riparian zone. The field day began in the dairy and then moved
to the riparian zone to discuss revegetation. Participants included representatives from QFF
(2), QDPI&F (2), CSIRO (3), SEQC (8), dairy farmers (about 8), partner projects (2), and the
property owner (1). The participants commended the speakers and their presentation of the
research information. The discussion and the site were also appreciated and a preference for
more discussion and more detailed use of the site was expressed. The participants wanted
engagement that involved the community in catchment management, including more help for
landholders to implement improvements in land management.              Both practitioners and
participants commented that the lack of shade and the number of flies were problematic. The
practitioners believed that the speakers, site and practical demonstration of the ecological
principles worked well and that the participants represented a good cross-section of farmers
and relevant industry, NRM and state agencies. Good discussion took place clarifying the
purpose of revegetation e.g. initial incentive of shade and bank stabilization with long term
objective of re-establishing biodiversity. It is possible that strong opinions and a large group
could have dampened general discussion – breaking into smaller groups using an activity
may have been useful.


Plainland
The over-arching topic of the field day was the application of landscape principles to peri-
urban settings. Specific topics included Environmental Management Systems, property
planning and woodland patch management. The field day was held at a 28 hectare property
fully utilised for commercial horticulture cropping. Pleasant landscape surroundings created a
comfortable environment while the small group and informal format encouraged a range of
discussion and questions. The main issue under discussion on this day was the research
finding that perhaps peri-urban development in this agricultural landscape has already
sacrificed biodiversity. The challenge to maintain biodiversity may have been better focussed
on other parts of the catchment. The participants appreciated the information provided and
would have liked a report to take away.


Participant and practitioner evaluations
As can be seen from the following summary of both the participant and practitioner ratings
the field day information and discussion generated by that information rated highly. However,
practical advice on how to apply this information and discussion on-ground was viewed as a
weaker aspect of the field days:




26
Summary of participant ratings
Field days  Approx. no. Content/              Facilitation/   Participation Application
            participants Structure            Speakers
Rosewood    6              7.5                7.8             9.75          8
Kilcoy      15             7.45               7.81            8.36          6.14
Yarraman    11             8.55               8.75            7.88          7.28
Gatton       No participants
Boonah      18             7.7                8.4             8.5           7.8
Toogoolawah 20             7.9                7.8             7.9           7.9
Plainland   11             8.2                8.3             8.8           8.0

Summary of practitioner ratings
Field days  Number of          Content/       Facilitation/   Participation Application
            practitioners      Structure      Speakers
Rosewood    5                  8              8               9.6            8
Kilcoy      4                  7.5            8.5             9              6
Yarraman    4                  7.5            8.5             7.75           6.33
Gatton      No participants
Boonah      5                  8.5            8.5             8.5            8.5
Toogoolawah 3                  7              7.5             7              6
Plainland   2                  8.5            8.5             9.5            5

These ratings are underlined by the participant comments that the information provided and
discussion facilitated was valuable but highlighted the need to improve attendance, engage
with the institutional actors facilitating peri-urban development, engage more broadly and
concertedly with new peri-urban landholders as well as provide more practical assistance to
landholders to improve their NRM.


Similarly the practitioner comments valued the discussion generated by the field days, felt
attendance needed to be improved, more practical advice needed to be provided to peri-
urban landholders and that the institutional actors facilitating peri-urban development needed
to be targeted regarding the AG 14 research findings.




                                                                                            27
Summary of participant comments
Field days      Best about field day    Improvements                     Engagement needs
Rosewood        Discussion              Better advertising to            Educate new
                                        increase attendance              landholders
Kilcoy          Discussion              Incorporation of a field walk    Target local and state
                                        and increase attendance          governments. Target
                                                                         residents through
                                                                         rates notices
Yarraman        Speakers’ application   More of same, seeing the         Effective
                of knowledge and the    outcomes of                      implementation of
                discussion              recommendations over time        research findings
                                        and engagement new
                                        landholders
Gatton          No participants
Boonah          Informative,            Tighter facilitation (eg.        Fire and weed
                informality of          introductions/ name tags)        management written
                discussion                                               material and field
                                                                         days, property
                                                                         management
                                                                         planning
Toogoolawah The speakers and            More shade and less flies,       Involvement of
            their information as        more discussion, more            community in
            well as the discussion      detailed use of site             catchment
            generated and the                                            management, more
            site                                                         help for landholders
                                                                         to implement
Plainland       Discussion and          Report to take away              Broader (more)
                information                                              engagement

Summary of practitioner comments
Field days      Best about field day    Worst about field day       Improvements
Rosewood        Discussion and          Poor attendance             Better attendance, engage
                Landholder                                          planners
                engagement via site
Kilcoy          Good attendance and     Difficulty demonstrating    Engage decision makers
                discussion. The view    application and a           such as planners, target
                of the landscape from   complaining group           new landholders with
                the property                                        messages, improve
                                                                    attendance
Yarraman        Demonstration of        Poor attendance by          Target wider audience with
                how knowledge can       landholders                 broader publicity and
                be applied, and the                                 better signage
                participation of the                                Increase the practical
                group                                               component
Gatton                                  No attendance by            Hold field day on week-end
                                        landholders                 (outside business hours)
Boonah      Good site – showing         Worked very well            More facilitation of
            burnt woodland and                                      discussion and practical
            dry vine scrub                                          application
Toogoolawah Practical approach          Not enough shade and        Shade and Aerogard
                                        too many flies
Plainland       Discussion              Difficult industry group    More hands on

The collated participant and practitioner evaluation results are reproduced in Appendix 2.2.



28
In Summary
The AG 14 scientific findings being communicated at the field days concern how the
ecological fragmentation caused by the infrastructure demands, and multiplication of land
management regimes, has a cumulatively negative effect upon biodiversity in the SEQ peri-
urban region. The engagement tool of field days only partially addressed the engagement
needs suggested by these findings. The primary AG 14 research finding is necessarily
concerned with the effect of peri-urban development at a landscape scale. The engagement
audience for that finding are the organisations facilitating rural residential sub-division,
namely the QLD Department of Local Government and Planning, the region’s Local
Governments and the land development industry. The need to address planners has since
been addressed by the Ag 14 research team by employing the engagement tool of a
planners’ workshop. This workshop is dealt with in section 3.4.2.


At all of the peri-urban field days there was a high level of interest expressed by participants
in the social and institutional aspects of NRM. Landholders themselves do not have influence
over the institutional arrangements governing peri-urban development. In terms of those
social aspects, frustration was expressed regarding neighbours who do not want to do the
‘right’ thing. It is not clear that the site-specific field days were an appropriate engagement
tool by which to address the complex problem of facilitating and building consensus on land
management practices across small property borders. These discussions did, however, point
to a pertinent engagement research question deserving further exploration, namely: What is
the best way for NRM engagement practitioners to support a landholder undertaking NRM to
approach a disinterested or hostile neighbour regarding cooperation to progress NRM across
property boundaries?


The impact of the field days was limited by poor attendance however the discussion
generated by the information provided was highly valued by both the participants and
practitioners. This suggests that some field days need to be held on the weekend as NRM
issues do not commonly form part and parcel of core economic business in a peri-urban
context as they do in agricultural communities.


The information presented and discussion facilitated was highly valued at all of the
(attended) field days. It is striking how the characteristics of each property, along with the
land management goals of each participating landholder, determined the content of the field
day’s discussion. These discussion points included IPM, managing and restoring degraded
woodland patches, riparian zone restoration and management, weed management
techniques and NRM applied to dairy farms. Of these discussion points, the topic most
central to the AG 14 project findings concerned woodland patch management. The field days


                                                                                              29
may have been more effective if focused on one clear topic that incorporated demonstrations
of landscape principles such as woodland patch management and restoration.




30
3.2.2 The Riparian Management Field Day

Background
This field day formed a collaboration between the Boonah Shire, River Improvement Trust
and SEQ Catchments aimed at encouraging landholders to get involved in the eradication of
the invasive Chinese Celtis (Celtis Sinensis) from the Boonah Shire’s waterways.The field
day was held at the Boonah and District Cultural Centre on Wednesday, 22nd February
2006. Techniques for managing Chinese Elm as well as other riparian management issues
such as stock access and vegetation management were discussed. Details of funding
assistance were made available to landholders, particularly the discounted use of a spraying
unit. The Boonah Shire River Improvement Trust project involved the use of a contractor to
carry out weed control along sections of the Upper Bremer River, Boyd Creek, Warrill Creek,
Washpool Gully, and Reynolds Creek.


The objective of the field day for the River Trust was to encourage landholders to undertake
follow-up treatment of weed re-growth in the treated areas on a yearly basis by providing
information and assistance.The Field Day began with a plenary focused on the Celtis
infestation within Boonah Shire, followed by four rotating information sessions covering
managing riparian weeds and woody debris, managing stock in riparian areas, water quality
and sediment loads, and stream bank stability. The day concluded with a bus tour to look at
the spraying unit followed by lunch on a small property devoted to riparian restoration. A flier
for the field day is reproduced in Appendix 2.3.1


Evaluations
Although over 100 individuals attended the field day, only 27 of these participants completed
evaluation sheets. Of the 24 comments that were made about the best aspects of the field
day, 14 emphasised the information presented and 7 concerned the discussion generated by
the topics and the organisation of the information into four rotating sessions/speakers. Of the
18 comments offered on the least successful aspects of the field day, 8 stressed the need for
more practical, localised and demonstrated applications of riparian management information.
Six comments indicated that not enough time was made available to work through the
presentation of information, discussion of the information and demonstrations of its
application. Similarly, of the 14 suggestions made regarding further SEQC engagement
events, half concerned the need for practical demonstration in the field.


The medium scores for the field day indicated that the day was considered a success by the
participants and that the venue/catering and the speakers/facilitators were the main
strengths. The degree of applicability of the information presented, in contrast, was viewed


                                                                                              31
as a weakness.


Summary of participant ratings
Content/ Facilitation/ Participation Application Venue/
Structure Speakers                               Catering
7.3       8.1          7.6           6.8         8.7

The 18 participant evaluation comments were largely focused on the issue of application.
While 3 comments indicated that they already applied the knowledge presented, 3 indicated
that the knowledge would be extended to landholders in the course of the participants’ work,
2 comments indicated that the knowledge would not be put into practice. However, 6
comments indicated the need for more practical information and demonstration of practices
in order to facilitate application.


Eight practitioner evaluation sheets were collected, 7 of which were fully completed. In terms
of the most successful aspects of the field day, 13 comments were made to the effect that
the discussion facilitated by the four small group and the field trip atmosphere assisted them
in building relationships with landholders. Four additional comments were made that there
was good attendance by diverse landholders. On the question on what could have been
done better, 12 comments revolved around more time or better organisation to facilitate
further discussion or practical demonstrations. Three observations were made regarding one
presentation of views that were inappropriate for the audience. Three further comments
concerned better technical management, including attention to the effect of poor acoustics on
discussion.


As the medium scores below indicate, the practitioners believed that the demonstrated
application of the information needs improvement. Secondly, comments were made that the
day could have been more tightly organised and facilitated.


Summary of practitioner ratings
Content/ Facilitation/ Participation Application Venue/
Structure Speakers                               Catering
8.1       7.6          8.1           6.6         9

The collated participant and practitioner evaluation results are reproduced in Appendix 2.4.




32
Participant observations
One of the rotating sessions, focused on riparian zone rehabilitation via fencing and resting
that zone from grazing pressure seemed controversial. The problem appeared to be the
insensitivity of the presentation to the diversity of participant experiences regarding weed
infestations following relief of grazing pressure and under estimation of the usefulness of
controlled grazing as a weed management tool.


Polarisation between longstanding farmers and new tree change landholders was evident in
the opening plenary and four smaller sessions. A belligerent disparaging attitude by long
term landholders was observed and found in the participant evaluation forms in the form of
comments such as “a patronising talkfest”, “waste of time attending” and “farmers have the
answers”. The hunger for practical knowledge among new landholders was evident in the
evaluation sheets and tentatively expressed in the smaller four rotating sessions.


The possibility for constructive discourse between these typically polarised groups of
landholders was advanced by the second longer field visit to a peri-urban property. The
owner of this small acreage had embarked on an ambitious riparian rehabilitation program.
The relating of anecdotes regarding how this landowner gradually bridged differences with
his neighbouring agriculturalist landholder to arrive at a common position that the riparian
land held by the peri-urban landholder was worth rehabilitation. Here it was demonstrated
that cooperation across property borders was possible, in this case in the form of an
agreement to fence the agricultural side of the creek to exclude stock from the creek section.


In Summary
The field day successfully presented an integrated institutional front, demonstrating
cooperation between SEQC, the Boonah Shire Council and the Boonah Shire Council River
Improvement Trust. Attendance on the day was excellent, despite the fact that it was held
during the working week. Attendance may have been broadened if the field day was held on
the weekend. Just as was expressed at the peri-urban field days, the presentation of relevant
information and facilitation of general discussion was a successful aspect of the riparian field
day. Observation of one session, however, drew attention to the need for presenters to
incorporate the local knowledge and experiences of participants into the discussions
following presentations.    However, advertising the availability of a spraying unit and
showcasing a riparian zone restoration project was not accepted as sufficiently practical
assistance to landholders by the field day participants. The field day would have been
improved by practical demonstration of riparian management practices (such as eradication
of specific problem weeds) in the field.


                                                                                              33
3.2.3 Cats Claw Creeper Field Day

Background
The Catsclaw Creeper field day was held on the 20th of October in 2006 in Boonah Shire as a
follow up response to the interest in more practical applications expressed by participants in
the above mentioned Riparian field day. Specifically, high levels of interest were expressed
in the management of difficult to treat weeds such as Cats Claw Creeper. Cats Claw Creeper
cannot be killed by chemical spraying alone due to the persistence of tubers. Consequently,
treatment is labour intensive and tends to be avoided by landholders which in turn makes the
weed infestations more intractable.


The distribution of evaluation sheets and participative observation of CSIRO researchers
were not conducted on this field day. It has been included as a case study at the request of
SEQC because the field day was considered to be highly successful and the reasons for that
success worth capturing. This view was expressed in a SEQC managerial email to all SEQC
staff:


Sent:           Tuesday, 24 October 2006 6:17 PM
To:             SEQC - All Staff
Subject:        Cats Claw Field Day

“To all the organisers of the Cats Claw Field day … I wish to congratulate you all on probably
the best field day that I have ever been too. The team successfully combined the following:
     •   Attendance by about 75 local landholders plus organisers;
     •   A well structured day allowing for good group and individual discussions and
         observations;
     •   Mapping of weed distribution in the catchment by participants for future projects;
     •   Demonstration of various methods of managing the environmental weed Cat’s Claw
         on a landholder’s property in the district using the culmination of a demonstration
         project with indigenous work crews involved with follow-up treatment on the day;
     •   Getting agencies, landholders and companies to share their experience (both good
         and bad) in this weed’s management;
     •   Clarification of agency / landholder responsibilities regarding weed management in
         the riparian zone;
     •   Trade displays by local businesses;
     •   A suitable lunch and morning tea on the property sponsored by a partner; and
     •   A firm likelihood of further cooperative projects following on from the day.
This day set the bar high for subsequent follow-up but I am sure that this team is up to it.



34
Evaluations
This evaluation was constructed post hoc primarily relying interviews with three of the
engagement practitioners concerned which informs the discussion following. An attempt was
made to distribute retrospective evaluation sheets, however only one participant and two
practitioner responses were able to be collected.


Participant and practitioner ratings
                 Content/       Facilitation/   Participation   Application    Venue/
                 Structure      Speakers                                       Catering
Participant      9              9               8               7              8
Practitioner 1   9              9               9                              10
Practitioner 2   8              8               9               7              9

The participant described the day as well planned and run, enjoyable, balanced (by a good
range of knowledge and perspectives) and practical. They commented that they enjoyed the
interaction of the day, being on site to see the trials, the valuing of participant’s experience
and knowledge and believed the day would have been improved by a summing up session.
The practitioners commented that the most successful aspects of the filed day included: the
community input and participation; mapping of infestations; level of interest amongst
landholders; support from government and semi-government agencies. The displays,
catering and venue were cited as the other aspects of the field day that worked well (use of a
shed with access to a fridge was good for the catering and sitting the participants under the
trees made a relaxed environment for the landholder participants). One practitioner believed
the field day could have been improved with more focus on weed mapping and greater
interaction between participants. In terms of future modification of engagement events, one
practitioner commented that they would: ensure someone is there to greet arrivals; interact
more with participants; and choose a day that suits the local council but not always wait for
their directive as to the date and time.


In Summary
Seven elements stand out in the successful design and conduct of this field day:
   1. basing the day on a local galvanising issue;
   2. issuing personal invitations;
   3. use of weekend time slot;
   4. presentation of a united institutional front;
   5. local knowledge collection on the day;
   6. practical demonstration on the day; and
   7. formulation of a clear follow-up plan.


Firstly, the field day was based on a galvanising issue. The use of an issue of concern and

                                                                                              35
interest to landholders was not an accident but the result of listening to the views of
landholders that were expressed both at former SEQC engagement events and to SEQC
institutional stakeholders such as Boonah Shire Council. This engagement event, in short,
was based on bottom-up identification of a pressing NRM priority.


Secondly, SEQC used personal invitations to 100 people that included a fridge magnet to
stick the invitation in a prominent place. The preference of new landholders (unfamiliar with
NRM events, activities and networks) for personal invitations was identified in the second
Ag18 typology of landholders report. This list of potential participants had been generated
from the evolving database based on the participants of previous SEQC engagement events.
More conventionally, a news item was run in a Boonah Shire Council newsletter, press
releases organised and newspaper advertisements placed. Thirdly, a weekend time slot was
used. This strategy brought more non commercial agriculture landholders and a reduced
presence of traditional agriculturalists. Consequently, a healthier pattern of interaction
between traditional and new landholders was noticed: “they mixed well, appreciated that
people live differently and use land for different purposes” (Interview with SEQC engagement
practitioner, October 24th, 2006).


Fourthly, a united institutional front was presented that brought together community groups
and government agencies relevant to addressing the weed infestation. In terms of the
government agencies, although SEQC was the primary funding source for the field day,
contributions were also made by SunWater (use of eskies and $400) and Boonah Shire
Council (use of a port-a-loo worth $1000). Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service gave a
talk. The active presence of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Sunwater was
reassuring to landholders. A show of good faith by both agencies was important because
they are responsible for public lands that have heavy infestations of Cats Claw Creeper that
private landholders view as a threat to their weed management efforts. In terms of
community groups, a local producer group had a presence at the field day, as did an
indigenous church group that SEQC had contracted as a weed treatment service provider on
the landholders’ property that was used as the field day site. The Boonah Landcare Group
was also present to pursue new members for their relatively inactive group. Such a united
institutional front is highly advantageous for overcoming past distrust of government
agencies, re-energising local group membership, and actively drawing indigenous groups
into the NRM effort. These three barriers were identified in the first Ag18 review of
engagement practices report.


Fifthly, local knowledge was gathered at the field day. Participants were encouraged to bring
photographs of their weed infestations and asked to mark their properties SEQC catchment


36
maps. This spatial mapping of Cats Claw infestations made “people feel part of the process
(Interview with SEQC engagement practitioner, October 24th, 2006).This exercise showed
that many of the attending landholders’ properties backed onto a national park with heavy
Cats Claw infestations on steep, inaccessible land.


Sixthly, a practical demonstration of three related weed treatment techniques for Cats Claw
(spray, cutting and painting the vine, and controlled grazing for killing new seedlings) was
given. These three methods were advertised in advance in the field day flier/invitation. These
methods had been trialled on the private property on which the field day was held. SEQC
had sought a relationship with this particular landholder as the property had a heavy
infestation of Cats Claw Creeper in the headwaters of the subcatchment. The landholder was
enthusiastic about the offer to trial the treatments and host a field day.


Finally, a clear follow-up plan from the field day was formulated. The field day was used to
support a funding application put forward in concert by the public agencies. Concern was
expressed by one of the SEQC engagement practitioners that if this funding application was
unsuccessful and SEQC on-ground follow up could not be provided, the field day participants
may be alienated. However, Sunwater and QPWS have embarked on Cats Claw treatment
programs on their public lands which SEQC is treating as the basis for coordinating weed
treatment between public and private land.


The flier advertising the Cats Claw Field Day is reproduced in Appendix 2.5.



3.2.4 Discussion of Field Days Generally

Field days remain an important engagement tool in a peri-urban context. However, it is a
better use of resources to have one large field day that integrates the relevant institutional
stakeholders, is well promoted, attended, facilitated and organised than several smaller and
less successful field days. Specifically, in order for peri-urban field days to be effective they
need to:
   •   Present a picture of institutional integration by involving relevant community groups
       and government agencies;
   •   Ensure attendance levels are high and that the mix of attendees is balanced by
       issuing personal invitations as well as relying upon comprehensive advertising to
       ensure new landholders are attracted to the event;
   •   Facilitate discussion that encourages the bridging rather than accentuation of
       differences between landholders;
   •   Keep a tight focus on the problem by demonstrating new practices;


                                                                                               37
     •   Use a site that illustrates both the NRM problem and the desired NRM outcomes; and
     •   Provide strong follow-up in terms of provision of resources that will underpin
         subsequent volunteer NRM efforts.
.
Field days are not appropriate for illustrating policy questions to landholders (who can’t do
anything about policy settings). The use of field days to air policy problems risks aggravating
distrust of governments and government agencies as well as hostility towards new
community members (who represent unwelcome socio-economic change).




38
3.3     SEQ Western Catchments LG NRM Network
Engagement Tool
The SEQ WC Local Government NRM Network combined the network and workshop
engagement tools. Social networks (Barnes, 1954) include individuals or organizations and
the links that connect them to each other.           Social and/or institutional capital can be
developed through the strengthening of these links and is based on the premise that the
whole    is    stronger    and      more   effective    than    the   individual   components
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network). A workshop is a structured forum where people
are invited to work together on a common task or problem with the goals of resolving issues
and building a consensus for action. A workshop is facilitated to encourage a high level of
participant   engagement      and     discussion     (Urban    Research    Program    Toolbox,
https://www3.secure.griffith.edu.au/03/toolbox/ ).


Other relevant engagement tools employed within the forums included:
   •    Brainstorming: “a method for developing creative solutions to problems … by focusing
        on a problem, and then having participants come up with as many deliberately
        unusual solutions as possible and by pushing the ideas as far as possible”; and
   •    Technical reports and discussion papers: “Technical reports can outline research and
        policy findings, and can also be used to outline proposals. The most popular format is
        the discussion paper which, when combined with calls for submissions, can provide
        both information and public input background information that can be used in making
        decisions about complex issues” (Urban Research Program Community Toolbox,
        https://www3.secure.griffith.edu.au/03/toolbox).


Application of Tool
The SEQ WC Local Government NRM Network was comprised of Local Government staff
dealing with NRM issues in the western catchments of SEQ, brought together through a
series of forums. Each forum was designed as a workshop that was based on a formal
meeting structure. This formality (for eg. an agenda beginning with the confirmation of
minutes from the previous meeting) reflected the standard practices of Local Government
business. Conventional engagement tools were also used within the forum. Technical reports
were presented on the Healthy Waterways Strategy and discussion papers were presented
regarding voluntary conservation on private land. However, less formal engagement tools
were introduced by the SEQWC Local Government facilitator. Brainstorming was used in one
forum to elicit participants’ thoughts on SEQWC’s engagement processes regarding Local
Government. This discussion was summarised and distributed by email post-forum to all
participants. Evaluations were conducted for three of the five forums.

                                                                                             39
Background
As highlighted in the first Ag18 project report, a review of SEQC engagement practices, the
new regional arrangements were viewed by Local Governments as funding directed away
from them, leaving them with NRM responsibilities without the resources to fulfil those
responsibilities.   Consequently,      the   relationship   between   SEQWC      and   the   Local
Governments within its NRM region was tense. It was this problem that the network aimed to
resolve.


The NRM Network provided a regular forum for Local Government officers in the western
sub-region of South-East Queensland to share information and discuss issues and
processes affecting the management of natural resources at the local and regional level.
This forum provided a congruent means for Local Government officers to engage
simultaneously with their regional NRM body and relevant external organizations and groups
with NRM responsibilities. The NRM network built upon a previous network – the Non-Urban
Consultative Committee, a technical subcommittee of the Western Regional Organisation of
Councils. The Network met on a 6-8 weekly rotating basis at one of the region’s Local
Governments sites (LG) with that Local Government taking the chair. SEQWC took
responsibility for the administrative tasks: issuing invitations, selecting the venues, and
writing the agendas and minutes. The LG NRM liaison network was structured by:
     •   Emailed invitation to network participants and invited guests;
     •   Agenda advised pre-meeting with invitation to add to agenda;
     •   Regional updates – linking what has happened since last forum;
     •   Planning for next forum – including dates and potential forum topics;
     •   Inclusion of morning tea break and finishing with a lunch – giving the option for
         participants to go or stay;
     •   Rotation of location and chair to afford Local Governments shared network
         ownership;
     •   Discussion papers focused on each of the host Councils’ region’s NRM projects so
         that all Councils’ NRM contributions were represented.


The objectives of the NRM Network were to provide a forum whereby Local Governments
and the regional NRM body could:
     •   Share information and experiences concerning the development and implementation
         of NRM initiatives including Local Government leveraging of external support;
     •   Discuss NRM issues and processes occurring at the local and regional levels;
     •   Facilitate a two-way flow of communication between the Network and regional body;
     •   Provide technical and strategic input into the regional body’s NRM planning and

40
        delivery of investment;
    •   Provide an engagement hinge between Local Governments and the regional body;
    •   Obtain technical information on NRM issues;
    •   Facilitate mutual NRM support between neighbouring councils; and
    •   Identify opportunities to establish effective regional and sub-regional partnerships and
        coordinated approaches to NRM outcomes (Modified from Western Catchments NRM
        Network Draft Charter Nov 05).


Summary of NRM Network Forums
Forum      Date           Location         Agenda Topics                     Participants
No.
1          August 4       Gatton           Establishment of the network      Total: 15
           2005                            Engagement processes              LG: 10
                                           Implementation of NRM             SEQWCG: 3
                                           actions                           CSIRO: 2
                                           Reporting on targets
                                           Effective investment
2          September      Esk              Regional Update                   Total: 15
           15 2005                         Role of the network               LG:9
                                           LG NRM Investment                 SEQWCG:2
                                           Discussion Topics                 CSIRO:1
                                                                             LGAQ:1
                                                                             CA:1
                                                                             WESROC:1
3          October 13     Ipswich          RIS workshop                      Total: 6
           2005                            Healthy Land Program              LG:4
                                           Preserving our natural            SEQWCG:1
                                           ecosystems                        QNRM&W:1
                                           Protecting our water assets
4          December 8     Toowoomba        Regional Update                   Total: 15
           2005                            SEQ Healthy Waterways             SEQWCG:1
                                           Strategy 2006                     CSIRO:1
                                           Regional Project Case Studies     QDPI:1
                                           and Opportunities                 LG:12
                                           Forum dates for 2006
5          March 9        Laidley          Regional Update                   Total: 16
           2006                            Regional Project Case Studies     CSIRO: 3
                                           and Opportunities                 LG: 5
                                                                             SEQWC: 7
                                                                             DNR&W:1

Participant Observations
Forum 1 Gatton
This forum was well organized and the region’s Local Governments were well represented.
The content of the meeting focused upon previous and future engagement strategies. As the
relationship between SEQWCG and LG has been developing over the previous 18 months, a
review of this engagement was considered essential. Tensions between the two institutions
were evident and the forum showed the importance of developing a strong engagement


                                                                                              41
strategy to refine the relationship and ease these tensions. Also, highlighted were the
challenges of extending the network across an increased number of councils resulting from
the amalgamation of the two neighbouring NRM bodies into SEQC. These issues drew
attention to the expert facilitation required. The outcomes of this forum were:
     •   Summary of engagement processes
     •   Participant Evaluation
     •   Practitioner Evaluation


Forum 2 Esk
A SEQWC/SEQC transition update was provided and the floor was opened to relevant news
and updates. Network participants enthusiastically brainstormed ideas regarding the role of
the NRM Network. Representatives from the Local Government Association of Queensland
and the Condamine Alliance (CA) NRM regional body joined the network. A discussion
paper on voluntary conservation on private land provoked some discussion and follow-on
activities. This resulted in the exchange of information on Councils’ NRM activities and
addressed particular sub-regional issues.       This exercise highlighted the ambiguity of
institutional responsibility to tackle these issues.   The day was well facilitated although
disrupted by a lack of commitment to the agenda from some LG representatives. The forum
was completed by planning the following forum and distribution of responsibilities for that
date. The outcomes of this forum were:
     •   Proposed Agenda
     •   Draft Minutes
     •   Participant Evaluation


Forum 3 Ipswich
The Ag18 research team members did not conduct a participant observation for these
meeting. Four Local Governments were represented. The outcomes of this forum were:
     •   Draft Minutes


Forum 4 Toowoomba
This forum was well structured; participants followed the agenda within the time frame. There
were no disruptions. It was observed that the need to introduce new representatives
interrupted the continuity in this engagement process. A trend away from the participation of
LG representatives able to make relevant decisions (e.g. project development) to participants
reporting back to their Council for decision-making to occur at a later date was observed. The
presentation of the Healthy Waterways Strategy was informative and relevant to the region
and functioned to extend the network. There was a range of information sharing activities at
this forum. Dates for ongoing forums in 2006 were determined in the close of this forum.


42
Outcomes of this forum were
    •   Draft Agenda


Forum 5 Laidley
A well structured meeting process was in place via a pre-distribution of an agenda. The
meeting took place in the formal setting of Laidley Council Chambers. However, discussions
broke out freely in the lunch room adjacent after the meeting was closed. The forum was well
facilitated and ran without disagreements or disruptions. The meeting functioned as a
coordinative forum through the discussion of a comprehensive list of relevant NRM initiatives
and research projects being undertaken in SEQ’s western catchments. This was the last
forum held by the then SEQWC Local Government Liaison officer, who left the position to
pursue other opportunities.
The outcomes of this forum were:
    •   Draft Agenda
    •   Participant Evaluation
    •   Practitioner Evaluation


Evaluations
Participants stated that ‘meeting people’ and ‘discussion’ were the best part of the forums
and practitioners found that ‘information sharing’ and ‘positive engagement’ were the best
part of the forum.


Summary of participant evaluation
Forum     Location      No.           Best about forum         What could be
No.                     responses                              improved
1         Gatton        8             Discussion = 4           LG representation = 2
                                      Meeting people = 3
2         Esk           11            Discussion = 4           LG commitment = 2
                                      Meeting people = 3       Time management = 2
5         Laidley       11

Summary of participant ratings
Forum     Location      No.           C&S           F          P          A
No.                     responses
1         Gatton        8             7.9           8.5        9.1        8.0
2         Esk           11            8.3           8.7        9.0        8.0
5         Laidley       11            8.2           8.2        8          8.2

Summary of practitioner evaluation
Forum     Location      No.           Best about forum         What could be
No.                     responses                              improved
1         Gatton        2             Positive engagement =    Time management = 2
                                      4


                                                                                           43
5          Laidley        1            Information sharing = 1      Sporadic attendance =
                                                                    1

Summary of practitioner ratings
Forum      Location       No.          C&S           F        P               A
No.                       responses
1          Gatton         2            8.5           8        8.5             9
5          Laidley        1            7             8        8               5

In summary
The NRM Network forums provided an engagement mechanism to better align the NRM
efforts of Local Governments and the regional NRM body. It progressed through a series of
well structured and organized forums, linked by agendas, in a highly procedural format
reminiscent of standard Local Government processes and procedures. The forums
developed inter-institutional linkages between SEQC and the relevant Local Governments by
providing an avenue for information delivery and exchange and subsequent discussion. Such
discussion was encouraged through a range of facilitation techniques. The outcomes of the
forums overall included
     •   A draft charter: Western Catchments NRM Network
     •   A draft SEQC Local Government Communication and Engagement Strategy


The network dealt with, and functioned in the face of, high levels of institutional change within
both Local Governments and SEQWC. In terms of Local Government churning, it was
difficult for SEQWCG to maintain the network’s continuity when LG representatives changed
from meeting to meeting. The network’s effectiveness in terms of RIS delivery may also have
been increased if LG representatives were authorised to make project development
decisions via SEQWC’s LG liaison officer. Development and progression of RIS projects was
slowed by difficulties resolving NRM project timing, relevance and responsibilities between
LG and SEQC. SEQWG and LGs both lacked the jurisdictional freedom that would ease
synchronisation of their operational timelines in order to facilitate joint NRM project
development.


Secondly, the network’s functioning was hampered by the fusion of SEQWCG and NRMSEQ
to form SEQC. This integration of two NRM bodies increased the number Local
Governments fully or partially in the NRM region from 14 to 23 councils. A lack of continuity
in SEQWC Local Government Liaison officer position aggravated this disruption. This
position became vacant in March of 2006 and was re-filled in June of 2006. Efforts to pick up
the Local Government NRM network are now focused on the Environmental Management
Technical Reference Group that is facilitated by Brisbane City Council. Whether or not the
western (peri-urban) councils’ needs can be met by this forum, or could be met by becoming


44
a subcommittee to that forum, remain to be seen.


Thirdly, the Local Government Association of Queensland’s development of NRM policy
applicable to all Queensland Local Governments formed part of the shifting NRM institutional
landscape. There is potential to strengthen the linkages and relationship with LGAQ through
the simultaneous development of the LGAQ NRM Network – a State-wide network of LGAQ
NRM officers linked to State-wide NRM regional bodies. This development may ease the
underlying tensions of superimposing the NRM regional body system on Local Government
agencies. The two networks (SEQWC NRM Network and LGAQ NRM Network) could have a
future working together and be seen as complimentary and reciprocative in support of the
development of NRM.


In the face of a shifting NRM institutional landscape, the NRM LG NRM Network is an
engagement strategy to ease tensions regarding NRM between organisations by:
   •   Sharing information and developing communication strategies in order to widen the
       circle of interest in NRM and encourage collaborative project development
   •   Reinforcing linkages between an NRM body and the Local Governments within its
       region by building on existing networks (the Non-Urban Consultative Committee) and
       linking to emerging networks (LGAQ NRM)
Networking as a tool of engagement is an effective way of maintaining multi-organisational
focus on a goal in the face of institutional change. Such a goal is particularly relevant given
that NRM bodies are new institutional players and face coordination dilemmas with the
existing institutional apparatus. Existing organisations, such as Local Governments, were not
constituted by a NRM policy focus and may regard the expectation to develop such a focus
as an imposition.




                                                                                             45
3.4      Workshops
Engagement Tool
“A workshop is a structured forum where people are invited to work together in a group (or
groups) on a common problem or task. The goals are to resolve issues and build consensus
for action, rather than provide information and answer people's questions. If the workshop is
intended as a community event focusing on a community issue, the selection of participants
is determined by knowledge, expertise or by selecting a cross-section of views. Alternatively,
workshops can be organised to target particular groups, e.g. young people, or women.
Workshops require a facilitator who is able to engage all participants in the discussion.
Workshops are a participatory tool that is best used with smaller numbers of participants.
The Ontario Public Consultation Guide (1994) suggests a workshop can meet three key
objectives of the public consultation program:
     •   Understanding the public: workshops allow you to learn in detail the views and
         suggestions of participants
     •   Discussing the issues: other viewpoints and ideas and possible solutions can be
         heard in a non-confrontational atmosphere
     •   Building consensus for action: participants can have a free-flowing discussion of new
         approaches that can lead to group decisions or positions.
A variety of tools can be used within a workshop. These include many of the tools listed in
this toolbox, for example: focus groups and/or visioning
Objectives:
     •   Workshops aim to bring participants together in a structured environment (that is,
         through large and small-group activities, discussions, and reflection) to plan, decide
         or overcome difficulties.
Outcomes:
     •   Workshops can deliver a report, opinions, suggestions or plans that have been
         collaboratively developed and agreed to by all participants, on an issue or proposal.
Uses/strengths:
     •   Excellent for discussion on criteria or analysis of alternatives.
     •   Fosters small group or one-on-one communication.
     •   Offers a choice of team members to answer difficult questions.
     •   Builds ownership and credibility for the outcomes.
     •   Maximises             feedback            obtained            from        participants”
         (https://www3.secure.griffith.edu.au/03/toolbox/)




46
3.4.1 Community Engagement Workshop

Background
On the 4th December, 2006, over 40 community engagement practitioners from Southern
Queensland participated in a workshop to establish a benchmark of community engagement
practice in the adjacent South East Queensland and Condamine regions. These two NRM
regions are dealing with peri-urbanisation around the city of Brisbane and neighbouring
regional towns of Ipswich, Gatton and Toowoomba. A breakdown of the organisational
homes of the workshop participants (drawn from the workshop RSVP list) shows the
following pattern of employment of engagement practitioners:


Workshop Participants
Organisational Types         Organisations                                     No. of
                                                                               participants
Research institutions        CSIRO , Griffith University, University of        12
                             Queensland, James Cook University
Local Governments            Brisbane City, Boonah, Gatton and Ipswich         4
Industry groups              Viable options, Ecosure, Growcom and Leighton     4
                             contractors
Queensland government        Department of Natural Resources and Water,        10
agencies                     Environmental Protection Authority, Department
                             of Primary Industries and Fisheries, and the
                             Parks and Wildlife Service
Environmental groups         Oxley Creek Catchment Centre, Conservation        5
                             Volunteers Australia, and the North East Downs,
                             Chinchilla and Toowoomba Landcare Groups,
NRM bodies                   South East Queensland Catchments and              9
                             Condamine Alliance                                (Total 44)

The intention of the workshop was to:
   1. Discuss research findings regarding community engagement for NRM;
   2. Share engagement experiences; and
   3. Establish a benchmark of engagement practice that could be revisited at regular
       intervals and thus measure the progress of NRM engagement in the region.
This benchmark combines with three previous reports (understanding current engagement
practice, a typology of engagement, and case studies of community engagement) to
contribute to the understanding and improvement of community engagement for NRM in
highly transitional peri-urban landscapes.


Application of Tool
The format of the benchmarking community engagement workshop (Appendix 1) consisted
of presentations on recent projects relating to community engagement in peri-urban regions
to provide the context for community engagement and stimulus for subsequent discussions.
These projects were:

                                                                                            47
     •   The Engaging communities for natural resource management in the South East
         Queensland Western Catchments project was funded by Queensland Department of
         Primary Industries and Fisheries’ Sustainable Agricultural State-level Investment
         Program (AgSIP), under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.
     •   The Peri-urban Incentives Scheme web based platform was developed in 2006 as
         part of a six-month intensive research project in partnership between SEQC and the
         Coastal CRC. The project was funded by the Queensland Department of Natural
         Resources and Water’s Social and Economic research suite under the National
         Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.
     •   Linking the social with the environmental: identifying community capacity in the South
         East Queensland Western Catchments Region project was undertaken in the Bremer
         catchment by Griffith University and the University of Queensland in partnership with
         SEQC. The project was funded by Queensland Department of Primary Industries and
         Fisheries’ Sustainable Agricultural State-level Investment Program (AgSIP), under the
         National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.


Community engagement practitioners then broke into groups with a scribe and spokesperson
and worked through consistent templates to capture engagement practice data. The scribing
was done using a computer to:
     •   allow direct capturing of comments without re-interpretation;
     •   create a focal point for the discussion;
     •   allow participants to easily reflect upon and modify responses; and
     •   increase the transparency and ownership of the responses to the benchmark.


Throughout the workshop there were opportunities for the participants to report back to the
group as a whole and discuss the progress of the benchmark. The group benchmarks were
then collated.


The benchmark focused on assessing the following elements of engagement practice:
     •   Why engage?
     •   Who is targeted, engaged, disengaged and not engaged?
     •   How are communities engaged and what tools are used?
     •   How is success measured?
     •   What type of engagement hasn’t worked?
     •   What are the challenges of engaging?
     •   What are the examples of innovation?


A separate report delineating the benchmark developed during the workshop is available and

48
the Benchmark contents are therefore not duplicated in this case study report.




Evaluations
Twenty three of the workshop participants completed evaluation forms for the benchmarking
community engagement workshop. The ratings and associated commentary are summarised
below and listed in full in Appendix 4.2:


Summary of participant ratings and comments
Workshop        Summary of comments                                                  Mean
component                                                                            rating
                                                                                     (0-10)
Content and   11 positive comments (e.g. clear aims, relationship to outcome,        7.7
structure     logical sequence, relevant). 2 negative (unnecessary definitions,
              too wide a range of groups for beneficial benchmark)
Facilitation  11 positive comments. 1 negative (evaluation form confusing)           8.4
Presentations 13 positive comments. 1 negative (not enough time spent on the         8.4
              practical outcomes of projects)
Participation 12 positive comments. 1 negative (no time to question                  8.6
              presentation speakers)
Application   20 positive comments (developing individual thinking, providing        7.9
              direction). 1 comment not sure yet.
Venue and     11 positive comments. 4 negative (parking difficult, air               8.8
Catering      conditioning too cold, too far to travel to Brisbane from regions)

Thirty eight comments were received in response to the question: “What did you like best
about the workshop?” The dominant interest (15 comments) concerned the interaction and
discussion engendered by the diversity and organisational breadth of the participating
engagement practitioners that permitted learning: “The workshop was about collecting views
and ideas from participants – not telling them what to do. This provided a good opportunity to
share and learn from others”. Three comments regarding the reflection and learning enabled
by the upshot of the discussion – a benchmark of regional engagement practice. Seven
comments related to the use of the small group discussion structure, the relevance of the
day’s topic and the clarity of the workshop aims. Two comments concerned the use of
laptops (very sensible and saved paper). Two comments were also directed at the suitability
of the venue.


Seven comments to the abovementioned question pointed to the value of the three
presentations of the engagement research projects that introduced the day workshop. Of the
24 comments responding to a question regarding knowledge and impressions of the projects
presented, 12 individuals had no or partial knowledge of the 3 SEQC engagement projects.
The projects were described as interesting or worthwhile by 14 people. However, four
individuals found that they only confirmed what they already know. Two people were more


                                                                                              49
interested in how the research could be applied.


Twenty one comments were received in response to the question: “How could the workshop
have been improved?”        Five of those comments concerned the length of the day and
suggested shortening the workshop to a half day or holding it in a town with less traffic. Four
comments advocated spending more time on engagement theory, including delving into the
project presentations in more depth as well as using a challenging speaker to introduce more
controversial points for discussion. Four suggestions were made that more time be spent on
the case studies of successful applications of engagement innovations, including successful
icebreakers to use at NRM engagement events. Three suggestions were made that the small
group discussions be divided by sector and or region (NGO, NRM body, Local Government
etc) because the perspectives held by engagers and the audiences they were targeting
differed between sectors.


Eight comments were volunteered regarding the question: “Are there other things you would
like to let us know?” Five of those comments concerned follow-up, including presentation of
the workshop results (3 requests), the establishment of an engagement practitioner network
(1 request) and continued sharing of monitoring and evaluation of engagement (1 request).
Similar responses to these were received the question: ”What future activities would you be
interested in?” Thirteen (out of 18) people were interested in either the establishment of a
network of engagement practitioners or further training, updates, workshops or seminars on
engagement theory and practice.


Three other comments regarding the question: “Are there other things you would like to let us
know?” were made. These comments were: that engagement innovations are difficult and
take time; that the day was correctly weighted towards SEQC’s needs; and a question was
raised, namely that “There is no shared mental model of engagement [rather that there are]
different assumptions and boundaries. What is an appropriate level of agreement about a
concept from this group?”


The following comments were made by participants in a group discussion on ‘ways forward’
at the conclusion of the benchmark:
     •   Network group for education and training in engagement theory and information
         sharing
     •   Revisit the benchmark – raising the question of who would lead such as exercise,
         SEQ Catchments?
     •   Networking through existing forums and/or organisations – involve or partner with
         these groups


50
   •   Challenge engagement approaches – to stimulate thought
   •   Involve people from the benchmark – raising the question of who should be targeted
       (e.g. media)
   •   Share monitoring and evaluation of engagement in order to empower engagement
       practitioners
   •   More coordination of engagement approaches within and between regions (eg.
       monitoring and evaluation)
   •   Feed information regarding State processes (e.g. regarding engagement and
       monitoring and evaluation expectations) back to engagement practitioners
   •   An engagement web site – areas where people can ‘dump’ information (eg. relevant
       to monitoring and evaluation, engagement tools, experiences) raising the question of
       who would host such a site? (e.g. DNRW or feed into legacy building initiatives of SIP
       program?)
   •   Link community engagement approaches and experiences from non-NRM activities
       (e.g. art/cultural development, expert talks on monitoring and evaluation outcomes) –
       and expand the NRM message through their networks
   •   Community involvement website to link NRM engagement to non-NRM engagement
   •   Use today’s benchmark for individual organisations


Participant Observations
A wide cross section of participants from a range of agencies and regions attended the day.
Name tags, fact sheets, morning tea, tables of groups of people (that were rearranged after
lunch to form different groups of people) all led to strong communication amongst
participants throughout the day.    This appeared to facilitate networking by strengthening
existing contacts and developing new contacts. Participants expressed enjoyment of the
presentations and the opportunity for discussion after each presentation. The three
presentations tackled peri-urban issues from similar but unique perspectives. These
similarities and differences gave rise to strong discussion and reiterated the need for
clarification of the scope of research and the methodology that was undertaken in each of the
presentations.


Each table after lunch was facilitated to capture the groups’ experiences of engagement and
gave each person the opportunities to contribute to the benchmarking exercise.         Some
commented on the value of the document for the benchmarking exercise and working
through it which made them sit back and think about the questions asked and articulate why
they are interested in engagement. It was also useful for the engagement practitioners to
realise that there is opportunity to learn from and share their experiences with others. For
many it was a relief to know that they are all in the same boat in terms of the difficulty

                                                                                           51
engaging those who don’t want to be engaged.          The exercise encouraged reflection
regarding the theory and practice of engagement.


In summary
The benchmarking workshop successfully convened engagement practitioners and
researchers from multiple organisations. The creation of such a forum encouraged reflection
and the generalisation of lessons and experiences regarding engagement theory and
practice. The workshop established a benchmark of engagement practice available in the
form of a report. The weakness of the benchmarking forum lies in the lack of an
organisational home or funding for subsequent regular benchmarks to measure the progress
of NRM engagement in the region. This was a need clearly identified by the workshop
participants.




52
3.4.2 Sustainable Landscape Planner Days

Background
The purpose of the two Sustainable Landscape Planner Days was to communicate the
findings of Agricultural State Investment Project No. 14 “Adoption of Sustainable Landscape
Design Practices on Small Holdings”. The AgSIP 14 field days outlined in section 3.2.1
highlighted the need to better target the audience to whom to communicate the research
findings. Consequently, the Planner Days were intended to communicate the research
findings to the Local and State Government planners who had influence over the facilitation
of rural residential sub-division via their land-use planning responsibilities. Initial interest in
the Planner Days was so high that the events were split across two days. The events were
held over half days, finishing with lunch. The Planner Days were held in conjunction with
SEQC who conducted the engagement evaluation summarised below. There were
approximately 110 participants over the two workshops. The home organisations of the 41
participants   who    completed     evaluations    were:    Local    Government      (16):   State
Government agencies (14); NRM organisations (9) and research institutions (2).


The relationship between the Ag14 and Ag 18 projects is such that Ag14 defined the
ecological principles for managing peri-urban landscapes and that Ag 18 defined best
practice for engaging peri-urban stakeholders and landholders. Thus team members from
both projects presented their research findings through three presentations:
   •   The Ag18 research findings concerned the challenges for NRM engagement in
       diverse communities. The difficulties for NRM posed by social fragmentation caused
       by the entry of new peri-urban residents lacking a land management heritage into a
       landscape originally dominated by communities oriented to commercial agricultural
       activities were outlined.
   •   An explanation was provided of how the Ag14 project arose out of earlier CSIRO
       Sustainable Ecosystems work delineating the ecological principles and thresholds
       that would preserve biodiversity and landscape stability in a commercial grazing
       agricultural context. It was explained that the Ag14 project concerned the question of
       how these ecological thresholds and principles applied to other land uses, particularly
       those found in peri-urban settings;
   •   A sobering analysis was then given of the negative ecological impact of peri-
       urbanisation in SEQ based on the data afforded by seven case study properties (on
       which the Ag14 field days were held) as well as a chronological case study of a small
       subcatchment that highlighted the degree of landscape fragmentation caused by rural
       residential subdivision in one SEQ rural Local Government area.
The presenters took questions following each presentation and the discussion continued


                                                                                                 53
informally during morning tea. The audience then broke into smaller discussion groups who
reported back to stimulate a plenary discussion. This discussion continued informally into
lunch.


Participant observations
The audience expressed high levels of interest in the research findings which they viewed as
highly relevant to their work. Peri-urbanisation was unexpectedly impacting upon the nature
of their work, for example, participants mentioned rising numbers of complaints to Local
Government from peri-urban residents regarding agricultural nuisances. Many of the
participants already knew each other and used the day to cement and extend their
professional networks. The audience seemed to find the research findings regarding the
combination of social fragmentation and the negative effect of peri-urbanisation upon
biodiversity and landscape stability sobering. However, the possible avenues of action
suggested by the presenters permitted constructive discussion of possible responses –
namely configuring rural residential subdivision to be more environmentally sensitive, and
using engagement to reduce the social heterogeneity of peri-urbanising communities insofar
as land management skills are concerned. Relevant barriers to these lines of action were
identified, for example, legislation seeking to preserve good agricultural lands was identified
as a barrier to restricting subdivision to cleared creek and river flats rather than allowing it to
result in the clearing of vegetated hills and ridge lines.


Group discussions
A total of five group discussions were documented, within which a total of 22 opportunities
and 25 barriers were identified (see Appendix 4.4). In terms of these 22 opportunities, 13
concerned the integration of NRM with land use planning, namely:
     •   Integration of the SEQ Regional Plan and SEQ NRM plan to yield rural precinct
         planning guidelines, examining the landscape across Local Government boundaries,
         overlaying Codes of Planning Schemes with biodiversity maps (3 suggestions)
     •   Working with developers to balance development with the preservation of natural
         resources, planning incentives to encourage ecological development e.g. permit
         higher housing density if good configuration and environmental outcomes are
         achieved (3 suggestions)
     •   A different configuration of subdivision, e.g. group title or special residential whereby
         housing pads are designated (2 suggestions)
     •   The use of environmental covenants along with dollar incentives, e.g. rate reductions
         (2 suggestions)
     •   Consolidate existing reserves, use growing budget funds to purchase and revegetate
         land (2 suggestions)


54
   •   Place a dollar value on ecosystem services through environmental banking,
       transferable property rights and offset schemes (1 suggestion)


Seven opportunities were identified that revolved around engagement both of peri-urban
residents and pivotal stakeholders:
   •   Community based programs (education and support ) to facilitate uptake of NRM
       principles, improve communication and integration of heterogeneous communities,
       bust the myth that low density development does not cause environmental
       degradation,   engage    the   influx   of   environmentally   conscious   residents   (6
       suggestions)
   •   Increase the capacity of Local Government regarding planning and development (2
       suggestions)
Two suggestions were also made regarding encouraging the adaptation of agricultural
practices, one concerning Permaculture and one concerning dryland agriculture.


In terms of the 25 barriers raised, 12 concerned how policy and institutional settings prevent
the integration of NRM with land use planning at several scales. The largest scale concerned
political will at the State Government level. Namely that: communication has broken down
between NRM proponents, land developers and politicians; politicians ignore planner advice;
strategic planning is inadequately resourced and consequently, the policy framework does
not value ecosystem services (7 comments). Drilling down to agency implementation of NRM
and land-use planning, a lack of leadership from state and federal agencies was nominated
as a barrier. Specific comments included: the Planning Department’s policies contradict
NRM; water and planning schemes are not integrated; there is conflict between the agencies
and Local Government over NRM; and Local Governments ignore third party advice (5
comments).


The remaining thirteen comments regarded implementation barriers at the regional to local
scales. Eleven comments delineated structural barriers at the more local level: that existing
zoning does not require planning approval; qualified personnel are too overworked to focus
on NRM and peri-urbanisation; the small size of existing reserves; the necessity of fire
breaks; Local Governments’ structural dependence on their rates base; lack of resources for
NRM enforcement; and that population growth, developments that generate income (e.g.
Bed & Breakfast establishments) and use of subdivision for superannuation funds all drive
development pressure. Two social barriers were also nominated: the lack of a common NRM
value set in the community and the fact that individual efforts regarding biodiversity do not
attract an economic reward.



                                                                                              55
Evaluations
This evaluation was conducted by SEQC. The evaluation sheet employed asked whether,
when, where and how the information presented would be used and provided space for
additional comments. Of the 41 responses received (see Appendix 4.5), 1 participant
indicated that the information would not be used and two indicated that the information could
not be used directly in their work as it concerned strategic issues, including the need for a
more coordinated approach between government agencies and Local Governments. Two
researchers in attendance indicated that the information would be used to further their
research interests. One specific comment was made about the workshop – that more
structured discussions and workshopping of the issues was required further to the
presentation of the information. Finally, a comment was made to the effect that the research
presented required further validation and attention to the regional variability of peri-
urbanisation.


Of the remaining 34 indications that the information would be used, 3 did not provide any
commentary on how the information would be used. Of the remaining 30 comments, 24
indicated the information would be used for strategic state and Local Government planning
and subdivision development application assessment and to influence the Local Government
and NRM body policy settings. Five comments indicated that the information presented on
social heterogeneity and NRM engagement would be used in further state agency and Local
Government peri-urban policy and implementation. Two comments indicated that the
information will be used to implement specific vegetation preservation and restoration
strategies.


In summary
The Sustainable Landscape Planner Day workshops successfully communicated research
findings with NRM policy and practice implications to a well targeted audience. This audience
indicated that the information provided a valuable background and context for environmental
planning in state agencies, Local Government and NRM organisations. However, the
opportunities and barriers raised in the discussion groups indicate that the social and
ecological impacts of peri-urbanisation highlight a lack of integration between NRM and land-
use planning. Follow-up action is required to progress such integration by peak bodies such
as the Local Government Association of Queensland, state agencies and the Regional
Group Collective to integrate NRM with land-use planning at a strategic policy scale in order
that effective implementation at the local level is supported and resourced.




56
3.4.3 Discussion of Workshops Generally

A workshop is an appropriate and effective engagement tool for the presentation and
discussion of novel information with strong NRM policy and practice implications. The
weakness of the workshop engagement tool lies in its one-off status. For the benchmarking
forum this weakness was identified by participants as the lack of an organisational home or
source of funding to support subsequent periodic benchmarks to measure the progress of
NRM engagement in the region. Similarly, the opportunities and barriers raised in the
Planner Day workshop discussion highlighted the need for follow-up action to progress
integration of NRM with land-use planning at a strategic policy scale by peak bodies such
that effective implementation at the local level is supported and resourced. The success of
such a workshop is dependent upon:
   •   Clear targeting of the audience to whom the workshop is relevant and widely
       canvassed invitations to a site convenient to those participants;
   •   Presentation of relevant information that offers helpful new ways of framing the
       participants’ knowledge and experience;
   •   Facilitated discussion to elicit the in-house knowledge and experiences of the
       participants;
   •   A report summarizing the results of those discussions and the follow-up action
       required to address the needs identified at the workshop circulated to the participants.




                                                                                             57
4         Discussion and recommendations
The case study findings elaborated above in large part validate the recommendations arising
out of the first round of project research – a review of engagement practice in SEQC, and
those arising out of the second round of research – the construction of an engagement
typology. The first report was based upon interviews with SEQ engagement practitioners.
The second report was based upon interviews with SEQ engagement participants. The
review and typology report recommendations dealt with how to issue of how increase the
capacity of engagement practitioners and the issue of how to improve engagement practice
together.


Given the complexity of both engagement capacity and practice, it is useful to tease apart
these issues. Consequently, in the discussion following, these capacity and practice issues
are separated. The capacity of engagement practitioners is dealt with in section 4.1, and the
improvement of engagement practice is dealt with in section 4.2. The three sets of project
recommendations arising out of review, typology and this case study report are integrated
under these capacity and practice sections.



4.1       Engagement Capacity

The Report 1 recommendations relevant to building the capacity of the engagement
practioner community include
      •   Greater training in community engagement theory to compliment and enhance
          engagement practice;
      •   Include a monitoring and evaluation component to engagement activities (to allow
          greater practitioner reflection and capacity-building);
      •   Continue to support innovative engagement approaches;
      •   Greater coordination of engagement activities among the various engagement
          practitioners and transfer of knowledge among engagement practitioners in the SEQ
          WC region.
The relevant Report 2 recommendation is:
      •   Build reflective engagement practitioner capacity such that learning about, and
          improvement of, engagement practice is supported.


The first round of research based on interviews with SEQWC engagement practitioners
distributed across 29 organisations established that practitioners often perform multiple roles
that can conflict (eg. biodiversity conservation and sustainable production) and typically have
backgrounds in science or planning rather than formal training in engagement. The SEQC

58
engagement practitioner community is highly fragmented across organisations, sectors, roles
and skill sets. In these circumstances, and given the poor resourcing of engagement that
practtioners reported in the Benchmarking Workshop, facilitation of engagement practioner
self-reflection is a way of increasing engagement capacity. Providing forums to engagement
practioners so that they can further their: understanding of engagement theory; use of
monitoring and evaluation of engagement events and innovative engagement approaches;
as well as share their knowledge, is crucial.


The Benchmarking Workshop successfully convened engagement practitioners and
researchers from multiple organisations in order to undertake these tasks. The creation of
such a forum encouraged reflection upon and the generalisation of lessons and experiences
regarding engagement theory and practice. The workshop established a benchmark of
engagement practice for the SEQ and CA NRM regions that is available for future reference
in the form of a report. The weakness of the benchmarking forum lies in the lack of an
organisational home or funding for subsequent regular benchmarks to support and measure
the progress of NRM engagement in the region. This was a need clearly identified by the
workshop participants. Consequently, we further recommend that NRM bodies and other
organisations employing NRM engagement practioners:
      •   Provide support to engagement practitioners distributed across multiple organisations
          to build their reflective capacity, use monitoring and evaluation and sharing
          information and share experiences using engagement tools such as networks and
          workshops.



4.2       Engagement Practice

The Report 1 recommendations, based on engagement practioner interviews, relevant to
engagement practice include:
      •   Increase the target audience through alternative engagement tools. Match
          engagement tools to the motivations and preferences of engagement targets as well
          as the capacities of engagement practitioners;
      •   Engagement tools must be contextually relevant, where contextual opportunities and
          constraints may either enhance or limit engagement effectiveness (eg. community
          distrust of government, points of community galvanization, and opportunities for
          engagement synergies).


The Report 2 recommendations, based on the interviewees with engagement participants
located in industry organisations, local environmental groups and non-NRM local groups
further advised:


                                                                                             59
     •   Provide engagement opportunities regarding NRM funding design to take into
         account factors conditioning the success of NRM funding programs. Such factors
         include the local context (local environmental knowledge and resources, time
         constraints and galvanising issues) and institutional settings (organisational charters,
         administrative processes, staff skill sets, and organisational coordination needs).
     •   Use a palette of engagement approaches that reflect the differences between Non-
         NRM, Industry and Landcare motivations. Non-NRM audiences are anthropocentric
         and a social case for NRM needs to be such as contributing to the community.
         Production-centric audiences require the NRM message to be expressed in terms of
         the long-term viability of enterprises. Ecocentric audiences need the NRM message
         to be tied to addressing environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.
     •   Use engagement approaches that encourage interaction and social network
         formation between industry, landcare and non-NRM audiences.


The task of ensuring the contextual relevance of an engagement exercise is two-fold. On the
first front, successful intermeshing with the local NRM context, including audience
motivations, and secondly, progressing institutional coordination to progress NRM is
necessary.


Local and motivational contextualisation
On the first count of local context, the Roundtable engagement tool was an effective way for
SEQC to validate and deploy its RIS sub-regionally. The evaluations indicated that the effort
taken by SEQC to incorporate local knowledge and expertise into its regional planning
process by was appreciated by the target audience. The round tables stimulated awareness
and the development of NRM activities and projects in home organisations of participants as
the participants are themselves engagement practitioners involved in catchment and
landcare groups, peak industry bodies, Local Governments etc. This usefulness of this
engagement tool also validated the Report 2 advice to tailor NRM messages in terms of the
differing motivations of audiences. Two out of three of the NRM audience motivations
nominated, industry-centric and eco-centric, were addressed.


Institutional coordination
The Sustainable Landscape field days were only partially successful because the small
landholder audience did not have influence over the institutional arrangements governing the
peri-urban development being discussed and thus tended to resort to blaming and finger
pointing. In contrast, the Sustainable Landscape Planner Days highlighted how the
institutional   arrangements    governing   peri-urban   development     require   improvement.
Specifically, the need for integration between NRM and land-use planning was discussed.


60
Similarly, the LG NRM Network successfully maintained multi-organisational focus on NRM
goals in the face of institutional change by sharing information and reinforcing inter-
organisational linkages. The Riparian Management and CatsClaw field days demonstrate
that where organisational coordination can be achieved at the local scale, the impact of the
NRM message being given to landholders can be significantly enhanced.


Interaction and social network formation
The 20 evaluations of engagement events in this report demonstrate consistent feedback
that discussion and interaction was the most valued aspect of the engagement events. This
feedback reiterates previous project findings that top down approaches are ineffective.
Participants prefer to be invited to consider an NRM problem not instructed how to address
one. In terms of engagement tools, the Riparian Management and CatsClaw field days
successfully encouraged interaction and social network formation between industry, landcare
and landholders previously not drawn into NRM networks. Field days remain an effective tool
for social network formation in a peri-urban context. The Planner and Benchmarking
workshops also functioned very well in terms of encouraging network formation between
engagement practitioners and environmental planners. The presentation of new research
findings worked well at both workshops to initiate discussion of the participants’ knowledge,
experience and ideas.


Further recommendations to improve NRM engagement in peri-urban regions arising out the
factors of local and motivational contextualisation, institutional coordination and interaction
and social network formation include:
   •   Pursue engagement opportunities that increase institutional coordination at both the
       policy (e.g. integration of land-use planning with NRM) and operational (e.g. a field
       day) scales;
   •   Present information that provides a clear and relevant framework within which
       participants can volunteer and discuss their knowledge, experiences and ideas;
   •   Encourage cooperative interaction and discussion between engagement participants
       that bridges socio-economic or organisational differences;
Given the fact that none of the case studies squarely addressed the need to trial new
engagement tools focused upon non-NRM audiences, we also recommend:
   •   Extending NRM engagement to the uninvolved anthropocentic audience by making a
       social case for NRM constitutes an under-explored engagement territory that would
       benefit from further RD&E;


Good housekeeping
The last factor arising out of the case studes that conditions the success of engagement


                                                                                               61
events is more pragmatic - the need for good planning, organisation and follow-up of
engagement events. Detailed knowledge of the targeted communities and audiences is very
important as the mixed success of the Sustainable Landscape field days emphasises. The
challenge, given the high levels of churning in engagement practitioner positions reported at
the Benchmarking Workshop, is to build and maintain such knowledge. Basic planning
issues such as wide canvassing of invitations using a multiple avenues (personal invitations,
news releases, email networks etc) and choice of a suitable time slot are important in order
to ensure high levels of attendance. Poor attendance of the Sustainable Landscape field
days and Industry Roundtable underline this point. Gathering intelligence and what did or did
not work and why - monitoring and evaluation - is crucial. Retrospective evaluations are
difficult to organise and never as comprehensive. For evaluations to be useful, they need to
be planned in advance, enacted on the day (by requesting the participants’ cooperation),
compiled and circulated to interested engagement practitioners. Finally, there is a need to
follow up events with actions. The 20 evaluations of engagement events in this report display
consistent feedback that advice on how to apply the ideas presented was the weakest aspect
of the engagement events. Therefore, we futher recommend that organisations involved in
NRM engagement:
     •   Invest time in building and maintaining engagement participant data bases in order to
         increase understanding of target audiences.
     •   Clearly identify the target audience, match the engagement tool to the engagement
         task, use forward planning to ensure high levels of attendance at engagement events
         and ensure an evaluation is conducted, compiled and circulated;
     •   Ensure appropriate follow-up action to one-off engagement events (such as
         roundtables, field days and workshops) to ensure participants’ consider their
         investment of time and energy is worthwhile;




62
References

Arnstein, S. R. 1969, “A ladder of citizen participation”, AIP Journal, July, pp. 216-224


Barnes J.A. (1954) “Class and Communities in a Norwegian Island Parish”, Human
Relations, Vol. 7(2) pp 39 - 58


Barr, N (2003) “Future agricultural landscapes”, Australian Planner, 40 (2), pp. 123-127


Bellamy, J (1996) Evaluation of the impact of the Ag-SIP 18 Project: Final Report,
http://www2.dpi.QLD.gov.au/extra/pdf/agsip/AG18ImpactAssessment.pdf


Bunker, R. and Houston, P. 1992, ‘Natural Resource Management Meets Metropolitan
Growth: contemporary rural-urban fringe planning in Australia’, Built Environment, 18 (3), pp.
221-233.


Hollier, C., Francis, J. and Reid, M. (2003) Shrinking Extension to fit a Growing Small Farm
Sector, Department of Primary Industries, Rutherglen, Victoria


Kearney, F and MacLeod, N (2006[1]) “Bushland or Parkland: vegetation management in
landscapes under rapid conversion” Veg Futures Conference – convened by Greening
Australia   and    Land     and    Water    Australia,   The      Conference    in   the    Field,
http://www.greeningaustralia.org.au/vegfutures/pages/page89.asp


Kearney, F and MacLeod, N (2006[2]) “The Past Compounded by the Present: ecological
challenges and decision for peri-urban and amenity agricultural landscapes”, Australasia
Pacific Extension Network 2006 International Conference Practice Change for Sustainable
Communities, http://www.regional.org.au/au/apen/2006/refereed/2/3206_kearneyf.htm


Ontario Public Consultation Guide (1994)


South East Queensland Catchments, 10 February 2006, “Push to eradicate, Chinese Celtis
from Boonah Shire”, MEDIA RELEASE


Mackenzie, J, Whelan J and Oliver P (2006) Reconnecting Fragmented Landscapes: a
scoping study on natural resource and environmental management in the peri-urban
landscapes of South East Queensland, South East Queensland Catchments and the Coastal
Cooperative Research Centre, http://www.seqcatchments.com.au/periUrban/index.html


                                                                                               63
Mortiss, P. 1993, Extension for Rural Change… (2nd Ed) Queensland Government,
Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane


Rickson, S, Warburton, J & Keith, K (2006) Linking the Social with the Environmental:
identifying community capacity in the SEQWCG region, Griffith University


Smith, T, Darbas, T, Hall, C, Fisher, J, Bellamy, J, Gambley C and Leitch, A (2005) NRM
Engagement Practice in the SEQ Western Catchments: Report prepared as part of the AG-
SIP 18 project: Effective Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments, CSIRO
Sustainable Ecosystems and South East Queensland Catchments


Urban          Research           Program         Citizen         Science     Toolbox,
https://www3.secure.griffith.edu.au/03/toolbox/


Wikpedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network accessed Jan 17th 2007




64
Appendices

Appendix 1.1   Bremer Sub-catchment Roundtable Agenda




                                                        65
Appendix 1.2              Bremer Sub-catchment Roundtable Evaluation

Practitioner comments
        Worked best                        Next best                         Worked worst                    Next worst             How to improve
1       The support received by            Having people able to             A sound system would            With more time,        Cross sharing of views
        the attendees for project          think beyond their own            have been helpful               might have been able   between roundtable with
        work in the catchment and          local area                        The maps could have             to have more council   government officers/MPs and
        for sharing information                                              shown more locality names       officers involved      roundtable with community
2       Cross section of             Most questions re. the                  Up-front blurb just a bit too   Too much               A map that showed existing
        participation                mapping were able to be                 long                            information to get     projects
                                     answered                                                                through
3       Participation of community Discussion and                            Lack of small scale                                More information on map data
        members                      willingness to listen                   definition of mapping
Tot.    Discussion/ participation/ sharing information = 4                   Better maps = 4 More time/ more detailed process = 4


Practitioner ratings
Meeting                   Comments                                                                                                         Rating (0 to 10)
components                                                                                                                                 Mean
                                                                                                                                           1    2      3    Mean
Content and               With the cross section of people at the tables it was hard to cover all the relevant issues in an                8    7           7.5
structure                 appropriate timeframe
Facilitation              Facilitator presented well but needs to start and finish on time – probably should have been more                8         8    8
                          hands-on time control
Participation             Some people unsure which group was the most appropriate                                                          9    6    9    8.6
                          A good cross section
Application               Several people spoke to me following the workshop and want to build on the ideas generated or                    8    7    10   8.3
                          projects proposed
                          I will make sure it is applied
Venue and catering        Parking may have been a bit tight, chairs were comfortable for the nature of the meeting, catering –             9    8    9    8.6
                          needed to call for more tea and coffee




Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments
66
Modifications suggested by practitioners
     •   Slightly smaller groups and smaller scale maps
     •   Press releases out earlier
     •   Ensure a list of proposed attendees is available for networking


Participant comments
         Worked best                             How to improve                                       Other
1        Excellent for all members to come       Continue to evolve the concept on a 6-12 month       Would like to obtain a copy of the mapping on an
         together for collection of comment      basis                                                A1 scale
2        Opportunity for discussion              Some gaps in the participant mix, e.g. access to
         Access to maps and information          Local Government
3        Opportunity to meet like-minded         More time
         people I had not met before
4        Discussion of problems in specific      More time for out group (4 sites nominated)          Much of the rural area is becoming the play
         areas                                                                                        ground for Brisbane
5        Information provided an insight into    No, the roundtable could not have been improved      The current condition of surrounding water
         what is happening in the area                                                                quality
6        Many disparate people                   A list of outcome based questions
7        Hearing ground-truthing by local        Make roundtable a whole day or try and tackle
         experts of scientific map findings      less but get to the end-point of options for
                                                 partnerships relevant to specific areas. We didn’t
                                                 get half-way
8        Opportunity for discussion              Needed council representation                        How will education be constructed out of this?
9        Constructive                            More diversified representatives from mid-           SEQC helped get exemption from water
         solutions/suggestions/comments          Brisbane to get wider points of view                 restrictions from DNRW so environmental
                                                 Only had empty folder so could not access            projects could be irrigated
                                                 resources during discussion
10       General discussion
         Good facilitation
11       Opportunity to exchange views and       Needed longer for discussion                         Coordination between DEQC and the partnership
         reassess priorities                                                                          could be improved
12       The positive approach of all            Good as it is                                        We cannot control nature, only enhance
         concerned                                                                                    situation. We have not lived in this country long
                                                                                                      enough to know the full environment or water


                                                                                                                                                       67
                                                                                                      cycle. Although salinity may be growing now, I
                                                                                                      believe nature will rectify this situation over the
                                                                                                      next 50 years or so
13     The input from different people which     Like to see the roundtable out in the community
       built up a bigger picture                 in smaller areas and involving local people
14     I liked the input of different walks of   More time                                            Support for property planning
       life and the local knowledge of the
       people
15     Good communications                       More time
16     The chance to hear from locals who
       know the area well
17     Cross pollination of people and           More specific to our immediate area rather than      Thank you for your efforts
       information – keeps the issues on the     the whole region
       table
18     Networking opportunities                  More focus on projects versus map appraisal          How should I feed on-ground data to improve
       Understanding of SEQC’s roles and                                                              mapping?
       priorities
19     Fair approach to get multiple             Each sub-region needs to be assessed with            The discussion session needs for time to enable
       stakeholder input. Having a focus on      specific environmental values considered. For        stakeholders to think more about how to develop
       areas allowed people with specific        e.g. Mid Brisbane is the conduit for SEQ drinking    projects and suggestions for further information
       knowledge to provide their                water and thus there are specific issues here that   and the best approaches to fix
       perspective                               don’t get adequately addressed using the current
                                                 confluence of issues maps. There is an
                                                 unacceptable pathogen risk from the
                                                 intensification of land use
Tot.   Discussion/range of participants/local    More time/ more specific = 10
       knowledge = 16




68
Participant ratings
        Content and   Facilitation   Participation   Application   Venue and   Comments
        Structure                                                  Catering
1       10            10             10              10            10
2       8             8              9               8             8           Little opportunity to apply at present
3       9             9              9               8             9           Application – project proposed
4       6             8              8               4             8           Too short
5       6             7              4                                         Application – office report to manager
6       7             8              8               7             6           Application through engagement with industry
7       6             9.9            6               5             8           Good basis of planning but did not get to outcomes
8                                                                              Will impart information to work colleagues
9       8             8              10              9             10          Pine Mountain landholders will consider starting a group
10      8             9              8               8             9
11      6                                                                      Not enough time, will take back to catchment association for
                                                                               comment
12      9             10             10                            8           Through my position we can instigate management
                                                                               programs
13      10            10             10              10            10          Will try and create smaller groups within West Moreton
                                                                               Landcare
14      7             8              8               8             9           Will apply with follow up meeting with community group
15      7             9              9               9             10          Will take back to local groups
16      8             9              8               9             9           Application – understand my property better and recognise
                                                                               areas of concern
17      6             6              6               6             8           Participation nor specific to area, good information update,
                                                                               will continue to use
18      7             9              8                             9           Application – networking and project implementation
19      3             6              5               5             8           Maps did not capture locally specific issues, stronger
                                                                               facilitation to progress discussion through all the issues, will
                                                                               develop expressions of interest to initiate projects
Mean    7.2           8.4            8               7.6           8.2         Statements that will apply = 14




                                                                                                                                              69
Further engagement needs
     •   Continue to work with the community through the SEQC link
     •   Follow up to look at locations, priorities and proposals
     •   Round tables focused on specific areas or topics
     •   Further development from today
     •   Planning for community participation and partnership forming
     •   Need to now focus on more specific topics of importance, for e.g. weeds, water etc
     •   Presentation of this material to Mid-Brisbane Irrigators by SEQC would be appreciated
     •   Regular weed demonstrations throughout the shires
     •   Help setting up smaller groups within West Moreton Landcare
     •   More follow up roundtables
     •   Project development related workshops
     •   Assistance with developing projects




70
Appendix 1.3              Lockyer Subcatchment Roundtable Invitation




You are invited to attend the


Lockyer Round Table
for On Ground Action
on
Monday 5 June 2006 from 7.00 pm
at
Lockyer Catchment Centre
Corner of Railway and Hunt Streets FOREST HILL




This Round Table provides an opportunity to discuss with representatives of the Lockyer
Catchment the current state of our natural assets and the actions required to address the
threats impacting on them.


This process aims to build upon current partnerships and identify new partnerships for the
investment of Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) and National Action Plan for Salinity and Water
Quality (NAPSWQ) in South East Queensland.


There will be an opportunity to review NHT and NAPSWQ investment made in this area in
the past and to learn from and build upon the experience.




For catering purposes, please RSVP by Thursday 1 June 2006 by contacting Gayle Drabsch

at the Lockyer Catchment Centre by emailing               gdrabsch@seqwcg.com.au or
phoning 5465 4400.




Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments              71
Appendix 1.4 SEQ Lockyer Subcatchment Roundtable Evaluation


Practitioner comments
        Worked best                        Next best              Worked worst                             Next worst               How to improve
1       Community interaction and          Addition of community Time constraints                                                   More time
        feedback                           values to science
                                           based mapping
2       Interaction and local              Proofing of maps       Could have had more localized
        knowledge                                                 map
3       Feedback from people ‘on           Breaking up into local Nothing!                                 Nil                      Show maps being discussed
        the ground’                        areas                  Did not walk out with an EOI in                                   on screen
                                                                  my hand!
                                                                  Lack of involvement from
                                                                  environment groups
4       Time for community                 Meeting in LCC         Balancing getting enough                 Concern that             At the end, look for follow up
        members to critically              obviously home         people to get representation             stronger individuals     finer round tables if there is
        comment on mapping and             ground for many        from most areas but not                  do try and dominate      interest
        to identify opportunities in       participants           making the group so big that             discussions
        their patch of interest                                   individuals get lost in the wood
5       Open communication,                Group discussions,     Night venue                                                       Subryia? Maps
        ground-truthing of maps            formal presentation
        and available data
6       Wide range of people to                                          Prefer daytime meeting –          Dividing into groups –   Daytime meeting – full day
        obtain feedback from                                             allowing more time for            some people have         Limited time to present the
                                                                         feedback especially relating to   information to feed      amount of information and to
                                                                         mapping                           into all of the group    obtain feedback
                                                                                                           areas
Tot.    Feedback/Local knowledge/Ground-truth = 10                       Time/ Timing = 5




Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments
72
Practitioner ratings
Meeting                Comments                                                                                  Rating (0 to 10)
components                                                                                                       Mean and Range
                                                                                                                 1 2 3 4 5 6         Mean   Range
Content and                                                                                                      8 7 9 9 8           8.2    7-9
structure
Facilitation                                                                                                     7   8   9   8   8   8.0    7-9
Participation          Would like to see some more interaction in the presentation to check understanding        8   8   9   8   8   8.2    8-9
                       (4)
Application            It is my job (1), Some of the participants do not work in the areas discussed therefore   8   8   7   6   8   7.4    6-8
                       need SEQC to drive/develop (2), Uncertain about the energy as commitment to see
                       many of the project ideas activated (3)
Venue and catering     Nice biscuit (4)                                                                          7   8   9   7   6   7.4    6-9

Modifications suggested by practitioners
    •   More time for project development in the small groups (1)
    •   Activity to prioritize issues (2)




                                                                                                                                                  73
Participant comments
         Best about Roundtable                                         What could be improved                                                   Other
1        Information and discussion for project development            Difficult to balance time required
2        Small group discussions                                       Maps more up to date with mapping of areas
3        Open discussion
4        Opportunity to find out bigger picture                        Wider discussion of issues across organizations
5        Maps and contributions from people in the group – lots of
         local knowledge
6        Contacts
7        Detailed information and data preparation                     Start by allowing people to nominate projects/issue of concern and
                                                                       then balance against priorities as identified by confluences
8        Mix of people present – fields of expertise
Tot.     Information = 3, Discussion = 3, Mix of knowledge = 2         More time/discussion = 2

Participant ratings
          Content and        Facilitation   Participation     Application   Venue and     Comments
          Structure                                                         Catering
1         7                  7              7                 6             6             More than one facilitator, participation in the small groups
2         8                  8              8                 8             7
3         7                  8              9                 7             8             Content and structure good; Facilitation good; Participation
                                                                                          very good
4         10                 10             10                No            Yes
5         9                  9              9                 8             7             Very good contact; Will approach key landholders

6         8                  8              9                 8             8             Defined projects

7         6                  8              8                 7             8
8         8                  7              8                 8             9             Application - increased knowledge of regional NRM issues
Mean      7.9                8.0            8.5               7.4           7.6

Further engagement needs
     •   More round table meetings (2)

74
•   Nothing specific (3)
•   Feedback on outcomes and reasons for both successful and unsuccessful projects and guide poorly prepared applications through a process
    to prepare better proposals and provide contacts of relevant technical experts who can provide input and support (7)
•   List of projects with contact in the region (8)




                                                                                                                                         75
Appendix 1.5           Industry Roundtable Evaluation


Practitioner Comments
       Worked best                  Next best                   Worked worst                  Next worst      How to improve
1      Interaction and discussion   Internal meeting            No of industry reps down      Nil             Meeting room size and space?
       by participants              arrangements                (representative)
2      Sharing info with industry   People shared info and      Spent a lot of time in the                    More industry (another one
                                    ideas really well which     early catchments                              planned for a month’s time)
                                    did take up some time in
                                    the early catchments
3      Continued open               Opening opportunities for   Lack of reaction from          Room too hot
       discussion/ contribution     linkages                    industries – need for longer
       from participants                                        lead time – will be repeating
                                                                in a months time
Tot.   Discussion = 2, Sharing information = 2                  Poor industry representation = 3

Practitioner Ratings
Meeting         Comments                                                                                             Rating (0 to 10)
components
                                                                                                                     1      2     3     Mean
Content and     Yes (3)                                                                                              8      7     8     7.7
structure
Facilitation    Of course (3)                                                                                        8      7     10    8.4
Participation   Yes (3)                                                                                              8      7     8     7.7
Application     Real commitment has been expressed (2); Yes – note made by SEQC staff (3)                            7      8     8     7.7
Venue and       Food good – venue hot (3)                                                                            7      8     10/   7
catering                                                                                                                          2




76
Modifications suggested by practitioners
    •   Further preparation on agenda (1)
    •   Better spacing of each segment (2)


Participant comments
        Best about roundtable                       What could be improved                                      Other
1       Information/ updates                        More industry people/ though another in a months time
2       Good information                            More reps from other organizations, interests
        Well presented
3       The visual presentation of information      The inclusion of a wider range of industries – however
                                                    this problem is the typical struggle of getting people to
                                                    meetings rather than the structure
4       Exchange of ideas                           More participation from target audience (timing of
                                                    meeting, pre meeting contact??)
                                                    Not to get too sidetracked
5       Hearing about govt/industry views/project   Timing, more participants                                   NA
6       A frank exchange of ideas between the       A more detailed agenda would have guided and                Maybe too much time spent on the
        SEQ Catchments people and the               improved the direction of the discussions                   baseline SEQC presentations
        Industry people
7       Hearing from industry people what the       Greater (broader) involvement by industry groups
        opportunities are for new projects
8       Region wide aspect                          More industry representation need industry inputs           Industry concerns and requirements
9       Involvement and communication with          Of no fault to the organizers, it would have been good to   Applaud the focus on high level
        stakeholders                                have greater industry representation                        strategic alignment of activity between
        Understanding of process                                                                                regional bods, State Agency and
                                                                                                                Industry
                                                                                                                DPI&F will be progressing this further
Tot.    Information = 5, Discussion = 3             Poor industry representation = 8




                                                                                                                                                      77
Participant Ratings
           Content      Facilitat   Participat   Application   Venue and      Comments
           Structure    ion         ion                        catering
1          8            8           8            6             8              Good agenda in place, well managed and pretty much to time
                                                                              Small group encourages good discussion, project development
                                                                              Nice lunch but room a bit tight?
2          10           10          10           10            9              It generated an idea for a project that I will now discuss with others
                                                                              Air conditioning a bit stuffy/ warm
3          7            7           7                          8              There was perhaps too much time allowed for diversions – little time on
                                                                              major regions like the Lockyer, Highly relevant to work with SEQ
                                                                              Industry Futures
                                                                              Venue and catering OK
4          6            8           6            6             8              Application - more information & clarity required
5          8            10          8            8             10             Topics were effective in covering the key target areas within SEQ,
                                                                              facilitation kept a constant flow, Participant comments were muted due
                                                                              to knowledge of participant
                                                                              I’ve got to come back down to SEQ Catchments more often
6          7            7           7            6             9              The follow-on process for future projects was not clearly defined
7          8            6           7            8             9              Needed stronger adherence to agenda, will follow up on Expression Of
                                                                              Interest’s
                                                                              Catering was plentiful
8          8            8           9            7             10             Content and structure was good, venue and catering was excellent
9          10           10          yes                                       Facilitators are quite obviously very comfortable and confident of the
                                                                              process, Will be building outcomes into DPI&F relevant roundtable on
                                                                              the 14th, venue and catering was excellent!
Mean       8            8.2         7.7          6.3           8.8

Further engagement needs
     •   Follow up with more industry representatives (1)
     •   Continue cross group discussion (4)
     •   Future outcomes of meetings to be documented and distributed (5)
     •   Would like to see a clearly documented process for future consultation with Industry and Agencies on the RIS (6)




78
Appendix 2.1              Ag14 Field Day Handout




Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments   79
80
Appendix 2.2               Ag14 Field Day Evaluation Summaries

Rosewood
Participant comments
           Best about field day                                     What could be improved                                 Other
1          Informality, no barriers                                 Better attendance                                      CSIRO people to have more say
                                                                                                                           in SEQ planning
2          Learning, lot of info                                    Better advertising                                     Good that speakers listened to
                                                                                                                           comments
3          Discussion – good feedback from both                     Better advertising
           researchers
4          Good info and discussion                                 More farmers attending, better advertising
5          Talking with others with similar                         Wider promotion for greater attendance                 I came to find out what this
           interests/values                                                                                                project is all about
Tot.       Discussion =4                                            Better advertising = 5

Participant ratings
           Content        Speakers          Discussion          Application       Comments
           Structure
1          8              10                10                  9                 Will apply in the media
2          8              9                 9                   9                 Will seek appropriate info,
3          8              7                                     8                 Practical info, speakers open and able to discuss, will use info
4          6              6                 10                  6                 Will seek info on native tree management
5                         7                 10                                    No new knowledge, mostly reinventing the wheel
Med.       7.5            7.8               9.75                8

Modifications
       •   A formal sequence should be used in presentation of findings.


Further engagement needs
       •   Huge task, locking up land not the answer, field days show answer lies in knowledge, management and cohesion through all levels (1)
       •   Councils to send more info to existing and new residents about the restriction on their properties (2)
Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments                                                                                  81
       •   Would like details of other field days (3)
       •   Booklet should be sent out to new landholders by council on ways to manage their land and the environment (4)
       •   Am already well served by SEQC (5)
Total: Educate new landholders = 3


Practitioner comments
           Worked best             Next best                         Worked worst             Next worst              How to improve
1          Clear explanation of    Site farm                         Noise (scraping          Poor attendance         Better advertising
           project                                                   branch)                                          Less noise
           Open and frank                                            Speaker shadowed by                              Better lighting
           discussion                                                sunlight
           encouraged
2                                  People seemed interested          Poor attendance          Little to physically    Wider publicity
                                                                                              demonstrate
3          Cross-sharing info                                        Poor attendance          Need personal           Better advertising
                                                                                              invitations to attend
4          Great small group       Looking at field in landscape                                                      Better attendance
           discussion
5          Small group very        Landholder involved in multiple   Topic complex with few                           Have morning tea within walking
           interactive             NRM projects and willing to       clear solutions so                               distance of field to make day run
                                   discuss them                      discussion somewhat                              smoothly
                                                                     circular
Tot.       Discussion = 4; Landholder engagement via site = 3        Attendance = 4                                   Better attendance = 4




82
Practitioner ratings
Meeting         Comments                                                                                   Rating (0 to 10) and Mean
components
Content and     Good discussion and info, good discussion from background to applying to landscape and     10   8     8    7      7    8
structure       farm levels
Speakers        Good sharing of views                                                                      7    10    8    8      7    8
Discussion      Good discussion                                                                            10   10    10   8      10   9.6
Application     Will apply in discussion with industry groups who need this type of info, need to engage   10   8          6           8
                planners and leadership in engaging new landholders, application very difficult

Modifications
   •   Better communication to promote day to targeted/interested people
   •   Engage key influencers – planners
   •   Ensure better planning for speakers




                                                                                                                                             83
Kilcoy
Participant comments
         Best about field day                             What could be improved                              Other
1        Delving into details of subcatchment – history   Getting a few more adjoining landholders together   More detail on soils, salinity, biodiversity
         and possible future                                                                                  Influencing future scenarios would make
                                                                                                              it more valuable
2        Good discussion
3        Research reports followed by discussions         More time allocated, a field walk
4        Seeing local landscape                           More hands on demonstration of issues identified,   Disagree with regulation to achieve
                                                          e.g. woodland definition                            outcomes
5        Ideas generated by discussion                    Field walk to view improvements
6        Interesting speakers - know their topics         More locals in this area – that field day is of
                                                          importance to them
7        Hearing and learning about project               Include mini-workshop component
8        Chance to look at issues with others             Broader participation
9        Lots of information re. biodiversity
10       Meeting people, hearing different points of                                                          Rates notice is a good way to let people
         view                                                                                                 have landcare/wildlife group contacts
11
Tot.     Discussion = 5                                   Field walk = 4
         Landscape/subcatchment = 2                       Broader participation = 3




84
Participant ratings
        Content       Speakers   Discussion     Application   Comments
        Structure
1       8             7          8              6
2       10            10         10             4             Feel constrained in application, dollars control many management issues, need cost-
                                                              effective management plans
3       8             8          9              ?             Bring landscape health more into discussions in Maleny area
4       5             5          10             3             Not enough info on ramifications of loss of some species, speaker did not sell me the
                                                              message, consensus is unachievable, concerned me rather than inspiring my
                                                              involvement
5       8             8          8              8             Very informed & competent speakers, will apply on own landscape area
6       7             8          8              7             Would like to know which trees for area, application on property waiting advice on trees
                                                              and planting, grateful for booklet
7       5             6          3              5             Could have been better structured, new knowledge always useful (for application)
8       8             8          8
9       8             8          10                           Will apply knowledge
10      5             8          8                            Will think about how to make corridors more effective
11      10            10         10             10            Discussion side-tracked on land use
Med.    7.45          7.81       8.36           6.14

Further engagement needs
    •   Getting the ear of local and state governments
    •   A ‘real’ (paddock) field day on a sub-catchment scale would be excellent
    •   Get a neighbourhood group together to further the work
    •   Rates notice is a good way to let people have landcare/wildlife group contacts




                                                                                                                                                         85
Practitioner comments
           Worked best               Next best              Worked worst                    Next worst                             How to improve
1          Sharing                   Opportunity for        Standing in the sun             Lack of constructive outcomes
           perspectives/knowledg     informal discussion    (because kids were grizzling)   from discussion, lot of blame-
           e by participants                                                                shifting/ govt bashing without
                                                                                            solutions & opportunities being
                                                                                            aired
2          Good attendance           Good discussion        Little looking around           Some ‘farmer’ grievance                More       emphasis     on
                                                                                                                                   wildlife
3          Relevant location – can   Informal approach      Paddock walk, more                                                     Wider audience
           see issues, challenging                          emphasis on opportunities,
                                                                                                                                   Greater involvement from
           debates and opinions                             solutions, practical
                                                            application of learnings                                               Local Government
4          Good mix of              Landscape provided      Difficult to engage the group   Hard to actually demonstrate on-
           backgrounds              good example of                                         ground points
                                    peri-urbanisation
Tot.       Attendance/discussion = 6,                       Difficulty demonstrating application = 3
           Landscape = 2                                    Complaining group = 2

Practitioner ratings
Meeting             Comments                                                                                                  Rating (0 to 10) and Mean
components
Content and         Need more guidance on solutions, more positive about what is being done at government, catchment          7    8      7    8         7.5
structure           and farm scales
Speakers                                                                                                                      9    8      8    9         8.5
Discussion          Discussion came late in late stages                                                                       10   10     6    10        9
Application         Too much negativity and lack of solutions, most of discussion at landscape/catchment level & some         6    8      5    5         6
                    landholders could not see relevance to their situation
                    Don’t believe it will be applied

Modifications
       •   Try to encourage participation from influencers/decision-makers (councillors, Local Government staff)
       •   Need to target new landholders with key messages

86
       •   Earlier advertising in local papers for better attendance


Yarraman
Participant comments
           Best about field day                             What could be improved                                  Other
1          Interaction from participants
2          Looking at on-site issues and discussion of
           management alternatives
3          Like-minded people discussing difficulties on                                                            Very difficult to put recommendations
           property                                                                                                 into practice
4          Practical Knowledge, on-ground experience
5          Good info/background re. project (principles     More on thresholds for viable ecosystem –               Incentives and education to engage new
           for landscape management on small scale          conservation, grazing/cropping, living/infrastructure   landholders
           farms)
6          Accessible, local                                More time
7          Exchange of info.                                See outcomes from treatment (of problems)               People criticising farmers 20 yrs ago
                                                                                                                    now retiring to these areas and causing
                                                                                                                    bigger problems
8          Good speakers talking sense
9          Broad range of expertise in speakers – very                                                              Flora and fauna lists, 5 yr comparison
           interesting                                                                                              post implementation, photo-monitoring
10         Alternative management strategies for
           degraded woodland
11         Speakers knew their subject and applied
           knowledge to site
Tot.       Speakers applying knowledge = 6                  More of same = 2
           Discussion = 4                                   Seeing outcomes of recommendations over time = 2
                                                            Engagement new landholders = 2




                                                                                                                                                              87
Participant ratings
         Content       Speakers         Discussion         Application   Comments
         Structure
1        10            10               8                  6             Bit short of time for discussion. Will help with application
2        10            10               10                 10            Will apply to peri-urban project in Rosalie Shire
3
4        8             10               10                 10            Similar problems on our farm
5        8             8                10                 7             Will look for info. to support new landholders and LG planners
6        8             7                4                                Not sure can apply, educative only
7        8             8                6                  6             Will apply to problem areas on own property
8        9.5           9.5              10                               Will apply by consulting with friends on land
9        10            10                                                Will lobby council and government
10       7             7                6                  5
11       7             8                7                  7             Confirmed info. from other sources
Med.     8.55          8.75             7.88               7.28

Further engagement needs
     •   There is a fair bit around if one cares to look for it
     •   Increased education of peri-urban residents
     •   Help with funding work to be undertaken, in conjunction with advice from relevant Landcare, CSIRO, and Council people
     •   Encouragement of effective implementation of on-ground delivery of conservation theories
     •   Follow up progress of project and the remedies used
     •   Revegetation workshops on species, planting regimes etc
     •   More field days
     •   Anything, anytime, anywhere; planning processes acknowledging impact of peri-urbanisation on native habitat




88
Practitioner comments
           Worked best                            Next best                          Worked worst              Next worst       How to improve
1          Good discussion in paddock             Good summary of relevant                                                      Better attendance
           situation highlighted property scale   findings of the project
           issues and possible solutions          Practical demo. salinity & soils
2          Getting experts into paddock talking   Relaxed atmosphere, good site,     Not enough landholders                     Better field day signs
           to community                           shade                              present
3          Plenty to show and tell                Good interaction                                                              More time for discussion
4          Good outdoor component                 Good participation                                                            More people
Tot.       Application of knowledge = 5; Participation = 2                           More landholders attending = 4

Practitioner ratings
Meeting             Comments                                                                                                Rating (0 to 10) and Mean
components
Content and                                                                                                                 8      7     9     8     7.5
structure
Speakers            Good mix of CSIRO, property owners & SEQC                                                               8      8     10    8     8.5
                    Soil conservation fellow especially good
Discussion                                                                                                                  8      8     5     10    7.75
Application         Not enough landholders present                                                                          6      5           8     6.33
                    Time for local govt to implement changes

Modifications suggested by practitioners
       •   Target wider audience
       •   Broader publicity and better signage
       •   Increase practical component




                                                                                                                                                            89
Boonah
Practitioner comments
           Worked best                   Next best                   Worked worst              Next worst                    How to improve
1          Good attendance               Excellent site              Very little                                             Some hands on demos
           Good speakers                 Informal approach
2          Relevant topic of living in   Looking at the              Could have been more      It all worked well            Written agenda?
           this environment              landscape, Being in a       large group discussion
                                         burnt woodlands, being      & encourage small
                                         in a dry vine scrub         group discussion
3          Relaxed and informal          Venue/shade,                                                                        Introductions around the table
           Free exchange of ideas        Opportunity to walk
                                         around site, Handouts
                                         at table
4          Focus on lifestyle blocks     Getting landscape           Good site/ discussion     Need to put theory into       More follow up action focus on life-
           within the landscape and      focus into people’s                                   practice maybe what           stylers actions in landscape
           management issues             focus                                                 people can do next
5          Lots to see                                                                         A bit hard to stimulate
           Interested group                                                                    broad discussion
Tot.       Location (site) = 5; Informal approach = 2                More discussion = 2; Action = 2

Practitioner ratings
Meeting                  Comments                                                                                        Rating (0 to 10) and Mean
components
                                                                                                                         1        2     3      4   5
Content and              Multiple relevant topics, good principles                                                       8        8     9          9       8.5
structure
Speakers                 Range of speakers – broad and local                                                             8        8     8          10      8.5
Discussion               Plenty of discussion                                                                            9        7     9          9       8.5
Application              Useful, more of interest than intent for some, hopefully will apply                             9        7     7          7.5     7.5

Modifications suggested by practitioners
       •   More hands on
       •   Be more involved and contribute to discussions where possible



90
Participant comments
       Best about field day                       What could be improved                              Other
1      Community willingness
2
3
4      Pointing out the diverse uses of owners
5      Information gained                                                                             More fire protection by all small or large
                                                                                                      landholders
6      How informal but informative it was        Possibly more on working properties and other
                                                  strategies that can be used
7      Aside from the patty cakes – observing     Introduction of participants would have been
       & having regional ecosystems on the        helpful …
       property explained was interesting
8      The diverse opinions                       No – location was excellent and the speakers        Yes – we saw our first phascigale on our
                                                  very knowledgeable                                  regenerating land, Absolutely beautiful!
9      The interaction with different land        It was quite alright                                Not at this stage.
       holders
10     The property, great example of             It was good
       conservation
11
12     Open discussions                           BBQ & beer (only joking!)
       Relevant sites to see
       Beautiful location and hosts
13     Venue
14     Debate, information, discussion            Intro of participants and there interest in being   It was informative & enjoyable & can lead to
                                                  here, Possibly a power point or printout            action
15     Response by landholders interested in      Name tags                                           The need to ‘spread the word’
       learning more!
16     The presentations were very                How do you sustain biodiversity in the present
       informative except sustainability issues   economical environment as land out-prices itself
17     Introduction/ setting the scene by Neil    Disciplined facilitating                             Study publications prepared for Boonah Shire –
       To observe the effects of fire to                                                               there are several issues to assist within your
       vegetation                                                                                      studies (neg and pos)
18     Fire relevant to many at the moment        Was not sure who everyone was                        Very enjoyable day
Tot.   Discussion = 5; Information = 5;           Tighter facilitation (introductions, name tags, agenda, groups) = 5
       Location = 5; Speakers = 2



                                                                                                                                                        91
Participant ratings
           Content       Speakers     Discussion      Application    Comments
           Structure
1          8             10           10
2          8             8            8                              Burning for lantana control
3
4          7             8            9               9              Good framework for planning property development
5          9             9            10                             Not on open graze land
6          7             8            8               6.7            I think there was, will find out a bit more for my local area
7          7             8            8               7              C&S started good yet slightly developed into argument on fire regimes, possibly
                                                                     apply– not sure where specifically
8          8             9            6               10             Some very ‘hot’ issues were discussed, there was a lot discussed that was relevant
                                                                     to us personally
9          8             8            9               8              Will apply by continuing our plan on SEQ land management
10         8             8            10              10
11         7             9            9               9
12         9             9            9               7              Fire discussion very relevant & 2 communities to see, know their subject well,
                                                                     excellent opportunities – could have continued longer with such interest,
                                                                     discussions with other landholders
13         7             9            9                              Helpful in co-operating with farmers when owning a lifestyle block
14         7                                                         Could have used teaching aids, excellent, will apply action to provide a buffer to
                                                                     the rainforest
15                                                                   Good opportunity to talk with attendees, good speakers program
16                       9            9               5              Very enjoyable conversations, would like to apply but not at present
17         7             6            6               7              C&S within the range of landscape management – can be broader, discussion
                                                                     overall good, will apply extension findings to Landcare groups
18         8             8            8               7              Very interesting discussions, knowledgeable speakers, plenty of opportunity for
                                                                     discussion, will apply higher awareness of fire
Mean       7.7           8.4          8.5             7.8

Further engagement needs
     •   Great job (1)
     •   Lantana control field days (2)
     •   I was not able to be at the day from the beginning but what I heard was very interesting (3)
     •   I think that a workshop on fire management in the shire would be potentially very beneficial – possibly run by the QLD biodiversity consortium.

92
        They would at least be able to provide education on fire man (7)
    •   Visit plantings – past and present (11)
    •   Written principles circulated – with local relevant examples (12)
    •   A specific property and neighbourhood plan (14)
    •   Weed and fire management – opportunities to learn (15)
    •   I prefer to listen to the multiple views given and adapted some of the thinking (16)
    •   Whole property management issues (17)
    •   Fire is a current topic of concern in this region (18)
Total: property management including neighbours on weeds and fire


Toogoolawah
Practitioner comments
        Worked best                 Next best                                                  Worked         Next worst                        How to
                                                                                               worst                                            improve
1       The information of          I thought it was generally a good introduction             NA             Was all good, flies & sun         Not sure
        speakers
2       Practical elements for      Good cross-section of farmers, industry organizations,                    Power supply – affected
        application of principles   reg-body staff, agency (DPIF) and Greening Australia                      smoko
        Discussion and                                                                                        Paddock site a bit
        participation
3       Outside in the real         Planned approach – intro in dairy then further issues      Heat and       Provision of shade on the river
        environment                 on river bank                                              flies          bed
Tot.    Information = 2; Discussion = 2; Practical approach = 3                                Flies and sun = 2




                                                                                                                                                           93
Practitioner ratings
Meeting          Comments                                                                                                          Rating (0 to 10)
components                                                                                                                         and Mean
Content and                                                                                                                        7    7      7    7
structure
Speakers         Difficult to hear with breeze on river (2)                                                                        7    8     7    7.5
Discussion       Yes (1); Yes, particularly in the field session (2)More discussion could have been called for from rural people   7    8     5    7
Application      Yes I found some interesting new information (1); Some of the locally relevant revegetation and erosion           7          5    6
                 management info maybe more challenging to apply (2); Landscape planning – Local Government, State
                 government and regional bodies & others have already embraced some of the project findings; General
                 awareness – not an action oriented field day

Modifications suggested by practitioners
     •   Better preparation with more visual aids and planned speaking rather than fully off the cuff (1)
     •   More detailed site setup (3)




94
Participant comments
       Best about field day                      What could be improved                                Other
1      Only 50km from residence                  Seating (brought by participants) and hats for        Sub-catchments (lifestyle sub-divisions) by laser
                                                 sun screening                                         survey and Torrens Group Title
                                                 More feedback encouraged by participants’             Roads planned to avenues for windbreaks &
                                                 questions or comments (especially                     landscape values
                                                 landholders)                                          River beds now ‘managed’ not fenced off – at last!
                                                                                                       More labourer assistance ahead of money
2      Practical and applicable to discussion    more interaction with site – i.e. visit to riparian
       topic because of location                 zone and examination
3      The CSIRO about landscape                 Maybe a few more                                      Would have been nice to hear more from the bloke
       thresholds and biodiversity issues        recommendations/comments about Bill’s farm            at Esk Council about how he saw the situation
4      To listen to other people’s ideas and
       plans for maintaining/improving land
       health, commensurate with productivity
5      Opportunity to listen within the                                                                Enjoyable informative day
       landscape
6      The discussions and views from others     Shade – water available as we needed it               Yes
       Access to experts                         Free stuff – hat, pen, water bottle (ok I am
       Seeing the farm                           kidding)
                                                 An agenda – so we could think about the
                                                 question before attending
7      The speakers                              To keep out of sun
8      Information about revegetation
9      Interaction between group                 Aerogard                                              Its all about a community working together
10     Variety of speakers from various          The contact details of all present
       departments and different outlooks on
       same subjects
11     It was highly informative and very well
       presented
12     Interaction & ideas                       More concrete data
                                                 No conclusive statements
13     Everything – the open air discussion      A bit more shade                                 Impressed overall
14     Clear explanation of project by Jack      More people for more discussion                  These days need better targeted and more
                                                                                                  publicity
Tot.   Information = 6; Discussion = 4;          Sun and flies = 4; More feedback, information, data, people, site interaction = 7
       Location = 4; Speakers = 4


                                                                                                                                                            95
Participant ratings
         Content        Speakers    Discussion        Application   Comments
         Structure
1        5              8           3                               Soil condition (soil biodiversity) ahead of terrestrial biodiversity in content, more effective
                                                                    ways of controlling river erosion & planting trees, nothing about lignous cellulose (tree
                                                                    thinnings and planting) for ethanol production rather than grain, press for more education
                                                                    on carbon sequestration in soils
2        7              6           7                 7             Will apply - communication to council
3        8              8           10                10            All speakers had a good understanding of agricultural issues. Great to see, Have a much
                                                                    better understanding of landscape issues
4        10             10          10                              A Yes with consideration to differing land size and circumstances
5        7              7           6                 6
6        8              9           8                 9             C&S Facilitation was needed to curb excessive opinion expressed and to encourage
                                                                    those not talking, venue made some speakers difficult to hear, will definitely apply – we
                                                                    are planning to move our farm from with great trees to one with almost none
7        9              9           9                               I am doing a lot of it now
8        8              8           8                 8
9        8              8           10                8
10       8              8           7                 7             Will apply but not in SEQ catchments
11       9              8           10                9             It is important to understand the ecological sustainability of the area in my job
12       6              6           5                 8             Will deliver to other farmers
13       7              7           7                 7             Enjoyable, very good, perhaps too much discussion from some, will apply to riparian
                                                                    management
14       10             7           10                              A by spreading the message
M        7.9            7.8         7.9               7.9
R        5-10           6-10        3-10              7-10

Further engagement needs
     •        Integrated community management – higher level as a concept (2)
     •        Property planning on a catchment scale (5)
     •        Species suitable, farm planning, fodder management (6)
     •        Just more money and time to do things(7)
     •        Individual land advice/assessment (8)
     •        Need more facts about findings (12)

96
     •   Process of linking of property owners for catchment effect (14)




Plainland
Practitioner comments
          Worked best           Next best                Worked worst                                Next worst            How to improve
 1        Pleasant crowd        Owners have a            A bit put off by industry group attitude    Hard story to tell    Possibly hands on at the blue
                                positive story to tell                                                                     gum site
 2        Great discussion                               Industry group was difficult, belligerent
                                                         & created a feeling of distrust
 Tot.     People factor (good) = 3                       People factor (not good) = 2

Practitioner ratings
 Meeting           Comments                                                                                               Rating (0 to 10)
 components                                                                                                               Mean and Range
                                                                                                                          1      2         Mean   Range
 Content and                                                                                                              9      8         8.5    8-9
 structure
 Speakers                                                                                                                 9     8        8.5      8-9
 Discussion                                                                                                               10    9        9.5      9-10
 Application       Yes – by the landholders but I can’t shake the feeling that the industry group involved have a         5     5        5        5
                   political agenda rather than an NRM agenda per se

Modifications suggested by practitioners
     •   More technical speakers




                                                                                                                                                           97
Participant comments
        Best about field day                                             What could be improved                               Other
1       It has some results                                              Better information                                   The report
2       My talk ha! Open thinking                                        More time to eat everything
3       Clarification of the differences of NRM and biodiversity
4       Good in-depth discussion, about NRM issues, there seems to be    We used not working contacts
        hope on the horizon
5       Reliable information from broad sources                          Perfectly happy with it                              No
6       Informative, casual discussion                                   Printed information on outcomes
7       Conservation biodiversity & irrigation problems                  More discussion time
8       Recognition of biodiversity values are happening – need to get   More/wider attendance
        message to politicians
9       CH perspective                                                   Have report to take away
10      The discussion                                                   Yes
11      Personal interaction                                             No comment
Tot.    Discussion = 4, Information = 4                                  More (better) information = 3

Participant ratings
         Content      Speakers       Discussion      Application    Comments
         Structure
1        5            5              8               5              When I get the report can proceed
2        10           10             10              10
3        8            8              8               7              Informal structure good to encourage discussion, Knowledgeable, Plenty of
                                                                    group discussion and questions, will apply through talking with others
4        8            8              8               10             Bang the neighbours heads together
5        8            9                                             Think more about technical aspects
6        8            8              10              8              Assessment of NRM landscapes
7        10           10             5
8        8            8              9               9              Will apply by spreading information on need to maintain diversity
9        7            7              10              8              Relate to others
10       8            8              10              7              Yes, continuing our current path
11       10           10             10
Mean     8.2          8.3            8.8             8.0
Range    5-10         5-10           8-10            5-10




98
Further engagement needs
   •   Contact the local groups/ industry association so we can get message out in a timely manner. Also need to consider people are busy and timing
       is important (1)
   •   More of the same (2)
   •   A certain amount of regulation is required to achieve outcomes. Regulation by consent (4)
   •   Peri-urban development & sustainability (6)
   •   Soils, water use (7)
   •   Education to broader community (8)
   •   None (9)




                                                                                                                                                  99
Appendix 2.3   Riparian Field Day Fier




100
101
Appendix 2.4              Creeks, Weeds and Cows Riparian Field Day Evaluation Summaries

Practitioner Comments
        Worked best                         Next best                        Worked worst                  Next worst              How to improve
1       Good attendance                     Relaxed atmosphere               Ran late                      More time               More time
        Positive attitudes
        Good venue
2       Diverse attendants                  Small groups                     Not enough time               Exclude DNRM&W rep
3       Good attendance                     Strengthening                    Some presenters were          Exclude DNRM&W rep      More time for discussion
        Positive attitudes                  relationship w.                  unaware of                                            Check power point
        Build relationships w.              landholders/building             inappropriateness of
        landholders                         community support                views for audience
        Highlighting programs
4       Build relationships w.              Small group discussion           Difficult to hear             Better visuals – some   Tailored presentations to
        landholders                                                                                        photos not clear        local issues
5       Good attendance                     Discussion                       One session too many                                  Demonstrations – weeds,
        Subcatchment perspective                                                                                                   stock
6       Build relationship w.               Discussion/field trip mix        Better organised field trip   Seeing sprayer waste    Poll issues from each
        landholders                                                          Summing up session            of time                 session
        River Trust Strategy
7       Build relationships w.              Informal discussion in           Isolated negative             Speaker interaction     Demonstrate local BMP
        landholders                         breaks and field trip            participants dominating       and summing up
                                                                             discussion
8       Build relationships w.         Format (but missed field              Not enough time                                       Two days
        landholders                    trip)
Tot.    13 = Discussion in relaxed/small group/field trip                    6 = time constraint, tighter organisation, plenary    6 = more time/two days/ field
        atmosphere, build relationships w. landholders                       3 = inappropriate presenter                           demonstrations/ local BMP/
        4 = good, positive, diverse attendance                               3 = acoustics, visuals, check power point             tailoring to local issues




Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments
102
Practitioner Ratings
Meeting              Comments                                                                         Rating (0 to 10) and Mean
components
Content and          Did not hear other speakers                                                      8    8         9   8     7   10   7   8.1
structure            Good intro, discussion generated in sessions
Facilitation         One poor presenter, wrap up plenary, better introduction, afternoon too loose    9    10        6   7     7   8    6   7.6
Participation        Quieter participants not drawn out                                               8    10        8   8     9   7    7   8.1
Application          Need more demonstration/BMP                                                           9         7   6.5   5   5    7   6.6
Venue and            Good venue/average catering                                                      8    10        8   10    9   10   8   9
catering

Modifications suggested by practitioners
   •   Less material to cover
   •   Ensure speakers understand SEQC policies prior to day
   •   Better understand participants’ needs and interests
   •   Demonstration of riparian management and project development
   •   More structured involvement of individuals and groups
   •   Draw out impediments, difficulties, motivational issues early and address through a joint session (plenary)




                                                                                                                                                  103
Participant Comments
       Best about field day                           What could be improved                             Other
1      Interactive discussion, opportunity to voice   More practical session on repairing riparian
       opinion, subcatchment focus
2
3      Learnt a lot                                   How to find someone to walk property               Need someone on property, need
                                                                                                         backpack spray
4      Practical information
5
6      Informative discussion                         More time
7      Well organised                                 Acoustics
8      Balance of management options                  More time (for practical demonstration)
9      Small discussion groups                        More time (longer sessions)
10     Practical information                          More time (longer sessions)
11     Well organised and informative
12     All sessions fascinating
13     Good facilitators
14     Talking with other landholders regarding       Information on cost of solutions
       common problem
15     Small groups sessions                          Smaller group sessions
16     Good facilitators                              More reference to info in bags, more practical
                                                      solutions
17     Good topics                                    More time                                          More info DNRM&W on insurance
18     Good mix presentations/ discussion             Subcatchment maps                                  Be clear on what is wanted and
                                                                                                         coordinate what is required
19     Day off work                                   Patronising talkfest                               Farmers have the answers
20     Interactive discussion                         Local and practical applications
21     Confirmation/extension existing knowledge      More workshops with variation and concentration
22                                                    Coordinate speakers to avoid repetition, plenary
                                                      exchange of views
23     Informative
24     Friendly atmosphere
25     Information weed control/water quality                                                            Any new information
26     Informative                                    More info on chemical control – what works
27     Wide attendance (tree change and traditional   More time – two days for longer sessions and       Info on which local reveg species and
       landholders.)                                  longer, more practical field day                   where to get them
Tot.   Information = 14, Discussion = 7               More practical applications = 8, More time = 6

104
Participant Ratings
       Content     Facilitation   Participation   Application   Venue Catering   Comments
       Structure
1      6           8              7               5             8                More discussion on practical ways to repair riparian
                                                                                 More time
2      8           8              8               8             8
3
4      8           9              9               9             9                Will apply off creek watering points & contact SEQC for
                                                                                 property planning advice
5      7           8              8               5             9                Will apply where we can
6      8           9              7               9             8                Definitely consider fencing off creek
7      10          10             5               5             10
8      5           6              7               6             8
9      8           8              8                             10
10     7           8              6               7             7                Inadequate time to participate
11     6           8              5                             Yes              Have been applying this for years
12     8           9              8                             10
13     8           9              8               6             9                Won’t apply as my horses do not go near creek
14     9           9              9               9             9                Will apply mentally not physically
15     5           6              6                             6                Already applied knowledge
16     8           8              8               7             10               Will pass knowledge on to primary producers
17     8           10             8               6             5                Awareness building rather than solution based practical
                                                                                 information, poor acoustics
18     8           7.5            8                             9                Most is already implemented
19     9           9              9                                              Will provide info to growers, poor acoustics
20     0           6              8               5             10               Fractured content, participant solutions discounted, will apply
                                                                                 some parts of knowledge
21     6           6              9               6             9
22     9           9              8                             9                Will encourage others to be progressive/active
                                                                                 Participation limited by time
23     6           6              6                             8                Need more hands on solutions to weed problems
24     8           Yes            Yes                           10               Already applied – “been there, done that”
25     8           8              9               8             9                Will apply if needed
26     8           9              9               Yes           10
27     9           9              9               9             9
Mean   7.3         8.1            7.6             6.8           8.7              Polarisation evident regarding application

                                                                                                                                                   105
Future engagement needs
      •   Follow up workshop to see what people have done (1)
      •   Keep up the good work (2)
      •   Coordination of community groups to keep the process of information strong and weed control on-going (4)
      •   Cats Claw (6)
      •   More field trips (7)
      •   Demonstrations of successful riparian management (8)
      •   More information on how SEQC can help a farmer achieve their goals (18)
      •   Evaluation of giant rats tail grass (19)
      •   I dislike the whole concept – waste of time attending (21)
      •   I know where to find you (22)
      •   More hands on solutions to weed problems (24)
      •   Less red tape (25)
      •   More information (26)
      •   Field trips to farms with successful riparian management and visits to weed infestation sites to help identify the weeds (hard to identify weeds
          from a photograph, be on mailing list for future events (27)
Total: More application – demonstrations = 7




106
Appendix 2.5              Cats Claw Control Demonstration Field Day Flier`




Flier




Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments   107
108
Appendix 3                SEQC Local Government NRM Network Evaluations

Forum 1 Gatton August 2005
Participant Evaluations
        Best about forum                               What could be improved                                      Other
1       Met new people in the region: new              Agenda with times (anticipate longer discussion)            Put a deadline on the RIS EOI
        info about funding
2       Open agenda – that is facilitation             Some issues could have been clearer 1) need to spend
        was directional but not restrictive            money by certain time 2) timeframes
3       Higher level discussions – Simon
        and Craig
4       Frank and open discussion by                   Would like to have seen a greater number of Councillors     I feel that my Council as a whole are not
        everyone                                       (the LG decision makers) present                            well enough informed of how NRM fits in
        It helps create linkages for                                                                               with their aims for the Shire as a whole
        networking common problems
5       Opportunity to discuss issues in a             I thought that the forum ran well. Sometimes individuals    We each have a responsibility to make a
        frank and open manner                          have issues that are of concern to them but are not of as   positive difference
        Meeting other Officers                         much interest to others. Managing these interests in a
        Informality                                    forum can be a challenge for the facilitator.
6       The amount of discussion
7       Interactive                                    Too long
        Good facilitator
8       Meeting face-to-face LG                        Air conditioning!                                           How would you modify (the process) to
        representatives from the region                Were all LG’s represented?                                  suit volunteers?
Tot.    Discussion = 4                                 LG representation = 2
        Meeting others = 3




Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments                                                                                     109
       Content Facilitation Participation Application Venue    Comments
       structure                                      catering
1      7         6          10            8           7        C&S – not enough time
                                                               A – relationship with SEQRP
2      8         10         9             9           7        A – have a clearer awareness of what is available in terms of money
                                                               networks and other resources
                                                               V&C – little cool, seating open
                                                               Note: vegetarian option would have been good – at least one sand
3      7         10         10                        8        C&S – free-wheeled to some degree but seemed to be for Simon benefit &
                                                               useful
                                                               A – make applications
4      7         8          10            7           8        C&S – yes
                                                               F – yes
                                                               P – yes
                                                               A – yes Ensuring I have one on one contact with my SEQWCG
                                                               representative
                                                               V&C – very good
5      7         7          9                         8        C&S – Day went well. It would have been useful to have an agenda before
                                                               the day
                                                               F – yes
                                                               P – We all had a chance to have a say
                                                               V&C – yes
6      9         10         9             9           6        C&S – yes
                                                               F – yes. The facilitator made a point to involve all participants e.g. prompting
                                                               P – yes
                                                               A – yes. The information will be repeated to relevant Council members
                                                               V&C – venue was a little cold. There was a little too much food
7      8         7          8             7           7
8      10        10         8             8           8        C&S – engagement practice forum timely and relevant
                                                               F – Kit has good rapport with LG reps from previous networking
                                                               P – group discussion in both small and larger groups was encouraged
                                                               A – an understanding of LG linkages is relevant to effective engagement
                                                               V&C – breaks are always good for more networking/ catering a plus!
Mean 7.9         8.5        9.1           8.0         7.4
Further engagement needs
      •   What future activities/consultation would you like SEQC to offer?

110
    •    LG newsletter – monthly Keep it up. Thanks.
    •    Updates on arrangements, funding, etc, Outcomes from the meeting
    •    Quarterly forums perhaps to provide discussion and feedback opportunities - networking
    •    On-going forum on a regular basis – e.g. quarterly
    •    Modification of the activity to include the increased number of LG representatives in SEQ Catchments


Practitioner Evaluations
             Worked best         Next best                      Worked worst            Next worst                      How to improve
1            Good input from     Ability to workshop issues     Time                    Laidley was not present         I think it achieved the
             participants        in groups                                                                              outcomes desired
2            Opportunity for     Starting to resolve            We needed a whole       Would have been nice to         I was happy with its
             numerous councils   engagement issues              day (time limited)      have a bit more input for all   outcome
             to share thoughts   between Council and                                    participants?
             and voice their     SEQWCG – e.g. idea of
             concerns            regional network (like
                                 NUCC)
Totals       4 = Positive engagement                            2 = time limitation                                     2 = desired outcome
                                                                                                                        achieved




                                                                                                                                                  111
Practioner ratings
                                                                                                      Rating (0 to 10) and Mean
Meeting components      Comments                                                                      1         2        Mean
Content and structure   1                                                                             7         10       8.5
                        2 yes

Facilitation            1                                                                             8         8        8
                        2 yes
Participation           1                                                                             9         8        8.5
                        2 yes

Application             1                                                                             9         9        9
                        2 it’s the start of the process – may take time to finalize but will happen

Venue and catering      Yes – bit cold at start, great food                                           9         9        9




112
Forum 2 Esk September 2005
Participant Evaluations
       Best about forum                       What could be improved                   Other
1      Meeting people interested in NRM       Ideas came out of plan conducted in
       and sharing knowledge                  workshop
       Forming a network
       Putting ideas into action
2      Interest in closer ties between NRM    Commitment of all councils to stay for
       staff and regional body                the whole meeting
3      Informal and open discussion,
       informative and willing to integrate
       info
4      The contacts, shared information,      No improvements needed                   Good to have such broad local govt participation
       and friendliness of the people
5      Adequate room for discussion
6      Topics discussed                       Keep to time better                      Discussion papers presented with agenda – good
7      Productive interaction                 Run to agenda timing
8      The chance to learn more about my      Participants are able to stay for the    ?? probably yes when I understand my role better
       role                                   whole meeting
9      Opportunity to link up with NRM        Really do not have background to         Why do we have to have WCG & NRM-SEQ under the
       operatives and managers and gain       comment here                             SEQC org. From a newcomer’s point of view WHY double
       perspective from others experience                                              up structure and inherit all these perceived problems??
10     Good opportunity to meet people
11     SEQWC/NRMSEQ update                    Were all Councils represented?           Good to have new people to meet as visitors
Tot.   Networking = 6                         LC commitment = 2
                                              Keep to time = 2




                                                                                                                                                 113
       C&S   Facilit   Partic   Appl   V&C   Comments
1      8     8         9               8     A – discuss with other officers in Council
                                             V&C – yes
2      8     8         7        8      8     A – seems most people are looking for simply more support
3      9     10        10       8      10    C&S – set topics are good way to ensure cover all areas required
                                             P – as in all meeting some tend to dominate discussion. Facilitator worked well to
                                             encourage the quieter people, needs to occur more
                                             A – in Council discussions
4      8     9         9        9      9     C&S – yes
                                             F – yes
                                             P – yes
                                             A – yes to my own regional bodies and Councils
                                             V&C – yes
5      8     9         9        8      9     A – pass it on to rest of Council
                                             V&C – yes
6      9     7         9        8      7     A – report back to manager
7      8     8         8               8
8      8     9         10       7      8
9      9     10        10                    C&S – yes
                                             F – I enjoy Kit’s style – really appreciate it (thanks)
                                             P – yes
                                             A – yes, add to my program
                                             V&C not a problem here (focus is not food & fare but group content)
10     8     9         8               8     F – yes, very engaging
                                             P – plenty of opportunities
                                             A – hope to have regular contact with this group in LGAQ NRM project
                                             V&C – very good, enjoyed all the art work!
11     8     9         10       8      8     C&S – Good mix of info provided & participation of all players
                                             F – You do a great job! Lots of issues to manage
                                             P – good to have workshopping and then discussion papers
                                             A – yes better appreciation of Local Government issues
                                             V&C – yes
Mean   8.3   8.7       9.0      8.0    8.3




114
Further engagement needs
     •   Seems that there is interest in more rural based programs supporting conservation on private land
     •   Forum is working well, hope it continues
     •   Continuation of network process
     •   Probably yes, when I understand my role better
     •   Feedback on what sort of NRM training/support Councils would like from LGAQ
     •   Encourage reporting of NRM activities and successes and issues


Forum 3 Laidley March 2006
Participant evaluations
         Like Best                                        Improved                                Other
1        Finding out about NRM activity in region         More re council NRM activities &        Appreciate efforts despite role confusion with
                                                          sharing successes (more time)           NUC
2        Significant LGA NRM requests to be
         considered
         Significant NRM info presented
3        Good varied information                          Briefings circulated ahead of time      An essential network
4        Well planned and informative
5        Information exchange                             Need reliable
                                                          representation/attendance from all
                                                          councils
6        Information presented
7
8        Informative
         Networking
9        Information/Networking NRM activities being      Feeding into NUCC & WESROC
         undertaken, current issues, relevant new         would be beneficial
         legislation & policies that will affect LG
10       Information on projects/activities/issues in
         region
11       Info on NRM related projects
Total    Information = 10

                                                                                                                                                   115
Participant ratings
            Content     Facilitation    Participation     Application   Venue Catering   Comments
            Structure
1           8           9               6                 8             9                Limited opp. Participation. Will apply by going deeper into
                                                                                         L&W report
2           10          9               9                 Yes           9
3           8           7               9                 8             8                Not enough time for participation, will provide info to cross
                                                                                         council co-or team
4           7           8               8                 7             8
5           7           7               8                 7             8                Use info to improve coordination
6           8           9               9                 9             9
7           10          10              9                 10            10
8           8           8               8                 8             8                Take back to org to evaluate/incorporate
9           9           8               8                 8             8
10          8           6               7                 8             8                Over time, use facilitator instead of chair, will report back
                                                                                         to team members
11   8                  9.5             7                 9             7                Not enough time for participation
Med. 8.2                8.2             8                 8.2           8.4

Further engagement needs
      •     A follow-up on technical issues raised to go into greater depth
      •     More of the same – having presenters with their projects with relevant technical comment


Practitioner evaluation and rating
          Best                                   Worst                                                 Next worst
1         Sharing info between councils          Sporadic attendance                                   Over time

            Content      Facilitation     Participation   Application   Venue Catering   Comments
            Structure
1           7            8                8               5             6                Problem keeping to timeframes, council chamber
                                                                                         inappropriate




116
Appendix 4.1              Invite and Agenda for the Community Engagement Benchmark



 Practitioners’ workshop:
 Enhancing Community Engagement
 for Natural Resource Management
 Sustainable Agricultural State-level Investment Program



 When
 10am to 5pm, Monday 4th December 2006                      Anticipated Outcomes
                                                            Three key workshop outcomes are anticipated:
 Where                                                         • Discussion of recent research findings on
 Level 3, Queensland Bioscience Precinct                           community engagement for NRM
 306 Carmody Road, St Lucia                                    • Sharing of engagement experiences
                                                                   among engagement practitioners
 Purpose                                                       • Benchmarking      current   engagement
 The AG-SIP 18 project “Enhancing Community                        practice
 Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western
 Catchments” identified limited monitoring and              Participants
 evaluation of engagement practice. Two other               All engagement practitioners are encouraged to
 State-Level Investment Projects have also                  participate in the workshop
 focused on community engagement for NRM.
 The purpose of this workshop is to discuss the             RSVP
 findings of recent community engagement                    Please RSVP by Monday 27th November to:
 research and to benchmark engagement                       Tim Smith (Tim.Smith@csiro.au)
 practice.
                                                            Further information
 Agenda                                                     Tim Smith
 Time    Activity                                           CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems
 10:00am Arrival and morning tea                            t. 07 3214 2331
 10:15am Welcome and introductions                          e. Tim.Smith@csiro.au
 10:45am Findings of engagement projects in
         SEQ with group discussion
           Peri-urban incentives program                    The project is being funded through the National
           (John Mackenzie)                                 Action Plan on Salinity and Water Quality as
           Linking the social with the                      Project AG18 in the Sustainable Agricultural
           environmental: community capacity                State-level Investment Program (AgSIP).
           (Ken Keith)
           Enhancing community engagement                   More details on the Ag-SIP program are
           for NRM (Tim Smith)                              available   from    the   following website:
 11:50am Outline of process for the rest of the             www.dpi.qld.gov.au/AgSIP/
         day
 12:00pm Lunch                                              More details on other State-Level Investment
 12:30pm Regional benchmark of current                      Projects are available from the following
         engagement practice – part 1 (target               website:
         audience and tools)                                www.regionalnrm.qld.gov.au/research_sips/sips/
 2:00pm  Report back – part 1                               index.html
 2:30pm  Afternoon tea
 3:00pm  Regional benchmark of current
         engagement practice – part 2
         (successes,      challenges,      and
         innovations)
 4:00pm  Report back – part 2
 4:30pm  Group discussion on ways forward
 5pm     Close




Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments                                     117
Appendix 4.2              Evaluation Community Engagement Benchmark Workshop
Participant evaluations
Workshop Component                                                                  Rating
                                                                                    (0 to 10)
Content and structure                                                               7.7
Did the workshop cover suitable topics in an effective sequence?                    (6-10)
Facilitation                                                                        8.4
Where you satisfied with the workshop facilitator?                                  (6-10)
Presentations                                                                       8.4
Were you satisfied with the workshop presentations?                                 (6-10)
Participation                                                                       8.6
Were there adequate opportunities for participation?                                (7-10)
Application                                                                         7.9
Will you apply the knowledge acquired in this workshop? How?                        (6-10)
Venue and catering                                                                  8.8
Did the venue and catering meet your expectations? Were you comfortable?            (7-10)

1. What did you like best about the workshop?
      •   Good structure and appreciated the use of laptops – saved paper!
      •   Good structure and participants / table group structure
      •   Excellent list at days end
      •   Interaction
      •   Discussions in group on different M&E and possibilities for innovation
      •   No more butchers paper – very sensible use of laptops!
      •   Benchmarking
      •   Presentations
      •   Met other practitioners
      •   The workshop was about collecting views and ideas from participants – not telling them
          what to do. This provided a good opportunity to share and learn from others
      •   Diversity of representation from different sectors
      •   Group work was good – too many people otherwise
      •   Updates on relevant research
      •   Dialogue with other practitioners
      •   Discussion
      •   Good venue, clear aims, discussion and sharing
      •   Research findings
      •   Engagement at group level
      •   First 3 presentations
      •   Hearing about the 3 projects AGSIP and SEO
      •   Meeting NRM people from the region
      •   The spread of attendees our breadth of organisations and also age – youth and experience
      •   Relevant – good facilities (even if it was in the city)

118
   •   Being group focused and the presentations were great
   •   Meeting people
   •   Meeting other people involved in similar work areas
   •   Learning what other people are doing, learning a bit more about community engagement
   •   Hearing about other projects
   •   Regional benchmark – great for reflection
   •   Afternoon session good and interactive. Really learnt a lot


2. How could the workshop have been improved?
   •   Dividing up for discussion on basis of background (i.e. SEQ Catchments, private, Local
       Government) as challenges, target audiences differ between each
   •   More time on innovations – as practitioners we mostly know the challenges and all the
       traditional methods
   •   I believe it worked well
   •   Wondered if a “challenging” speaker would throw some controversial points into the
       thinking process?
   •   More case study examples of successful engagement (innovation)
   •   Workshop groups should be set up by sector (i.e. NGO, Local Government, regional body
       etc)
   •   Room / time to clarify who you target and what for
   •   No – workshop was run well
   •   Possibly a greater focus on groups existing in the western catchments as opposed to
       general community engagement
   •   Show case 1 innovative engagement model in use
   •   Connection back to engagement theory – underpinning concepts
   •   More insight into the practical findings from AGSIP projects ie actual engagement activities
       – success and failures
   •   Shorter time – less time at breaks and for set ups
   •   Maybe half day
   •   Room too large / poor acoustics – found it difficult to hear people talking from other tables
   •   There was missing information on the feedback forms eg. scales, appropriate columns
   •   Less time for afternoon tea – home earlier
   •   Perhaps could shorten activity timeframes
   •   Wanted to hear more about the projects / research so these learnings can be taken back to
       our own areas
   •   Take it to a smaller town – traffic
   •   Use different tools for icebreaker, group information gathering i.e. share a ‘new’ icebreaker


                                                                                                   119
          you’ve used in your NRM group …


3. Are there other things you would like to let us know?
      •   Felt it was correctly weighted towards SEQ Catchments’ needs, not to those other groups
          working on the ground
      •   No
      •   Innovations are difficult – take time
      •   Keen to see the results presented well in a readily useable format
      •   I hope there is follow-up from this
      •   Establishment of a CE practitioners network with involvement from all sectors
      •   There is no shared mental model of engagement – different assumptions and boundaries.
          What is an appropriate level of agreement about a concept from this group?
      •   Sharing of M&E of engagement
      •   Would like a summary of findings from afternoon session from group work




120
4. Please rate your satisfaction or agreement on a scale of 0 (very poor) to 10 (excellent)
Workshop component                 Comments                                                                                   Rating
                                                                                                                              (0 to 10)
Content and structure              Good lead to outcome                                                                       Mean: 7.7
Did the workshop cover             Yes                                                                                        (6-10)
suitable topics in an              Yes
effective sequence?                Ok except some unnecessary time spent on definition of terms eg. targeted and engaged
                                   Yes
                                   Yes, sequence was logical and timely
                                   Relevant and logical
                                   Clear aims and topics in sequence
                                   Yes, but fail to see the real benefit of workshop activities with such a range of groups
                                   Yes
                                   Yes, practical topics
                                   Good
Facilitation                       Well developed, little role required                                                       Mean: 8.4
Where you satisfied with           Yes                                                                                        (6-10)
the workshop facilitator?          Some confusion with terms used in survey – could have provided more direction
                                   Yes. Just enough guidance / direction without being too persuasive
                                   Yes
                                   Yes
                                   Did well to keep the day flowing
                                   Kept workshop on time
                                   Yes
                                   Tim did a good job
                                   Yes, well done
                                   Effective, kept us to time. Great wedding photos
Presentations                      Yes – good lead in to group work                                                           Mean: 8.4
Were you satisfied with            Yes                                                                                        (6-10)
the workshop                       Yes
presentations?                     Yes
                                   Yes. Concise and relevant
                                   Yes – didn’t go for too long
                                   Yes. Didn’t need to be any longer. The results more relevant than the methodology
                                   Great summaries of current projects and key learnings
Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments                                                                121
                        Not too long. Good concise summaries
                        Would have liked to hear a bit more about engagement outcomes from projects in SEQ
                        Especially enjoyed John’s presentation
                        Always need to let people know of availability
                        Wasn’t much presentations, was more group work
                        Yes, very informative
                        Interesting to hear others experiences and projects
Participation           Yes- group work went well & feedback                                                           Mean: 8.6
Were there adequate     Yes                                                                                            (7-10)
opportunities for       Would have preferred questions after each speaker in morning session
participation?          Yes
                        Yes
                        Smaller groups was a great idea
                        Yes! Ample!
                        Plenty of time for sharing views and experiences in small groups and reporting back
                        Plenty of opportunity
                        Yes
                        Yes
                        Yes, a good mix
                        Definitely – good size groups
Application             All excellent work, applied across role, numerous opportunities for improvement / innovation   Mean: 7.9
Will you apply the      Workshop served as a refresher – some new suggestions                                          (6-10)
knowledge acquired in   Continue to develop understanding of engagement – good opportunities to develop thinking
this workshop? How?     Absolutely. Helps provide direction to my engagement practices
                        Prioritising tools was most effective
                        Community engagement strategies in each sub region of SEQ
                        Yes – in understanding consultation on impact assessment
                        Yes. Will review current community engagement strategies. Await summary of results by email
                        Not sure yet – would be good to have a summary from the day – dot points
                        Will rethink ‘segments’ of stakeholders (plus other opportunities)
                        Yes, community engagement on a peri-urban scale
                        Reinforce and build on past internal benchmark
                        Use as annual benchmark internally
                        Benchmarking our group
                        Will keep in mind innovation approaches
                        Yes – re-evaluate ways that I engage with community, individuals and organisations
                        Will review outcomes and will use as opportunities arise


122
                         Implement ideas as new projects
                         Really made me think about the effectiveness of engagement that I undertake. I will look at
                         implementing other engagement models / tools
                         Use tools suggested where appropriate
                         Different engagement tools
                         Yes, use different techniques if time allows
Venue and catering       All good                                                                                      Mean: 8.8
Did the venue and        Yes                                                                                           (7-10)
catering meet your       All good
expectations? Were you   Excellent venue
comfortable?             Yes
                         Parking!!
                         Parking!
                         Yes
                         Good
                         Great
                         Venue and catering great – a/c too cold. Need shorter breaks, allow for travellers
                         What happening to morning tea?
                         Brisbane city not best for country people
                         Beautiful and plenty of food / drink. Good acoustics in room
                         Excellent venue and catering




                                                                                                                                   123
5. Did you know about the projects discussed? What are your impressions?
    •   Somewhat, provides good impetus to workshops such as today
    •   Yes – level of duplication
    •   Yes
    •   Had seen John talk about peri-urban program before – good revision, interesting research
    •   AGSIP – keen to see results / outcomes delivered to practitioners
    •   Yes – some good ideas
    •   Gave me energy to look at engagement practice
    •   Yes – first 2 of 3 discussed
    •   Excellent
    •   No. Good projects – information should be widely dispersed!
    •   A little … they appear to be worthwhile
    •   Yes – a little. Very interesting. Many ideas and opportunities to integrate findings
    •   Limited knowledge. Good basis for project implementation
    •   Not all of them. They were useful. Need to study more
    •   Yes. As a practitioner they only documented what I already know
    •   Had heard of all projects – more familiar with AgSIP 18. Interested to learn more about the
        outcomes of AgSIP 18 and SE05
    •   Not all of them. Would like to read in more detail
    •   Yes, it was good to hear about other projects
    •   No; research proving what is already known by practitioners. Useful for proving to
        organisational management etc.
    •   Yes. Ok findings as expected and what have been found in previous studies
    •   No, very interesting
    •   Worthwhile projects
    •   Had heard about some of the projects from APEN, QLD Landcare Conference
    •   Great work on the projects!


6. What future activities would you be interested in?
    •   Network of practitioners
    •   Further definition and opportunities for application of the days result … taking this
        information to a format to incorporate broadly
    •   Futuristic speaker to paint an “optimistic” and “pessimistic” scenario – could bring in the
        need for “crisis management” strategies to be explored and developed
    •   Training arising from research findings
    •   Monitoring and evaluation of engagement and empowerment
Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments
124
•   Comm. Eng. Practitioners network
•   Any other relevant environmental / NRM CSIRO workshops
•   Updates on use of research outcomes – how it is relevant to regional bodies / NRM
    practitioners?
•   Collective input into a project area to put theory into practice
•   Participation in annual sharing of experiences / network
•   More theory on engagement practice
•   12 month review focusing on how people from the workshop put ideas and innovation into
    practice
•   Some way of keeping in touch – website / emails; future meeting
•   More community engagement seminars targeted at practitioners
•   Training
•   Link with APEN – also looking at ‘community engagement’ beyond ‘Dept’; eg to capture
    Health ‘extension officers’ etc. share techniques – may host ‘tools’ …
•   Future workshops and updates
•   Networking (time permitting)




                                                                                       125
Appendix 4.3   Sustainable Landscape Planner Day Invitation




126
Appendix 4.4              Sustainable Landscapes Planner Day Group discussion summaries

Group Opportunities                                                          Barriers
1     Forms of subdivision SEQ Regional Plan allows e.g. rural               Lack of change to influence final land manager: i.e. existing lots
      living / urban footprint permits strategies such as Group              do not require planning approval to erect a dwelling
      Title or Special Residential – designated building pads
      Could overlay Codes of Planning Schemes with                           Development types that generate dollars ($) e.g. tourism / B&B
      Biodiversity - to achieve outcomes                                     / Cabins – cause development pressure

          Education and support “encourage” will prove more                  Attitude to vegetation retention is conditioned by pecuniary
          successful than “rules”                                            interest in Superannuation dollars from the sale of land
          Environmental covenants and the use of dollar incentives
          to encourage maintenance and tree planting, eg. rates
          reduction
          Make it worth developers’ while to do undertake good land
          practices and forms of development: i.e. permit higher
          density if good form and outcomes achieved.
2         Focusing on promoting community based ‘programs’ to                QLD State Department is conditioning policies contradicting
          facilitate NRM conservation principles (and the capacity of        NRM principles (intra and inter relations between State and
          Local Government to facilitate such conservation) i.e. take        Local Government are disordered for achievement of NRM
          pressures off the drivers                                          objectives)
3         Existing reserves could be consolidated                            Size of Reserves too small (2 Ha)
          Encourage private covenants                                        Risk of bushfires mean clearing has to be undertaken to install
                                                                             fire breaks
          Influx of environmentally conscious people                         Population growth
          Balance development to preserve Natural Resources                  Communication breakdown between NRM &
                                                                             Developers/Politicians
          Adapt agricultural practices to suit environment – e.g. dry-       Existing zoning
          land agriculture
          Use growing budget funds to revegetate and purchase                Politicians going against advice from planners
          land
          Encourage and research Permaculture suitable to an arid            Poor policy or lack of policy
          environment
          Planning Incentives to encourage ecological development            Lack of resourcing of strategic planning
          Different configuration of subdivision e.g. Group Title            Lack of leadership and support from the State and Federal
Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments                                                                        127
      tenure                                                    Agencies
                                                                Reluctance of landholders to accept grants for revegetation
4     Improve Local Government capacity by using networking     Disconnection between local water schemes and regional
      to increase resources for planning and development – take planning schemes.
      a Knowledge brokering role
      Implement ecosystem services (place a dollar value on     Resourcing at the Local Government level is driven by rates
      landscape functions) through environmental banking,
      transferable property rights, and Offset schemes
      SEQ Regional Plan could be integrated with the SEQ        Inability to establish Common NRM set of values in a
      NRM Plan and deliver mechanisms such as rural precinct    community
      planning guidelines
                                                                Qualified people are overworked and unable to focus on NRM
                                                                “peri urban” efforts.
                                                                Conflict between difference agencies and Local Government
                                                                over NRM priorities and strategies
                                                                People doing positive valuable biodiversity/amenity actions are
                                                                in effect ‘punished’ by the limitation of their land uses. Which
                                                                decreases others willingness to do the same.
                                                                Lack of a policy framework to value ecosystem services and
                                                                landscape functions.
                                                                Current institutional and policy framework
5     Increase the understanding of ecological issues by both   Lack of resources required for enforcement
      Local Government and the public which aspires to live in
      these areas.
      Improved social communication/integration                 Political Will.
      Myth busting regarding the relationship between housing   Local Government not taking notice of 3rd party (environmental
      density and ecological impact (is inverse – lower density agency and NGO) advice.
      increases the ecological impact)
      Look at landscape content across Local Government
      boundaries.




128
Appendix 5                Practitioner and Participant Evaluation Sheets

Practitioner Evaluation


Engagement Event, time, place


1. What did you like best about this field day?


2. What were the other aspects of this field day that worked well?


3. What did you like least about this field day?


4. What were the other aspects of this field day that didn’t work well?


5. How could this field day have been improved?


6. Please rate your satisfaction or agreement on a scale of 0 (very poor) to 10 (excellent)


Meeting components                                      Comments                              Rating
                                                                                              (0 to 10)
Content and structure
Did the meeting cover suitable topics in an
effective sequence?
Facilitation
Where you satisfied with how the meeting
was facilitated?
Participation
Were there adequate opportunities for
participation?
Application
Do you believe that the knowledge acquired
in this meeting will be applied? Why?
Venue and Catering
Were you comfortable and well catered for?


7. How will you modify future engagement events based on your experiences today?



Case Studies of Community Engagement for NRM in the SEQ Western Catchments                     129
Participant Evaluation


Engagement Event, time, place


1. What did you like best about this field day?


2. How could this field day have been improved?


3. Are there other things you would like to let us know?


4. Please rate your satisfaction or agreement on a scale of 0 (very poor) to 10 (excellent)


Workshop component                           Comments                                         Rating
                                                                                              (0 to 10)
Content and structure
Did the field day cover suitable topics in
an effective sequence?
Speakers
Where you satisfied with the field day
speakers?
Discussion
Were there adequate opportunities for
discussion?
Application
Will you apply the knowledge acquired in
this field day? How?
Venue and Catering
Were you comfortable and well catered
for?


5. What future activities or consultation would you like regarding land management?




Please leave this evaluation before you depart. Thank you.



130