# Navigating the world of environmental funding.



## The Old Ram-Australia (Aug 15, 2017)

G'day the following is a post which relates to the system down here of funding the environment by farmers,the reason I have posted it here is to get some idea of how funding works up there.

"Its more than 10 years since we commenced our first project  under the old Bush incentive Scheme which was followed by a Landcare grant to rehabilitate and restore our creek both of which were an outstanding success in spite of “opposition” from the “so called” experts in the field to the methods we were employing at the time.

I recall on a site visit by a field officer I made the following observation about the future of the organization.”It’s hard to move forward, when you are only looking backwards.”

So when I saw an advert for a Bird Habitat Program I thought I would enquire and was promptly supplied with the relevant information, which I read through and considered in relation to the area I thought suitable. While reading through the information supplied it all sounded really familiar because in recent years I have considered other programs on Native Grasslands and the like. Except for the title it appears all of the programs are much the same in criteria, conditions and funding .There appears to be a “top” limit of $10k with the period of the contract being 10 years with the funds being aimed at fencing and the planting of trees.

So let’s consider a “Greenfield site” of say 100 ACS (40 ha) adjacent to a woodland area. $10K div by 100acs over 10 years works out at $10 per ac per year. Now apart from any capital spend that’s required and based on 1 hr per week  that’s a return of $2 per hour to meet all of the specified requirements of the contract which are quite extensive in their scope. It seems to me that the funding agencies are more concerned about “locking up the maxim number of acs and the planting of the max number of trees irrespective of the survival rate. The example case of 100 acs would struggle to compare with our site after 20/30 years, because (IMO) planting tube stock seedlings into existing Farmland generally speaking “fails” due to a lack of understanding of the environment required for successful “take-off”. We have “never” planted a tree on our 300 ACS and except for one or two instances we have re-generated existing Woodland species even with our “managed grazing regime “for reasons that are always “dismissed’ by traditional experts.

The area I had in mind was 71,000 sq mts already fenced of what I would describe as class 1 wood-land and existing bird habitat with both Natural and introduced water points. To measure the extent of the bird population it would be necessary to install Wildlife cameras for a period of time. There are at least 3 species which are classed as endangered that I have observed, ie. Glossy Black Parrots, Gang Gangs and Scarlet Robins all of which breed and feed in or adjacent to the area concerned.

In recent times much of the productive value of the land has been lost to a Native Woody species which will now have to be managed to provide feed for our stock and to control Rabbits, Foxes and the occasional Feral Pig. The 10 year term immediately means that I would not even apply as I’m 75 now."

Have you sought funding for environmental outcomes on your farm? What hurdles did you encounter?Did you find the agency controlling the funds sympathetic to your goals and did you proceed with the process ?.....T.O.R.


----------



## mysunwolf (Aug 15, 2017)

I've got a little bit of second-hand knowledge of this kind of funding, when I get some more time I'll type it all out. I'm actually a member of a Landcare organization in the states that basically operates to help connect local farms to grants and other opportunities to improve the quality of their land while also making a living. I know the US organization is basically a riff off the Australian ones.

Edit, now that I've got a bit of time:

We have a number of grants for conservation efforts. The one I know about is to fence livestock out of waterways, including creeks, springs, ponds, drainage ditches, and rivers. They used to pay you back 100% of the costs, and they owned the land for 10 years afterwards, and the fencing had to be 20ft from all waterways. There is a similar grant where they pay 50-75% of the costs back, and the fencing only has to be 10ft from waterways, and they still own the land for 10 years. Some grants you have to report annually on the progress of the waterway, I can't remember if this is one of them. The organization would dictate which trees could be planted in the buffer zone (and would pay you back for the cost of the trees), and what kind of harvesting could be done. Kind of ruffles feathers for most of the farmers in this country, they really hate the government asking them or telling them or buying the right to do anything, which is understandable. There are limits to these grants but they can be quite large sums. The conservation grants and efforts in and of themselves don't increase profits, but the idea is that if we care for the land, it will be there to provide for us in the long-term, ie generation to generation. And that is a different kind of profit, but one that is equally important.


----------



## Sheepshape (Aug 15, 2017)

We have similar schemes over here....a land stewardship in England and 'Glas Tir" (Green Land) here in Wales. Similar type of scheme to both of yours, TOR and mysunwolf, I guess. It has involved planting saplings, field and stream-side corridors for wildlife, judicial use or no use of fertilisers, pesticides, weedkillers etc., stock exclusion from sensitive areas etc.

We can leave our scheme at the end of each year, but are paid certain monies at that time depending on what we have been required to do and if we have done it . I think we get a new 'plan' every 3 years.

We are given grants towards purchase of saplings, keeping local breeds of sheep, fixing nest boxes etc....though the sums are pretty small.

Our schemes don't make us any profit, but do help us improve and maintain the environment.


----------



## The Old Ram-Australia (Aug 17, 2017)

G'day, I did not mean to infer that farmers should be "profiting" from environmental outcomes,but I do think that there should be some incentive based on the time and labor required to monitor, collect, record and deliver the data to the agency.In the first case of ours we had an area of about 50 acs in two distinct types of Woodland.At first they wanted "no grazing" for the 10 year period,but because of the value of the project environmentally they reluctantly agreed to 4 weeks grazing a year with "strict conditions" as to "how much stock and at what time of the year in could happen". After 2 years in the program we had a change of State Govt and the new Govt cancelled the contract and paid out the remaining funds due to us.But the knowledge we had gained from the program encouraged us to completely change the way we managed the farm because we investigated all manner of different management styles selecting the best "bits" of each to end up with what we have now. We entered into a new program to repair and restore our creek using methods we developed and in the main they disproved of but let us proceed due to the nature of the project.In spite of the success of this work they still refuse to acknowledge that our methods worked because it did not follow their "traditional thinking or training".BTW ,they only fund half of the costs with the other half and any ongoing being paid for by the landowner,but on other farm projects they are "quick" to claim any outcomes as theirs  that are favorable......T.O.R.


----------

