Challenges, solutions and research priorities for sustainable rangelands

Australia’s rangeland communities, industries, and environment are under increasing pressures from anthropogenic activities and global changes more broadly. We conducted a horizon scan to identify and prioritise key challenges facing Australian rangelands and their communities, and outline possible avenues to address these challenges, with a particular focus on research priorities. We surveyed participants of the Australian Rangeland Society 20th Biennial Conference, held in Canberra in September 2019, before the conference and in interactive workshops during the conference, in order to identify key challenges, potential solutions, and research priorities. The feedback was broadly grouped into six themes associated with supporting local communities, managing natural capital, climate variability and change, traditional knowledge, governance, and research and development. Each theme had several sub-themes and potential solutions to ensure positive, long-term outcomes for the rangelands. The survey responses made it clear that supporting ‘resilient and sustainable rangelands that provide cultural, societal, environmental and economic outcomes simultaneously’ is of great value to stakeholders. The synthesis of survey responses combined with expert knowledge highlighted that sustaining local communities in the long term will require that the inherent social, cultural and natural capital of rangelands are managed sustainably, particularly in light of current and projected variability in climate. Establishment of guidelines and approaches to address these challenges will benefit from: (i) an increased recognition of the value and contributions of traditional knowledge and practices; (ii) development of better governance that is guided by and benefits local stakeholders; and (iii) more funding to conduct and implement strong research and development activities, with research focused on addressing critical knowledge gaps as identified by the local stakeholders. This requires strong governance with legislation and policies that work for the rangelands. We provide a framework that indicates the key knowledge gaps and how innovations may be implemented and scaled out, up and deep to achieve the resilience of Australia’s rangelands. The same principles could be adapted to address challenges in rangelands on other continents, with similar beneficial outcomes.

Looking beyond the D.U.S.T. – building resilient rangeland communities

The role of towns and small business is poorly understood, yet towns are vital for the long-term viability of communities in rural and remote Australia. This case study in the central western region of Queensland (CWQ) examines the impacts of drought on rural towns and how to build a resilient regional community and alleviate hardship. Evidence was collected during drought from town businesses through surveys, interviews and a public meeting in 2017. Towns in CWQ are especially exposed to the risks of drought, as approximately half of the businesses are directly linked to agriculture. Townspeople are major contributors to social cohesion and resilience in rural and regional communities, which are often service and maintenance centres of nationally important infrastructure such as roads for inter-state freight transport and tourism. Drought and declining grazier incomes have led to reduced spending in towns. Populations have dropped sharply, as itinerant agricultural workers leave the region. The complex economic and social flow-on impacts of drought have resulted in lower socioeconomic resilience. The majority of community members interviewed expressed a desire to build secure livelihoods, which echoes other research where existing and new rangelands livelihoods are seen as contributing to the success of the nation, a common global desire. Local organisations in CWQ display innovative business and community strategies. Future actions need to support and build on these initiatives. A framework with the acronym D.U.S.T. has been developed, with associated actions aimed at building resilience in these communities. D.U.S.T. is appropriate for this often-dusty region, and stands for: D. Decide to act; U. Understand the context; S. Support and develop local capacities and institutions; and T. Transform regional governance. The key for decision-makers is to work with local people who understand the contextual complexity and local needs. Actions need to be based on principles of adaptability, equity and inclusiveness, and working with the whole of the community. Building on existing collaborations and innovations as well as transforming governance and secure funding arrangements are needed. Lessons from the communities in CWQ may help other rural and remote regions build resilience to cope with the unpredictable financial, social and environmental future.

Sustainable rangeland management in southwest Iran: application of the AHP-TOPSIS approach in ranking livelihood alternatives

This paper reports the continuation of a line of research exploring livelihood alternatives employing sustainable rangeland management (SRM). Determining appropriate alternatives was a multifaceted task, so multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) techniques were applied to a framework that incorporated livelihood alternatives and their relevant criteria. The livelihood alternatives promote balance between humans, livestock and the rangelands, and the livelihood criteria include livelihood capital and vulnerability contexts, as well as the policies, institutions and processes (PIPs) that affect each livelihood alternative and SRM as a whole. The livelihood alternatives were ranked according to SRM potential, and the most appropriate ones for the Bazoft region of south-west Iran were determined. Through a hierarchical process, nine livelihood alternatives were initially considered as being potentially suitable for SRM, based on the weights of predefined criteria. Using a collaborative process, various groups (local informants, local and regional practitioners and scientists) were asked to develop a list of livelihood criteria in order to identify appropriate livelihood alternatives. Initially, 20 experts were selected for undertaking criteria weighting, and subsequently 10 experts were selected to rank the alternatives for final decision-making. The weights of the criteria were determined by the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique, and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was used to rank the alternatives. A non-resource-based livelihood was ranked as the most suitable alternative, followed by pastoralism with adaptation of various production systems. The application of the AHP-TOPSIS approach showed how criteria weightings influence the suitability of livelihood alternatives. Thus, the livelihood model enabled visualisation of the consequences of appropriate and/or inappropriate livelihoods for SRM. This study found that even the livelihood alternatives with the lowest values were worthy of consideration in planning for SRM, but they might need to be supported. Finally, the study suggested that the application of decision support models to the identification of users’ livelihood alternatives and to structuring the criteria for adoption of the various alternatives enhances informed decision-making within the context of SRM.

Exploring appropriate livelihood alternatives for sustainable rangeland management

Rangeland degradation and vulnerability of livelihoods are two major challenges facing pastoralists, rangeland managers and policy-makers in arid and semi-arid areas. There is a need to make holistic informed decisions in order to protect rangelands and sustain livelihoods. Through a comprehensive literature review on rangeland management policies and livelihood strategies of ‘rangeland users’, it is shown how such policies have affected sustainable rangeland management, how strategies to sustain livelihoods have been incomplete and how there has been a lack of a multi-disciplinary approach in acknowledging them. Accordingly, a set of appropriate livelihood alternatives is introduced and, thenceforth, a framework for their evaluation is developed. Supportive strategies for enhancing resilience are discussed as a research and policy-making gap. In this study, the keys to achieve sustainable livelihoods are acknowledged as ‘livelihoods’ resilience’, where livelihoods need to be supported by access to capital, means of coping with the contexts of vulnerability as well as by enhancing policies, institutions and processes. The paper proposes a set of ‘livestock-based livelihoods’ regarding ‘traditional pastoralism’ as well as ‘their mitigation and adaptation’. Moreover, their transformation to ‘commercial pastoralism’, ‘resource-based livelihoods’, ‘alternative livelihoods’ and ‘migration’ strategies is recognised to be employed by rangeland users as useful alternatives in different regions and under future changing conditions including climate change. These strategies embrace thinking on resilience and are supported by strategies that address social and ecological consequences of climate change consisting of mitigation, adaptation and transformation. It is argued that sustainable livelihoods and sustainable rangeland management will be achieved if they are supported by policies that build and facilitate a set of appropriate livelihood alternatives and keep them in a sustainable state rather than being limited to supporting ‘vulnerable livelihoods’. Finally, future directions for analysing and policy-making in selecting the best alternative to achieve sustainable livelihoods are indicated.

Pastoralists' perceptions of biodiversity and land management strategies in the arid Stony Plains region of South Australia: implications for policy makers

The implementation of rangeland biodiversity management strategies relies on the engagement and participation of key stakeholders, including local pastoralists (ranchers). Understanding pastoralists' knowledge of biodiversity, as well as their attitudes towards and perceptions of biodiversity management strategies, is fundamental for the development of efficacious rangeland management. This paper examines perceptions of biodiversity and land management strategies held by pastoralists in the Stony Plains region (SPR) of South Australia and reports on a survey, consisting of 45 questions, delivered to lessees and/or managers of pastoral leases within or on the edge of the SPR. Respondents generally agreed with prescribed land management strategies, but agreement did not mean that strategies were being implemented. The purchase of pastoral leases by government and/or conservation groups for biodiversity purposes was opposed strongly, which may present a barrier to collaborative land management. Pastoralists strongly agreed with several listed threats to biodiversity, but their feelings on climate-related threats were less strong. Attitudes to climate may have been influenced by above-average rainfall experienced during and preceding the survey period and by the climatic variability that characterises arid rangelands. Biodiversity conservation and the pastoral industry rely on collaborative rangeland management, non-bureaucratic communication, and an understanding among stakeholders of the attitudes and perceptions of other natural-resource users.

Understanding managers of businesses in desert Australia

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to understand what was important to managers of businesses in desert Australia, and in particular, what they needed for the businesses to be successful.

Design/methodology/approach

There were two studies. In Study 1, 88 managers of business in remote desert Australia were interviewed. In Study 2, 112 managers who had business in regional desert Australia participated in an on‐line survey.

Findings

In both studies, the respondents claimed that their businesses were reasonably successful. In Study 1, the interviewees said that making a living and seeing the business grow were important indices of success. In Study 2, customer/client satisfaction was the strongest indicator of business success. Factors such as safe and all‐weather roads, internet/e‐mail access and reliable power supplies were important to this success. The importance to business success of a number of leadership behaviours was also identified.

Research limitations/implications

Future research needs to encourage a larger number of managers to participate. In addition, suppliers and customers of the businesses need to be included.

Originality/value

This is the first study in which managers were included, because normally, only owner‐managers are involved. It is also the first study of its kind to be undertaken in desert Australia.

A framework for sustainable rangeland livelihoods

Natural environments around the world shape their human residents, whose land management practices in turn shape their natural environments. The trial-and-error process of learning how to live within a human-environment system is costly for lands and for people. However, groups who have lived in the same type of place over long periods of time have often developed similar practices. For 20 years, sustainable livelihood frameworks have been used to identify those effective practices and to make them clear to others. I developed the Sustainable Rangeland Framework (SRF) by comparing scientific reports, pastoral management plans, Aboriginal experiences and government programs to identify how very different rangeland landholders could work together to benefit our human-environment system. The SRF focuses on ways to build valuable assets. I found that all groups described six similar categories of assets: landscape, biodiversity, flexibility, skill, information and networks. Land managers use their assets to develop strategies that increase sustainability and reduce vulnerability to risk. The SRF helps land managers visualise how each decision balances productivity and vulnerability in the context of ecological, economic and social variability. I provide a set of six measures for groups to evaluate the effectiveness of their strategies in building stronger assets. Because the SRF clarifies the learning process and highlights the benefits of collaboration, rangeland groups can use this model to work together to develop more secure lives in our increasingly unpredictable environment.

Dealing with drought: social implications of different smallholder survival strategies in semi-arid rangelands of Northern Patagonia, Argentina

Drought is a constant part of rangeland dynamics in arid and semi-arid regions, and has enormous impacts on extensive livestock production by reducing outputs as well as by generating short-term farm decapitalisation (e.g. when livestock die). Since rural people rely on animal husbandry for their livelihood, productive losses become a social problem. Approaches to deal with drought have generally been focused on the livestock–range management linkage, with many suggestions originating from different disciplines. However, fewer efforts had been made to understand the adaptive capacity of households to cope with drought, through changing from on-farm to off-farm approaches. We assessed the implications for household gross income of different smallholder survival strategies, in the context of a severe regional drought. Three strategies were selected: (i) social networks involving partnerships, (ii) income diversification, and (iii) farm production diversification. While drought impacted homogeneously on the production indicators among the different strategies, differences were apparent in household economic performance. Better prices obtained from associated sales and off-farm income strategies registered better household gross income levels. For these cases the effect of drought on farm productivity could be decoupled from household income. Results provide new insights in understanding the social impact of drought on rangelands, challenging current ideas about how governments can support poorest and most vulnerable farmers in rural arid and semi-arid regions.

'Radical hope' and rain: climate change and the mental health of Indigenous residents of northern Australia

Objective: This paper considers the short, intermediate and longer term effects of climate change in relation to the mental health of Indigenous residents of northern Australia, and what these effects mean in terms of supporting adaptation and resilience. Conclusions: Indigenous Australians have contended with change for millennia, with the drivers shifting from ecological to social pressures since European colonization. Climate change resulting from human activities introduces a new set of change forces which will in the short term be mediated by economic and social effects internationally.

How can we identify socio-regions in the rangelands of Australia?

The Australian rangelands are divided into regions for statistical reporting, cultural identification or administrative and bioregional management purposes. However, many of these divisions do not reflect the characteristics of inland towns. In this study we used the Urban Centre/Locality (UCL) structure (for settlements with at least 200 people) as the smallest unit of analysis to build preliminary socio-regions based on demographic (e.g. Median Age and percentage of Indigenous people in UCL), socio-economic (dependency ratio and unemployment rate) and a few environmental indicators (e.g. Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Rainfall variability). A key finding of the study is that there are strong differences among UCLs in the rangelands. A threshold of around 5000 people is apparent with some indicators across all UCLs around which variability changes. There is much greater variability in the indicators among UCLs with fewer than 5000 people than there is among UCLs with over 5000 people. This confirms the need to consider statistical units smaller than those commonly used such as Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) as these and other regionalisation techniques mask the detail within areas that contain socio-economically and culturally different settlements. The high variability of indicator values observed for UCLs with smaller populations suggests that they have more diverse research, policy and investment needs than larger urban centres. We used a non-traditional approach and grouped UCLs into socio-regions based on their social characteristics instead of their geographic location. This created clusters of similar UCLs rather than contiguous regions. Some of these socio-regions cross administrative and statistical borders. The regionalisation presented in this study is likely to be valuable when selecting case-study areas for research projects and, in the long-term, when developing policy and investment initiatives.

Constructing Aboriginal NRM livelihoods: Anmatyerr employment in water management

The provision of livelihoods for desert Aboriginal people is a common goal for desert communities as well as governments, research agencies and other organisations. We examine six issues surrounding the creation of indigenous livelihoods in cultural and natural resource management. Our analysis draws from the character of the training pathways and the livelihoods in water management that are being constructed in central Australia as part of the Anmatyerr Water Project, a research program that identifies culturally-based livelihoods as a major mechanism for facilitating the process of having Aboriginal rights and cultural values provided for in water management. Such livelihoods aim to enhance the cultural and natural resource management needs of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal owners and managers through integration of profit and non-profit activities, and previously disconnected policies. The building of inter-cultural capacity and inter-cultural arrangements would assist in creating livelihoods in existing enterprises and work programs. A broader approach aims for cultural and natural resource livelihoods that have additional socio-cultural and economic outcomes. We discuss relevant issues and make consequent recommendations that inform the construction of these livelihoods.

Social networks in arid Australia: a review of concepts and evidence

Arid systems are markedly different from non-arid systems. This distinctiveness extends to arid-social networks, by which we mean social networks which are influenced by the suite of factors driving arid and semi-arid regions. Neither the process of how aridity interacts with social structure, nor what happens as a result of this interaction, is adequately understood. This paper postulates three relative characteristics which make arid-social networks distinct: that they are tightly bound, are hierarchical in structure and, hence, prone to power abuses, and contain a relatively higher proportion of weak links, making them reactive to crisis. These ideas were modified from workshop discussions during 2006. Although they are neither tested nor presented as strong beliefs, they are based on the anecdotal observations of arid-system scientists with many years of experience. This paper does not test the ideas, but rather examines them in the context of five arid-social network case studies with the aim of hypotheses building. Our cases are networks related to pastoralism, Aboriginal outstations, the ‘Far West Coast Aboriginal Enterprise Network’ and natural resources in both the Lake-Eyre basin and the Murray–Darling catchment. Our cases highlight that (1) social networks do not have clear boundaries, and that how participants perceive their network boundaries may differ from what network data imply, (2) although network structures are important determinants of system behaviour, the role of participants as individuals is still pivotal, (3) and while in certain arid cases weak links are engaged in crisis, the exact structure of all weak links in terms of how they place participants in relation to other communities is what matters.