GrazingFutures: learnings from a contemporary collaborative extension program in rangeland communities of western Queensland, Australia

Producer reliance on drought subsidies instead of proactive planning and timely destocking in low rainfall years has prompted Queensland government investment in promoting business and drought resilience. GrazingFutures (AU$6 million budget, 2016–2022) is an extension project focussed on enhancing business management skills of extensive livestock producers in western Queensland, Australia. The region’s rangelands are in productivity decline, span 1 million km2 and are managed by graziers operating more than 2400 livestock businesses (beef, sheep and goats). The Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries delivers GrazingFutures as a component of the Drought and Climate Adaptation Program, in partnership with regional natural resource management groups and other public and private organisations. Project delivery emphasised upskilling multi-agency staff and livestock producers to promote practice change within three whole of business themes: (1) grazing land management; (2) animal production; and (3) people-business. Three independent surveys (2018, 2019, 2020) indicated positive practice change was occurring in grazing businesses as a consequence of the project. Graziers instigated management changes even under major environmental challenges including extended drought (2013–2020), an extreme flood event in 2019 and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. This paper details the rationale, progress against the objectives, challenges and future direction of the GrazingFutures extension project.

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.

A call for collaboration: linking local and non-local rangeland communities to build resilience

The people who live in Australia’s rangelands are vital for maintaining natural systems, agricultural production, infrastructure for tourism and many services and products which benefit the nation. However, the number of people living within many rangeland regions is declining, services are being withdrawn and resilience undermined. Social capital is an important concept within the resilience literature. Bonding social capital is based strong ties within relatively homogenous local groups, bridging social capital is based on ties between more diverse local groups and linking social capital is based on ties between local and external groups. Within the rangelands, there are often strong bonding and bridging social capitals based on internal social and formal connections, but gaps in linking social capital due to weak or imbalanced connections with external groups and organisations. There is evidence that all three social capitals are needed for regional resilience, and the gap in linking is thus a key issue. People who live outside the rangelands can help rebuild this resilience by linking their skills, knowledge and expertise with local groups and communities. Many city-based scientists, policy makers, influencers and other professionals work in and have empathy for the rangelands. By connecting meaningfully with local groups such as Landcare, service clubs, philanthropic groups or Indigenous Rangers, they would find many benefits to their own endeavours through improved policies, knowledge and service delivery. Central-western Queensland is provided as an example where many such mutual benefits and networks already exist, offering pathways for linking local residents with external experts. Current platforms offer opportunities for a greater range of external academic institutions and organisations to engage with locals, with everyone standing to gain.

Overcoming drought vulnerability in rangeland communities: lessons from central-western Queensland

Drought and climate variability are an increasing global problem, especially in rangelands which may lack robust socioeconomic systems. Vulnerability is being applied in drought and climate change policy theory, by describing exposure and sensitivity factors, and adaptive capacity. In this paper we examine these vulnerability factors in central-western Queensland (CWQ), Australia, as a case study to test the idea that vulnerability and resilience must be considered together to build strong and enduring rangeland communities. The region’s economy and employment are strongly coupled with rain-fed agriculture. Drought is a key risk to CWQ communities, with 13 extended droughts recorded since 1898. The region has been officially in drought since 2013 following well below-average rainfall, and remains in drought in 2019. The impact has led to reductions in town business turnover of 30–60%, loss of livelihoods and outmigration of 20%. Outmigration corresponds to the recent periods of drought. Social networks have been destabilised, highlighting that the cascading impacts of drought are complex, interrelated and affect the whole community. Regionally led responses have helped to re-build social cohesion, provide mental health support and stimulate economic activity and employment. These actions provide examples of a systemic, whole-of-community approach, that (1) captures place-based advantages; (2) enhances internal and external socioeconomic networks; (3) engages meaningfully through multi-level consultation; and (4) seeks to build sustained financial investment. A common theme of success is partnerships which provide external support for regionally-identified issues and solutions. There has been considerable investment of public, philanthropic and private funds in drought relief and infrastructure programs. This has occurred through a whole-of-community approach, and suggests a move towards policy which aims to build long-term regional resilience. CWQ has linked vulnerability and resilience by asking of both internally and externally led drought relief ‘will this action build or undermine community resilience’. This approach could also be applied to the design of drought policies and responses in other rangeland regions.