The Whole Farm Plan Program - Goulburn Broken Catchment

Transcription

Review of Whole Farm Plan Program in the Shepparton Irrigation Region
Department of Sustainability and Environment
Department of Primary Industries
Published by:
Catchment and Agricultural Services
Tatura 2004
© Copyright State of Victoria 2004
This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of
the Copyright Act 1968.
This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the
publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims
all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this
publication.
Authorised by:
Ferguson Road, Tatura.
Printed by Prominent Press, Shepparton.
ISBN 1 74146 316 5
Acknowledgments
Written by Rabi Maskey, David Lawler, Melinda Leth, Bruce Cumming, Chris Nicholson, Ken Sampson with input
from members of the DPI – CAS Sustainable Irrigated Landscapes team in the Shepparton Irrigation Region.
For more information about this program contact the Customer Service Centre on 136 186.
For more information about DPI visit the website www.dpi.vic.gov.au
Table of Contents
Chapter
1.
Executive Summary
2
2.
Introduction
4
3.
The Whole Farm Plan Program
7
4.
Delivery of the Whole Farm Plan Program
10
5.
Whole Farm Plan Program - Achievements against goals and targets
24
6.
Effectiveness of the Program from farm surveys
29
7.
Whole Farm Plan Program - Economic Analysis
31
8.
The Role of Government in program implementation
33
9.
Conclusions
37
10.
Options and recommendations
39
11.
Further Study and Research
41
References
42
Appendix 1.
43
Appendix 2.
44
Appendix 3.
54
Appendix 4.
55
Table of Contents
1
Executive Summary
This report has been prepared as part
of a review to evaluate on the efficiency,
effectiveness, and appropriateness of the
whole farm plan program in the Shepparton
Irrigation Region. To determine the efficiency
of the program the delivery process of the
program is examined. The effectiveness of
the program is measured by how well the
intended outcomes of the program have been
achieved. To evaluate the appropriateness of
the program, the role of the government in
providing incentive and extension services was
examined.
practices for natural resource management on
their property.
A whole farm plan is a plan of the farm
showing existing features and details of the
improvements to be made on the property.
Landowners prepare the plans in conjunction
with a Department of Primary Industries
Extension Officer and a consultant irrigation
surveyor/designer.
The efficiency of the program
These plans are developed to achieve the
following goals:
• To encourage landowners to use whole
farm plans so that any money spent (both
private and public), on restructuring a
property is well spent.
• To make sure that individual farm works
are compatible with regional drainage; and
• To make sure that the proposed works
to improve irrigation management are
integrated with other land and water
management practices.
The whole farm plan program makes sure
that the landowner has ownership of the plan.
This ensures that the proposed works are
implemented and the practice changes are
adopted. In order to achieve this, the program
provides extension service and incentives. The
extension services are in the form of advice
and ideas to encourage landowners to look
beyond the boundary of the property to see
their property in a catchment context and to
discuss the adoption of best management
2
Executive Summary
The expectation is that practice change at
the farm level will lead to improved natural
resource management. The financial incentive
for preparing a whole farm plan is about 50%
of the cost of preparing the plan for broadacre
and horticultural properties in the Shepparton
Irrigation Region.
This review has identified the following key
findings:
The framework used to deliver the program
has been shown to follow a robust model,
which has allowed enhanced continuous
improvement. The continuous improvement
initiatives are demonstrated in the form of:
• Adoption of innovative Local Area Plan
approach to accelerate the outcomes of the
program;
• Continuous review of the program and
incorporation of feedback from landowners
on program improvement;
• Demonstration of close partnership with
surveyors and designers; and
• Monitoring of the improvements and
changes in the program by the Farm
Program Working group and Shepparton
Irrigation Region Implementation
Committee.
The effectiveness of the program
The program has been demonstrated to be
extremely effective and this is demonstrated
by:
The adoption rate of whole farm planning is
in line with the target that all properties in the
Shepparton Irrigation Region would have a
whole farm plan by 2020. This requires a rate
of whole farm plan adoption of 3.3% per year.
Up to the end of June 2004, the rate of uptake
was 3.7%, with 150-200 whole farm plans
prepared each year.
The implementation of works following
the whole farm plan process contributed
to a reduction in drainage water leaving
farms, particularly with the installation of
drainage reuse systems. Douglas and Poulton
(1998) reported that the rate of installation
of drainage reuse systems was 6% per
year. These systems intercept water from
approximately 50% of the irrigated area.
It has been reported that there have been
significant changes in attitude of landowners
towards environmental considerations. There
is a “will of the people” to do something. This
has been achieved by a range of extension
practices and a desire of landowners to
integrate natural resource management issues
into the whole farm plan process.
The economic and financial benefit cost ratio
of the program, which includes some other
activities of the Farm Program, are 1.32 and
1.12 respectively. The respective Internal
Rates of Return are 11.63% and 12.84%.
The appropriateness of the program
The review has demonstrated that the program
produces benefits for both landowners and the
community at large. Landowners save labour
by potentially increasing efficiency in irrigation
management and community benefits through
a reduction in the negative impacts to others
caused by nutrient runoff and salinisation of
soil and water.
The economic analysis showed that the ratio
between the government contribution to
private work by landowners is 1:9.
There is evidence showing that the increase
in the rate of adoption can be attributed to
the provision of incentive as the Government’s
share of the costs.
Recommendations
The whole farm planning program has
been a success in terms of efficiency,
effectiveness and appropriateness, and
there is a demonstrated case that it should
continue to be supported with public funds.
However, there is room for improvement and
recommended improvements are:
• There is a need to explore innovative
approaches to program delivery and the
choice of a delivery instrument should
include pragmatic consideration not just
economic efficiency.
• There is also a need to assess the
possibility of incorporating innovative
approaches such as the use of a costshare matrix, which has been used in the
drainage reuse systems and automatic
irrigation systems projects.
• There is a need to promote the program as
a community driven program.
• The program should continue to assist the
development of the Monitoring, Evaluation
and Reporting Strategy for the Goulburn
Broken Catchment. This will result in
developing and assessing targets and goals
which are specific and measurable.
• There is a need for a systematic
documentation of continuous improvement
in the delivery process. At the moment,
there is a formal five yearly assessment of
landowners’ perception on the program.
Similar assessments need to be done for
other key stakeholders.
• The program should look at different
options of developing synergy by cross
collaboration and cooperation with other
industry programs and projects.
Further Study and Research
There are some issues and processes that
could be explored further in order to provide a
more complete review to encompass all of the
complexities of the program.
There is a need to explore how programs, such
as whole farm planning, bring about outcomes
which match regional and state policies.
There is a need to look at how a different
combination of policies and incentives can
obtain catchment outcomes more efficiently.
Executive Summary
3
Introduction
Impact and Effectiveness of
Intervention: Increasingly, Government is
questioning if the use of extension programs,
and financial incentives, are the most effective
and efficient methods to achieving the natural
resource management outcomes desired by
the Government and community.
Governments are dealing with greater
demand for the available funding for natural
resource management activities and there
is a need to prioritise the works it should
invest in, to achieve the maximum impact
of the investment. Governments consider
how change can occur more effectively and
efficiently and question if new and innovative
policy instruments would achieve a greater
rate of change.
However, the Shepparton Irrigation Region
Implementation Committee, that oversee the
catchment work at the regional level, considers
that the current mix of extension programs
and incentives are achieving the changes to
natural resource management at a rate that
is appropriate and is achieving the change
effectively and efficiently.
The Shepparton Irrigation Region
Implementation Committee also understands
that there is a need to better inform the policy
makers and funders of the:
•
•
•
role of extension programs,
appropriateness of incentives,
current rate of change.
In order to provide information and answers to
the issues raised, a review of the whole farm
program has been undertaken and this review
has been conducted using existing information
and experience gained in delivering the
program.
Whole farm plans were identified in the
community-developed Shepparton Irrigation
4
Introduction
Region Land and Water Salinity Management
Plan (SIRLWSMP) as a tool for encouraging
landowners to adopt improved irrigation
management techniques. This program
is now included in the Goulburn Broken
Catchment Management Authority Regional
Catchment Strategy. Whole farm planning
is a priority activity providing landowners
with a means to improve land and water
management, protection and enhancement
of the environment and a tool to help
with their strategic business planning for
catchment works (Goulburn Broken Catchment
Management Authority, 2003a).
Whole Farm Planning as an Enabling
Process: Preparation of a whole farm plan
can thus be viewed as an enabling activity - it
allows landowners to plan for the introduction
of improved land and water management
practices on their property. Through an
extension and incentives program, landowners
are provided with advice on how they can
adapt the activities in the Catchment Strategy
into works and changed practices that they
can adopt on their property.
Preparation of a whole farm plan is usually
the first and most important activity that
landowners undertake in implementing
Catchment Strategy activities on their property.
Hence it is crucial to the implementation of
the Catchment Strategy that this activity is
effective, efficient and is being adopted at the
required rate and that Government continues
to fund its share of the costs.
Review Process for Whole Farm
Planning: The review has been a desktop
study with no new work undertaken to prepare
this report.
The sources of information used in the
preparation of this report are:
• The Farm Program Review: Capturing the
activities of the Farm Program from 1995
•
•
•
•
to 2000 and exploring the direction for the
future 2000-2005 vision.
Shepparton Irrigation Region Catchment
Strategy Economic Evaluation.
Whole Farm Plan Incentive Scheme: A
comparative analysis.
A survey of Landholders Involved in the
Whole Farm Plan Incentive Scheme (19952000).
Results of Irrigated Farm Census, 1997.
Other references are used as appropriate and
are listed in the reference section.
Overall, this report provides information
on the efficiency, the effectiveness
and the appropriateness of the whole
farm plan program in the Shepparton
Irrigation Region.
Efficiency: The efficiency aspects of the
program look at the delivery processes of the
program. The efficiency of the program has
been demonstrated by assessing:
• The usefulness of program delivery
methods;
• Continuous improvement in the delivery of
the program;
• Checks and balances processes in program
design and delivery;
• The use of innovative approaches to deliver
the program; and
• How the current process matches up with
other mechanisms of delivery.
Appropriateness: The appropriateness
of the program looks at the role of the
government in providing incentive and
extension services for this program.
Key Evaluation Questions
Addressed by the Review
This report addresses the following Key
Evaluation Questions that were developed as
part of the review:
• What aspects of the program process
worked well and what aspects didn’t
work well?
• What are the economic and financial
benefits and costs of the program?
• To what extent have the intended
outcomes/ outputs of the program
been achieved?
• What changes in practices have
occurred as a result of the program?
• Did participants of the program
develop an increased awareness and
understanding as targeted? In what
way?
• Is there a need for public support
of the program in achieving its
outcomes?
Effectiveness: The effectiveness of the
program primarily looks at how well the
intended outcomes of the program have been
achieved. The effectiveness of the program
has been established by assessing:
• Outcomes against goals and targets of the
program;
• The perception of landowners on the
success of the program; and
• The overall financial and economic benefits
and cost analysis of the program.
Introduction
5
Report Contents
This report has four sections:
Section 1
Section 2
•
The first section provides an account of what
whole farm planning is and how it is being
implemented. It examines the delivery process
of the program and assesses the impact of
different delivery processes.
•
This is
covered in
Chapters 3
and 4.
•
The second section reviews the effectiveness
of the program at various levels. It includes;
an assessment of the outcomes against
program targets and goals and explores
whether there is any scope to increase or
accelerate the rate of adoption,
a summary of the findings of landowners’
perception of the program especially in regard
to their level of satisfaction with the program,
and
an insight into the financial and economic
assessment of the program.
•
This is
discussed in
Chapters 5, 6
and 7.
•
•
•
6
Section 3
•
The third section describes the implementation •
of the program as a public extension service.
It looks at the role of the government in
investing in extension and providing incentives
for the program.
This is
shown in
Chapter 8.
Section 4
•
The final section summarises the findings of
•
the review and identifies challenges and issues
in the program.
This is
covered in
Chapters 9,
10 and 11.
Introduction
The Whole Farm Plan Program
What is a Whole Farm Plan?
A whole farm plan is a plan of the farm
showing existing features, both natural
features and irrigation and farm management
infrastructure. The whole farm plan is
developed to show the details of the
improvements to be made on the property.
It allows these improvements to be done in
stages with the knowledge that each stage is
complementary.
The whole farm plan program was introduced
to achieve the following goals:
The development of a whole farm plan
considers the following aspects:
The redevelopment works on a property,
such as laser grading, improved channels and
drains, drainage reuse systems, are usually
done in sections and the amount of works
undertaken generally depends on the cost of
doing the works and the available finance to
do the works. The cost of these works varies
considerably depending on individual property
features. An average cost of these works for
a dairy farm is estimated to be in the range of
$3000 to $4000per hectare. This is a large cost
and the cost is often equivalent to the value
of the property. Appendix 1 shows the typical
costs of preparing and implementing a whole
farm plan including the Catchment Strategy
works in the Shepparton Irrigation Region.
• Farm management – the type of
•
•
•
•
enterprise, how the farm will be managed
in the future, stock and machinery
movement, fencing, stock water.
Engineering – channel and drain details,
sizes of bay outlets and channel/drain
structures, earthworks and construction
details.
Environment – how the development
will complement the local conditions
including drainage lines, wetlands, land
capabilities, remnant vegetation.
Agronomic – types of crops/ pasture
to be grown, soil types, bay sizes, slopes
topsoiling.
Financial – how the development work
will be staged, a detailed costing and how
the work will be financed.
A whole farm plan shows the details of the
improvements to be made on the property that
will allow the landowner to achieve optimum
water use efficiency on the property.
Why develop Whole Farm Plans?
The preparation of whole farm plans was
introduced as a component of the Shepparton
Irrigation Region Land and Water Salinity
Management Plan to encourage improved
irrigation management as one of the activities
landowners could undertake to manage high
watertables and salinity problems.
1. To encourage landowners to use
whole farm plans so that any money
spent on restructuring a property is
well spent.
Most of these works are done by landowners
using funds that are available from the cash
flow of their enterprise, therefore most
landowners are only able to afford to do the
works on part of their property at one time.
The works are typically spread over periods of
8 to 10 years.
The works are also staged to minimise the
disruption caused to irrigation and property
management as the works are implemented.
In preparing for works, land is taken out of
production and cultivated in readiness for
laser grading. While these works are being
completed, enterprises involved in grazing
operations often have to purchase additional
feed to satisfy stock requirements. This adds
to the costs of doing the works. Landowners
Whole Farm Plan Program 7
will thus time the works and select the areas
to be worked on to minimise the disruption
caused.
The Shepparton Irrigation Region
Implementation Committee accepts and
understands that landowners will stage works
so that the works can be done in affordable
and manageable stages. It considers that the
present rate of uptake of whole farm planning
and adoption of changes is on target.
Whole farm planning ensures that proposed
works on each section of the property are
compatible with any previous and subsequent
works.
Before whole farm planning became widely
used, there were many examples of unplanned
works that resulted in failure to improve
irrigation management. In fact in many cases
the standard of irrigation management of
these areas declined considerably. These
failures included areas where inappropriate
earthworks reduced the effectiveness of
gravity water delivery to irrigation bays with
water being delivered to these areas at a
slower rate than appropriate for the soils. This
resulted in greater accessions to groundwater
and increased watertables.
Similarly, there are examples where the level
of irrigation bays were inappropriately lowered
to the extent that excess irrigation water
and rainfall could not be removed from the
irrigated area by gravity. This results in no or
slow drainage from the bays with waterlogging
causing greater accessions to groundwater and
poor conditions for plant growth. Whole farm
planning allows the landowner to determine
the degree of change and the implications of
the change that can occur on the property.
These inappropriate earthworks often resulted
in deep cuts into the irrigation areas. In areas
of high watertables these cut areas are then at
greater risk of salinisation as the surface of the
land is now closer to the groundwater level.
The heavily cut area is often left with exposed
subsoil as the topsoil is removed and not
replaced, resulting in poor conditions for crops
8
Whole Farm Plan Program
and pasture plants.
2. To make sure that individual farm
works are compatible with regional
drainage.
Whole farm planning in irrigated areas needs
to consider the fate of water that leaves the
property, particularly rainfall runoff. Whole
farm planning provides an opportunity to
ensure that works proposed on the property
are designed and implemented to allow them
to connect with the existing or proposed
regional drainage system that serves the
property. The result is that the regional
drainage systems operate effectively and that
the Government and landowner expenditure
on regional drainage systems is effectively
spent.
3. To make sure that the proposed
works to improve irrigation
management are integrated with
other land and water management
practices.
With the use of whole farm planning, the
works that individual landowners undertake
on their properties, such as groundwater
pumping, tree planting, and earthworks that
might impact on flooding, are appropriate for
the property and done in an effective manner.
Landowners and Government funds used to
do these works are thus used in the most
effective way.
Objective of Whole Farm Planning
Preparation of whole farm plans was seen
as a key plank in the development of the
Catchment Strategy to improving land
and water management, protection and
enhancement of the environment and giving
landowners a tool to help with their strategic
business planning for catchment works.
The preparation of a whole farm plan provides
the opportunity for landowners to plan for the
adoption of best practice for irrigation as they
undertake works to redevelop their properties.
Whole farm planning is a process where
landowners are assisted by extension officers
and an irrigation surveyor/designer to become
more aware of the importance of the improved
natural resource management practices
contained in the Catchment Strategy.
implementing the Catchment Strategy in the
Shepparton Irrigation Region.
The Farm Program is one of the Shepparton
Irrigation Region Implementation Committee
programs and has a specific focus on activities
that individuals can do on their properties.
The goals of the Farm Program:
The farm planning process allows landowners to
UNDERSTAND the improved natural resource
management practices.
It identifies how they can ADAPT those practices
for their property and the style of management
that the landowner desires for the property.
The plan provides them with the details required to
do works on their property and provides the means
to ADOPT the improved practices.
The advice, information and recommendations
provided by the extension officer and an
irrigation surveyor/designer allows landowners
to understand the improved practices and
how they can adapt those practices for their
property. The plan provides them with the
details required to do works on their property
and provides the means to adopt the improved
practices. The expectation is that these
practice changes will lead to improved natural
resource management.
•
To reduce the long-term regional subsurface drainage requirements by reducing
farm accessions.
•
To reduce the ultimate need for salt
disposal.
•
To maintain or enhance natural ecosystems
on private land, with consideration for its
relationship to surrounding systems.
•
To achieve sustainable irrigated farming in
the Shepparton Irrigation Region.
•
To minimise nutrient pollution from
irrigated farming practices.
The Farm Program’s activities are concentrated
on improving natural resource management on
individual properties.
Whole farm plans are being prepared on
horticulture and broadacre (irrigated and
dryland) properties within the Shepparton
Irrigation Region. Whole farm plans are a
blueprint for any future farm developments.
They include all aspects of physical layout,
channels, drains, drainage reuse systems and
environmental features.
Improved irrigation management is a high
priority in the Goulburn Broken Catchment
Management Authority Regional Catchment
Strategy. The Shepparton Irrigation Region
Implementation Committee is the community
based group who has responsibility for
Delivery of the Whole Farm Plan
Program
The review undertaken in this section answers
the following Key Evaluation Question:
“What aspects of the program process
worked well and what aspects didn’t
work well?”
It provides an account of how whole farm
planning is implemented and looks at the
evolution of the program with time.
How are Whole Farm Plans developed?
Initial contact
Landowners make contact with a Department
of Primary Industries extension officer because
they have become aware of the whole farm
planning project through a number of sources.
These include the publicity and awareness
program that is run to publicise the benefits of
planning. They also make contact as a result
of making enquiries about catchment activities
and thus become aware that they are required
to have a whole farm plan to be eligible for
assistance. Some landowners initially contact
an irrigation surveyor and designer and will be
told to contact an extension officer to start the
process.
The reviews that have been conducted for this
program show that landowners are most likely
to be made aware of the whole farm planning
program by other landowners that have
prepared a plan. Landowners sell the benefits
of planning to other landowners.
Site visit
The extension officer will make an
appointment to visit the landowner to
commence the process. During that visit the
landowners will be encourage to outline their
desires for their property, outline any problem
areas and show the extension officers around
their property as a part of these discussions.
The role of the extension officer is to start
to provide advice about the issues being
discussed, to encourage the landowner to look
beyond the boundaries of the property – to
see their property in a catchment context, and
to discuss the adoption of best management
practices on their property. The landowner
makes application for assistance from the
project and the extension officer processes the
application.
Topographical Survey
The landowner employs an irrigation surveyor
and designer to commence the preparation
of the whole farm plan. The majority of
irrigation in the Shepparton Irrigation Region is
conducted by gravity. Therefore it is important
to undertake a topographical survey of the
property to ensure that any changes to the
property can be properly planned. In this
way the changes to the landscape should not
hinder the delivery of irrigation water or the
outfall of drainage water from the property.
As part of the topographical survey, the
irrigation surveyor will also record the locations
of natural features and existing infrastructure
on the property. When all that information
has been collected, a plan of the property is
prepared to show all the existing features and
10
Delivery of the
the irrigation designer will start to prepare
some options for the redevelopment of the
property.
nature of the property, and the capacity of the
landowner to understand the implications of
the proposed changes.
Extension Officer, Designer and
Landowner consideration of proposed
changes
An important role of the extension officer
through this process is to ensure that the
landowner makes the decisions regarding the
proposed changes that will become the basis
of the whole farm plan. The landowners need
to be in charge of the planning process, they
need to make the decisions, they need to be
comfortable with the whole farm plan – they
need to have ownership of the plan.
At this stage the landowner family together
with the extension officer and the irrigation
designer will discuss the plan of the existing
features and consider the changes proposed.
The role of the extension officer in these
discussions is to provide advice, information
and ideas. This ensures that the proposed
changes incorporate the adoption of best
management practices on the property. The
extension officer will also advise the landowner
on ways to adopt catchment activities that are
part of the Regional Catchment Strategy.
Whole farm planning exposes landowners to the
need to improve irrigation management.
It identifies how those changes can occur on the
landowner’s property.
The changes are adapted for the property and the
style of management that the landowner desires for
the property.
The extension officer also has a role in
ensuring that the landowner understands the
implications of the changes that are being
proposed for the property. This incudes
the technical details of the works, farm
management changes, financial issues of costs
of the works and how the works are to be
undertaken and practices changed.
If the landowner has ownership of the plan
it is more likely that the works and practice
changes proposed will be adopted and
completed. The extension officer plays a
major role in ensuring that the landowner is in
charge of the planning process and ultimately
has ownership of the plan.
Whole farm plan prepared
At the completion of these activities to develop
the whole farm plan, the “final” whole farm
plan is prepared together which details all of
the works and changes that are proposed for
the
property. However the process of preparing
the plan – the discussions, the advice, the
strategic planning, is also a very important
part of this program. It is through these
activities that the landowner is exposed to
the need to improve irrigation management
and this process identifies how those changes
can occur on the landowner’s property. The
improvements to irrigation management are
thus adapted for the property and the style of
management that the landowner desires for
the property.
Appendix 2 describes this process of
preparation of a “typical” whole farm plan in
more detail.
These discussions usually are conducted with
more than one meeting. This will depend on
the complexity of the changes proposed, the
Delivery of the
11
How does the program target its
clients?
Landowners have a variety of reasons that
trigger their need to prepare a whole farm plan
and the timing of preparing a plan is largely
driven by the need to prepare to undertake
water use efficiency improvement works
identified.
These reasons include redevelopment works
to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
improve irrigation channels
laser grading to improve irrigation
management
improve drainage
install a drainage reuse system
install automatic irrigation system
install a groundwater pump
construct a dairy effluent system
construct a new dairy
improve drainage in an orchard
plant up a new orchard
plant a shelter belt
provide shade trees
install a stock watering system
improve stock management with laneways
There are a variety of reasons for preparing
a plan and the activities can be done at
various times throughout the year. There is no
seasonal timing involved and the numbers of
new whole farm plans commencing is relatively
consistent throughout each year.
The landowners targeted in this program are
landowners who are intending to implement
catchment works.
The whole farm planning project has thus been
designed to assist landowners through this
planning process when the landowners identify
that they have a need to prepare a plan to do
some works.
As part of an extension program, landowners
12
Delivery of the
were encouraged to think ahead and allow
sufficient time for the preparation of a plan.
The work that has been done in the past
to review this program shows that most
landowners had already commenced the
works proposed on their whole farm plan. The
landowners also indicated that they expected
to complete the works within 10 years of
preparing the plan.
Incentives for Whole Farm Plan
Preparation
There has been a financial incentive available
for preparing whole farm plans since 1987.
The financial incentive available in the
Shepparton Irrigation Region is 50% of the
costs up to maximum rates of reimbursement.
The maximum rates for 2004 are;
Broadacre properties
•
•
•
•
Topographical survey
Design and computations
Financial assessment
Plan certification
$22.00 /ha
$25.20/ha
$550 /property
$132.50/property
Horticulture properties
•
•
•
•
•
Topographical survey
and base plan
Sub-surface and surface
drainage design
Irrigation supply design
Financial assessments
Plan certification
$96.55/ha.
$32.15/ha.
$32.15/ha.
$550/property
$132.50/property
Payment of the financial incentive is made
to landowners after the completion of their
respective whole farm plans. The Shepparton
Irrigation Region Irrigation Committee has
developed detailed guidelines that outline
the steps in the process of working with
landowners and the administration of the
incentives.
The following flow chart shows the processes
used in the whole farm plan program in the
Shepparton Irrigation Region. The chart has
been developed showing the activities and
responsibilities of the landowner, extension
officer and the irrigation surveyor/designer.
A time scale has been shown on the right hand
side of the chart to give an approximate time
frame for the activities. The average time for
the preparation of a whole farm plan is ten
months and this ranges from one month up to
three years.
Throughout the process of preparing a whole
farm plan landowners are encouraged to take
their time in making decisions and they are
encouraged to consult as widely as possible for
input into the process from family, neighbours,
friends, earthmovers, consultants and others.
In this way the landowner is exposed to many
different views and can then make informed
and considered decisions.
In some instances the whole farm planning
process is delayed as other issues become a
higher priority for the landowners time and
resources. In some cases information required
by the irrigation surveyor/designer is slow in
being made available.
Delivery of the
13
14
Delivery of the
Evolution of the Whole Farm
Plan Program
The first whole farm plans prepared
in the Shepparton Irrigation Region in
fact were very much focussed on the
irrigation system of the property. These
plans were prepared as a result of
the introduction of large earthmoving
equipment in the construction of
irrigation systems. Prior to this any
irrigation design work usually consisted
of “paddock designs” and not the whole
of the property.
The majority of irrigation in the
Shepparton Irrigation Region is
conducted using gravity as the means
of movement of the water. The use of
large earthmoving equipment, including
laser controlled machinery, meant that
major changes could be made to the
topography of the irrigated area.
consequences and ensure that the
changes would go well together with
future works on the property.
Along with inappropriate earthworks,
it was apparent on many properties
that when the landowners wanting to
undertake subsequent works on their
property, the initial works were not
compatible with following works. In
addition, on some properties this failure
to adequately plan the works meant that
the previous works compromised the
subsequent works. Many landowners
were frustrated that they were not able
to achieve the most efficient system
because of limitations caused by the
initial works.
Landowners were keen to construct
irrigation systems with longer, wider
irrigation bays and often with steeper
slopes to improve water use efficiency on
the property. The changes to irrigation
systems allowed landowners to get
water onto the irrigated areas at an
appropriate rate and also remove excess
water as quickly as possible. This results
in fewer accessions to groundwater, less
soil salinisation and reduced areas of
waterlogging.
In constructing these irrigation systems,
landowners were keen to increase the
size of the irrigation bays enabling them
to eliminate many of the channels and
drains previously required. This increased
the area that could be irrigated.
It became obvious that these large scale
changes to irrigation systems needed
to be planned to minimise any negative
Delivery of the
15
The following table documents the introduction and evolution of the whole farm plan program.
1987
Introduction
of Irrigation
Management
Grants
In 1987 an incentive program for the preparation of whole farm plans was introduced
as part of the Irrigation Management Grants program. Whole farm planning was
recognised by the developing Salinity Management Plans in Northern Victoria as a tool
to encourage landowners to implement the improved irrigation management practices
that were being included in those strategies.
These early whole farm plans were very much focussed on irrigation management
and in particular the engineering aspects. This included the earthworks, the system
hydraulics of the channels delivering water to the irrigation bays and the drainage
system to remove excess water from the bays. This focus was in response to the
problems caused by the large scale earthworks and the changes to the topography.
The early plans were also directed at increasing productivity on the property. The
preparation of the plans also concentrated on farm management and providing the
best conditions for growing pastures and crops. In many instances these issues were
seen to be more important that protecting and enhancing natural features on the
property.
1987
Irrigation
Surveyors
and Designers
Group
1987
Incorporation
of Research
information
1990
Shepparton
Irrigation
Region Land
and Water
Salinity
Management
Plan
16
The Irrigation Surveyors and Designers Group, an industry group based in Northern
Victoria and Southern New South Wales, were a very important group for the
development of the whole farm plans.
A partnership between the extension officers and the irrigation designers developed
through this group. Initially this was to develop the standards to be used in whole
farm planning and training workshops were conducted to provide all involved with an
opportunity to share their understandings and experiences of the whole farm planning
processes.
Research work examining the benefits of making sure that adequate topsoil remained
on the surface after the earthwork operations were completed, were incorporated into
whole farm planning. Whole farm plans were required to show areas where large cuts
or fills would occur and there was a risk that topsoil would be lost. This alerted the
landowner and the earthmoving contractor to those areas and the topsoil could then
be removed, stockpiled and returned to ensure that subsoil was not left exposed after
the works.
With the implementation of the Shepparton Irrigation Region Land and Water
Salinity Management Plan, the whole farm plan program was incorporated into the
Farm Program. Guidelines for the operation of the Whole Farm Plan Incentives were
developed.
These guidelines detailed the steps in the process of working with landowners and
the administration of the incentives. The Shepparton Irrigation Region Irrigation
Committee, the community based implementation group, adopted the guidelines and
incorporated them into their Policy document.
Delivery of the
1990
Requirement
of whole
farm plan for
catchment
works
The Shepparton Irrigation Region Land and Water Salinity Management Plan
Irrigation Committee introduced a requirement that landowners have a whole
farm plan for their property to be eligible for financial incentives available for other
catchment works.
1990
Increased
maximum
rates for
whole farm
plans
The maximum rates available with the incentive were increased in line with inflation.
The increase in the Consumer Price Index was used to determine the increase in the
rates. This followed the same process established under the Irrigation Management
Grants, however it was the Irrigation Committee responsibility to approve the
changes.
These activities included groundwater pumping systems and tree growing.
This established the method for making any changes to the farm plan program.
Whenever a change is considered necessary to the program, the proposed changes
are documented and considered by the Farm Working Group. This is the community
based working group that considers Farm Program related issues raised by
community members or agency staff.
When satisfied that the proposals are appropriate, the Farm Working Group approves
them and the proposals then go to the Irrigation Committee for approval and
adoption.
Thus at all times that change has been made to this program, the community
based group responsible for implementation of natural resource management in
the Shepparton Irrigation Region, have had the responsibility of approving these
changes.
Changes to the maximum rates have been considered by the Farm Program Working
Group every year following this process. There has only been one occasion when
the maximum rates have not been changed when there had been no change in the
Consumer Price Index.
In making these annual changes in maximum rates, the rates have remained
relevant and the agreed cost share of 50% Government and 50% landowner has
been maintained.
1990
Horticultural
whole farm
planning
Horticultural whole farm plans were first prepared in 1990 to include those properties
into the farm plan program. Improved irrigation management on horticultural
properties is an important part of the Catchment Strategy as these enterprises are
generally located on the soils of high permeability. Improved irrigation management
reduces the amount of water getting to the groundwater system and reduces the
need to pump groundwater for salinity control in these areas.
Delivery of the
17
1990
Horticultural
whole farm
planning
continued...
The first plans were prepared as a partnership with the Irrigation Surveyors and
Designers Group, the Shepparton Irrigation Region Implementation Committee,
extension officers and fruit growers. These initial plans were prepared as a trial and
the process for horticultural properties was then developed and implemented.
1994
Local
Government
Planning
In 1994 all of the Local Government bodies in the Shepparton Irrigation Region
adopted a change to their planning processes that introduced a requirement for
earthworks to be approved.
Whole farm plans for horticultural properties are essentially the same as for
broadacre properties. The differences are in the techniques used for topographical
surveying in orchards and the need to often locate and identify underground
irrigation infrastructure. Irrigation design for horticultural properties usually
involves pressurised systems and the design techniques are thus different to gravity
irrigation.
The introduction of Uniform Planning Regulations and subsequent Certification of
whole farm plans, allowed landowners to get all the proposed works accepted and
they could then do the works without further need for permission.
These planning changes were introduced as a result of inappropriate works being
done that had serious impacts on neighbours, including Local Government roads. As
part of this process landowners are required to indicate if the proposed works will:
• Change the flow of water onto and from the property
• Redirect the flow of water onto the property
• Alter the point of outfall of water from the property
This change also incorporated the use of whole farm plans as a way of documenting
the proposed changes and provided a means for landowners to gain approval for
all of the works. Prior to this change, the requirement for permission from Local
Government to do these works was not consistent and when needed, permits were
required on an annual basis.
Landowners are able to submit their whole farm plan as evidence that they are able
to meet these requirements. Local Government also refers these whole farm plans to
other relevant authorities for comment and advice on the suitability of the proposed
works.
The whole farm planning process incorporated these issues into the preparation of
the whole farm plans and landowners are made aware of the Local Government
requirements and these requirements are included into the development of the
plan. Additional information is often sought from Local Government and/or the
relevant authority regarding particular property issues and the advice can then be
incorporated into the developing plan.
1996
Water Quality
18
The development of the Goulburn Broken Catchment Water Quality Strategy in
1996 highlighted the importance of giving a higher priority to other natural resource
management practices, including those related to water quality. The inclusion of
dairy effluent management systems and the higher priority given to drainage reuse
systems are examples of changes made.
Delivery of the
1998
Natural
features
The protection and enhancement of native vegetation, wetlands and natural features
generally are now given much more importance in the planning process. This
change is a result of a greater awareness of these issues and greater acceptance by
landowners that these features needed to be included in the planning process. These
issues are now included in the Catchment Strategy.
However, it is considered that these issues are given a higher priority because of the
requirements as part of the incentive to prepare a whole farm plan. It is likely that
without these requirements to meet the criteria of the incentive scheme, that these
issues would have a much lower priority, similar to the early whole farm plans.
1998
New
Irrigation
Development
Guidelines
Goulburn-Murray Water and Department of Natural Resources and Environment have
developed guidelines for developers, to ensure minimal on-site and off-site impacts
of new irrigation developments. New irrigation developments involve the transfer of
water entitlement, activation of previously unused water entitlement or access to
groundwater
In the Shepparton Irrigation Region whole farm plans are a requirement for this
process and they are used as a means of demonstrating the works to be undertaken
in order to minimise the impacts.
The guidelines inform developers of the requirements for soils information, drainage,
natural vegetation, cultural heritage, salinity status, groundwater conditions, flooding.
The preparation of a whole farm plan for these properties includes all of these
requirements.
The development of the Native Vegetation Strategy for the Goulburn Broken
2000
Dryland whole Catchment Management Area highlighted the importance of the unirrigated areas
farm planning on irrigated properties and unirrigated properties as areas where works could be
undertaken to increase the area of native vegetation in the region.
A whole farm planning process was developed to include dryland properties and
dryland parts of irrigated properties into whole farm plans. This process determines
the degree of survey and design required for these properties and areas. This is
based on the intended works on these areas.
If earthworks are proposed that will require Local Government approval, the whole
farm plan needs to contain the information required to satisfy Local Government
planning requirements. If earthworks are not proposed, the information gathered is
essentially what is existing and any proposed works shown.
2000
Local Area
Planning
The Shepparton Irrigation Region Implementation Committee together with local
communities and agencies have adopted an innovative Local Area Planning approach
to encourage local communities to take the lead in planning and implementing land
and water resource management in their own catchments.
This Local Area Planning process is expected to accelerate implementation and
outcomes of all new and existing regional and local strategies, actions and works
programs. It promotes a whole of catchment approach, incorporating both private
and public land and water issues, working towards a common goal rather than
Delivery of the
19
2000
Local Area
Planning
continued...
dealing with natural resource management from a single-issue perspective. The
process allows local communities to focus on the issues that are particularly affecting
their catchment.
The Local Area Planning process is being adopted in 8 targeted areas to achieve
multiple benefits through the integration of a range of issues, a number of agencies
(Federal, State and Local Governments), and the community. The Local Area
Planning approach provides for efficiency gains in delivery, but also recognises that a
lot of works are undertaken at the farm level.
The whole farm plan program is one of the many catchment activities that are being
used to encourage this innovative approach to develop links between properties in
the catchment.
Landowners are working together to coordinate activities on individual properties
with works on neighbouring properties. These activities include groundwater
investigations being conducted on a catchment basis and planting of trees
and shrubs to link with existing or new plantings on adjoining properties. This
cooperation within the catchment means that the catchment works are more
effective and are able to be delivered more efficiently.
2000
Introduction
of cost-share
matrix
In 2000 the Shepparton Irrigation Region Implementation Committee introduced two
new projects as part of the Farm Program to increase the implementation of drainage
reuse systems and automatic irrigation systems. These projects make available a
financial incentive and as part of the development of these projects, a cost-share
matrix was developed to determine the cost-share available for these water use
efficiency related catchment activities.
As part of determining the cost-share for these projects, the extension officer,
together with the landowner, scores the property according to the amount and extent
of catchment works that have occurred on the property. Landowners score highly
where they have completed more of the catchment works over a large area of their
property. This provides a higher cost-share available compared to landowners where
less activity has occurred.
This process rewards landowners who have completed other catchment works and
acknowledges that there are multiple benefits when the new works are undertaken
The introduction of this cost-share matrix has helped to increase the integrated
nature of the programs delivering catchment works. As extension officers go through
the scoring process with landowners, they are increasing the understanding of
landowners of the other catchment works and assistance available. Landowners are
then keen to get involved in these other works to increase their score and the costshare available to them. The result of this has been landowners seeking out the
other programs and hence, increasing their uptake.
20
Delivery of the
2000
Drainage
reuse
systems.
2003
Protection
of natural
features
In July 2000 the Shepparton Irrigation Region Implementation Committee introduced
a new project as part of the Farm Program to increase the implementation of
drainage reuse systems.
As part of the introduction of the project the Implementation Committee introduced a
requirement for all whole farm plans to contain a drainage reuse system. The whole
farm planning program was changed to incorporate this requirement and plans need
to contain the location and details of drainage reuse systems.
In February 2001, Nolan-ITU Ltd reported on the Independent Review of the
Environmental Aspects of Northern Victoria’s Surface Drainage Programs in Irrigation
Areas.
One of the recommendations from that review was the “Development and
Implementation of appropriate arrangements such as formal agreements, operational
management plans and incentives to protect and enhance remnant vegetation and
wetlands on private land, which is benefiting from drainage”.
The State Government agreed with this recommendation and asked that the
Catchment Management Authorities develop arrangements to maximise the longterm environmental benefits provided by the drainage programs.
In 2003 the whole farm plan program was changed to include a requirement for
a statement to be placed onto whole farm plans that indicates that the landowner
has been made aware of their responsibilities in protecting native vegetation and
wetlands. This is intended to show that there have been discussions with the
landowner and that the landowner is aware of the statement and the responsibilities
for protecting these natural features.
An important change that has occurred
to whole farm planning is that the natural
features generally are now given much more
importance in the planning process. This
change is a result of a greater awareness
of these issues and greater acceptance by
landowners that these features needed to be
included in the planning process.
All of the changes to the whole farm planning
program have only been made after discussion
and approval from the Farm and Environment
Program Working Group and then approval
from the Shepparton Irrigation Region
Implementation Committee. The changes have
only been made with community and agency
endorsement.
A number of training and information sharing
workshops have been conducted to incorporate
all of these changes as they have been made.
The partnership with the Surveyors and
Designers Group continues to be an important
part of this program.
Delivery of the
21
Comparison of Present process with Bush Tender process
The question arises as to whether the whole
farm plan program can be implemented
more efficiently if it is delivered using a
different market mechanism. There are
reports (Chaudhri, 2003, Stoneham, Chaudhri
and Strappazzon, DNRE, 2002) suggesting
BushTender as a market mechanism method to
deliver biodiversity outcomes.
It is reported that in Victoria, a pilot auction of
biodiversity conservation using BushTender
has proven to be an efficient and popular
mechanism for engaging private landowners
in biodiversity conservation (Chaudhri, 2003).
The whole farm plan program would need to
be bundled with other water use efficiency
programs to use a Bush Tender model.
The steps that the whole farm plan program would need to follow if using the BushTender model
are shown below:
Water Use Efficiency Grants as a tender process
Step
Process
Responsibility
Time Taken
Step 1
Step 2
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
Advertise for EOIs
Landowner (L/O) contact DPI
DPI
L/O
Step1-2
(6 months)
DPI
Step3-6 (3 months)
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT PLAN
DPI officer prepares draft management plan
Time frame
Works to be undertaken
DPI sends draft management plan to L/O
SUBMISSION OF BID
L/O determine incentive needed and prepare bid and
sends to DPI
DPI
L/O
Step 8
Step 9
BID ASSESSMENT
DPI objectively assesses all bids based on criteria ie
L/O vs GOV $
Catchment strategy
Amount of work to be done
Time frame of implementation
Select and notify successful BIDS
Notify unsuccessful bids
Step 10
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
DPI draws up fixed term management document
DPI
Step 11
Step 12
L/O signs document and return to DPI
L/O does some work
L/O
L/O
Step13
Step14
REPORTING AND PAYMENTS
DPI assess works undertaken & collect receipts
DPI processes claims and forward payments
DPI
DPI
Step 7
22
SITE ASSESSMENT
DPI officer visits L/O
Explain process
Assess present situation
Advise L/O on improvements
L/O suggest what they are willing to do
DPI scores L/O services offered
Delivery of the
DPI
Step7-9 (1month)
DPI
DPI
Step10-11 (1-1.5
months)
Step 12 (depends)
Step13-14 (1week)
The details regarding how the Bush Tender process works are mentioned elsewhere (Warr and
Partner, 2002). Below are some of the advantages and disadvantages for using an auction method
for implementing the whole farm plan program.
Advantages
•
•
•
Cost effective way of delivering the program
Policy objectives/outcomes can be achieved
on the basis of full information.
It follows a competitive process
Disadvantages
•
•
•
High transaction cost in terms of staff time.
Initial “unsuccessful” bidders may stay
away from the program.
Staff’s skill and knowledge need to be
enhanced.
Compared to the advantages and disadvantages of Bush Tender process the following are the
advantages and disadvantages of using the current process for implementing the whole farm plan
program.
Advantages
•
•
•
•
Inclusive (everyone can get involved)
Focuses on those who are ready to
implement catchment works.
On-ground works can be carried out in
stages
Low transaction/administrative cost.
Disadvantages
•
•
Market mechanism not at work.
No clear commitment for catchment works
The choice of instrument, or packages of instruments, depends on many pragmatic considerations
not just economic efficiency. It is important that as well as being efficient, the instrument package
is equitable, administratively feasible and provides a continuing incentive for improvement.
Delivery of the
23
Achievements against goals and targets
This section reviews the achievements of
the whole farm plan activity. The information
presented is based on the report entitled The
Farm Program Review: Capturing the activities
of the Farm Program from 1995 to 2000 and
exploring the direction for the future 2000
– 2005 vision (Smolenaars F. ed.2001)
On Farm Works
Results from the Goulburn-Murray Water
Census in 1997 and the Shepparton Irrigation
Region Implementation Committee annual
reports show that the works detailed in whole
farm plans are been implemented. For example
3.5% of the irrigated area is laser graded each
year with 60% of the area now completed.
“To what extent have the intended
outcomes/ outputs of the program been
achieved?”
The whole farm plan program under the
Farm Program has identified key goals and
associated targets to enhance catchment
works. The review of the assessment of these
goals and targets are presented in this section.
Goal 1: to reduce the long-term regional
sub-surface drainage requirements by
reducing farm accessions.
Associated Targets
•
•
Reduce area of post irrigation ponding on
9,000 ha (3.6%) of farmland/year.
Reduce excess farm accessions
The above given targets are mainly achieved
through the works associated with whole farm
plans and the accelerated adoption of drainage
reuse systems with the assistance of extension
and policy changes.
This goal was based on the assumption that
improved irrigation management, including
lasergrading would reduce accessions to
groundwater by 10%. If the water was
prevented from entering the groundwater
system, there would be a reduced requirement
for groundwater pumping for salinity control.
24
Achievements against goals & targets
Goal 2: to reduce the ultimate need for salt
disposal
Associated Targets
•
•
To reduce the volume of surface drainage
water from irrigation by 5%.
Adoption of management practices to
ensure long-term sustainability of the
groundwater pumping/drainage reuse
systems as a salinity control measure on
farms.
On Farm Works
The implementation of works following the
whole farm plan process has contributed
to a reduction in drainage water leaving
farms. The assumption built into this goal is
that as irrigation management is improved
and particularly drainage reuse systems are
installed, there will be a reduction of water and
salt leaving the Region, thus reducing the need
for, and the costs of salt disposal.
Goal 3: to maintain or enhance natural
ecosystems on private land, with consideration
to its relationship to surrounding systems.
Associated Targets
There are several targets which were
reviewed in detail as part of the review of the
Environment Program conducted in 2001.
As the assessment of this goal, it has been
reported that the environment is taking a
higher priority in the whole farm plan process
and the development of properties. It has
been reported that there have been significant
changes in attitude of landowners towards
environmental considerations. There is a “will
of the people” to do something.
This has been achieved by a range of
extension practices and a desire by landowners
to integrate natural resource management
issues into the whole farm plan process.
Facts about the
Total irrigated area in the Shepparton
Irrigation Region – 316,853 ha
The Shepparton Irrigation Region Land
and Water Salinity Management Plan
had a target that all properties in the
Shepparton Irrigation Region would
have a whole farm plan by the end of
the 30 year plan – 2020.
This required a target rate of 3.3% of
the irrigated area per year.
Since the start of implementation in
1990 to the end of June 2004, the rate
of uptake of whole farm plans was 3.7%
per year with 150 to 200 whole farm
plans prepared each year.
On Farm Works
Through the implementation of the whole
farm plan process (building drainage reuse
systems, laser grading paddocks, planting
trees and applying appropriate drainage) some
protection of habitat sites of rare or threatened
species of fauna has been provided.
It is estimated that there would have been
close to 25 wetlands that have been positively
affected by salinity mitigation works over the
last five years. (Garrett B and McLennan R.
2001).
During this period more than 100 sites of
remnant vegetation were protected through
farm development works.
Goal 4: to achieve sustainable irrigated
farming in the Shepparton Irrigation
Region
Associated Targets
All properties within the Shepparton Irrigation
Region to have a whole farm plan by 2020.
Profitable farming systems.
The original Shepparton Irrigation Region
Land and Water Salinity Management Plan
(SIRLWSMP) had a whole farm planning
target - that all properties in the Shepparton
Irrigation Region would have a whole farm
plan by the end of the 30 year plan, 2020. The
Shepparton Irrigation Region community and
the Government agreed to that target.
That original whole farm planning target has
been adopted in the recently agreed Goulburn
Broken Regional Catchment Strategy.
26
Planned Rate of Adoption Exceeded:
When the SIRLWSMP commenced
implementation in 1989/90, a total of 36,030
ha had been whole farm planned with
assistance from the “Irrigation Management
Grants Scheme” that was commenced in 1987.
This represented 11.37% of the irrigated area
of the Shepparton Irrigation Region of 316,853
ha whole farm planned in three years, an
annual rate of 3.8%.
At the start of implementation of the
SIRLWSMP, 280,823ha of irrigated land
remained to be whole farm planned by the end
of the plan in 2020. The target was 9,361 ha
or 3.3% per year of the irrigated area to be
planned to meet the target.
By June 2004, a total of 199,780 ha had been
planned in the Shepparton Irrigation Region.
This represents an increase of 163,750 ha in
the first 14 years of implementation. This is an
annual increase of 11,696 ha or 3.7%. The
area whole farm planned in the Shepparton
Irrigation Region is shown below.
4. WFP/SIR MAP
chris nic to provide
updated map
The whole farm planning project in the
Shepparton Irrigation Region has thus
exceeded the agreed target for the first 14
years of implementation. Landowners have
been adopting whole farm planning faster than
the agreed target and if it was considered
necessary to increase the rate of adoption
even further a new target rate would need to
be agreed to by the community.
It has also been reported in the Farm
Program Review that the Farm Program has
contributed to increasing the productivity in
farm businesses that have implemented a
whole farm plan and the associated works.
However, the review indicated that it is hard to
measure changes in profitability and to link this
specifically with works.
Goal 5: to minimise nutrient pollution from
irrigated farming practices
Associated Targets
•
Adoption of Best Management Practice to
optimise the use of nutrients and wastes
on farm and minimise run off in drainage
water.
The reviews of the whole farm plan process
in 1990, 1995 and 2000, show that the
installation of a drainage reuse system is
often the first work done in the land forming
process after completing whole farm plans.
In 1996/97 the rate of installation of drainage
reuse systems was 6% per year. Over 2,500
drainage reuse systems have been constructed
since the start of implementing the Catchment
Strategy, bringing the total in the Shepparton
Irrigation Region to over 3,400. It is estimated
that collectively these drainage reuse systems
capture 200,000 ML of farm run off per
28
Effectiveness of the program
From farm surveys
This section assesses the landowners
views of the whole farm plan program. The
information presented is based on reports
entitled “A Survey of Landowners Involved in
the Whole Farm Plan Incentive Scheme 19952000” (Heard and Maskey, 2001) and “Whole
Farm Plan Incentive Scheme: A Comparative
Analysis” (Maskey and Lawler, 2001).
Landholder comments on
Whole Farm Planning
“I was able to look at the property in map
form. It has given me a better understanding
of how water flows across the property.”
the following Key Evaluation Questions:
“Receiving options and inputs (during the
preparation of the whole farm plan) gave a
stronger sense of ownership over the plan.”
“What changes in practices have
occurred as a result of the program?”
and,
“It’s such as building a house, you don’t start
without a plan.”
“Did participants of the program increase
awareness, understanding as targeted?
In what way?”
Since the start of the program in 1987, there
have been three reviews of the program and
they were conducted during 1990, 1995 and
2000. All three reviews involved surveys of
landowners to assess the effectiveness of the
program and to identify the ways of improving
the delivery of the program.
“The plan is a motivational tool for the family.
The plan is used as a goal to work towards.”
“The family is more motivated to stay on
the property and manage it as efficiently as
possible.”
“…has made life easier by cutting time spent
irrigating to less than half.”
“…helped to identify priorities on farm.”
Satisfaction: Landowners have been asked
about the satisfaction level with their individual
whole farm plans in all three reviews. There
has been a significant improvement in the
level of satisfaction from 59% in 1990 to 91%
in 1995 and 96% in 2000. This indicates the
maturity of the program with time.
Improvement over time: Initially during
1990, landowners were complaining about
technical errors in their whole farm plans,
information of existing structures not shown
and high earthworks, and thus cost to
undertake the works. It is obvious from the
later surveys that the high level incidence of
complaints regarding technical errors and
unsatisfactory design options have been
resolved by better communication during the
planning phase.
When asked about the negative aspects
experienced with development works,
landowners mentioned high cost, loss
of production, heavy cut areas and poor
management as the main negative aspects.
The majority (57%) of landowners found
that the preparation of a whole farm plan
Effectiveness of the program 29
from farm surveys
was useful for their farm development
works. They said that it allowed them to
set priorities for their development works
and they were able to stage works knowing
it would fit together. The landowners used
whole farm plans as motivational tool. The
plan provided landowners with better insight
and an understanding of design that improved
the efficient management of their properties.
They also indicated that they would encourage
others to prepare a whole farm plan.
Salinity benefit: Landowners mentioned
salinity control as the foremost benefit from
implementing the whole farm plan followed
by ease of management, increased production
and water use efficiency.
Incentive a key factor: The majority also
indicated that they would not prepare a whole
farm plan if the incentive was not available.
Landowners were positive about the scheme
and indicated that the scheme should continue
in future.
Works underway: The study also showed
that landowners expected to fully implement
their whole farm plan within an average of 6
years after the preparation of whole farm plans
with a range of 0 to 20 years.
Almost all the respondents said that the whole
farm plan should continue in future. Some
recommended a few changes to the present
whole farm plan program such as: increase the
percent of incentive; introduce incentives for
drainage reuse system; and more information
to be made available about other incentive
schemes.
Overall, the studies reflected a very positive
reaction from the landowners about the
scheme indicating that the process undertaken
to implement the scheme is working well.
30
Effectiveness of the program
from farm surveys
Economic Analysis
This section reviews the economic and
financial analysis of the Whole Farm Plan
Incentive Scheme. The information presented
is based on the report entitled Shepparton
Irrigation Region Catchment Strategy
Economic Evaluation. (Young, 2002).
The report concentrates on the economic
and financial benefits and costs of the Farm
Program, which includes activities of the whole
farm plan program, drainage reuse systems,
automatic irrigation and environmental
programs. This review, however, focuses on
the whole farm plan program only.
“What are the economic and financial
benefits and costs of the program?”
•
Reversing salinity and water logging
benefits is a key benefit of the program.
The assumption is that 2% of the
equivalent loss per hectare can
be recovered or loss prevented
per annum. By year 30 (2020),
approximately 60% of the losses due
to salinity and water logging will be
recovered (or prevented) through the
implementation of whole farm plan works
or best management practices.
•
The major economic benefit from
landforming and modern, efficient irrigation
layouts is the significant labour saving
from water management that enables
managers to more effectively implement
the best management practices that are
necessary to deliver water use efficiency
and minimise accessions to the watertable.
The analysis is done with the following key
assumptions:
•
The analysis has been undertaken
over the 50 years from the
commencement of implementation of
the Shepparton Irrigation Region Land
and Water Management Plan 1990/91
– 2040/41.
•
The discount rates used are 4% for
the economic analysis and 8% for the
financial analysis, as required by the
Victorian Government.
•
The analysis is conducted using the
year 2000 dollars.
•
It is assumed that the non-salt or water
logging affected land will produce a Gross
Margin of $1512/effective hectare.
Economic Analysis
31
The benefits and costs identified in the report are summarised below:
Private Costs
•
•
Cost of undertaking a whole farm plan
Cost of implementing the works identified
in the plan:
- Lasering and land forming
- Farm channels
- Farm drains
- Drainage reuse systems
- Environmental works on farm, including new planting, remnant vegetation
protection.
Public Costs
•
•
Cost of undertaking whole farm plan
Extension officer support costs
Private Benefits
•
•
Public Benefits
•
•
•
The key findings of the economic analysis are:
•
•
The Economic and Financial benefit cost
ratios of the whole farm plan program
(which includes some other activities of
the Farm Program) are 1.32 and 1.12
respectively. Their respective Internal Rates
of Return are 11.63% and 12.84%.
The ratio of the Present Value of Total
Government Costs and Total Private cost is
$42.193 million: $396.426 million or 1:9.3
or 9.3% Public: 90.7% Private.
The results presented above show that
the government and the community have
played a significant role in working together
to bring about irrigation efficiency in the
area. The contribution ratio of 1:9.3 from
the government and community respectively
32
The Role of Government
in program implementation
Productivity increases on farm.
Labour saving. With improved irrigation
layout, one person can manage 40%
more land and associated stock.
Reverse in the loss in productivity due to
high water tables and salinity with the
implementation of whole farm plan.
Reverse in salinity and waterlogging. The
assumption is that 2% of the equivalent
lost ha can be recovered or loss prevented
per annum.
Improved labour efficiency is a direct
benefit of the implementation of whole
farm plan works. This has allowed
landowners to implement water use
efficiency best practices.
indicates the success of the program to
bring about major improvement in water use
efficiency in the area.
The ratio of the Present Value of Total
Government Costs and Total Private cost to
implement the whole farm plan program is 1:9.3.
(9.3% Public : 90.7% Private)
This indicates that government and community
are partners in the investment of improved
irrigation management.
It also indicates that the investment by the
government to the program has led to major
improvements in water use efficiency and has
leveraged a huge investment in improved water
management by landowners.
In program implementation
This section examines the whole farm plan
program and the government’s role in the
implementation of the program. The review
undertaken in this section answers the
following Key Evaluation Question;
“Is there a need for a public support to
the program in achieving its outcomes?”
Focus of Whole Farm Planning as a
Tool: As discussed before, the whole farm
plan program is an important part of the Farm
Program in the Shepparton Irrigation Region.
It focuses on improving water management
on land with a range of benefits, ultimately
leading to the reduction of groundwater
accessions, soil salinisation and waterlogging
on farms. It is also a plan of the farm
showing existing features and details of the
improvements to be made on the property,
including improved irrigation management.
It allows these improvements to be done in
stages with the knowledge that each stage is
complementary to all other stages.
The Farm Program encourages:
• All properties to develop a whole farm
plan.
• Lasergrading irrigation layouts.
• Production from the better land.
• Drainage reuse systems.
• Tree planting.
• Protection of remnant vegetation.
• Improved irrigation management.
• Remodelling of farm channels and drains.
• Integration of natural resource
management activities into Industry
programs.
• Activities consistent with the nutrient and
biodiversity strategies.
• Implementation of micro irrigation on
district orchards.
Importance of the Extension Process:
As discussed before, extension services were
provided to promote the uptake of the whole
farm plan program. The majority of whole
farm plans are developed by a landowner and
an irrigation surveyor/designer in consultation
with an extension officer. The extension
process is critical to the success of the
program.
The role of the extension officer includes:
• helping landowners to adopt best
management practices identified in the
Regional Catchment Strategy;
• making landowners aware of natural
resource problems and the need to adopt
sustainable agricultural practices;
• providing information about how the work
done at the farm level is related to the
regional catchment;
• providing information on the catchment
works and activities in the region;
• enhancing attitudinal change among
landowners on how the implementation of
individual works benefits at the catchment
level;
• enabling landowners to make informed
decision with regards to catchment works;
and
• promoting sustainable land use leading to
overall catchment objectives.
Overall, the key role of the extension officer is
to make sure that the landowner understands
the plan, which at the regional level is then
coordinated with the catchment strategy.
Although governments are still dominant
in provision of extension services, both in
Australia and elsewhere, there is a growing
trend to question the public funding of
extension services. Policy directives to address
areas of public rather than private good are
currently influencing the change in emphasis of
public funding away from production-oriented
extension towards conservation/environmental
33
–oriented extension (Marsh and Pannell,
1999).
Therefore from the rationalistic perspective,
two questions arise.
Why provide a public extension
service for an activity such as
the whole farm plan program?
In answering this question we need to ask - is
the service a private good or a public good?
If the receipt of extension service is a private
good, then the cost of it should be borne by
the recipient. However, if it is a public good
then government needs to play a role.
Early focus on extension services deals mainly
with the adoption processes in relation to
technologies to increase productivity on farm.
Now the focus of extension has changed from
the concerns about the increase in productivity
at individual farm level to organisational
outcomes and public benefits (Black, 2000,
and Marsh and Pannell, 1999).
Mixed Benefits of Whole Farm
Planning: In the case of whole farm plan
activities, it can have both public as well
as private benefits (see Table in section 7
showing a list of private and public benefits
and costs). That is, the program produces
benefits for both landowners and the
community. An efficient layout of a farm as
a result of a whole farm plan is a significant
labour saving activity that can be considered
as a private benefit. However, the activity
also relates to problems that have a diffuse
environmental impact beyond the individual
farm. For example, an activity such as laser
grading not only saves time for landowners but
also prevents or ameliorates salinity problems
within a particular water catchment. It also
provides benefits to the wider community
through a reduction in the negative impacts
in other parts of the catchment caused by
nutrient runoff.
Thus, the extension services in this regard not
only focuses on farm issues but deals with the
34
adoption of more complex, integrated suites of
practices that have a broader goal of a region
or catchment. In this regard, the role of a
government to provide the extension service
for the whole farm plan program is a valid
approach to the program.
Private and /or Public Benefits
are gained from this program.
Landowners benefit from the program
in terms of more efficient irrigation
and farm management leading to
reduced labour cost.
Benefits accrue to the wider
community through a reduction in the
negative impacts to others caused by
nutrient runoff and salinisation of soil.
Why is there an incentive for
preparing a whole farm plan?
In order to answer this question, we need to
focus on what is an incentive. Incentives are
one of the policy instruments used to drive
change. There are three basic categories
of policy instrument depending on the way
they impact on the group or issue. These
are compulsory, mixed and voluntary policy
instrument types. Incentives can be considered
as a mixed policy instrument where voluntary
policies are combined with incentives to
encourage people to change.
Cost Share by Government is Small:
The whole farm plan program has been
instrumental in achieving practice change
to improve land and water management,
protection and enhancement of the
environment and giving landowners a tool to
help with their strategic business planning
for catchment works. The success of the
program relies heavily on the landowners
of the Shepparton Irrigation Region. From
the government’s position, the program is
a small funder of farm works. The greatest
contribution comes from the physical effort
and financial contribution of the landowners
themselves. The economic analysis section
showed that the ratio between the government
contribution to private work by landowners is
1:9 (Young, 2002).
The financial incentive available for the
preparation of a whole farm plan has worked
in three major ways.
1. Contact Between Government
and Landowner: The incentive has
allowed contact between the landowner and
government employed extension officer. It has
provided an additional means of getting “a
foot in the door of landowners” to make them
aware of the Catchment Strategy. Through
the planning process, landowners are able
to get information about how they could
improve farm productivity by implementing the
whole farm plan and also, how their actions
could achieve the catchment outcomes. For
example, the improvements to irrigation
management made on their properties through
the implementation of their whole farm plans,
not only helped landowners to save time
and reduce labour for their farm work but
the works and changed practices also help
reduce accessions of irrigation water to the
groundwater system.
2. Continuous Improvement of the
Planning Process: The standard of
property planning in the Shepparton Irrigation
Region has been greatly improved. As
discussed previously, before the introduction
of this program, the planning that had been
conducted was mostly done at a “paddock
scale” and very little planning was done at the
“property scale”. In addition the planning that
had been completed was very much focussed
on the irrigation system and in particular the
engineering aspects. The introduction of the
whole farm plan program and the financial
incentive requires landowners to undertake
planning over the whole of their property. The
evolution of the whole farm planning program
has seen a greater range of natural resource
management activities being included in the
planning process.
3. Increased Rate of Change: The
program has helped to increase the rate of
change in the adoption of works identified
in the catchment strategy. Survey reports
suggested that more than 50% of the
landowners who have prepared a whole
farm plan reported that they would not have
prepared the whole farm plan if the incentives
were not available (Maskey and Lawler, 2002).
This indicated that the incentive has a role
in the increasing the rate of adoption. The
adoption of whole farm planning has continued
at 3-4 % of the irrigated area per year and
approximately 3.5 % of irrigated area is laser
graded per year. With this trend, half of the
irrigated area should be laser graded by the
year 2000(Douglass and Poulton, 1998).
Further, two more questions need to be
answered in this regard.
•
•
Is the rate of change in the adoption
significant?
Is it possible to increase the rate of change
even more?
The target for whole farm planning in the
Shepparton Irrigation Region is well on track
to being achieved, with 63.1% of the irrigated
area within the Shepparton Irrigation Region
now having a whole farm plan at the end of
June 2004.
Planning is the Smallest Cost: It is to
be noted that preparing a whole farm plan is a
small component of the overall farm works to
be done in the property. A substantial financial
investment needs to be made for the ground
works such as laser grading by the landowners
to complete the work. Laser grading can be
taken as a proxy for the works on the property,
which is increasing at a rate of 3.5% per year.
The capital investment for catchment work
can depend on a lot of factors. Some of these
factors are within the control of landowners
and others are outside their control. Those
that are outside the control are drought, flood,
disease and commodity prices of products.
These factors will have a significant impact on
35
how landowners invest in catchment works.
Effects of Factors on Works: A study
conducted in the middle of a drought in the
Shepparton Irrigation Region suggested
that 50% of the landowners involved were
uncertain about the outlook of their respective
industry (Maskey and Lawler, 2002). In this
uncertain environment it is less likely that
people will invest in catchment works. There
are other factors that may be under the control
of the landowner but the priority suggests
otherwise.
The study (Maskey, 1996) looking at the
priority of landowners for farm related
investment, suggested that there are other
priorities including, payment of debt, off-farm
priorities and holidays, which can influence
landowners’ investment in catchment activities.
farm plans are fully implemented within 10
years of preparation. This is a fast rate of
change considering the expense and effort that
landowners require to make the change and
do the works detailed in the whole farm plans.
The current rate of adoption of whole farm
planning and the adoption of the works and
practices is significant given the scale of
investment that the landowners are making in
undertaking the works.
The program is ahead of the target agreed
to in the original strategy, the Shepparton
Irrigation Region Land and Water Salinity
Management Plan. In order to increase the
rate of change even more, agreement between
the community, landowners, and Government
to increase the rate of change would need to
be sought. It is unlikely that landowners can
afford to increase their investment in works.
The Farm Program Review report (2001),
however, suggested that the majority of whole
CASE STUDY:
How much investment does a landowner make
to laser grade a farm?
To laser grade 1 ha,
•
Preparation: cultivation
Cost
$210
•
Earthworks: an average 275 cubic metres/ha
earth needs to be moved, 1 m3 earthworks
costs $1.25.
$344
•
In addition 35 cubic metres/ha topsoil needs
to be removed, stockpiled and replaced.,
1 m3 top soil costs $1.20
$42
Total cost/ ha is $596
Assuming an average size of 60 hectares farm, a landowner will invest $35,760 for
laser grading.
Laser grading is generally about 40% of the total cost of implementing a whole
farm plan.
The landowner will have received a payment of $2,400 as an incentive to prepare a
whole farm plan for this property.
36
Conclusions
The findings of the review are summarised
using three review criteria: the efficiency of
the program, the effectiveness of the program
and the role of the government in delivering
the program.
Efficiency of the program
•
•
•
•
•
•
has shown to follow a robust model, which
has enhanced continuous improvement.
There is a culture of continuous
improvement demonstrated in the
program. Some of the initiatives shown in
the program are:
Demonstration of continuous improvements
in the delivery of the program with time;
Feedback from landowners on program
improvement through the reviews
conducted every five years;
Committees playing a vital role in
monitoring local seasonal needs and
developing support activities in response to
these needs; and,
Adoption of innovative Local Area Planning
approach to accelerate the outcomes of the
program.
Program Effectiveness
• Uptake: The annual uptake of whole
farm plan is 3.7%. This rate has exceeded
the agreed target for the first 13 years
of implementation of whole farm plan
program as shown in the Regional
Catchment Strategy.
• Reduced Drainage out of the
Catchment: The implementation of
works following the whole farm plan
process contributed to a reduction in
drainage water leaving farms, particularly
with the installation of drainage reuse
systems. In 1996/97 the rate of installation
of drainage reuse systems was 6% per
• Attitude Change due to the
Program: It has been reported that there
have been significant changes in attitude
of landowners towards environmental
considerations. There is a “will of the
people” to do something. This has been
achieved by a range of extension practices
and a desire of landowners to integrate
natural resource management issues into
the whole farm plan process.
• Benefit Cost Success: The economic
and financial benefit cost ratio of the
program, which includes some other
activities of the Farm Program, are 1.32
and 1.12 respectively. The respective
Internal Rates of Return are 11.63% and
12.84%.
• The ratio of the Present Value of
Total Government Costs to Total Private
cost is; $42.193 million to $396.426 million
or 1:9.3 or 9.3% public to 90.7% private.
• Landowners need the Program: The
majority of landowners indicated that they
would not prepare a whole farm plan if the
incentive was not available and said that
the program should continue in future.
• Rapid Start of Works: 75% of
landowners with whole farm plans reported
that they have commenced some work in
implementing their whole farm plan.
• Rapid Adoption of Works: The
majority of whole farm plans are
fully implemented within 10 years of
preparation. The study also showed that
the majority of whole farm plans were fully
implemented within an average of 6 years
after the preparation of whole farm plans
with a range of 0 to 20 years.
Conclusions
37
•
Landowners mentioned salinity control as
the foremost benefit from implementing
the whole farm plan followed by ease of
management, increase in production and
water use efficiency.
•
3.5% of the irrigated area is laser graded
every year.
Role of the Government
•
Joint Benefit and Joint Commitment:
The program produces benefits for
both landowners and the community.
Landowners save labour by potentially
increasing efficiency in irrigation
management and the community benefits
through a reduction in the negative
impacts to other parts of the catchment
caused by nutrient runoff and salinisation
of soil and water. This also means that the
overall outcomes of irrigation efficiency are
obtained by the close cooperation between
the government and the community.
•
Incentives Drive Adoption: There is
evidence showing that the increase in the
rate of adoption is due to the provision of
incentives by the government.
The above conclusions can be simplified in
a logical framework in the form of Bennett’s
Hierarchy that is shown in Appendix 3.
38
Conclusions
Options and Recommendations
The following have been identified as
important options and recommendations for
the Whole Farm Plan program to consider
in order to address the challenges of
being innovative in delivery methods and
in demonstrating the effectiveness of the
program.
Promotion of the Program as a
Community Driven Program
•
Much of the improvement in the irrigation
efficiency achieved through the program
has been done in cooperation with the
community. The strength in the use of
this mechanism needs to be recognised
and acknowledged. Any change to the
program needs to be done with appropriate
consultation with the community.
Mode of Delivery
•
has shown to follow a robust model which
is found to be flexible in incorporating
continuous improvement to its delivery
mechanism. In this context, the present
model of delivery should continue as
it has evolved. However, the program
should also seek to explore innovative
approaches to program delivery and
identify the advantages and disadvantages
of these approaches. The choice of
delivery instrument should have pragmatic
considerations not just economic efficiency.
The instrument considered should look at
the following criteria for its uptake:
• economic efficiency;
• resources, knowledge and skill
requirements;
• complexity of information
requirement;
• administrative cost;
• adoptability; and
• acceptability.
•
There is a need to continuously assess
the progress of whole farm plan adoption.
Case studies related to success stories
and failure stories from those who have
adopted a whole farm plan can provide
information to improve the delivery process
of the program.
•
There is a need for systematic
documentation of continuous improvement
in the delivery process. At the moment,
there is a formal five yearly assessment of
landowners’ perception on the program.
Similar assessments need to be done for
other key stakeholders including; project
staff, committee members, surveyors and
designers and local governments.
Targeting Clients for Whole Farm
Plan Uptake
•
At present, the landowners targeted in
this program are landowners that are
intending to implement catchment works.
The rate of uptake of the program needs
to be monitored and by further targeting
the program to specific groups or areas if
required. The options of targeting need
to be explored and the program should
explore the options of targeting specific
risk areas or specific community groups.
Assessing the Possibility of
Incorporating Innovative Approaches
to Delivery Process
•
The use of the cost-share matrix has been
noted for the drainage reuse systems and
automatic irrigation systems projects. The
whole farm plan program has considered
that preparing a plan for their property
should be the first activity that landowners
should do before undertaking catchment
activities. The use of the cost-share matrix
for drainage reuse and automation rewards
landowners that have completed other
catchment works. However, there is a need
Options and
Recommendations
39
to explore the use of a similar cost-share
matrix approach to the whole farm plan
program.
Measurable Targets and Goals
The whole farm plan program has now been
operating for some time and the program
has been successful in getting landowners to
prepare plans and adopt the improved land
and water management practices and this has
contributed to the success of the Catchment
Strategy.
Within the catchment strategy there are
specific targets and goals which are to be
measured by appropriate standards and
measures. The National Natural Resource
Management Monitoring and Evaluation
Framework and the associated National Natural
Resource Management Standards and Targets
Framework outline the broad principles,
requirements and processes for setting
resource condition targets (DSE, 2003).
In this regard, the Monitoring, Evaluation and
Reporting Strategy for the Goulburn Broken
Catchment (2003b) is already conducting
monitoring and evaluation exercises within the
catchment.
•
The program should continue to assist the
development of the Monitoring, Evaluation
and Reporting Strategy for the Goulburn
Broken Catchment and to document and
refine these exercises which will then result
in developing and assessing targets and
goals which are specific and measurable.
Cross Collaboration and
Cooperation of the Program with
other Industry Program/Projects
•
40
There is a need to continue to promote
the role of the whole farm plan program
with the other players such as industry
extension programs, irrigation surveyors
and designers, consultants and local
government, to increase the collaborative
role of achieving the outcomes together.
This can be achieved by formalising the
Options and
Recommendations
collaborative process, and allowing time to
be spent on developing the collaborative
process.
Further study and research
This section describes the issues and
processes that could be explored further in
order to provide a more complete review and
to encompass all of the complexities of the
program.
Policy Review/ Evaluation
•
There is a need to explore how an onground program, such as whole farm
planning, brings about outcomes that
match with regional and state policies.
For this, there is a need to review policies
to identify whether there are conflicting
objectives at different levels. This will help
streamline policy formulation and policy
implementation to achieve outcomes onground, which are compatible at regional
and state level.
Outlook of the Program
•
The whole farm plan program is a mature
program that has been in operation
since 1987. It is important to assess
the learnings of the program from policy
makers, implementers and community
perspective.
Appropriate Policy and Incentive
•
There is a need to look at how different
combinations of policies and incentives
can obtain on-ground outcomes more
efficiently. It should answer some of the
questions like:
•
Why the government is using incentive
mechanisms?
What is the best proportion of the
incentives?
How are they decided?
What are the assumptions made during the
decision making process?
•
•
•
Identify the Drivers of Change
•
It is important to identify the drivers of
change in the adoption and implementation
of the whole farm plan program. In
addition to focusing on questions like:
•
•
“Does the program work?” or “What
works?”, it needs to focus on realistic
evaluation question like
“What works for whom in what
circumstances?” as mentioned in
Pawson and Tilley (1997).
Further study
and research
41
References
Black, A.W., 2000, Extension Theory and
Practice: A Review, Australian Journal of
Experimental Agriculture, Vol., 40: 493-502.
Chaudhri, V., 2003, Market-like Policy Options,
Department of Sustainability and Environment:
Melbourne.
Douglass, W., Poulton, D., 1998, Results of
Irrigated Farm Census 1997, G-MW: Tatura.
DSE, 2003, Guidelines for Setting Resource
Condition Targets within Victoria, Draft Report,
Melbourne: Department of Sustainability and
Environment.
Garrett B and McLennan R., 2001, Five year
review of Shepparton Irrigation Region Land
and Water Salinity Management Plan for the
Environment Program (draft), Shepparton:
Brian Garrett & Associates & Rod McLennan &
Associates.
Goulburn Broken Catchment Management
Authority (GB CMA), 2003a, Goulburn Broken
Regional Catchment Strategy, GB CMA:
Shepparton.
Goulburn Broken Catchment Management
Authority (GB CMA), 2003b, Monitoring,
Evaluation and Reporting Strategy for the
Goulburn Broken Catchment, Draft Report,
Shepparton: Goulburn Broken Catchment
Management Authority.
Heard, B. and Maskey, R. 2001, A Survey of
Landowners Involved in the Whole Farm Plan
Incentive Scheme: July 1995-June 2000, NRE:
Tatura.
Marsh, S.P. and Pannell, D.J., 1999, Agricultural
Extension Policy and Practice in Australia; An
Overview, Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension, Vol. 6, No. 2: 83-92.
Maskey, R. (1996), Irrigation Performance of
Dairy Farmers in the Murray Valley Irrigation
42
References
Region, Cobram: DNRE.
Maskey, R. and Lawler, D., 2001, Whole
Farm Plan Incentive Scheme: A comparative
Analysis, NRE: Tatura.
Maskey, R. and Lawler, D., 2002, Attitudes
of Farmers about the Automation of Flood
Irrigation, NRE: Tatura.
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N., 1997, Realistic
Evaluation, London: SAGE Publications.
Smolenaars, F. (ed), 2001, The Farm Program
Review, NRE: Tatura.
Stoneham, G., Chaudhri, V. and Strappazzon,
L., 2003 Missing Markets and the Environment,
Natural Resources and Environment:
Melbourne.
Warr, R. and Partner, 2002, Bush Tender Trial,
(prepared for DNRE), PSI Consulting Pty Ltd.
Young, M. (et al), 2002, Economics of the
Shepparton Irrigation Region Catchment
Strategy, Myfora Pty Ltd- Michael Young and
Associates.
Further Information on
Whole Farm Plans
•
DPI, 1982, Whole farm planning for flood
irrigation, Agnote 1958/82, Department of
Primary Industries.
•
DPI, 1985, Design criteria for whole farm
plans, Agnote 3338/85, Department of
Primary Industries.
•
G-MW, 1989, Designing paddocks on an
irrigated dairy farm, G-MW Pamphlet,
Goulburn-Murray Water.
•
G-MW, 1991, Farm Channels for Border
Check Irrigation, G-MW Pamphlet,
Goulburn-Murray Water.
Appendix 1
Costs of preparing and implementing a whole farm plan including all
Catchment Strategy works in the Shepparton Irrigation Region.
COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING A WHOLE FARM PLAN
PREPARATION OF WHOLE FARM PLAN
Surveying
@ 30X30m grid
60.0
Design
@ 30X30m grid
60.0
Certification of whole farm plan by Local Government
Total
CHANNEL, DRAINS, REUSE AND LANEWAYS
EARTHWORKS
Channels
- Pad
Drains
- Cut
Laneways
- Pad
Reuse
- Cut
Nett earthwork cost
Reuse - pump, motor, structures
Connection to electricity
Channels
- Formation
Laneways
- Formation
Total
CHANNEL & DRAIN STRUCTURES
Channel crossings (installed)
Channel checks (installed)
Drain structures (installed)
Bay outlets (installed)
Pipe bay outlets (installed)
per ha
60
ha
ha
ha
Costs
$35.00 $/ha
$40.00 $/ha
$265.00
$2,100
$2,400
$265
$4,500
6000 m3
4200
m3
5,850
10050
1
1
2820
1440
m3
m3
no
no
m
m
3000 m3
@
@
@
@
@
4.50
$1.50
$10,000
$10,000
$1.20
$1.20
ML
Per m
$15,075
$10,000
$10,000
$3,384
$1,728
Per m
Per m
$40,187
9
9
9
20
20
no
no
no
no
no
@
@
@
@
@
$550
$300
$230
$220
$450
(600 mm)
(300 mm)
$4,950
$2,700
$2,070
$4,488
$9,180
$23,388
AUTOMATION
Automation – channels
Automation – outlets
Total
LANDFORMING
Peg out and check survey
Clearing
Ripping
Discing (once)
Earthworks
(cut/fill)
Topsoiling
Total
PASTURES
Gypsum
Seed
Fertiliser
no
no
@ $1,000
@ $1,300
$58,800
$3,900
$62,700
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
16620
6180
ha
ha
ha
ha
m3
m3
60.0
5
ha
t/ha
0.75
t/ha
@
@
@
@
@
@
$50
$50
$65
$45
$1.25
$1.20
per ha
per ha
per ha
per ha
per m3
per m3
$3,000
$3,000
$3,900
$2,700
$20,775
$7,416
$40,791
- super
Total
IMPROVEMENTS
Stock troughs
Piping and installation
Fencing
Protection of remnants
Trees, revegetation
Total
59
3
@ $40
$150
@ $250
per t
per ha
per t
$12,000
$9,000
$11,250
$32,250
36
4200
12000
2
5
no
m
m
ha
ha
@
@
@
@
@
$400
$850
$1,200
$3,500
$3,250
per km
per km
per ha
per ha
$14,400
$3,570
$14,400
$7,000
$16,250
$55,620
TOTAL COST $236,048
FOR FARM
TOTAL COST $3,934
PER HECTARE
Appendix 1
43
Appendix 2
The story of the preparation of a “typical” whole farm plan.
Background
Bill Plan and family are typical dairy farmers in the Shepparton Irrigation Region operating a
66 ha irrigated property.
Previous works
Some years ago Bill decided to laser grade a part of his property that had been difficult to
irrigate. This work was done without any planning and Bill has been disappointed with the
result as the grading process stripped the topsoil off areas which were left with exposed
areas of subsoil. The pasture in these areas has performed poorly despite the application
of additional fertiliser and these areas are usually much drier than other parts of the same
paddocks. This experience has left Bill with a reluctance to continue laser grading and other
improvements to his irrigation management.
Neighbour’s works
Recently Bill has been watching his neighbour doing some works and his neighbour told
him that he had prepared a whole farm plan for the property and he was using the detailed
information in the plan to direct the earthmoving contractor doing the works.
Discussion with
neighbour and
earthmoving
contractor
Bill talked to the neighbour and the earthmover about his earlier experience with laser
grading and the loss of topsoil. Bill told them that he was keen to do some works and in
particular, laser grade some areas he has difficulty irrigating. Both the neighbour and the
earthmover suggested that Bill prepare a whole farm plan and to go through a planning
process to look at all the options before starting any works.
The earthmover also told him that the whole farm plan would highlight those areas of high
earthworks where the topsoil would be stripped from the area, put into a stockpile and then
returned to cover the subsoil exposed during the grading. This would eliminate the problems
encountered previously.
Local
Government
approval required
The earthmover also told Bill that before any earthworks commenced, approval was required
from the Shire to ensure that the movement of water from his property would not cause
problems for others. Preparing a whole farm plan and certification by Local Government
would then give Bill the required approval to do the works on the plan.
Bill’s neighbour told him of the help that he had received from the whole farm plan program
run by the Department of Primary Industries. This included working with an extension officer
who provided advice and recommendations together with the financial assistance available
to prepare a plan.
44
Week 1
Site visit
Bill decided to make contact with the Department of Primary Industries and start the process
of preparing a plan. A visit was arranged with an extension officer. During that visit the
extension officer asked Bill to outline the family’s desires for their property and this included
the works that Bill was keen to get started.
Irrigation layout
Bill showed the extension officer around the property and they discussed the way Bill
manages the property. What the extension officer saw was a typical irrigation property with
many small irrigation bays – all 10 metres wide and ranged from 30 to 250 metres in length.
All of the bays had a small check bank along the edge of the bay to control the irrigation
water as it moved down the bay. Many of these check banks were damaged and were not
controlling the water properly.
Poor drainage
In the irrigation bays that had not been laser graded, Bill was able to point out the low spots
in the bays where water lies for days after each irrigation. The pasture in these waterlogged
areas was looking poor and water tolerant rushes and sedges were growing. It was also
obvious at the bottom of the bays that the drainage was poor with evidence of water logging
Appendix 2
together with rushes and sedges. There were no constructed drains at the bottom of the
bays and Bill said that he used a “spinner cutter” to put in shallow spoon drains to help get
the water away, but he hadn’t done this for a while.
Small channels and
structures
Bill explained that at present the excess water that left his farm went into natural drainage
line that passed through the property and some areas went to a small drain along the side
of the road. He said that at some stage he would build a drainage reuse system to collect
his irrigation runoff. The drainage system on his property would need to link in with a
Community Surface Water Management System that he understood was planned for some
time in the future. This would be a small capacity drainage system that would link into the
Regional drainage system operated by Goulburn-Murray Water.
Slow irrigation
The channel system on the property was very extensive and there seemed to be channels
running all over the property. The channels were narrow and deep and in some areas were
invaded with cumbungi, a waterweed that restricts the flow in the channel. Weed control in
the channels is difficult and time consuming because of the number and length of channels
on the property. Being deep, the channels cannot be drained at the end of irrigation so the
remaining water seeps out of the channel into the groundwater system. All of the structures
in the channels were small and would be a restriction to water flowing through them.
High labour
requirement
Bill explained that during irrigation he has to split the flow of water that comes onto his
property from the Goulburn-Murray Water supply channel. As his channels do not have
the capacity to take all of the flow available, he directs smaller flows to various parts of his
property. Bill can have up to five different parts of his property being irrigated at once.
He finds that this makes irrigating difficult as he has to observe the progress of irrigation at
all these different locations and it takes a great deal of his time to get around the property to
all the areas.
It also means that the progress of irrigation water down the bay is slow when small flows are
used. This is particularly obvious on the lighter textured soils where there is high infiltration
of the water.
Bill says that at night he will have water running on many areas, and usually the areas with
the longest bays, to slow the progress of the irrigation water as he is not keen on getting up
through the night to make changes.
Poor control of
water
One of the reasons Bill is keen to improve his irrigation system is he experiences continual
back pain that he attributes mostly to the amount of travel on the motor bike around the
farm, over the check banks and the paddocks checking irrigation water. The costs of running,
maintaining and replacing motor bikes are a significant cost of operating his irrigation
system.
Most of the irrigation bays on the property have water delivered through small clay pipes
installed through the bank of the channel. Some of the bays are still irrigated through
“shovel cuts” made in the channel bank. The small pipes restrict the flow that can be put into
each bay, the pipes and the shovel cuts can be washed out if leaks develop around them.
The channel banks have damaged sections caused by the cows getting into the channels for
a drink or to cool off on hot days. There are times when water overtops the banks of the
channel and onto land that has been irrigated.
Hard to irrigate
areas
As we travelled around the property Bill pointed out the high dry areas that are not irrigated
properly and these are the areas he wants to work on first. He explained that some of these
areas could only be irrigated when the Goulburn-Murray Water supply channel is operating
at a very high level. Goulburn-Murray Water have been doing works on the supply channel
structures to stop the channels running at the very high levels as this can cause overflowing
and damage to the channel and property.
Bill and the extension officer discussed the impact of the small channels, small channel
structures and the channel weeds in restricting the flow of water onto the farm and the
height of the water available on the farm. The height of the water, the head, decreases as a
result of high friction losses through the small structures.
Appendix 2
45
There are a number of Goulburn-Murray Water metered outlets that supply irrigation water
onto the farm. Bill is hopeful that as he changes his irrigation system he can eliminate some
of these outlets making the ordering of water and the operation of the irrigation system
easier. Goulburn-Murray Water is generally keen to do this as it reduces the number of
assets that need to be maintained and replaced, and Goulburn-Murray Water will often
provide assistance to encourage this consolidation of assets.
Remnant
vegetation
Laneways for stock
management
The discussion turned to the few old grey box trees that are on the property and generally
looking in poor condition. Most of these trees have wet areas around the base and it was
obvious that this is a popular place for the cows to stand, in the shade on hot days. Bill
also pointed out some trees that have been planted to provide shade and shelter and is
disappointed that they have not grown as well as he expected. The trees are not indigenous
to the area and they are getting too much water from irrigation. There is a need to develop
more shade and shelter area. There is also an area with a number of dead trees and Bill is
keen to do something to improve this area.
As we drove around Bill commented on the need for more laneways on the property to
assist in moving and managing the dairy cows. At present the lanes are too narrow for the
number of cows he is currently milking and moving the cows is a slow process. He wants
more laneways so that he can get access to all paddocks from a laneway. This will eliminate
the need to walk the cows and machinery over pasture areas to get to other areas of the
property.
Salinised areas
The next part of the farm was the area that has been previously laser graded and Bill
pointed out the areas where the subsoil has been left exposed, particularly at the bottom
ends of the bays. These areas are looking very poor and it is likely that they are also
becoming salinised. The deep cutting in these areas during the laser grading has resulted
in the ground watertable being closer to the surface and the evaporation of the shallow
groundwater has increased the amount of salt left in the soil.
Groundwater
investigations
The extension officer outlined the process of salinisation and the role of groundwater
pumping to lower the watertable to minimise evaporation of the groundwater and to allow
the leaching of salts from these areas. Bill does not have a groundwater pump on his
property but has often thought that a groundwater pump would be useful to have more
water available for irrigation. He was provided with information and contact details for the
Farm Exploratory Drilling Service, a Shepparton Irrigation Region Implementation Committee
program operated by Goulburn-Murray Water.
This program works with landowners to investigate if there is a suitable site for groundwater
pumping on their property. If a suitable site is located, further assistance is available to
install a groundwater pump. Bill was told that a whole farm plan for the property was one of
the criteria to be eligible for this assistance to proceed to preparing the final whole farm plan
for the property.
Dairy effluent
The management of dairy effluent was another issue discussed. At present the effluent is
pumped onto a “sacrifice” area and Bill is conscious of the need to improve this practice. The
extension officer pointed out that there is a real risk of this effluent getting off the property,
particularly after heavy rain and Bill has a responsibility of not allowing this to happen.
During all of these discussions, the extension officer was providing advice about the issues
being discussed and how they would be addressed in the preparation of the whole farm
plan. Bill was also encouraged to look beyond the boundaries of the property to see the
property in a catchment context and discussed the adoption of best management practices
on the property.
Application for
incentive
46
Appendix 2
Bill made an application for the financial incentive from the project and he was asked if
assistance had been provided for the preparation of a whole farm plan on the property. Bill
has owned the property since the start of the program in 1987 so the extension officer could
be confident that the property was eligible. All applications are checked against a database
of incentive payments as the incentive is available only once on each property.
Next stage
The discussion then centred on the process of preparing the plan. It was explained to Bill
that the next step is for him to employ an Irrigation Surveyor/Designer to do a topographical
survey of the property. Bill was provided with information on the irrigation surveyors/
designers who are preparing whole farm plans and it was suggested that he contact some of
these and then make a choice based on availability, the price and his personal preference so
that he would be comfortable working with them.
Week 4
Topographical
survey
The irrigation surveyor/designer then commenced the preparation of the whole farm plan.
The majority of irrigation in the Shepparton Irrigation Region is conducted by gravity
therefore it is important to undertake a topographical survey of the property to ensure that
any changes to the property will not hinder the delivery of irrigation water or the outfall of
drainage water from the property.
Copy of property
title
Bill was asked to provide the surveyor/designer with a copy of the title of the property. The
title document includes a plan of the property that shows the location and dimensions of the
boundaries of the property. This information is used in the drafting of the whole farm plan to
be prepared. The title plan also shows any easements over the property and it is important
to know the location of any easements and what the easement is for. These areas need to
be shown on the plan and taken into account as they can restrict the type of works that can
be done in these areas.
Topographical
surveying
As part of the topographical survey, the irrigation surveyor/designer located the survey
benchmarks closest to the property and obtained the value of these marks from GoulburnMurray Water. These values were provided as an Australian Height Datum value and it
corresponds to the height above sea level.
The irrigation surveyor/designer and two assistants spent two days on the property
conducting the topographical survey. They spent some time putting in some small wooden
pegs around the property and then rode motorbikes across the property taking the levels
and locating the various features. Bill was aware that they were on the property but they did
not interfere with the running of the farm.
Goulburn Murray
Water supply
details
After the survey the irrigation surveyor/designer obtained from Goulburn-Murray Water the
Supply Levels of the channels and details of the metered outlets that serve the property.
This Supply Level is the height of the water that Goulburn-Murray Water is committed to
operate the channel and together with details of the outlets, the height of water available
on Bill’s land can be determined. This is important as it sets a limit to the height of the land
on Bill’s property that can be effectively irrigated by gravity. The irrigation surveyor/designer
uses this information when developing the whole farm plan to be sure that irrigation of the
property by gravity can be done effectively. If the proposed changes are likely to make it
harder to irrigate the property by gravity, then alternatives need to be examined.
Proposed
Community
Surface Water
Management
System
The irrigation surveyor/designer obtained details of the proposed Community Surface
Water Management System that will eventually serve the property. While this system is in a
preliminary planning stage, Bill will need to make provision for the system on his property.
The location of this proposed system will be shown on Bill’s whole farm plan and this will
then enable Bill to make decisions about inlet structures for water leaving his property
and outfalling into the proposed Community Surface Water Management System. The
information will also assist in deciding the location of his drainage reuse system.
Next Stage
The first plan of the property is then prepared showing all of the information collected.
Week 8
Development of
proposed changes
At this stage Bill’s family together with the extension officer and the irrigation designer, had
a meeting to discuss the plan of the existing features and start to develop the changes that
can be made on the property.
Initial survey plan
The irrigation surveyor/designer explained all of the features of the map prepared after
the topographical survey. Bill was interested to see the maze of channels, drains and bays
across the property. The irrigation surveyor/designer suggested that is was likely that at
least half of the channels and drains could be eliminated and the number of irrigation bays
will be reduced. This will result in less area taken up with channels, drains and check banks.
Appendix 2
47
Soils information
How will the
property look in
the future?
The locations of the buildings, fences, laneways and natural features including the remnant
vegetation were also discussed. The plan also had a map of the soil types on the property
and some time was spent going through the different soils and the characteristics of the soils
in relation to the irrigation design for the property.
The extension officer then encouraged Bill and family to describe some of the changes they
would like to see on the property. As they started to describe those changes, the irrigation
surveyor/designer started to draw lines on the plan to show the changes being proposed.
At first Bill was reluctant to suggest major changes, he wanted to concentrate on the areas
he has difficulty irrigating, as this was his first priority. Bill was also inclined to work within
the existing features but he was advised that in order to get the most benefits from the
works, much of the current infrastructure would need to be replaced. With encouragement
from the irrigation surveyor/designer and the extension officer, the changes were developed.
The meeting discussed the areas of the property that have been laser graded and how they
are to be incorporated into the changes proposed. Some of these areas will require further
works to make them compatible with adjacent areas. Bill could see that these areas would
have been developed differently if a whole farm plan had been prepared before the works
were carried out.
Adapting
Catchment
Strategy activities
into works on
property
During these discussions the extension officer provided advice, information and ideas
on ways to adapt catchment activities that are part of the Regional Catchment Strategy
into works suited for the property. This was done to ensure that the proposed changes
incorporate the adoption of best management practices on the property. The extension
officer also encouraged Bill and the family to be in control of the process and to make the
decisions on the ideas being developed.
The changes that were being developed included:
• Laser grading all of the irrigation areas, this will eliminate the high and low spots that
are in the irrigation bays at present.
• Larger bay size, this will reduce the number of bays and the labour required for
irrigation.
• Each bay will become a grazing area so each bay is a paddock making it easier to
manage grazing areas.
• Construction of new channels on elevated pads and they will be able to be drained after
each irrigation. The channels will be able to carry the full flow of water available and
irrigation will be concentrated on one bay at a time.
• Channel structures will be sized to enable the channels to operate with a full flow. This
will include bay outlets appropriately sized for the flow at each bay.
• Drains will be designed and constructed to carry excess water from the bottom of the
bays to the drainage reuse system.
• Drainage reuse system was marked on the plan and some investigations will be
required to ensure that soils are suitable to hold water in the sump and the depth to
groundwater determined.
• The areas of remnant vegetation were identified and as much as possible excluded from
the irrigated area. Details will be provided of appropriate works to protect and enhance
these areas.
• Shelterbelts were marked on the plan to protect the property from the south and west
cold winds.
• Shade trees were also marked on the plan.
• Construction of a dairy effluent system. The effluent will be pumped from the dairy to
an above ground storage. The effluent will be released into a channel and mixed with
irrigation water to irrigate pastures. Specialist advice will be sought on this system.
Next Stage
48
Appendix 2
At the conclusion of this meeting, the irrigation surveyor/designer told Bill and family that
the ideas prepared today would now be developed further and some details of the changes
would be prepared. At the next meeting these detailed changes would then be discussed.
Week 9
Payment of
incentive for
survey
component
Bill has paid for the irrigation surveyor/designer for the survey component of the whole
farm plan. He provided the extension officer with the accounts and receipts for payment for
survey works.
Week 12
Review of
detailed
proposed
changes
At this meeting Bill and his family, the extension officer and the irrigation designer examined
the details of the proposed changes developed at the previous meeting.
Detailed
earthworks
The extension officer told Bill that the incentive would be processed and sent to the
Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority for payment. The payment will be
mailed to Bill in the next two weeks.
The irrigation surveyor/designer explained that a computer program has been used to
calculate the earthworks required to construct the irrigation bays as proposed. This program
uses all the topographical survey data together with the location of the proposed bays
in that survey data. Inputs including the direction of the bay are required and then the
computer performs the calculations that determine the slope of the bay and the detailed
earthworks required. The details also include the amount of earth to be cut or filled at each
of the survey points and this also determines the topsoil treatment at each point.
The irrigation surveyor/designer also pointed out that the channels, drains and laneways
have been shown on this plan but have not been designed in detail at this stage. These
details are developed as the plan progresses and the location of these features is confirmed.
Understanding the
proposed changes
As the meeting progressed and the details were examined, Bill was interested to see that
most of the proposed changes for the property are workable and will lead to improvements
in the management of the property. The irrigation bays will continue to fall in the same
general direction as they currently do now and most of the discussions were about the
length, the width and slope of the bays.
Neighbour’s advice
and co-operation
The extension officer assisted Bill and the family to get an understanding of the implications
of the changes that are being proposed for the property. This incudes the technical details
of the works, farm management changes, financial issues of costs of the works and how the
works are to be undertaken and practices changed.
During the meeting, Bill’s neighbour arrived to return some borrowed tools and he was
invited to join the meeting and contribute to the discussions. Bill and the neighbour
have previously discussed the preparation of the whole farm plan and the neighbour was
interested to see the plan.
Examining options
One of the issues that the neighbour commented on was the proposed shelter plantations.
He told Bill that if some of these plantations were extended they would then link in with
proposed plantings on his property and together they would link some remnant vegetation
on both properties.
There are two parts of the property where the irrigation surveyor/designer has prepared a
number of different options of how these areas could be changed. Most of the meeting was
spent examining the options for these areas of the property.
Next stage
The family made some decisions about these areas and also asked the irrigation surveyor/
designer to do some more work for these areas to examine other ideas generated from the
discussions.
Week 20
Second review
of detailed
proposed
changes
At the start of this meeting Bill told the extension officer that he has contacted GoulburnMurray Water regarding the Farm Exploratory Drilling Service to look for groundwater. He
has arranged for a visit to start that process.
The irrigation surveyor/designer went through the details of the additional work carried
out since the last meeting. Again most of the discussions centred on the options for those
sections of the property where the design is not yet resolved.
Appendix 2
49
Indicative cost of
works
Priority of works
These discussions included the use of some detailed costings for the property and these
options. Bill was surprised at the projected costs of the works, at $3500 per hectare, and
he considered them to be much higher than the previous work he did. It was pointed out
that the costings included all costs from preparation through to establishing pastures and
planting the shelterbelts.
Implementation of the works on the property and the priorities of the works were discussed.
The extension officer asked Bill if he would consider constructing the drainage reuse
system and the drains as part of the first stage. The drainage reuse system would prevent
water and nutrients leaving the property, making them available for use on the property.
In addition these works would involve the excavation of earth that would be used for
constructing new channels and laneways.
Bill and the family considered this advice and decided to construct the drainage reuse
system and the drains on the property as the first stage. In addition new channels and some
laser grading will also be done in the areas that are difficult to irrigate.
The meeting discussed building the new channels only to serve these areas. The irrigation
surveyor/designer advised that improving the channels would improve the irrigation of the
difficult areas. Bill was concerned about the disruption to the irrigation system while the
channels were being constructed and the effects that would have on the pastures. He has
decided to laser grade these areas as part of the first stage.
Wide consultation
Further expansion
of the property
Automatic
Irrigation
50
Bill and the family have been considering the farm plan and have decided to make some
changes to some of the features. They have been showing the plan to others and getting as
many ideas as possible. They have been unsure of some of the suggestions made and these
were discussed.
They have also been considering how they want to further develop the property and the
business in the long term. Part of their considerations has included expansion of the property
to include a neighbouring property. There were some discussions on ways that the two
properties could be operated together. This resulted in changes to some of the laneways so
that they could be extended into the neighbouring property in the future.
The extension officer suggested that automation of the irrigation system would be an
important feature to consider. If the property is expanded, the labour requirement to operate
the larger property will be increased. It will be important to consider the labour needed for
efficient irrigation management on a larger property. One way of reducing the labour needed
for irrigation is to install automatic irrigation equipment on the irrigation system so that the
irrigation system operates automatically with minimal labour.
Ownership of the
plan
An important role of the extension officer through this process has been to ensure that Bill
and family make the decisions regarding the proposed changes that will become the basis of
the whole farm plan. They need to be in charge of the planning process, they need to make
the decisions, they need to be comfortable with the whole farm plan – they need to have
ownership of the plan. If they have ownership of the plan it is more likely that the works and
practice changes proposed will be adopted and completed.
Next stage
At the end of this meeting, the irrigation surveyor/designer was instructed to proceed to
preparing the final whole farm plan for the property.
Week 24
Third review
of proposed
changes
The irrigation surveyor/designer met with Bill and has family to discuss the progress in
preparing the final plan.
Appendix 2
There were details that needed clarification on some issues in order to complete the design.
Week 28
Final whole
farm plan
Explanation of all
details
At this meeting of Bill and family, the extension officer and the irrigation surveyor/designer,
the final whole farm plan was discussed.
The irrigation surveyor/designer went through all the details on the plan and explained the
symbols used on the plan and the details relating to each feature.
The staging of the works was again discussed and Bill was reminded that there is assistance
as part of the incentive to prepare a financial assessment of the works and this includes a
detailed budget.
Bill will construct the drainage reuse system, all of the drains, some new channels and laser
grade an area as the first works to be undertaken. Using the details from the plan and the
costing of the works, Bill understands that this first stage will be the most expensive to do.
Local Government
Certification
The meeting discussed the need to now submit the whole farm plan with the Shire and
obtain approval before any earthworks commenced. The irrigation surveyor/designer had
prepared copies of the plan to go to Local Government.
Further advice
Bill will seek more information on the assistance available for tree planting and protecting
remnants. As part of this discussion, the extension officer advised Bill of his responsibilities
regarding the natural features including the native vegetation on the property. While Bill is
not planning the removal of any native vegetation he is aware that approval is required to do
so.
Week 30
Incentive
payment for
whole farm plan
Bill called into the Department of Primary Industries office to provide the extension officer
with the accounts and receipts for payment of the preparation of the whole farm plan.
Week 36
Whole farm
plan certified by
Local
Government
Bill called to say that he has had his whole farm plan approved by the Shire and can now
start works.
The extension officer told Bill that the incentive would be processed and sent to the
Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority for payment. The payment will be
mailed to Bill in the next two weeks.
Appendix 2
51
Week 450
(8 years later)
Site Visit
The extension officer recently had a request from Bill to start the process of preparing a
whole farm plan. Bill explained that the family has purchased their neighbouring property
and they are keen to get a plan underway. Bill said that the family has not taken possession
of the property as yet. However, a deposit has been paid and Bill has permission for the
irrigation surveyor/designer to go onto the property to conduct a topographical survey of the
property top start the planning process.
A site visit was conducted of this new property and Bill highlighted activities that would need
to be included in the plan. A new dairy is being proposed and this will need to be located at
the most convenient point to serve both properties.
As part of the visit, the extension officer was keen to see the progress that has been made
in implementing the whole farm plan prepared on the original property.
Week 452
Implementation
of works and
adoption of new
practices
Bill told the extension officer that approximately 80% of the works have now been
completed. He explained that dry seasons, low irrigation water allocations and high costs of
production has forced the family to slow the rate of change on the property. The purchase
of the new property will mean a change in priorities as well. He expects that works on the
new property will take a higher priority than those remaining on the original property.
80% of works
completed
Automation of the irrigation system is now becoming a priority in order to reduce further the
labour required to operate the irrigation system. Bill is considering automating the areas that
are irrigated at night as a first stage.
Automatic
irrigation
He has been very satisfied with the whole farm plan and it has been very useful in getting
the works completed.
Bill showed the extension officer around the property and they discussed the way Bill
manages the property. This property has changed considerably since the initial inspection.
Larger bays
The irrigation bays are now much larger, there are 25 bays compared to “hundreds”
previously. All of the bays are now a paddock with fences along each check bank. The check
banks are thus protected from stock and machinery and keep irrigation water within the bay.
Most of the bays have been laser graded and the pastures appear to be in good condition
and uniform top to bottom. There are no high spots or low water logged areas in the lasered
areas.
Improved
drainage
The drainage system is working well and Bill said that any excess water is collected in the
drains and moves towards the drainage reuse system. Water does not lie at the bottom of
bays or in the drains. Bill considers his drainage system to be working well and he makes
sure that it is operated and maintained so that no irrigation water leaves the property. The
Community Surface Water Management System has now been completed and any winter
rainfall runoff from the property outfalls into this system.
Improved
channels
52
The channel system on the property now operates very well with wide shallow channels that
are drained after each irrigation and this greatly assists weed control. The new channels are
able to take the full flow of water from the Goulburn-Murray Water supply channel. The new
channels enable Bill to take a larger flow than from the supply channel and all of the water is
directed to one bay at a time. This makes it easier to manage irrigation and the water moves
across the bay faster with less infiltration.
Improved irrigation
management
Bill is now irrigating more frequently every seven to eight days in summer and this is
meeting the plant water requirements. In the past he was reluctant to irrigate more
frequently because of the work involved in irrigating. Bill considers that as a result of this
change to irrigation management, the property is growing more pasture of a higher quality.
Water savings
Bill says that the time to irrigate the property has reduced and he is using less water to
irrigate the property. He estimates that he is now using about 25% less irrigation water. He
explained that it is difficult to know exactly the water savings being made as he has changed
the way he manages the property so much. He says that most of the water saved is a result
Appendix 2
of the use of the drainage reuse system.
The number of Goulburn-Murray Water metered outlets that supply irrigation water onto
the farm has been reduced and this has made the operation of the irrigation system
easier. Goulburn-Murray Water were very supportive in reducing the number of outlets and
contributed to the cost of works for this to occur.
Protection of
remnant
vegetation
Works have been done to fence off the grey box trees that are on the property and the trees
in the irrigated areas have been fenced and soil mounded around the base to keep water
away from them. Some of the shade and shelter belts have been planted and more are
planned.
Groundwater
pumping
A groundwater pump has now been installed on the property and Bill is confident that the
salinised areas are starting to recover. The salinity of the groundwater being pumped is
relatively low and he is mixing the groundwater with water supplied by Goulburn-Murray
Water and irrigating this mixed water on the area protected by the groundwater pump.
Dairy effluent
The management of dairy effluent has been greatly improved with a new storage to contain
the effluent. Effluent is taken from the storage and mixed with irrigation water used to
irrigate the pastures. Bill uses this mix of water and effluent on as much of the property as
his irrigation system will allow. He is now regularly soil testing the property to ensure that
soils are not overloaded with nutrients.
Bill is confident that the changes have improved the way in which the property is being
managed and he expects similar changes will occur on the new property.
Appendix 2
53
Appendix 3
Summary of Whole Farm Plan Program Achievements
in Bennett’s Hierarchy
Outcomes and Outputs
Socio-Economic
and
Environmental
conditions
•
Practice change
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kasa
The
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reaction
•
•
•
•
•
Participation
54
The Economic and Financial benefit cost ratio of the whole farm plan program (which includes
some other activities of the Farm Program) are 1.32 and 1.12 respectively. The respective
Internal Rates of Return are 11.63 % and 12.84%.
The ratio of the Present Value of Total Government Costs and Total Private cost is $42.193 million: $396.426 million or 1:9.3 or 9.3% Public: 90.7% Private.
With improved irrigation layout, one person can manage 40% more land and associated stock
i.e. a saving of 40% * $25,500 per Full Time Equivalent per 40 ha. This enables irrigators to
avoid the cost of unnecessary water losses due to excessive runoff and or excessive accessions.
The majority of whole farm plans are fully implemented within 10 years of preparation. This is
a fast rate of change considering the expense and effort that landowners required to make the
change and do the works detailed in the whole farm plans.
75 % of landowners who had prepared a whole farm plan through the program, reported
that they have commenced some work in implementing their whole farm plan. This included
landowners who had just prepared their plan and others who had prepared the plan during the
previous five years.
3.5 % of the area is laser graded/year.
60% of the area with whole farm plans is laser graded.
key knowledge and skills related to the whole farm plans identified are:
The use of whole farm plans as a planning as well as a management tool.
Discussion with others on the use of whole farm plans.
The reflection of confidence in the use of whole farm plans is observed from the quotes
received:
“make sure the end plan is what you want, not necessarily what the designer wants”;
“the plan is to be used as a motivational tool for the family”;
“the plan is used as a goal to work towards”.
Some indicated the importance of using a whole farm plan to relate it to the bigger picture (i.e.
relate farm to regional strategy).
82% of landowners found that the preparation of a whole farm plan was useful for their farm
development. The preparation was considered very useful for improved irrigation management
and the establishment of drainage systems.
The majority (57%) indicated that they would not have prepared a whole farm plan if the
incentive was not available.
86% of the respondents said that they would encourage others to prepare a whole farm plan.
96% indicated that they were either satisfied or very satisfied when the plan was prepared.
96% responded that whole farm plan scheme should continue in future.
•
•
150-200 whole farm plans are prepared each year. These plans cover 3.7% of the total irrigated
area.
199,780 ha have whole farm plans as of June 04.
120 horticulture and 2,788 broadacre whole farm plans prepared as of 30 April 04.
Activity
•
Implementation of the whole farm plan program
Inputs
•
Incentives, Staff
Appendix 3
•
Appendix 4
Acknowledgements
This Review has been conducted by
Rabi Maskey, David Lawler, Melinda
Leth, Bruce Cumming, Chris Nicholson,
Ken Sampson with input from members
of the DPI-CAS SIL-GB team in the
Shepparton Irrigation Region. The proof
reading of the document was undertaken
by Trish Lothian and Candy Carter.
Layout and design of the document was
done by Raechel Ballinger.
The Whole Farm Plan Program is part
of the Goulburn Broken Catchment
Management Authority Regional
Catchment Strategy in the Shepparton
Irrigation Region and is supported and
funded from the Australian Government
through the National Action Plan for
salinity and water quality. Victorian
Government funding and support is
through the Department of Sustainability
and Environment, and the Goulburn
Broken Catchment Management
Authority.
Appendix 4
55

The Whole Farm Plan Program - Goulburn Broken Catchment

Transcription

Similar documents

Homemade Probiotics Flyer (To Print)

Market Plan

john fluevog shoes - Page One Publishing

Dennis Reis Universal Horsemanship ~ Freedom Course Clinic

Foxbury Farm`s Christmas Delights

UFF Invitation - Underwood Family Farms

The Nuts and Bolts of Running a Farm to School Salad Bar Program:

meadow haven farm dinner

Financial Strength - Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance

Down on the Farm - Alabama Farmers Federation