Dealing with salinity in Wheatbelt Valleys - Department of Water

Wallace
oriented group (Toolibin Catchment Group) and
the Lake oriented group (Recovery Team). This
has been very important for information flow,
planning and liaison. Additionally, it is important
that positive working relationships develop and
are maintained between representatives of
agency and farm managers. Personalities will
obviously influence this process, as it does all
relationships within the catchment. However,
this should not be allowed to jeopardise good
working relationships.
5. The 18 points listed by Blyth et al. (1996) and
given in Figure 2 have all been found, to some
extent, relevant to effective co-operation at
Toolibin.
Interactions between government agencies:
Interaction between agencies and other groups, such
as CALM, AgWA and Alcoa of Australia, is subject to
similar considerations to those discussed above
between farmers and CALM. In the case of Toolibin,
agency and industry interactions have been very
good. Indeed, this has been one of the vital
ingredients for successful actions. However, external
(to Toolibin) resource demands on agencies have
sometimes been a barrier to communication and
joint planning. This is inevitable, and will not become
an issue provided all parties continue to understand
the potential problems and work to prevent them
detrimentally affecting the current high level of
integrated operations.
Figure 2. Features likely to be present in successful cooperative arrangements between government agencies
and the community (taken from Blyth et al. 1996)
1. The problem being addressed is clearly defined, short term and has a good expectation of solution.
2. The problem is relevant to, and its solution will benefit, a small-scale and self-sufficient community, and that community plays a leading
role in seeking a solution.
3. A clear understanding that benefits to individuals or community may take many forms, of which economic gain is one, and that multiple
benefits are usually present in nature conservation programs.
4. The achievement of nature conservation goals is integrated into programs whose major purposes are to achieve other benefits, such as
economic returns or better land care.
5. All, or the great majority of, parties to the program feel that the benefits to them outweigh the disbenefits.
6. Coordination between agency and community starts early in the development of the project and is very close, with frequent and
continuing personal contact between community members and agency representatives, who are accepted as part of the local
community.
7. Any committees or other institutions formed for the program are accepted as a part of the community, and their aims are shared by the
community.
8. The arrangement places considerable emphasis on the development of trust, both between the various members of the institution itself
and between the institution and the community at large.
9. The rules or mechanisms proposed to solve the problem are designed and accepted by most individuals in the community.
10. The arrangement is seen as a genuinely reciprocal one by all parties, with the assignment of rights and duties seen as fair, certain and
appropriately enforced: any impositions on, or sacrifices by, individual members of the community for the common good are distributed
fairly and are not too onerous on any individual.
11. As much of the operational activity as possible is conducted by the local community, especially landowners.
12. The program is empowered by clear, widely accepted legislation (but see also point 18).
13. Adherence to rules or conditions is monitored and enforced by an agency (preferably closely allied with the local community) seen as
fair and approachable, which has the capacity to levy sanctions against those who break the rules.
14. Any sanctions necessary are applied in a graduated fashion, with understanding of any particular circumstances which may have led to
transgression of the rules.
15. Agreed mechanisms for the rapid, low cost resolution of conflicts are available to everyone, and are largely controlled by the local
community.
16. The arrangement includes the capacity to change the rules, and accepted processes for making such change.
17. Changes affecting people are not too rapid or too fundamental, and are largely made at the practical operational level, with the
agreement of the community.
18. If larger institutions are necessary, the local community or affected interest group will be integrally involved in their design: each level of
organisation will be clearly nested within the one above, with overlapping membership, ready communication between levels, and clear
legislation setting the overall framework.
– 8 –