Rising From The Ashes

Massive devastation took place to the communities of Lower Eyre Peninsula when “The Black
Tuesday” fires occurred in January 2005; especially to the farming communities. Nine lives and
vast properties costing more than $100 million were lost because of the incident. These include
46,000 head of livestock, houses, buildings, private machines, vehicles, large portion of vegetation,
fencing and another $17 million worth farm gate.

A program was initiated by the Australian and Estate Government to help landholders. It was
called LEPBRP (The Lower Eyre Peninsula Bushfire Re-establishment Program) to recover and re-
establish. $5.36 million were received in two years and the goal was to use the funds as grants for
landholders to aid the facilitation of technical advice and research. The program was organized as
well as delivered by Rural Solutions SA and a mental health employee was hired by the Health
Department to provide health and wellbeing advice.

There were some requirements that the farmers had to meet to access the grants provided by the
program. Large landholders could get two grants of up to $10,000 each; usually one for sustaining
agriculture and the other for biodiversity purposes. In addition, they could also get smaller grants
for business planning of up to $4,000. On the other hand, only small grants of up to $2,000 were
accessible for small landholders where the priority was given to biodiversity.

The access to the grants required certain tasks. For example, the landholders were to participate in
strategic planning workshops providing them with re-establishment knowledge and well-being
support. Then, they were expected to generate a business plan on biodiversity and sustaining
agriculture. All these were included with a grant ( around $2.53 million) to assist people and
communities to re-establish their livelihoods.

Consequently, the program forced the landholders and the farmers to make choices that perhaps,
would not be made otherwise. Also, it enhanced their ability to think carefully about what necessary
steps should be taken before rebuilding. About 83% individuals participated in the workshops, 70%
generated a well business plan and priority works have been undertaken by 44 small landholders.
Moreover, fences were re-established around 2500ha native vegetation and 4000ha pasture land.

However, analysis on this scenario speaks that the destruction by fire lead to environmental, social
and economical changes to be driven. The program aimed to communities or groups determined by
geographical location regardless them being landholders or farmers.

According to Mansuri and Rao (2004), “community-driven development programs are best when
undertaken carefully and with well-designed evaluation systems in a context-specific manner”.
Here, an assumption to be made that changes were imposed where monetary incentive is the key
element that inspired individuals, rather collaborative community work. Statements as “ a program
forcing to make certain decision that would not otherwise been made” suggest the community did
not have a role in identifying its needs. It seems that the community members found it best to
comply with what have been offered to get started after losing everything they had.

LEPBRP was the agent of development while Helen Lamont (director of State and Federal
Government) was the actor of change including external organizations (Rural Health SA,
Department of Health). Economical, technical and environmental resources were brought to the
communities by these external actions.
The program comprised money, workers, advisors and volunteers as its input elements. Then the
activities such as systematic planning and receiving technical knowledge, implementation of
sustainable practice on agriculture, biodiversity and research on the impacts of fire on soil and pest-
weed control program etc. resulted into huge outputs. Outputs were strategic planning, effective
business plans, priority works and fencing around vegetation and land.

Mansuri and Rao (2004) again stated that program facilitators develop participatory exercises where
community’s needs are generally shaped by perspectives about what the project can deliver. This
strategy makes the attendants believe that the program offers whatever the people need and not the
other way around.

The farmers achieved short-term ( securing live-stock), medium-term ( receiving grants, making
business plan, choosing on succession planning) and long-term outcomes ( changing ways, location
for effective farming by applying the education they got about global warming, green-house effect
and preparation for future fires) from this program. Further management of properties also fall
under long-term plan ( succession planning).

The State Extension Leaders Network (2006) said, “the aim is to make a connection between rural
and regional stakeholders across Australia”. But, it appears that the community members did not
have any opinion in any decisions that were made. Therefore, it can be said that, participatory
development may encourage communities to accelerate their development strategies, but at the
same time, it is a fact in disguise that salient decisions are made elsewhere (Eversole, 2014)

Again, no evidence was found about grants distribution and how it was decided. The exact reason
behind providing a considerably larger grant to larger land holders is unknown. In my opinion, a
better community consultation would have done justice in deciding where the funds are going so
that the community members could be assured that the funds are used in areas where it is most
needed. It is about working with the communities and members to identify the problems and
strengths. A better communication would result into an increased number of participants.

My approach with the communities would be more engaging and transparent through better
communication. I would provide a brochure with short and easy information about the purposes of
the program and use of tools and have them distributed among the members. I would also give the
members opportunity to be heard by expressing their opinions through a public forum. They could
address any concerns, ideas and start a discussion about their needs through technology. Here, as
Eversole (2014) stated, “technological strategies play a vital role in any development project”.

The program should include time where members would build trust among them, they would listen,
empathise and acknowledge each-other to gain their needs and understand diversity. Community
members should be given the opportunity of one to one type of flexible work so that they could
agree with the direction of the program.

Finally, more focus should be given to the mental health as exhaustion was mentioned several
times in the members. A better networking could address this concern. Social gatherings, more
professionals on mental health, a medical team including childcare and calling for volunteers
would have been beneficial.

References

Eversole, Robyn., 2014, 'Knowledge Partnering for Community Development [electronic resource]'.

Mansuri, G.,Rao, V., 2004, 'Community-Based and -Driven Development ', The World Bank research observer, 19, 1,
1-40.
State Extension Leaders Network, 2006, 'Enabling change in rural and regional Australia: the role of extension in
achieving sustainable and productive futures—a discussion document’.