ABSTRACT: In the last decade, watershed groups (WG) establishedthrough government initiatives have become an important part ofthe natural resource management landscape in developedeconomies. In this paper, the authors reflect upon their researchand experience with Landcare in Victoria, and to a lesser extentwith Watershed Councils in Oregon, to identify the principles thatappear fundamental to sustaining effective WG. In the firstinstance, these groups must be established at a local scale usingsocial as well as biophysical boundaries. It is also critical that WGare embedded within a supportive institutional framework thatidentifies realistic roles for private landowners, local organizationssuch as WG, and regional planning bodies. Without broad stake-holder representation, the perceived benefits of participation arequickly forfeited. It is simply unrealistic to expect an effective net-work of WG to be sustained without substantial investment by gov-ernment to provide for program management, group coordination,and cost sharing for on-ground work. There must also be the com-mitment and skills within a program to establish processes thatbuild trust and competency amongst citizens and agencies. Theseprinciples should also provide a foundation for the critical evalua-tion of WG programs.(KEY TERMS: watershed management; Landcare, catchment man-agement; policy.)

INTRODUCTION

Watershed groups (WG) established as part of gov-ernment initiatives are becoming an important part ofthe natural resource management landscape in devel-oped economies (Griffin, 1999; Curtis and Lockwood,2000). In the United States (U.S.), WG are an impor-tant element of the watershed-based ecosystem man-agement approach embraced by government duringthe mid-1990s (McGinnis et al., 1999). There is now agrowing body of literature examining the activities

and outcomes of WG in the U.S. (e.g., Duram andBrown, 1999; Kenney, 1999; EPA, 1997; Yaffee et al.,1996). Notwithstanding these important efforts, giventhe relatively short history of WG in the U.S., much ofthis analysis is of a preliminary nature and has notbeen able to address the important issue of how tosustain watershed initiatives. For example, the Stateof Oregon began to acknowledge and support localWatershed Councils under the 1993 WatershedHealth Program, and later through the 1997 OregonPlan for Salmon and Watersheds. By comparison, theLandcare program has been operating across the Aus-tralian State of Victoria for 15 years since it wasestablished in 1986 (Campbell, 1994).

There are a number of similarities between Victo-ria in Southeastern Australia and Oregon in thePacific Northwest of the U.S. Europeans settled bothregions about the same time for much the same rea-sons and using similar technology. Today, both stateshave considerable areas of forest and rangeland aswell as highly urbanized societies that are beginningto focus on complex watershed management issueswith important implications for public health andindustry. These issues often involve conflict over val-ues as the priority once given to profits and jobs asso-ciated with agriculture and forestry is challenged bythose concerned about deteriorating habitat, waterquality, and recreation values. In both regions thereare substantial areas of public land, more so in Ore-gon than in Victoria. At the same time, private land-holders, often with limited financial capacity, arebeing asked to carry much of the burden for undertak-ing restoration work that could result in considerableoff site and public benefits.

1Paper No. 01144 of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Discussions are open until April 1, 2003.2Respectively, Program Leader, Social Sciences Centre, Bureau of Rural Sciences, P.O. Box E11, Kingston ACT 2604 Australia; Professor of

Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331; and Faculty Research Assistant, Department of Forest Resources, Ore-gon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 (E-Mail/Curtis: allan.curtis@brs.gov.au).

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 1207 JAWRA

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATIONVOL. 38, NO. 5 AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION OCTOBER 2002

SUSTAINING LOCAL WATERSHED INITIATIVES:LESSONS FROM LANDCARE AND WATERSHED COUNCILS1

Allan Curtis, Bruce Shindler, and Angela Wright2

There are also important differences between Ore-gon and Victoria and between Landcare groups andWatershed Councils. Some of the important contextu-al differences include a more complex decision makingenvironment in Oregon with multiple federal andstate agencies responsible for natural resource man-agement, a stronger sense of private property rights,greater recourse to the legal system to resolve con-flict, and more intense scrutiny from powerful stake-holder groups. As will be explained, there are alsodifferences between Landcare groups and WatershedCouncils. As is often the case, these differences havebeen important in allowing us to identify importantlessons from the Victoria and Oregon attempts toaccomplish watershed based ecosystem management.

It therefore seems timely and appropriate to reflectupon the longer-term Australian experience withLandcare, and the fledgling efforts with WatershedCouncils in Oregon. Our purpose is to examine theprogress of these initiatives and identify a set of com-mon principles that appear fundamental to sustainingeffective watershed programs. In doing so we hope toinvite closer scrutiny of existing systems and offer amechanism for monitoring and evaluating outcomes.

This paper draws heavily upon our research explor-ing Landcare in Australia, particularly in Victoria,during the 1990s. This research effort has involvedfive state-wide surveys of participants and numerousregional studies that have explored program logic andeffectiveness, agency and community partnerships,volunteer motivations, the impact of networks, andattrition, and burnout among participants. Althoughthe watershed experience is much more limited in theU.S., we have drawn upon recent research on Water-shed Groups (Kenny et al., 2000; Cheng, 1999; McGin-nis et al., 1999) and other elements of ecosystembased management (e.g., Stankey et al., in press;Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000) to illuminate our discus-sion.

The Landcare Program

Landcare can be viewed as part of a lengthy pro-cess where Victorians adapted emerging theories ofrural development to an Australian context. A smallvanguard of soil conservationists, extension agents,and farmers were attracted by the core elements ofrural development theory that emphasized (1) selfhelp supported by change agents, (2) human resourcedevelopment rather than technology transfer, (3) pub-lic participation, and (4) cooperative efforts at thelocal community scale (Curtis, 1998). Early experi-ence with groups in Victoria confirmed overseas evi-dence, including from the U.S., that participation

through local organizations could accomplish broad-based rural development (Chambers, 1983; Esmanand Uphoff, 1984).

Recognizing the potential of Landcare groups as apotent force for improved natural resource manage-ment, in 1988 the federal government committed thespending of 360 million dollars (Australian) in theDecade of Landcare program. From a federal govern-ment perspective, Landcare was a national programintended to engage a large proportion of the ruralpopulation and produce more informed, skilled, andadaptive private resource managers. In turn, thesemanagers would adopt a stronger stewardship ethicand increase the use of sustainable practices (Curtisand De Lacy, 1996a). The program initially had limit-ed government funding, principally for education anddemonstration activities. Establishment of the five-year, $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) in1997 significantly altered the course of Landcare(Commonwealth of Australia, 1998). The NHTincreased funding for on-ground work and employedcost sharing principles to enable community and pri-vate benefits from specific works to be identified. In1999 to 2000 alone, the NHT funded 870 Landcareprojects, worth $71 million (Wonder, 2000).

Although the federal government has greaterfinancial resources, natural resource managementauthority rests primarily with the six Australianstates and the Northern Territory. By 1992, most Aus-tralian states had established regional CatchmentManagement Committees (CMC). In Victoria, thenine CMC are comprised of ministerial appointeesfrom regional communities, including Landcare repre-sentatives. CMC are responsible for developing andimplementing regional catchment strategies thatguide the expenditure of state and federal naturalresource management funds. Landcare groups havebecome an important delivery mechanism for CMCbut they are not formally linked (Curtis and Lock-wood, 2000; Ewing, 2000).

Landcare membership is voluntary and open to anylocal person, but most groups have developed in ruralareas where most activity occurs. Groups frequentlyoperate at catchment or subcatchment scales and areencouraged to view their activities holistically, using asystems approach. Groups are autonomous in thatthey are not formally linked to government and mem-bers usually determine group structures, processes,and priorities. While the focus of group activity isusually on privately owned or leased land managed bygroup members, groups also work on roadsides,reserves, and other public lands. Groups are involvedin a variety of rural development activities across thebroad spectrum of community education and on-ground restoration work (Curtis and De Lacy, 1995).

JAWRA 1208 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

Curtis, Shindler, and Wright

To a large extent, Landcare is seen as an Aus-tralian success story. Landcare groups have mobilizeda large cross-section of the rural population. By 1998,there were 900 Landcare groups operating across Vic-toria with an estimated membership of 27,500. Inthose areas where a Landcare group operated, about46 percent of the rural properties had a Landcaremember (Curtis, 1999). Groups provide opportunitiesfor learning by doing and through interaction withpeers (Chamala, 1995). Group processes have enabledparticipants to discuss conflicting views in a reason-able fashion and have generally enhanced social cohe-sion, increased the capacity of rural communities toattract resources from governments, and betterequipped them to respond to change (Alexander, 1995;Curtis and De Lacy, 1995). With strong agency com-mitment to participatory processes, agency staff andLandcare members have established robust, produc-tive partnerships and avoided many of the perils ofco-option (Curtis, 1998). Landcare participation hasalso increased awareness of issues and enhancedlandholder skills and knowledge and contributed toincreased adoption of best management practices(Mues et al., 1998; Curtis and De Lacy, 1996b). Thereare also examples where group activity has had sub-stantial impacts on land and water degradation at thelocal or subcatchment scale (Commonwealth of Aus-tralia, 1997; Campbell, 1994). Recent evaluations ofthe NHT suggest that government investmentthrough Landcare has been more than matched bycommunity contributions (Hill, 2000). Landcare par-ticipants are represented on regional CMC and otherimportant fora and are contributing to important nat-ural resource management decision making (Ewing,2000). By enhancing citizen competency, providingcontinuity of community representation, and acting asa place of retained knowledge, Landcare groups andtheir emerging networks appear likely to bridge thegap between the demands of adaptive managementand the limitations of stakeholder participation(Curtis et al., 1999).

Despite these impressive achievements, there havebeen concerns about Landcare program logic andimplementation (Lawrence, 2000; Curtis and De Lacy,1996b; Curtis, 2000). We will draw on these critiquesin our later discussion of the five principles for sus-taining WG initiatives.

Oregon Plan

In response to concerns about endangered salmonhabitat and deteriorating watersheds, the Governor’soffice crafted the 1997 Oregon Plan for Salmon andWatersheds to foster good land stewardship and

restore natural systems across the state. An alterna-tive to most natural resource recovery plans, the Ore-gon Plan is similar to the Landcare program in that itrelies on the coordination and cooperation of landown-ers rather than on regulation (State of Oregon, 1997).Although Oregon is comprised of large tracts of publicland [mostly federal designations under Forest Ser-vice or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) jurisdic-tion)], designers of the plan also recognized that muchof the state’s streamside land is in private ownership.Because of these mixed ownership patterns the plancalls for coordination among local, state, and federalagencies as well as conservation activities by commu-nities and private landowners. It emphasizes coopera-tion among parties by incorporating citizens’ ideasand values along with more traditional agency man-agement and scientific concerns. In 1998 the programwon further public approval when voters approvedincreased state funding for the Oregon Plan.

An outgrowth of the Oregon Plan was the recogni-tion of local Watershed Councils. A state agency, theOregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), wasformed to promote and fund voluntary actions thataimed to enhance the state’s waterways and providesupport to an organized network of 150 WatershedCouncils statewide. Most Councils have some level ofpaid staff (coordinators and/or office support), regularmeetings, and a network of stakeholders who areseeking more community control of resource manage-ment decisions (Griffin, 1999). OWEB now awardsover $20 million in state grants to help fund Counciladministration, restoration projects, education andoutreach, and monitoring activities. As program part-ners, the Forest Service and the BLM have providedan additional $1.5 million in technical support and forcooperative projects. It is these on-the-ground projectsthat are the most important outcomes for Councilmembers (Kenney, 1999), and are often the primaryreason for citizen participation (Shindler, 2000).

Two important characteristics of most WatershedCouncils is their reliance on voluntary, community-based action and an expectation that decisions will bethe result of a consensus-based process. Many schol-ars, resource professionals, and elected officials seethe grassroots Watershed Council movement as thesolution to the citizen involvement dilemma of how tobring citizens together and enable them to have avoice in managing resources that are important tothem (Wright and Shindler, 2001; Getches, 1996). Inan assessment of the potential for watershed initia-tives in the western U.S., Kenney et al. (2000) citeOregon as the state with the most sophisticated levelof coordination, administration, and state involve-ment. Thus far, however, research evaluating Ore-gon’s experiment with Watershed Councils has beenpreliminary in nature.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 1209 JAWRA

Sustaining Local Watershed Initiatives: Lessons From Landcare and Watershed Councils

PRINCIPLES FOR SUSTAININGWATERSHED GROUPS

The following set of principles derived from anassessment of research and management experiencewith Landcare in Victoria and Watershed Councils inOregon. Our goal in this analysis is threefold. First,we hope to strengthen the conceptual foundation ofthese initiatives through an improved understandingof the complex socio-political processes involved inmulti-partner land and water management. Second,by identifying five guiding principles we endeavor tohelp structure citizen-agency interactions for sustain-ing watershed groups over time. Third, we intend forthis analysis to provide a basis for critical evaluationof ongoing watershed programs in both countries. Inthis era of distributed knowledge and shared decisionmaking, a mutual understanding of the basic ques-tions is essential to program success.

Establish Local Groups Using Social as Well asBiophysical Boundaries

From the public’s perspective, the future of socialsystems related to watershed resources (e.g., employ-ment and economic opportunities, maintaining a rurallifestyle, and localized decisions) are just as importantas the biophysical components (Shindler, 2000).Ewing (1995) found that community cohesion andsense of purpose were stronger where Landcaregroups were established on social and not just water-shed boundaries. This experience is consistent withCheng’s (1999) finding that small scale, close-knitrelationships among Watershed Council members pro-vided a better community connection regardless of dif-ferences that may exist.

The work of Uphoff et al. (1998) and Devine (1986)suggests that there are limits to the number of peoplewho can be linked effectively by local organizations.Indeed, most Landcare groups have a membership ofbetween 20 to 30 people living in small communitieswith somewhere between 200 and 1,000 rural resi-dents. Experience suggests that where Landcaregroups have attempted to work with larger popula-tions they have been less effective in that they havefailed to attract a substantial proportion of residentsas members and have had little impact on most land-holders. There have also been a number of exampleswhere groups covering larger populations have agreedto split to form subgroups or establish new groupsbased on local community boundaries. The new struc-ture has invariably been more effective in mobilizingparticipation and satisfying participant needs.

Many Watershed Councils in Oregon have beenestablished at the regional or basin scale rather thanlocal community scale. Although they perform impor-tant functions, most Councils have not mobilizedwidespread participation and have had little impacton landholder understanding or behavior. In part, thelimited impact of Councils can be attributed to therelatively short time they have operated (Shindlerand Wright, 2000). It also seems that part of theexplanation is that many Councils are operating atthe wrong scale. This assessment is supported byMcGinnis et al. (1999:9) who concluded from theirreview of watershed organizations in California andthe Pacific North West that “The lack of a sense ofcommunity may be the single most important barrierto successful long-term watershed planning.” In thecase of the McKenzie Watershed Council in Oregon,Cheng (1999) found that the smaller subcatchmentorganization in the Mohawk had established muchstronger ties to the local community and was moreeffective in mobilizing landholder participation incommunity education and restoration work.

Embed WG Within an Institutional Framework ThatIdentifies Realistic Roles for Landowners, LocalOrganizations, and Regional Planning Bodies.

Along with the need to establish local relevance, werecognize that resource management increasinglyinvolves regional issues and there needs to be someregional organization that undertakes regional plan-ning and implementation.

With the Victoria Landcare groups, and theiremerging networks and the community-based region-al CMC, strong community driven organizationsappear to have emerged at both the local and regionalscales (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000). Articulating dis-tinctive roles for these organizations has been a vitalelement in developing a supportive institutionalframework in Victoria. Clearly defining the respectiveroles can avoid competition and conflict between dif-ferent organizations and enables stakeholders tomake decisions about participation with knowledge ofthe amount of power offered and the level of commit-ment required. As Ewing (2000) observed, in Victoriathis process has largely occurred by trial and errorand has generated considerable angst on the part ofLandcare participants concerned about perceivedthreats to group autonomy. To the credit of the leadagency, there has been considerable preparedness tolearn from experience.

The Victorian experience suggests there are fourimportant roles for regional organizations: (1) toaggregate and express regional needs, (2) to establish

JAWRA 1210 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

Curtis, Shindler, and Wright

priorities for allocation of government resources, (3) toprovide accountability for expenditure of public funds,and (4) to link and support independent local groups.

We also need to establish realistic expectations ofwhat WG can accomplish in an environment wherethey are relying on volunteer efforts, are workingwith limited resources and knowledge, and areattempting to address difficult and complex problemsthat often require long time frames for visibleimprovement. Landcare participants know they arebeing asked to undertake work that has communitybenefits in terms of biodiversity conservation,improved public health, and protecting export income(agriculture and tourism). They also understand thatsome of the problems they are being asked to addresshave resulted from previous government policies.Establishment of the NHT was in part an acknowl-edgment of the legitimacy of these arguments. At thesame time, NHT funding has geared up Landcaregroup activity to the extent that many groups areoperating at historically high levels of activity thatappears to be unsustainable (Curtis, 2000). It seemsthat the most important roles for local groups aretherefore: (1) to mobilize participation, (2) to initiateand support learning, (3) pull down resources to sup-port local efforts, and (4) to undertake on-groundwork to the extent that resources are available. Ofcourse, it must also be understood that levels of groupactivity will vary from group to group and over time.

In an era of two income families and considerableoff-property work, it is unreasonable to expect land-holders in developed economies to take leading rolesin administering grant projects or implementing largeWG projects. They simply do not have the time. Onthe other hand, we can expect the following from indi-vidual landholders: (1) to participate in groupactivities, (2) to establish community priorities, and(3) to undertake work on their properties or those ofothers as time permits.

Watershed Councils in Oregon are attempting toperform functions similar to both the regional CMCand the local Landcare groups in Australia. Thisincludes such diverse activities as: (1) fostering coop-eration among all interests, (2) encouraging locallandowners to comply with existing regulations, and(3) preparing and implementing a watershed actionplan that includes basinwide monitoring of activities(Wright, 2000). Asking any volunteer organization tooperate across these scales is likely to lead to frustra-tion and failure. While Watershed Councils haveenjoyed modest achievements, early success has oftenbeen linked to the capacity of coordinators to redefinethe roles of agencies and citizens and establish work-able partnerships (Rickenbach, 1999).

We acknowledge that it will be difficult to restruc-ture existing institutions in Oregon to create both

local community groups and regional planning bodiesalong the lines of the Victorian model. If this proves tobe impossible, one option would be to enable Water-shed Councils to establish autonomous local commu-nity organizations to conduct outreach activities andimplement on-ground projects while Councils adopt amore strategic planning and coordination role.

Maintain Broad Stakeholder Participation inWatershed Organizations

Without strong stakeholder representation the per-ceived benefits of public participation are likely to beforfeited. Urban interests, including rural towns, havebeen underrepresented on CMC in Victoria, as havewomen and Aboriginal interests. The exclusion of con-servation interests from CMC meant that biodiversityissues were poorly represented in regional catchmentstrategies and NHT funded projects. Although keystakeholders are represented on Watershed Councilsin Oregon (Kenney et al., 2000) and Councils appearto be performing an important role as fora for sharinginformation, Councils need to expand their outreachefforts and involve a broader sector of citizens (Stateof Oregon, 1999). Thus far, few Oregonians under-stand the Oregon Plan; even landowner awareness oflocal Watershed Councils is low (Wright and Shindler,2001). The effectiveness of Oregon’s Watershed Coun-cils has also been undermined by the noncooperationof owners of adjoining land thwarting collectiverestoration efforts (Rickenbach, 1999).

Understanding volunteer motivations is fundamen-tal to sustaining broad stakeholder participation.Landcare participation has been motivated by thedesire to work locally on national issues, to effectimprovement in environmental conditions throughon-ground work, for the benefit of social interaction,and to learn about land and water management (Cur-tis and Van Nouhuys, 1999). Volunteer literatureemphasizes that social interaction is the most impor-tant factor in retaining members. WG experience inVictoria and Oregon suggests that it is also importantto establish group protocols and norms that encouragebroad stakeholder representation. These approachesinclude: encouraging membership from urban resi-dents in nearby towns; demonstrating an inclusiveapproach to membership by allowing people to “comewhen they are ready;” rotating leadership positions;identifying and making personal approaches to poten-tial members; and making efforts to retain members,including direct personal contacts to follow up onabsences. On-ground work is also an important partof the learning process, both in terms of how to orga-nize a group and to restore degraded areas. Experi-ence with Landcare suggests that it is important for

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 1211 JAWRA

Sustaining Local Watershed Initiatives: Lessons From Landcare and Watershed Councils

groups to undertake a variety of activities and workacross a range of topics to cater for the different inter-ests of participants. In Oregon, where governmentagencies have traditionally taken the lead on land usepolicies and practices, citizens must be made to feelthat they have a meaningful role in restoration efforts(State of Oregon, 1999).

Substantial Investment Required by Government

Despite the rhetoric of Landcare as a “grass roots”development, government (and bipartisan) supporthas been critical to Landcare success. Much of theearly success of Landcare was due to the energies,commitment, and expertise of state agency staff.Among other things, government support hasenhanced Landcare credibility, funded facilitation andcoordination by agency staff, provided important com-munication links between groups, and through cost-sharing arrangements has funded much of thecommunity education and on-ground work of groups.State and federal government support for arrange-ments establishing regional CMC has also facilitatedregional planning and improved linkages betweenLandcare groups. In Victoria, higher Landcare groupactivity is strongly linked to higher levels of govern-ment funding and to higher levels of contact with gov-ernment support staff (Curtis, 2000). In Oregon,where funding is sparse and little time has elapsedfor adequate evaluation, preliminary research sug-gests the same is true (Rickenbach, 1999; State ofOregon, 1999).

While the mean value of funding per Landcaregroup has increased significantly under the NHT,most groups still receive small amounts of govern-ment funding. Indeed, a third of all Victorian groupsreceived less than $2,000 in 1998 and a majority ofgroups said the funds they received were inadequateto address problems in their area. Rising levels of dis-satisfaction with government commitment to Land-care reflect, at least in part, increased awareness ofthe extent of cuts to state government expenditure inrural areas over the past decade (Curtis, 2000).

Many Victorian groups need assistance with lead-ership succession planning, with priority setting andcatchment planning, and with member recruitmentand retention (Curtis, 2000). In the most recent Victo-rian survey a majority of respondents said that lead-ership issues were an important factor affecting thelevel of their group’s activity. Further investigationestablished that most groups did not have an estab-lished process for leadership succession (Curtis,2000). Successful volunteer organizations have stronginduction programs and management styles that rein-force the worth of volunteer contributions (Pearce,

1993). Volunteer literature also emphasizes that it ismore efficient to devote resources to retention than toattracting and inducting recruits (Curtis and VanNouhuys, 1999). Around 40 percent of Victoriangroups had not adopted approaches likely to enhancemembership retention in that group leaders did notfollow up with members when there was a pattern ofabsence and had not publicly acknowledged the con-tribution of individual members to projects or admin-istration (Curtis, 2000). Priority setting is also linkedwith more effective WG (Selin and Myers, 1995; Cur-tis, 2000). However, about half of the Victorian groupswere not involved in catchment planning and wherethey were, there was often no documented outcome ofplanning processes (Curtis, 2000).

These program management deficiencies reflect theabsence of a coherent and determined approach to themanagement of Landcare as a volunteer organization.The reality is that Landcare in Victoria has been runwith small budgets and limited numbers of personnel,has very few senior staff directly involved in programmanagement, and a limited number of managers withspecific knowledge of volunteer management.

The management issues identified above have beenlinked to burnout among volunteers in a range of set-tings (Maslach and Leiter, 1997). The core elements ofburnout are emotional exhaustion, depersonalization,and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach andJackson, 1981). In response to community and agencyconcerns about the phenomena, a pilot study wasundertaken in Victoria to assess the extent of burnoutand identify factors contributing to higher burnout(Byron et al., 2001). At present only a small propor-tion of individuals appear to be experiencing high lev-els of burnout. At the same time, many respondentswere experiencing low levels of personal accomplish-ment and higher burnout was linked to the Landcaregroup management issues identified above, suggest-ing that burnout may become an important issue. Oneapproach to the management of burnout is to holdworkshops to raise awareness of burnout and exploremanagement strategies in a constructive manner. Itwould be unreasonable to expect groups to developand undertake such sophisticated management prac-tices without substantial assistance from trained sup-port staff.

It seems that in both Victoria and Oregon there hasbeen the assumption that, over time, WG wouldbecome independent of government funding. This isunrealistic for most groups given the amount of timepeople have available for volunteer activities, the lowprofitability of many on-property enterprises, thescale of problems faced, and the extent that there arelarge public benefits from on-property work. Recentexperience in Victoria and Oregon suggests there arethree different areas where governments need to

JAWRA 1212 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

Curtis, Shindler, and Wright

invest in WG. First, there needs to be state-wide coor-dination of a program that provides for the facilitationof groups as they are established and the training ofcoordinators and group leaders so they can addresscritical group management issues.

Second, governments need to provide funds toemploy WG coordinators who can facilitate meetings,coordinate watershed planning, prepare funding bids,contribute to community education, and harness localresources for restoration projects. Until very recently,the assumption was that Landcare groups could be“kick-started” by government funding of a coordina-tor, but over time they would become largely indepen-dent of funded coordination. This approach fails toacknowledge the growing weight of Australian(Campbell, 1992; Curtis, 1999) and overseas (Brud-ney, 1990; Pearce, 1993) evidence highlighting thecritical role of group coordination in volunteer pro-grams. Experience with Landcare suggests a mini-mum of one full-time staff person is needed perWatershed Council or CMC and a shared personbetween four or five local community groups. Again,these coordinators need to be part of a team that oper-ates within a coherent state-wide program that pro-vides training for coordinators and a systematicprocess for implementing the monitoring and evalua-tion of WG health and outcomes.

Finally, as part of the mix of policy options support-ing change in management practices, there should besome form of cost sharing for work on private proper-ty where there are identifiable public benefits. Insome cases it may be necessary to go to 100 percentcost sharing for restoration work and to make stew-ardship payments for maintaining the new manage-ment regime over time. Cost sharing for work onprivate property has a much shorter history in theU.S. than in Australia. But even these programs havehelped reveal potential shortcomings in multi-partnercooperation. In a recent example in Oregon, a 250 mil-lion dollar volunteer incentive program to improveriparian management met with low levels of accep-tance (State of Oregon, 1999). It was suggested thatthe low acceptance rate was due to a lack of publicknowledge about the program and landowner con-cerns about their loss of private property rights. Aus-tralian landholders are also suspicious of governmentand jealously guard their private property rights.Experience with Landcare, including the fencing ofriparian corridors, suggests that WG operating at thelocal community scale can build the understanding,trust, and reciprocal relationships needed to sur-mount some of these issues.

Establish Processes That Build Trust andCompetency Among Citizens and Agencies

Establishing trust between agency staff and citi-zens is fundamental to getting long-term change inwatershed condition. This is particularly true wherecollaborative decision making and management isrequired across multiple ownerships and whereresources are limited and stakeholders are unsureabout what to do. Citizens often have difficulty judg-ing the accuracy of information and the level of trustthey have for the information provider often shapestheir judgments. In comparing case studies in theU.S. and Australia, Moore (1995) noted the impor-tance of trust in both personnel and organizations.She found that trust in individuals most often derivedfrom interpersonal attributes like honesty andreciprocity that fostered productive planning environ-ments and that organizational trust stemmed fromdecision making processes that participants perceivedwere fair.

Not only is trust important in building relation-ships, it is a primary ingredient for building compe-tency. Jamieson (1994) noted that citizens do not comewith a ready made ability to engage in constructive,deliberative discussions and that management agen-cies should contribute to developing the competency ofthose with whom they engage. Behn (1997:74) wentstraight to the heart of the issue in saying: “In thisage of citizen cynicism, having a reputation for know-ing how to run the place is a prerequisite for actuallydoing it. To accomplish anything, public agencies firstneed a reputation for competence.”

A good way to begin building competency and trustis through the involvement of agency staff in WGstrategic planning processes as facilitators and co-learners. In Victorian, Landcare participants consis-tently report very high levels of satisfaction withagency staff working with groups in terms of theircommunication skills, technical knowledge, and thelevel of respect agency staff show towards communityparticipants (Curtis, 2000). With strong agency com-mitment to participatory processes, agency staff andLandcare members have generally established robust,productive partnerships. Oregon Watershed Councilparticipants also value these attributes highly, buthave provided less positive assessments of the qualityof their interactions with agency personnel. Oregonparticipants often raise the concern that agencymanagers pay lip service to community interests byfavoring technical factors over public deliberation(Shindler, 2000).

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 1213 JAWRA

Sustaining Local Watershed Initiatives: Lessons From Landcare and Watershed Councils

Achieving broad scale trust and competency is atall order and may mean considerable changes in theway agencies do business. The potential of poor pro-gram management to affect Landcare outcomes washighlighted by the significant decline in on-groundwork in Victoria in 1998 that followed delays of up tonine months in receipt of NHT funding by groups(Curtis, 1999). Failure by government to deliver NHTfunds on time was perceived as a breach of trust thatcontributed to growing disillusionment about govern-ment commitment to a Landcare partnership. Curtisand Lockwood (2000) argued for the simplification ofthe NHT funding process by removing some of thelayers in the assessment process and for the devolu-tion of greater power to regional communities so thatthey could manage their own budgets to achieve out-comes identified in their regional catchment plans.

However, trust is fragile and can easily be lost. InOregon, distrust has surfaced where participantsthought their ideas and concerns were not given ade-quate consideration. Alternatively, trust is more likelyto be established and maintained where agenciesarticulate their reasons for involving landowners andthen make good on their commitments (Shindler etal., 1999). The experience with Landcare suggeststhat problems have arisen where governmentsignored community priorities, mismanaged fundingprocesses, attempted to co-opt Landcare by siphoningoff Landcare funds to state agencies, or have expectedgroups to carry out work that is really a governmentresponsibility (Curtis, 1998).

CONCLUSION

As a program that involved only limited funding ofa community development process, Landcare hasprobably exceeded any realistic goals established atthe start of the Federal government’s Decade of Land-care in 1989. Much the same can be said about theshort life of Oregon’s Watershed Council movement.In varying degrees, both programs can claim consider-able accomplishments including mobilizing a largecross section of the rural community, increasingawareness of issues, enhancing the knowledge andskills of resource managers, increasing adoption ofbest practices, and contributing to improved environ-mental conditions in some smaller catchments. Therapidly increasing number of watershed networksprovide another tier of local organization likely toimprove communication between groups and enhancethe capacity of groups to address regional problems,pull down resources from cooperating agencies, andshape natural resource management policy.

We have also raised a number of critiques of theWG initiatives in Victoria and Oregon, but it is proba-bly poor program management at state and federallevels that has had greatest impact on outcomes. Par-ticipants in both countries say they need more sup-port in terms of government funding for on-groundwork; better support for group administration, partic-ularly in terms of funding of coordinators; and train-ing for group leaders. In part, these managementdeficiencies reflect the absence of a focused and deter-mined approach to the management of WG as volun-teer organizations. Many groups are not effectivelymanaging leadership succession, priority setting andcatchment planning, or member recruitment andretention. Landcare is only loosely coordinated atstate and regional levels and there are few staff dedi-cated to providing that support. Initial reports sug-gest that Watershed Councils in Oregon suffer frompoor program recognition and a lack effective commu-nity outreach.

Australia has a tradition of strong governmentintervention in economic and social affairs and thismay explain why a program such as Landcare mighttake hold more readily in Australia than elsewhere. Itis also important to remember that Landcare emergedover time as part of an iterative process in whichsound rural development theory and practice wasadapted to Australian contexts. Landcare, therefore,offers a powerful example of how to establish effectivelocal organizations across a range of jurisdictions andissues.

Reflecting on the experience with Landcare in Vic-toria and with Watershed Councils in Oregon we haveidentified five guiding principles that appear funda-mental to sustaining WG initiatives over time. In thefirst instance, these groups must be established at alocal scale using social as well as biophysical bound-aries. If these local organizations are to be sustained,it is critical that they are embedded within a support-ive institutional framework that identifies realisticroles for private landowners, local organizations, andregional planning bodies. Without broad stakeholderrepresentation, the perceived benefits of participationare quickly forfeited. It is also unrealistic to expect aneffective network of local groups to be sustained with-out substantial investment by government. Theremust also be the commitment and skills within a pro-gram to establish processes that build trust and com-petency among citizens and agencies. These fiveprinciples should also provide a foundation for thecritical evaluation of WG programs in Australia andthe U.S.

JAWRA 1214 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

Curtis, Shindler, and Wright

LITERATURE CITED

Alexander, H., 1995. A Framework for Change: The State of theCommunity Landcare Movement in Australia. The NationalLandcare Facilitator Project Annual Report, National LandcareProgram, Canberra, Australia.

Behn, R. D., 1997. The Money-Back Guarantee. Governing10(12):74.

Brudney, J. L., 1990. Fostering Volunteer Programs in the PublicSector: Planning, Initiating and Managing Voluntary Activities.Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.

Byron, I., A. Curtis, and M. Lockwood (in press). Exploring Burnoutin Australia’s Landcare Program: A Study in the SheppartonRegion. Society and Natural Resources.

Campbell, A., 1992. Taking the Long View in Tough Times. Nation-al Landcare Facilitator 3rd Annual Report to the Department ofPrimary Industries and Energy. National Soil Conservation Pro-gram, Canberra, Australia.

Campbell, A., 1994. Landcare: Communities Shaping the Land andthe Future. Allen and Unwin, Sydney, Australia.

Chamala, S., 1995. Group Effectiveness: From Group ExtensionMethods to Participative Community Landcare Groups. In: Par-ticipative Approaches to Landcare: Policies and Programs, S. Chamala and K. Keith (Editors). Academic Press, Brisbane,Australia, pp. 5-43.

Chambers, R., 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First.Longman, New York.

Cheng, A. S., 1999. Who’s in Place, Who’s Out of Place: Examiningthe Politics of Natural Resource Collaboration. Ph.D. Disserta-tion, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Commonwealth of Australia, 1997. Evaluation Report of theDecade of Landcare Plan-National Overview. Commonwealth ofAustralia, Canberra, Australia.

Commonwealth of Australia, 1998. Natural Heritage Trust-Guideto New Applications 1998-1999. Commonwealth of Australia,Canberra, Australia.

Curtis, A., 1998. The Agency/Community Partnership in Landcare:Lessons for State-Sponsored Citizen Resource Management.Environmental Management 22(4):563-574.

Curtis, A., 1999. Landcare: Beyond On-Ground Work. NaturalResources Management 2(2): 4-9.

Curtis, A., 2000. Landcare: Approaching the Limits of VolunteerAction. Australian Journal of Environmental Management7(1):19-27.

Curtis, A., A. Britton, and J. Sobels, 1999. Landcare Networks asLocal Organizations Contributing to State-Sponsored Communi-ty Participation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Man-agement 42(1):5-21.

Curtis, A. and T. De Lacy, 1995. Landcare Evaluation in Australia:Towards an Effective Partnership Between Agencies, Communi-ty Groups and Researchers. Journal of Soil and Water Conserva-tion 50(1):15-20.

Curtis, A. and T. De Lacy, 1996a. Landcare in Australia: Beyondthe Expert Farmer. Agriculture and Human Values 13(1):20-31.

Curtis, A. and T. De Lacy, 1996b. Landcare in Australia: Does itMake a Difference. Journal of Environmental Management46:119-137.

Curtis, A. and M. Lockwood, 2000. Landcare and Catchment Man-agement in Australia: Lessons for State-Sponsored CommunityParticipation. Society and Natural Resources 13:61-73.

Curtis, A. and M. Van Nouhuys, 1999. Landcare Participation inAustralia: The Volunteer Perspective. Sustainable Development7(2):98-111.

Devine, B. L., 1986. The Tragedy of the Commons and the Comedyof Community: The Commons in History. Journal of CommunityPsychology 14:81-99.

Duram, L. A. and K. G. Brown, 1999. Assessing Public Participa-tion in U.S. Watershed Planning Initiatives. Society and Natu-ral Resources 12:455-467.

Esman, M. J. and N. T. Uphoff, 1984. Local Organizations: Interme-diaries in Rural Development. Cornell University Press, Ithaca,New York.

Ewing, S., 1995. Small is Beautiful: The Place of the Case Study inLandcare Evaluation. Rural Society 5(2/3):38-43.

Ewing, S., 2000. The Place of Landcare in Catchment ManagementStructures. In: Proceedings of the International Landcare 2000Conference: Changing Landscapes ~ Shaping Futures. Mel-bourne, Australia, pp. 113-118.

Getches, D. H., 1996. Changing the River’s Course: Western WaterPolicy Reform. Environmental Law 26:157-174.

Griffin, C. B., 1999. Watershed Councils: An Emerging Form ofPublic Participation in Natural Resource Management. Journalof the American Water Resources Association 35(3):505-518.

Hill, R., 2000. Address by the Ministerial Address to the Interna-tional Landcare 2000 Conference: Changing Landscapes ~ Shap-ing Future. Melbourne, Australia.

Jamieson, D., 1994. Problems and Prospects for a Forest ServiceProgram in the Human Dimensions of Global Change. In: AWorkshop Summary – Breaking the Mold: Global Change,Social Responsibility and Natural Resource Policy. Oregon StateUniversity, Corvallis, Oregon.

Kenney, D. S., 1999. Are Community-Based Watershed GroupsReally Effective?: Confronting the Thorny Issue of MeasuringSuccess. Chronicle of Community 3(2)33-38.

Kenney, D. S., S. T. McAllister, W. H. Caile, and J. S. Peckham,2000. The New Watershed Source Book: A Directory and Reviewof Watershed Initiatives in the Western United States. NaturalResources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law,Boulder, Colorado.

Lawrence, G., 2000. Global Perspectives on Rural Communities –Trends and Patterns. In: Proceedings of the International Land-care 2000 Conference: Changing Landscapes ~ Shaping Futures.Melbourne, Australia, pp. 144-151.

Maslach, C. and S. E. Jackson, 1981. Maslach Burnout InventoryManual. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California.

Maslach, C. and M. P. Leiter, 1997. The Truth About Burnout.Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.

McGinnis, M. V., J. Woolley, and J. Gamman, 1999. BioregionalConflict Resolution: Rebuilding Community in Watershed Plan-ning and Organizing. Environmental Management 24(1):1-12.

Moore, S. A., 1995. The Role of Trust in Social Networks: Forma-tion, Function, and Fragility. In: Nature Conservation 4: TheRole of Networks, D. A. Saunders, J. Craig, and E. M. Mattiske(Editors). Surrey Beatty and Sons, Australia, pp. 148-154.

Mues, C., L. Chapman, and R. Van Hilst, 1998. Landcare: Promot-ing Improved Land Management Practices on AustralianFarms; A Survey of Landcare and Land Management RelatedPrograms. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Eco-nomics, Canberra, Australia.

Pearce, J. L., 1993. Volunteers: The Organizational Behavior ofUnpaid Workers. Routledge, New York.

Rickenbach, M., 1999. Watershed Councils and Woodland Owners:The Oregon Experience. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State Uni-versity, Corvallis, Oregon.

Selin, S. W. and N. Myers, 1995. Correlates of Partnership Effec-tiveness: The Coalition for Unified Recreation in the EasternSierra. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 13(4):7-46.

Shindler, B., 2000. Landscape-Level Management: It’s All AboutContext. Journal of Forestry 98(12):10-14.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 1215 JAWRA

Sustaining Local Watershed Initiatives: Lessons From Landcare and Watershed Councils

Shindler, B., K. A. Cheek, and G. H. Stankey, 1999. Monitoring andEvaluating Citizen-Agency Interactions: A Framework Devel-oped for Adaptive Management. USDA Forest Service GeneralTechnical Report, PNW-GTR-452, Portland, Oregon.

Shindler, B. and A. S., Wright, 2000. Watershed and Managementin the Central Cascades: A Study of Citizen Knowledge and theValue of Information Sources in the Lower South SantiamBasin. USDA Forest Service Research Report, PNW ResearchStation, Corvallis, Oregon.

Stankey, G. H., B. T. Borman, C. Ryan, B. Shindler, V. Sturtevant,and C. Philpot (in press). Learning to Learn: Adaptive Manage-ment and the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX, USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.

State of Oregon, 1997. Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative.Available at http://www.oregon-plan.org.

State of Oregon, 1999. Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds –1999 Annual Report. Salem, Oregon.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. Top 10 WatershedLessons Learned. EPA 840-F-97-001. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/lessons.

Uphoff, N., M. Esman, and A. Krishna, 1998. Reasons for Success:Learning From Instructive Experiences in Rural Development.Kumarian Press, Connecticut.

Wonder, B., 2000. Sustainable Agriculture: Dream or Reality? TheChallenges Ahead. In: Proceedings of the International Land-care 2000 Conference: Changing Landscapes ~ Shaping Futures.Melbourne, Australia. pp. 265-269.

Wondolleck, J. and S. Yaffee, 2000. Making Collaboration Work:Lessons From Innovation in Natural Resource Management.Island Press, Washington D.C.

Wright, A. S., 2000. Citizen Knowledge and Opinions About Water-shed Management in the South Santiam Basin in Oregon. Mas-ters Dissertation, Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon.

Wright, A. S. and B. Shindler, 2001. The Role of InformationSources in Watershed Management. Fisheries 26(11):16-23.

Yaffee, S., A. F. Phillips, I. C. Frentz, P. W Hardy, S. E Maleki, andB.E. Thorpe. 1996. Ecosystem Management in the UnitedStates: An Assessment of Current Experience. Island Press,Washington D.C.

JAWRA 1216 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

Curtis, Shindler, and Wright