Future Drought Fund Drought Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hubs Review

OFFICIAL

30 September 2024

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)
Via email fdfhubsreview@aff.gov.au

Dear FDF Hubs Review team,

Re: Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (CMA) response to Future
Drought Fund (FDF) Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hubs (the Hubs) review: issues paper (Sept 2024)

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Hubs review and the commitment by the Australian Government to enhance the public good through building drought resilience across Australia’s agricultural sectors and communities through the FDF.

We have previously provided feedback to the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report on the FDF, to the Drought Resilience Plan 2024-28 and the Future Drought Fund Investment
Strategy 2024-2028 consultation and, more recently, to the Australian Government
Drought Plan.

Our feedback on the Hubs remains consistent to that provided previously which is that, while the hub and node model is well intended, it has presented challenges as a delivery model for place-based collaboration and coordination. In our experience, a place-based approach needs to be based on a comprehensive understanding of the entire region including groups and capacity, be reflective of existing regional plans and add value to the existing delivery programs in the region.

Our submission attached includes responses to each of the questions contained in the issues paper.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Cowan
Acting Interim CEO
Goulburn Broken CMA
OFFICIAL

Evaluation of the hubs

The first part of this review will evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of each hub’s performance to date.

Hub performance in your region

1. What do you see as the hub’s role?

We see the hub’s role as coordinating investment in research through gap analysis in consultation with stakeholders, including industry, agency and community.

The following was outlined in our Productivity Commission response and is relates to this question:

• The role of the Hubs needs to change. Research should sit with universities to create the evidence base
for new, innovative, and transformational practices. Universities are excellent at research. They are not
set up to engage with other stakeholders and farmers, as has been demonstrated. Placing extension
programs with universities has been consistently shown to be ineffective. Running and administering
grant projects requires systems and experience in grant delivery and legal arrangements for established
contracts which NRM Regions have.
• Stakeholder engagement and extension needs to sit with regional networks with demonstrated
outcomes. The role of engagement and extension needs to be separated to a consistent national
extension platform, utilising NRM regions who then work with key industry and community networks in
their regions (where they exist). These networks would include the Hubs/universities in a feedback loop,
whereby research priorities are highlighted and developed with end-users. Some Farming systems
groups are good however there are not enough of them to get the geographical coverage, as was learnt
20 years ago. This is why the NRM regional model was developed. NRM regions work with and empower
farming systems and Landcare groups and fill all the gaps where they don’t have coverage.

2. How would you describe the local or regional awareness of the hub?

Low overall. Some stakeholder groups, e.g. Landcare networks and farming systems groups are aware of the hub but have had little success in engaging with and making use of regional investment via the hubs.
Community and farmer level engagement really does not exist – however this is not unusual. Community and farmer engagement is most meaningful when these groups can create change, i.e. adopt new practices onto their farm, or provide input into planning and prioritisation that influences outcomes.

3. What have been the main benefits of the hub?

Unsure – maybe it has helped farming system groups to come together, but don’t really know.

4. What challenges has the hub experienced?

Delivering extension and creating a network of informed and involved stakeholders at the regional level and across industries.

The following was further outlined in our Productivity Commission response and is relevant to this question:

• While the hub and node model in Victoria has great intent, it has had challenges as a delivery model for
place-based collaboration and coordination due to a number of key factors. These include:

2
OFFICIAL

o Extension experience– the skillsets, experience and established systems for delivery are very
different and the time and consistency of effort to build trust and connection with land
managers is in many decades of years.
o An over reliance on individual farming systems groups, linked to the research hubs, for full
regional knowledge and coverage – resulting in a patchwork of engagement.
o FDF initiatives not linked into whole of system approaches across regions, including multiple
industry and landscape considerations connecting the challenge at a farm scale.
o FDF approaches not linked to the footprint of existing regional coverage of RD & E activity.

5. How effectively has the hub worked with other agencies and organisations?

Not as effectively as needed from our experience. From discussions this is shared across Victorian CMAs and Landcare Networks. We believe that industry groups have had varying levels of success – from excellent where they are engaged to lead and deliver projects, to little engagement.

6. How does the hub engage with producers? How effective is this?

We are unsure that the hub engages directly with producers. Media releases by the Department at the time of inception of the hubs generated local interest from farmers who expected to be able to influence research aims and gap analysis. Opportunities to direct extension (self-directed) learning have not come about in our region to any meaningful extent.

7. How does the hub engage with First Nations people? How effective is this?

Not known. The objectives of the FDF and opportunities to deliver ATSI priorities, for example through
Country Plans, need to be well thought out and resources provided to meaningfully engage. This cannot be added onto program objectives, whether FDF or other, without due scoping.

8. What are the most important skills and capacities the hubs require for success in advancing
regional drought resilience?

Hubs must have ability to engage state and regional stakeholders to determine research priorities, deliver long-term research investment and communicate results. To do this they need to be able to network, engage and manage relationships and support extension with practical application of findings.

9. How effectively do the hubs collaborate with each other to share products, information and
knowledge?

Not known.

10. How effective has the hub been in building drought resilience across your region?

Not known.

11. Which factors do you think most improve drought resilience? For example, changed practices, or
investments in new infrastructure, equipment and technology.

In our experience, investment in new technology and practices, followed by extension, adaptive learning and further extension are effective in improving drought resilience.

3
OFFICIAL

a. How has the hub focused on these factors to achieve effective change in your region?

Not known.

FDF drought hubs program

If your organisation interacts with the hubs program as a whole, you may wish to consider the following questions:

12. Which gaps in drought resilience services have the hubs program helped to fill?
13. Has the hubs program duplicated other available services or supports? If so, how?
14. How effective has the governance and management of the hubs program been?
15. How effective has the hubs program been in building drought resilience across regional
Australia?
16. How effective has the hubs program been in building drought resilience across sections or cohorts
in regional communities?

Our organisation does not interact with the hubs as a whole and therefore we are unable to adequately answer the above questions. We understand that NRM Regions Australia on behalf of all NRM Regions will be providing a response.

Future enhancements

17. How could the hubs program be enhanced?

This review needs to consider the components that are not working and look outside the existing model to value-add to deliver effective engagement and efficient investment.

Our recommendation is a revised model that continues a state-based research investment approach, e.g.
via the eight Hubs (e.g. Vic Hub University of Melbourne), that could scale up nationally and down regionally to address common research priorities across farming industries, systems, regions and locations.

Extension would be place-based delivered via regional NRM Regions as coordinated networks (e.g. Vic FDF
Extension Networks) who have the existing engagement systems (including with First Nations) to connect across agency and industry and deliver farmer and community engagement. The Extension Networks would utilise the platform of opportunity NRM Regions offer the Future Drought Fund, to link research into the place-based needs to capitalise on the successful regional model for the ‘development and extension’ components of RD&E.

18. How could the hubs program work more effectively with other government programs, including
the FDF?

In our experience, extension and engagement needs to be based on a comprehensive understanding of the entire region including groups and capacity, be reflective of existing regional plans for land, water and community (e.g. Regional Catchment Strategies/NRM Plans, Regional Drought Plans and Land and Water

4
OFFICIAL

Management Plans) and add value to existing delivery programs in the regions (e.g. DAFF Climate Smart
Agriculture Program and National Soil Action Plan).

Our recommended model (refer to question 17) would deliver efficient and effective investment in research and extension, resulting in quantifiable outcomes for drought resilience across regions, states and nationally. It would link to the existing networks established under the FDF Regional Drought Resilience
Planning Program and Hubs/research programs, Sustainable Agriculture Facilitators, and Climate Smart
Agriculture Programs delivered by NRM Regions as the Regional Delivery Partner.

19. What support should the hubs program provide to help producers prepare for and recover from
drought?

The model should provide as much support as possible to help producers in preparing, responding and recovering from drought, where it is integrated into existing projects regionally, statewide and nationally and not duplicating efforts. Our recommended model would provide this linkage and across all regional agricultural industries.

20. Should the hubs program support drought response and, if so, what form could that take?

See response to Question 19.

21. The Productivity Commission Inquiry recommended the FDF, and hubs program encompass
climate change adaptation needs. This might include adapting to higher temperatures and
changed rainfall patterns in some regions but exclude natural disasters such as floods and
bushfires. How could the hubs best promote climate resilience in addition to drought resilience?

Hub extension should focus on enhancing the existing regional collaboration and delivery model including grant funding expertise, supported by a national learning network, e.g. through the Extension and Adoption of Drought Resilience Farming Practices grants program. A mechanism to share experiences and build on learnings is essential for efficient investment. Sustainable agriculture work such as drought, soils, adaptation, climate change and resilience should be delivered together regionally to maximise effectiveness.

22. Is there value in retaining a flexible local approach to hubs activities across each region, or:

a. Should greater nationally consistency be sought?

There has been a history of creating too many new, disconnected and siloed bodies that are getting little traction. The model needs to reflect the reality ‘on the ground’ by utilising existing NRM Regional Networks and NRM Planning. This would provide consistency e.g. in governance, and coverage of NRM issues, but tailored to regional social, environmental, agricultural and community needs.

b. Would more consistency across hubs be desirable for some hub functions but not others?

Refer to Q22 (a).

5