REPORTING BACK TO YOU ON THE RIG NETWORK SURVEYS A snapshot of findings

Transcription

1 REPORTING BACK TO YOU ON THE RIG NETWORK SURVEYS A snapshot of findings We d like to thank everyone who participated in RIG Network s recent surveys and who sent the survey information on to other people. We ve gathered some great information that we are now collating along with data from other sources to prepare useful information resources to be shared via the RIG website and workshops. Two online surveys were undertaken from mid July to end August. We promised to get back to you with survey findings, and we hope you ll find this report on key findings interesting reading. We welcome comments that you may like to make and look forward to interacting with you about future RIG Network activities. WHAT WAS THE AIM OF THE SURVEYS? The RIG Information Survey sought to gather broad input from people working in different sectors who share an interest in the contribution that food garden projects and enterprises can make to remote Indigenous communities. This survey canvassed people s perspectives about current and future garden activity, and key drivers and impediments to food garden activity, in order to build some baseline data about the sector. This survey included a number of sections that were designed to help identify information gaps, and available information that can be shared. The RIG Information survey also sought interest in proposed RIG activities. The RIG Garden Profile survey was designed to enable people to share the story of gardens they have worked with so that other people and communities can learn from their experiences. Information gathered from both surveys is being used to develop strategic and practical information resources for the RIG website, workshops and other activities. WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE SURVEYS? A total of 65 survey responses were received, with some people participating in both surveys. Some 80% of participants contributed to the RIG Information Survey and a dozen garden projects were described by RIG Garden Profile survey participants. 50% of participants were from the Northern Territory, followed by Queensland and Western Australia, with a few participants from the ACT and South Australia. Survey participants were drawn from a range of sectors, with representation from State and Territory departments, Aboriginal organisations, non-government organisations, local government, education and training, business, research, and health advocacy/delivery groups. Cross analysis of RIG Information Survey participants by sector/area of work interest, indicates that over 50% of respondents to that survey work in health related areas - whether policy, delivery, and/or advocacy.

2 A SNAPSHOT OF KEY FINDINGS GATHERING SOME BASELINE DATA A number of table based questions were used to gain an overview of people s perspectives about food gardens and strategic issues relevant to them both now and in the future. Most participants completed the table based questions enabling a good sample. Current food garden activity and potential social and economic benefits Participants were asked to indicate how common they believe 13 different food garden types currently are in remote communities ( not common, reasonably common, very common ). The next question then asked participants to indicate what they thought the potential social and economic benefits offered by each of the 13 different food garden types to be ( poor, reasonable, very good ). The list of the 13 food garden types that participants were asked to consider is at Attachment 1. Current food garden activity by type - interesting findings include: The majority of respondents considered the different garden types to all be uncommon. Garden types considered least common, were respectively community market gardens, followed by extended family gardens and household gardens, and community gardens and commercial orchards. Garden types perceived to be reasonably common by a number of respondents were respectively CDEP gardens for horticulture training, followed by remnant gardens/orchards, and school gardens. Potential social and economic benefits offered by different food garden types interesting findings include: Overall, the majority of participants considered all garden types to have reasonable or very good potential to contribute social and economic benefits. School gardens and bush food production enterprises were considered to offer very good potential benefits by the greatest number of respondents, closely followed by CDEP gardens, and outstation gardens and household gardens. Community gardens and extended family gardens were considered reasonable by the greatest number of participants. A small minority of respondents considered that all types of gardens had only poor potential for social and economic benefits, and commercial orchards and commercial market gardens featured most strongly within these minority views. Drivers for the design and development of sustainable food gardens in remote Indigenous communities and their perceived importance. Participants were asked to consider a list of 19 identified drivers (motivators and other key considerations) that can contribute to the design of food gardens in remote Indigenous communities and to rate the importance of each driver using a five-tier scale (from Not important at all to Very Important ). The list of drivers was developed following discussions with diverse stakeholders. The purpose of this question was to scope people s perceptions about key issues that can help inform future garden projects and related programs.

3 The list of drivers was long (perhaps too long!), however the data suggests some very useful findings - findings that are reinforced by data about perceived obstacles to successful gardens. The ten most important drivers (as rated Very important by % respondents) were: Local leaders to champion initiatives 69% Connection to country, right to use land 69% Health and nutrition, access to fresh produce 68% Life skills caring for self, community and country 65% Social capital and empowerment 59% Affordability, supplement household food 57% Training - 56% Climate change, reduce food miles 53% Employment - 53% Hybrid business development, social/economic enterprises 52% Obstacles to sustainable food gardens in remote Indigenous communities and their perceived importance. Participants were asked to consider a list of 19 perceived obstacles to successful food gardens in remote Indigenous communities and to rate the importance of each obstacle using a five-tier scale (from Not important at all to Very Important ). The list of obstacles was developed following discussions with diverse stakeholders. The purpose of this question was to scope people s perceptions about key challenges that can be usefully be considered in the design of future garden projects and related programs. The ten most important obstacles (as rated Very important by % respondents) were: Lack of local leadership and ownership 68% Financial resources and support for project longevity - 59% Changing people, sustainable long term ownership and management of gardens 55% Life cycle management and maintenance of gardens over time 53% Cultural reasons 50% Lack of knowledge, appropriate plants and techniques for specific environments 49% Lack of interest, gardening/horticulture unattractive, hot hard work 49% Connection to country cultural rights to garden on land that may be other people s land 48% History of failed local garden projects and negative experiences 46% Damage to gardens and infrastructure by marauders, animals, pests 44% Some quick discussion on the findings Interestingly, participants appeared to have much stronger views about key drivers when compared to key obstacles. What is perhaps most striking is the overall importance of local leadership and ownership of projects as both a driver for, and obstacle to, successful food gardens. This in turn relates to other key themes that the data highlights such as the importance of connection to country, and the perception that gardens can play an important role in community capacity building, life skills development and sustainable livelihoods. Food security concerns are a very important driver for food gardens, and the importance of financial resources and strategic planning for management and maintenance of gardens were strongly identified as key obstacles to the sustainability of garden projects over time.

4 In response to questions that invited further comment about drivers and obstacles many people spoke about the need to better embed projects within existing community structures and programs. Those comments align well with the high level of potential that school gardens and bush food garden enterprises are perceived to offer. The data suggests a clear and growing interest in innovative garden projects that empower and enable communities to take action through small scale garden initiatives that are integrated with other community projects and programs. Home gardens, extended family gardens and outstation gardens, if not common now, are perceived to be increasingly important by survey participants. A number of participants have offered useful commentary about the importance of distinguishing between small and family scale garden initiatives and larger scale commercial initiatives. The former are oriented toward sustainable livelihoods and community empowerment and may often draw on family based social capital while the latter requires other cultural and management dynamics and resources. What is clear is that there is interest in a broader spectrum of garden types that respectively need to be researched and supported in different ways. The need for information, training and access to locally appropriate plant information and garden techniques is seen to apply to garden types across the spectrum from small scale, livelihood driven gardens through to potential new economic garden enterprises. USEFUL RESOURCES AND INFORMATION Findings from both surveys are being used to help us identify information gaps that RIG Network can contribute to. There are some great garden stories from the Garden Profile survey. We will be in contact soon with everyone who participated in that survey to discuss possible publication of their garden stories on the RIG website, and to ask them if they may be willing to be linked up with other people who seek advice to set up similar gardens. Key areas where people indicated they would like to access better information were: The right plant for the right place Over 66% of respondents indicated that it is hard to find good information about suitable food plants that are appropriate to their local conditions. And Lack of knowledge, appropriate plants and techniques for specific environments was also ranked among the top ten obstacles to sustainable food gardens. Funding and other sources of support to establish food gardens While we received a range of general answers about where support might be sought from different sectors (government, business, Foundations and other), this remains an area where people find it difficult to access useful information. New enterprise/project models to explore with communities A number of interesting different food production enterprise and project models were suggested, some hypothetical and some based on projects currently underway. Strong interest was expressed in participating in workshops or discussion forums to explore new enterprise/project models for local food garden initiatives in remote Indigenous communities.

5 Key areas where useful information has been made available that we will work to write up include: Activities communities use to build ownership and involvement in local food gardens and food production. Both surveys generated information about great activities that communities and project leaders have initiated to build local ownership and participation Permaculture resources and contacts Some great new contacts and resources have been provided. Interest expressed to better identify people with specific experience relevant to particular northern and central Australian environs, and for different scales of garden Bush food resources information about training, and access to locally relevant information Good information provided about useful references and nurseries stocking bush food plants that we will add to bush foods information on the RIG website. Notably, access to seed and plant stock for specific locations, and at particular times of year, is a challenge being identified by various garden initiatives (for environmental and cultural reasons). New enterprise/project models existing and hypothetical case studies and stories (plus Garden Profile garden stories). RIG NETWORK ACTIVITIES We were keen to hear from you about your interest in activities that RIG Network is planning to help connect people and projects with useful information to help support food gardens and the communities and people who are working to progress them. The RIG Information Survey invited people to nominate their interest in five RIG activity areas and we are very excited by the interest people have expressed in these and we will be getting in touch with each of you in the next few weeks to discuss action in the areas that you expressed interest in. All 21 respondents to this section of the survey section indicated they would like to attend a RIG workshop; 48% of respondents offered to provide content to the website; 48% said they would like to partner with us to host a local RIG workshop, almost one third of respondents said they would like to coordinate a local RIG Stakeholder group, and some of you even said you d like to sponsor RIG Network Special Projects! We look forward to being in touch further and welcome your feedback on this survey report, and your further ideas, suggestions and contributions to the RIG Network website and discussion forums that you might like to add at. Anthea Fawcett Director, RIG Network Southern Exchange, Sydney

6 Attachment 1. The 13 food garden types that participants were asked to consider and rate in terms of how common they currently are, and in terms of their potential to contribute social and economic benefits to remote Indigenous communities. Type of Garden Household gardens Extended family gardens Community gardens Community market gardens Commercial market gardens Commercial orchards School gardens CDEP gardens for horticulture training Community landscaping food plants and shade trees Bush food production enterprises Gardens that include bush foods via landscaping Remnant gardens/orchards that can be retrofitted/used Outstation gardens