Bluegum timberbelts for profitable landcare

Revegetation with tasmanian bluegums in wide-spaced timberbelts appears to offer high returns, especially in areas where high winds cause crop and stock losses and where land can be saved from salinity and wwaterlogging. In the South Coast and South-WestRegions, timberbelts will complement existing enterprises and so optimise overall land use. Graziers should be able to maintaine their stock numbers while creating an on-farm superannuation package. The Department of Conservation and Land Management has been a major player in the development of bluegum timberbelts, but a few farmers are now adapting this concept to better suit their needs. Initial results are exciting, but alternative designs could be even more profitable

Eastern wheatbelt farm economics

This booklet outlines the current cost structure and profitability of a farm in the eastern wheatbelt. Rather than being figures for an \u27average farm\u27, they reflect the use of practices widely recommended by the Department of Agriculture on a typical property in the area. This does not mean the Department of Agriculture believes every farm in the area should be run this way. The best way to run any particular farm depends on the resources and objectives of that farmer

Report on Kellogg Rural Adjustment Unit (KRAU) Conference

The aim was for the 170 attenders to define how much productivity increases could help farmers in the main rural industries, and what size increases are likely in the foreseeable future (especially the next 5 years recommend feasible Government and industry action to stimulate increases in farm productivity

Civic pride and political expediency : The enduring founding principles for local government in Germany and England?

This paper highlights how the contrasting founding principles of local government in Germany and England has affected the capacity of municipalities in both countries since 1800. Drawing on detailed interviews with practitioners in the ‘twin towns’ of Newcastle and Gelsenkirchen, as well as academic literature discussing the history of local governance in the two countries, it takes a historical institutionalist perspective (March and Olsen 1989; Pierson 2000) to show how the reasons why modern local authorities were created have shaped their future activities and capacity. For example, the British Government established municipalities in England for reasons of political expediency (primarily to deal with the public health crisis caused by the Industrial Revolution), whereas their German counterparts were set up to provide a means of civic representation and foster local pride. The result is that English local authorities have generally acted as functional agents that deliver services on behalf of central government, whilst German councils are more readily viewed as the democratic embodiment of local communities.This perception, combined with the legal and resource parameters within which they operate, has meant that English local authorities have significantly less institutional capacity than their German counterparts – and therefore they usually require external support to address a particular public policy issue effectively. In contrast, German municipalities are much more able to exert hierarchical authority and shape their communities directly

Power and capacity in local climate governance : Comparing English and German municipalities

This paper, which is based on fieldwork research in the comparable 'twin towns' of Newcastle and Gelsenkirchen, compares how the municipalities in these cities have worked with other actors to increase their capacity in climate policy-making. Drawing in particular on theories of resource dependency in intergovernmental relations (Rhodes 1981) and urban governance (Stone 1989), it introduces a new model for mapping vertical and horizontal power relationships at the subnational level. By applying this model to the empirical cases, it identifies how central-local relations in England are looser than those in Germany, and how this results in weaker municipal institutions. This has meant that Newcastle Council has had to rely more on local stakeholders to achieve its objectives when compared to Gelsenkirchen, and has also reduced its ability to exert hierarchical authority over other bodies. Such findings have significant implications for proponents of ‘localism’, since they suggest that greater independence for municipal governments could strengthen societal actors at the expense of the local state. This might result in policies reflecting the private (rather than the public) interest, thereby increasing concerns about democratic accountability. They also suggest that critics of the opaque and bureaucratic nature of ‘joint-decision’ systems should consider what the potential alternative might entail: a weaker state that has less capacity for co-ordinated action and is more reliant on private actors in policy-making processes

Hierarchy and compromise in English and German municipal development projects

This paper draws on over 30 fieldwork interviews to compare the governance of urban development projects in the “twin towns” of Newcastle (England) and Gelsenkirchen (Germany). It finds that Gelsenkirchen has been able to adopt a more hierarchical approach to stipulating the sustainability criteria of new developments, whereas Newcastle has had to work more closely with other partners and seek greater compromises in building design.These different approaches map on to the characteristic “policy styles” associated with England and Germany (Richardson, 1982) and are shaped by the different institutional contexts within which local government operates in each context (Type II and Type I multi-level governance respectively (Hooghe and Marks, 2003)). Various different organisations have had some responsibility for Science Central, the development project in Newcastle, which means the council has to work horizontally to have the capacity to implement its policy objectives. In contrast, Gelsenkirchen has kept the management of its Ebertstrasse redevelopment in-house and thereby been able to exercise hierarchicalauthority over the project to ensure it contains ambitious sustainability features

Climate change mitigation in English and German municipalities : Dynamic governance versus persistent government?

This paper illustrates the contrasting governance approaches of comparable ‘postindustrial’ municipalities in England and Germany – the twin towns of Newcastle upon Tyne and Gelsenkirchen. Drawing on Hooghe and Marks’ (2003) characterisations of “Type I” and “Type II” multilevel governance systems, it uses data from over a dozen in depth interviews with practitioners in each city to highlight how the council in Gelsenkirchen has been able to take a much more hierarchical approach to climate change mitigation than its counterpart in Newcastle. This is partly due to Germany’s long tradition of local autonomy (Norton, 1994), which has helped Gelsenkirchen to develop its strategic capacity with support from the regional, state and federal governments. Although English municipalities have enjoyed greater de jure autonomy since the UK Government granted them a general power of competence in 2011, the study found that they are unable to punch at the same weight as their German counterparts in local governance arrangements.Using the characterisations of Treib et al. (2007), the paper therefore places Newcastle towards the ‘governance’ end of the spectrum, whereas Gelsenkirchen lies closer to a more traditional ‘government’ model. It also argues that the concept of distinct “policy styles” for specific countries (Richardson, 1982), which previous studies have investigated almost exclusively at the national level, is also relevant for municipalities