LA INCLUSIÓN ESCOLAR DEL ALUMNO CON SÍNDROME DE DOWN

It is in this temporal and political context that my research has been undertaken. In early 2002, I bought land in the LSC, having stayed in both the upper and lower catchments on and off since I moved to Tasmania in 1998, and having lived in the lower catchment for two years prior to the purchase of the land.

Not long after arriving in Tasmania, I spent a year working part time for the Southern Midlands Landcare Committee, mapping weeds with landholders on over fifty properties in the Midlands. A number of these properties were in the upper LSC. I continued on to develop a weed management plan for the Southern Midlands Council. On occasion I stayed with the Landcare Coordinator and her husband on their grazing property in the upper LSC.

After finishing the weed plan I was asked by the GSB Landcare Coordinator if I would develop a similar plan on behalf of the GSBLMC for the Municipality. Over the 18 months it took to develop the plan I would often stay with the GSB Landcare Coordinator at his family property in the lower LSC.

The process of mapping weeds and developing the plans resulted in gaining an early understanding of the landscape and some of the issues, as well as meeting many landholders throughout both Municipalities, including both the upper and lower LSC. After completing the GSB Weed Management Plan I worked for another two years on contract to the GSBLMC as the Waterwatch Coordinator13 in the Municipality. During that period I was renting a farmhouse in the lower catchment close to the coast.

13 _{Waterwatch was a national community water quality monitoring network that encouraged all Australians to become active in the} protection of their waterways.

31 | P a g e As the coordinator of a community water quality monitoring program I was on a steep learning curve with regard to the complexity of water and catchment management issues in the three administrative catchments of the GSB Municipality – the Prosser, Little Swanport and Swan-Apsley (Figure 3).

FIGURE 3: Three administrative catchments in GSB and surrounding Municipal boundaries

I also became aware of, and intermittently and indirectly involved in, the development of the LSCPwhich the Landcare Coordinators from both Councils and the recently

32 | P a g e Preparation of the plan was one of many NRM projects managed by the Landcare officers, who were housed and supported by the two Councils. In 2001, there was much talk of the cessation of the Australian Government funding program, the Natural

Heritage Trust 1 (NHT 1)14 and concern about an uncertain future for the NRM activities that involved many landholders and community members. I had decided to go back to study so it seemed an appropriate time to stand back and see how things worked out. In 2003, I returned to various kinds of work in the local area, enrolled in part-time masters by research at the University of Tasmania and became immersed in NRM again as a volunteer. The demise of NHT 1 and a national policy shift to create strategic regional NRM under a second round of Natural Heritage Trust (NHT 2)15 funding meant that coordination and facilitation support for community engagement in NRM disappeared almost overnight. Although the need was still evident in the LSC there was no funding available to pay for coordinators or project officers. The national policy and funding context is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.

In December 2002, still standing back from all this change, I was nominated as the ‘Research / Waterwatch’ representative on the LSC WMPCG (DPIW, 2005b p. 4; LSCMPIC, 2008, p.12). Then, in February 2003 I was nominated and accepted as a

14 The Natural Heritage Trust Act 1997 (the Trust) was set up by the Australian Government to help restore and conserve Australia's environment and natural resources which included a number of programs including the Waterwatch program. The Trust had three overarching objectives; (i) Biodiversity, (ii) Conservation and the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, (iii) Community Capacity Building and Institutional Change. The Trust provided funding for environmental activities at three levels: 1. National investment, delivered in accordance with the National Strategic Plan. 2. Regional investment, delivered in conjunction with the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and, 3. local action, delivered through the Australian Government Envirofund

(http://www.nht.gov.au/nht/index.html accessed 8 August 2010).

15 _{In 2001, the Australian Government extended the Trust for a further five years, from 2002-03 to 2006-07. The 2004 Budget} boosted the Trust with a further $300 million, extending the funding until 2007-08. The Framework for the Extension of the Trust in 2002, based on lessons learnt from the first phase of the Trust and the establishment of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (the NAP), brought about a fundamental shift towards a more targeted approach to environmental and natural resource management in Australia under the second phase of the Trust. This resulted in a regional approach to NRM nationally. The model for regional investment under the extension of The Trust was based on that used for the NAP, including: bilateral and regional partnership agreements, investment against accredited regional plans, the provision of foundation and priority funding (http://www.nht.gov.au/nht/index.html accessed 8 August 2010).

33 | P a g e member on the newly established LSCMPIC. At the inaugural meeting I was nominated and accepted the position of Secretary (LSCMPIC, 2008, p.14).

This autobiographical material is included here because these experiences were instrumental in my decision to use qualitative and largely ethnographic methods to examine what was happening in my own community. It is in such experiences that one finds the roots of many interesting discussions and many challenges, as the LSCMPIC began the difficult task of implementing the catchment plan in what would prove to be increasingly difficult climate. The Little Swanport ‘water wars’ were already well underway. As a member of both the LSCMPIC and the WMPCG, and as a community member living and working within the catchment and surrounding towns, it turned out I was right in the midst of it.

The ‘water wars’ form a complex and ongoing struggle. They are the perceived conflicts of water management such as the construction of water storage versus

environmental flows, agricultural cropping versus aquaculture production, and health of aquatic ecosystems versus pesticide use in the catchment. For me, these conflicts

provided an opportunity to dig deeper in order to understand what appeared to be a range of incompatible objectives for a finite resource.

From 2003 to 2005, as well as waitressing, rousabouting and volunteering, I was also engaged in consultancy work. Among other contracts I was employed by the LSCMPIC as a project officer to progress the development of a Sustainable Grazing on Saline Lands (SGSL) trial, and asked to assist the Little Swanport Environmental Management System (EMS) Committee to develop an EMS for the three oyster companies operating in the estuary. Some of the projects that I was involved with are discussed in greater depth in Chapter 4.

In May 2005 I successfully applied for the position of NRM Officer for the GSB Council. I formally resigned from the LSCMPIC in my voluntary capacity as Secretary and instead become Council’s NRM support for the committee in a paid capacity. I was

34 | P a g e doing the same job but now being paid and had the legitimacy and positional authority to do what was necessary to implement the plan.

After many hours of work and much negotiation, in early 2007 NRM South, the regional natural resource management body in southern Tasmania, funded a catchment extension officer (CEO) to work in partnership with both Councils and the LSCMPIC to identify a way forward for integrated catchment management in the Southern NRM Region. The CEO was also given the task of supporting the LSCMPIC in implementing the

catchment plan. At last the LSCMPIC had the support necessary to make progress in achieving the task at hand.

It is in this physical, political and personal context that the research has been undertaken. It was a difficult period for many of those involved in these ICM and NRM processes. I was a participant in both the physical and intellectual landscape, wearing many hats over a long period of time, and here that necessitates a qualitative methodology: a weaving of description, interpretation, reflection and participatory action to get to the core of what has been happening and to understand how, perhaps, the processes of NRM and ICM could have been more positive for those involved. Furthermore as an applied researcher continuing to work closely with the LSCPIC and as an NRM professional I have the unique opportunity to review how the outcomes of this research have been applied and to what degree of success.