 |
Chapter 3 - Institutional Arrangements
Exotic pest management is a shared responsibility of government,
industry and community and each plays a part and bears the costs of response to
the threat to consequences of it.[221]
Introduction
3.1
While Chapter 1 examined the economic, environmental
and social costs that invasive species pose to Australia,
in this chapter the Committee examines the complex governmental arrangements which
are currently in place for the management of invasive species. The Australian
Constitution confers certain specific powers on the Commonwealth Government.
All other powers not so conferred reside with the individual State/Territory
Governments. The Committee acknowledges that while the on-the-ground management
of invasive species is largely the responsibility of the State and Territory
governments, the Commonwealth government plays a significant coordination and
leadership role. As discussed later in this report the complex
cross-jurisdictional structure does not always result in the most effective
management and control of invasive species.
Ministerial Council
3.2
Ministerial Councils facilitate the national
implementation of plans and proposals that would not otherwise be possible
because of the limitations imposed by the division of constitutional powers
between the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments.
3.3
The division of Constitutional powers, coupled with a
desire on the part of the Commonwealth/State/Territory governments to discuss
agricultural matters generally, was the catalyst for the creation, in 1934, of
the Australian Agricultural Council. For similar reasons Ministerial Councils
dealing with a wide range of issues, including natural resource matters, have
been established over the years.
3.4
During 1999-2000 debate on the impact of natural
resource degradation in Australia
began in earnest, resulting in the establishment of the Natural Resources
Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC). All natural resource management issues
previously dealt with by existing Councils, such as the Australia New Zealand
Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC), the Agriculture and Resource
Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) and the Ministerial
Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture (MCFFA), were transferred to the
NRMMC.
3.5
The residual industry-related issues of these latter
two Councils were brought together under the Primary Industries Ministerial
Council (PIMC).
Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC)[222]
3.6
The NRMMC consists of the Commonwealth/State/Territory and New Zealand government ministers responsible for primary industries,
natural resources, environment and water policy. The Australian Local
Government Association and Papua New Guinea are formal observers. The NRMMC is jointly chaired by
the Commonwealth Government Ministers responsible for Environment and Heritage,
and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Meetings of the NRMMC are held in
camera; biannually and decisions of the NRMMC are arrived at by consensus.
3.7
The NRMMC is the peak
government forum for consultation, coordination and, where appropriate,
integration of action by governments on natural resource management issues. The
objective of the NRMMC is:
to promote
the conservation and sustainable use of Australia's natural resources.[223]
3.8
This is reflected in the terms of reference for the
NRMMC which outline, amongst other things, its role in developing policies and
strategies for national approaches to the conservation, sustainable use and
management of Australia's
land, water, vegetation and biological resources. The terms of reference
include the NRMMC's role in the development and implementation of national
natural resource management programs including the National Action Plan for
Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) and the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT).
3.9
The Committee heard that the NRMMC recognises the
threat posed by invasive species. Dr Dickson,
Assistant Secretary, Natural Resource Management Policy Branch, Department of
Environment and Heritage told the Committee that:
In April this year the Australian government significantly
raised the profile and the importance of this issue [invasive species] for the
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council and gained agreement from their
state and territory ministers to look at options for developing a robust
national framework to prevent significant new invasive species establishing in
Australia and reducing the impacts of the major pests and weeds already
present.[224]
3.10
Dr Dickson
went on to say:
They also were very cognisant of the significant and growing
threat posed by invasive species and, in particular, the impact and the
contribution to biodiversity loss in Australia.
The standing committee to that council are investigating the options. They have
just started that process now. They will be working with the primary industry
standing committee and preparing a report for council on what options there may
be for early consideration in 2005.[225]
3.11
The intention of the NRMMC in initiating the
development of options to improve the robustness of the national framework is
to have the coordination and frameworks in place that can enable effective
regional approaches to work.[226] The
Committee commends the NRMMC and for its acknowledgement of this issue and for
initiating action. It expresses its hope that the investigation will be timely
and provide recommendations for action that help Australia
preserve its diverse native flora and fauna from further threat by invasive
species. It hopes that the creation of a coordinated framework will allow for
more timely and targeted application of monies to address invasive species.
3.12
Having heard evidence about the devastating impact of
cane toads on the northern quolls in Kakadu and its potential to cause
biodiversity loss in areas that it is spreading into, the Committee welcomes the
directive from the NRMMC to the Vertebrate Pest Committee to investigate
options for a national approach to cane toads. The Committee, however, notes
the lack of timeliness in this directive. The impact of cane toads is well
known and the Committee notes that there is an element of 'too little too late'
in issuing this directive at such a late stage.
Natural Resource Management
Standing Committee
3.13
The NRMMC is supported the
Natural Resource Management Standing Committee (NRMSC). The Standing Committee
comprises the Departmental Heads/Chief Executive Officers of the relevant Commonwealth/State/Territory and New Zealand government agencies responsible for natural resource policy
issues in these areas. Papua New Guinea
is a formal observer. The NRMSC is jointly chaired by the Secretaries of the
Departments of Environment and Heritage and Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry.
3.14
The NRMSC's main objectives are to support the NRMMC in
the achievement of its objectives and to develop cooperative and coordinated
approaches to matters of concern to the NRMMC. The NRMSC:
-
Directs the work of its subordinate committees;
-
Secures cooperation between members; and
-
Advises Council on the initiation, review and
development of Standing Committee activities.
3.15
Two major advisory committees
underpin the work of the NRMSC. They are the Natural Resource Policies and
Programs Committee and the Marine and Coastal Committee.
3.16
The Natural Resource
Policies and Programs Committee (NRPPC) was created in early 2004 through the
amalgamation of the previous Programs Committee and the Land, Water and
Biodiversity Committee. High priority issues selected to set the direction for
the NRPPC work plan for the 12 months to March 2005 are:
-
soil and water quality decline;
-
water policy - developing a complementary role
to several multi-jurisdictional issues;
-
climate change and adaptation;
-
effectiveness of regional NRM delivery; and
3.17
NRPPC also liaises with the Marine and Coastal
Committee and other relevant bodies as appropriate on matters relevant to the
NRPPC.
3.18
The role of the Marine and Coastal Committee includes
advising and supporting the NRMSC on issues of national significance relating
to the conservation and ecologically sustainable development of marine and
coastal ecosystems and resources.
3.19
The National Introduced Marine Pest Coordination
Committee reports to the NRMSC and the Australian Transport Ministerial Council
through this committee.
Primary Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC)
3.20
The Primary Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC)
consists of the Commonwealth/State/Territory
and New Zealand
government ministers responsible for agriculture, food, fibre, forestry,
fisheries and aquaculture industries/production and rural adjustment policy. The
PIMC results from the amalgamation of the previous ministerial councils,
ARMCANZ and MCFFA, that dealt with elements of these issues.
3.21
The PIMC is the peak government forum for consultation,
coordination and, where appropriate, integration of action by governments on
primary industries issues. It first met in May 2002. The objective of the PIMC
is:
to develop
and promote sustainable, innovative and profitable agriculture,
fisheries/aquaculture, and food and forestry industries[228]
Primary Industries Standing
Committee
3.22
The PIMC is supported by the Primary Industries
Standing Committee (PISC). The Standing Committee comprises the chief executive
officers of the relevant Commonwealth/State/Territory
and New Zealand
government agencies responsible for policy in these areas.
3.23
The PIMC is more of a peripheral player on issues of
invasive species than the NRMMC, however, it has the scope to become involved
in invasive species issues that have an affect on primary production.
National Strategies and Committees
3.24
The management of established pests is fundamentally
the responsibility of State, Territory and Local Governments as well as
landholders and industry. However, the Commonwealth plays a major role in
developing the strategic framework that stakeholders implement.
The Commonwealth strongly encourages
cooperation and partnerships between community organisations and government at
all levels so that all Australians take joint responsibility for the
environment.[229]
3.25
Cooperative arrangements also exist between the Commonwealth,
States and Territories to assist in identifying and responding to invasive
species.
Australian Weeds Committee
3.26
The Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) provides an
inter-governmental mechanism for identification and resolution of weed issues
at a national level. The AWC has existed in various forms since 1996 and in
September 2002, following the restructuring of the Ministerial Councils, the
AWC members became responsible for all weeds in their jurisdiction (primary
industries, forestry and environmental).
3.27
The AWCs purpose is:
To provide an inter-Governmental mechanism for identification
and resolution of weed issues at a National level for Australia.[230]
3.28
The role of the Australian Weeds Committee is to
develop policy and programs for a national response to weeds to ensure an
integrated approach to all aspects of weed management. In its submission the
ACT Government notes that the success of the Australian Weeds Committee is, in
part, due to the level of support that it receives and the fact that there is a
funded secretariat.[231]
3.29
The AWC has developed the National Weeds Strategy and
established a Weeds of National Significance list. The National Weeds Strategy
provides the framework to reduce the impact of weeds on the sustainability of Australia's
productive capacity and natural ecosystems, through the establishment of a
number of goals, objectives for action and outcomes.
3.30
To be successful, the Strategy requires a cooperative
approach between all levels of government, industry, land holders and land and
water managers, community groups and the general public.
3.31
The Strategy is implemented by governments and industry
on advice from the Australian Weeds Committee.
Vertebrate Pests Committee
3.32
The Vertebrate Pests Committee is a sub-committee of
the NRPPC, under the Natural Resource Management Standing Committee.[232]
3.33
The Vertebrate Pests
Committee comprises one member from each Australian State/Territory, and New Zealand. The CSIRO, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Department of
Environment and Heritage and Biosecurity Australia also provide one member each. The breadth of the issues
considered by the Vertebrate Pests Committee requires a whole of government
approach from each jurisdiction. This is achieved through a range of
inter-agency communications and through more formal processes such as the NSW
Pest Animal Council.[233]
3.34
The Vertebrate Pests Committee identifies nationally
significant vertebrate pest issues, recommends appropriate management actions,
and develops principles, national policies, strategies and programs relating to
vertebrate pests to ensure the conservation, sustainable use and management of Australia’s
land, water and biological resources.[234]
3.35
In its submission the ACT Government noted that the
ability of the Vertebrate Pests Committee to coordinate and disseminate
information is hindered by the absence of a funded secretariat.[235]
3.36
The Vertebrate Pests Committee monitors research in
each jurisdiction but is not resourced to conduct research. The Vertebrate
Pests Committee strongly supports research to develop new or improved control
techniques and understanding of vertebrate pest biology and ecology.[236]
3.37
At the public hearing on 18 June 2004 the Committee was advised that a national vertebrate
pest strategy is being initiated by the Vertebrate Pests Committee.[237] The Committee heard that the
intention is for the national strategy to address the impact and management of
invasive animal species and will have a similar approach to that developed for
weeds under the National Weeds Strategy.
National Introduced Marine Pests Coordination Group
(NIMPCG)[238]
3.38
The NIMPCG and the Coordinating Committee for
Introduced Marine Pest Emergencies (CCIMPE) were established in 2000 as an
interim mechanism pending the development of a comprehensive national system
for the Prevention and Management of Introduced Marine Pest Incursions. NIMPCG is developing a national strategy for managing
introduced marine pests. The national strategy will cover potential
introductions via all vectors, including vessels, aquaculture and the aquarium
trade.[239]
3.39
The NIMPCG was established to recommend detailed
reforms to implement a national system for the Prevention and Management of
Introduced Marine Pest Incursions. The NIMPMC reports to the NRMMC, through the
NRMSC, and to the Australian Transport Council (ATC). The ATC is a Ministerial
forum for Commonwealth, State and Territory consultations and provides advice
to governments on the coordination and integration of all transport and road
policy issues at a national level including. The scope of the NIMPCG includes:
-
Prevention systems operating at the pre-border,
border and post-border levels;
-
Coordinated emergency response to new incursions
(implemented through CCIMPE under interim arrangements);
-
Ongoing control of introduced marine pests
already in Australia;
-
Supporting components for research and
development, community preparedness, education and training; and
-
Explicit agreement on the statutory framework of
the National System, and secure funding arrangements.
3.40
Preliminary work on the national system has included
identifying the requirements for a system to regulate the ballast water of both
international and coastal shipping, and on a framework for the management of
hull fouling pests. Further development is contingent on finalising the
agreement between governments on the legislative and financial framework.
3.41
In late 2002 a High Level Officials Group (HLG) was
formed by the NRMMC to provide advice on appropriate legislative, governance
and funding approaches for the implementation of the national system. The HLG
has conducted extensive consultation with stakeholders, including the shipping,
aquarium, aquaculture, fishing and tourism industries and its report was
submitted to the NRMSC for discussion at its October 2003 meeting.[240] It was also considered by the
Australian Transport Council.
3.42
Dr Bax,
Senior Research
Scientist, CSIRO Marine Research, told the Committee that the national system
will be a fully costed model, with costs being shared by government and
industry. Consequently, an intergovernmental agreement needs to be developed
before a national system can be put in place.[241]
3.43
The CSIRO submission stated that the impact of
measures, to all stakeholders, recommended in the HLG report, would be $40m per
annum. The shipping industry is expected to bear a cost of approximately $21m
per annum, a significant portion of which it is already carrying in relation to
ballast water management and anti-fouling measures.[242] The CSIRO noted that industry is
already bearing significant costs in relation to managing marine pests, such as
through ballast water exchange, anti-fouling of vessels and the cleaning of
aquaculture equipment. However, it also noted that industry is likely to be
significant beneficiaries of measures to address the threat posed by marine
pests.[243]
3.44
An area that is not covered in the budget laid down by
the HLG is ongoing management and control research of marine pests. At the
public hearing in Adelaide Dr Bax, Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Marine
Research, stated that:
Most of the national systems is
directed to prevention and therefore there are management standards and
protocols; legislation will be introduced to reduce the risk of further spread
of the species around Australia
and also more species coming into Australia.
The area which I see as lacking is the response to those species which are
already here. Could we, for example, develop techniques to reduce their
abundance and therefore reduce their spread around the rest of the country?[244]
3.45
One of the key reasons why Australia
is able to implement a national strategy for marine invasives is due to the
significant body of research in this area that has been conducted by the CSIRO
since the Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests was established in
1994.[245] This research has been
funded through the CSIRO, shipping industry, NHT grants and other sources. It
has conducted research to establish the extent of the marine pest problem and
has assisted in developing tools for preventing further introductions. An
example of these tools is the adoption of ballast water management practices by
AQIS in July 2001. The Committee heard that it took seven years to develop the
science that went into the ballast water risk assessment for the ballast water
management plan that was introduced in July 2001.The rest of the world has followed
Australia's
lead through the International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water &
Sediments which was adopted by consensus at the Diplomatic Conference at
the IMO in London in February 2004.
3.46
The need for action to be taken to address marine pests
was highlighted by Dr Bax,
Senior Research
Scientist, CSIRO Marine Research, who told the Committee that:
The management of marine pests has the opportunity to provide
major environmental benefits to both industry and other areas. An interesting
thing in the marine environment is that a lot of effort now is being put in to
establishing marine protected areas around the country as a way of protecting
biodiversity. But if those marine protected areas get invaded by marine pests,
as some of them are already, then that significantly reduces their
environmental value. So marine pests need to be one of the suite of management
actions which occur in the marine environment.[246]
3.47
Developing on this point, Dr
Bax told the Committee that:
my perspective as a scientist is that it took us seven years to
produce the science which went into the ballast water risk assessment for the
ballast water management plan introduced in July 2001. It is going to take us
equally long to develop management and control techniques for existing species,
and we really need to start now if we want to have a response in the next 10
years or so.[247]
3.48
The Committee hopes that national strategy will
recognise this issue and support research to help preserve and protect marine
biodiversity from invasive species.
Coordinating Committee for Introduced Marine Pest
Emergencies (CCIMPE)[248]
3.49
The CCIMPE was established in 2000 as an interim
mechanism pending the development of a comprehensive national system for the
Prevention and Management of Introduced Marine Pest Incursions. CCIMPE consists
of relevant agencies of the Australian Government, including CSIRO, and the
States and Northern Territory.
3.50
CCIMPE oversees a national emergency response network
for marine pests and considers State and Northern
Territory requests for access to a national
contingency cost-sharing arrangement. Up to $5 million may be made available to
combat an introduced marine pest outbreak of major concern, that meets certain
criteria, including being amenable to eradication.
3.51
Dr Bax,
Senior Research
Scientist, CSIRO Marine Research, advised the CCIMPE has responded to six
invasions since 2001. These include Caribbean tube worm in Cairns, caulerpa
taxafolia in New South Wales and South Australia and the Northern Pacific Sea
Star when it reached Inverloch in Victoria.[249]
3.52
An example of the emergency cost sharing arrangement being
accessed is when an infestation of Asian Green Mussels (Perna viridis) were identified during cleaning of a seized foreign
vessel in Trinity Inlet, Cairns. CCIMPE
determined that the first, investigatory, stage of an emergency response was
appropriate. This was implemented by the Queensland Government, with the
support of $50,000 from the contingency cost sharing arrangement, and involved
the inspection of high-risk vessels, and the removal of any Asian Green Mussels
found, as well as ongoing monitoring. A total of 16 mussels were found during
March - June 2002, and a further 21 mussels have been subsequently discovered.
Oversights
3.53
Currently there are no management committees for some
species, such as invertebrates or exotic pest fish. The Vertebrate Pests
Committee is currently undergoing a review and is considering the inclusion of
invasive freshwater fish species as part of their terms of reference.[250]
This raises the issue of whether there would be more benefit to the
protection of biodiversity if an Exotic Fish Committee was established that
looked at fresh water and marine fish, and was not limited to vertebrates.
3.54
In light of the eradication campaigns for the yellow
crazy ants on Christmas Island and the Red Imported Fire
Ants in Brisbane,
another issue that the Committee considers deserves consideration is that of
how best to address invertebrate pests.
Natural Heritage Trust
3.55
The Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) was established in
1997 with a funding budget of $1.249 billion. It was to operate from the
1996/97 to the 2001/02 financial year. The main source of funds was from
proceeds from the first partial privatisation of Telstra.
3.56
In the 2001 Federal Budget the Government announced an
additional $1 billion for the NHT, extending the funding for an additional 5
years, to 2006/07. Of this $1 billion, the Government expects to spend at least
$350 million on measures to improve Australia's
water quality.
3.57
The Natural Heritage Ministerial Board has approved
funding of $4 million per annum for strategic weed management projects for
2004-05 and 2005-06[251]. The Committee
appreciates that the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board has acknowledged the
problem of weeds but it notes that $4 million per annum for strategic weed
management projects pales in comparison the $4 billion per annum that weeds
cost the Australian people.
3.58
The NHT website advises:
There has been a fundamental shift in
the Trust towards a more targeted approach to
environmental and natural resource management in Australia. The Trust will
deliver important resource condition outcomes including improved water quality,
less erosion, improved estuarine health, improved vegetation management and
improved soil condition.[252]
3.59
Under the second phase of the NHT, known as NHT2, grant
arrangements have changed. The 'Framework for the implementation of the Natural
Heritage Trust extension' provides a strategic basis for investment against the
NHT's objectives at national, regional and local levels and includes the basis
for matching contributions from the states and territories.
3.60
NHT2 has three overarching objectives. They are:
-
Biodiversity Conservation;
-
Sustainable use of Natural Resources; and
-
Community Capacity Building and Institutional
Change.
3.61
NHT programs have been consolidated from twenty-three
programs under NHT1 to four programs under NHT2.
-
The Landcare
Program will invest in activities that contribute to reversing land
degredation and promoting sustainable agriculture.
-
The Bushcare
Program will invest in activities that contribute to conserving and
restoring habitat for the native flora and fauna which underpin the health of
the landscape.
-
The Rivercare
Program will invest in activities that contribute to improved water quality
and environmental conditions in river systems and wetlands.
-
The Coastcare
Program will invest in activities that contribute to protecting coastal
catchments, ecosystems and the marine environment.
Funding arrangements
3.62
Under NHT2 funds will be delivered at three levels:
-
Regional investments; and
-
A local action component.
3.63
National investments will cover national priorities,
addressing activities that have a national or broad-scale, rather than a
regional or local outcome. This will include Commonwealth only activities,
state-wide activities and those that cross State, Territory and regional
boundaries. It also addresses matters of direct Commonwealth jurisdiction, such
as those relating to Commonwealth waters. Funding for national delivery
components will generally be determined by the Commonwealth Government, without
calls for funding applications from the public. Proposals for statewide funding
will be made by the State and Commonwealth Governments.[253]
3.64
Regional investments are the principal
delivery mechanism for NHT2. The model for regional investment under NHT2 is
based on that used for the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.
Where appropriate the model developed for the National Action Plan for Salinity
and Water Quality should be followed.
Under this
model, investment is made on the basis of a regional natural resource
management plan, incorporating the major natural resource management issues in
the area.[254]
3.65
Agreement between the Commonwealth and State/Territory
Governments is to be reached in relation to activities that are given funding
at the regional level. Contributions from the Commonwealth Government are to be
matched with cash or in-kind contributions from State or Territories.
3.66
The Committee is encouraged that the national
competitive component and the regional competitive component recognise the fact
that some natural resource issues are better addressed on a larger scale,
rather than on a single region approach and allow for cross-regional collaboration.
Each of these components allows for cross-regional projects and also multiyear
projects.[255]
3.67
The move to provide support for multi-year projects is
also welcomed by the Committee as it heard considerable evidence regarding the
constraints of annual funding cycles.
3.68
At the local level community groups will be able to
apply for individual grants through the Commonwealth Government Envirofund.
These grants provide up to $30,000 to address local natural resource management
issues. It is aimed at groups that have had little or no previous engagement
with the NHT and aims to assist groups to undertake:
-
small on-ground projects tackling local
problems;
-
projects in areas where regional plans are not
yet well developed; and
-
important local projects.
3.69
As will be discussed in Chapter 4, evidence presented
to the Committee indicated that there were a number of concerns regarding the
Natural Resource Management approach to funding and short funding cycles.
Natural Resource Management - the local approach to funding
3.70
The 'Framework for the Extension of the Natural
Heritage Trust' states that one of the ten areas of activity that define the
scope of the NHT is:
preventing or controlling the
introduction and spread of feral animals, aquatic pests, weeds and other
biological threats to biodiversity;[256]
3.71
It also states that:
natural
resource management priorities will vary between regions and between
States/Territories, as will the extent to which the areas of activity
identified for Trust investment are addressed in regional plans.[257]
3.72
As a consequence of these variations the NHT
acknowledges that each regional plan will not necessarily address all the ten
areas of activity of the NHT and that equal emphasis may not be applied to all
components of a single area of activity within a regional plan.
3.73
Dr Pressland,
General Manager, Catchment and Regional Planning, Queensland Department of
Natural Resources, Mines and Energy told the Committee of the different funding
structure under NHT2.
The grants
under NHT2 are very different from under NHT1. The majority of the funds go to
regional bodies. For example, in Queensland we are establishing 15 regional groups throughout the state
to deal with programs such as NAP and NHT. The majority of the NHT funding goes
directly through those bodies to address issues of priority that are identified
in NRM plans, which those groups have developed.[258]
3.74
Mr Willcocks,
General Manager, Landcare and Sustainable Industries, Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry told the Committee that:
The major
investment under the Natural Heritage Trust is to address regional priorities
identified in accredited regional natural resource management plans and
investment strategies. Weed management may be funded through the trust and it
is possible to obtain three-year funding for such priority projects.[259]
3.75
The Committee heard evidence critical of the regional
focus of the Commonwealth Governments' move to providing funding under the NHT
to NRM bodies, which would then have responsibility for allocating the monies
to projects they identify as priorities. A number of witnesses expressed
concern that invasive species will not be addressed unless they are given
priority over competing issues by the NRM bodies.
3.76
While discussing this arrangement Dr
McFadyen, CEO, CRC for Australian Weed
Management told the Committee that:
The other
problem with the regional bodies is that the funds are given for all natural
resource management. So every weed control or invasive species project is
competing with water resources and quality problems, riparian issues and
erosion and all sorts of other things. Again, there is very often a failure to
take a strategic view, because they look at the regional issues.[260]
3.77
A number of witnesses advised that the impact of the
regional focus was that funds were allocated to issues that are of priority in
the local area. The Committee heard that this may occur at the expense of
issues such as sleeper weeds which may have a significantly greater impact on
the economy and environment than issues identified by the NRM body but which
may not be seen as a priority issue by the local NRM body and therefore not
targeted for action.
3.78
The lack of a strategic view can mean that an issue
which could have been addressed, in its initial stage, with a small outlay of
money may end up costing significantly more in a few years time when it comes
to the attention of the NRM body. An example of this is sleeper weeds which
often do not come to the attention of land owners until they have become a
significant weed issue. Developing on this point Dr
McFadyen, CEO, CRC for Australian Weed
Management told the Committee that:
The problem
with that [NHT funding] is that if you are a regional group such as, let us
say, the Fitzroy Basin or Burnett-Mary, your weed issues are the things that are
currently a serious problem and that is what you apply for money for. Something
that you are told will be a serious problem in 40 years time, if you do not do
anything now, does not come up.[261]
3.79
Dr Traill,
Councillor, Invasive Species Council, told the Committee that the focus of
NRMs:
tends to be on things that are already a problem-the things that
are almost always, therefore, not eradicable-rather than dealing with something
like cecropia, which is not yet a problem for any land-holder; it is not a
problem for anyone right now, so there is no reason that any individual or any
Landcare group would think to apply for it, unless they were particularly
sophisticated in seeing the future. [262]
3.80
Dr Traill
went on to say:
NRM committees are usually focused on dealing with existing
uneradicable pests, not sleepers or ones just starting off their life cycle.[263]
3.81
In response to the issue of whether NRM bodies will
identify new incursions of invasive species as priority issues in their area Mr
Wonder, Deputy Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, said:
If people on
the ground, familiar with their regional area, are talking to one another and
conscious of the issues that they feel they need to address either now or into
the future, they have every opportunity to make a judgement about what is there
now, what might be there in the future, what might be threatening and the like.
They can make all of those judgements. It is not confined to things reaching a
particular size before they are allowed to put them forward in regional plan,
so I do not agree with that characterisation. These issues can be addressed in
advance if they feel that they are of such significance that they want to do
something about them.[264]
3.82
The Committee expresses its concern over Mr
Wonder's final sentence:
These issues
can be addressed in advance if they feel that they are of such significance
that they want to do something about them.[265]
3.83
The places the onus on the NRM body having sufficient
knowledge to be aware of the future impact of newly establishing or sleeper
invasive species and to be prepared to address the issue in its early stages.
The Committee is concerned that this level of knowledge and foresight may not
be present in all NRM bodies, or may not be the majority voice on the body and
therefore the issue will not be adequately resourced.
3.84
The Committee heard that the regional focus of NHT2 is
about empowering NRM bodies to address issues that they identify as priorities.
Mr Wonder,
Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, told the
Committee that:
to go to
your question of where do invasive species fit vis-a-vis the other issues
facing them, yes, it would be fair to say they [NRM bodies] have to make
realistic judgements about what are the issues that they can best address and
take forward their natural resource management and environment aspirations. I
agree that is a very relevant consideration and that we have to make some
judgements about where invasive species fit vis-a-vis other matters. Sometimes
I would expect it to be much higher on the list. I think it will vary,
depending on the regional circumstances and the significance of weeds vis-a-vis
other issues they are addressing in that particular region.[266]
3.85
The Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ)
noted that the current funding arrangements do not allow for issues not
identified as priority issues by NRM bodies to be addressed. The LGAQ noted
that:
if
additional resources were provided it would enable those additional species to
be controlled. For instance, with hymenachne it might allow control in those
areas where it is not seen as a specific problem. I know from a local
government point of view that they [local government] have limited resources
and they make decisions as to where they are going to best spend those limited
resources for that year and the next few years, and other things do not get
addressed as part of that.[267]
3.86
Evidence overwhelming supports the argument that one of
the most cost-effective methods of managing the issue is to address problem
species before they have become widely established. The Committee expresses
concern that funding arrangements under NHT2 are contrary to this.
3.87
The Committee expresses concern that the funding
arrangements for NHT2 may mean that invasive species become further established
in Australia
as, unless they are identified as priority issues by a NRM, they will not
receive adequate funding to enable them to be addressed.
Local response to national issues
3.88
Funding through the National Weeds Program, that was
established under the first phase of the NHT, contributed to the development
and implementation of national strategies for the 20 individual Weeds of
National Significance. A number of witnesses advised that this program had been
effective at strategically addressing weed issues. Mr Walton, Senior Policy
Officer, Ecology, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Queensland
Government, advised that the program:
is
effectively rolling up. I believe there is an extension of a year for
coordinators -it is obviously really important to have a coordinator for the
species. The projects themselves will now be funded under NHT2 at a regional
level.[268]
3.89
Funding for the management of weeds of national
significance is not guaranteed under NHT2, to receive funding the issue needs
to be a priority for the NRM body. Dr Dickson,
Assistant Secretary, Natural Resource Management Policy Branch, Department of
Environment and Heritage advised that:
Once there is a regional plan
accredited and a regional investment strategy agreed, with various components
which could include managing or supporting control of weeds of national
significance...[269]
3.90
Concern was expressed by a number of witnesses that
under NHT2 funding for national weeds, such as hymenachne, is required to be sought
through NRMs for local response. The Committee heard from Mr
Low, Councillor, Invasive Species Council,
who argued that responding locally to national pest issues is not appropriate.
He told the Committee that:
One of the problems that have been
identified for me through the hymenachne management group is that they have
been told that to get funding to control hymenachne they are supposed to go
through the NRMs, the regional groups. This is not an appropriate process for a
national weed. It depends on those groups deciding that that particular weed is
a priority for them, and you are going to get an uneven approach. This is not
consistent. If you are saying that this is a national weed, it needs a national
response; but then you decentralise the funding.[270]
3.91
The Committee heard evidence that the ability of a
number of NRMs to reach agreement to adequately fund weeds of national
significance in an area is difficult to achieve. The LGAQ expressed concern
over the alignment of funding to NRM groups and NRMs determining funding
priorities in relation to weeds, especially the management of weeds of national
significance. It advised that a return to the older model of funding for weeds
of national significance may result in more favourable outcomes. Mr
Petrire, Natural Resource Management Project
Coordinator, LGAQ told the Committee that:
It was quite evident to me that the
process of funding, which has now been realigned to the NRM groups, is of
concern for local governments, in that getting all the regional bodies to
understand the priority of weeds of national significance is going to take a
lot of resources. To achieve some adequate funding across a number of regional
bodies to actually deal with the problem is obviously going to be a major
challenge.
It would probably be far more favourable if it went back to the
older model whereby applicants received funding directly from the Commonwealth
to manage weeds of national significance. There are concerns about how the
process has been devolved to those regional bodies and about the lack of real
support for those bodies to understand that these are high priorities, because
some of them have not even reflected weeds in the context of agricultural
importance. When you look at the NHT you see that weed management aligns to
environmentally significant areas only, so there are limitations on where that
can be impacted. Also, through the national action plan, where there is
substantially more money available to the NRM groups that qualify, weeds have
to relate primarily to water quality issues. It is difficult for applicants to
put in a project for funding that will target an invasive species that will
have an impact on environmentally significant areas.[271]
3.92
Further developing on the issue of weed management Mr
Petrie told the Committee that:
The key
issue is getting a model that effectively deals with infestation, and I do not
think the current proposal is going to support that.[272]
3.93
Another issue that witnesses identified with the NRM
structure is that they reflect local concerns and as peoples' definitions of
what is a weed or pest animal is not universal the outcome is that there will
often be different responses to the same issue. Mr
Low highlighted this when he told the
Committee that:
because of
differing values, you would not expect all NRMs to treat hymenachne equally as
a weed; in fact, some of them are likely to refuse to take it seriously.[273]
3.94
Mr Stewart,
Vice President, AgForce Cattle, AgForce Queensland,
provided support to the case against a regional funding focus when he told the
Committee that:
Landcare groups obviously get funded
through the NHT and so on, but Landcare groups tend to look at their own
region. National Landcare probably look at the national situation, but I think
that generally the Landcare groups-and I established the Townsville-Thuringowa
Landcare group in 1990, so I have a bit of a background in what they look
at-really concentrate on what is happening in their area. With regard to what
is happening elsewhere, there is not a great deal of knowledge that passes on
from one Landcare group to another. ... I suppose with regional funding, too, it
depends on who has the best story or the best connection-[274]
3.95
In response to claims that NRMs have broad strategic
focus and that their membership is local and may not have expertise, Mr Wonder,
Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, advised
that:
In New South Wales you have catchment management boards and in Victoria you have catchment management authorities and the like. In
those two instances, they are legislative and are appointed people who look at
the welfare and issues facing a very considerable geographic region. I do not
think it is appropriate to describe them as ‘local’.[275]
3.96
Mr Murnane,
Director, Policy and Governance Section, Natural Resource Management Team,
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry explained the accreditation
process for NRM bodies.
the regional NRM groups are asked to
identify the key priorities for natural resource management within their
regions, and they put those plans to the Australian and relevant state or
territory governments for a process that we call accreditation. On the basis of
those plans, the regions then put to us investment strategies with a three-year
time horizon to allow the funding of multiyear projects. Those investment plans
are reviewed annually so emerging or changing priorities can be reflected in
the investment decisions the governments make.[276]
3.97
Under NHT2 NRMs allocate resources to priority areas
that they have identified, in their region. This is in conflict with the
overwhelming evidence that the spread of pest animals and weeds is often not
stopped by physical barriers and certainly not stopped by ephemeral borders
such as entering a new catchment management zone. A lack of agreement on pest
issues, across NRMs and more widely, can mean that pests may not be effectively
managed if they are being treated in one area but not in neighbouring catchment
zones. This can void the endeavours of NRMs that manage pests.
3.98
An example of the detrimental impact of lack of the coordination
in the management of invasive species was highlighted by Mr
Stewart, Vice President, AgForce Cattle,
AgForce Queensland. He told the
Committee that:
We have had a whole lot of land-holders
who have been doing work on feral pigs and the neighbour does not do it and,
therefore, in 12 months he is back just where he was before. That is why we need
a national, coordinated program.[277]
3.99
The establishment of NRMs and the focal role that they
play as the central decision maker on funding for pest and weed management has
led to the creation of a bureaucratic structure. The LGAQ told the Committee
that local governments' role in managing pest animals and weeds had not
changed, however, under the new NRM model local government must apply to the
NRM for funds to undertake tasks which are additional to core business. The
Committee heard that:
if the money
goes to the bodies, it will still be local government that ends up doing the
work, but they will have to apply to the bodies to get the money to do the work.[278]
3.100 The
Committee expresses concern regarding indications that traditional funding is
being reduced as a result of new funding being received through the NHT. State
Government expenditure for environmental matters has reduced as NHT funding has
increased. Mr Petrie,
Natural Resource Management Project Coordinator, Local Government Association
of Queensland told the Committee that:
Essentially, the state agencies’
support and extension services have diminished since the introduction of the
regional NRM bodies. An example would be that one body is now employing a soil
conservation officer, which was identified as a core service provided by a
state agency that no longer occurs. That seems to be a common theme of concern
throughout a lot of the regions in Queensland.
So I would say that there is some correlation there.[279]
3.101 There
seems to be common concern amongst local governments and other stakeholders
with the introduction of the regional NRM framework in Queensland.
Length of the funding cycle
3.102 Under
the first phase of the NHT funds were generally provided for a 12 month period.
If additional funds were required, to continue projects beyond one year, they
had to be reapplied for. The short-term nature of the grant cycle meant that
funds could not always be strategically applied. Evidence the Committee heard
supports the argument that the management of invasive species is a long-term
issue and the provision of funds on an annual basis is problematic.
3.103 The
Committee notes that this issue has been identified and addressed under NHT2 which
allows for more strategic work through changed funding arrangements that
accomodate for multiyear projects.
3.104 The
short-term nature of funding caused problems for a number of witnesses. Issues
identified as a result of this included a reduced ability to strategically plan
and higher staff turnover on research
projects.
3.105 Dr
Peacock, CEO, Pest Animal Control CRC told
the Committee that:
It is almost a study in worst practice
research funding. I have done 10 years of research management. No-one funds for
one year on long-term projects except EA. I do not have any other clients that
do that.[280]
3.106 The
short-term nature of the grants also meant that organisations were required to
reapply for grants on an annual basis. A number of witnesses commented that
this was not an effective use of resources and resulted in a lower level of
return for money spent than if funding had been received in three-year blocks.
3.107 An
example of the detrimental impact of funding for a hymenachne eradication
campaign ending and continued funding not being received was provided by Mr
Petrie. He advised that the program was:
coming to the conclusion of that [2001/02] funding period. I
believe there were a number of local governments that applied for the control
of that particular species. A total of about $470,000 was committed to, off the
top of my head, three or four councils in Far North Queensland. The funding was
to enable those councils with limited resources to deal with that particular
species and focus on that eradication, which is what they intended to do. The interesting
process was that the funding ran out when those councils had actually come very
close to eradication, but, given the time frame to get additional funding for
the next round of NHT, with the whole regional planning and so on, as a
consequence they are actually back to where they started. So those resources
were totally wasted as a result. [281]
3.108 Dr
Morin, Senior Research
Scientist, CSIRO told the Committee that:
To make a
proper plan of, say, delivery over three years would be so much more efficient
than every year having to rewrite the grant. What I find is that for the same
amount of money that we get over the three years we deliver much less because
it is so fragmented. For something like producing, let us say, a brochure,
because we have only one-year funding we are going to produce just what we need
for that year, but actually the year after we get more funding.[282]
3.109 Dr
Peacock also advised the Committee of the
short turnaround time for applying for tenders.
For example,
two tenders were let on Christmas Eve last year for a mid-January date for
feral goat research. You read that and think, ‘What are they thinking?’[283]
3.110 In
response to criticisms of the short-term nature of NHT funding, and its impact
on research, Dr Dickson
advised that:
In terms of the NHT funding of biological controls, the NHT is
not a research funding program.[284]
3.111 The
Committee heard evidence from the Department of Environment and Heritage that most
of the NHT funds that have been provided to assist some of the major research
institutions, such as CSIRO, to undertake biological controls have been at the
applied end of the spectrum. Dr Dickson
told the Committee that:
[the] CSIRO estimate that it can be up to 10 years from the first
idea through to developing a final biological control. It is clearly a
long-term activity and it needs to be undertaken in a strategic way by research
institutions. The NHT has certainly provided some important assistance to that
work of the major research institutions, and also in state research as well, to
assist the promulgation of the biological controls and further testing at the
applied end.[285]
3.112 Although
there is scope for research organisations to apply for grants under the
National Competitive Component of NHT2, Mr
Murnane, reinforced the point that the NHT
is not a research funding program when he said:
the Natural Heritage Trust is essentially a funding program for
on-ground environmental works rather than being specifically designed to
support research, but there is scope to support particular projects that may
have an applied result later on.[286]
3.113 Further
developing on the issue of research and development, Mr
Wonder noted that the Commonwealth has major
funding of research and development through the rural industries research and
development corporations. Many of which fund invasive species projects that are
conducted through the CSIRO or CRCs.[287]
3.114 In
June 2004 the Commonwealth Government announced that ten environmental projects
would receive $5.6 million in funding over the next three years as part of the
National Competitive Component of NHT2. Funding was provided to multi-year
projects that were new, innovative or pilot activities with a national approach
to effectively improving natural resource management.
3.115 The
Committee is please to note that invasive species were recognised in the grants
cycle through the grant to the CRC for Australian Weed Management to build a
national, community-based model for preventing new weed incursions. They
received $138,000 over three years.[288]
3.116 The
Committee heard that:
A lot of the national funding from the NHT on weeds and feral
animals, as well as on the research side, has gone into communication products
and improving the capacity of regional groups and other community groups to be
able to identify weeds or other invasive species. The key issue is the
complementarity between improving the national framework and the coordination
and improving the ownership and the focus at the regional level. It is not one
or the other; it is both of these things working together.[289]
3.117 The
Committee expresses its hope that NHT2 will be successful in achieving these
goals and that it will make a positive contribution toward reducing the impact
of invasive species.
Comments to: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 9 December 2004 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site
Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
 |
