Chapter 3
Caring for our Country
Introduction
3.1
Caring for our Country officially commenced on 1 July 2008, with the Commonwealth
Government allocating a budget of $2.5 billion over the first five years. The government
announced its intention to introduce the new Caring for our Country program
progressively during 2008-09 and indicated that regional natural resource
management organisations would be provided with a guaranteed base level of
funding. The government announced that some funding had also been committed for
the 2009-10 financial year, for foundational activities and previously approved
multi-year projects.
3.2
The new program seeks to integrate delivery of all previous natural
resource management programs, including:
- Natural Heritage Trust (NHT);
-
National Landcare Program (Landcare);
- Environmental Stewardship Program;
- Working on Country (Indigenous land and sea ranger programs);
- Community Coastcare; and
- World Heritage.[1]
3.3
The government announced that in order to address the identified
weaknesses of previous programs – as outlined in reviews conducted by both the
ANAO and the Keogh Ministerial Reference Group – key aspects of the new program
would involve:
- establishing five-year program outcomes and shorter-term (one to
three year) targets to guide priorities for investment;
- an annual Caring for our Country business plan, inviting
proposals from all relevant organisations to undertake activities that will
contribute to achieving the national priorities, outcomes and targets;
- a streamlined and integrated system for managing information,
funds, contracts, acquittals and reporting;
- providing certainty for long-term decisions by supporting
programs of investment that span multiple years;
- introducing a consistent assessment process to select investments
(this will be trialled through the Caring for our Country Open Grants process);
- establishing clear and uniform requirements for monitoring and
reporting on progress (to be included in all funding agreements) and the
framework for the annual Caring for our Country report card; and
-
introducing improved web-based tools for accessing and sharing
data and information about investments, outcomes and natural resource
management activity across Australia.[2]
3.4
Responsibility for the delivery of Caring for our Country is shared
between the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and the
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (the Departments).
3.5
This chapter provides an overview of the Caring for our Country program and
considers the extent to which the program builds on knowledge and experience
gained from previous NRM programs.
Caring for our Country Business Plan
3.6
A key component of the Caring for our Country program is the Business
Plan. Under the new arrangements, a Business Plan will be released in September
each year.[3]
The Business Plan will outline the Commonwealth Government's five year program
outcomes, short term targets and priorities for investment.[4]
3.7
The 2009-10 Business Plan identifies the following six priority areas:[5]
- The national reserve system – which aims to conserve
Australia's distinctive landscapes, plants and animals through a system of
reserves across Australia.
- Biodiversity and natural icons – priorities for government
funding will include protecting World Heritage Areas, tackling weeds and pest
animals that threaten biodiversity, and improving outcomes for nationally
threatened species and communities.
- Coastal environments and critical aquatic habitats –
includes the delivery of the Great Barrier Reef Rescue package, protecting and
rehabilitating areas for critically endangered and endangered species and
migratory shorebirds, improving the quality of water discharged into coastal
environments and protecting Ramsar wetlands.
- Sustainable farm practices – builds on the National
Landcare Program and encourages the adoption of on-farm land management
practices that continue to maintain and improve production and deliver
ecosystem services for the whole community.
- Community skills, knowledge and engagement – which will invest
in the skills and knowledge of Indigenous people, volunteers and communities
and assist them to partner more effectively with regional and other
organisations to deliver landscape-scale change. This priority will build on
the work undertaken by groups such as Landcare and Coastcare over many years.
- Natural resource management in northern and remote Australia
– will aim to secure better environmental and natural resource outcomes in
northern and remote Australia, particularly for Indigenous groups. Funding of
$50 million has been committed through Caring for our Country for Indigenous
Protected Areas and $90 million for the employment of an additional 300 Indigenous
rangers across Australia.
3.8
In a joint submission, the Departments told the committee that they
would be drawing on key principles and processes from tools such as the
Investment Framework for Environmental Resources in the development of
outcomes, draft targets and the business plan. These principles and processes
would also be applied to the assessment and funding recommendations.[6]
Monitoring and evaluation
3.9
As noted in Chapter 2, the adequacy of evaluation and monitoring
frameworks in previous NRM programs has been an area of some concern. The
Departments advised the committee that these criticisms have been responded to
a number of ways.
3.10
First, outcome statements identifying what will be achieved by June 2013
were publicly released on 30 September 2009. The Departments told the committee
that the statements were developed based on:
- priorities identified through the Commonwealth Government's
legislation, policy and international commitments;
-
priorities identified through election commitments;
- the highest priorities where investment and intervention can make
a significant difference in the medium term; and
- budget available and limited consultation with key stakeholders
and scientists.[7]
3.11
These outcome statements are then supported by the annual publication of
the Commonwealth Government's short-term targets in the Business Plan. Finally,
the Caring for our Country Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement
(MERI) Strategy, released in July 2009, provides a standard approach for
monitoring and reporting on performance under Caring for our Country.
3.12
The key aims of the MERI strategy are to:
- enable the achievement of the Caring for our Country five year
outcomes by monitoring implementation against key MERI evaluation questions;
- meet the Commonwealth Government requirements for accountable and
transparent expenditure of public funds through reporting by outcomes; and
- articulate clear requirements for funding recipients and the
Commonwealth Government.[8]
3.13
Mr Thompson, an officer from DAFF, told the committee that:
We actually developed that strategy in consultation with
states, communities, regions and scientists. That is out there for the
community so they are in a much better position to understand what sort of data
we need to measure performance, which they can use for measuring their
performance.[9]
Access to funding
3.14
A budget of $2.25 billion has been allocated for the first five years of
Caring for our Country. Up to $260 million (including regional budgets) will be
available each year through the Business Plan.[10]
Continued funding commitment to
existing regional organisations
3.15
In their submission to the inquiry the Departments advised the committee
that under Caring for our Country, the 56 existing regional organisations were
guaranteed a total of $159 million – which represented approximately 88 percent
of the funds they received in 2007-08. All regional bodies were advised, in
April 2008, of the exact amount of funding they were guaranteed to receive for
the 2008-09 financial year. [11]
3.16
Commencing in 2009-10, the government has also committed to providing
regional natural resource management organisations with secure base-level
funding for the first five years of Caring for our Country (2008-09 to
2012-13). It is the government's intention to provide, as a minimum, $138
million each year to the 56 regional organisations. This figure is the
equivalent of approximately 76.7 percent of the funding allocated in 2007-08
(under NHT and NAP).[12]
3.17
The Departments compared this with the availability of funding under the
NHT and NAP programs, where regional organisations were restricted to accessing
a specific regional pool of funds ($181.8 million in 2007-08) and had limited
access to additional funds through small, state-wide, competitive funding
rounds. The Departments submitted that under Caring for our Country, these
organisations will be eligible to apply for funding (and participate in
activities) from a much larger pool of funds (approximately $300 million in
2008-09).[13]
3.18
However, the committee notes that although regional organisations were guaranteed
an amount of funding collectively in 2008-09, in reality the amount allocated
to each regional organisation could vary from 80% to 60% or less.[14]
This is a source of great uncertainty for many of the regional organisations.
The committee also notes that, based on figures supplied by the Departments,
the total amount of funds allocated to the 56 regions decreased by $22,790,179
in 2008/09 compared with that 2007/08.[15]
3.19
The Departments also advised that during the 2008-09 transitional year
of the program, a further $132.1 million of funding would be available, in addition
to the $159 million guaranteed baseline funding for regional organisations. This
additional funding was to be allocated through a range of processes, including:
-
Landcare Sustainable Practice Grants – up to $18 million;
- National Reserve System – up to $25.6 million;
- Community Coastcare – up to $20 million;
- Open Grants (including further opportunity for landcare activities)
– up to $25 million;
- Working on Country – up to $6 million;
- Environmental Stewardship – up to $7.5 million; and
- Reef Rescue – up to $30 million.[16]
3.20
At its hearing on 17 October 2008, the committee sought clarification
from the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts of the funding
that would be available to each regional NRM organisation:
Ms Colreavy—I will break it down for you. In 2008-09,
$127.2 million was allocated to the regional bodies. Every regional body got 60
per cent of their average funding. That is the 60 per cent—it is $127.2
million—plus they were each given a share of $31.9 million, which was 15 per
cent of the previous regional allocation. They were each given a share of $31.9
million which was termed assistance for the transitional costs.
Senator IAN MACDONALD—And that is the $159 million?
Ms Colreavy—That adds up to $159.1 million. For 2009
through to 2013, we will be allocating the $127.2 million, which is the 60 per
cent—they will each receive a four-year budget and they will get that in the
next few weeks—plus there will be transitional funding of $10.8 million.
Senator IAN MACDONALD—For the next four years the
global figure is $127 million plus $10 million?
Ms Colreavy—Yes, so it is $138 million. The global
figure for the next four years will be $138 million.
Senator IAN MACDONALD—Per year?
Ms Colreavy—Per year.
3.21
Ms Mary Colreavy, Acting First Assistant Secretary, Department of
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, went on to explain that each
regional organisation would also have a four-year budget and would be required
to submit a proposal in response to the Business Plan indicating how they intended
to spend their guaranteed baseline funding. At that time, regional
organisations would also be able to submit bids for additional projects over
and above that guaranteed baseline funding.[17]
Scale of projects
3.22
Caring for our Country has been designed to fund projects of varying
size and scale. Large and medium scale projects are expected to be delivered
through partnership arrangements between a number of stakeholders and are
expected to:
- have a high degree of integration;
- outline a strong governance structure across the range of sectors
and interest groups;
-
build on existing investments; and
- have a work plan and risk management plan.
3.23
Large-scale and medium scale projects are a priority for investment,
particularly where they protect key assets and address multiple targets. There
is an expectation that large and medium scale projects will be delivered
through partnerships.[18]
3.24
Medium-scale projects are also defined as those that contribute to the
delivery of multiple targets at a landscape scale. Medium-scale projects will
have a budget of between $2 and $3 million per annum and will be expected to
contain the same components as large-scale projects.
3.25
With regard to small-scale projects, the Business Plan states that
preference will be given to projects which contribute directly to identified
targets and require funding of between $20,000 and $100,000. Smaller,
community-based organisations with project proposals requiring less than
$20,000 are encouraged to form partnerships with other organisations before
submitting a proposal, or to contact their local regional natural resource
management group to determine whether there are other options available for
local grants.[19]
The Business Plan anticipates that community groups such as Landcare,
Coastcare, and local Indigenous organisations will become involved in some
medium-scale projects. [20]
Additional funding commitments
3.26
A number of Caring for our Country targets and activities were committed
for 2009-10 outside the competitive funding process, through funding of
multi-year projects and election commitments. These include:
- Previous commitments: funding has been committed to a
range of existing multi-year funding programs including Landcare Sustainable
Practices Grants; Environmental Stewardship (targeting critically endangered
White Box, Yellow Box and Blakely's Red Gum grassy woodland) as well as the
National Reserve System, Indigenous Protected Areas and Working on Country.[21]
-
Election commitments: the delivery processes and delivery
agents for a number of activities which have already been determined, include:
- development of a Cane Toad Threat Abatement Plan;
- preparation of the Ningaloo Reef nomination for submission to the
World Heritage Centre;
- support for research into the Tasmanian Devil facial disease;
- restoration and enhancement of salt marsh vegetation in the
Tuggerah Lakes estuary; and
- contracting of Indigenous rangers through Working on Country
funding (with over 200 Indigenous rangers to be recruited by June 2009).[22]
- Great Barrier Reef Rescue Package: $200 million has been
allocated over five years to "reduce the decline in water quality by
providing assistance to land managers in the reef catchments to accelerate the
uptake of improved land management practices".[23]
- Commitments with state governments: a range of projects
for which the relevant state government will match funds including a program to
reduce the impact of rabbits and rodents on Macquarie Island; the eradication
of foxes from Tasmania; the development of secure management arrangements for
the Wet Tropics of the Queensland World Heritage Area; and the national
coordination and delivery of the Weeds of National Significance Strategy.[24]
- Foundational activities: some funding will be made
available for projects that arise outside of the normal Business Plan funding
cycle, to allow projects of a critical nature to be undertaken. The types of
projects that may be included in this category include: a review of Australia's
Ramsar sites, and the preparation of a draft national framework for the identification,
classification and management of Australia's high conservation value aquatic
ecosystems (HCVAE).[25]
-
Caring for our Country facilitators: $8 million per annum
has been allocated to fund a new Caring for our Country Facilitator Network. The
government intends that the new Facilitator Network will address some of the
concerns in relation to previous facilitator arrangements – including
duplication of processes and a lack of clarity. The funding will also support
an extension of the Indigenous Land Management Facilitator Network.[26]
Committee comment
3.27
The committee notes claims that the total allocation to NRM under Caring
for our Country is consistent with similar allocations of funding to NRM in
previous budget allocations.[27]
However, the committee notes that the calls on this funding include allocations
to existing regional organisations, a range of additional funding commitments
including election commitments. The committee is of the view that while the pie
may be of similar proportions, the government is expecting it to fund many more
projects.
Streamlined application process
3.28
In their submission, the Departments noted that the evaluations of the
NHT and National Landcare Program had called for more simplified program design
and more streamlined accountability requirements. The Departments submitted
that the process by which groups would apply for funds under Caring for our
Country had been developed in response to this. The Departments stated that:
Rather than having separate requirements for funding,
contracts, monitoring, reporting and information sharing for each individual component
of the program, Caring for our Country will integrate, simplifies and
streamlines [sic] all these requirements in one consistent approach. [28]
3.29
The committee notes that in seeking funding under Caring for our
Country, groups will not be required to submit multiple applications for funding.
Groups will need only provide a single application for funding.[29]
3.30
Ms Colreavy told the committee that the program arrangements under
Caring for our Country were a clear response to feedback from the regions. Ms Colreavy
said that the Departments had received criticism from the regions over a number
of years regarding the complexity of previous program arrangements. She said:
We were also criticised by the
regions in particular about the complexity of our program arrangements and
about the complexity of the funding decision models that were made because of
the various hierarchies of program delivery through national, regional and
local; ... and, quite rightly, regions criticised us for that because they found
it very difficult to work with and they found that each of those programs had
their own reporting arrangements and therefore it created a very heavy workload
for them in terms of reporting.[30]
3.31
The committee noted that in August 2008 the Departments were finalising the
details of the new arrangements that would apply from 2009-10 and that a
standard contract was progressively being introduced for all investments made
under Caring for our Country.[31]
Ms Colreavy told the committee:
We are also investing a lot of effort this year in
streamlining our arrangements so that it is less complex. For instance, regions
will only have to apply once to us in a given year for any of the component
parts of the program. Within the business plan we will capture all of the
underlying component parts. This year there have been separate calls for the
NRS, for Working on Country, for IPAs and for Coastcare grants. We had the open
grants, which we will not have again. That was another grants model. We had a
separate call for Landcare earlier in the year. In future all of those
component parts will be captured within the business plan and a body such as
the south west region, or whatever, will have first of all from us a guaranteed
baseline sum of money that they will have for their ongoing future investment
work on which they will be able to take out a small proportion for their
administrative overheads. Most of their funds will have to be spent on targeted,
on-ground work but we will accept a proportion of their funds to be spent on
their administration overheads.[32]
Partnerships
3.32
The committee notes that the Business Plan states that "the
Australian Government recognises both the need for many different groups to
work together to bring about change, and the importance of the diverse range of
stakeholders working and volunteering in natural resource management across
Australia".[33]
The Business Plan states that multi-regional and cross jurisdictional projects
are encouraged, as is the inclusion of community grants where they are
consistent with Caring for our Country targets.[34]
3.33
The Business Plan also states the expectation that regional investment
proposals will:
- have regard for the diversity of stakeholders and the skills and
knowledge that each sector brings to a partnership; and
-
identify the most relevant delivery agents and delivery
mechanisms such as market-based instruments and devolved grants.[35]
3.34
The Business Plan also outlines the government's support for regions
that are able to develop partnerships with key groups in their community, with
a view to addressing the widest range of natural resource management
priorities. The Business Plan notes, for example, that:
- the government is keen to see the inclusion of community grants
in investment proposals;
-
regional groups are encouraged to participate in multi-regional
and cross jurisdictional projects; and
- regional groups are expected to coordinate local level projects
[to support the delivery of targets that address the national priority area of
community skills, knowledge and engagement].[36]
3.35
In addition to encouraging regional groups to form partnerships, the government
has declared its support for all stakeholder groups to build partnerships and
work together to achieve outcomes. There is an expectation, for example, that investment
proposals will have regard for the diversity of skills and knowledge that
various sectors can bring to partnerships and the Business Plan notes that:
The Australian Government is particularly keen to support
projects delivered by parties having complementary skills and interests and
working together to more effectively deliver projects.[37]
3.36
Non-government organisations (such as WWF-Australia, the Humane Society
International and Greening Australia) are seen as important to the delivery of
long-term projects, particularly because these groups are frequently able to
"provide the mechanism to mobilise public support and voluntary
contributions for natural resource management activity".[38]
3.37
Mr Thompson, representing DAFF, told the committee that it was an objective
of Caring for our Country to provide opportunities for a broader range of
participants. He said that under previous programs the major competitive
element was "Envirofunded small-scale projects". Caring for our
Country opens up larger scale funding to a broader range of delivery agents.[39]
3.38
The Business Plan also notes that industry groups, research and
development institutions and consultants are in a position to provide expertise
to assist in the delivery of programs and support on-ground results. The government
has indicated that it would support partnerships between these types of
organisations, particularly where these groups are able to directly contribute
to the achievement of Caring for our Country targets. There is an expectation that
large-scale projects will include these type of organisations in partnership
arrangements.[40]
3.39
The government has also announced its intention to work toward further
improving the Commonwealth's relationships with the state and territory
governments. In contrast to the more complex joint decision making processes
established under the NHT and NAP, the government intends to "work
cooperatively with states and territories to invest in mutually beneficial
actions that achieve shared outcomes in our national priority areas for
investment". The arrangements which existed for measuring state
contributions – including 'in-kind' contributions – will no longer be in
effect. However, the Commonwealth expects states and territories to continue to
invest in natural resource management programs at a level at least equivalent
to that invested under NHT and NAP.[41]
3.40
The government has indicated that it intends to continue working with
the states in designing implementation arrangements for Caring for our Country,
and more particularly, will look for opportunities for cooperative delivery
throughout the life of the program. The details of this new partnership with
the states and territories will be developed as part of future bilateral
agreements with each state and territory.[42]
3.41
The Business Plan outlines its approach in encouraging Indigenous
organisations to participate in Caring for our Country, and acknowledges the
significant and unique knowledge, skills and management responsibilities which Indigenous
groups are able to bring to natural resource management. The Business Plan
notes that any approach to engaging Indigenous groups needs to be flexible, and
that preference will be given to proposals which include active engagement with
Indigenous people and proposals:
... that incorporate Indigenous ecological knowledge with the
delivery of Caring for our Country targets are encouraged, in particular those
that draw together the use of traditional ecological knowledge, local knowledge
and western science to protect, restore and better manage the environment and
productive agricultural lands.[43]
Discussion of issues
Caring for our Country - a
comprehensive NRM plan?
3.42
The question of whether Caring for our Country represents a
comprehensive approach to natural resource management, as with a number of the
issues raised during this inquiry, provoked a mixed response.
3.43
A number of submitters welcomed the clear and concise articulation of
the Commonwealth's NRM priorities and suggested that Caring for our Country
offered a cost effective means of achieving them.[44]
The CSIRO argued that:
This greater problem-based and geographical focus presents a
genuine opportunity to limit the transaction cost of regional bodies and their
partners seeking to engage in a diverse range of issues across large areas with
multiple partners.[45]
3.44
Some submitters expressed optimism that Caring for our Country might
lead to a more integrated approach to NRM. Greening Australia was supportive of
the scope of the program and noted that the use of a Business Plan to secure
bids for work might be constructive if it encourages large scale restoration
work rather than a piecemeal approach.[46]
3.45
Some industry groups welcomed the emphasis given to particular NRM
themes. The Ricegrowers' Association of Australia was supportive of the
emphasis given to sustainable management of private land.[47]
Similarly, the Queensland Farmers' Federation (QFF) was pleased to note that
certain of their recommendations for improvements in the lead up to NHT3 were
reflected in Caring for our Country, in particular the priority attached to sustainable
agriculture. However, the QFF expressed concern that there appears to be less
funding available for sustainable agriculture than under previous programs and
that there was a question mark over the extent to which the strategic
investment arm of the National Landcare Program would be replicated under the
new arrangements.[48]
3.46
However, some submitters expressed concern that Caring for our Country
had the potential to alienate certain groups. The committee has noted elsewhere
concerns about the potential disenfranchisement of community groups and the
negative impact on partnerships. The committee also notes concerns that the role
of local governments appears to be diminished within the new program and that
local government organisations appear to be excluded from decision making
processes in relation to NRM priorities and investment.[49]
3.47
Other submitters expressed more qualified support for the six national
priority areas. The Northern Gulf Resource Management Group (NGRMG) argued
that, as it currently stands, the Caring for our Country program does not
represent a comprehensive approach. Whilst the Management Group is supportive
of the six national priority areas, it argued that "there is as yet little
substance as to how these priorities can be effectively delivered and little
evidence of how the evaluations of previous NRM programs have been used to
refine delivery."[50]The
South West Catchments Council stated that the government's targets may be too broad
and lack enough specificity to give strong guidance to groups submitting
proposals.[51]
3.48
The Queensland Regional Natural Resource Management Groups Collective (QRNRMGC)
argued that, in its present form, Caring for our Country will not deliver on Australia's future NRM needs.[52]
Whilst it was supportive of the six national priority areas, the QRNRMGC argued
that for these national priorities to be effectively delivered, the one-off
open grants scheme should not be the principle means of delivery. It was also
argued that there needs to be more focused consultation with stakeholders when
determining delivery mechanisms and there needs to be greater security of
funding for regional bodies. QRNRMGC is also aware of the need for probity and
accountability, but argued that there are better ways to achieve this than
competitive bidding, which it argued will fail unless it occurs within the
framework of an agreed national plan:
We are not building roads, ie. well defined projects that
lend themselves well to competitive bids, we are dealing with NRM – complex,
requiring collaboration, intertwined with social and economic imperatives and
requiring fundamental social and economic change eg. ETS and Peak Oil.[53]
3.49
The ACT Natural Resource Management Council's submission also expressed
the view that that Caring for our Country does not represent a comprehensive
approach to addressing NRM issues in Australia. The Council argued that:
It is rather a set of selective investments in particular
natural resource areas against a set of priorities determined solely by the
Australian Government. The program addresses biodiversity, land and community
capacity, while most issues to do with water are excluded. It remains a
challenge for the Australian Government to integrate the delivery of their
investment programs.[54]
3.50
A similar view was put by the Fitzroy Basin Association (FBA) who argued
that Caring for our Country is essentially only a funding program and therefore
only one part of the system required. The FBA suggested that a comprehensive
approach or framework should also take account of climate change and water
management, which currently rest outside the program and with another minister
and department. The FBA also stressed that a comprehensive approach requires a
national framework supported by state frameworks and underpinned by regional
plans.[55]The
committee notes that this view is supported by other evidence to the inquiry
discussed previously in the report.
Consultation on the Business Plan
3.51
A number of witnesses expressed concern to the committee that the
development of the Business Plan and identification of national priorities was
not underpinned by a consultative process. In particular, witnesses were
concerned that regional and local input into the identification of priorities had
been lost in favour of centralised decision making.[56]
3.52
Ms Andrews, from the National Natural Resource Management Regions
Working Groups and the National Resource Management Board of the Northern
Territory, told the committee that her understanding is that the priorities in
the Business Plan were developed in Canberra and that the data sets upon which
they were based came from Commonwealth departments. She said that:
This is where we need to make a distinction between how we
set national priorities, state or territory priorities and regional and local
priorities. There should be a good overlap between them, but they should all be
informed by the best available knowledge and datasets. Then the
priority-setting process should be something where there is partnership and
consultation. That did not happen in this instance.[57]
3.53
On behalf of the Departments, Mr Thompson confirmed for the committee
that:
It is probably fair to say that the initial prioritisation
for some elements of Caring for our Country, because it was a new program being
introduced by a new government, was not able to be as widely discussed as might
have been desirable in other circumstances, but we did consult with a targeted
group of people to do a bit of a reality check on things. We have subsequently
got a little broader than that, over the last 12 months, in getting more
information on the targets.[58]
3.54
The committee notes that the Departments have subsequently provided
avenues for feedback on Caring for our Country and the Business Plan through
stakeholder workshops. Participants in these workshops have found them a
positive exercise.[59]
Mr Berwick told the committee:
We did have a stakeholder workshop that the Commonwealth ran
and I attended, as did the other state chairs. There were also other peak bodies—the
conservation sector was there, the farming sector was there, the science sector
and so on. It was quite a good workshop. That workshop raised from all the
sectors all the same sorts of things that we have been raising today.
...
We do not know whether they adopted all of them, ignored all
of them or if they ever went anywhere.[60]
3.55
The committee sought a copy of the summary report of the Caring for Our
Country Stakeholder Workshop held on 3 August 2009 and notes that the issues
raised are highly consistent with those raised during this inquiry.[61]
3.56
The committee notes that the government's clear intention was to
establish a set of national priorities and to target funding toward these
priorities.[62]
The committee heard that this was a response to appeals from regional bodies
for the Commonwealth to identify its priorities. Ms Colreavy, representing
DEWHA, told the committee:
They felt that in their regional plans they inevitably had
such a wide range of things that were all worthy of funding that, in order to
align their activities as closely as they could with the Commonwealth’s program
of preferred actions as well as the state actions, they were very keen to have
the Commonwealth articulate more clearly what our priorities were. They wanted
to be able to revise and amend their plans to address that.[63]
3.57
The committee also heard that the NRM groups feel constrained by the
Business Plan in their ability to leverage Commonwealth funds as they have in
the past. Ms Gross of the QCNRMG told the committee:
Previously when we were given the amount of money we said, ‘These are our national targets. What could you deliver for us with this amount
of money?’ What we were able to do was go out and catch a whole heap of other
investment to build on the amount that the Australian government gave us. At
the moment we do not have that ability. We are just given that 60 per cent and
we say, ‘You can only spend it on these areas in accordance with the business
plan.’ In the past we might have gone to an international company like ESRI and
said, ‘We need to deliver these sorts of mapping products in the landscape to
achieve these national targets,’ and they would have said, ‘We like you because
you are a not-for-profit and we like what you’re doing. You give us 10 per cent
and we’ll fund the other 90 per cent.’ So we did not need all of the Australian
money to achieve this major achievement. We only needed 10 per cent as seeding.
I cannot seed anything in the existing framework. I cannot take this model and
build that money.[64]
3.58
Groups also feel frustrated that they are unable to challenge the
priorities set by the Business Plan where these do not accord with those
established in regional plans. Ms Andrews of the National NRM Regions Working
Group and the NRM Board for the Northern Territory illustrated this by saying
groups were encouraged to prioritise physical targets over community or
engagement targets.[65]
3.59
Mr Berwick explained to the committee that this disconnect between
regional priorities and national priorities had the potential to produce very
non-strategic results. Mr Berwick told the committee:
For example, in the western part of Queensland there is a
parthenium weed problem in the headwaters. Those headwaters drain into wetlands
of national significance and RAMSAR wetlands and so on. The business plan does
not allow you to target the weeds in the headwaters. You have to wait until
they get to the wetlands and then you can target them. We have had the same
experience with tilapia in the wet tropics where it is widespread. Our strategy
with neighbouring regions has been to stop it getting into those regions of
high conservation significance, but you cannot do that until it gets there. Our
tilapia funding was knocked back because we did not fit within the guidelines.
That sort of top-down approach has led to a much less strategic approach to how
you manage the landscape.[66]
3.60
The committee notes that consultation prior to the release of the latest
2009-10 Business Plan appears to have been limited and rushed. [67]
The committee notes the commitment of the Departments to respond to feedback
with regard to particular NRM issues in various areas of Australia in setting
targets in future Business Plans. The committee agrees with the observation of
Mr Berwick that it appears problematic to release a new Business Plan every
year. "It takes time to put these things together and to consult and
collaborate".[68]
Management of the transition to
Caring for our Country
3.61
By 14 August 2008, the date by which the committee invited submissions,
applications for funding under the Caring for our Country Open Grants had
recently closed. In October, when the committee held its first hearings, the
results of that competitive funding round were still to be announced.[69]
3.62
It was, therefore, no surprise to the committee that much of the
evidence provided to it at that time was characterised by uncertainty. A number
of witnesses told the committee that they were unable to determine how the
transition to Caring for our Country would impact on existing NRM groups in the
medium to longer term. However, even at that early stage some significant
impacts were already being felt at the regional and local level.
3.63
As noted in paragraph 4.18 the financial year 2008/09 was a transitional
year for the Caring for our Country program during which time the 56 existing
regional organisations were guaranteed a proportion of the funding they had
received in 2007-08. In recognition of the need for regional bodies to plan
with some certainty, the government advised every region in April 2008 of the
funding they were guaranteed to receive in 2008-09.[70]
3.64
However, the committee received evidence that the uncertainty involved
with transitional funding had the potential to undermine successful projects
and partnerships and place a great strain on some existing NRM groups.[71]
Loss of continuity and momentum
3.65
The CSIRO submitted that the transitional, one year funding
arrangements proposed under Caring for our Country risked the potential loss
of momentum, strategic focus and continuity in the delivery of on-the-ground
natural resource management outcomes. The CSIRO argued that the transition from
the first to the second phase of NHT resulted in the marginalisation of
individual land managers.[72]
3.66
Growcom told the committee that the partnership to deliver Reef Rescue,
that had been developed through the collaboration of the Queensland state
industry groups and the reef NRM regions, was a model all partners were keen to
continue. However, at the time of lodging its submission, Growcom had been
advised that funding for this sort of collaborative process was for the
'transition year' only and that ongoing funding for the partnership had not
been guaranteed. Growcom argued that terminating funding in this way "puts
a strain on all organisations involved as with only one year funding (or
perhaps six months) truly strategic and comprehensive approaches are not
obtainable".[73]
3.67
The NGRMG
expressed concern about how the changed funding structure had undermined
regional planning and cooperation. NGRMG noted that, in 2008, the key changes
to funding under the Caring for our Country program have been a reduction in
funding to regional NRM bodies, and open, contestable grants. The NGRMG argued
that:
The
reduction in funding to regional NRM bodies has resulted in the cutting of
programs which were in full implementation phases resulting in both the loss of
momentum and staff. In particular, the cutting of funds for all the Regional
Landcare Facilitators and Strategic Regional Facilitators over and above the
reduction in funding for regional investment strategies has exacerbated the
loss of momentum and increased the impact on delivery.[74]
3.68
Professor David Pannell told the committee that the shift in funding
approach also placed a serious question over the continued funding of regional
NRM groups
... there is a large overhead cost required to keep the
regional bodies operating. With the reduction in funds that they have now had
under the new program, all of the core funds will be spent in just keeping the doors
open and funding the staff that they have, so they are very reliant on
attracting additional funds in competitive rounds or from other sources. If
they were to be unsuccessful in doing that, then you would have to ask why they
are being supported; what is happening with the core funds and why are we
supporting core funds without the real doing funds.[75]
Loss of staff
3.69
A number of witnesses told the committee that they had lost staff as a
consequence of the changes and that this had been extremely disruptive. Mr
Damien Hills, General Manager of the South West Catchments Council told the
committee that the uncertainty and instability associated with the change in
direction had disenfranchised many community volunteers and groups and had led
to an exodus of staff.[76]
3.70
The committee notes that with the provision of transitional funding some
organisations were able to retain or replace staff in the short term. However,
the uncertainty regarding future funding had placed many other organisations
under a great deal of stress. Mrs Belinda Brennan, Network Coordinator for the South
Gippsland Landcare Network, told the committee that the gap in funding between
the completion of one funding program and the commencement of the next had
meant that the network had lost one and a half staff members. She said:
My position as network coordinator is currently covered through
the money that the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority receives. They
got their base-level funding. They are in the same boat, as I would suggest
every other NRM organisation in Australia is, waiting for the competitive process
to be announced. We have all put our applications in. We have had tremendous
support from the West Gippsland CMA in that they have given each of the six
networks in West Gippsland a half-time network coordinator. Unfortunately they
do not have the funds to cover the facilitator positions that were in the
networks prior to 30 June. They funded those positions until the end of
September with the hope that we would find out prior to then what the funding was,
but we did not. We lost one and a half staff members from our network and that
was a similar loss across the other networks as well.[77]
3.71
Mr Greg Hales, Project Manager for the Blackwood Basin Group, one of the
largest subregions of SWCC, told the committee that:
We are not currently government funded at all. We have gone
from a four-year average of $2¼ million per year down to we [sic] have been
able to manage so far, which is $46,000. We are down to three staff—in fact,
last week we lost 19 years of corporate NRM experience because we could not
offer even six-month contracts. In six months, we may lose the rest of our
staff—another 35 years of NRM experience in the south-west of WA gone as our
income streams are taken away from us.[78]
3.72
The committee notes the evidence it received regarding the impact of
these staff losses on the ability of groups to carry out current work. While in
some cases groups were able to continue with projects and field work, in other
cases these activities had already been curtailed out of necessity.[79]
The committee notes that the ability of an NRM body to retain staff depended on
the type of organisation and the extent to which it was able to access other
sources of funding for staffing purposes.[80]
Unintended consequences of the
competitive funding model
3.73
The committee notes that on 20 November 2009, the government announced
that out of more than 1300 applications seeking nearly $3.4 billion in Caring
for our Country funding, approximately $28.5 million in funding had been
allocated to support 137 local and community groups with environmental and
sustainable farming projects. [81]
3.74
The committee notes that this appears to be a low success rate for
proposals that take proponents many hours to prepare. The committee also heard
many examples of seemingly worthy projects that had not received funding and of
the adverse impacts this had had on morale and partnerships.[82]
Impact on partnerships
3.75
The committee heard that the competitive funding model had the potential
to hinder rather than facilitate effective working relationships. A consistent
concern raised with the committee was that the competitive model would
potentially pit groups who had previously relied on each other for support and
assistance against each other in the bid to secure funds.[83]
Mr Greg Hales, Program Manager with the Blackwood Basin Group, told the
committee that competition could lead to distrust and a confusion of roles in
the delivery of NRM programs:
Regional bodies are supposed to provide support and admin
assistance to the end user groups and local groups, and the link between state
and federal governments and grassroots. Instead it has become another layer of
bureaucracy that makes local groups’ jobs more difficult. Regional groups are
also competing with local groups for funding. This creates mistrust and hinders
good working relationships. [84]
3.76
The CSIRO also argued that there was a risk of hard-won alliances, and partnerships
between resource managers and users from regional and state bodies and industry
sectors being dismantled. However, the CSIRO added that it is not the
competition for funds itself that presents the risk, rather, the possibility of
the process removing the incentive to cooperate. [85]
3.77
Mrs Brennan expressed concern that the application process did not
require groups to consult or collaborate with each other. The extent to which
this might occur appears to depend on the nature of the relationships between
groups. Mrs Brennan told the committee that Caring for our Country:
... did not seem to be encouraging partnerships. Some parts of
it does, but in most parts it is ‘everybody needs to get a grant in, because if
you don’t you will miss out’. There was no requirement for us to talk to the
CMA about our grant. We did, because it is a relationship that we have, which
is a strong relationship. But in other areas that relationship might not be as
good.[86]
3.78
Mr Bradley expressed the view that it is not possible to have both a
competitive and a collaborative approach. He said:
Either you foster the collaborative approach by putting
someone in charge and working with all the different partners or you have a
competitive approach and then it is basically the best dollar value you can get
out of the community for the program that you want to achieve.[87]
3.79
Mr Berwick told the committee that to date the competitive process has
actually discouraged collaboration between groups. He said:
We had an attempt with the first round to bring together
government agencies, conservation groups, farming groups and Greening
Australia, to try and get some level of collaboration. But of course you end up
in a room with 150 people and 300 projects—and another hundred projects that
you still do not know about—and a month or two to do it in. People come in and
say, ‘This is my project.’ To get some alignment between those projects is a
huge job. So, whilst everyone would like to collaborate, as CFOC asks you to,
the process does not allow you to actually do that. And, of course, everyone
has to survive so they go for what they can get, and you end up without
cooperation.[88]
3.80
Ms Andrews told the committee of her concerns that a competitive process
may undermine the ability to develop partnerships. She said:
I do not think that NRM is a market place in most [of]
Australia. It is not as if there is an excess capacity where you can create a
competitive field for people to compete to give you the best possible result.
Quite the contrary, we are constantly trying to build the capacity for
organisations and individuals. I think [a competitive] approach is useful as a
proportion of Caring for our Country or NRM but it cannot become the sole
mechanism.[89]
3.81
Ms Andrews also expressed concern that the competitive process did
little to address capacity building. Ms Andrews explained that regional bodies,
community groups and other stakeholders need support throughout the application
process. In her view, the feedback from government that a lot of the proposals
were not particularly good supports this. She said:
We need to be continually improving capacity and we need to
be working together to do this. It might be that one particular group cannot do
it by itself but if you create a positive partnership or just behind the scenes
help to support them, which is what we are trying to do in the NT, then you get
to a level where it is effective.[90]
3.82
The Blackwood Basin Group expressed concern that competitive funding situations
can lead to a breakdown in data sharing. The group stressed that inter agency,
industry, community and cross regional data sharing is paramount to moving
forward with economical NRM projects. The group expressed concern that a
competitive funding situation may create a disabling non sharing attitude
between those involved in the delivery of projects.[91]
3.83
Professor Pannell made a similar point to the committee. In his
submission, he stated that the government needed to develop a standard NRM
investment framework to underpin all public investments and to assist regions
in identifying worthy projects for funding. In the absence of such a framework,
regions have been left to develop their own approaches, with sometimes
unpredictable results. The committee was introduced to one such model:
Investment Framework for Environmental Resources (or INFFER) which is currently
being used by 19 regional environmental management bodies to identify
internally consistent projects with the best prospects to be good value for
money.[92]
Maintaining community engagement
under Caring for our Country
3.84
The committee notes the clear acknowledgement in the Business Plan of
the important role played by community-based organisations. For example, the
Business Plan notes that Landcare and Coastcare groups, Indigenous
organisations and industry groups have "been at the leading edge of
on-ground delivery in environmental protection and sustainable production for
many years".[93]
The Business Plan also argues that community-based organisations and groups are
well placed to coordinate local level actions or undertake work on private
land.[94]
3.85
The Business Plan outlines an expectation that regional natural resource
management organisations will coordinate local level projects to support the
delivery of targets to address the national priority area of community skills,
knowledge and engagement.[95]
As discussed above, the Business Plan also envisages that some community groups
will apply for small-scale grants and enter into partnerships for the delivery
of medium-scale projects.[96]
3.86
Several submitters argued that whilst a national approach may be
necessary to set strategic goals, it is important that such an approach is
balanced and provides respect and support for the volunteer work
done by community groups.[97]
3.87
The committee noted concerns that a lack of consultation in the
development of priorities, together with the cessation of some projects due to
an inability to secure ongoing funding through the competitive funding process,
has already resulted in a loss of community support. Mr Berwick told the
committee of the impact of disillusionment or disenfranchisement on community
trust. He told the committee that such trust was hard won. "It is really
important to maintain trust, expertise and people with the right skills in
these regions. Every time you lose it, it is harder to get it back".[98]
3.88
Ms Gross told the committee that in her view the disenfranchisement of a
wide range of key stakeholders was the root of a lot of the problems
experienced during the initial phase of Caring for our Country:
All the national and global evidence right around the place
concludes that to achieve sustainable landscapes you really require the people
who live in those landscapes to be mobilised and aligned towards common goals
to actually get there. This Caring for our Country program has disenfranchised
those people who live in those landscapes as well as a lot of the other
stakeholders—a lot of the science community and things like that as well. It is
not harnessing, acknowledging or respecting the knowledge, the skills, the
capacity, the co-investment and the commitment of people who are actually in
those landscapes.[99]
3.89
Dr Greig also stated that a lot of activity is now without any kind of
direction, or at least without funded direction and, that as a result, various
different and diverse community members were now "feeling rather
lost".[100]
Dr Greig stated that:
If just a little more encouragement could be fitted within
the terms of the current business plan by using one of the six main headings
under the business plan – the one to do with community skills, knowledge and
engagement – and just a little bit of funding were provided towards that, we
could make that little bit of funding go a lot further in many places.[101]
3.90
The Blackwood
Basin Group argued that the top-down approach doesn't work and that in order
for projects to be successful and to achieve real results, the community has to
be engaged and want the project to succeed. They told the Committee that:
Time and
time again we see projects fail, not because of bad management, but because of
lack of enthusiasm. The policy makers need to consider what will happen on the
ground as a result of their decisions, because ultimately, that's what all top
level decisions should be driving towards.[102]
3.91
In particular, the Committee notes the large number of submissions
expressing concern about the impact of the change in program on the work
currently undertaken by Landcare groups over a long period of time. Submitters
expressed the view that the goodwill of the farming community, volunteers and
rural communities had delivered good outcomes over many years.[103]
Submitters expressed concern that smaller groups such as Landcare would be
unable to access suitable funding given the emphasis on funding large projects
under Caring for our Country.[104]
3.92
During Additional Estimates hearings in February 2009, the Committee put
these concerns to representatives from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry:
Senator Ian Macdonald – I have complaints from nearly
every Landcare group in Queensland, complaining about not being able to get
funds. What should I tell them? They can apply directly for smaller grants, and
take their chances through the NRM body for bigger grants? And for those that
did employ coordinators, facilitators, get rid of them and we will see what we
give you.
Mr Shaw – I think there are a few suggestions. I would
say you can apply directly for the small grants component. As I said, that is
$20,000 to $100,000 under the Caring for our Country business plan. I would
strongly recommend they also work closely with their regional bodies in putting
forward projects that may have a larger potential that could feed into
medium-sized projects being managed by the regions themselves. I would
encourage them to talk with our sustainable practices Landcare facilitators
that are out there. Each one has a state, and I would strongly recommend they
talk to them about their application as well.[105]
3.93
In evidence during this inquiry, representatives of the Department of
Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of the Environment, Water
Heritage and the Arts told the Committee that the Commonwealth Government would
continue to support Landcare activities, and that:
-
Landcare is one of the six national priorities for investment
under Caring for our Country;
- Landcare would be included under the banner of "sustainable
farm practices"; and
- approximately $189 million would be available to support Landcare
activities in the first five years of Caring for our Country.[106]
Regional delivery model
3.94
As discussed in Chapter 2, the continuation of the regional delivery
model was strongly emphasised by stakeholders as a positive element of previous
NRM programs.
3.95
The submission by the Departments states that under Caring for our
Country, the government continues to support the regional model "but in a
way that combines the provision of some longer-term security of funding, with
support and encouragement for the continued growth, independence and outcomes
focus of regional bodies". The Departments' submission also refers to the
provision of incentives for regions to work with other skills or networks.[107]
3.96
The committee notes that there is an expectation that the regions will
be key partners in delivering resource management outcomes.[108]
Mr Thompson, representing DAFF, told the committee that the regions had an
important role to play in planning and identifying local scale activities,
monitoring, and for developing or brokering consortiums. [109]
3.97
However, the committee notes the frustration among regional groups
stemming from uncertainty as to the future role and significance of the regions
and in particular regional investment plans.[110]
A number of witnesses expressed disappointment that years of hard work to
develop plans which took account of national priorities appeared to have been
jettisoned in the move to establish a new set of national priorities. Mr Damien
Hills, General Manager of the South West Catchments Council told the committee
that:
It seems to have discarded in our opinion, tens of millions
of dollars of previous work in developing regional plans, targets and program
logic, with five years of target work at least in Western Australia at a
regional scale trying to be repeated within six months out of Canberra. We fear
that many of the new targets will be too broad, not specific, measurable or
time bound. There is a real sense of devolved decision making being removed
from regional communities to be replaced by directives coming from Canberra.
Rather than being active members of a joint initiative between the states and
the Australian Government ... we feel like we have been demoted somewhat to being
service providers only.[111]
3.98
The Departments expressed confidence that most regions should be able to
directly align their investment or regional plans to the national priorities
set out in the Business Plan. Ms Colreavy, told the committee that the
department was confident that "all regions are well placed to draw from
their regional plans to identify suitable investment activities to address our
national priorities.[112]
3.99
The Business Plan invites proposals from groups seeking funding for
activities that will contribute to meeting the targets and priorities
identified in them. Groups will be encouraged to use their Regional Plans and
Regional Investment Strategies to outline their proposed programs of activity
in response to the Business Plan.[113]
3.100
The committee heard that the process of developing regional plans was
significant in underpinning a cooperative, collaborative approach to NRM and
overcoming tension between the national agenda and local aspirations.[114]
The committee notes the value in including the communities who will be relied
upon to implement projects in the identification of priorities.[115]
3.101
The committee also notes the calls for the formal integration of
regional, state and national plans in the identification of national
priorities. For example, Mr Berwick told the committee that he did not believe
a national strategy could be developed in Canberra in isolation. He argued that
the development of the Business Plan needed to be more collaborative and needed
to recognise and build on regional plans. He also stressed the importance of
involving state governments in this collaborative process. Mr Berwick
summarised his view by stating "I think the solution is to bring back a
sort of vertical integration and build from the bottom up and the top down."[116]
Assessment process
3.102
The committee was concerned that despite the government's intention that
Caring for our Country would be underpinned by a transparent assessment
process, a number of NRM groups appeared not to have a clear understanding of
the assessment process. The committee notes that the assessment criteria are
set out in the Business Plan. The assessment process is undertaken by a range of
panels of different sizes and composition to assess applications. These include
community panels made up of community members from across the country and some
expert panels made up of scientists.[117]
3.103
Despite this, some witnesses indicated that they were having difficulty
understanding why certain projects had been successful and others had not. Ms
Andrews told the committee:
There were some projects that I would have thought were just
a shoo-in because they had a good previous record and they seemed to be really
important. I would have thought they put in high-quality submissions but they
did not get funded.[118]
3.104
Ms Andrews went onto state that where groups sought feedback it had been
provided, but she was not able to comment on how thorough that feedback was.[119]
3.105
Mr Bradley expressed concern that the Northern Agricultural Catchments
Council did not receive any direct feedback on its individual applications. He
said:
There were some broad comments provided about why projects in
general were rejected. Some of it was to do with the fact that the size and the
scale were too large; the areas proposed were not priority areas for the
Australian government; the leverage that the proposals brought, which meant the
amount of other money that was being contributed to the projects, was not
sufficient nor as attractive as other projects; and some of the projects did
not meet the target specified in the Caring for our Country business plan. They
were the general comments provided for why competitive projects were not
supported.[120]
3.106
Ms Gross expressed concerns in relation to the transaction costs
associated with the application process. She said:
The issues and the concerns are around the transaction costs
and the fact that, of 1,300 applications submitted, 129 have been approved. It
is probably the fact that there has been so much time, money and effort in
submitting applications that have not got up as opposed to a more integrated
and consultative method where, even though you may not get any more money on
the ground, you have gone through a process whereby, instead of submitting an
application that does not get funded and all that effort is in a sense sort of
wasted, that effort actually reaps rewards through co-investment and other
partnerships that can often achieve those anyway.[121]
Monitoring and evaluation
3.107
A number of witnesses expressed concern that Caring for our Country does
not respond appropriately to the ANAO findings and that the links between
investment and NRM outcomes could not be demonstrated.
3.108
Mr Berwick expressed concern that Caring for our Country has moved
further away from resource condition monitoring and has moved to contract
monitoring. Mr Berwick expressed the view that this was due to the magnitude of
the task. He said:
In talking to staff in the department, they said, ‘It was
just too hard to monitor the resource condition. It was just too big a job and
too expensive. In order to respond to the audit office, we are therefore going
to tighten up on contract management.’ I think that was one of the foundations
of the move to a competitive basis.[122]
3.109
Ms Andrews also drew the distinction between monitoring and evaluation
of program implementation and the evaluation of resource conditions. In Ms
Andrew's opinion the MERI process is focussed on program monitoring and evaluation.
For Ms Andrews the bigger issue in Australia is the evaluation of resource
conditions. Ms Andrews said:
I think we do need a set of national environmental accounts
so we can understand the trends in our resource conditions and whether we are
managing to go up, down or whatever it might be.
...
There will always be an issue about attribution: are that
intervention and that investment leading to that change in resource conditions?
That is a tough one, and that needs to be done with good science and long-term
investment but also an understanding and an ability to monitor and evaluate
resource conditions. I think we need a set of national environmental accounts
to achieve that. No matter how effective our interventions are, if we are not
monitoring resource conditions we cannot prove to the Audit Office that we are
doing a good job and we cannot learn ourselves whether we can do a better job.[123]
3.110
Other witnesses expressed support for the model for national accounting
standards set out in the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists Accounting for
Nature proposal.[124]
Dr Greig told the committee:
... I believe that its basic thrust is highly appropriate. I
very much like the idea that a national picture can be drawn from estimates
made at a regional level, using indicators that are derived as being
appropriate within those regions but scaled on a basis that can allow
aggregation to the national level. That concept appears to achieve the best of
both worlds and be able, for once, to give us a collective view about whether
we are winning the war against gradual decline in the Australian landscape or
whether we are losing it.[125]
3.111
Ms Gross expressed disappointment with the approach taken to demonstrate
resource condition change under Caring for our Country. Ms Gross told the
committee that the proposal was to use Bureau of Statistics data to show how
landholders had made changes to their practice, income and so on and would draw
on MODIS imagery to try and capture change in landscape health. Ms Gross told
the committee:
... that process is at such a core scale and is not working
collaboratively with systems that already exist in the state and regions that
landholders are participating in, and therefore the scale at which they are
reporting, as to whether the programs are being affected to resource condition
change, is not really at a scale that is truly informing whether the investment
has been worthwhile.[126]
3.112
Ms Gross described for the committee the approach being used in
Queensland to benchmark land conditions and showed the committee a series of
maps which illustrated the level of detailed information the system was able to
capture. She expressed disappointment that not only was this another example of
how Caring for our Country could benefit from collaborating with existing
programs being employed by state governments and regional bodies, but that her
group had been unsuccessful in securing funding to continue the system that has
been developed collaboratively across Queensland. She said:
We developed a GI system across Queensland. They resubmitted
that work to try and continue to get that funded because it does deliver good
reporting and provides good information to enrich the Australian Government’s
reporting on national targets, but the business plan, being so prescriptive,
does not allow us to fund that work anymore. In fact, our ability to continue
to provide such a rich scale of information that is very valuable, to look at
your return on investment, cannot be funded under the current program.[127]
Projects funded under the initial
Business Plan
3.113
On 20 November 2008, $28.5 million in funding for projects was
announced.[128]
The committee notes that the recipients of this funding included state
governments, industry organisations, universities, catchment management authorities,
and some existing Landcare and Coastcare groups. The committee also notes that
several of the projects funded will draw together a number of local or regional
organisations to address environmental issues on a larger scale. For example,
the Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority's project Murray Mouth to
Mountains Ecosystem Corridors will bring together ten catchment management
organisations along the length of the Murray River. They will work together to
build on and create links of native vegetation between the river and the
ridgelines areas from the mouth of the Murray in South Australia through to
NSW, Victoria and the ACT.[129]
3.114
However, the committee is concerned at the large number of project
proposals that were unsuccessful in securing project funding and the extent to
which demand for funding exceeded the funds allocated. The committee notes that
over 1300 applications were submitted seeking a total of nearly $3.4 billion in
funding. Of these, about 100 were for base level funding for the 56 NRM
regions, 57 applications were successful, and 41 were either ineligible or
withdrawn.[130]
The committee also notes that of the 57 successful projects only 26 projects
received 100 percent of the funding requested.[131]
3.115
The committee was also concerned that there appeared to be only a
limited amount of funding directed to existing Landcare and Coastcare groups.
For example, the committee notes that under Caring for our Country open grants,
of the 138 successful projects only 47 were Landcare projects. The committee
also notes that while a number of NSW and Victorian Landcare groups were
successful in receiving funding under the Sustainable Practices Project
Funding, groups in other states received little or no funding.[132]
3.116
In July 2009 the government announced an additional $26 million in
funding for Landcare projects across Australia as part of a "major
investment in land management and sustainable agriculture".[133]
The committee notes that once again, while Landcare groups in some states were
successful in obtaining funding, minimal or no funding was allocated to
Landcare groups in some states.
Committee comment
3.117
While the committee notes the government's intentions to address the
identified weaknesses of previous programs, the evidence provided to this
inquiry paints quite a different picture. The committee notes that the government's
intention was to enact change by a process of transition and evolution. The
committee also notes the departments' efforts to seek feedback on the delivery
of the program and their commitment to address these concerns in the
development of future Business Plans.
3.118
The committee also notes that the nature of the concerns raised during
this inquiry mirror those raised with the department in stakeholder workshops
and those raised in recent surveys.[134]
As Mr Berwick observed for the committee:
... consistently right across Australia there are a lot of
people very unhappy with the delivery of the Caring for our Country program—not
just those you wish to speak to today.[135]
3.119
The next chapter sets out the committee's conclusions and
recommendations.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page