Chapter Four
Conclusions and Recommendations
4.1
Caring for our Country has been described as an initiative which will
achieve an environment that is healthy, well-managed and resilient. In launching
the program, the government's intention was to build on the legacy of three
decades of investment in natural resource management while addressing
weaknesses identified in previous programs. In the committee's opinion, in its
current form Caring for our Country falls well short of achieving this.
Transitional arrangements
4.2
The committee notes that 2008-09 was a transitional year for Caring for
our Country and that the initial funding arrangements under the program were
intended to create certainty for regional NRM bodies in particular while the
longer term arrangements for the program were developed. The committee also
notes that the speed with which the departments needed to act in order to
develop the initial Business Plan and process the transitional funding round
did not auger well for consultation with stakeholders or the provision of key
information. The committee notes the statements by the departments that they
have embarked on a process of continual improvement in relation to the
development of future Business Plans and that they are seeking to gather
appropriate feedback to assist with that process.
4.3
However, the Committee remains concerned that although the Caring for
our Country Program commenced on 1 July 2008 there was a significant delay in
the release of two key documents: the Business Plan and the monitoring and
evaluation framework. The Business Plan for 2009-10 was not released until 28
November 2008. As the reference document upon which organisations would be
basing their submissions for funding, it disappointing that this document was
not made available earlier in the process. Similarly, the Australian Government
Natural Resource Management Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement
Framework (MERI) – again an important resource document for those interested in
obtaining funding for the development of natural resource management activities
– did not become available until late April 2009.
4.4
The committee also notes that the transition to Caring for our Country
has been an extremely disruptive and anxious time for a lot of people involved
in NRM. The committee has heard from people who are struggling to maintain
physical and human resources while they attempt to secure ongoing financial
resources. For many, seeing hard won gains in community involvement and project
outcomes put at risk during this period of uncertainty has been a source of
great stress. In this context the committee notes the observations of one
witness that the lessons from the transition between NHT1 and NHT2 do not
appear to have been heeded in the transition to Caring for our Country. Mrs
Brennan, representing the South Gippsland Landcare Network, told the committee:
In my honest opinion, given that there was to be such a major
change, we probably should have done all this sort of work and then announced
the change. We have announced the change in May that we are now going to Caring
for our Country, but the business plan is not out. The information we received
about what we could apply for was there but it was not the best quality. ...
Realistically now we should be a hell of a lot better at this.[1]
A national strategy
4.5
The committee notes that the establishment of a set of national NRM targets
through the Caring for our Country Business Plan process is an attempt to
respond to calls for greater guidance from the Commonwealth in the strategic
management of natural resources.
4.6
However, the committee is concerned that the national priorities and
targets identified in the Business Plan appear to have been developed in
relative isolation and are the product of only limited consultation with a selective
range of stakeholders who were, for the most part, Commonwealth Government
agencies. The committee notes that the haste with which the program was
introduced, together with the decision to employ a competitive funding
mechanism, appears to have had some bearing on this.
4.7
The consequences of this closed shop approach to the establishment of
priorities and targets are significant and far reaching. The committee received
evidence that the national priorities and targets do not translate readily to the
local or regional level and have thereby excluded funding for initiatives to
address important issues. The committee received numerous examples of the
difficulties experienced by NRM groups in seeking to align the national
priorities with regional and local priorities and in translating them into
appropriate on-the-ground targets at the local level.
4.8
The committee received evidence that the lack of synchronicity between
the Caring for our Country Business Plan, state NRM plans and regional plans
has the potential to effectively undermine efforts to date to achieve an integrated
landscape management approach. This also precludes strategic efforts by
regional organisations to ensure a joined-up and synergistic approach to
tackling overlapping problems or projects.
4.9
The committee is also concerned that there is an ongoing problem with
the reliance of national planning and prioritisation on the nomination and
identification of key threatening processes and threatened ecological
communities by state and territory agencies through processes under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This becomes
increasingly problematic with the apparent move away from Commonwealth-state
bilateral investment agreements and collaboration in regional NRM planning
processes. The committee is concerned that there now appears to be no driver
for states and territories to devote resources to these listing processes or to
continue to embrace national data collection and sharing protocols.
4.10
The committee is strongly of the view that changes need to be made to
the Business Planning process to foster an integrated and longer-term approach
to land management. The targeting and prioritisation process needs to be
informed by research, analysis and expertise at all levels – national, state,
regional and local – to ensure that key threats to sustainable land management
and biodiversity conservation identified at the local and regional level are
capable of being addressed by Caring for our Country. The committee considers
that the current annual Business Plan model is not compatible with a rigorous
and collaborative approach.
Recommendation 1
4.11
The committee recommends that a more rigorous and comprehensive approach
is taken to the identification of national priorities for inclusion in the
Caring for our Country Business Plan. This process must include engaging
regional and local expertise to ensure that targets established in the Business
Plan are relevant at the regional and local level.
4.12
The committee notes that the extent to which formal collaboration
between states and the commonwealth will continue to be a feature of NRM is
unclear under Caring for our Country. Witnesses have emphasised the important
role that state governments play in NRM and that coordination between all
levels of government is critical to the success of NRM initiatives. The
committee notes that there is considerable support for the states to continue
to formulate state level NRM plans and for this strategic thought and planning
to be formally encouraged and recognised in the formulation of national NRM
priorities.
Recommendation 2
4.13 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government continue to
pursue bilateral agreements with state and territory governments to ensure
greater investment in natural resource management and the continuation of
natural resource management reform.
Competitive funding model, community engagement and capacity building
4.14
The committee is strongly of the
view that Caring for our Country needs to be refocused to provide better
support for a coordinated approach to long-term strategic regional planning,
based on collaboration and co-contribution by key stakeholders.
4.15
The committee is concerned that the Caring for our Country business
model has alienated and disenfranchised people whose participation in NRM is
crucial to its success. It is very clear that the extent of land use change
needed at the landscape scale to address the combined challenges of landscape
degradation, weed and pest management, biodiversity conservation, and
sustainable water use in a changing climate will continue to require a
significant level of voluntary action and private investment by land managers
and regional communities.
4.16
The committee is concerned that the focus on short-term competitive
funding grants, together with a reduction in support to regional NRM planning
and coordination is critically undermining social and institutional capital in
regional areas. As mentioned above, the committee is concerned by the
substantial loss of experienced staff and volunteers, and of capacity and
expertise from NRM as a result of the new program approach at a time when it is
sorely needed.
4.17
The committee notes that under
previous programs responsibility for this work fell largely to regional NRM
bodies and that by and large, regional NRM organisations have the expertise,
local engagement and regional understanding to perform this role. The committee
notes evidence that the performance of regional NRM bodies in this regard was
not always consistent. The committee heard evidence which suggested that, with
the shift in funding arrangements under Caring for our Country, the need for
the roles and responsibilities of regional bodies to be more clearly defined is
greater than ever to ensure the important work of community engagement and
capacity building is continued.
4.18
The committee also notes
evidence from regional NRM bodies that the quantum of base line funding
received under Caring for our Country to date has impacted heavily on staffing
and resources and has compromised their ability to continue field and outreach
work.
4.19
The committee considers that, while
there may be benefits to be gained through the use of a range of means of
delivery and management of natural resource projects, there is still a clear
role for role of regional NRM bodies under Caring for our Country. Regional NRM
bodies are well placed to foster working partnerships, facilitate engagement
and build capacity at the regional and local level. However, this role needs to
be more clearly defined and regional bodies need to be supported strategically
and financially to undertake this work consistently.
Recommendation 3
4.20 The committee recommends that the role of regional NRM organisations
under Caring for our Country be more clearly defined and that a review be
undertaken to assess the adequacy of support provided to regional NRM
organisations in this regard. This review must consider the appropriate level
of institutional support and base line funding necessary for regional NRM
organisations to successfully undertake this role.
4.21
The committee is also concerned that, despite Caring for our Country's
aim of encouraging collaboration at the regional and local level, evidence
received suggests that the competitive process has actively discouraged such
cooperation in many instances. The committee heard reports of groups who, while
collaborating on certain projects through regional NRM groups, were also
submitting overlapping and competing project proposals in an effort to improve
their chances of success. The committee also heard concerns that stakeholders
may have been holding back information from certain joint efforts to enhance
the chances of competing projects.
4.22
The committee notes that under
previous programs NRM groups, land managers and agencies successfully
collaborated on longer term strategic projects. The committee is not convinced
that the current competitive model provides for this, despite its claims to
provide incentives to support such collaboration. The committee notes that
engagement with relevant stakeholders and partners will be taken into account
when determining whether a proposal "demonstrates clear and measurable
achievements against at least once of the Caring for our Country targets"
in the Business Plan.[2]
The committee considers that any funding model should provide much clearer
incentives for collaboration on long-term landscape scale strategic planning
and action to ensure that individual projects are carefully considered and coordinated
with a view to producing tangible landscape outcomes. The committee believes
that proposals that have been developed and negotiated by a number of
stakeholders to address common issues at the landscape level are more likely to
be outcome focussed and capable of practical implementation.
4.23
The committee is also concerned
that under Caring for our Country, NRM groups appear to no longer have the
flexibility to leverage Commonwealth funds through other sources of investment.
The committee considers that initiatives to attract additional investment for
NRM projects from private and overseas sources should be encouraged.
Recommendation 4
4.24 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government consider
avenues for providing clearer requirements and incentives to stakeholders to
collaborate with a range of project partners on long-term landscape scale
strategic planning and action.
Recommendation 5
4.25 The committee recommends that the evaluation method for competitive bid
applications be modified to give greater consideration to the likelihood of
projects achieving defined and measurable environmental outcomes.
Recommendation 6
4.26 The committee recommends that the funding model for Caring for our
Country be reviewed and consideration be given to increasing the level of
overall funding.
Application process
4.27
The committee is concerned at evidence it received about the complexity
and uncertainty of the application process. The committee is particularly
concerned at the high transaction costs involved in the lodgement of applications,
the lack of transparency and accountability in the evaluation of proposals, and
the limited feedback available to unsuccessful applicants.
4.28
The committee considers that the application process should be reviewed
and that consideration is given to avenues for reducing the costs, in terms of
time and resources, involved in lodging an application. The committee notes
that a number of large-scale projects were approved on the basis of expressions
of interest. The committee believes that this approach may offer a means of
containing transaction costs across the full range of applications.
Recommendation 7
4.29 The committee recommends that the application process be reviewed and
that avenues for reducing the costs involved in submitting applications be
considered, including the lodgement of expressions of interest.
Recommendation 8
4.30 The committee recommends that a framework be established to provide
consistent support and feedback to all applicants for funding under Caring for
our Country.
Monitoring and Evaluation
4.31
The committee understands that the monitoring and evaluation of NRM
projects still remains a concern, despite claims that Caring for our Country was
supposed to address issues raised in a number of ANAO reports. The committee
notes concerns that monitoring and evaluation under Caring for our Country is
very much focused on accountability and that the more complex aspects of
evaluation are yet to be addressed.
4.32
NRM projects need to be monitored and evaluated on three levels. On one
level projects must meet financial accountability and governance targets. On
another level, NRM projects must be able to be evaluated against defined and measurable
environmental targets. Finally, data must be collected in a consistent and
coordinated manner to enable the evaluation of the longer-term impact of
investment in NRM projects.
4.33
The committee is concerned that without an assessment process which
ensures that selected projects have defined and measurable environmental
targets, effective monitoring and evaluation of projects will be difficult.
Similarly, without a consistent approach to the collection of rich data at the
local level, longer term evaluation of the effectiveness NRM investment will be
impossible.
4.34
The committee notes that there have been some worthwhile initiatives
implemented at the state level to monitor NRM projects and to collect a
consistent set of data regarding resource conditions. The committee urges the Commonwealth
Government to consider the extent to which it could build on such approaches in
the development of a national monitoring and evaluation system.
4.35
The committee considers that an important first step towards achieving
this would be the instigation of a process of audit of natural resource
conditions. The committee considers that such an audit would provide a means of
establishing benchmarks against which to monitor and evaluate investment in
NRM. The committee believes that this audit process must be appropriately
coordinated to ensure that it draws on the resources and expertise of all tiers
of government as well as regional NRM bodies. The committee also considers that
such an audit process would benefit from the direct input of the Australian
National Audit Office and its state and territory counterparts in establishing
a set of generic audit criteria.
Recommendation 9
4.36
The committee recommends that the NRM Ministerial Council convene a
working group to develop a framework and generic criteria which would form the
basis for an ongoing process of audit of the condition of Australia's natural
resources. The development of the framework and criteria must involve close
liaison with departments and agencies involved in natural resource management
at the Commonwealth, state and territory and local level and Commonwealth,
state and territory audit offices.
4.37
The committee is conscious that at the time that it commenced its
inquiry in June 2008, at the beginning of the transition to Caring for our
Country, it was difficult for those involved in natural resource management to
provide a considered assessment of the impact of the program and the extent to
which it represents an improvement on previous programs. Even eighteen months
later, it is still difficult for stakeholders to determine this. The early
evidence presented to the committee was characterised by anxiety and concern.
This position appears to have not changed. The committee is disappointed to
observe that, rather than building on the lessons and achievements of the past,
Caring for our Country has placed this legacy in grave danger. Where previous
programs had successfully mobilised people and resources in all levels of
government, private industry and local communities, Caring for our Country has
effectively disenfranchised people engaged with NRM. The committee considers
that key elements of the Caring for our Country business model must be reviewed
and refocussed before the program could be said to deliver a comprehensive
national approach to natural resource management.
Senator Fiona Nash
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page