Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 43
Output: 	1.7 Inland Waters
Division/Agency:	NRMPD / DEH
Topic: 	Australian Water Fund communities programme
Hansard Page ECITA:	ECITA page 139

Senator Webber asked: 
What do you anticipate the staffing level will be?

Answer/s:
The staffing level in 2004-05 for the Australian Water Fund communities programme is 13 Average Staff Level (for a half year). This will rise to 22 in 2005-06.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 45
Output: 	1.7 Inland Waters
Division/Agency:	NRMPD 
Topic: 	Australian Water Fund communities programme
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
What is the 04-05 Budget for the Australian Water Fund communities programme?

Answer/s:
The 2004-05 Budget for the Australian Water Fund communities programme is:
•	$1 million administered expenses for community water grants demonstration projects; and
•	$5,312,000 for Departmental expenses, including $4,250,000 for the development of a communication strategy to promote community participation in the programme and its objectives of conserving water and protecting water quality.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 46
Output: 	1.7 Inland Waters
Division/Agency:	Land Water and Coasts Division
Topic: 	Government commitment to implementing national best practice guidelines
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked:

What is the Government’s commitment to implementing national best practice guidelines, such as the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS)?

Answer/s:

The Government supports continued implementation of the National Water Quality Management Strategy to complement the National Water Initiative. For example, this is being pursued through investments in the Natural Heritage Trust Coastal Catchments Initiative.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 47
Output: 	1.7 Inland Waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment 	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
What is the relationship between water quality planning and management under NAP NRM planning and that under NHT NRM planning?  

Answer/s:
The NAP and the NHT are jointly delivered through the Australian Government’s integrated NRM approach. Therefore water quality planning and management is integrated in a single process in all NRM planning.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 48
Output: 	1.7  Inland Waters and 1.8  Land Management
Division/Agency:	 Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
Accredited NAP NRM plans are required to be consistent with nationally agreed plans, such as the WQMS. What was the ANAO’s assessment of this?

Answer/s:
The ANAO did not comment on this aspect of NRM accreditation.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 49
Output: 	1.7  Inland Waters and 1.8  Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment 	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
What is the status of regional NRM implementation of national strategies other than the NWQMS, e.g. the National Framework for Management and Monitoring of Native Vegetation?

Answer/s:
In May 2002 The NRM Ministerial Council endorsed the National Framework for Natural Resource Management Standards and Targets (the Standards and Targets Framework). This Framework provide the principal guidance for regional actions that contribute to the achievement of national NRM strategies.

The Framework defines aspirational statements of national outcomes, or qualitative targets, that regions are required to incorporate in their NRM plans. These aspirational targets are consistent with national NRM strategies. For instance, the national outcome of the extent to which the diversity and condition of native ecosystems are maintained or rehabilitated is consistent with the National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Australia’s Native Vegetation. 

The accreditation process ensures that relevant national strategies are taken into account at the regional level, and the Standards and Targets Framework sets out the minimum set of matters for which all catchments and regions must set regional targets. Individual regional targets reflect the circumstances of individual regions. As regions progressively report against their targets, data is becoming available that will inform progress against national strategies.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 50
Output: 	1.7  Inland Waters
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment 	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: Which accredited NRM plans identify environmental values and water quality objectives for waters at the catchment scale, and establish actions for achieving those objectives? Do water quality monitoring arrangements follow achievement of those objectives?

Answer/s: 

Relevant environmental values and water quality targets are identified for all regions that have accredited plans. NRM delivery is based on identified activities, monitoring their implementation and adapting these to improve implementation and achieve the goals identified in the plans. Monitoring and evaluation procedures have been, or will be, established to track changes in relation to implemented activities in all regions.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 51
Output: 	1.7 Inland Waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
Guidelines for acquittal against the $350 million commitment have been supplied to the Parliament, and it was noted at budget estimates 2004 that they were being reviewed. Are the revised guidelines linked to implementation of the NWQMS?  Major revisions? Request a copy.

Answer/s:
A copy of the guidelines will available once the review has been completed. The guidelines will be consistent with the National Water Quality Management Strategy.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 52
Output: 	1.7 Inland Waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
How much has been spent under the NHT extension ‘directly on measures to improve water quality’. How much of this is on measures that do not directly improve water quality, e.g. planning and monitoring activities?

Answer/s:
As of 9 February 2005, $91.375 million is estimated to have been approved for measures to improve water quality. 

The figures will be further reconciled at the end of the financial year and in accordance with any changes in the guidelines discussed in the response to Senator Webber’s Question on Notice 51.

All activities attributed to directly improving water quality include on-ground, planning and monitoring and evaluation activities as all are equally essential to the improvement of Australian water quality.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 53
Output: 	1.7 Inland waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
Did you consider developing a specific program(s) to deliver the $350 million commitment?  If not, why not? The acquittal guidelines read like investment guidelines, yet the programs don’t support this, is it left to chance?

Answer/s:
The Australian Government did not establish a $350 million water quality programmme separate from the Natural Heritage Trust. Locating this commitment within the Trust allows for integrated investments to produce multiple benefits in water quality enhancement and other priorities. 

The acquittal guidelines provide a frame of reference to departmental officers for identifying the extent to which projects contribute to water quality outcomes, and for recording projects.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 54
Output: 	1.7 Inland Waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
What does the general standard of accredited NRM plans mean for meeting the $350 million commitment and implementing national strategies e.g. NWQMS?

Answer/s:
NRM plans are only accredited by Australian Government and State/Territory Ministers after a rigorous consideration of the extent to which the plans can contribute to broad-scale natural resource enhancements and national priorities such as the NWQMS. The Government is therefore confident that the NRM plans provide a good vehicle for implementing national environmental and natural resource strategies.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 55
Output: 	1.7 Inland Waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
The primary NAP and NHT funding process is through development and implementation of NRM plans, prepared by regional NRM groups. Approximately 60 regional groups have been established nationally to undertake this task, and since commencement of the NAP, have been developing plans and investment strategies. 

Did the Department prepare a risk management plan for this program years after commencing this program?  If so, why?

Answer/s:
A risk management plan for the NAP and the regional component of the NHT was initially developed in September 2003. It has the status of a working document, and has therefore been progressively refined since that date.

In the early stages of the NAP, implementation risks were managed on a case-by-case basis. This reflected the exploratory nature of these stages, including difficulties in sensibly identifying the full range of feasible risks for a new program of this kind. However, as the ANAO noted in its recent review of the NAP, particular risks were identified in the early stages of the program, and were addressed.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 56
Output: 	1.7 Inland Waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
What will be the total investment by the NAP and the NHT in the regional model?

Answer/s:
The Australian Government’s projected total investment in the NAP and the regional component of the NHT will be approximately $1.6 billion over the life of the two programmes.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 57
Output: 	1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
Does the Government consider levels of funding available under the NAP and NHT regional program sufficient to achieve the programs’ objectives?  Will this investment trigger adequate management and monitoring effort to detect environmental improvements during the life of the programs?

Answer/s:
The Australian Government considers that funding under the NAP and the regional component of the NHT is sufficient to achieve the programs’ objectives. The Government also considers, however, that the delivery of the programs would be more advanced if some State and Territory governments had shown greater urgency in entering into commitments under the two programs. 

The national Natural Resource Management Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, which has been agreed to by the Australian Government and all other jurisdictions, requires annual reporting of program achievements including outputs and progress towards agreed resource condition targets. However, for some environmental issues, a long period of time will be required to achieve significant results, and in many cases these periods will extend past the current life of the NAP and the NHT.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 58
Output: 	1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 

Will this regional NRM experiment deliver any exemplary NRM plans, or strategies for specific environmental themes? If so, which plans are possible models and why?

Answer/s: 

The individual plans reflect differences in environmental, institutional and administrative circumstances across the country and the relative significance of different NRM issues within these regions. The plans cover all aspects of the environment and establish targets for those areas important to the respective communities, the Australian and State and Territory governments.

Each accredited plan meets the accreditation criteria set by all governments but is also seen as a baseline from which there will be continuous improvement and refinement through experience over time and as new knowledge becomes available.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 59
Output: 	1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment 	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
The ANAO and CSIRO/BoM reports suggest the integrated regional model is naïve. Did the DEH consider piloting theme-based management in a number of catchments or regions?  

Answer/s:
The statement that the ANAO and CSIRO/BoM consider that the integrated regional model is naïve is inconsistent with the findings of their reports. The ANAO report referred to survey comments in the CSIRO/BoM report that expressed concerns about delays in the accreditation process. The ANAO also expressed concerns about delays in the accreditation process, while noting that these also reflected influences external to the NAP and the NHT, such as delays in reaching agreement with State and Territory governments. 

It should be emphasised that the ANAO and the CSIRO/BoM comments reflected views current at an earlier stage in the implementation of the NAP and the NHT extension, and that since then the accreditation process has significantly accelerated. Moreover, and even given their concerns about the pace of accreditation, both the ANAO and CSIRO/BoM reports provided positive comments on the regional model itself. The CSIRO/BoM noted that “there are many examples of excellent progress at the catchment level that show the significant progress being achieved through NAP/NHT activities” and that “the overall tenor of most responses [to CSIRO/BoM surveys] could be described as critically constructive”. 

Similarly, the ANAO’s survey of regional organisations found that respondents from regional groups surveyed as part of its review were “overwhelmingly positive” (para. 2.54 of the ANAO report) in response to the statement “that the NAP is a well-designed program that is appropriate” for regional needs.

NHT regional investments reflect the priorities identified by the regions.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 60
Output: 	1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 

The CSIRO/BoM report in 2004 highlighted the relative absence of available science in the development of NRM plans. How is this reconciled against the Government statement that plans use best science? What measures has the Government taken since that report to improve science uptake in NRM planning?

Answer/s: 

The CSIRO/BoM report states that “considerable progress has … been achieved in establishing mechanisms for the uptake of science and technology in the development of catchment management planning procedures”. The report also notes that there is a need for greater capacity for understanding and uptake of science into the regional process.

Natural resource management requires integration and interpretation of scientific theory and knowledge across specific scientific disciplines that have often operated in relative isolation from one another. While there is often detailed knowledge of specific research subjects and sites, and knowledge of broad scale processes, there are significant challenges in integrating current knowledge across the range of scales needed to apply it to landscape, regional and paddock scales of resolution. Regions have been supported through foundation funding to collate and integrate relevant scientific information to support their plans. 

Measures taken by the Australian Government to improve science uptake include:
•	providing foundation and priority funding to regions to collate information relevant to their regions and, in some cases, collect baseline data on the natural resources of the region;
•	funding the establishment of a national vegetation knowledge service; 
•	funding a national program to provide access to the best knowledge and innovations in river management and restoration;
•	supporting the development of knowledge based fire management in northern Australia;  
•	release of three products to conclude the National Dryland Salinity Program. These are 
•	Dryland Salinity - On-Farm Decisions and Catchment Outcomes — a Guide for Leading Producers and Advisors; 
•	Dryland Salinity and Catchment Management – a Resource Guide and Action Manual for Catchment Managers; and 
•	Breaking Ground – Key Findings from 10 Years of Australia’s National Dryland Salinity Program. 
The publications provide a valuable collation of scientific information through a self-help system enabling governments, catchment management organisations and land managers access to a complete synthesis of salinity research that can be incorporated into regional plans, investment strategies and on-ground works. The three manuals are available in hardcopy and on CD-ROM. 

The Australian Government has established a web site (www.nrm.gov.au) to facilitate exchange of information and learning across regions, assist in identifying relevant research providers and a range of information products related to science delivery, aid discovery of publicly available Australian Government data and promote the exchange of experiences through a list server for regional bodies and other key interest groups interested in regional delivery.

In addition several of the research and development corporations are involved in integrating and disseminating the results of research that promote sustainable land use systems in the regions. Examples include:
•	Grain & Graze – a joint R&D program of the Grains RDC, Meat & Livestock Australia and Land and Water Australia;
•	Land, Water & Wool – a joint program of Australian Wool Innovation and Land & Water Australia; and
•	Sustainable Grazing of Saline Lands – a project of the CRC for Plant based management of Dryland Salinity

In addition to actions taken by the Australian Government, action is also being taken by the regions and States to improve the incorporation of appropriate science into regional activities. For example South Australia has established a Centre for Natural Resource Management as a joint venture between the SA Government and the University of Adelaide to develop and maintain partnerships with NRM Regional Groups, scientists and researchers, business and industry, governments and agencies, so that integrated natural resource management across South Australia is based on world-class research and development. This approach provides a model for coordinating research requirements and research delivery across a range of institutional partners.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 61
Output:	1.7 Inland Waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
Do you consider there is a role for the Commonwealth in quality control of NRM plans, and ensuring management action targets deliver resource condition targets, which are in turn relevant to achievement of aspirational targets?  

Answer/s:
Yes – this is one of the current roles played by the Australian Government in accrediting natural resource management plans, in partnership with State and Territory governments and in monitoring the results of investments in each region.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 62
Output: 	1.7 Inland Waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
Are management action and resource condition targets set by regional NRM groups acceptable for the protection of Great Barrier Reef water quality? If so, why?

Answer/s: 
In most cases the Reef Catchment Regional bodies are still in the process of setting quantitative targets, reflecting the requirement to do so by July 2005 within their regional plans. Australian Government agencies are assisting them in this activity by providing updated models to identify sources of sediment and nutrient within regional catchments as well as the contributing land-uses for these sources. Appropriate management action targets will then be formulated to address hot spots and relevant land management and use.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 63
Output:	1.7 Inland Waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 

Are the aspirational targets for Great Barrier Reef water quality, as set by regional groups, acceptable?

Answer/s: 
High level aspirational targets, where they exist in plans, articulate a community’s long-term vision for regional natural resource assets. The measurable targets – resource condition and management action targets – are more relevant to improving water quality and they are assessed as to their appropriateness and subject to monitoring and evaluation.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 64
Output:	1.7 Inland Waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
What measures do you take to ensure regional ‘investments’ focus on national or international priorities, eg matters of NES? What proportion of funding to Queensland is spent ‘directly on measures to improve’ Great Barrier Reef water quality, or planning and monitoring?

Answer/s: 
The accreditation and approval process for NRM regional plans and investment strategies, which involves Australian Government and State or Territory Ministers, ensures that international and national priorities relevant to the circumstances of particular regions are reflected in the plans and strategies for those regions. The process includes providing regional bodies with information on, for example, NES matters in their area and participation of Australian Government officials in the development of all regional plans and investment strategies. National and international priorities are also reflected in investments made under the national investment stream of the Natural Heritage Trust.

Many of the land-based activities in GBR catchments (such as revegetation), will influence catchment water quality, and ultimately lead to improvements in the GBR lagoon. Measures such as incentives, skills extension and information for primary producers and other landholders to improve their understanding of best practice land management, are likely to deliver the most immediate and direct benefit to the environmental quality of the lagoon. To date, such measures undertaken within the Reef Catchments account for approximately 10 per cent of NAP and Trust expenditure in Queensland. Further projects will come forward in the three-year investment strategies for each region.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 65
Output:	1.7 Inland Waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	NRMPD
Topic: 	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
What is the current annual Commonwealth investment in NRM coordinators and facilitators?  How do you justify this level of investment and is it cost-effective?

Answer/s:
Community capacity building and institutional reform is one of the three primary objectives of the Natural Heritage Trust. 

The Commonwealth through the Natural Heritage Trust programme is investing $12 million per annum to June 2006 in a national Natural Resource Management facilitator network, which contributes towards the objectives of the Trust and the objectives of the National Action Plan programmes. 

The NRM Facilitator Network comprises facilitators working at the state wide and regional levels including on theme-based issues (e.g. landcare; bushcare; rivercare and coastcare). Facilitators work directly with regional bodies, industry, local governments, indigenous communities and local volunteers. People are the primary means to implement the activities and works under the Natural Heritage Trust and National Action Plan programmes. 

The Network was established because direct human support is recognised as a key way to achieve the on-the-ground works and outcomes being purchased at all levels of the programmes. The investment is a small component of the $1.77 billion Commonwealth investment in natural resource management through the Natural Heritage Trust and National Action Plan programmes.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 66
Output: 	1.7 Inland Waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
What measures are being taken to salvage outcomes from the regional program?  Given there are insufficient funds, spread over too much landscape, across too many themes, with so many stakeholders and their expectations and the widespread investments in capacity building, where to for the regional program?  

Answer/s:
With a total Australian Government investment of $3.7 billion, the NAP and the Trust represent the largest environmental and natural resource repair and recovery program since Federation. Australian Government investment in on-ground outcomes is accelerating under both the NAP and the Trust. The planning and accreditation phases for both programs are now well advanced and, since July 2003, the Australian Government has approved regional investments under the NAP and the Trust totalling more than $558 million, with matching investment from the States and Territories.

The two programs address environmental and natural resource management through a comprehensive approach and on a continental scale. The objectives of the NAP and the Trust are clearly ambitious and significant, but they are also feasible. The Australian Government’s financial support for the two programs, and the matching State and Territory contributions to the NAP and the regional component of the Trust, are designed to ensure the two programs are sufficiently resourced to achieve their objectives. It is also important to emphasise that investments in capacity building are not a diversion from regional outcomes, but a necessary step towards achieving them.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 67
Output: 	1.7 Inland Waters and 1.8 Land Management
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Regional NRM Planning and Investment
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Webber asked: 
When will you be satisfied this delivery mechanism has failed, and cut your losses and try another model?  Will it be after the 2007 election?  Do you have any alternative delivery models available for immediate deployment?

Answer/s:
The evidence available from recent reviews, including the ANAO review of the NAP, confirms wide-spread community support for the regional model, and that significant progress is being achieved in the implementation of the NAP and the NHT.

Discarding the regional model arbitrarily would waste the considerable effort invested in it by the community, the States and Territories, and the Australian Government.