Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635519916.pdf (Australia)
Border Rivers Catchment Management Association ABN 44 299 512 594 Shop 6, Waggamba Square Locked Bag 3 Goondiwindi QLD 4390 8 August 2014 Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Senate Inquiry Submission: National Landcare Program Dear Secretary The Border Rivers Catchment Management Association (CMA) presents this submission on behalf of its members, including the Landcare groups of the Border Rivers region.
The Border Rivers CMA welcomes the Government’s continued investment in the National Landcare Programme to deliver projects that address environmental and sustainable agriculture issues.

In doing so, our group recognises there is scope for improvement and we take this opportunity to share our experiences in the hope of informing better delivery of funding and outcomes.
Preface The Border Rivers CMA strives to support the viable, economic and environmentally sustainable development of the Border Rivers and Moonie Catchments.

The Border Rivers CMA was formed in 1993.

The committee is made up of independent community members including graziers, farmers, irrigators, Landcare representatives, environmental and indigenous representatives, industry representatives and Local and State Government representatives.
The Border Rivers CMA covers an area of 38,795 km2 (the Queensland part of the catchment) and provides a forum for community input and discussion of solutions to land and water resource management issues.

The forum enables the Catchment Management Association to prioritise these issues to inform planning and implementation of the Regional Natural Resource Management Plan, which is managed by the Queensland Murray-Darling Committee (QMDC).
Border Rivers CMA | Senate Inquiry into the National Landcare Program 1 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 21 The Landcare model adopted locally in the Border Rivers region involves a community based elected committee directing a Landcare facilitator/coordinator to deliver Landcare activities which address priority local issues.

The coordinator works directly with land managers to improve land management through education, practice change and on-ground projects.
They assist land managers to apply for and complete projects that are beneficial to the environment and the long term sustainability of the property.

Historically the majority of the funding necessary to assist in the completion of these projects has come from government sources and distributed by the regional natural resource management group.
Terms of Reference This submission addresses elements of the Senate inquiry terms of reference regarding the history, effectiveness, performance and future of the National Landcare Program.

a. the establishment and performance of the Natural Heritage Trust The establishment of the Natural Heritage Trust was very beneficial to Landcare and Catchment groups to leverage significant investment in on-ground projects and buy-in of local land managers to implement practice change for natural resource outcomes.
The government’s investment of public funds into the Landcare movement was successful as it was targeted at the grass roots level where those receiving and expending the funds were directly connected to the issue being addressed.

We understand the ad hoc approach of project activities led to the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) which initiated the national roll out of the regional planning and delivery model which stands today.
As a Catchment group we supported the development of the Regional Natural Resource Management Plan and engaged our communities to contribute to a coordinated approach across stakeholders to achieve our collective natural resource management goals.

Regional plans offered a higher level of coordination, prioritisation and rigour to natural resource management investment, and the administration by regional groups additionally provided local technical expertise that replaced lost government services.
In our region support for the Landcare network was maintained by the regional group and the governing board had significant grass root connections.

Landcare offers, above all other services, a connected and supported social fabric that cannot be achieved by groups that are not locally embedded in the community.

It is this essence of Landcare that has enabled it to survive the administration, governance and policy changes over time.
However, the degradation of the community driven approach to the regional delivery model is causing social fragility within the Landcare network.

b. the establishment and performance of the Caring for Our Country program It is our experience that the establishment and performance of the Caring for Our Country program indicates that the inefficiencies, coordination and community involvement issues that emerged from the NAP regional program delivery model has not been addressed.
Landcare groups in our region who received Caring for Our Country grants directly can demonstrate up to 80% of funds delivered on-ground for improved natural resource Border Rivers CMA | Senate Inquiry into the National Landcare Program 2 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 21 management, representing value for money.

In contrast, only 40% of funds distributed via the regional group were attributed to on-ground action.
This disparity is obvious to the community to the point of disenchantment by groups and land managers.

Whether this is about accountability, inefficiencies or perceptions, transparency of expenditure needs to improve.

Through the Caring for Our Country regional investment program there has been further degradation to the level of community and Landcare involvement in the setting of investment priorities and activities with the regional group.
The current main delivery mechanism by the regional group for distributing on-ground funding for natural resource management activities is conceptually idealistic, but practically is cause for concern as Landcare groups and land managers become further frustrated with the processes, inefficiencies and expectations.

As land managers become disengaged and disenchanted, the regional group’s capacity to delivery their contract milestones diminish.
c. the outcomes to date and for the forward estimates period of Caring for Our Country d. the implications of the 2014-15 Budget for land care programs, in particular, on contracts, scope, structure, outcomes of programs and long-term impact on natural resource management The effect of the 2014/15 budget on the longer term Landcare projects is challenged by the expectation of continued support.
Continuation of funding is an on-going issue and uncertainty can lead to participants being disenchanted and abandoning previous efforts and activities.

Our regional group has informed several of the Landcare groups that there is no new funding for on-ground works available so land managers with an incomplete contracted project are unable to complete their works.
e. the Government's policy rationale in relation to changes to land care programs f. analysis of national, state and regional funding priorities for land care programs The setting of specific national priorities at the exclusion of other issues is disengaging for communities who are seeking public investment in addressing locally significant natural resource management issues for long term sustainability outcomes.
The Regional NRM Plans identify priority issues, targets and management actions with input from the community and regional stakeholders.

The significance of regionally relevant issues should be more heavily weighted in the development of funding programs.

The government should be looking for long term investment opportunities to support and sustain regional communities and landscapes, not short term indulgence on politically motivated issues.
This would also place emphasis and importance on the regional plans needing to have community ownership and application.

Communities would demand more input into regional plans and drive the planning and implementation of regional priorities.

However, how funds are administered to invest in achieving outcomes needs to be reviewed.
g. how the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture have, and can, work together to deliver a seamless land care program Border Rivers CMA | Senate Inquiry into the National Landcare Program 3 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 21 h. the role of natural resource management bodies in past and future planning, delivery, reporting and outcomes We recognise the role of regional groups emerged from a need to represent the interests and priorities of communities at a scale that was appropriate for addressing landscape natural resource management issues and bridge the gap between local community and state and national interests.
The development of regional plans also represents the common interests of local communities and natural resource management issues at the regional scale.

Conceptually we still support this model of planning, delivery and reporting of community natural resource management outcomes.

The consultation, planning and preparation role played by the regional group in development of the regional plan was supported by the Border Rivers CMA.
We encouraged participation of our local community and stakeholders in the regional planning process and as a result our priorities were represented.

Since its publication in 2004 the regional plan has informed local, state and commonwealth investment in priorities and delivered significant funding to our region.

Monitoring and reporting shows a considerable level of achievement against actions and delivery of outcomes.
However, more recently it is becoming clear there is a risk to Landcare groups and other groups if conflict arises with the regional group.

Landcare is a regional stakeholder and as such should be informing the regional group of their community’s priorities.

Community consultation, engagement and participation are paramount to the community based regional approach to natural resource management.
If this is no longer effective, the regional group may proceed without the community ownership of the process and outcomes.

This becomes a risk of the government investing in regional groups without community confidence, participation and support.

Our current experience is there is no effective mechanism in place for conflict resolution and accountability to the community of which the regional group represents.
As the regional group holds the funding, it dictates the level of investment and type of activities contracted to Landcare groups.

The continued engagement of the broad spectrum of regional stakeholders by the regional group has diminished since the early development of the regional plan.

It is hoped that the current review process of the regional plan will reconnect with stakeholders to ensure the regional plan is representative of the regional community, not just the regional group.
This is important, particularly if the regional plan will inform government investment priorities for our region.

In the past, generally the regional model of administering government funding through the regional group to Landcare groups and land managers was functional.

Landcare groups have the ability to respond to local needs and social niche to achieve their goals as a community.

Landcare in each area is unique and should be treated as such.
However the prescribed delivery mechanisms supported by the regional group have presented challenges for Landcare groups and the timeframes and contractual administration has been extremely restrictive at times.

Regional group processes, requirements and operations have often prolonged the delivery of on-ground actions to the point of disenchantment of participating land managers.
Border Rivers CMA | Senate Inquiry into the National Landcare Program 4 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 21 Landcare groups have successfully sourced funding outside of the regional group, these activities and those of other groups are not necessarily reported against in the regional plan, although private and other investment contributes greatly to the achievement of outcomes identified in the regional plan.

i. any other related matters We have mixed sentiments regarding the Green Army.
Whilst it offers employment opportunities and experiences in our local communities, the program is politically charged.

The delivery of on-ground works requires a high level of administrative and management resources and is limited in the type of activities undertaken, leaving communities without input into how public investment to improve their local environment is delivered.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide a submission to the Senate Inquiry on the National Landcare Program.
Regards Trevor Martin Chairperson Border Rivers Catchment Management Association Border Rivers CMA | Senate Inquiry into the National Landcare Program 5 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 21