Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635013242.pdf (Australia)
Senate Inquiry into National Landcare Program Submitting Organisation: Queensland Regional Natural Resource Management Groups Collective Table of Contents CONTENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE COLLECTIVE’S DETAILED RESPONSE TO ISSUES OUTLINED IN TERMS OF REFERENCE The establishment and performance of the Natural Heritage Trust The establishment and performance of the Caring for Our Country Program The outcomes to date and for the forward estimates period of Caring for Our Country 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.
Analysis of national, state and regional funding priorities for land care programs.

How the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture have, and can, work together to deliver a seamless program.

The role of natural resource management bodies in past and future planning, delivery, reporting and outcomes.
HISTORY OF THE SUBMITTING ORGANISATION PAGE 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 8 9 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 22 QRNRMGC Submission to the Inquiry into Landcare ________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This submission is made by the Queensland Regional Natural Resource Management Groups Collective (Collective) on behalf of the 14 Regional NRM Groups in Queensland which it represents.
In making this submission to the Senate Enquiry the Collective wish to emphasise that it does so in the spirit of maximising the efficient and effective delivery of natural resource management to the benefit of all Australians.

It should not be misconstrued that we are being critical of this or any previous government.
For the purpose of this submission we use the term ‘natural resource management’ to be inclusive of all activities that will result in a healthy productive landscape including supporting community groups such as Landcare Groups.

We believe that effective natural resource management is underpinned by the landcare ethic which is in turn underpinned by the principle that the actions of this generation need to ensure that we leave a healthy, productive and vibrant landscape for future generations.
The desire to protect, enhance and sustainably use our natural resources and ecosystems won’t be achieved unless the communities who use and live in them have ownership of that desire.

There has been significant attitudinal change by land managers (inclusive of both private and public land managers) and the community at large towards the sustainable use of our natural resources over the past two decades.
Increasingly the community is being mobilised towards even more sustainable management practices and uses of our natural resources.

The old adage that ‘awareness leads to action, leads to results’ applies here.

We have moved through the awareness phase into the action phase and are starting to see results.

We need to acknowledge that programs such as NHT and National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and Caring for our Country have been key enablers.
Through those programs we have been able to increase the capacity of communities, and land managers within those communities, to adopt more sustainable practices.

Initially this occurred at the individual farm, State Forest or Road Reserve level and of late it is taking place across the many and varied land uses at the landscape level.

This has largely been achieved through the development of Regional NRM Plans.
Community based NRM Regional Bodies have carriage of developing and keeping these plans are current.

This approach brings together the many different and often conflicting agendas of natural resource users in a constructive and strategic manner.

With the introduction of the Caring for our Country program the emphasis moved away from a whole of landscape and community approach to a focus on national priorities.
This resulted in an erosion of the capacity of regional bodies to fund the community’s capacity to manage their natural resources.

Regions accept the need to address national priorities and preserve iconic sites but argue those priorities are best secured by ensuring the health and function of the landscape as a whole.

That long term health is best delivered at a regional scale by building community and landowner capacity.
The Reef Rescue sub-program was an exception to this model where targets and associated activities to deliver on those targets were negotiated between the Australian Government, Industry, Regional NRM Groups and Conservation interests.
In Queensland Regional NRM Bodies are the only community-based organisations that have the sole purpose of working with all land managers to address large and complex natural resource issues at the landscape level; building collaboration, gathering and sharing information and brokering funding for on-ground work.
Page 2 of 9 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 22 QRNRMGC Submission to the Inquiry into Landcare ________________________________________________________________________ THE COLLECTIVE’S DETAILED RESPONSE TO ISSUES OUTLINED IN TERMS OF REFERENCE: The establishment and performance of the Natural Heritage Trust.

The performance and learnings which resulted from the Natural Heritage Trust are summarised as: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.


A community based approach delivered through Landcare and Catchment Management frameworks created a significant attitudinal change (i.e.

you need to manage the natural resource sustainably to produce a quality product on an ongoing basis).

A non strategic approach doesn’t work (i.e.

land managers carrying out land management activities in isolation to each other).

A landscape approach is needed.


NRM plans developed and implemented by the community for management of their natural resources delivers an integrated whole of community, whole of landscape approach.

The regional process resulted in mobilisation of massive community, industry and corporate investment and participation.

The role of Local Government in NRM was recognised and enhanced.
The importance of gaining Traditional Owner knowledge and engagement in delivering more sustainable use of natural resources was recognised and enhanced.

Improved relationships between stakeholders, many who had unaligned agendas, were facilitated by Regional Bodies which resulted in effective partnerships delivering desired NRM outcomes in an integrated and efficient manner.

An effective pool of expertise in delivering NRM resided in the Regional Bodies and partnering organisations.
Regional Plans provided a targeted strategic approach to NRM which can be integrated into other planning processes.

Regional plans allowed National and State priorities to be articulated in a regional and local context so that on ground delivery was more effective.

10.

Regional plans allowed local, catchment and regional priorities to be articulated in a State and National context.

11.
11.

Too many programmes running simultaneously created confusion amongst land managers as well as creating increased bureaucracy around applying, assessing and reporting in accessing Government funds.

12.

There wasn’t effective monitoring and evaluation of natural resource condition resulting from Government programmes.
Page 3 of 9 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 22 QRNRMGC Submission to the Inquiry into Landcare ________________________________________________________________________ The establishment and performance of the Caring for Our Country Program.

The performance and learnings which resulted from the Caring for Our Country program are summarised as: 13.

A high level of Australian Government investment in natural resource management with funding of $2 billion for the period 2008 to 2013 committed.

14.
14.

There was a lack of opportunity to have input into the program design particularly in relation to the changed arrangements for funding landcare groups, the loss of State/Territory matching requirements and the separation of salinity and other water quality programs from Caring for our Country funding.

15.

The regional delivery funding initiative was developed and the move towards longer term funding arrangements that reduced the funding transaction costs for Regional NRM Bodies was welcomed.

16.
16.

Targets moved away from capacity building and social capital which left this fundamental area without resources and created difficulties with Regional NRM Bodies being blamed for Landcare groups not receiving funding, however this was often because under the CfoC targets NRMs were unable to fund local capacity building projects.

17.
17.

The program initially proposed a fundamental change to the role of Regional NRM Bodies in that they were regarded more as a service delivery agency rather than a partner in the process of determining investments.

18.
18.

Agencies felt compelled to honour the competitive neutrality principles and so were unable to receive advice from Regional NRM Bodies on regional priorities (alignment of projects with regional NRM plans) nor access the “local knowledge” of Regional NRM Groups in allocating funding to organisations.

19.
19.

The competitive process resulted in high transaction costs - with many organisations chasing fewer grants; and competition between Regional NRM Bodies and other regional organisations undermining partnerships that were essential to the long-term sustainable management of natural resources.

20.

The transition from stage 1 to stage 2 of the Caring for our Country Program was well managed with Regional NRM Bodies and other stakeholders being actively engaged in the design of the new program.

21.
21.

At the same time the Australian Government recognised the value of regional NRM plans in its NRM Planning for Climate Change initiative and provided additional funds for regional NRM plans to be updated to reflect potential climate change impacts on natural resources.
Page 4 of 9 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 22 QRNRMGC Submission to the Inquiry into Landcare ________________________________________________________________________ The outcomes to date and for the forward estimates period of Caring for Our Country.

CfoC evolved from NHT 1 and 2 and continued to deliver regional NRM and to fund Australia’s national obligations.

Most importantly, it provided funding and planning security.
While CfoC, in our view, had too much focus on national priorities at the expense of landscapes and communities, it was undergoing welcome reforms that recognised the importance of regional plans, community and capacity building.
Forward estimates provided in CfoC for the program were cut in the recent budget leaving its successor, the National Landcare Program with a 26% budget reduction, as discussed below 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.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.


There is very little recognition amongst agricultural businesses about the need to sustain and restore the values of the assets on which they rely (healthy soils, quality water and supporting ecosystems).

This is at a time when governments are setting goals to double output and expand economic development for regional communities.

Agricultural businesses need to maintain the assets they require for production or set aside money to replace them (i.e.

funding depreciation).


There does not appear to be any consideration of the use of ecosystem services payments to landholders as a long term response to the impact of these issues.

Queensland Regional NRM Groups rely on Australian Government programs for in excess of 70% of their funding.

This is nearly reverse for the States who have statutory bodies which are heavily reliant on State funding.
The recently announced 20% cut to the NLP program, which devolves directly to Regional NRM Groups, will reduce Queensland bodies capacity to deliver the NRM outcomes desired by their regional communities as well as national priorities.
The proposed 20% cut in the NRM program budget is on top of a reduction in real income received by Regional NRM Bodies by fact that their budget has effectively been frozen for the past 5 years with the increased cost of delivery driven by inflation having to be absorbed into stationary budgets.

The Regional NRM Bodies will struggle to maintain and attract staff of a very high calibre such as those presently in these bodies.
This will have a flow on effect to local land managers who have come to rely on these skills and knowledge as State Government continues to down size their extension and delivery capacity.

The NRM bodies welcome future investment being targeted to deliver NRM Plan identified areas of high priority and the ability to be able to directly invest in lifting community capacity to engage and deliver natural resource management activities.
Page 5 of 9 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 22 QRNRMGC Submission to the Inquiry into Landcare ________________________________________________________________________ Analysis of national, state and regional funding priorities for land care programs.

28.

29.

30.

Open Grant contestable type bids have proven to be detrimental to the ability of Regional Bodies to facilitate the delivery of national, state, regional and local priorities.
It jeopardized the level of trust which was built among stakeholders, land managers and the community at large.

It did not result in strategic integrated delivery of NRM in most cases.

The first CfoC Open Grant process resulted in over 150 separate applications from Queensland.

It has been estimated that the investment required to develop the applications for this $25 million (Australia wide) funding round exceeded the total amount of funds coming to Queensland.
Security of income is essential for Regional Bodies in Queensland which are not underpinned by State Government legislation and resources and are independent legal entities which need to conform to State and Australian Government Business legal requirements around issues of solvency and governance.
There is a need for secure, longer term core regional allocations to allow Regional Bodies to: undertake good business practices as well as NRM delivery; undertake forward planning; o o o maintain trust and credibility among stakeholders; and o attract quality staff.

31.

Short term arrangements makes the attraction and retention of skilled staff, particularly in regional areas, very difficult.

32.
32.

We recognise the need for probity and accountability however there are other and better ways to achieve this than simply having competitive bids.

We are not building roads (i.e.

well defined projects that lend themselves to competitive bids), we are dealing with NRM which is by nature complex, requiring collaboration, intertwined with social and economic imperatives and requiring fundamental social and economic change.
Competitive bids will fail unless it occurs within the framework of an agreed regional plan.

How the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture have, and can, work together to deliver a seamless program.

What is required?

33.

Reporting would link regional, state and national State Of Environment (SOE) reporting.

For this to work a set of national environmental accounts supported by institutional structures and frameworks (as per the Wentworth Group proposals) is required.

34.
34.

An integrated national, state and regional Framework required and to include: a) National priorities, targets and budget; b) State plans, targets and budgets (reflecting national priorities and adding state priorities and investment); and c) Regional plans (reflecting federal, state and regional priorities).

Page 6 of 9 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 22 QRNRMGC Submission to the Inquiry into Landcare ________________________________________________________________________ 35.
Accountability – addressing the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) concerns: a) Vertically integrated monitoring, evaluation and reporting (MER) ranging from Management Action Targets (MATs) at the regional level to Resource Condition Targets (RCTs) at the state and national level; b) RCTs to be the responsibility of Australian Government and State; c) MATs to be the responsibility of Regional NRM Bodies; and d) Establish an integrated, publicly accessible national remote sensing and data capture system.
36.

Partnerships and Bilaterals a) Investment built around recurrent funding integrating with other programs (e.g.
climate and water); b) Bi or Trilateral agreement with states which encompasses the roles and responsibilities of Australian, State and Local Governments and Regional NRM Bodies; c) State plans to meet Australian Government targets to receive funds; d) Regional plans (jointly funded by Australian Government, States, Community and Corporate) to be accredited and to meet standards of governance, reporting, accountability and community engagement in order to receive funds; e) Leverage, community engagement, on ground delivery, volunteer coordination, local government/Non-Government Organisations partnerships and enviro auctions to occur at regional level; f) States to be funded/engaged to unlock expertise, data bases and align agencies enabling full and open participation across federal, state, regional and local levels.
37.

Process a) COAG proposal from Australian Government to establish a National Environmental Accord built on the principle of cooperative federalism; b) Accord creates a national, integrated environment programme that (ultimately - may take time); i.

Links current Federal and state programs (NLP, water, climate etc); ii.
Addresses biodiversity, sustainable production, ecosystem services (and stewardship payments) water quality and quantity, waste and pollution, national icons, community engagement; Is underpinned by a set of national environmental accounts with independent reporting to Parliament (as is finance); iii.

iv.
iv.

Reports to the public through regional, state and national SOE reports against resource condition targets; v. Consistent definition of best practice farming across all jurisdictions and production systems coupled with green labeling for sustainable production; and vi.

Recognition that farmers and landowners can play a major role in carbon sequestration through good practice (soils, rehabilitation, ground cover, etc).
In the interim continue to fund national state and regional plans and priorities; c) d) Set aside a portion for “Contestable Innovation” bids to drive new ideas and innovation; and Page 7 of 9 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 22 QRNRMGC Submission to the Inquiry into Landcare ________________________________________________________________________ e) Establishes an ongoing national roundtable engaging principle stakeholders (regional bodies, primary production, conservation, local government, Traditional Owners…) to negotiate targets and engage over delivery, reporting and governance.
The role of natural resource management bodies in past and future planning, delivery, reporting and outcomes.

38.

39.

40.

41.

Regional approach brings many stakeholders together around the same table which in turn leads to greater total engagement, more leveraged dollars and effort working towards the achievement of a common vision/set of targets.

Regional plans are fundamental as the basis for sector agreement, collaboration, regional and local investment and delivery of investor priorities.
Regional NRM Bodies are effectively making the linkages between landscape resilience, primary production, biodiversity conservation, sequestration and avoidance opportunities (playing a major role in meeting the targets).

Regional NRM Bodies in Queensland have a demonstrated their ability to provide a good return on the investments that the Australian and State Government have made through them.
Page 8 of 9 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 22 QRNRMGC Submission to the Inquiry into Landcare ________________________________________________________________________ HISTORY OF THE SUBMITTING ORGANISATION The Queensland Regional NRM Groups Collective (the Collective) represents the interests of the 14 regional natural resource management bodies in Queensland.
The state has adopted a flexible approach to community-based NRM, in response to the Australian Governments’ Caring for our Country and previous programs.

This means that regional bodies reflect diversity within the state, in their corporate structures, stakeholder interests, and stages of planning and implementation of NRM.

The Collective was formed in 2002 because, despite these differences between the regional bodies, the groups themselves felt many issues could be best addressed with a single voice.
The Collective provides this voice and a mechanism to reduce duplication, streamline processes, mentor and support, and advocate common issues.

Queensland’s 14 Regional Natural Resource Management Bodies (NRM bodies or Regional Bodies) have been established to conserve biodiversity, facilitate the conversion to sustainable agricultural systems and build community capacity.
Over the past 10 years, Queensland regional NRM bodies have demonstrated that they are a key element in the state and national approaches to developing and implementing more sustainable management of our natural resources.

To deliver this role under the bilateral agreement regional bodies were required to develop community based plans and investment strategies.
In order to deliver these strategies the regional bodies are increasingly attracting substantial additional investment from commerce and other sources and that in turn is leveraged by a factor of at least three through community and landowner endeavor.
Queensland regional NRM bodies:  are the key delivery agents for major public investment programs;  provide an important bridge between governments and regional communities;  have established a strong and workable framework for engaging stakeholders across different sectors;  operate at the crucial scale between local and state government for taking an integrated approach to a range of NRM issues; and  have built considerable trust among the principle stakeholders.
Queensland regional NRM bodies have developed and implemented a flexible “bottom up” approach to managing natural resources which has delivered a high degree of regional ownership and responsiveness, significant outcomes in the management of our natural resources and considerable return on investment of government monies.

Page 9 of 9 National Landcare ProgramSubmission 22