Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00287:reg:3:p79
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00287
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 3 (pt 79/276)
Character Range: 312745–315770

was achieved during the decade that it was in force. It fell short of achieving some objectives simply because they were too ambitious to complete in one decade. There were also some additional contributing factors that limited effectiveness of delivery, including:
    * insufficiently detailed cost estimates that in hindsight were underestimated
    * insufficient resources, possibly caused at least partly by a limited range of funding sources available for conservation on the island
    * insufficient systematic monitoring (though monitoring of many threatened species and some pressures increased in the later years of the plan)
    * lack of a framework to enable the evaluation of management program effectiveness
    * lack of a clear process for regular evaluation, review, and improvement (particularly across organisations and land tenures) while the plan was active
    * unclear delegation of responsibilities and possibly insufficient coordination among agencies in provision of information to the public (though this improved greatly in the later years of the plan)
    * insufficient links and translation to operational plans, which limited the usefulness of the plan as a document to inform management.

3.1.4        Recommendations
Reflecting on the conclusions presented above, the review identified several ways in which a new plan could improve on the 2010 plan (in addition to considering new knowledge and information gained over the last decade). Major recommendations were to:
    * Ensure a logical hierarchy of SMART (Doran 1981) targets is included in the new plan to provide a strong base to inform the development of detailed operational plans, and for evaluating progress.
    * Promote, and provide a framework for, regular review and evaluation.
    * Identify and implement improved methods for estimating costs.
    * Ensure that roles and responsibilities are clear among stakeholders and a strong partnership approach underpins the new plan.
    * Identify and apply lessons learned from elsewhere (such as on Lord Howe Island and New Zealand).
    * Ensure climate change is adequately addressed as a significant current threat.
    * Ensure private land conservation is supported during the implementation of the new plan.
    * Write the recovery plan in a way that helps inform the development of detailed implementation plans to i) improve coordination between agencies, ii) ensure an integrated approach across management programs and iii) enable recovery plan targets to be linked much more strongly to operational plans of the different land management organisations.
These recommendations have been addressed fully in this new plan.

3.2         Analysis of the adequacy of current management
Following the review of the previous plan, an analysis was undertaken of the adequacy of the major management programs that were being implemented in Norfolk Island National Park and Norfolk Island reserves at the time (Director of National Parks 2021).
A decision support tool (Di