1.2.3 Expenditure under the program Expenditure under the program from 2011-12 to 2014-15 is outlined in Table 1. Table 1: Research Hubs supported by NERP Hub Lead responsibility Planned from other parties Total Dept Funding to 2014 ($m) Tropical Ecosystems Hub (incl. $2.7m to communications & steering committee through RRRC) Dr Doherty 33.1 23.1 Tropical Ecosystems Hub (Communications, Knowledge Broking, Steering committee, website, implementation Groups) Through RRRC Ltd, with Steering Committee approval for reimbursement by department, $150k pa for KB and web not subject to reimbursement) 0 2.6 Tropical Ecosystems Hub (Admin) RRRC Ltd 0.3 2.7 Environmental Decisions Hub Prof Hugh Possingham 6.4 11.0 Landscapes and Policy Hub Prof Ted Lefroy 9.2 6.0 Marine Biodiversity Hub Prof Nic Bax 18.6 11.0 Northern Australia Hub Prof Michael Douglas 15.9 14.7 Hub All Hubs 71.2 Committed Funds from previous program Department 5.3 Emerging Priorities Department – various - 12.5 Expenditure - $83.5 m 89 1.2.4 Emerging Priorities The NERP also includes a separate emerging priorities stream has funded 18 projects to date (outlined in Chapter 3 of this report). Some $9.1 million of the $12.5 million available during the period 2011 - 2014 has been allocated to projects to date. 1.3 Evaluation methodology The evaluation methodology has been designed to focus on the extent to which the program objective has been achieved, and the efficiency of the program’s delivery. The evaluation methodology was developed with reference to the following publications: Guidelines for the ethical conduct of evaluations (Australasian Evaluation Society); Implementation of Programme and Policy Initiatives: Making implementation matter (ANAO Better Practice Guide, August 2006); Commonwealth Grant Guidelines (Department of Finance, 2013); NERP policy, plans and guidance - including program guidelines (April 2010), multi-year research plans, Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy September 2011; NERP Program Logic (prepared by departmental officers, finalised September 2013); contributions
Appendices – useful context and further detailed information 2. Analysis of NERP’s impact This chapter examines program effectiveness, that is the extent to which the NERP is meeting its objective, three years into the fourth year of the funding cycle of the program. 2.1 To what extent is NERP meeting its objectives? Of the 134 projects funded under NERP to date (including Emerging Priority projects), only 18 have been fully completed, six of which are Emerging Priority projects. Many of the incomplete projects, however, are substantially progressed. Project completion is in accordance with expectations as outlined in multi-year research plans, given the multi-year nature of research projects, and the common lag-time for publication of research papers. Despite only 13 per cent of projects fully complete, this evaluation found that the program has already been effective in meetings its objective in several key areas, most notably in informing national park planning and operations, and also across several high profile EPBC Act responsibilities. The program has also had impact outside the portfolio, including with Australian Alps managers, and traditional owners in Kakadu and the Torres Strait. this impact has been achieved through the delivery of some final project outputs, the impact from the delivery of interim project outputs is significant. The evaluation team found evidence of researchers freely sharing work-in-progress, such as raw data and preliminary observation (where it was sought and researchers were able to do so) and providing advice, input and even developing substantial portions of environmental management plans for portfolio officers. In addition, the ability of departmental officers to engage with the science through newsletters, seminars and more importantly through direct contact with researchers (such as by phone, email, small workshops, as well as steering committees) has yielded impact. The evaluation team identified that NERP’s contribution to the Environment portfolio can be characterised as: providing observational data – for monitoring and discovery; undertaking analysis - including identifying threats, trends and linkages; collaboration, expertise, knowledge-sharing, decision-support; and building an improved knowledge-base and contributing to a longer-term scientific thinking. It is through these mechanisms that NERP has improved the understanding and capacity of departmental officers, and other environmental decision-makers and stakeholders, to use research
better science to underpin the National Wildlife Corridors Strategy and the National Biodiversity Strategy; biodiversity recovery and landscape restoration that gives greater protection and investment to facilitate regrowth forests such as occur in Queensland's brigalow belt; better assessment of projects through INFFER or similar to report on the of project proposals under relevant financial assistance programs; greater transparency in the trade-off between landscape-scale investments and investments for conservation; and a more informed and consideration of biodiversity trends in the Australian Government's (2013) Sustainability report. The Development of Northern Australia Researchers consider that the following areas could benefit from utilisation of NERP research outputs: freshwater flow requirements of rivers and estuaries and importance of the connections between rivers and estuaries. There is growing pressure to develop northern Australia for agriculture and most of this development requires more intensive use of the water resources. There is a severe lack of knowledge on the importance of productivity of estuaries and their role in supporting fisheries. There is also a lack of knowledge and interest by environmental and economic decision makers on sediment/nutrient interactions and the impact land use changes can have on the productivity of estuaries. effective relationships with Indigenous Australians on flow on benefits to communities from the Indigenous Ranger program and how Commonwealth programs such as Caring for our Country and Working on Country could be adjusted to create more successful or sustainable outcomes in any redesign of Federal Indigenous Policy for Northern Australia; and greater priority of the far northern section of the Great Barrier Reef, the only section that has not lost any coral cover. The long-term protection of the far northern section will require State and Federal commitments to prevent unsustainable land development in the far north. State Jurisdictions Researchers consider that the utilisation of NERP research outputs would have benefitted the following: modifications to land clearing regulations in Victoria and NSW. would benefit from research on the conservation value of large trees and the effectiveness of land clearing regulation; impact of tourism development in national parks; conservation planning in the urban fringe so that it has less impact on biodiversity; a greater focus on the relationships between vegetation management and residential housing losses as well as on the impact of climate change from prescribed burning for protecting built assets during bushfires and modifications to clearing laws after major bushfire events; more effective management of gamba grass at a regional scale across northern Australia;
Control of Yellow Crazy Ants on Christmas Island (Parks Australia) Hendra Virus Task Force contribution RIRDC (Hendra Task Force) (T3) Key threatening process review (Consultant) (T3) GBR Crown of Thorns starfish early intervention options (AIMS) (T3) 4: Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems (37 Projects) Environmental Decisions Hub – 10 projects Theme 4: Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems (EDH) – 6 projects RSP Funding – 3 projects 1 emerging priorities project (Pilbara) Tropical Ecosystems Hub – 12 projects Theme 3: Managing for Resilient Tropical Systems Program 8: Effectiveness of Spatial Management on the GBR – 3 projects Program 9: Decision Support Systems for GBR Managers – 4 projects Program 10: Socio-economic value of GBR goods and services – 2 projects Program 12: Managing for Resilience Rainforests – 3 projects Marine Biodiversity Hub – 3 projects Theme 2: Supporting Management of Marine Biodiversity – 3 projects. Northern Australia Hub – 4 projects Theme 1: Planning and Sustainable Financing for Biodiversity Conservation – 2 projects Theme 2: Indigenous Natural Resource Management and Livelihoods – 2 projects Landscapes and Policy Hub – 4 projects Theme 2: Social and Economic Futures – 1 project RSP Funding – 3 projects Individual Emerging Priorities Hub – 4 projects Research into the declared commercial fishing activity (supertrawler) (WHM Division) (T4) Research on the role of rivers, floodplains and associated wetlands in a broader landscape approach to wildlife corridors (Murray Darling Freshwater Research Centre) (T4) Implications of population growth in capital city suburbs (Consultant) (T4) Theme 5: Biodiversity economics and markets (10 projects) Environmental Decisions Hub – 7 projects 5: Biodiversity economics and markets (EDH) Northern Australia Hub – 2 projects Theme 1: Planning and Sustainable Financing for Biodiversity Conservation Landscapes and Policy Hub – 1 project Theme 2: Social and Economic Futures.
Appendix B – NERP Timeline Source: Department of the Environment, NERP Team, December 2013 Appendix C – List of People consulted The following people were interviewed, or participated in roundtable discussions, in person, or via telephone or video-conference, during the course of the evaluation. Vista Advisory is appreciative of their time, candour, insights and the level of engagement with the evaluation team. Non-Environment portfolio – Hub participants and other stakeholders (72) Name Hub Organisation Role Date - 2013 Type Hugh Possingham Environmental Decisions University of Queensland Hub Director 29-Nov By Brendan Wintle Environmental Decisions University of Melbourne Deputy Director 30-Nov By phone Terry Walshe Environmental Decisions University of Melbourne Knowledge Broker 1-Dec By phone Lindenmayer Environmental Decisions Australian National University Theme Leader 5-Dec By phone David Pannell Environmental Decisions University of Western Australia Theme Leader 5-Dec By phone David Salt Environmental Decisions Australian National University Communications - Decision Point 9-Dec In person Karen Gillow Environmental Decisions Australian National University Communications - Website, publications 9-Dec By phone Ted Lefroy LAP UTAS Hub Director 18-Nov In person Suzie Gaynor LAP UTAS Communications 18-Nov In person Vanessa Mann LAP UTAS Hub management executive 18-Nov In person David Bowman LAP UTAS Research Project Leader 18-Nov In person John Tisdell LAP UTAS Research Project Leader 18-Nov In person Louise Gilfedder LAP DPIPWE Knowledge Broker 18-Nov In person Oberson Carter LAP DPIPWE End user 18-Nov In person Alex Lechner LAP UTAS Hub researcher 18-Nov In person (skype) Sandy Whight LAP State Fire Management Council End user 18-Nov In person Mark Chladil LAP Tas Sire Service End user 18-Nov In person John Harkin LAP TAS Dep P&C End user 18-Nov In person James McKee LAP NRM North End user 18-Nov In person Peter Voller LAP DPIPWE End user 18-Nov In person Brigid Morrison LAP UTAS End user 18-Nov In person Sarah Clement LAP Murdoch University Researcher 25-Nov In person
Name Organisation Division Role Date Type Malcolm Thompson Department of the Environment Executive Deputy Sec 11-Dec In person Kimberly Dripps Department of the Environment Executive Deputy Sec 2-Dec In person Mark Flanagan Department of the Environment SPAD SPAD - FAS ongoing In person Sean Sullivan Department of the Environment BCD BCD - FAS 2-Dec In person Cochrane Department of the Environment Parks Australia Director of National Parks 2-Dec In person Kate Lynch Department of the Environment SPAD SPAD - A/g Branch Head ongoing In person Mary Department of the Environment SPAD SPAD - Substantive Branch Head/Strategic Review 5-Dec In person Carolyn Cameron Department of the Environment EACD EACD - FAS 2-Dec In person Judy West Department of the Environment Parks Australia Parks - FAS 13-Dec By Kathryn Collins Department of the Environment SPAD SPAD - former branch head 9-Dec In person Anna Morgan Department of the Environment Parks Australia AS, Parks Operations and Strategic Partnerships 2-Dec By phone Charlton Clark Department of the Environment Australia Assistant Secretary, Marine Parks 12-Dec By phone Sarah-Jane Hindmarsh Department of the Environment BCD BCD – Market-based instruments 28-Nov In person Tia Steven Department of the Environment BCD BCD – National Biodiversity 28-Nov In person Peter Wright Department of the Environment WHAM WHAM - Species information and policy 28-Nov In person James Trezise Department of the Environment EACD EACD – Reg reform 28-Nov In person Edward Department of the Environment BCD BCD 28-Nov In person Andrew Chek Department of the Environment 28-Nov In person Dave Osborn Department of the Environment SPAD SPAD - ERIN 28-Nov In person Giles West Department of the Environment BCD BCD - Reef Rescue 28-Nov In person
No. of stakeholder workshops with parties external to the department 10 9 15 26 25 85 Northern Australia Hub No. of stakeholder workshops with department/portfolio Not reported 0 A number 10 30 40 No. of stakeholder workshops with parties external to the department Not reported 2 14 47 53 116 Tropical Ecosystems Hub No. of stakeholder workshops with department/portfolio staff Not quantitatively reported 76 55 21 49 201 No. of stakeholder workshops with parties external to the department Not quantitatively reported 126 82 81 73 362 32 278 240 340 428 1318 Source: NERP team analysis of hub bi-annual progress reports Notes: Figures do not reflect informal interactions such as calls/emails/advice. The of detail reported and definition of what constitutes a ‘workshop’ varies between hubs (some include meetings/briefings etc, others only formal workshops). Analysis: The interactions have steadily increased over the course of the program. This may not reflect the number of interactions with as in many cases this reporting just captures formal meetings/workshops. This is understandable given the definition of the progress report KPIs (B2 and B3) and also the practicality of recording every interaction.