������������ ������� �������������������������

��������

������������ ������� �������������������������

��������

�������������

�����������

���������������

���� �������

���� ����������

�����������

�������������� ���������� ������������ �����

NRM GOVERNANCE IN AUSTRALIA: NRM PROGRAMS AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES

Julie Davidson Michael Lockwood

Allan Curtis Elaine Stratford

Rod Griffith

SEPTEMBER 2007

REPORT NO. 2 OF THE PROJECT

Pathways to good practice in regional NRM governance

Pathways to good practice in regional NRM governance Project overview Environmental degradation, including biodiversity loss and water quality decline, is a major problem facing Australia. Regional delivery of natural resource management (NRM) is the main mechanism for addressing such issues. Yet we lack fundamental understandings about the effectiveness and quality of regional NRM governance. Governance involves consideration of issues such as authority, accountability, representation, and consultation. It is a key determinant of the capacity of regional NRM institutions to make effective decisions and deliver outcomes. This interdisciplinary and collaborative project was conceived to assess the effectiveness of regional NRM governance and to develop a standard for good-practice NRM governance. The work is being undertaken with the collaboration of nine NRM regions in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania. The objectives of the project are to: 1. establish a theoretically robust understanding of good regional NRM governance; 2. develop a set of principles for good regional NRM governance; 3. describe regional NRM governance arrangements and structures, with particular reference to our nine

partner regions; 4. assess the quality of NRM governance in our nine partner regions, as well as the State and

Commonwealth levels, against our governance principles and related themes; 5. identify aspects of regional NRM governance in our nine partner regions as well as the State and

Commonwealth levels, that should be targeted for improvement, and 6. develop a standard for good regional NRM governance that can be used to benchmark and track

governance performance. Principal Funding Land and Water Australia Principal Researchers Michael Lockwood (School of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania) Allan Curtis (Institute for Land, Water & Society, Charles Sturt University) Elaine Stratford (School of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania) Research Fellows Julie Davidson (School of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania) Rod Griffith (Institute for Land, Water & Society, Charles Sturt University)

Regional Partners Don Forsyth, Peter Codd (Corangamite CMA) Gavin Hanlon, Chris Hain (North Central CMA) Bill O’Kane, Megan McFarlane (Goulburn Broken CMA) Anthony Couroupis, Emmo Willinck (Murray CMA) Chris Glennon, Kate Lorimer-Ward (Lachlan CMA) Tim Ferraro (Central West CMA) Michael Pitt (Northern Rivers CMA) David McCormack (Cradle Coast NRM) Vanessa Elwell-Gavins (NRM South)

State Government Partners Peter Andrew (DSE, Victoria) Tom Grosskopf, Jim Booth (DECC, NSW) Alan Haig, John Whittington (DPIW,Tasmania) Australian Government Partners Peter Creaser, Debbie Langford (Australian Government NRM) Land and Water Australia Noel Beynon, Tracy Henderson

Catherine Murdoch and NRM North team have assisted in piloting several research instruments and project outputs.

For information about the project, please contact Dr Julie Davidson, School of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, (03) 6226 7675, Julie.Davidson@utas.edu.au

ISBN: 978-1-86295-419-9

Previous reports in this series Davidson, J. Lockwood, M., Curtis, A., Stratford, E. Griffith, R. (2006) Governance principles for regional natural resource management. Report No 1 of the project “Pathways to good practice in regional NRM governance” University of Tasmania, Hobart.

Copies of this reports are available from: www.geog.utas.edu.au/geography/nrmgovernance/

Cover photographs: Goulburn River, Shepparton and olive farm at Kialla, courtesy of Ian Sansom

i

CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ii LIST OF TABLES ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. NRM GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES: ORIGINS AND INTENTIONS 2 3. NATIONAL FRAMEWORK 9 4. NSW NRM FRAMEWORK 12

Central West Lachlan Murray Northern Rivers

5. TASMANIAN NRM FRAMEWORK 28

South Cradle Coast

6. VICTORIAN NRM FRAMEWORK 39

Corangamite Goulburn Broken North Central

7. THE NEXT PHASE OF NRM GOVERNANCE EVOLUTION 59 8. SUMMARY 64 9. NEXT STEPS 66 REFERENCES 67

ii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Structure for NHT 1, 1997–2001 3 Figure 2. Australian NAP and NRM regions 6 Figure 3. Regional NRM structure for NHT 2, 2002–2008 9 Figure 4. NSW NRM framework 12 Figure 5. Structure of regional NRM arrangements in NSW 14 Figure 6. NSW NRM regions 16 Figure 7. Central West CMA region 18 Figure 8. Central West CMA management structure 19 Figure 9. Lachlan CMA region 21 Figure 10. Murray CMA region 23 Figure 11. Murray CMA management structure 24 Figure 12. Northern Rivers CMA region 25 Figure 13. Northern Rivers CMA management structure 27 Figure 14. Tasmanian NRM framework 29 Figure 15. Tasmanian NRM regions 31 Figure 16. NRM South region 33 Figure 17. NRM South management structure 35 Figure 18. Cradle Coast NRM region 37 Figure 19. Cradle Coast NRM management structure in relation to the Cradle Coast Authority management structure 38 Figure 20. Victorian NRM framework 39 Figure 21. Structure of regional NRM arrangements in Victoria 41 Figure 22. CMA regions, Victoria 42 Figure 23. Corangamite Catchment Management region 46 Figure 24. Corangamite CMA Management Team 48 Figure 25. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management region with implementation committee sub-regions 49 Figure 26. Goulburn Broken regional governance arrangements 51 Figure 27. Goulburn Broken CMA management structure 52 Figure 28. North Central Catchment Management region 54 Figure 29. North Central CMA management structure 58 Figure 30. CAPs as an integrated prospectus for NRM 63 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. A comparison of independent advisory panels by state 8

iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ANAO Australian National Audit Office CaLP Act Catchments and Land Protection Act 1994 (Victoria) CAP Catchment Action Plan CCMA Corangamite Catchment Management Authority CMA Catchment Management Authority DAFF Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry (Australian

Government) DECC Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW) DEWR Department of Environment and Water Resources (Australian

Government) DPAC Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tasmania) DPI Department of Primary Industry (Victoria) DPIW Department of Primary Industry and Water (Tasmania) DPIWE Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment

(Tasmania) DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment (Victoria) EPA Environment Protection Authority GB CMA Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority IC Implementation Committee JSC Joint Steering Committee LGSA Local Government and Shires Association (NSW) NAP National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality NC CMA North Central Catchment Management Authority NGO Non-government Organization NHT Natural Heritage Trust NRAC Natural Resources Advisory Council NRC Natural Resources Commission NRM Natural Resource Management NRM Act Natural Resource Management Act 2002 (Tasmania) NRMMC Natural Resource Management Ministerial Committee RCIP Regional Catchment Investment Plan RCS Resource Condition Strategy VCG Virtual Consulting Group VCMC Victorian Catchment Management Council ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research team would like to acknowledge the input of partner regions — Central West CMA, Lachlan CMA, Murray CMA, Northern Rivers CMA, Cradle Coast NRM NRM South, Corangamite CMA, Goulburn Broken CMA, and North Central CMA — Land and Water Australia, the Department of Sustainability and Environment (Victoria), the Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW), and the Australian Government NRM Team from the Departments of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, and Environment and Water Resources in the production of this report.

iv

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to document the structural components of the Australian NRM system paying particular attention to current arrangements for the regional delivery of NRM. First we elaborate the national components of the NRM system. Then we provide details of the state frameworks for NSW, Tasmania and Victoria and of the background, NRM issues, governance, and management arrangements of the nine regional NRM organizations constituting our case studies � Central West CMA, Lachlan CMA, Murray CMA, Northern Rivers CMA in NSW; Cradle Coast NRM and NRM South in Tasmania; and Corangamite CMA, Goulburn Broken CMA, and North Central CMA in Victoria. Lastly, the report canvasses the likely influences on and the kinds of changes in governance arrangements that can be expected for the foreseeable future. Salient conclusions from this report include the following: 1. NRM issues of declining water quality and quantity (both surface and ground water),

salinity (irrigation and dryland), deterioration of soils (as a result of increasing acidity, sodicity and salinity), declining native vegetation, loss of biodiversity and habitat, degradation of rivers and wetlands, and increasing infestations of weeds and pests are common across all nine regions. The widespread nature of these issues indicates the severity and complexity of the governance challenges confronting the NRM system.

2. There is considerable variation in structure both among and within states and

territories. Structural variation is influenced by the degree of legislative standing and statutory functions conferred on regional NRM organizations. CMAs in NSW and Victoria are structured as bodies corporate and as statutory authorities, while in Tasmania, regional NRM organizations may function as incorporated associations or bodies corporate with natural resource management responsibilities but they do not have the authority of statutory bodies. The regulatory functions of CMAs in Victoria and NSW can conflict with their other statutory functions such as engaging communities in NRM.

3. There is considerable variation in maturity both among and within states and

territories. Relative maturity tends to reflect the presence or absence of similar catchment-based antecedent arrangements. The relative maturity of Victorian CMAs, for example, is indicative of a comparatively lengthy history of land protection and catchment management boards.

4. There is a tendency to skills-based boards although there are hybrid models that

attempt to account for skills and representation suggesting that the trade-off between effectiveness and fairness is an ongoing issue for NRM organizations.

Evolution of NRM governance arrangements is ongoing and is necessarily so in the dynamic and complex environment that is the Australian NRM system.

vi

1

1. INTRODUCTION It is widely recognised that environmental degradation, including biodiversity loss, declining water quality and reduced agricultural productivity, is one of the major problems facing Australia. A regional natural resource management (NRM) approach is one mechanism being pursued to address such problems. There are persuasive advocates of the regional approach to NRM both within community organisations and government (Paton et al. 2004). Proponents point to advantages such as the capacity to integrate across social, environmental and economic issues; improved investment efficiency; ability to establish appropriate power sharing and partnership arrangements; better conversion of planning products into on-ground outcomes; and community learning and capacity building. The model for regional investment under the extension of the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) was based on that used for the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP), including bilateral and regional partnership agreements, investment against accredited regional plans, and the provision of foundation and priority funding. In this report, we review regional NRM governance arrangements and structures at national, state and regional levels. Particular attention is paid to the nine NRM regions and three state jurisdictions that are the focus of the research:

• Cradle Coast NRM (Tasmania); • Southern Regional NRM Association – NRM South (Tasmania); • Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (Victoria); • North Central Catchment Management Authority (Victoria); • Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (Victoria); • Murray Catchment Management Authority (NSW); • Lachlan Catchment Management Authority (NSW); • Central West Catchment Management Authority (NSW); and • Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority (NSW).

At the national level, lessons learnt from the first phase of the NHT and the establishment of the NAP were taken into account in the development of the framework for the extension of the NHT, where there was a fundamental shift in the NHT to more strategic investment. The delivery of funds through regional catchment-based organizations has become the preferred model for the strategic approach. Regional organizations were established for each of fifty-six regions. There is considerable variation in function and maturity across states and regions, reflecting among other factors, the presence or absence of prior catchment and land management arrangements, relative influences of particular natural resource interests, remoteness, and relativities in availability of human and other resources. Reviews of the NRM system over the last several years have a common message that the present arrangements be given more time to prove their effectiveness at preventing environmental decline and improving the condition of the resource base. The reviews also identified particular gaps to be targeted in the next iteration of NHT funding, which was recently confirmed for the period 2008-2013.

2

The purpose of this report is to document the structural components of the Australian NRM system paying particular attention to current arrangements for the regional delivery of NRM. First we elaborate the national components of the NRM system. Then we provide details of the state frameworks for NSW, Tasmania and Victoria and of the background, NRM issues, governance, and management arrangements of the nine regional NRM organizations constituting our case studies. Lastly, the report canvasses the likely influences on and the kinds of changes in governance arrangements that can be expected for the foreseeable future. 2. NRM GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES: ORIGINS AND INTENTIONS Regional delivery of NRM in Australia is founded on a framework of investment through agreements between the national and state or territory governments under the NAP and the NHT. The Intergovernmental Agreement on the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality consented to in 2000 was the first agreement reached to tackle Australia's critical salinity and water quality problems. The key elements of the agreement � a focus on catchment/regional outcomes and recognition of community efforts � were picked up in the $1 billion Natural Heritage Trust 2 (NHT2) program, and the $1.4 billion NAP. These programs were preceded by the $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust (NHT1), established by the national government in 1997. NHT1 was a five-year program intended to address problems of land degradation and biodiversity loss across rural Australia. Although a substantial proportion of NHT1 funding was delivered through community-based processes, the program failed to deliver significant regional-scale change (VCG 1999, Ewing 2003). The effectiveness of the program was hampered by a lack of strategic planning to ensure funds were systematically directed to achieving priority outcomes (ANAO 2001).

The NHT funding stream is jointly delivered at the regional level with the NAP funding initiative. The NAP program committed $1.4 billion from 2001-2008 to support action by communities and land managers in 21 regions with difficult salinity and water quality problems. The program supports the protection and rehabilitation of waterways, improvements to native vegetation, engineering works, and land and water use changes.

In this section we review the three phases of Australian Government NRM investment (Phase 1: NHT1, 1997–2001; Phase 2: Interim arrangements, 2001–2002; and Phase 3: NHT2, 2002–2008) in order to show how the current funding model and regional structures came to be the preferred means of NRM delivery. Phase 1: NHT1, 1997 – 2001 The NHT was set up by the Australian Government in May 1997 under the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act. The Trust had a total funding budget of $1.249 billion over five years from 1996-97 to 2000-01. The main source of funds was $1.1 billion from the partial privatisation of Telstra. Under the Act, the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board is charged with monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of the administration of the Act in achieving stated NHT outcomes. The intention at the end of the five-year program was to retain $300 million from the initial investment of Telstra proceeds and spend the interest on programs consistent with the NHT’s objectives (Environment Australia 1999).

3

The first iteration of NHT was a ‘one-stop-shop’ delivering funding under ten programs through a single application form, a single assessment process and a single evaluation process. The programs were: Bushcare; the Endangered Species Program; the Farm Forestry Program; the Fisheries Action Program; Murray–Darling 2001; the National Landcare Program; the National Reserve System Program; the National Rivercare Program; the National Wetlands Program; and Waterwatch. Funding for about 3300 projects of NHT and related programs, amounting to $211 million, was approved in 1997–98. Funding was predominately granted to community groups for on-ground works (Environment Australia 1999). Most project applications were examined by regional assessment panels (except in Tasmania and the ACT) and state assessment panels. The panels were chaired by a community representative and had a majority of community members. An overview of the structures and funding approval arrangements under NHT1 is indicated in Figure 1. Figure 1. Structure for NHT 1, 1997–2001

Phase 2: Interim arrangements, 2001-2002 The transition from NHT1 to NHT2 during 2001-2002 was mostly driven by a change from delivering NHT as many small projects to being a more strategically integrated regional approach to NRM – providing opportunities for integrated management to achieve multiple outcomes based on ecological as well as social and economic factors. It was recognized that the regional delivery model for NHT2 would take some time to implement and organizational change would need to be carefully managed. New regional NRM boards would be warranted and new processes and systems put in place. In some

One-Stop-Shop & Other Delivery Mechanisms

Regional Assessment

Panel

Technical Assessment

Panel

Facilitators and coordinators

State Assessment

Panel

Natural Heritage Trust Advisory

Committee

Natural Heritage Ministerial Board Ministers for Environment & Primary

Industries and Energy

Bilateral Partnership Agreements

Natural Heritage Trust of Australia

Act 1997

4

states totally new organizations and boards had to be created, while others had the advantage of existing catchment management organizations that could form the basis for the new regional delivery model. Foundation funding was provided to the states and territories to establish new regional organisations. The focus of NHT/NAP changed as did the language - from ‘funding for projects’ to ‘investments in regional NRM plans’. However, this change did not receive universal support. Although stakeholder engagement was a key element of requirements for development of regional NRM plans and regional investment strategies, community groups, which had previously been the main vehicle for the delivery of NHT funds, were particularly dissatisfied with the transition to regional delivery of NRM (Regional Implementation Working Group 2005). Among their reported concerns, they:

• felt left out of the regional process; • were disappointed with the lack of funding available for on-ground activities; • perceived regional organizations as just another level of bureaucracy, remote from

the ‘real’ community; and • were dissatisfied with having to compete for funds at the community level rather

than having their project proposals considered directly as they had been by NHT1 assessment panels.

Regional boards felt awkwardly placed in keeping community groups engaged in the development of plans and investment strategies. This situation arose because funding for projects was often put on hold while plans and strategies were developed and accepted. The boards were acutely aware that the withholding of funding was alienating the same community groups they would be relying on to develop project proposals and to implement programs (Regional Implementation Working Group 2005). Another issue for the newly-created boards was that the receipt of funding from two different sources – the NHT and the NAP – caused difficulties in fulfilling reporting and monitoring requirements of the Australian Government. Phase 3: NHT2, 2002-2008 In the 2001 federal budget, the Australian Government announced an additional $1 billion for the NHT, extending the funding for five more years. Of that additional $1 billion, the Australian Government expected to spend at least $350 million on measures to improve Australia's water quality under the NHT. The NHT received a further $300 million boost in the 2004 federal budget, extending the funding until 2007-2008, making the NHT a $3 billion investment Regional NRM bodies are charged with managing NHT and NAP funding in the region, and held accountable for expenditure of public monies. Both the NAP and the regional component of the NHT are driven by single three-year regional investment plans, developed by local communities and supported by the states and the Australian Government to address priority national and state issues and to ensure the programs are delivered in an integrated manner. The plans are required to consider all environmental, social and economic impacts of NRM decisions on a regional basis. Each regional plan is accredited by the Australian Government and the corresponding state or territory government (Commonwealth of Australia 2005).

5

Regional NRM plans that meet the agreed conditions are eligible for accreditation by the Australian Government and state/territory governments. Once plans are accredited, regional investment strategies are developed to submit proposals for the investment of NAP and/or NHT funding (Commonwealth of Australia 2004). Benefits claimed for regionalisation of Australian NRM governance include:

• enhanced integration across agencies and governments, as well as across social, environmental and economic issues and objectives in both program planning and delivery;

• facilitation of solutions that are appropriate to regional biophysical conditions at a landscape scale;

• ability to establish appropriate power sharing and partnership arrangements; • provision of fair representation of all interests and meaningful stakeholder

involvement; • management and reduction of conflict; • improved efficiency of public and private sector NRM investment; • bridging strategic public interest and private operational activities; • better conversion of planning products into on-ground outcomes; • increased community ownership and commitment to NRM; and • community learning and capacity building (Jennings & Moore 2000, Nancarrow

et al. 2003, Read & Bessen 2003, Reeve et al. 2004, Paton et al. 2004). A series of bilateral agreements was concluded between the Australian Government and state/territory governments to translate the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality into state and territory specific provisions for the delivery of the NAP program. The NHT bilateral agreements are an extension of the NAP bilateral agreements. They were developed to implement the framework for the extension of the Natural Heritage Trust and included institutional reforms to ensure the security of regional investments and arrangements for the states/territories to match Australian Government funding. These agreements set out the partnership arrangement between the Australian Government and each state and territory government for the operation of the regional component of NHT (as well as other relevant delivery components). Although they have common core elements, individual agreements reflect the changing status of the NHT framework and jurisdictional priorities in each state/territory. The bilateral agreements are intended to establish procedural, reporting and accountability arrangements for the regional organisations, including requirements to consult adequately with all stakeholders, produce regional assessment reports on problems and priority issues, develop investment priorities, ensure that projects are aligned with priorities and focussed on performance outcomes, and provide comprehensive financial reports. The bilateral agreements also provide for institutional reforms specific to each jurisdiction to ensure long-term NRM outcomes and to achieve NHT objectives. In BSW, institutional reform areas are agreed as policy directions. They include vegetation management and biodiversity conservation; water management; land management; coasts and marine; world heritage; and threatened species and ecological communities.

6

Twenty-one priority regions were targeted for NAP funding. Under NHT, 57 regions were established but later reduced to 56. Unlike the NAP regions, the NHT regions provide comprehensive coverage of each state and mainland territories (Figure 2). The boundaries of most NRM regions are based on catchments or bioregions, and an attempt was made to match them with the NAP priority regions, although this was only partially achieved. The boundaries of the regions were agreed between the Australian Government and each of the state/territory governments and are specified in each NAP and NHT bilateral agreements. In Victoria and NSW, existing catchment management organisations were adapted to fill the regional governance and delivery role required under the new national NRM arrangements. In Victoria, the operational parameters of ten statutory catchment management authorities (CMAs) were modified to meet the requirements of the NAP/NHT framework. These authorities are largely autonomous, with memberships based on expertise in water, vegetation and catchment management (Head 2005). In NSW, statutory catchment management authorities were restructured under NAP/NHT2 into 13 catchment management authorities with integrated NRM responsibilities. In Tasmania, three statutory regional NRM committees were established in 2002. One of these was hosted by an existing regional organisation, the Cradle Coast Authority, which was established in 1999 by its nine member local governments to address regional development issues. Figure 2. Australian NRM regions (DEWR 2007)

These diverse beginnings mean that several variations in regional governance structures are evident, both among and within jurisdictions. Some institutions are partly a product of regionalisation processes initiated by local communities (for example, the Cradle Coast Authority), whereas others are creations of government (as in Victoria).

7

Under these diverse governance arrangements, the regional scale has become the preferred scale at which NRM and sustainable agriculture investments are determined. It is the scale at which investment for both the NAP and NHT programs is integrated. Integration is achieved through a single accredited NRM plan and a regional investment strategy for each region. State/territory and Australian governments jointly accredit the regional integrated NRM plans that form the basis of the integrated NRM framework. Regional NRM arrangements in Australia consist of state and national level components. Each of the states has its own structures and processes, which interrelate with national level structures and processes through the regional NRM organizations. In addition to the regional NRM organizations, regional plans and strategies that are the products of the third phase of NHT, the integrated NRM framework is supported at the state level by joint steering committees and independent advisory panels, and nationally by the NRMMC Community Forum. Within each state or territory, a joint steering committee (JSC) oversees the delivery of regional programs. The committees consist of representatives of both the Australian Government and the relevant state/territory government. They administer implementation of the bilateral agreements for the NAP and the NHT. This committee is the main vehicle for bilateral decision-making and development of recommendations to the Australian Government and state/territory ministers regarding the delivery of the regional programs. Independent advisory panels (IAP) were established under the terms of bilateral agreements between the Australian Government and the six state governments1. Although there is some minor variation across the states in details of nomenclature, membership, method of appointment, makeup, and purpose, the main function of the panels is to provide advice to JSCs on the adequacy of the procedures and processes for developing regional NRM strategies and investment plans. A comparison of panels on a state basis is provided in Table 1. Neither Queensland nor New South Wales have IAPs. 1 Panels are not provided for in the bilateral agreements between the Australian Government and the governments of the ACT and the Northern Territory.

8

Table 1. A comparison of independent advisory panels by state State Advisory

Body Membership Appointment

basis Appointment

method Purpose

SA NRM Council

9 members Representatives of the SA Farmers Federation, conservation groups, local government and Aboriginal interests plus 5 community members

Membership determined by State Government Minister with the concurrence of the Australian Government

Advises JSC on the development and content of NRM regional plans and investment proposals; advises Minister on NRM issues and policy

Tasmania NRM Advisory Group

16 members of the NRM Council plus 2 others; chair is the NRM Council chair

DPIW Secretary, three regional committee representatives, and 14 others with NRM skills/ experience and representing a balance of NRM interests

Jointly determined by Tasmanian and Australian government ministers; JSC members may attend as observers

Advises on (1) the development and content of regional strategies and regional investment proposals; (2) other matters agreed by the JSC

Victoria Independent Advisory Panel

Usually 8-9 members.

Representatives of primary producers, conservation and local government peak bodies, Landcare movement, and Indigenous interests plus one observer from each of the Australian and Victorian governments

Jointly appointed by Victorian and Australian government ministers

Advises JSC on procedures/ processes in the development of regional catchment strategies and investment plans

WA Investment Committee

Up to 10 members including the State NRM Council plus additional members determined by the Minister(s)

Skills-based with expertise in key NRM discipline areas

Jointly appointed by WA and Australian governments

Advise State NRM Council and JSC on planning processes and regional NRM strategies and investment plans

The NRMMC Community Forum is an annual working community forum based on the NHT and NAP regions and held in conjunction with a meeting of the NRM Ministerial Council. The first forum was held in April 2003. The forum is intended to provide an opportunity for NRM community organization representatives (usually the chairpersons and their expert advisors) to exchange views and provide advice to the ministers responsible for NRM and so influence national direction setting.

9

3. NATIONAL FRAMEWORK The key institutional actors and instruments of the NRM framework at the national level are outlined in this section and illustrated in Figure 3. Legislation The Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 was enacted to establish the Natural Heritage Trust. The purpose of the NHT was to help restore and conserve Australia's environment and natural resources. Funding is delivered through the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) program. Section 40 of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 establishes the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board comprising the Ministers for Environment and Water Resources and for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The Board provides a formal mechanism for liaison and cooperation between the two portfolios on matters relating to the Natural Heritage Trust package. It is required to approve the expenditure of the NHT programs. The Ministers are required to consult with each other on NHT expenditure, and must have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development in making these decisions. Figure 3. Regional NRM structure for NHT2, 2002-2008

The Natural Heritage Trust Advisory Committee is composed of scientific and NRM experts. It was established by the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 and its purpose described in section 31 of the Act is:

Joint steering committees

NRM investment proposals

JSC accreditation

Regional NRM plans

56 Regional NRM Bodies

Australian Government NRM Team

Natural Heritage Trust Advisory

Committee

Natural Heritage Ministerial Board Ministers for Environment and Water & Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Australian & state gov’ts bilateral

agreements

Natural Heritage Trust of Australia

Act 1997

10

• to advise the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board on the integration of the objectives of environmental protection, natural resources management and sustainable agriculture;

• to advise the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board on the effectiveness of the partnership agreements entered into under subsection 19(2) between the Commonwealth and the states and territories in achieving integrated outcomes for the operations of NHT funding; and

• to advise the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board on other matters when requested by the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board to do so.

The membership of the Committee is also defined by the Act. The Committee must consist of a chairperson and between five and nine other members. At least five members must have knowledge of, or experience in, one or more of biodiversity conservation; land and/or water management; native vegetation sciences; river and/or wetland ecology; and coastal and/or marine systems. The Committee meets four times per year and with the relevant ministers on a biannual basis. One of the Committee’s more recent achievements was the Environmental Stewardship Program proposed in the Australian Government’s 2007-2008 budget (Australian Government 2007). The aim of the program is to provide incentives to private land managers to protect nationally significant environmental assets on private land or that are impacted by private land managers’ activities. Administrative arrangements The Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) was established in 2001 by agreement of Australian, state and territory governments. In concert with the Primary Industries Ministerial Council, its major role is to better integrate Australia’s conservation and sustainable production objectives. The Council coordinates NRM in Australia and oversees the implementation of NHT and NAP. The Department of Environment and Water Resources (formerly Environment and Heritage) is charged with developing and implementing national policy, programs and legislation to protect and conserve Australia's natural environment and cultural heritage. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is responsible for developing and implementing policies and programs that ensure Australia's agricultural, fisheries, food and forestry industries remain competitive, profitable and sustainable. The Australian Government NRM Team (AGNRM Team) is a joint venture established in 2002 between the Australian Government Departments of the Environment and Water Resources and of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. It comprises staff from both Departments and is responsible for the Australian Government's strategy on sustainable use and conservation of land, water, soil and vegetation resources. The team is tasked with delivering the twin objectives of sustainable agricultural production and environmental protection and has responsibility for program delivery, liaison with state and territory agencies and regional bodies and administration of funding for the NHT and the NAP.

11

Frameworks The NRMMC Framework for NRM Standards and Targets establishes the principles and requirements for NRM standards and targets to guide investment through integrated regional NRM plans under the NAP and the NHT. The Framework comprises:

• national natural resource outcomes, which includes targets for resource condition, national guidelines and protocols for regional target-setting, monitoring and reporting; and

• national best practice standards for management of natural resources that are designed to apply principally to legislative, policy, process and institutional systems.

The national natural resource outcomes are aspirational statements about desired resource conditions. They provide direction for regional NRM bodies to identify targets that will change natural resource condition for national benefit. The desired outcomes include the objectives of both the NAP and the NHT. The Framework provides for the development of national governance standards for best practice management of natural resources (NRMMC 2003, pp. 8-9) and a set of principles on which these standards would be based. The Framework is intended to provide consistent national directions and approaches to natural resource planning, target-setting, action and performance measurement at national, state, regional and local levels. In subsequent sections, we provide overviews of NRM arrangements in each of the state jurisdictions in our study together with details of background, issues, and governance and management arrangements for each of the nine case study regions.

12

4. NSW NRM FRAMEWORK An overview of the NSW NRM framework is provided in Figure 4. The roles of the key institutions in this framework are as follows. Figure 4. NSW NRM framework

The Australian/NSW Joint Steering Committee (NSW JSC) has responsibility to:

• develop principles and criteria to guide NAP and NHT investments; • make recommendations to Australian and New South Wales Governments on

accreditation of NRM Plans for NAP and NHT investments; • make recommendations to ministers on NAP and NHT investments; • approve release of funds for investments; and • report annually to Australian and NSW ministers on NAP and NHT funded

activities. The membership of the JSC comprises: 1. Australian Government

• General Manager, AGNRM Team, DAFF; • Assistant Secretary, AGNRM Team, DEWR.

2. NSW Government • Executive Director, Catchment and Landscapes, Departments of Environment and

Climate Change (DECC); • Deputy Director General, Agriculture, Fisheries and Regional Relations,

Department of Primary Industries (DPI); • CMAs; and • Two chairpersons from the CMAs.

In broad terms, the State Government provides policy and direction, the Natural Resources Council (NRC) advises on standards, targets and progress towards

Australian Government

NRM Team

Bilateral Agreement

Joint

Steering Committee

NSW Government

Dept. of Environment

& Climate Change

Dept. of Primary

Industries

Dept. of Water & Energy

Premier

Minister for Climate Change,

Environment & Water

Rural & Natural

Resources Standing C’tee of Cabinet

Natural Resources

Commission

Natural Resources Advisory Council

13 catchment management authorities

Land managers

Regional communities

Local governments

13

achievements of standards and targets, while the CMAs deliver programs and outcomes either directly or through partnerships with other organisations (Pannell et al. 2007). More specifically, DECC (formerly the Department of Environment and Conservation), the Department of Water and Energy (DWE), and DPI oversee various aspects of NRM. Having taken carriage of some functions previously managed by the Department of Natural Resources, DECC is now the lead agency in facilitating the delivery of the regional component of the NHT and NAP. The agency manages the single holding account on behalf of the NSW JSC as well as the partnership agreements with the regional bodies, state and Australian Government reporting requirements, liaison with the regional bodies, and secretariat services to the NSW JSC. The function of the DPI is to foster the profitable and sustainable development of the mineral resources, agriculture, forestry and fisheries industries. The NRC was established by the Natural Resources Commission Act 2003 to provide the NSW Government with independent advice on NRM issues. Its core functions are to develop state-wide NRM standards and targets, review the catchment action plans (CAPS) prepared by 13 CMAs, audit CMAs’ implementation of these plans and assess their effectiveness in achieving state-wide standards and targets. The NRC reports jointly to the Premier and the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water, underscoring its importance. The NRC can also be asked to undertake additional tasks such as providing formal advice on proposed regulation and legislation relevant to NRM, conducting reviews on proposed environmental management plans, supervising environmental management projects, advising other agencies, and auditing the operation of NRM-related plans (Natural Resources Commission 2005). The Natural Resources Advisory Council (NRAC) is an independent body reporting to the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water and the Rural and Natural Resources Standing Committee of Cabinet. The Council was established as the single forum for stakeholder advice to government on natural resources management and land use issues. Issues can be referred either by government or stakeholders. The NRAC comprises 27 members representing stakeholders from State and local government, and forestry, fishing, farming, environmental, Aboriginal, union and industry sectors. The NRAC’s principal functions are to:

• provide the NSW Government with policy advice on sustainable natural resource management and economic development;

• assist the NSW Government to prioritise resources and strategies to promote sustainable NRM;

• strategically oversee the policy and regulatory environment and the NRM legislative reforms in NSW; and

• facilitate common understanding and consensus among diverse stakeholder representatives (NRAC nd).

CMAs are statutory bodies and key elements in the reform of NRM in NSW. They are the primary means for the delivery of funding from the NSW and Australian Governments to land managers. They have responsibility for involving regional communities in NRM (see next sub-section for a more detailed account). Local governments have a range of functions, powers and responsibilities at their disposal to influence NRM on private and public land. Local councils are involved in

14

NRM as planners, regulators, investors, land managers, service providers and educators. Cooperation between local governments and CMAs is facilitated by joint CMA/LGSA (Local Government and Shires Association) meetings which are intended to promote co-operation and communication (Local Government and Shires Association of NSW nd). Local communities are also integral to the whole framework of sustainable management of natural resources, particularly through local volunteer programs such as Bushcare, Landcare and Coastcare. An overview of the relationships between NSW Government agencies and statutory bodies, CMAs and their stakeholders is presented in Figure 5. Figure 5. Structure of regional NRM arrangements in NSW (Pannell et al. 2007, p.10)

Catchment Management Authorities in NSW The current regional NRM model in NSW has its origins in the NSW Government’s NRM reforms of 2003. These reforms were aimed at ending broad-scale land clearing and encouraging responsible land management practices. Thirteen CMAs were

15

established under the Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003 to devolve to them certain NRM functions and to ensure input from regional communities on how natural resources are managed in their catchments (Parliament of NSW 2003). They are statutory bodies established to coordinate NRM at the catchment scale. They cover the following areas of NSW:

• Border Rivers/Gwydir; • Central West; • Hawkesbury Nepean; • Hunter and Central Rivers; • Lachlan; • Lower Murray Darling; • Murray; • Murrumbidgee; • Namoi; • Northern Rivers; • Southern Rivers; • Sydney Metro; and • Western (Figure 6).

Under the Act, the CMAs have the powers of corporate bodies. They are locally driven organisations with boards that report directly to the NSW Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water. Each CMA board consists of a chairperson and up to six board members. Appointments to CMA boards are made by the Minister and are merit-based according to knowledge and experience in primary production, environmental, social and economic analysis, state and local government administration, negotiation and consultation, business administration, community leadership, biodiversity conservation, cultural heritage, and water quality. Members are expected as far as possible to reside in the region, although there are no requirements for representation from specific sectors or geographic regions. Each CMA also has a general manager and a small team of professional staff (Catchment Management Authorities NSW 2005b) Key functions of the CMAs include preparing catchment action plans (CAPs) and associated investment strategies; recommending and managing incentive programs to implement CAPs; and allocating funds to support the development and implementation of property vegetation plans. The aim of the strategies is to meet the standards and targets set by the NSW Natural Resources Commission and the funding requirements of both the NSW and Australian Governments. The specific functions of CMAs can be broadly described as:

• planning and investment; • native vegetation; • water; • on-ground works; and • community engagement.

Additionally, authorities have conferred on them functions under the Native Vegetation Act 2003, while they also have the capacity to be appointed as the consent authority for development under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Other legislation that governs the operations of CMAs includes the following:

• Public Finance and Audit Act 1983;

16

• Public Finance and Audit act Regulation 2000; • Public Sector Management Act 1988; • Annual Reports Act ( Statutory Bodies)1984; • Annual Reports ( Statutory Bodies)Regulation 2000; • Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997; • Soil Conservation Act 1938; and • Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998.

Figure 6. NSW NRM regions (Catchment Management Authorities NSW 2005a)

The State Government monitors the CMAs by requiring that CAPs are audited on a five-yearly basis and that annual implementation plans and annual reports are submitted to the Minister. Authorities are required to meet their expenses in exercising their functions. They are also required to publish their CAP so that it is readily accessible to stakeholders. The plans developed by the CMAs are intended to build on existing vegetation plans and catchment blueprints, developed prior to the reforms of 2003-2004. The CMAs provide the Minister with an annual implementation program that lists activities their likely costs for the coming year. The Act provides for a skills-based board and a general manager to fulfil governing functions. CMAs are independent statutory bodies representing the Crown and subject to the control and direction of the Minister. The role and responsibility of the Board is to provide governance and management to the CMA; that is, to provide overall control and direction

17

(strategy) for the CMA. The Board is ultimately accountable for, and has authority over, the CMA. Each CMA Board has three roles: In their governing role, boards are directly responsible and accountable for:

• strategic direction, priority and goal setting; • stakeholder liaison and maintaining advocacy in the community; • a strong community development/education program focused on catchment issues

and the benefits to be achieved; • monitoring, evaluation and reporting of outcomes; and • implementation of existing catchment blueprints and vegetation management

plans into a holistic catchment action plan for regional investment, incentive programs and on-ground action.

In their advisory role, boards are responsible and accountable for advising the Minister on:

• the catchment management plan; • regional environmental standards; • natural resources planning; • the effectiveness of DNR’s regional compliance strategy; and • the effectiveness of all NRM programs in the region.

In their operational role, boards are responsible and accountable for:

• prioritising and approving projects and directing their implementation; • developing and approving the CMA’s annual budget, ensuring the efficient use of

resources and the accountability of expenditure; • ensuring compliance with relevant statutory requirements; • managing risk (operational, legal, financial, regulatory) by ensuring institution of

appropriate procedures and allocation of resources; and • selecting and evaluating the performance of the general manager (Government of

NSW nd). The following sub-sections outline key features of the background, NRM issues, governance and management structures of each of four NSW regions that are the focus of our research.

18

Central West CMA Background The Central West region covers 92,000 square kilometres with more than 180,000 people living in 20 local government areas. It stretches from the western slopes of the Blue Mountains almost to Cobar, north beyond Coonamble and south to Oberon. Urban centres include Bathurst, Orange, Wellington, Dubbo, Gilgandra, Warren and Nyngan (Figure 7). The landscape of the Central West CMA region varies markedly from east to west, and can be split into three general divisions: the headwaters or tablelands, the slopes and the plains. It contains the Ramsar-listed wetlands of the Macquarie Marshes, as well as the Warrumbungles National Park, the Windburndale Nature Reserve, and a number of other reserves and significant crown land areas. Major rivers in the catchment include the Castlereigh, Macquarie and Bogan. Figure 7. Central West CMA region (Central West CMA 2005)

Agriculture includes grazing, extensive winter cropping, intensive viticulture and horticulture around Mudgee, Orange and on the Bell River floodplain, and irrigated cotton and other summer crops on the Macquarie River floodplain. There is mining of gold, copper, base metals and forestry industries based on softwood plantations and native hardwoods are also important. Key NRM issues

19

The key NRM issues for the region are:

• dryland salinity; • declining surface water quality; • declining health and extent of native vegetation; • degradation of river and wetland ecosystems; and • deterioration of soils (Australian Government 2004a).

Governance The Central West CMA has been operational from the latter part of 2004. As with the other NSW CMAs, the Board consists of a chairperson and six board members appointed on a skills basis. The board reports directly to the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water. The organization’s operations are informed by its vision of vibrant communities and healthy landscapes, based on the following guiding principles:

• integrity; • leadership; • being trustworthy, fair, transparent and equitable; • using best available information for decisions; • wise and strategic investment; • fostering innovation; • using adaptive management; • operating in partnership; • clearly defined roles, principles, and processes; and • measurable outcomes.

Committees There are four board committees: Communications, NRM, Human Resources, and Finance and Audit. Management In 2006, the Central West CMA employed 24 permanent and 18 temporary staff. The management structure for the CMA is shown in Figure 8. Figure 8. Central West CMA management structure (Central West CMA 2006a)

General Manager

Manager, Implementation

Manager, Strategy & Planning

Manager, Business

20

Community engagement The CMA has a community engagement plan that is underpinned by principles of:

• mutual obligation; • timeliness and relevance; • inclusiveness; • integrity; and • transparency.

The plan is supported by four strategies: education, communication, community support, and consultation. The practical evidence of the engagement plan is in the establishment of three community references groups – with local government, Aboriginal communities and community NRM groups. The intent of the Local Government Reference Group is to engage local government in integrated NRM planning. It is also a forum for communication of NSW and Australian Government initiatives. The Aboriginal Reference Group was established to engage Aboriginal communities in NRM in meaningful ways, while the NRM Working Group is intended to build partnerships between Central West CMA and the region’s 120 or more community-based NRM groups (Central West CMA 2006b).

21

Lachlan CMA Background The Lachlan CMA region covers an area of approximately 84,700 square kilometres, has a population greater than 100,000 people, produces 14 per cent of NSW agricultural production, and encompasses 24 local government areas. The catchment is located in central western NSW, flanked by the Macquarie and Bogan catchments to the north and Darling to the west, Murrumbidgee to the south and the Sydney/Shoalhaven Basin to the east. In addition to the Lachlan River, other rivers include its major tributaries � the Abercrombie, Boorowa, Belubula and Crookwell Rivers (Figure 9). The Lachlan CMA region falls predominantly within the Wiradjuri Aboriginal tribal area. The rivers were very important routes and provided food, water and shelter for the Wiradjuri people (Lachlan Catchment Management Authority nd). Geologically, the catchment is quite complex, resulting in considerable variation of soil types, ranging from very robust, durable soils to very fragile soils, naturally acidic and sodic soils. Such variation has significant implications for salinity and nutrient management, and erosion control (Catchment Management Authorities NSW 2005c). Figure 9. Lachlan CMA region (Lachlan CMA nd)

22

Key NRM Issues The key NRM issues for the region are:

• dryland salinity; • declining surface water quality; • declining health and extent of native vegetation; • loss of native biodiversity; • degradation of riparian and wetland ecosystems; • deterioration of soil resources (erosion and sodicity); and • threats to cultural heritage (Australian Government 2004b).

Governance Lachlan CMA has its origins in the Lachlan Catchment Board, which was dissolved in late 2003, the present CMA board being appointed in early 2004. Under the Act, the Lachlan CMA Board consists of a chairperson and six board members, appointed by the Minister. Committees The Lachlan CMA board relies on two sub-committees, a Finance Committee and an Audit Committee to assist it in discharging its functions. Management The management structure for the CMA is the same as that for Central West CMA shown in Figure 8. Community engagement In response to its devolved obligations for community engagement, the CMA has formed several working or reference groups, including the Landcare and Local Government Working Groups. These are based around jointly managed projects such as forums, incentives for group proposals and onground works. As well, the CMA Aboriginal Liaison officer has established 14 regional focus groups to develop and implement culturally significant projects. In preference to appointing an Aboriginal board member as required by the Minister, Lachlan CMA has established an Aboriginal Reference Group which the Authority argues is better equipped to reflect the NRM aspirations of the seven nations contained within the region.

23

Murray CMA Background The Murray CMA region spans an area of 35,170 square kilometres and is bounded by the Murray River to the south, the Murrumbidgee River catchment divide to the north, the Australian Alps to the east, and the confluence of the Murrumbidgee and Murray Rivers to the west (Figure 10). The region’s significant natural features include the Kosciuszko National Park; the Murray River (its associated anabranches, floodplains and wetlands); the red gum forests of Millewa; and the Koondrook-Perricoota and Werai Forests. The region also has significant areas of endangered ecological communities and remnant terrestrial and aquatic vegetation that provide habitat for a range of threatened species. Indigenous Nations with attachment to the region include the Wiradjuri, Yorta Yorta, Birapa Birapa, Wamba Wamba, Wadi Wadi and Muthi Muthi. A diverse agricultural sector supports a population of approximately 100,000 people. The catchment has a rural land capital value of about $2.1 billion and makes a significant contribution to Australia’s agricultural production with an annual farm gate value in excess of $800 million. Around 60 per cent of the land within the catchment is in private ownership.

Figure 10. Murray CMA region (Murray CMA 2004)

Key NRM Issues The key NRM issues for the Murray CMA include:

• declining water quality and quantity;

24

• dryland and irrigation salinity; • soil acidification and erosion; • loss of biodiversity; • native vegetation decline; and • weeds and pests (Australian Government 2004c).

Governance The Board currently comprises a Chairperson and six board members as prescribed under the Act. Committees To assist them to discharge their responsibilities for legislation, corporate governance, policies, human resources, and the review and evaluation of programs and projects, board members are organized into five committees. These committees address matters of Audit and Compliance, Remuneration and Resources, Community and Implementation, Landscapes, and Water. The duties and responsibilities of each of the Community and Implementation, Landscapes and Water Committees are to:

• develop, review and recommend relevant policies to the Board; • develop and review projects and programs for the Board’s consideration; • identify and direct any necessary special investigations; and • ensure the Authority is meeting its NSW Government, Australian Government

and any other reporting requirements (Murray CMA 2006). Management Figure 11. Murray CMA management structure (Murray CMA 2006)

In October 2006, Murray CMA employed 17 permanent and 23 temporary staff. Community engagement A key component of Murray CMA’s community engagement arrangements are ten community advisory groups. These groups, each consisting of 10-12 people, were introduced as a forum for community input into the CMA’s programs and activities. They provide advice to the CMA on local NRM matters; on the performance of projects, strategies and incentives; on the appropriateness of knowledge and information dissemination and communication; on prioritisation of projects; and on the adoption of CMA projects and incentives (Murray CMA 2006).

General Manager

Senior Project Officer

Team Leader – Community & Implement-

ation

Landscapes Program Manager

Team Leader –Community Partnerships

(Water)

Business Manager

25

Northern Rivers CMA Background This region covers an area of approximately 50,000 square kilometres from the Camden Haven River in the south to the Queensland border and 160 kilometres inland. Its major rivers include the Tweed, Brunswick, Richmond, Clarence, Bellinger, Nambucca, Macleay and Hastings (Figure 12). Figure 12. Northern Rivers CMA region (Northern Rivers CMA 2006)

26

The population of over 550,000 has undergone significant growth along the coast of over 2 per cent per annum, mainly due to retirement of ‘baby boomers’ to the region. Major population growth centres are around Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour, Ballina/ Lismore and Tweed Heads, with steady to slight growth in the inland towns of Kempsey, Grafton, Casino and Murwillumbah. The coastal and eastern slopes environments constitute the major environments of the region. The river, estuaries and coastal ecosystems of the coastal zone are particularly vulnerable to the impact of urbanisation and economic growth while particular problems with acid-sulphate soils represent a special challenge for environmental management. The economy of the region is founded on agricultural and timber production, commercial fishing and tourism, the major industries being beef production, dairying, horticulture and the nursery industry. New industries, such as tea tree and coffee plantations, are developing. The major use of water is from unregulated rivers in the region for town water supplies, followed by irrigation. Key NRM Issues Key NRM issues for the Northern Rivers CMA region include:

• threats to biodiversity, including species, ecological communities and remnant native vegetation;

• pressures of population growth; • land degradation; • threats to water quality and quantity; and • acid sulfate soils (Australian Government 2004d).

Governance The Northern Rivers CMA had its formal beginning in March 2004, when the Local Establishment Team formally handed over to the Authority. The present chairperson had been appointed in February. To fulfil its community engagement obligations, the Board regularly schedules its monthly meetings across the region to make itself available to a broad range of stakeholders. Such meetings are often supplemented by one-day field trips. Committees The Board has two committees established to review major issues outside the normal Board process — a Finance and Audit Committee and an Annual Report Committee. Each has four members, comprising the chairperson and the chief executive officer and two other board members. Committee decisions are taken to the Board for approval. Management The general manager reports to the Board and is supported by a business manager and two program managers (Figure 13).

27

Figure 13. Northern Rivers CMA management structure

In June 2006, there was 39 staff. Of these 28 were permanent and 11 were casual appointments. Community engagement In response to its community engagement commitments, Northern Rivers CMA has developed a community engagement strategy. The engagement strategy is supported by several other strategies for communication, community support and education. Partnerships have been developed with Landcare networks, local governments, industries, land councils and Aboriginal corporations to deliver the CMA’s Community Support Program (NR CMA 2006).

General Manager

Business Manager

Program Manager (Grafton)

Program Manager

(Kempsey)

28

5. TASMANIAN NRM FRAMEWORK The Tasmanian NRM Framework is the administrative system by which the Tasmanian Government coordinates and integrates the activities of a range of entities involved in the management of natural resources in the State. Its objective is to pull together existing NRM processes to provide a coordinated approach. The Framework is based on the notion of active community, industry and government participation, and on shared ownership of NRM issues and outcomes at the State, regional, local and individual levels (Tasmanian Natural Resource Management Support Unit 2005). The Framework is given statutory force by the Natural Resource Management Act 2002(NRM Act) (Parliament of Tasmania 2002). It is consistent with the national framework for NRM which it links to existing State policies and processes. In particular, the Framework helps to integrate elements of the Tasmanian Resource Management and Planning System, which provides the overarching legislative framework for NRM and for planning and development control, and deals with those aspects of NRM not already catered for through existing legislation. The Framework is also informed by the goals, targets and benchmarks set by the Tasmania Together initiative, a program administered under the Tasmania Together Progress Board Act 2001. Tasmania Together is the product of a state-wide community consultation process aimed at developing a comprehensive consensus among Tasmanians about shared values and priorities across all policy aspects. The approach taken in Tasmania Together aligns with the emphasis in the national NRM framework on integrated social, economic and environmental planning. Ongoing integration with the Tasmania Together goals and targets, which are regularly updated, is viewed as a means of keeping NRM current with overarching community needs and aspirations (Tasmanian Natural Resource Management Support Unit 2005). The Australian Government/Tasmanian JSC is responsible for managing the delivery of NAP and NHT in Tasmania (Commonwealth of Australia 2005). It assists regional committees with their regional planning and reports regularly to Tasmanian and Australian Government ministers with recommendations on investments and NRM strategies. The Tasmanian JSC comprises two members of the AGNRM Team � one from DEWR and one from DAFF � plus four representatives of the Tasmanian Government � three from the Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) and one from the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPAC). The NRM Act sets out the roles, functions and powers of the Tasmanian Natural Resource Management Council and the three regional committees, NRM Cradle Coast, NRM North and NRM South. It also provides for the development of regional strategies and the accreditation process. An overview of the framework is given in Figure 14.

29

Figure 14. Tasmanian NRM framework

The roles of the key institutions and interests in the Tasmanian NRM framework are discussed in the following section. DPIW is the lead agency in facilitating the delivery of the regional component of the NHT and NAP. It manages the single holding account on behalf of the JSC as well as the partnership agreements with the regional bodies, State and Australian Government reporting requirements, liaison with the regional bodies and secretariat services to the JSC (Commonwealth Government 2004). The Department is also responsible for fostering partnerships among the main NRM stakeholders - the community, interest groups, local governments, the Australian Government, other State Government agencies and the private sector. The NRM Support Unit administers NHT and the NAP in Tasmania, in accordance with the bilateral agreement between the Tasmanian and Australian Governments. The Unit is responsible for:

• assisting the State’s NRM and NAP regions; • processing and arranging assessment of the regional investment packages under

NHT, NAP and National Landcare funding programs; • liasing with the State and Australian Governments on approval for regional

investment plans; • providing administration of approved activities under those programs and

coordinating related reporting activities; • providing administrative and logistic support to the JSC; • assisting regional organizations to develop and implement monitoring and

evaluation systems; • compiling annual reports on NHT and NAP programs for the Tasmanian and

Australian Governments; and • maintaining the NRM Support Unit’s project database.

30

The Natural Resource Management Council provides high-level advice to the Tasmanian Government through the Minister for Environment and liaises with regional committees. The makeup of the Council, which is determined by Section 6 the NRM Act, comprises up to 16 members appointed by the State Government, four of whom are specified: the Secretary of DPIW plus one member nominated by each of the three regional committees. The remainder are ‘persons with experience, skills and knowledge in natural resource management selected from nominations as the Minister may determine’. The Council is directed to provide ‘a balance of natural resource management interests in the State’ and as far as practicable to comprise equal numbers of men and women. One member is appointed by the Minister as Chair. The Council has no direct role in the administration of programs and projects although it has close links to the regional committees through cross membership and through its activities, which are designed to ensure coordination and consistency in NRM activities. The NRM Advisory Group was established under the NHT Bilateral Agreement to advise the JSC specifically on the processes and procedures relating to the regional strategies and investment proposals. The membership of this body comprises the NRM Council plus two others (Tasmanian NRM Unit 2005). As yet local governments have no formal role within the NRM Framework, although the latter does recognize the growing role of local governments in NRM through their planning responsibilities and involvement in local projects. It was argued that the Framework would provide clearer direction and priorities for activities at local level by linking them to State and regional decision-making (DPIWE 2002). Local communities and stakeholders (industry) are perceived to be crucial for effective NRM since communities not only undertake many projects, but their involvement is essential to maintain the benefits of investments (DPIWE 2002). The various institutional actors, especially the regional committees are tasked with effecting community engagement. Regional NRM committees in Tasmania The three regional committees (Figure 15) are responsible for facilitating and coordinating regional NRM and developing regional strategies. They are established under the NRM Act that sets out the terms and conditions and general functions and powers for the committees. A regional committee may include the managing body of an incorporated association or a committee established by an incorporated association or a body corporate. The committees are appointed by the Tasmanian Government on the basis that they contain a representative mix from community and conservation interests, the Aboriginal community, State and local governments, and industry and land managers. The Minister appoints a member of each regional committee as chairperson of that regional committee. Because they do not have a regulatory role, the committees lack enforcement powers. Committees are also required to be representative of geographical areas and NRM interests, and have a gender balance. The functions of each committee are to:

• identify priorities for NRM in their region; • prepare an accredited NRM strategy for their region; • facilitate implementation of their regional NRM strategy;

31

• promote agreed NRM principles; • facilitate the integration of NRM and planning activities; • seek, allocate and manage funds according to the priorities of the regional NRM

strategy; • coordinate the region’s participation in national and state programs relating to

NRM; • monitor and evaluate the implementation of the regional NRM strategy; • support processes to ensure appropriate education and training in NRM; and • report annually to the Minister for Primary Industries and Water and the

Tasmanian NRM Council. Figure 15. Tasmanian NRM regions (NRM South 2006)

32

NRM South Background The southern NRM region has a population of approximately 230,000 and covers an area of 25,482.8 square kilometres (approximately 38 per cent of Tasmania) (Figure 16). The region is characterised by complex and diverse geological systems. It contains three major river and estuarine systems (Derwent, Huon and Gordon Rivers) as well as parts of the north-flowing Macquarie and Esk Rivers and numerous smaller and coastal catchments and estuaries. There is a high degree of terrestrial, estuarine and marine biodiversity, on which industries such as agriculture, tourism, forestry, and wild and farmed fisheries depend. The area hosts extensive Aboriginal values, such as Aboriginal landscapes, Aboriginal sites and cultural heritage values for which marine sites are especially significant. There are also extensive areas with state, national and world conservation significance, including the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area and the Macquarie Island World Heritage Area.

The region spans the area of Tasmania covered by the 12 southern Tasmanian councils: Brighton, Central Highlands, Clarence, Derwent Valley, Glamorgan Spring Bay, Glenorchy, Hobart, Huon Valley, Kingborough, Sorell, Southern Midlands and Tasman. Part of the NRM South region, along with much of the NRM North region, has been identified as falling within the Midlands priority region for the NAP. Seven southern catchments fall within the Midlands NAP region. NRM Issues The main NRM issues for the southern NRM region have been identified as:

• loss of native vegetation and habitat; • introduced flora and fauna pests and diseases; • diffuse and point source pollution; • alteration of natural water flow; • soil degradation and salinity; • unsustainable land and water use practices; • mismatch of land and water use and land and water capability; • lack of resources and inadequate information to make adequate resource

management decisions; • inadequate NRM planning and/or planning processes; • land development (including urban, tourism, infrastructure); • inappropriate fire frequency and/or intensity; and • climate change (NRM South 2005).

33

Figure 16. NRM South region (NRM South 2006)

Governance The Southern Natural Resource Management Regional Committee (NRM South) was established in January 2003 as an independent non-statutory body under the NRM Act. NRM South is the managing body of the Southern Regional NRM Association Incorporated, which comprises nominees of interested stakeholder organisations. The committee is responsible for the organization’s strategic direction and for monitoring its

34

performance on behalf of Association members and stakeholders. NRM South participates with NRM North in the Joint NAP Working Group and the cross regional NRM Tasmania Communications Working Group. Committee members are drawn from the Association’s members, who include a range of representatives from industry peak bodies, local governments, regional development organizations, NGOs, and environmental consultancies. Under the Act, the committee must contain a representative mix from community and conservation interests, the Aboriginal community, State and local governments, and industry and land managers. The current committee is composed of representatives from resource-using industries � forestry, hydro-electricity, water supply, aquaculture and farming � and from local and State governments, Landcare and other conservation NGOs, the Aboriginal community, and the University of Tasmania, as well as people with marketing and planning expertise. Under the NRM Act, the committee is responsible for a range of statutory functions and powers in its region. These are to:

• identify the priorities for NRM; • prepare a draft regional strategy; • facilitate implementation of the regional strategy; • promote NRM principles; • facilitate the integration of NRM and planning activities; • seek, manage and allocate funds according to the regional strategy; • coordinate the region’s participation in national and State NRM programs; • monitor and evaluate the implementation of the regional strategy; • develop and implement processes to ensure appropriate NRM education and

training; and • prepare an annual report.

The committee also has a number of non-statutory functions relating to corporate governance, promotion, strategic direction, and performance review and reporting. Committees There are three standing committees:

• a Management Committee, with executive, human resource management, financial management and governance functions;

• a Strategy and Planning Committee, whose role is to guide communications, marketing, community engagement, partnership development, investment planning and preparation of submissions to government policy reviews; and

• an Implementation Committee, to establish and implement processes to select service providers and guide program implementation, management, monitoring and reporting systems.

Management The general manager is supported by a programs manager and the regional facilitator (Figure 17).

35

Figure 17. NRM South management structure

General Manager

Regional Facilitator

Program Manager

36

Cradle Coast NRM Background The Cradle Coast region, which comprises 32.7 per cent of Tasmania’s landmass, covers an area of 22,492 square kilometres and includes the North West and West Coast sub-regions of Tasmania (Figure 18). In 2006 the estimated resident population of the region was around 107,120, approximately one quarter of the Tasmanian population. As a result of structural changes in the mining, manufacturing and forestry industries during the 1990s, the region suffered an overall population decline although this has begun to reverse in recent years. About 70 per cent of this population resides in the coastal strip extending from Devonport to Wynyard. The region is highly geodiverse with areas of very old Precambrian lithology intruded by dolerite, karst landscapes, and younger basalt flows on which are formed the well-structured and fertile soils that underpin much of the region’s intensive vegetable production. There are also extensive areas of temperate wilderness located in areas of significant natural and cultural heritage including the Arthur–Pieman Conservation Area, Narawntapu National Park, Rocky Cape National Park, and the World Heritage areas of Cradle Mountain and the Franklin and Gordon Rivers. The foundations of the Cradle Coast region’s economy remain in agriculture, forestry, manufacturing and mining with retail and tourism playing an increasingly important role. Principal agricultural activities include dairying, vegetable growing and beef production. In 2000–01, the value of agricultural commodities produced in the region was $315m, which was approximately 45 per cent of the total value of Tasmanian agricultural production (Cradle Coast Region Natural Resource Management Committee 2003b). NRM Issues Common issues identified across the entire region include:

• water quality: sediment, turbidity and aquatic habitat; • habitat and species survival; • riparian zone management; • recreational impacts, weeds and waste management; and • a lack of understanding or access to knowledge.

Additional issues specific to particular sub-regions include:

• nutrient pollution of streams, soil management and loss of biodiversity in the intensively farmed basalt areas;

• effluent pollution from intensive dairying and the use of estuarine waters for shellfish, flooding and gorse infestation in the Far Northwest sub-region;

• landscape values in the West Coast sub-region; and • ‘ribbon development’, depletion of marine stocks, sea level rise and a lack of

adequate marine reserves in the Coastal sub-region (Cradle Coast Region Natural Resource Management Committee 2003a).

37

Figure 18. Cradle Coast NRM region (Cradle Coast Region Natural Resource Management Committee 2005)

Governance The Cradle Coast NRM Committee was declared as a Regional Committee under the Tasmanian NRM Act on 17 April 2003. The Committee was established as a sub-committee of the Cradle Coast Authority, which is a joint authority initiated by the nine

38

local governments of the northwest of Tasmania under the Local Government Act 1993 (Figure 19). The primary role of the Cradle Coast Authority is to identify priorities for economic development and to broker partnerships between the different levels of government, industry and community groups to address these priorities on a regional scale. The Cradle Coast Authority board is responsible for all powers delegated to the authority by its nine member councils. It meets monthly, reports to council representatives four times a year and is subject to annual reviews. The NRM Committee purchases financial and administrative support from the Cradle Coast Authority (Davidson and Lockwood 2007). The NRM Committee retains considerable autonomy and independence under the conditions that govern its relationship with the authority. The Cradle Coast NRM management structure and its relationship to the Cradle Coast Authority management structure are shown in Figure 19. The committee currently has 14 members representing a broad range of interests including community, agriculture, conservation, Aboriginal, tourism, public land management, forestry, education, and local and State governments. There is a balance of geographic representation from across the region. The committee’s monthly meetings are open to all stakeholders who give prior notice of their intention to attend and the minutes are made available to stakeholders on request and are published on the Cradle Coast Authority website (Cradle Coast Natural Resource Management Committee 2003a). Committees Four sub-committees were formed to focus on Water Issues, Sustainable Development, Biodiversity and Social Issues.

Management Figure 19 shows the relationship between the Cradle Coast NRM’s management structure and its host organization, the Cradle Coast Authority. Figure 19. Cradle Coast NRM management structure in relation to the Cradle Coast Authority management structure

Cradle Coast Authority Executive Chairman

Cradle Coast Authority Board of Directors

Executive Officer

Finance & Administration

Manager

Regional Education &

Training Position

Regional Tourism

Development Manager

Natural Resource Management

Executive Officer

NRM Support Officer

Projects Manager

39

6. VICTORIAN NRM FRAMEWORK In this section, the key components of the Victorian NRM framework are outlined (Figure 20). A more detailed representation of the relationships between Victorian State Government agencies and statutory bodies, CMAs, and their stakeholders is provided in Figure 21. Figure 20. Victorian NRM framework

The Australian Government–Victoria Bilateral Agreement provides for:

• procedures to establish regional targets and national standards for natural resource management, particularly for salinity and water quality;

• the criteria and process for government accreditation of integrated NRM plans (called regional catchment strategies in Victoria) developed by the community;

• multi-lateral arrangements where regions or activities cross jurisdictional boundaries;

• government investment in salinity and water quality actions to implement accredited regional NRM plans and, where appropriate, foundation funding to catchment/regional bodies to assist them to develop and refine plans;

• arrangements for early consideration and implementation of agreed priority actions;

• capacity building activities to assist communities and landholders to develop and implement regional NRM plans, including where appropriate through national programs and statewide activities;

• land and water policy reforms, with milestones, to create an improved governance framework and secure government investments and community action in the long term;

• clearly articulated roles for the Australian Government, Victorian and local governments, agencies, CMAs, and for industry, business and the community to

Victorian Government

Dept. of Sustainability

& Environment

Minister for

Environment

Other ministers on

land and water

management

Environmental Sustainability Commissioner

Victorian Catchment

Management Council

10 Catchment management authorities

Landholders

Communities

Local governments

Australian Government

NRM Team

Bilateral Agreement

Joint Steering

Committee

40

provide an effective, integrated and coherent framework to deliver and monitor implementation of the NAP;

• a public communication program to support widespread understanding of all aspects of the NAP so as to promote behavioural change and community support; and

• developing protocols and resolving disputes between the parties. The Australian and Victorian Government JSC oversees the delivery of the NHT and NAP in Victoria. The roles of the JSC include:

• developing principles and criteria to guide NAP and NHT investment; • considering regional catchment strategies and making recommendations to

Australian and Victorian Governments for accreditation; • prioritising NAP and NHT investments in consultation with the CMAs; • recommending NAP and NHT investment programs to Australian and Victorian

Government ministers; and • approving release of funds for investments.

The Victorian JSC comprises representatives from the AGNRM Team (DAFF and DEWR), and the Victorian DSE and DPI. DSE is the lead agency facilitating the delivery of the regional component of the NHT and NAP. DSE manages the single holding account on behalf of the JSC and partnership agreements with the regional bodies, State and Australian Government reporting requirements. It also provides liaison with the regional bodies and secretariat services to the JSC (Australian Government 2005). Recent changes within the Department signal a greater emphasis on the business dimensions of CMAs’ operations. The Victorian Catchment Management Council (VCMC), the Victorian Government's peak advisory body on catchment management, was set up under the Catchment and Land Management Act 1994 (CaLP Act). The major statutory roles of the VCMC include:

• advising the Minister for the Environment, and other ministers as requested, on land and water management issues;

• reporting annually on the operation of the CaLP Act 1994 ; and • reporting every five years on the environmental condition and management of

Victoria's land and water resources through the VCMC Catchment Condition Report.

The Council works closely with the DSE and DPI, as well as the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). This body also facilitates communication in order to encourage cooperation among the major sectors of local government, community conservation and environment organisations, industry, State and Australian Government agencies and CMAs. Although the Council does not have responsibility for the operations of the CMAs, it occupies an intermediary relationship between them and the policy and strategic landscape at State level (Victoria Catchment Management Council 2005b).

41

Figure 21. Structure of regional NRM arrangements in Victoria (Pannell et al. 2007, p.11)

The creation of a Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability who reports directly to the Minister for Environment and thence to the Parliament on the state of the Victorian environment is expected to have significant implications for the governance of land and water management (Pannell et al. 2007). The Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 2003 not only enjoins the Commissioner to encourage decision making that facilitates ecologically sustainable development but confers on the office powers in relation to other public authorities. The Commissioner’s announced focus is on priority issues of climate change, water, land use management and biodiversity (Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability 2006).

42

The NHT is delivered through 10 catchment management regions and the NAP is delivered by the CMAs covering four priority regions (extending over six catchment management regions). Greater detail about CMAs in general and the three case study regions in particular is provided in the following section, as is a map showing their locations (Figure 22). Catchment management authorities in Victoria Catchment management authorities are statutory authorities established to coordinate land, water and biodiversity management in their region. The CMAs are bodies corporate originally established under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. The CMAs combine the roles of the former river management boards, catchment and land protection boards, and community-based advisory groups such as salinity plan implementation groups and water quality working groups. Figure 22. CMA regions, Victoria (DSE 2005)

Under Section 13 of the CaLP Act, the CMAs have the following substantive functions:

• to prepare a regional catchment strategy for the region and to co-ordinate and monitor its implementation;

• to prepare special area plans for areas in the region and to co-ordinate and monitor their implementation;

• to promote the co-operation of people and bodies involved in the management of land and water resources in the region in preparing and implementing the strategy and special area plans;

• to advise the Minister and other ministers as requested on regional and resource allocation to land and water management bodies; on guidelines for integrated management of land and water resources; on catchment management and land protection matters; and on the condition of land and water resources in the region;

43

• to promote community awareness and understanding of the importance of land and water resources, their sustainable use, conservation and rehabilitation;

• to make recommendations to the Minister about the funding of the implementation of the regional catchment strategy and special area plans; and

• to make recommendations to the Minister and the Secretary of the Department about actions to prevent land degradation on Crown land (Parliament of Victoria 1994).

Prior to the introduction of the CaLP Act, the ten regional bodies were designated land protection boards. Under this Act, the CMAs assumed responsibility for the development and implementation of regional catchment strategies and for providing advice to state government on both Australian Government and state resource priorities in their regions. Previously under the Water Act 1989, the CMAs also had responsibilities in relation to waterway management, floodplains, irrigation and regional drainage systems. As a result of recommendations made in the White Paper, Our Water, Our Future (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004), the CaLP Act was amended to incorporate these functions. The Water (Governance) Act 2006 (Parliament of Victoria 2006) rationalised and clarified the functions, powers and authorities of CMAs under the CaLP Act 1994, Water Act 1989 and the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987. State Government expectations of CMAs in the performance of their functions and the exercise of their powers for the achievement of integrated and sustainable management of river health, are specified in the CMA Statement of Obligations - October 2006. CMAs are specifically charged with:

• ensuring the sustainable development of natural resource based industries; • maintaining and, where possible, improving the quality of land and water

resources; • conserving natural and cultural heritage; • involving the community in decisions relating to NRM within their region; • advising on matters relating to catchment management and land protection and

the condition of land and water resources in the region; and • promoting community awareness and understanding of the importance of land and

water resources, their suitable use, conservation and rehabilitation. The Statement of Obligations imposes a number of particular governance duties on CMAs in the performance of their responsibilities — to undertake periodic performance reviews; develop and implement corporate plans; prepare an annual report; monitor financial, social and environmental performance; manage investor funds in compliance with their agreements; administer community grants on behalf of the minister; develop risk management systems and processes to effectively manage strategic, operational and financial risks; and maintain and manage their assets sustainably. CMAs are also charged with undertaking strategic partnerships with regional service providers to implement regional river health strategies; floodplain and drainage programs; establishing community engagement committees to provide advice to the authority on these matters; and making related information and educational materials available to the public. For CMAs to achieve expected water management outcomes, the approach to catchment management throughout Victoria is informed by six principles:

44

1. Sustainable development through a whole of catchment approach. 2. Community empowerment to maximise opportunities for community engagement in the implementation of natural resource management programs. 3. Integrated management in recognition of the linkages between land and water. 4. Targeted investment to address priorities and deliver maximum on-ground benefits. 5. Accountability to Government and the community, both in a financial sense and for biophysical outcomes. 6. Administrative efficiency to maximise on-ground results (Victoria Catchment Management Council 2005a). The basic structure of a CMA is designed to maximise community involvement in decision-making. This structure comprises: 1. The board – that is directly responsible for the strategic direction for land and water management in the region. The board sets priorities, evaluates the effectiveness of outcomes, monitors the external and internal environment, and identifies opportunities. 2. The implementation committees (ICs) are the vehicles for local community input, and are responsible for developing work programs and overseeing on-ground program delivery for specific issues or sub-catchments. 3. The staff that supports the board and ICs, oversees development and implementation of programs, and liaises with the community, government and other catchment-focused organisations. Board members of authorities (previously up to 15, but now a maximum of 9) are appointed by the Victorian Minister for Environment and Conservation. Appointees are expected to have a mix of proven leadership skills, experience in high level decision-making and an understanding of the role of board members. They must have qualifications and experience in one or more of:

• land and water management; • business and financial planning and management; • engineering, infrastructure and project management; • the social sciences; or • environmental management and NRM.

They must demonstrate ability to introduce new ideas and innovative practices and to respond to emerging catchment management issues. Departmental representation on boards is no longer required although the stipulation that at least one half of the members should be persons whose principal occupation is primary production has been retained in recognition of their leadership role within catchments. The Minister has responsibility to ensure appropriate regional representation on selection panels and also appoints the chairperson who then participates in the selection of board members (DSE 2004). Details of the background, NRM issues, and governance arrangements for each of the three Victorian case study regions are presented in the remainder of this section.

45

Corangamite CMA Background The Corangamite CMA region covers 13,340 square kilometres of south-west Victoria and 175 kilometres of coastal fringe (Figure 23). Its 330,000 people live in the municipalities of Ballarat, Geelong, the borough of Queenscliffe and the shires of Moorabool, Surfcoast, Corangamite, Golden Plains, Colac Otway and Moyne. Geologically, the region is recent in comparison to other parts of Australia, its oldest rocks being the sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of the Central Highlands and the Otway Range. The central basalt plain is Quaternary, while there are some older Cretaceous and Tertiary deposits along the flanks of the Otway Range and the Bellarine Peninsula. Geological diversity is the main factor underlying the varied landscapes of the region, which is defined by four river basins - the Moorabool, Barwon, Lake Corangamite and Otway Coast. Corangamite CMA region was traditionally occupied by the Wathaurong peoples and several other smaller language groups. European settlers were drawn to the region by its open grassland plains and timber cutters were attracted to the forests of the Otways. The first major increase in population occurred with the gold rushes of the mid-nineteenth century. Subsequently, more intensive agricultural industries such as dairying and cropping were established. These developments led to extensive clearing of native vegetation, heavy disturbance of native flora and fauna, and the introduction of aquatic and terrestrial pest species. Since 1996, there has been considerable population growth in the Ballarat to Greater Geelong corridor, and south to the coast, while the northern parts of Colac-Otway and Corangamite Shires have undergone significant population decline (CCMA 2003). Population in rural areas is expected to increase as city-dwellers move to Ballarat and Geelong and surrounding areas for cheaper residential land and more space, and to the highlands, coast and Otways for permanent lifestyle change, weekender and retirement reasons. Such migration is expected to generate particular challenges for NRM including the in-movement of people with little experience of managing rural land, and greater complexity of biodiversity and waterway protection created by the growth of smaller lots. There is anticipation that local government land use planning decisions may have an impact on catchment health, while increased population along the coastal fringe may accelerate environmental damage. As well as population increases, environmental health is also likely to be affected by intensification of agriculture, particularly dairying, where output is set to double by 2010, but also by intensification of cropping and grazing systems, intensive animal industries — with egg and poultry producers, and piggeries seeking to relocate as urban areas displace them — and of horticulture and viticulture. Forestry plantations are also becoming more extensive.

46

Figure 23. Corangamite CMA region (CCMA 2003)

NRM Issues In the Corangamite CMA region, the key NRM issues are:

• destabilization of the inland aquatic ecosystems; • increasing land salinity; • declining native vegetation; and • unbalancing of nutrients in aquatic and land environments.

The coastal area is also under threat from growing urbanization and tourism. In particular, the biodiversity and health of the marine environment including the coastal estuaries are threatened by land-based sediments, nutrients and pollutants, and introduced marine pests.

47

Governance The Corangamite CMA was established in 1997 with statutory powers under the CaLP Act. Its board comprises a non-executive chairperson and currently 10 non-executive board members. Committees To support the business of the authority, the board of Corangamite CMA delegates particular responsibilities to five committees. Committees include board members supported by the chairperson and chief executive officer and members of the management team as required. Committees report to the board and maintain and make available detailed minutes. They comprise:

1. The Audit Committee whose tasks include liaising with corporate staff and financial officers and internal and external auditors, evaluating the adequacy and effectiveness of the corporate governance framework, in particular the operation and implementation of the risk management framework. The committee has also been responsible for initiatives such as the review of financial and statistical monitoring and reporting processes.

2. The Business Planning Committee which is responsible for overseeing annual and long-term strategic plans and directions and their monitoring and evaluation.

3. The Corangamite Regional Investment Committee is a skills-based group of 15 whose main task is to develop the annual regional catchment investment plan (RCIP) that sets priorities for natural resource management programs and projects. The committee is supported in its role of providing investment advice to the board and government by the operational portfolio groups (Landcare, Coastal, Pest Plant and Animal, Waterways, Salinity). The committee includes representatives of community groups and the Department of Primary Industry.

4. The Staff and Remuneration Committee, which is responsible for over-seeing staffing matters including succession planning.

5. The Water Statutory Functions Committee (WSFC), which was established to formulate policy and directions on issues concerning the statutory functions of waterway, floodplain and drainage management (CCMA 2006).

Management The senior management team consists of the chief executive officer, and three managers responsible for community and partnership, river and catchment, and corporate programs (Figure 24). Within the management team, among other roles, the Community and Partnerships Manager is charged with particular responsibilities relevant to NRM governance. In broad terms, these include developing and maintaining partnerships with a wide range of stakeholders to implement research and onground works. More specifically, these responsibilities involve community and local government engagement, monitoring and evaluation, research, Indigenous liaison and knowledge and information brokering in the Corangamite CMA region.

48

Figure 24. Corangamite CMA management team

Corporate Program Manager

Chief Executive Officer

River and Catchment Program Manager

Community and Partnership

Program Manager

49

Goulburn Broken CMA Background The Goulburn Broken CMA region covers around 2.4 million hectares, or 10.5 per cent of central and northern Victoria, across the municipalities of Campaspe, Moira, Strathbogie, Mansfield, Mitchell and Murrindindi, the City of Greater Shepparton and the Rural City of Benalla (Figure 25). Of this area, 1.1 million hectares is dryland agriculture, 500,000 hectares is in the Shepparton Irrigation Region and 800,000 hectares is public land. In addition, 70,000 hectares of the North Central CMA in the Shepparton Irrigation Region, is included in the program for ease of management. Figure 25. Goulburn Broken CMA region with implementation committee sub-regions (Goulburn Broken CMA 2006b)

The main land uses include irrigated dairy, horticulture, viticulture, and dryland grazing and cropping, and forestry. The major commodities are food products, but wool, timber,

50

tourism and recreation also contribute to the region’s economy. The annual economic output of the irrigation region alone is around $5.5 billion. The region’s population of 200,000 includes 6000 Indigenous people from the Taungurang and Yorta Yorta Clans as well as settlers from the British Isles, Greece, Italy, Albania, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, India and many other countries. The Iraqi community alone numbers 6000. From December to March, the population increases by about 10,000, when workers are drawn to the Shepparton Irrigation Region for the fruit harvest season (Goulburn Broken CMA 2002). NRM Issues Major current natural resource issues are:

• water quality; • dryland and irrigation salinity; • native vegetation decline; • biodiversity; and • pest plants and animals.

Emerging issues include demographic shifts and developing adaptive responses to climate change. A number of effects are anticipated from the likely drop in water yield in the catchment. These include greater risk of fire especially in the mountainous parts of the catchment and changes in salt discharge (Goulburn Broken CMA 2007). In respect of the latter effect, reassessment of the problem of dryland salinity in the Goulburn Broken region following from work on salt balances undertaken by CSIRO and SKM suggests that, if climate change predictions of reduced rainfall are realised, dryland salinity will be less of an issue for the Goulburn Broken and similar regions of Victoria than it currently is. On the other hand, the predicted climatic changes will mean that other challenges such as native vegetation decline and biodiversity loss will assume even greater importance (Megan McFarlane 16/0707, pers. comm.). Governance

The Goulburn Broken Catchment and Land Protection Board was established under the CaLP Act as the lead body responsible for setting policy and direction, coordinating implementation and monitoring achievements in NRM. The Board was required to prepare a regional catchment strategy that was subsequently adopted by the Goulburn Broken CMA when it was established on 1 July 1997 under the provisions of the Water Act 1989. The RCS was updated in 2003. The authority was established as a body corporate under the CaLP Act and as an authority with responsibilities for waterway management, floodplain management and drainage functions under Part 10 of the Water Act (the latter functions have been recently clarified by the amended CaLP Act).

Board and Committees In conformity with the amended CaLP Act, the board has nine members and three board committees, the Audit, Remuneration and Compliance Committees: 1. The Audit Committee is responsible for matters of accountability and internal control, risk management, governance processes, and performance monitoring and evaluation. 2. The Remuneration Committee has to ensure the attraction and retention of high calibre employees through a competitive remuneration structure.

51

3. The Compliance Committee’s responsibility is to advise the board on effective management of environmental risks; compliance with laws and regulations relating to the authority’s environmental performance that are not the responsibility of the Audit Committee; and to maintain the authority’s effectiveness and efficiency in relation to the various Acts and regulations that govern its environmental performance. The board has recently instituted a Strategy Committee on trial basis for six months to assist its strategic functions. Implementation Committees Under the Water Act 1989, the Goulburn Broken CMA established three geographically based Implementation Committees, which are responsible for works in three geographical areas within the catchment – the Shepparton Irrigation Region, the Mid Goulburn Broken and the Upper Goulburn (Figure 25 above). The committees comprise eight community representatives appointed by Goulburn Broken CMA, and one non-voting representative from each of the DSE, DPI and Goulburn-Murray Water. The members have a range of knowledge and experience in agriculture, food processing, salinity, waterway and floodplain management and biodiversity. Although their primary responsibility is the development and implementation of works informed by Goulburn Broken CMA’s broad strategies, they represent an important link between the board and its communities. Their close contacts with their constituencies place them in a position to identify issues and provide input to the review of the RCS. As Figure 26 demonstrates, implementation committees play a significant linking role in the regional governance arrangements of the Goulburn Broken CMA. Figure 26. Goulburn Broken regional governance arrangements (Goulburn Broken CMA 2006a)

�����

����� ���

����� ����

� ���

���� ������

� �� ���������������

�

���� ����������

�������� ����

���� ���� ���������������������

��� ��� ���� ���

�

� �� ������� �

�� ������� �

� ��!������������

52

Management Figure 27. Goulburn Broken CMA management structure (Goulburn Broken CMA 2006a) Partnerships The Goulburn Broken CMA sees partnership development as a critical component of its governance arrangements. The major partners include:

• local governments; • Department of Primary Industries; • Goulburn Murray Water; • Goulburn Valley Water; • Department of Sustainability and Environment; • Landcare networks; • the Goulburn Broken regional community; • neighbouring CMAs; and • Victorian and Australian Government (Departments) (Goulburn Broken CMA

2006b) Through its Partnership Team, Goulburn Broken CMA ensures that its major partners have an input into decision-making about the various NRM responsibilities that the CMA coordinates. The Team includes the CMA’s senior managers - the CEO, the executive officers of the implementation committees, the business manager, business development manager, three strategic coordination managers, and the waterways manager (see Figure 27) – and two representatives from DPI and one from Goulburn-Murray Water. In

Chief Executive Officer

Strategic Coordination

Business Development

Business Management

Implementation Committees Coordination

Implementation Coordination

Shepparton Irrigation Region

Business Manager

Business Development

Manager

Strategic River Health

Manager

Waterways Implementation

Manager

Mid Goulburn Broken

Floodplain Manager

Upper Goulburn Biodiversity Manager

53

providing a formal mechanism for major stakeholder input, the CMA is unique among Victorian regional NRM bodies especially since the recent changes to the CaLP Act mean that CMA boards are no longer required to include agency representatives.

54

North Central CMA Background

The boundaries of the North Central CMA region are defined by the River Murray to the north, the Central Highlands to the south and Mount Camel range to the east (Figure 28). The region covers an area of around three million hectares (13 per cent of Victoria), and supports a population of over 230,000 people.

Over 50 per cent of the region’s population lives in urban areas. The population is concentrated mainly in provincial centres, especially along the Calder and Murray River corridors. The region contains more than 50 urban centres including Swan Hill, Echuca, Donald, Maryborough, Castlemaine, Daylesford and St Arnaud. The population growth rate is higher than average for the state and regional Victoria (2.5 per cent population growth since 1996). The main movement of population is away from agricultural areas to provincial centres.

The region includes the four major river catchments of Campaspe, Loddon, Avoca and Avon-Richardson. The Campaspe and Loddon rivers drain directly into the River Murray. The Avoca River drains into a series of terminal lakes and wetlands, the Avoca Marshes. The Avon-Richardson catchment is internally drained, with most surface water emptying into Lake Buloke in the north of the region.

Annual rainfall ranges between about 300 mm in the north-west and over 1200 mm in the south-east. The region has substantial groundwater and surface water resources. Groundwater is used extensively to irrigate horticultural crops and pastures in the south of the region. Mineral springs in this area support both processing and tourist industries, while deep lead aquifers in the lower reaches of the Loddon and Campaspe valleys are increasingly being exploited.

Major water storages include Lake Eppalock on the Campaspe River and Cairn Curran reservoir on the Loddon River for domestic, commercial and agricultural uses throughout the region. Irrigation water supplies from the Murray and Goulburn systems, and stock and domestic supplies from the Wimmera system, supplement the region’s surface water resources.

North Central CMA is agriculturally diverse. Irrigation areas cover much of the lower Loddon and Campaspe riverine plans. Horticultural land uses and dairying are the main enterprises. Dryland agriculture is characterised by broadacre cropping and grazing. Intensive animal production industries are also represented in the region. Approximately 13 per cent of the region is public land, most of which is in reserves. Forest operations are concentrated in foothill forests and softwood plantations in the south.

Recent changes in land use include the development of land close to the major centres for horticulture, the advent of new agricultural developments such as viticulture and olives, and lifestyle farming. Of particular concern is an influx of people onto small holdings that were previously used for dryland agriculture; this development poses a challenge for conservation and protection of remnant vegetation.

Most soil types in the region are fragile, have poor fertility and are shallow and prone to degradation.

55

The viability of some agricultural industries is also threatened by increasing salinity, the region having some of the most severely salt affected areas in Victoria with direct implications for the River Murray. The region, therefore, faces complex environmental challenges. Figure 28. North Central CMA region (NC CMA 2003a)

56

NRM Issues Major threats facing the region include:

• irrigation and dryland salinity; • water quality decline; • groundwater contamination; • soil acidification; • erosion and soil structural problems; • flooding and drainage; • fragmentation and destruction of wildlife habitat; and • infestations and proliferation of pest plant and animals.

In response to these threats, the North Central CMA has identified the following priority areas for action:

• protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services from identified threats; • developing regional responses to the impacts of climate change; • capacity building to strengthen the community's ability to commit, resource and

problem solve; • improving the engagement of indigenous groups and awareness of heritage sites,

and reducing recreational impacts in areas of cultural significance; • using and managing land in ways that are more consistent with land capability; • using and managing public lands to foster improved environment condition; • balancing environmental and consumptive uses and increasing water use

efficiency; and • managing waterways and wetlands for improved environmental function and,

where possible, providing opportunities for economic, recreational and amenity use (North Central CMA 2003b).

Governance The North Central CMA was established under the CaLP Act and the Water Act 1989. The CMA is responsible for:

• the ongoing development and review of the regional catchment strategy; • identifying priority activities and work programs to implement the regional

catchment strategy including native vegetation management and coordination of Landcare;

• advising state government on Australian Government and state resourcing priorities at a regional level;

• providing services related to integrated waterway, drainage and floodplain and biodiversity management;

• managing the Works on Waterways Permit Scheme; • consulting and working with local government to ensure that planning schemes

and the regional catchment strategy are consistent; and • monitoring and reporting on the condition and management of land and water

resources. The CMA has other functions of a statutory nature under the Water Act 1989 with respect to waterway and floodplain management and for regional drainage. More recently NC CMA accepted responsibilities relating to the management of the Environment Water

57

Reserve created under the Act. The organization is also responsible for addressing biodiversity loss and decline at a strategic policy and planning level, for securing Australian and State Government funding for the region's NRM, and for supporting the region’s Landcare groups. The North Central CMA board is responsible for:

• setting policy and strategic direction for the authority; • consulting with key stakeholders to develop the vision for land and water

management in the region; • providing the strategic focus for land and water management in the region; • managing service delivery functions assigned to it by the Victorian Government; • establishing service delivery contracts with regional agencies to implement NC

CMA projects and programs; and • coordinating the use of regional land and water management resources. • monitoring the fulfilment of resource management objectives and targets, and

the adequacy and completion of works programs • reporting to the Victorian Government on the condition of land and water

resources in the region, and on the performance of NC CMA (2004). Committees The CMA’s committee structure comprises:

• An Audit Committee of the board which comprises four board members and whose main focus is on corporate risk and business and financial performance; and

• three regionally-based Implementation Committees for the: • Avoca Avon–Richardson catchment area; • Loddon Campaspe dryland area; and • Loddon Campaspe irrigation area.

Implementation committees advise the CMA on NRM objectives, targets, activities, priorities and budgets; they plan, develop and implement plans for specific issues or sub-catchments; they act as a communication link with stakeholder groups and the community; monitor performance on activities; and report to the board on the achievement of objectives and targets. Management North Central CMA’s management structure is outlined in Figure 29.

58

Figure 29. North Central CMA management structure Community engagement The North Central CMA fulfils its obligations to community engagement by supporting the region's 161 Landcare and environment groups in achieving their goals in terms of onground works, raising community awareness and building community capacity. The main vehicle is the Landcare Support Program, which involves building community capacity through action planning, training, communication and networking, publicity, developing partnerships and increasing Landcare groups’ resources. The aim is to integrate Landcare activities into regional scale strategies. Implementation committees are key players in furthering the NRM priority of community engagement and consultation.

Natural Resource

Management

Chief Executive

Officer

Human Resources

Strategic Support

Business Support

Loddon Campaspe Irrigation IC

Loddon Campaspe Dryland IC

Avoca Avon-Richardson

IC

59

7. THE NEXT PHASE OF NRM GOVERNANCE EVOLUTION With the current phase of NHT funding finishing in 2008, there has been considerable attention on the likely form of the future NRM delivery model at both state and national levels. In this section we report on recent reviews of the NRM framework and their proposals for NRM governance futures. National reviews In 2006, the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board convened a reference group and commissioned it to report on the status of the regional delivery model among stakeholders and the potential for the model’s improvement. Among the key findings of the Ministerial Reference Group for Future NRM Programme Delivery was that there was “overwhelming support for the regional delivery of NRM” (Keogh et al. 2006, p.6). The qualifying message suggested that governments needed to maintain their commitment to NRM and that the Australian Government should announce its intentions for future arrangements early in order to maintain the momentum and trust already achieved amongst NRM stakeholders. There was a clear message that any improvements to existing arrangements should be evolutionary and not revolutionary. The Reference Group’s recommendations were broad-ranging but essentially clustered around issues of Australian Government support for the regional delivery model; community engagement; improving delivery; communication and capacity-building; and information and knowledge. Under each issue were a number of sub-themes relevant to NRM governance. The first group of concerns around community engagement involved the perceived undervaluing of the contribution made by volunteer groups, under-engagement of Indigenous groups, the need for more active engagement of local government, and the beneficial effects to be gained from greater industry involvement. A second cluster of concerns related to relationships with state and national governments including the burdens of administration and reporting requirements, and the need for more direct guidance on governance, target-setting, project reporting, determining priorities for investment, and engagement and communication with regional stakeholders. A third set of concerns around communication and capacity-building included the importance of the Australian Government’s leadership role in promoting NRM at the national level and in coordinating regional and local efforts for meaningful large-scale benefits. The opportunities in integrating urban communities into NRM and raising awareness of the NRM efforts of regional communities on their behalf was also raised as a matter for future attention. Finally, a fourth cluster of concerns around the importance of continued investment in investigating and delivering high quality information included the need for more effective means for cross-regional information sharing and collaboration, and for national direction in guiding researchers and on-ground users. The Reference Group issued its final report in March 2006.

60

Simultaneously, in reporting on future agriculture and food policy to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in the Corish Report, the Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group (2006) confirmed the benefits of the regional NRM model. The Group emphasised the importance of improving the quality of NRM governance arrangements and governance skills prior to further devolution of responsibilities to the regional bodies. It also stressed the need for consistency in planning, financial accountability, and monitoring frameworks across the regions. In its response, the Australian Government (DAFF 2006) confirmed its commitment to a national approach to NRM and to supporting NRM beyond 2008. In November 2006, the Future Directions of NRM Working Group, consisting of officials from state/territory and Australian governments, and the Australian Local Government Association, published the Framework for Future NRM Programmes (NRMMC 2006). The framework was endorsed by the NRMMC. Among the guiding concepts was an intention to build on the strengths of the partnership model and to continue the emphasis on integrated NRM delivery. The Framework recognized a number of issues critical in maintaining the sustainability of Australia’s resource base including the need to:

• protect terrestrial and marine species and their habitats from critical threats; • halt salinity and water quality decline; • effectively integrate coastal and peri-urban development issues into NRM

arrangements; • enhance capacity to address the socio-economic impacts of processes that

degrade soil quality and resilience, and put at risk the productivity of the Australian landscape;

� build the capacity of NRM managers to respond to climate change and maintain sustainable production; and

� develop a better understanding of the impacts of climate change and climatic variability on the sustainability of natural assets.

Retention of the current overarching or program objectives was supported by the jurisdictions represented in the working group. “This Framework reflects the considerable stakeholder support for and confidence in the regional approach used to deliver the NHT and NAP, and the continuing values of the regional investment approach for achieving strategic landscape scale change – with community-developed NRM plans and investment strategies at the core of the approach” (NRMMC 2006, p.4). The key features of NHT2 would remain unchanged although there might be more or less emphasis on existing program elements as well as additional elements such as mechanisms for responding to emerging issues; an enhanced role for local governments; an enhanced role for NRM facilitators; expansion of market-based instruments, stewardship arrangements and environmental managements systems; block funding arrangements; improved monitoring and evaluation, standards and targets, and reporting arrangements; and attention to communications and investor recognition strategies. The Framework proposed a number of themes which would form the basis of investment decisions: biodiversity decline; salinity and water quality; coastal and peri-urban areas; productive and sustainable landscapes; and capacity-building and institutional change.

61

The Framework included a set of indicative guidelines in the form of principles and objectives to guide the development of future NRM programs. The Working Group recommended that future NRM arrangements be based on the following principles:

• maximization of investment return, especially in relation to demonstrable, positive and strategic NRM outcomes;

• recognition that damage prevention is more cost-effective than repair; • integrated approaches to strategic NRM concerns sensitive to regional variability; • identification, protection and rehabilitation of high value NRM assets; • attention to areas of high and emerging demand for NRM action (such as climate

change and urban and peri-urban issues); and • establishment of well-informed decision-making arrangements, with provision for

timely review of the information used in decision-making. In proposing objectives for a future NRM program, the Working Group largely focused on the institutional dimensions of NRM. They recommended:

• cost-sharing arrangements so that the interests of, and benefits to, all parties are considered;

• continued support for the regional investment model; • arrangements capable of addressing cross-regional issues; • encouragement for integrated landscape management; • mechanisms that maximize community engagement; • measures that encourage public-private partnerships at all levels of government; • arrangements for Indigenous engagement in NRM programs; and • structures that learn from the experience of current and previous NRM models.

NHT 3 Following the 2007 budget announcements, the Australian Government confirmed its intentions to continue its support for NRM and to contribute additional funding of approximately $2bn (or $395 million annually) over five years to a third phase of the NHT beginning in 2008 and continuing to a review of the program in 2012-13 (DAFF and DEWR 2007). The main elements of the program will remain unchanged with the exception of the merging of NAP with NHT and the possibility of block funding for those regions able to demonstrate robust governance systems. The key areas for investment proposed in the Framework were confirmed. The current delivery mode based on 56 NRM regions will be maintained although specific details of arrangements between the Australian and state/territory governments are in the process of being negotiated. These details include such items as the relative proportions of cash and in-kind contributions from the states and territories. The Australian Government will develop a three-year strategic investment plan to address national priorities. Some specific programs funded through the national investment stream are expected to be maintained while projects uncompleted because of drought or other unexpected circumstances may be allowed to complete after June 2008.

In a synopsis of the budget announcement for the Parliamentary Library, McCormick (2007, np) notes that: “The future NHT3 spending of $395 million per annum in 2007-08 dollars over the five years from 2008-09 will be some $40 million per annum less than

62

the average spending in 2007-08 dollars of the combined NHT2 and NAP programme spending over the period of 2002-03 to 2007-08. This reduction in provision of resources by the Commonwealth may have some impact on the ability of NRM programmes to deliver outcomes”. The National Water Plan and the National Water Initiative Two national policy initiatives with considerable potential to influence regional NRM organizations’ activities are the proposed National Water Plan and the National Water Initiative. The emphasis on water efficiency may see on-farm efficiency becoming a large part of their work particularly in irrigated areas. Although the National Water Plan is yet to be finalized, the possibility is that it will have implications for water quality as well as quantity. CMAs anticipate that investments could rival those to be expected from NHT3 especially in irrigated areas. As yet, there is limited indication of how the investment will be delivered. The proposal for a new authority to run in parallel with the Murray Darling Basin Commission to manage the Plan raises questions of the efficiency of having two responsible authorities. That the current situation is so fluid has implications for the adaptive capacity of the regional organizations2. State reviews Within the three state jurisdictions participating in the Pathways to good practice in regional NRM governance project, so far only the Victorian Government has conducted comprehensive reviews of its land and water management arrangements and proposed changes that would have a significant impact on the shape of future NRM governance. However, it should be noted that the review of CAPs conducted by the NSW NRC resulted in recommendations with substantial implications for aspects of NRM governance arrangements in that State. These are reported below. The Victorian Government’s White Paper, Our Water, Our Future (DSE 2004), recognized some of the key governance issues confronting sustainable land and water management. The White Paper devoted a chapter to governance arrangements for water’s management and provision in recognition of the importance of institutional performance to water’s sustainable management. Governance matters addressed included improving the clarity and allocation of roles and responsibilities; improving capability and effectiveness; creating greater integration and coordination; and providing incentives for innovation and performance improvement. As a result of the White Paper, catchment management authorities were given further responsibilities as caretakers of river health and as operational managers of the Environmental Water Reserve. These changes were complemented by strengthening of governance arrangements, including consolidation of legislative arrangements to clarify the roles and responsibilities of CMAs and their boards, and to improve the consistency of governance arrangements. This consolidation was also intended to support alignment of resource decisions across different scales and collaboration and joint-planning processes between relevant agencies. 2 We are indebted to Megan McFarlane, Goulburn Broken CMA, for discussion on the likely impacts of these two national policy initiatives.

63

The proposed changes mirrored trends at the national level and had significant implications for the future operations of CMAs in Victoria. They signify that the Victorian government recognizes that its role is to provide clear direction through the establishment of robust governance arrangements that are supportive of integration of resource decisions, policy alignment, clear accountabilities, well-defined roles and responsibilities, creation and sharing of high-quality information and knowledge, and continuous improvements in capability and effectiveness. Similarly, the Land and Biodiversity at a time of Climate Change Discussion Paper (DSE 2007), currently open for public comment, signals investigation of the effectiveness of institutional arrangements for sustainable land, water, and biodiversity outcomes and possible improvements in the context of changing climate scenarios. However, as well as climate change threats, the paper canvasses the consequences of demographic change for future NRM such as declining rural populations, and the implications of the shift of population to the coast for coastal, estuarine and marine environments. Most importantly, the paper asks the question: What should the next iteration of regional catchment strategies deal with? As noted above, the NSW NRC’s review of CAPs, Progress of Catchment Action Plans: Their place in current and future natural resource management in NSW (NRC 2006), while lacking the standing of a White Paper, makes recommendations that could drive integration of all NRM priorities and actions within a region, whether they be those of community-based groups, local governments, regional NRM organizations, or state or national level agencies (Figure 30). Figure 30. CAPs as an integrated prospectus for NRM (NRC 2006, p.15)

National and state priorities for natural

resource management

State-wide targets

Prospectus of integrated actions for

investment

• Legislation

• Investment preferences

• Regional strategies

• Regional conservation plan

• Regional priorities

• Links to other CAPs

Spatial expression of CAP targets

CMA tools to inform and engage stakeholders in

a specific location

• Modelling

• Mapping

• Sub-catchment plans

On-ground

delivery mechanisms

• Legislation

• State & national policies

• National matters for target

����������� �� �������� �������

� ������� ����� �

� � ����������������������� �� ���� � ���� ������ �� ������

�

����� ���������� ������������� ������ �� �

64

This model envisages that CMAs will have the role of leading the integrated delivery of NRM through implementation of their CAPs. The CAPs are proposed as the main means to coordinate NRM action and investment. Some of the benefits claimed for this model include priorities being more effectively linked to on-ground delivery mechanisms than they currently are and greater consistency of delivery among regions, especially between rural and urban regions, to dispel perceptions of inequity and conflicts between regions. The report recommends a number of changes to the institutional architecture to enable greater integration including:

• modifying NRM legislation and policies to make them consistent across urban/coastal areas and rural areas;

• reducing CMAs’ reporting burden and transaction costs by streamlining state and Australian government reporting and accountability requirements;

• enabling other relevant ministers to provide advice before future changes to CAPs are approved to facilitate a whole-of-government approach; and

• improving sustainability in funding to enable CMAs the continuity required to achieve longer-term state targets.

In Tasmania, under the provisions of the NRM Act 2002, the Tasmanian Government is obligated to undertake reviews of the legislation every five years. The first review was initiated in July 2007 when the Minister directed the Secretary of DPIW to examine:

• whether the principles informing the NRM Framework � ecosystem approach, balanced decisions, integrated management, priority-based, prevention is better than cure, partnerships, and ‘we are all responsible’ � needed to be amended;

• the currency of the state’s NRM priorities � of which there are three process priorities (capacity-building, education/communication and research) and five resource management priorities (water; vegetation; soil; weeds, pests and diseases; and the coastal/marine environment);

• the effectiveness of the accreditation criteria and regional standards and targets in meeting the needs of Tasmanian NRM;

• the effectiveness of regional strategies in achieving NRM outcomes consistent with State and regional priorities;

• the effectiveness of the voluntary approach in linking regional strategies to planning instruments (including those of local government); and

• the appropriateness of the Tasmanian NRM Council and the regional committees in advancing the purposes of the Act.

The Secretary is required to consult with other environment and resource-based agencies, publish a discussion paper to encourage public input, and to report to the Minister by the end of February 2008 (Llewellyn 2007). 8. SUMMARY The main purpose of this report was to elaborate the structural components of the Australian NRM system paying particular attention to arrangements for the regional delivery of NRM. Details of the background, NRM issues, governance, and management arrangements of the nine regional NRM organizations constituting our case studies �

65

four in NSW, three in Victoria, and two in Tasmania � were provided. Of the issues identified by each of the nine case study regions, challenges of declining water quality and quantity (both surface and ground water), salinity (irrigation and dryland), deterioration of soils (as a result of increasing acidity, sodicity and salinity), declining native vegetation, loss of biodiversity and habitat, degradation of rivers and wetlands, and increasing infestations of weeds and pests were common across most if not all nine regions. There is considerable variation in structure and maturity both among and within states and territories. In contrast to arrangements in some other states, these three state jurisdictions in question have provided their regional NRM organizations with legislative legitimacy, although of varying degrees. Thus CMAs in NSW and Victoria are structured as both bodies corporate and as statutory authorities, while in Tasmania, regional NRM organizations may function as incorporated associations or bodies corporate with responsibilities for natural resource management but they do not have the authority of statutory bodies. Some organizations are delegated functions under legislation other than under their establishing legislation. For example, Victorian CMAs were previously allocated responsibilities for waterway management, floodplains, irrigation and regional drainage systems under the Water Act 1989, although recent legislative amendments (discussed above) have drawn these functions under their enabling legislation, the CALP Act. NSW CMAs are delegated responsibility for the Native Vegetation Act 2003, the intention of which is to end land clearance and support landholders in developing property vegetation plans. In both cases, these supplementary statutory functions can foster the impression that the CMAs are simply another arm of government and therefore impede or compete with other statutory functions such as engaging communities in NRM. Relative maturity tends to reflect the presence or absence of similar catchment-based antecedent arrangements. Consequently, the relative maturity of Victorian CMAs which have well-developed community engagement strategies, for example, is indicative of a comparatively lengthy history of land protection and catchment management boards. This situation contrasts sharply with the Tasmanian situation where there was no prior experience with regionally based land and/or water management arrangements. While provisions for board membership vary across the three states, there is commonality in that membership is specified by enabling legislation. Catchment management authority boards in NSW are limited to six members and a chairperson selected on the basis of their skills in NRM, business and local government. Victorian catchment boards must have a mix of experience in leadership and corporate roles and of skills relevant to natural resource management. The number of board members was recently reduced from 15 to 9, suggesting that experience has proved larger boards to be unwieldy. The Tasmanian model is a hybrid of skills and representation with a maximum of 15 board members. There are necessarily clear trade-offs to be made between skills and representation and associated trade-offs between effectiveness and fairness. No doubt the relative emphases will change over time as experience and needs dictate. Variations in the complexity of management arrangements again reflect the relative maturity of the various regional NRM models. At one end of the continuum is Goulburn

66

Broken CMA with multiple executive functions and multiple management tiers while at the other end is NRM South with a simple structure of the executive office supported by two managers, one of whom is the regional facilitator. To some extent, variations may also reflect national priorities and funding decisions. Hence, as the Murray Darling system is a national priority, one could expect the Murray Darling Basin CMAs to receive a proportionately greater share of available funds, necessitating more sophisticated management structures. The Australian NRM system continues to evolve nationally and within states and territories. Evolution will be an ongoing and necessary process especially given the dynamic environment of NRM. The issue will be whether governance arrangements for the system are sufficiently flexible to cope with the complexities of NRM issues and the dynamism of an NRM system that is at the forefront of responding to challenges such as climate change and its multiple associated issues, and the pressures of population growth/decline and demographic shifts. 9. NEXT STEPS Reports 4 and 5 in this series will elaborate further on the strengths and weaknesses of the regional delivery model and present a governance standard for the regional NRM system. Report 4, Strengths and challenges of regional NRM governance: insights from the literature and interviews with key players will summarize academic discussion around the regional NRM delivery model and report the findings from interviews with regional partner organizations undertaken early in 2007. The analysis of this material will highlight the various strengths and challenges of regional NRM organizations in the three south-eastern states as exemplified by the nine partner regional bodies. These organizations represent over a third of the total number of regional organizations in these states. It will also note any inconsistencies and parallels between current academic understandings and the findings. This report will be available in late October 2007. Report 5, A Good Governance Standard and Good Practice Guidelines for NRM, will present the governance standard, outline the processes that have been used to produce it, and make recommendations on its implementation. Date obtained from an implementation trial of the standard will be presented as an indicative benchmark of the current state of regional NRM governance in partner regions in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania. The third part of the report will be devoted to examples of good practice gathered from the regional partners and make recommendations on good practice. Report 5 will be available before Christmas 2007.

67

REFERENCES

Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group (2006) Creating Our Future: agriculture and food policy for the next generation, Report to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, available at http://www.agfoodgroup.gov.au/next_generation.html, accessed 19/06/07.

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) (2001) Performance information for Commonwealth financial assistance under the Natural Heritage Trust. ANAO, Canberra.

Australian Government (2004a) Central West Report Card, available at http://www.nrm.gov.au/state/nsw/central-west/publications/report-card/index.html, accessed 02/04/07.

Australian Government (2004b) Lachlan Report Card, available at http://www.nrm.gov.au/state/nsw/lachlan/publications/report-card/index.html, accessed 03/04/07.

Australian Government (2004c) Murray Report Card, available at http://www.nrm.gov.au/state/nsw/murray/publications/report-card/index.html, accessed 03/04/07.

Australian Government (2004d) Northern Rivers Report Card, available at http://www.nrm.gov.au/state/nsw/northern-rivers/publications/report-card/index.html, accessed 02/04/07.

Australian Government (2007) Environmental Stewardship Program, available at http://www.nrm.gov.au/funding/esp.html, accessed 09/08/07.

Catchment Management Authorities NSW (2005a), CMA – Area of Operation - black and white, available at http://www.cma.nsw.gov.au/publications.html, accessed 02/04/07.

Catchment Management Authorities NSW (2005b) Catchment Management Authorities: An Overview, available at http://www.cma.nsw.gov.au/, accessed 19/06/07.

Catchment Management Authorities NSW (2005c) NSW Combined Catchment Management Authorities Annual Report 2004/05 - Volume 1: CMA Activities and Achievements, available at http://www.lachlan.cma.nsw.gov.au/pdf/1-12_CMA_AnnualReport_SCREEN.pdf, accessed 14/06/07.

Central West Catchment Management Authority (CW CMA) (2005) Annual Report 2004-05, available at http://www.cw.cma.nsw.gov.au/publications.html, accessed 14/06/06.

Central West Catchment Management Authority (CW CMA) (2006a) Annual Report 2005-06, available at http://www.cw.cma.nsw.gov.au/publications.html, accessed 14/06/07.

Central West Catchment Management Authority (CW CMA) (2006b) Annual Review 2005-06, available at http://www.cw.cma.nsw.gov.au/publications.html, accessed 14/06/07.

Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability (2006) The Commissioner's Priority Issues, available at

68

http://www.ces.vic.gov.au/ces/wcmn301.nsf/Home+Page/Default~newhome?open, accessed 18/06/07.

Commonwealth of Australia (2004) Natural resource management, available at http://www.nrm.gov.au/, accessed 21/12/04.

Commonwealth of Australia (2005) NHT Annual Report 2004-2005, available at http://www.nht.gov.au/publications/annual-reports/2004-05/index.html, accessed 19/06/07.

Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CCMA) (2003) Corangamite Regional Catchment Strategy, available http://www.ccma.vic.gov.au/rcs/, accessed 04/06/07.

Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CCMA) (2006) Annual Report 2005-2006, available at http://www.ccma.vic.gov.au/publications/corporate_reports_2007.htm, accessed 04/06/07.

Cradle Coast Region Natural Resource Management Committee (2003a) Annual Report 2002-03, available at http://www.nrmtas.org/library/cradle/annualReports.shtml, accessed 17/04/07.

Cradle Coast Region Natural Resource Management Committee (2003b) Cradle Coast Natural Resource Management Strategy: Situation Paper, available at http://www.nrmtas.org/library/cradle/strategiesProposals.shtml, accessed 17/04/07.

Cradle Coast Region Natural Resource Management Committee (2005) Cradle Coast Natural Resource Management Strategy, available at http://www.nrmtas.org/library/cradle/strategiesProposals.shtml, accessed 19/06/07.

Davidson, J., Lockwood, M. (2007) Partnerships as Instruments of Good Regional Governance: Innovation for sustainability in Tasmania Regional Studies.

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) (2006) Australian Government Response to the Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group, Creating our Future: Agriculture and Food Policy for the next Generation, available at http://www.daff.gov.au/about/publications/corish_report_response, accessed 19/06/07.

Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and Environment and Water Resources (DAFF and DEWR) (2007) Phase Three of the Natural Heritage Trust, available at http://www.nrm.gov.au/funding/nht3-questions.html, accessed 19/06/07.

Department of the Environment and Water Resources (2007) Natural resource management regions. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, available at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/nrm-regions-map.html, accessed 13/08/07.

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (2002) Tasmanian Natural Resource Management Framework, available at http://www.stors.tas.gov.au/au-7-0037-00015, accessed 05/04/07.

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (2005) Catchment Management Regions, available at http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/EE4098CC1588B825CA25712A00833427/$File/Catchment+Management+Regions+2005.pdf, accessed 14/09/07.

69

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (2004) Our Water, Our Future, Victorian Government White Paper, available at http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/wcmn202.nsf/LinkView/BBE70FB30CBF17D4CA256FFE0008644316E9B1815F549080CA256FFF000B04E4, accessed 19/06/07.

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (2007) Land and Biodiversity at a time of Climate Change, Consultation Paper, available at http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/nrence.nsf/LinkView/523B19576C368289CA2572C0007B3BEA554FC9C681B6CAB6CA2572C600036DB1#cp, accessed 19/06/07.

Environment Australia (1999) Natural Heritage Trust Annual Report 1998-99, available at http://www.nht.gov.au/publications/annual-reports/1998-99/index.html, accessed 19/06/07.

Ewing, S. (2003) Catchment management arrangements, in Managing Australia’s environment, Dovers, S., Wild River, S. (eds). Federation Press, Annandale.

Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (2006a) An overview of the role of Implementation Committees in the Goulburn Broken Catchment - August 2006, available at http://www.gbcma.vic.gov.au/default.asp?ID=210, accessed 06/06/07.

Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (2006b) Corporate Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11, available at http://www.gbcma.vic.gov.au/default.asp?ID=171, accessed 06/06/07.

Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (2007) Corporate Plan 2007-08 to 2011-12, available at http://www.gbcma.vic.gov.au/default.asp?ID=205, accessed 10/09/07.

Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (2002) Dryland Salinity Management Plan, Draft 2002, available at http://www.gbcma.vic.gov.au/downloads/GBDrylandMngmntPlan/DrylandSalinityReview.pdf, accessed 16/07/07.

Head, B. (2005). Participation or Co-Governance? Challenges for Regional Natural Resource Management. Participation and Governance in Regional Development. R. Eversole and J. Martin (eds). Ashgate, Aldershot.

Jennings, S.F., Moore, S.A. (2000) The rhetoric behind regionalization in Australian natural resource management: myth, reality and moving forward. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 2(3): 177-191.

Keogh, K., Chant, D., Frazer, B. (2006) Review of Arrangements for Regional Delivery of Natural Resource Management Programmes, Report prepared by the Ministerial Reference Group for Future NRM Programme Delivery, available at http://www.nrm.gov.au/publications/books/regional-delivery-review.html, accessed 19/06/07.

Lachlan Catchment Management Authority (nd) The Catchment, available at http://www.lachlan.cma.nsw.gov.au/catchment.html, accessed 03/04/07.

Llewellyn, D. (2007) Review of the Natural Resource Management Act 2002 and the Natural Resource Management Framework: Terms of reference, Media release, Thursday, 5 July 2007.

70

Local Government and Shires Association of NSW (nd) NRM Framework in New South Wales, available at http://www.lgsa.org.au/www/html/1563-nrm-framework-in-nsw.asp, accessed 02/04/07.

McCormick, B. (2007) Budget Review 2007-08: Natural Heritage Trust Phase Three, Report prepared by the Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Section, Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, available at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RB/BudgetReview/NatPlanforWaterSecurity.htm, accessed 10/08/07.

Murray Catchment Management Authority (2004) Map of Murray CMA, available at http://www.murray.cma.nsw.gov.au/includes/documents/pdf/mcmamap120504.pdf, accessed 02/04/07.

Murray Catchment Management Authority (MCMA) (2006) Annual Report 2006, available at http://www.murray.cma.nsw.gov.au/?p=publications&p_id=7&c_id=1, accessed 14/06/07.

Nancarrow, B., Johnston, C., Syme, G. (2003) Community perceptions of roles, responsibilities and funding for natural resource management in the Moore Catchment. Australian Research Centre for Water in Society, CSIRO, Perth.

Natural Resources Advisory Commission (nd) About Us, available at http://www.nrac.nsw.gov.au/about_us.htm, accessed 02/04/07.

Natural Resources Commission (2005) Natural Resources Commission of NSW, available at http://www.nrc.nsw.gov.au/default.aspx, accessed on 02/04/07.

Natural Resources Commission (2006) Progress of Catchment Action Plans: Their place in current and future natural resource management in NSW, available at http://www.nrc.nsw.gov.au/module.aspx?id=3, accessed 13/07/07.

Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) (2006) Framework for Future NRM Programmes, available at http://www.nrm.gov.au/publications/frameworks/future-programmes.html, accessed 19/06/07.

North Central Catchment Management Authority (NC CMA) (2004) North Central CMA Board, available at http://www.nccma.vic.gov.au/NCCMA%20Board.asp, accessed 13/06/07.

North Central Catchment Management Authority (NC CMA) (2003a) Catchment Condition Report 2003, available at http://www.nccma.vic.gov.au/Reports.asp, accessed 11/09/07.

North Central Catchment Management Authority (NC CMA) (2003b) North Central Regional Catchment Strategy 2003-2007, available at http://www.nccma.vic.gov.au/NorthCentralRCS.asp, accessed 14/09/07.

Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority (NR CMA) (2006) Annual Report 2005-2006, available at http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/pdf/annualreport0506.pdf, accessed 02/04/07.

NRM South (2005) NRM South Natural Resource Management Strategy for Southern Tasmania, available at http://www.nrmtas.org/library/south/strategiesProposal.shtml, accessed 17/04/07.

71

NRM South (2006) NRM South Maps, available at http://www.nrmtas.org/library/south/sthmaps.shtml, accessed 17/06/07.

Pannell, D. J., Ridley, A., Seymour, E., Regan, P., Gale, G. (2007) Regional natural resource management arrangements for Australian states: structures, legislation and relationships to government agencies (April 2007), SIF3 Working Paper 0701, CRC for Plant-Based Management of Dryland Salinity, Perth, available at URL: http://cyllene.uwa.edu.au/~dpannell/cmbs3.pdf, accessed 14/06/07.

Parliament of NSW (2003) Catchment Management Authorities Act, available at http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/act+104+2003+fn+0+N, accessed 14/06/07.

Parliament of Tasmania (2002) Natural Resource Management Act, available at http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/index.w3p, accessed 13/08/07.

Parliament of Victoria (1994) Catchments and Land Protection Act, available at http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf, accessed 16/08/07.

Parliament of Victoria (2006) Water (Governance) Act, available at http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf, accessed 16/08/07.

Paton, S., Curtis, A., McDonald, G., Woods, M. (2004) Regional NRM - is it sustainable? Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 11(4): 259-267.

Read, V., Bessen, B. (2003) Mechanisms for improved integration of biodiversity conservation in regional NRM planning. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Reeve, I., Marshall, G., Musgrave, W. (2004) Resource governance and integrated catchment management. Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England, Armidale.

Regional Implementation Working Group (2005) Regional Delivery of NRM – Moving Forward, available at http://www.nrm.gov.au/publications/riwg/pubs/riwg-fullreport.pdf#search=%22REgional%20Implementation%20working%20Group%20March%202005%22, accessed 09/09/06.

Tasmanian Natural Resource Management Support Unit (2005) Natural Heritage Trust and National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality: Annual Report 2004-2005, available at http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/LBUN-6K25CV?open, accessed 03/04/07.

Victorian Catchment Management Council (2005a) History of the Catchment Management Framework, available at http://vcmc.vic.gov.au/Web/vcmc-frame.html, accessed 16/07/07.

Victorian Catchment Management Council (2005b) Introducing the Victorian Catchment Management Council, available at http://www.vcmc.vic.gov.au/Web/vcmc-public.html, accessed 18/06/07.

Virtual Consulting Group (VCG) (1999) Dryland salinity and associated vegetation management study – final report. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.