THE VALUE PROPOSITION OF REGIONAL NATURAL RESOURCE ...€¦ · 0 THE VALUE PROPOSITION OF REGIONAL...

THE VALUE PROPOSITION OF REGIONAL

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN

QUEENSLAND

Karen Vella, Rachael Cole-Hawthorne, and Meegan Hardaker

FINAL REPORT

0

THE VALUE PROPOSITION OF REGIONAL

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN

QUEENSLAND

Final Report

Karen Vella1,2, Rachael Cole-Hawthorne1, and Meegan Hardaker2

1 QUT Institute for Future Environments Brisbane, Queensland, 4000, Australia

2QUT School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Brisbane, Queensland, 4000,

Australia

Supported by the Institute for Future Environments, School of Civil Engineering and Built

Environment, NRM Regions Queensland and Queensland Water and Land Carers

Value Proposition of Regional NRM in Queensland Final Report

1

© The Author(s). 2017 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-

nc/4.0/).

This report should be cited as: Vella K., Cole-Hawthorne, R. and Hardaker, M. (2017) The Value

Proposition of Regional Natural Resource Management in Queensland Final Report, Queensland

University of Technology, Brisbane.

Published by Queensland University of Technology on behalf of NRM Regions Queensland and

Queensland Water and Land Carers.

This report is available for download from QUT Eprints website: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/114596/

DOI: 10.5204/rep.eprints.114596

This publication is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research,

information or educational purposes subject to inclusion of a sufficient acknowledgement of the source.

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily

reflect those of NRM Regions Queensland and Queensland Water and Land Carers.

Cover Photo: ‘Hinterland’ © Leonard J Matthews 2015 https://www.flickr.com This article is distributed

under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic International Public

License (CC BY-ND 2.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/


https://www.flickr.com/



2

Contents

List of Tables........................................................................................................................................ 4

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 7

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 8

2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 13

Phase 1 (2002-08) - Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) II (Commonwealth) ...................................... 14

Phase 2 (2008-13) - Caring for Our Country (CFoC)/Q2 (Commonwealth) Coasts and Country

(Q2C&C) (Queensland) ................................................................................................................. 14

Phase 3 (2013-15) - National Landcare Program (NLP) and the Queensland Government

Investment Program. ...................................................................................................................... 15

Aim and Scope of this Report ........................................................................................................ 16

3. Framework Used to Evaluate NRM Outcomes .................................................................................. 18

4. Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 32

Step 1 - Data Appraisal .................................................................................................................. 32

Step 2 - Sampling Frame ................................................................................................................ 33

Step 3 - Regional Summary Reports .............................................................................................. 34

Step 4 - Whole of Queensland Assessment.................................................................................... 35

Step 5 - Expert Workshop .............................................................................................................. 35

Step 6 - Synthesis and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 37

5. Whole of Queensland Consolidated NRM Assessment ..................................................................... 38

Attribute 1: Action for Sustainability Outcomes ............................................................................... 38

Attribute 2: Performance and Accountability and Return on Investment .......................................... 55

Attribute 3: Community Participation and Engagement .................................................................... 73

Attribute 4: Resilient Institutions and Capacity Building .................................................................. 77

Attribute 5: Strategic Partnerships ..................................................................................................... 80

Attribute 6: Strategic and Integrated Regional Planning ................................................................... 85

Attribute 7: Community Awareness and Knowledge Brokerage ....................................................... 89

6. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 93

Question 1 – What is the value-add of regional NRM arrangements? .............................................. 93

Question 2 – How has the value-add changed under the different governance models of NRM

programs? ........................................................................................................................................... 96

Question 3 – How can existing value be maintained and built upon in a new program and regional

arrangements? .................................................................................................................................... 99


3

Question 4 – How can these areas of value be monitored, evaluated, and reported on in a future

program? .......................................................................................................................................... 100

7. References ........................................................................................................................................ 105

8. Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 109

Appendix 1: Summary of all data acquired...................................................................................... 109

Appendix 2: Data used in assessment .............................................................................................. 110

Appendix 3: How sources of data were used to evaluate NRM Attributes ..................................... 111

Appendix 4: Example of the first page of the data assessment table for SEQ region...................... 118


4

List of Tables

Table 1. The attributes of regional NRM based on key words in the NRM guidelines, reviews, and

research projects and summarised as key principles .............................................................................. 20

Table 2. Assessment matrix of attributes for evaluating NRM outcomes (after review) ...................... 31

Table 3. Usefulness of evidence provided in the source data to evaluate NRM attributes .................... 32

Table 4. Sampling Frame ....................................................................................................................... 33

Table 5. The index scale used to rate the value proposition .................................................................. 35

Table 6. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 1.1 - Projects address

regional NRM assets and key threats ..................................................................................................... 40

Table 7. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 1.2- Natural resource

action is regionally coordinated ............................................................................................................. 47

Table 8. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for attribute Element 1.3 - Investments achieve

natural resource management action ...................................................................................................... 52

Table 9. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 2.1 - Organisational

policies and procedures (for finance, HR management, asset management, fraud control, project

management and project delivery) provide evidence that NRM investments are well governed .......... 57

Table 10. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 2.2 - Project, output,

and outcome reporting accounts for investments at the sub-regional level ........................................... 61

Table 11. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 2.3 - Regional NRM

communication demonstrates accountability to stakeholders and leverages investment....................... 64

Table 12. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 2.4 - Monitoring and

continuous improvement programs are in place .................................................................................... 69

Table 13. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 3.1 - NRM has a diverse

community membership base, projects engage diverse networks and sectors. Partnerships are responsive

to needs................................................................................................................................................... 74

Table 14. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 4.1 - Stable NRM

presence in the region and regional skills retention and development................................................... 78

Table 15. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 5.1- Strategic investment

partnerships at local, state, and federal levels, and across diverse sectors (agriculture, indigenous,

conservation) .......................................................................................................................................... 81

Table 16. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 6.1 - Collectively

endorsed plans and connectivity within and among key decision making institutions and sectors ....... 86

Table 17. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 7.1 - Community

Awareness and Knowledge Brokerage .................................................................................................. 90


5

List of Figures

Figure 2. Framework of attributes for evaluating NRM outcomes ........................................................ 19

Figure 3. A comparison of the NRM outcomes measured between 2002-2015 against attributes ........ 97

Figure 4. The value-add of Queensland’s regional arrangements scored against a 1-5 index scale where

1 = least desired and 5 = most desired. .................................................................................................. 98


6

Acronyms

BMP…………………...Best Management Practice

CFoC…….………….....Caring for Our Country

DAFF………..………...Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry

DERM…………….…...Department of Environment and Resource Management

GBR…………….……..Great Barrier Reef

GBRMPA……….…….Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

HR……………………..Human Resources

JCU…………….……...James Cook University

JD……………………...July - December

JJ………………………January - June

JSC………………….....Joint Steering Committee

JSIP……………………Joint Strategic Investment Panel

MAT…………………...Management Action Target

MERI…………...……..Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement

MIP……………………Major Integrated Project

NAPSWQ……….……..National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality

NHT…………..…….….Natural Heritage Trust

NLP…………..….…….National Landcare Programme

NRM…………………...Natural Resource Management

PMP…………………...Property Management Plan

QDAFF………………..Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

QLD…………………...Queensland

Q2C&C……….……….Q2 Coasts and Country

RCT…………………...Resource Condition Target

RGC…………………...Queensland Regional Natural Resource Management Groups Collective

RIMRP…………….….Reef Integrated Monitoring and Reporting Program

SEQ………………..…..South East Queensland

SEQC……………..…...SEQ Catchments

SIP……………………..State-level Investment Program

WQIP…………..……...Water Quality Improvement Plan


7

Acknowledgements

The funding for this project was provided by the QUT Institute for Future Environments and School

of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, NRM Regions Queensland, and Queensland Water and

Land Carers.

We also acknowledge the additional support received from the Queensland Department of Natural

Resources and Mines for supplying narrative reports, output summaries, final reports, and other

documentation related to past and current regional NRM programs to QUT for this study and for

organising the stakeholder workshop.

Many thanks also go to the expert panel convened as part of this project and the full involvement

of participating stakeholders from the State and Commonwealth Governments, regional NRM bodies,

researchers, and consultants for their critical contributions.

Finally, we thank Rachel Eberhard of Eberhard Consulting and Emeritus Professor Stephen Dovers

of the Fenner School, Australian National University for providing independent reviews of this report.


8

1. Executive Summary

In 2002, Queensland introduced a regional delivery model for natural resource management (NRM)

that applied principles of collaboration, subsidiarity, and adaptive management to address sustainability

problems at the regional scale. A paucity of data evaluating sustainability and other NRM outcomes has

been a consistent problem for the adaptive management of the model and NRM arrangements over time.

This gap must be closed to enable review, adjustment, and implementation of natural resource

sustainability programs in the future.

This report develops a framework and methodology and applies it to assess the outcomes and value

proposition of regional NRM in Queensland to address this knowledge gap. It examines evidence

contained within a large dataset of regional body reports submitted to the Queensland Government

between 2002 and 2015 and provides the first state-wide synthesis of reported data since the introduction

of NRM arrangements in Queensland. The dataset of over 1000 individual documents included:

qualitative reports in the form of narrative annual performance reports, quantitative data in the form of

state output summaries and regional group milestone reports, case studies, and workplans. The data

reported on activity over three main policy and investment phases for regional NRM:

Phase 1 - Natural Heritage Trust II (2002-2008)

Phase 2 - Caring for Our Country and the Q2 Coasts and Country Program (2008-2013)

Phase 3 - NLP and the Queensland Government Investment Program (2013-2015)

This evaluation focuses on assessing the outcomes from regional NRM arrangements in the third

phase of NRM in Queensland. Outcomes from Phase 1 and 2 are included for comparative purposes.

The scope of the analysis does not include Natural Heritage Trust I outcomes because data reporting on

regional NRM investments was not available prior to 2002. This was also prior the introduction of

regional delivery model in Queensland.

The dataset was evaluated using a framework of seven key attributes for regional NRM arrangements.

Each attribute was underpinned by a key principle drawn from the literature and finalised at a workshop of

Queensland NRM practitioners (regional body, government, and non-government participants). These

attributes and the underlying principles that represent the desired outcomes of Queensland’s regional model are:

1. Action for sustainability outcomes – regional NRM arrangements should deliver landscape

management actions that maintain and restore the natural resource base and build social,

economic, and institutional capital in regions over time. This is the foundational principle for

NRM.

2. Performance and accountability and return on investment – regional NRM arrangements

are cost effective, well-governed, accountable to all stakeholders, and government investments

are leveraged (aligned or bought together with other resources) to mobilise and grow

sustainability outcomes in regions.


9

3. Community participation and engagement – regional NRM arrangements empower

community groups in NRM and NRM programs are responsive to community and government

needs.

4. Resilient institutions and capacity building – regional NRM arrangements are stable,

enduring, and agile. They provide critical regional capacities and networks to deliver

sustainability and are able to adapt to changing policy priorities over time.

5. Strategic partnerships – regional NRM arrangements reflect principles of subsidiarity. They

develop strong and credible partnerships for sustainability action at the regional scale and

provide linkage between organisations, structures, activities, and investment across local, state,

and national levels for collective impact.

6. Strategic and integrated regional planning – regional NRM arrangements include processes

for achieving consensus around regional priorities and strategies, plans reflect community and

government (local, state, and federal) aspirations, and plans are at an appropriate scale for

implementation.

7. Community awareness and knowledge brokerage – regional NRM arrangements include

processes to gather knowledge from multiple diverse sources (e.g., scientific, indigenous,

policy) together and translate this into regional and local sustainability action.

The synthesis and evaluation of regional NRM reporting has identified important outcomes and

emerging trends in outcome delivery since the introduction of regional NRM arrangements in

Queensland in 2002.

First, performance accountability and return on investment and community awareness and

knowledge brokerage were the areas of highest value-add by regional NRM arrangements from 2002-

2015. Other areas of consistent and positive value-add from regional NRM arrangements across all three

phases were strategic partnerships and community participation and engagement. Queensland’s

regional NRM arrangements have proven to be accountable, agile, and able to maintain natural resource

management outcomes in the context of changing government partnerships and NRM funding priorities.

Second, the value of regional NRM arrangements declined over time in achieving action for

sustainability, in developing resilient institutions and capacity building, and in achieving strategic

and integrated regional planning. Though regional arrangements delivered positive actions in these

areas in the first two phases of regional NRM (from 2003-2013), outcomes in these areas declined in

the last phase (2013-2015). There was a substantial decline in strategic and integrated regional planning

between 2002 and 2015. This was one of the best areas of outcome delivery in the first regional NRM

investment phase; however, outcomes fell between 2008-2013 and fell even further between 2013-2015.


10

Third, the evaluation found that strategic and integrated planning, and resilient institutions and

regional capacity attributes are potentially useful lead indicators for measuring progress toward

sustainability outcomes from NRM. Integrated planning and the concerted effort to develop regional

NRM capacity in the first phase of regional NRM in Queensland left a positive legacy for NRM into the

second, and to some extent, third phase of NRM. There was a time lag between the initial investment

in planning and regional capacity development in phase one and the achievement of sustainability

outcomes in the second phase. There was also a time lag between declining outcomes in planning,

regional resilience and capacity in phase two and sustainability outcomes which declined in phase three.

The impact of the continued decline of planning and regional capacity outcomes in phase three on

sustainability outcomes in phase four requires further evaluation.

Fourth, the evaluation found that four attributes – performance and accountability and return on

investment; community participation and engagement; strategic partnerships; and community awareness

and knowledge brokerage – are important foundations for regional NRM. The data indicates that

accountability, engaging community, building strategic partnerships, and brokering knowledge are

essential for developing regional NRM capacity, coordinating and integrating NRM action across

federal, state, and local governments, and achieving natural resource management action.

Fifth, the analysis highlighted the limitations of current reporting processes, which do not

capture efforts toward addressing sustainability outcomes across the regional NRM governance

system. Queensland and Australian government funding of NRM is fragmented across a range of

organisations and sustainability programs. The wider governance system for regional NRM in

Queensland includes agricultural industry groups, conservation groups, state agencies, and local

governments traditional owner groups and a plethora of regional planning and partnership processes for

managing assets and threats such as water, pests, biodiversity and vegetation, and climate adaptation.

How do the efforts of organisations across the entire NRM governance system impact on sustainability

outcomes across Queensland? How do these different efforts impact on the efficacy, appropriateness,

and efficiency of the delivery of NRM programs? Understanding the impact of action on NRM outcomes

across the governance system level is critical to improve the efficacy of future regional NRM – and

related programs.

Finally, the review of reporting over fifteen years showed that NRM today is quite different

compared to 2002, when regional NRM arrangements were introduced. The dataset showed a changed

focus on competitive funding, short term contracts, the introduction of MERI frameworks, and a trend

toward metricised reporting. The loss of the bilateral partnership between the Queensland and Australian

governments was evident in the reports from 2010 onwards. The dataset showed that these changes

have impacted on the regional NRM model, and it appears to be significant, however data describing

the regional model and the extent of changes to the regional model is generally lacking. Exactly

how different are the 14 regional NRM models across Queensland? How have they evolved over time?

Do differences in regional models impact on NRM outcomes? How does NRM in Queensland compare


11

to other states in Australia or internationally? What can be learnt from other governance models? This

knowledge would help to adaptively improve Queensland’s diverse regional NRM arrangements and

the efficacy of future NRM programs.

This analysis of regional NRM arrangements concludes by identifying several recommendations

for NRM Regions Queensland and the Queensland Water and Land Carers to maintain and build upon

the value of NRM arrangements and for monitoring, evaluation, and reporting, as follows:

Recommendation 1: Strengthen the integrative role of regional NRM plans in promoting strategic

target setting across government and non-government organisations, alignment of government and non-

government activity to improve implementation, and as the basis for collaborative monitoring and

review in the next phase of regional NRM.

Recommendation 2: Grow the human and governance capacity of NRM bodies to provide

leadership and support for achieving regional resilience (in the face of changing institutional and

regional conditions), to improve the longevity of investments in sustainability action for the Queensland

and Australian Governments and regional communities.

Recommendation 3: NRM partners (e.g., regions, the Queensland and Australian Governments,

non-government organisations and the research/consultancy community) should evaluate the different

regional models and approaches underpinning partnerships and NRM delivery across Queensland’s 14

regions and assess the effects of nuances in governance models on NRM outcomes. How the Queensland

models and their NRM outcomes compare to other states in Australia and NRM systems should also be

evaluated.

Recommendation 4: Provide for a higher level of consistency in reporting frameworks over time,

and broaden the scope of relevant data collection, and the scope of the participating organisations

(government and non-government) involved in monitoring and evaluation. Improve reporting on: i)

efforts to build regional capacity and resilience, ii) strategic and integrated regional planning, iii)

regional partnership models, and iv) sustainability action across government and non-government

organisations.

Recommendation 5: NRM regions and reporting partners (e.g., the Queensland and Australian

Governments, industry groups, traditional owner groups, conservation groups) should work together to

develop a consistent language for narrative reporting and decision rules to guide qualitative assessments

of outcomes achieved by programs. This will enable data about investments and outcomes to be better

shared across Queensland, and scaled up for adaptive management.

Recommendation 6: NRM regions, the Queensland and Australian Governments and other non-

government organisations (e.g., industry groups, traditional owner groups, conservation groups) should

work together to develop an integrated long-term program for evaluating Queensland’s regional NRM

system. This should be based on clear evaluation questions about links between activities and outcomes


12

and use data harvesting, targeted new data collections and regional synthesis to evaluate efforts across

the NRM governance system toward addressing sustainability outcomes. It needs to be broader than the

regional NRM organisations, include other government and non-government NRM activity, be more

than monitoring, continue beyond the life of individual projects, and be linked to adaptive management.

If addressed, these recommendations would improve NRM capacities and outcomes, or at least

clarify what these outcomes are. Some of these actions are within the ability of regional bodies to

address, or could be with appropriate resources, while some may be more in the domain of State agencies

or others.


13

2. Introduction

Regional governance is one of the most important and complex public policy issues confronting

the achievement of sustainable natural resource outcomes in Australia. Multiple decision-making

processes are a challenge for coordinating the management of land use, resource development, and the

implementation of sustainability improvement initiatives. This is a particular challenge in resource-rich

Queensland, where resource use and its management impacts are heavily contested, and these conflicts

are expected to become more acute in a changing climate.

In 2002, Queensland introduced a regional delivery model for natural resource management

(NRM). This model introduced community based regional NRM bodies under the auspices of a

Commonwealth/State bilateral agreement. Regional NRM bodies worked with Commonwealth and

State governments, agricultural organisations, environmental conservation groups, local community

groups, researchers, and others to coordinate and align management activities around priorities within

regions.

The first instalment of the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT-I) laid the foundations for the regional

model for natural resource and environmental management in Australia between 1997 and 2001. Under

NHT-I, small grants to improve land management were provided from Commonwealth funding under a

major program with the states and subsidiary bodies. However, this approach to delivery for landscape-

scale management was criticised for being ad hoc and too scattered to have impact (Dovers, 2013; Curtis

& De Lacy, 1996). This Australian model is now approaching two decades of implementation, and

evaluation is long overdue.

The regional delivery model applied principles of collaboration, subsidiarity, and adaptive

management to address complex, ‘wicked’ NRM sustainability policy problems at the regional scale. It

was a bold governance experiment (Lane, Robinson, & Taylor, 2009; Lockwood & Davidson, 2010;

Robins & Dovers, 2007; Wallington & Lawrence, 2008). Each Australian state introduced different

regional governance models. These ranged from community-based models in Queensland and Western

Australia, to variations of statutory and regulatory models in New South Wales, Victoria, and South

Australia. The institutional basis of the regional NRM models around Australia have evolved since their

introduction. Governments and others were to evaluate the performance and outcomes of regional NRM

arrangements and use this evidence to inform policy and governance reform.

Although the model used the principles of adaptive management, the evidence base used to support

adaptive management has been a consistent problem since the introduction of regional arrangements

(Vella, Sipe, Dale, & Taylor, 2015), and this problem is not isolated to Queensland. Repeated audit

evaluations at the national level have highlighted the paucity of performance data about sustainability

and other outcomes (Vella et al., 2015). The key problems identified were: 1) the absence of

performance measures to evaluate the impact of the regional delivery model (Auditor General, 1997;

Auditor Genreal , 2001; Hassall and Associates, 2005; Keogh, Chant, & Frazer, 2006); 2) a poor data


14

baseline and insufficient monitoring of outcomes (Caring for our Country Review Team, 2012; Senate

Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport 2010); and 3) the ineffective collation

and use of the reporting data that regional bodies have provided to governments (Caring for our Country

Review Team, 2012). Though improvements have been made in monitoring and performance reporting

at a regional level through monitoring, evaluation, review, and improvement (MERI) strategies since

2008, this has not been collated across regions or over time to provide an evaluation of overall

performance.

This report describes an approach developed and applied in a Queensland case study to evaluate

the outcomes from regional NRM arrangements. The approach used ‘multiple lines of evidence’ to

review the outcomes of regional NRM arrangements between 2002 and 2015. During this phase, there

were three main phases of investment:

Phase 1 (2002-08) - Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) II (Commonwealth)

Under NHT II, 56 regional areas were established with regional NRM bodies. This was based on a

“purchaser/provider engagement model” that emphasised contractual governance (Love, 2012, p. 47).

In 2002, funding was provided to regional NRM bodies under NHT II and also under the National Action

Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAPSWQ) (in some regions) to develop regional plans that

identified key targets and environmental assets in NRM regions (Curtis et al., 2014). The program

emphasised capacity building and the development of performance measures, while the key objectives

were biodiversity conservation, sustainable use of natural resources, and community capacity and

institutional change (Love, 2012).

The NHT II delivered investment for outcomes at three levels: national, for projects with a broad

national focus or that cut across state or regional boundaries; regional, for regional scale actions and to

implement NRM plans; and local, known as the Envirofund, for small individual grants to address local

scale problems carried out by local community groups (DEH, 2004).

In Queensland, the NHT II invested A$159 million over five years (Queensland Government,

2017). Focuses included the Natural Heritage Trust Extension Wetlands Programme (2003-2008), which

aimed to develop and implement measures to conserve and manage Queensland’s wetlands. The

Wetlands Programme received $7.5 million in funding from both the Commonwealth and Queensland

Governments to implement the relevant provisions of the Natural Heritage Trust Bilateral Agreement

(Environmental Protection Agency, 2008; NHT, 2004)

Phase 2 (2008-13) - Caring for Our Country (CFoC)/Q2 (Commonwealth) Coasts and Country

(Q2C&C) (Queensland)

Established by the incoming federal Labor government in 2008, the goal of the CFoC program was

to deliver “an environment that is healthier, better protected, well managed, resilient, and provides

essential ecosystem services in a changing climate” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008, p. 2). The

program focused on strategic outcomes across six national priority areas: the National Reserve System;


15

biodiversity and natural icons; coastal environments and critical aquatic habitats; sustainable farm

practices; natural resource management in northern and remote Australia; and community skills,

knowledge, and engagement (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008). The program received an investment

of A$2.25 billion, with a third of this allocated as base-level funding for regional body organisations,

and two-thirds distributed through a competitive project-based grant application process (DAFF &

DSEWPaC, 2011; Robins & Kanowski, 2011). The 2009-10 CFoC competitive grants call received

1,300 applications, of which 59 were successful, a success rate of 5% (Robins & Kanowski, 2011).

Queensland’s regional NRM during this phase, Q2C&C, invested A$86 million over five years to

support Queensland’s regional bodies (Queensland Government, 2017). Q2C&C aimed to deliver on a

series of programs including, weeds and pests, water and wetlands, water quality, land and soils, and

core operations of the regional bodies in the Queensland Murray-Darling Basin (Queensland Murray-

Darling Committee [QMDC], 2011). For the SEQ Catchments regional NRM body, the programs

funded under the Q2C&C investment included: improved system management (including community

skills, knowledge, and engagement), community water quality monitoring, improved collaboration

through the ecosystem services framework, regional planning, traditional owner engagement,

implementation of landscape activity for a prioritised ‘Back on Track’ habitat, and flood and disaster

recovery activities (SEQ Catchments, 2012).

Phase 3 (2013-15) - National Landcare Program (NLP) and the Queensland Government

Investment Program.

The NLP was the result of the merging of CFoC and Landcare under the Liberal government of

2013 (Benham, Beavis, & Hussey, 2015). During the first phase of the NLP (2014-15), investments

were made according to four strategic objectives: community management of landscapes to sustain long-

term socio-economic benefits from their environment, improvement of farmer and fisher long-term

returns through better management of the natural resource base, community involvement in caring for

the environment, and community protection of species and natural assets (Australian Government,

2017).

The Queensland NRM Investment Program complemented the Australian Government NRM

funding, by supporting Queensland’s regional NRM projects and state strategic projects (Queensland

Government, 2017). In 2013, the Queensland Investment Program announced an A$80 million

investment over five years (2013-18), which included A$30 million to protect the Great Barrier Reef

(GBR), with A$55 million of the total to be provided to regional bodies in Queensland (Department of

Natural Resources and Mines [DNRM], 2017). The Queensland Investment Program was focused on

activities in seven key theme areas: 1) management of priority and invasive weeds; 2) management of

priority and invasive pests; 3) restoration of soil condition; 4) adoption of best practice landscape

management; 5) restoration of native riparian vegetation along priority waterways; 6) restoration of

native vegetation in priority wetlands; and 7) the development of engaged, knowledgeable, and skilful

communities (DNRM, 2017).


16

Aim and Scope of this Report

This report outlines the approach developed to evaluate the value proposition of Queensland’s

regional NRM system by estimating and comparing the outcomes between 2002-2015. The approach

used a framework of attributes and data from multiple government and regional NRM body sources to

establish the value of the regional NRM delivery system. The approach sought to understand the impact

of regional NRM on outcomes and changes in value over time. The aim was to examine and harvest

findings from regional body reporting and regional case study data existing between 2002 and 2015.

Part of the evaluation required understanding whether it was possible to use this existing dataset to

evaluate the regional NRM outcomes and trends over time. The data were limited to regional reporting

that was held by the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines. Regional body reports

provided to the Australian Government under the first phase of NRM that were submitted to the

Queensland Government through the joint steering committee (JSC) processes formed part of the

dataset. Regional body reports provided to the Commonwealth Government outside of the bilateral

processes (e.g., in phase 2 and phase 3) were not included in the analysis. The analysis sought to evaluate

the value of NRM arrangements in the context of Queensland policy priorities over time to inform the

redesign of Queensland programs. The inclusion of regional reporting data from the Commonwealth

provided a more comprehensive analysis of value outcomes of regional NRM over time and is a useful

addition to this analysis. Similarly, the analysis of data from agricultural groups and other regional

partners improved the assessment of outcomes from regional NRM arrangements.

The dataset included 1,000 individual documents collected over the three investment phases of

regional NRM arrangements since the introduction of regional bodies in Queensland under NHT II. The

analysis centred on the most recent investment phase and included earlier investment phases for

comparative purposes. Outcomes from the NHT I (prior to the introduction of regional NRM

arrangements) would have provided a useful comparison but were excluded from the scope of the

analysis because data were not available. The analysis focused on delivery under Queensland programs.

The federal programs are listed as they form an important understanding in the NRM delivery context,

which underpins the dataset and the findings of this analysis. Appendix 1: Summary of all data acquired

provides a summary of the documents acquired for the analysis.

The analysis used a combination of content analysis, evaluation using decision rules, and expert

involvement to identify the outcomes from the regional delivery system.

The specific questions addressed were:

1. What is the value-add of regional NRM arrangements?

2. How did the value-add change under the different governance models of the past programs?

3. How can the existing value be maintained and built upon in a new program and regional

arrangements?


17

4. How can these areas of value be monitored, evaluated, and reported on in a future program?

The remainder of this report is structured as follows: Section 3 outlines the framework of attributes used

to evaluate the outcomes from the regional NRM delivery system. Section 4 describes the methods in

detail. Section 5 presents the findings from the assessment of outcomes across Queensland and over

time. It evaluates outcomes in terms of: (1) action for sustainability outcomes, (2) performance and

accountability and return on investment, (3) community participation and engagement, (4) resilient

institutions and capacity building, (5) strategic partnerships, (6) strategic and integrated regional

planning, and (7) community awareness and knowledge brokerage. Based on the analysis and evaluation

of regional NRM, Section 6 presents a summary of trends under changing NRM governance models,

and provides recommendations in terms of consistency in terminology and monitoring, evaluation, and

reporting frameworks.


18

3. Framework Used to Evaluate NRM Outcomes

The framework used to structure the evaluation of NRM outcomes was built on the seven attributes

underpinning the regional NRM model identified by Vella and Eberhard (2015)1. These seven attributes

originated from a synthesis of key guidelines and evaluation documents in Queensland and across

Australia that described the aspects that a healthy NRM system ought to deliver. The key documents

consisted of five Queensland guidelines and sixteen national reviews and major research projects. These

seven attributes were then tested/modified against the national documents.

The seven summary attributes, listed in initial priority order based on the number of times key

words and concepts appeared in the reviewed documents, were:

1. Performance and accountability and monitoring return on investment

2. Community participation and engagement

3. Resilient institutions and capacity building

4. Strategic partnerships

5. Strategic and integrated regional planning

6. Community awareness and knowledge brokerage

7. Action for sustainability outcomes (social/economic/environmental).

These attributes were presented and discussed at the Review of outcomes from regional NRM

investment in Queensland workshop hosted by the Queensland Government in August 2016. This

workshop brought together regional bodies, state and federal agency staff, researchers, and consultants

to provide input into the scope of the review project (Value Proposition of Regional NRM in

Queensland). Based on discussion at the workshop, the priority of the attributes was modified to reflect

the importance and centrality of delivering sustainability outcomes (e.g., Attribute 7 became Attribute

1) (Figure 2).

1 This was developed for the Queensland Regional Natural Resource Management Groups Collective (RGC)

review of regional NRM models in 2015


19

Figure 2. Framework of attributes for evaluating NRM outcomes

Table 1 outlines the attribute groupings and the key words identified in the reviewed documents.

20

Table 1. The attributes of regional NRM based on key words in the NRM guidelines, reviews, and research projects and summarised as key principles

Attributes Keywords from

Queensland-focused

Guidelines

Source Keywords from National-level

Audits and Evaluations of NRM

Source Keywords from workshop

discussion NRM CEOs,

Program Managers,

Queensland and Australian

Government Officers.

Key Principles

1. Performance,

accountability

and return on

investment

• Efficient and

effective delivery,

• effective NRM

outcomes,

• accountability at

scales,

• accountability and

return on

investment,

• program

improvement and

adaptive

management,

• maximum

efficiency in

achieving results,

• better business and

NRM practices.

1, 2, 3,

4, 5

• Performance information and

reporting processes,

• grant acquittals,

• cash management,

• program monitoring,

• program objectives achieved,

• operations of the board and

executive management,

• statutory and contractual

compliance,

• organisational policies, procedures

and processes,

• financial management,

• HR management,

• IT and systems management,

• information and knowledge

management,

• asset management,

• stakeholder engagement,

• fraud control,

6, 7, 8,

9, 10,

11, 12,

15, 16,

17, 18,

19, 20,

21, 22,

23, 24,

25, 26,

27, 29,

30, 31,

32

• Local accountability,

accountability to the

region for what is

delivered, cheap not

nasty!

• Flexible = cost effective

– institutions without

overheads and salaries,

• multiplying the

investment- guarantee

5:1,

• know what you’re up

to/transparency,

• saving government

admin/planning/prioritisa

tion

• mobilising investment,

• good governance systems

in place,

• Transparency

• legitimacy

and

credibility of

investment

decision,

• culture of

evaluation

and learning,

• efficiency and

effectiveness.


21


Queensland-focused

Guidelines





Program Managers,



Key Principles

• project management,

• improving delivery,

• the implementation of regional

delivery arrangements,

• governance and financial

management for regional delivery,

• monitoring, evaluation, and

reporting on the programs’

performance,

• legitimacy,

• transparency.

• accountability – lower

risk for government on

investment (assurance),

• value investment, not

cheapness,

• accountable to members,

• coordination and

alignment of investment,

• mobilising/coordinating/l

everaging investment or

alignment of investment,

• lower risk investment for

government – reason for

investing is to reduce risk

to landscape – regional

arrangements manage the

risk of the investment

working,

• lower risk of money

going astray (higher

degree of accountability

than normal grantee) and

• lower risk of getting flak

for actions.


22


Queensland-focused

Guidelines





Program Managers,



Key Principles

2. Community

participation

and engagement

• Community

engagement and

ownership,

• decision making

subsidiarity,

• empowering and

engaging

communities,

• subsidiarity,

• local decision

making,

• local partnerships,

• community

participation,

• enabling,

• recognises

community

aspirations,

• diversity,

• integration,

• grass roots

involvement.

1, 2, 3,

4, 5

• Participation and engagement

structures,

• capacity to participate,

• inclusiveness.

7, 10,

13, 18,

19, 20,

27, 30,

31, 32

• capacity building,

• accessibility,

• trust,

• information access,

• manage the noise for

government (reduces the

voices),

• solve the problems,

• deliver community

consensus,

• turn problems into

opportunities,

• responsive to

community,

• reflects community

aspirations/knowledge/

capacity,

• frank and robust

conversations that

government can’t have,

• helps policy development

through community

connections –

• Seeks to

understand,

inform and

engage all of

the

community in

decision-

making,

• represents

community

views,

• devolves

decision-

making to

appropriate

levels.


23


Queensland-focused

Guidelines





Program Managers,



Key Principles

appropriate and relevant

networking, independent,

• extending the reach of

government.

3. Resilient

institutions and

capacity building

• Viability,

• model needs

renewal,

• program

improvement and

adaptive

management,

• flexible, long term

policy framework,

• leadership.

1, 3, 4,

5

• Three-year investment cycles,

• adaptability,

• learn from unintended outcomes,

• adequate regional resourcing,

• adaptive and responsive processes,

• improved social capital of

planners, managers and

participants,

• effective and connected

institutions,

• government commitment to NRM,

• capacity building,

• capacity of NRM bodies,

• capability.

7, 9,

10,14,

15, 19,

20, 21,

22, 23,

24, 25,

26, 29,

30, 31,

32

• NRM a perpetual issue -

needs to be enduring,

smart, agile,

• sustainable,

• the ‘go to’ hub – single

point of contact,

• there when you need

them,

agile/flexible/responsive,

• adapt to changing policy,

governance structure to

enable this,

• understand

regulation/incentives,

• human capacity on the

ground,

• enduring arrangements,

• resilient and sustainable,

• government reach

extended,

Flexible,

adaptable,

learning networks

that seek to build

capacity across all

NRM

stakeholders/

interests.


24


Queensland-focused

Guidelines





Program Managers,



Key Principles

• testing/revising/learning,

• state agencies don’t

always have

representation in region,

• link to multiple agencies,

• on the spot.

4. Strategic

partnerships

• Decision making

subsidiarity,

• local decision-

making local

partnerships,

• coordination,

• alignment,

• integration,

• collaboration,

• engagement,

• enabling, diversity,

bridging

government and

community

1, 2, 3,

5

• Stakeholder culture and

commitment,

• participation and engagement

structures,

• linking scales and activities,

• partnerships

6,13, 15,

16, 18,

19, 20,

21, 22,

23, 24,

25, 26,

27, 28,

29, 30,

32

Works with other

organisations at a

variety of levels

for collective

impact.

5. Strategic and

integrated

• Precaution,

• alignment,

2, 3, 4,

5

Thinking regionally 6, 7, 10,

13, 14,

• Prioritises

actions based


25


Queensland-focused

Guidelines





Program Managers,



Key Principles

regional

planning

• integration,

• collaboration,

• strategic planning,

• integrated regional

NRM planning and

action,

• bridging

government and

community,

• long-term policy

framework

16, 18,

19, 20,

30, 31

on asset value

and risks,

incl. spatial

priorities,

med-long

term, to reach

standards and

targets.

6. Community

awareness and

knowledge

brokerage

Enabling, integrating

and aligning knowledge

2, 3, 5 • Recognising regional diversity and

complexity,

• structures for integrating

knowledge,

• Processes for integrating

knowledge and values

7, 10,

13, 14,

19, 20,

27, 30,

31

Engages and

shares diverse

knowledges

including

scientific,

technical, local,

and Indigenous

7. Action for

sustainability

outcomes

No keywords – though

was recognised as an

2, 4 • Environmental protection,

sustainable agriculture and NRM

outcomes achieved,

6, 7, 8,

12, 13,

14, 15,

• Local and regional

ownership of outcomes

and solutions,

Long-term

maintenance and

restoration of the


26


Queensland-focused

Guidelines





Program Managers,



Key Principles

(environmental,

social, and

economic)

implicit underpinning

principle.

• Indigenous access and equity

issues,

• risk management,

• improved resource conditions

16, 17,

18, 19,

20, 28,

29, 30

• looking after our life

support system,

• saving work (prevention/

precaution),

• brokering outcomes

across multiple parties,

• long term approaches,

• reach across the state to

extend government.

reach through

implementation,

• scope of landscape

management services,

• managing risk to natural

assets and risk to money

and risk to investment

and perception risk,

• catalysing action/

provide impetus for

change,

• invested in outcomes, at

the right scale (regional),

• link between local and

state/federal govt.,

natural resource

base and the

social, economic

and institutional

capital needed to

sustain it.


27


Queensland-focused

Guidelines





Program Managers,



Key Principles

• full scope of landscape

management,

• manage loosely around

bioregions.

Sources:

1. Regional Groups Collective. (2015). NRM Discussions/Minutes. Regional Groups Collective Toowoomba.

2. Queensland NRM Bodies. (2015). Thursday Island Meeting Minutes. Regional Groups Collective, Toowoomba.

3. Department of Environment and Resource Management. (2011). Queensland Regional Natural Resource Management Framework,

November 2011. The State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane.

4. Zammit, C., & Vogel N. (2013). Review of regional NRM arrangements in Queensland. Regional Groups Collective, Toowoomba

5. Campbell, A. (2007). Improving regional arrangements for Natural Resource Management in Queensland. Regional Groups Collective

Toowoomba.

6. Auditor General. (1997). Commonwealth Natural Resource Management and Environment Programs: Audit Report No. 36 1996-97. The

Australian National Audit Office, Canberra.

7. Dale, A., & Bellamy, J. (1998). Regional Resource Use Planning in Rangelands: an Australian Review (Occasional Paper No 06-98), Land

and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.


28

8. Auditor General. (1998). Commonwealth Management of the Great Barrier Reef: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, ANAO,

Canberra.

9. Bellamy, J. A., (ed.) (1999). Evaluation of Integrated Catchment Management in a Wet Tropical Environment: Collected Papers of

LWRRDC R&D Project CTC7, 7 vols., CSIRO Tropical Agriculture, Brisbane.

10. Bellamy, J. A., McDonald, G. T., Syme, G. J., & Butterworth, J. E. (1999). Policy Review Evaluating Integrated Resource Management,

Society and Natural Resources, 12(4), 337-53. doi: 10.1080/089419299279632

11. Bellamy, J. A., Walker, D. H., McDonald, G. T.,& Syme, G. J. (2001). A systems approach to the evaluation of natural resource

management initiatives. Journal of Environmental Management, 63, 407-23. doi: 10.1006/jema.2001.0493

12. Auditor General. (2001). Performance Information for Commonwealth Financial Assistance under the Natural Heritage Trust: Audit

Report No.42 2000-2001, Australian National Audit Office, Canberra.

13. Australian Government. (2003). Review of the National Landcare Program. Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

14. Auditor General. (2004). The Administration of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. Audit Report No, 17 2004-05, The

Australian National Audit Office, Canberra, Australia.

15. Hassall and Associates. (2005). Natural Heritage Trust Phase 1 Final Evaluation, Australian Government Department of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Forestry and Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

16. McDonald, G. T., McAlpine, C. A., Taylor, B. M. & Vagg, A. (2004). Criteria and Methods for Evaluating Regional Natural Resource

Management Plans in Tropical Savanna Regions, Stage 1 Report for Project 3.2.1, Bioregional Planning in the Tropical Savannas, CSIRO,

Brisbane.

17. Dawson, S. (2005). Carbon management and energy use, in G McDonald, B Taylor & C Robinson (eds), Findings from a review of

regional NRM plans, CSIRO and Tropical Savannas Management CRC, Brisbane, pp. 88-94.

18. McDonald, G. T., McAlpine, C. A., Taylor, B. M., & Vagg, A. R. (2003). Evaluating regional plans in Australian tropical savannas: A

guide for planners and reviewers. Tropical Savannas CRC, Darwin.

19. McDonald, G. T., Taylor, B., Bellamy, J. A., Robinson, C., Walker, M., Smith, T., Hoverman, S., McAlpine, C., Peterson, A., & Dawson,

S. (2005). Benchmarking Regional Planning Arrangements for Natural Resource Management 2004–05: Progress, constraints and future

directions for regions, Healthy Savanna Planning Systems Project. Tropical Savanna Management CRC, Brisbane.


29

20. Taylor, B., McDonald, G., Heyenga, S., Hovermann, S., Smith, T., & Robinson, C. (2006). Evaluation of Regional Planning Arrangements

for Natural Resource Management 2005-06: Benchmark Report II, Milestone Report 4 Healthy Savanna Planning Systems Project, Tropical

Savannas Management. CSIRO, Brisbane.

21. Fenton, D.M. (2004). Socio-economic indicators for NRM (Project A1.1) Indicators of capacity, performance and change in regional

bodies. National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

22. Fenton, D. M. (2006). Socio-economic Indicators and Protocols for the National NRM Monitoring and Evaluation Framework: The Social

and Institutional Foundations of NRM. National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

23. Fenton, D. M., & Rickert, A. (2006a). Monitoring and evaluating the performance of NAPSWQ regional bodies in Queensland (State

Summary Report). Burdekin Dry Tropics NRM and the National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

24. Fenton, D. M., & Rickert, A. (2006b). Refining indicators for monitoring and evaluating the social and institutional foundations of

regional NRM programs. Department of Environment and Heritage and The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

25. Fenton, D. M., & Rickert, A. (2008a). Monitoring and evaluating the social and institutional foundations of natural resource management

(RECAP): A National Paper. National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

26. Fenton, D. M., & Rickert, A. (2008b). A national baseline of the social and institutional foundations of natural resource management

programs. National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

27. 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 Final Report. Australian Government, Canberra.

28. Auditor General. (2007). The Conservation and Protection of National Threatened Species and Ecological Communities. Audit Report No.

31 2006-07, Australian National Audit Office, Canberra, Australia.

29. Auditor General. (2008). Regional Delivery Model for the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water

Quality. Audit Report No.21 2007-08. Australian National Audit Office, Canberra, Australia.

30. Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. (2010). Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References

Committee: Natural Resource Management and Conservation Challenges. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

31. Caring for our Country Review Team. (2012). Report on the Review of the Caring for our Country Initiative. Australian Government Land

and Coasts, Canberra, Australia.


30

32. Turnbull. W. (2005). Evaluation of Current Governance Arrangements to Support Regional Investment under the NHT and NAP. P.

Canberra: Departments of Environment Water Heritage and the Arts and Agriculture Forestry Fisheries.

31

Following the workshop, the attributes and elements of the summarised principles were used to

develop a draft assessment matrix to evaluate how the regional NRM delivery system had actually

performed relative to this aspirational framework for healthy regional NRM, which was refined and

simplified during the assessment process. Table 2 provides a summary of the matrix.

Table 2. Assessment matrix of attributes for evaluating NRM outcomes (after review)

NRM Attributes and Element(s) Outcomes

1. Action for

sustainability

1.1 Projects address regional NRM assets and key threats.

1.2 Natural resource action is regionally coordinated.

1.3 Investments have achieved sustainability action (e.g., landholders

adopted best land management practices, weeds were managed, feral

animals were controlled).

2. Performance and

accountability and

return on investment

2.1 Organisational policies and procedures (for finance, HR management,

asset management, fraud control, project management, and project

delivery) provide evidence that NRM investments are well governed.

2.2 Project, output, and outcome reporting accounts for investments at the

sub-regional level.

2.3 Regional NRM communication demonstrates accountability to

stakeholders.

2.4 Monitoring and continuous improvement programs are in place.

3. Community

participation and

engagement

3.1 NRM has a diverse community membership base, projects engage

diverse networks and sectors, and partnerships are responsive to needs.

4. Resilient institutions

and capacity building

4.1 Stable NRM presence in the region and regional skills retention and

development.

5. Strategic

Partnerships

5.1 Strategic investment partnerships at local, state, and federal levels, and

across diverse sectors (agriculture, indigenous, and conservation).

6. Strategic and

Integrated Regional

Planning

6.1 Collectively endorsed plans and connectivity within and among key

decision-making institutions and sectors.

7. Community

Awareness and

knowledge brokerage

7.1 Community awareness of NRM and adaptive use of integrated

knowledge sets.


32

4. Methods

A series of steps were developed to fulfil the value assessment using the framework described

above.

Step 1 - Data Appraisal

In this step, the dataset was appraised to determine its contribution to the assessment. A random

selection of qualitative data was extracted from the dataset, imported into NVIVO2 software, and coded

against each of the seven attributes identified in Table 2 above. The key words and phrases for each

attribute, listed in Table 1, were used to search for, and identify, relevant information within the dataset.

For example, environmental protection, social equity, risk management and resource conditions were

some of the key phrases used to search for the Action for sustainability outcomes attribute element. The

coded data from multiple sources were then compiled against each of the attribute elements in a multiple

lines-of-evidence approach. This approach highlighted the sources of data relevant for each attribute

element.

The usefulness of the coded data was then evaluated. This evaluation considered whether the data

provided useful evidence to assess attribute elements, or if any additional expert interpretation was

required. Table 3 provides a high-level summary of the usefulness of the evidence against the NRM

attributes. Other information acquired in the data set, such as quantitative Excel spreadsheets (e.g., state

output summaries, regional group milestone reports, funding reports, and detailed workplans), were

manually coded and added due to the difficulty of added these file formats into NVivo. Pictures, visuals,

and spatial maps were also not included in the review.

Table 3. Usefulness of evidence provided in the source data to evaluate NRM attributes

Attribute Usefulness of Evidence in Data

1. Action for sustainability

outcomes

Data easily provides attribute elements.

2. Performance and

accountability and return on

investment

Data provides some attribute elements.

3. Community participation and

engagement

Expert interpretation of attribute elements required.

4. Resilient institutions and

capacity building

Expert interpretation of attribute elements required.

2 NVIVO is qualitative data analysis software designed specifically to work with unstructured data and large

numbers of documents. It supported this research to develop richer insights and research discovery by organising,

storing, and coding the qualitative data in a more efficient way. The qualitative data organised, stored, and coded

in NVivo primarily included qualitative textual information.


33

5. Strategic Partnerships Data provides some evidence of attribute elements.

6. Strategic and Integrated

Regional Planning

Data provides some evidence of attribute elements.

7. Community awareness and

knowledge brokerage

Data provides some evidence of attribute elements.

The data provided enough evidence for the review to answer the outlined research questions and

extract useful recommendations for NRM governance.

Step 2 - Sampling Frame

A sampling frame was adopted to manage the volume of data and number of regions. A

representative year was selected for each of the three major investment phases and data were then

extracted from relevant key data sources for each of the 14 NRM regions. The years were chosen

according to the data available for each investment phase. Due to the disjointedness of the data available

from NHT II, two representative years –2007/8 and 2003/4 – were used in the analysis of the first phase

outcomes.

The project originally planned to develop a simple typology of NRM regions and use indicator

regions to streamline the data extraction and analysis; however, developing a reliable typology of

Queensland regions proved too challenging within the timeframe. The differences in governance

structures, regional capacities, foci, and approaches caused difficulties in selecting reliable indicator

regions.

The selected sampling frame is summarised below in Table 4 below and in more detail in Appendix

2: Data used in assessment.

Table 4. Sampling Frame

Phase Program Investment

Phase

Data Extraction

Point(s)

Regions

1 NHT II 2002-2008 2008/9

2003/4

All (14)

All (state-wide

collated summary

only)

2 Caring for Our Country

/Q2 Coasts and Country

(CFoC/Q2C&C)

2008-2013 2011/12 All


34

3 NLP and the

Queensland Government

Investment Program

2013-2015 2014/15

All

Step 3 - Regional Summary Reports

Evidence about the value of NRM from the data for each value element was: a) summarised for

each region, b) synthesised into conclusions about the value of NRM in each region, and c) provided

with an assessment score (/5) using the defined index scale in Table 5.

Appendix 3: How sources of data were used to evaluate NRM Attributes describes which data

sources were used and how they informed the assessment of each attribute element in the value

proposition in the regions. The index scale was used to relate the findings about the value of NRM to

the governance structure of the investment phase. The regional summary reports are not included in this

final report.


35

Table 5. The index scale used to rate the value proposition

Index

Scale

How well does regional NRM delivery achieve outcomes against each value element?

5 Easily facilitates NRM outcomes for assets and in response to threats, and maintaining or

improving the health of the natural resource base and the social, economic, and

institutional capital for NRM over time.

4 Makes some progress towards achieving NRM outcomes by accommodating management

action for most assets and in response to significant threats and to maintaining the social,

economic, and institutional capital for improved NRM over time.

3 Some setbacks to projects and regional activity to achieve NRM outcomes (for assets

and/or in response to threats) taking time and investment to recover social, economic, and

institutional capital for NRM.

2 Setbacks to projects and regional activity have serious impacts on NRM outcomes (for

assets and/or in response to threats), resulting in the declining health of the natural

resource base and declining social, economic, and institutional capacity for NRM.

1 Setbacks to projects and regional activity have irreversible impacts on NRM outcomes for

assets or in response to key threats, with both the health of the natural resource base and

the social, economic, and institutional capacity for NRM unlikely to recover.

A data table reporting the outcomes of a - c (summarised, synthesised into conclusions, rated

according to the index scale) was produced for each of the 14 NRM regions. Appendix 4: Example of

the first page of the data assessment table for SEQ region provides an example of the first page of the

data table for one region. The analysis focussed on the third phase (2014-2015) and data was added from

2011/12, 2007/08, and 2003/4 to allow for comparisons of outcomes under past programs.

Step 4 - Whole of Queensland Assessment

A consolidated whole of Queensland NRM assessment was developed using the regional data

tables. This table consolidated assessment summarises the evidence base, conclusions, and assessment

across Queensland for each of the investment phases, as well as data on state-wide projects (that may

include more than one regional body). The focus here is on the third phase, with other phases added for

comparative purposes. The consolidated results of the whole of Queensland assessment of NRM value

are provided in Section 5 of this report.

Step 5 - Expert Workshop

An expert workshop was held to review the consolidated assessment, and in particular, the rating

scales and assessment process. The aim of the expert review workshop was to critically review the

ratings and findings of the assessment and provide advice to sharpen findings. The workshop was held

on 21 March 2017 at QUT, Gardens Point. The expert panel members were:


36

Andrew Drysdale, NRM Regions Queensland

Darryl Ebernezer, Queensland Water and Land Carers Association

Dr Melanie Cox, Queensland Department of Natural Resources, and Mines and Energy, Natural

Resources Programs

Dr Bruce Taylor, CSIRO Land and Water, Brisbane

Bob Speirs, Consultant NRM Programs.

In summary, the expert panel provided the following critical feedback:

• The assessment process was acknowledged as being thorough. The use of decision rules,

the sampling frame, and the coding and scaling up process allowed findings to be built on

consistent themes observed across regions. The analyst had no prior knowledge of, or

involvement with NRM. The findings were based on the application of the rules and the

analysis framework for the dataset, and bias was ruled out.

• The overall findings revealed no major surprises and were consistent with expert panel

member impressions of performance and delivery through the regional NRM delivery

system.

• The panel noted that regional delivery performance against some attribute elements was

very consistent over time, despite institutional changes to programs.

• The panel noted areas where regional delivery performance had changed and declined over

time. This was compared to the extensive consultations about the NRM framework in 2005

as part of the Green Paper. It was noted that the evaluation had collected evidence that

supported stakeholder views about the key regional capacities necessary to enhance regional

sustainability outcomes.

• No significant changes were suggested by the reviewers. The panel discussed ways of

presenting data. Suggestions included:

▪ Clearly articulating that outcomes and the quality of outcomes were assessed over

time, but that the assessment did not evaluate program arrangements for the regional

delivery model.

▪ Considering the accumulated value and the legacy of the regional delivery system.

▪ Considering a counter-factual scenario – what would have been delivered under a

state-centric NRM system or a local NRM system?

▪ Reflecting on the quality of the reports reviewed in the conclusions.


37

Step 6 - Synthesis and Conclusions

Following the workshop, recommendations and conclusions were compiled about:

• How the accumulated value of NRM programs changed under the different governance

models of past programs.

• How the existing value in a new program and regional arrangements could be maintained

and built upon.

• How the value of the regional NRM delivery model could be monitored, evaluated, and

reported in the future.

Detailed recommendations are outlined in Section 6 - Conclusions and Recommendations.

38

5. Whole of Queensland Consolidated NRM Assessment

Attribute 1: Action for Sustainability Outcomes

Three elements were considered for Attribute 1, Action for Sustainability Outcomes. Element 1.1

assessed the degree to which projects addressed regional NRM assets and threats, Element 1.2 measured

the regional coordination of natural resource action, while Element 1.3 measured the achievement of

sustainability action based on investment.

In terms of Element 1.1 - Projects addressed regional NRM assets and threats, the results show that:

• The investments in NRM governance capacity building made in the first phase of NRM

investment (2002-2008) led to rapid improvements in NRM protection, particularly in pest,

animal, and plant control across the state.

• It was difficult to obtain consolidated data showing the impact of investments on NRM

protection from the datasets in the second investment phase (2008-2012). The evidence

suggested that NRM action was maintained, however the focus of action was narrowed

down to specific assets and sustainability risks and the ability of projects to be adapted to

other regional sustainability priorities declined. Delivery was also challenged by contracts

that did not provide flexibility to adapt work around climatic conditions and community

capacity that constrained project delivery. Nonetheless, the capacity to address NRM threats

remained relatively high due to investments in regional capacity - driven by a large

investment by the state in the previous phase. Regional evaluative capacity was also

beginning to emerge as a result of the strategic state government focus on evaluation.

• The third investment phase (2013-2015), saw a considerably narrowed scope of NRM

investment and heightened regional insecurity about funding continuity for NRM action.

As projects engaged local partners and communities, poor socio-economic conditions in

some regions/areas limited the potential for NRM action and activities, and change was

minimal. Projects struggled to achieve milestone targets set to address key assets or threats.

Taken together (narrowed scope + poor socio-economic conditions in communities +

reduced funding to organisations) this resulted in an overall decline in the state-wide

regional NRM capacity to address the sustainability of regional NRM assets and key

sustainability threats. If this trend continues it is expected that NRM protection will only be

localised in stable and affluent communities in Queensland (most likely in coastal areas).

• The decline in resources for regional NRM projects is related to the declining health of

regional communities and this is linked to a decline in investments in regional NRM

governance capacity building.

Table 6 presents the summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Element 1.1.


39

40

Table 6. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 1.1 - Projects address regional NRM assets and key threats

NRM

Investment

Phase

Evidence Conclusions Assessment

(/5)

Phase 3

(2013-

2015)

• From 2013-2015, the Queensland Government funded NRM projects

primarily focused on landscape and environmental activities to address

regional assets and key threats (namely, pests and weeds, water quality, and

agricultural land).

• Previously agreed workplans, output targets and performance indicator

monitoring were the primary methods employed by NRM projects to address

regional assets and threats.

• Project milestones and targets agreed to with the State before the start of a

project were usually always achieved (and at times, far exceeded agreed

outcomes). This demonstrates a strong effort on behalf of NRM bodies to

achieve agreed upon activities and the flexibility to work around long-term

projects and/or an underestimation in the contracting phase.

• Guaranteed investment for NRM activities was not possible due to on-going

funding uncertainty. Many communities and private landholders relied heavily

on this investment to implement activities. Funding uncertainty was expected

to worsen with increased competition to secure funds.

• Threats such as pests and weeds required on-going and stable monitoring,

maintenance and control. Project success and NRM achievements were

therefore particularly reliant on the stability and certainty of Queensland

Government investments.

• State-recorded outputs included achievements towards specific quantitative

targets. For example, almost 2,500,000 hectares of pest plant and animal

control was implemented to reduce the impact of priority and emerging

invasive species from 2014-2015.

• This dataset included information

about NRM project activity

performance against the targets

agreed under this investment

program. However, this does not

necessarily mean that there was

sufficient information to adequately

address regional assets and key

threats.

• Evidence of how NRM projects

identify regional assets and values,

and key threats was available, such as

spatial mapping and assessment

information.

• While most NRM projects provided

outputs and met milestones, a

dependency on investment programs

that the Queensland Government

provides for funding NRM project

activity remained.

• Some NRM issues, such as those

dealing with pests and weeds, were

more dependent on the long-term

certainty of Queensland Government

2


41

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

• Regional NRM bodies used regional and local approaches to secure ownership

of project outcomes. For example, local knowledge was used to: map and

identify key pest and weed species; develop sub-regional strategic pest

management plans; implement devolved grant programs to address the

management of emerging issues; develop property and best practice

management plans.

• 2,567 hectares of native vegetation received protection. A number of

community groups received assistance and a number of training and

community awareness events took place.

• When conditions permitted, NRM activities were catalysts for action and

change at the local scale. For example, in some regions, landholders that had

experienced drought had more time to devote to weed control (due to a

reduced effort in productivity related activities). This also demonstrates the

necessity of having a stable community capacity to successfully implement

projects and meet agreed landscape protection targets.

• Local communities’ socio-economic conditions did not favour NRM activities

in some regions, and action and change were therefore minimal. Projects

struggled to achieve milestone targets set to address key assets or threats in

these regions.

• When projects did not accomplish the agreed targets, this was reported as

being related to difficult climatic conditions, financial limitations, lack of

community interest, lack of community capacity, and poor investment partner

decision-making.

funds and investment, as they require

on-going and consistent attention.

• The environmental protection of

natural assets focused on sustainable

agriculture, water quality, and pest

and weed control in this investment

phase as these were the three themes

for the state NRM program.

Biodiversity, climate and air, social,

heritage, and governance dimensions

were given limited attention.

• All funded projects engaged with

communities and multiple partners at

the local level to manage the

protection of natural assets.

• Landscape management remained

vulnerable to climatic and

geographical challenges.

• Projects that engaged private

landholders and/or local partners may

have also been more dependent on a

stable and affluent community (e.g.,

for leverage). This raises an emerging

equity issue for governments.


42

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

• Regional bodies used a diverse scope

of landscape management practices at

both the regional and local levels.

• Agreed targets need to take into

account the social capacity of the

local communities who are expected

to implement activities.

• NRM regional bodies were

concerned about the long-term

potential of projects to achieve

sustainability outcomes when secure

investment is never guaranteed.

Phase 2

(2008-

2012)

• NRM projects detailed recorded outputs during this investment phase. For

example, state summary outputs recorded just over 2 million hectares of

native vegetation protected and almost 3 million hectares of pest plant and

animal control implemented in the 2011-2012 annual reporting year.

• NRM regional bodies employed surveys and asset assessments and identified

areas at risk from land-use activities (e.g., coal mining activities) to prioritise

the future investments required in the regions.

• In 2012, some NRM regional bodies’ narrative reports included evaluation

and reviews of program and project logic. This represents a potentially useful

resource to inform future assessments of program logic (i.e., how this might

be achieved, and how the NRM bodies considered it). The Queensland

Murray Darling catchments (QMDC) was one region that implemented

evaluation frameworks to assess project direction and logic.

• There was some analysis of program

logic and activities in performance

reports during this investment phase.

• NRM bodies played a significant role

in connecting community awareness

with the protection of regional assets,

such as key species, and the potential

development of community

ownership and interest in future

environmental protection and

sustainability.

• NRM bodies developed and

enhanced the range of landscape

3.5


43

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

• NRM bodies prioritised key species protection through increased community

awareness of biodiversity and conservation in areas of significance. For

example, an independent evaluator described Condamine Alliance’s Dewfish

Demonstration Reach Program as being first class. The success of the program

was attributed to strong and dense relationships, where support was given to

key individuals to act as ‘champions’ and provide community ownership of the

program.

• Climate and weather considerations impacted on project delivery. The

inflexibility of contracts and investments impacted on NRM activities.

services offered, including resource

assessments.

• Climatic events had an impact on

projects and this is an issue when

using inflexible short-term funding

contracts that do not allow for

variations in workplans (e.g.,

seasonal factors).

• Some regions, such as QMDC,

demonstrated high quality

institutional capital. These regions

were generally more advanced in

project assessment.

Phase 1

(2002-08)

• NRM projects for all Queensland regional bodies focused primarily on

organisational development, capacity building, and NRM regional planning

during Phase 1. This was reported in regional body annual performance

reports, particularly up until 2006.

• Over 1,000,000 hectares of native vegetation was protected, enhanced,

rehabilitated or re-vegetated during this investment phase, as recorded in the

state-wide summary outputs.

• State wide summary outputs reported almost 4,000,000 hectares of pest

animal and plant control between 2002 and 2008.

• The area of protected native vegetation and area controlled for pest plants and

animals increased steadily from 2002 and 2007. The highest pest controlled

area reports were during the 2006-2007 reporting year (1,429,417), followed

• This phase represented the beginning

of regionalism and the need to

integrate state and local levels to

protect and enhance environmental

assets and address key threats to

Queensland landscapes.

• The focus should be on NRM

governance and capacity

development in the early phase of

this investment program so that NRM

is well-positioned to protect and

assess the condition of resources and

threats, as well as develop strategies

3.5/4


44

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

by the 2007-2008 reporting year (1,212,087 hectares), while 2003-2004 was

the lowest recorded year (379.4 hectares).

• The recorded rise in output area was less dramatic when the area measured

included native vegetation that was protected, enhanced, rehabilitated, or re-

vegetated. The highest area reported was 364,979 hectares (2005-2006),

followed by only 327,018 hectares the subsequent reporting year (2006-2007).

• Multiple projects covered a range of assets, including pests and weeds,

sustainable agriculture, salinity, and water quality. Many projects and outputs

focused on traditional owners. The comprehensive review of the assets

detected no significant change, survey and assessment of regional assets is

therefore urgently required.

and implement plans to protect

cultural assets.

• There is clear evidence that NRM is

considered a long-term solution to

maintain cultural landscapes.

• There is evidence that investments in

NRM governance and capacity have

resulted in gains in NRM protection,

though this diminished towards the

end of the investment phase.

45

In terms of Element 1.2 – natural resource action is regionally co-ordinated, the results show that:

• There is considerable evidence that the regional delivery system coordinates natural

resource action at a regional level. This capacity is fragile, and is challenged by the

competitive funding model because of:

▪ the focus on state priorities - fully coordinated action requires that local groups and

individuals (those targeted to implement activities) be involved in setting priorities

and identifying capabilities needed to implement outcomes. The alignment of local,

state priorities is difficult to achieve in a competitive model when regions are

competing against other organisations (and other regions) for funding;

▪ the uneven socio-economic conditions of regions – some regions have poor socio-

economic conditions. This has led to a loss of social capital within regions and a

declining ability to attract NRM funding and is a growing problem for maintaining

regional coordination capacity outside of the more heavily populated coastal

regions;

▪ poor agricultural industry confidence in some regions – this impacts on local

interest in NRM activities and ability of NRM organisations to leverage resources

for natural resource action; and

▪ other NRM projects (ie other Queensland and local government NRM action) -

there is no integration and coordination of NRM projects across Queensland. There

are insufficient mechanisms to link projects at a strategic level and multiple (and

unlinked) reporting requirements.

• The capacity for regional-level coordination of NRM projects in the first phase (2002-2008),

was built through NRM planning (including water quality improvement plans, or WQIPs),

regional brokerage of projects, and joint steering committee processes. In NHT II the

Queensland and Australian Governments invested significant financial investments and

government human resources to coordinate all funding through the bilateral partnership and

integrated governance processes resulting in a high level of coordination.

• The capacity for NRM coordination increased slightly in the second phase (2008-2013).

Though some regions were not funded to update their regional NRM plans, and this was a

problem, others were able to fund partial updates. Regional body delivery partnerships

across regions also clearly emerged in this phase. The governance foundations built through

NHT II coordination processes helped regional bodies to coordinate cross-regionally and

the networks they had built at a sub-regional level enabled them to maintain the coordination

of community and volunteer input into action for sustainability, despite declining funding

for planning.


46

• The evidence suggests a decline in the overall number of community groups and projects

assisted in the first phase (2002-2008). Declining social and financial positions and industry

optimism is a big problem for some regions. Reporting inconsistencies (the way that

‘projects’ are defined, counted, and reported across Queensland and over time) could be

concealing the real story in terms of the regional coordination of NRM activity. Some

regions dominated in state-wide projects. This reflects a widening inconsistency in the

capacity of regional bodies.


47

Table 7. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 1.2- Natural resource action is regionally coordinated

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 3

(2013-15)

• Natural resource action was coordinated between multiple parties, which

included traditional owners (including native title holders), sub-regional

delivery partners, targeted community groups, landholders/managers and

volunteers, state and federal governments, local council, and sometimes

industry and/or professional groups. All parties coordinated to implement

natural resource action.

• According to the output summary aggregate (a collation of all regional body

reported achievements), 180 community groups/projects received assistance

across Queensland in the 2014- 2015 reporting year.

• In some projects, particularly in remote areas with low population numbers

and available resources, coordinated natural resource action depended on the

growth and stability of community group.

• The financial and social capacity of some local communities impeded

coordinated natural resource action in some regions. Evidently, external

pressures and priorities, such as financial and health considerations, can

impact community interest and the ability to implement natural resource

action.

• Multiple regional bodies were also engaged in the governance of state-wide

projects (not just regional projects). For example, under the Queensland

Wetlands Program, the Department of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries

(DAFF) established regional advisory groups involving key government,

• Regional action was coordinated with

and across many different sectors,

including local, state, and federal

governments, traditional owner groups

and industry.

• Even though there was ample evidence

of coordination at the local scale level

(e.g., private landholders), fully

coordinated action was dependent on

the priorities and capabilities of the

local groups or individuals targeted to

implement these activities.

• The socio-economic conditions of

landholders could potentially worsen in

some regions and development of the

capacity of social capital is necessary to

continue regional coordination of

natural resource management activities.

• Industry confidence was down in some

regions. A lack of confidence

negatively impacts local interest in

NRM activities.

3


48

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

industry, NRM, and other relevant non-government organisations to provide

advice and guidance specific to each region. These groups are in place and

operational for the Mackay, lower Burdekin and Hinchinbrook areas. There

was also engagement in the Fitzroy Basin Association; however, no formal

group was established. DAFF also engaged with stakeholders at a reef-wide

level via the Reef Plan Management Practices Advisory Group (DAFF Reef

Wetlands Report, J2015).

• Specific detail of regional body engagement in state-wide projects in this

dataset was insufficient to adequately assess regional coordination. For

example, the Queensland Wetlands Program appears to only hold an advisory

role and not a fully coordinated or shared role in program implementation,

(though the responsibilities of the partnerships in delivering natural resource

action are not fully explained in the dataset) (DAFF, QNRM Reef Wetlands,

June 2015).

• How NRM regional bodies were

engaged in other NRM projects (state-

wide) was important and impacted on

regional coordination. A more passive

engagement role (not an active

contributor) means that there is no

integration and coordination of state-

wide operational projects. This means

that there are insufficient ways to link

projects at a strategic level. It is

important that regional bodies, industry,

traditional owner groups and agencies

are involved in this function,

particularly to meet the strategic

coordination of regional natural

resource management action.

Phase 2

(2008-12)

• There was evidence of coordinated action at a regional level. For example:

o Community and volunteer collection of monitoring data is fed annually

into regional scale asset objectives (e.g., for water quality).

o Coordinated action through involvement in regional management

strategies and planning (e.g., NRM REGIONAL BODY involvement in

the regional pest management strategy or working with local councils to

map and survey areas for future weed management strategies).

o Coordinated action with local landholders to address regional feral pig

• Coordination of regional NRM action

took place in multiple ways in order to

implement natural resource

management activities and was flexible

enough to reach across regional

boundaries to support the delivery of

regional, state, and federal objectives.

• NRM coordinated action can provide

the impetus for the change required at

various levels of governance.

3.5/4


49

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

issues (e.g., landholders with mound springs on their properties).

• There was evidence of coordinated action across regional boundaries. For

example:

o Northern Gulf and Terrain coordinated their weed and fire management

program in priority ecosystems.

o Desert Channels Queensland, South West NRM, and Southern Gulf

Catchments established a partnership to protect the productive and

biodiversity values of the rangelands from invasive cacti through the

mapping of infestation, education, on-ground control of invasive

species, and monitoring.

o Strategic groups action supported the development of mapping

databases, prioritisation, and strategic management of weeds, cross

regional action, and sharing of resources.

• There is evidence that planning frameworks were used to guide NRM

activities to protect key regional assets from future development in urban

and peri-urban regions. For example, this was through:

o Promotion of local government guidelines and an open access

website that translates the SEQ Ecosystem Services Framework into

an educational and decision support tool for SEQ stakeholders.

o Development of metrics to consistently measure land units for

potential provision of services based on ecosystem condition.

Supported by the regional coordination groups, which provided a

forum for regional body, local government and Queensland

government discussions.

• Evidence indicated that planning

frameworks were used as a tool to

assist regional NRM activities.


50

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

o Enhancement of the spatial planning and decision support tool to

identify priority services for the wellbeing of the community and to

connect the community, policy, and investment to the landscapes

that provide these services.

Phase 1

(2002-08)

• The summary outputs between 2002 and 2008 (Jan-Jun) reported that the

highest number of community groups or projects assisted was between the

reporting year 2007 (Jul-Dec) and 2008 (Jan-Jun), with over 4,000

community groups or projects assisted. This is in comparison to 2003, when

only 718 community groups or projects received assistance.

• The Joint Steering Investment Panel (JSIP) processes provided a mechanism

for data sharing between regional bodies, and the Queensland and Australian

Governments; however, the evidence did not identify cross-regional NRM

coordination projects or state-wide processes for coordinating action across

regional boundaries; though this could be due to the methods used to report

the data, rather than a lack of cross-regional or state-wide coordination.

• Sub-regional processes were being

developed to coordinate NRM activities

and broker environmental and

landscape outcomes with multiple

community groups and partners, in this

investment phase.

• It was difficult to assess coordination

across regions and between state,

federal, and regional levels in the

available data.

3

51

In terms of Element 1.3 - Investments achieve on ground results, the results show that:

• NRM investments through the regional delivery systems achieve natural resource

management action, though this capacity has changed over time with changing government

priorities. Data to evaluate trends in outcomes achievement over time remains inconsistent.

• The first phase (2002-2008) exhibited rapid growth in NRM activities, biophysical surveys

and studies, and conservation agreements. NRM action for sustainability outcomes

addressed a diverse range of NRM assets and sustainability threats in each region.

• Reporting became more quantitative in the second phase (2008-2013), though this was not

particularly informative in regards to the level of natural resource management outcomes

achieved. Severe weather events in Queensland during that time were reflected in project

results and some funding had to be re-prioritised to address changed environmental

conditions and to reduce the spread of threats.

• There was a substantial decline in the volume of reported outputs in the third phase (2013-

2015). Climate factors and funding uncertainty has caused some projects to be delayed and

confidence that projects can achieve results in the current financial and governance context

declined. Funding was also more fragmented in this phase compared to earlier phases.

Consequently, not all NRM projects and sustainability action is captured in this dataset.


52

Table 8. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for attribute Element 1.3 - Investments achieve natural resource management action

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 3

(2013-15)

• NRM report summaries provided annual summaries of the recorded outputs

compiled by the Queensland Government, such as the number of hectares of pest

and weed control. For example, NRM regional bodies implemented 2,264,698

hectares of pest animal control and 2,567 hectares of plant control in the 2014-2015

year.

• Reported outputs declined as a result of tighter funds and uncertainty of

investments, which has led to a delay in some on-ground project results.

• Results of many natural resource management projects were reliant on ongoing

funding stability and the capacity of communities to implement the work,

particularly in weed and pest control, riparian restoration, sustainable land

management practices, water quality monitoring, etc.

• A number of NRM issues and themes investigated pest and weed control related

activities, such as through agricultural best management practices (BMPs),

sustainable agricultural programs, native vegetation protection, enhancement,

rehabilitation and re-vegetation, collaborative arrangements, and awareness raising

events.

• There was a substantive decline in the volume of results in this investment phase

reported by NRM bodies to the state. Declines in reported results were likely due

to the lack of State interest in NRM outputs and activities to support communities

and NRM action.

• Project recovery to achieve results was slow following severe weather events or

financial issues, and expenditure and investment in NRM decreased as a result.

• The reporting of outputs and

results of NRM activities to the

Queensland Government was

largely limited to quantitative

targets.

• Although NRM projects were

providing some results, the results

depended on projects that require

investment and support from state

funds.

• Some on ground sustainability

action was reported, such as pest

and weed control, agricultural best

management practices (BMPs),

sustainable agricultural programs,

native vegetation protection,

enhancement, rehabilitation and

re-vegetation, collaborative

arrangements, and awareness

raising.

• Some NRM projects were more

vulnerable to either climatic and

terrain/geographical conditions, or

both.

2


53

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

• Most NRM regional bodies identified decreasing confidence in the ability for

projects to achieve results as a result of the current financial, climatic, community,

and governance contexts in Queensland regions.

• Both climatic conditions and the

current financial state of NRM

were affecting NRM project

results, and no recovery was

evident.

Phase 2

(2008-12)

• Results of investments were primarily reported in quantitative terms, for

example, 355 hectares of native vegetation and habitat managed through

incentives and targeted stewardships.

• 200 hectares of native habitat were managed through voluntary conservation

agreements developed with land managers for priority areas as a result of

investments.

• Natural resource management results were achieved as a result of investments by

engaging communities and locals to implement activities (engineering works to

rehabilitate erosion, stock control through fencing, flood recovery activities and

implementation of measures to allow natural regeneration for biodiversity

outcomes).

• Climate and severe weather events impacted and influenced the priority and

investment given to activities (e.g., water quality):

o In response to changed environmental conditions, the Fitzroy Basin

Association funded weed control in 3,168 hectares and contracted work

over 3,000 hectares post flood.

o South West NRM eradicated flood-related mosquito infestations.

o Southern Gulf NRM increased investment in the removal of prickly acacia

• NRM investments achieved

sustainability action.

• Both climatic uncertainty and the

financial uncertainty of the NRM

program were affecting NRM

project results, though there was

evidence of adaptation and some

resilience in the late 2000s.

• Providing ownership and control

of local communities, and the

grassroots level, increased NRM

outcomes in each region.

• NRM sustainability action helped

the Queensland Government to

meet their landscape and

environmental targets, such as the

control of identified National

(Federal) Weeds and Pests of

Significance.

3.5/4


54

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

after heavy, wet season rainfalls.

• Indirect NRM results were also evident (e.g., North Queensland Dry Tropics

reported restoration of optimum water bird habitats, improved connectivity, and

water quality in the Wongaloo wetlands as a result of its weed management

program);

• Investments provided NRM outcomes in sustainable agriculture. In total, 72,069

hectares of improved land management was protected and enhanced. Training to

improve land management was also undertaken, such as reducing soil erosion, crop

rotation management, increased crop residue retention, and water use efficiency.

• Investments also provided NRM outcomes for nationally significant sites (e.g.,

investment in land management and improved water quality in the Moreton Bay

Ramsar site enhanced 34.1 hectares of critical coastal waterways).

Phase 1

(2002-08)

• In terms of surveying for land for biophysical study and NRM action, the most

active surveying phase was during 2006/7 reporting year with over 770,000,000

hectares, this compares to 2003/4 with only 23,500 hectares. This demonstrates a

rapid increase in the number of hectares surveyed for NRM action across the

Queensland region (summary outputs).

• Similarly, the number of hectares protected by conservation agreements, a total of

812,000 hectares, increased between 2002-2008 Jan-Jun, with a slight dip in the

years 2006-2007. However, the majority of hectares were protected in the 2007-

2008 reporting period (almost 600,000 hectares protected by conservation

agreements).

• Recorded investment outcomes

presented this phase as

characterised by rapid growth in

the number of NRM activities,

such as biophysical studies and

conservation agreements.

• The variety of outputs and results

recorded by NRM bodies reflected

the multitude of roles NRM can

assist with and perform.

3.5/4

55

Attribute 2: Performance and Accountability and Return on Investment

Four elements were considered for Attribute 2, Performance and accountability and return on

investment. Element 2.1 assessed the governance of NRM investments through an analysis of

organisational policies and procedures related to financial matters, HR management, asset management,

fraud control, project-management, and project delivery. Element 2.2 explored the regularity of regional

bodies’ reporting on investments, projects, output, and outcomes at the sub-regional level, as well as the

scope of the reporting frameworks. Element 2.3 assessed regional NRM communication in terms of

accountability to stakeholders and investment leveraging, while Element 2.4 assessed monitoring and

continuous improvement programs in terms of the presence or absence of these programs in the datasets.

In terms of Element 2.1 - Organisational policies and procedures (for finance, HR management,

asset management, fraud control, project management, and project delivery) provide evidence that NRM

investments are well governed, the results show that:

• The available evidence limited the ability to assess the value and trends in organisational

policies and procedures for financial, HR management, asset management, fraud control,

project management, and project delivery. This information requires supplementation of

data from other sources (i.e., the business excellence framework). The limited insight gained

from these data sets does not mean that the regional delivery system is not governed by

effective organisational policies and procedures. Improvements in reporting, the regular use

of reporting tools, and local body experimentation with new data collection processes

indicate that operational procedures have matured.

• Intense growth and development occurred during the first phase (2002-2008), which

included a focus on establishing organisational policies and procedures and growing the

accountability of regional bodies, with strong support from the Queensland and Australian

Governments.

• Reporting and communication improved significantly during the second phase (2008-

2013); however, reporting information about operational matters was limited. This

primarily pertained to the internal organisational procedures developed by individual

regional bodies to manage local demand and interest in NRM.

• The reporting frameworks in the third phase (2013-2015) constrained the evidence available

to judge the trends in regional-level organisational policies and procedures. Information

systems were developed and widely used to manage data about project delivery, and regions

experimented with processes and systems to collect and present data in a tightened funding

context.

• There is an opportunity to improve information about the governance arrangements and

accountabilities of regional delivery arrangements and improve transparency. This occurs


56

at the national level through the Australian Government “Performance Framework for

Regional NRM Organisations” – which covers contractual reporting and voluntary self-

assessments of governance review processes. The framework could be configured to

improve state-level assessments of governance and regional accountabilities.


57

Table 9. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 2.1 - Organisational policies and procedures (for finance, HR management, asset

management, fraud control, project management and project delivery) provide evidence that NRM investments are well governed

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 3

(2013-15)

• This dataset provided little evidence regarding the organisational policies and procedures

of NRM regional bodies, with much of the focus on performance reviews of NRM

operations and activities against agreed milestones. Inclusion of the findings from the

evaluation of regional bodies against the business excellence framework could enhance

this data.

• There was evidence of some Queensland operational policies influencing the nature of

the reporting of NRM projects for project investors (primarily the Queensland

government in this dataset). This investment phase required an NRM body report every

six months (bi-annually), as well as a detailed milestone report and program output

reporting. Monitoring and evaluation of each milestone or subprogram was also required.

• Transparent communications about project delivery enabled the Queensland government

to be assured that projects and operations were on track and could achieve all targets, as

indicated by the annual NRM Outlook Report, 2015.

• The use of the IT system ‘Enquire’ was required to be used by all NRM regional bodies

to report information to the Queensland Government. There was also evidence of the

development of their own IT systems to hold and collate data; however, some challenges

arose in relation to the storage and recording of data (particularly confidential and/or

sensitive data).

• Some regions were evaluating current investment approval processes to adapt to new

external pressures, and there was some evidence of coordinating or leveraging

investment to achieve activities in expected timeframes (e.g., employing more

economical and effective ways to present data in the context of tightening funds). This

• A comprehensive review of NRM

operational policy was not possible

based on the available dataset, only

reviews and the performance of

milestones and key activities

implemented by the NRM bodies

were available for evaluation.

• Transparency and ongoing

reporting assured governments that

programs remained on track.

• Further justification about the

governance and arrangements of

NRM bodies was required to better

inform investors about the low

risks involved when investing in

NRM bodies and NRM activities

(e.g., landscape services based

etc.).

• Terrain NRM suggested that an

ecological services framework

could provide independence from

Queensland Government funds

(over a period of time). The

3


58

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

demonstrated a good understanding of business, overheads, and costs, and a strong

accountability to investment partners.

processes that NRM used were

already related to this principle.

Phase 2

(2008-12)

• Basic operational policies were evident, including a review of internal plans and policies,

and the implementation of monitoring and evaluation plans for each

milestone/subprogram, which were usually reported every six months (through Enquire);

• There was evidence of improved

reporting operations and

communication; however, little

evidence was provided about NRM

operational policy in Queensland

Government summaries.

• Individual examples showed that

some NRM regional bodies were

internally developing their

organisational operations and their

capacity to meet increasing local

demands and interest in NRM.

4

Phase 1

(2002-08)

• This data set provided some evidence of operational policies. For example,

administrative arrangements in the state summaries of NRMs, including: the

Commonwealth/State joint steering committee membership and membership details of

the Joint Australian/Queensland Government Steering Committee; financial

management arrangements, including management of accounts and internal review

processes; bilateral agreement information and funding issues, such as the need for state

agencies to match the Trust investment by region; and regional arrangements, including

partnership with regional agency coordination groups and other state and local

government officers.

• This was a time of growth and

development, with much focus on

operational policies, in particular,

NRM capacity development and

support by the Queensland

Government.

3.5


59

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

• This was a time of rapid growth for most NRM regional bodies, including

amalgamations, implementing new boards, recruiting new staff, and developing new

administrative systems. Nonetheless, funding issues regarding state agencies matching

trust investment commitments by region were evident.

60

In terms of Element 2.2 - Project output and outcome-reporting accounts for investments at the sub-

regional level, the results show that:

• Regional bodies regularly reported on investments, projects, outputs, and outcomes to the

government at a sub-regional level.

• The reporting frameworks narrowed considerably over time.

• Decisions about funding were more transparent during the first investment phase (2002-

2008), for example, with regards to the use and leveraging of funds at the regional level,

and how funds related to regional activities.

• The focus changed to targeted outcomes (activities, targets and milestones) during the

second (2008-2013) and third (2013-2015) investment phases. Reports were more detailed

but contained less information about additional activities and the outcomes achieved. The

quality of reporting also varied considerably between groups. It was difficult to record

internal capacity pressures (and regional bodies’ innovative responses) in the reporting

frameworks used during these phases.


61

Table 10. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 2.2 - Project, output, and outcome reporting accounts for investments at the sub-

regional level

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 3

(2013-15)

• Reports reviewed for the investment activities agreed to in the 2013-2015 phase

included bi-annual performance reports, milestone reports, and funding reports, which

provided the progress of activities and some information about additional

outcomes/significance of the outcomes, the key lessons learnt, and risks of the project.

• There were some nuances in the reporting of each NRM body.

• Regional bodies reported on project results in this dataset. Some regions evaluated

projects in their milestone reports, either against the stated agreed outcomes/outputs of

an approved investment milestone for that investment phase, or against the agreed

outcomes for a whole subprogram milestone.

• Sub-regional investment reports have become progressively more and more detailed,

but appeared to be rigidly focussed on reporting the value of investments within those

specific activities approved by the state. The results reported for regional investments

were only for the activities approved by the Queensland Government under the NRM

investment program (outcomes for other NRM activities were not reported). This

makes additional outcomes or other activities (that could also be used to assist and

complete the agreed activities) difficult to report on or value against such rigid

frameworks.

• Some regions experienced issues with the process of mandatory investments being

provided straight to community groups after contracts were approved. Mandatory funds

are currently provided to community groups, even if of the groups do not have the

capacity to report activities without close assistance from NRM regional group bodies.

• Reporting for the Queensland

Government was very detailed and

provided a clear overview of the

progression of projects against

approved milestones and targets,

and sub-program outcomes.

• There was a lack of funds to

support NRM regional bodies in

regards to sub-regional reporting

difficulties.

• The quality of sub-regional

reporting is more vulnerable when

community capacity is lacking.

• Sub-regional reporting did not fully

evaluate actual project outcomes

and results (beyond those recorded

by the state).

• The quality of sub regional

reporting was impacted by

mandatory funds being given to

community groups.

3


62

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 2

(2008-12)

• Reports in the 2012 phase included narrative and final project reports, state-wide

summaries of assets, case profiles, and JSIP narrative summaries. All of the reports

included information about the sub-regional activities implemented and some

investment accounts at the sub-regional level.

• Sub-regional reporting included

detailed output reports and

qualitative summaries.

3.5/4

Phase 1

(2002-08)

• This data set described the use of federal and state funds. For example, early on in this

investment phase a decision was made that all regional Trust funding should be used to

establish regional NRM bodies and invest in the development of regional NRM plans

rather than spreading funds too thinly, in order to maintain priority action projects from

NHT1. Federal investments can therefore be leveraged for use in capacity building and

planning activities (not only regional NRM activities).

• This data set provides evidence regarding some awareness that levels of investment

between NRM regional bodies differ according to their levels of human and social

capital and the potential requirement for some NRM bodies to secure further funding at

a later date, particularly to support the Queensland focus on NRM planning activities.

• Fund reports included those provided to facilitators and coordinator support, in addition

to foundation funding and a breakdown of funding across these funding types,

demonstrating transparency and clarity about how funds are divided and used at the

sub-regional level.

• Transparency was evident at the

state and federal level and

regarding the use of these funds at

the regional and sub-regional level.

4

63

In terms of Element 2.3 - Regional NRM communication demonstrates accountability to

stakeholders and leverages investment, the results show that:

• Regions appear to have adopted diverse and innovative ways to communicate with and

maintain community interest in NRM. NRM bodies provide important communication hubs

for technical experts, scientists, governments, and community groups to meet,

communicate, and learn together (through organised workshops and events).

• The changes to reporting over the three phases demonstrate that:

▪ Reporting in the first phase (2002-2008) highlighted the communication challenges

for distant communities and the size of the communication task involved in

empowering communities in NRM.

▪ Reporting in the second phase (2008-2013) of regional NRM was more narrowly

focused on quantitative reporting of achievements, with less information provided

in reporting products about the communication strategies and systems used by

regional bodies. However, this does not mean that regions did not evolve their

communications during this time.

▪ Reporting in the third phase (2013-2015) highlighted the diverse approaches

regions are currently utilising when communicating. Regions used a variety of

mediums, such as published material, media opportunities, presentations,

organisation website platforms, workshops, partnerships, and coordination and

involvement in other relevant programs and plans. Social media has emerged as an

important method for regional bodies to disseminate information and regions are

also using positive branding to engage the grassroots level.

• The evidence demonstrates the important role that regions play in communicating about

sustainability action where communication was targeted at the grass-roots level. Regions

disseminated messages from governments, research, and consultants to local communities

through targeted communications.


64

Table 11. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 2.3 - Regional NRM communication demonstrates accountability to stakeholders

and leverages investment

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 3

(2013-15)

• Regional NRM communication included a variety of mediums, such as published

material, media opportunities, presentations, organisation website platforms, workshops

and partnerships, coordination, and involvement in other relevant programs and plan.

• Published pamphlets and flyers, community awareness events, and the use of online

social media were some of the many ways that the NRM regional groups disseminated

information at the grassroots level. This could be through regional coordinators,

Landcare groups, or other project partners and/or community groups.

• In some cases, the dataset provided good examples of how NRM groups attempted to

improve the effectiveness of communication methods (e.g., positive branding like

‘productive land’ instead of negative titles like ‘degraded soils’).

• NRM bodies formed communication hubs where technical experts, scientists,

government, and community groups could meet, communicate, and learn together

(through organised workshops and events).

• There was a demonstrated use of available reporting processes to help monitor and

contribute to the strategic direction of Queensland state projects (e.g., reef quality report

cards). This demonstrates the ability of NRM regional organisations to use available

reporting processes to help meet project priorities at the state-wide level.

• The Queensland Government summary output table indicated no development of new

monitoring programs, collaborative arrangements, or sub-regional plans. However, there

was evidence of the development of these programs/plans in the performance reports,

indicating a possible lack of recognition by the Queensland Government or poor

• More research is required to

consider/explore how NRM

outcomes/results for this attribute

can be better recorded and

communicated (and that the

evidence is still well demonstrated

for accuracy and accountability).

• More media opportunities and

pamphlets did not always equate to

more interest and attendance, the

use and framing of this

communication is also key.

• Whether NRM regional bodies

could be used as a hub for

communication and information

dissemination (given their access to

NRM knowledge) is unclear due to

a dependence on Queensland

Government funds for activities.

• State-wide reporting processes set

up by the Queensland Government

can be used by NRM regional

4


65

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

communication between the government and NRM regional bodies during this

investment phase.

bodies to help meet state priorities

and targets.

• Queensland government reporting

frameworks were narrow. They did

not capture the diverse

communication and reporting

measures regional bodies used to

be accountable stakeholders or to

leverage investment.

Phase 2

(2008-12)

• Quantitative terms were used to summarise the results of NRM investments for the

State (e.g., 355 hectares of native vegetation and habitat managed through incentives

and targeted stewardships or 200 hectares of native habitat managed through voluntary

conservation agreements developed with land managers for priority areas).

• Although other outcomes and results were considered in the narrative reports and in the

case study summaries, there was no clear or consistent method to report other

outcomes to the State Government in a comprehensive way (beyond that usually

reported in the summary output sheet).

• The summary output sheet compiled by the State showed that activities were

decreasing and there were no recorded outputs of hectares protected through the

development of conservation agreements or subregional plans, or the implementation

of biophysical studies or improved Natural Resource Monitoring programs, which

could indicate a lack of communication.

• Investment results were primarily

recorded using quantitative

measures.

• There were limited methods

available to report and show

evidence of performance. More

research is required to

consider/explore improvements in

how NRM outcomes/results are

recorded and communicated.

3

Phase 1

(2002-08)

• Some regions demonstrated that distance impacts communication, and subsequently, the

sense of ownership over a project (e.g., the Northern Gulf Resource Management Group

experienced difficulties when they engaged consultants to undertake the plan, as distance

• Distance was considered to be a

significant factor when considering

NRM communication (in addition

3


66

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

hindered communication and the ability of community members to maintain personal

relationships with planners).

• Effective communication was required to allow communities to feel as though they were

contributing to NRM projects, especially those that employed external consultants and

expertise in NRM projects (e.g., the Annual State NRM Summary Narrative reported

that planning activities proceeded satisfactorily with significant consultation with the

local community, including the Indigenous sector, and strong ownership of the plan by

local people). This was assisted by regular visits and the use of locals to contribute to

sections of the plan (particularly the Indigenous and capacity expansion sections).

• There were reports and evidence of communication about the National Action Plan and

the regional component of the Trust in priority actions across the different types of NRM

key themed areas. This included for salinity, soil condition, rivers and wetlands, nutrients

in aquatic environments, surface water salinity, significant native species and vegetation,

significant invasive pests and estuarine, coastal, and marine.

to the importance of a connection

to the areas that are the focus and

concern of NRM projects). NRM

bodies did provide this information

and it was only the employment of

external consultants from other

regions that caused some

difficulties in communication to

emerge.

• Effective communication at the

local level was required to provide

the community with a sense of

power and ownership over NRM

activities and outcomes.

67

In terms of Element 2.4 - Monitoring and continuous improvement programs are in place, the

results show that:

• Monitoring was a central tool used by NRM bodies for strategic planning and targeting

across the region. This assisted with planning/prioritisation and the administration of on

ground works across all Queensland regions

• NRM bodies obtained important knowledge from local communities and landholders to

prioritise work within regions. The Queensland Government would find it difficult to collate

and use this knowledge without NRM bodies.

• The capacity for regions to collect monitoring data was highly varied, both spatially and

temporally. Large gains were made in the GBR regions, while others lagged behind.

• It was not clear from the dataset how monitoring and continuous improvement programs

inform adaptive management within regions or by the Queensland or Australian

governments.

The results also noted several trends in monitoring, namely that:

• The first phase (2002-2008) developed monitoring programs at the regional and state level.

• The second phase (2008-2013) saw NRM bodies increase the application and use of MERI

frameworks. Some individual regions made significant gains in improving the monitoring

data available for investment prioritisation and to evaluate the efficacy of NRM actions.

However data collection was not funded and MERI plans were not fully implemented.

• In the third phase (2013-2015), all regions used MERI frameworks and the State adopted a

MERI framework, though no new monitoring and evaluation program was adopted. Data

collection remained unfunded and MERI plans not fully implemented. Despite this trend

toward the adoption of MERI frameworks:

▪ Monitoring and reporting became disjointed, sub-programs were individually

evaluated, which meant monitoring across similar sub-programs was not

coordinated or scaled up to assess broader trends and impacts of programs or

emerging challenges.

▪ Monitoring frameworks focussed on program targets only. Other information,

particularly related to the social, organisational, and governance aspects of regional

delivery, could help regional stakeholders to protect natural assets and improve

local communities and the grassroots engagement, particularly if they were scaled

up across NRM regions to assist with program design and advocacy.

▪ Tracking of the methods used to monitor against NRM targets and other

performance indicators should be initiated in order for projects to be monitored


68

against previously agreed activities, and against comprehensive NRM objectives

and values.


69

Table 12. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 2.4 - Monitoring and continuous improvement programs are in place

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 3

(2013-15)

• The Queensland Regional Natural Resource Management Program ‘Monitoring,

Evaluation and Reporting Framework’ was used to measure the success of delivering

the program objectives and outcomes. It established performance indicators for targets

(as specific measures to be observed over time) to indicate progress in delivering the

agreed levels of performance against the program targets.

• NRM bodies sent formal monitoring and evaluation plans to the Queensland

Government for approval for most subprograms in the projects. Monitoring and

reporting activities, as specified in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) reports, can

include mapping of progress with invasive species, activating and implementing the

community participation register (in particular, to track interaction with partners), and

contract management and review systems.

• According to the 2014-2015 Queensland Government summary output Excel

spreadsheet, no new monitoring programs were established during this phase. This is

concerning given the changing context of the NRM regional program, such as

tightening funds and the vulnerability of projects to climate change, community

interest, and other external impacts.

• Coordination of the improvement and evaluation of NRM projects addressing the same

regional assets/threats does not always occur, and multiple evaluation and

improvement panels are completed separately for individual sub-program projects,

causing protection of key regional assets to be disjointed rather than comprehensive.

• Monitoring of data collected by volunteers and community groups across the region is

used by some NRM bodies to enhance strategic prioritisation and targeting of areas in

the region for future works across the region.

• Monitoring of NRM progress

occurred against Queensland

Government agreed program

targets only. This is not necessarily

the performance required to protect

natural assets or to adequately

engage with local communities and

the grassroots.

• Methods for monitoring against

NRM targets (with their own

performance indicators used for

observation) may need to be

initiated to ensure that projects are

not only monitored against

previously agreed activities, but

also against comprehensive NRM

objectives and values.

• Within the existing monitoring

framework, sub-programs should

be individually evaluated, to ensure

that monitoring across similar sub-

programs is coordinated and not

disjointed.

• Monitoring was a central tool used

by NRM REGIONAL BODIEs for

3


70

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

strategic planning and targeting

across the region, which assisted

planning/prioritisation and the

administration of works across the

Queensland region.

• Significantly, the prioritisation of

future works is comprised of the

knowledge of local communities

and landholders across the region.

This is a useful source of

knowledge that the Queensland

government might not be able to

compile and use without NRM

bodies.

Phase 2

(2008-12)

• Monitoring was a key tool used individually by NRM bodies to improve environmental

outcomes (e.g., through surveillance and eradication activities for weeds of national

significance, collation of baseline biodiversity information to guide activities, and

whole of property assessment, planning, and land management practices that integrate

biodiversity values).

• Under the Reef Rescue Program, NRM bodies in the reef catchment monitored water

quality to inform the Reef Plan water quality targets and were key contributors to

regional scale data.

• NRM regional bodies aimed to monitor and improve water quality through the

establishment of their own water quality guidelines, as well as networks of water

quality sites. Monitoring data collected by volunteers was supplied to meet regional

objectives (e.g., the SEQ Catchments water quality monitoring program continued to

• Monitoring frameworks were

applied individually by NRM

organisations to assess the

condition and extent of natural

assets, and the processes and

operational policies that were

applied to address key regional

assets and threats.

• NRM bodies were key contributors

to regional scale monitoring data

and assisting with the connection

between State and Federal scales to

3


71

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

invest in increasing their volunteer numbers, which was at 414, with 923 registered

water quality monitoring sites in key catchment areas. An annual amount of 66,456

data points were fed into the Bureau of Meteorology and the SEQ water quality

objectives).

meet their priorities (e.g., the Reef

Plan).

• Monitoring created ownership

through community support and

volunteers that assist with

achieving outcomes (e.g., data to

improve regional outcomes is

collected by volunteers and

communities in some regions).

Phase 1

(2002-08)

• There was some evidence of monitoring at the national level. For example, Queensland

had developed an NRM monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI)

framework to assess progress towards sustainable regional natural resource

management. The Annual State NHT Summary Narrative (2003-2004) reported that

this framework focused on the measurement and assessment of:

o The condition and trend in land, water, vegetation, biological, and cultural

resources, and landscape health, and

o The performance of programs, strategies, policies, and structures that support

and promote the sustainable use, conservation, and rehabilitation of these

resources,

• Initiatives that were the focus of the Queensland NRM monitoring and evaluation

framework delivered or supported the delivery of regional NRM planning and

implementation within the State. This was broader than just supporting the delivery of

agreed activities, but also related to state-level policy to support strong regional

arrangements. During this investment phase, NRM regional group initiatives

supporting NRM management were developed to ensure that the State strategic

objectives relating to NRM were met.

• There was evidence of a

Queensland framework for

monitoring that was used against

the condition of natural assets and

the processes applied to address

key regional assets and threats.

• Frameworks for monitoring can

include initiatives to support the

integration of NRM within state

government processes.

4


72

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

• Monitoring plans were also used to clarify State responsibilities vis a vis those of NRM

regional bodies for data collection, and management, reporting, review, and evaluation.

• Over 2,000 recorded monitoring programs were put in place across the Queensland

region between 2002 and 2008.

73

Attribute 3: Community Participation and Engagement

One element was considered for Attribute 3, Community Participation and Engagement. Element

3.1 referred to the diversity of the community membership base and the degree to which projects

engaged with a diversity of networks and sectors.

In terms of Element 3.1 - NRM has a diverse community membership base, projects engage diverse

networks and sectors, and partnerships are responsive to needs, the results show that:

• NRM arrangements do engage diverse stakeholder groups (industry groups, traditional

owner groups, Queensland and Australian Government Departments and others) at local

and community level, and in diverse ways.

• The first investment phase (2002-2008) focused on collaborative arrangements and

agreements, and regional facilitators were key to involving and manage involvement in

NRM activities.

• Collaborations became more targeted around government priorities in the second phase

(2008-2013); however, strong levels of community and grass roots participation in NRM

actions is an indicator that NRM arrangements were successful in engaging grassroots and

local communities to meet government needs.

• Collaboration efforts decreased in the third phase (2013-2015) in a few key areas:

▪ There was a decrease in the motivation of landholders to conduct NRM action,

particularly those in more rural and remote regions.

▪ The tighter capacity of NRM groups compared to earlier investment phases

decreased their ability to provide assistance to community groups lacking in the

available skills knowledge and the capacity for NRM action.

• The extent of collaboration could be concealed by the narrow way data was reported in this

phase (e.g., networks, partnerships, and projects may not be reported effectively against

milestones and outputs).

• Data is currently not available to assess the individual memberships analysed by industry

and scale, requiring further assessment.


74

Table 13. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 3.1 - NRM has a diverse community membership base, projects engage diverse

networks and sectors. Partnerships are responsive to needs

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 3

(2013-15)

• According to the state summary output sheet, Queensland had 193 collaborative

arrangements in place in the year 2014-2015. Communities in some regions were

dependent on NRM REGIONAL BODY assistance and found it hard to find

community groups with the adequate capacity and skills to meet project

milestones, demonstrating a poor level of community capacity in this investment

phase.

• Although community interest and motivation increased somewhat in some regions

after difficult climatic conditions, there was a generally negative impact on the

motivation and capacity of landholders to engage in NRM activities after a hard

climatic season.

• The performance reports in these years also identified a decrease in the motivation

of landholders to conduct NRM action, particularly those in more rural and remote

regions.

• Data is not currently available to assess the individual memberships analysed by

industry and scale, requiring further assessment.

• The tighter capacity of NRM groups compared to earlier investment phases also

meant a decrease in assisting community groups lacking in available skills and

knowledge.

• Collaborative arrangements were

affected in the years 2014-2015 and there

was a decrease in the number of

community groups assisted by NRM

REGIONAL BODIEs, reflecting an

inability to offer assistance for

community groups.

• Community motivation and capacity

were vulnerable to the impacts of climate

and financial shifts, particularly in

remote and rural areas. This is expected

to continue.

• NRM Regional bodies were not able to

assist communities to build capacity for

action due to financial shortages.

Strategic selection of delivery partners

and community groups is occurring as a

result.

2.5


75

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 2

(2008-12)

• Regional bodies supported community involvement in NRM through funding of

projects and awareness and education programs. This included a range of

projects, such as weed and pest management, sustainable agriculture and coastal

risk management.

• There was involvement between groups who shared similar values. For example,

during this investment phase, Reef Catchments was an active member of the

Mackay Regional Pest Management Group, which includes government

agencies, Mackay Regional Councils (Mackay, Whitsunday, Isaac), Queensland

Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry (Biosecurity Queensland),

Queensland Parks & Wildlife Service, Sunwater, the Department of Transport &

Main Roads, the private sector, Queensland Rail, Ergon Energy, Mackay Area

Productivity Services, North Queensland Bulk Ports and industry groups,

AgForce, and Landcare groups (Whitsundays, Pioneer, Sarina).

• Partnerships were formed with other community groups to work closely to

overcome new and ongoing challenges (e.g., Yasi recovery work).

• Indigenous groups were involved in the assessment of some assets and threats to

develop workplans for Indigenous rangers and were closely involved with local

communities and traditional owners in identifying key environmental and

cultural assets.

• Involvement was sometimes dependent on the structure of the program. For

example, a significant component of the Cape York NRM coastal program

involved education and awareness-raising. In the last reporting phase, Cape York

NRM engaged traditional owners, volunteers, and community members through

field training, data collection, and monitoring events. Cape York NRM is

invested in the long-term capacity building program for the training and

mentoring of partner indigenous communities for monitoring and control

• There was evidence of the involvement

of multiple groups, sectors, and

communities in NRM projects.

• The success of projects was usually due

to the ways communities were involved

and how they took ownership of the

activities.

3


76

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

programs. One of these programs is the monitoring and mapping of coastal turtle

populations.

• Targeted community engagement programs achieved NRM results. For example,

Reef Catchments increased its engagement with coastal communities through

coastal dune protection and weed control works, coast care events, and volunteer

involvement in their coastal program. Reef Catchments’ successfully invested in

the planting of 800 native plants, 600 metres of fencing of sensitive coastal

zones, and 150ha of weed control through its community engagement program.

• The success of projects can reflect the continued interest of communities and

landholders to undertake additional NRM works at their own expense.

Phase 1

(2002-08)

• The highest number of collaborative arrangements was made during the 2006/7

reporting period, with 2,253 collaborative arrangements reported during this

period, demonstrating a steady increase between 2002-2008.

• Collaborative arrangements were a catalyst for other community-related

outcomes. For example, there was a total of 3,449 conservation agreements in the

2002-2008 reporting period, while the 2004-2005 period saw the creation of an

additional 200 community facilitator positions, bringing the total to 392.

• Collaborative arrangements were crucial

for other key outcomes to be met (e.g.,

conservation agreements).

• At a regional level, the facilitator

position was key to involving and project

managing the multiple groups involved

in NRM activities.

3

77

Attribute 4: Resilient Institutions and Capacity Building

One element was considered for Attribute 4 - Resilient institutions and capacity building. Element

4.1 referred to the stability of the regional presence and capacity building.

In terms of Element 4.1 - Stable NRM presence in the region and regional skills retention and

development, the results show that:

• The declining investment in regional governance capacity over time was evident in the

changing nature of NRM activity. The first phase (2002-2008) was an intensive phase of

capacity building within NRM bodies and across NRM regions. This saw participation rates

and training and education grow and allowed regions to build strong ties between

stakeholders and communities.

• Capacity in the second phase (2008-2013) reflected the gains made in the first phase.

• Prolonged under-investment in regional governance, coupled with declining funding and

funding uncertainty, reduced the capacity of and destabilised NRMs within regions in the

third phase (2013-2015). This impacted on staff recruitment, the extent to which regions

have been able to engage stakeholders in NRM action, and the extent of NRM activity

occurring across Queensland.


78

Table 14. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 4.1 - Stable NRM presence in the region and regional skills retention and

development

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 3

(2013-15)

• The capacity and stability of regional bodies was reliant on the stability and capabilities of the

expertise and resources available in the region.

• There was some evidence of operational difficulties associated with HR and employment (e.g.,

lack of expertise, staff shortages, and retention). These were common challenges across many

of the NRM bodies, with some suggesting that they were not competitive enough to employ

and/or keep high quality staff.

• In some instances, communities supported by NRM bodies were empowered to implement

their own monitoring and management practices and develop long-term skills and

independence.

• There was evidence of some NRM bodies investing in ways that were cost efficient in

responding to funding uncertainties, such as the presentation of data outputs.

• The relationship between event participants and the attendance numbers of NRM events

showed the highest levels of interest and attendance to be in the projects that were a high

priority or a major community concern.

• Communities who suffered from considerable financial and health difficulties, especially those

in remote rural locations (where climates are sometimes also harsher) were not always able to

participate in NRM workshops and capacity training events.

• Community members, landholders, or partners in NRM projects were not always able to be

supported by NRM partnerships due to tightening funds and investment uncertainties.

• NRM bodies remained heavily

dependent on the funds

provided by the Queensland

Government and in being

competitive to attract good

staff with quality expertise.

• NRM bodies were seen as

capacity hubs for

communities, but lacked

stability.

• NRM bodies were not able to

offer assistance to

communities who were most

in need of some help and

assistance during this period.

2


79

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 2

(2008-12)

• Individual landholder needs and goals were accommodated through projects, and in some cases

landholders reported greater confidence in managing their resources and preparedness for

change.

• Regional bodies were working with schools and industry groups to increase awareness of

environment issues. For example, the Fitzroy Basin Association was developing materials to

support the Australian curriculum environmental education in classrooms, as well as industry

groups. Northern Gulf partnered with Greening Australia to increase weed control of over 40

hectares of beach scrub, and SEQ Catchments successfully conducted 13 awareness raising

events about coastal hotspot issues, including concerns on migratory shorebirds, Ramsar

wetlands, Moreton Bay Marine Park, engaging over 504 participants.

• Projects were tailored to

individual landholder and

community needs,

demonstrating the flexibility

of processes to respond to

communities’ needs.

• Regional bodies focused on

future generations to share

knowledge about taking action

to care for and protect

environmental resources.

3

Phase 1

(2002-08)

• During this period, the focus of NRM REGIONAL BODIEs was on organisational

development, capacity building, and NRM regional planning (this was demonstrated in

REGIONAL BODIE annual performance reports, particularly up until 2006), to position the

NRM to protect and assess the condition of resources and threats, as well as develop

strategies and implement plans to protect cultural assets. There was clear evidence that the

NRM was considered a long-term solution to maintaining and protecting landscapes.

• There were almost 8,000 training events held for landholders or managers, community groups,

or members during the period between 2002-2008 Jan-Jun, with over 50% of the total training

events held between 2002-2008 Jan-Jun.

• Participation rates for training events steadily increased between 2002-2008. In total, almost

90,000 people participated in the training events.

• NRM bodies created strong

links with stakeholders,

communities, or anyone

interested in the natural

environment – which is key to

driving action and change.

4

80

Attribute 5: Strategic Partnerships

One element was considered for Attribute 5 - Strategic Partnerships. Element 5.1 referred to

strategic investment partnerships at local, state, and federal levels, and across diverse sectors

(agriculture, indigenous, conservation).

In terms of Element 5.1 - Strategic investment partnerships at local, state, and federal levels, and

across diverse sectors (agriculture, indigenous, conservation), the results show that:

• The regional delivery model clearly delivers diverse investment partnerships.

• These partnerships are so diverse that it would be useful to consider modelling how these

partnerships vary across regions and how this impacts on NRM outcomes.

• Partnerships contribute valuable knowledge into NRM project outcomes and expand the

available solutions.

• There was an increasing focus on state-wide (and national) priorities in phases 2 (2008-

2013) and 3 (2013-2015) and diminished opportunities for regions to set the NRM

sustainability agenda.

• Partnerships appear to have stagnated or are not growing, though this may be because they

are not being recorded, requiring further investigation. The health of partnerships does not

appear to have improved over time.


81

Table 15. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 5.1- Strategic investment partnerships at local, state, and federal levels, and

across diverse sectors (agriculture, indigenous, conservation)

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 3

(2013-15)

• This dataset provided evidence regarding multiple partners who had invested in

and/or were involved in most NRM projects, including other regional

organisations, traditional owners, landholders, community and Landcare groups,

national level NGOs, and industry partners, such as Growcom.

• In some cases, partners (excluding the Queensland Government) helped to fund

50% of NRM actions and activities in projects (e.g., local partners, such as

landholders in priority areas helped to implement activities, including fencing, new

water monitoring /trial sites). Some regions reported that it was becoming more

and more difficult due to financial and climatic stresses at the community level.

• No new partnerships (collaborations) were formed (output summary sheet)

between 2014 and 2015, which might be indicative of poor confidence in NRM

project viability.

• The knowledge that is brought by each partner is considered important for NRM

project partnerships, such as for the targeting of future priority areas and advice

regarding the state of current assets. However, the capacity of local groups to

partner with NRM projects is decreasing, indicating that local knowledge and

guidance is more limited in NRM.

• Roles of the same type of partner can differ depending on the project type. For

example, the Queensland Government could have an investment role in a project

partnership and could also be a partner that provides the authorisation for the

implementation of the activities.

• There was no overview or model

available that displayed the

partnerships and the type of

partnerships formed by NRM

REGIONAL BODIEs.

• Climatic and financial pressures

most likely impacted local

investment partners.

• Projects were there to help support

State priorities; however, it was

unclear how they supported

community partner priorities and

needs (and the room for negotiation

between partners). There was a high

risk that local involvement in NRM

would further decline unless

priorities also addressed local

concerns.

• There was a lack of reporting of

Indigenous involvement in this

dataset.

• Some NRM regional bodies had

their own rules for developing

relationships.

3


82

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

• Indigenous groups (and native title holder groups when specified, though rarely

so) were beginning to become engaged in some regions, though it is not clear how

many more indigenous groups need to be engaged to represent the values, interests,

and aspirations of traditional owner groups.

• Community groups involved were from diverse commercial sectors; however,

there were some commercial sectors that were more commonly engaged in NRM,

such as those that are in agricultural industries.

• There was evidence of contract management and the development of formal

agreements (e.g., Memorandums of Understanding) with investment partners.

• In some cases, communication and relationships were better managed when a

group coordinator was employed at the local level to help manage and guide

community partners and volunteers to help reach project milestones and targets

and develop trust in institutional partnerships.

• Projects were usually aligned to meet milestones previously agreed to with the

Queensland Government, and how these partnerships aligned to state priorities was

usually clearly outlined. However, there was no clear outline of the priorities and

desires of other partners and what they might have wanted to achieve from these

projects.

• In some cases, mandatory partnership processes that the Queensland Government

expected from project partners influenced and added to the difficulties that NRM

regional bodies faced in establishing regional projects.

• The State Government could terminate partnership contracts. One formal

partnership agreement had previously been negotiated with Reef Catchment

Solutions for the coordination of Paddock to Reef activities in the Burnett Mary

• Effective processes for managing

partnerships could sometimes be

made more difficult when

mandatory rules were laid down by

the Queensland government.

• NRM regional bodies were not

always able to assist or be involved

in state-wide projects, despite the

importance of their involvement.

• The financial capacity of NRM

bodies was uncertain and could

impact the effectiveness of projects.


83

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

region. This agreement was terminated on 31 December 2014 at the request of

the Queensland Government. In phase three, the Regional Groups Collective

became responsible for providing regional coordination under a separate contract

with the QLD Government.

Phase 2

(2008-12)

• Partnerships helped to meet and expand solutions to consider and address regional

assets. For example, the Healthy Waterwatch Alliance, which included: Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park Area (GBRMPA), Australian Centre for Tropical

Freshwater Research at James Cook University (JCU), DERM, QLD DAFF, and

the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, Mackay, Whitsunday and Isaac

Regional Council’s, Canegrowers, Australian Rivers Institute at Griffith

University and River Improvement Trusts, expanded the potential solution for

water quality management;

• Partnerships were strategic in supporting cost savings for project implementation

(e.g., other alliances and steering committees).

• Partnerships with community groups were used to protect key assets, such as

wetlands or high value wetland areas, this could include sub-catchment planning

being applied, as well as land condition monitoring sites or workshops that

addressed wetland/biodiversity protection outcomes.

• Partnerships could expand the

solutions available to address and

protect key regional assets and

threats.

3.5

Phase 1

(2002-08)

• The full participation of all NRM bodies was required to ensure state-wide

implementation; however, NRM groups were not always able to commit to

schemes or to make funding available to landholders (e.g., the Nature Assist

Incentives Tender). Similarly, it was difficult for state agencies to meet federal

commitments for each region early in this investment period, demonstrating the

different levels of human and social resources between levels.

• NRM projects and operations

needed to take into account the

different resource levels and

capacities of investment partners at

all scales, including the federal,

state, regional, and local levels.

3.5


84

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

• A number of investment projects included state-wide community groups. For

example, maximising outcomes for reef rescue horticulture with coordination and

support from Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers (or Growcom).

85

Attribute 6: Strategic and Integrated Regional Planning

One element was considered for Attribute 6 - Strategic and Integrated Regional Planning. Element

6.1 referred to the degree to which plans were collectively endorsed and the connectivity within and

among key decision-making institutions and sectors.

In terms of Element 6.1 - Collectively endorsed plans and connectivity within and among key

decision-making institutions and sectors, the results show that:

• The first investment phase (2002-2008) focused on developing regional NRM plans as a

basis for achieving resource condition targets. Plans were linked to targets, NRM activities,

and community engagement.

• There was evidence that regional bodies had continued to be involved in landscape and

catchment scale planning in the second phase (2008-2013), even though they were not

funded to update or revise regional NRM plans. Some regions found ways to improve

mapping and introduce property management planning systems.

• Despite a new round of NRM planning in the third investment phase (2013-2015), plans

were not strongly connected to activities and other arrangements.

• Property management planning tools, which are important for achieving NRM actions and

improving the resilience of landscapes require further support.


86

Table 16. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 6.1 - Collectively endorsed plans and connectivity within and among key

decision making institutions and sectors

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 3

(2013-15)

• NRM groups have primarily undertaken regional and sub-regional planning.

The documents provided showed little or no evidence of how activities

connected to NRM regional planning, indicating a lack of alignment with

NRM regional plan objectives and priorities (although some REGIONAL

BODIEs were reviewing their regional plans in this investment period).

• Most of the evidence provided about planning was in regards to sub-regional

planning. However, according to the state output summary there were no sub-

regional plans developed between the years 2014-2015.

• It was evident that property management plans (PMPs) were very valuable

tools for landholders looking at all aspects of their property management and

incorporating good natural resource management.

• Projects lacking good strategic planning at the site level were the most

impacted by seasonal changes, terrain difficulties, and an overall inability to

meet project milestones and outputs.

• Local landholders or private landholders were usually the main groups

targeted for subregional planning. Some NRM groups noted that there was

less interest in subregional planning for public land compared to privately

owned lands, or where the landowner had an invested interest in improving

land management practices.

• There was limited information about how activities met the objectives of the

local planning scheme strategies, and this seemed to be an increasing concern

for NRM regional bodies.

• The connection to NRM regional planning was

not well developed in this investment period.

• There was little evidence of ‘whole of region’

planning, with little information about

coordination at the landscape scale/catchment

level.

• Though NRM regional groups developed some

sub-regional planning, primarily with groups

of landholders within priority areas, these

plans were still reliant on the interest and

capabilities of these individuals.

• Sub-regional planning varied heavily due to

landholders not always having the capacity

and interest to partake in subregional planning.

This became worse when bad weather

occurred or farm incomes were very low.

• Connection and coordination with traditional

owner plans needed to be better considered to

meet the priorities and needs of traditional

owners in the regions. How this knowledge is

could be used to influence whole of region

planning was not yet clear.

2


87

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 2

(2008-12)

• NRM organisations employed catchment and landscape management

planning, which was used to encourage sustainable land management

practices in high value wetlands or establish clear environmental values and

water monitoring guidelines for improved water quality outcomes.

• A number of traditional owner plans were developed in partnership with

traditional owner groups; however, how these plans influenced and

strategically directed NRM activities and projects was unclear in the reviewed

data.

• Regions were active partners in the implementation of regional plans (e.g.,

regional pest management plans).

• Evidence suggested that some NRM REGIONAL BODIESs successfully

used mapping, awareness raising events, and PMPs to improve the knowledge

and skills of land managers in NRM.

• Planning to protect and rehabilitate assets involved the use of technology. For

example, Wetlands SEQ Catchments improved protection of high level

ecosystem service areas through spatial planning and decision-support tools

to identify priority services, and metrics to consistently measure land units.

Using regional AES mapping, Terrain NRM and its partners, invested in

habitat connectivity and restoration of priority wetland and riparian sites.

Cape York NRM worked with fire mapping technology to meet its protection

and rehabilitation objectives for threatened habitat and species, wetlands, and

agricultural activities.

• There was evidence of catchment/landscape

scale planning to improve landscape

outcomes.

• There was evidence of coordination with key

national and state plans to align key regional

assets and threats.

• A number of NRM planning tools helped to

build community skills and knowledge.

• Technological advances were used to improve

the efficiency of planning, and future

workplans for investments.

2.5


88

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 1

(2002-08)

• All NRM bodies had accredited regional plans in place by 2008.

• The rapid rise of regional planning in this period was due to the Queensland

Government’s decision to concentrate federal trust funds on the planning and

capacity building activities necessary to develop regional NRM plans. This

demonstrated the need to divert funds to these activities, specifically to

improve NRM planning and capacity building.

• A steady increase and momentum was found when considering the number of

sub-regional plans implemented between the reporting years 2002-2008 Jan-

Jul. The total number was 5,908 and the highest outcomes were during the

reporting periods 2007/8 (1,874) and 2006/7 (1,879).

• NRM planning worked in tandem with resource condition targets, which

became considerably more sophisticated over time as regional investment

strategies secured funding for NRM activities, capacity building initiatives,

and resource assessment specifically targeted at managing or protecting a

particular resource asset. This also demonstrated the important symbiotic

relationship between planning and NRM activities and community

engagement to address key regional assets and threats.

• The concentration of federal funds to support

Queensland NRM planning and capacity

building activities was a major reason behind

the rapid development of NRM planning and

capacity building for NRM regional planning

in Queensland.

3.5/4

89

Attribute 7: Community Awareness and Knowledge Brokerage

One element was considered for Attribute 7 - Community Awareness and Knowledge Brokerage.

Element 7.1 referred to knowledge brokerage and the level of community awareness of NRM.

In terms of Element 7.1, Community Awareness and Knowledge Brokerage, the results show that:

• Regional NRM bodies were very actively involved in community awareness raising events.

Regional delivery partners worked together to hold community awareness events.

• Raising community awareness of NRM and brokering knowledge was a key theme in the

first phase (2002-2008) during the establishment of NRM arrangements, and for regional

NRM planning and target setting.

• Regional bodies had developed quite diversified approaches to raising community

awareness by the third phase (2013-2015). Approaches had become more coordinated and

messages highlighted the successes of NRM.

• Knowledge management was a concern - the storage and collection of data (particularly

confidential data) was a primary concern, and knowledge and skills of grass roots project

delivery partners was a problem that requires training and investment. This is a problem for

scaling data up from NRM projects into regional level reporting.


90

Table 17. Summary of the evidence base and conclusions for Attribute Element 7.1 - Community Awareness and Knowledge Brokerage

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

Phase 3

(2013-15)

Community awareness:

• NRM REGIONAL BODIESs and participant numbers from community awareness events

were used to benchmark community awareness. According to the State output summary, 166

awareness raising events were organised, with 5,653 participants in total. However, this nature

of benchmarking does not assist with the evaluation of community understanding and

knowledge about NRM matters in a comprehensive way;

• Specific examples provided by NRM performance reporting could help to indicate the level of

awareness that specific sectors or private individuals might have about NRM. Feedback from

community groups and landholders was always appreciative of the advice provided in these

events, regardless of whether or not they received funding assistance.

• Some of the NRMs found that community delivery partners (e.g., Landcare groups) preferred

to organise community awareness events over workshops or training events.

• Coordination between media releases and updating information on the website was important

to promote the positive work done by communities (and not only what NRM regions are

doing).

• Community awareness events were more successful when coordinated with seasonal changes

(e.g., when the event was of a higher concern for landholders during that particular season).

Knowledge brokerage:

• The storage and collection of data was a primary concern of NRMs and the available

technology was sometimes too advanced for communities to use or unsuitable for NRM (e.g.,

unable to work in far remote or rural locations). It seems that each NRM group was

developing or partnering with various technical groups to come up with their own solutions to

these problems.

• There was no available data

to benchmark levels of

community awareness about

NRM matters.

• Community awareness

events about NRM were

appreciated by communities,

regardless of whether or not

they received funding

assistance.


events were more successful

when organised around

seasonal considerations.


events should promote the

positive contributions

communities can offer to

NRM (e.g., not only being

about what NRM offers to

communities).

• Data collection and storage

of data were two major

concerns for NRM regional

3.5/4


91

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

• The collection and storage of confidential information was also another cause for concern and

some NRM regions were working on ways to store this information securely and ethically.

• Workshops offered skills and capacity training for participants, such as skills in monitoring

the health of assets, undertaking asset assessments, and managing and interpreting data that is

useful for business and long-term capacity building. However, these events were usually not

as well attended as community awareness events.

• Partnerships were formed to share data sets, particularly with local councils who had access to

a lot of data that NRM regional bodies could use to help align activities with local council

strategic targeting and planning;

body groups in this

investment period.

• Workshops were important

for improving the capacity of

communities to conduct and

implement NRM activities.

Phase 2

(2008-12)

• NRM groups worked closely with landholders to improve land management practices,

including on-farm engagement through field days, one-on-one visits, training, and awareness

raising events.

• Some NRM groups reported that the use of one-to-one extension officers (e.g., who assisted

landholders with soil tests analysis, advised on decisions about fertiliser application),

increased the effectiveness of their projects (sustainable agriculture projects).

• Some NRM RGs had a regional land care facilitator who assisted with training and

community awareness to improve sustainable land management practices.

• Youth involvement in NRM had increased through the establishment of junior Landcare in

schools and ‘Healthy Habitat Schools’, there seemed to be a strong focus on engaging youth in

NRM activities about biodiversity, land, and riparian management, etc.

• Community awareness was used to complement asset protection. For example, wetland

programs were protected through awareness raising programs to complement wetland

protection, which also involved traditional owners and landholder groups. The Northern Gulf

NRM also worked with indigenous groups to protect priority areas of the lower Gulf coastal


events should be used to

complement resource

condition assessments and

surveys.

• Increased numbers of Junior

Landcare programs focused

on educating youth about

natural resource

management.

3.5/4


92

NRM

Investment

Phase


(/5)

region and Staaten River Catchment. Southern Gulf, Burnett Mary, Condamine Alliance and

North Queensland Dry Tropics were protecting and restoring their wetland areas through

removal/modification of barriers to fish passage and migration.

Phase 1

(2002-08)

• Over 9,000 awareness raising events took place between the 2002-2008 reporting-period. The

highest year was 2007/8, with over 2,200 awareness events.

• Participation rates for awareness raising events increased rapidly during the year 2007/8 (over

110,000 people attended these events). There was an otherwise steady increase between 2002-

2007, with the next highest being the 2006/7 reporting period, which had approximately half

of the number of participants compared to 2007/8.

• A number of methods were used to spread awareness amongst the community (not only

events). For example, the production of 35 displays, 98 demonstrations, 51 field days, and 31

brochures in 2004/5.

• Community awareness and

knowledge brokerage was a

key theme during this period.

3.5/4

93

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

This assessment considered the value proposition of regional NRM in Queensland against four

questions:

1. What is the value-add of regional NRM arrangements?

2. How did the value-add change under the different governance models of the past programs?

3. How can existing value be maintained and built upon in a new program and through regional

arrangements?

4. How can these areas of value be monitored, evaluated, and reported on in a future program?

Question 1 – What is the value-add of regional NRM arrangements?

The dataset showed that regional NRM arrangements have positively contributed to outcomes

against all attributes of a healthy NRM system. However, this contribution was stronger in some areas

than others, was inconsistent, and declined in some areas over time.

The attributes with the highest value-add from regional NRM arrangements over time were

Attribute 2 - Performance and accountability and return on investment and Attribute 7 - Community

awareness and knowledge brokerage. These attributes consistently scored at 3 or above and sometimes

reached 4 (out of a maximum of 5) on the index scale.

First, in terms of Attribute 2 Performance and accountability and return on investment,

regional bodies were required to report on this attribute as a condition of funding in all investment

periods. The reporting showed that NRM arrangements delivered consistently strong outcomes, as

outlined below:

Element 2.1 - Organisational policies and procedures (for financial, HR management,

asset management, fraud control, project management and project delivery) provide

evidence that NRM investments were well governed – this was reasonably strong over time

and was particularly strong in the second phase (2008-2013). The dataset provided limited data

about organisational policies and procedures for financial, HR management, asset management,

fraud control, project management, and project delivery. However, improvements in reporting

and communications, experimentation with new data collection and reporting processes, and

information systems did occur over time.

Element 2.2 - Project, output, and outcome reporting accounts for investments at the sub-

regional level demonstrated accountability of decision making to stakeholders – was

reasonably strong over time and was particularly strong in the first (2002-2008) and second

(2008-2013) phases. Regional bodies reported regularly, and abided by state reporting

94

templates. However, reporting frameworks became more focussed on achievements in terms of

activities, targets, and milestones, and offered less information about the additional value

achieved through regional NRM partnerships.

Element 2.3 - Regional NRM communication demonstrates accountability to stakeholders

– was reasonably strong over time and was particularly strong in the third investment phase

(2013-2015). Social media and alternative ways of communicating emerged as an important

way for regional bodies to link messages from government, research, and consultants to local

communities through targeted communication and to disseminate information using positive

branding to engage the grassroots level.

Element 2.4 - Monitoring and continuous improvement programs are in place – was

reasonably strong over time and was particularly strong in the first investment phase (2002-

2008). NRM bodies obtained important knowledge from local communities and landholders to

prioritise work within regions, and other levels of government would find it difficult to collate

and use this knowledge in the way that NRM regions do. There were significant spatial and

temporal differences in the regional capacity to collect monitoring data (e.g., GBR regions).

Large gains were made in GBR regions in terms of baseline monitoring, while others lagged

behind.

Second, in terms of Attribute 7 - Community awareness and knowledge brokerage, regional

NRM arrangements delivered consistently strong outcomes in building community awareness about

NRM and the adaptive use of integrated knowledge sets. All three investment phases from 2002-2015

demonstrated strong performance.

Attribute 5 - Strategic partnerships was another area in which regional NRM arrangements

delivered reasonably consistent outcomes from 2002-2015. The database clearly showed that regional

NRM arrangements built diverse partnerships at all levels and across sectors and that this contributed

valuable knowledge to NRM projects and expanded the available solutions. Partnerships appeared to

have stagnated in the third phase, though this requires further investigation, as it may be related to the

targeted focus of the reporting in this phase. It could, however, also be related to a reduction in funding

driving a lack of resources available to undertake integration when it is needed most. These partnerships

across regions were so diverse that it would be useful to understand how governance models vary across

regions and how this impacts on NRM outcomes.

Attribute 3 - Community participation and engagement was the final area in which regional

NRM arrangements delivered reasonably consistent outcomes from 2002-2015. This attribute scored 3

in the first (2003-2008) and second (2008-2013) phases, though this dropped to 2.5 in the third phase

(2013-2015). The analysis found that NRM arrangements added value by engaging diverse stakeholder

groups at the local and community levels. NRM arrangements engaged industry groups, traditional

95

owner groups and the Queensland and Australian governments, and others in diverse ways. The dataset

highlighted that the drop in performance against this outcome was due to a the decreasing motivation of

landholders to conduct NRM action and the reduced ability of NRM groups to build the capacity of

community groups that were lacking in the available skills, knowledge, and capacity for NRM action.

The extent of community participation, collaboration, and engagement in this last phase could be

concealed by the narrow way that data was reported, while networks, partnerships, and projects may not

have been reported against milestones and outputs. The dataset was not detailed enough to assess the

individual membership base of NRM bodies, requiring further assessment to understand the

relationships between NRM bodies and industry groups and organisations at local, state, national, and

international levels.

The area with the lowest overall level of outcome performance was Attribute 6 - Strategic and

integrated regional planning. This attribute had one of the highest value-adds in the first investment

phase (2002-2008), with a score of 3.5-4 out of 5. This reflected the focus of NHT II on developing

strategic and integrated regional NRM plans as a basis for achieving resource condition targets. Delivery

against this attribute had room to improve; however, the value-add dropped to 2.5 in the second phase

(2008-2013) and dropped further to 2 in the third phase (2013-2015). This represents an interesting

finding. Regional bodies were not funded to update or revise regional NRM plans in this phase; however,

there was evidence that regional bodies had continued to be involved in landscape and catchment scale

planning, building on the legacy of regional planning foundations established in NHT II. Regional

bodies received federal funding to update regional NRM plans in the third phase (2013-2015); however,

the dataset evaluated for this project did not reflect those plans. This reflects the narrowed scope of

regional reporting in this last phase, which did not seek to capture data related to regional plans.

Consequently, this attribute was the lowest area of value-add from regional NRM arrangements based

on the analysis of this dataset, and it would be useful to investigate the connections between the latest

regional NRM plans and other NRM arrangements in greater detail.

There were two other instances where outcomes measured below 3 (out of a maximum of 5):

Attribute 1 - Action for sustainability and Attribute 4 - Resilient institutions and capacity building.

In both cases, outcomes measured below 3 only in the third phase (2013-2015).

In terms of Attribute 1 - Action for sustainability there was variation in the level of value-add by

regional arrangements against this attribute at the level of the individual elements and across

Queensland, as follows:

Element 1.1 - Projects address regional NRM assets and key threats – this element scored

2.5 in the third phase (2013-2015), compared with 3.5 in the second phase (2008-2013), and

3.5-4 in the first phase (2003-2008). Two problems were identified: the scope of NRM

investment into projects narrowed considerably, and funding uncertainty became an issue for

96

NRM action in less stable and affluent regions. This was a noted problem in regions away from

the more populated East Coast and outside the GBR. This was not favourable towards NRM

action and NRM projects in those regions struggled to achieve milestone targets set to address

key assets or threats.

Element 1.2 - natural resource action is regionally coordinated – this element was

reasonably consistent between 2003-2015, scoring 3 in the first phase (2002-2008), 3.5-4 in the

second phase (2008-20013), and 3 in the third phase (2013-2015). The evidence suggested a

decline in the overall number of community groups and projects assisted and the growing

dominance of some regions in state wide-projects.

Element 1.3 - Investments have achieved on ground results - this element dropped from 3.5

in the first (2002-2008) and second (2008-2013) phases to 2 in the third phase, reflecting a

substantial decline in the volume of reported outputs.

In terms of Attribute 4 - Resilient institutions and capacity building, this attribute dropped from

4 in the first phase (2002-2008) to 3 in the second phase (2008-2013), to 2 in the third phase (2013-

2015). The first phase (2003-2008) was an intensive period of capacity building within NRM bodies

and across NRM regions. The second phase (2008-2013) benefited from the capacity building legacy of

the first phase. The third phase (2013-2015) highlighted that prolonged under-investment in regional

governance, coupled with declining funding and funding uncertainty, reduced the capacity of NRMs

and destabilised their role within regions. This impacted on staff recruitment, the extent to which regions

were able to engage stakeholders in NRM action, and the extent of NRM activity occurring across

Queensland.

Question 2 – How has the value-add changed under the different governance models of NRM

programs?

The assessment identified that the outcomes observed in the dataset as being delivered by regional

arrangements changed over time. Figure 3 summarises the NRM outcomes measured between 2002-

2015 against each of the seven attributes.

97

Figure 3. A comparison of the NRM outcomes measured between 2002-2015 against attributes3

The reported outcomes of regional NRM arrangements between 2003 and 2015 highlight a change

in focus in government priorities over the three main NRM investment periods. The narrowed scope of

government interest in regional NRM partnerships in the third phase (2003-2015) was a particular

problem for integrated and strategic regional NRM planning and for regional resilience and capacity

building.

Planning was a core focus of NHT II. It sought to align programs across the Queensland and

Australian governments and guide the achievement of resource condition targets through NRM

achievements and community engagement. Despite a new round of funding from the Australian

Government to develop climate ready regional NRM plans from 2013-2016, the complex plethora of

state and federal based policy and governance plans were not strongly connected to activities and other

arrangements. These climate ready plans did not enhance strategic integration and alignment in planning

and policy action across the Queensland and Australian governments and community interests.

Regional resilience was demonstrated through a stable regional presence and strong governance

capacity. Capacity was built intensively during the initial establishment phase of NRM in Queensland,

reflected in high rates of regional body participation in training and education. This established capacity

was carried through as a positive NRM legacy in the second phase. However, a prolonged under-

3 Attribute 1 - Action for Sustainability Outcomes; Attribute 2 - Performance and Accountability and Monitoring

Return on Investment; Attribute 3 - Community Participation and Engagement; Attribute 4 - Resilient Institutions

with Capacity Building Capacity; Attribute 5 - Strategic Partnerships; Attribute 6 - Strategic and Integrated

Regional Planning; and Attribute 7 - Community Awareness and Knowledge Brokerage.

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Outcomes summary

Attribute Maximum Phase 3 (2013-2015) Phase 2 (2008-2013) Phase 1 (2003-2008)

98

investment in regional governance became acutely evident in the third phase (2013-2015). This,

combined with funding uncertainty, destabilised NRMs and impacted on staff recruitment, stakeholder

engagement, and the ability to carry out NRM activity in Queensland.

This had an impact on efforts to achieve sustainability outcomes and presented as a substantial

decline in the volume of reported outputs. The narrowed scope of interest in NRM, coupled with poor

socio-economic conditions in many regions resulted in an overall decline in the state-wide capacity to

take sustainability action. Figure 4 depicts the changed value-add under the different governance models

of changed programs.

Attributes of moderately healthy NRM regional bodies were detected in the areas of accountability

(e.g., communication to stakeholders, monitoring, and evaluation), diverse investment partnerships, and

community awareness and knowledge brokering. It is clear that regions were innovating to address the

tightened funding and changing scope of Queensland government interest. In particular, an increased

focus on awareness raising was evident over time. This had local benefits, but was also a response to

narrowing support and concerns about uncertainty.

Figure 4. The value-add of Queensland’s regional arrangements scored against a 1-5 index scale where

1 = least desired and 5 = most desired.

99

Question 3 – How can existing value be maintained and built upon in a new program and

regional arrangements?

The assessment of the value-add of regional NRM arrangements between 2003 and 2015 showed

that regional NRM bodies in Queensland worked hard to maintain NRM outcomes in the face of

changing government roles in NRM partnerships and changed funding priorities. Figure 4 highlighted

that regional NRM bodies worked around these changing priorities to provide relatively stable outcomes

in terms of: Attribute 2 - Performance and Accountability and Monitoring Return on Investment,

Attribute 3 - Community Participation and Engagement, Attribute 5 - Strategic Partnerships, and

Attribute 7 - Community Awareness and Knowledge Brokerage. This provides a strong foundation

for regional NRM action in Queensland.

However, to reverse the downward trend observed against Attribute 1 - Action for Sustainability

Outcomes, urgent attention is required to strengthen the frameworks for regional NRM bodies to

undertake strategic and integrated regional planning, and to support regional bodies to grow their

capacity for regional NRM. For this reason, it is recommended that NRM Regions Queensland and the

Queensland Water and Land Carers seek the following to enhance regional arrangements in a new NRM

program and phase of NRM:

Recommendation 1: Strengthen the integrative role of regional NRM plans in promoting

strategic target setting across government and non-government organisations, alignment of

government and non-government activity to improve implementation, and as the basis for

collaborative monitoring and review in the next phase of regional NRM.

Recommendation 2: Grow the human and governance capacity of NRM bodies to provide

leadership and support for achieving regional resilience (in the face of changing institutional

and regional conditions), to improve the longevity of investments in sustainability action for the

Queensland and Australian governments and regional communities.

The assessment also highlighted that, although Queensland’s regional NRM bodies have

maintained outcomes in the face of changing government roles in NRM, changing state and federal

partnerships and changing funding priorities, incremental changes to government NRM programs have

had a cumulative impact on the regional NRM model and the governance context since 2002. The

Queensland regional NRM model was built on the principles of collaboration, subsidiarity, and adaptive

management and was introduced under a bilateral agreement between the Queensland and Australian

governments. The dataset showed a changed focus on competition, MERI frameworks, and metricised

reporting to meet accountability concerns. The loss of the bilateral partnership between the Queensland

and Australian governments was evident in the reports from 2010 onwards. Information comparing the

regional models and approaches underpinning partnerships and NRM delivery across the 14 regions was

not clear from this dataset. How the NRM models differ across Queensland, have evolved over time

within regions, and have impacted on NRM outcomes as a result of program and other changes remains

100

a critical gap in the knowledge base about NRM. How the Queensland models and their NRM outcomes

compare to other states in Australia and NRM systems internationally is a related critical knowledge

gap. This knowledge would help NRM Regions the Queensland and Australian Governments to

understand how Queensland’s NRM models can be enhanced to better achieve sustainability outcomes

in future NRM programs, as outlined in the recommendation below. It is strongly recommended that the

Queenlsland Government:

Recommendation 3: NRM partners (e.g., regions, the Queensland and Australian Governments,

non-government organisations and the research consultancy community) should evaluate the different

regional models and approaches underpinning partnerships and NRM delivery across Queensland’s 14

regions and assess the effects of nuances in governance models on NRM outcomes. How the Queensland

models and their NRM outcomes compare to other states in Australia and NRM systems should also be

evaluated.

Question 4 – How can these areas of value be monitored, evaluated, and reported on in a future

program?

Monitoring, evaluating, and reporting the outcomes from regional NRM arrangements represents

an ongoing challenge for program design and review in Queensland. Regions and the State have adopted

MERI frameworks since 2008; however, it should be noted that these frameworks have not included

monitoring and evaluation programs.

This analysis developed a framework to evaluate the outcomes and value proposition of regional NRM.

An assessment matrix and analytical approach was also developed to apply the framework to the dataset

to estimate the impact of regional NRM. First, measurement of each attribute included a series of

elements. Second, a sampling frame was developed and the relevant samples from the dataset were

coded into themes against each element. A series of key words from the literature review and workshop

discussions were used to describe each attribute, element, and direct the coding of the data in the reports.

Third, evidence pointing to the presence (or absence) of each element was summarised, synthesised into

conclusions, and rated according to an index scale. An analysis of each region was performed and a

summary of the whole of Queensland consolidated review was based on a synthesis of the results across

the regions. Finally, an expert panel was convened to review and critique the findings and support the

development of the conclusions and recommendations.

This assessment is the first comprehensive synthesis of reported outputs and outcomes since the

introduction of regional NRM arrangements in Queensland and some reporting trends were identified.

First, the assessment highlights that monitoring and reporting became increasingly disjointed and more

narrowly focussed on metrics over time. This was a challenge for developing the assessment of

101

outcomes, because it is not clear whether elements of the value proposition of regional arrangements

were present and under reported (or potentially not reported) in this dataset, or not present at all.

Second, the review highlights that the scope and contents of regional reporting were widely

inconsistent across the 14 NRM regions, and over time. Key areas of inconsistency included:

(i) The frameworks underpinning reporting and data collection from regional bodies (including the

metrics used), which varied over time.

(ii) The narrative and case study material provided by regions, which varied considerably over time

and across regions within single years in terms of the depth of detail and supporting evidence

about reported achievements.

(iii) The different terminology applied by regional bodies in reporting, making comparison difficult.

Queensland’s NRM reporting frameworks provide limited opportunities for regions to identify the

problems and pressures confronting NRM action or how they are innovating to address these challenges.

There is scant publicly available information about governance models, the scope of collaborative

partnerships, and regional delivery accountabilities within or across regions. Moreover, information

related to regional capacities, integration and planning, and regional governance aspects of regional

delivery, which is important for understanding the role and contribution of regional NRM arrangements

in delivering outcomes, is not routinely collected. This appeared to be most problematic in the third

investment phase, which was the most tightly focussed on project output delivery. Regularised reporting

of these elements could assist with better understanding of how different regional partnership and

delivery models work with government and non-government stakeholders to protect natural assets and

improve local communities and for grassroots engagement. If scaled up across NRM regions, this data

would build an evidence base that could help to identify the reforms required in program design and

partnerships for NRM. It could also assist with prioritising regional body advocacy for effective and

productive reform.

The following is recommended to regions Queensland, the Queensland and Australian

Governments to improve the alignment and scaling-up of monitoring, evaluation, and reporting of areas

of value across Queensland:

Recommendation 4: Provide for a higher level of consistency in reporting frameworks over

time, and broaden the scope of relevant data collection, and the scope of the participating

organisations (government and non-government) involved in monitoring and evaluation.

Improve reporting on: i) efforts to build regional capacity and resilience, ii) strategic and

integrated regional planning, iii) regional partnership models, and iv) sustainability action

across government and non-government organisations.

102

This assessment is the first known synthesis of NRM reporting over the 2002-2015 period. Some

consistency was found in qualitative reports within the NHT II reporting period and between NHTII and

CFoC/Q2C&C; however, a lack of overall consistency in reporting frameworks was evident across

regions and over time.

First, the assessment identified inconsistencies in reporting frameworks associated with changed

government perspectives about the role of NRM programs in each major phase. Monitoring, evaluation,

review, and improvement (MERI) processes and frameworks were introduced in the second phase of

NRM. Despite this, MERI reporting varied from region-to-region. Regional bodies used different MERI

frameworks, MERI reports emphasised different aspects, and some were more comprehensive than

others. Some regions provided more detailed case study information or information about challenges,

additional outputs, or additional outcomes achieved. The lack of reporting consistency is likely to

conceal difficulties that regional bodies face, which are inadequately highlighted in existing reporting

frameworks. Scaling data up to the state-wide level and to identify outcome trends over time will require

some effort to identify appropriate frameworks and datasets.

Second, the assessment identified reporting gaps against key outcomes of NRM against the attribute

framework. The literature review demonstrated that there is a very clear and highly consistent theoretical

framework for regional NRM. The dataset provided detailed information against some attributes and

was inconsistent against some important attributes. For Attribute 1 - Action for sustainability

outcomes, data easily provided attribute elements; however, data was limited for Element 1.3 -

Investments achieve on ground results, largely because of the way the activities were reported. Data

was also inconsistent for the following attributes: Attribute 2 - Performance and accountability and

return on investment, Attribute - 5 Strategic Partnerships, Attribute 6 - Strategic and Integrated

Regional Planning, and Attribute 7 - Community awareness and knowledge brokerage, where it

provided evidence for only some of the attribute elements.

Third, the assessment identified that the scope of deliberative frameworks underpinning NRM

reporting also narrowed, particularly during the third investment phase in Queensland. In the first and

second phases, data from regional bodies was shared and discussed across state and federal boundaries

through joint steering committee processes, such as JSIP. This provided a deliberative space to discuss

problems and opportunities to align action and resources across the Queensland and Australian

Governments. The third phase included reporting to the Queensland Department of Natural Resources

and Mines.

There was a lack of integrated reporting of NRM action and progress by agencies involved in NRM

activity across the Queensland Government, agricultural bodies, and environmental non-government

organisations in regions in all phases. There was some experience of joint reporting from regional bodies

to the Queensland and Australian Governments in the NHT II reporting period, which should be

103

reinstated. Regional NRM bodies are only one element of the regional NRM delivery system. As a range

of other government and non-government organisations play important roles in regional NRM action

and regional delivery, there is a key need to capture and evaluate the impact of this effort on

sustainability outcomes. This analysis identified little information about the role of government (state

and federal) and non-government organisations in facilitating or enhancing NRM outcomes. As a result,

how these other organisations contribute to (or detract from) regional outcomes or the value proposition

of regional arrangements for NRM despite the resources they invest is not clear.

Recommendation 5: NRM regions and reporting partners (e.g., the Queensland and Australian

Governments, industry groups, traditional owner groups, conservation groups) should work

together to develop a consistent language for narrative reporting and decision rules to guide

qualitative assessments of outcomes achieved by programs. This will enable data about

investments and outcomes to be better shared across Queensland, and scaled up for adaptive

management.

This appraisal of regional reporting found that the language and yardsticks used by regional bodies

to measure performance was highly inconsistent across regions and over time. Regional bodies evaluated

‘success’ (e.g., the achievement of milestones) in highly varied ways. For example, in some contexts,

some groups considered 30% achievement toward a target to be significant, but this was not the case in

other contexts. The interim outcome measures used by groups to report on progress differed widely from

region to region. The term ‘project’ was heavily used in different ways and not defined. This is of

particular relevance, as regional narratives report on complex combinations of parent and child

‘projects’, and line of sight relationships between ‘projects’, partnerships, and outcomes is unclear. This

inconsistent use of terminology was a problem for some elements of the value assessment and is a

problem for scaling up data in general. Decision rules and appraisal processes should be developed to

improve the consistency of regional reporting.

Recommendation 6: NRM regions, the Queensland and Australian Governments and other

non-government organisations (e.g., industry groups, traditional owner groups, conservation

groups) should work together to develop an integrated long-term program for evaluating

Queensland’s regional NRM system. This should be based on clear evaluation questions about

links between activities and outcomes and use data harvesting, targeted new data collections

and regional synthesis to evaluate efforts across the NRM governance system toward addressing

sustainability outcomes. It needs to be broader than the regional NRM organisations, include

other government and non-government NRM activity, be more than monitoring, continue

beyond the life of individual projects, and be linked to adaptive management.

This assessment highlights the need for an integrated monitoring and evaluation program that scales

up available data, gathers data from other regional NRM partnerships, and collects new data to fill

104

important gaps. These key gaps are in the areas of integrated regional planning, regional resilience,

regional partnership accountabilities, and sustainability action.

The evaluation also highlighted the limitations of the reporting dataset, which only included

reporting on NRM activities through contracts between regional NRM organisations and the Department

of Natural Resources and Mines. The operational environment for regional NRM in Queensland includes

(but is not limited to) agricultural industry groups, traditional owner groups, conservation groups, state

agencies, and local governments. These organisations participate in NRM programs and sustainability

action at a regional scale through a plethora of regional planning and partnership processes to manage

assets and sustainability problems including (but not limited to) water, pests, biodiversity and

vegetation, and climate adaptation. Current reporting processes do not capture the efforts across

the NRM system toward addressing sustainability outcomes. There is a need to understand the

impact of action across the governance system on NRM outcomes. How do the efforts of organisations

across the entire NRM governance system impact on sustainability outcomes across Queensland? How

do these different efforts impact on the efficacy, appropriateness, and efficiency of the delivery of NRM

programs?

It may be possible to harvest benefits from MERI programs that are already in place. Examples

include the state and federal NRM Investment Programs, Reef Rescue, Reef Plan Best Management

Program, Reef Alliance, and the Major Integrated Projects. Many of these programs already have data

collection processes. However, these processes do not currently scale lessons up into a state-wide

monitoring and evaluation approaches for regional NRM.

Consideration should be given to how to map, monitor, and evaluate the benefits and impacts of

emerging NRM partnership models, such as Reef Alliance and cross-regional partnerships about

regional sustainability outcomes, and to consider what opportunities or lessons this offers in other

Queensland contexts. Technologies and processes for improving the efficiency of already collected data

and linkages to larger issues should also be considered, such as the Reef 2050 Integrated Monitoring

and Reporting Program.

If addressed, these recommendations would improve NRM capacities and outcomes, or at least

clarify what these outcomes are. Some of these actions are within the ability of regional bodies to

address, or could be with appropriate resources, while some may be more in the domain of State agencies

or others.

105

7. References

Auditor General. (1997). Commonwealth Natural Resource Management and Environment Programs:

Audit Report No. 36 1996-97. Canberra. The Australian National Audit Office.

Auditor General. (1998). Commonwealth Management of the Great Barrier Reef: Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park Authority, ANAO, Canberra.

Auditor General. (2001). Performance Information for Commonwealth Financial Assistance under the

Natural Heritage Trust: Audit Report No.42 2000-2001. Canberra: Australian National Audit

Office.

Auditor General. (2004). The Administration of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. Audit Report No, 17 2004-05, The Australian National Audit Office, Canberra,

Australia.

Australian Government. (2003). Review of the National Landcare Program. Department of

Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Australian Government (2017). National Landcare Program Phase One. Accessed online 3 November

2017. Retrieved from http://www.nrm.gov.au/national-landcare-programme/phase-one

Bellamy, J. A., (ed.) (1999). Evaluation of Integrated Catchment Management In a Wet Tropical

Environment: Collected Papers of LWRRDC R&D Project CTC7, 7 vols., CSIRO Tropical

Agriculture, Brisbane.

Bellamy, J. A., McDonald, G. T., Syme, G. J., & Butterworth, J. E. (1999). Policy Review Evaluating

Integrated Resource Management, Society and Natural Resources, 12(4), 337-53. doi:

10.1080/089419299279632

Bellamy, J. A., Walker, D. H., McDonald, G. T. and Syme, G. J. (2001). A systems approach to the

evaluation of natural resource management initiatives. Journal of Environmental Management,

63, 407-23. doi: 10.1006/jema.2001.0493

Benham, C. F., Beavis, S. G., & Hussey, K. E. (2015). The cost of collaboration: How Caring for Our

Country has shaped regional Natural Resource Management in an Australian river catchment.

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 22(3), 285-297. doi:

10.1080/14486563.2014.976847

Campbell, A. (2007). Improving regional arrangements for Natural Resource Management in

Queensland. Regional Groups Collective Toowoomba.

Caring for our Country Review Team (2012). Report on the Review of the Caring for our Country

Initiative. Canberra, Australia. Retrieved from

http://nrmonline.nrm.gov.au/downloads/mql:2697/PDF:Australian Government Land and Coasts.

Commonwealth of Australia (2008). Caring for our country outcomes 2008–2013, Department of

Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Forestry, Canberra.

Curtis, A., & De Lacy, T. (1996). Landcare in Australia: does it make a difference? Journal of

Environmental Management, 46, 119-137. doi: 10.1006/jema.1996.0011

Curtis, A., Ross, H., Marshall, G. R., Baldwin, C., Cavaye, J., Freeman, C., Carr, A. and Syme, G. J.

(2014). The great experiment with devolved NRM governance: lessons from community

engagement in Australia and New Zealand since the 1980s. Australasian Journal of

Environmental Management, 21(2), 175-199. doi: 10.1080/14486563.2014.935747

106

Dale, A., & Bellamy, J. (1998). Regional Resource Use Planning in Rangelands: an Australian

Review (Occasional Paper No 06-98), Land and Water Resources Research and Development

Corporation, Canberra.

Dawson, S. (2005). Carbon management and energy use, in G McDonald, B Taylor & C Robinson

(eds), Findings from a review of regional NRM plans, CSIRO and Tropical Savannas

Management CRC, Brisbane, pp. 88-94.

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and Department of Sustainability,

Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC), (2011). Caring for Our

Country. Retrieved from http://nrmonline.nrm.gov.au/catalog/

Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH). (2004). Natural Heritage Trust: annual report 2002-2003, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, ACT. Retrieved from

http://nrmonline.nrm.gov.au/catalog/mql:1862

Department of Environment and Resource Management. (2011). Regional NRM Policy. Queensland

Regional Natural Resource Management Framework, November 2011. The State of Queensland

(Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane.

Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM). 2017. Queensland Regional Natural Resource

Management Investment Program: Progress Report 2016. State of Queensland. Retrieved from

https://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/1240306/dnrm-investment-report-

2016.pdf

Dovers, S. (2013). The Australian Environmental Policy Agenda. Australian Journal of Public

Administration, 72(2), 114-128. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12013

Environmental Protection Agency (2008). State of the Environment Queensland 2007. The State of

Queensland. Retrieved from www.ehp.qld.gov.au/state-of-the-environment/pdf/soe-report-

2007.pdf

Fenton, D. M. (2004). Socio-economic indicators for NRM (Project A1.1) Indicators of capacity,

performance and change in regional bodies. National Land and Water Resources Audit,

Canberra.

Fenton, D. M. (2006). Socio-economic Indicators and Protocols for the National NRM Monitoring

and Evaluation Framework: The Social and Institutional Foundations of NRM. National Land

and Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

Fenton, D. M., & Rickert, A. (2006a). Monitoring and evaluating the performance of NAPSWQ

regional bodies in Queensland (State Summary Report). Burdekin Dry Tropics NRM and the

National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

Fenton, D. M., & Rickert, A. (2006b). Refining indicators for monitoring and evaluating the social and institutional foundations of regional NRM programs. Department of Environment and

Heritage and The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Fenton, D. M., & Rickert, A. (2008a). Monitoring and evaluating the social and institutional foundations of natural resource management (RECAP): A National Paper. National Land and

Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

Fenton, D. M., & Rickert, A. (2008b). A national baseline of the social and institutional foundations

of natural resource management programs. National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

Hassall and Associates (2005). Natural Heritage Trust Phase 1 Final Evaluation. Canberra: Australian

Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Department of the

Environment and Heritage.

107

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 Final Report. Canberra: Australian Government.

Lane, M., Robinson, C., & Taylor, B. (Eds.) (2009). Contested Country. Collingwood: CSIRO

Publishing

Lockwood, M., & Davidson, J. (2010). Environmental governance and the hybrid regime of Australian

natural resource management. Geoforum, 41 (3), 388-398. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.001.

Love, C. (2012). Evolution of Landcare in Australia: in the context of Australian Government natural

resource management policy and programs, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry,

Canberra, ACT. Retrieved from http://nrmonline.nrm.gov.au/catalog/mql:2993

McDonald, G. T., McAlpine, C. A., Taylor, B. M., & Vagg, A. R. (2003). Evaluating regional plans

in Australian tropical savannas: A guide for planners and reviewers. Tropical Savannas CRC,

Darwin.

McDonald, G. T., McAlpine, C. A., Taylor, B. M. & Vagg, A. (2004). Criteria and Methods for

Evaluating Regional Natural Resource Management Plans in Tropical Savanna Regions, Stage 1

Report for Project 3.2.1, Bioregional Planning in the Tropical Savannas, CSIRO, Brisbane.

McDonald, G. T., Taylor, B., Bellamy, J. A., Robinson, C., Walker, M., Smith, T., Hoverman, S.,

McAlpine, C., Peterson, A., & Dawson, S. (2005). Benchmarking Regional Planning

Arrangements for Natural Resource Management 2004–05: Progress, constraints and future

directions for regions, Healthy Savanna Planning Systems Project. Tropical Savanna

Management CRC, Brisbane.

National Heritage Trust (NHT) (2004). Bilateral Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia

and the State of Queensland to Deliver the Natural Heritage Trust in Queensland, National

Heritage Trust, Canberra.

Queensland Government (2017). Natural Resource Management Investment Program. Retrieved from

https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/agriculture/sustainable-farming/nrm-investment-program#

Queensland Murray-Darling Committee (QMDC) (2011). Queensland Murray-Darling Committee

Performance Report, Toowoomba, Queensland. Retrieved from

http://www.qmdc.org.au/resources/publications/browse/79/qmdc-reports-2011-12

Queensland NRM Bodies. (2015). Thursday Island Meeting Minutes. Regional Groups Collective,

Toowoomba.

Regional Groups Collective. (2015). NRM Discussions/Minutes. Regional Groups Collective

Toowoomba.

Robins, L., & Dovers, S. (2007). NRM Regions in Australia: the ‘Haves’ and the ‘Have Nots’.

Geographical Research, 45 (3), 273-290. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00460.x.

Robins, L., & Kanowski, P. (2011). ‘Crying for our Country’: eight ways in which ‘Caring for our

Country’ has undermined Australia's regional model for natural resource management.

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 18(2), 88-108. doi:

10.1080/14486563.2011.566158

Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (2010). Rural and Regional

Affairs and Transport References Committee: Natural Resource Management and Conservation

Challenges. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

108

SEQ Catchments (2012). SEQ Catchments Narrative Report for JSIP Contracts: Caring for our

Country; Queensland State NRM Programs; Queensland Natural Disaster Recovery; EnQuire,

Dec/Jan – Jun 2012. Brisbane.

Taylor, B., McDonald, G., Heyenga, S., Hovermann, S., Smith, T., & Robinson, C. (2006). Evaluation

of Regional Planning Arrangements for Natural Resource Management 2005-06: Benchmark Report II, Milestone Report 4 Healthy Savanna Planning Systems Project, Tropical Savannas

Management. CSIRO, Brisbane.

Turnbull. W. (2005). Evaluation of Current Governance Arrangements to Support Regional

Investment under the NHT and NAP. P. Canberra: Departments of Environment Water Heritage

and the Arts and Agriculture Forestry Fisheries.

Vella, K., Sipe, N., Dale, A., & Taylor, B. (2015). Not learning from the past: adaptive governance

challenges for Australian natural resource management. Geographical Research, 53 (4), 379-392.

doi: 10.1111/1745-5871.12115

Wallington, T. J., & Lawrence, G. (2008). Making democracy matter: Responsibility and effective

environmental governance in regional Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 24 (3), 277-290. doi:

10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.11.003.

Zammit C., & Vogel N. (2013). Review of regional NRM arrangements in Queensland. Regional

Groups Collective, Toowoomba

109

8. Appendices

Appendix 1: Summary of all data acquired

NHT II & NAPSWQ

Caring for Country and Q2 Coasts and

Country

NLP & Investment

Program

Report

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

2009-

2010

2010-

2011

2011-

2012

2012-

2013

2013-

2014

2014-

2015

2015-

2016

J

D5

JJ6

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

Outputs y y y y y y y

6-monthly

performance y y y y y y y y y y y y y y

Annual y y y y y y y y

JSC1 summary y y y y y y y y y y y y

State-wide strategic

projects (including

SIPs2) y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y

RCT3 and MAT4

progress y y y

Field check y y

State-wide summary y7

y y y y y

1JSC - Joint Steering Committee

2SIP - State-level Investment Program

3RCT – Resource Condition Target

4MAT – Management Action Target

5JD - July to December

6JJ - January to June

7y - Data available for this category

110

Appendix 2: Data used in assessment

NHT II & NAPSWQ

Caring for Country and Q2 Coasts and

Country

NLP & Investment

Program

Report

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

2009-

2010

2010-

2011

2011-

2012

2012-

2013

2013-

2014

2014-

2015

2015-

2016

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

J

D JJ

Outputs

y

y y y y

y y

Six monthly

performance

y

y

y

y

y y y

y

y

y y y y y

Annual

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

Joint steering

committee summary

y y y y y y y

y y y y y

State-wide strategic

projects (including

SIPs)

y y y y y y y y y

y

y y

y y y y

RCT and MAT progress

y

y y

Field check

y

y

State-wide summary

y

y

y y

y

y

111

Appendix 3: How sources of data were used to evaluate NRM Attributes

Attribute 1: Achieving Sustainability

Main data sources

for attribute

Attribute elements

considered by

source

Provisional indicators for attribute element Notes about source evidence

QLD summary

output sheet (all

years)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 • Recorded NRM activities and results (e.g., Hectares of

native vegetation protected, hectares of pest and plant

control implemented, etc.)

Quantitative overview of QLD NRM

recorded outputs as summarised by the QLD

Government and overview of recorded

activity results.

Regional body

funding and

milestone reports for

all NRM bodies

(2013-2015 only)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 • Project overview, milestones and outcomes achievements

against agreed state priorities and targets.

• Scope of landscape and NRM activities for each NRM

regional body and subprogram coordination with state

priorities;

• Coordination with state priorities and local and regional

control of outcomes and solutions.

Quantitative six-month review of project

progress and financial update provided by

NRM regional bodies.

Regional body bi-

annual performance

reports (all years

though more detailed

in NRM LNP NRM

1.1, 1.2, 1.3, • The management of risk and the key challenges arising in

NRM projects;

• social and institutional capital required to sustain and

implement projects,

Qualitative six-month detailed review of

project progress, significance of project

outcomes, provided by NRM regional

bodies.

112

Investment program

(2013-2015)

• long-term outcomes/ results of investments and

improvement in resource condition;

• ability to coordinate with federal and state priorities;

• Detailed state and federal policy priorities.

State-wide

summaries (all

investment periods

though mainly 2002-

2008 and 2008-2013)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 • QLD summary of the assets and threats addressed;

• Scope of QLD landscape NRM activities across NRM

bodies;

• Indigenous and traditional owner equity and access

issues;

• Evidence of restoration to natural resource base and

resource conditions.

State-wide summaries in this review covered

the following periods: 2015-2016, 2011-

2012 and 2003-4.

Attribute 2: Accountability

Main data sources

for attribute

Elements of

attribute considered

by source

Potential indicators for attribute element Notes about source evidence

QLD summary

output sheet (all

years)

2.2, 2,3, 2.4 • Recorded NRM regional body outputs in NRM

communication and summaries of investment outcomes at

sub-regional level (e.g., number of monitoring plans

implemented).



Government.

Regional groups

funding and


all NRM bodies

2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 • Scope of activities for each NRM regional body and

subprogram connection to state priorities;

• Coordination with state priorities;

• Monitoring reports submitted.



regional groups.

113

Regional groups bi-

annual performance

reports (all years

though summarised

in more detail in

NRM LNP

Investment program

(2013-2015)

2.2, 2.3, 2.4 • Access to expertise, resources and funding;

• Evidence of internal IT and systems management;

• Long-term outcomes/results of investments;

• Effectiveness of project and culture of evaluation and

reporting on performance.



outcomes, provided by regional groups.

State-wide

summaries (all

investment periods

(mainly 2002-2008

and 2008-2013)

2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 • Implementation of activities;

• The transparency of reporting and communication,

• Governance, financial, operational information for

specific investment period;

• QLD Government assurance of NRM program and

project success.


the following periods 2011-2012 and 2003-4

primarily

Attribute 3: Involvement

Main data sources

for attribute

Elements of


by Source


QLD summary

output sheet (all

years)

3.1 • Recorded NRM regional body outputs (e.g., number of

collaborative arrangements made, number of participants

and attendees, number of volunteers involved



Government

Regional body

funding and


all NRM bodies

3.1 • Scope of community involvement and grassroots

involvement;

• aligns with the interest of community members and

groups involved in NRM;



NRM regional bodies

114

Regional body bi-

annual performance

reports (all years

though summarised

in more detail in

NRM LNP

Investment program

(2013-2015)

3.1 • Access to communities and the capacity of communities

in the region;

• levels of community confidence and motivation for NRM

activities;

• Ability to respond adequately to community needs;

• Evidence of government and institutional support in NRM

activities.



outcomes, provided by regional groups.

Attribute 4: Resilience

Main data sources

for attribute

Elements of


by source


QLD Summary

Output Sheet (all

years)


training workshops hosted).



Government.

Regional body bi-

annual performance

reports (all years

though summarised

in more detail in

NRM LNP

Investment program

(2013-2015)

4.1 • Ability to offer a stable presence, particularly when

natural disasters hit or more generally in times of need;

• Alignment to community interests and needs at the time;

• Capacity building and the ability to offer and share

expertise at the local level;

• Strengthening or developing community self-

empowerment and social capital (independence and

ownership)



outcomes, provided by NRM regional bodies

115

Attribute 5: Strategic Partnerships

Main data sources

for attribute

Elements of


by source


QLD Summary

Output Sheet (all

years)

5.1 • Recorded NRM regional body outputs in NRM

communication and summaries of investment outcomes at

sub-regional level (e.g., number of collaborative

agreements made.



Government

Regional body bi-

annual performance

reports (all years

though summarised

in more detail in

NRM LNP

Investment program

(2013-2015)

5.1 • Specific partner information;

• Scope local, regional and national partners and cross-

asset/threat NRM project analysis;

• Duration of partnerships and trust/loyalties to

partnerships;

• Specified investment partners.




State-wide

summaries (all

investment periods

(mainly 2002-2008

and 2008-2013)

5.1 • NRM regional body coordination across state-wide

projects or those that involve multiple NRM Regional

Bodies;

• Partnership leverage;

• Linking partners to connect and coordinate shared

objectives and concerns.



primarily.

116

Attribute 6: Planning

Main data sources

for attribute

Elements of


by source


QLD Summary

Output Sheet (all

years)


sub-regional plans implemented, type of plans

implemented/reviewed



gov.

Regional body bi-

annual performance

reports (all years

though summarised

in more detail in

NRM LNP

Investment program

(2013-2015)

6.1 • Specific information such as plan type, scale of plan,

strategic aims and objectives, who develops, implements

and reviews plans;

• Integration of NRM planning with state priorities;

• Community capacity for planning and engagement in

planning structures;

• Local decision-making and empowerment.




State-wide

summaries (all

investment periods

(mainly 2002-2008

and 2008-2013)

6.1 • Funds diverted for planning and capacity building;

• integration with other state plans and community

engagement;

• Stakeholder engagement

• Traditional owner engagement and involvement in

Traditional owner land and sea management plans.



primarily

117

Attribute 7: Community Awareness and Knowledge Brokerage

Main data sources

for attribute

Elements of


by source


QLD summary

output sheet (all

years)


community awareness events hosted, number of

participants and attendees).



Government.

Regional body bi-

annual performance

reports (all years

though summarised

in more detail in

NRM LNP

investment program

(2013-2015)

7.1 • Specific information such as data collected, types of data

collected, methods of data collection and use of data;

• Integration of data for future NRM investment planning

and works programs;

• Levels of expertise at the local and regional levels to

adequately record and hold data;

• Integration of knowledge types (e.g., professional, local,

traditional owner, industry, business).




118

Appendix 4: Example of the first page of the data assessment table for SEQ region

ATTRIBUTE

ELEMENT

EVIDENCE (2013-2015) CONCLUSIONS (2013-2015)

Assessment

(/5)

1.1 Projects

address

regional

NRM assets

and key

threats

• There is no comprehensive overview of all activities; however, the SEQC

NRM have a number of reportable project activities (in the QG funding

program) that address a number of key threats and assets in the region. In

2013-2015 projects address creek and canal restoration (weed and pest

management) across various areas (e.g., Enoggera, Myrtletown). Other

projects consider activities that engage with landholders to restore creeks in

key locations (e.g., Browns Parade). Project funding for all three state

priorities has an original approved budget of around A$2.5 million from the

QLD State Priorities Funding program (Funding report JJ 2015).

• These assets are protected by a variety of reportable activities. In SEQC, this

includes (but is not limited to) working with community groups to conduct

control to manage invasive species (e.g., cats claw), surveillance, monitoring

and surveying of the current state of threats and assets, community

awareness, training sessions and workshops, etc. demonstrating an ability to

achieve multiple types of outputs.

• SEQC NRM projects over the 2013-2015 period employ multiple and various

milestones and outputs to address specific activity agreements (e.g., for the

Brisbane Restoration project there were three sub-programs that focussed on

milestones that included landholder engagement and restoration work).

Output types were dependent on the milestones (though no comprehensive

overview of output logic for projects). For example, restoration sub-programs

could include milestones of revegetation but the outputs would differ (e.g., it

could be media opportunity outputs or signing contracts with communities for

activities to progress) (Attachment E, SEQC, 2015 milestone performance

report).

• No comprehensive evaluation of all

the activities implemented by

NRM regional bodies to address

assets protected though some

insights provided by reportable

activities (e.g., number of hectares

protected, surveyed or controlled).

• Projects are based on previous

activity agreements to address key

assets and regions.

• Planning and targeting of key

milestones/outputs is required to

adequately address key assets and

threats.

• Projects are challenged by climatic

conditions and this requires better

management in future project

management.

• Projects reliant on QLD

Government funds and current

funding arrangements are

inadequate for long term

sustainability and NRM project

support.

3

THE VALUE PROPOSITION OF REGIONAL NATURAL RESOURCE ...€¦ · 0 THE VALUE PROPOSITION OF REGIONAL...

Documents

Transcript of THE VALUE PROPOSITION OF REGIONAL NATURAL RESOURCE ...€¦ · 0 THE VALUE PROPOSITION OF REGIONAL...