Creating a brighter future for landcare in Western Australia WA Landcare Network (WALN) Policy Statement and explanatory text 2016

This policy statement has been developed with funding from the Australian Government’s National Landcare Programme and presents the position of the WA Landcare Network. http://www.landcarewa.org.au/

WA Landcare Network (Inc.) 1 May 2016

Creating a brighter future for landcare in Western Australia WA Landcare Network (WALN) Policy Policy Statement and explanatory text 2016 Landcare1 is the community based movement that, for over 30 years, has worked in partnership with Commonwealth, State and local government and industry to address some of the state’s most challenging environmental problems. In the last decade a number of farmer based groups have gone into recess, while the number of urban and peri-urban groups has increased. But there is still estimated to be over 500 community landcare groups active in the state and these often have strong links with local government, landcare centres, regional NRM groups, other not-for-profit groups, industry and state government agencies. Landcare groups include Land Conservation District Committees, catchment groups, regional NRM groups, and ‘Friends of’ groups. Landcare is not just about restoring and protecting Western Australia’s environment. It has particular importance in building stronger and more diverse regional and urban communities and economies. Government support, both Commonwealth and State, has been a critical part of landcare’s achievements. Over the past three decades successive programs have enabled community groups and local communities to significantly improve the management of farms, rural landscapes, river catchments, forests, coastal areas and local bush parks. But government has also pushed through major changes in how landcare is structured. These changes include the establishment of regional NRM groups, which are now the main recipient of Commonwealth National Landcare Program funding. More recently, there has been a decline in integration between Commonwealth and State landcare funding programs, leading to some confusion and inefficiencies. These and other changes have weakened support for collaboration and community-based approaches. Western Australia needs a strong and well supported community landcare movement to work with government to maintain its clean and green image, respond and adapt to climate change, address biosecurity issues, protect threatened species and maintain the community’s quality of life. Many environmental issues are complex and multi-faceted, often requiring landscape scale approaches or fundamental changes to the way land is managed or used. Landcare is well placed to meet these challenges and address complex and dynamic issues.

What reforms are needed The WALN Policy Statement proposes a number of structural reforms to increase the effectiveness of government’s landcare funding, and ensure that landcare delivers greater long-term benefit. Implementation of the reforms proposed in this paper may not require an increase in landcare funding currently provided by Commonwealth and State Governments. The reforms focus on: • • • •

better integration and delivery of Commonwealth and State Government landcare funding programs improved support of local landcare communities the role of regional NRM groups, including how they work with local communities, and how the landcare model can give greater focus to long-term environmental outcomes.

Four main areas for reform are proposed.

1

In this paper, the term landcare is used in preference to natural resource management(NRM), given the greater public familiarity with the term landcare. We use the upper case acronym NRM to refer to the regional structures established in the last 15 years.

__________________________________________________________________________________ WA Landcare Network Policy Statement 2016 Page 2

1.

Structural reform of landcare support

1.1. Background Structural reform of state and regional level landcare support is required to improve integration of commonwealth and state funding and resources, better support community landcare groups, and deliver more strategic, long-term benefit for the environment and community. At a state level, support for landcare is provided primarily through the State NRM Program team, formerly known as the State NRM Office, based with the Department of Agriculture and Food WA. The team is responsible for coordinating and supporting the delivery of the Western Australian Government State Natural Resource Management (NRM) Funding Programs. As part of the reform process, it is proposed that a modified state structure be established which assists landcare groups (local and regional) and provides the bridge between Government and the community. At the regional level, seven regional NRM groups have been established as incorporated, non-government groups2 that are formally recognised by the Commonwealth Government. The functions and roles of these groups vary somewhat between regions and have changed over time. In recent times, their primary role has been to allow the delivery of commonwealth funding and ensure the Commonwealth invests in strategic environmental objectives. The regions prepare regional NRM strategies, and submit plans for Commonwealth investment in their regions. While recognised by the state government (see http://www.nrm.wa.gov.au/nrm-in-wa/regional-groups.aspx), the regions receive no administrative funding from the Government of Western Australia, and have reduced access to State NRM grants. Most of the regions in WA were established between 2002 and 2004 in response to the Commonwealth Government in an effort to ensure its investments in landcare were more strategic and focusing on nationally significant environmental objectives. Prior to this, local and sub-regional landcare groups had greater access to directly apply for funding from the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth’s landcare focus was at these levels. Different regional NRM groups have different approaches to working with, and supporting, their local and sub-regional landcare communities and land managers. These approaches range from active collaboration to minimal recognition of their most successful groups, and at times even active competition with these groups. Admittedly, the manner in which regions have worked with their local communities over the years has been influenced by government policy, but this has had a significant impact on local groups and local communities. Regional NRM groups also have different approaches to delivery of operational landcare programs. Approaches include actively working with their communities to enable delivery to be carried out at the most appropriate level (localism and the subsidiarity principle), partnership approaches, or active delivery of the operational project by the regional NRM group. While different approaches may be warranted according to the region and type of project, there has been a trend since the mid-2000s for regions to increasingly deliver their own projects.

1.2. Proposed reforms Structural reform of the government and non-government frameworks and organisations that support landcare needs to be designed in collaboration with the community landcare sector, regional NRM groups, not-for profit sector, local government and the state and commonwealth governments. Ideally these reforms should be formalised through a bilateral agreement. 2

WA’s regional NRM groups are variously referenced as ‘non-government, or community-based, or not-for-profit.’

__________________________________________________________________________________ WA Landcare Network Policy Statement 2016 Page 3

Regional level level support Reforms to the regional level support for landcare should lead to a renewed focus for regional NRM groups to: • provide support for the operation of a diversity of landcare and NfP environmental and industry groups across each region, and • facilitate integration between the objectives of the various groups so that the most cost effective and strategically useful actions are identified. The reform process should strengthen the role of regional NRM groups as facilitators, integrators and strategists at the regional and landscape scale, focused on empowering local communities, facilitating practical science and research, and assisting local groups within their NRM regional boundaries to develop agreed plans and strategies. Under this reform, regional groups would not be primarily funded to deliver operational programs or directly allocate funding3, but would play a key role in strategic planning, facilitating, and measuring and reporting regional outcomes underpinning longer-term environmental trends. As independent community groups they may choose to fill other roles, but these would not have state and commonwealth funding support, with this determined through a bilateral agreement.

State level support The reform process must also lead to better use of state government funding and resources, including examination of the role and functions of the State NRM Office and the appropriateness of its location within the Department of Agriculture and Food WA. We propose that the current NRM Office be reconfigured to: • oversee implementation of a bi-lateral agreement • manage the allocation process for major funding programs • provide administration services and executive support to the proposed WA Landcare Advisory Council and other major forums • work with community groups, including regional NRM groups, to build short-term and long-term landcare programs, based on local and regional plans and strategies; • coordinate the assessment of proposals for funding from community groups, including regional NRM groups; • assist regional NRM groups to provide outcomes –based monitoring and reporting. • provide central office services (e.g. human resources) for regional NRM groups • provide support services for employment of Landcare Support Officers (as required by local and sub-regional groups). The WA Landcare Network is committed to working with regional NRM groups and the commonwealth and state government to develop the details of these structural reforms.

1.3. Implications of the proposed reforms • • •

The proposed WA Landcare Support Office would be different to the existing State NRM Office, with its roles and responsibilities changed as outlined above. Cost efficiencies will be created by centralising some of the roles that are currently located within (or purchased by) the regional NRM groups (e.g. human resources, financial management, IT). The estimated cost of the WA Landcare Support Office is $1.6 m pa (based on up to 16 FTE). The cost should be largely offset through redirected funds currently allocated to the State NRM Office and redirected regional NRM group funds currently allocated to HR, financial management, IT, etc.).

3

Unless they are the key community group and there is little other community group capacity to do the operational work within the region.

__________________________________________________________________________________ WA Landcare Network Policy Statement 2016 Page 4

1.2.2 Following reforms, region regional egional NRM groups should: • • • • • • •

facilitate information sharing between the various groups working in and across a particular region, through establishing neutral and friendly forums for exchange of information; operate forums where the best scientific and strategic advice works together with on-ground groups to develop strategic approaches (i.e. not employ their own scientific staff); develop agreed plans and strategies that member groups sign off on (i.e. support groups to develop the plans and strategies that ultimately will be funded through a bilateral arrangement); have an independent assessment of their operations undertaken each year with a table comparing results between regions to be publicly available (and for funding to be tied to strong performance); build the capacity of local and sub-regional groups and communities to achieve landcare outcomes; provide support to member groups to employ staff as required to deliver local area works; deliver outcomes-based monitoring and reporting systems to publicly report short-term and longterm changes in the regional environment, and community involvement in landcare.

1.2.3 Following reforms, reforms, regional NRM groups should not: • • • •

undertake operational programs – this is the province of the groups they support and facilitate (and if key groups don’t exist, the regional NRM groups may have a limited role helping such groups form); seek any funding where they are likely to be competing with groups operating across their region, as this destroys their ability to be neutral facilitators; be the funder or fund distributor of programs; speak on behalf of any group or program without the explicit authority of that group or program (i.e. region plans only represent groups in that region if the groups explicitly agree – i.e. sign on).

1.2.4 What the regional egional NRM groups would look like: like: • • •

regional NRM groups should have a controlling membership made up of representatives from the groups working in a region. Regional NRM groups should be encouraging individuals to be members of local area groups, not regional bodies; boards are to directly represent sub-regions and large programs working across the region (i.e. in WA the Blackwood Basin Groups, Moore Catchment Councils, SERCULs, EMRC, G Links etc) with sub-regional forums encouraged; staff focus on supporting and developing a network of local landcare groups, volunteers and professionals and working collaboratively with relevant parties (local government, state government, not-for-profits and industry groups).

1.2.5 Funding • •

•

Core staff requirements for each regional NRM group and funding for projects in each state to be subject to a bilateral agreement between the State Government and the Commonwealth, with all grant funding allocated through state wide programs (WA Landcare Support Office). Programs and projects funded through bilateral agreements are to be in accordance with agreed plans and strategies that have been developed with the support of the regional NRM Groups and signed off by member groups (including estimated costs – human resources, operating and capital). Funded projects are to provide job and project security for an initial 3 year timeframe, subject to performance, and shall be renegotiated in a timely manner (where appropriate) so as to maintain competent staff and avoid costly re-starts and project delays.

__________________________________________________________________________________ WA Landcare Network Policy Statement 2016 Page 5

1.4. Other implications implications of the proposed reforms: reforms: • • • • • • •

Refocused role and purpose of regional NRM groups to be officially recognised in commonwealth and state policy or via bilateral agreement; Regional NRM groups are given a clearer future as peak community landcare groups; Regional NRM groups increase focus on their communities, and empower local communities to achieve environmental and capability goals; Regional NRM groups have a greater role in measuring and monitoring environmental outcomes; WA Landcare Support Office has responsibility to administer funds, and ensure government’s requirements are met (standards of governance and operation); Role of NRM WA and WA Landcare Network could be diminished or absorbed into other groups; Greater onus is placed on government agencies to manage environmental values of national or state significance.

__________________________________________________________________________________ WA Landcare Network Policy Statement 2016 Page 6

2.

Establish a broadly representative WA Landcare Advisory Council to provide informed advice to Government

2.1. Background The WA Government does not have a mechanism through which it can receive the considered opinion and advice of the spectrum of viewpoints that make up the landcare sector. At a state level, the government has three committees with mandates to provide advice on landcare, though it is understood that these rarely meet: • WA Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (WA NRM Ministerial Council) • Council of Natural Resource Agencies Chief Executives (CONRACE) • Natural Resource Management Senior Officers Group (NRM-SOG) Additionally, membership of each of the above three groups is limited to Ministers or senior government officers. There is no equivalent of the Soil and Land Conservation Council, which for many decades brought government and community together to provide coordinated advice and monitor progress on key issues.

2.2. Proposed reforms A WA Landcare Advisory Council is needed to provide timely, informed, independent policy advice direct to government on matters affecting landcare and the management of natural resources in Western Australia. The Council would report directly to the WA Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council and the advice of the Council would be publicly available. The Council would be made up of representatives from the community and government with an interest in landcare, including state government agencies, regional NRM groups, community landcare groups, WA Local Government Association and large Not-for-Profits working in the landcare arena. • • •

One of the initial purposes of the Council would be to provide advice to the state government to implement the new arrangements around landcare funding, state-wide coordination, and landcare groups including regional NRM groups. The Council would report directly to the WA Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (WA NRM Ministerial Council). The advice of the Council would be publicly available.

2.2.1 .2.1 What would be a WA Landcare Advisory Council Council look like •

The Council is to be made up of an equal number of representatives from the community and government with an interest in landcare, and shall include representation from the: o The Departments of Parks and Wildlife, Environmental Regulation, Water, Agriculture and Planning o regional NRM groups/ NRM WA o Community landcare groups/ WALN o WALGA o Large not-for profits (NfP) working in the landcare arena

•

Executive support to this Council would be provided through the WA Landcare Support Office.

2.3. Implications of the above reforms •

The cost of operation of the WA Landcare Advisory Council estimated at $300,000 pa, including executive support and policy development. __________________________________________________________________________________ WA Landcare Network Policy Statement 2016 Page 7

3.

Provision of sustained, basebase-level support for landcare groups

3.1. Background Landcare groups in rural, regional, remote and urban areas need sustained professional support to plan, deliver and manage landcare projects. Paid officer support to landcare groups has been demonstrated to: • help communities get more done • strengthen communities • support the platform for long-term change.4 It is estimated that there are 50 paid landcare support officers working directly with landcare groups in WA, although this figure is constantly changing and in the past was as high as 140 officers around 2000 – 2004. These officers assist groups to plan landcare works, deliver landcare projects, bring external knowledge and resources into the community, collaborate with other groups including local and state government, and carry out necessary administrative and governance duties. Paid landcare support officers have skills in working with the community (facilitation skills) and technical skills in the areas relevant to the local environment and types of issues to be addressed. Ideally, paid support officers are part of the community in which they work, and are committed to the long-term prosperity of the community. The provision of paid support to landcare groups has been largely dependent on the provision of commonwealth funds, either directly or indirectly to local landcare groups, in some areas with support from local and State government. In most cases, this funding has been patchy, discontinuous and uncertain and often not conducive to attracting and maintaining appropriately skilled and capable staff. Some of the fundamental issues which have limited the value of government’s investment in this area include: 1) Lack of recognition of the need and value of skilled people to work with community landcare groups. Government has often been reluctant to specifically fund paid positions, even though the project could not occur without a dedicated, paid officer. 2) Where funding has been provided, it has been often been linked to short-term projects, not the longer-term needs of the local community and environment. 3) Lack of appropriate support for these officers, with implications for performance management, training and development employment conditions.

3.2. Proposed reforms Landcare groups need sustained professional support to plan, deliver and manage landcare projects. They achieve much more, leverage considerable additional funding and support, and bring about longer-term change in their communities when supported to achieve both immediate and long-term objectives. It is proposed that funding for a network of up to 70 full-time equivalent Landcare Support Officers are needed to work with local communities under a state-wide program, with officers located through careful assessment of community capacity and needs, and desired program outcomes. Precedence for this has been set in Victoria and New South Wales. This support cannot be provided through project-based funding.

4

Victorian Landcare Council (2014) The Case for Funding landcare Facilitators, Victorian landcare Council, 23 April 2014, Accessed on 21 September 2015 from http://www.vlc.org.au/continue-funding-for-landcare-facilitators.

__________________________________________________________________________________ WA Landcare Network Policy Statement 2016 Page 8

3.2.1 What would landcare support look like: like: • • •

•

• •

a state-based program which helps local communities and regional NRM groups determine where Landcare Support Officers are most needed5; the program would support up to 70 full-time equivalent Landcare Support Officers throughout the state; flexible models of hosting and management would be available, in recognition that landcare groups operate under various models, and landcare support officers are already engaged under various models; e.g. supported by local boards of management, regional NRM groups, local governments, Regions of Councils; Landcare Support Officers will work to standards agreed at a state-wide level, and overseen by the WA Landcare Support Office. Systems are to be in place to support the officer’s work, employment conditions and training and development. Candidates should be drawn from the local community wherever possible; candidates would have skills and demonstrated experience in working with the community and the technical areas relevant to their community, environment, and projects; Landcare Support Officer positions would be established with a performance-based contract and (at least) 3 to 5 year sustained funding arrangements.

3.2.2. How would local landcare support officers be funded and managed • •

• •

Funding for up to 70 full-time equivalent Landcare Support Officers would be negotiated by the Commonwealth and State governments, in consultation with the landcare community. Funding assistance through bilateral agreements for individual Landcare Support Officers would take into consideration local circumstances (including the capacity of the local government and local community to contribute to the costs of employment) and the needs of agreed projects and strategies. Grant funding for local community based Landcare Support Officers would be linked to agreed plans or strategies and determined through a state-based program managed by the WA Landcare Support Office. Landcare Support Officers would be managed (e.g. HR, training etc.) to consistent professional standards by local boards of management, supported through a WA Landcare Support Office.

3.3. Implication of proposed reforms • •

Cost of the program is an estimated $8 m ($7 m for the employment, on-costs and basic operating costs of 70 full-time equivalent Landcare Support Officers, plus $1 m to a WA Landcare Support Office to support the officers). Placement of Landcare Support Officers would be a negotiated arrangement, involving local, regional, state and commonwealth representatives.

5

The term Landcare Support Officer is coined in this paper to emphasise the community support role of the position and signify a difference from positions in the past, such as Community Landcare Facilitator.

__________________________________________________________________________________ WA Landcare Network Policy Statement 2016 Page 9

4.

Provide sustained funding for landcare works

4.1. Background Community landcare groups need funds to undertake on-ground works. These funds are used to create the base from which other funds and in-kind investments are attracted. Government investment in community landcare has been shown to attract five times that investment to on-ground projects6, or between three to seven times the investment in other studies7. Funds from both government, corporate and not-for-profit sectors add to the significant contributions that volunteers and landholders make to carry out on-ground works. In 2015, Commonwealth and State Government commitments to landcare were in the order of $32 million: • Approximately $24 million was provided by the Commonwealth directly to regional NRM groups (for on-ground works, staff employment and administration) in 2014/15. All Commonwealth funding has been tied to regional NRM strategies and national priorities since 2008. In 2015, commonwealth policy reforms required a minimum of 20% of this regional funding to be directed to local projects or local landcare groups. • $8 million has been made available by the State Government for landcare through the NRM Program (Action and Capability Grants) in 2015/16. State NRM funding has fluctuated annually, ranging from no funding in 2013/14 to $30 million in 2009/10. The Commonwealth and state government’s approaches to funding are not sustainable and there is no long-term policy commitment of Commonwealth or state government to landcare. The current domination of land management by the Commonwealth Government is a real concern. Whilst in most years, some funding is made available, the amount of funding varies from year to year, the timing and release of funding is uncertain and politicised, and there is a funding hiatus every 3 years or so based on changes in government policy. This approach is not conducive to long-term environmental outcomes, stifles innovation, makes it difficult for landcare groups to attract and maintain corporate sponsorship, and generally creates great inefficiencies in the system.

4.2. Proposed Reforms Current funding arrangements need to be re-negotiated to improve integration and continuity. The current domination through National Landcare Program funding arrangements of land management by the Commonwealth Government is a real concern. We argue for a bi-lateral agreement between the state and Commonwealth governments that includes a process for funding allocation, administration and acquittal in 3 to 5 year funding cycles with a forward rolling plan to enable local and regional landcare groups to plan for the future. Transparent funding allocation processes would demonstrate contribution to strategic objectives at local, regional and/or state and commonwealth levels, and such an agreement would have strong support from the landcare movement.

6

Curtis A (2003) Reflecting on the landcare experience, A report based on information held within ABARE and BRS, Bureau of Rural Sciences, September 2003. 7

Williams S (2014) A Case Study: Landcare in the North Coast Region, Adapted from a presentation by Daintry Gerrand, Amanda Harris and Bob Jarman, Sonia Williams , General Manager Landcare NSW.

__________________________________________________________________________________ WA Landcare Network Policy Statement 2016 Page 10

4.2.1 A sustainable program to fund landcare works: works: • •

• •

•

Both Commonwealth and State Governments commit to a Western Australian Landcare Program which integrates government policies and the plans and strategies of local and subregional groups. Funding for the Program is secured through bilateral agreement or some other mechanism which includes: o a process for funding allocation, administration and acquittal in 3 to 5 year funding cycles o a forward rolling plan to enable local and regional landcare groups to plan for the future. The total funds available under the Program are at least $24 million per annum over a 5 year period, based on current funding levels (combined Commonwealth and State funding). The process of funds allocation allows for the involvement of community and government representatives at the local/sub-regional, regional and state levels. Transparent funding allocation processes demonstrate contribution to strategic objectives at local, regional and/or state levels, and such an agreement would have strong support from the landcare movement. Funding is tied to reporting of outputs (recipient’s responsibility) and progress towards outcomes (regional NRM groups).

4.3. Implications of the proposed reforms •

There is no increase in funding sought from Commonwealth and State governments, only a change in the way the funds are distributed, used and acquitted.

__________________________________________________________________________________ WA Landcare Network Policy Statement 2016 Page 11