ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT · PDF fileenhancing the effectiveness of catchment management planning interim report for the dpie page i aacm internationaldelivering

ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING INTERIM REPORT for the DPIE PAGE i

AACM INTERNATIONALDELIVERING PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1. BACKGROUND........................................................................................1 2. KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE REVIEWS ....................................5 2.1 Key Implementation Issues...........................................................5 2.1.1 Accountability......................................................................5 2.1.2 Finance ................................................................................6 2.1.3 Ranking Priorities ...............................................................7 2.1.4 Process .................................................................................9 2.1.5 Institutional Structures ....................................................12 2.1.6 Outcomes / Products..........................................................14 2.2 Key Policy Issues..........................................................................17 2.2.1 The Products of Integrated Resource Management ........17 2.2.2 Establishing Accountability..............................................19 2.2.3 Finance ..............................................................................22 2.2.4 Institutional Structures and Integration .........................23 2.2.5 Process ...............................................................................26 3. GUIDING PRINCIPLES ........................................................................33 4. OPTIONS FOR CHANGE ......................................................................33

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: A Vision for Catchment Management in Australia...........................39

ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING INTERIM REPORT for the DPIE PAGE 1

AACM INTERNATIONAL DELIVERING PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS

1. BACKGROUND

This is the final report of a project, commissioned by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy (DPIE), to advance Commonwealth interests in the use of catchment management processes to achieve natural resource management objectives. The overall purpose of the project is to identify objectives and criteria for enhancing the effectiveness of catchment management planning in Australia. Integrated catchment management is an evolving philosophy in Australia. Notable events in the recent history of this, and similar approaches to natural resource management, include the:-

°initiation of Total Catchment Management in New South Wales in 1984; °establishment of the Murray Darling Basin Commission in 1986; °adoption of a State-wide Salt Action Program by Victoria in 1987; °national catchment management workshop in 1989; °adoption of an Integrated Catchment Management program by Queensland in 1992; and °introduction of the Catchment and Land Protection Act (Vic., 1994) by the Government of Victoria.

More than a decade of experience in integrating water and land resource management in Australia confirms that the philosophy of integrated catchment management is appropriate. Communities and their governments in most parts of Australia have identified the products which they seek from natural resource management activities. The catchment management planning process - which links the philosophy and the product - remains elusive throughout Australia. In this report we use the term integrated resource management rather than catchment management to reflect the perceptions of participants in this study. We also emphasise the term management rather than planning to reflect the concern of many participants that plans should lead to action, rather than being seen as the final product of catchment management programs. Our understanding of integrated resource management is outlined below to clarify the basis on which this report has been produced.

1 Building blocks for ICM are:-

° Use of a Systems Approach. °Use of an Integrated rather than a Strategic Approach. °Use of a Stakeholder Approach. °Use of a Partnership Approach.

°Use of a Balanced Approach.



This final report assesses the strengths and weaknesses of current catchment management policies and programs from the perspective of catchment management as a process for achieving specific natural resource management outcomes. It also assesses the:-

°effectiveness of catchment management activities in meeting natural resource management objectives; and °factors affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of individual projects and catchment management approaches.

The report is based on extensive field work conducted throughout Australia between July and November 1994. During this period we have consulted with land managers, technical services agency staff, resource administrators and regulators, and financiers in each state and territory. Our consultations included Aboriginal land managers. Definition of Integrated Resource Management Integrated Resource Management (IRM) is the coordinated management of land and water resources within a region, with the objectives of controlling and/or conserving the water resource, ensuring biodiversity, minimising land degradation, and achieving specified and agreed land and water management, and social objectives. The IRM approach selects those elements and their interconnections in a river basin that are important to a natural resources management problem, for example dryland salinity management, and demonstrates how they should be used to manage land and water resources from an ecological and an economic basis. Integrated resource management is a concept that is widely extolled and holds currency in academic, professional and political quarters (Born, 1994; Mitchell, 1990). The preferred nomenclature used in this study is integrated resource management, as it is seen as being more adaptable to the diversity of natural environments in Australia. Integrated resource management, while a response to past narrow and disjointed approaches to natural resources management, aims to overcome the dysfunctional mechanisms between and within government and communities in the management of water resources. This participatory approach seeks involvement through negotiation and building partnership agreements. It seeks to avoid marginalising resource user groups or agencies. It builds bridges and partnerships to achieve commonly accepted resource management goals. Burton (1983) refers to integrated resource management as being about coordination and cooperation, not amalgamation. It is about taking a holistic view, and managing specific resource management problems in that context. Quoting Mitchell (1987), Burton recognised three dimensions to integrated approaches: a philosophy, a process, and a product.



The philosophy refers to the belief that interactions between natural resources and with human activities should be viewed in a holistic framework. Burton maintains that appears to be well understood, whether the context is a river basin or a bioregion. The process refers to the flexible, adaptive, ongoing and dynamic mechanism, which coordinates the activity of many people, both in Government and across the wide community. Mitchell and Hollick (1993) identify "building blocks" for integrated resource management which clearly explain how the process can be facilitated.1 The product is often misconceived as a "catchment plan" (a "shelf document"). Rather, the product of integrated resource management should be improved quality of natural resources and sustainable economic development and production based on best management practices.

A recurring theme in both the Policy Review and Activity Review of this study, was the need to have a clearer national vision of what is meant by "catchment management". A suggested vision is included in Appendix A of this report. People are confused about what they are trying to achieve using the integrated resource management approach. There is the need to clearly define integrated resource management; a definition that has national acceptability and application, and that recognises the unique biophysical regional environments and regional societal differences of Australia. The process of implementing integrated resource management is dependent on defining catchment management, using definitions relevant to the unique bioregions or river basins of both continental and insular Australia. There needs to be a clear statement by Commonwealth government regarding a national vision for integrated resource management. This vision should be demonstrated in ministerial commitment by both Commonwealth and State governments to the integrated resource management process. The definition forms part of a framework which clearly defines those areas of natural resources management which are clearly in the national interest. It is recommended that the Commonwealth government should develop a clear, acceptable and working definition of integrated resource management. This definition should be expressed as a vision statement, and linked to the implementation processes recommended elsewhere in this report. References Born, S.M. (1994) Towards Integrated Environmental Management: A

Reconnaissance of State Statutes. Occasional Paper Series. University of Colorado Law School, Boulder..



Burton, J.R. (1983) Total Catchment Management. Proceedings of the Annual Soil Conservation Conference, 1983. N.S.W. Soil Conservation Service, Sydney.

Mitchell, B. (ed.) (1990) Integrated Water Management. Belhaven Press. London. Mitchell, B. (1987) A Comprehensive-Integrated Approach for Water and Land

Management. Occasional Paper No. 1, Centre for Water Policy Research. University of New England. Armidale.

Mitchell, B. and Hollick, M. (1993) Integrated catchment management in

Western Australia: transition from concept to implementation. Environmental Management, 17 (6) 735 - 743.



2. KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE REVIEWS

2.1 KEY IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES The review of implementation activities is detailed in Annex B. Common strengths and weaknesses which occur across states have been extracted from the field work findings and form the basis of this section. The philosophy of integrated catchment management is generally accepted by most technical services agency staff and some landholders and resource users. In many cases a clear understanding of the products which are the outcome of integrated catchment management is shared by agency staff and other stakeholders in sustainably managed natural resources. Despite this the catchment is rarely recognised as the basic unit of management and there are very few examples of truly integrated management of catchment resources in Australia. It is the process - linking philosophy and product - which is generally missing in catchment management planning activities in Australia. The key implementation theme which consistently emerged from the review of catchment management activities was the absence of a process to plan, implement, and evaluate integrated natural resource management activities. 2.1.1 Accountability None of the catchment management activities reviewed included a formal process for evaluation of outcomes from the planning, implementation or monitoring phases of the work. Several projects identified the need for monitoring systems to provide quantitative data from indicators of resource condition. Only one project had an integrated approach to monitoring across the whole catchment, but that was a Waterwatch coordinator generating water quality datasets. In many states, community expectations have been raised through the initiation of catchment management programs. Government credibility requires delivery of activities on the ground and commitment to funding over sustained periods of time. The community holds government accountable for these expectations. More importantly, there is growing recognition that the social benefits of catchment management can best be achieved by public investment through co-financing or cost sharing arrangements with private sector beneficiaries of catchment management. Despite increasingly effective natural resource management legislation in most states, the linkages between rights and responsibilities associated with natural resource use remain weak. There is little accountability between resource users and the wider community of interest associated with those resources.



2.1.2 Finance Lack of Economic Analysis In the activities reviewed there was no use of resource economic analysis to identify priorities and allocate costs and benefits between public and private sectors. Social costs and benefits were rarely identified and almost never used to justify public investment. Very few of the investments in activities reviewed were based on financial analysis of the costs and benefits associated with natural resource management. None of the investments were based on analysis of the economic costs and benefits of resource management. Accordingly, no government agency or community group could confidently justify the investment in their projects in terms of national (economic) benefits. Sustainable Financing Process The need for a sustainable financing process was a common theme identified throughout the review of activities. Most projects reviewed relied heavily on Commonwealth investment through the National Landcare Program (NLP) to finance activities. Many community and agency participants in the review identified concerns about the sustainability of Commonwealth investment in natural resource management and the difficulty in attracting industry and private funding for these activities. However, few communities or state agencies understood that the Commonwealth commitment to the NLP was never meant to be sustainable. The role of state agencies in co-financing catchment management is rarely identified - because their investment is in kind and generally does not involve community grants and application processes. There was a widely held view amongst participants that declining public resources for implementation activities may result in community expectations not being realised which would threaten current momentum towards widespread implementation of catchment management activities. It was generally accepted that community commitment to natural resource management would wane if core funding becomes inadequate. Uncertainty about funding for activities was identified as the major cause for a lack of continuity for project staff. A rolling planning horizon was seen as the best approach to integrate changing resource management priorities with Commonwealth and State program funding cycles. Cost Sharing and Co-Financing Development of cost-sharing processes for different activities was seen as a way to leverage program funds, increase community ownership of catchment management activities, and increase efficiency of integrated resource management investments in several projects - for example the Mount Lofty Ranges Catchment Program.



Cost sharing appears to provide a foundation for sustainable implementation of catchment management activities. Wherever the benefits of integrated resource management were clear, the catchment community was already sharing the cost of implementing resource management activities. In several cases - most notably the Huon Valley Catchment - it was industry groups which initiated integrated catchment management projects with significant private investment before receiving Commonwealth funds. Several institutional structures (for example the Hunter Catchment Management Trust2 and the Johnstone River Catchment Coordinating Committee) creatively mixed funds from other Government programs, industry groups, and the catchment community in an attempt to leverage Commonwealth funds for integrated resource management activities. Many community groups and project committees had inadequate resources to meet the requirements of committee administration and service to community groups. Some projects overcame this problem by making use of Local Government or local industry administrative services. These contributions need to be encouraged and acknowledged as a private sector or regional contribution to complement Commonwealth investment. Natural Resource Management Investment Framework Community and agency participants in the activity review identified the lack of a natural resource management investment framework, which clearly outlines the areas of national interest, as a major weakness. In addition, many participants considered that funding allocations arrived too late to allow for proper planning of programs, as a result of grant allocations taking place only once each year. There is clearly a need for National and Regional Integrated Resource Management Investment Strategies to set a framework for public sector contributions to natural resource management. This could also provide the basis for a prospectus/plan for investment in regional resource management -making the link between regional economic development and natural resource management - between ecology and economy. An investment approach to Commonwealth programs for natural resource management would provide an incentive for State and regional groups to demonstrate investment credibility - an integrated resource management credit rating. Commonwealth investment provides the most consistent and powerful agent for change at State and regional levels. These funds can be used constructively to initiate change. 2.1.3 Ranking Priorities Lack of Priority Setting 2The Hunter Catchment Trust is a statutory organisation established under the Catchment

Management Act (NSW 1989). The Trust has power to independently plan and negotiate cost sharing arrangements for the implementation of its programs.



A weak determination and allocation of priorities was a common theme identified throughout the review of activities - even though most plans were based on well developed technical data sets. This was partly because catchment communities and agency staff generally had a poor understanding of a catchment and what integrated catchment management meant for them. Where priorities were set for catchment management activities (for example salinity in Victoria, water quality in South Australia) the linkage between these products and the process of integrated catchment management was not clear to the catchment community. Broadening of catchment management issues from the priority focus (for example salinity in Victoria) could result in weakening of the commitment to integrated resource management by increasing confusion or uncertainty amongst catchment communities and government agencies. The lack of priority rankings emphasised the need for a clearly described investment framework - which identifies national interest priorities which the Commonwealth is interested to invest in. An investment framework provides the means to clearly link the philosophy and products of integrated resource management. Focus on Symptoms Rather than Causes There was a trend in most catchment management plans reviewed to focus on symptoms rather than causes - for example, saline soaks rather than discharge areas; revegetation of scald areas rather than management of remnant vegetation; use of contour banks and drainage lines rather than modified tillage practices and cropping regimes. The emphasis on symptoms in projects reviewed often meant that new land uses becoming established in catchments (for example intensive dairying in the Meander, plantation forestry in the Huon, or rural subdivision in the Mary catchment in Queensland) were excluded from the catchment management plan. Setting Priorities Increases Success Agreeing to, and focussing on, investment priorities for integrated resource management avoids clouding the issues and sets the scene for successful outcomes which, in turn, strengthens the group as it addresses the next set of priorities. A catchment planning process which enables this is clearly useful. A generally negative attitude exists in many catchment communities - sceptical of government, unsure of landcare and similar programs, with a lack of vision and hope for the future, and unwillingness to take a positive and innovative view of the world. These make priority setting and focussed leadership essential for success. Linkages Between Different Stakeholder Priorities



In many catchments reviewed, agricultural industries, feeling threatened by the impact of conservation initiatives on forest and other industries, are motivated by fear rather than positive or educated responses to natural resource management. Emphasis on negative impacts of agriculture by hard line environmentalists runs the risk of turning local support for natural resource management issues against the gains that have already been made. Technical packages exist to solve most resource management problems identified by projects reviewed in Annex B. Participants identified that technical packages for management of major catchment problems are understood by resource users, although the technology is often poorly extended and integrated. The priority is therefore to implement solutions rather than to look for more of them. Successful implementation of many of these solutions requires innovative linkages to be made between landholder priorities and those of other stakeholders in the catchment community. Examples identified during the activity review included opportunities to integrate native vegetation rehabilitation and management into riparian zone and upper catchment management strategies. The poor linkage between ecological management and economic development is in part because of poor integration between Commonwealth investments in landcare and biodiversity conservation. There are also opportunities to develop linkages between landholder priorities, local authority priorities, and catchment management priorities in an attempt to overcome elements of fear which exist within industry. For example, in the Johnstone Catchment industry groups have worked with the Catchment Coordinating Committee to develop Best Management Practice guidelines for each agricultural industry as a means of compliance with the Codes of Practice for Agriculture under the Environmental Protection Act (Qld., 1994). 2.1.4 Process Need for a Process which Encourages Integration for Action The lack of a process for identification of priorities, integration of community and agency skills to design and implement activities, and monitoring and evaluation of program activities was a significant theme identified throughout the review of activities. In most activities reviewed, the product and philosophy of catchment management planning was well documented and thought out - with strong industry and local authority involvement. However, a process had not yet been developed to provide a sustainable framework for managing change and reviewing implementation of plans over time. Most activities reviewed experienced difficulty in coordinating many different local governments. An integrating process which includes local government is important for the success of catchment management planning.



Many activities reviewed were confused by the very diverse nature of regional issues to be dealt with in terms of catchment management. A process to set priorities and focus through this wide range of issues is essential for successful investment outcomes. Where a process for setting priorities was established -for example in the Johnstone, Blackwood and Lower Mary (NT) catchments -catchment communities and agency staff were very focussed on what had to be done to achieve catchment management outcomes. Many participants identified frustration with the emphasis on catchment management planning rather than implementation of activities on the ground. A consistent theme throughout Australia was a strong demand for a process which enabled more of the Commonwealth investment to be spent on the ground. Most landholders emphasised that they were willing to contribute to co-financed management partnerships through cost sharing arrangements. Participants envisaged that these would include clear investment from the Commonwealth in regional field activities linked to financial and activity commitments from landholders and their groups. Several activities - especially those in Victoria and Queensland - had well developed resource management plans and regional development plans which outlined key strategies and issues facing the region. These had been developed with community consultation and provided a framework for action which had a broad consensus in the catchment community. Other activities, especially in Tasmania, demonstrated a lack of community consultation during initiation of the project, and general uncertainty about how community participation should be developed and what the catchment community can contribute to the process. Successful activities consistently involved the catchment community in the early development of a process consistent with the philosophy of integrated catchment management. Regional/ICM Committees need to give specific attention to developing an acceptable process that builds relationships with landcare groups. The key elements of this process would be:-

°consulting with landcare groups in the region to identify principle issues of concern and the willingness of communities to participate in working through solutions; °providing opportunities for landcare groups to participate in developing solutions that will become the basis for their involvement in implementation of a Regional program or project; °working with landcare groups to prioritise actions and negotiate co-funding and partnership arrangements for projects; and °establishing an ongoing communication network to keep landcare groups involved with activities in the Region.



The process established in NSW for implementation of the TCM program in that state incorporates most of these elements. The fact that TCM pre-dates landcare has meant that the process generally works well. This is in contrast to Queensland, where the ICM program post-dates landcare, resulting in some concerns by landcare groups that Catchment Coordinating Committees are an additional layer of resource management which interferes with their activities. Property management planning is being used by many projects as the first step towards development and implementation of a catchment management process which integrates landcare group and regional or catchment priorities. Where the process includes linkages between landholder priorities and catchment management priorities, this approach appears to be successful. Helping Community Groups Mature Understanding group dynamics and incorporating social science elements into a catchment management planning process appears to be a critical factor for sustainable success in integrated catchment management. Most of the activities reviewed had well developed processes for initiation and early development of community group structures. However, none of the activities reviewed had planned processes which enabled community groups to evolve and mature into independent, self determining institutions. Where there is very strong community leadership, this is starting to happen naturally - for example in the Blackwood, Liverpool Plains and Inverbrackie Creek (Mount Lofty Ranges) catchments. Where Bottom-Up Meets Top-Down In many projects reviewed there was confusion - by all stakeholders in the catchment - about how bottom-up consultation and community participation linked with top-down flows of policy and government investment. It is not clear whether the catchment management process should bring these elements together at a regional or a state level. The most successful activities reviewed used regional planning processes to integrate bottom-up and top-down elements of natural resource management, and this appears to be most appropriate for Australia. A process for integrating bottom-up and top-down elements helps overcome problems of the community not understanding the catchment concept. It also reduces the impact of political diversions. In most activities reviewed, short-term political and personality issues diverted attention of community leaders -especially in local government - from longer-term planning and implementation of catchment management activities. The process needs to avoid these dilemmas. Those activities which had successfully initiated a process for developing and reviewing plans for implementation - for example the Johnstone (Queensland) and Mount Lofty (SA) catchments - generally included a consultative committee



which integrated representatives from the catchment community, local government and government agencies. This appears to be an appropriate mechanism for integrating bottom-up and top-down elements. However, the success of this approach relies on members of the committee having sufficient authority within their organisation to implement the strategies planned and agreed by the committee. Committee members act as communication links between institutional and community groups in the catchment, and ensure that investment funds are being used properly. Several activities reviewed - especially the Mount Lofty Ranges Catchment Program - were structured in such a way to allow community groups to provide the detail for program components - thus allowing field activities within the framework to be determined and designed by community groups. One practical component of a process which integrates actions from different sections of the catchment community could be negotiation of contracts or agreements between landholders, technical services agencies, local government and public sector investment programs. Modifications of this approach have been tried by several activities reviewed with apparent success. Landholders appreciate the openness of this approach. A contractual process for cost sharing leads to open and sustainable co-financed management partnerships. There is an opportunity to develop a process which enables incorporated community groups to receive and account for integrated resource management investment funds from the Commonwealth directly - through co-financing partnerships. In this way such groups could combine their funds with Commonwealth funds (e.g. Huon Valley) to create a co-financed integrated resource management program which clearly allocates public and private responsibilities for resource management. Resource monitoring processes to evaluate progress and use of funds would also serve as field data for State of the Environment (SoE) reporting and similar natural resource accounting procedures. Integrating Economic Development and Ecological Management None of the activities reviewed included a process for integration of social, biodiversity conservation, and cultural attributes with natural resource management plans. This is especially relevant on Aboriginal land where there is a significant need for a process to integrate traditional Aboriginal resource management knowledge and technology with other natural resource management techniques. In most activities reviewed there was poor identification of linkages between community priorities and catchment management priorities, and poor integration of technical resources from production development agencies and environmental management agencies to develop innovative solutions to community and catchment management problems. This was emphasised in all



states by weak integration of soil conservation and land management activities with native vegetation rehabilitation and biodiversity conservation activities. This weakness is exacerbated by a lack of a marketing plan/communication process for promoting the benefits of catchment management activities. The size of the investment by the Commonwealth warrants more spending on publicity and communication to link economic development and ecological management. There is a need for wider community education of the issues involved and of the potential positive results from taking appropriate actions. 2.1.5 Institutional Structures Institutional Barriers Remain a Major Threat Institutional barriers and weaknesses were a common issue identified throughout the review of activities. Institutional barriers at Commonwealth, State, Local Government and community levels impacted on the successful implementation of catchment management activities. In all activities reviewed there was a conflict between the technical service provision and resource regulatory roles of government agencies. In most activities reviewed, poor communication between institutions led to weak integration of skills and activities to solve catchment management problems - especially in South Australia and Tasmania. This is exacerbated in most states by conflicting policy environments between production agencies - with a strong economic development and production focus - and Commonwealth programs (NLP, Save the Bush, One Billion Trees etc.). This conflict creates confusion and uncertainty amongst agency staff - a feeling which extends into catchment communities. There is a need for state agencies to return to a culture of providing services to the community rather than the current regulatory and administrative culture. Integrated catchment management provides a mechanism to do this but it is questionable whether this is sufficiently in the national interest to warrant Commonwealth investment. All activities reviewed demonstrated confusion and concern about the many different funding programs and application procedures linked with Commonwealth investment in natural resource management. Several activities had established institutional groups to act as brokers for different programs to integrate natural resource management plans across different portfolios and programs available to Aboriginal landholders. Institutional and economic reform in some states - especially Victoria - offers scope for more coordinated approach to whole catchment management. This, together with commitment to natural resource management, offers an opportunity for achieving successful outcomes.



Another common institutional difficulty relates to coordinating many different local governments within a catchment or region. Local Institutions Work Successful catchment institutions - for example the Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee, the Blackwood Catchment Management Committee, and the Huon Valley Catchment Committee - were all locally based, community focussed and supported by technical services agencies and local government. Several activities reviewed - for example the Johnstone and Mount Lofty Ranges Catchments - had established an independent catchment centre office located in the main shopping precinct of a major catchment town - away from state agencies and local authorities. This independence strengthened the institutional relationships between government and community groups and enhanced community ownership of catchment management activities. Multi-Disciplinary Teams Communication within and between government agencies remains a barrier -especially within and between state government agencies. In the Commonwealth, stronger and more formal linkages between DPIE and DEST would enhance the effectiveness of catchment management planning. An integrated catchment management process which includes multi-disciplinary teams to develop and implement solutions with community groups appears to overcome many of these problems at Commonwealth, State and regional levels. Activities reviewed which successfully integrated catchment management actions - for example the Mount Lofty Ranges Catchment Program, the Hunter Catchment Management Trust, and the Goulbourn Catchment - included a process for using multi-disciplinary teams to plan and implement resource management. This enabled normally exotic skills such as sociology and economics to be integrated with traditional skills such as soil science and agronomy. An integrated approach is more sustainable and cost effective than a comprehensive approach. On Aboriginal land, multi-disciplinary teams are required to integrate traditional Aboriginal land management technology with other resource management techniques in response to complex resource management problems and multiple use strategies which combine endemic and exotic resource use systems. Including Outsiders Some land uses - such as tourism - may have major impacts on catchment resources without having identifiable representatives who could participate in integrated catchment planning activities or contribute to implementation. Institutional arrangements must recognise the need to include all major resource users in the development and implementation of catchment management



activities. This is one way to ensure that rights to use natural resources are linked to responsibilities for natural resource management. New land uses (for example rural subdivision for alternative lifestyles, micro-industry) and socio-economic structures (for example semi-intensive rural living developments) will have different impacts on catchment resources - many of which are not within the skills or mandates of institutions currently working in catchment management programs. Including wider institutional representation - or ensuring that the integrated resource management process is sufficiently flexible to allow this - is important for the success of catchment management investments. Community Institutions Most landholders in the catchments reviewed are old - with limited time and energy for innovation and inadequate financial resources for change. This limits the resources available for planning and implementation of catchment management and significantly influences the outcomes from catchment management investments. In many activities reviewed there was dependence on one community member with strong and capable leadership skills - leaving projects and investment outcomes vulnerable without strategy for leadership succession. The threat of burnout by community volunteers involved in the catchment management process is very real. Small catchment communities with many common interests - for example in the Huon, Lower Mary (NT), and Finke catchments - appeared to have a greater likelihood of implementing successful outcomes than large and diverse catchment communities - for example in the Gippsland and Hunter catchments. In the larger catchments, institutional structures such as a Community Advisory Committee successfully formalises community participation and decision making role in catchment management programs. In many of the activities reviewed, landholders had poor land management skills. This problem was compounded by technical services agency staff having narrow specialisations - without the breadth of understanding to identify linkages between landholder priorities and catchment management priorities. 2.1.6 Outcomes / Products Plan for Action and Success The lack of tangible, or perceived, natural resource management benefits from the significant investment in catchment management activities was a common issue identified throughout the review of activities. The reasons for this include the scale of activities relative to the landscape as a whole, and the time for tangible change to appear.



In most of the activities reviewed, a reluctance on the part of state and local government agencies to use existing legislation and planning regulations to complement investment in catchment management actions weakened the outcomes or products from catchment management programs. This issue is exacerbated by many agencies and catchment committees seeing the catchment management plan as the end product rather than part of a process for integrated environmental management. Commonwealth investments need to emphasise what returns are expected from that contribution to the costs of planning and implementing resource management projects. Benefits which the Commonwealth should expect from its share of investment in catchment management include:-

°wide demonstration and extension of proven results from research conducted by national research and development corporations; °implementation of resource management activities by the critical mass of participants required to obtain an economic response to a particular land management problem in each catchment; and °institutionalisation of a resource planning and management process which involves implementation of activities to solve priority problems identified and ranked in annual plans.

The linkage between plans and actions has been achieved in several activities reviewed - for example the Johnstone and Liverpool Plains Catchments - by developing catchment management plans further to become Best Management Practice Guidelines or Codes of Practice for key issues in each catchment. Regional economic development based on sustainable natural resource management was the most common product sought from integrated resource management activities by participants in activities reviewed. Bighting the Bullet One of the most significant and consistent failures which limited the returns to Commonwealth investment in integrated resource management was the lack of political will to convert from a frontier development to sustainable economic approach to management of catchment resources. This not only frustrates the commitment of community groups and agency staff but sends conflicting messages to decision makers throughout institutions and communities in each catchment. The Commonwealth, as investor, has the right to protect its funds by ensuring that the investment environment is likely to result in the outcomes and products which the funds are intended to produce. If the risk of these benefits not being realised is high then the investment should be questioned. Investment risk assessment and management need to be addressed by community and catchment management groups in order to reduce uncertainties which exist about continuation of Commonwealth investments.



The implementation of contractual arrangements between the Commonwealth, state and regional institutions provides a means of creating the institutional and social environment required to achieve successful investment outcomes. This could include conditions and accountabilities tied to continuation of Commonwealth co-financing. This is a complex matter which is constrained by the Constitution and other legal issues. However, the concept of a contractual arrangement to protect the outcomes from Commonwealth investment is the core of the strategy to enhance the effectiveness of catchment management planning. Any extension to the National Landcare Program needs to establish the methodology to achieve greater accountabilities and rigour to the provision of funds to Regional ICM Committees. The Commonwealth has the right to protect its investment in this way. Future applications for funding from Regional ICM Committees should be developed in the form of a Natural Resource Management Investment Prospectus, inviting investment from Commonwealth and other sources to contribute to the proposed project. This in itself would require a higher level of rigour in development of the proposal including cost benefit analysis, detailed identification of outcomes, processes for evaluation of progress, co-funding arrangements and details of the capabilities of the parties to achieve results. This action would go a long way to create confidence by communities and agency staff, commitment from Commonwealth and State Governments, and a higher level of credibility from the central government agencies e.g Treasury, for the National Landcare Program. Confusing National and Private Interests In other activities - for example the Hunter Catchment Management Trust -there was confusion between disaster management products (flood mitigation) and natural resource management products. Commonwealth investments should target national interests such as integrated resource management rather than local and private interests such as flood mitigation. The framework for Commonwealth investment in catchment management should clearly focus on implementation of activities which lead to social benefits. These benefits will include:-

°sustainable use of natural resources to maintain the productive capacity of the national resource capital; °integration of sustainable production systems with conservation of biodiversity; °consideration of inter-generational and Aboriginal equity; and °efficient allocation of resources to optimise national interests.



2.2 KEY POLICY ISSUES The review of resource management policies is detailed in Annex A. Common strengths and weaknesses which occur across States have been extracted from the policy review findings and form the basis of this section. 2.2.1 The Products of Integrated Resource Management The Policy Review found that integrated resource management is perceived to have demonstrable products, but that these products need to be able to be identified by communities more clearly than occurs at present. The study found that the benefits of integrated resource management activities (the result of best management practices) should be Yshowcased, to demonstrate to any State's communities what had been achieved from using an integrated resource management approach. Neither small nor large integrated bureaucratic structures affected the identification of integrated resource management products, nor the ability to produce effective integrated resource management outcomes. Products such as improved quality and quantity of natural resource products, improved understanding of catchment processes, local ownership of the monitoring of catchment condition, and the reduced frequency of ad hoc decision-making in natural resources management were identified. Australians have different perceptions of what products result from integrated resource management. While some see integrated resource management as a planning tool, and therefore limited in effect, others see it as a process which will bring about profound changes in land use leading to ecologically sustainable development. Regional Development The Policy Review found that integrated resource management should be linked more closely to regional economic development initiatives at the State and local government planning level. Planning links between integrated resource management and regional economic development are not well established, and this remains as a fundamental challenge for integrated resource management across the nation. There was considerable confusion about what integrated resource management really is, and this needs to be clarified immediately. Many respondents maintained that the focus of integrated resource management should be on regional sustainability initiatives, the development of guidelines to implement these initiatives and methods to achieve compliance. Integrated resource management should be used to develop regional strategies between catchments, not just within them, and to link integrated resource management to other government policies, for example tourism policy.



Integrated resource management was found to ignore the role of industries and business in rural catchments and consequently marginalised their impact on environmental quality and their potential contributions to the process. The links between integrated resource management and regional economic development have the potential to enhance agricultural production and regional processing. It was suggested that the National Landcare Program should provide funds directly to regions for regional resource management activities that are linked to regional development initiatives. There is potential at present to introduce integrated resource management processes into local government planning. More money will have to be spent on issues of a broader catchment nature to capture and hold the interest of local government. The role of local government was a consistent concern expressed by all participants in the review. Ecologically Sustainable Development Policies reviewed do not make linkages between economic development and ecological management. The policy review found that Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) principles have been given only limited recognition in integrated resource management in Australia. This is partly because of poor communication and collaboration between Commonwealth portfolios - especially DEST and DPIE. It is also partly because ESD has been sold as part of the green agenda, rather than something which has benefits for all Australians. The integrated resource management process is an effective tool for the implementation of ESD initiatives. It appears that there is limited understanding of how ESD approaches could be implemented at the river basin, subcatchment or bioregional level, although many participants - especially resource users and landholders - thought that an ESD approach was useful. Integrated resource management policy development effectively ignores, or at best is not linked to, other state and federal based ESD initiatives. ESD initiatives were perceived by some state agency professionals to be an issue of international significance which was irrelevant to the operation of natural resource management activities at the regional level or below. There was a strong perception by state agency staff that an ESD approach to integrated resource management would not work, because it was yet to be shown how financially viable an ESD approach would be in specific integrated resource management activities. This view was rarely shared by landholders and community participants who had a more flexible, and perhaps less academic understanding of ecologically sustainable development. The study also found that spatial/contextual issues were important to integrated resource management implementation. Participants consistently saw this approach as relevant for bio-regional, river basin, or large catchment resource management. It was not seen as appropriate for single landcare groups or enterprises, although the activities they implement were seen to ideally fit into integrated regional plans. There was common agreement that a bioregional



approach was more effective than a catchment or river basin approach in the arid zone and extensive pastoral areas. Integrated resource management policy development effectively ignores other state and federal based environmental policy development, such as ecologically sustainable development initiatives. There is a clear lack of ecosystem-based management in the current integrated resource management process. There is a need for institutional processes to make integrated resource management more accountable to national and international initiatives in ESD. The current NLP program does not consider other state and federal based nature conservation and environmental policies such as ecologically sustainable development initiatives. Yet many of the current NLP programs and activities contribute to and create an accidental habitat that does favour a particular species of flora or fauna. The NLP provides an additional opportunity to implement ecosystem based management practices as a component of the integrated resource management process. These practices may include simple actions like species selection for a target fauna, timing of grazing management and corridor connections as part of a production orientated natural resource project for example the management of water tables and salinity. What appears to be lacking in current NLP activities is information and advice to landowners that will enhance opportunities to integrate nature conservation values with production. Part of the reason for this is that mechanisms have yet to be developed across Australia to demonstrate how ecologically sustainable development can be linked in integrated resource management, and shown to be profitable. The need exists to develop institutional processes to make integrated resource management more accountable at the State and local government levels to national and international initiatives in ESD. 2.2.2 Establishing Accountability The Policy Review found that the majority of the States saw the need to establish a higher level of accountability for the National Landcare Program (NLP), and an alternate approach to the allocation of funds through the NLP. The preferred approach was based on the establishment of a Regional Natural Resource Management Plan - one that has been developed, negotiated and endorsed through a community consultation process where:-

°outcomes to be achieved had been identified; °priorities for investment and implementation were set; °agreed cost sharing arrangements had been developed; °sources of investment had been identified; and °reporting and monitoring mechanisms determined.



Commonwealth funds should be allocated according to an agreed framework of investment priorities into which regional and local priorities can be integrated. Those elements of a Regional Natural Resource Management Plan which coincide with Commonwealth investment priorities would be eligible for co-financing from the Federal budget. Partnership Agreements The Policy Review suggests that future allocation of NLP funding needs to focus more on negotiating Partnership Agreements that are based on a Regional Natural Resource Management Plan or a similar document. The Agreement would provide clear identification of the priorities, actions, contributions, responsibilities, cost sharing arrangements and accountabilities for performance measurement. A process must be developed that allows for negotiation of a Contract between the Commonwealth and a Region. This may require the Regional Organisation to incorporate so that it will have legal status to enter into contracts and have full audit accountability and legal responsibilities. Partnership Agreements also should identify requirements, in project contracts, for agreed outcomes or objectives such as the contribution to achieving sustainable agriculture, healthy rivers, water quality etc. to be defined in qualitative terms. Partnership Agreements could also be established between a Regional Organisation and a local authority, government agency, community group or contractor to provide a service. These Agreements would provide a level of flexibility through negotiation for the provision of services or products in a more cost effective and efficient ways than the present requirement of going through State Government Agencies. Guidelines need to be developed on these issues. Establishing Reporting Frameworks The Policy Review found that reporting frameworks need to be developed. These should include an assessment of the cost of the community and private benefits of the NLP funds, and the cost sharing arrangements to achieve credibility for the process and accountability for the expenditure. Communities and State Governments need to be informed of the progress and the benefits that would be achieved through the NLP programs against the objectives of the Regional Plan. These outcomes must be presented in a manner that the community can relate to. Many Agencies see this requirement as being an essential component of future reports in order to maintain the continued support from State Governments for funding and the ongoing commitment from the community. The Commonwealth should establish a set of contractually based reporting requirements for its investments, as an essential component of future NLP funding programs. Structuring these requirements provides opportunities to:-



°increase local accountabilities and analysis of performance; °provide information that will facilitate publicity and communication of successes; and °allow for Regional assessments of the effectiveness of resource management investments and activities.

There is a need to establish procedures for random audits as part of the reporting framework. Annual Reporting Annual Reporting of activities and achievements should become a statutory requirement of Regional Natural Resource Management Committees or Boards that receive direct funding through the NLP. The Annual Report should report on the performance of the Committee or Board in implementing the programs against the objectives of the Regional Plan, an assessment of the condition of the natural resources of the Region, and the results of monitoring key environmental indicators of catchment condition, as part of the accountability process to Government and the community. This approach was echoed in calls for more effective State of the Environment Reporting discussed in the Ecological/Economics Processes component of this report (see page 33). Setting State Priorities Participants in this study believed that each State needed to establish a Natural Resource Coordinating Council or equivalent institution for integrating state and regional priorities and responses for natural resource management. This Council should have the responsibility to determine the State priorities for NLP funding to Regions and to determine the cost sharing arrangements of State funds to implement Regional priority programs. In many States this coordinating mechanism is not well established and is seen to lack the ability to set priorities that are adhered to by individual agencies. The Commonwealth is seen to be in a strong position to require State Governments to provide a credible mechanism for coordination that overrides the territorial arguments that continue to prevail at the State level. A Natural Resource Coordinating Council in each State would be required to approve the Regional Natural Resource Management Plan or equivalent, prior any negotiation of a partnership agreement for funding under the NLP. Participants in this study believed that each State requires an effective Natural Resource Coordinating Council or equivalent institution to be established for integrating state and regional priorities and to report to Cabinet or a Ministerial Council. This action is considered essential to overcome the territorial problems that continue at the Ministerial and Agency levels. Membership needs to clearly represent:-

°private and public interests in natural resource use;



°different interests relating to single use and multiple-use of resources; and °the interests of internalising external costs of resource degradation.

Individuals from Agencies consider that the key factor for the success of a Natural Resource Coordinating Council is to either report to a Premier or to Cabinet to gain cross-portfolio commitment and support to implement integrated natural resource management policies and programs. The preferred membership of a Natural Resource Coordinating Committee is seen to comprise individuals, from both government and community institutions, who possess the experience, skills and knowledge that are based on a direct involvement in natural resources management. Representation is desirable from Government institutions responsible for natural resource production (agriculture, forestry and mining); conservation and natural resources (crown lands, pest plants and animals, fauna and flora conservation, and land management); and natural resource management research. The critical need is for strong leadership and direction with the capacity undertake a critical evaluation of the outcome of project achievements. This approach has been successfully developed for soil resource management in South Australia under the Soil Conservation and Landcare Act (SA, 1989) where regional Soil Boards prepare District Soil Conservation Plans. These plans identify priorities and strategies and are ratified by the State Minister through a central Soil Conservation Council. A similar, but better integrated, approach has recently been introduced into Victoria through the Catchment and Land Protection Act (Vic., 1994). 2.2.3 Finance The lack of resource economic analysis in determining priorities and the resource management benefits of integrated resource management proposals is an issue that needs to be addressed to bring credibility to the fund allocation procedures that have been established. This issue is discussed further in Section 4 below. Assessment of Project Costs and Benefits State Agencies identify the need for an assessment process of the Regional value of the project against the cost to the NLP. This assessment needs to be linked to regional development needs by providing greater security to the natural resource base, the opportunity to improving water quality and the condition of the catchment, reducing the future cost to the community by implementing a project that protects a resource or facility and the contribution to the social welfare and health of the community. The application of cost benefit analysis was identified as desirable to assist in the priority setting process. Similarly the identification of the cost sharing arrangements of project proposals is seen a means to provide leverage in



determining priorities and to secure a higher level of community commitment to projects. Ongoing Financial Arrangements State Agencies demonstrated a lack of confidence in confirming ongoing funding commitments to proposals that have a State component for cost sharing in NLP projects. There is a need for funding sources to be provided by way of a 3 year rolling budget commitment, to provide better planning and establish confidence that both the Commonwealth and the State Governments will continue to invest in natural resource management. The provision of indicative budgets to resource management is seen as being absolutely essential to allow for forward planning and negotiation of cost sharing arrangements. There were significant concerns that State Governments will continue to reduce their level of commitment to direct funding of resource management programs. Many identified the need to secure the allocation of funds on the basis of a Cost Sharing Agreement between the Commonwealth and State Governments, and other funding sources with a Regional Natural Resource Management Committee or Board, for the implementation of priority programs or projects. Securing a sustainable funding commitment from State and Commonwealth Governments is a major factor in providing confidence to other, non-government, partners who intend to invest in a project. Direct Funding of Regional Plans A key issue of the Project Review was the need to establish a process for the direct allocation of funds for field activities in those Regions that have completed a Regional Natural Resource Management Plan. These plans would provide the basis for an Agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the State Government for the future allocation of NLP funds directly to the implementation of priority programs that are identified in each Regional Plan. 2.2.4 Institutional Structures and Integration Integration There is an urgent need to focus on procedural research of the integrated resource management process. Several participants in the policy review expressed concern that while we are at the beginnings of conceptualising what integrated resource management means in land management and environmental terms, we are far from understanding the operation of the human decision making system. We see this system as including everyone from the individual farmer to representatives of Commonwealth agencies. Unless such organisational studies are undertaken and as a result strategies derived we fear for the sustainability of integrated resource management as a working concept.



Difficulties are experienced in developing broader integrated natural resource management plans due to institutional barriers in the States. The Mount Lofty Ranges Catchment Program is seen as a model for development across agencies. This program has achieved widespread community participation in planning, co-financing of activities, cooperation between agencies, and the integration of natural resource management plans. The program has a relatively poor implementation record for the scale of investment, but it is premature to evaluate these outcomes in a program which is only 9 months old. There is significant evidence of territorial disputes and poor cooperation between the various agency professionals, Boards and Councils and this continues to threaten the existence of integrated resource management in most States of Australia. Integrated resource management can provide a forum for planning, a forum that has political authority as it is endorsed by communities and demonstrates the development of ideas and planning actions on an interagency basis. However, there are not the resources to carry out the actions that are often developed. Participants in this study expressed support for a community-based chairperson driving integrated resource management in each State, and avoiding one agency in command. Disagreement exists between agencies about how integrated resource management should proceed. Some agency staff perceive integrated resource management as an overarching framework within which agencies develop their own programs. Other agency professionals see one state agency as setting the rules and standards (for environmental protection) under which other agencies work. This approach is yet to be proven to be effective in both Tasmania and New South Wales. There is the need to have more integration of Commonwealth funding initiatives (DEST, DEET, ATSIC, DPIE) for integrated resource management. These initiatives will drive the process of catchment management. Integrated Resource Management and Landcare There was broad agreement amongst participants in this Policy Review that integrated resource management was seen as a coordinated approach between and within governments and communities. The Landcare Movement is seen as the vehicle through which integrated resource management actions are implemented. Integrated Resource Management comprises a suite of project proposals aimed at addressing the range of environmental issues that are of concern to the Community. Landcare is the implementation process of Integrated Resource Management. Integrated Resource Management gives Landcare an overall, strategic catchment management direction, the focus for coordination of activities and an ongoing participatory management role.



Interagency Cooperation While integrated approaches are seen as being paramount, there is little evidence of an integration between agencies at the policy and planning level. Jurisdictional influences colour the perception of integrated resource management (integrated resource management) in some States. However, there are many individuals within organisations who are committed to interagency cooperation. Both formal and informal relationships are essential for integrated resource management. They could be strengthened by legislation appropriate to the socio-political context of each State.



Trusts The role of catchment or resource management trusts is yet to be realised in Australia. Trusts would allow less political interference in catchment management committees, allow for democratic representation, and provide a regional funding basis for catchment management. Trusts could also provide opportunities to promote regional land and water management planning by closer involvement with local government. The Catchment Management Trusts and Rural Lands Protection Boards in New South Wales provide experience of an independent resource management institutions which have the ability to raise funds from the catchment community and integrate the resources of state and local government agencies. Local Government Participants in the Policy Review constantly referred to the major problems that exist in the integration of resource management with the planning and land management activities of Local Government. Current integrated resource management structures can be used by local government to enhance local planning, but they are rarely used. Local government provides substantial opportunities to develop regional resource management initiatives, whether they be based on river basins, as in the New Zealand experience, or on bioregions. The Commonwealth should set up guidelines to enable local government to take on the role of regional integrated resource management. Legislation The use of legislation to provide a framework for integrated resource management was perceived differently by participants. Those who had a legislative backup were pleased with its use; agency staff who worked without integrated resource management legislation feared its use. Where there is no legislation to back up integrated resource management, the process could be hijacked with non-supportive political influences than those prevailing at present. Integrated resource management is gaining bipartisan political support in some Australian states. In Queensland, Integrated Catchment Management is a political initiative and often lacks local ownership, particularly in large cities such as Brisbane. City council and regional planning processes can easily override integrated catchment management initiatives, for the former have a statutory base. In Tasmania there is no natural resource management legislation which relates to soil, water and landcare. The institutional and community difficulties which this presents increases the risks of poor returns from national investments in natural resource management in that state. However, the lack of legislative



processes also provides an opportunity which enables innovative industry and community groups to integrated their resources with those of state and local government agencies. This is happening in the Huon Valley Catchment, for example, and provides an ideal environment for national investment in natural resource management. State legislation should provide for an overriding management group, for example a Natural Resources Council, and provide requirements for agency cooperation, to establish policies and direction for integrated resource management and the preparation of Regional Plans. Successful examples of such legislation include the Soil Conservation and Landcare Act (SA, 1989), the Catchment and Land Protection Act (Vic., 1994), and the Natural Resource Management Act (NZ, 1991). These legislative instruments provide an environment which enables better outcomes for Commonwealth investment. South Australia has enacted legislation that provides for the comprehensive management of individual natural resources with no positive requirement for integration or coordination. This on the other hand has created a weakness in achieving integrated resource management as a positive outcome from the legislation. The misunderstanding of what catchment management is continues to threaten integrated resource management. It is often seen as government trying to control private land. While the potential exists to use integrated resource management as a negotiating process, regulation may have to be used to make some States comply with international environmental policies and laws. The Victorian Catchment and Land Protection Act (Vic., 1994) is a legislative model which skilfully integrates regional interests, community participation, resource management, priority setting, and investment strategies. 2.2.5 Process Linkages for Implementing Integrated Resource Management The implementation of integrated resource management depends on designing the planning procedures that recognise the complexity of the resource management issues under study. This is done by recognising the impediments to implementation that exist under current institutional arrangements and amongst resource users, and developing ways to overcome these impediments. Research is needed to identify impediments to the implementation of an integrated resource management approach. Stakeholder involvement has redefined the way natural resource management "goes about its business". It was found in this Policy Review that stakeholder involvement has been a most valuable process, but the building of new links between government and communities, and within government at all levels has created new problems. It has yet to be demonstrated what environmental benefits these linkages have produced.



Participants in this study stated that integrated resource management makes government more answerable to the community than previous arrangements. Long-term partnerships between government and communities have already been shown to avoid duplication, improve coordination and allow controlled confrontation. Effective linkages are most likely to occur when there is a high quality of leadership skills, useful technical knowledge, committed, motivated and effective committee members, effective local government links, and a strong planning emphasis. Participants sought stronger agency commitment to regional integrated resource management, by allocating more financial resources directly to regional committees. Specifically, more integrated resource management facilitators and funds for works are needed on the ground. Government funding sources, their availability and allocation need to be transparent, and address equity issues amongst recipients. Given the program funding cycles adopted by the Commonwealth, many participants suggested that the resource planning process needed to include a three year rolling funding program to provide a dynamic, but ongoing, commitment to integrated resource management. The New Zealand approach to regional resource management was seen to offer strong opportunities for integrated resource management in Australia. This allows links between regional resource management and government to be formally made. In this context, there should be a sensitively developed, clearly articulated role for local government in integrated resource management, and implementation of integrated resource management activities and works. The new Victorian legislation effectively combines the South Australian and New Zealand approaches in a model which seems well suited to the Australian context. Representativeness of community groups remains a major problem, and there is the need to develop strategies to improve the selection process for regional community committees. We found that the experience of Agencies favoured the use of grass roots driven approaches to win the support of individuals as being the most effective mechanism. Landholders generally were defensive and unwilling to consider integrated resource management planning mechanisms. However where the approach was voluntary, i.e. landholder driven, significant benefits were achieved and attitudinal changes emerged which secured their involvement and participation in the plan. Perceptions of the Integrated Resource Management Process Integrated resource management is a process that has stimulated and been dependent on community participation. This has been one of its most strident successes. Across Australia, there is a growing awareness of how much can be achieved if community participation processes work. The demand for technical



assistance and administrative support by the community often exceeds the ability of agencies to meet requests. The most effective integrated resource management process is one where local land and water management programs have been developed by local communities. Agency staff believe that integrated resource management must get the process for a proper assessment of projects right. The process must include priority setting of strategies that has community ownership, agreed objectives and outcomes. Several identified that there were three client groups to be satisfied in establishing the priority allocations. These were landowners/managers, the Agency staff and the political needs of the Region. There were many agreed important relationships between farm level practices and their resultant effect on environmental indicators which have not been investigated sufficiently from either vantage point. Leaders in the farming community need to know that the practices they are promoting among their colleagues can be demonstrably linked to specific outcomes. The link between farmer practices and observable outcome needs substantial tightening. The state assessment process for National Landcare Funds in its present form is an area which consumes an enormous amount of community time with small outcomes for the effort applied. There is an opinion that this process must be changed and that new funding arrangements be developed that is based on allocation of funds to priority actions identified in the regional integrated resource management plans. One strategy, used successfully by the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, is to allocate Commonwealth investment in blocks of funds to large projects which are managed, against an output based contract, by regional groups. Commitment of investment to long-term, regional projects would require less investment management and allow catchment management activities to be implemented with some confidence. Longer-term, and larger scale, investments are the most effective way of maximising the amount of Commonwealth investment which results in social benefits from activities on the ground. Communities perceive that the greatest threat to the integrated resource management process comes from political indecision, or interference, and lack of recognition of community values in natural resource management issues. Regional institutions and landcare groups need to be acknowledged as the lead agencies for implementation and co-management partnerships. This will then place the emphasis of responsibility for actions with the community, rather than with Commonwealth funding. It enables Commonwealth investment to be the additional resources realised through co-financing arrangements - rather than the core source of funds.



Integrated resource management initiatives across Australia have the proven ability to change community attitudes to the management of the environment. Community education (from schools to adult learning processes) is needed to improve the business management skills of integrated resource management administrators, so as to reduce future costs, improve efficiencies in resource utilisation, establish a commitment to sustainable management of natural resources and reduce environmental impacts. The need to develop skills in resource managers and develop integrated / holistic thinking is critical. There is the need to develop training courses in integrated resource management for middle management in natural resource management agencies. There is a profound lack of understanding, even a misunderstanding, about community empowerment by both government and communities. The National Landcare Program provides the means to link resources of Governments with all stakeholders that are involved in a particular project. Significant opportunities are provided to community groups to increase their effectiveness and responsiveness through this process. Community groups become well positioned to achieve a higher level of effectiveness in the application of resources available to them and to attract additional resources and achieve greater outcomes through their activities. Group participation activities have significantly leveraged the investment provided by governments and have driven projects to achieve higher levels of community commitments through their energy, enthusiasm and demonstration of practical results. The current problem is that Commonwealth investment is seen as the catalyst, without which community investment will not be forthcoming. The challenge for any extension of the National Landcare Program is to change the relationship, so that the Commonwealth is seen as a co-financier in community led and generated projects which fit within a framework of Commonwealth natural resource management priorities. The critical issue is not discovering best management practices for a catchment, but enhancing the adoption of those practices. A "codes of practice" approach would be beneficial. The use of technical support and the identification of codes of practice by individuals has greatly accelerated private adoption of these practices in private forestry in Tasmania. This has national implications on how integrated resource management should take place. Linkages Between Ecological and Economic Processes Little attention is being paid to measure the incremental ecological and economic gains made by the adoption of integrated resource management initiatives. Analysing the effectiveness of integrated resource management is done through Decade of Landcare reporting. This reports activity in the formation of Landcare groups and reports their activities, but ignores ecological and economic



assessment. There is also a lack of social impact assessment of integrated resource management activities, despite the substantial technical information available. Farm business and profitability must be included in the process of integrated resource management. More work is needed on farm financial assessment and in regional economic assessment of integrated resource management planning. Economic assessment of integrated resource management must be used to address the implications in terms of impacts and solutions, to farms, regions and the nation. There is an urgent need for a more thorough application of the use of a range of economic instruments in integrated resource management. The use of market mechanisms in integrated resource management processes has not been realised. Many Resource Economists maintain that the scope for using market mechanisms is substantial, provided that there is a clear definition of property rights, in a catchment situation. Much work needs to be done to develop and test alternative arrangements for the various problems requiring action. However, enough is known to establish some examples and get on with testing the theory. For example, water allocation - between urban, industrial, agricultural, and ecological uses - is highly amenable to market mechanisms. Recreational water resource users need to be able to bid for water rights (e.g. in-stream flow for anglers and boat owners, or wet lands flow for hunters) along with industrial, agricultural, and urban users. The cost of water should include the full cost of extraction, treatment, reticulation, wastewater return, effluent treatment, and water return. Water utilities and river management authorities provide vehicles for implementing market mechanisms, so long as they have clearly established criteria for:-

°charging for water supply and effluent management; °managing water quality; °monitoring water quantity and quality; and °internalising all external costs associated with the extraction, supply, and treatment of water and waste water.

Ultimately, market mechanisms need to grapple with the proposition that questions of sustainability, or more precisely, the great unknown involved in claims on ecosystems, call for the creation of rights which intentionally restrict the operation of markets for reasons other than those traditionally recognised by neo-classical economic theory. The creation of such rights, which needs to be preceded by the formulation of shared values which enable the concerns raised by such uncertainties to be addressed, requires the entailment of appropriate mechanisms for social choice. Such mechanisms need to be robust, equitable and just and their identification probably calls for contributions from others beside ecologists and economists. In this value laden context, in order for progress to be made recourse would seem to



be necessary to disciplines concerned with values, their formation and the resolution of conflict between them. In this report, we urge further attention to research into mechanisms to create such rights and mechanisms across catchments or bioregions. There is an opportunity to develop integrated regional models that identify drivers of landscape and land use change. Once identified, these drivers may help develop policies and programs to enhance the adoption of sustainable management practices. Landscape characteristics are the result of past and present land use practices. Landscape characteristics - such as fragmentation, connectivity, spatial dynamics, and the degree of dominance by habitat types - are influenced by market processes, human institutions, and landowner knowledge, as well as ecological and biophysical processes. Models can be used to explain this interaction and assist in the formation of integrated land and water management policies and programs.



This approach to modelling integrates ecological processes and human decision behaviour in such a way as to predict impacts on landscapes. This approach to explain social/economic/ecological/biophysical interactions includes models that simulate:-

°land use changes that alter landscape patterns; °the effects of landscape pattern on resource supplies; and °dynamic interactions involving possible feedback processes that can alter land uses and landscape patterns.

The theoretical basis of models frustrates many users, and limits their practical application. An alternative approach is to use the vast number of catchment management projects and programs across Australia as the basis for identifying policies and plans which enhance the effectiveness of catchment management -and those which do not. This is one of the key benefits of an extensive project monitoring program associated with Commonwealth investment - it enables the investor to identify those strategies and activities which give the best social benefits. Processes for integrated resources management need to develop strategic links between planning for regional economic development and ecologically sustainable development. These two processes appear to be operating disparately in Australia. An effective link would be one that:-

°recognises the existence of regional and State level planning processes and mechanisms within and between agencies; °establishes regional economic goals; °establishes regional resource management and biodiversity goals; °develops coordinating mechanisms between current planning mechanisms; and °establishes new regional planning processes and organisations, with a strong regional financial basis, to enact regional sustainable resource management and economic development.

While economic assessment in integrated resource management is lacking, so too is any real consideration of the valuation of non-market aspects of integrated resource management. Catchment management not only produces benefits for sustainable production but also presumably, environmental and amenity benefits. These need to be included in any evaluation as to the benefits of integrated resource management. The concept of public goods has not been clearly developed to justify public sector investment in catchment planning and management.



There are several equity issues which are emerging in this field. These include things as diverse as:-

°funds for "late starter" community groups in a static funding environment; °obligations of ongoing support to well established groups; and °urban/rural equity issues in the context of costs and benefits.

The concept of equity has been largely ignored. Performance indicators and ecological monitoring are yet to be developed for integrated resource management. The WEBM (Wilderness Ecosystem Baseline Monitoring) approach would be useful in this regard, using indicator species of the health of ecosystems in catchments. This approach recognises that certain life forms can only survive in healthy catchments (e.g. certain frog and fish species); or are characteristic of degraded catchments (e.g. certain anaerobic organisms, detritus feeders, and algae). Recent work completed for the NLP by the Land Management Society of Western Australia and AACM International provide a useful starting point for integration of resource monitoring into farm management plans for on-farm monitoring. An integrated resource management, rather than a catchment management, based approach would be more useful as it addresses bioregional issues more effectively, especially in the drier parts of Australia (i.e. almost everywhere west of the Great Dividing Range).



3. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Based on the outcomes of the implementation activity and policy reviews, a series of guiding principles have been identified which succinctly define the critical factors for successful integrated resource management. These are developed further in the discussion of options for change in Section 4.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES for successful integrated resource management

CLEAR INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK A national Integrated Resource Management Investment Strategy, based on resource economics, which clearly establishes priorities for Commonwealth and State investment in natural resource management as a framework for regional resource management planning activities.

CYCLICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROCESS A cyclical approach to planning which uses rolling renewal of programs to allow dynamic responses to changing priorities and community perceptions whilst demonstrating a long-term commitment to integrated resource management.

COST SHARING FOR CO-MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIPS Clear co-financing of resource management activities on the land to establish a strong foundation for co-management partnerships between government and individuals. Use of resource economics to allocate public and private costs and benefits for different resource management activities.

CONTRACT FOR ACTION Contracts - between incorporated community groups and landholders, technical services agencies, local government and public sector investment programs - lead to open and sustainable co-financed management partnerships. Contracts would involve the development of appropriate cost-sharing, co-financing and co-management arrangements.

MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAM APPROACH Multi-disciplinary teams provide a means of integrating different skills, and establishing working relationships and communication between and within different government agencies. This approach integrates institutions horizontally and vertically.

STRENGTHEN WITH LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS A legislative framework is required to strengthen and formalise the process for coordination and management of resource management investments. It also provides a mechanism of last resort for minimising risks affecting outcomes expected from Commonwealth investments in integrated resource management.

4. OPTIONS FOR CHANGE

The following options for change have been identified from the review of catchment planning policies and activities across Australia. The options are presented in a generic form in this interim report to encourage debate and comment from the resource management community. These options provide a set of opportunities which are the elements for evolutionary change. In the short-term - within the next 3 years - there are opportunities to implement:-



°priority planning and investment framework processes; °linkages between regional economic development and integrated resource management; °co-financed catchment management partnerships; and °a contractual basis for Commonwealth co-finance investment in integrated resource management.

In the medium-term - within the next 10 years - there are opportunities to introduce:-

°regional financial management and program administration systems; and °market based systems for resource allocation and valuation.

Investment Strategy to Achieve National Interests There is an opportunity to develop a national Integrated Resource Management Investment Strategy to establish a framework for public sector investment in natural resource management. The strategy would ideally:-

°be developed through an on-going process which included community, local government and state agency consultation; °have an effective period of three years - to fit budget and government cycles; °identify and give priority ranking to problems and solutions which would receive national investment support during the life of the investment strategy; °identify the split between public and private benefits for each component as a guide for co-financing cost sharing arrangements between regional groups and the Commonwealth; °state the national interest outcomes expected to result from the investments; °identify independently verifiable indicators for the evaluation of outcomes; and °outline the mechanism to account for national investment received.

It is proposed that these strategies would cross portfolio boundaries to allow for effective integration, but recognise likely funding allocations for various program outcomes. For example, an integrated resource management investment strategy might identify sustainable management of Aboriginal land as an investment priority. This might include soil conservation components (perhaps funded through NLP/DPIE), training and community development components (perhaps funded through ATSIC), biodiversity conservation components (perhaps funded through ANCA/DEST), and employment and work skill components (perhaps funded through DEET). In addition there may be enterprise and community development components which may be funded by the Aboriginal community or Land Council directly. Similarly, in other regions co-funding arrangements could include local government and individual beneficiaries.



Integrated resource management investment strategies would include regional socio-economic and ecological variations and would focus on activities at a river basin or regional scale. Define a Process for Investment in Integrated Resource Management There is a need for Commonwealth investment in integrated resource management - across all portfolios - to be clearly linked to a process which links the philosophy of integration with products which meet national and regional needs. The process needs to be clearly defined and sufficiently generic to be applicable across Australia. While there is general agreement in Australia on the philosophy and products of integrated resource management, there is both confusion, ignorance and uncertainty of how an integrated resource management process should be put into practice. A set of guiding principles is useful, but what would be of more use is the development of core processes - a set of best management practice guidelines for integrated resource management be developed. We suggest that this should be developed at scales no smaller than river basins or bioregions as developed by the appropriate Commonwealth agencies. There is an opportunity to develop a sustainable process with the following core elements:-

°clear identification of an investment framework which uses resource economics and national policies to define national resource management interests - across all portfolios - over a three year planning horizon; °a cyclical approach to planning which uses rolling renewal of programs to allow dynamic responses to changing priorities and community perceptions, whilst demonstrating a long-term commitment to integrated resource management; °broad allocation of public and private responsibilities for each component of the investment strategy; °integration of national investment priorities and regional needs, by regional institutions and local communities, through planning of detailed resource management activities (for example in regional land and water management plans) within the national priority and co-financing framework; °allocation of national funds directly to regional groups according to co-management partnership agreements confirmed in writing between Commonwealth and regional authorities; °allocation of responsibilities for implementation in co-management partnership agreements; °monitoring of implementation activities according to agreed evaluation indicators relevant to each component of the investment strategy; and



°annual reporting of progress, lessons learned, and regional resource conditions for integration with national State of the Environment reporting activities.

Some of these elements already exist at Commonwealth or State levels but they are not integrated across portfolios and there is not a formal framework which clearly outlines the national interest as a guide for regional communities. Invest in a Contract System There is an opportunity to develop a process which enables incorporated community groups to receive and account for national integrated resource management investment directly from the Commonwealth. In this way such groups could combine their funds with Commonwealth funds to create a co-financed integrated resource management program which clearly allocates public and private responsibilities for resource management. One practical component of the proposed process could be negotiation of contracts or agreements between the incorporated community groups and landholders, technical services agencies, local government and public sector investment programs. Modifications of this approach have already been tried with apparent success. Landholders appreciate the openness of this approach. A contractual process for cost sharing leads to open and sustainable co-financed management partnerships. Contracts would involve the development of appropriate cost-sharing, co-financing and co-management arrangements. These arrangements should be linked to a process of annual reporting that will allow the Commonwealth and participating regional institutions to monitor the effectiveness of their investment. This process is particularly important to allow increased investment in field works and direct resource management actions on farms and other land. This, in turn, encourages greater ownership of integrated resource management by regional communities. The basic tenant for a successful contractual approach to resource management is the development of Regional Natural Resource Management Plans by Regional Integrated Management Committees. These are developed on guidelines that require community participation and agreement, technical rigour by agency staff, economic evaluation of cost and benefits of programs, determination of the regional priorities in terms of regional resource management needs, community support as identified in co-financing or cost sharing arrangements and relevance to regional sustainable development. Contractual Arrangements to fund the implementation, the Regional Plan would be negotiated between the Commonwealth and Regional Committee once the Plan was endorsed by the State Government. Contractual arrangements to implement the priority programs of the plan would be entered into between the Regional Committee and State Agencies for



technical support, consultants, local government and industry to achieve the most effective utilisation of resources and to negotiate other co-financing arrangements. Institutional Linkages - Communication and Process Integrated Resource Management is weakened by poor inter-institutional communication and by ineffective linkages between bottom-up community participation and top-down policy and public investment components. There are opportunities to overcome these weaknesses by strengthening the focus of resource management investments through integrated resource management processes which include:-

°multi-disciplinary problem solving and resource planning teams; °regional resource management institutions which combine the skills and resources of state government agencies, local government, industry groups, and catchment communities; °allocation of public funds for implementation of field activities proportional to the public interest; and °co-financed partnerships for co-management of natural resources.

Multi-disciplinary teams provide a means of integrating different skills, and establishing working relationships and communication between different government agencies. This approach integrates institutions horizontally and vertically. Whilst in many regions of Australia this approach is used in an informal way, it is rarely adopted as a formal component of the integrated catchment management process. Regional resource management institutions provide the most effective linkage between bottom-up and top-down flows of information and resources. Successful integrated resource management relies on effective and planned integration of community participation and public policy and investment. There is an opportunity to build on the experience in Victoria (Catchment and Land Protection Act (Vic., 1994)); and New Zealand (Natural Resource Management Act (NZ, 1991)) to establish the regulatory and socio-economic institutional frameworks required for sustainable investment in integrated resource management. The community participation and socio-economic framework experience from South Australia (Soil Conservation and Landcare Act (SA, 1989)) also provides useful lessons for integrated resource management. With these institutional requirements in place, it is possible to allocate national investments - from a range of portfolios - directly to incorporated regional resource management institutions. In this way these regional institutions:-

°integrate field activities implemented by community groups, landholders, local government, state government agencies, and other resource users;



°clearly allocate national investment funds as the public sector contribution in proportion to national benefits or interests; °provide an avenue for regional and local co-financing of resource management activities; and °act as a broker between different Commonwealth, state and regional programs.

Develop Integrated, Cross-Portfolio, Policy Frameworks There are currently three significant levels of institutional involvement in integrated resource management - Commonwealth, State and Regional (including Local Government). There is very little horizontal or vertical integration between these institutional structures. There are opportunities to change this by integrating policy frameworks and institutional structures at the top (Commonwealth) or bottom (regional) levels. Integration in the middle (State) level without concurrent integration at top or bottom levels will not result in integrated resource management. Given the powerful incentive for change which national investment presents, the most efficient opportunity for change is likely to be integration of Commonwealth policy frameworks and institutional structures. There is an opportunity to develop cross-portfolio policy frameworks which integrate national resource management interests across Commonwealth portfolios and programs. These actions should aim to eliminate contradictory messages to regional Australia, and the States, about Commonwealth priorities and national interests for investment in integrated resource management. Opportunities exist for DPIE, DEST, DEET and ATSIC to develop joint initiatives and co-financing agreements for various components of an agreed national integrated resource investment strategy. This approach will also provide government with a mechanism, associated with the proposed contractual system, in which it can account for funding programs believed to be in the national interest in natural resources management.



APPENDIX A

A VISION FOR CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Summary Natural resources management in Australia must be taken on a bioregional, integrated, systems-based, strategic basis. It should be stakeholder driven, with clearly identified roles for regional communities and resource management agencies, within a cost-sharing management partnership. Integrated Resource Management (IRM) offers the possibility of sustainable resources management in Australian bioregions, yet this approach is still in its infancy. This vision statement is exploratory, and considerable work needs to be done to identify the processes whereby IRM can be implemented in Australian bioregions. There is also a need to develop rigorous frameworks to demonstrate and quantify the links between IRM, regional development and biodiversity enhancement. Once these links are more fully understood, there will be the opportunity to benchmark the gains which can be achieved using an IRM approach. A Vision for Catchment Management in Australia This national vision for integrated resource management is based on the following assumptions:- ° Australia has unique biophysical environments, characterised by a

highly variable climate. This has produced hydrological regimes which are characterised by long periods of little, if any, runoff interspersed with episodic extreme, runoff events.

° Continental Australia has a relatively sparse population -reflecting

the impact of an arid climate and infertile soils on the history of land settlement, and the centralised location of administrative and economic activity in State capital cities. This pattern restricts opportunities for strong local ownership of regional resource management, at the scale of bioregions, yet the notion of individual property rights remains strongly entrenched in the Australian psyche.

° Australia's system of Federal government has led historically to the

focus of catchment management being vested in State governments, while the Commonwealth sets the broad policy agenda, which is implemented under Federal/State funding arrangements. However, there is an emerging trend to recognise the importance of regionalism, in the devolution of resource management powers and responsibilities to local government, reflecting increased fiscal



constraints and the tendency towards privatisation / corporatisation of State government agencies.

° Community participation in natural resources management has

emerged as not only an accepted philosophy, but as a necessary and effective process by which natural resource management can be implemented.

° While various definitions of integrated resource management exist,

there is a general acceptance across Australia of integrated approaches, in which the interconnectedness of biophysical processes and economic activities is recognised.

Bioregions - The Basis for Integrated Resource Management in Australia River basins or catchments have formed the basis of resource management in recent times in Australia. River basin management is the planned management of land and water resources of a major river valley for many purposes, including the conservation of land and water resources and a multitude of human uses. Catchment management is best conceptualised as a subset of river basin management. The nature of hydrological linkages suggests a river basin or a catchment forms a natural unit of management. However, in Australia's unreliable, and highly variable rainfall and runoff regimes, bioregions form a more useful unit of management, rather than river basins or catchments. This recognises that for most of Australia, with the exception of the wettest coastal regions, river basins are not a tangible landscape unit for most members of the community. Social groupings and networks also challenge the efficacy of the watershed-based approach. Bioregions are relatively uniform tracts of land of similar genesis and climatic pattern, with recurring patterns of land types and vegetation communities. Management of bioregions is best done on an integrated basis, and the term Integrated Resource Management (IRM), is used to describe their management. This approach parallels the emerging trend towards regionalism in Australian settlement patterns, administration and economic development. The Central Australian Arid Tourist Region is one such example. IRM should be implemented with the objectives of controlling and/or conserving the water and land resources - maintaining biodiversity, minimising land degradation, and achieving specified and agreed land and water management objectives which meet society's needs. IRM aims to manage bioregions as a whole, with the objective of maintaining the overall productivity on a long-term sustained yield basis of each region. The IRM approach selects those elements and their interconnections in a bioregion that are important to a natural resources management problem, and demonstrates how they should be used to manage land and water resources on an ecosystem basis. IRM uses lateral thinking and is non-hierarchical in its approach to



resource management, identifying and using the interrelationships between resource users and natural resources, and seeking optimising solutions using the input of resource managers. Community participation is the hallmark of IRM. Implementing Integrated Resources Management in Australia Six "building blocks" 3 can be used to implement the IRM vision in Australia:- ° Use of a Systems Approach: This approach views bioregions as

integrated ecological systems, whose natural resources and resource users are interdependent. Much of the experience of integrated approaches, not surprisingly relates to water and related land resources. The bioregional perspective views management not as a single-purpose approach, but rather as a whole ecosystem approach.

° Use of a Strategic rather than a Comprehensive Approach: Attention

is directed to priority issues and their solution, using effective stakeholder participation and priority ranking processes, rather than attempting to solve all problems simultaneously. The use of problem-solving and consensus-building techniques such as Problem Census/ Problem Solving, Rapid Rural Appraisal, or Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management are appropriate here.

° Use of a Stakeholder Approach: Community members and non-

government groups are integral to the development, implementation and monitoring of best management practice for a bioregion. Many techniques are already developed to use community participation effectively.

° Use of a Partnership Approach: This involves recognising that all

resource managers in a bioregion, including resource users, government and non-government organisations, and catchment management groups have a role to play in IRM, by using their expertise to effectively plan and implement resource management activities. The resolution of resource use conflict is particularly important to the implementation of IRM approaches. Market-based mechanisms, incentives and regulatory mechanisms can be used to avoid or solve resource use conflicts and enhance the adoption of best management practices.

° Use of a Balanced Approach: Attention is directed towards

weighing concerns about enhancing economic development, protecting biodiversity, improving social vitality, and addressing other social concerns. This is the most difficult building block in that mechanisms are still to be developed that can effectively balance quantifiable versus non-quantifiable values in a bioregion.

3This is a modification of Mitchell and Hollick's 1993 approach.



Towards Best Practice Integrated Resources Management A concept associated with the IRM approach is Best Management Practice (BMP). This approach sees the need for increasing unity and interdependence of all elements of design and operation in resource management projects. BMP assumes that technical excellence must be coupled with a commitment to environmental responsibility. Best Management Practice in IRM is the process to achieve the sustainable use of catchment resources, while maintaining natural resource stock at levels that do not preclude use for future generations. This includes organisational arrangements to identify, implement and benchmark sustainable natural resource management in a bioregion. Best management practices are those actions by which ecologically sustainable development can be achieved (at best), or at least directions set by which ecologically sustainable development is eventually achieved. Best management practices should strive to be financially viable in an economic environment in Australia of increasing international competitiveness. These practices are the actions which an individual farm or small business in a bioregion needs to implement on order to achieve overall Best Management Practice. These are more than previously defined sustainable resource management practices, because they are on-farm actions that are defined according to ecological, economic and social criteria relevant to the whole bioregion. They are designed to:- ° reduce land and water degradation; ° maximise the potential for biodiversity; ° maximise resource productivity and family incomes, and be

financially viable; and ° be socially benign by encouraging social vitality rather than

precipitating the decline of the social health of communities. To achieve this national vision for IRM in Australia, four perspectives are needed:- ° Correct scale: Planners and managers should focus on the small to

medium scale of most resource users: for example, family farmers, private tourist resort operators, agricultural processing companies, feedlot enterprises. If this perspective is ignored, effective natural resource management by individual stakeholders will be difficult to achieve. Management of family farms has been shown to be essentially a personal construct influenced by prevailing local social norms, rather than a corporatised decision environment implied by BMP approaches in Australian industry.

° A best technical management approach: Previous approaches

commonly focus on Best Technical Management, that is the best technology to solve a particular environmental management



problem. This approach may be best for the resource, may be best for the agency, yet not good for the resource manager. It may not fit the technical expertise of the resource manager, nor his/her financial capability, nor his/her type of resource use. Consequently, new technologies should be adapted to suit individual, local needs, if thorough adoption is sought.

° Congruence and accountability: The policy directions set by

agencies can be different to the policies and programs of other government agencies and resource managers. There needs to be shared goals, parallel management processes, and clear links established between these groups, to produce congruence - to achieve ecologically effective social organisations. The use of contractual arrangements between resource management agencies and practitioners offers one way of improving congruence. This includes monitoring the performance achievements in bioregional natural resources management by regional communities who have contracted with a government funding agency. Benchmarks for success will need to be established in this approach.

° A task force/teamwork approach: A Task Force could identify

appropriate organisational arrangements to produce congruent outcomes between policy-makers, extension agents, farmers and others. Costs and benefits should be articulated from farm level to agency organisation level. A Task Force could identify the most appropriate range of incentives to be used (tax relief, direct payments through subsidies etc.), by using the expertise and involvement of all natural resource management decision-makers.

Indicators of Success Integrated resource management is explicitly appealing. It suggests that if a more comprehensive group of resources and resource management issues are examined simultaneously, then more effective resource management outcomes will be achieved. However, while this attraction exists, and has stimulated innovation in Australian natural resource management, it is yet to be determined how feasible and what are the effective gains that can be made using IRM. Two sets of indicators are needed:- ° Multi-dimensional indicators of changes to ecosystem health: While

one-dimensional indicators of catchment health have been developed, such as stream salinity concentrations, measures of total system health are still needed. An IRM approach uses a range of "system health" indicators, for example, biodiversity, riparian vegetation ecosystem condition, geomorphological condition.



° Indicators of social and economic gains: The need exists to develop useful indicators of changes in economic and social conditions in bioregions, that are linked to incremental gains in ecosystem health.



Documents

ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT · PDF fileenhancing the effectiveness of catchment management planning interim report for the dpie page i aacm internationaldelivering