A bureaucratic environment

From 2008 through to 2012 the federal government has committed an extra $395 million to the Natural Heritage Trust. A good deal of this money is likely to be wasted by the Regional Bodies established to administer these funds under the Regional Delivery Model.

The release of “The Auditor General Audit Report No.21 2007-08 Performance Audit Regional Delivery Model for the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality” (PDF 891KB) is an opportunity to assess the “Regional Delivery Model“ itself and the process of assessment of its success.

The audit report into the progress of the process established to “conserve, repair and replenish Australia’s natural capital infrastructure”i.e. soils, rivers and biodiversity (Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997, s3, p3) states that the program delivery arrangements have evolved and are now on the whole working well (p26). A rather positive response.

And yet a reading of the assessment gives the following recommendations:

• provide greater transparency and efficiency in the management of funds for regional investments;
• address compliance with bilateral agreements; and
• develop a performance measurement framework.

The report identifies problems with financial, compliance and assessment in the process itself and yet concludes this means it is “working well”. I fail to reach the same conclusion and contend that not only is the process itself critically flawed but also the assessment of the process.

A brief look at the history of the process reveals how this has happened.

The establishment of 56 regional bodies to administer, co-ordinate and instigate community-based action, from planting trees to protecting an entire catchment, relied on the assumption that the capacity exists outside the established government departments, educational and industrial institutions to perform these functions.

I assert that this has proven conclusively to be a false assumption based upon my observations of the inability of regional bodies to develop or undertake any meaningful natural resource management plans or actions. This is exemplified by the ever growing number of staff and constant staff turnover in regional bodies.

In an attempt to alleviate this fatal flaw the proponents of this process have leaned heavily on state governments to give information and advice to these regional bodies. This was viewed dimly by state government departments and a bribe was needed to get them onboard. Hence, bilateral agreements were born.

Bilateral agreements have led to the opposite of the supposed aims of the entire process. Under a bilateral agreement the federal government divests itself of all environmental responsibility by giving up assessment processes to the state governments.

Any activity which falls within the responsibility of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) and the federal minister is assessed, on behalf of, the minister, by the bilateral partner - the state government. Therefore, the situation arises where the proponent of a declared activity is the state government and the proponent, or state government, undertakes the environmental assessment themselves.

So the state government puts forward a plan, assesses it themselves, informs the minister that everything is mitigated and then begins the project. Examples include the Olympic dam expansion; Gunns paper mill; Paradise dam; and Traveston dam. This is contrary to best practice which calls for peer review of environmental impact assessment.

A further consequence of the division between the federal and state governments over this process, leading to its failure, has been caused by attempting to establish three parallel systems of management all attempting to do the same thing: the two government systems with all their legislative powers; and the “regional delivery model” with no legislative powers.

This has led to direct conflicts of interest between the regional bodies supposedly delivering the “model” and state governments, with the consequence of severely diminishing the ability of the regional bodies.

This is exemplified by the current situation in the Mary River in South East Queensland where the state government is attempting to build a dam at Traveston Crossing in direct opposition to the wishes of the local communities. The annual report of the relevant regional body, The Burnett Mary Regional Group for NRM Inc, makes no mention at all of this proposal despite being given the supposed task of managing natural resources in the region.

The regional body is prevented from discussing issues deemed “political” by the overseeing joint steering committee. This is plainly absurd. The regional body is supposedly taking remedial action against natural resource problems but is prevented from discussing actions which will clearly give it plenty of work to do in the future.

This situation renders the “regional delivery model” half baked and the assessment of the process covers this up. This is achieved by making the standard of success very low, exemplified by the “standard output reporting” requirements used to judge success. These include: number of studies completed, number of plans written, number of participants trained and area of native vegetation established.

Do I presume, then, that if a study is completed, a plan written, people are trained and some trees are planted then natural resource management, Australian-style, is complete?

Again this is simply absurd when faced with entire river systems and landscapes degrading in front of our eyes. The audit acknowledges the rate of decline in natural systems is happening faster than the rate of improvement through regional investment. Wrongly attributing this to a lack of investment.

The statement that some regional bodies are “confident about achieving their outcomes” (p96) is not a fair dinkum assessment of a process that has consumed millions of dollars. The logic of the process and the audit has become self fulfilling. Success can be achieved without doing anything. Lack of success is due to not paying enough to not do nothing and above all the managers of the regional bodies are confidant they can achieve this.

Considering the institutional problems of this process one could conclude that it had been contrived in Canberra as a means of reporting on the extent of environmental remediation occurring throughout the country without ever having to do any.

The federal and state governments have contrived to bypass the environmental impact assessment process entirely. The regional delivery model has therefore been responsible for the deconstruction of environmental safeguards at the state and federal levels while expecting local communities to solve the giant problems previously and presently being produced by bad government policy.

Considering the length of time and the amount of money spent on this fiasco a real assessment would be easy by simply stepping out the door and having a look at our ecosystems. Yet all we see are ongoing problems with natural resources and ongoing battles between citizens and governments over environmental issues.

While the Regional Delivery Model stands outside of government legislative power systems it remains simply someone’s “good idea”. Instead of funding bodies to produce television commercials of dugongs telling us not to throw rubbish down the drains, real government policy would legislate to fence cattle out of rivers, prevent the construction of needless dams and pulp mills, invest in renewables etc. etc. etc. etc.

Come on Minister Garrett, stop making bird noises, dissolve the Regional Delivery Model and start making the legislative decisions you would have liked to do prior to becoming a politician.