Australian Local Government Association

Search for:

Appendices

• Data sources of graphs
• A: Facsimile survey form

Environment policy and research

2004-05 National NRM survey of local government

March 2005.  Angela Shepherd

Executive summary

In November and December 2004, ALGA undertook a natural resource management (NRM) survey of councils in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. The other states had recently undertaken similar surveys, so did not participate (the results of these surveys are attached as appendices to this report). There are 322 councils in the four participating states, and 45 per cent of them responded to this survey.

The survey was undertaken to gauge the level of awareness and participation in regional NRM processes. Prior to the introduction of the second phase of the Natural Heritage Trust, councils could access funding directly for environmental projects, however they must now work with the regional organisations to have their local priorities incorporated into regional plans. The NRM activities outlined in the regional plan are then prioritised and investments in projects made accordingly.

Ninety six per cent of councils said they were aware of or were participating in the regional processes, however the degree of participation varied greatly. Only 12 per cent reported inputting local information into the plan, but 73 per cent of councils had attended briefings. Most councils believe their regional plan does address local issues to some extent, but very few believe local issues are addressed well.

It is difficult from these figures to say that local government has been truly engaged in the process of plan development.

Councils identified a number of reasons why they have not been more active in plan development. The primary reason was a lack of resources with 56 per cent of councils highlighting a lack of human or financial resources to effectively participate. Only 31 per cent of councils believe they have a good or comprehensive capacity to develop and implement the regional plans. Some councils sited a lack of consultation or a lack of recognition of their skills and experience by the regional organisation as reasons for low participation rates.

Councils were asked a range of general NRM questions in the survey, which resulted in the following findings.

• Of the four states surveyed, 9 per cent had environment levies, and most of these councils were in South Australia
• Half of the responding councils have an officer dedicated to natural resource management issues
• 60 per cent of councils incorporate biodiversity into their corporate or operational plan
• More work is required to promote the Biodiversity Toolbox for Local Government as a useful resource for local government as only 36 per cent of participating councils were aware of its existence.

Key facts

• Councils with adequate resources have a greater capacity to participate regionally. As a result, local priorities are fed into regional plans and local and regional plans are more likely to be compatible.
• Most councils are aware of the regional NRM arrangements, but face a number of constraints in increasing their participation.
• Some councils still do not believe their skills and experience are adequately utilised by regional NRM groups.

Background

Natural Heritage Trust

The Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) was set up by the Australian Government in 1997 to help restore and conserve Australia's environment and natural resources. In collaboration with all state/territory governments, the Australian Government, through the $3 billion NHT and $1.4 billion National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) programs, is investing in conservation and sustainable natural resource management (NRM) outcomes across the country.

Regional arrangements

Regional delivery of NRM is the principle mode of investment under the NHT and NAP. It is primarily through this mechanism that councils can become involved. The new regional structures include regional NRM bodies comprising landowners, industries, non government organisations, indigenous representatives, representatives from the three levels of government and other interested people.

Australia has been broken up into 56 regions. Each region is responsible for preparing a regional NRM plan. Each plan highlights all the NRM issues in the region, develops actions to address these concerns and then selects the most important issues for action. The plans also set resource condition and management action targets based on agreed national standards to help determine progress towards achieving outcomes.

The regional NRM plans that these groups develop are considered by the state/territory and Australian Governments according to a set of agreed national criteria. Once a plan has been accredited, a 3-year rolling regional investment strategy is developed, detailing what investments are needed to implement priorities identified in the plan. NHT and NAP funds are invested in the priorities set out in the investment plan, assuming they meet the main objectives of the NHT and NAP.

Local Government Natural Resource Management Facilitator Network

Under the NHT, the Australian Government sought to encourage communities to work together to draw up and implement their own integrated regional NRM plans. To assist with this process, a network of local government NRM facilitators was formed.

There are currently 8 facilitators employed by and hosted within local government associations around Australia. A local government NRM facilitator is located in every state and territory, as well as ALGA.

The objectives of the Local Government NRM Facilitator network are to work towards:

• Engaging local governments in regional NRM planning and implementation;
• Building the capacity of regional bodies and local governments to effectively engage with each other; and
• Supporting regional bodies to ensure that local governments are effectively supporting and delivering the NRM priorities of the region (eg. integration of regional objectives into local planning).

The local government NRM facilitators undertake a wide range of activities that vary between the states and all contribute to the outcomes described above. They work with the wider National NRM facilitator network to promote relevant government programs and increase the engagement and participation of local governments in regional NRM planning and implementation. The local government NRM facilitators guide councils through the regional process and help to build stronger links between local and regional decision making bodies.

The efforts of the local government NRM facilitator network are greatly appreciated in gathering data for this survey. Through their efforts, 45 per cent of councils responded to the survey.

Survey

The 2004-05 NRM survey of local government was conducted in November and December 2004 by ALGA. It was undertaken to provide some baseline data on the effectiveness of the regional NRM arrangements in engaging local government and incorporating local issues into regional NRM plans.

The survey was split into two sections. The first section analysed the level of awareness by councils of the new arrangements and their involvement in regional NRM processes. The second section collected information on other aspects of council NRM activities, such as the collection of environment levies, the availability of resources to councils for NRM and the awareness and use of the Biodiversity Toolbox for Local Government.

Four states were asked to participate - Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. The other states had recently undertaken similar NRM surveys of their own. These are attached to provide a national picture (Appendices B,C and D).

The survey was undertaken on-line and could be accessed through the ALGA website. All councils were written to and asked to participate in the survey. Reminders were also posted in ALGA publications, such as the weekly ALGA news. In addition, the local government NRM facilitators promoted the survey to councils. The information generated by this survey will inform and assist all spheres of government with future policy formation. ALGA would like to thank all those councils who participated in the survey - information collection and exchange is not possible without your assistance.

Who responded to the survey?

ALGA received 145 responses to the survey, representing 45 per cent of councils in the four states targeted (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Figure 1: The number of councils who participated in the survey, by state

Link: Data source for Figure 1

Figure 2: The percentage of councils that responded in each state

Link: Data source for Figure 2

Councils were also asked to nominate their primary NRM region (some councils are in more than 1 region). Only 4 councils listed the wrong region and most listed all the regions they are in, where applicable. Some NRM regions were very well represented in the survey, while other regions were not represented at all.

For example, in South Australia, just over a quarter of the Eyre Peninsula councils responded while 64 and 67 per cent of councils in the Northern and Yorke Agricultural District and the Mount Lofty and Greater Adelaide regions, respectively, participated in the survey. In Tasmania, 67 per cent of councils in the South NHT region responded while only one third of all councils in the North West took part.

Level of engagement of local government in regional NHT processes

Local governments play a key role in managing Australia's natural resource base. They can have responsibility for land use planning, development and building approvals, the management of parks and reserves, water supply and often undertake numerous environmental projects. They are the sphere of government closest to the community. Despite this experience, not all local governments are active participants in their regional NRM processes.

Level of awareness

Councils were asked to rate their level of awareness of the regional NRM arrangements. Only four per cent of councils had not heard of the arrangements and these were mostly in Victoria (all from the Port Phillip and Westernport NRM region), while 31 per cent were very aware of the arrangements and 38 per cent participated in the process. Tasmania had the highest level of awareness and engagement, with 80 per cent of councils being very aware of or participating in the regional arrangements (Figure 3).

Figure 3: How councils rated their level of awareness of the regional NRM arrangements

Link: Data source for Figure 3

Most councils reported knowing who the Chair of their regional group was, with 63 per cent of respondents having either regular contact or contact when needed with them.

Degree of input into regional plans

Whilst most councils are aware of the regional NRM processes and have attended briefing sessions, it is evident that greater work needs to be undertaken to effectively engage local government in the development of regional plans (and the subsequent investment strategies). Council involvement during the planning phase is likely to increase their involvement during the implementation phase and increase the likelihood that local and regional plans are compatible. Around 73 per cent of councils had either attended consultation or briefing sessions or had commented on the draft plan. Ten per cent of councils reported having no input into the development of their regional plans and only 12 per cent had inputted local information (Figure 4). Tasmania had the highest rate of councils inputting local information (27 per cent).

In an earlier state survey, the level of involvement was far higher in NSW, where 60 per cent of councils contributed locally relevant information into the development of regional plans (Appendix B).

Figure 4: Council input into the development of regional NRM plans

Link: Data source for Figure 4

Capacity of local government to participate

Councils already undertake many environmental initiatives. In 2002-03, councils spent $2.6bn on environmental protection activities and $1.9bn on natural resource management activities¹. However, councils capacity to increase their level of involvement is limited. Only 31 per cent of responding councils reported having a good or comprehensive capacity to develop and implement regional NRM plans (Figure 5). With 69 per cent of councils lacking capacity, this can go part way to explaining the level of involvement in plan development. Without an increase in capacity, many councils ability to implement projects developed by the regional NRM groups is limited.

Figure 5: What level of capacity do councils have to participate in the development and implementation of regional NRM plans?

Link: Data source for Figure 5

The capacity of councils varies wildly within a state and can be related to the size of the council's rate base, the priority placed on environmental issues by council, and council's access to other funding sources. Sixty per cent of Tasmanian councils reported having either a good capacity (47 per cent) or a comprehensive capacity (13 per cent) to participate regionally. The other 40 per cent of Tasmanian councils only had some or limited capacity. Around 80 per cent of South Australian councils reported having just limited or some capacity to participate. This will have obvious impacts on matching local and regional NRM priorities in South Australia.

Resource needs

Where council involvement in the regional process was limited, councils were asked to provide reasons. A lack of funding and resources was nominated by 42 per cent of councils. This varied between the states however, with only 27 per cent of Tasmanian councils nominating a lack of resources, while 58 per cent of Victorian councils nominated it as a reason. In the NSW survey conducted prior to this ALGA survey, a lack of awareness of the need to be involved (36 per cent), was the most likely reason, followed by a lack of political support with council (26 per cent), and a lack of funding and resources (15 per cent) (Appendix B).

Other reasons centred around councils feeling like the process was geared more towards the community or rural issues, or regions had not considered local government enough from the start. As a result, councils did not feel like they were being engaged and the regional processes often did not match up with council processes and procedures. Some councils did not believe their current efforts in NRM were recognised by the regional groups and their skills and experience were not utilised. In addition, councils pointed to a lack of returns for the time required to adequately participate in regional processes.

The two primary inputs required by councils to increase participation in regional processes were identified as resources and awareness raising activities. Nearly 30 per cent of councils felt they did not have the staff to participate and the same number again felt they did not have the financial resources. Several councils identified the need for specific NRM staff and some questioned the relevance of regional activities to council priorities. Two Western Australian councils nominated distance and the size of the region as the primary limiting factor. The highest priorities for NSW councils (the results from an earlier state survey) were resources (68 per cent), the need for a formal relationship with the regional group (46 per cent), awareness raising activities (35 per cent) and specialised staff (35 per cent) (Appendix B). The need for a formal relationship with the regional group has resulted in the establishment of Memoranda of Understanding being developed between councils and regional groups, setting out how local government will be involved in regional processes.

Compatibility of local and regional plans

Eighty one per cent of surveyed councils reported seeing a copy of their regional plan in either draft or final form, with all Tasmanian councils having seen their regional plan. Of those councils who have seen a copy of their plan, most councils believe it addresses their local NRM issues either to some extent (51 per cent) or quite well (42 per cent).

Councils were asked to rate how compatible their local environmental plans are with the plans developed at the regional level (Figure 6). Responses were varied between the states, with 80 per cent of Tasmanian councils believing the plans were either compatible, or mostly compatible. Within South Australia, 38 per cent of councils did not know if the plans were compatible, while 30 per cent believed they mostly were. In Victoria, more than three quarters of councils said plans were compatible to some extent (42 per cent) or were mostly compatible (35 per cent).

Figure 6: To what degree are local plans compatible with regional plans?

Link: Data source for Figure 6

In some cases the success of the regions in including local government becomes obvious. For example, councils in the South NRM region of Tasmania all believed their local plans were compatible or mostly compatible with the regional plans. However, all councils in the Rangelands region of WA reported either not knowing if their local and regional plans were compatible or thought they were to some extent. Reasons for this result include the extensive size of the Rangelands region and the councils within the region have mostly low rate bases and limited capacity to participate in regional processes.

The majority of councils (70 per cent) reported no change in their NRM spending since the introduction of the regional NRM processes and 21 per cent said there had been a slight increase. Once again, there were differences between the states, with 40 per cent of Tasmanian councils and only 15 per cent of South Australian councils reporting a slight increase.

NRM and biodiversity activities

National Local Government Biodiversity Survey, 2000

In 2000, ALGA undertook a national survey of councils to gauge attitudes towards biodiversity conservation and to look at council initiatives in that area². Councils from all states took part in that survey. The second section of the 2004-05 survey aimed to allow comparisons to be made to the 2000 survey, keeping in mind this years survey is limited to four states.

Funding council environment activities

In order to undertake NRM activities, councils draw significantly on their general revenue. In addition however, councils have also relied on either government grants, such as the Natural Heritage Trust and a number of state and territory government programs. As already seen, local governments themselves undertake significant environmental spending. At the same time, it appears as though Commonwealth and state/territory government funding of local government NRM activities is falling. Other government funding for local government NRM activities was 4 per cent of NRM revenue in 2002-03, down from 8 per cent two years earlier³.

In recent years, some councils have added environment levies to their rates to allow them to undertake necessary environment programs. The use of levies is not widespread and differs greatly between the states. Nine per cent of responding councils collected an environment levy from their constituents, and the majority of these councils were in South Australia (Figure 7). The size of the levy ranged from less than $10 per rate payer to $30-40 per rate payer⁴.

Just over 31 per cent of councils offer rate rebates to their constituents, with 72 per cent of these councils being in Victoria. No Western Australian councils reported offering rate rebates. These figures can not be compared to the 2000 survey at a national level as NSW and QLD have not participated in the 2004-05 survey yet were two of the bigger users of environmental levies and rate rebates in 2000.

Figure 7: The number of councils that collect an environment levy

Link: Data source for Figure 7

Council resources to undertake NRM

More than half of all councils have a person dedicated to natural resource management issues. Despite this, councils are still finding it difficult to provide staff to participate in regional processes. Victoria leads the way with 70 per cent of councils having a dedicated officer, while 38 per cent of South Australian councils have a dedicated NRM person. This is a significant improvement from 2000 when 35 per cent of councils employed a person dedicated to environmental resource issues. Five years ago Victoria also led the way, with 60 per cent of councils responding to the survey supporting such a position. South Australia has improved slightly over the five years as they had 35 per cent of councils with a dedicated officer in 2000.

Councils were asked if they had developed their own natural resource or conservation strategy, with 45 per cent of councils responding that they did, although in South Australia this fell to 38 per cent.

Incorporating Biodiversity Objectives into Council Planning

Incorporating biodiversity objectives into council strategic planning instruments ensures that biodiversity is considered important at the highest level of council and is incorporated into relevant council activities. Over 60 per cent of councils reported that biodiversity objectives were included in their corporate/operational or community plan. This was as high as 81 per cent in Victoria and went down to 40 per cent in Tasmania.

There are numerous benefits available to local government from improving biodiversity in their shire. Economic benefits to local government include increased land value resulting from improved landscape amenity. In addition, biodiversity contributes to the total landscape setting enjoyed by residents and provides a valuable tourism and recreation resource for visitors.

Local government can use their position to:

• Regulate land use
• Utilise available powers to influence community behaviour through implementing biodiversity friendly regulations and planning provisions
• Promote and demonstrate environmentally, ecologically and socially responsible behaviour
• Offer community education programs and staff training
• Provide incentives for sustainable natural resource management on private land.

Education of elected members and the broader community can increase the willingness of the community to take part in conservation programs and to develop biodiversity initiatives within council. Forty per cent of councils provided biodiversity training to staff, councillors or the community in the last 12 months. This rate has increased from 30 per cent in 2000 when ALGA undertook their national biodiversity survey. In Victoria, 65 per cent of councils provided such training while 13 per cent of Tasmanian councils did. In 2000, Victoria also led the way with 50 per cent of councils funding training and awareness programs.

The Biodiversity Toolbox for local government

The Biodiversity Toolbox was developed in 2002 by the Australian Government. It was designed to provide councils with the tools, resources and contacts to integrate biodiversity conservation into all aspects of Council operations. The Toolbox consists of a web-based collection of information, tools, resources, contacts and links, designed to assist local government prioritise biodiversity conservation and integrate it into planning and management operations. The Toolbox is structured around a benchmarking framework to guide the planning and implementation of biodiversity conservation goals.

Only 36 per cent of survey respondents said they were aware of the Australian Government's Biodiversity Toolbox for Local Government. Forty seven per cent of Tasmanian and Victorian councils were aware of the Toolbox and 30 per cent of South Australian and Western Australian councils were aware of its existence. Only 30 per cent of those who knew of the toolbox used it. Of the councils who were aware of the toolbox, most reported that they did not find it very useful. This is in contrast to the Queensland survey where half of the respondents were aware of the Toolbox and they mostly found it satisfactory or very useful.

Conclusion

Local government's ability to effectively participate in the regional NRM process is hampered by a number of factors, including resource constraints. Without sufficient capacity to participate in regional processes, engagement of local governments by the regional NRM organisations is difficult. Also, there needs to be a link made between local government's role in land use planning and catchment management planning. These two processes are often not well integrated.

Councils capacity to participate in regional NRM processes varies around the country. However breaking information down to state, and even regional levels, demonstrates the importance of having resources to effectively participate in regional NRM processes. By being active participants, councils are able to input local priorities into regional plans. For example, in Tasmania:

• fewer Tasmanian councils reported having a lack of resources than the other states and more of them had a good capacity to participate regionally
• more councils had inputted local information into regional plans than in other states
• all Tasmanian councils had seen their regional plan
• This resulted in a high percentage of councils believing local and regional plans were compatible.