BIO-FOCUS REVIEW - The Sydney Morning Herald EPA on 16 February 2012, the A/Chief Executive decided...

OBSERVATIONS REPORT

BIO-FOCUS REVIEW Analyse ► Integrate ► Deliver

A review of the biodiversity conservation functions, programs and projects being undertaken by the Office of Environment

and Heritage (OEH)

Prepared by: Nicole Campbell Project Director Bio-Focus Review

Submitted to A/CE OEH: 9 March 2012

Final Observations Report: Bio-Focus Review - Confidential

Acknowledgment The Bio-Focus Review was a complex project undertaken at a particularly challenging time for the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). The Bio-Focus Review required, and received, strong and ongoing cooperation across all OEH Groups and Divisions. With the announcement of the structural arrangements for the OEH and the newly established EPA on 16 February 2012, the A/Chief Executive decided to discontinue the Bio-Focus Review. The Bio-Focus Taskforce and the Bio-Focus Steering Committee have now been disbanded. This Observations Report represents my personal observations (in my capacity as Project Director) over the course of the Bio-Focus Review and my recommendations. This Observations Report has not been reviewed by either the Bio-Focus Taskforce or Bio-Focus Steering Committee and is provided as a resource to assist the OEH Executive in identifying future tasks to be considered as part of ongoing structural realignment activities for the OEH. I would like to thank OEH for the opportunity to lead this project and acknowledge the many OEH staff who contributed their thoughts and ideas through participation in the surveys, interviews or through the provision of a specific submission. I particularly wish to thank all members of the Bio-Focus Steering Committee and Bio-Focus Taskforce for their participation and hard work over the course of the Review: Sally Barnes (A/CE OEH); Mark Gifford (A/CER); Tom Grosskopf (A/DCE EHHP); Bob Conroy (A/DCE PWG); Dr. Kate Wilson (Executive Director SSD); Steve Garrett (Executive Director Legal Services); Norman Laing (Executive Director Country, Culture and Heritage); Dr David Mabberley (Executive Director, Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust); Zoe De Saram (Executive Director Policy, Economics and Governance); Dr Brett Summerell; Lucian McElwain, Dr. Klaus Koop, Gary Davey, and Amanda Lawrence. I recognise and appreciate the additional expertise and support provided to the Bio-Focus Review process by Julie Ravallion; Jo White, Beth Overton, Emma Wallhead, Greg Storrier, Mike Saxon, Monica Collins, Derek Elmes, Graeme Brokman, Phil Jensen, Anthony Dann, Alison Phinn, Alison Cochrane, Gary Whytcross, Peter Stathis, Dr Andrew Growcock, Marie Berzanti, Linda Scott, Rohan Hills and Tim Pullen. Finally, I would like to record my sincere appreciation and admiration of former Chief Executive of OEH, Ms Lisa Corbyn, whose leadership of OEH over the last 13 years has positioned NSW as a leader nationally in the area of biodiversity conservation. Lisa’s passionate commitment to both the environment and the people who work for OEH was reflected in her strong and positive support for the Bio-Focus Review. I commend the Observations Report to the OEH Executive. Nicole Campbell Project Director, Bio-Focus Review 9 March 2012

2


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6

PART 1: CONTEXT, PURPOSE, BACKGROUND 17 3.0 INTRODUCTION 19 3.1 Purpose of the Bio-Focus Review 19 3.2 Summary of core structure and functions: OEH Groups / Divisions (as at September 2011) 19 3.2.1 Environment and Heritage Policy and Programs Group 19 3.2.2 Environment Protection and Regulation Group (inc. Environment Protection Authority) 20 3.2.3 Parks and Wildlife Group 21 3.2.4 Policy, Economics and Governance Division 21 3.2.5 Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust 22 3.2.6 Corporate Services Division 23 3.2.7 Country, Culture and Heritage Division 23 3.2.8 Scientific Services Division 24 4.0 STRUCTURAL REORGANISATION OF OEH: CREATION OF AN INDEPENDENT EPA 24 4.1 Diagram: Organisational Structure: OEH (effective 29 February 2012) 26 4.2 Diagram: Organisational Structure: EPA (effective 29 February 2012) 27 5.0 KEY BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION POLICY DRIVERS WITHIN OEH 28 5.1 Existing legislative and policy framework 28 5.1.1 Diagram: Biodiversity management framework 28 5.2 NSW 2021 29 5.2.1 Table: Chapter 4 NSW 2021 – Goal 22 30 5.2.2 Table: Chapter 4 NSW 2021 – Goal 23 31 5.3 NSW Government 2011/12 Budget Paper No. 3 32 5.4 NSW Threatened Species Priorities Action Statement (PAS) and PAS2 32 5.4.1 PAS Review 2010 34 5.4.2 Review outcomes – PAS2 35 5.5 (draft) NSW Biodiversity Strategy (2012-17) 35 5.6 OEH Knowledge Strategy 37 5.7 OEH draft Corporate Plan 38

PART 2: STRUCTURE OF BIO-FOCUS REVIEW 41 6.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE BIO-FOCUS REVIEW 43 6.1 Establishment of the Bio-Focus Steering Committee 44 6.2 Establishment of the Bio-Focus Taskforce 44 6.3 Bio-Focus Communication Strategy 44 7.0 PROCESS OF DATA COLLECTION BY OEH GROUPS/DIVISIONS 46 7.1 Definition of biodiversity conservation 46 7.2 Data collection parameters 46 7.3 Response by OEH Groups / Divisions to data collection request 47 7.4 Presentation of information 47 7.5 Inputs to other OEH Reviews 47 7.6 Caveat on observations and recommendations 48 7.7 Tasks to be completed 48

PART 3: KEY FINDINGS: OBSERVATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 49 8.0 BIODIVERSITY PROFILE ACROSS ALL OEH GROUPS/DIVISIONS 51 8.1 Summary of estimated biodiversity related budgets and staffing as provided by OEH Groups/Divisions 52 8.2 Overview of EHPP data sheet 52 8.3 Overview of SSD data sheet 53 8.4 Overview of EPA (formerly EPRG) data sheet 54 8.5 Overview of PWG data sheet 54 9.0 WHAT OUR PEOPLE TOLD US – OEH FEEDBACK TO BIO-FOCUS 56 9.1 On line staff survey – Bio-Focus 56

3


9.2 Written comments / submissions 58 10.0 FINALISING OEH’S STRUCTURE 59 10.1 Separation of RBG&DT from OEH structure 59 10.2 An alternative proposal: “One voice” for OEH on biodiversity conservation 59 11.0 ESTABLISHING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PRIORITIES FOR OEH 65 11.1 Defining OEH’s corporate priorities for biodiversity conservation 65 11.2 Establishing a prioritisation framework for biodiversity conservation functions within OEH 69 12.0 ESTABLISHING A SERVICE DELIVERY CULTURE AT OEH 70 12.1 NSW 2021 – Increased focus on service delivery for NSW agencies 71 12.2 Diagram: Defining the principles of “service delivery” – Australian Government 71 12.3 Understanding OEH’s client base 74 13.0 CASE STUDIES 77 13.1 Improved coordination – Knowledge Strategy 77 13.2 Improved coordination – Establishment of NVID 80 13.3 Improved cooperation – Native Vegetation Mapping 82 13.4 Improved communication and coordination – “Reading the Landscape” Biodiversity Conference 85 13.5 Improved communication and coordination – Biodiversity Matters and Biodiversity Forward Services

Plan (2011-2012) 87

13.6 Measuring and evaluating performance – PWG approach – “State of the Parks” 89 13.7 Efficient processes – Harmonised OEH Finances 91 13.8 Efficient processes – Use of Decision Support Tools 93 13.9 Efficient processes – Transfer of Scientific Committee from SSD to NRC 94

PART 4: APPENDICES 97 A1 Summary: Major organisational re-structures of OEH from December 2003 – February 2012 A2 Structural (unit by unit) breakdown of the OEH and EPA – February 2012 A3 Summary: Key legislative tools, regulations and policies for biodiversity conservation A4 NSW 2021 A5 PAS Review A6 Summary: Knowledge Strategy Themes A7 (draft) Biodiversity Knowledge Strategy 5-Year Strategic Plan A8 Terms of Reference: Bio-Focus Review – Steering Committee A9 Terms of Reference: Bio-Focus Review – Taskforce A10 Bio-Focus Communication Strategy A11 Summary: Bio-Focus Presentations made to OEH staff A12 Data collection spreadsheet: EHPP A13 Data collection spreadsheet: PWG A14 Data collection spreadsheet: SSD A15 Data collection spreadsheet: EPA (formerly EPRG) A16 Internal survey – Bio-Focus A17 Summary: Internal survey results A18 Summary: Submissions to Bio-Focus A19 Draft external survey – Bio-Focus A20 Summary: Key external stakeholders for OEH A21 Native Vegetation Information Review – Final Report A22 Workshop report – Towards Best Practise – Native Vegetation mapping techniques/methodologies A23 Comparative analysis of two mapping techniques, Eco-logical Australia Pty Ltd (May 2010) A24 Final report: Developing strategic priorities for OEH’s delivery of biodiversity conservation – outcomes

of an OEH Executive workshop held 7 October 2012 – Michael Williams & Associates Pty Ltd

A25 Biodiversity Forward Service Plan (2011-2012)

4


Bio-Focus Review 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July 2011 the OEH Executive commissioned the Bio-Focus Review, a 12-month evaluation process to identify the complete suite of biodiversity conservation activities undertaken within, or funded through, OEH. A Project Director was seconded from the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) to manage the Review which commenced on 15 August 2011. Biodiversity conservation activities are and will remain a core focus for OEH. Periodic reviews of OEH’s work processes like Bio-Focus are a positive way of increasing OEH’s effectiveness and improve its service delivery functions (both internally and externally). The Bio-Focus Review occurred at a challenging time for OEH with recent restructuring arrangements confirmed by the NSW Government in February 2012 that formalised the NSW Government’s decision on 5 October 2011 to re-establish an independent EPA. With the announcement of the structural arrangements for the OEH and the newly established EPA on 16 February 2012, the A/Chief Executive discontinued the Bio-Focus Review and the Bio-Focus Taskforce and Steering Committee were disbanded. This Observations Report represents my personal observations, as Project Director, formed over the course of the Bio-Focus Review and contains four parts: Part 1: Introduction, Background, Context; Part 2: Structure of Bio-Focus Review; Part 3: Key Findings, Observations and Recommendations; and Part 4: Appendices. It is provided as a resource to assist the OEH Executive in identifying future tasks to be considered as part of ongoing structural realignment activities for the OEH. It aims to assist in the alignment of OEH’s biodiversity conservation activities with the organisation’s corporate goals, statutory obligations and NSW 2021. This report also contains a number of case studies that examine potential opportunities for further improving OEH’s work processes and its products (for internal and external client groups) relating to biodiversity conservation activities. Inputs to the Bio-Focus Review came from a variety of sources (staff interviews, written feedback, on-line surveys; budgetary analysis; feedback from the Taskforce and Steering Committee). These inputs significantly informed the development of the recommendations of this Observations report. The positive participation in the Bio-Focus Review by OEH staff is acknowledged and appreciated. This Observations Report identifies a total of 14 (multi-part) recommendations that are aimed at contributing towards a greater understanding of the many and varied biodiversity conservation activities being undertaken by OEH and identifying more connected ways of working together across OEH. It is hoped that the implementation of the recommendations arising from this Observations Report will assist in positioning OEH as a leading professional service organisation in biodiversity conservation and maximise OEH’s value to the NSW community and the environment.

5


2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Proposed additional structural arrangements (EHPP, CARD, SSD, CCHD): The restructure of the OEH provides a unique opportunity to employ a more internally coordinated approach to biodiversity conservation matters. OEH speaking with ‘one voice’ as it relates to biodiversity conservation matters should be the driving influence in finalising structural arrangements (in both Head Office and regional locations). It is therefore proposed that the interim Conservation and Regulation Division (CARD) be discontinued from 30 June 2012 and replaced with the following structure: a) Proposed changes to EHPP: Dissolution of EHPP and creation of two separate Divisions: Biodiversity and NRM Division (B&NRMD) Lead by: DCE B&NRM

Sustainability Programs Division (SPD) Lead by: ED SPD

• Landscape and Ecology Branch • NVID • Waters, Wetlands and Coast • Impacts and Adaptation • Biodiversity Survey &

Assessment (Metro Region) • Biodiversity Conservation (Metro

Region) • Water and Biodiversity* (Metro

Region) • Biodiversity Assessment &

Coordination (NE Region) • Biodiversity Conservation

(formerly South Region) • Native Vegetation Operations

Support (Reform & Compliance) • Native Vegetation (NW Region) • Environment & Conservation

Program (NW Region) • Kangaroo Management (NW

Region) • Coordination/planning/support

function (central and regionally based roles)

• Business and Community Programs

• Environmental Funding • Air Policy • Emissions Reductions • Water and Energy Programs • Heritage • Coordination/planning/support

function

* It is noted that the Water and Biodiversity unit (Metro) is currently allocated to the EPA; this would require a transfer of this unit back to OEH. b) Consolidation of some biodiversity conservation roles within B&NRMD: The Executive to consider potential consolidation of some of the biodiversity conservation roles that will be brought together under the proposed Biodiversity & NRM Division to ensure there is no unnecessary duplication of roles.

6


c) Discontinuation of OEH’s role in providing advice on non State-significant planning processes

The Executive should tighten the focus of the remaining personnel in B&NRMD working on planning and development processes. As an immediate action, OEH should discontinue the provision of advice by OEH on any development applications and planning proposals that are not designated as State-significant projects. OEH needs to focus more attention on working with local councils to increase the uptake by council’s of OEH’s strategic tools (Bio-Certifier and Biobanking). OEH also needs to encourage local councils to develop their internal expertise on biodiversity conservation for the purpose of determining planning processes for which local government is the consent authority (Note: A financial approach to assist this outcome is suggested at recommendation 9f, a human resources approach is suggested at recommendation 14c). d) Proposed changes to CCHD: Augmentation of the existing CCHD structure with the inclusion of the following units (formerly EPRG):

• Planning and Aboriginal Heritage (Metro Region) • Planning and Aboriginal Heritage (NE Region) • Landscape and Aboriginal Heritage Protection (South Region)

Country, Culture and Heritage Division • Community Operations • Policy, Information and Research • Aboriginal Affairs Strategy and Coordination • Planning and Aboriginal Heritage (Metro Region) • Planning and Aboriginal Heritage (NE Region) • Landscape and Aboriginal Heritage Protection (South Region)

Note: Any Metro positions based in Parramatta would be relocated to Hurstville. The rationale for bringing these units into CCHD is to strengthen the connection between CCHD and B&NRMD in terms of planning advice on proposals which have implications for Aboriginal cultural heritage. The addition of these work units to CCHD may also provide strengthened focus and expertise in the drafting of the NSW Government’s announced stand-alone Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation. e) Proposed changes to SSD: Two changes are proposed for SSD. The first is the proposed relocation of NVID from SSD to B&NRMD. This is a pragmatic recommendation noting that the majority of staff nominated to transfer to NVID (SSD) are within the proposed B&NRMD. It is noted that NVID is yet to be established and the present A/Director is a temporary position until 30 June 2012 therefore there would be minimal disruption to this work unit as a consequence of this proposed change.

7


The second proposed change is the transfer of responsibility for the Scientific Committee to the Natural Resources Commission (NRC). Servicing the Threatened Species Scientific Committee is a resource intensive task for SSD and there is no legislative requirement that this function be explicitly provided by OEH. Therefore as a savings mechanism, it is recommended that responsibility for this function be transferred to the NRC and that existing biodiversity conservation staff be redeployed to other OEH specific biodiversity conservation roles. Note: The transfer of this role to the NRC will further highlight the independence of the determinations made by the Scientific Committee from Government. This approach will realise savings to OEH (via recurrent resources currently dedicated to advertising). It is not proposed that existing SSD staff be transferred to the NRC. f) Royal Botanic Gardens & Domain Trust: The announced separation of the RBG&DT from the OEH structure is supported. Notwithstanding this separation, the OEH Executive should consider the findings of the international peer review of the Royal Botanic Gardens (when available) to assess potential relevance of any of its recommendations to other aspects of OEH’s Groups/Divisions. Consideration should be given to establishing a service agreement between OEH and RBG&DT to ensure that OEH’s policy development and implementation continues to be informed by specialist ecological advice from the RBG&DT. RBG&DT should be invited to participate in relevant OEH Executive Committees (including NRM&S Executive Committee and the Native Vegetation Steering Committee). The requested transfer of staff from RBG&DT to the NVID should not proceed until such a time as the OEH structure is finalised. 2. Improved coordination by OEH Groups/Divisions regarding future

establishment of work units with biodiversity conservation functions: The establishment of any further work units with biodiversity conservation functions by any OEH Group/Divisions is first to be discussed at NRM&S Executive Committee and then the full OEH Executive to ensure that the work unit to be established is clearly focussed on the delivery of specific biodiversity conservation objectives as determined by the OEH Executive and is not creating unnecessary role duplication. 3. Consolidation of some branch coordination/support functions: The Executive to consider potential consolidation of some branch coordination/support functions across all OEH Divisions (particularly if the proposed establishment of the B&NRM Division is adopted) to ensure there is no unnecessary duplication of roles.

8


4. Proposed changes to Executive Committee arrangements:

a) Review the structure of all Executive Committees with a view to disbanding and/or amalgamating some of them as periodic standing agenda items at full Executive Meetings (rationale: reduce current overlap of content, unnecessary duplication, improved coordination).

b) Consider representation by the EPA and/or RBG&DT at relevant Executive

Committee meetings. c) Discontinue the Waste Executive Committee given the transfer of its functions

to the EPA. d) Retain the External Funding Steering Committee, the Information Technology

Steering Committee, Air and Climate Change Taskforce, Legislation and Regulatory Reform Committee, Executive Sub-Committee on Coal and Gas.

e) Given the significant overlap of the Executive Sub-Committee for Aboriginal

Affairs and the full OEH Executive, the Executive Sub-Committee for Aboriginal Affairs should be disbanded and the issues from that Executive Committee reported as a standing agenda item at every third meeting of the full OEH Executive (note: this approach would increase the level of exposure of Aboriginal Affairs issues to the full OEH Executive).

f) Establish a new Science and Sustainability Programs Executive Committee.

This Committee would meet quarterly (reporting to the full Executive twice yearly). The primary focus would be increasing the profile of science within OEH, creating a forum to discuss existing external scientific partnerships that OEH has established – and identifying opportunities for new connections. This Committee would provide specific focus on the interface between SSD in supporting Air Policy, Emissions Reductions, Water and Energy Programs, Heritage, and Business and Community Programs. The Committee would also consider communication processes to promote the Knowledge Strategy.

g) Given the overlap of the Executive membership of the existing NRM

Executive Committee and the existing Science Executive Committee, it is recommended that these two Committees be amalgamated and renamed: “NRM & Science Executive Sub-Committee (NRM&S)” and meet every six weeks. This approach will ensure improved cross-organisational awareness of NRM and biodiversity conservation policy priorities for OEH. The driver for this Committee will be to deliver better alignment of policy with scientific research areas as well as ensuring cross-divisional agreement on communication processes to support OEH biodiversity conservation activities.

Amalgamating these two Executive Committees would also ensure that there is strong and coordinated understanding across OEH regarding future funding applications, the development of modelling scenarios and the utilisation of other decision support tools to support biodiversity conservation outcomes.

h) The Native Vegetation Steering Committee should be retained as a vehicle

for continued cross-organisational consideration of native vegetation issues. The amalgamated NRM&S Executive Committee should include periodic reports from the Chair, Native Vegetation Steering Committee and be the point for escalation of any unresolved issues rather than the full OEH Executive.

9


5. Improving internal communication and coordination:

a) The Executive should be pro-active in identifying opportunities for improving coordination and communication between OEH Groups/Divisions.

b) The Executive should review the feedback provided by OEH staff to the Bio-

Focus survey and this Observations Report prior to finalising the new OEH structure.

c) The recommendations of this Observations Report and feedback from OEH

staff should be considered in the ongoing work on OEH’s Corporate Plan. f) The “Biodiversity Matters” working group should be discontinued and instead

the NRM&S Executive Committee should be used as a consolidated cross-organisational forum for setting direction on biodiversity and NRM polices/programs.

g) The proposed (but as yet unfunded) web-based biodiversity resource

identified in the “Biodiversity Forward Services Delivery Plan” should not proceed.

h) Resources for unconnected and ad-hoc educational and web-based activities

from any Group/Division should be discontinued. Any educational activities that OEH is involved in should be articulated via specific arrangements with the Board of Studies and endorsed by the NRM&S Exec Committee.

i) All future proposals for OEH to sponsor or participate in external biodiversity

conferences or other NRM seminars/forums etc are to be subject to approval by the NRM&S Executive Committee. Individual work units will not have autonomy to decide participation in conferences, negotiate sponsorship arrangements or agree the level of resources to be committed by OEH.

j) Any request to the NRM&S Executive Committee for sponsoring of external

conferences/forums/seminars is to be accompanied by a business case including the sponsorship proposal with full costs and benefits to OEH in taking up the sponsorship outlined.

k) All information from OEH for distribution to the general public is to be

managed via OEH’s Public Affairs – not through any other Group/Division. All biodiversity information proposed for inclusion on the OEH website must be endorsed by the NRM&S Executive Committee.

6. Establishing a service delivery culture at OEH:

a) The Executive needs to work across all OEH Groups/Divisions to instil a

greater understanding by staff of the service delivery culture expected by the NSW Government (i.e. that all agencies implement a stronger, more responsive and customer-focussed approach to service delivery).

b) The Executive should adopt a service delivery framework for its policies and

programs similar to the framework that has been implemented across all Australian Government agencies (2008).

10


c) The Executive should consider engaging specific change management and CRM specialists to support staff in understanding and strengthening their approach to service delivery. This should include specific training to OEH staff on relationship management and customer focussed service delivery (for both internal and external clients).

d) All OEH staff should be required to read the full NSW 2021 document as a

deliverable in their individual work and development plans. All OEH work unit managers should be required to collectively discuss with their teams how they can embed a stronger approach to improved service delivery into their current and forward work programs.

e) There needs to be formal recognition within OEH of the internal client/service

delivery relationships that exist between Groups/Divisions and the need to ensure these relationships are positive, productive and responsive. Service delivery expectations between OEH Groups/Divisions need to be formalised and measured – and include processes for adjustment / corrective action where required.

f) Internal service delivery functions to deliver key government policy

commitments should be prioritised in Group/Division forward work plans. This is particularly relevant in terms of identified ‘knowledge needs’ for policy or program implementation.

g) The Executive should ensure that measurable feedback mechanisms for use

by OEH internal and external clients to assist ongoing refinement of OEH’s service delivery functions are implemented as a core element of all OEH Group/Division project plans.

h) The planned external stakeholder on-line survey and one-on-one interviews

with selected external stakeholders are critical elements in terms of understanding the service delivery expectations of OEH’s clients. The proposed survey should be re-cast in light of the recently announced structural changes to OEH and commenced as soon as practicable. The learnings from this process may also usefully inform future work by the OEH Executive in finalising the structural and reporting arrangements for OEH.

7. Improving systems and processes – biodiversity conservation:

a) Once the OEH structure has been finalised (expected by 30 June 2012),

further consideration by the OEH Executive is required in relation to confirming the biodiversity priorities for the new OEH Corporate plan. This consideration should also extend to the list of actions that were identified as ‘not being a biodiversity conservation priority’.

b) The planned cross-divisional strategic workshop to establish a prioritisation

framework for consideration of biodiversity conservation programs/projects within OEH should proceed. The prioritisation framework developed should strongly reflect the PAS2 framework and be consistent with the NSW Government policy direction in terms of establishing a Red-List.

c) Once the prioritisation framework for biodiversity conservation has been

adopted, the OEH Executive should use this tool to periodically and critically evaluate expenditure on biodiversity conservation programs and projects.

11


d) Biodiversity conservation programs that cannot demonstrate a strong connection to OEH’s Corporate Plan objectives and NSW Government priorities should be discontinued and the savings redistributed within OEH to support agreed priority biodiversity conservation activities. Note: redistributed funding from discontinued programs may not necessarily be retained within an existing Group/Divisional budget – it would depend on the agreed priority of biodiversity conservation projects/programs as determined by the OEH Executive.

e) All future funding proposals to the Environment Trust Fund (ETF) to be first

endorsed by the NRM&S Executive Committee prior to submission to the ETF – no exceptions.

8. Improving systems and processes – Knowledge Strategy:

a) The Knowledge Strategy for OEH is an innovative approach to identifying scientific needs from across all OEH Groups/Divisions and is strongly supported as a process. However the communication of the Knowledge Strategy to OEH staff needs to be augmented, with the intent of building collective ownership of this Strategy.

b) With the restructure of OEH to establish the independent EPA, it is

recommended that the Knowledge Strategy be revised to ensure the prioritisation of knowledge needs as identified within the new OEH is ahead of other external stakeholders (including the now independent EPA).

c) A more discriminating prioritisation framework needs to be applied to

proposed Knowledge Strategy projects. OEH as an organisation needs to adopt one consistent prioritisation framework for biodiversity conservation projects – and it needs to reflect the agreed policy direction of the NSW Government (i.e.: PAS2).

d) The current approach in the Biodiversity Knowledge Strategy 5-Year Strategic

Plan of identifying the ‘top-10’ knowledge needs for biodiversity (note it is the ‘top-5’ for other Knowledge Strategy Themes) is not supported. This approach is attempting to ‘pick winners’ and actually undermines the critical thinking and knowledge needs identification that were provided from other OEH Groups/Divisions at a Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 level.

e) There needs to be greater recognition and priority given by SSD to

announced Government policies that have knowledge needs attached to them. These are a ‘must-do’.

f) The 5-year Strategic Plan should not be positioned as a pseudo budget-bid

for SSD projects. Budget considerations are a separate process and the longer term strategic intent of the Knowledge Strategy is unnecessarily confused with the inclusion of a bid framework (currently at Appendix 4 – Biodiversity Knowledge Strategy). This would be more appropriate as a component of the year-to-year implementation plans.

g) To ensure the success of the Knowledge Strategy as a truly cross-

organisational, collaborative process, SSD needs to listen and respond more effectively to the feedback being provided by other OEH Groups/Divisions working on Knowledge Strategy Theme Committees.

12


9. Improving systems and processes – Finance and service agreements:

a) Adopt a harmonised financial management and reporting system across all OEH Groups/Divisions (i.e.: align PWG with the other OEH Groups/Divisions).

b) Imposing a flat reduction across all OEH Group/ Divisional budgets to deliver

required savings is not strategic and should be discontinued as an approach. c) Potential agency budget reductions relating to biodiversity conservation

functions should utilise the Executive agreed prioritisation framework to ensure ongoing critical thinking about OEH’s agreed biodiversity conservation priorities.

d) Future technical advice to CMA’s on biodiversity conservation matters to be

provided via a servicing agreement with remuneration to OEH from DPI (Finance Branch to establish details).

e) Future technical advice to the Department of Planning on biodiversity

conservation matters to be provided via the terms of a service agreement between the two agencies. Where OEH advice is not utilised Department of Planning is to provide explicit reasons. Department of Planning is to prioritise the advice provided by OEH over that provided by externally engaged biodiversity conservation consultancy firms.

f) Future advice from OEH to Local Government Authorities on biodiversity

conservation matters is to be provided on a user-pays service arrangement (the details of which are to be prepared by OEH Finance Branch but costs to be commensurate with current commercial consultancy rates).

10. Improving tools, products:

a) To assist the Executive in determining ongoing resourcing priorities for

decision support tools, the external stakeholder survey should be commenced to understand what decision support tools are used by external stakeholders and how this compares with the results of the OEH internal survey.

b) Audit the existing array of decision support tools and rationalise resources

allocated to those tools that are not being widely used within OEH or by OEH external stakeholders. Discontinue resources for tools that are not being used. Proposals regarding decision support tools are to be brought before the NRM&S Executive Committee prior to any further resourcing commitments being made.

c) Explore opportunities for sharing of biodiversity conservation data sets

between OEH, EPA, DPI, CMA’s, DPC, Department of Planning, NRC, non-governmental environmental organisations (i.e.: NCT, GA, BHA), Spatial Council and local councils.

13


11. Improving cooperation and coordination – Establishment of NVID and Native Vegetation mapping

a) The Executive must work to address the ongoing challenges in determining a

consistent and agreed position within OEH regarding the technologies and user requirements for native vegetation mapping services.

b) There needs to be a much stronger focus within OEH on agreeing and

applying consistent standards that have useful application for a variety of NRM stakeholders. The focus should not be on promoting one specific methodology or tool over another. Rather, the focus should be on the quality of the information that will be used to inform policy development and program implementation.

c) The OEH Executive should implement intensive change management support

processes for former EPA staff transferring back to OEH, particularly to assist in rebuilding relationships between the OEH Groups/Divisions involved in NVID and re-establishing trust between these stakeholders.

d) Given the critical mass of EPA personnel nominated for transfer to NVID

(SSD) are now located within the proposed B&NRM Division, the location of NVID be transferred from SSD to B&NRMD.

e) Given the structural separation of the RBG&DT from OEH, the proposed

relocation of nominated RBG&DT personnel to NVID should not proceed until the OEH structure is finalised.

f) The Native Vegetation Steering Committee should continue as a cross-

organisational clearing house for native vegetation issues. It should be chaired by B&NRMD and include representation from the EPA and the RBG&DT.

g) The Native Vegetation Steering Committee should report periodically to the

NRM&S Executive Committee. Issues to be considered include (but are not limited to) mapping techniques / methodologies / use of computer generated models, ground-truthing, identification of client needs and expectations, funding applications and/or allocations.

h) Any funding applications relating to Native Vegetation issues are to be first

discussed by the Native Vegetation Steering Committee, an agreed position reached and put to the NRM&S Executive Committee – no exceptions.

i) It is recommended that the Native Vegetation Steering Committee consider

the outcomes identified at the cross-organisational workshop held on 17-18 November 2011 and the May 2010 comparative analysis of two mapping methodologies by Eco-Logical Australia in the context of implementing the recommendations of the NVID paper (23/2/2012) and that an agreed ‘way forward’ be presented to the NRM&S Executive Committee.

j) The Executive needs to initiate an independent and comprehensive review of

the proposed technology for the preparation of the state-wide (SPOT5) native vegetation map to provide certainty as to the appropriateness of this technology for the purpose of: ensuring legislative compliance (i.e.: acceptability as evidence in court proceedings); usefulness to local government planning authorities in the preparation of Regional Land Use

14


Plans; Local Environment Plans and consideration of consent conditions for proposed major developments.

k) Ongoing and/or emerging issues relating to native vegetation mapping should

be discussed at the Native Vegetation Steering Committee prior to escalation to the NRM&S Executive Committee.

l) Any funding applications relating to native vegetation issues are to be first

discussed by the Native Vegetation Steering Committee, with an agreed position put to the NRM&S Executive Committee – no exceptions.

12. Improving program monitoring and evaluation:

a) PWG’s adaptive management systems approach is innovative and impressive

– it has greatly improved PWG’s capacity to monitor, evaluate and measure biodiversity conservation program outcomes. The Executive should consider the opportunity for other OEH Groups/Divisions to adopt similar adaptive management systems to measure, monitor and evaluate biodiversity conservation programs.

13. Improving systems and processes – Information Technology:

a) Increase the level of IT support for biodiversity conservation activities –

particularly hardware (increased available memory capacities for staff working with spatial imagery and other GIS technologies).

b) Review the overly strict requirements for staff in relation to use of the internet

as a research tool. Feedback from staff across the organisation indicated frustration with the level of internet access available to staff and the restrictive firewalls. Frequently staff trying to access newspaper articles or technical research materials have been unable to do so at work – and are doing this work at home.

c) Increase the speed of the internet service provider within OEH. It is very slow

compared with other NSW public sector agencies and creates difficulties for staff trying to use spatial imagery or other IT tools to carry out their roles. This is particularly a concern for regionally based staff.

14. Professional Development for OEH staff:

a) Increase opportunities for staff to gain experience in collaborative projects with other OEH Groups/Divisions via internal secondments / EOI processes.

b) Increase opportunities for OEH staff working on biodiversity conservation

matters to undertake additional field based work experiences in order to retain a workforce with highly professional field-based competencies - and capacity to undertake reliable ‘ground-truthing’ of computer generated modelling.

c) Create formal NRM secondment (i.e.: “staff-swap”) opportunities between

OEH, RBG&DT, DPI, CMA’s, NRC, DPC, EPA, Dept Planning and Local Councils – for a period no less than 1 year as a professional development opportunity for OEH staff. This approach will also assist in addressing the perceived capacity issues of other NSW agencies in terms of their internal biodiversity conservation expertise.

15


16


PART 1 CONTEXT, PURPOSE,

BACKGROUND

17


18


3.0 INTRODUCTION The Bio-Focus Review was commissioned by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Executive in July 2011. A Project Director was seconded from the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) to undertake a 12-month review of all biodiversity conservation activities/programs and functions of the Groups and Divisions within OEH. 3.1 Purpose of the Bio-Focus Review The purpose of the Bio-Focus Review was to examine OEH’s organisation-wide approach to biodiversity conservation to ensure:

• our biodiversity program is based on a clear sense of purpose, with each team and output aligned to attainment of measurable objectives

• policies and tools are fit for purpose and applied in all transactions • our external stakeholders experience positive, consistent, timely and professional

service delivery, irrespective of location or activity • research activities are focussed on informing organisational priorities • we use efficient systems for innovating and adapting how we work and what we

do • we are able to identify and resolve differences of professional opinion to ensure

seamless organisational delivery • we can be benchmarked positively against other leading professional services

organisations, using efficient and effective systems and processes. Achieving these priorities will maximise OEH’s value to the NSW community, our contribution to biodiversity conservation, and increase opportunities for the continued professional development for staff. 3.2 Summary of core structure and functions: OEH Groups and Divisions

(as at September 2011) This section briefly summarises the roles of the various OEH Groups/Divisions as structured at the commencement of the Bio-Focus Review. The revised OEH / EPA structure announced in February 2012 is described in further detail at section 4.0. 3.2.1 Environment and Heritage Policy and Programs Group The Environment and Heritage Policy and Programs Group develops and coordinates strategic policies and programs. It delivers water, energy and waste sustainability programs and is responsible for environmental water recovery programs including RiverBank and Wetland Recovery. Other key policy and program areas include climate change; energy efficiency; air; noise; urban and coastal water; threatened species; and landscapes and ecosystems conservation. (Note: with the OEH/EPA restructure announced in February 2012 the noise, waste and local government policy areas have now been transferred to the EPA)

19


3.2.2 Environment Protection and Regulation Group (incorporating Environment Protection Authority)

The Environment Protection and Regulation Group leads the state's response to regulating a diverse range of activities that can impact on the health of the NSW environment and its people. 'Regulation' is delivered using a mix of tools, including education, partnerships, licensing and approvals, audit, enforcement and economic mechanisms. The Group generally works outside the protected conservation areas and focuses on the areas where populations and economic activity interact with the environment. As at September 2011, the Environment Protection and Regulation Group (EPRG) performed the following functions:

• Regulated (broadly defined) air, water and noise pollution, waste, forestry, contaminated sites, radiation, dangerous goods, chemicals, pesticides, threatened species, native vegetation and Aboriginal cultural heritage

• Developed, implemented and evaluated policies and strategies to mitigate the environmental impacts associated with, and the community’s exposure to risks from chemicals, pesticides, waste and hazardous materials.

• Monitored emerging environmental issues and developed appropriate responses for prevention or early intervention of adverse impacts

• Administered the Waste and Environment Levy and load-based licensing which drive environmental improvement and raise substantial government revenue which underpins the City and Country Environment Restoration Program

• Performed local, sub and regional assessments of environmental values to assist planning decisions

• Delivered OEH's input to regional conservation, natural resource management and land-use planning processes

• Coordinated the assessment and approval processes for proposed major developments

• Investigated breaches of legislation and undertakes strategic enforcement and compliance

• Reformed the environment protection regulatory framework to strengthen its effectiveness and minimised red tape and optimise compliance costs

• Responded to reports of incidents or environmental harm received from the public

• Assisted with implementation of the Government’s forestry and conservation decisions and resultant issues including – reporting and monitoring under the Forestry and National Parks Estate Act 1998.

(Note: a large proportion of the EPRG was transferred to the EPA as part of the OEH/EPA restructure announced in February 2012. The Biodiversity Conservation Units and Planning and Assessment functions were transferred to the OEH and are currently allocated to the Division of Conservation and Regulation (CARD)).

20


3.2.3 Parks and Wildlife Group The Parks and Wildlife Group is responsible for the growth and management of the protected area system and field-based wildlife management. The Group ensures the conservation of protected native flora and fauna within the reserve system and wilderness areas and promotes community awareness, understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural heritage. Broadly, the Parks and Wildlife Group has the following functions:

• Manages parks and protected areas and assets

• Manages the reserve acquisition process

• Manages on-park Aboriginal and historic heritage sites and areas/buildings of significance

• Develops, implements and reviews operational policy, programs and procedures pertaining to the protected area system and wildlife management

• Undertakes field-based wildlife management, including incident control and first response law enforcement

• Manages on-park threatened species

• Addresses on-park pest and weed management issues

• Develops community partnerships and delivers educational programs

• Provides visitor facilities and promotes tourism opportunities

• Ensures appropriate fire suppression/protection and management across the reserve system

• Undertakes state of the parks reporting and the development of management effectiveness indicators.

3.2.4 Policy, Economics and Governance Division The Policy, Economics and Governance Division delivers services across the full spectrum of business activities undertaken by the Office of Environment and Heritage, supporting the achievement of the organisation’s corporate goals and the Government’s priorities. The Policy, Economics and Governance Division's seven service areas are: Public Affairs, Information and Publishing, Ministerial and Parliamentary Services, Corporate Governance, Economic Services, Policy and Evaluation, and State of the Environment Reporting. Broadly, the Policy, Economics and Governance Division's key functions include:

• Building the organisation's capabilities in strategic policy and evaluation

• Leading major portfolio level initiatives to improve organisational performance

• Leading the organisation and Minister’s engagement with Ministerial Councils

21


• Developing internal and external communication strategies, including communication with the public, stakeholders and the media

• Supporting the Minister with delivering programs and coordinating workflows

• Corporate planning, annual reporting, risk management and internal audit

• Ensuring compliance with corporate governance policies and relevant legislation such as the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

• Producing the NSW State of the Environment Report every three years

• Providing strong economic and stakeholder analysis to formulate successful plans and policies.

(Note: State of Environment reporting responsibilities were transferred to the EPA as part of the OEH/EPA restructure announced in February 2012. OEH will provide support to the EPA for Public Affairs, MAPS and Legal Services via a Service Agreement). 3.2.5 Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust (RBG&DT) is responsible for maintaining and improving the Trust lands, the National Herbarium of NSW and the collections of living and preserved plant life owned by the Trust and for disseminating information on the plant life of Australia and NSW in particular. The Trust encourages the use and enjoyment of the Trust lands and advocates the study of systematic botany in plant conservation. Broadly, the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust has the following functions:

• Maintains, improves and interprets living collections in the three botanic gardens: the Royal Botanic Garden; the Australian Botanic Garden Mount Annan; and the Blue Mountains Botanic Garden Mount Tomah

• Manages and protects the heritage values of the sites

• Promotes public use of Trust lands and facilitates community and other events and activities

• Coordinates, facilitates and promotes plant conservation programs

• Provides scientific, indigenous and environmental educational resources

• Investigates the systematics, ecology, horticulture and pathology of plants and related organisms and disseminates the results

• Contributes to the development and implementation of state, national and international policies

• Maintains and enhances the collection of preserved plants in the National Herbarium of NSW

• Provides botanical information, plant disease diagnosis and plant, fungal and algal identifications

• Maintains retail outlets and horticultural services.

(Note: The RBG&DT was separated from the OEH structure in the restructure announced in February 2012 and is now a stand alone organisation.) .

22


3.2.6 Corporate Services Division The Corporate Services Division develops, manages and implements a broad range of corporate services that support and contribute to the achievement of the business strategies and goals of the department. These include information technology, human resources, finance and administrative services. Broadly, the Corporate Services Division has the following functions:

• Determines and implements policies, programs and procedures in relation to financial and human resource management, information technology and administration infrastructures, and maintains and reports related management data

• Develops, manages and has accountability for OEH's annual operating and capital budgets and guides the Executive, senior managers and staff on financial matters, oversees expenditure, monitors budget achievement, and prepares, reviews and presents material to Parliament's Budget Estimates Committee

• Negotiates with central government agencies regarding resourcing implications of new initiatives impacting on the department

• Negotiates with unions on industrial relations matters

• Determines and administers appropriate information technologies

• Provides payroll, recruitment, accounts payable and receivable services via the Service Centre

• Manages risks associated with occupational health and safety.

3.2.7 Country, Culture and Heritage Division The Country, Culture and Heritage Division guides and directs OEH's approach to identifying, understanding and conserving cultural heritage. The Division also directs and manages the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio on behalf of the agency. Broadly, the Country, Culture and Heritage Division has the following functions:

• Works with Aboriginal communities, private and public landowners, local councils and Catchment Management Authorities to protect and conserve Aboriginal cultural heritage

• Leads the development of strategic policies, strategies and programs that support the involvement of Aboriginal people in the management of their traditional lands, waters and natural resources (Country)

• Undertakes research and disseminates the findings to improve the understanding of the nature and distribution of our cultural heritage across the landscape

• Manages OEH's cultural heritage information systems and provides cultural heritage information services

• Leads the development of methodologies, standards and priorities for regional Aboriginal heritage assessments

• Provides technical services for the conservation of cultural heritage within parks, reserves and botanic gardens

• Coordinates key OEH-wide cultural heritage programs

23


• Supports all areas of OEH in building relationships with and providing services to Aboriginal communities across NSW

• Coordinates OEH's responsibilities under the NSW Aboriginal Affairs Plan: Two Ways Together and related State Plan priorities.

3.2.7 Scientific Services Division The Scientific Services Division undertakes scientific research, investigation, monitoring, analysis, evaluation and reporting on a wide range of natural resource and environmental issues. This helps OEH achieve its corporate goals and responsibilities based on the best available scientific information. Broadly, the Scientific Services Division has the following functions:

• Provides information and technical support to the other Divisions of OEH, Catchment Management Authorities and other clients

• Undertakes long-term research to improve knowledge

• Develops expertise to address immediate priorities

• Provides links between environment protection and resource management through improved knowledge of catchment processes

• Develops information management systems to enable multiple uses for agency data

• Gathers information to map and assess changes in environmental attributes

• Assesses the impacts on contaminants on the environment.

4.0 STRUCTURAL RE-ORGANISATION OF OEH: CREATION OF AN INDEPENDENT EPA

OEH (and its predecessor organisations) has undergone significant structural and organisational change over the last decade. Major organisational re-structures from December 2003 – February 2012 are summarised in Appendix 1. On 9 February 2012 the Director General DPC provided advice regarding the restructure of OEH to establish an independent EPA and a re-aligned OEH. The restructure reflected the NSW Government’s decision on 5 October 2011 to re-establish an independent EPA (in line with the recommendations of the O’Reilly Public Inquiry Report: “A review into the serious pollution incident at Orica Australia Pty. Ltd ammonium nitrate plant at Walsh Point, Kooragang Island on August 8, 2011”). Decisions regarding the restructure were informed by discussions with key stakeholders and analysis of both national and international trends in work undertaken by environment protection agencies and broader environment departments. Key changes include:

• The EPA will be an independent authority responsible for the regulation of air emissions, contaminated sites, dangerous goods and hazardous materials, noise, pesticides, forestry activities, waste and water quality and state of environment reporting

24


• EPA’s focus will be to make those subject to regulation aware of the Government’s and the community’s expectation of the need to protect the environment and the health of local communities, to raise general awareness of regulatory requirements and to deliver strong compliance and enforcement programs

• The EPA will assess and advise on regulated activities, develop proposals for regulation under existing legislation and design and deliver regulatory environmental protection programs

• The EPA’s recommended functions are substantially drawn from the Environment Protection and Regulation Group (EPRG) within OEH

• A number of existing functions that fall outside of the EPA’s role will be incorporated from EPRG into a revised OEH structure

• Arrangements will be put in place to assist the EPA to establish a public affairs capacity

• The OEH, as an office of state responsible to the Minister, retains responsibility for policy development in all environmental matters including those listed above and the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage, biodiversity and threatened species as well as all other existing functions

• The OEH will maintain management of environmental funding including the waste levy and the Environmental Trust

• The corporate specialist and support services presently conducted by OEH – e.g. legal, economic services, science, corporate governance and Ministerial support will remain within OEH

These structural arrangements will establish an independent EPA focused on protection of the community and the environment from major sources of pollution and will drive the reduction of impacts from emissions and contaminants into air, water and onto land. The NSW Government has identified building community confidence in the regulation of pollution and emissions and therefore the protection of the environment and local communities as one of its key priorities.

The creation of the two organisations will provide a strong framework for delivering on Government priorities in NSW 2021 and addressing contemporary challenges and pressures in environment and heritage management and reform. The guiding principles for both the OEH and the EPA will include:

• outcome delivery, • reduction of red tape, • ensuring a customer focus, • maintaining regional delivery of services and • agency financial responsibility and accountability

Outcomes arising from other reforms underway within Government that relate to the environment portfolio will be factored into the work of both organisations in the future. Refer Appendix 2 for a structural (unit by unit) breakdown of the OEH and EPA.

25


4.2: Organisational Structure: OEH (effective 29 February 2012):

4.3: Organisational Structure: EPA (effective 29 February 2012):

26


27


5.0 KEY BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION POLICY DRIVERS WITHIN OEH This section outlines some of the key policy drivers for biodiversity conservation in NSW and implications for OEH’s approach to service delivery. 5.1 Existing legislative & policy framework All approaches to biodiversity conservation in Australia revolve around 7 major program areas:

• Land clearing regulation

• Private land conservation

• Strategic landscape-scale planning

• Water management – marine, estuarine, inland

• National parks, other public lands – expansion / management

• Regulation of wildlife interactions with people – licensing & education

• Targeted programs for threatened species

The NSW Government needs to establish/maintain credible programs around each of these themes supported by targeted research and monitoring 5.1.1 Biodiversity management framework

(Source: Presentation by J. Ravallion) Appendix 3 summarises the key legislative tools, regulations and policies (and the cooperative arrangements and responsibilities of NSW agencies, local government and Federal agencies) for biodiversity conservation in relation to land clearing, strategic land use planning, private land conservation, water management, management and expansion of National Parks, management of threatened species and regulation of wildlife interaction with people.

28


5.2 NSW 2021 NSW 2021 is the NSW Government’s 10 year strategic plan for driving changes in policy settings as they relate to:

• Strengthening the economy

• Improving service delivery

• Delivering infrastructure

• Strengthening local communities and the environment and

• Strengthening the accountability of Government.

NSW 2021 has a strong focus on localism and devolved decision making. As such, achieving the goals of NSW 2021 will involve some changes to government service delivery models and a reassessment of agency priorities. The full text of NSW 2021 is provided at Appendix 4. The key goals relating to biodiversity conservation are identified in Chapter 4 (Goal 22, Goal 23) and are summarised overleaf:

29


5.2.1 Chapter 4 NSW 2021 - Goal 22: Protect our Natural Environment

30


5.2.2 Chapter 4 NSW 2021 – Goal 23: Increase the opportunity for people to look after their own neighbourhoods and environments

31


In the context of NSW 2021, there are three clear challenges for OEH:

1. Relevance - how do we make OEH’s delivery of biodiversity conservation relevant to the general community?

2. Trust – does the community care about OEH? OEH must care about the

community and their needs. To what extent does the community care about the environment and what are the strategic priorities? – How can OEH align these priorities?

3. Engagement - The language that OEH uses and OEH’s interactions with its

partners and community is vital. 5.3 NSW Government 2011/12 Budget Paper No. 3 The 2011 Budget Paper No. 3 (released on 10 May 2011) outlined the NSW Government’s key spending initiatives for 2011-12 for Environment and Heritage as being:

• $452 million on programs under the Climate Change Fund, including $294 million for the Solar Bonus Scheme Reimbursement program, $74 million for programs focused on energy efficiency and water savings, and $34 million dollars for the Clean Energy Supply program

• $68 million to manage pest animals and weeds and to improve fire management in national parks

• $35 million to help local councils that are subject to the Waste and Environment Levy so they can improve the performance of the waste and recycling services they provide

• $28 million to maintain essential infrastructure for the reserve system so it can be managed effectively and the community can access and enjoy it

• $20 million in payments to the Historic Houses Trust, to conserve and manage heritage properties and run education and public programs

• $19 million to help local councils conduct estuary, coastal and flood plain management planning and mitigation, with a new focus on preparing for more coastal storms and sea level rises

• $16 million in payments to the Zoological Parks Board of New South Wales

• $12 million in payments to maintain Sydney’s urban parks and gardens, including the Centennial Parklands and Moore Park Trust, Parramatta Park Trust and Western Sydney Parklands Trust

5.4 NSW Threatened Species Priorities Action Statement (PAS) and PAS2 Since the introduction of the TSC Act the number of threatened plants, animals and communities listed in the Act has grown to over 1,000. Prior to 2004, the TSC Act required a recovery plan to be prepared for every threatened species and community listed in the Act. The preparation of individual recovery plans for such a large number of species and communities was costly, and time and resource intensive. The rate of plan preparation was not keeping pace with the rate at which new species were listed. The amount of government investment in preparing the plans was

32


disproportionately high compared with investment in recovery and threat abatement actions. The Priorities Action Statement (PAS) was introduced in 2007 as the NSW Government’s primary tool for managing the more than 1,000 threatened species, populations and communities that live in NSW. OEH administers the PAS, as set out in Part 5A, Section 90A, of the TSC Act.

Through the PAS:

• actions for each threatened species, population and community in NSW are documented – these actions aim to promote the recovery of threatened species and manage the key threats they face

• priorities for managing threatened species are developed

• performance indicators to monitor and report on effectiveness are established

• clear timeframes for planning, implementing and reporting on priority actions are set out.

With the introduction of the PAS, NSW become one of the first jurisdictions in the world to formally document the management requirements of its threatened species, populations and communities. The diagram below highlights the range of programs that contribute to the conservation of threatened species in NSW:

(Source: PAS Review, March 2012)

33


Recovery plans continue to be important for guiding the recovery of high-profile, complex or critically endangered threatened species. However, around 90% of threatened species in NSW do not have a recovery plan, and are managed solely under the PAS. The PAS contains a list of the actions that are important for recovering each threatened species, population and community, and for decreasing each key threat, in NSW. All the PAS actions are compiled in the PAS Recovery Database, which records when each action is commenced and supports OEH regional planning for recovery of threatened species. The database links to the PAS website (www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au) where all PAS actions can be viewed by the public. Stakeholders can use the PAS to support the development and implementation of management programs. Each PAS action is assigned to one of 34 recovery and threat abatement strategies (e.g. habitat management, community liaison). The implementation of PAS actions under each strategy can be assessed to better understand the types of activities that are being managed under the PAS.

5.4.1 PAS Review (2010) A required periodic review of PAS was conducted in 2010 (after three years of operation). The review was informed by:

• OEH data on the commencement of PAS actions to recover threatened species and decrease the threats they face;

• feedback from surveys of staff at the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH),

in local government, at Taronga Zoo and in catchment management authorities (CMAs).

The 10 key findings of the review were:

1. A large amount of worthwhile, on-ground activity for threatened species occurred during 2007–2010. Around 4,000 management actions were commenced by OEH alone.

2. The extent to which these activities have benefited threatened species is unclear. The PAS Recovery Database recorded actions that were commenced but did not record the progress or outcomes of actions. Many actions had no follow-up monitoring. Where monitoring did occur, results were not captured in the database. It is therefore difficult to determine the extent to which PAS actions have produced successful outcomes for species.

3. Many threatened species (30%) received little or no management. Where species did receive management, most had some, but not all actions commenced. Only 15% of threatened species, populations and communities had more than 80% of actions pertaining to them commenced.

4. The PAS listed all actions that would benefit each species, prioritising them as critical to, contributing to or desirable for the recovery of the species. Desirable actions, usually requiring less investment upfront, were often implemented over critical actions due to the availability of resources.

5. The PAS Program prioritised actions for each species, but did not prioritise the state-wide importance of species. Each region carried out its own prioritisation between species.

34


6. Objectives and performance measures were not clearly defined for PAS actions.

7. Communities and CMAs were successfully engaged in many projects by the regional staff of OEH. However, opportunities for species-wide partnerships, crossing administrative boundaries and tenures, were not always harnessed.

8. Uptake of the PAS was lower than expected, largely due to difficulties with ongoing coordination and resourcing of the program.

9. Stakeholder surveys revealed that PAS actions were not specific enough to be useful in planning and implementing projects for the recovery of threatened species.

10. The PAS Recovery Database did not deliver on the key reporting needs of the program. Surveys revealed that the database was difficult to use and problems were not resolved due to a lack of resources. The database was not accessible to people outside OEH, limiting the scale of reporting.

5.4.2 Review outcomes - PAS2 The review recommended 8 improvements to the PAS which has been renamed PAS2: Recommendation 1. Establish a NSW Red List with seven management streams, to better target the management of each threatened species.

Recommendation 2. Enhance uptake of the PAS and raise community awareness.

Recommendation 3. Make PAS actions more specific in terms of what is required, and where and when actions are required.

Recommendation 4. Provide a framework for local actions to contribute to state-wide outcomes for species.

Recommendation 5. Target investment at the minimum set of actions that are crucial for securing a species.

Recommendation 6. Develop a sound, repeatable and transparent process for prioritising effort between species state-wide.

Recommendation 7. Develop a process for monitoring and reporting on the outcomes of projects and actions for threatened species.

Recommendation 8. Develop a simple, user-friendly database to support program delivery. A copy of the PAS Review report is provided at Appendix 5. 5.5 (draft) NSW Biodiversity Strategy (2012-17) OEH has been the driving force behind the preparation of a draft NSW Biodiversity Strategy 2012-2017. The draft Strategy aims to coordinate and guide investment and effort in biodiversity conservation in NSW for the next five years. The draft Strategy identifies state-scale investment priorities for 15 broad terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in NSW. The following approaches were used to develop the draft Strategy:

• more effective targeting of existing public and private investment in biodiversity conservation to maximise outcomes

35


• use of existing regional structures and mechanisms to deliver biodiversity outcomes (such as the catchment management authorities, local government and other public authorities), avoiding the need for new arrangements

• acknowledgment of, and continuing support for, existing programs delivered by many government and non-government partners that result in significant outcomes for biodiversity conservation

• the importance of partnerships across public and private sectors to deliver biodiversity outcomes based on the best available science.

The existing themes of the draft Biodiversity Strategy include:

• Smarter biodiversity investment

• Whole of landscape planning

• Improved partnerships

• Effectively managing threats

• Sustainable productive environments The (draft) Biodiversity Strategy is currently being reviewed following exhibition in 2010. The major changes will reflect the NSW Government’s election commitments and NSW 2021 as well as respond to the submissions received. Proposed changes include:

• a stronger focus on connectivity conservation in the PLC program along with efforts to remove impediments to participation (tax incentives etc).

• a stronger commitment to renewing the threatened species management program (announced election commitment).

• acknowledgment of the need to resolve dual approval issues with the Australian Government – the Biodiversity Strategy’s role in this is likely to focus on both bio-banking and biodiversity certification as the basis for aligning Commonwealth expectations.

• a stronger focus on integrated biodiversity into landscape planning exercises including CAPs and regional planning done under the EP&A Act.

• strengthened support to CMAs to implement (especially with transfer to DPI).

• Strengthened MER components in strategy – intent is to support the current MER strategy including the land management database. Lack of co-ordination across programs a key theme in submission that could be assisted by a better co-ordinated MER.

The draft Strategy emphasises:

• continued support for existing programs and policy reforms that are going well and contribute to biodiversity conservation including reserve management and expansion, sustainable agricultural landscapes, aquatic management, etc.

• linking local action and investment in biodiversity conservation with state wide priorities. Priority mapping in draft strategy has been significantly upgraded from a technical perspective (due to better data becoming available) and

36


expanded in focus to include priorities for revegetation, management and connectivity.

• a revitalised threatened species program including renewing the PAS and the threat program.

• research – important for this strategy to clearly link to policy priorities.

5.6 OEH’s Knowledge Strategy The Knowledge Strategy is a two-year strategic framework for determining the 'knowledge' priorities of OEH. The Knowledge Strategy, which is being led by SSD, commenced in early 2010 and its approach involves identification of:

• priority knowledge areas for OEH;

• key knowledge needs in those areas and ensuring resources are focused on them; and,

• how to link knowledge to policy, regulation and implementation to optimise organisational performance.

The priority knowledge areas for OEH will be used to:

• align science activity with legislative, management and policy needs • track progress (including expenditure) against objectives • guide development of contracts with third parties • guide submissions for external funding • guide strategic workforce planning.

Priorities for knowledge acquisition in OEH are being developed under six themes:

• Biodiversity • Climate Change • Coastal, Estuarine and Marine Environments • Landscape Management • Pollution • Water and Wetlands

Cross divisional Knowledge Strategy Steering Committees have been established for each Knowledge Theme and are co-chaired by a scientist and a specialist in policy, regulation and/or management, supported by specialist staff. A summary of each of the Knowledge Strategy Themes is provided at Appendix 6. Theme Committees are responsible for the development of a 5-year Strategic Plan and annual implementation plan. These plans aim to consolidate the evidence to guide policy making and funding decisions, ensuring that all knowledge acquired will deliver on OEH objectives. The plans also outline accountability and lines of communication. The Bio-Focus Review established a close interface with the development of the Knowledge Strategy, with particular emphasis on the 5-year Strategic Plan being developed by the Biodiversity Knowledge Strategy Theme Committee (refer Appendix 7).

37


5.7 OEH’s draft Corporate Plan The 2010 OEH Corporate Plan update (26 February 2011) summarised OEH’s Vision, Corporate Goals, approach and values as being: VISION

A Healthy Environment for Life

Corporate Goals

Goal 1: Climate Change and its impacts are minimised to protect the environment, the economy and community wellbeing

Goal 2: A healthier and cleaner environment protecting both ecological and human health

Goal 3: Integrated landscape management for long-term ecological, social and economic sustainability

Goal 4: Secure and sustainable supplies of water, and water is used more wisely

Goal 5: A credible, efficient and effective organisation

Our approach

We provide information, educational programs and incentives to help the community’s decision making, to protect and improve the environment, to use water wisely and to understand the linkages between economic, social and environmental decisions.

We regulate activities, using a variety of tools, according to the risk these activities pose to the environment, water resources, human health or Aboriginal cultural heritage.

We work in partnership with people in government, business and the community to develop and deliver sustainable environmental, conservation and water use solutions.

We respect Aboriginal culture, both traditional and contemporary, and the special relationship that Aboriginal people have with Country. We seek to incorporate their knowledge, insights and values into our efforts to conserve and protect the environment.

We manage over eight percent of NSW for conservation, education and public enjoyment.

We provide facilities and services in parks, reserves and gardens for sustainable recreation, tourism, regional development, education and scientific purposes.

We contribute to public debate about solutions to environmental, conservation and water use problems.

We deliver best available scientific information to support environmental and cultural heritage policy, regulation and conservation objectives.

Our values

As individual staff, as work teams and as a department we seek to:

Protect the environment

We understand that the health of the environment underpins our social and economic prosperity as well as the health and wellbeing of the community.

Recognise the rights and status of Aboriginal people

We respect the unique rights and status of Aboriginal people based on their prior and continuing occupation of the land and waters of NSW, including the right to self-determination in economic, social and cultural development. We also acknowledge the importance of connection to Country for community wellbeing.

Act with integrity

We are ethical, impartial and honest. We are also open, accessible and accountable to the community and each other.

Act professionally

We treat everyone with respect. We need to be responsive and flexible and to get things done quickly and effectively. We base our decisions on facts, analysis and community values. We encourage debate, but we speak with one voice once a decision has been made.

38


Work collaboratively

We value the knowledge, skills and experience of the people we work with. We encourage teamwork and work collaboratively to achieve the best outcomes.

Be innovative

We bring energy and creativity to our work. We will learn and improve by questioning, challenging and thinking about the future.

Work safely

We aim to have the best health and safety practices.

In response to NSW 2021, the draft Biodiversity Strategy, Budget Paper #3 and the Knowledge Strategy, the OEH Corporate Plan is being revised. Executive workshops held in June and September 2011 produced the following draft corporate objectives:

Observation: The draft Corporate Plan objectives are now being further refined in response to the OEH restructure. The Corporate Plan will also need to reflect the negotiated servicing arrangements with the EPA. Recommendation: The Executive should consider the recommendations of this Observations Report and the written feedback from OEH staff in the context of finalising the OEH structure and reframing the OEH Corporate Plan.

39


40


PART 2

STRUCTURE OF BIO-FOCUS REVIEW

41


42


6.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE BIO-FOCUS REVIEW The Terms of Reference for the Bio-Focus Review were adopted by the OEH Executive on 26 October 2011.

TERMS OF REFERENCE: BIO-FOCUS REVIEW The goal of the Bio-Focus Review is to engage Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) staff in framing OEH’s forward agenda for biodiversity conservation and confirm priority programs and activities that will achieve the corporate objective: “Biological diversity, ecological processes and systems are conserved”. Key Tasks:

• To undertake a comprehensive and inclusive review of current biodiversity conservation services and activities within OEH Groups/Divisions to assist in aligning future activities with the Government’s priorities, OEH’s strategic priorities* and statutory obligations.

• To develop a framework for evaluating and prioritising OEH’s biodiversity conservation programs, projects and activities in the context of: NSW 2021; legislative obligations; and the strategic direction for biodiversity conservation as established by the OEH Executive.

• To provide a comprehensive report with recommendations on priorities and future resourcing implications for consideration by the OEH Executive. The report and recommendations should include: Priorities for future biodiversity conservation programs; suggestion for improvement and efficiencies in delivery and reporting biodiversity outcomes; actions to address specific customer service issues identified in the process; and, improvements to inter-divisional coordination and communication.

• The report should address any efficiency improvements for OEH’s work processes, policies, systems, tools, products and KPIs relating to biodiversity conservation.

• Where appropriate, the review will input to other reviews occurring within OEH and the upcoming review by the Department of Premier and Cabinet and will align with the agreed outcomes of these reviews.

• To implement any agreed transition arrangements or actions in a timely and cost effective manner.

• To complete the Bio-Focus review and initial program implementation phase by 16 August 2012.

The Bio-Focus Review will not include: Specific evaluation of NPWS pest, weed and fire management programs, Native Vegetation Act enforcement activities, Review of the Native Vegetation Regulation (as this is already the subject of a public review process).

* OEH’s strategic directions for biodiversity conservation include: landscape management; active and engaged communities; generating and applying best available science and knowledge; efficient and effective biodiversity conservation on private and public lands; sensible, clear policies and regulations; targeting threat abatement and recovery programs to develop a RED list for NSW; and, targeting investment to deliver optimal benefits.

43


6.1 Establishment of the Bio-Focus Steering Committee A Senior Management Steering Committee was established to provide guidance to the OEH Executive over the course of the Bio-Focus Review. The Bio-Focus Steering Committee was chaired by OEH’s Deputy Chief Executive PWG, with Executive representatives from EPA, EHPP, SSD, PWG, RBG&DT and CCHD. The Steering Committee also included the participation of the Project Director. The Steering Committee considered the findings arising from the Taskforce and referred recommendations to the Chief Executive. The Bio-Focus Steering Committee met four times (2/9/2011; 7/10/2011; 11/11/2011 and the 16/12/2011). The Terms of Reference for the Bio-Focus Steering Committee and its membership are provided at Appendix 8. 6.2 Establishment of the Bio-Focus Taskforce An internal Taskforce chaired by the Bio-Focus Project Director and including representatives from all Groups/Divisions was established for the purpose of coordinating the Bio-Focus Review across OEH’s Groups/Divisions. The Taskforce primary role was to work closely with OEH managers and staff from across the organisation to identify the complete suite of biodiversity conservation activities being undertaken within OEH and their resourcing requirements. The Bio-Focus Taskforce collected and consolidated information from all work units across OEH with respect to biodiversity conservation. Information was sourced via:

• Specific data requests (including budgetary information)

• Online surveys

• One-on-one interviews

• Submissions to Bio-Focus email: [email protected] The Taskforce met a total of five times (13/9/2011; 7/10/2011; 1/11/2011; 6/12/2011; and 7/2/12). The Terms of Reference for the Taskforce and its membership are provided at Appendix 9. 6.3 Bio-Focus Communication Strategy A specific communication strategy was developed to support the Bio-Focus Review given the significant scope of the Review and the recognition that any change management initiative or review process can create a degree of uncertainty for staff within an organisation. This was particularly relevant for OEH given the frequency of structural realignments that have occurred for OEH, and its predecessor organisations, during the period 2003-2012. The primary target audience for the communication strategy was OEH staff working on biodiversity conservation activities across the organisation and also those staff involved on the Bio-Focus Taskforce, the Steering Committee and the Executive. A further (secondary) audience included external stakeholders who receive biodiversity related services from OEH. Ensuring the ongoing and active participation by OEH staff in the Bio-Focus Review was considered to be a critical component in developing credible recommendations for this Observations Report.

44

mailto:[email protected]


Key objectives of the communication strategy included:

• Establishing a positive framework for the Bio-Focus Review;

• Optimising staff engagement and participation over the review period;

• Increasing awareness across OEH Groups/Divisions of the extent of biodiversity conservation services currently being delivered by OEH;

• Creating a sense of ownership by staff of the Bio-Focus Review that encourages information sharing, innovative ideas and creative thinking;

• Effectively communicating the aims of the Bio-Focus Review to internal and external stakeholders;

• Responding effectively to identified and emerging issues;

• Supporting the implementation of OEH Executive endorsed recommendations;

• Establishing and promoting an external image of OEH as a leading service delivery organisation in biodiversity conservation.

The communication strategy provided key messages that clearly outlined:

• Timeframe for the Bio-Focus Review and its scope

• Structure for the Review process and opportunities for staff participation

• How ongoing information about the review would be communicated to staff

Communication mechanisms used over the course of the Review included:

• Upload of information on the Bio-Focus Review to the Ehub (Nature Conservation pages), development of a Q&A fact sheet

• Establishment of a specific Bio-Focus email mailbox for submissions

• Provision of regular information updates vie Ehub and staff circulars

• Delivery of on-line surveys for target OEH staff and presentations on the Review process to OEH work units

• Comprehensive Ministerial briefing package developed and provided

• Direct inputs from Divisional representatives on the Bio-Focus Taskforce and Bio-Focus Steering Committee

A copy of the Bio-Focus Communication Strategy is provided at Appendix 10. A summary of presentations is provided at Appendix 11. The communication strategy was a useful tool for identifying existing and emerging issues which were addressed by the Project Director and escalated to the Steering Committee if required.

45


7.0 PROCESS OF DATA COLLECTION BY OEH GROUPS/DIVISIONS Taskforce members were responsible for collecting the data on biodiversity conservation activities, programs and projects as it related to their specific Group/Division. This data collection process occurred over a period of approximately seven weeks. This aspect of the Bio-Focus Review was an intensive and challenging task for Taskforce members and their diligence and thoroughness is recognised. 7.1 Definition of biodiversity conservation For the purposes of communicating the Bio-Focus Review, and explaining the data collection process to staff, the Taskforce agreed to adopt the definition of biodiversity conservation as per that of the draft Biodiversity Strategy 2012-17 (Glossary): Biodiversity (biological diversity): Variability among living organisms from all sources (including terrestrial, aquatic, marine and other ecosystems and ecological complexes of which they are part), which includes genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity. Conservation: In relation to biodiversity, (biodiversity) conservation is the protection, maintenance, management, sustainable use, restoration and improvement of the natural environment. In relation to natural and cultural heritage, conservation generally refers to the safekeeping or preservation of the existing state of a heritage resource from destruction or change. 7.2 Data collection parameters Data collection parameters included:

• Branch identification • Description of the specific biodiversity conservation project • Funding source (recurrent, external, business, insurance) • Cost Centre / WBS details (including where applicable, proportional estimate of

the biodiversity conservation initiatives contained within a specific cost centre) • Primary internal clients: communication mechanisms, performance measures • Primary external clients: communication mechanisms, performance measures • Decision support tools used in the biodiversity conservation activity • IT support, information management (i.e. other data processes used) • Key tasks relating to the biodiversity conservation elements • Total staffing against that Cost Centre/WBS • Estimate (by work unit manager) as to the biodiversity conservation staffing

allocation

As far possible, the data was collected against specific cost-centres or WBS elements for the 2011/12 financial year and was presented in Excel worksheets (except PWG). The returned data collection spreadsheets from EHPP, PWG, SSD and EPRG are provided at Appendices12-15. An extensive staff on-line survey (refer Appendix 16) which had 185 respondents as well as separate submissions to the stand alone Bio-Focus email address also informed the work of the Taskforce and the Steering Committee. Aggregated survey results and de-identified staff survey feedback is provided at Appendix 17. Separate de-identified submissions to Bio-Focus are provided at Appendix 18.

46


The planned external client survey and targeted stakeholder interviews did not proceed due to the restructure of the OEH/EPA in February 2012. A copy of the draft external survey is provided at Appendix 19. The proposed list of targeted stakeholders for interview is provided at Appendix 20. 7.3 Response by OEH Groups/Division to data collection request Data collection spreadsheets were returned by EHPP, PWG, SSD, EPA (formerly EPRG). A nil return was provided by Country, Culture and Heritage Division, the Policy, Economics and Governance Division and Legal Services. The RBG&DT did not return the data collection spreadsheet. It is noted that the RBG&DT underwent an International Peer Review in December 2011. The findings arising from this review process were not available at the time of preparing this Observations Report however there may be recommendations arising from the International Peer Review which are also relevant to observations made in this report. 7.4 Presentation of information Information collected over the course of the Bio-Focus review has been aligned with the tasks as outlined in the Terms of Reference. Key observations and recommendations are framed using the following categories:

• Biodiversity profile across OEH Groups/Divisions

• Finalising OEH’s structure

• What our people told us – Staff feedback to Bio-Focus Review

• Establishing biodiversity conservation priorities for OEH

• Establishing a service delivery culture at OEH

• Case studies: Improved coordination and cooperation, improved communication, efficiency improvements (tools, systems, IT, finance)

7.5 Input to other OEH reviews The Terms of Reference for the Bio-Focus Review indicated that: “where appropriate, the review will input into other reviews occurring within OEH and the upcoming review by the Department of Premier and Cabinet”. A significant amount of information collected via the Bio-Focus Review was provided to DPC to assist the structural review process that DPC coordinated during November 2011. The Project Director briefed DPC personnel on the Bio-Focus Review and the DCE PWG (now A/CE) also briefed DPC’s consultants (The Nous Group) on the Bio-Focus Review. Aside from the DPC structural review of OEH/EPA other identified OEH reviews/workshops with the significant implications for biodiversity conservation within OEH were the Native Vegetation Information Review, conducted during 2011 (a copy of the Review is provided at Appendix 21) and a workshop held on 17-18 November 2011 to evaluate Native Vegetation mapping techniques and

47


methodologies (refer Appendix 22). In addition, there was an independent evaluation of native vegetation mapping techniques done in May 2010 by Eco-Logical Australia Pty Ltd on behalf of EPA (South). A copy of this review is provided at Appendix 23. 7.6 Caveat on observations and recommendations The observations and recommendations made in this Observations Report are solely those of the Project Director, given the discontinuation of the Bio-Focus Review as a consequence of the structural changes of the OEH/EPA. Neither the Taskforce nor the Steering Committee was involved in the preparation of this Observations Report. 7.7 Tasks to be completed A number of planned elements of the Bio-Focus Review process were not commenced due to the restructure of the OEH/EPA and the discontinuation of the review process. It is recommended that once the final structure for OEH has been resolved (anticipated to be June 2012); consideration should be given to completing the following tasks:

• Conduct a comprehensive on-line survey and also targeted interviews with key external stakeholders to understand external client expectations of OEH;

• Undertake a strategic workshop to further refine the biodiversity conservation priorities for OEH (to support OEH’s corporate planning work) and also establish a prioritisation framework for future consideration of biodiversity conservation projects. This framework needs to align with the NSW Government’s policy direction (i.e.: PAS2) and be used by the Executive in making budget decisions;

• Improve internal communication strategies to better highlight OEH biodiversity policies and key projects and increase understanding within OEH; and,

• Implement intensive change management support processes to assist biodiversity conservation staff transitioning back to OEH from the EPA.

48


PART 3

KEY FINDINGS: OBSERVATIONS &

RECOMMENDATIONS

49


50


8.0 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROFILE: OEH GROUPS/DIVISIONS Based on the previous OEH structure, the table below identified the suite of biodiversity conservation functions across the various OEH Groups/Divisions. Functional area

Example activities EHPP EPA (formerly ERPG)

PWG SSD

Strategic Policy and System Design

- Biodiversity Certification

- Biobanking - Review TS & NV Acts - Input to review of

EP&A Act - Negotiation of reforms

to Aust Govt legislation & process

- Bilateral agreements

Direct Direct

On ground management programs

- captive breeding programs

Support (Op Policy)

Direct (Corroboree frog)

Direct (Fox TAP)

Direct (Gould’s Petral)

Biological survey and analysis

- vegetation mapping - Direct

Direct Direct

Biodiversity assessment

- wilderness ID, - biodiversity certification (technical component) - preparation of BMPs

Support (Op Policy)

Direct Support (Op Policy)

Support (Data, expert advice)

Prioritisation

- Biodiversity Strategy - CAPs

Direct Direct Direct Support

Strategic land use planning

- LEP reviews - Biodiversity certification - urban settlement strategies

Support (Op Policy)

Direct - Support (Data, expert advice)

Investigations - breach investigations Direct (PNF)

Direct and all support

Direct and all support (on park)

Support (NV clearing)

Approvals (both OEH and by others)

- Input to Part 3A - crown forestry - PVPs including PNF - TS licensing – Sec 91 - TS concurrence

Direct (PNF) Support (Op policy)

Direct (Part 3A, TS) Support (crown forestry policy)

- -

Private landholder extension programs

- VCAs Direct Support (prioritisation)

Support -

Extension and capacity building

- BMP - GERI - Support to CMAs in

CAPs

Direct Direct Direct -

Observation: With the new OEH structure still to be finalised, and with a number of personnel now transferred to the EPA, the Executive will need to consider how biodiversity

51


conservation roles are allocated within the new structure. Identifying potential areas of role duplication as well as areas where additional capacity is needed will be a key task. A suggested approach is outlined in section 10.0. 8.1 Summary of estimated biodiversity related budgets and staffing as provided by OEH Groups/Divisions

Group/Division

FY 11/12 Biodiversity conservation

related budget (estimate)*

EFT – biodiversity conservation roles (estimate)*

EHPP $11,955,867 ~ 99 / 195 positions (~51%)

EPA (formerly EPRG) By Branch: Metropolitan Branch North East Branch North West Branch South Branch

$16,650,165

~104 / 279 positions (~37%) By Branch:

21.13 / 85 positions (~25%) 27.20 / 73 positions (~37%) 25.75 / 53.6 positions (~48%) 29.80 / 67 positions (~45%)

SSD $13,712,217 129 / 280 positions (~46%)

PWG $48,222,000 733.7 / 1710 positions (~43%)

TOTAL OEH: $90,540,249 1065 positions *Note: This data is based on estimated proportions of both biodiversity conservation related positions for each OEH Group/Division and the estimated budget relating to biodiversity conservation functions for each OEH Group/Division. This caveat must be applied when referencing these figures. Brief comments are provided on the individual data sheets as provided from each Group/Division. For detailed analysis please reference the specific data sheet included in the Appendices. 8.2 Overview of EHPP data sheet The data sheet as provided by EHPP is provided at Appendix 12. The 11/12 FY budget allocated to EHPP is $50,341,025 of which $11,955,867 (~23.75%) is estimated to relate to specific biodiversity conservation functions. The number of EHPP staff working in biodiversity conservation is estimated to be ~99 EFT (out of approximately 195 positions).

52


Staff with biodiversity conservation roles are primarily from the Landscapes and Ecosystems Conservation (LEC) Branch and work in the areas of: Conservation Programs Delivery, Capacity and Evaluation, Economic Services, Private Native Forestry, Bio-Banking, Conservation Programs Systems, Great Eastern Ranges Initiatives, Biodiversity and Vegetation programs, and LEC Branch coordination. The Climate Change Air and Noise Branch provide expertise in: Climate Change Policy and Coordination (regional vulnerability and adaptation), and Impacts and Adaptation coordination. There is also a contribution from the WTES Branch in terms of coastal management (administration of a grants program to local councils for improving the health of estuarine environments). 8.3 Overview of SSD data sheet The data sheet as provided by SSD is provided at Appendix 14. The FY 11/12 budget allocated to SSD is $36,354,481, of which $13,712,217 (~$37.7%) is estimated to relate to specific biodiversity conservation functions. According to the data sheet approximately 129 SSD staff are identified as having biodiversity conservation roles within the Environment and Conservation Science Branch, Strategic Science Branch, Catchment and Environmental Protection Science Branch and Information Sciences Branch. The data sheet provided by SSD indicates that the Information Sciences Branch (ISB) has been allocated approximately 40% of SSD’s FY 11/12 biodiversity conservation related budget ($5,546,690). As the data sheet only captures 11/12 FY information it does not include the additional $4.5M over four years allocated to ISB by the Environmental Trust Fund (ETF) in late December 2011 for the purpose of undertaking specific native vegetation mapping projects1. This project is discussed in further detail in section 13.3. Whilst it is recognised that the work being progressed by the ISB is of high importance to OEH and the NSW Government, the allocation of 40% of the SSD biodiversity conservation budget to a single Branch seems disproportionate. Another area of SSD’s biodiversity conservation budget that warrants consideration is the high level of resourcing provided to support the Scientific Committee (Threatened Species). The Scientific Committee has an annual operational budget of ($204,135), primarily used for advertising determinations and other notices by the Committee. The data sheet from SSD indicates the Scientific Committee is serviced by 8 staff (4.5 of which have specific biodiversity conservation roles). This function is discussed in further detail as a case study at section 13.9. 1 On 23rd February 2012 the NRM Executive was advised that the payment of the ETF grant for the native vegetation mapping projects has now been delayed until the FY 12/13, pending the submission by SSD to the EFT of a more detailed business case and clarification regarding the capacity of the proposed methodology to deliver the outcomes sought.

53


8.4 Overview of EPA (formerly EPRG) data sheet The data sheet as provided by EPA is at Appendix 15. The FY 11/12 budget allocated to EPA for biodiversity conservation projects is $16,650,165. Biodiversity conservation roles within the EPA encompass: provision of expert advice to internal and external clients, Priority Action implementation, regional conservation planning, statutory environmental planning, biodiversity communication and education, biodiversity assessment, biodiversity information systems management, threatened species and native vegetation regulation and enforcement activities, development assessments (part 3,4,5 EP&A Act), regulation and prevention of water pollution, and the regulation of pesticides. Staffing allocation for EPA personnel in biodiversity conservation roles across the four EPA Regional Branches is estimated to be:

- Metropolitan Branch: 21.13 / 85 (~25%) - North East Branch: 27.2 / 73 (~37%) - North West Branch: 25.75/53.6 (~48%) - South Branch: 29.8 / 67 (~45%)

The restructure announced in February 2012 has resulted in EPA’s biodiversity conservation related roles being transferred across to OEH. There will need to be further consideration by the Executive as to the most appropriate structure to accommodate these (predominately) regionally based OEH staff. 8.5 Overview of PWG data sheet The data sheet from PWG and a further detailed explanation of PWG’s functions (summarised briefly below) is provided at Appendix 13. The FY 11/12 budget of PWG related to biodiversity conservation functions is: estimated to be: $48,222,000 The biodiversity conservation effort of PWG is best captured by the regional operations plans, which are driven by wider corporate goals and ongoing assessment of the outcomes achieved (adaptive management). In addition, PWG runs a number of specific programs to complement its core biodiversity conservation functions:

• State of the Parks • Reserve Establishment Program • Park Management Manuals • Threatened species PAS • Conservation Priorities Project • WildCount • Plans of Management

• Find it and Fix it • EBMP • Regional Pest Management

Strategies • Fox TAP • Asset Management System

The national parks system is managed by 14 field based Regions augmented with support from ‘head office’. All Regions, Section and Branches with PWG are required to prepare annual operations plans. PWG work is broken down to 15 ‘service themes’. Defining the type of work that falls under each theme ensures consistency and clarity of reporting, planning and budget allocation. This enables PWG to report the full range of its effort, from field operations

54


through to central offices, and what contribution PWG is making to meet OEH management objectives. The 15 Service Themes include:

• Assessments, Acquisition and

Establishment • Fire • Pest Animals • Weeds • Threatened Species • Aboriginal Cultural Heritage • Historic Heritage • Visitor Infrastructure • Visitor Services

• Off-park Ecological Conservation

• On-park Ecological Conservation

• Community Programs and Education

• General Planning & Policy • General Infrastructure and

Maintenance • Customer Service and

Administration Clearly, biodiversity conservation is a major outcome of many of these themes. The Table below provides a rough estimate as to the proportion of each theme relating to biodiversity conservation for PWG as a whole. This is then translated into an estimate of nominal EFT for each theme. Using this approach it is estimated that approximately 42.9% PWG EFT is attributed to activities undertaken directly for biodiversity conservation.

Estimated proportion of PWG effort around delivery on biodiversity conservation services with relation to Service Themes

Service Theme % of all PWG staff time2

Proportion allocated to biodiversity

conservation services

Nominal EFT assigned to biodiversity

conservation

Weeds 6.85% 100% 117 Pest animals 5.58% 100% 95.4 Fire 10.56% 50% 90.3 Threatened species 2.54% 100% 43.4 On-park ecological conservation 3.88% 100% 66.4 Off-park ecological conservation 1.52% 100% 26 Visitor infrastructure 11.96% 0% Visitor services 11.85% 0% Aboriginal cultural heritage 2.58% 0% Historic heritage 1.81% 0% General infrastructure and maintenance 13.06% 0% Community programs and education 4.84% 100% 82.8 Customer service and administration 14.32% 50% 112 Assessment, acquisition and establishment

1.885% 100% 31.6

General planning and policy 6.81% 50% 58 PWG EFT (Sept 2011) 1710 Total proportion directly allocated to biodiversity conservation services 42.9% Total estimated EFT directly allocated to biodiversity conservation services 733.7

2 These figures are based on a PWG wide survey that is conducted through the State of the Parks program every three years.

55


9.0 WHAT OUR PEOPLE TOLD US – OEH FEEDBACK TO BIO-FOCUS 9.1 On-line staff survey An on-line survey for all OEH staff was developed using the U-Engage-U-Create tool, to encourage staff to share their perceptions on the biodiversity conservation work being undertaken across OEH Groups/Divisions. Participation in the survey was voluntary and results were presented in a de-identified, aggregated format (refer Appendices 16-17). The survey commenced on 15 November 2011 and closed on 2 December 2011. There were 183 electronic responses to the survey and two responses were received in a hard copy format. Observation: Of the total 185 responses, approximately 80% identified themselves as working in the area of biodiversity conservation “a lot” and 12.5% identified themselves as working in biodiversity conservation “a little”. This result was good as the core respondents to the survey did actually represent the cohort of staff directly relevant to the purpose of the Bio-Focus review. Refer section 13.0 for case-studies that explore internal communication, coordination and work efficiency processes in more detail. Internal communication and coordination The response to the question “How effectively do you think information about biodiversity conservation is shared within OEH” was revealing with approximately 76% being neutral-slightly negative to this. Survey respondents indicated reports to the OEH Executive were the most frequently used vehicle for communicating work unit information on biodiversity conservation (but this was still relatively low at ~18%). Conference presentations and subject specific networks were also vehicles for communicating outcomes (~14% each). Ehub and Staff Circulars were lower level mechanisms for internal communication (~9% utilisation). Awareness and effectiveness of OEH biodiversity conservation activities Responses to this part of the survey indicated a relatively positive response for both awareness and effectiveness within OEH (marginally lower for OEH Executive). However the perception by OEH staff as to the level of awareness and effectiveness of OEH biodiversity conservation activities by external stakeholders was mixed. Environmental non-government organisations and scientific communities were identified as being most aware of OEH’s biodiversity conservation. However OEH staff ranked the Australian Government, Local Government, landowners, businesses and community organisations as having a relatively low level of awareness of OEH’s activities in biodiversity conservation. In ranking perceptions about the effectiveness of OEH’s activities, the results were predominately neutral to slightly negative. Staff perceptions on how biodiversity conservation activities are valued by OEH’s external stakeholders were more positive than negative, except for Landholders. Collaboration on biodiversity conservation activities (internally and externally) Responses indicated a relatively low level of interaction with CSD, LS, PEG, CCHD and RBG&DT on biodiversity conservation activities. This response was also reflected in the returned data-sheets from OEH Groups/Divisions.

56


The extent to which the EHPP, PWG and SSD worked collaboratively on biodiversity conservation projects on a daily basis with other OE Groups/Divisions did not appear to be extensive. The EPA (formerly EPRG now CARD) seemed to be the OEH Group with the greatest level of interface with other OEH Groups/Divisions. However responses to the following question were directly contradictory with approximately 48% of survey respondents indicating they worked in collaboration with other OEH Groups/Divisions on biodiversity conservation projects “a lot”. Collaboration with external stakeholders was also identified as being a relatively high proportion of OEH’s biodiversity conservation work, particularly with other government agencies, business and environmental organisations and landholders. This result was also interesting given earlier feedback indicating a perceived low level of awareness by external stakeholders of OEH’s biodiversity conservation work. Potential duplication of biodiversity conservation functions (internal and external) Survey responses did not indicate a high perception that OEH biodiversity conservation work was duplicated to a significant degree either internally or by other State or Federal Government agencies. In addition, there was a strong response by survey respondents (~63%) that OEH does not undertake biodiversity conservation work that should be the responsibility of either another State or Federal government agency/authority. Documents/Processes Survey response was quite variable (23-43%) with the greatest level of application in the day to day focus of the work unit being: draft Biodiversity Strategy, NPWS Plans of Management, NSW 2021, PAS / PAS2, specific recovery and threat abatement plans. Other key documents (including specific Group/Division strategic documents) were ranked as being of relatively low importance in terms of their direct applicability to the biodiversity conservation work undertaken by the work area. Decision Support Tools There were a relatively high proportion of respondents that indicated they do not use decision support tools at all in their biodiversity conservation work (~48-57%). There were also a high proportion of decision support tools that were unknown to staff (~30-36%). The decision support tools most used included: Threatened species database (~70%), Biobanking Credit Calculator (~35%), Bio-Forecaster (~30%), BioMetric Incentive (~21%), PADACS (~19%). Training/Professional Development Field work and exposure to professional conferences were highly rated by respondents (41-46%). Secondments and partnerships (~38%) were identified as an additional training experience that would be of benefit to staff undertaking biodiversity conservation work. Influence of external funding Survey respondents indicated a relatively high proportion of their biodiversity conservation work receives some external funding (~55%) and there was a relatively high perception that external funding opportunities influenced OEH biodiversity conservation priorities (~52% responded “a lot”; 26% responded “a little”). Monitoring and Evaluation Tools to assess biodiversity conservation activities A relatively low level (~20%) indicated the routine use of MER tools to assess biodiversity conservation activities. Over 34% of respondents indicated these tools were not applied and ~21% indicated they did not know if they were applied. This

57


feedback was consistent with the ~63% non response to whether these tools were used to improve the approach to biodiversity conservation work. Monitoring and Evaluation Tools (Corporate): A relatively low level (~21%) indicated regular application of corporate MER tools to assess the effectiveness of a work area’s approach to biodiversity conservation activities. Approximately 35% of respondents indicated corporate MER tools were used “a little”. Of these, work unit KPIs were the most commonly used (~57%). Survey responses indicated there was very little use of client satisfaction surveys to measure performance - either internally or externally. External reporting / communication In contrast to relatively negative response to internal communication of OEH’s biodiversity conservation activities, approximately 74% of respondents rated OEH’s external communications on biodiversity to be consistent-neutral. In addition, the survey responses indicated relatively frequent reporting of OEH’s biodiversity conservation activities to key external stakeholders, particularly other State and Federal Government agencies. Recommendation: The OEH Executive should conduct the external on-line survey and targeted interviews with key external stakeholders as soon as practicable to enable a comparison with this internal staff feedback. 9.2 Written comments / submissions The Bio-Focus survey generated a further 200 pages of written comments from OEH staff on issues relating to biodiversity conservation work being undertaken within OEH. In addition, the Bio-Focus review received specific submissions from a range of OEH staff drawn from work units across all Groups/Divisions. This feedback has been de-identified and is provided at Appendix 18. Observation: There was a strong response from across all OEH Groups/Divisions from staff working in biodiversity conservation to the Bio-Focus review. The comments provided in the submissions and survey feedback is a valuable source of detailed information that could usefully assist ongoing management decisions by the Executive. Recommendations: That the OEH Executive considers the feedback arising from OEH staff on the Bio-Focus review in its ongoing deliberations about OEH’s final structure and reporting arrangements. That the Executive take a more proactive approach to identifying opportunities for improving coordination and communication between OEH Groups/Divisions. Provide more opportunities for staff to gain experience working on collaborative biodiversity conservation projects across OEH Groups/Divisions via secondments / EOI processes. Provide more opportunities for OEH staff working in biodiversity conservation to undertake field work to ensure OEH retains a staff with highly professional field based competencies – with capacity to undertake reliable ‘ground-truthing’ of computer generated modelling.

58


10.0 FINALISING OEH’S STRUCTURE The interim structure for the OEH (refer section 4.0) was announced on 16 February 2012 and took effect from 29 February 2012. 10.1 Separation of RBG&DT from OEH structure The separation of the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust (RBG&DT) from OEH was confirmed in the structural arrangements announced on 16 February 2012. Observation: The separation of the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust (RBG&DT) is a sensible approach and is supported. It is noted that RBG&DT did not have shared corporate service arrangements with OEH and had retained its own financial reporting system. The RBG&DT operated under a separate piece of legislation and had separate reporting arrangements to the Trust and also the Minister for Environment. RBG&DT had its own Corporate Plan and produced an Annual Report independently of OEH. Recommendations: Consideration should be given to establishing a service agreement between OEH and RBG&DT to ensure that OEH’s policy development and implementation continues to be informed by specialist ecological advice from the RBG&DT. RBG&DT should be invited to continue its presence on relevant OEH Executive Committees (including the NRM&S Executive Committee and the Native Vegetation Steering Committee). Professional development opportunities should be developed for staff from OEH to undertake staff placements opportunities within RBG&DT. The requested transfer of staff from RBG&DT to the NVID should not proceed until the OEH structure has been finalised. The outcomes of the International Peer Review of the RBG&DT should be shared with the OEH Executive to ascertain whether any of the recommendations made have relevance for any OEH Groups/Divisions. 10.2 An alternative proposal: “One voice” for OEH on biodiversity conservation As announced on 16 February 2012, an interim arrangement, regionally based staff returning to OEH from the EPA will be working as part of the newly created Conservation and Regulation Division (CARD). The justification for this interim structural decision is based on the need to retain regional working arrangements, minimise disruption to business and ensure capacity to retain a focus on regulation and compliance issues. Units to be included within CARD include: former EPRG staff (now allocated to OEH) working on biodiversity, native vegetation and Aboriginal and cultural heritage. The

59


Director Conservation and Regulation (DCAR) will be a member of the OEH Executive to ensure regulatory issues are given appropriate weight in organisational decision-making. Unit managers will report to DCAR. Regional coordination roles from each region will be established (and will augment the role of existing section managers).Targeted expression of interest processes will be implemented to fill these positions on a temporary basis for the next few months. Observation - CARD: It is noted that the establishment of CARD is an interim arrangement only. On the basis of the inputs to the Bio-Focus review over the last six months, the longer-term role of CARD as a separate Division within the OEH Executive is not supported. In essence, the permanent establishment of CARD would set up a similar structure to that of the previous OEH where biodiversity conservation roles were primarily split between EHPP and EPRG. This separation created significant challenges for OEH in terms of speaking with ‘one voice’ on biodiversity conservation matters. The restructure of the OEH provides a unique opportunity to employ a more internally coordinated approach to biodiversity conservation matters. Recommendation: Instead of establishing the CARD beyond June 30 2012, it is proposed that there be a fundamental structural change within EHPP – to create two separate Divisions: The new Divisions and their proposed reporting units would be:

Biodiversity and NRM Division Lead by: DCE B&NRM

Sustainability Programs Division Lead by: ED SPD

Landscape and Ecology Branch NVID Waters, Wetlands and Coast Impacts and Adaptation Biodiversity Survey & Assessment (Metro Region) Biodiversity Conservation (Metro Region) Water and Biodiversity* (Metro Region) Biodiversity Assessment & Coordination (NE Region) Biodiversity Conservation (formerly South Region) Native Vegetation Operations Support (Reform & Compliance) Native Vegetation (NW Region) Environment & Conservation Program (NW Region) Kangaroo Management (NW Region) Coordination/planning/support function (central and regionally based roles)

Business and Community Programs Environmental Funding Air Policy Emissions Reductions Water and Energy Programs Heritage Coordination/planning/support function

60


* It is noted that the Water and Biodiversity unit (Metro) is currently allocated to the EPA; this would require an administrative change to transfer this unit back to OEH. Observation - CHHD: There was no change to the existing OEH structure in the announced restructuring arrangements (which took effect from 29/2/12). However over the course of the Bio-Focus review it became apparent that the extent to which CCHD has a direct interface with biodiversity conservation is quite limited. Whilst CCHD is represented on the Knowledge Strategy Biodiversity Theme, Committee, the CCHD FY 11/12 budget revealed no allocation of any staff or any financial resources directly involved with any biodiversity conservation projects. The work being progressed by the Planning and Aboriginal Heritage units and the Landscape and Aboriginal Heritage Protection unit would be more appropriately connected directly to CCHD. Recommendation: It is proposed that the existing CCHD structure be augmented with the inclusion of the following units (formerly EPRG): - Planning and Aboriginal Heritage (Metro Region) - Planning and Aboriginal Heritage (NE Region) - Landscape and Aboriginal Heritage Protection (South Region) This will create a direct and strong connection to the planning decisions being made that have Aboriginal cultural heritage significance. Country, Culture and Heritage Division Community Operations Policy, Information and Research Aboriginal Affairs Strategy and Coordination Planning and Aboriginal Heritage (Metro Region) Planning and Aboriginal Heritage (NE Region) Landscape and Aboriginal Heritage Protection (South Region) The rationale for bringing these units into CCHD is to strengthen the connection between CCHD and B&NRMD in terms of planning advice on proposals which have implications for Aboriginal cultural heritage. The addition of these work units to CCHD may also provide strengthened focus and expertise in the drafting of the NSW Government’s announced stand-alone Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation. Observation - SSD: The announced restructure indicated no change to the existing SSD structure. However it is clear that further work will need to be done by the Executive to develop a servicing agreement with EPA. Servicing arrangements from SSD to other OEH Groups/Divisions also need to be established to ensure that internal client service delivery expectations of SSD are clearly defined.

61


Recommendations: In terms of further structural changes, this Observation Report proposes two changes. The first is the proposed relocation of NVID from SSD to B&NRMD. This is a pragmatic recommendation noting that the majority of staff nominated to transfer to NVID (SSD) are within the proposed B&NRMD. It is noted that whilst the NVID exists on paper, the actual Directorate is yet to be established and the present A/Director is a temporary position until 30 June 2012 therefore there would be minimal disruption to this work unit as a consequence of this proposed change. The second proposed structural change for SSD is the transfer of responsibility for the Scientific Committee (Threatened Species) to the Natural Resources Commission (NRC). Servicing the Threatened Species Scientific Committee is a resource intensive task for SSD (operational costs for FY 11/12 are $204,000) and the estimated costs for dedicating 4.5 specific biodiversity conservation positions to service the Committee is $395,000). There is no legislative requirement that the servicing of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee is an explicit function to be provided by OEH. As such, as a savings mechanism, it is recommended that responsibility for this function be transferred to the Natural Resource Commission (NRC) and that existing biodiversity conservation staff (estimated at 4.5 EFT) be redeployed to other OEH specific biodiversity conservation roles. Note: The transfer of this role to the NRC will further highlight the independence of the determinations made by the Scientific Committee from Government. This approach will realise savings to OEH (via recurrent resources currently dedicated to advertising). It is not proposed that existing SSD staff be transferred to the NRC. Further detail on this proposal is provided in a case-study (refer section 13.7). Recommendation: Consolidation - biodiversity conservation roles in B&NRMD It is further recommended that the Executive consider potential consolidation of some of the biodiversity conservation roles that will be brought together under the proposed Biodiversity & NRM Division to ensure there is no unnecessary duplication of roles. Recommendation: Consolidation of branch coordination/support functions Similarly, the Executive will need to consider potential consolidation of some branch coordination/support functions across all OEH Divisions (particularly if the proposed establishment of the B&NRM Division is adopted) to ensure there is no unnecessary duplication of roles. Discontinuation of OEH’s role in providing advice on non State-significant planning processes With a number of staff previously engaged in planning activities now transferred to the EPA, the OEH Executive will need to address resource constraints regarding OEH’s ability to provide planning advice on development matters.

62


Recommendations: As an immediate action, OEH should discontinue the provision of advice by OEH on any development applications and planning proposals that are not designated as State-significant projects. OEH needs to focus more attention on working with local councils to increase the uptake by council’s of OEH’s strategic tools (Bio-Certifier and Biobanking). OEH also needs to encourage local councils to develop their internal expertise on biodiversity conservation for the purpose of determining planning processes for which local government is the consent authority. Improved coordination by OEH Groups/Divisions regarding future establishment of work units with biodiversity conservation functions This issue was identified during the course of the Bio-Focus Review with the establishment in late September 2011 by PWG of a Pest and Ecological Management Unit with specific responsibilities for threatened species (on Park). The creation of this unit was unknown to the other OEH Groups/Divisions and was not initially captured in the data collected by PWG due to the unit being established under the “Pest and Weeds” service themes – and therefore, being deemed ‘out of scope’ of the Bio-Focus review by PWG. The establishment of specific work units with biodiversity conservation functions needs to be better coordinated and communicated within OEH. Recommendation: The establishment of any further work units with biodiversity conservation functions by any OEH Group/Divisions is first to be discussed at NRM&S Executive Committee and then the full OEH Executive to ensure that the work unit to be established is clearly focussed on the delivery of specific biodiversity conservation objectives as determined by the OEH Executive and is not creating unnecessary role duplication. Proposed changes to Executive Committee arrangements: As a consequence of the separation of the EPA and the RBG&DT from the former OEH structure, the structure of all OEH Executive Committees should be reviewed with a view to disbanding and/or amalgamating some of them as periodic standing agenda items at full Executive Meetings. The rationale behind this approach is to reduce current overlap of content, unnecessary duplication, improved coordination. Recommendations: There will need to be consideration of representation by the EPA and/or RBG&DT at relevant Executive Committee meetings. The Waste Executive Committee should be discontinued given the transfer of its functions to the EPA. The External Funding Steering Committee, the Information Technology Steering Committee, Air and Climate Change Taskforce, Legislation and Regulatory Reform Committee, Executive Sub-Committee on Coal and Gas should be retained.

63


There is a significant overlap of the Executive Sub-Committee for Aboriginal Affairs and the full OEH Executive and it is recommended that Executive Sub-Committee for Aboriginal Affairs be disbanded and the issues from that Executive Committee reported as a standing agenda item at every third meeting the full OEH Executive (Note: this approach would increase the exposure of Aboriginal Affairs issues to the full OEH Executive). Working on the basis that the proposed B&NRMD and the SPD are established as new Divisions (replacing EHPP and CARD), it is proposed that a new Science and Sustainability Programs Executive Committee be established. This Committee would meet quarterly (and report to the full Executive twice yearly). The primary focus would be increasing the profile of science within OEH, communication processes to highlight the value of the Knowledge Strategy, and a forum to discuss existing external scientific partnerships that OEH has established – and opportunities for new connections. This Committee would provide a specific focus on the interface between SSD in supporting Air Policy, Emissions Reductions, Water and Energy Programs, Heritage, and Business and Community Programs. Given the overlap of the Executive membership of the existing NRM Executive Committee and the existing Science Executive Committee, it is recommended that these two Committees be amalgamated and renamed: “NRM & Science Executive Sub-Committee (NRM&S)” and meet every six weeks. This approach will ensure improved cross-organisational awareness of NRM and biodiversity conservation policy priorities for OEH. The driver for this Committee will be to deliver better alignment of policy with scientific research areas as well as ensuring cross-divisional agreement on communication processes to support OEH biodiversity conservation activities. Amalgamating these two Executive Committees would also ensure that there is strong and coordinated understanding across OEH regarding future funding applications, the development of modelling scenarios and the utilisation of other decision support tools to support biodiversity conservation outcomes. The Native Vegetation Steering Committee should be retained as a vehicle for continued cross-organisational consideration of native vegetation issues. The amalgamated NRM&S Executive Committee should include periodic reports from the Chair, Native Vegetation Steering Committee and be the point for escalation of any unresolved issues rather than the full OEH Executive.

64


11.0 ESTABLISHING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PRIORITIES FOR OEH 11.1 Defining OEH’s corporate priorities for biodiversity conservation A one-day strategic workshop to establish corporate priorities for biodiversity conservation was held on 7 October 2011 and involved the Bio-Focus Taskforce and Steering Committee representatives as well as other specialist staff. The intent of the workshop was to identify corporate priorities for biodiversity conservation that would be included in the draft Corporate Plan structure. The final report from the workshop is provided at Appendix 24. Participants were challenged to think about the intellectual challenges of thinking about biodiversity protection and management in a contemporary way and consider what model OEH should embrace from an organisational perspective as well as being able to frame a wider agenda for the NSW State Government in NRM policy development. The need to develop strategic priorities for biodiversity conservation so that OEH can provide more effective service delivery was agreed as well as the critical importance of effective engagement with external stakeholders (Federal and State Government, business, industry, NGOs and community). Key considerations included:

• The significance of the national reform process (review of EPBC Act) and Invest NSW – sets up NSW to deliver leadership in biodiversity management at a variety of scales.

• NSW 2021

• Recognition that a new working relationship needs to be established with CMAs (working through their Catchment Action Plans); DPI; Planning & Infrastructure; and local councils.

• Clear strategic directions to enable OEH to strengthen key stakeholder relationships and be focussed on the priorities for biodiversity conservation.

• The need to be able to prioritise work activities in biodiversity conservation – and allocate resources accordingly.

• Recognition of the value of tools like the Knowledge Strategy in terms of focussing our service delivery priorities for stakeholders (like RFS, CMA’s in terms of delivering mapping and monitoring information etc.)

• Establishing strategic priorities creates opportunities to link to the Government’s Regionalisation Strategy, provide input to the development of OEH’s Corporate Plan, and provide ongoing advice to DPC.

• Contemporary thinking needs to sharpen OEH’s focus on biodiversity conservation and NRM policy development. As an example, the relative priority and thus resourcing of biodiversity delivery at a landscape scale and at a site or species scale.

65


Observation: The workshop participants agreed that the phrase: “Biological diversity, ecological processes and systems are conserved” provided a useful overarching framework for considering OEH’s strategic priorities for biodiversity conservation given it is also the overarching goal for the Knowledge Strategy Biodiversity Theme. Workshop participants agreed that contemporary thinking needs to sharpen OEH’s focus on biodiversity conservation and NRM policy development. As an example, the relative priority and thus resourcing of biodiversity delivery at a landscape scale and at a site or species scale. As a starting point, the existing themes of the draft Biodiversity Strategy were discussed. These were:

• Smarter biodiversity investment

• Whole of landscape planning

• Improved partnerships

• Effectively managing threats

• Sustainable productive environments In developing suggested strategic priorities workshop participants were challenged to counterbalance their strategic priorities with activities that were clearly not a priority for OEH in terms of biodiversity conservation. In amalgamating the common aspects of what were not strategic priorities some common themes emerged:

• Not having clearly articulated priorities;

• Duplication;

• Not recognising the need to upscale where relevant; and

• Lack of professionalism in delivering corporate priorities.

The following list indicates specific activities currently being undertaken within OEH that workshop participants identified as not being a strategic priority for the organisation. These include:

Summary of workshop responses – not strategic priorities for OEH

• Mapping the extent of every threatened species in NSW

• Delegating authority of MER to local levels

• The cultural of localism within OEH – Anarchy, unaligned programs

• Focussing on species/ecosystems that have already crossed the threshold of recovery – we should not working on the ones that cannot be recovered

• Competing for resources – it should be collaboration at a whole of government level

• Reforming threatened species classification

66


• Individual, sick animals, wildlife care

• Single species recovery planning

• Systems in decline

• Captive breeding programs

• Monitoring everything

• Duplicating programs

• Unaligned programs

• Linking information gate keepers to the people who run the program/process

• Duplicating existing capacity elsewhere – i.e.: doing the work of other organizations – not allowing them to build their own capacity

• Esoteric programs – pet project with no connection to Government’s or OEH’s priorities

The table below highlights the seven agreed strategic priorities as identified at the workshop on 7 October 2011.

OBJECTIVE: Biological diversity, ecological processes and systems are conserved

Strategic Priorities for OEH’s delivery of Biodiversity Conservation

1 Landscape management

• Connectivity, ecological function, social connection and water use.

• Not “Planet NSW” – or “fortress parks” • Move generally from individual species scale to landscape

scale recognising that both scales can be relevant and effective given NSW (and Australia’s) high levels of endemism

• Effective integration with strategic land use planning; disaster prevention; and recovery

• Spatial prioritisation of the landscape – where do we act and invest

• Building and sustaining our targeted partnerships – this is resource intensive (time and money)

2 Efficient and effective biodiversity conservation on private and public lands

• Innovative partnership around complementary land use • Seamless partnerships with local councils, communities

and other agencies on biodiversity conservation • Opportunities for private land conservation – facilitate

leverage and encourage involvement and participation (remove institutional barriers – i.e.: consistency re policies on rate relief; create opportunities – i.e. consistent assessment methodology and metrics)

• Effective conservation on private and public land • Building and sustaining our targeted partnerships – this is

resource intensive (time and money)

3 Targeting threat

• Development of action oriented threat abatement and recovery plans

67


abatement and recovery programs to develop a RED list for NSW

• Prioritisation between species • Prioritisation of actions for the conservation of species • Optimising government investment to secure the long term

future of the greatest number of species • Empowerment and engagement of the community and

business sectors in investment and on-ground action towards species conservation

4 Generating and applying best available science and knowledge

• Collaborative monitoring to evaluate effectiveness of management actions at a variety of institutional scales

• Best available science to inform policy and decision making – including prioritisation

• Decision making tools for biodiversity investment decisions – get it out there and de-mystify

• Decision support tools – simplify not simplistic, transparent and understandable

• Providing public access to biodiversity conservation data and information

• Develop landscape maps – best available science • Link knowledge to decision making

5 Active and

engaged communities

• Trust and shared responsibility via education • Collaborative monitoring to evaluate effectiveness of

management actions at a variety of institutional scales • Providing public access to biodiversity conservation data

and information • Seamless partnerships with local councils, communities

and other agencies on biodiversity conservation • Using accessible language – creating the narrative

6 Sensible, clear

policies and regulations

• Seamless and consistent policy implementation (scale, decision support tools, engagement and empowerment)

• Clear, consistent and credible biodiversity conservation regulation

• Leadership in national biodiversity conservation reforms

7 Targeting investment to deliver optimal benefits

• Clear targets for biodiversity conservation to measure progress and adjust actions accordingly

• Decision making tools for biodiversity investment decisions – get it out there and de-mystify

• Spatial prioritisation of the landscape – where do we act and invest

• Principles for resource and effort allocation ($ and people) • Innovative investment decisions: efficient, effective

investment

Recommendations: That the Executive confirms the biodiversity priorities that will underpin the new OEH Corporate plan. The priorities must align with the Government’s clear policy direction (i.e.: PAS2).

68


As part of this process, the Executive needs to consider the identified list of actions that were agreed by workshop participants as ‘not being a biodiversity conservation priority’ and determine their relative importance to OEH. This determination should include ensure that funding allocations made for biodiversity conservation programs/projects consistently reflect OEH’s identified priorities. 11.2 Establishing a prioritisation framework for biodiversity conservation functions within OEH A further strategic workshop to establish a prioritisation framework for biodiversity conservation within OEH was to be held on 2nd March 2012. In light of the structural arrangements announced for OEH and the EPA on 16 February 2012 this strategic workshop has been postponed until after the new OEH structure has been finalised. Observation: Information provided by the Bio-Focus Taskforce indicates that budget reductions are in most circumstances addressed via a uniform percentage ‘cut’ applied across all work areas. Whilst this might be an administratively ‘simple’ response, there is a real risk that biodiversity conservation projects considered a priority will not be able to be delivered effectively whilst other lower-priority projects will continue. Recommendations: That the planned strategic workshop to establish a prioritisation framework for biodiversity conservation projects/projects within OEH be undertaken as soon as practicable following the finalisation of the new OEH structure. The prioritisation framework should reflect the NSW Government’s announced policy direction (i.e.: PAS2). Once the prioritisation framework for biodiversity conservation has been adopted, it is recommended that the OEH Executive use this tool to periodically and critically evaluate expenditure on biodiversity conservation programs and projects. Imposing a flat reduction across all OEH Group/ Divisional budgets to deliver required savings is not strategic and should be discontinued as an approach. Biodiversity conservation programs that cannot demonstrate a strong connection to OEH’s Corporate Plan objectives and NSW Government priorities should be discontinued and the savings redistributed within OEH to support agreed priority biodiversity conservation activities. Note: redistributed funding from discontinued programs may not necessarily be retained within an existing Group/Divisional budget – it would depend on the agreed priority of biodiversity conservation projects/programs as determined by the OEH Executive. All biodiversity conservation programs and projects must be specifically identified in work plans for Groups/Divisions and show a clear connection to agreed biodiversity conservation areas of focus for the OEH.

69


12.0 ESTABLISHING A SERVICE DELIVERY CULTURE AT OEH

The NSW Government’s commitment to improved service delivery applies to all government functions and is a key theme in NSW 2021, the NSW Government’s 10 year strategic business plan to rebuild the economy, return quality services, renovate infrastructure, restore accountability to government, and strengthen local environment and communities.

(Source: NSW 2021, Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2011)

NSW 2021 has identified 32 Goals and 180 targets as well as:

• Priority actions to support the achievement of each target

• An annual community and business leader’s forum to discuss progress and identify new initiatives

• Consultation with the community to identify local priorities and develop Local and Regional Action Plans

• Verification of data prior to the release of an annual performance report, by independent experts.

70


12.1 NSW 2021 – Increased focus on service delivery for NSW agencies: In terms of the service delivery focus for the environmental aspects of NSW 2021, the NSW Government wants to: “trust and encourage local energy, innovation and ownership and work to strengthen community relationships. In this regard the NSW Government intends to return as much decision making as possible to local communities”.

12.2 Defining the principles of “service delivery” – Australian Government

In defining the specific mechanics involved in improving service delivery to clients, the Australian Government developed comprehensive, whole of government, service delivery principles that are now applied across all Australian Government agencies.

The intent is to engender a consistent approach to planning and managing service delivery mechanisms as a priority in the ongoing development and implementation of policy and programs by the Australian Government. This framework could be easily applied to the management of policies and programs by OEH – or indeed, the entire NSW Government.

(Source: Australian Government, Department of Finance and Regulation, 2008)

71


Key principles of the service delivery framework adopted by the Australian Government include: Commitment and trust: Fostering trusted relationships both within and between agencies, and with customers. Respect customer privacy and confidentiality in accordance with the law. Customer-centric: Having a detailed understanding of customer needs and expectations as the key driver for service delivery strategies. Endeavouring to build an engaging and trusted relationship with each customer, with integrity and consistency underpinning the customer experience. Access, equity and choice: Ensuring the ready availability of government services to all customers. Maximising the use of technology and choice and using plain English. Engagement: Encouraging customers to engage with Government – establishing feedback and consultation mechanisms to maximise the usefulness of service provision and strengthen customer participation. Integration: Service delivery realities, together with customer needs and preferences as key influences on policy and program design to ensure that policy and program design is aligned to customer needs. Collaboration: Government agencies should work collaboratively to ensure effective and efficient customer service delivery. Agency collaboration can enable better process alignment, maximise implementation efficiency, reduce duplication and promote the sharing of knowledge and infrastructure. Partnership: Government agencies should investigate forming partnerships or alliances with other agencies, other tiers of government, non-government organisations and/or private sector organisations to gain and share skills, information and technology. Where necessary, accountability, governance and financial frameworks within agencies should be realigned or developed to support the establishment of partnerships. Value creation: Service delivery strategies should be developed to mutually enhance customer value and best utilise the service delivery capability of different agencies. Agencies should explore opportunities to improve the customer’s experience in interacting with the Australian Government. Value creation is dependent on understanding service delivery costs and improving internal processes to ensure sustained benefits to both the government and customers. Adaptability: Service delivery strategies should be designed to be easily adapted to meet changing customer and agency needs and the emergence of new technologies. This flexibility will enable the Australian Government to be proactive in tailoring the delivery of services to meet the needs of its dynamic customer base. Individual agencies are encouraged to develop more detailed service delivery principles for their own service delivery strategies, based on the Australian Government principles outlined above.

(Source: Australian Government, Department of Finance and Regulation, 2008)

72


Observation: Lack of formalised service delivery expectations within OEH Groups/Divisions There does not appear to be a strong understanding across the Groups/Divisions of the importance of service delivery for either internal or external client groups. The basic principles of service delivery (as identified in the previous table) are inconsistently applied across OEH Groups/Divisions. Of all the Groups/Divisions, PWG appeared to have the most robust approach in terms of routine and clearly defined processes for monitoring and evaluating program deliverables – and processes for capturing feedback (for the purpose of informing continual program improvements). Specific client servicing agreements between the various Groups/Divisions is not evident. Over the course of the Bio-Focus Review, various frustrations were expressed between the different OEH Groups/Divisions regarding unmet needs, however none of these service requirements appear to be formalised between the various groups and formal feedback processes regarding internal client satisfaction levels are minimal at best. Some broad examples of feedback identified over the course of the Bio-Focus Review included:

• Fairly regular criticism of EHPP from EPA (formerly EPRG) that policies

developed by EHPP were ‘not practical, difficult to understand and/or un-implementable on the ground’. Feedback from EHPP on the EPA indicated a level of frustration. There was a tendency by EHPP on occasion to dismiss EPA’s concerns as being overstated.

Despite the close working relationships between these two Groups, there does not appear to be established processes between EHPP and EPA to work through potential issues and identify required changes to systems/approaches that would ameliorate the issue(s) causing concern. There does appear to be level of territorialism between both EHPP and EPA (i.e.: “Head Office” vs. “Regional”) and this unnecessarily impedes policy and program delivery. A stronger focus by both EHPP and EPA (now CARD) on developing a more constructive and responsive relationship is warranted.

• SSD was regularly identified by PWG, EHPP and EPA (now CARD) as not being responsive and not prioritising requested research activities to support policy and/or program delivery over other programmed SSD research activities.

Whilst the above feedback may legitimate, there does not appear to be any documentation that outlines the service delivery expectations of SSD from these Groups/Divisions and, also important, neither was there documentation that outlines SSD’s service capacity in terms of delivering the information sought by the other Groups/Divisions in an accurate and timely manner and in a fit for purpose format. It is hoped that the Knowledge Strategy Strategic Plans will assist in identifying collectively agreed knowledge needs – and agreeing their relative priority at an organisational level.

73


• PWG was identified by the other Groups/Divisions as being fairly insular (not looking beyond the Park boundaries), not sharing information and operating in effect as a separate organisation.

It is true that PWG does operate with a high degree of autonomy. There are strong opportunities for PWG to outline its adaptive management approach to other Groups/Divisions, but this does not seem to have occurred to any great degree. The work that PWG has done in this area is impressive, but not many outside PWG know much about it. There did not appear to be a strong sense from OEH Groups/Divisions that reviewing existing client interfaces (either internally or externally) and developing a more responsive approach to service delivery needed to be a key area of focus. Lack of awareness by OEH staff of service delivery expectations in NSW 2021 The Bio-Focus Review also revealed that there did not appear to be a high level of awareness amongst OEH staff of the content of NSW 2021. In conducting over 30 presentations to OEH staff at various locations many staff indicated they had either not read the document at all or had only read the pages relating specifically to Goals 22, 23 aimed to “Strengthen our Local Environment and Communities”. Recommendations: The Executive needs to work across all OEH Groups/Divisions to instil a greater understanding by staff of the service delivery culture expected by the NSW Government (i.e. that all agencies implement a stronger, more responsive and customer-focussed approach to service delivery). The Executive should adopt a service delivery framework for its policies and programs similar to the framework that has been implemented across all Australian Government agencies (2008). That every member of staff across OEH be required as a component of their work and development plans to read the full NSW 2021 document and think about it in the context of their specific role/function within OEH. That all OEH work unit managers discuss with their teams how they can embed a stronger focus on service delivery outcomes into their work programs using the approach adopted by the Australian Government as a guide. That OEH Groups/Divisions receiving and/or providing internal services be required to formalise that service delivery arrangement – and include specific deliverables, details of client expectations, measurable performance indicators and processes for dispute resolution/corrective action. That the Executive consider engaging specific change management expertise to assist staff in understanding and developing their customer service requirements. 12.3 Understanding OEH’s client base An initial task of the Bio-Focus Taskforce was to establish a list of key external stakeholders: Other NSW agencies, Federal agencies, Business/Industry, Landholders, Environmental/community organisations. The full list of these stakeholders is provided at Appendix 24.

74


Key Government stakeholders

The key government agencies that OEH deals most with were the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, NSW Department of Primary Industries, CMAs, local councils, SEWPAC (Federal), NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) and the Natural Resources Commission (NRC). In terms of government stakeholders, the internal OEH staff survey comments indicated a fairly strong perception that capacity issues in terms of ‘in-house’ biodiversity conservation expertise exist within the Department of Planning, CMAs and local councils. In particular, frustration was expressed about the Department of Planning and the need to build a stronger and more respectful relationship with OEH. Staff advised that the Department of Planning frequently requests extensive and detailed biodiversity conservation advice from OEH only to disregard it entirely with no explanation. Further frustrations associated with the Department of Planning involved its (apparently regular) practise of engaging commercial environmental consultancy companies to provide advice on exactly the same issue as were requested from OEH (i.e. ‘advice-shopping’). Staff indicated these actions reinforced perceptions that specialist biodiversity conservation advice from the OEH is not strongly valued by the Department of Planning. Relationships with CMAs and local councils seemed to be reasonably strong - however both the survey responses and the staff feedback indicated that OEH provides a high level of servicing in terms of biodiversity conservation advice to both councils and CMAs for no remuneration. Educational stakeholders

In terms of OEH’s interface with education providers for the purpose of communicating biodiversity conservation programs/outcomes, the stakeholder list developed by the Taskforce did not highlight this as being a key area of focus for OEH (Note: this is separate to the extensive tertiary and other research institutions that OEH has strong partnerships with for biodiversity conservation research activities). The lack of direct connection to the Department of Education, the Board of Studies or extensive school networks is was somewhat surprising given the extent to which educational activities were frequently highlighted by OEH staff at Bio-Focus presentations as being a very key service delivery role for OEH. There is a need to ensure that any educational programs / awareness campaigns / forums / seminars etc that OEH Groups/Divisions are currently managing are specifically focussed on the delivery of OEH’s identified corporate priorities for biodiversity conservation. Business/Industry

The stakeholder list indicated a growing number of business and industries that have direct relationships with OEH – particularly in relation to major development and infrastructure projects and also mining.

75


Internal feedback from the staff survey suggested a low appreciation by business/industry of OEH’s biodiversity conservation functions. However this needs to be validated with the external stakeholder survey. Landholders

In addition to the contacts identified on the consolidated stakeholder list, the various OEH Groups/Divisions maintain their own extensive landholder networks. Maintaining these relationships is very important in terms of communicating OEH’s biodiversity conservation functions – however the staff survey feedback indicated that landholders and local councils had a fairly low (and negative) view of the value of OEH’s biodiversity conservation functions. Observation: There is a need to undertake the external client survey that was proposed as part of the Bio-Focus Review. This will be important in terms of comparing external responses against the internal OEH staff survey responses. The targeted one-on-one interviews with external stakeholders will also provide valuable information to OEH in terms of the service delivery expectations of OEH by these key stakeholders. The interviews may also provide opportunities for ground-truthing OEH’s perceived capacity issues of particular organisations. The data sheets returned from the Groups/Divisions indicated a relatively low level application of client feedback mechanisms within project management plans. This absence made it difficult for clients (be they internal or external) to provide constructive feedback to the service provider for the purpose of continuous program/service improvement. Recommendations: That the external stakeholder survey planned as part of the Bio-Focus Review be commenced as soon as practicable to enable a comparison with the internal OEH survey responses.

That OEH Groups/Divisions receiving services from other Groups/Divisions be required to provide feedback to the service provider about their specific client needs and their service delivery expectations (including timeframes, level of data accuracy /resolution etc).

That formal client feedback mechanisms be established as a core component of all OEH Group/Division project plans.

Future technical advice to CMA’s on biodiversity conservation matters to be provided via a servicing agreement with remuneration to OEH from DPI (Finance Branch to establish details).

Future technical advice to the Department of Planning on biodiversity conservation matters to be provided via the terms of a service agreement between the two agencies. Where OEH advice is not utilised Department of Planning is to provide explicit reasons. Department of Planning is to prioritise the advice provided by OEH over that provided by externally engaged biodiversity conservation consultancy firms.

Future advice from OEH to Local Government Authorities on biodiversity conservation matters is to be provided on a user-pays service arrangement (the details of which are to be prepared by OEH Finance Branch but costs to be commensurate with current commercial consultancy rates).

76


13.0 CASE STUDIES This section provides a number of case studies that highlight opportunities for improved coordination, cooperation and communication across OEH, with the primary driver being an organisation that speaks with ‘one voice’ in relation to biodiversity conservation. Case studies with a focus on improving organisational efficiencies are also included. Caveat: It is recognised that within OEH there are a huge range of diverse and successful biodiversity conservation initiatives and programs. However the shortened timeframe of the Bio-Focus Review did not enable the inclusion of a larger number of case studies. It is recommended that the OEH Executive give consideration as to how various biodiversity conservation programs/activities can be better communicated across the organisation. The use of Ehub for the upload of material within OEH is extensive, however many staff have indicated this is not a resource they regularly access. 13.1 CASE STUDY: IMPROVED COORDINATION – KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY Background: As described in section 5.6, OEH’s Knowledge Strategy is a two-year strategic framework being led by SSD for determining the 'knowledge' priorities of OEH. As part of the Bio-Focus Review, a close interface was established with the development of the Knowledge Strategy, with particular emphasis on the 5-year Strategic Plan being developed by the Biodiversity Knowledge Strategy Theme Committee. Observation: Low level of awareness by OEH staff of Knowledge Strategy Over the course of the Bio-Focus review, feedback from OEH staff indicated that despite information on the Knowledge Strategy prominently displayed on Ehub, there is a relatively low level of awareness across OEH as to the purpose of the Knowledge Strategy and what it means for OEH Groups/Divisions. The work being progressed by the various Knowledge Strategy Theme Committees needs to be better communicated to OEH staff. In addition to electronically available information, there needs to be greater face-to-face contact with staff to build a sense of collective ownership and understanding of the importance of this process. Proposed structure There is currently one completed Knowledge Strategy Strategic Plan (Water and Wetlands) and this template appears to be the format that has been largely adopted for the remaining five theme areas. There are some inherent challenges in attempting to adopt a standardised template for production of a longer term strategic plan. A key consideration must be the diversity of the subject theme.

77


The consultation draft for the Biodiversity Knowledge Strategy Theme 5-Year Strategic Plan is provided at Appendix 7. Risk assessment – Project prioritisation The risk assessment approach to prioritising biodiversity knowledge needs was flawed with the overwhelming majority of projects identified as being a high priority and requiring resources. There was no effective prioritisation, and this therefore created an unrealistic framework for the five year forward plan. The very recent decision to pick the ‘top ten’ Biodiversity projects (note it is the ‘top-5’ for other Knowledge Strategy Themes) as SSD’s funding priority in the 5-year Strategic Plan is not supported as this approach does not appropriately recognise the huge diversity in biodiversity conservation research. The ‘top-10’ approach actually undermines the extensive work already undertaken by the Biodiversity Theme Committee to identify knowledge gaps and needs at a Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 level. With the ‘top-10’ approach, the reality is that unless a project is in that ‘top-10’, then it will not be a priority for research funding sought by SSD. This is a problem where knowledge needs to inform policy development or program delivery have been defined as a lower research priority for SSD and it has created ongoing uncertainty with other OEH Groups/Divisions regarding how their identified knowledge needs will be accommodated by SSD in the Knowledge Strategy. This uncertainty was observed in the discussions between SSD and EHPP at several Biodiversity Knowledge Strategy Theme Committee meetings regarding EHPP’s view that the knowledge needs required to support the implementation of the Priority Action Statement (PAS2) needed to have greater prominence in the 5-year Strategic Plan. At the time of preparing this Observations Report this matter was still unresolved. Resourcing framework The draft 5-year Strategic Plan for the Biodiversity Knowledge Strategy currently contains a bid framework (at its Appendix #4) that aims to identify resourcing information (financial and staffing). This is inappropriate for a longer-term strategic document (it would be more relevant as an inclusion in the year to year implementation plans). Recommendations: The Knowledge Strategy for OEH is an innovative approach to identifying scientific needs from across all OEH Groups/Divisions and is strongly supported as a process. However the communication of the Knowledge Strategy to OEH staff needs to be augmented, with the intent of building collective ownership of this Strategy. With the restructure of OEH to establish the independent EPA, it is recommended that the Knowledge Strategy be revised to ensure the prioritisation of knowledge needs as identified within the new OEH is ahead of other external stakeholders (including the now independent EPA). A more discriminating prioritisation framework needs to be applied to proposed Knowledge Strategy projects. OEH as an organisation needs to adopt one consistent

78


prioritisation framework for biodiversity conservation projects – and it needs to reflect the agreed policy direction of the NSW Government (i.e.: PAS2). The current proposed direction in the Biodiversity Knowledge Strategy in terms of identifying the ‘top-10’ knowledge needs for biodiversity (note it is the ‘top-5’ for other Knowledge Strategy Themes) is not supported. This approach is attempting to ‘pick winners’ and actually undermines the critical thinking and knowledge needs identification that were provided from other OEH Groups/Divisions at a Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 level. There needs to be greater recognition and priority given by SSD to announced Government policies that have knowledge needs attached to them. These are a ‘must-do’. The 5-year Strategic Plan should not be positioned as a pseudo budget-bid for SSD projects. Budget considerations are a separate process and the longer term strategic intent of the Knowledge Strategy is unnecessarily confused with the inclusion of a bid framework (currently at Appendix 4 – Biodiversity Knowledge Strategy). This would be more appropriate as a component of the year-to-year implementation plans. To ensure the success of the Knowledge Strategy as a truly cross-organisational, collaborative process, SSD needs to listen and respond more effectively to the feedback being provided by other OEH Groups/Divisions working on Knowledge Strategy Theme Committees.

79


13.2 CASE STUDY: IMPROVED COORDINATION – ESTABLISHMENT OF NVID Background: There are well entrenched and vigorously held positions from various OEH Groups/Divisions regarding native vegetation mapping techniques and technologies. This issue has been an ongoing debate within OEH for several years and was the subject of an internal OEH review, the Native Vegetation Information Review, undertaken in early 2011 (refer Appendix 21 for a copy of the Native Vegetation Information Review report and its recommendations). In June 2011 the Executive gave in principle endorsement to the 12 recommendations arising from the Native Vegetation Information Review: This case study relates to the progress of the first two recommendations:

1. Establish a high-level, single accountability for native vegetation information by creating a Native Vegetation Information Directorate within the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

2. Re-align agency staff undertaking vegetation assessment and mapping functions from multiple parts of the organisation into a single program under the Native Vegetation Information Directorate. Specifically:

- Establish a state vegetation mapping team, - establish a state vegetation classification and survey team, - focus research and development activities to address vegetation knowledge

gaps and refine assessment and mapping technologies, - oversee the completion and ongoing maintenance of the integrated

Vegetation Information Systems. Observation: Despite Executive endorsement of the review recommendations nearly nine months ago, there have been challenges in establishing the NVID within SSD. Aside from the administrative complications associated with the organisational restructure to establish the EPA and a new OEH, a major impediment to progressing this work is the ongoing tension between SSD, former EPA (now OEH) biodiversity conservation staff, plant ecology specialists from the RBG&DT and biodiversity conservation personnel from EHPP. Whilst the temporary NVID Director’s position has been established within SSD until 30 June 2012, there has been significant resistance by various OEH staff (predominately EPA) nominated to relocate from their existing Group/Division to the NVID (within SSD). The recent transfer of former EPA biodiversity conservation staff back to OEH may lead to the erroneous conclusion that the ‘problem’ regarding staff transfers to SSD has now been resolved (as they are all now within OEH). The ongoing tensions and fractured relationships between these Groups/Divisions need attention by the OEH Executive.

80


There is an urgent need for the Executive to engage change management specialists to support OEH staff in their transition to the restructured arrangements. This is critical if NVID is ever to get off the ground. In that regard, given the nominated OEH staff are now predominately within the proposed B&NRMD, it would seem sensible to relocate NVID from SSD to B&NRMD. It is noted that RBG&DT has separated from the OEH structure and therefore the proposed transfer of RBG&DT personnel to NVID is now uncertain. OEH needs to speak with one voice in terms of its approach to native vegetation mapping. On paper, the establishment of NVID would appear to have achieved this outcome, however this is not the operational reality and this matter must be addressed by the OEH Executive. Recommendations: That the OEH Executive note the need for intensive change management support processes for former EPA staff transferring back to OEH. That given the critical mass of EPA personnel nominated for transfer to SSD are now located within the proposed B&NRM Division, the NVID be transferred from SSD to B&NRM. That the proposed relocation of nominated RBG&DT personnel to NVID not proceed until the OEH structure is finalised. The Native Vegetation Steering Committee should continue as a cross-organisational clearing house for native vegetation issues and include representation from the EPA and the RBG&DT. Issues to be considered include (but are not limited to) mapping techniques / methodologies / use of computer generated models, ground-truthing, identification of client needs and expectations, funding applications and/or allocations. The Native Vegetation Steering Committee should be chaired by the B&NRMD and should report periodically to the NRM&S Executive Committee. Ongoing issues should be discussed at the Native Vegetation Steering Committee prior to escalation to the NRM&S Executive Committee. Any funding applications relating to Native Vegetation issues are to be first discussed by the Native Vegetation Steering Committee and an agreed position reached and put to the NRM&S Executive Committee – no exceptions.

81


13.3 CASE STUDY: IMPROVED COOPERATION - NATIVE VEGETATION MAPPING

Background: Over the course of the Bio-Focus Review several representations were received from EHPP, EPA and RBG&T highlighting serious concerns over SSD’s proposed mapping technology to be used to produce a NSW-wide native vegetation mapping resource. Principle concerns focussed on:

• the robustness of the SPOT 5 technology to be able to differentiate between vegetation types; and,

• The ability for this resource to be used by local government stakeholders or in native vegetation related court proceedings.

A two-day workshop was convened by the A/D NVID on 17-18 November 2011 to bring the various internal and external stakeholders together and attempt to find areas of commonality and articulate more precisely, areas of ongoing technical disagreement. The workshop was highly productive and a copy of the report is provided at Appendix 22. Observation: The outcomes from that workshop do not appear to have been taken up by NVID or the Native Vegetation Steering Committee and this needs to be addressed. The focus needs to be on strengthening working relationships and re-establishing trust between various stakeholders. Strong concerns were expressed by various OEH Groups/Divisions when it became known that in late December 2011 SSD was awarded a $4.5M grant (over four years) from the Environmental Trust Fund (EFT) for the production of the State-wide Mapping and Classification project. Despite the cross-divisional Native Vegetation Steering Committee being established as a clearing house for technical issues associated with vegetation mapping, the Environmental Trust Fund (ETF) grant was progressed by SSD without the knowledge of the other OEH Groups/Divisions. Neither was this funding application discussed at the workshop held on 17-18 November 2011 even though its preparation would have been very well advanced by that stage. This oversight by SSD further escalated the tensions between other OEH Groups/Divisions and significantly eroded trust. The primary view expressed from other OEH Groups/Divisions was that the SPOT-5 technology is not capable of producing the type of map that the Environmental Trust Fund Grant application says it can. It is recognised that there are a range of technical challenges associated with accurately mapping vegetation community classifications (including seasonal changes, the three-dimensional nature of vegetation, advances in mapping methodologies and utilisation of other data sources). Fine grain mapping of large regional areas is also very expensive.

82


The technical and resourcing challenges of the project were acknowledged by SSD in the paper to the NRM Executive Committee on 23/2/2012 and SSD indicated a commitment to addressing these. In addition, SSD committed to an on-going peer review and testing of the technology to ensure user needs are appropriately met. This commitment is very important given the sustained concerns that have been identified about the technology by internal OEH stakeholders (many of whom have been nominated to transfer across to the NVID). There is a need for further credible and peer reviewed validation of the SPOT-5 technology before its use as the primary technology for the State-wide map proceeds. It is noted that in May 2010 Ecological Australia Pty Ltd undertook a “blind analysis” comparing two mapping methodologies using the Vegetation Classification and Assessment (VCA) Classification (refer Appendix 23) but its findings remain strongly contested internally and this report has not been widely distributed. The Bio-Focus Review was also made aware of concerns expressed by external stakeholders (primarily local councils based in the Hunter Valley) in relation to the ability of the SPOT-5 technology to meet the native vegetation mapping needs of local government end users. Put simply, if the mapping product is deemed by local government stakeholders not to be useful (because it is not fine-grain enough) then local government will not use it. It is critical that end user needs are appropriately identified and addressed from the inception of the proposed project. It is noted that SSD is attempting to understand the end user needs using the Namoi Catchment Action Plan project through:

i) Capturing all user requirements (regional or fine scales) by: a. distributing a focussed Questionnaire to internal and external

stakeholders b. follow up interviews with key users & documentation of requirements

ii) Comparing / analysing these requirements against existing products iii) Finalising an agreed product specification(s) (and a matching VIS data

model) iv) Developing or refining available mapping methods to meet specifications

Subject to the provision of a business plan, the ETF grant will be provided (from FY 12/13) over the next four years so that OEH can complete the classification and regional scale mapping of native vegetation of NSW. Specific elements to be addressed in the business plan include:

1. whether regional scale mapping at a uniform scale for all of NSW is required

as a top priority, or whether more effort should be focussed on mapping some areas at finer scale?

2. if a regional scale product is required, what this product should look like? and,

3. what is the best available method to meet these requirements? The technical limitations of SPOT-5 were acknowledged by SSD at the NRM Executive Committee on 23 February 2012 and the paper on the NVID included the following recommendations:

o OEH business areas need to contribute to the proposed User Needs Analysis to properly establish the purpose and requirements for the Regional and Fine scale mapping.

83


o OEH business areas also need to consult with and obtain endorsement from NVID before proceeding with any native vegetation mapping projects.

o NVID should improve the documentation of and consultation on methods and thereby establish more clarity about and confidence in mapping products.

o Continual technology changes need to be managed systematically with thorough R&D and consultation.

o NVID should update the Native Vegetation Mapping Strategy following the User Needs Analysis.

These proposed recommendations are supported and should be implemented. It is noted that SSD also propose to establish an OEH technical sub-committee to provide advice to the internal OEH Project Control Group about the suitability of the available options to deliver the desired mapping product (to address question 3 above). Proposed membership and the Terms of Reference for this group is subject to the outcomes from the stakeholder review but the fundamental intent is to enable a rigorous scientific peer review of the proposed methodology. SSD concedes the need to establish within OEH Groups/Divisions a clear and consistent viewpoint on the technological issues associated with native vegetation mapping. Unless there is intensive effort to better manage the relationships between the technical mapping experts from across OEH the establishment of the NVID will continue to be compromised. Recommendations: That the OEH Executive note there are still challenges in determining a consistent and agreed position within OEH as to the technologies and the user requirements for native vegetation mapping services. There needs to be a much stronger focus within OEH on agreeing and applying consistent standards that have useful application for a variety of NRM stakeholders. The focus should not be on promoting one specific methodology or tool over another. Rather, the focus should be on the quality of the information that will be used to inform policy development and program implementation. The Executive should consider the engagement of change management support processes to assist rebuilding relationships between the OEH Groups/Divisions involved in NVID and re-establishing trust between these stakeholders. The Native Vegetation Steering Committee should consider the outcomes identified at the workshop held on 17-18 November 2011 and the May 2010 comparative analysis of two mapping methodologies by Eco-Logical Australia in the context of implementing the recommendations of the NVID paper (23/2/2012) and that an agreed ‘way forward’ be presented to the NRM&S Executive Committee. There needs to be an independent and comprehensive review of the proposed technology for the preparation of state-wide (SPOT5) native vegetation map to provide certainty as to the appropriateness of this technology for the purpose of: ensuring legislative compliance (i.e.: acceptability as evidence in court proceedings); usefulness to local government planning authorities in the preparation of Regional Land Use Plans; Local Environment Plans and consideration of consent conditions for proposed major developments.

84


13.4 CASE STUDY: IMPROVED COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION “READING THE LANDSCAPE” CONFERENCE

Background A biodiversity conference, “Reading the Landscape – linking biodiversity, research and management” was held in Dubbo from 11-13 October (2.5 days). OEH was listed as a Conference Convenor along with the Western Catchment Management Authority. The Conference was opened by Executive Director SSD. Over the course of the conference there were approximately 110 delegates representing various Catchment Management Authorities, land care organisations, environmental organisations and landholders. Formal presentations were made by 13 OEH staff (from SSD and EPRG, North West). Observation: Low internal awareness of the Biodiversity Conference The internal promotion of the conference beyond SSD and EPRG (NW) was very limited. Most OEH Groups/Divisions did not know about the biodiversity conference until very close to the event.

- On 25 August (ten days after commencing the Bio-Focus Review) the Project Director was advised by EPRG (North West Region) of the conference.

- On 29 August DCE EHPP provided feedback from EHHP indicating very low awareness of the biodiversity conference. An initial inquiry from EHPP had been made in early 2011 offering to do a presentation but there was no response. (Note: A poster on PAS2 was subsequently put on display in the main room of the conference venue).

- On 30 August 2011 the Director of Research (Taronga Park, Western Plains Zoo) met with the Project Director for a briefing on the Bio-Focus Review. In the course of discussions, the biodiversity conference was raised. The Director of Research indicated she was unaware of the conference, which was surprising given the conference location was the Western Plains Zoo.

- The “early bird” registration offer for the conference closed on 2 September 2011.

- A staff circular on the conference was distributed via Ehub on 16 September 2011.

The content of the conference was very good – as such, it was a missed opportunity that other OEH Groups/Divisions were largely unaware of the conference. OEH representation at the conference was predominately SSD and EPRG (NW). Sponsorship by OEH : The ‘sponsorship’ arrangements by OEH with the Western Catchment Authority for the conference were nebulous. There did not appear to be any formal sponsorship agreement signed and there was not a contract that clearly outlined the level of resourcing provided by OEH (monetary and in-kind) to support the event.

85


Anecdotal information indicated that approximately 30 conference registrations were purchased by OEH, which would equate to approximately $9,600. It is noted that registration fees were payable to the Western Catchment Management Authority and, despite OEH role as ‘conference convenor’, there was no discount on the registration fee provided to OEH staff. OEH was identified in the branding associated with conference materials and on the conference website. Financial returns: The financial returns of the conference are unknown. Whilst it was likely to be ‘break-even’ (given the number of delegates and the resources required to outsource the event management), there should still have been a reconciliation of accounts and information provided to OEH about how its resources were expended. If the conference was not simply a commercial revenue stream for the Western CMA, then any profits generated should have been equally distributed between the two conference convenors; namely OEH and Western CMA. However, if the conference was effectively a revenue opportunity for the Western CMA then there needs to be consideration as to why OEH provided this level of in-kind and financial support to another organisation that is funded by the Department of Primary Industries (DPI). Information dissemination from the conference: There were no formal conference proceedings produced and no copies of the presentations (beyond a brief abstract) were available. Delegates were advised if they wanted a presentation to contact the author of the paper directly. This was another missed opportunity in terms of sharing the conference learnings with a broader audience. At the very least, as conference convenor, OEH should have insisted on copies of all presentations and papers so that these could be made available on OEH’s Ehub. Recommendations: All future proposals for OEH to sponsor or participate in external biodiversity conferences or other NRM seminars/forums etc are to be subject to approval by the NRM&S Executive Committee. Individual work units will not have autonomy to decide on participation in conferences, negotiating sponsorship arrangements, agreeing the level of resources to be committed by OEH. Any request to the NRM&S Executive Committee for sponsoring of external conferences/forums/seminars to be presented with a clear business case including the sponsorship proposal with full costs and benefits to OEH in taking up the sponsorship outlined.

86


13.5 CASE STUDY: IMPROVED COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION BIODIVERSITY MATTERS & BIODIVERSITY SERVICES FORWARD PLAN

Background: The EPA (formerly EPRG) developed a “Biodiversity Services Forward Plan (2011-2012) (refer Appendix 25) which was discussed at the Executive in September 2011. The Biodiversity Forward Services Plan highlighted the biodiversity conservation functions that were lead by the EPA. It scoped a range of proposed activities for biodiversity conservation for 2001-12, not all of which were resourced. The Biodiversity Matters Working Group was established in 2011 as a cross-organisational group to promote biodiversity communication messages. Observation: Over the course of the Bio-Focus Review there was a fairly persistent view expressed by EPA biodiversity conservation staff that ‘biodiversity had dropped off the radar’. However specific examples of perceived deficiencies were not readily identified in submissions/staff feedback. This perception was also not corroborated by the other data collected by the Bio-Focus Taskforce. The Bio-Focus Review did however find examples of some communication activities being progressed by OEH Groups/Divisions on biodiversity conservation that were fragmented and uncoordinated. In relation to the Biodiversity Matters Working Group, feedback to the Bio-Focus Review revealed confusion by other Groups/Divisions as to the purpose of the working group and it ability to influence OEH’s strategic direction for biodiversity conservation awareness. The Biodiversity Matters working group was considered by other Groups/Divisions as being an EPA driven process rather than collegiate. Interestingly, a submission was received from within the EPA itself explicitly criticising both the Biodiversity Services Forward Plan and also the composition of the Biodiversity Matters Working Group as not representing the full biodiversity conservation functions covered by the EPA. The approach for OEH relating to the communication of biodiversity conservation matters should be integrated and cooperative across all Groups/Divisions. Ad-hoc, unconnected communication processes, education activities, public awareness campaigns should not be a resourcing priority for OEH. Groups/Divisions with biodiversity conservation functions should not compete with OEH’s Public Affairs to be the recognised ‘voice’ for OEH on biodiversity conservation matters. In light of the significant restructure of the OEH into a new EPA and re-formed OEH, the functional work units of the EPA have now been split between the two organisations. Whilst it is noted that CARD has been established as an interim Division (which includes many former EPA staff), the continuation of CARD as a separate Division beyond 30 June 2012 is not supported, due to the need for OEH to develop a structure that has ‘one voice’ for biodiversity conservation.

87


Recommendations:

The “Biodiversity Matters” working group should be discontinued and instead the NRM&S Executive Committee should be recognised as the consolidated cross-organisational forum for setting direction on biodiversity and NRM polices/programs. The proposed (but as yet unfunded) web-based biodiversity resource identified in the “Biodiversity Forward Services Delivery Plan” should be discontinued. The provision of resources for unconnected and ad-hoc educational and web-based activities from any Group/Division should be discontinued. Any educational activities that OEH is involved in needs to be articulated via specific arrangements with the Board of Studies and endorsed specifically by the NRM&S Exec Committee. All information from OEH for distribution to the general public is to be managed via OEH’s Public Affairs – not through any other Group/Division. All biodiversity information proposed for inclusion on the OEH website must be endorsed by the NRM&S Executive Committee.

88


13.6 CASE STUDY: MEASURING AND EVALUATING PERFORMANCE PWG APPROACH - STATE OF THE PARKS

Background: Ongoing and standardised evaluation of management progress occurs across the NSW park system through a triennial management effectiveness evaluations. Every three years, PWG undertakes a structured assessment of management effectiveness (performance) for all parks within the NSW park system. This program is called ‘State of the Parks’. Assessments are undertaken by PWG staff who draw upon the diversity of information sources that they have at their disposal including planning documents, research and monitoring results, community and specialist opinion, corporate data and of course their own expert experience. All key parts of park management are assessed within the State of the Parks survey. This includes natural heritage management as well as cultural heritage management and the provision of recreational opportunities. Assessments for each park cover all key elements of the management cycle. In its most recent iteration, the results of the 2005, 2007 and 2010 State of the Parks assessments was made available for operations planning through the development of specific tools to allow those developing the operations plans to consider, among many questions, the following:

• What are the key biodiversity values being managed?

• What are the key threats to biodiversity (within their location of management) and, with consideration to a risk matrix, what are the priorities for management?

• Where are negative impacts to biodiversity increasing?

• Are their limitations to the way biodiversity values are being managed in a park that should be priority addressed?

• What condition are biodiversity values in? Rationale: The collection of this information supports strategic and operational planning within the Service and is a mandatory consideration in annual operational planning. As discussed above, while the operational plans have considered the outputs of park management activities, State of the Parks considers PWG’s outcomes associated with management. PWG managers need to consider multiple lines of evidence to determine priorities of management across all PWG services themes. State of the Parks data allows for these managers to periodically review performance for either:

a) an individual park for specific issues; or,

b) success in managing a specific theme – for example conservation of biodiversity services and values within the park system.

Observation: The approach taken by PWG to improve its capacity to monitor, evaluate and measure biodiversity conservation program outcomes is innovative and impressive.

89


The increased focus by PWG on implementing continual management feedback systems arose as a response to a critical report from the Auditor General in 2004. There is potential for other OEH Groups/Divisions to adopt similarly responsive management systems for their biodiversity conservation programs and this matter warrants further consideration by the Executive. Recommendation: PWG’s adaptive management systems approach is innovative and impressive – it has greatly improved PWG’s capacity to monitor, evaluate and measure biodiversity conservation program outcomes. The Executive should consider the adoption of similar adaptive management systems to measure, monitor and evaluate biodiversity conservation programs being undertaken by other OEH Groups/Divisions.

90


13.7 CASE STUDY: EFFICIENT PROCESSES - HARMONISED OEH FINANCES Background: PWG has a separate financial reporting system to that of other OEH Groups/Divisions (EHPP, EPA, and SSD). As such, the data sheet returned from PWG was provided in a format that reflected PWG approach to its financial management and reporting processes. The difference in the data format precluded a consolidated financial analysis across all OEH Groups/Divisions. PWG provided the following feedback on the agreed approach for collecting financial ‘estimates’ of biodiversity conservation activities/functions from OEH Groups/Divisions: PWG’s WBS structure

• The use of WBS within PWG does not represent a work group; it represents a source of operational funds for a range of activities, usually within a geographical area. Attempting to identify the direct BC costs (excluding fire/pests/weeds) would be impossible via analysis of WBS expenditure.

• Most employee costs are held within the cost centres and are divided geographically.

PWG Staff Activity

• PWG staff are engaged in multiple service activities each day across a wide and complex landscape and working environment.

• OEH does not have a job costing system, so employee costs cannot be allocated to services.

• Almost all salary costs are therefore allocated to cost centres, so using SAP to do activity analysis is not possible.

Service Cost Allocations

• PWG is able to provide program information by using actual expense aggregated data and running this through the State of the Parks model.

• This provides a consistent and meaningful approach to cost apportionment and comparisons of activity between years.

• SAP, without job costing, cannot produce this. Observation The agreed approach taken by the Bio-Focus Taskforce in progressing the data collection was based on estimating the proportion of biodiversity conservation functions for each OEH Group/Division WBS and/or cost centre. The template for the data collection process was developed in close consultation with members of the Bio-Focus Taskforce and was endorsed by the Steering Committee. It is recognised that the data collection process for Bio-Focus (particularly the financial estimates for biodiversity conservation functions) was challenging.

91


It is also noted that the Bio-Focus review was never positioned as a forensic accounting exercise. The biodiversity conservation ‘estimates’ for EHPP, EPA (formerly EPRG) and SSD were informed by information provided by work unit managers and checked by the respective Group/Division’s Financial Controller. Advice from PWG was that its financial system is structured around its 15 service themes and informed by data from the triennial State of the Parks survey – and that is how its financial information would be provided. As PWG is structurally part of OEH (and has been since 2003), it is unclear why PWG’s financial systems are not harmonised with the remaining OEH Groups/Divisions. A harmonised approach to financial management and reporting systems would facilitate cross-organisational financial comparisons and would assist in OEH presenting as a single organisation. Recommendation: PWG is a structural part of OEH and its financial management and reporting arrangements should not be separate. The Executive should work towards achieving a harmonised financial management and reporting system across all OEH Groups/Divisions.

92


13.8 CASE STUDY: EFFICIENT PROCESSES – USE OF DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS Background: The Bio-Focus Taskforce ranked existing OEH decision support tools with relevance for biodiversity conservation (refer Appendix XX for complete list of OEH Decision Support Tools (http://goulbap06.dec.int:8080/Projects/LMDS/ModelsHomePage.html)

1. PADACS 2. Biobanking Credit Calculator

(BCC) 3. Land Management Database

(LMD) 4. BioMetric Incentive Tool

(BIT) 5. Bio- Forecaster Tool (BFT) 6. Threatened Species

Database (TSPD) 7. SCaRPA TOOL 8. CERAT

9. BCC 10. REMP 11. LF4, LF6, LF 12. SLT 13. PERFECT 14. CLAM 15. FLAG 16. IBIS DSS 17. ASDST 18. BIT 19. BFT 20. Aquatic Bioforecaster

Observation: The on-line staff survey revealed a relatively high proportion of staff working in biodiversity conservation indicated they do not use decision support tools at all in their biodiversity conservation work (~48-57%). Of the above list, there were a high proportion of decision support tools that were unknown to staff (~30-36%). The survey feedback did effectively mirror the top six of the decision support tools as nominated by the Bio-Focus Taskforce (Threatened species database (~70%), Biobanking Credit Calculator (~35%), Bio-Forecaster (~30%), BioMetric Incentive (~21%), PADACS (~19%). The external stakeholder survey did not proceed and therefore comparisons regarding the use of decision support tools were not able to be made however it is known that current use by local councils of Bio-Certifier and Biobanking is low. Recommendations: To assist the Executive in determining ongoing resourcing priorities for decision support tools, the external stakeholder survey should be commenced and seek feedback on the decision support tools used by external stakeholders to enable this information to be compared with the results of the OEH internal survey. Audit the existing array of decision support tools and rationalise resources allocated to those tools that are not being widely used within OEH or by OEH external stakeholders. Discontinue resources for tools that are not being used. Proposals regarding decision support tools are to be brought before the NRM&S Executive Committee prior to any further resourcing commitments being made. The Executive should consider ways OEH can work with local Councils to increase the uptake by Council’s of OEH’s strategic tools (Bio-Certifier and Bio-Banking). Explore opportunities for sharing of biodiversity conservation data sets between OEH, EPA, DPI, CMA’s, DPC, Department of Planning, NRC, non-governmental environmental organisations (i.e.: NCT, GA, BHA), Spatial Council and local councils.

93

http://goulbap06.dec.int:8080/Projects/LMDS/ModelsHomePage.html


13.9 CASE STUDY: EFFICIENT PROCESSES - TRANSFER OF SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE FROM SSD TO NRC

Background:

The NSW Scientific Committee is established under the Threatened Species Conservation Act. It is an independent committee of 11 scientists appointed by the Minister for the Environment.

Current members include: Dr Michelle Leishman (Chairperson) - Macquarie University, Dr Tony Auld - Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), Dr Tina Bell - University of Sydney, Dr Linda Broadhurst – CSIRO, Dr Melissa Giese – OEH, Professor Geoffrey Gurr - Australian Entomological Society, Dr Mark Eldridge - Australian Museum, Associate Professor Charles Morris - University of Western Sydney, Dr Andrea Wilson - Ecological Society of Australia, Dr Peter Wilson - OEH (Botanic Gardens Trust) The Scientific Committee's main functions include:

• deciding which species should be listed as critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or presumed extinct in NSW

• deciding which populations should be listed as endangered in NSW

• deciding which ecological communities should be listed as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable

• deciding which threats to native plants and animals should be declared key threatening processes under the Act

• reviewing and updating the lists of threatened species, populations and communities and key threatening processes in the schedules of the Act.

Servicing provided by SSD: The returned data spreadsheet from SSD indicates a high level of administrative support provided to the Scientific Committee; including work associated with Committee appointments, coordinating monthly meetings with the Chairperson, and undertaking scientific research and analysis to assist members prepare determinations. There are currently 8 SSD staff allocated to servicing the Scientific Committee, 4.5 of which are identified as undertaking roles with specific biodiversity conservation. The 11/12 staffing costs (just biodiversity conservation specific) is $395,000. The 11/12 FY operating budget for the Committee is approximately $204,000, the majority of this being for advertising the deliberations and determinations of the Committee. Alternate servicing options: The Natural Resources Commission (NRC), established under the Natural Resources Commission Act 2003, provides the NSW Government with independent advice on natural resource management to improve decision making and assess performance against measurable targets. The NRC reports to the Premier and all reports from the NRC are publicly available.

94


The primary focus of work for the NRC at present is on catchment action plans and auditing the effectiveness of their implementation as well as periodic reports that measure progress against Government adopted state-wide targets for NRM. The NRC has demonstrated its capacity to undertake complex reviews of scientific and policy issues under legislation or as requested by the Government (i.e.: forest assessments, review of water sharing plans, assessments of native vegetation clearing processes). Rationale: The NRC meets with DPC on a regular basis and has indicated there is capacity for additional NRM tasks to be undertaken. There is no legislative requirement that specifically ties OEH to the servicing of the Scientific Committee. Indeed, the use of the NRC for this function would reinforce the strong message of the Scientific Committee’s independence from Government. Given OEH is part of the DPC cluster, the potential transfer of the servicing arrangements from SSD to the NRC could be administratively simple to achieve. It is not proposed that the SSD staff currently involved in servicing the Scientific Committee would be transferred to the NRC to undertake this task. Rather, the 4.5 biodiversity conservation roles would be retained within SSD and deployed to other biodiversity conservation priorities for OEH. Recommendation: That the Executive consider a proposal to DPC regarding the servicing of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee with a view that this function be formally transferred from SSD within OEH to the NRC.

95


96


PART 4

APPENDICES

97

Date post:	07-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungdung
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times