Evaluation of the National Environmental Research Program (NERP)On behalf of the Department of the Environment

Vista Advisory Project Team

Caroline Spencer (lead evaluator)

Peter McVay

Sue Sheridan

10 January 2014

Page | 1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................3

1. Background....................................................................................................................................8

1.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................8

1.2 Program Aim and Objective...................................................................................................8

1.3 Evaluation methodology......................................................................................................11

2. Analysis of NERP’s impact............................................................................................................14

2.1 To what extent is NERP meeting its objectives?..................................................................14

2.2 Areas of portfolio impact – case studies..............................................................................17

2.2.1 Operational Management (National Parks)................................................................17

2.2.2 Regulation...................................................................................................................26

2.2.3 Program design and delivery........................................................................................30

2.3 What has NERP added to the environmental knowledge base?...........................................36

2.4 Final note on program impact...............................................................................................37

3 – Analysis of the NERP delivery model.............................................................................................39

3.1 Hub Model.................................................................................................................................39

3.2 Co-investment...........................................................................................................................41

3.3 Program Establishment..............................................................................................................42

3.4 Collaboration.............................................................................................................................47

3.5 Capacity- building......................................................................................................................48

3.6 Knowledge broking and communications..................................................................................49

3.7 Program Administration............................................................................................................55

3.8 Emerging Priorities....................................................................................................................60

Appendix A – What has NERP added to the environmental knowledge base?....................................63

Appendix B – NERP Timeline...............................................................................................................66

Appendix C – List of People consulted.................................................................................................67

Appendix D - Survey Approach............................................................................................................72

Appendix E – Visual Explanation of NERP enabling and delivery strategies.........................................74

Appendix F – Hub Administration Costs..............................................................................................75

Appendix G - Number of interactions between hubs and end-users...................................................76

Appendix H – Administrative gaps addressed since CERF....................................................................78

Page | 2

Executive SummaryBackground

The National Environmental Research Program (NERP) has been designed to inform decision makers on how best to respond to environmental challenges in Australia. The objective is to ‘improve our capacity to understand, manage and conserve Australia’s unique biodiversity and ecosystems through the generation of world-class research and its delivery to Australian environmental decision makers and other stakeholders’.

NERP is intended to provide a direct pathway between policy makers and researchers, to inform the management and sustainable use of the environment. NERP has a particular focus on supporting biodiversity conservation by delivering research to the Australian Government, other end-users and stakeholders that will improve the understanding of how ecosystems function, their health, resilience, sustainable use and how market mechanisms can promote biodiversity conservation.

At the time of the evaluation (December 2013) NERP had provided some $86.2 million1 in funding over three years to five research Hubs and for eighteen emerging priorities projects. The five Hubs are the:

Environmental Decisions Hub; Landscapes and Policy Hub; Marine Biodiversity Hub; Northern Australia Hub; and Tropical Ecosystems Hub.

Some 134 projects have been funded under NERP (including Emerging Priority projects). While only 18 projects have been fully completed2, substantial progress has been made on many of the incomplete projects. On this basis, the evaluation has been able to draw reasonable conclusions as to the effectiveness and efficiency of the program.

Evaluation Approach

This evaluation focuses predominantly on whether the program is achieving its objectives in relation to informing Environment portfolio end-users. The evaluation team acknowledges the impact the program is having with stakeholders outside the portfolio, and identifies areas that it considers could be improved to maximise impact and benefit to other stakeholder groups in the future. The approach adopted by the evaluation team involved:

a desktop analysis of departmental records and reports;

1 $2.82 million remains available for Emerging Priority projects. Total NERP investment to 30 June 2015 is $89 million. 2 Project completion is in accordance with expectations as outlined in multi-year research plans, given the multi-year nature of research projects, and the lag-time for publication of research papers. The impact from the delivery of interim project outputs is significant. Researchers freely share work-in-progress, such as raw data and preliminary observations and provide advice and input into management plans and other work for portfolio officers.

Page | 3

evaluation surveys sent to Hub participants (509), Environment portfolio end-users (113) and other end-users and stakeholders (122), with an overall response rate of 38 per cent3;

interviews or roundtable discussions with 72 Hub participants and other stakeholders; and interviews or roundtable discussions with 52 Environment portfolio staff within the

department, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Parks Australia.

Conclusion

This evaluation found that the program has been effective in meeting its objective in several key areas, most notably in informing national park planning and operations, and also across several high profile Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) responsibilities. The survey undertaken as part of the evaluation identified that a significant proportion of end-users, both in the Environment portfolio and other stakeholders, consider that the following have been the three major achievements from the NERP:

improved capacity of decision-makers, policy developers and environmental managers to connect with researchers and make the most of research outputs;

improved capacity of researchers to meet environmental decision-makers’ needs; and improved knowledge of biodiversity or the functioning of ecosystems.

The survey results from Environment portfolio end-users indicated that 97 per cent strongly agreed that NERP is improving Australia’s knowledge base (understanding) of biodiversity and ecosystems. Eighty-six per cent of Environment portfolio end-user respondents strongly agreed that NERP is undertaking research that is relevant and useful to the department. Numerous examples were provided to the evaluation team that illustrated the success of the program. NERP has been particularly successful in assisting national park managers to improve their management practices and address strategic threats to biodiversity in both terrestrial and marine environments. Parks Australia commented that NERP has ‘changed our thinking and the way we manage our parks’ by ‘giving managers confidence in the implementation of their strategies knowing that they have drawn on the best available science and management practices and used robust decision making tools’.

Similarly, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA, also within the Environment portfolio) commented on the pivotal role that NERP has played in addressing research gaps and providing evidence to more effectively address water quality challenges in the in-shore waters of the reef. In a resource constrained business environment, this has been particularly important for GBRMPA to enhance its capacity to more effectively respond to international pressures to address the status of the World Heritage Listing of the Great Barrier Reef, and for Parks Australia to address threats in Kakadu and elsewhere and to manage the significant expansion of marine reserves in Commonwealth waters.

At a landscape scale outside of national parks, NERP has provided advice and integrated management approaches to more effectively manage biodiversity conservation. This has been particularly evident through the work of the Hubs in supporting emerging policies and practices under the EPBC Act, most notably in Strategic Assessments and in facilitating Regional Sustainability Planning. The partnerships developed between researchers and the department have been very

3 For details of the survey approach, response rates and confidence intervals, see Appendix D.

Page | 4

productive in these areas. Facilitating credible and more efficient protection of matters of national environmental significance is of increasing importance to the department with the move to a ‘one-stop-shop’ approach and reducing green-tape and improving certainty for proponents seeking approvals under state and Commonwealth environmental legislation. Hub researchers also refined the department’s offsets policy and calculator to improve the tools available to the department in the administration of the EPBC Act. In the Australian Alps, NERP research has also assisted both Commonwealth and state and territory governments in the management of threats to biodiversity values at a landscape scale. For example, research has demonstrated that cattle grazing in Alpine areas does not reduce fire risk and that there are cost effective tools for prioritising and managing threats from invasive species.

The administration of the program was generally commented on favourably by researchers and Hub participants. Seventy per cent of researchers considered that the department had managed the program reasonably or well. Through the administration of five main hub contracts4, the department is receiving research outputs from over 600 researchers for the delivery of 134 projects of direct relevance to the Environment portfolio. Co-investment by partner organisations has almost doubled the total available funding for research under the program to $154.6 million.

In addition, while much of the benefit of collaboration and capacity-building in the program is intangible, evidence from this evaluation shows that collaboration between policy and science is occurring in an active and robust way, albeit with opportunities to improve 5. The on-call access to world-leading researchers for ad-hoc advice as well as research delivery provides unquestionable capacity enhancement to the department and its portfolio agencies. There is also evidence that significant value is derived from the improved capacity of researchers to understand and meaningfully contribute to portfolio priorities and processes as well as the wider policy agenda of governments. These aspects provide evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of the program delivery model, including the basis of the hub model when compared with other approaches such as procuring ad-hoc research projects as needs arise.

The information and communication role of the program is very important for the dissemination of research results. It requires close contact and establishing relationships between researchers and departmental officers. There have been substantial efforts within the department and the Hubs to establish connections between researchers and Environment portfolio line areas to promote understanding and uptake of NERP research, and to ensure it meets environmental decision-makers’ needs. Many of these initiatives are not widely used in other research programs 6 and in many cases cited by survey respondents have been effective in NERP. Strong evidence of the Hubs’ initiatives and genuine desire to deliver research to the department and its portfolio agencies that is relevant,

4 Contract variations with the five hubs, and another 11 smaller contracts have been entered into with providers other than NERP hubs for emerging priority research projects.5 The evaluation identified that collaboration is occurring between: policy and science, research disciplines (e.g. ecological and socio-economic), institutions (e.g. between universities and government research organisations (e.g. CSIRO, Geoscience Australia) as well as non-government organisations including Indigenous land management groups), and at a cross-agency and cross-sectoral level. 6 The Department of Industry’s APS200 Project: The Place of Science in Policy Development in the Public Service, identified that NERP ‘reflects best practice principles for strengthening the links and alignment between research and the needs of policy makers’ by: involving policy makers in the faming of research questions, having a specific focus on knowledge brokering and translation, facilitating access to research, including free and public availability of research outputs. Available at: http://www.innovation.gov.au/science/Documents/APS200ScienceinPolicyReport.pdf, p. 14.

Page | 5

useful and timely was identified through this evaluation. The department’s NERP team facilitates regular seminars, workshops, summer scholarships and promotes formal and informal linkages between researchers and Environment portfolio officers.

Nevertheless, survey results and interviews have also highlighted some missed opportunities and areas for improvement in the program’s implementation. Over half of portfolio end-users considered that there were opportunities where NERP research could have been used in Portfolio decision making and policy but was not. Timing was the major challenge although a lack of awareness of NERP within the Portfolio was a significant issue contributing to missed opportunities. Staff turnover within the department and the absence of dedicated communication/brokerage staff within the administration team for NERP has detracted from the dissemination of research results. The absence of business support systems to manage and disseminate research results means that there have been examples where the results from quality projects have not been disseminated to the department’s executive or the Minister at all or in a timely way. This highlights the importance of strengthening science communication as a dedicated core function within program implementation in the future.

Furthermore, the challenge for the department, in balancing administrative requirements with the task of effectively brokering and communicating science research outputs for maximum impact across the Portfolio will increase as the current round of program funding nears completion in 2015. NERP’s 18 completed projects and 116 projects in-progress have produced over 350 peer-reviewed publications to date. The expected ‘tidal wave’ of publications7 that will reach the department over the next 1-2 years will need to be managed efficiently, and captured and disseminated properly, to maximise the benefits to the department from the NERP investment.

The gap between the commencement of NERP and the predecessor CERF program was regarded as a ‘disaster’ by research organisations because of the loss of quality research staff. The focus on Commonwealth end-users has led to some disenfranchisement of industry and NRM groups that benefitted from the earlier CERF program. The balance between administration and science communication by the department was highlighted as an issue with too much focus on administration or changing financial requirements often cited as detracting from efforts to deliver quality and timely research. In addition, while recognising the challenges of a third party administrator operating on behalf of the Commonwealth, the heavy commitment of departmental staff time and resources to administration in the Tropical Ecosystems Hub was also disproportional to the actual risks involved and a more streamlined arrangement should be considered in any future program.

The strengths of the emerging priority funding stream within the program are significant as they provide the Minister and department with the flexibility to meet priorities not originally foreshadowed in the Multi-year Research Plans within the Hubs. The projects on research into the declared commercial fishing activity (‘super trawler’) and the early intervention options for the crown-of-thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef are examples where the department was able to respond in a timely manner to identified issues as they emerged. However, the emerging priority project selection and approval process has tended to occur late in each financial year. A more 7 Extrapolation of current publications as a proportion of project completion to date suggests over 2700 publications could be received by the department over the life of the program. If this workload coincides with the development of new program it is likely stretch the department in an environment where resources are constrained.

Page | 6

structured and timely process, including one which draws on the expertise of trusted hub leaders to help identify and shape emerging research priorities, and build on best available knowledge and research approaches, would further enhance the value derived from the emerging priority funding stream.

Nevertheless, the outcomes emerging from NERP to date are very positive and have materially contributed to the understanding, management and conservation of Australia’s unique biodiversity and ecosystems. Australian environmental decision-makers and other stakeholders are now better positioned to improve the delivery of their core business operations because of the direct pathways created between policy makers and researchers through NERP.

Acknowledgements

Vista Advisory gratefully acknowledges the open engagement and generous assistance of all program stakeholders in undertaking this evaluation, including:

Hub researchers, leaders, administrators and knowledge brokers for their frank engagement and responsive input into the evaluation, including extensive and considered survey responses and interview comments;

Environment portfolio, including departmental, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and Parks Australia, officers and senior executives for their frank engagement and responsive input into the evaluation, including extensive and considered survey responses and interview comments;

End-users and potential end-users outside the Environment portfolio (including industry groups, traditional owners, state government officials, amongst others) for their frank engagement and responsive input into the evaluation, including extensive and considered survey responses and interview comments including invaluable perspectives on the use and potential of the program; and

the Sustainability Research and Science Policy Section of the Department of the Environment (‘the NERP team’) for their frank engagement and responsive input into the evaluation, including identifying opportunities for improvement and assistance with compilation and analysis of information.

Page | 7

1. Background1.1 IntroductionThe Department of the Environment (the department) is responsible for the administration and delivery of the National Environmental Research Program (NERP). The NERP commenced in 2010 as an ongoing program with funding initially allocated over four years.8 It has built on the former Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities program (CERF). However, the NERP has differed from the CERF in that it has explicitly defined its scope and priorities to align with the department’s strategic outcomes more closely and produce more user-friendly products for decision makers.9

The breadth of responsibilities within the department for terrestrial, aquatic and marine biodiversity conservation and the legislative requirements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 strongly support a substantive need for a well developed science base to inform decision makers on how to respond to environmental biodiversity challenges in Australia. This is important given the threats to biodiversity and natural systems, gaps in the knowledge base of how ecosystems function and the challenges in managing biodiversity conservation and adaptation in partnership with local and Indigenous communities.

1.1.1 Terms of Reference

This evaluation examines the effectiveness and efficiency of program delivery. The effectiveness of NERP relates to how well the program has met the program objective. Consideration of efficiency relates to matters such as how administrative costs have been kept to a minimum, the attraction of additional resources (whether cash or in-kind) and how well research hubs, relevant institutions and the department have delivered the program and directed resources to the conduct, collaboration and communication of research. The evaluation explores these factors in the context of the NERP Program Guidelines and Australian Government accountability requirements. The evaluation provides information to the department on the strengths and weaknesses of the program; drawing on stakeholder views and perspectives to inform future improvements to program delivery. However, the evaluation does not examine research quality or options for the future direction of the program.

1.2 Program Aim and ObjectiveThe NERP program aims to deliver applied environmental research designed to engage with end-users and support evidence-based decision making by environmental managers and policy makers 10. The program objective, as outlined in the NERP Program Guidelines, is to:

8 While the program is ongoing, financial allocations were limited to four years and are subject to reconsideration by the Government in 2014. 9 Department of the Environment, (2012). National Environmental Research Program Overview, Delivering research tailored to the needs of decision makers to guide better environmental decisions, p.9.10 This type of research is often referred to as ‘public good’ research, that is, it is applied to public policy initiatives, rather than undertaken with a commercial focus.

Page | 8

‘Improve our capacity to understand, manage and conserve Australia’s unique biodiversity and ecosystems through the generation of world-class research and its delivery to Australian environmental decision makers and other stakeholders’.

Five key policy questions were developed by the department to guide researchers. They were:

values – understanding the major drivers for maintaining biodiversity; Ecosystems – understanding ecosystem function/monitoring ecosystem health; Threats – maintaining/building resilience for future changing threats; Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems; and Biodiversity markets – particularly in relation to off-reserve management of biodiversity.

The Tropical Ecosystems Hub also had specific additional questions relevant to the Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report (2009) and the Science Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2009-14. Questions included:

How can we best understand and manage the cumulative impacts of multiple pressures on the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem and the goods and services it provides?

What adaptation strategies, including improvements to current management and completely novel strategies, could be used to improve the Great Barrier Reef’s resilience (particularly in the face of climate change)?

How can catchment and near shore management strategies (planning and decision making across all users) in the reef catchment be improved to better protect coastal ecosystems adjacent and connected to the reef and to improve water quality and ecosystem health of the Great Barrier Reef?

The scope and alignment of hub project themes is outlined at Appendix A.

1.2.1 Program purpose and Structure

NERP provides funds for environmental research that supports decision-making. The program is classified as ‘ongoing’, with the Australian Government having dedicated around $20 million per year for research into key environmental issues through the program. Funding is allocated for biodiversity research and delivery of information that the Australian Government needs to better inform environmental management, policy and decision making. This includes understanding how ecosystems function, monitoring their health, maintaining and building their resilience, using them sustainably and exploring how to better use markets to protect biodiversity.

The Minister has the discretion to approve funding under the program. The Minister’s decisions have been supported with advice from the Environmental Research Advisory Panel11, the department and Portfolio Agencies such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

1.2.2 The Research Hubs

11 The Environmental Research Advisory Panel was appointed by the Minister to provide advice on appropriate grant investments under NERP. It comprised an independent Chair, and a mix of independent research experts and policy experts representing the Department and relevant Portfolio agencies.

Page | 9

The program has been designed as a competitive, merit-based grants program that has largely been structured into five multi-disciplinary research hubs hosted by Australian research Institutions. These are:

Environmental Decisions Hub; (led by Professor Hugh Possingham, University of Queensland); conducting applied research resulting in tools, data, models and syntheses on halting and reversing the decline of biodiversity across Australia;

Landscapes and Policy Hub; (led by Professor Ted Lefroy, University of Tasmania); a terrestrial research Hub that supports regional biodiversity planning;

Marine Biodiversity Hub; (led by Professor Nic Bax, University of Tasmania); focussed on the tools and priority information environmental managers need to ensure the sustainable management of Australia’s marine assets;

Northern Australia Hub; (led by Professor Michael Douglas, Charles Darwin University); undertaking critical biodiversity research in northern Australia to address issues such as climate change and future sustainable development in northern Australia; and

Tropical Ecosystems Hub (led by Dr Peter Doherty, Australian Institute of Marine Sciences); focusing on the management, conservation and sustainable use of the Great Barrier Reef and its catchments, tropical rainforest and the terrestrial and marine environments of the Torres Strait.

The Hubs aim to bridge the gap between science and policy by bringing together researchers across several institutions and disciplines, with environmental managers, policy developers, community groups and industry to address priority environmental issues.

Each NERP Hub has a Steering Committee responsible for the overall governance and project delivery of the Hub. The NERP Communications Strategy and a NERP Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy guided Hubs in developing their Multi-Year Research Plans (MYRPs) and Annual Work Plans (AWPs). Each NERP Hub developed a Hub-specific Science Communication Plan based on the guidance provided by the NERP Communication Strategy. The Communication Plan is important as end-user engagement is essential to the success of the program.

Co-contributions from the Hubs were important because in assessing proposals under the program guidelines, preference was given to those that involved significant co-investment (cash or in-kind) including by industry or other end-users and by other public sector organisations that would benefit from the research outcomes.

All Hubs are expected to employ a governance model that demonstrates good practice in its design and execution. Hubs are expected to have a good balance of skills, experience and independence, clear roles and terms of reference, ethical and responsible decision-making and accountability. A principal research leader and a host organisation are primarily responsible for the research program, the funding agreement as well as performance and financial reporting. However, in the case of the Tropical Ecosystems Hub, an administrator was appointed to manage research contracts with research providers on behalf of the Australian Government.

A program timeline is provided at Appendix B.

1.2.3 Expenditure under the program

Page | 10

Expenditure under the program from 2011-12 to 2014-15 is outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Research Hubs supported by NERP

Hub Lead responsibility Planned co-contributions from other parties

Total Dept Funding to 2014 ($m)

Tropical Ecosystems Hub(incl. $2.7m to communications & steering committee through RRRC)

Dr Peter Doherty 33.1 23.1

Tropical Ecosystems Hub(Communications, Knowledge Broking, Steering committee, website, e-atlas implementation Groups)

Through RRRC Ltd, with Steering Committee approval for reimbursement by department, $150k pa for KB and web not subject to reimbursement)

0 2.6

Tropical Ecosystems Hub (Admin) RRRC Ltd 0.3 2.7Environmental Decisions Hub Prof Hugh Possingham 6.4 11.0Landscapes and Policy Hub Prof Ted Lefroy 9.2 6.0Marine Biodiversity Hub Prof Nic Bax 18.6 11.0Northern Australia Hub Prof Michael Douglas 15.9 14.7Hub Total All Hubs 71.2Committed Funds from previous program

Department 5.3

Emerging Priorities Department – various - 12.5Total Expenditure - $83.5 m 89

1.2.4 Emerging Priorities

The NERP also includes a separate emerging priorities stream which has funded 18 projects to date (outlined in Chapter 3 of this report). Some $9.1 million of the $12.5 million available during the period 2011 - 2014 has been allocated to projects to date.

1.3 Evaluation methodologyThe evaluation methodology has been designed to focus on the extent to which the program objective has been achieved, and the efficiency of the program’s delivery. The evaluation methodology was developed with reference to the following publications:

Guidelines for the ethical conduct of evaluations (Australasian Evaluation Society); Implementation of Programme and Policy Initiatives: Making implementation matter (ANAO

Better Practice Guide, August 2006); Commonwealth Grant Guidelines (Department of Finance, 2013); NERP policy, plans and guidance - including program guidelines (April 2010), multi-year

research plans, Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy September 2011; NERP Program Logic12 (prepared by departmental officers, finalised September 2013);

12 The department has identified a program logic for NERP, specifying how the foundational activities and immediate outcomes should lead to legacy outcomes for the program.

Page | 11

Evaluation of the Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities Program – Final Report13; and

Evaluation Framework and Progress Review for the Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities (CERF) Program14.

The methodology is based on:

a review of program documents and reports, including briefs to Ministers; an examination of the hubs’ biannual progress and financial reports and yearly achievement

summaries and supporting documentation and files; interviews, focus groups and roundtable discussions with Environment portfolio staff, hub

participants and other stakeholders outside the Environment portfolio (see Appendix C for details of people consulted),

a survey of 871 stakeholders to enable quantitative and qualitative program user and participant feedback (data and structured commentary) on the efficiency and effectiveness of the program (see Appendix D for an outline of survey approach and confidence intervals relevant to stakeholder responses). Surveys were distributed to three groups: Environment portfolio end-users, other end-users and Hub participants (leaders, researchers and administrators involved in the program). 333 responses were received by the evaluation team, representing a 38% overall response rate; and

case studies to illustrate, in more detail, the impact that NERP research has had on decision-making and management actions.

As the NERP is in its third year of a four-year program, the objective is not expected to have been achieved in its entirety at the date of this evaluation. As such, this evaluation identifies the extent to which the objective has been achieved. The evaluation draws on the program’s logic to identify foundational activities and immediate and short-medium term outcomes. In addition, the results reported for progress, deliverables and outputs in biannual reporting by Hubs, and the department’s annual report will be examined and considered in relation to the program’s logic and achievements to date.

Because of the limitations on the timeframe and the budget available for this evaluation, it was not possible to visit all Hub locations in person. However, the evaluation team had face-to-face, video or tele-conference contact with senior participants (leaders, deputy leaders, knowledge brokers) and end-users from all Hubs. In addition, all Hub participants and key stakeholders were able to provide input into the evaluation through evaluation surveys, and focus groups/roundtable discussions and phone contact as required within the time available.

1.4 Report Structure

This report is structured as follows:

13 Urbis Pty Ltd (2010), a review commissioned by the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts at the end of the CERF program, at www.environment.gov.au.14 Courage Partners (2008-09), a review commissioned by the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts during the CERF program, at www.environment.gov.au.

Page | 12

Chapter 1 – Background (to the program and the evaluation) Chapter 2 – Analysis of NERP’s impact (effectiveness) Chapter 3 – Analysis of NERP’s delivery model (including efficiency) Appendices – useful context and further detailed information

Page | 13

2. Analysis of NERP’s impactThis chapter examines program effectiveness, that is the extent to which the NERP is meeting its objective, three years into the fourth year of the funding cycle of the program.

2.1 To what extent is NERP meeting its objectives? Of the 134 projects funded under NERP to date (including Emerging Priority projects), only 18 have been fully completed, six of which are Emerging Priority projects. Many of the incomplete projects, however, are substantially progressed. Project completion is in accordance with expectations as outlined in multi-year research plans, given the multi-year nature of research projects, and the common lag-time for publication of research papers.

Despite only 13 per cent of projects being fully complete, this evaluation found that the program has already been effective in meetings its objective in several key areas, most notably in informing national park planning and operations, and also across several high profile EPBC Act responsibilities.

The program has also had impact outside the portfolio, including with Australian Alps managers, and traditional owners in Kakadu and the Torres Strait. While this impact has been achieved through the delivery of some final project outputs, the impact from the delivery of interim project outputs is significant. The evaluation team found evidence of researchers freely sharing work-in-progress, such as raw data and preliminary observation (where it was sought and researchers were able to do so) and providing advice, input and even developing substantial portions of environmental management plans for portfolio officers. In addition, the ability of departmental officers to engage with the science through newsletters, seminars and more importantly through direct contact with researchers (such as by phone, email, small workshops, as well as steering committees) has yielded impact.

The evaluation team identified that NERP’s contribution to the Environment portfolio can be characterised as:

providing observational data – for monitoring and discovery; undertaking analysis - including identifying threats, trends and linkages; collaboration, expertise, knowledge-sharing, decision-support; and building an improved knowledge-base and contributing to a longer-term scientific thinking.

It is through these mechanisms that NERP has improved the understanding and capacity of departmental officers, and other environmental decision-makers and stakeholders, to use research to make robust and credible decisions and implement effective management actions. NERP also has a lasting legacy in that it is influencing the way that environmental managers and policy officers interact with the science community and use scientific research to inform their thinking and management actions. This lays the foundation for improved decision-making in future years.

Survey respondents agreed most strongly with the following statements with respect to the NERP:

Page | 14

Table 2 – Relevance of NERP to environmental managers and policy makers

Environment portfolio end-users

Other end -users

NERP is undertaking research that is relevant and useful to:

my work 75% (strongly) agree 88% (strongly) agree

to the department/ portfolio

86% (strongly) agree Not applicable

NERP is improving Australia’s knowledge base (understanding) of biodiversity and ecosystems

97% (strongly) agree 84% (strongly) agree

NERP has established strong linkages between the environmental managers and decision-makers/the department and capable scientists and institutions

73% (strongly) agree 68%% (strongly) agree

2.1.1 Major Achievements of NERP

Evaluation survey results identified that a significant proportion of end users, both in the Environment portfolio and other stakeholders, consider that the following have been the three (unranked) major achievements from the NERP:

improved capacity of decision-makers, policy developers and environmental managers to connect with researchers and make the most of research outputs;15

improved capacity of researchers to meet environmental decision-makers’ needs;16 and improvement in knowledge of biodiversity or the functioning of ecosystems.17

The last two achievements listed above are also considered major achievements by the Hub participants themselves.18 The Hub participants further considered that enabling environmental research at an appropriate scale to produce results useful to end-users is a major achievement arising from NERP19.

Despite these successes, stakeholders recognise that there are significant constraints limiting NERP’s ability to achieve results. Common across all program stakeholders was an acknowledgement that insufficient funds for the scale and complexity of the research required was a limiting factor. 20 Other constraining factors nominated by a significant proportion of stakeholders include:

time taken to produce meaningful results (nominated by 56% of hub participants in their survey response);

divergent views of stakeholders involved in the program (34% of environment Portfolio end-users);

15 Nominated by 53% Environment portfolio and 54% other end users [see survey methodology at Appendix D].16 Nominated by 50% Environment portfolio and 51% other end users.17 Nominated by 47% Environment portfolio and 34% other end users.18 Improved researcher capacity to meet decision-makers’ needs – nominated by 57% Hub participants; and knowledge improvements – nominated by 49% Hub participants.19 Nominated by 49% Hub participants. 20 Nominated by 31% of Environment portfolio end-users survey respondents, 39% other end users, and 32% Hub participants.

Page | 15

lack of alignment between research projects and my needs (31% of other end-users); difficulty in identifying and prioritising research needs to meet specific business needs (to

inform research project scope) (29% of Environment portfolio end users); factors limiting progress outside the control of the research, such as seasonal/ climatic

conditions (30% of hub participants); and limited knowledge of the existence or subject matter of the program’s research outputs

(22% of other end-users).

2.1.2 Use of NERP research outputs

Nearly all of the 90 end-user survey respondents have at least some consideration of NERP outputs in undertaking their work in policy development, decision-making, and environmental management21, and a significant proportion of these regularly make use of NERP outputs.22

Over three-quarters of end users nominated at least one instance where a NERP project output had been used in their work; of these, well over half reported three or more such instances. Furthermore, some 60% of hub participants cited at least one instance where a NERP project with which they were involved had been taken up by end-users, with over half of these reporting three or more such instances.

This evaluation sought to identify examples to illustrate this quantitative data. The evaluation found that there was no shortage of examples of the use of NERP outputs informing environmental management actions, planning and other decisions within the portfolio23. This contribution is expected to be even greater into the program’s fourth year, when many more projects are completed. Furthermore, several projects are forecast to have broader substantial cross-portfolio impact (e.g. the associated socio-economic benefits of Indigenous Protected Areas24, and in fisheries policy25).

Initially, this evaluation sought to identify three case studies – that is, three individual NERP projects that have informed or assisted the department’s responsibilities in a substantial way. However, it became apparent that identifying only three individual projects would severely understate the impact of the program. Therefore, many more case studies have been identified to illustrate the breadth and depth of program impact in various areas of the portfolio. The examples outlined

21 92% of survey respondent Environment portfolio end-users and 95% other end users.22 50% Environment portfolio end-users and 18% other end users.23 Survey respondents included evidence for 87 substantive instances where their NERP research outputs had been used by environmental decision-makers or managers in relation to environmental management actions or conservation measures. Note that this is indicative only, as a result of Vista Advisory’s analysis of free-text comments within the survey response seeking hub participants’ evidence for up to three examples of use of their NERP work (including end-user contact details and an outline of the decision or management action taken). 24 Northern Australia Hub Project 2.2 – Biodiversity values and Indigenous Livelihoods 25 Marine Biodiversity Hub – Project 2.3 – Landscape approaches to managing high conservation priority species; Project 2.4 – Supporting management of listed and rare species; Project 3.1 – Shelf and canyon ecosystems – functions and processes. Tropical Ecosystems Hub – Project 6.1 – Maximising the benefits of mobile predators to GBR ecosystems: the importance of movement, habitat and environment; Project 8.1 – Monitoring the ecological effects of GBR zoning plan on mid and outer shelf reefs; Project 8.2 – Assessing the long-term effects of management zoning on inshore reef of the GBR; Project 8.3 – Significance of no-take marine protected areas to regional recruitment and population persistence on the GBR; Project 9.2 – Design and implementation of management strategy evaluation for the GBR.

Page | 16

below26 are in no way exhaustive of the instances of use and impact of NERP research outputs identified during this evaluation.

2.2 Areas of portfolio impact – case studiesThe three priority functional areas of the department in which the program has had most impact, and in which analysis and case studies in this report have been grouped, are:

Operational management (e.g. National Parks), Regulation (e.g. EPBC Act), and Program design and delivery (e.g. Caring for Our Country (including Reef Rescue).

In each of the above portfolio functions, this report identifies the challenge for Portfolio and other environmental managers and decision-makers and provides case studies of the NERP contribution. In addition, environmental management actions, or conservation measures taken and decisions made in the last 12-18 months that program stakeholders considered could have been better informed by NERP-funded research are identified. Following the case studies, the report includes a discussion of the NERP’s contribution to improving the environmental knowledge base.

2.2.1 Operational Management (National Parks)

2.2.1.1 The challenge

The Department of the Environment has an important role in the management of Commonwealth National Parks and in the listing and management of World Heritage Areas such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Kakadu and Uluru and Kata Tjuta National Parks, as well as roles in the Wet Tropics and the Australian Alps. The department’s role is particularly relevant as the Australian Government has an international obligation to ‘protect and conserve World Heritage properties, and maintain outstanding universal values’. The available evidence suggests there are significant threats to biodiversity in the Australian landscape and marine environment. Species extinctions, pest outbreaks, and declining native vegetation and water quality are among a range of symptoms of ecosystems losing the capacity to repair themselves.27 In terrestrial national parks, there have been significant pressures on managers to address a loss of habitat values, the spread of invasive animal pests and weeds and the impacts of fire and climate change on biodiversity. Commonwealth marine reserves have been established over a total area of 3.1 million square kilometres of ocean. The relative distance of most other marine reserves from ports, and the extent of the ocean areas involved, make vital monitoring and management actions difficult and expensive.28

26 Examples of use of NERP research outputs were identified during the evaluation through discussions with and examination of documented evidence provided by NERP researchers, Hub Leaders and key stakeholders (including senior staff in the department and jurisdictional agencies). The factual accuracy and the representation of the involvement of the NERP hubs in these examples has been confirmed with hubs and end-users.27 Australia's Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2020. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/national-approach-biodiversity-decline-report-natural-resource-management-ministerial [Accessed 4 December 2013]. 28 Australia has the third largest marine estate of any nation in the world. It is a massive area larger than our landmass and extends from the tropical seas of the north to the sub-Antarctic waters of the Southern Ocean.

Page | 17

2.2.1.2 The NERP contribution

Overall National Park and World Heritage area management

NERP has provided the funding for critical research and decision-support that has assisted Parks Australia and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) to better manage national parks and world heritage areas. This is illustrated in the following case study in relation to National Park and threatened species management.

Case

Stu

dy

‘Changing our thinking and the way we manage our parks’

NERP research and collaboration are supporting the adoption of improved park management practices and allowing confident and transparent communication of those practices.

In November 2013, the Environmental Decisions Hub ran a 2-day workshop with Parks Australia managers to help determine allocation of park budgets to ensure effective management actions and to guide best practice decision-making for threatened species management. The workshop brought together park managers from all jurisdictions (Commonwealth, state and territories), as well as experts on the threatened flora and fauna under consideration.

The workshop trialled a new decision making tool that assesses the most effective management strategies, the costs and benefits of different options, the likely impact given available resources, leading to prioritisation of threatened species management actions.

Parks Australia Assistant Secretary, Parks and Biodiversity Science, Dr Judy West, considered that NERP workshops such as these29 have definitely changed their management approach for particular species. It has given Parks Australia NRM managers confidence in the implementation of their management strategies, knowing that they have drawn on the best available science and management practices, and used robust decision-making-processes. Dr West said that ‘by the time we have done a workshop like this, we know we have got more objective decisions, and can justify those decisions. We can better communicate our reasoning to our stakeholders, knowing that we have drawn on the best available knowledge’.

Northern Australia

Many native mammal species are in rapid and broad-scale decline across northern Australia, even in relatively well-resourced conservation reserves such as Kakadu National Park. This decline threatens broader ecological processes, affects tourism and world heritage values, and is inconsistent with local and national policies to conserve biodiversity.30 Park managers have indicated that the research and development from the Hubs has helped them to change the way they do their business so that they can be more effective in managing the threats to biodiversity values. This is illustrated in the following case study on Kakadu National Park.

29 Previous NERP-facilitated workshops have included considering next steps with the Mala captive breeding program in Uluru once the paddock reaches its maximum carrying capacity and to identify priority actions for the decline of flying foxes on Christmas Island, a functionally-important species with unexplained decline which is being considered for listing as ‘critically endangered’. 30 Gillespie G. NT Department of Land Resource Management and Northern Hub, National Environmental Research Program. Available from: <http://www.nerpnorthern.edu.au/sites/default/files/managed/projects/nerp_project_summary_4.1_fa_web.pdf> [Accessed 4 December 2013].

Page | 18

Case

Stu

dy

Kakadu National Park – Applying novel management practices in a resource constrained environment

Kakadu is seen as a microcosm of what is occurring across Northern Australia. Parks Australia senior executives31 have advised that the projects relating to Kakadu National Park are all highly relevant and that they couldn’t do their job32 without the research capacity that NERP provides. Parks Australia executives consider the Northern Australia Hub a) works closely and effectively with Parks staff and traditional owners for good environmental outcomes; b) produces good science on which management decisions can be made; and c) uses methods and interactions that result in excellent indigenous participation.

NERP research projects in Kakadu National Park have: developed flood inundation maps across Kakadu floodplains, which are under threat from

sea level rise. Inundation by saltwater threatens the productivity of these and other floodplains across the Top End, which support biodiversity, including barramundi33 and other commercial activities, and cultural values. This work will be relevant for decision-makers who may be faced with decisions in future years on whether to build structures (dams, levees) to prevent salt water damaging the productive capacity of this land;

markedly improved the baseline understanding of biodiversity issues;34 enhanced the targeting of management actions on weed and feral cat control;35 and helped inform and develop the revised plan of management for Kakadu National Parks and

threatened species and weeds strategies.

NERP projects from both the Northern Australia and Environmental Decisions Hubs have assisted Parks management in applying novel adaptive management practices to review and set priorities; targeting resources to achieve more cost effective outcomes36 that are so important in addressing pervasive threats from invasive weeds and introduced animals such as feral cats. This is particularly important given the resource constraints within the Environment portfolio and the significant threats posed by climate change to sensitive habitats such as the rivers and estuarine environment of Kakadu National Park. Further NERP-funded research highlighted the decline in native mammal populations. This also resulted in the Northern Territory Government identifying this issue as a strategic priority in the 2013 three year plan for the Department of Land Resource Management.

Parks Australia is faced with the challenge of managing complex and increasing threats from invasive species in all National Parks within tight budgetary constraints and a relatively lower level of knowledge of its biodiversity and ecosystems in Northern Australia. Parks Australia needs to manage resources more strategically to achieve the best possible outcomes. NERP research outputs provide mechanisms to enable Parks Australia to test innovative solutions drawing on the best available

31 Interviews with Peter Cochrane and Anna Morgan, November 2013.32 That is, implementing evidence-based management plans and actions, and gaining community support for these, including with traditional owners. The engagement of the Northern Australia hub with traditional owners is considered excellent by Parks Australia executives. 33 Research under NERP’s predecessor program, CERF (which together with Land and Water Australia funding formed ‘Track’) identified that 40 per cent of barramundi biomass is dependent on the productive value of the Top End’s floodplains, similar to those in Kakadu National Park. 34 Sawfish and river sharks are rare species in Australia, protected under national environmental law, with Kakadu National Park home to some of the best surviving populations. NERP research undertaken by Northern Australia and Marine Biodiversity Hubs is showing that the population of these species is larger than first thought. 35 For example, the relative merits of baiting feral cats versus exclusion fencing were not measured in Kakadu National Park prior to the NERP research. 36 Including through ‘structured decision-making’ workshops run by the Environmental Decisions Hub, with involvement of traditional owners to promote a partnership approach to park management.

Page | 19

science, consider alternatives to historical practices and implement decision-making tools to improve the effectiveness of park management.37

The Great Barrier Reef

The Great Barrier Reef is also facing increased pressures from population and economic growth and climate change.38 Based on extensive time series data on the condition of the Great Barrier Reef, NERP Tropical Ecosystems Hub research synthesised 2,258 surveys of 214 reefs from 1985–2012 and found a 50 per cent decline in coral cover over this period. Tropical cyclones, coral predation by crown-of-thorns starfish and coral bleaching accounted for the majority of the estimated losses.39 In June 2014, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee will meet for its annual meeting. It has foreshadowed that without evidence of substantial progress it will classify the reef as ‘in danger’. This would result in deep community concern over the reef’s management, and could also have substantial economic consequences for the tourism industry. NERP has assisted GBRMPA to respond to this situation as illustrated in the following case study.

37 In addition, other NERP research has had impact across Northern Australia, including contributing to the 2013 State of the Wet Tropics Report. The results of the NERP project applied Indigenous knowledge for improved biodiversity management and to guide national programs such as Working on Country and Indigenous Protected Areas programs in the region. Scientific Knowledge developed through NERP was used as part of the department’s Scientific Expert Panel convened in 2012 to consider World Heritage nomination of the Cape York Peninsula.38 Great Barrier Reef Strategic Assessment, 2013. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/great-barrier- reef-strategic-assessment-fact-sheet [Accessed 4 December 2013]. 39 See De’ath G, Fabricius K, Sweatman H, Puotinen M; 2012. The 27-year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes.

Page | 20

Case

Stu

dy

The Great Barrier Reef - Better science for targeted park management

NERP research40 provides valuable observational data and analysis of the condition and trends of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park that is essential for GBRMPA’s core business. This includes identifying high priority threats to the reef (for example, terrestrial run-off impacting water quality, crown of thorns starfish) and coral and seagrass decline.

In addition, NERP research has assisted with a decision-support system for prioritising limited resources, including implementing a new resilience-based framework for marine conservation, as well as an integrated monitoring framework for the Reef. This has real value as managing threats to the reef with limited resources involves transparent cost-benefit decisions.

Indeed, the Chief Executive of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority advised that ‘NERP is a critical part of the work of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park as it provides better information on the state of the system that is necessary for a targeted approach to park management and there is no question that all of the NERP’s reef projects are highly relevant to our work’. During interviews and in survey responses, GBRMPA officers from across a broad range of the agency’s responsibilities reinforced the importance of NERP to their work (i.e. in relation to zoning boundaries, the outlook report, strategic assessment and advice to the Minister, amongst others), using words such as ‘vital’ and ‘pivotal’ and explained their close working relationship with NERP researchers. GBRMPA also noted that significant research gaps remain, even with NERP and the valuable work of the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences41 and others.

There is a new crown-of-thorns starfish outbreak developing in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and a more cost effective control method (‘one-shot kill’) has now been introduced as a result of NERP Emerging Priority funding and other collaborative efforts, with culling of starfish occurring at high priority (tourism) sites. A further NERP research project will map emerging outbreaks of crown of thorns starfish and determine population movement trends.

NERP research has also documented the risks of herbicides and terrestrial run-off to the Barrier Reef that was used in the regional prioritisation of the $200 million Reef Rescue package. (See case study under ‘Program design and delivery’ below.)

The Great Barrier Reef has important economic and environmental value to Australia, and to Northern Queensland in particular. NERP research is assisting to identify and develop cost-effective approaches to its management along with the promotion of understanding and acceptance within the communities of why conservation priorities are important. In addition to producing peer-reviewed science on which environmental policy and management agencies can make evidence-based management and regulatory decisions and actions, the Hubs are also doing some of the legwork in communicating the results of their research to the community. For example, one early career scientist commented to the evaluation team that when he delivers presentations to boating and fishing clubs along the coast on the results of his research, people are eager to hear about the science. He has received feedback from attendees such as ‘I used to just ignore the government rules about not fishing in green zones, but now I actually understand why it’s important’. The

40 Great Barrier Reef research is predominantly conducted through the Tropical Ecosystems Hub, but the Environmental Decisions and Marine Biodiversity Hubs have also contributed to knowledge and management frameworks, as has Emerging Priorities funding for Crown of Thorns starfish research.41 The work of AIMS is predominantly focussed on the Great Barrier Reef. However, the proportion of their work focussed on the GBR is changing with an increased focus on the North-Western Australian marine environment to support assessments for oil and gas development. Source: discussions with GBRMPA and http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/about/about.html.

Page | 21

perceived independence of the science is considered valuable in such forums, and has a greater acceptance than if GBRMPA were to deliver the same message.

Commonwealth Marine Reserves

In November 2012, a substantially expanded marine reserve network was announced by the Australian Government, presenting a significant management challenge for the government. This is illustrated in the following case study.

Case

Stu

dy

Informing marine reserve boundaries and management practices

The Marine Biodiversity Hub advised that it (and through its predecessor hub under CERF) played a role in the initial planning for the marine reserve network by providing advice and data to the department42. The Hub considers that without geologists, taxonomists, statisticians and oceanographers working together in this way, the department would not have received such high quality, timely, or coherent advice from these various disciplines and Australia’s major marine research institutions.

Since the declaration of the marine reserves, the department’s marine teams have been undergoing rapid change and have been busy with the planning for the marine network43. Nonetheless, the Marine Parks team has valued the knowledge that the Hub has been able to bring to the department and stated that with 58 marine reserves now in place, NERP is critical to their success, and that it will not be possible to develop scientific monitoring strategies for all of these reserves without the Hub’s expertise and assistance. The department has used the Hub as a source of valuable expertise to critique approaches and provide linkages, and moderation where required, in the department’s management planning. In addition to helping the department develop its marine reserve management objectives, the Hub has also commenced work on future reserve management issues so that they are in a position to answer the questions and provide assistance to the department when required.

This work includes setting up scientific processes for identifying options for monitoring so that the Hub will be able to advise the department on what can be measured, and what it will cost, in order that the department can set scientific objectives that can be more readily and cost-effectively measured across its vast marine reserve network.

The department has acknowledged the gaps in information in the marine area, and that significant discovery effort is still required. It has stated that the only future capacity it has to monitor the health and status of marine reserves, as well as the effectiveness of its management strategies, will be through the NERP, as it is unlikely to have other funding sources available for such purposes.

42 The Hub’s contribution included defining the significant depths that would be required in a representative network, generating important layers of biodiversity and other data to feed into the department’s analysis of different boundary and network options, as well as advising the department on the types of data that would give the best insights into marine biodiversity. In addition to providing the data layers to ERIN for the Marxan decision-analysis process, the Hub translated the data and provided explanations of what each layer represented and how it could be used. (Marxan is a decision-support tool for conservation planning. It has been developed by researchers associated with the Environmental Decisions Hub, and the department has accessed the tool through NERP (and its predecessor CERF) for various conservation planning activities. Further developments to Marxan will help refine such modelling. This is another expected benefit of the ongoing collaboration between the department and Environmental Decisions Hub. Several jurisdictions continue to use Marxan in developing their marine and terrestrial reserve plans at various scales. The ED Hub is in preliminary discussions with GBRMPA about how recent Marxan advances could be used in future rezoning).43 Both the department and the Hub have acknowledged that early engagement on project scope and work planning was not as frequent, focussed or productive as it could have been in a more business-as-usual operating context, and that as a consequence the Hub had to develop a work program in anticipation of the department’s needs, rather than having extensive refinement and explicit endorsement of project scope by the department.

Page | 22

Commonwealth marine reserves require effective monitoring so that the department is able to make informed management decisions. The Marine Biodiversity Hub is developing many of the vital tools and information for early management and monitoring of the reserves. In NSW, the Marine Biodiversity Hub has collaborated with agencies to develop standardised approaches to mapping and monitoring deep cross shelf habitats in state and Commonwealth marine parks and to improve the understanding of the biodiversity of the Solitary Island marine area and surrounding waters44. This work, amongst other projects, has led to the development of a national standard for scoring biodiversity from image-based methods45. This will ensure marine images are processed in a consistent manner, thereby improving comparability and in turn cost-effectiveness to the department and other jurisdictions in using this data for monitoring purposes as well as in identifying and agreeing biodiversity priorities and management actions. The aim is that this standard will eventually be adopted by the oil and gas industry so that their data will also be of use to decision-makers.

The Australian Alps

The need to balance conservation with social-economic values, uses and community expectations within limited resources is a challenge for other jurisdictions in the management of their national parks. The Australian Alps is a multi-jurisdictional landscape managed by three states and territories46. The area is classed as a National Heritage area, and therefore a matter of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act. The department does not manage the Australian Alps, but is responsible for maintenance of heritage values and biodiversity, including threatened species. The Alps wetlands and sphagnum bogs have been listed under the EPBC Act as a threatened ecological community in recent years. The socio-economic value of water from the Victorian Alps was estimated to be at $4 billion in 2005 terms of River Murray productivity47 and prevention of flash flooding as they absorb vast quantities of water in winter and spring with the snow melt and release that moisture over summer. Protection of the Australian Alps these areas is not a straight forward task for any of the jurisdictions involved due to the increasing threats of fire, invasive and feral species and climate change.

44 This has included standardised approaches to utilising multi-beam mapping, BUV, towed video and autonomous underwater vehicles.45 The standard has been published and agreed by the Commonwealth, its research agencies and most jurisdictions. It means that, for example, when AIMS and CSIRO both collect marine images, they will now process them in the same way. 46 The Department of the Environment representative is a member of the Australian Alps Liaison Committee (current representative Mr Mark Taylor of Parks Division), a body that coordinates programs and shares management practices across the NSW, Victorian and ACT parks.47 In 2005, 3980 gigalitres (GL) of Victorian Alps waters flowing annually to the Murray-Darling Basin were conservatively estimated to be worth $4 billion to Australia’s economy. On this basis then, the average annual 9600GL generated by the Australian Alps catchments could, in 2005 terms, be worth as much as $9.6 billion a year to the national economy. Good and Worboys (2011) Caring for Our Australian Alps Catchments. Dept. Climate Change.

Page | 23

Case

Stu

dy

Tools and Knowledge for park managers to protect biodiversity

The important role of the EPBC Act listed Alpine wetlands and sphagnum bogs in the hydrology of major river systems in SE Australia is under multiple threats, including fire, climate change, weeds and wild horses. The Landscapes and Policy (LaP) Hub is providing tools for managers to prioritise threats and identify management solutions. These tools support effective engagement with decision-makers by providing robust policy and funding options. For example, a NERP-funded LaP model (‘SPADE’) is being used to answer specific questions for NSW and Victorian parks managers on the likely range and abundance of wild horses and will help to identify the most cost effective management options in their jurisdictional management plans for this invasive species whose population has grown at its biological maximum growth rate of 20 per cent per annum following fires over the last decade that have opened up vegetative cover in the Alps.

Park managers in these jurisdictions highly value the support they have received through NERP for addressing these priority management issues and consider that the model will be incredibly useful for other species and landscapes48. These jurisdictional park managers praised the relevance, timeliness and quality of other NERP projects, including the research into the impact of cattle grazing on bushfires (which found that cattle grazing does not contribute to a reduction of fire intensity) and monitoring the re-seeding of Alpine Ash forests that were devastated in recurrent fires over the last decade. The results of these research projects, which are already being used in direct management actions by jurisdictional parks managers, and for which the Commonwealth has an EPBC Act responsibility, will be integrated with other socio-economic studies that are occurring within the LaP Hub. All projects are informing the development of a 6-step process that takes a landscape management approach to biodiversity conservation, rather than managing individual species and habitats. This will assist the department to deliver on the 2009 Hawke Review’s recommendation for a broader approach to EPBC actions, providing an approach that takes account of the socio-economic values as well as the ecological aspects of a landscape. 49

The Australian Alps are subject to multiple pressures. Dealing with each as a separate problem is both expensive and ineffective to the landscape. The LaP Hub is developing tools and a knowledge base for environmental managers across jurisdictions to respond to specific threats for improved management of their parks.

Booderee National Park

NERP researchers work closely with Parks Australia in Booderee National Park (BNP). A researcher from ANU (an Environmental Decisions Hub partner) is stationed permanently at Booderee to undertake the monitoring of the BNP. This is nominally an arrangement separate from NERP, but to which NERP resources contribute where relevant. One such project that involved the BNP researcher and other NERP researchers included examining the efficacy of BNP’s weed control program for Bitou Bush, a long-time invasive weed in the park and much of the sandstone country of coastal New South Wales.

48 In addition to other uses in national parks, the SPADE model is also being used in Tasmania to model the range and abundance of fallow deer, which is a protected game species. It has been used to estimate the potential population size of fallow deer under different intervention scenarios. Modelling suggests a potential population increase from 25,000 to 60,000 in the next decade without any change in policy or management strategies. This research is influencing the debate about the status of fallow deer as in Tasmania and their management in the face of growing anecdotal evidence of damage to remnant vegetation as well as the incursion of fallow deer into the South West Wilderness World Heritage Area. 49 The Australian Environment Act: Report of the Independent Review of the EPBC Act 1999 by Dr Allan Hawke, 2009.

Page | 24

Case

Stu

dy

Booderee National Park – best bang for the Bitou Bush buck

The Environmental Decisions Hub brought together researchers experienced in weed management, ecosystem restoration and economics to work with park managers and the on-site park monitoring scientist to find the best way to control Bitou Bush.

Together they identified that the most ecologically effective method (protocol) for weed control is to spray the Bitou Bush, allow it to cure and then burn and re-spray it. This is more expensive than other options, but those methods were found to not work. Therefore the most expensive option was actually the most cost-effective. This study also examined ecosystem recovery following weed control activities. This work, which incorporated the analysis of weed control methods, cost-effectiveness and ecosystem recovery is much more comprehensive than has been done before. In contrast, if weed control programs are monitored at all, they are usually simple input or activity measures such as the number of litres, the area sprayed, or the cost of treatment.

This project has allowed park managers to have confidence in implementing the full weed control protocol as it is evident that it is working, and is worth the additional cost.50

2.2.1.3 Environmental management actions or conservation measures taken in the last 12-18 months that could have been better informed by NERP-funded research

There is extensive evidence that NERP-funded research has been used to inform management actions and conservation measures, particularly in relation to Australian Government-managed national parks. However, factors such as timing differences between NERP program implementation and delivery and wider Portfolio policy processes, and the limited effectiveness and consistency of NERP science communication reaching key decision makers across the Portfolio have reduced the impact of NERP and resulted in sub-optimal outcomes in some circumstances.

For example, one Hub participant commented in their survey response that ongoing discussions on port developments that may impact on the Great Barrier Reef and climate change adaptation options in the Torres Strait (eg. seawalls) could have benefitted from NERP research. This has been largely a function of timing as well as staff turnover and government priorities that have kept this research from being more effectively utilised.

A number of survey respondents commented that the Great Barrier Reef Strategic Assessment could have been better informed by NERP Tropical Ecosystems Hub research. However, the timing of certain research projects was such that they were not ready in time. Consequently, valuable socio-economic data on resident and tourist values, use patterns and perceptions was not able to be fully taken into account because of parallel rather than integrated processes. This research, however, is keenly anticipated by the GBRMPA, and other stakeholders including industry and NRM bodies, to inform ongoing management plans and actions.

At the jurisdictional level, one end-user commented in their survey response that state-level prioritisation of species recovery planning is rarely driven by an explicit, cost-effective objective and

50 See: ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 14 NO 1 JANUARY 2013, Booderee National Park Management: Connecting science and management, David B. Lindenmayer, Christopher MacGregor, Nick Dexter, Martin Fortescue and Peter Cochrane.

Page | 25

repeatable decision-making process. Getting better results across all states in the prioritisation of threatened species recovery planning was suggested as a key area where NERP research can further assist governments.

2.2.1.4 Conclusions

The threats to biodiversity in National Parks and reserves are significant and have profound implications for the longer-term administration of Australia’s most iconic protected areas. These threats come at a time of budgetary pressures for all levels of government. This makes it increasingly important for governments to have research and cost effective tools that helps to target actions that have wider impacts and stretch available resources to meet the highest priority needs. NERP has been successful in significant conservation areas and has pointed the way towards better value for money conservation efforts. However, it has also highlighted the scale of the problem, emerging threats and the importance of all levels of government working together for optimum outcomes. Without research such as that provided under NERP there is a significant risk that the department and agencies within the Portfolio will be less able to respond to the substantial threats that are seriously challenging Australia’s protected areas and national parks.

2.2.2 Regulation

The department is responsible for national environmental legislation and coordination with the states and territories on national environmental priorities and the monitoring and reporting on international environmental conventions. The most extensive regulatory function for the department, however, is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), which provides a legal framework to protect matters of national environmental significance including listed flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places. It is in relation to the EPBC Act and the associated regulatory functions that research questions were prioritised during the NERP’s establishment51, and to which NERP research is most targeted.

2.2.2.1 The challenge

The highest profile work of the department, on behalf of the Minister and Australian Government, often relates to assessments of developments or actions that could have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance as prescribed by the EPBC Act. The recent Abbott Point port expansion and the 2007-2011 decisions in relation to Gunns pulp mill are examples that have attracted substantial community interest. There are hundreds of smaller, less high-profile assessments that are undertaken by the department each year, with arrangements for state jurisdictions to take over certain assessments in a ‘one-stop shop. Threatened species recovery plans and decisions on ecological communities and threatening processes are also subject to public interest and scrutiny, and contribute to the department’s achievement of its biodiversity and ecosystems outcome52.

51 The evaluation team was informed that it was in relation to EPBC decisions in particular, that the former Minister, the Hon. Peter Garrett, sought to target research efforts to provide a better evidence base on which to make decisions. When identifying priority areas for research during NERP planning, it was EPBC-related matters (biodiversity and ecosystem function) that the department’s executive and officers also identified as having the most extensive research gaps.52 Outcome 1: The conservation and protection of Australia’s terrestrial and marine biodiversity

Page | 26

The 2009 Hawke review of the EPBC Act identified the need to consider the conservation of species and communities within the context of the regional landscape. The 2011 Sustainable Regional Development Policy was enacted to facilitate assessment under the EBPC Act at a regional scale and within a social and economic context. The department has stated that ‘strategic assessments are a landscape scale assessment and unlike project-by-project assessments, they can consider a much broader set of issues; for example, a large urban growth area that will be developed over many years or a fire management policy across a broad landscape’. The application of strategic assessments is expected to:

provide greater certainty and transparency to proponents about the department's expectations,

help deliver more strategic outcomes for the protection of matters of national environmental significance, and

deliver administrative efficiency for developers and regulators53.

The Australian Government is also promoting sustainable development in high growth regions across Australia through the Sustainable Regional Development program. The program aims to facilitate strategic assessments under the EPBC Act, focussing on Matters of National Environmental Significance in high growth regions.

The department has advised that sixteen strategic assessments and four Sustainable Development program regions are currently in place or under consideration. However, strategic assessments can only work effectively if they are a rigorous, evidence-based instrument and structured in an open and transparent way so that all stakeholders are aware of the requirements, and the considerations and trade-offs underpinning them. For many regions in Australia, whether terrestrial, aquatic or marine, there remain substantial knowledge gaps on the nature and distribution of biodiversity and in particular, gaps on matters of national environmental significance.54 The extent of the knowledge gaps vary but in poorly studied regions there are clear gaps limiting the basis for conducting a strategic assessment. Without scientific research, the department is constrained in terms of how far it can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its administration of the EPBC Act. In addition, the department’s role in gaining assurance over the adequacy and outcomes of state jurisdictions’ assessments will be enhanced where greater evidence and agreed decision-support tools are used.

2.2.2.2 The NERP contribution

53 Department of the Environment, Strategic Assessments Prospectus, 2013: Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/bef37dfd-6660-46cb-a2d5-996db6261e55/files/strategic-assessment-prospectus_1.pdf54 Cottingham, P; Thoms, MC and Quinn, GP. Scientific Panels and Their Use in Environmental Flow Assessment in Australia [online]. Australian Journal of Water Resources, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2001: 103-111. Available from: <http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=508008735596730;res=IELENG> ISSN: 1324-1583. [cited 10 Dec 13]. See also Derek R Armitage, Ryan Plummer, Fikret Berkes, Robert I Arthur, Anthony T Charles, Iain J Davidson-Hunt, Alan P Diduck, Nancy C Doubleday, Derek S Johnson, Melissa Marschke, Patrick McConney, Evelyn W Pinkerton, and Eva K Wollenberg 2009. Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 95–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/070089

Page | 27

Strategic Assessments and the Sustainable Regional Development Program

Evidence from researchers and a senior departmental end user has indicated that NERP hubs have had a timely role in building the capacity of the department to effectively implement strategic assessments and sustainable regional development program regions. Work in these areas has been undertaken by NERP hubs on behalf of the line areas, with some additional projects funded directly by those line areas. The NERP contribution is illustrated in the following case study.

Case

Stu

dy

Strategic assessments and sustainable regional development program

The Landscapes and Policy Hub was engaged in mapping community values for regional sustainability in the Hunter Region of NSW. The project assisted in informing the response of local communities to the Lower Hunter Regional Plan. NERP-funded research has provided Commonwealth, state and local government representatives with information on biodiversity features and conservation priorities together with spatial data on species distributions and an impact assessment of proposed development plans on biodiversity. NERP research provided the community with the information to discuss the merits of different development preferences and conservation values for the region.

In addition, the Landscapes and Policy Hub has focused on integrating ecology and social science to provide guidance for policy makers on planning and management of biodiversity at a regional scale. Focusing on two contrasting landscapes, the Tasmanian Midlands and the Australian Alps, the Hub is developing tools, techniques and policy options to integrate biodiversity into regional scale planning. The interdisciplinary research is placing particular emphasis on landscape-scale management of species and communities listed under the EPBC Act. This approach is still to be completed but has assisted in the Strategic Assessment of the Tasmanian Midlands Water Scheme—a major investment in irrigated agricultural production with rare grassland communities.

In the Perth and Peel Urban Development area, NERP researchers (with additional project funding from the line area) have contributed to the Strategic Assessment jointly being developed with the WA Government and the Department of the Environment. With the population of the Perth and Peel regions predicted to double in the next 20 to 30 years, the strategic assessment focuses on the impacts of future urban development activities and how environmental impacts can be avoided, mitigated or managed. NERP has assisted with integrating approaches within the landscape and also assisted with a population viability study for the endangered Carnaby's Black-Cockatoo which is endemic to South-West Western Australia. This in turn contributed to modelling work that examined potential responses to different development options.

NERP has also assisted the department in developing strategic assessments and Sustainable Regional Development in North Queensland. NERP-funded research from the Tropical Ecosystems Hub has documented the negative impacts of prolonged turbidity from run-off from river catchments and assisted in better understanding the cumulative impacts of development in North Queensland for consideration in the strategic assessment of the coastal zone.

The views of the department’s senior end-user in relation to these projects, including the benefits of drawing on NERP Hub expertise for additional project work, are captured in Chapter 3 of this report, in analysis of the hub model.

Biodiversity offsets

A further area of broad applicability for the regulation of the EPBC Act was the implementation of an offsets calculator. This is an important consideration in the assessment of the net effect of development proposals within the landscape.

Page | 28

Case

Stu

dy

Biodiversity offsets – development with ‘no net loss’

The Environmental Decisions Hub provided valuable and timely advice and expertise in the development of the offsets policy under the EPBC Act and the calculator used by the department (and potentially by proponents). The policy seeks to compensate for the residual impacts of an action on the environment, after avoidance and mitigation measures are taken. Where appropriate, offsets are considered during the assessment phase of an environmental impact assessment under the Act. The suitability of a proposed offset is considered as part of the decision to approve or not approve a proposed action.

The Offsets Calculator has provided a useful tool to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of regulating development under the EPBC Act by assessing the suitability of offset proposals and assisting with planning and estimating future offset requirements. NERP researchers are currently examining the application of offsets in the marine environment.

The established relationship between the department and the Hub enabled open and robust engagement between researchers, policy officers and other stakeholders on the policy content and implications, thereby improving the policy as it was developed. The department credits the standing, expertise and assistance of the NERP Environmental Decisions Hub in building stakeholder understanding, trust and acceptance of the offsets policy and calculator, including by industry, NGOs and the jurisdictions. Stakeholder acceptance is crucial to its successful adoption and implementation of this policy.

The department and the Hub also acknowledge the substantial contribution that earlier investments (including under CERF) made to building a body of knowledge and expertise on this topic that was then able to be quickly drawn on when required by the department to allow the Hub to respond within tight policy timeframes.

2.2.2.3 Environmental decisions under the EPBC Act taken in the last 12-18 months that could have been better informed by NERP-funded research

While program stakeholders have not cited particular cases where EPBC Act decisions could have been better informed by NERP projects, comments were provided relating to weaknesses in environmental decision making that indirectly impacts on the implementation of the EPBC Act. For example, the ad hoc prioritisation of actions for threatened species without effective decision support systems and the absence of any consideration of the trade-offs between landscape-scale investments and species-specific investments for conservation have not maximised effective regulation through the EPBC Act.

The alignment between the timing of policy decisions and NERP research outputs was also cited as an issue. For example, turtles and dugongs have biodiversity values as well as cultural values for indigenous peoples in Northern Australia. However, NERP research has yet to be published on the potential impact on turtles and dugong. NERP researchers also considered that the White Paper on Northern Australia (currently being developed) could benefit from the NERP research on aquatic biodiversity and floodplain functions and values.

2.2.2.4 Conclusions

NERP research has assisted the department to better manage decision making on biodiversity in relation to emerging policies and priorities within the EPBC Act. In particular, identifying biodiversity

Page | 29

values at a landscape scale and assisting in the implementation of strategic assessments and regional sustainability planning have been important contributions from NERP-funded projects and NERP hubs that have assisted the department to implement more effective regulation under the EPBC Act. The Offsets Calculator has also provided a useful tool to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of regulating development. However, no substantial evidence has been provided to illustrate that NERP has been successful in informing the more business-as-usual functions and operations of the EPBC Act, such as in relation to individual development proposals. However, the timeliness with which the Hubs have delivered advice and scientific expertise to the department and the ability of researchers to engage stakeholders to address their concerns have provided both direct and indirect benefits to the department in the implementation of the EPBC Act.

2.2.3 Program design and delivery

2.2.3.1 The challenge

The Department of the Environment has over many years invested in a range of programs with supporting policies designed to improve conservation outcomes across Australia. These have included over $3 billion since 2006-07 for the Natural Heritage Trust and Caring for our Country (including the Reef Rescue Program55), and the acquisition of over 1,700 GL in environmental water56 valued at approximately $2 billion, through various water recovery programs. These programs and initiatives have an important profile within the Environment portfolio but have been constrained by the limitations on scientific information on biodiversity or the distribution and abundance of threatened species or ecological communities and processes (such as the impact of water releases for the environment in different river catchments of the Murray-Darling Basin). The tools available for the effective implementation of these programs have also been limited.

2.2.3.2 The NERP contribution

Caring for our Country

Reef Rescue is a key component of the Caring for our Country Program. The program is about facilitating on-ground infrastructure and improved practices to address water quality problems affecting the Great Barrier Reef. The role of NERP is discussed in the following case study.

55 The Reef Rescue Program is an ongoing component of Caring for our Country. Reef Rescue represents a coordinated approach to address the threats of declining water quality and climate change to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. In the first phase of the Caring for our Country Reef Rescue program, the Australian Government committed $200 million over five years (2008-09 to 2012-13) to improve the quality of water entering the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. Through the second phase of Reef Rescue, the Australian Government has committed a further $200 million to continue those efforts to protect the Great Barrier Reef. 56 As at 31 December 2013, per advice from the CEWO 9 January 2014.

Page | 30

Case

Stu

dy

Reef Rescue – Improving the scientific basis underpinning NERP

The Tropical Ecosystem Hub has undertaken significant research into measuring the threats to the Great Barrier Reef from river discharge flowing into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. This work has built on and extended the monitoring work of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the former CERF program, and the earlier Great Barrier Reef Cooperative Research Centre.

High water clarity is important for healthy inshore coral reef ecosystems and seagrass meadows. 57 Although there was existing research that demonstrated the importance of water clarity for coral and seagrass health, quantification of the relationship between terrestrial runoff and turbidity along the entire marine park was critical to demonstrate that water quality in the inshore Great Barrier Reef can be improved through improved land management in adjacent catchments. NERP Tropical Ecosystems researchers58 undertook the statistical analysis to demonstrate the link to improve the scientific basis underpinning the Reef Rescue program. Further research has focused on the cumulative impacts and persistence of contaminants such as pesticides and herbicides in river discharge. Designed to control agricultural weeds, these herbicides are also harmful to non-target marine species such as seagrass meadows that are an important food source for dugongs and turtles.

Current work will also determine the spatial extent of declining water quality on the inshore Great Barrier Reef and allow validation and calibration of a receiving waters model. These projects have highlighted the importance of robust water quality guidelines (a responsibility of the GBRMPA) as well as further efforts to reduce herbicide concentrations and other contaminants in floodwaters (such as through Reef Rescue) to help protect seagrass meadows of the GBR from further decline.

The importance of research to the Great Barrier Reef is highlighted by this case study. There are considerable gaps in the knowledge base that make it difficult for GBRMPA to effectively manage the Marine Park. NERP has provided critical data that has substantially improved the capacity of GBRMPA to meet its business objectives.

The Environmental Decisions Hub’s INFFER framework59, which was previously funded under the predecessor programs (CERF), is being refined under NERP and is part of the NERP toolkit, available to the department and its portfolio agencies. This tool has widely used by natural resource management bodies around Australia which is particularly relevant to Programs such as Caring for our Country. Researchers advised that around half of the 56 NRM bodies have used it to some extent. It has also been used by the Victorian Government, and the Hub’s input had an influence on the design of the evaluation process for competitive projects in Caring for Our Country. INFFER has also been used in Canada, New Zealand, Italy and The Netherlands for prioritising projects to address environmental problems.

57 Turbidity reduces the light needed for photosynthesis by corals and seagrass and suspended particles also transport nutrients, pollutants and diseases.58 Dr Katharina Fabricius and Dr Andrew Negri: See Tropical Ecosystems Hub: Research Snapshot: Great Barrier Reef Water Quality Jan-June 2013 complied by RRRC. See also Citation: Flores F, Collier CJ, Mercurio P, Negri AP (2013) Phytotoxicity of Four Photosystem II Herbicides to Tropical Seagrasses. PLoS ONE 8(9): e75798. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075798. The 27–year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes; Glenn De’ath, Katharina E. Fabricius, Hugh Sweatman, and Marji Puotinen Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia; and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.59 INFFER™ is a tool for developing and prioritising projects to address environmental issues such as reduced water quality, biodiversity, environmental pests and land degradation. It is designed to help environmental managers achieve the most valuable environmental outcomes with the available resources. It has been awarded a Eureka Prize for interdisciplinary research (2009). Available from: http://www.inffer.com.au/ [Accessed 11 December 2013].

Page | 31

Environmental watering

The management of environmental water is a new and emerging area of practice for many jurisdictions, most particularly the Australian Government given its substantial environmental water holdings in the Murray-Darling Basin and its obligations to manage these in accordance with and towards the objectives of the Basin Plan.

Case

Stu

dy

Environmental watering and management – NERP providing foundation science, advice and decision-support

NERP-funded research60 in the Murray-Darling Basin has supported management of environmental flows. This work has improved understanding of the relationship between environmental flows, ecosystem function and biodiversity to inform water release strategies. A significant finding is that water releases produce a significant nutrient boost61 that triggers an increase in biodiversity in the river channel for months following the release. This is a major revision to the previous model based on European research. Output from this work is now being published and researchers are working with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) as well as the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office (CEWO) to consider how this information can better inform flow allocations along the Murray River.

Research on fish populations has also shown that certain floodplain watering sites, where infrastructure is currently being installed, are potential source habitats for endangered species, and that lateral hydrological connections need to take place with a certain frequency and duration to improve population viability. Researchers are working to promote the integration of this knowledge into watering actions.

The Environmental Decisions Hub has provided advice to the CEWO about their multi-criteria analysis tool for informing the prioritisation of watering options. A number of changes to the tool were made following NERP advice. The advice has been useful as a theoretical and logic check and as a consequence, the CEWO made several changes to its approach including refining the benefit/cost calculation and removing duplication across indicators. In addition, advice and research from the Environmental Decisions Hub provided to the MDBA about their Basin Plan also brought together environmental and economic information that researchers consider will assist in the review of the draft plan in 2015. The aim now is to bring the ecological information together in a form which describes the changes in condition of the Basin environment. The intention is to link the condition estimates and economic data sets with differing levels of environmental watering.

2.2.3.3 Stakeholder views on environmental decisions taken in the last 12-18 months that could have been better informed by NERP-funded research

Survey respondents (hub participants and end-users) highlighted numerous examples of recent environmental decisions that could have been better informed by NERP-funded research. Comments were broad ranging but generally covered improvements that could be made to investment programs such as Caring for our Country, the National Corridors Program and the protection of remnant vegetation and natural refugia for threatened species, environmental water programs, fire

60 Two Emerging Priorities projects were allocated to the Murray-Darling Freshwater Research Centre in 2011-12 and 2012-13. The first project examined the environmental impact of water release scenarios. 61 Research found that the physical release of large volumes of water dissolves carbon that provides a nutrient boost.

Page | 32

management and landscape priorities as well as the proposed development of Northern Australia. These examples are listed below62, as relevant to the Portfolio, the Commonwealth more broadly in relation to Northern Australia Development, and other jurisdictions such as the states.

Environment portfolio

End-users within the Environment portfolio consider that the utilisation of NERP research outputs, or engagement with NERP researchers, would have made a useful contribution to:

testing with the scientific community of Biodiversity Fund program objectives, outcomes and KPIs63;

scientific monitoring, statistical analysis and interpretation for NRM programs; developing implementation strategies for national biodiversity strategies; access to agreed aggregate measures that indicate health (akin to the macroeconomic tools

available to economists, e.g. GDP, inflation, debt), and therefore a system to help determine whether the next dollar should be invested for biodiversity. At the moment, the decision-making is very weak in this regard;

access to relevant information on Northern Australia water resources for contribution into the White Paper (the respondent noted ‘ our team is under-resourced at the moment and it is possible that we may not find NERP outputs/publications while doing our research’);

an understanding of the efficacy of cane toad monitoring and cat eradication on Groote Eylandt;

definition of what a healthy tropical marine and estuarine ecosystem looks like; and more effective ways to work with the community and engage/empower them in decision-

making in their patch.

Researchers consider that the utilisation of NERP research outputs, or engagement with NERP researchers, would have made a useful contribution to:

clearer prioritisation of investment decisions in the Australian landscape from Caring for our Country and Biodiversity Fund;

stronger prioritisation of targets and allocation decisions based on science for the environmental water initiatives64;

a more strategic regional landscape approach to koala conservation that includes a better balance to protecting remnant vegetation in agricultural landscapes;

more effective conservation measures for the protection of migratory shore birds; refugia mapping and design (for biodiversity in the face of climate change);

62 This list is indicative of areas that may benefit from NERP research or engagement with NERP Hubs, and may be useful in informing future research priorities or targeting science communication activities for the existing funding round. The NERP team has informed the evaluation team of instances where NERP research has informed decisions or actions such as those listed in this section by survey respondents. Therefore, these may be isolated instances where the individual survey respondent was not aware of such engagement or the availability of research in related issues or other areas of the department. This highlights the challenge in linking research to policy in a large and complex operating environment.63 The Landscape and Policy Hub reviewed the application, selection and evaluation processes used in a later round of the Biodiversity Fund as well as Caring for Our Country with the aim of improving the department’s ability to report on the impacts.64 Some research has been done that is yet to be used. However, NERP researchers have indicated that the allocation of water to floodplains in Western NSW in particular is poorly understood and would benefit from any future research in this.

Page | 33

better science to underpin the National Wildlife Corridors Strategy and the National Biodiversity Strategy;65

biodiversity recovery and landscape restoration that gives greater protection and investment to facilitate regrowth forests such as occur in Queensland's brigalow belt;

better assessment of projects through INFFER or similar tools to report on the cost-effectiveness of project proposals under relevant financial assistance programs;

greater transparency in the trade-off between landscape-scale investments and species-specific investments for conservation; and

a more informed and evidence-based consideration of biodiversity trends in the Australian Government's (2013) Sustainability report.

The Development of Northern Australia

Researchers consider that the following areas could benefit from utilisation of NERP research outputs:

freshwater flow requirements of rivers and estuaries and importance of the connections between rivers and estuaries. There is growing pressure to develop northern Australia for agriculture and most of this development requires more intensive use of the water resources. There is a severe lack of knowledge on the importance of productivity of estuaries and their role in supporting fisheries. There is also a lack of knowledge and interest by environmental and economic decision makers on sediment/nutrient interactions and the impact land use changes can have on the productivity of estuaries.66

effective relationships with Indigenous Australians on flow on benefits to communities from the Indigenous Ranger program and how Commonwealth programs such as Caring for our Country and Working on Country could be adjusted to create more successful or sustainable outcomes in any redesign of Federal Indigenous Policy for Northern Australia; and

greater priority of the far northern section of the Great Barrier Reef, the only section that has not lost any coral cover. The long-term protection of the far northern section will require State and Federal commitments to prevent unsustainable land development in the far north.

State Jurisdictions

Researchers consider that the utilisation of NERP research outputs would have benefitted the following:

modifications to land clearing regulations in Victoria and NSW. These would benefit from research on the conservation value of large trees and the effectiveness of land clearing regulation;

impact of tourism development in national parks; conservation planning in the urban fringe so that it has less impact on biodiversity;

65 Wildlife corridors aim to increase connectivity of animal and plant populations across landscapes. However, these projects are often established with little or no knowledge of the actual movement of organisms. A NERP funded workshop examined ways to make better links between movement information and connectivity projects.66 The NERP research being undertaken in the Northern hub could provide a solid foundation to expand knowledge to other estuaries.

Page | 34

a greater focus on the relationships between vegetation management and residential housing losses as well as on the impact of climate change from prescribed burning for protecting built assets during bushfires and modifications to clearing laws after major bushfire events;

more effective management of gamba grass at a regional scale across northern Australia;67

decision theory and more scientific approach to help resolve conflicts in fire management;68 and

better understanding of the biodiversity impacts of tourism development in National Parks.

2.2.3.4 Conclusions

NERP research has assisted the department and its portfolio agencies to better design investment programs intended to protect biodiversity—particularly in terms of developing the science underpinning the program logic for Reef Rescue. At the same time NERP researchers have introduced engagement protocols with indigenous land owners in Northern Australia and assisted program managers in the application, selection and evaluation processes used in public environmental funding programs such as Caring for Our Country and the Biodiversity Fund. However, this assistance has not been extensive and there are substantial opportunities for the Environment portfolio to improve the design and delivery of new programs so that they can utilise the best available science and the skills of NERP Hub participants in the future. Respondents to the evaluation survey and those researchers and Hub leaders interviewed during the evaluation highlighted a wide range of areas where Commonwealth and state agencies had not sufficiently drawn on the available science and where the Environment portfolio and other agencies (Commonwealth and state) could further draw on the expertise of Hubs in the future.

In their survey responses, over half of end-users (within and outside the Environment portfolio) considered that there were instances where decision-making or advice could have been better supported by NERP-type research outputs, but was not. The main reasons for this were: a) lack of awareness of NERP-funded research on these particular issues; and b) research output was not sufficiently completed (timing). In addition, end-users identified that research was sometimes not able to meet their immediate needs, either because the research was not at the relevant scale or geographical location or the Hubs were focussed on longer-term projects and multi-year fixed work programs meant they were not sufficiently able to respond to shorter term research demands.

67 Gamba grass is a Weed of National Significance and has demonstrated impacts on the ecosystem and presents a threat to infrastructure due to high intensity fires. However, our research further demonstrates the financial risk from gamba grass on savanna burning activities. NERP research could have been used to better inform regional prioritization of gamba grass management to protect environmental and economic assets as well as considering where carbon abatement activities are taking place. 68 Although the work is not yet finished, researchers offered to develop a research project to assist the SA Government to examine fire management issues in the Mt Lofty Ranges using simulation and decision theory. Researchers advised in their survey response that although there was strong support within the SA Department of the Environment, there were tensions over the application of fuel reduction burning without strong evidence as to its effectiveness. Another researcher commented that fire management decisions are often made as knee-jerk reactions to extreme fire events, rather than as well-planned and scientific programs. Research on forest fire regimes and climate has shown that wet montane forests in SE Australia are particularly sensitive to climate change. It has been found that forest regeneration potential decreases with increasing temperature, decreased precipitation, and changes in fire regimes (Smith et al. 2013, Ecosystems, DOI: 10.1007/s10021-013-9721-9).

Page | 35

2.3 What has NERP added to the environmental knowledge base?In addition to NERP research outputs contributing directly to specific environmental management actions and conservation measures by the department, there is value to be gained from NERP’s contribution to improving the knowledge base. Indeed this was considered to be its greatest achievement by all survey respondents. From the survey conducted as part of this evaluation, 97 per cent of departmental end-user survey respondents considered that NERP was improving Australia’s knowledge base (understanding) of biodiversity and ecosystems. Some 84 per cent of other end-users also strongly agreed with this view in their responses.

A simple measure of NERP productivity and contribution to the environmental knowledge base is the number research articles, papers and publications (including media releases)69.

Table 3 - NERP deliverables and Key Performance Indicators

Key Performance IndicatorsTotal

to 30 June 2013

Number of research articles, papers and notes printed in peer reviewed research journals, books or other publications70.

353

NERP research information products publicly available 97.5 %

Source: Analysis by of results reported against key performance indicators in departmental annual reports 2010-11 to 2012-13.

Work in identifying new species and their habitats, gaining further understanding about ecosystem function and managing threats from introduced pests have value that may not be immediately apparent or applicable. However, perhaps the greatest value that NERP has added to the environmental knowledge base is advances in ways of approaching complex environmental issues, or building expertise in an area that can be broadly applied across Australia. For example, the integrated landscape approach being developed through the Landscape and Policy Hub presents an opportunity to consider biodiversity conservation within a wider ‘socio-ecological systems’ context rather than just individual species listing and recovery actions. A number of the Hubs have also emphasised that biodiversity conservation needs to occur in conjunction with socio-economic 69 Peer-reviewed published journal articles are a measure of research quality as well as productivity. To be accepted for publication in scientific journals, research must have passed a review by experts in the field, whose review includes examination of methods, analysis and conclusions drawn. Other factors such as whether the work is ‘new and novel’ are relevant, and different journals have different impact factors. Frequency of publication and the journal’s impact factor contribute to an individual researcher’s ‘H-score’, which is generally a performance measure for staff working in research institutions and often for research grant funding. The requirement to publish frequently, and in journals with a high impact factor, must be balanced by researchers whose work under NERP has an imperative to be applied to the work of the department and other stakeholders. While most researchers interviewed during this evaluation stated that this was manageable, it is an acknowledged complexity that must be balanced in meeting the needs of the program while maintaining or progressing their academic careers. Work that relates to obtaining observational data, for example, may be more difficult to publish, as it is not characterised as ‘new and novel’. Discovery of new species or habitat, or insightful analysis of data, however, about trends in condition and threats, may be more likely to be published in a journal with a higher impact factor. One hub described their work as managing ‘a balance between academic visibility impact in government’.70 Note that this does not include hub newsletters, project fact sheets and other communications.

Page | 36

factors so that local communities are involved in the process and there is a higher level of acceptance of conservation actions. Both these factors have a strong alignment with the role of the department in managing national parks, matters of national environmental significance and in the roll out of strategic assessments under the EPBC Act. Projects such as the offsets calculator also provide the tools to assist the department to better manage the net impact of development proposals on the environment.

2.4 Final note on program impactIn addition to tangible examples of direct program influence, there are other longer-term aspects of the program’s impact that were frequently identified by program stakeholders, including senior departmental end-users, during the evaluation. These are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3 of this report in relation to the Hub model, and include:

enhancing the institutional capacity to deal with environmental challenges – them and us; allowing a long contest of ideas in work directly relevant to the department; innate value from being able to ask advice from trusted people; and the ability for the real challenges of policy and administration to influence the musings of

otherwise ‘ivory tower’ academics – it is a two-way street of influence.

Moreover, of substantial additional value in programs such as NERP (and its predecessor CERF), is the building body of work that is contributing to informing and improving the long-term knowledge base and thinking around environmental issues. As such, measurement of NERP’s impact must necessarily include consideration of more than whether individual research projects have had direct impact into environmental policy areas; that is, the lasting legacy of the body of work and the emergent and developing thinking that is occurring in the academic community, and which is directed at the challenges the department is facing. Measurement of such impact, however, would be difficult and is beyond the scope of this evaluation.

A case study in relation to a new way jurisdictions are thinking about threatened species interventions, by prioritising funding to those species that have a better chance of being saved within the funding available, highlights the long evolution of ideas and tools being translated from the academic community to policy makers. This approach to threatened species has taken many years to become more widely accepted by governments, and it has a significant impact on the way environmental managers, including this department, conduct their work and communicate with the community about priorities.

Page | 37

Case

Stu

dy

Many contributions, over a long time, get the message through to policy makers and the public

It is becoming increasingly common-place for managers and policy makers within the Environment portfolio, to consider socio-economic values when addressing environmental problems, and the cost and benefit of different conservation measures when working with limited resources. The case studies in relation to Parks Australia work in Chapter 2 of this report highlight this.

A recent media article71 highlighted the approach being taken in New South Wales where a form of ‘conservation triage’ is being undertaken:

‘...funding for research into and protection of threatened species will be targeted only to higher priority plants and animals...ranked according to a cold calculus: the benefit of intervening to save a species, multiplied by the likelihood of success, divided by the cost.’

The director of the NERP Environmental Decisions Hub, who is working with many jurisdictions on this approach, including as the Protected Species and Communities branch of the department, advised the evaluation team that:

‘this [approach] has transformed the way NSW is doing its threatened species work You might say – was this NERP, CERF, CEED or ? I first mentioned this approach to the Federal Environment Department in 1999 – they said I

was crazy (an economist had published similar approach in 1990s although I didn't know that) NZ started picking it up in 2005 based on a 2002 paper we wrote This lead to the Joseph et al 2009 paper and Bottrill et al 2008 paper (on which I still do regular

interviews) Tasmania did it in about 2010 – but have no money to implement NSW started around the same time, we did work with them all through 2010-2012 the development of the protocol and associated software continues as we speak – two papers

drafted this year other countries and states are starting to have a hard look at this, and we continue to work

with [Terrestrial Threatened Species Section of the department] on the idea … Still early days (after 14 years)

This provides a good example of how assigning impact to any single grant or paper makes no sense whatsoever. Plus how slow policy is to adopt research outcomes in some cases.’

71 http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/survival-is-winning-the-numbers-game-20131213-2zcm6.html, 14 December 2013. The Hub leader, who also leads the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, which combined with NERP ED Hub is known as the ‘Environmental Decisions Group’ noted that this article did not mention NERP because ‘given the choice they always like a simple short name, which is why we wanted to call our hub RHED - "Research Hub for Environmental Decisions"’.

Page | 38

3 – Analysis of the NERP delivery modelThe efficiency of the delivery model, and its fitness-for-purpose given the outcomes sought, are relevant to considering reasons why (or why not) the program’s objective has been achieved within the expected timeframes, and in considering improvements for the remainder of the program and future program design.

This evaluation has examined the extent to which the NERP delivery model is efficient and enabling achievement of the program’s objective. The delivery model includes the enablers of research such as the hub model, administration, funding, reporting; and the delivery of research to end-users, as outlined at Appendix E.

3.1 Hub ModelThere is evidence that the research hub model, as outlined in Chapter 1 of this report, is supporting efficient and effective delivery of this program:

The department has to manage only five contracts, yet is receiving research outputs from over 600 researchers, through 26 research organisations delivering 134 projects and 28 other partner organisations (such as NRM bodies, jurisdictional agencies, amongst others)72 that are. This gives the department considerable access to the academic community through five main entry points.

The hub model provides capability enhancement to the department. The department can access a broad range and high level of skills and expertise as required. Specifically, while the calibre and quality of researchers involved in this program may be able to be accessed through alternate means, such as direct sourcing through individual contracts, it is doubtful that ready engagement with this calibre of academic professionals would be possible on the almost as-needs basis that is possible under NERP. This is largely due to hub leaders and theme/node leaders being engaged to focus on the needs of the Environment portfolio over multiple years and through an established structure

72 Projects are delivered in conjunction with 28 other partner organisations (such as NRM bodies, jurisdictional agencies, amongst others). These figures are based on analysis of Annual Workplans, Multi Year Research Plans or the project plans/agreements for each of the Emerging Priorities projects.

Page | 39

Case

Stu

dy

Hubs working together on priority issues for the Environment portfolio

The Integrated Monitoring Framework for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) is an example of a project where the department was able to initiate an additional priority research project under its strategic assessment work that drew on the expertise of three hubs; Marine Biodiversity, Tropical Ecosystems and Environmental Decisions Hubs, working together with GBRMPA and the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences.

As part of the department’s response to a critical report of the World Heritage Committee on the condition of the Great Barrier Reef, the department has undertaken a strategic assessment of this World Heritage Area73. An important input into this assessment was the development of an integrated monitoring framework, which brings together policy, management and science interests, as well as ecological, social and economic data and knowledge. GBRMPA identifies a reef-wide integrated monitoring and reporting program as one of the key initiatives to strengthen its capacity to reduce impacts on the Reef and enhance the condition of matters of national environmental significance. GBRMPA have stated that it will:

‘improve integration and coordination of monitoring programs to provide comprehensive and systematic monitoring and reporting of key values, processes and impacts. The results will be fundamental in assessing management effectiveness’74.

While there has been a good deal of monitoring work to date, and a lot of data has been produced by various research organisations and institutions, it has not been universally well-focussed or clearly linked to management objectives, and managers wanted to make better use of existing monitoring effort and data to adaptively manage and improve environmental condition.

This project was led by the Marine Biodiversity Hub, given its program of work on national-scale monitoring including the development of a blueprint for monitoring marine ecosystems of Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone. This project was not directly funded under NERP but is an example of hubs working together and with the Environment portfolio and external stakeholders to support emerging policy and management needs, while drawing and building on the existing body of work within NERP multi-year research plans. The approach being tested in the GBRWHA will inform monitoring programs in other coastal and marine regions that may be subject to future strategic assessments.

The independence and objectivity of science hubs is valued by stakeholders, and adds credibility to their work. That is, the research is considered to be more trustworthy and credible by stakeholders when they are not part of the department. The department has advised that it has never censored the work of the Hubs, and no such evidence was found during this evaluation.

Additional research projects (for example for emerging priority projects, such as Crown of Thorns starfish or Flying Foxes, or for regional sustainability planning, strategic assessments or monitoring and evaluation advice for the Biodiversity fund) can be added efficiently to hub contracts through a contract variation.

73 Undertaken in close collaboration with the Queensland Government, currently in draft and open for public consultation, see http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/have-your-say. 74 http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/97234/GBR-Region-Strategic-Assessment-In-Brief.pdf, page 10.

Page | 40

Case

Stu

dy

Efficient access to the right researchersThe Assistant Secretary responsible for regional sustainability planning and strategic assessments considered that commissioning research projects through NERP is a straightforward task for the work required of the hubs, and appreciated the assistance of the NERP team in facilitating this.

The senior executive described the NERP experience as being very easy, with the ability to simply call the hub leader, and they or someone senior from the hub would have a conversation with the end-user and discuss requirements. This senior executive contrasted the NERP Hub project add-on with a process where the department had to negotiate research delivery directly with another research institution, which ‘didn’t know or care less about the department’s world, and displayed a kind of intellectual arrogance’.

Proximity of hubs to key Environment portfolio end-users enables strong relationships to develop, with frequent face-to-face interactions that have proved valuable in shaping and explaining research and tailoring it to end-user requirements. For example, the Northern Australia Hub in Darwin is close to Kakadu and well connected with Uluru and Kata Tjuta and Christmas Island National Parks, the Tropical Ecosystems Hub in Townsville/Cairns is close to GBRMPA and the Marine Biodiversity Hub in Hobart is close to Parks Australia Marine branch and the Australian Antarctic Division. Noting the benefits of geographic proximity, however, numerous Hub researchers have demonstrated an agility and flexibility to work across a vast range of locations within their fields and to deliver quality work across Australia’s terrestrial and marine environment.

An early career researcher during an interview noted that

The collaboration within hubs has become more trans-disciplinary (e.g. across biological and socio-economic sciences) as time has gone on. The hubs and a good knowledge broker provide a linkage role; to the right people, knowledge and issues.

One researcher in their survey response stated

‘This is one of the most successful research programs that I have been part of, where we can see that our work has the potential to inform policies and to make a difference on land management on the ground. This has been greatly facilitated by the hub and the overall structure/functioning of the program. ‘

3.2 Co-investmentA significant design feature of this program is the value of co-investment attracted from research organisations and other agencies (including state jurisdictions) to the NERP work program. This has effectively more-than doubled the department’s investment from $71.2 million to $154.6 million. In addition, one hub (Environmental Decisions) has combined their research under both NERP and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence and has done so almost seamlessly. The department is able to leverage off this complimentary investment to improve its decision-making capacity.

The co-investment (also known as co-contributions) for the program comprises both cash and in-kind support (approximately 10% and 90% respectively, noting Environmental Decision Hub’s higher cash contribution of approximately 35%). In-kind support includes research facility overheads

Page | 41

provided by the research institutions or partner agencies, including personnel time and their on-costs, such as leave provisions and insurances, office space, office equipment and consumables.

The methods used to calculate in-kind contributions vary across the hubs. The department advised the evaluation team that the hubs have generally adopted one of two multiplier rates that are commonly used in the research sector; the Universities Australia (old Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee) or CSIRO flagships rates75. The two multiplier rates most commonly used are 0.92 and 1.25 of grant funds. The 0.92 is used largely for desktop research (including modelling) and the 1.25 for more field research. The department advised that it would expect a combination of both in each hub, depending on the nature of the projects undertaken.

Co-investment creates some challenges for researchers in meeting the needs of multiple investors/end-users who may each have different scope, timeframe and deliverable requirements. The department does not generally tightly scrutinise whether the level of co-investment outlined in their proposals or multi-year research plans (work programs) is achieved. The evaluation team considers this is unlikely to be necessary if the department is comfortable with the use of standard multiplier rates, as is common in the research sector, and it is satisfied that agreed research outputs are being delivered.

Improvement for future funding rounds, however, could include ensuring that hubs specify the multiplier-rate used for calculating co-investment values in their research proposals, on which ERAP (or equivalent) could form a view on sufficiency and appropriateness, and to enable comparison across proposals. Hubs could then inform the department on an annual basis if the anticipated level of co-investment is not achieved. Six-monthly reporting of co-investment by theme, which is currently undertaken but not examined in any real way by the department, would then not need to be reported by the hubs, thereby reducing reporting obligations.

3.3 Program Establishment‘Rushed and drawn-out’ is how one researcher described the establishment of NERP. Many others used similar descriptions. NERP is considered to be a substantial improvement from CERF by many program stakeholders, particularly Environment portfolio end-users, who consider that their research needs are better addressed and serviced, as well as by a majority of NERP researchers, who consider they have better linkages to Environment portfolio end-users and are seeing greater impact and adoption from their work. However, both parties acknowledged that the apparent desire to reinvent the program in all respects rather than refine it, led to ‘disastrous’ delays with far-reaching consequences. In establishing NERP, the main areas where stakeholders expressed most concern were:

Transition from CERF to NERP; Setting of priority research questions by the department; Development of the work program; and The design of administrative requirements, including reporting obligations

75 See http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/AboutNationalResearchFlagships/Collaborative-Research-Program-Guidelines.aspx and NERP team within the department for a hard copy of the Universities Australia paper (1996).

Page | 42

Transition between CERF and NERP

Many benefits of program continuity (for example from CERF to NERP, and even predecessor Cooperative Research Centres that existed pre-CERF) were outlined by stakeholders, with each program clearly building on the research contribution, relationships and structures of the previous program. Some research that is considered core business for portfolio agencies, such as zoning impacts and water quality analysis for GBRMPA, apparently did not exist prior to NERP and CERF. One early career researcher identified that:

A real strength of the NERP program is that many of the projects have built upon a foundation of data, knowledge and expertise that was initiated and built through CRC and MTSRF. The continuation and linkage of funding sources over a longer period (> 4 years) has presented opportunities for extending our research questions and objectives well beyond what is possible within short 2-4 year funding programs. Regular implementation group (IG) meetings have facilitated effective communication and knowledge sharing among project researchers and key end-users. A number of productive collaborations have been developed within the HUB and this will help to amplify the relevance and utility of the data being generated.

However, the gap between the programs was a ‘disaster’ for retaining key staff in particular. Many senior researchers described the challenges and inefficiencies that arose from uncertainty of funding between CERF and NERP:

losing staff: staff begin looking for jobs more than a year out from the known end of the funding source. If they find something secure, they will go to a different project, different profession, or overseas – risking project continuity and delivery, and a loss of skills to the research sector. Attracting new skilled staff to positions for short periods (less than two years) can be difficult, particularly for regional areas where greater certainty is generally required before researchers will relocate family;

stakeholder relations: it takes time for researchers to become known to and accepted by stakeholder groups, and the time taken to foster new relationships can be substantial, particularly with indigenous stakeholders; and

inefficient conduct of research: with uncertainty of funding and turnover of research staff, research suffers inefficiencies. For example, training new staff in precisely where to go or how to use equipment for monitoring projects in remote areas such as the Torres Strait or parts of Northern Australia is more expensive for no additional gain when senior researchers have to accompany new junior scientists on their fieldwork. When a quantitative modeller is lost, for example, to the Marine Biodiversity hub, if the skills cannot be obtained elsewhere, a mathematician will have to be taught biology or oceanography in order to use their skills in a marine environment. This takes time.

Setting priority research questions

Environment portfolio end-users who provided survey responses considered that there was at least some alignment between NERP research priorities and their operational priorities (89 per cent), with 47 per cent of respondents considering this alignment to be good. This figure is not as high amongst other end-users outside the Environment portfolio, with 79% considering that there was at least

Page | 43

some alignment between NERP research priorities and their operational priorities, and only 24 per cent considering this alignment to be good.

The Environmental Research Advisory Panel (ERAP)’s involvement in advising the Minister on appropriate grant investments under NERP is broadly acknowledged by stakeholders as having strengthened the NERP research work program and investment. However, the process for identifying priority research questions, by a departmental senior advisory committee (without involvement from senior researchers), may have resulted in missed opportunities to identify broader priority environmental research needs, including horizon issues, or allowed tailoring of projects to meet multiple end-user requirements. Suggested improvements to setting future priority research questions identified during this evaluation include:

having a broader group identifying research priorities that involves the academic community and other stakeholders (including jurisdictions, industry, and local/regional land managers or NRM bodies);

undertaking an iterative and strategic capturing of priority research questions throughout this and future programs, so that under potentially tight timeframes when the workloads of some sections of the department or senior officers may not permit full engagement, their priority research areas can be captured.

Developing the work program (MYRPs)

Some stakeholders do not consider that NERP is an improvement on CERF where their environmental management or decision-making responsibilities are addressed to a lesser extent under NERP than they were under the predecessor program. The primary stakeholder group with these concerns encountered during this evaluation were industry end-users (i.e. marine park and rainforest tourism operators, agriculture and ports) in Far North Queensland who consider that their research needs have not been met under this program to the same extent that they were under the predecessor program (MTSRF in this region)76. This is also true of NRM bodies and other land managers in the Northern Territory who used to benefit from research under NERP’s predecessor program (TRaCK). With the increased focus of research on Commonwealth estates (e.g. Kakadu) in NERP, these potential end-users consider that they have lost a valuable source of research to meet critical on-ground environmental management and decision-making needs, including in areas such as erosion and run-off from land-use change, including mining, in the Gulf and studies directly related to environmental flows across northern Australia. The latter were considered outside the biodiversity focus of NERP.

The evaluation team considers in some instances, stakeholders who do not see value in the current suite of NERP projects may actually be able to derive benefits; however they are now disengaged

76 Relevant to understanding the tourism industry’s interest, and their strong perceived stake, in this program is that they pay an environmental management charge to GBRMPA on a per passenger basis for trips to the reef. The Australian Marine Park Tourism Operators industry peak group advised the evaluation team that when this charge was initially levied at $1 per passenger, 70 cents was allocated for reef research relevant to tourism operators. Initially this was directed to what the industry considered was relevant and useful research through the Reef CRC. They considered their engagement and receipt of useful research continued under MTSRF. Reef tourism operators still pay this charge (it was scheduled to increase to $5.50, but is currently at $2.50 per passenger to compensate for the carbon tax), yet they do not consider that they derive value from the program, and were explicitly advised that the primary end-user of NERP is the Australian Government and that this program was not intended to meet their needs.

Page | 44

and are no longer involved in shaping research methods and delivery. Much of this may be attributed to the change in program objectives and the way in which the work programs (multi-year research plans) were developed. While the hubs agreed that the department articulated its requirements reasonably well, albeit at a high level, all senior hub personnel involved in the preparation of work programs advised the evaluation team that there was not enough time to develop work programs. One hub leader described the development of the work program, and managing extensive competing interests and demands, as ‘the most difficult professional experience’ he had ever had and suggested a minimum of eight weeks for assembling a large, collaborative work program, particularly across multiple research organisations. This is important not just so that researchers can articulate project outcomes, timeframes and requirements, and that these can be balanced against overall hub priorities, but so that proper engagement with stakeholders (Environment portfolio and other end-users, including jurisdictions, local government and NRM bodies, indigenous groups and traditional owners, land managers and industry) can occur. Face-to-face contact is almost always required with Indigenous communities, and is beneficial for other types of stakeholder engagement. This takes time.

In addition, the confusion over the placement of the rainforest projects with the Northern Australia Hub or the Tropical Ecosystems Hub (even though a decision was already made by the Minister) meant that a large part of that program was allocated before work programming could be undertaken that prioritised needs across that hub’s portfolio of work. In addition, key end-users, such as the Wet Tropics Management Authority and tourism operators in the world heritage area, were not involved in shaping project focus and outcomes at the beginning, thereby reducing their ongoing engagement with and perceived value from the program.

NERP stakeholders also identified constraints of having a project level focus in the work program. It has meant that where research projects have led to unexpected outcomes, the rigidity of the work program has not allowed researchers to ‘follow the research’ or respond to emerging issues77 even where end-users have identified value in doing so. Researchers must deliver their project outputs within a fixed timeframe and budget, and there is very little budget flexibility within the hubs across the 3.5 year work program.

The research themes, under which projects are grouped and reported upon (including for financial), has varying applicability and value across the hubs. A program-level focus and management, rather than a project-level focus, has been suggested by program stakeholders to allow greater integration and flexibility within the work program.

A Survey response, in relation to end-user engagement (from a non-Environment portfolio end-user), identified

A significant problem is the number of small projects. This is inefficient for a range of reasons including end-user engagement. [The] Focus on project funding of quite modest scale has lead to administrative inefficiency but also disconnected science. A stronger emphasis on research programs would provide for greater flexibility and agility and better scope for multi-disciplinary approaches to complex problems. The NERP program was off to a slow start due to changes in program strategy - focus on Commonwealth Govt as only end-user in relation to its role with the EPBC initially

77 See discussion on the Emerging Priorities funding below. Both hubs and end-users within the Environment portfolio have expressed uncertainty over how this funding is allocated, or the process by which they could propose a research project if they identify an emerging issue.

Page | 45

broadening out to include other end-users over time. This shift delayed establishing effective relations in some areas notably Indigenous communities. It is to be hoped that any successor program has clarity with respect to expectations and scope.

Delays in establishing administrative agreements

Under NERP, the department has contracted five organisations to deliver 116 research projects over 4 years78. Four hubs are ‘hosted’ by universities, two with the University of Tasmania, one with University of Queensland, and one with Charles Darwin University. One hub (the Tropical Ecosystems Hub) has a different administrative arrangement, as specified in the Ministerial-approved program guidelines. The four hub host organisations and the TEH administrator are responsible for entering into sub-contracts with partner research organisations for delivery of individual projects. The sub-contracts are required to reflect the obligations and responsibilities of the head funding or administrative agreement, and other provisions where specified in the head agreement.

In the program’s establishment, the NERP team was advised by the department’s legal area (in consultation with the Department of Finance and Deregulation and the Attorney-General’s Department) that entering into an arrangement with a private sector entity for grant administration would require authorisation under section 12 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) in order that they could handle public money. The department was not familiar with this type of authorisation, and indeed was advised that this was not a common arrangement in Commonwealth programs. Delays were encountered in establishing the administrative arrangements for this hub (and therefore the flow-on contracts with research organisations) as the department sought advice on this matter from the Department of Finance and Deregulation (as the portfolio department responsible for administering the FMA Act) and the department’s legal area on how to address the requirements of this provision, including ensuring appropriate risk management procedures and evidence were in place to satisfy the requirements of the FMA Act (and its regulations), before the Secretary was asked to sign off on this arrangement79.

The time consuming and risk-focussed nature of these matters of establishment has introduced ongoing complexity into the arrangements and appears to have been the catalyst for a difficult relationship between the third party administrator (RRRC Ltd) and the department. In their day-to-day dealings, both parties frequently refer to contractual provisions to ascertain obligations and limitations of responsibility and have acknowledged there has been a breakdown of trust and confidence for extended periods throughout the contract period and which, to some extent, remains. The quality of reporting from the RRRC Ltd at times has not met the department’s expectations and required repeated requests for correction or amendment by the NERP team, and the department has taken too long on responding or attending to some matters. Perhaps because this is a different model, established with risk mitigation as a key consideration, the NERP team and the department’s Executive may view this arrangement as a higher risk than the administrative arrangements for the other hubs. This may have initially been a legitimate concern due to the complexity of the arrangements and the additional obligations on both parties to meet the FMA Act

78 Note that emerging priorities, and ten other projects, such as for regional sustainability and strategic assessments, have also been added to the Hub contracts. 79 This timing coincided with a new delegation from the Minister for Finance to departmental Chief Executives for authorising section 12 arrangements under the FMA Act. The department was advised that the Secretary’s decision on this matter was the first time that this new delegation had been exercised by any department.

Page | 46

section 12 requirements, however, it has distracted both parties from focussing on administrative efficiency and outcomes.

Analysis of ongoing administrative aspects of the program is presented further below at section 3.7, Program Administration.

3.4 CollaborationA significant feature of NERP is the extensive collaboration that it requires and that it enables. NERP’s design demands collaboration across research disciplines and institutions, but more importantly the program enables productive collaboration between researchers who are leaders in their fields and Australian environmental decision-makers and other stakeholders, with a focus particularly on the department and its portfolio agencies.

Table 4 - NERP deliverables and Key Performance Indicators in relation to collaboration

Key Performance IndicatorsTotal

to 30 June 2013

Number of research projects co-funded with other agencies 123

Number of researchers80 supported under the NERP funding program

603

Number of biodiversity research projects co-funded with other agencies

116

Number of other stakeholders organisations/groups or agencies engaged in the research process

241

Number of research projects which involve researchers from three or more institutions

58

Source: Analysis of results reported against key performance indicators in departmental annual reports 2010-11 to 2012-13.

The benefits of this collaboration, identified during this evaluation, include:

Policy and science: end-users are able to shape and focus the research which is targeted to policy questions and able to be applied. Environment portfolio end users are encouraged and able to adapt the design of their policy and management interventions based on the latest research from leaders in their field. Scientists are brought into the world of the Environment portfolio; they are encouraged to focus their work on addressing the policy challenges of the portfolio, and to conduct and deliver their work in a way that facilitates uptake and impact.

80 A researcher is defined as any person employed by a research organisation by way of salary, wage, scholarship or contract to undertake activity

Page | 47

Cross-disciplinary: Collaboration across disciplines means that research is multi-dimensional. For example, the ecologists are considering social and economic values in their work, and environmental managers are benefitting from both at the same time;

Cross-institutional: The collaboration between research institutions means that the debate occurs before the research is published, and the department can then draw on research that represents more of a consensus view. Criticism is less likely in relation to a policy decision or management action that has been directly informed by research on which all, or a large proportion of, interested and credible scientists agree. In additional, efficiencies can be gained when institutions are able to concentrate on what they are good at – for example, one hub partner may be good at collecting samples or running surveys, another may specialise in developing models or simulating on-ground conditions to run experiments;

Cross-agency and cross-sectoral: Steering committees and implementation groups bring Environment portfolio officers together with researchers and other Australian Government portfolio officers (e.g. AFMA, Torres Strait Regional Authority, Wet Tropics Management Authority) and relevant officers from jurisdictional agencies (e.g DPIPWE, QLD DEPH), NRM bodies, and industry groups, as well as other government initiatives, such as the Integrated Marine Observation System (IMOS).

Much of the benefit from collaboration though is intangible – the access to bright minds and the ability to bring experts into the department’s business, and the enhanced capability of the department in dealing with complex environmental policy and management matters. Yet, the evidence from this evaluation, as outlined in Chapter 2 of this report, shows that the collaboration between policy and science is occurring in an active and robust way, albeit with opportunities to improve.

3.5 Capacity- building As outlined in Chapter 2 above, evaluation survey results identified that over half of end user respondents, both within and external to the Environment portfolio, consider that the two most significant achievements from NERP are the improved capacity of decision-makers, policy developers and environmental managers to connect with researchers and make the most of research outputs; 81 and the improved capacity of researchers to meet environmental decision-makers’ needs82.

These achievements are also considered major achievements by the hub participants themselves. 83 The hub participants further considered that enabling environmental research at an appropriate scale to produce results useful to end-users is a major achievement arising from NERP84.

In addition, the program fosters the development of research skills in biodiversity and related fields through providing funding for work for PhD students and early career researchers through to senior experienced and respected scientists. Moreover, the capacity of researchers and institutions to undertake applied, rather than pure, research has been significantly enhanced through programs such as this. The regular interaction, including through implementation groups, close working 81 Nominated by 53% Environment portfolio and 54% other end users [see survey methodology at Appendix D].82 Nominated by 50% Environment portfolio and 51% other end users.83 Improved researcher capacity to meet decision-makers’ needs – nominated by 57% hub participants; and knowledge improvements – nominated by 49% hub participants.84 Nominated by 49% hub participants.

Page | 48

relationships that have been formed, have honed the researchers’ skills to be aware of public policy process and challenges, and responsive to needs.

Indeed, researchers interviewed during this evaluation universally expressed enthusiasm for engaging with end-users, as a means of their work having impact, but also to understand how it is used so they can improve their focus or delivery. The evaluation team asked numerous researchers, from early career researchers, to more experienced project or program leaders, to recognised leaders in their field, how they would feel about departmental officers just picking up the phone to ask them generally about their field and whether there is any work or conclusive evidence on a particular matter, or who they should speak to find about a particular matter, or to ask specifically about a particular piece of research; universally the answers were enthusiastic. Researcher responses included:

That is what we are here for

That’d be awesome

We’d love that.

The development of capacity and retention of skills in regional areas was cited as a key benefit for the hubs with centres and research partners located outside major metropolitan centres (such as Townsville, Darwin and Hobart).

NERP is building the capacity of portfolio officers to engage with and utilise science to some extent through nominating end-users for projects, making linkages and running seminars and workshops. Future program delivery would benefit from this being done in a more comprehensive manner and with an intention to improve the skills of end-users to articulate research needs, engage throughout the process and to utilise interim and final research results.

3.6 Knowledge broking and communicationsKnowledge broking and communication are important features of the design of NERP and are intended to address the identified weakness in the previous CERF program and other natural resource management programs involving research and policy implementation.85, 86 Hubs must set aside at least ten per cent of their budgets for the Knowledge Brokering and Communication Strategy and its implementation87. A program Communication Strategy was established to guide the process. The objectives of the Communication Strategy are to:

85 See Gibbons P. Zammit C et al. 2008, Some practical suggestions for improving engagement between researchers and policy makers in natural resource management. Ecological Management & Restoration Vol. 9 No 3 December 2008. Ecological Society of Australia. 86 The Department of Industry’s APS200 Project: The Place of Science in Policy Development in the Public Service, September 2012, outlines the challenges of linking research and policy and sought to ‘identify ways in which scientific evidence is used to inform policy development in the Australian Public Service (APS)’. The report aimed to ‘achieve better government outcomes through facilitating the effective use of scientific input in policy development in the public service’. NERP was identified as reflecting ‘best practice principles for strengthening the links and alignment between research and the needs of policy makers’. Available at: http://www.innovation.gov.au/science/Documents/APS200ScienceinPolicyReport.pdf, p. 14.87 Per the program guidelines, section 5.2.3. For the Tropical Ecosystems Hub, these activities are undertaken by both researchers and the hub administrator.

Page | 49

engage with selected stakeholders from early in the life of the NERP; ensure that selected stakeholders understand the objective of the NERP and that they have

adequate opportunities to familiarise themselves with the program; provide accurate and consistent information to other stakeholders about the NERP when

enquires are made; meet the communication needs of the Minister regarding NERP; ensure that the information requirements of the department are clearly outlined to experts

undertaking environmental research in support of the objectives and needs of the department;

increase awareness and understanding of the links between hub themes and projects and departmental policies and programs;

create links between departmental line areas, Hub liaison Officers, Hub researchers and Hub Communication Officers; and

demonstrate the success of NERP to assist key stakeholders in assessing the value of the program investment.

Each Hub is required to have a knowledge broker and a science communication plan. A requirement of NERP is that research information products must be publicly available88. When publications (including media releases) are finalised, they are expected to be delivered to the department’s NERP team, who are to distribute them to the department’s Media and Communications Team, relevant line areas and the Executive (if appropriate). At the time of this evaluation, the NERP team is investigating a potential internet facility that could be used to store and distribute publications to the department89.

What is working well, and not so well?

Evaluation survey responses and interviews with key participants in the program indicated a relatively strong engagement between researchers, Hubs and end-users in areas of the department. Some 82 per cent of survey respondents identified that they had an on-going engagement with nominated end-users for at least some of their projects, with 51 per cent having this engagement for all projects. An analysis of Hub Bi-annual progress reports supported this level of interaction. For example, Hubs have reported 542 stakeholder workshops with departmental/Portfolio staff and 776 stakeholder workshops with parties external to the department such as state or territory agencies or non-government organisations in relation to their NERP projects since the program’s

88 The NERP funding agreements have specific obligations for research hubs in relation to the publication of all research outputs, including data and research articles. For example, that an electronic copy of all peer-reviewed journal articles (as accepted for publication after peer-review) will be made openly and freely available on the internet within 12 months of publication. In line with contractual obligations, publications should be uploaded on a website or repository that is enduring over time. Publications should remain publicly available and searchable in perpetuity. In addition, the department has implemented a ‘no surprises policy’, where hubs are required to provide five days notice to the NERP team before any release of any Hub outputs so that appropriate briefings can be made. In relation to data, there are a number of portals that are used by hubs for making NERP research data discoverable, such as the e-Atlas for the Tropical Ecosystems Hub and the Marine Biodiversity’s use of the Australian Ocean Data Network. All NERP hubs are aware of the requirement to make their data available and the NERP team is working with hubs to ensure this will occur for all research projects. Making NERP data discoverable will be a valuable contribution to the national environmental information initiative being undertaken by the department’s ERIN branch.89 The NERP team has advised the evaluation team that it is intended that publications will be accessible by departmental staff in the future via the NERP intranet page. This will include a link to the hub website if the information product is open access or will have an attached copy.

Page | 50

commencement. These interactions have steadily increased over the course of the program, see Appendix G.

Some of the positive end-user respondent survey comments included:

engaging with NERP scientists has allowed me to develop a working relationship that allows me to pick up the phone and have a chat about the project etc. This has been extremely effective as scientists have been willing and able to give presentations on their project findings to divisional staff and we have been actively embedding many of the recommendations from projects into our day to day business.

We have several projects underway which we could not have done without NERP. They are all both immediate and critical longer term contributions to biodiversity policy.

Results from ‘marine wildlife management in the GBRWHA about dugong population were used in a face to face briefing with the Minister on the status of the Reef. Results from almost all Tropical Ecosystems Hub projects were used in the development of the Great Barrier Reef Strategic Assessment.

The top four points at which hub participants engaged with NERP end-users were as follows:

Alerting nominated or other potential end-users when research is completed (86% respondents – always or frequently);

Seeking input from end-users while scoping and planning research (81% respondents – always or frequently);

Seeking input from end-users while undertaking research (77% respondents – always or frequently); and

Seeking feedback from end-users on the utility of the research after research is complete (77% respondents – always or frequently).

The types of communication in NERP that were considered to be ‘highly effective’ by program stakeholders are outlined in Table 5.

Table 5 - Summary of the ‘highly effective’ classifications of knowledge broking and communication of NERP outcomes by different categories of survey respondents

DoE end users Other end users Hub participantsMeetings or small workshops (74%) Ability to phone/email a

researcher and discuss relevant research directly (53%)

Meetings or small workshops (78%)

Seminars delivered directly to departmental/ agency/relevant organisation officers (59%)

Meetings or small workshops (50%)

Seminars delivered directly to departmental/ agency/relevant organisation officers (68%)

Ability to phone/email a researcher and discuss relevant research directly (44%)

NERP Hub Newsletters (38%)

Active promotion of research by knowledge brokers to departmental/ agency/relevant organisation officers (52%)

Key = Commonality between survey respondents

Table 5 highlights the usefulness to both researchers and end-users of meetings, small workshops or seminars as well as direct contact between researchers and end-users to convey the results or NERP

Page | 51

research. Hub researchers rated the role of knowledge brokers highly (52 per cent considered they were most effective while 34.5 per cent rated brokers somewhat effective) compared with a much lower percentage of end-users (14.6 per cent of departmental end-users considered knowledge brokers were most effective while 54 per cent rated brokers somewhat effective).

While comments from NERP stakeholders and an analysis of reporting statistics indicated a positive information dissemination process for NERP overall, there were comments provided that illustrated gaps in knowledge broking and communication and areas where this could have been strengthened. In particular, 56 per cent of departmental end-users commented that there were instances in the last 12-18 months where decision-making or advice could have been better informed or supported by environmental research of the type funded under NERP but was not. One of the most common reasons cited was that the end-user was not aware that there was any relevant NERP-funded research available (38.5 per cent).

Some pertinent comments from Hub participants on the timing issue included:

Results from a NERP-funded case study on marine turtles and dugongs are not yet available in the public domain but could better inform a number of decision making processes such as legislation [that] has been recently introduced to the Federal parliament to amend the EPBC Act.

Review and revision of [the] Kakadu Plan of Management was too early for NERP research to contribute apart from aquatic weed management (which has been subjected to ongoing research for the last 5-10 years via both ERISS & CDU).

Ongoing policy discussions of port developments that may impact on the Great Barrier Reef and climate change adaptation options in the Torres Strait (e.g. seawalls) could have benefited from NERP research. As above, I think it is a matter of timing as well as turnover in key agencies and political priorities that keep this research from being more effectively utilised.

The key action in the marine environment has been the declaration of the Commonwealth marine reserve network. This was informed by prior research (CERF). Development of management plans and monitoring arrangements should be informed by NERP research but this has yet to be implemented.

The methodology for investing public funds under the former Biodiversity Fund is an example of an action that would benefit from our NERP-funded research on where investment achieves greatest conservation gains. One of the reasons that this research hasn't been utilised is because it hasn't been published yet (this takes time) and another reason is the lack of time we as researchers have to engage at a personal level with different personnel within the Dept. of Environment since the funding that flows to individual researchers from NERP can be quite small (as in my case) and thus only purchases a relatively small proportion of my time.

Social media and the NERP team within the department did not rate highly with end-users or Hub participants as effective communication mechanisms although particular examples were cited where the NERP team had very successfully facilitated the communication of NERP research outcomes and made strategic linkages between the hubs or individual research teams and line areas. These examples indicate difficulty in aligning NERP research with policy processes. This will inevitably be a challenge because of the disparate nature of the department’s work, the timing and confidentiality of policy processes as well as competing administrative demands. For example, the science

Page | 52

communication role of the NERP team has to be balanced against administrative aspects that are often urgent and important for the program’s implementation and grant management accountability obligations. However, the evaluation team considers that the focus on administration within the NERP team has had a detrimental impact on the advice being provided to the department’s Executive on NERP and the contribution it has made or could make to policy development or program delivery in the department. The department’s Executive indicated to the evaluation team that they would like to see a more strategic focus in NERP on delivering advice and making linkages at opportune times on NERP research that is of significance to the Minister or the Executive.

The challenge for the department, in balancing administrative requirements with the task of effectively brokering and communicating science research outputs for maximum impact across the Portfolio will only increase as the program nears completion. Of the 134 projects funded under NERP (including Emerging Priority Projects), only 18 have been fully completed. NERP’s 18 completed projects and 116 projects in-progress have produced over 350 peer-reviewed publications90 to date. The ‘tidal wave’ of publications91 reaching the department over the next 1-2 years will need to be managed efficiently92, and captured properly, to maximise the benefits to the department from the NERP investment.

The importance of improving science communication in the future is illustrated by the following quote from a survey respondent.

The major constraint for me is the lack of relationships and good communications – without them, it’s just pure research without an end beyond a journal paper. Relationships take time to build, trust takes multiple exchanges to develop, problems and research questions take time to define with a stakeholder and, the research and the interpretation of the science in the stakeholder’s world (the application and consequences of the new knowledge, or tool) is a process that takes multiple engagements at different levels and styles. Then, sometimes, the windows of opportunity to engage or progress the work are missed through no fault of researcher and end-user, or the political environment just isn’t ready when the research is ready…The one thing that stands out for me, is that if the relationships are not well developed (and that’s within the hub and with external stakeholders), then very little happens strategically or purposefully…mostly by accident, and the full potential and value of the research is rarely reached. Good communications takes someone with their eye on the communications games 100% of the time…. Good communications can make good research, great, by getting it out of the journal paper and into the hands, plans, policies and programs of government.

Some considerations that might narrow the gap between research and policy and improve the communication of NERP research (especially given the significant number of primary end-users not aware of NERP research) are outlined below:

establishing a department-wide, accessible management information capability such as within the intranet that provides up to date information on NERP projects and their status

90 That is, research articles, papers and notes printed in peer-reviewed research journals, books or other publications, as reported in the department’s 2012-13 annual report. 91 Extrapolation of current publications as a proportion of project completion to date suggests over 2700 publications could be received by the department over the life of the program. If this workload coincides with the development of new program it is likely to put the department in a particularly difficult situation in an environment where resources are constrained. 92 Note that the Environmental Decisions Hub uses a system for publications to which researchers can load their work and then this is publicly searchable. This may be a model that may be relevant to be applied and expanded across the program, for all hubs to lodge their publications and for portfolio officers and the public to search.

Page | 53

that can be interrogated by theme or departmental priority. (Ideally this would be integrated with broader departmental-wide mechanisms that may exist to capture relevant environmental information (including research, spatial, management actions such as regulatory approvals and threatened species etc), but the evaluation team recognises that this is a much greater task than an intranet-based publications database, and well beyond the scope of the NERP team alone);

including NERP (or other relevant) research consideration in the departmental-wide check lists required for all new policy or initiatives across all business units within the Portfolio (including Parks Australia and GBRMPA);

having a dedicated science communicator/s within the NERP team to more systematically coordinate with knowledge brokers and facilitate the uptake and diffusion of NERP science and research outcomes to key users.

These options are not mutually exclusive or costless and should be considered within the context of the future development of NERP as a priority for the department as a whole.

3.7 Program AdministrationAdministrative effort for the hubs and the department includes program planning, contract management (including establishment and variations), periodic progress reporting, payment and acquittal of funds. In addition, the NERP team has developed program-wide strategies (such as for communications), templates, procedures and protocols, and hubs have developed operating procedures and practices for facilitating and supporting research and reporting within their hubs.

Four of the five hubs are administered by universities that act as host organisation for the NERP hubs and one hub, the Tropical Ecosystems Hub, is administered by a private not-for-profit entity that represents and was established by regional authorities, research institutions and industry bodies in Far North Queensland (Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Ltd, or ‘RRRC’).

Hubs report their administrative and knowledge broking and communication budgets and costs separately. The department, however, has one ‘departmental’ budget that covers all staff effort allocated to administrative tasks related to the program and to promoting knowledge broking and communication activities within the Environment portfolio and more broadly.

Departmental administration

The departmental budget to administer the program is approximately $1.1 million per annum, and has remained fairly constant since the program’s commencement in 2011-12. The NERP team’s budget includes direct staffing costs (an average of 8.9 FTE over the life of the program), suppliers (such as travel and printing) and on-costs including corporate overheads. The budget accords with the long-term ‘rule-of-thumb’ for Commonwealth grant program administration where administration budgets typically represent around 5 per cent of program funding.

Page | 54

Over the life of the program, the team considers that its time has been allocated to the following tasks in the following proportions93:

Table 6 – NERP Team effort on program tasks

Hub Administration (excl. Tropical)

Tropical Ecosystems Hub Administration

M&E Knowledge Broking & Comms (all Hubs)

Emerging Priority projects

Staff & Corp. tasks

Non-NERP research coordination (science policy)

Future program and evaluation

Tasks include Steering Committee;Progress reports;Finance management;Contracts (incl. establishment and variations)

Steering Committee;ManagementCommittee;Finance management;Contracts (incl. establishment and variations)

Responding to hub-driven needs: 80%

Responding to departmental needs: 20%

identify priorities;establish contracts; receive & review progress & final reports; payments & acquittals

Recruit, train & develop staff; Senate estimates briefings.

Dept of Industry, ARC, PMSEIC coordination;Ad-hoc research and coordination tasks.

Scope evaluation & assist team;

Consider future program options, briefings and planning

2011-12 to 2012-13

25 % 20 % 25% 15% 10 5% -

2013-14 60% (in the above proportions) 10% 30%

The evaluation team considers that the heavy weighting of team effort to administration and oversight tasks, particularly for one hub, rather than on knowledge brokering and communication activities, may be driven by early views on program risk that may no longer be relevant. This has had a detrimental effect on the achievement of program outcomes, as discussed in the Knowledge Broking and Communication section of this report.

In addition, the evaluation team has identified that the NERP team does not have a ‘whole-of-program’ picture of the status of NERP or the available tools to readily compile this. The fact that there is no central project tracking mechanism94 for NERP team or broader portfolio access may not be of concern in itself, and indeed the merit of creating one at this point in the program is unlikely to outweigh the cost, but rather overall understanding and communication of program status and achievement is certainly lacking within the department. There is no concise story about where the program is at, and what it has achieved. This evaluation report aims to provide this story, but a more effective ongoing communication approach is required.

In their survey responses, hub participants identified concerns with the department’s balance between administration and knowledge broking and communication. Although 96% of hub participants consider that the program has been at least moderately well administered by the Department of the Environment, with 70% considering that the program has been reasonably to well administered95, they identified the following concerns:

93 The NERP team recorded time spent on each task for three months from July to September 2011, which included CERF wrap-up and acquittal activities. In addition, planning for NERP commenced from December 2009. Activities included identifying research priorities, developing project guidelines, providing briefings to decision-makers and undertaking contract negotiations. This work was undertaken within the 2010-11 and 2011-12 CERF and MTSRF departmental budgets, which in total also provided approximately $1.1 million per annum to the NERP team.94 To identify the status of projects during this evaluation, the team identified project status by reviewing individual 6-monthly hub progress reports and tallying these on a spreadsheet.95 These figures have been adjusted to take account the 28.7% of respondents who identified that they did not have direct knowledge of this.

Page | 55

I strongly support the need for accountability, but it is important to maintain a balance, so that administrative loads don’t detract from the overall capacity to deliver.

Careful attention is paid to every detail of project administration. But I’d suggest too much.

There is a fairly onerous reporting requirement....I am not convinced that all material I provide is actually used by the department.

Would be useful for there to be a dedicated NERP Communications Manager to manage release of outcomes and outputs of all Hubs.

Some arrangements changed during the program and required different versions of reporting templates etc and different levels of sign-off. On some occasions there appeared to be a lack of trust towards the research organisations which resulted in a tendency to micromanage some aspects of the Hubs activities, particularly reporting. This was minor.

The level of reporting required by Canberra is way too much compared to the actual money granted.

More appropriate aligning of reporting obligations – for example, reporting in the middle of the northern Australian dry season when most researchers are flat out in the field is very inconvenient and adds significant unnecessary stress.

A better system for collecting [hub activity] statistics online should be set up.

Departmental administration is okay but there are still high transaction costs in terms of reporting. More streamlined reporting would help.

With long-term research, 6 monthly reporting isn’t terribly effective since data are only compiled annually. Thus some reports could be perceived as weak purely as a matter of timing and natural rate of project progression.

Lack of flexibility in reporting, project templates. Excessive focus on administrative process rather than achieving research outcomes. Lack of understanding of partnership nature of program, top down nature of administration and unilateral decision making. Slowness in decisions, particularly but not always those requiring ministerial approval.

While noting the above, many program stakeholders noted the improved engagement from the department under NERP compared with CERF, and a number of improved administrative requirements. Program participants acknowledged a high level of service provided by the NERP team:

[Administrative arrangements have been undertaken] extremely well in terms of providing funding, establishing governance structures, operating protocols, accountability mechanisms (including monitoring and reporting) and communication.

The NERP Team in Canberra has been responsive, supporting and professional.

Appendix H identifies the administrative gaps that were identified during the 2010 evaluation of NERP’s predecessor program, CERF, and the extent to which they have been addressed by the department for the administration of NERP. The department has gone to significant lengths to address the administrative gaps identified in the 2010 review, with only one aspect, a central

Page | 56

knowledge management system that supports data storage and enables access to management and governance information over time, remaining with no substantive progress to date.

Hub administration

Survey responses identified that 98% of hub participants consider that the program has been at least moderately well administered by their hub, with 88% considering that the hub has been reasonably to well administered.96

Hub administrative costs range between 3.9% (Landscapes and Policy Hub) and 9.3% (Marine Biodiversity Hub) of total NERP investment; See Appendix F. Two hubs are funded under the program for their administration; Tropical Ecosystems Hub, of which NERP funds cover 92% of the hub’s administrative costs, and Northern Australia Hub, of which NERP funds cover 100% of the hub’s administrative costs97. The other three hubs fund their administrative costs from the co-contribution from partner organisations.

Hub budgets (in multi-year research plans) identify each hub is spending more than 10 per cent on knowledge broking and communication, with one hub (Landscapes and Policy Hub) budgeting 21% for these activities.

Hub leaders advised that methods they use to keep hub administrative costs to a minimum include:

Making use of existing processes and infrastructure within the hub host organisation and partner organisations;

Establishing a small experienced executive team with clear responsibilities to oversee administration, for example - Director, Deputy Director, Communications Officer and Executive Officer;

Maintaining a simple and consistent progress reporting template throughout the program to minimise the extent to which the burden of reporting and changes in reporting requirements is borne by researchers and project leaders;

Aligning major research meetings with reporting periods so administration and communication staff can use the material presented to inform stakeholders, including the department, of progress and outcomes;

Maintaining good lines of communication between the executive team, researchers, research end users and the NERP Program team to maximise the effectiveness of researchers time, minimise effort in administration and manage issues from the outset. This is done through regular meetings, collaboration and communication; and

Keeping flexibility and simplicity in contractual requirements.

Administration for the Tropical Ecosystems Hub

While the department has encountered additional administrative burden in relation to the Tropical Ecosystems Hub, the RRRC Ltd has also advised that the administration of the hub is costing it more than was budgeted and contracted for. The RRRC considers its increased costs are due to:

96 These figures have been adjusted to take account the 14.9% of respondents who identified that they did not have direct knowledge of this.97 Based on multi-year research plan budgets.

Page | 57

an expansion of the secretariat commitment from the RRRC from one committee (the Steering Committee) to four committees (the Implementation Groups) after the signing of the contract with the department;

additional work in relation to the contestable funds, an arrangement that was to be administered by the RRRC but introduced after the signing of the contract with the department.

changed reporting, acquittal requirements or expense substantiation for reimbursement almost every reporting period;

delays by the department in making payments; responding to the department in writing in addition to a telephone discussion – ‘so that

more appropriate and balanced records could be kept’.

The expansion of duties along with the heightened focus on risk-management by the department, has eroded relations between the parties. The department’s additional risk management procedures for this hub, including chairing the management committee and establishing a protocol whereby all payments must be approved by the Assistant Secretary, have led to the department’s increased effort on the administrative arrangements of this Hub compared with other hubs, and delays in payments to the administrator.

If this hub was not delivering relevant and useful research, or the administrator had not yet demonstrated that they could deliver the required services under this arrangement, then a high level of scrutiny would indeed be warranted as a way to manage delivery and financial risks. However, given the level of performance of the research program for this Hub, as evidenced by its outputs and strong support from key end-users, most notably GBRMPA and the Torres Strait Regional Authority, and the demonstrated capacity of the administrator over three years98, the sustained high level of administrative effort and scrutiny of all actions should not be required by the department in year three of the program. It appears to be imposing additional costs on both parties at the expense of activities such as knowledge broking and communication that would better contribute to engagement with the research and achievement of outcomes.

The current balance of resources devoted to the administration of the Tropical Ecosystems Hub, including grant funding to the RRRC and disproportional departmental staff effort) have not been efficient. All parties agree with this and any future model would need to consider how to address this.

What could be improved?

The department has, through a competitive, merit-based and needs-driven selection process, identified providers that will deliver an agreed program of research and associated activities for an agreed fee. In this ‘market-tested’ approach, the key priority for the department is to ensure that the project outputs and deliverables are received at the required quality, within specified

98 While there have been problems with the timeliness and quality of some information and reporting from the RRRC, with files documenting repeated requests for additional information or amendment, the department has, in the end, assessed all NERP TEH milestones as having been met. In addition, the department has engaged the RRRC Ltd to undertake knowledge broking-related work on its behalf in relation to the Reef Rescue Program; this program area advised the evaluation team that it was pleased with the work of RRRC Ltd in that capacity.

Page | 58

timeframes and that the program is achieving its intended objective to improve the capacity of environmental decision makers to understand, manage and conserve the environment.

The program has been designed with cascading levels of monitoring and reporting and the department relies on the hub host organisations to undertake certain oversight functions of their sub-contracted research organisations using their established financial, project management and governance structures and processes. These controls should reduce the requirement for hands-on involvement by the department in day-to-day research operations and administration of the hubs.

The department must focus on outcomes, and the activities that contribute to achieving outcomes, most notably by shifting a substantial proportion of its efforts from routine administration and compliance activities to strategic knowledge broking and communication.

Following discussions with the NERP team, a number of suggested improvements in relation to the role of the team and its administration of the program have been identified:

Identify designated specialist sub teams:o 1: grants management, finance, contract management; o 2: communication, knowledge broking, promotion of the NERP’s value and use to

departmental officers, including assistance with using research in policy and management.

Improving the communication of hub research outputs through a consistent approach and a clear picture of the objective. Linking this to broader departmental environmental information initiatives makes sense.

Targeted and strategic communication of research outputs to senior executive, for example by scanning the news and understanding stated policy priorities and making linkages for the Executive to relevant research outputs – identifying how this will help extremely busy officers (and the Minister) with their decision-making challenges.

Improving the way information is used on how the program is going so that it improves program impact and administrative efficiency.

Improving engagement across the department; while it is strong in some areas, it could be improved with others

Funding research projects for shorter periods so not all of the results come in at the end of the funding period – this may allow for better adaptive management over a shorter time period and would encourage different research approaches.

Emerging priorities is a great concept but the delivery requires improvement

3.8 Emerging PrioritiesThe NERP program guidelines state that in addition to Hubs, a relatively small component of funding will be reserved to address rapidly emerging priorities during the life of the program. Under this emerging priority stream, the Minister for the Environment is responsible for identifying and sourcing research to address priority issues. Applications for emerging priority research activities were to be sourced directly from Hubs established under NERP, or through a competitive grant or

Page | 59

procurement process. Funding allocations were intended to be consistent with the objectives of the program and the research priorities of the Portfolio.99

The emerging priorities stream has currently funded 18 projects (including this evaluation). Funding of $12.5 million was originally available for emerging priorities and $9.4 million has been approved to fund the projects that are summarised in Table 6.

99 National Environmental Research Program Guidelines, April 2010, page 4.

Page | 60

Table 6 - Emerging Priorities Projects Approved

Project/s Funding ($m)(GST exclusive)

Recipient

Projects to support the 2011 SOE (20 projects) 1.57 SOE/DepartmentEnvironmental Impact of Water Release Scenarios

0.70 Murray Darling Freshwater Research Centre

Research to support priorities identified in the 2011 Senate Report on Koala Conservation

0.30 NERP Environmental Decisions Hub, University of Qld

Expanding the development of Environmental Monitoring Protocols for Working on Country Indigenous Rangers in the Kimberley

0.30 NERP Northern Hub, Charles Darwin University

Tracking and analysis services to determine the error margin in national flying fox census figures

0.70 CSIRO

Environmental research related to the Hendra Virus

1.00 Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation

Early intervention options for the crown-of-thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef

0.30 Australian Institute of Marine Science

Research into the control of Crazy Ants on Christmas Island

0.85 Parks Australia

Support the Lake Eyre Basin Rivers Assessment 0.28 University of NSW, Kir-ganai Pty Ltd, CSIRO

Economic social and environmental implications of population growth in outer suburban areas of capital cities

0.49 Institute of Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

Support the review of key threatening processes under the EPBC Act

0.13 SMEC Australia Pty Ltd, Community Solutions, Conference Logistics, Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd

Research into the declared commercial fishing activity (supertrawler)

0.88 Department

Research on the role of rivers, floodplains and associated wetlands in a broader landscape scale approach to wildlife corridors

0.60 Murray Darling Freshwater Research Centre

Growing National Capacity in Baseline Environmental Monitoring

0.17 Parks Australia

Enhanced on-line research tools for biodiversity data collection and management

0.17 Parks Australia

Improved fauna habitat quality assessment for decision making in the Pilbara Bioregion

0.18 Environmental Decision Hub

White Shark abundance and population trends 0.45 NERP Marine Biodiversity HubEvaluation of NERP 0.07 Vista AdvisoryTotal (18) 9.15

The strengths of the emerging priorities projects are significant as they provide the Minister and department with the flexibility to meet priorities not originally foreshadowed in the Multi-year Research Plans within the Hubs. In some cases, unforeseen priorities requiring research can emerge quickly requiring urgent investment. The projects on research into the declared commercial fishing activity (‘super trawler’) and the early intervention options for the crown-of-thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef are examples where the department was able to respond in a timely manner to identified issues as they emerged. A further benefit is that it has given the department the ability to significantly increase the capacity of the department in core business areas such as State of the

Page | 61

Environment Reporting and in environmental monitoring in Australian Government-managed National Parks. The emerging priority funds also provide the department with the opportunity to broaden the focus of the research priorities in response to changing Ministerial priorities.

A review of Emerging Priority Projects indicates that they have been approved by the Minister and are consistent with the objectives of the program and the research priorities of the Portfolio. However, discussions with the research Hubs and an analysis of the administrative processes for emerging priorities indicated a number of issues that are worth considering in any future program.

The emerging priority project selection and approval process has tended to occur late in each financial year. This imposed considerable pressure on researchers and on departmental staff to negotiate timely funding agreements and the workload appears to be disproportionate compared to the higher level of funding provided to the Hubs.100 All projects with the exception of two had agreements signed in May or June of each financial year.

A more structured and timely process, including one which draws on the expertise of trusted hub leaders to help identify and shape emerging research priorities, and build on best available knowledge and research approaches, would further enhance the value derived from the Emerging Priority funding stream.

100 The process was made more difficult because of a freeze on grant expenditure for the first half of 2012-13.

Page | 62

Appendix A – What has NERP added to the environmental knowledge base?

Thematic analysis of scope and reach – based on biodiversity research questions

Key priority research questions identified data and knowledge gaps. NERP is delivering projects directed at addressing these.

Theme 1: Values: Understanding major drivers for maintaining biodiversity (16 projects)

Environmental Decisions Hub – 8 projectsTheme 1: Values: Understanding major drivers for maintaining biodiversity – 6 projectsTheme 4: Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems – 1 projectTheme 5: Biodiversity economics and markets – 1 project

Tropical Ecosystems Hub – 7 projectsTheme 1: Assessing Ecosystem Condition and Trends

Program 1: Historical and Current Condition of the Great Barrier Reef – 1 projectProgram 2: Natural Resources of the Torres Strait Land and Sea – 1 projectProgram 3: Condition and Trends of North Queensland Rainforests – 1 project

Theme 2: Understanding Ecosystem Function and Cumulative PressuresProgram 5: Cumulative Impacts on Benthic Biodiversity – 1 projectProgram 6: Movements and Habitat Use by Marine Apex Predators – 3 projects

Marine Biodiversity Hub – 1 projectEmerging Priorities Project - White shark abundance and population trends – 1 project

Theme 2: Understanding function/monitoring ecosystem health (32 projects)

Environmental Decisions Hub – 8 projectsTheme 1: Values: Understanding major drivers for maintaining biodiversity – 1 projectTheme 2: Understanding function/monitoring ecosystem health – 4 projectsTheme 5: Biodiversity economics and markets – 1 projectEmerging Priorities – 1 project (Koala)Biodiversity Fund funding – 1 project

Tropical Ecosystems Hub – 8 projectsTheme 1: Assessing Ecosystem Condition and Trends

Program 1: Historical and Current Condition of the Great Barrier Reef – 1 projectProgram 2: Natural Resources of the Torres Strait Land and Sea – 2 projectsProgram 3: Condition and Trends of North Queensland Rainforests – 4 projects

Theme 3: Managing for Resilient Tropical SystemsProgram 13: Knowledge Brokering and Communications – 1 project

Page | 63

Marine Biodiversity Hub – 6 projectsTheme 1: National Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting – 2 projects, Theme 3: National Ecosystems Knowledge – 2 projects Theme 4: Regional biodiversity discovery to support marine bioregional plans – 1 project.RSP Funding – 1 project

Northern Australia Hub – 5 projectsTheme 3: Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation – 1 projectTheme 5: Biodiversity Monitoring and Reporting – 3 projectsEmerging Priorities Kimberley Indigenous ranger monitoring protocols- 1 project

Landscapes and Policy Hub – 1 projectBiodiversity Fund funding – 1 project

Individual Emerging Priorities Hub – 4 projectsResearch to support State of Environment Report 2011Flying fox monitoring and tagging (Consultant)Growing National Capacity in Baseline Environmental Monitoring (Parks Australia)Enhanced on-line research tools for biodiversity data collection and management (Parks Australia)

Theme 3: Threats: building resilience for evolving threats (36 projects)

Environmental Decisions Hub – 7 projectsTheme 3: Threats: building resilience for evolving threats – 7 projects

Tropical Ecosystems Hub – 13 projectsTheme 1: Assessing Ecosystem Condition and Trends

Program 3: Condition and Trends of North Queensland Rainforests – 2 projectsTheme 2: Understanding Ecosystem Function and Cumulative Pressures

Program 4: Water Quality of the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait – 3 projectsProgram 5: Cumulative Impacts on Benthic Biodiversity – 1 projectProgram 7: Threats to Rainforest Health – 3 projects

Theme 3: Managing for Resilient Tropical SystemsProgram 11: Resilient Torres Strait Communities – 2 projectsProgram 12: Managing for Resilience Rainforests – 2 projects

Northern Australia Hub – 6 projectsTheme 3: Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation – 3 projectsTheme 4: Terrestrial Biodiversity Conservation – 2 projectsTheme 5: Biodiversity Monitoring and Reporting – 1 project

Marine Biodiversity Hub – 1 projectTheme 2: Supporting Management of Marine Biodiversity – 1 project.

Landscapes and Policy Hub – 5 projectsTheme 3: Ecological Futures – 5 projects

Individual Emerging Priorities Hub – 4 projects

Page | 64

Control of Yellow Crazy Ants on Christmas Island (Parks Australia)Hendra Virus Task Force contribution RIRDC (Hendra Task Force) (T3)Key threatening process review (Consultant) (T3)GBR Crown of Thorns starfish early intervention options (AIMS) (T3)

Theme 4: Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems (37 Projects)

Environmental Decisions Hub – 10 projectsTheme 4: Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems (EDH) – 6 projectsRSP Funding – 3 projects1 emerging priorities project (Pilbara)

Tropical Ecosystems Hub – 12 projectsTheme 3: Managing for Resilient Tropical Systems

Program 8: Effectiveness of Spatial Management on the GBR – 3 projectsProgram 9: Decision Support Systems for GBR Managers – 4 projectsProgram 10: Socio-economic value of GBR goods and services – 2 projectsProgram 12: Managing for Resilience Rainforests – 3 projects

Marine Biodiversity Hub – 3 projectsTheme 2: Supporting Management of Marine Biodiversity – 3 projects.

Northern Australia Hub – 4 projectsTheme 1: Planning and Sustainable Financing for Biodiversity Conservation – 2 projectsTheme 2: Indigenous Natural Resource Management and Livelihoods – 2 projects

Landscapes and Policy Hub – 4 projectsTheme 2: Social and Economic Futures – 1 projectRSP Funding – 3 projects

Individual Emerging Priorities Hub – 4 projectsResearch into the declared commercial fishing activity (supertrawler) (WHM Division) (T4)Research on the role of rivers, floodplains and associated wetlands in a broader landscape scale approach to wildlife corridors (Murray Darling Freshwater Research Centre) (T4)Implications of population growth in capital city outer suburbs (Consultant) (T4)

Theme 5: Biodiversity economics and markets (10 projects)

Environmental Decisions Hub – 7 projectsTheme 5: Biodiversity economics and markets (EDH)

Northern Australia Hub – 2 projectsTheme 1: Planning and Sustainable Financing for Biodiversity Conservation

Landscapes and Policy Hub – 1 projectTheme 2: Social and Economic Futures.

Page | 65

Appendix B – NERP TimelineSource: Department of the Environment, NERP Team, December 2013

Page | 66

Prospective - June 2015NERP 1 ends (no further funds able to be expended under Phase 1).

Prospective - April 2015

NERP Phase 1 final milestones delivered.

Prospective - December 2014

Research projects completed.

14 April 2013

Funding for seven projects approved by Environment Minister Tony Burke under Emerging Priorities funding.

11 January 2013

Funding for one project approved by Environment Minister Tony Burke under Emerging Priorities funding.

13 March 2012

Funding for eight projects approved by Environment Minister Tony Burke under Emerging Priorities funding.

November - December 2011

Hubs submit Science Communication Plans and Monitoring and Evaluation Plans.

30 December 2011

Funding for two projects approved by Environment Minister Tony Burke under Emerging Priorities funding.

13 September 2011Environment Minister Tony Burke approves Multi-year Work Plans for the five hubs.

March - June 2011

15/3/11 - TEH contract signed with the 3rd-party administrator. 18/5/11 - LaP contract signed. 6/6/11 - NA, ED and Marine

contracts signed.

6 December 2010The Minister announced that 5 research hubs would be funded (approved 29/11/10)

Tropical Ecosystems Hub (TEH)

Landscapes and Policy Hub (LAP)

Northern Australian Hub (NAH)

Environmental Decisions Hub (ED)

Marine Biodiversity Hub (Marine)

May-December 2010

Applications assessed by the Environmental Research Advisory Panel.

24 April 2010

The Department releases program guidelines and invites expressions of interest for NERP research hubs.

12 April 2010

Environment Minister Peter Garrett approves program guidelines for the NERP (also approved by Finance Minister as required by the Commonwealth Grants Guidelines 2009)

19 February 2010

Environment Minister Peter Garrett announces a research program to replace CERF program.

Appendix C – List of People consultedThe following people were interviewed, or participated in roundtable discussions, in person, or via telephone or video-conference, during the course of the evaluation. Vista Advisory is appreciative of their time, candour, insights and the level of engagement with the evaluation team.

Non-Environment portfolio – Hub participants and other stakeholders (72)

Name Hub Organisation Role Date - 2013

Type

Hugh Possingham

Environmental Decisions

University of Queensland Hub Director 29-Nov By phone

Brendan Wintle

Environmental Decisions

University of Melbourne Deputy Director 30-Nov By phone

Terry WalsheEnvironmental Decisions

University of Melbourne Knowledge Broker 1-Dec By phone

David Lindenmayer

Environmental Decisions

Australian National University Theme Leader 5-Dec By phone

David PannellEnvironmental Decisions

University of Western Australia Theme Leader 5-Dec By phone

David SaltEnvironmental Decisions

Australian National University Communications - Decision Point 9-Dec In person

Karen GillowEnvironmental Decisions

Australian National University

Communications - Website, publications 9-Dec By phone

Ted Lefroy LAP UTAS Hub Director 18-Nov In person

Suzie Gaynor LAP UTAS Communications 18-Nov In person

Vanessa Mann

LAP UTAS Hub management executive18-Nov

In person

David Bowman

LAP UTASResearch Project Leader 18-Nov

In person

John Tisdell LAP UTAS Research Project Leader 18-Nov In person

Louise Gilfedder

LAPDPIPWE Knowledge Broker 18-Nov

In person

Oberson Carter

LAPDPIPWE

End user18-Nov

In person

Alex Lechner LAPUTAS Hub researcher 18-Nov

In person (skype)

Sandy Whight LAP State Fire Management Council

End user

18-Nov

In person

Mark Chladil LAP Tas Sire Service End user 18-Nov In person

John Harkin LAP TAS Dep P&C End user 18-Nov In person

James McKee LAP NRM North End user 18-Nov In person

Peter Voller LAP DPIPWE End user 18-Nov In person

Brigid Morrison

LAPUTAS End user 18-Nov

In person

Sarah Clement LAP Murdoch University Researcher 25-Nov In personGillian Anderson LAP

Independent consultant Knowledge Broker 5-Dec By phone

Peter Jacobs LAP Parks Victoria Steering Committee 5-Dec By phoneCharlie Pascoe LAP Parks Victoria Steering Committee 5-Dec By phoneAnthony Evans LAP NPWS Steering Committee 5-Dec By phoneNic Bax Marine UTAS Director 19-Nov In person

Page | 67

Paul Hedge Marine UTAS Deputy Director 19-Nov In person

Richard Coleman

Marine UTAS IMAS Hub Steering Committee 27-Nov By phone

Nicole Hill Marine UTAS IMAS Post Doc Researcher 19-Nov In person

Vanessa Lucier

Marine UTAS IMAS Post Doc Researcher 19-Nov In person

Keith Hayes Marine CSIRO Research Theme Leader 19-Nov In person

Piers Dunstan Marine CSIRO Research Leadership Team 19-Nov In person

Ian Cresswell Marine CSIRO Wealth from Oceans Flagship

Chair Hub Steering Committee and End user (former branch head, National Oceans Office)

19-Nov In person

Tim Moltmann

Marine IMOS End user, Steering Ctee member 26-Nov By phone

John GunnTropical (& Marine) AIMS Chief Executive 28-Nov By Phone

Nicole Coombe

Marine and ED

Department of the Environment Regional Domestic Marine Section 28-Nov In person

Michael Douglas Northern CDU Hub Director 3-Dec

Video Conference

Brendan Edgar Northern CDU Deputy Director 28-Nov In personJaana Dielenberg Northern CDU Knowledge Broker 28-Nov By phone

Peter Doherty Tropical AIMS Science Leader 21-NovBy phone, in person

Sheriden Morris

Tropical RRRC Managing Director 27-Nov In person

Steve Moon Tropical Dive Queensland Stakeholder - potential end-user 20-Nov In person

Vic McGrath Tropical TSRA End user 20-Nov In person

John Courtenay

Tropical Alliance for Sustainable Tourism

Stakeholder - potential end-user 20-Nov In person

Bradley Smith Tropical JCU (Administration)

Partner 20-Nov In person

Alex Stubbs Tropical Agforce Stakeholder - potential end-user 20-Nov In person

Stan Lui Tropical Torres Strait Traditional Inhabitant

TSRA Land and Sea employee, Board Member RRRC, Implementation Group member

20-Nov In person

Ro Hill Tropical CSIRO Researcher 20-Nov In person

Ryan Donnelly Tropical RRRC Research manager/ Knowledge Broker

20-Nov In person

Julie Carmody Tropical RRRC Research manager 20-Nov In person

Toni Fulton Tropical RRRC Accounts 20-Nov In person

Rachel Saltmarshe

Tropical RRRC Accounts 20-Nov In person

Chris Boland Tropical Ports North Stakeholder - potential end-user 20-Nov In person

Allan Dale Tropical RDA FNQ&TS Chair, stakeholder, potential end-user (hub researcher)

20-Nov In person

Damian Miley Tropical TSRA Head of Land & Sea programs, End-user 2-Dec

By phone

Col McKenzie Tropical AMPTO End-user (industry) 2-Dec By phone

Di Tarte TropicalIndependent consultant Steering Committee Chair 28-Nov By phone

Chris Cocklin TropicalJames Cook University Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research 21-Nov In person

John Bennett TropicalQLD Dept of Environment &

Policy Officer, Chair Qater Quality Implementation Group 21-Nov By phone

Page | 68

Heritage Protection

Nick Heath TropicalWorld Wildlife Fund NGO End-user/Stakeholder 21-Nov By phone

Katharina Fabricius Tropical AIMS Researcher (project leader) 21-Nov In person

Andrew Negri Tropical AIMS Researcher (project leader) 21-Nov In person

Eric Lawrey Tropical AIMS Researcher (e-Atlas) 21-Nov In person

Helene Marsh Tropical JCU

Researcher (project leader) and Chair of Department's National Threatened Species Scientific Advisory Ctee 21-Nov By phone

Catherine Collier Tropical JCU Researcher (early careeer) 21-Nov In personDavid Williamson Tropical JCU Researcher (early careeer) 21-Nov In person

Renae Tobin Tropical JCU Researcher (early careeer) 21-Nov In person

Matt Curnock Tropical JCU Researcher (early careeer) 21-Nov In personDamien Burrows Tropical JCU Researcher (project leader) 22-Nov In personColin Simpfendorfer Tropical JCU Researcher (project leader) 22-Nov In personNatalie Stoeckl Tropical JCU Researcher (project leader) 22-Nov In person

Environment portfolio – Department of the Environment, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Parks Australia (52)

Name Organisation Division Role Date Type

Malcolm Thompson

Department of the Environment Executive Deputy Sec 11-Dec In person

Kimberly Dripps

Department of the Environment Executive Deputy Sec 2-Dec In person

Mark Flanagan

Department of the Environment SPAD SPAD - FAS ongoing In person

Sean Sullivan

Department of the Environment BCD BCD - FAS 2-Dec In person

Peter Cochrane

Department of the Environment Parks Australia Director of National Parks 2-Dec In person

Kate Lynch

Department of the Environment SPAD SPAD - A/g Branch Head ongoing In person

Mary Wiley-Smith

Department of the Environment SPAD

SPAD - Substantive Branch Head/Strategic Review 5-Dec In person

Carolyn Cameron

Department of the Environment EACD EACD - FAS 2-Dec In person

Judy West

Department of the Environment Parks Australia Parks - FAS 13-Dec By phone

Kathryn Department of SPAD SPAD - former branch head 9-Dec In person

Page | 69

Collinsthe Environment

Anna Morgan

Department of the Environment Parks Australia

AS, Parks Operations and Strategic Partnerships 2-Dec By phone

Charlton Clark

Department of the Environment Parks Australia Assistant Secretary, Marine Parks 12-Dec By phone

Sarah-Jane Hindmarsh

Department of the Environment BCD BCD – Market-based instruments 28-Nov In person

Tia Steven

Department of the Environment BCD BCD – National Biodiversity 28-Nov In person

Peter Wright

Department of the Environment WHAM

WHAM - Species information and policy 28-Nov In person

James Trezise

Department of the Environment EACD EACD – Reg reform 28-Nov In person

Edward Ho-Shon

Department of the Environment BCD BCD 28-Nov In person

Andrew Chek

Department of the Environment 28-Nov In person

Dave Osborn

Department of the Environment SPAD SPAD - ERIN 28-Nov In person

Giles West

Department of the Environment BCD BCD - Reef Rescue 28-Nov In person

Catherine Jewell

Department of the Environment Parks Australia 28-Nov In person

Nicole Coombe

Department of the Environment Marine Parks - hub liaison 25-Oct

Initial discussion (roundtable 28 Nov)

Ross Rowe

Department of the Environment Part-time Knowledge broker 24-Oct

By phone (initial discussion)

Kevin Gale

Department of the Environment BCD - Reef Rescue 25-Nov By phone

Margaret Considine

Department of the Environment BCD 28-Oct

By phone (initial discussion)

Adam Cowell

Department of the Environment SPAD NERP team 4-Dec In person

Will Atkinson

Department of the Environment SPAD NERP team 27-Nov In person

Naomi Dwyer

Department of the Environment SPAD NERP team 27-Nov In person

Ty Harrip

Department of the Environment SPAD NERP team 27-Nov In person

Dave JohnsonDepartment of the SPAD NERP team 4-Dec In person

Page | 70

Environment

Lani Perlesz

Department of the Environment SPAD NERP team 27-Nov In person

Carly Rickerby

Department of the Environment SPAD NERP team 2-Dec In person

Damian Wrigley

Department of the Environment SPAD NERP team 27-Nov In person

Daniela Binder

Department of the Environment SPAD NERP team 27-Nov In person

Alison Oberg

Department of the Environment SPAD NERP team 27-Nov In person

Genine Sutton

Department of the Environment SPAD NERP team 27-Nov In person

Candace Cooke

Department of the Environment SPAD NERP team 27-Nov In person

Travis Bover

Department of the Environment WHAM Marine Parks 2-Dec In person

Russell Reichhelt GBRMPA Chair and Chief Executive 4-Dec By videoMargaret Johnson GBRMPA General Manager 4-Dec In person

Bruce Elliott GBRMPA GBRMPA - General Manager 22-Nov In personDavid Wachenfeld GBRMPA

GBRMPA - Biodiversity, Species Conservation 22-Nov In person

Hugh Yorkston GBRMPA GBRMPA - WQ Reef 2050 22-Nov In personLaurence McCook, GBRMPA

GBRMPA - Ecosystem Health and resilience 22-Nov In person

Roger Beedan GBRMPA GBRMPA - Ecosystem Health and resilience 22-Nov In person

Randall Owens GBRMPA GBRMPA - Reef Guardian program 22-Nov In personMargaret Gooch GBRMPA

GBRMPA - Socio-economic Sciences 22-Nov In person

Fergus Molloy GBRMPA GBRMPA - Science Coordination 22-Nov In person

Chris Briggs GBRMPA GBRMPA - Director of Tourism 22-Nov In personBarbara Musso

Department of the Environment

Parks Australia

Marine parks

19-Nov In person

Belinda Jago Department of the Environment

Parks Australia

Marine parks

19-Nov In person

Amanda Parr Department of the Environment

Parks Australia

Marine parks

19-Nov In person

Appendix D - Survey Approach

Page | 71

Evaluation surveys were sent to:

‘Hub participants’ - NERP funded researchers, hub leaders, communication and administration personnel,

NERP end-users and those actively engaged using NERP research outputs within the Environment portfolio101, and

NERP end-users (external to the Environment portfolio) and other stakeholders.

Response rate achieved

Type of Survey Recipients

Number of Survey Recipients102

(Population)

Number of Survey Respondents

% response rate Maximum Confidence Interval103

Hubs/Researchers/Participants 509 227 45% +/- 4.85%

Environment portfolio End Users 113 45 40% +/- 11.38%

Non-Environment portfolio End Users 122 45 37% +/- 11.65%

Evaluation Survey Population - Total 871 333 38% +/- 4.17%

The Environment portfolio end user population does not include those members of the SES who had not completed the survey, but who were interviewed by the Vista Advisory Team.

Outline of Approach

a) On 25 October 2013, the First Assistant Secretary with responsibility for the NERP Program emailed the potential survey respondents, advising them of the evaluation, including the survey, and encouraging their participation.

b) Information that was available from NERP funded personnel and that for (potential) users was identified through the desktop analysis, discussions with the department’s NERP team and several departmental knowledge brokers. Gaps in meeting the evaluation objectives were determined.

c) The department’s Sustainability Research and Science Policy Section that administers NERP compiled lists of program stakeholders – including end-users and hub participants, and provided email addresses to each. (See population below). Stakeholders were

101 Secondary portfolio users were also surveyed. While individual responses were drawn upon, statistical information was not used from this group, given a poor response rate. 102 Final population after removing individuals who had left their positions or advised they were not associated with the program, or who had ‘out of office’ messages that extended beyond the survey period, and senior personnel (within the portfolio and external) who were interviewed and/or advised they did not complete the survey.103 This confidence interval is for a result of 50%. It is based on a confidence level of 95% -- that is with 95% certainty, the population result will occur within the confidence interval.

Page | 72

predominantly identified from multi-year work plans, annual work plans and other program reports and documentation (i.e. researchers and end-users listed against each project), as well as drawing on the NERP team’s knowledge of stakeholders involved in the program.

d) The evaluation team developed the questions that needed to be asked of members of each of the three target groups based on the gap analysis. Both closed and open questions were identified.

e) Questionnaires were tailored for each of the three groups, developed using web survey software (Survey Monkey). These questionnaires were tested with members of the NERP Program team and departmental knowledge brokers and necessary changes made.

f) In coordination with the NERP Program Director and Assistant Director, the questionnaires were emailed with an introduction on the importance of gaining the respondents’ views and information for the evaluation. The email included a phone number for the Vista Advisory team for information and assistance on the survey as required. The survey for NERP-funded researchers, and Hub communication and administration personnel (‘Hub Participants’) was sent on 11 November 2013, with two separate surveys for end-users within and outside the Environment portfolio sent on 15 November 2013.

g) Following reminder emails, the survey was closed off on 4 December 2013.

h) The results were analysed using Survey Monkey (for quantitative analysis) and reviewing open comment fields for emerging themes, issues and examples of use of NERP research outputs.

Page | 73

Appendix E – Visual Explanation of NERP enabling and delivery strategiesThe following figure outlines Vista Advisory’s examination of the NERP objective, and how it approached the evaluation project.

Effectiveness – to examine the extent to which the program is achieving its objective, Vista Advisory sought to identify whether NERP research outputs had been used by decision makers and other stakeholders to understand, measure and conserve the environment. Findings are reported in Chapter 2 of this report.

Efficiency – to examine the extent to which the program delivery model is efficient, Vista Advisory sought to identify what is working well, and what is not working well, in the mechanisms that enable and deliver research under the program. Findings are reported in Chapter 3 of this report.

Improved Capacity

to•understand

•manage•conserve

the environment Outcome

Strategies

Visual Explanation of (NERP) Objective dissectedImprove our capacity to understand, manage and conserve Australia’s unique biodiversity and ecosystems through the generation of world-

class research and its delivery to Australian environmental decision makers and other stakeholders.

Collaboration

DoResearch

Deliver Research Research outputs

Decision-makers and other stakeholders

Data, knowledge, tools, analysis, synthesis and interpretation

What

Efficiency – time and administrative costs of moving around the pyramid (Appropriateness is a second-order area of focus – this relates to coherence with program objective, stated program features and portfolio policy outcomes and Commonwealth Accountability Environment and will be examined on an exception basis only.)

Effectiveness – Decisions, including management and conservation actions, are being informed by NERP research. Instances (survey & focus groups) and case studies

Key:

Effectiveness

This evaluation seeks to provide information to the department on:• the extent to which the program has achieved its objective; and• the extent to which the delivery model is efficient.

Page | 74

Appendix F – Hub Administration Costs

Planned Hub costs per Multi-Year Research Plans

Figures from MYRP

Hub

ED UQ 15% 11,000,000 6,388,393 17,388,393 - 844,838 844,838 4.9% 0.0% 0.0%

LaP UTas 8% 6,000,000 9,243,967 15,243,967 - 600,271 600,271 3.9% 0.0% 0.0%

NA CDU 21% 14,700,000 15,846,094 30,546,094 1,424,300 1,168,250 2,592,550 8.5% 4.7% 9.7%

Marine UTas 15% 11,000,000 18,567,001 29,567,001 - 2,741,118 2,741,118 9.3% 0.0% 0.0%

TEH RRRC Ltd 40% 28,478,456 33,409,481 61,887,937 2,958,005 1 259,414 3,217,419 5.2% 4.8% 10.4% (25.8m)

100% 71,178,456 83,454,936 154,633,392 4,382,305 5,613,891 9,996,196 6.5%

Notes1. The Investment by Commonwealth in TEH administration includes $2,678,456 paid to RRRC Ltd plus $279,549 contribution paid to Science leader and related activities

Host organisation/ Administrator

% NERP Funding

Total Investment by Cth in Hub (NERP Program Funds) $

Planned Co-Contribution $

Total NERP Program Planned

Investment $

Investment by Cth in Administration

(i.e. NERP Program Funds) $

Planned Co-contribution by Hub

parties for Administration $

Total Administration for Hub $

Total Hub Administration %

Total Cth-funded Hub Administration %

Total Cth-funds used for Program administration $

Page | 75

Appendix G - Number of interactions between hubs and end-users

Hub and Interaction typesJan – June 2011104

July – Dec 2011

Jan – June 2012

July – Dec 2012

Jan – June 2013

Total

Landscapes and Policy Hub

No. of stakeholder workshops with department/portfolio staff 6 12 6 44 35 103

No. of stakeholder workshops with parties external to the department

6 41 29 37 83105 196

Environmental Decisions Hub

No. of stakeholder workshops with department/portfolio staff Not reported 1 6 5 11 23

No. of stakeholder workshops with parties external to the department

Not reported 4 2 5 6 17

Marine Biodiversity Hub

No. of stakeholder workshops with department/portfolio staff 10 7 31 64 63 175

No. of stakeholder workshops with parties external to the department

10 9 15 26 25 85

Northern Australia Hub106

104 A number of interactions occurred during this period, primarily to establish the program and develop research plans. These are not quantified in all hub progress reports.

105 This figure is reported as the number of organisations or groups hub researchers engaged with during the reporting period. The number of workshops/briefings for the same period is reported as 41.

Page | 76

Hub and Interaction typesJan – June 2011

July – Dec 2011

Jan – June 2012

July – Dec 2012

Jan – June 2013

Total

No. of stakeholder workshops with department/portfolio staff Not reported 0 A number 10 30 40

No. of stakeholder workshops with parties external to the department

Not reported 2 14 47 53 116

Tropical Ecosystems Hub

No. of stakeholder workshops with department/portfolio staffNot quantitatively reported

76 55 21 49 201

No. of stakeholder workshops with parties external to the department

Not quantitatively reported

126 82 81 73 362

Total 32 278 240 340 428 1318

Source: NERP team analysis of hub bi-annual progress reportsNotes: Figures do not reflect informal interactions such as phone calls/emails/advice. The level of detail reported and definition of what constitutes a ‘workshop’ varies between hubs (some include meetings/briefings etc, others only formal workshops).Analysis:The interactions have steadily increased over the course of the program. This may not reflect the number of interactions with end-users as in many cases this reporting just captures formal meetings/workshops. This is understandable given the definition of the progress report KPIs (B2 and B3) and also the practicality of recording every interaction.

Appendix H – Administrative gaps addressed since CERF The following table identifies the gaps that were identified during the evaluation of NERP’s predecessor program, CERF107 (‘Gaps and needs: required documentation for research and development grants’), and the extent to which they have been addressed for the administration of NERP.

106 These figures are approximate as the Northern Australia hub does not provide totals in its progress reports (apart from the last reporting period). It provides a description of project workshops/meetings and a list of communication activities. Therefore it’s difficult to determine the total number of discrete interactions. 107 Appendix B.2 – available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/f52f870c-f3d5-4cd8-9a48-f465699b26a5/files/cerf-evaluation-report.pdf

Page | 77

Level Useful documentation and processes CERF NERP

Program Knowledge management blueprint that identifies knowledge gaps and priority needs and the way that they will be addressed

(via development of research priorities and hub Multi-year Research Plans)

Clear explanation of the links between various sets of priorities that research is required to respond to (e.g. those established by the Government, CERF/NERP and the Department)

(see Multi-year Research Plans)

Definition of all key roles involved with the Program (see Tier 2 project plan and hub Multi-Year Research Plans)

Application guidelines (See program guidelines)

Grants assessment framework (department’s grants framework used to develop assessment framework under NERP)

Record of Grants decisions and assessment (Various locations but in particular see Minister’s decision brief: B10-2400, available on file 2011/11312)

Funding Agreement for projects (particularly one that requires consistent work planning and progress reporting on key outcome areas and provide specified data sets to enable comparison and synthesis across the program)

(Partial)

Program outline and overview: including precise definition of objectives, desired outcomes, activities

(Partial)

(See program guidelines, program overview and Tier 2 project plan)

Communications strategy Risk identification and assessment process

(See risk assessment and treatment plan in Tier 2 project plan, also Tier 1

Page | 78

establishment project plan)

Risk management system and regular reporting on the status of current and emerging risks

(see risk assessment and treatment plan in Tier 2 project plan, also section 2.7 of operating procedures)

Annual management plan (see Annual Work Plans for each hub)

Policy, procedures and protocols register (see NERP Communication Strategy and associated NERP Branding strategy, also Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy)

Code of Conduct (See NERP probity plan)

Conflict of Interest Register Regular reports on progress against milestones, successes, compliance and financial management

A central knowledge management system that supports data storage and enables access to management and governance information over time

Formal review and feedback process to facilitate knowledge sharing and record commentary and key decisions made by the Department with regard to funded research projects

(Through operating procedures, formal NERP evaluation, also done informally throughout the program)

Page | 79