Professor Richard Mackay AM
Effectiveness of heritage management
Heritage (2016, 2011)
Effectiveness of heritage management
Component
Summary
Grade
Ineffective
Partially effective
Effective
Very effective
Confidence
In Grade
In Trend
Comparability
To previous years
Natural heritage—understanding
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- the 2011 assessments were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Understanding: Australian park managers have a good understanding of statutory controls, management needs, and processes of Australia’s bioregions and subregions. The natural heritage values of most reserved lands are understood. Discussion and debate continue about matters such as what constitutes an adequate sample; how to create ecological connectivity; the size and configuration of reserves; and how to account for habitat, resilience and recovery
Year(s):
20163
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification
Context: Australian park managers have a good understanding of Australia’s bioregions and subregions. The specific heritage values of most reserved lands are understood. Discussion and debate continue on matters such as what constitutes an adequate sample, how to create landscape connectivity, the size and configuration of reserves, and how to account for habitat, resilience and recovery
Year(s):
20114
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Context: Management needs and processes are well understood by Australian park managers
Year(s):
20113
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection
Context: Statutory controls for listed natural heritage places and the reservation system are well understood by park and place managers
Year(s):
20114
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Natural heritage—planning
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The 2011 assessments were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Planning: The National Reserve System has a clear aim to include 10% of each of Australia’s bioregions, and is seeking to include bioregions that are poorly represented in reserved lands. However, additional work on related factors, such as habitat and connectivity, is needed to understand what constitutes an adequate sample of reserved lands
Natural heritage should be better represented on statutory heritage registers
Many, but not all, major national parks and reserved lands have management plans, with well-resolved provisions and appropriate regulatory controls
Year(s):
20163
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification
Planning: There is a clear aim to include 10% of each of Australia's bioregions within the National Reserve System Natural heritage should be better represented on statutory heritage registers
Year(s):
20113
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Planning: Many, but not all, major national parks and reserved lands have management plans, with well-resolved provisions and appropriate regulatory controls. Responses to pressures and management responsibilities are clearly identified
Year(s):
20112
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Limited
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection
Planning: The National Reserve System program is seeking to include bioregions that are poorly represented in reserved lands. However, additional work on related factors such as habitat and connectivity is needed to understand what constitutes an adequate sample of reserved lands
Year(s):
20113
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Natural heritage—inputs
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The 2011 assessment were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Inputs: Funding for reservation of additional lands of conservation value continues to be substantially dependent on public-sector budget allocations and opportunistic acquisition
Additional land reservation occurs without proportional increases in public-sector resourcing. Resourcing for survey and assessment is modest compared with the size and significance of the resource
Staffing levels in national park agencies have remained relatively static, but have declined in proportion to the significantly increased extent of reserved national park lands
Australian parks and Indigenous Protected Areas are understaffed, and lack adequate resources to address major conservation priorities, including emerging urgent pressures
Year(s):
20162
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification
Inputs: Funding for survey and assessment of natural values is declining. Reservation of additional lands of conservation value continues to be substantially dependant on public sector budget allocations and opportunistic acquisition
Year(s):
20112
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Inputs: The majority of Australian parks are understaffed and lack adequate resources to address major conservation priorities, including emerging urgent pressures. Conservation programs are constrained by available resources
Year(s):
20112
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection:
Inputs: Additional land reservation occurs without proportional increases in public sector resourcing. Resourcing for survey and assessment is modest compared to the size and significance of the resource, and is declining
Year(s):
20112
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Natural heritage—processes
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The 2011 assessments were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Processes: Management systems in parks identify conservation needs and make well-informed decisions about impact assessment and resource allocation. However, formal monitoring and evaluation occurs in only some jurisdictions
The National Reserve System offers a coordinated response to the need for a nationwide reserve system. Listing processes for other aspects of natural heritage, such as geological heritage, are less well coordinated and transparent. National, state and territory, and local protective measures and controls are less well understood by the general community
Year(s):
20163
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification
Processes: The National Reserve System provides an overall framework for assessments, which generally take place at the state or local level
Year(s):
20112
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Processes: Management systems in parks identify conservation needs and make well-informed decisions about impact assessment and resource allocation. However, formal monitoring and evaluation occurs in few jurisdictions
Year(s):
20112
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection
Processes: The National Reserve System offers a coordinated response to the need for a nationwide reserve system. Listing processes for other aspects of natural heritage are less well coordinated and transparent. Federal, state and local protective measures and controls are less well understood by the general community
Year(s):
20112
Unclear
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Low
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Natural heritage—outcomes
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The 2011 assessments were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Outcomes: Australia’s reserves include a sample of more than 10% for 48 of the nation’s 89 bioregions, and more than 30% of marine areas. However, when considering other factors such as habitat and connectivity, there is still work to be done to improve the representativeness of terrestrial reserves
Limited information is available about the state of parks, but available data suggest that heritage values are generally being retained, with some decline evident
Natural heritage areas have management measures in place to address threats within the bounds of available resources. The natural heritage values of parks and listed natural heritage sites are generally being retained
Year(s):
20162
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification
Outcomes: Australia's reserved lands include a sample of more than 10% for 51 of the nation's 85 bioregions; however, taking other factors like habitat and connectivity into account, the reserved lands may only cover one-third of an adequate selection
Year(s):
20112
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Outcomes: Limited information is available on the state of parks, as only New South Wales and Victoria undertake substantive monitoring and evaluation of outcomes. Available data suggest that heritage values are generally being retained, with some decline evident
Year(s):
20112
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Limited
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection
Outcomes: Natural heritage areas have management measures in place to address threats within the bounds of available resources. Natural heritage values of parks and listed natural heritage sites are generally being retained
Year(s):
20113
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Leadership: The Australian Heritage Strategy provides a strong vision and clear set of target outcomes for the future of Australia’s heritage. At a national level, there is a strong focus on the National Reserve System, and a structure is in place to facilitate information sharing. However, each jurisdiction has a separate statutory basis, and different structures and processes for natural heritage management
Year(s):
20163
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Somewhat comparable
Leadership: At a national level, there is a strong focus on the National Reserve System and a structure is in place to facilitate information sharing. However, each jurisdiction has a separate statutory basis, and different structures and processes for natural heritage management
Year(s):
20113
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Celebration: The Australian Heritage Strategy strongly supports the celebration of Australia’s heritage. Australian national parks and other recognised natural heritage places remain accessible to the community, are strongly promoted within Australia and overseas, are presented to visitors in engaging ways, and are often important elements in community identity and sense of place
Year(s):
20163
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Somewhat comparable
Topics
Celebration: Australian national parks and other recognised natural heritage places are accessible to the community, strongly promoted within Australia and overseas, presented to visitors in engaging ways, and often important elements in community identity and sense of place
Year(s):
20113
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Indigenous heritage—understanding
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The 2011 assessment were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Understanding: Understanding of the nature and extent of Australia’s Indigenous heritage, both tangible and intangible, is inadequate. Indigenous places are often considered as individual sites, rather than part of the rich cultural landscape that is Country
Although Indigenous people have an increasing role, the principles and practices of traditional land and sea management need to be more widely applied
Statutory controls for Indigenous heritage places are generally understood, despite jurisdictional inconsistencies
Year(s):
20162
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification
Context: Understanding of the nature and extent of Australia’s Indigenous heritage, both tangible and intangible, is inadequate. Indigenous places are also typically seen as individual physical sites rather than part of the rich cultural landscape that is country
Year(s):
20111
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Context: Managers and decision-makers do not always fully understand the needs and processes that apply to Indigenous heritage, especially the role of traditional land and sea management. However, there has been significant recent improvement, including an increasing role for Indigenous people
Year(s):
20112
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection:
Context: Statutory controls for Indigenous heritage places are generally understood, despite jurisdictional inconsistencies
Year(s):
20113
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Indigenous heritage—planning
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The 2011 assessments were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Planning: Indigenous heritage requires nationally coordinated policies and processes that proactively identify and protect significant sites and places
Very substantial increases in the number and extent of Indigenous Protected Areas have been seen. Indigenous heritage remains under-represented on statutory heritage lists and registers, owing to lack of survey in many areas, but is also supported by statutes that provide blanket protection. Unlisted Indigenous heritage places suffer from lack of planning processes
Statutory provisions for Indigenous heritage increasingly provide inclusive roles for traditional owners, but also permit ongoing incremental destruction of Indigenous heritage
Management plans for reserved lands usually include provisions for Indigenous heritage management, which have been prepared in consultation with traditional owners. Standalone Indigenous land and sea management plans are also being prepared. However, many significant Indigenous places lack management plans
Year(s):
20162
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification:
Planning: There is a clear need for nationally coordinated policies and programs that proactively document and assess Indigenous heritage, rather than reactively responding to threats
Year(s):
20112
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management:
Planning: Management plans for reserved lands usually include provisions for Indigenous heritage management, with well-resolved provisions that have been prepared in consultation with traditional owners. Stand-alone Indigenous land and sea management plans are also being prepared. Unlisted Indigenous heritage places suffer from lack of planning processes
Year(s):
20112
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection:
Planning: Indigenous heritage is under-represented on statutory heritage lists and registers and is not effectively supported by statutes that claim to provide blanket protection, but also allow progressive site destruction
Year(s):
20112
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Indigenous heritage—inputs
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The 2011 assessments were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Inputs: Resources available for documenting intangible Indigenous heritage and country are inadequate. Funding for survey and assessment is often available only in response to development threats
The staffing levels of Indigenous heritage agencies appear to have remained steady, but it is not possible to ascertain a definitive picture in the absence of national coordination and consistently gathered data
The resources allocated for conservation of Indigenous heritage places and intangible heritage have increased, but remain inadequate and are often allocated as a post-event reaction to adverse impacts
Insufficient attention is paid to intangible values and places, and to effective means of providing protection in ways other than listing or reservation within reserved lands
Year(s):
20162
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification:
Inputs: Funding for survey and assessment of Indigenous heritage values is usually directly proportional to the threat posed by a particular development. Resources available for documenting intangible heritage and country are inadequate
Year(s):
20112
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Inputs: Australia’s listed Indigenous sites (and even land-management programs such as Caring for our Country) do not allocate adequate resources to address major conservation priorities. Conservation programs for intangible heritage are severely constrained by limits on available resources
Year(s):
20112
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Limited
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection
Inputs: Resources allocated for listing and protection of Indigenous heritage places are inadequate and often a post-event reaction to adverse impacts. Insufficient attention is paid to intangible values and places, and to effective means of providing protection in ways other than listing or reservation
Year(s):
20111
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Indigenous heritage—processes
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- the 2011 assessments were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Processes: The Australian Government is seeking to provide leadership in Indigenous heritage management, through nationally coordinated guidelines and standards. However, there is no national mechanism for coordinating Indigenous heritage
Management systems for Indigenous heritage places within jointly managed parks identify conservation needs, involve traditional owners and make generally well-informed decisions
Outside the reserved lands system, some Indigenous heritage decisions involve traditional owners and facilitate good conservation outcomes
In some jurisdictions, the process for assessment and decision-making about impact on Indigenous heritage is less consultative and more development driven
Year(s):
20162
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification
Processes: The National Reserve System provides an overall framework for assessments, which generally take place at the state or local level
Year(s):
20112
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Processes: Management systems in parks identify conservation needs and make well-informed decisions about impact assessment and resource allocation. However, formal monitoring and evaluation occurs in few jurisdictions
Year(s):
20113
Unclear
Confidence (in grade):
Limited
Confidence (in trend):
Low
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection
Processes: The National Reserve System offers a coordinated response to the need for a nationwide reserve system. Listing processes for other aspects of natural heritage are less well coordinated and transparent. Federal, state and local protective measures and controls are less well understood by the general community
Year(s):
20112
Unclear
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Low
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Indigenous heritage—outcomes
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The 2011 assessments were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Outcomes: It is not possible to ascertain whether the number of identified, listed and protected Indigenous heritage places is adequate, owing to lack of national coordination and data sharing. However, the significant increase in the number and extent of Indigenous Protected Areas is encouraging
Very limited, partial information is available on the effects of management action on the values of Australia’s Indigenous heritage. Initiatives such as 'Working on Country' are positive
The heritage values of Indigenous places in reserved lands or under Indigenous management are being retained. However, incomplete understanding of the resource and the current processes used to respond to development pressures means that other Indigenous heritage sites continue to be at risk
Year(s):
20162
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Very limited
Confidence (in trend):
Very limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification
Outcomes: It is not possible to ascertain whether identified, listed and protected Indigenous heritage places provide a representative or adequate sample
Year(s):
20110
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Low
Confidence (in trend):
Low
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Outcomes: Very limited, partial information is available on the effects of management action on the values of Australia’s Indigenous heritage
There is no evidence of formal evaluation of outcomes
Year(s):
20110
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Low
Confidence (in trend):
Low
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection:
Outcomes: The heritage values of Indigenous places in reserved lands or under Indigenous management are being retained. However, our incomplete understanding of the resource and the current processes used to respond to development pressures mean that other Indigenous heritage sites continue to be at risk
Year(s):
20112
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Leadership: Although the Australian Heritage Strategy provides a strong vision and a clear set of target outcomes, the national picture for Indigenous heritage is not cohesive. Australian governments neither coordinate management of Indigenous heritage resources nor adequately share information
The Australian Heritage Strategy emphasises the need for a consistent approach to the recognition, protection and management of Indigenous heritage sites across all levels of government
Capacity building, leadership and succession planning for Australian Indigenous heritage management are needed
Year(s):
20162
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Somewhat comparable
Topics
Leadership:There is no cohesive national picture for Indigenous heritage, and no adequate action by government agencies to coordinate management of Indigenous heritage resources and share information. Each jurisdiction has a separate statutory basis and different structures and processes for Indigenous heritage management
Year(s):
20112
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Topics
Celebration: The Australian Heritage Strategy strongly supports the celebration of Australia’s heritage
Australia’s Indigenous heritage is celebrated by Indigenous people, and increasingly presented by Indigenous people in accordance with relevant cultural practices, but could be more accessible to the wider community, and more strongly promoted within Australia and overseas
Untapped opportunities exist for greater engagement between other business sectors and Indigenous communities
Year(s):
20162
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Somewhat comparable
Topics
Celebration: Australia’s Indigenous heritage is celebrated by Indigenous people, often accessible to the wider community, strongly promoted within Australia and overseas, and increasingly presented by Indigenous people in accordance with relevant cultural practices
Year(s):
20113
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Historic heritage—understanding
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The 2011 assessments were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Understanding: Statutory lists and registers provide only a partial understanding of the extent of Australia’s historic heritage. In some areas, systematic thematic survey and assessment do provide thorough coverage. Historic places are also typically seen as individual sites rather than part of cultural landscapes
Australia’s heritage-listed historic places are numerous, but heritage registers were not populated in a systematic manner. Increasing attention is now being given to addressing this legacy issue, and greater attention is being given to the integrity of registers and representative lists
Management needs and processes are well understood by Australian historic heritage managers, but statutory processes, roles and responsibilities for historic heritage places are not well understood by the wider Australian community, owing to inconsistencies and overlap both within and between jurisdictions
Year(s):
20163
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification
Context: Statutory lists and registers have grown in an ad hoc manner and provide a partial understanding of the extent of Australia’s historic heritage. In some areas, systematic thematic survey and assessment provides more thorough coverage, but this is the exception. Historic places are also typically seen as individual sites rather than part of a cultural landscape
Year(s):
20112
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Context: Management needs and processes are well understood by Australian historic heritage managers
Year(s):
20114
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection
Context: Statutory controls for historic heritage places are generally understood, despite inconsistencies and overlap both within and between jurisdictions
Year(s):
20114
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Historic heritage—planning
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The 2011 assessments were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Planning: Australian jurisdictions include identification and listing of historic heritage items at all levels of government
Many major listed historic sites have conservation management plans, with well-resolved provisions and appropriate regulatory controls. However, other significant sites lack such plans, or their plans are outdated or have inappropriate content
Historic sites receive statutory protection once they are included in statutory heritage lists, but continue to be threatened if they are seen to obstruct major development projects
In some jurisdictions, there has been a reduction in the extent of statutory heritage protection
Year(s):
20163
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification
Context: Statutory controls for historic heritage places are generally understood, despite inconsistencies and overlap both within and between jurisdictions
Year(s):
20113
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Planning: Many, but not all, major listed historic sites have conservation management plans with well-resolved provisions and appropriate regulatory controls. However, other significant sites lack such plans, or their plans are outdated or have inappropriate content
Year(s):
20113
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection
Planning: Historic sites receive a high degree of statutory protection once they are identified and included in statutory heritage lists
Year(s):
20114
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Historic heritage—inputs
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The 2011 assessments were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Inputs: Resources allocated to survey, assess and list historic heritage are not consistent, but historic places continue to be added to statutory lists and registers
The staffing levels of historic heritage agencies generally appear to have remained steady, but there are gaps and inconsistencies in available data
There has been considerable variation in allocation of grant funding for heritage conservation projects at the state and territory level
Many publicly owned Australian historic sites lack adequate resources to address major conservation priorities, including emerging urgent pressures
Private owners of historic sites do not receive incentives that are proportional to the public value of the places they own and manage
Some historic heritage places have been allocated substantial resources for conservation, but grant funding has declined across national, state and territory jurisdictions
The Australian Heritage Strategy places strong emphasis on the need to ‘explore’ a wider funding base for Australia’s heritage
Year(s):
20162
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification
Inputs: Funding for surveying and assessing historic values is difficult to measure on a national basis, but is declining for the National Heritage List
Year(s):
20112
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Inputs: Many Australian historic sites in public ownership are understaffed and lack adequate resources to address major conservation priorities, including emerging urgent pressures
Private owners of historic sites do not receive incentives that are proportional to the public value of the places they own and manage. Grant funding, though substantial during the Jobs Fund initiative, is now in decline
Year(s):
20112
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection
Inputs: Some historic heritage places are allocated resources for conservation, but rarely at a level that will ensure heritage values are retained across the nation. Private owners in particular could be better supported, especially through indirect means (such as tax or rates relief)
Year(s):
20112
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Very limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Historic heritage—processes
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The 2011 assessments were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Processes: Australian Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand has identified a range of relevant standards and consistent assessment criteria to identify and manage historic heritage. However, not all jurisdictions have adopted the agreed consistent criteria after more than a decade
Consideration is being given to nationally consistent approaches to state of the environment assessment and reporting
Management systems at all levels of government generally facilitate well-informed decisions about impact assessment and resource allocation for historic heritage; however, relatively few formal monitoring and evaluation programs are in place
Year(s):
20162
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification:
Processes: The Australian Government provides leadership in historic heritage assessment through the Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand, which has identified a range of relevant standards and consistent assessment criteria
Most assessments take place at the state or local level
Year(s):
20112
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Processes: Management systems at all levels of government generally facilitate well-informed decisions about impact assessment and resource allocation for historic heritage; however, formal monitoring and evaluation occurs in few jurisdictions
Year(s):
20112
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection
Processes: Management systems for listed historic places in public ownership identify conservation needs and generally make well-informed decisions about impact assessment and resource allocation; however, formal monitoring and evaluation occurs in few jurisdictions
For privately owned, listed historic places, the systems for assessing impact and resource allocation vary across jurisdictions but usually consider heritage value and stakeholder opinion
Year(s):
20112
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Historic heritage—outcomes
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The 2011 assessments were grouped differently
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Outcomes: Australia’s historic sites are listed and protected in an ad hoc, unrepresentative manner
Limited information is available about the effectiveness of historic heritage management, as there is only partial monitoring and evaluation of outcomes
Limited available data suggest that most historic heritage values are being retained. In some jurisdictions, the effectiveness of heritage legislation has been reduced through reliance on planning and other legislation, which affords greater priority to facilitating development
Many historic heritage places, especially those in public ownership, have management measures in place to address threats, but there is a trend by state governments to override such measures to facilitate major infrastructure and other public-sector projects
Year(s):
20163
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Limited
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Topics
Identification
Outcomes: Australia’s listed historic sites are numerous, but are protected in an ad hoc manner that does not facilitate judgement of total adequacy or representativeness
Year(s):
20112
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Management
Outcomes: Limited information is available on the effectiveness of historic heritage management, as there is only partial monitoring and evaluation of outcomes
Available data suggest that heritage values are generally being retained
Year(s):
20112
Unclear
Confidence (in grade):
Limited
Confidence (in trend):
Low
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Protection
Outcomes: Many historic heritage places, especially those in public ownership, have management measures in place to address threats within the bounds of available resources. The values of listed historic heritage sites are generally being retained
Year(s):
20112
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Leadership: The Australian Heritage Strategy provides a strong vision and clear set of target outcomes for the future of Australia’s heritage. The lack of a ministerial council with responsibility for heritage is regrettable, as there is no national coordination mechanism for leadership in heritage management. The Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand provides a national structure to coordinate management of historic heritage resources and share information. However, continuing resource reductions threaten both Australian Government leadership and the prospects for effective implementation of the Australian Heritage Strategy
Year(s):
20163
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Somewhat comparable
Topics
Leadership: Through the Historic Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand, a structure is in place to coordinate management of historic heritage resources and share information, despite the separate statutory basis and different structures in each jurisdiction. However, recent funding cuts at the national level pose a direct threat to the Australian Government’s important leadership role
Year(s):
20114
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Celebration: The Australian Heritage Strategy strongly supports the celebration of Australia’s heritage. Historic heritage places are usually accessible, increasingly presented to visitors in engaging ways, and recognised as important elements in community identity and sense of place
Year(s):
20163
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Somewhat comparable
Topics
Celebration: Historic heritage places are usually accessible, often cherished, increasingly presented to visitors in engaging ways, and recognised as important elements in community identity and sense of place
Year(s):
20113
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Topics
Assessment Summary Key
Grades
Very effective
|
Elements of management effectiveness and assessment criteria |
Description of grade |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Managing context (understanding of environmental issues; adequacy of regulatory control mechanisms and policy coverage) |
Understanding of context Decision-makers and environmental managers have a good understanding of:
Environmental considerations and information have a significant impact on national policy decisions across the broad range of government responsibilities. |
Understanding of environmental and cultural systems, and factors affecting them is good for most management issues |
|
Planning Policies and plans are in place that provide clarity on:
|
Effective legislation, policies and plans are in place for addressing all or most significant issues. Policies and plans clearly establish management objectives and operations targeted at major risks. Responsibility for managing issues is clearly and appropriately allocated |
|
|
Management capacity (adequacy of resources, appropriateness of governance arrangements and efficiency of management processes) |
Inputs Resources are available to implement plans and policies, including:
|
Financial and staffing resources are largely adequate to address management issues. Biophysical and socio-economic information is available to inform management decisions |
|
Processes A governance system is in place that provides for:
|
Well-designed management systems are being implemented for effective delivery of planned management actions, including clear governance arrangements, appropriate stakeholder engagement, active adaptive management and adequate reporting against goals |
|
|
Achievements (delivery of expected products, services and impacts) |
Outputs Management objectives are being met for:
|
Management responses are mostly progressing in accordance with planned programs and are achieving their desired objectives. Targeted threats are being demonstrably reduced |
|
Outcomes Management objectives are being met for improvements to resilience of environmental values. |
Resilience of environmental values is being maintained or improving. Values are considered secured against known threats |
|
Effective
|
Elements of management effectiveness and assessment criteria |
Description of grade |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Managing context (understanding of environmental issues; adequacy of regulatory control mechanisms and policy coverage) |
Understanding of context Decision-makers and environmental managers have a good understanding of:
Environmental considerations and information have a significant impact on national policy decisions across the broad range of government responsibilities. |
Understanding of environmental and cultural systems, and factors affecting them is generally good, but there is some variability across management issues |
|
Planning Policies and plans are in place that provide clarity on:
|
Effective legislation, policies and plans are in place, and management responsibilities are allocated appropriately, for addressing many significant issues. Policies and plans clearly establish management objectives and priorities for addressing major risks, but may not specify implementation procedures |
|
|
Management capacity (adequacy of resources, appropriateness of governance arrangements and efficiency of management processes) |
Inputs Resources are available to implement plans and policies, including:
|
Financial and staffing resources are mostly adequate to address management issues, but may not be secure. Biophysical and socio-economic information is available to inform decisions, although there may be deficiencies in some areas |
|
Processes A governance system is in place that provides for:
|
Well-designed management systems are in place, but are not yet being fully implemented |
|
|
Achievements (delivery of expected products, services and impacts) |
Outputs Management objectives are being met for:
|
Management responses are mostly progressing in accordance with planned programs and are achieving their desired objectives. Targeted threats are understood, and measures are in place to manage them |
|
Outcomes Management objectives are being met for improvements to resilience of environmental values. |
Resilience of environmental values is improving, but threats remain as significant factors affecting environmental systems |
|
Partially effective
|
Elements of management effectiveness and assessment criteria |
Description of grade |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Managing context (understanding of environmental issues; adequacy of regulatory control mechanisms and policy coverage) |
Understanding of context Decision-makers and environmental managers have a good understanding of:
Environmental considerations and information have a significant impact on national policy decisions across the broad range of government responsibilities. |
Understanding of environmental and cultural systems, and factors affecting them is only fair for most management issues |
|
Planning Policies and plans are in place that provide clarity on:
|
Legislation, policies and planning systems are deficient, and/or there is lack of clarity about who has management responsibility, for several significant issues |
|
|
Management capacity (adequacy of resources, appropriateness of governance arrangements and efficiency of management processes) |
Inputs Resources are available to implement plans and policies, including:
|
Financial and staffing resources are unable to address management issues in some important areas. Biophysical and socio-economic information is available to inform management decisions, although there are significant deficiencies in some areas |
|
Processes A governance system is in place that provides for:
|
Management systems provide some guidance, but are not consistently delivering on implementation of management actions, stakeholder engagement, adaptive management or reporting |
|
|
Achievements (delivery of expected products, services and impacts) |
Outputs Management objectives are being met for:
|
Management responses are progressing and showing signs of achieving some objectives. Targeted threats are understood, and measures are being developed to manage them |
|
Outcomes Management objectives are being met for improvements to resilience of environmental values. |
The expected impacts of management measures on improving resilience of environmental values are yet to be seen. Managed threats remain as significant factors influencing environmental systems |
|
Ineffective
|
Elements of management effectiveness and assessment criteria |
Description of grade |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Managing context (understanding of environmental issues; adequacy of regulatory control mechanisms and policy coverage) |
Understanding of context Decision-makers and environmental managers have a good understanding of:
Environmental considerations and information have a significant impact on national policy decisions across the broad range of government responsibilities. |
Understanding of environmental and cultural systems, and factors affecting them is poor for most management issues |
|
Planning Policies and plans are in place that provide clarity on:
|
Legislation, policies and planning systems have not been developed to address significant issues |
|
|
Management capacity (adequacy of resources, appropriateness of governance arrangements and efficiency of management processes) |
Inputs Resources are available to implement plans and policies, including:
|
Financial and staffing resources are unable to address management issues in many areas. Biophysical and socio-economic information to support decisions is deficient in many areas |
|
Processes A governance system is in place that provides for:
|
Adequate management systems are not in place. Lack of consistency and integration of management activities across jurisdictions is a problem for many issues |
|
|
Achievements (delivery of expected products, services and impacts) |
Outputs Management objectives are being met for:
|
Management responses are either not progressing in accordance with planned programs (significant delays or incomplete actions) or the actions undertaken are not achieving their objectives. Threats are not actively being addressed |
|
Outcomes Management objectives are being met for improvements to resilience of environmental values. |
Resilience of environmental values is still low or continuing to decline. Unmitigated threats remain as significant factors influencing environmental systems |
|
Recent Trends
-
Improving
-
Stable
-
Deteriorating
-
Unclear
Confidence
-
Adequate: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus
-
Somewhat adequate: Adequate high-quality evidence or high level of consensus
-
Limited: Limited evidence or limited consensus
-
Very limited: Limited evidence and limited consensus
-
Low: Evidence and consensus too low to make an assessment
Comparability
-
Comparable: Grade and trend are comparable to the previous assessment
-
Somewhat comparable: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the previous assessment
-
Not comparable: Grade and trend are not comparable to the previous assessment
-
Not previously assessed
Mackay R (2016). Heritage: Effectiveness of heritage management. In: Australia state of the environment 2016, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra, https://soe.environment.gov.au/assessment-summary-93-effectiveness-heritage-management, DOI 10.4226/94/58b658bbe13a0
Comments
Nil.