Effectiveness of management
Effectiveness of management
How management responses linked to drivers, pressures and state contribute to the overall resilience of a system and affect the likelihood and consequences of environmental risks.
Overview for Effectiveness of management
SoE 2016 considers the effectiveness of management of Australia’s environment from a national perspective. For a number of reasons, including a lack of nationally aggregated data, it does not assess the outcomes achieved from individual policies and programs, or from management at the state and territory level. High-level overviews of management responses are described in each thematic report and assessed according to 6 elements—understanding, planning, inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes— and the impacts of those efforts on reducing pressures and improving environmental outcomes.
The following sections examine key management and governance arrangements for different aspects of the environment since 2011. Note that management and governance do not occur in isolation—they occur in a policy context that drives and supports particular approaches and activities. Where possible, policy frameworks are also examined.
For some themes examined in SoE 2016 (most notably, land and inland water), stable management arrangements, a mature policy framework based on good knowledge and understanding, and good governance arrangements have allowed an increased focus on policy, and the development of effective strategies that have improved outcomes for the environment and people. Examples include the following:
- Australia’s water management and policy framework, and use of market approaches to move water to higher-value use, are well recognised internationally. Throughout the past decade, the National Water Initiative has driven reforms within Australia that have delivered benefits for all Australians and for the environment, such as including environmental watering arrangements within water plans (NWC 2014). For example, environmental water allocations in the Macquarie catchment help to support river and wetland health, while simultaneously linking water management with cultural values and activities.
- The Murray–Darling Basin Plan was finalised late in 2012. Elements of implementation of the plan are producing and encouraging efficient water use, and positive economic, social and environmental outcomes, whereas other elements and associated implementation are having negative impacts on economies and communities in the Basin.
All themes have also identified challenges that continue to hamper effective, coordinated management that addresses long-term problems for the Australian environment. This is explored under ‘Challenges to effective management’, with possible solutions discussed under ‘Improving management effectiveness’.
At a glance
Australia has had national standards and goals for ambient air quality for almost 20 years—the National Environment Protection Measure for Ambient Air Quality (Air NEPM). These are based on strong empirical evidence about the health impacts of major pollutants. However, revision of the standards has been slow, despite new evidence that many pollutants do not have a threshold below which adverse health effects do not occur, and much work done by several groups and parties.
During the past 30–40 years, state and territory environment protection agencies have employed a variety of regulatory measures (including works approval, licensing and notices) to control and greatly restrict emissions of air pollutants from industrial and commercial sources. More recently, nonregulatory measures (such as codes of practice, market-based mechanisms and cleaner production incentive schemes) have been increasingly used to complement regulatory controls. In some jurisdictions, local government has a role in controlling emissions (mainly of particles and odour) from commercial sources. Local government also tends to be the main tier of government responding to complaints at the neighbourhood level about smoke from domestic wood heaters.
Although the size of the Australian vehicle fleet is continuing to grow (as are the distances travelled), exhaust emissions are expected to continue to decline during the next decade because of tighter national fuel and vehicle emissions standards, and the replacement of ageing vehicles with more efficient ones. There are national emissions standards for new vehicles, set in the Australian Design Rules, and fuel quality standards, both of which are established through Commonwealth legislation (the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 and the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000, respectively). However, non-exhaust emissions are likely to continue to grow and become a larger proportion of particulate matter emissions. Non-exhaust emissions include particulate matter from brake, clutch, and road surface wear, as well as resuspension of these particles. State and territory authorities are responsible for enforcing compliance with emissions standards for vehicles, and Australian Government officials monitor and enforce compliance with fuel standards.
At a glance
Several key areas of management of the built environment affect the livability and efficiency of our cities, as well as their impact on the natural environment.
The first and most important of these is land use. The spread of our urban areas and the balance between residential, industrial, retail and green spaces are critical to the wellbeing of human residents, the environment and biodiversity. Getting the balance right is challenging—for example, although infill rather than greenfield development reduces the spread of cities into rural land, it can also reduce the amount of private green space within cities, which reduces residents’ wellbeing.
Other key areas include traffic, water supply and quality, energy, and waste and pollution. These can create increasing pressures on our built environment as our urban population grows unless per-person reductions in consumption and waste are significant. The development of innovative technological solutions—such as recycled water systems and renewable energy microgrids—can offer some relief for these pressures, but leadership and coordination will be important to achieve their potential. This is also the case in disaster management, which is an area of increasing importance in the context of climate change.
The complexities of arrangements for managing the built environment in Australia make it difficult to coordinate effective outcomes. Currently, many of the planning and delivery functions for our cities are characterised by complex and overlapping processes, and lack clear lines of accountability. The extent and depth of understanding vary by built environment component. The complexity and interrelationships that influence urban footprints are poorly understood because of a lack of data. Planning for the built environment continues to occur, but it is complex to coordinate or integrate across government. As with planning, processes in management of the built environment lack cross-sectoral approaches and coordination. For example, a recent review of the national urban water planning principles reported that integrated urban water management was limited by fragmented responsibilities for different aspects of the water cycle and for overall urban planning. Recently, however, the Australian Government established a portfolio for Cities and Digital Transformation in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which seeks to ‘work with all levels of government, industry and community to ensure we have a coordinated and effective approach to long-term planning’.
At a glance
Climate change is a global problem that will require coordinated international action by all countries. The Paris Agreement, to which 195 countries (including Australia) have agreed, aims to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C. As its contribution, the Australian Government has committed to reducing emissions to 26–28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.
In the 5 years since SoE 2011, international climate science has advanced significantly. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its Fifth Assessment Report in September 2013, confirming that humans have been the dominant cause of warming since the 1950s. A significant amount of Australia’s contribution to global and regional understanding of climate change was carried out under the Australian Climate Change Science Program, to which the Australian Government committed $15 million per year between 2011 and 2015. The 26-year program was replaced with the National Environmental Science Programme’s Earth System and Climate Change Hub in 2016 at an investment level of $23.9 million across 5 years.
Australian governments have implemented policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Measures include labelling and minimum performance standards for appliances, changes to building codes to drive energy efficiency, and restrictions on land clearing. Both national and state market-based schemes have also been implemented to promote emissions reductions.
Since 2001, the Renewable Energy Target has encouraged the generation of electricity from renewable sources using tradeable certificates that are created by renewable energy generators. The Clean Energy Future package, legislated under the Clean Energy Act 2011, saw a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme that started in July 2012, which included a carbon price covering more than half of Australia’s emissions, and the Carbon Farming Initiative, which provided incentives to reduce emissions in the land sector. As part of the Australian Government’s Direct Action Plan, the Clean Energy legislation was repealed in 2014 and the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) was introduced. The ERF involves crediting, purchasing and safeguarding emissions reductions. The Clean Energy Innovation Fund, announced in March 2016, will provide $1 billion to support emerging clean energy technologies.
Improved energy efficiency can reduce energy demands and is another way to reduce emissions. National strategies—such as minimum energy performance standards and mandatory energy rating labels for appliances, and construction codes, energy rating schemes and disclosure of energy performance for buildings—have aimed to increase energy efficiency. The National Energy Productivity Plan (NEPP), announced in 2015, will now form the overarching framework for improving energy efficiency. The goal of the NEPP is to improve Australia’s energy productivity by 40 per cent between 2015 and 2030.
Between December 2012 and June 2014, emissions from the electricity sector decreased in conjunction with a decrease in electricity demand. Emissions from the transport, industrial and agriculture sectors also decreased. By June 2015, emissions from the electricity sector had increased, but demand for electricity had flattened, suggesting an increase in the emissions intensity of delivered electricity. Emissions from the agriculture sector also decreased.
Emissions projections reported in 2016 suggest that Australia is on track to exceeding its emissions reduction target in 2020. However, many of the factors that contributed to the significant downwards revision in the cumulative abatement task are likely to change (e.g. growing seasons may improve; commodity prices may increase), so that the cumulative abatement task may be revised upwards in later projections. In addition, the significant debate about whether the ERF will be as effective as proposed by the Australian Government contributes to uncertainty around the cumulative abatement presented in 2016.
At a glance
The Australian Heritage Strategy, launched in December 2015, recognises Australia’s significant achievements in heritage management and sets out a program that aims to improve the effectiveness of heritage management. Successful implementation of the Australian Heritage Strategy can reduce pressures and minimise risks to Australia’s heritage, while helping to retain and communicate those values that make Australia’s heritage places special. Australia is continuing to identify, protect, manage and celebrate heritage. However, identification processes and programs for Australian heritage remain inconsistent and erratic. The National Reserve System has expanded—particularly through the addition of new Indigenous Protected Areas, resulting in a more representative system of natural heritage places—but there are still gaps, and significant natural resources are yet to be included. Indigenous heritage continues to lack a national perspective or integrated coordination between jurisdictions. In many cases, protection of Indigenous heritage continues to rely on general provisions in legislation, sometimes leading to narrowly focused decisions and incremental destruction. Many historic heritage places have been identified, and resources are being directed at improving the representativeness and integrity of heritage registers, but the registers remain skewed towards particular aspects of history and a select group of values.
There is considerable scope for continued improvement so that planning systems, land zonings and related regulations can encourage appropriate conservation outcomes. Legislation that is focused on enabling development, as well as some building codes and development industry standards, continue to create pressure for demolition or other inappropriate change. The reactive nature of the development-consent process and an inadequate knowledge of the total heritage resource militate against well-informed, values-based conservation outcomes. Nevertheless, there are excellent examples of heritage conservation being achieved through clever adaptive re-use, increased connection between Indigenous people and their Country, and management of public heritage assets using well-prepared, values-based management plans.
Funding for assessing and managing historic places is difficult to measure on a national basis, because there are inconsistent approaches to the allocation of available resources and gaps in reporting. There has been considerable variation in allocation of grant funding for heritage conservation projects at the state and territory level. At the national level, some programs—such as Your Community Heritage and Protecting National Historic Sites—have targeted specific components of Australia’s heritage, with some outstanding outcomes. However, a combination of declining resources (both human and financial) have worked against a positive long-term prognosis for heritage management.
Despite excellent heritage management processes and programs, the resources allocated to heritage identification, protection and monitoring at both the national and state and territory levels have generally remained steady or declined. The success of the Australian Heritage Strategy will rely heavily on participation by both government and nongovernment organisations, allocation of additional resources, and the reduction of inappropriate or unnecessary processes in the Australian heritage management system.
As noted in Australia: state of the environment 2011, community perceptions of the value of heritage as a public good are still not reflected in commensurate public-sector resourcing, nor in incentives for private owners. The Australian Heritage Strategy seeks to address this issue through national leadership, strong partnerships and engaged communities.
At a glance
This report has documented the widespread lack of consistent long-term data for assessing the effectiveness of investments in biodiversity management in Australia. Although it is reasonable to assume that there are many program-related examples that link investment to positive outcomes for biodiversity, the limited published evidence, and broader accessibility and sparse communication of success remain issues. Conversely, it is much easier to document evidence of biodiversity declines and, therefore, insufficient or inefficient investment in the face of species extinctions, unfulfilled management targets and increasing pressures.
Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010–2030 is the primary instrument for Australia to implement its obligations under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and it outlines a range of biodiversity conservation targets. Most of the targets remain unmeasured, and it is therefore difficult to assess progress, although it is clear that some targets have not been achieved.
One of the targets that has been achieved is an increase in the area of habitat managed primarily for nature conservation. This has been achieved through increases in the National Reserve System—17 per cent of Australia’s land and 36 per cent of marine waters are now contained within protected areas. Much of the increase in the terrestrial reserve system has been in land managed under Indigenous or joint management (now around 47 per cent of all protected areas). There has also been growth in conservation covenants on private lands in Australia, which contribute to the National Reserve System. Progress is still required to meet representativeness, comprehensiveness and adequacy targets. Many of our species and communities listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are not well represented in the National Reserve System.
The effectiveness of recovery planning for threatened species and communities is very difficult to assess because of a lack of long-term monitoring data.
A key policy initiative for threatened species management since 2011 has been the development of a Threatened Species Strategy and the appointment of a Threatened Species Commissioner. The action plan associated with the strategy lists 20 mammals, 20 birds and 30 plants for priority action, along with a suite of feral cat control initiatives.
Many local-scale and regional-scale projects have been successful in managing pressures, and protecting threatened species and communities. However, at a national scale, the effectiveness of the management of pressures on biodiversity shows little improvement. The fact that the impact of most pressures is high and increasing, and the status of biodiversity overall is in decline suggests that management actions are insufficient to address the scale and magnitude of current pressures.
Overall, the level of investment in biodiversity and conservation management is in decline. However, concerted citizen-science efforts are contributing to our understanding of biodiversity and to management of biodiversity in Australia.
At a glance
Institutional arrangements for the management of land have been relatively stable, although there has been considerable investment in reviewing existing strategies and developing new ones. Consolidation of much of the Australian Government’s funding of the National Landcare Programme has streamlined some governance processes and coordinated investments, from the national to the local scale.
Investment in management of the land environment includes financial and in-kind commitments by all levels of government, private landowners and businesses, philanthropic and other nongovernment organisations, Indigenous Australians and communities. Government funding includes programs specifically directed towards land care, as well as programs that contribute to aspects of the land environment (e.g. the 20 Million Trees Programme) or to addressing the pressures on land (e.g. biosecurity programs).
Increased Indigenous ownership and management of land, particularly in remote areas, provide important ecological, social, political and economic outcomes from looking after Country. Less complex and more dynamic funding and governance arrangements would improve these opportunities.
At a glance
The National Water Initiative has driven water policy, planning and management reforms in Australia for the past decade, which have delivered significant benefits for all Australians. It is critical that there should be no backsliding from reform principles. During a similar or longer period, river research and management communities in Australia have moved more towards integrated and ‘ecosystem-based’ considerations.
Indigenous management of water resources has re-emerged, and Indigenous knowledge of water management is gaining increased recognition for the values that it can add to better inform decisions. Indigenous perspectives on water markets also offer insight into ongoing water resource management.
The Murray–Darling Basin Plan was finalised in late 2012. Some elements of the Basin Plan that have been implemented are producing and encouraging efficient water use, and positive economic, social and environmental outcomes. However, other elements and associated implementation are having negative impacts on economies and communities in the Basin.
The Great Barrier Reef 2013–14 report card reported mostly poor to very poor progress towards 2018 catchment targets for factors directly affecting catchment run-off. Across central and northern regions, a review of the Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative found that it had produced many significant achievements, including some evidence that it is helping to achieve commitments from the National Water Initiative.
Aspects of the effectiveness of inland water management were assessed across each of the 4 key pressures— development, land and water management, climate and pests. Generally, understanding of the context of management and planning was rated as being at a higher level than inputs, processes and outcomes; inputs were the lowest ranked, with either stable or deteriorating trends.
At a glance
Qualities that make Australia’s coast remarkable—its vastness and diversity—also make it challenging to manage. The coast is important to a wide range of stakeholders, and is often subject to competing interests that require effective management. All tiers of government (local, state, national) have roles in decisions related to coastal management, but insufficient coordination between these tiers has long been a concern. Many aspects of coastal management in Australia are conducted at the scale of local council, yet there are ongoing calls for better integration with higher levels of government.
The challenge for coastal managers is to balance multiple competing uses of the coast, while minimising the environmental, economic and social impacts of those uses. Increasingly, coastal managers must also integrate climate adaptation and mitigation into their management plans. Cumulative impact management would assist in achieving this goal, by acknowledging the combined and synergistic impacts of multiple activities. Other promising avenues in coastal management are ecosystem-based management, risk-based methods for prioritising management, emerging analytics (e.g. remote sensing, molecular biomonitoring), and frameworks for conservation at multiple levels of biodiversity.
At a glance
The diversity of anthropogenic pressures on marine habitats and communities by different industries and sectors is a challenge for managers. Some pressures are increasing, others have declined following implementation of management frameworks, and new pressures and new sectors are developing. Managing the marine environment increasingly requires an understanding of how these different pressures interact and how management frameworks will interact across the different sectors, and sufficient monitoring to fill gaps in knowledge and provide an early warning of unexpected or infrequent disruptive events.
Many improvements to management frameworks across Australian Government, and state and territory jurisdictions, including the implementation of new national regulators, have had beneficial outcomes for the marine environment. However, efforts continue to be poorly coordinated across jurisdictions within sectors, although improvements have occurred in some sectors, such as fisheries and management of commercial vessels. Several strategies focused on conservation, biodiversity protection and sustainable development of Australia’s environment have been released, providing frameworks for the coordination of management of the marine environment. Overall, however, coordination between sectors sharing common resources remains lacking, resulting in inadequate accounting for all pressures on a resource, and inconsistent collection and recording of data, which inhibits regional and national oversight. The lack of recognition of the cumulative effects of multiple pressures on marine resources and coordinated approaches to assessing and managing those pressures has the potential to result in gradual declines, despite appropriate management at the level of the individual pressure, sector or jurisdiction.
Mapping cumulative impacts requires spatially explicit information on habitats, communities and species groups; human uses and the pressures generated by human uses; and any feedbacks within the system—information that is frequently unavailable. As a result, assessments of cumulative impacts on the marine environment in Australia to date have been sparse. Modelling frameworks are now starting to provide the means to predict the impact of multiple environmental and anthropogenic pressures. Uptake of integrated approaches to the management of marine natural resources has been slow, and, although approaches such as ecosystem-based management may have been adopted at a policy level, practical implementation has been limited.
Outcomes of environmental protection for marine species and communities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are mixed. Since the state of the environment 2011 report, no species have been removed from the list, and further species have been added to the list. Some species have been reclassified because of increasing threats, and ineffective management and mitigation of pressures and associated identified threats. There is a clear gap between identification of pressures and issues associated with threats in recovery plans, and implementation of activities that might mitigate pressures and assist the recovery of species or communities that are the focus of plans.
Although the likely effects of climate variability and climate change are understood and some planning is under way, activities resulting from this planning are considered to lack effectiveness in addressing pressures, resulting in an anticipated lack of impact on outputs and outcomes. Continued development of management frameworks for commercial fishing, oil and gas extraction, and commercial vessels have improved their effectiveness, although some components of each and the spatial overlap between jurisdictions still need to be addressed. A risk-based management plan for international and domestic translocations of introduced species implemented under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity came into effect in 2012. The acute impacts of anthropogenic noise are considered to be generally effectively managed; however, understanding of the impacts and management of increasing chronic impacts are lacking. Management frameworks considered to be currently only partially effective include those focused on recreational fishing and traditional resource use, although management of both is improving. The understanding of pressures associated with marine debris is improving from a low base, but planning, actions and outcomes are currently considered to lack effectiveness. Management of emerging industries such as marine mining remains partially effective, with little development of frameworks that might address future pressures.
The National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas is developing steadily, with 40 Commonwealth marine reserves added to those already proclaimed in the South-east Marine Region. Management plans for the marine reserves in the South-east Marine Region have been implemented, and those developed for the remaining reserves have recently been reviewed and are currently under consideration by the Australian Government. Marine parks and reserves now cover approximately 40 per cent of the Commonwealth marine area, and approximately 5–50 per cent of the area of state and territory waters.
Social licence to operate (SLO) is becoming more prominent across sectors. There has been a shift towards government regulation of company–community interactions, and incorporation of SLOs into environmental licensing systems. Many fisheries are now adopting third-party certification schemes through independent bodies such as the Marine Stewardship Council.
Prioritising the use of research and management resources continues to be an issue, because investment of funds and effort is finite. Targeting resources to areas where clear, cost-effective management actions have been identified, preferably as part of an adaptive management cycle, provides one approach to maximise investment returns.
At a glance
Antarctica is governed through the international agreements of the Antarctic Treaty System, including the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. These agreements establish Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science; environmental protection and conservation of marine living resources are key objectives. Parties to these agreements implement environmental management arrangements for activities in Antarctica conducted by their nationals. Australia is active in international forums to advance our national interest in Antarctic environmental protection, including through efforts to advance the objectives of the Protocol on Environmental Protection and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources in relevant international forums. Australia administers associated domestic legislation, conducts and supports science to inform the wise management and protection of Antarctica, and manages Australia’s Antarctic program in a way that promotes best practice in environmental stewardship.
In the Australian Antarctic Program, Australia implements and manages practical measures to minimise the effects of our Antarctic activities, and address past impacts through cleaning up former work sites and waste disposal sites. Australia also plays a significant role in combatting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in the Southern Ocean.
Research ensures that management of activities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is based on sound scientific principles and the best available scientific knowledge. Australia’s research contributes to understanding how environmental systems function and how global climate change affects the Antarctic environment.
Although climate change cannot be mitigated through the management of activities in Antarctica, Australian research helps to inform strategies to maximise the resilience of the Antarctic environment and ecosystems.
