ENRIQUECIMIENTO IN-SITU SUMINISTRO H 2

4.5.1 Government, Institutional and Other Bodies.

Notwithstanding the agenda-setting by the Commonwealth, the state government is the initiator of policy at the statutory level and the origin of most sub-statutory vegetation-related policy. There is change, to a small degree, at the local

government level but it is uneven across the state. Some local governments have appointed bushland managers or vegetation managers who, in some cases, have been responsible for policy innovation at that level. The scope within which such actors can work is bounded by the limits of the state government frameworks. A hierarchical policy framework is heavily weighted towards the state government level where policy tensions can arise due to fragmentation of the natural resource policy landscape.

The operational aspects of vegetation management are clearly visible, assisted by web pages for the institutions and departments. Policy advice is sometimes available in the different organisations with responsibilities to deliver under their policy instruments. But in some cases, this expertise is thinly spread and may only be available to serve interpretation of existing instruments without venturing into policy evaluation, learning or innovation. The exceptions are where those

organisations are concerned with forestry activities. Those instruments administered by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment have been modified in accordance with forest policy-initiated changes, but that department has policy expertise. Policy innovation is therefore concentrated in a small section of the bureaucracy and revolves around the priorities that have been largely set by the Vegetation Management Policy Advisory Group, unless there are direct responses to requirements by Australian Government programs.

Cross-agency coordination is formalised in some instances. Public Authority Management Agreements are used by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment to devolve operational and compliance responsibilities for threatened species management by other authorities, such as the Forest Practices Authority. Memoranda of understanding are also used with one example being that developed between the Threatened Species Unit and the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens, recognising their mutual efforts that contribute to threatened species

management. The difference in these two particular examples is that in the former case, one section of an agency is devolving responsibility to another, while in the latter case the purpose is to clarify roles of different parts of government that work in overlapping areas of responsibility.

4.5.2 Advisory, Integrating and Information Groups

A common approach to vegetation management and protection across government has been increased through cooperative inter-agency work of the Vegetation

Management Policy Advisory Group, the review of the Regional Forest Agreement, and steering and reference groups (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Composition of the Vegetation Management Policy Advisory Group and its relationship to Executive Government

A range of coordination and advisory groups in government, dealing with

vegetation has been identified in this research (see Table 12). There are specialised groups as well as some that purport to be cross-cutting in a thematic sense. Perhaps only the Vegetation Management Policy Advisory Group has the potential for broad policy overview of vegetation management across agencies.

Table 12: Coordination and advisory groups dealing with vegetation issues Level Name of Group Act, or Purpose

High Threatened Species Scientific

Advisory Committee Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 NRM Council Natural Resource Management Act 2002 State Fire Management Council Fire Service Act 1979

RTBG Trustees Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Act 2002 State Weed Committee Weed Management Act 1999

Forest Practices Authority Forest Practices Act 1985 Mid State Biosecurity Technical

Committee Coordination (part of a crisis planning and response framework). Tasmanian Spatial Information

Council Facilitates ―full access to, and application of, spatial information to underpin Tasmania‘s economic, environmental and social prosperity‖ (Tasmanian Spatial Information Council 2009).

RFA Implementation Group Ensures implementation of, and reporting on recommendations from the RFA review and the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement. Vegetation Management Policy

Advisory Group Determines major vegetation policy direction across departments, particularly relating to RFA. Interdepartmental Committee on

Access to Genetic Resources Advisory—establishing a policy framework. Low Resource Management and

Conservation Division Spatial Information Steering Committee

Intradivisional information-sharing group—spatial information on water resources.

DPIPWE Information Management Steering Committee

Sign-off on agency-wide information policies. TASVEG Scientific Advisory

Committee Advisory on administration of protocols for vegetation mapping. Flora Advisory Committee Coordinates and informs technical opinion on plant

species status in relation to the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995.

Note: High (statutory); Mid (important coordinating function, ongoing or interdepartmental, terms of reference may refer to significant policy documents); Low (may be ongoing or transitory,

coordination of, or addressing, short term issues).

4.5.3 Resources Applied to Implementation

The resources applied to on-ground vegetation management have expanded in the last two decades through programs coordinated by the NRM regions, by some local

governments, and by volunteer groups such as Wildcare. Apart from work done by the major state government land managers, these organisations have helped to extend coverage across all land tenures. NRM regions are governed by committees that in each case include representatives of local government, other major land managers and the community. Thus a degree of local knowledge and cross-tenure activity is reflected in the regional strategies prepared by each. While the NRM regions receive some policy direction and program advice from the state

government-sponsored State NRM Council, there is also direct interaction between the NRM regions and the Commonwealth who provide funding for the NRM programs.

The remit for local government involvement in vegetation management is through the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1983, which dictates consistent standards for planning schemes. Another part of Tasmania‘s Resource Management and Planning System is the Model Framework for Planning Schemes. This system guides local government in achieving sustainable outcomes. The policy guidance is provided by the same state and national biodiversity agreements, policies, codes and guidelines used at the state level. Model templates for planning schemes include a vegetation schedule.

There are cases where Commonwealth legislation operates within the state, such as in respect of Commonwealth land such as military training areas, light-stations, and some other specialised land classifications. In some cases the Commonwealth is able to specify particular policy and management directions. In the case of

RAMSAR sites (specified areas of wetlands) the Commonwealth has developed a system that includes monitoring and condition reporting. This conceptual system (DEWHA 2008:7) is described in the concept of guidance about how to describe the ecological character of wetlands. In this case, therefore, the information framework is the fundamental basis of the other components in a system that would include adaptive management. However, policies and frameworks are pointless without the means to put them into effect. Appropriate structures are also important and these can facilitate joined-up government. High-level strategies have a much more obvious chance of success if processes are managed to enable strong support from bureaucracy, government and stakeholders.