September 15, 2009
Natural Resource Management Program - Adjournment Debate
HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [9.42 pm]: I rise tonight to talk about the natural resource management program. Born out of and expanding upon the Landcare movement, natural resource management, or NRM, has always been about communities caring for their environment, but with the Australian government now clearly looking to purchase outcomes for its priorities and the state indicating a similar preference, the ability of local people to care for their local environment appears to be in jeopardy.
The future of natural resource management is now caught up in a perfect storm. The Australian government is now favouring nationwide NRM targets that do not take into account Western Australia.s unique NRM issues, such as salinity. In last year.s funding round, no small WA environmental groups, such as .Friends of. or Coastcare, were successful in obtaining funding. To make amends, this year the Australian government allocated $5 million to small group projects across Australia. Even if this amount was distributed evenly, it would not mean much funding for local communities in this state. Instead of filling this void, up until now the state has essentially done very little. A total of $6 million was allocated to NRM last financial year, with $2.5 million supporting NRM administration functions and the other $3.5 million supporting state agency projects.
The state government instigated and responded to its own NRM review in May of this year. As part of its response to the review, it stated –
A $30 million program has been delivered in the 2009-10 State Budget, with a review of the program to guide consideration of further NRM investment leading into the 2010-11 budget process.
Minister Redman, in his press release of 14 May 2009, declared .
Future NRM funding will depend on successful outcomes from key State NRM programs supported with this money.
That is, the $30 million.
It is almost the end of the first quarter of this financial year and the community is still waiting for the state to announce how it will be running the NRM program and who will be receiving funding. If a future NRM program is dependent on successful outcomes for this financial year, it must be questioned what can be achieved in the remaining nine months. The window of opportunity for activities such as weed removal has passed. Are we to see $30 million spent on planting trees and fencing because there is not enough time to do anything else? How are these decisions being made? We know there is a Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council comprising seven ministers. How are these ministers prioritising projects and funding allocations when we are still waiting for a state NRM policy to be tabled in Parliament? Also, there is no word whether an implementation strategy is even being developed as per the government.s response to its own review.
The government has also stated that it has adopted a policy of defining state priorities that will guide NRM investment by the state. When will the community see this? Will the community have a say? The government has stated that it will continue to engage with the community and that a key role for the community is to identify those regional assets the community identify as important. The community has not engaged in this government.s NRM program to date. The government may state that regional NRM groups are the principal point of community engagement; however, the $250 000 a year the state provides this group is not enough for any organisation to engage with the regional community. The occasional meeting between the state and NRM regional chairs group does not constitute community engagement.
What does this essentially mean for the continuation of a state NRM program and conserving, managing and improving the WA environment? Investment decisions are being made, but, in what appears to be a hallmark of this government, without any acknowledgement of the need for transparent processes open to the public and key stakeholder examination, or, more importantly, participation. Will cabinet decide to pull the pin on NRM altogether because of a lack of strategic framework around the decision making of NRM ministers? Meanwhile, as ministers squabble over $30 million, we have a much larger bucket in royalties for regions that produces little value for Western Australia.s environment. Under royalties for regions, regional development equals spending on infrastructure. An important part of community resilience in regional Western Australia is ensuring there are attractive places to live and that we have healthy, viable natural resources. As the impacts of climate change are only going to increase, it is essential that water supplies are secured for regional towns, that invasive weeds and pests are dealt with, quality agricultural land is preserved to provide food, and biodiversity is conserved to support human life.
Has any of the royalties for regions money been used for the better management of our natural resource assets? Have these been included as priorities by regional development commissions? The management of our precious natural resource assets must be a strategic, long-term process. Our environment has been in decline since European settlement, as evidenced by successive state of the environment reports. There is no quick fix to the problems we have caused. To truly do what is best for our environment, we need an NRM program that is secure in its continuation and strategic in its investment. The program must acknowledge that we will not always achieve short-term outcomes for the investment, but it is the long-term results that count. It must also acknowledge, support and involve our community members who have dedicated many hours of paid and unpaid time to conserve our precious natural resources.
On that note, I ask the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food, who will be able to respond to a question I am asking in the next day or so, where are we going with the investment of this $30 million?
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 2009-09-15 Natural Resource Managment Program-Adjournment Debate.pdf | 96.24 KB |
