Natural Asset Management - October 2013
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers
Q 1
Will Local Governments be involved in the decision making arrangements for funding from the Land Protection Fund?
A 1
Yes. The model involves state and local government joint decision making that also allows potential investment by other parties as well. The model will have four components:
• On-ground and Research Services
• Wild Dog Barrier Fence
• Darling Downs-Moreton Rabbit Protected Area
• Plague Pest Contingency Fund
Each of these components will have governance groups that involve Local Government representatives from regional areas.
Q 2
How will I know what my local government is required to put into the Land Protection Fund?
A 2
In the short term, the current contributions by Councils will remain, however, within three years of commencement of the model a mathematical approach to determine the proportion of payments to be made by Local Governments will be developed. The responsibility for this will sit with each of the component governance groups and the Statewide Governance Group, all of which will have local government representation. The new approach must incorporate a variety of economic, environmental and social drivers with consideration of direct and indirect beneficiaries.
Q 3
Will there be enhanced transparency in how funding from the Land Protection Fund is used?
A 3
Yes. The model improves transparency and accountability through the development of agreements that incorporate identifiable success criteria and measures that are reported on a six monthly basis.
• The establishment of DAFF and local government agreements for the delivery of weed and pest animal projects and activities is in keeping with the Partners in Government Agreement.
• The model involves state and local government joint decision making that also allows potential investment by other parties.
• Each of the four investment components will have governance groups that involve local government representatives.
• New legislative clauses will also enable local government involvement and greater transparency about the Land Protection Fund expenditure and State Government reporting of outcomes.
Q 4
How will direct and indirect beneficiaries be determined?
A 4
The Statewide Oversight Group will prepare guidelines for identifying direct and indirect beneficiaries within three years from the commencement of the model. The guidelines will be delivered in tandem with the new mathematical model for the equitable apportionment of costs to contributors.
Q 5
Who will be responsible for resolving conflicts over who should provide funding for particular projects or activities?
A 5
The model has a greater decision-making role for Local Governments and facilitates dispute resolution through established governance groups.
Until the new guideline for identifying direct and indirect beneficiaries is delivered, direct beneficiaries will be responsible for identifying and demonstrating value to the proposed indirect beneficiaries. They will also be responsible for engaging the indirect beneficiaries to seek a contribution to funding.
Where direct beneficiaries have been able to identify, quantify or otherwise demonstrate an indirect benefit, the indirect beneficiaries will be required to pay, unless they are able to provide evidence that the indirect benefits do not apply to them.
The Statewide Oversight Group will hold responsibility for the resolution of a dispute, if a dispute is not resolved at the regional level.
Q 6
How will I know that I am getting value for money?
A 6
The new proposed model allows for development of agreements and governance groups for the Wild Dog Barrier Fence, Darling Downs-Moreton Rabbit Board, Plague Pest Contingency Fund and Onground and Research Services that involve local government nominees.
The Statewide Oversight Body will develop broad guidelines for project and operational plan success indicators and measures. The inclusion of success indicators and measures in all projects and operational plans will help facilitate meaningful reporting.
All components will incorporate six monthly progress reporting with regular updates to regional groups from project teams and boards/panels. Project reviews will be triggered when milestones are not delivered in two consecutive reporting periods.
Q 7
What role does the Statewide Oversight Group play relative to the other specific governance groups?
A 7
The Statewide Oversight Group will not be authorised to override the decision making powers of the WDBF Panel, DDMRPA Board or Pest Plague Contingency Fund Advisory Panel.
It will however have a primary role ensuring coordination and alignment of project Expression of Interests and the approval of projects for the Onground and Research Services component.
The Statewide Oversight Group role is also to:
• Oversee the establishment and application of minimum standards, requirements, tools and guidelines;
• Provide input to the development of success indicators and success measures for all investment components;
The Statewide Oversight Group role is also to:
• Oversee the establishment and application of minimum standards, requirements, tools and guidelines;
• Provide input to the development of success indicators and success measures for all investment components;
• Provide oversight of methodology review/s and initial implementation of payment contributions;
• Provide advice to all component governance groups in the event of disputes;
• Hold responsibility for the resolution of a dispute at the regional level, if a dispute is not resolved;
• Provide a recommendation to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if the resolution of a dispute cannot be reached within 2 months;
• Ensure complementary project implementation with the State Land Pest Management Committee;
• Hold responsibility for the resolution of non-delivery of projects and/or financial acquittals;
• Ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island local government interests are included in decision making of component governance groups;
• Receive six-monthly reports from the component governance groups and monitor the delivery of projects statewide; and
• Report to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the LGAQ Policy Executive on the outcomes of the co-investments annually.
Comments close COB 15 October 2013. Submissions should be sent to: or Lavinia Garcia at: .