Context
The purpose of this plan is to provide strategic direction for investment in managing the ACT’s natural resources. In responding to the threats facing our natural assets, governments and community are willing to substantially invest in their repair and protection. These investments need to be spent in the right places and on the most pressing needs. Actions need to be logically connected to outcomes and the plan must be supported by the community.
This plan forms the basis for investment by government, business and community in addressing these issues.
The underlying basis of this plan is a framework known as ‘adaptive management’ or learning from doing – adaptive managers learn by implementing plans and policies (Allan 2007). The process can take place at the small scale where one person provides both experimental and governing sides of the process; up to the large scale where government agencies and other organisations provide the input and assessment.
Adaptive management is used when outcomes of actions cannot be accurately predicted so that there is an element of uncertainty about the best management interventions to use. Such uncertainty can arise through natural variability (e.g. weather or climate) or from an incomplete knowledge of systems and how they work. Waiting until the knowledge base is more complete is not a tenable option when it is clear that ecosystem function is declining and the community is willing for action to take place.
Under an adaptive management approach, hypotheses are drawn and action takes place in a systematic fashion so that outcomes can supply knowledge about the ecosystem and its responses. These outcomes then supply knowledge for the next cycle of actions. The resulting series of steps through planning, implementation, monitoring and assessment (see Figure 4) is known as passive adaptive management. In a more active approach and one that is more likely to result in successful outcomes, implementation occurs as large-scale experiments that are testing specific hypotheses about responses, thus enhancing performance of each
cycle.
First attempts to specifically describe targets and relationships may look clumsy in 20 years’ time, but it is the only way to make underlying assumptions visible, test them and improve on them.
sustainable change
Planning process
This plan is the outcome of an extensive planning and consultation process:
- a survey was conducted on progress achieved since the 2004 natural resource management plan (Bessen Consulting Services 2006)
- two community forums were held to determine general concerns and directions
- target area groups consisting of community members and experts in the field met at regular workshops to identify resources, threats, opportunities for change, management priorities, targets, and investment and implementation opportunities
- the Natural Resource Management Council met on a regular basis to review progress and assess needs.
People and organisations involved in formulating this plan include ACT government agencies, local government and regional bodies in neighbouring NSW, community organisations and individuals, environmental and catchment groups, industry, landholders, Indigenous people and the academic and scientific community.
The planning process used a logical approach (known as program logic) in determining the vision, targets and actions to be contained in the plan.
This plan uses the ACT State of Environment reporting process to inform baseline information for target areas (as at June 2007).
A program logic model is a systematic, visual way to develop and present a planned program with its underlying assumptions and theoretical framework. It uses logical steps to ensure that all actions undertaken in addressing targets for natural resource management investment are actually contributing.
A program logic approach starts with formulating a longer-term vision – say over 30 years – of how we would like natural resource assets to look. In order to achieve this vision, we devise a range of projects and activities that we judge will make a difference in the medium term – seven years. At the same time we set short-term milestones – five years – to indicate whether we are on the right track. At these milestones, we evaluate actions to ensure that we learn by doing, and additionally that we take advantage of advances in related science and reflect changes in community attitudes.
Targets
The targets and management actions in this plan are a result of extensive community and government consultation. Sixteen SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timebound) targets have been identified over the four areas of community, land, water and biodiversity. Objectives for each asset are set separately so that the plan focuses on individual issues and formulates specific targets and management actions (see the action plan in Part 4 for a detailed outline of actions, outcomes and outputs for each target).
- Making targets specific gives weight to each of them. It conveys the relative strength of each aspiration, and helps people focus on where action is needed and how that action might be taken.
- Most targets in this plan have been quantified. Quantified targets communicate expectations to the broader community – while not being ludicrously out of reach, they are nonetheless meant to be challenging. Quantifying targets helps people to focus on knowledge needed for more confident decision making about managing natural resources.
- Setting values and time limits on targets so that they are measurable and timebound is a challenging exercise since only limited information on the underlying trends in ecosystem health and condition, and the rate at which these ecosystems will respond to action is available. The unpredictability of future shocks (e.g. extreme climate events, major changes in world economic conditions) adds further uncertainty. Achieving targets ahead of time is better than achieving them too slowly.
