Noosa Council’s agreement in principle to fund The Nature Conservancy proposed partnership and phase 2 of the ‘Bring Back the Fish’ project to the tune of $1.2 million adding to a number of earlier grants totalling up to $485,500 has been the talk of the town, with recent posts on Open Noosa suggesting it doesn’t pass the pub test.
While the local media made much of Cr Ingrid Jackson’s decision to vote against the funding – the only Councillor to do so – we are left in the dark on why the other Councillors thought it was such a good deal that it had to be rushed into before an overarching Environmental Strategy has been approved for the Shire and before an evaluation was undertaken of an incomplete oyster reef trial.
This was exactly the same mindset as the recent $1.7 million (and counting) purchase of the old Tewantin TAFE building, with no real plans on how it might be used or how much that would cost. The sole argument seemed to be that it was a “bargain” so had to be bought.
The ‘Bring Back the Fish’ project has been vague in its conception, blurred in its process, silent on future costs as it is scaled up and no clearly defined outcomes that would make it possible to prove it’s worth.
Oyster reefs rock (but will they here?)
We do not question the worth of trying to restore oyster reefs in the Noosa River, but questions need to be asked about the way the funding is being pushed through with a disregard of – and indeed at the expense of – other programs run by local organisations and council.
Over the past year, a number of Natural Resource Management focus groups have been convened independently by one councillor to discuss a strategic direction for the shire. These workshops included the key environmental players in the region – Noosa & District Landcare, Noosa Integrated Catchment Authority, Zero Emissions Noosa, Noosa Community Biosphere Association, Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation, Boomerang Bags Noosa and more.
The group is to meet again in February review a draft environment strategy prepared by council staff, which will then go out for broader community consultation.
These groups are used to scrambling for crumbs in the current grant system. They rely on volunteers writing lengthy applications trying to frame projects additional to the day to day activities that they do in this shire – for free! – as the next ‘Big Idea’. How can Noosa Council justify forking out an exorbitant amount of money on experts from out of town, when the experts in town are being ignored?
Cr Stockwell’s supporting case
In response to media coverage of Ingrid’s stance, Brian Stockwell provided a six page case for supporting the TNC River Partnership Proposal.
Brian suggests that the Council’s draft environment strategy will be made available by Council for community consultation next month.
The draft Noosa River plan is also still a work in progress and to use it as an argument in favour of this project is premature. The outcomes of the consultation to our knowledge have not been disclosed, nor have any misgivings been revealed.
The Stockwell proposal has a strong pro-project bias when one would expect a councillor to provide a more critical analysis of all aspects of the proposed project.
TNC is identified as a “stakeholder” when in fact it has emerged as a commercial partner that stands to benefit financially from the project – a clear conflict of interest in our view. TNC should not have been involved in consultation discussions with the Council and other stakeholders.
It is suggested without evidence or explanation that the winding up of the Thomas Foundation presented a “limited time offer” so the Council had to make an immediate decision. It seems improper that the Council should feel rushed into a decision by such an implausible proposition.
Brian says the Council is “currently seeking expert advice” on the “gaps” identified during consultation on the Noosa River Plan. This is a stark example of elements within the Council operating furtively and not fully disclosing what is occurring. It begs the question of whether Noosa Council really understands the meaning and methodologies involved in community consultation.
Brian says that in his opinion there is “no doubt” that the river plan will promote this sort of program which he claims without evidence has been “called for by the community”. A statement which is awe-inspiring in its bias, its presumption and its pre-emption.
Monitoring and Evaluation, which are in fact discrete processes and project stages, appear to have been deliberately conflated to avoid the obvious question of why the incomplete Stage 1 of this project has not been evaluated by an independent entity.
It would be desirable to see
- (a) a final USC report
- (b) an independent evaluation of the project to date and
- (c) an explanation from USC – which provided the scientific heft for Stage 1 – as to why it has parted ways from the project.
The unendorsed “results” in the USC monitoring report for February, June and November 2018 need further explanation and some indication of whether they are statistically and scientifically valid.
Putting aside the hyperbole which is characteristic of this response paper, it is clear that the project to date (in both scientific and administrative aspects) requires evaluation from an independent third party, not a consultant or participant or person with a declared interest.
This is a poor document in that is fudges or ignores the key areas of critical scrutiny that have been raised by Ingrid, to quote her:
“I did not support the proposal for a number of compelling reasons. The Council was being asked to make a decision (1) without sufficient information, (2) without full evaluation of Phase 1, (3) without thorough financial analysis and (4) without due process.”
Brian addresses none of these important matters of adequate and uncontaminated information, third party evaluation, fiduciary responsibility and governance.
His paper reads like it was written by an ambitious proponent, not a disinterested Councillor.
As always, transparency is key
The news around the oysters coincides with another case making headlines at the moment, with the auditor-general finding that the nearly half a billion dollars’ worth of funding going to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation was based on advice that failed to comply fully with rules designed to ensure transparency and value for money.
In a similar way to the oyster funding, the reef funding bypassed organisations like the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the CSIRO and others that have on the ground experience and expertise and needed the funding to do their jobs better.
Noosa Council need to very carefully consider this funding in light of the recent findings by the Australian National Audit Office investigation into the grant-making process of the GBRF funding. It’s not too long a bow to draw in finding similarities with this case.
In particular note the following excerpt from the report:
“For non-competitive grants, assessment criteria provide a transparent means of assessing whether the particular proposal under consideration is of a satisfactory standard that approving a grant would represent value for money,” auditor-general Grant Hehir wrote in his report.
He said the objectives of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation’s grant were too broad and general in nature. They included ambitions such as “improved management of the Great Barrier Reef” and “management of key threats to the Great Barrier Reef”.
The auditor-general compared these targets to smaller, reef-related grants that had very specific targets associated with them, like reducing water pollution by a specific amount.
“The report also noted the department helped the foundation craft its proposal, which was not a unique occurrence, but that subsequent conflict of interest risks “were not adequately addressed”.
“The audit also criticised the lack of scrutiny given to the foundation’s ability to attract co-investment.”
“The ANAO report noted the department’s compressed time frame in order to pay the grant before June 30, 2018. The department took just three days to decide on the GBR Foundation as the preferred partner”
“Opportunities to introduce some competition into the grant giving process were not explored and reasons for not employing a competitive, merit-based selection process to identify the partner were not documented,” the ANAO concluded.
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald
A good idea or groupthink speaking?
Could it be that groupthink may be clouding the vision of the current Councillors and management team at Noosa Council, at the expense of all the wonderful staff and volunteer community organisations who are trying to make ends meet on extremely limited budgets? To then see millions flow towards pet projects is a slap in the face.
Note: The Open Noosa Editorial team does not necessarily represent the opinions of Open Noosa contributors.
Image: Noosa Everglades by Michael Yuen
I note that in a rather lengthy Facebook post Cr. Frank Wilke says “The project aligns with the overarching principles of the Noosa River plan and new Environment Strategy which aims to not just maintain but improve the overall health and biodiversity of the river system.” I’m glad he knows what’s in those plans, because the community doesn’t, and as far as I know the plans haven’t been put out for final consultation or approved by Council. So, perhaps it’s no wonder we’re confused.