The Tasmanian Forest Conservation Fund was jointly developed by the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) and the Tasmanian Government’s Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW). The aim of the FCF is to protect up to 45,600 hectares of forested private land in Tasmania, including a minimum of 25,000 hectares of old growth forest.
The FCF contains a number of components, including the tender process for conservation covenants, a revolving fund for purchasing land and a component for acquiring forested land in the Mole Creek Karst area. This case study discusses the conservation tender process.
Experts in forest ecology, market-based instruments (MBIs) and program design were consulted during the design of the FCF. A conservation tender approach was adopted for the FCF, recognising:
-
the significant variance in conservation benefits from the different parcels of vegetation and the proposed management actions,
-
the difference in the cost of conservation, including opportunity costs and positive environmental management actions, and
-
the ‘public good’ nature of the project objectives.
The design process also considered the broader policy and legislative environment such as the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) and lessons from programs such as the Private Forest Reserves Program (PFRP) and similar experiences elsewhere in Australia.
A comprehensive metric, the Conservation Value Index (CVI), was developed to assess the relative conservation benefits of individual proposals. The CVI assessed three central aspects of each proposal submitted by landowners:
-
the significance of the proposal’s contribution to the Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserves system
-
the service the proposal provides to conservation, as well as current conditions of the vegetation and risks, and
-
the security of the proposal in terms of the length and level of agreement over the proposal area.
Detailed criteria were established for calculating the CVI to enable proposals to be compared. Criteria included:
-
forest priority—the relative preferences for different forest types
-
structural conditions—the structural form of the forest, derived from Regional Forest Agreement Forest Resource Type assessments
-
current condition of the bid area—based on benchmarked conditions
-
a regional threat index—based on threats from surrounding land uses and conditions
-
reservation status—the current level of reservation for each forest type
-
maintenance—a value representing maintenance of the current condition
-
improvement—the value of improvements attributable to proposed management actions, and
-
security—to ensure conservation values are achieved for a specific period, via a fixed-term agreement (12, 24 or 48 years) or an perpetual covenant.
Each proposal was allocated a score to enable relative comparisons based on conservation benefits. The value for money of bids was determined by dividing the cost of the proposal by the CVI point score (value for money = $(bid)/CVI score). This ensured that the most cost- effective bids were accepted and conservation benefits maximised within the budget.
The delivery of the FCF was contracted to a private-sector third-party consortium with expertise in ecological assessments, GIS, communications, program administration and financial management.
The application process for interested landowners involved a number of systematic phases and milestones to ensure that proposals were compliant with covenanting and conservation management requirements. The process included the following steps.
-
Information provision. Interested land owners were provided with targeted information about the objectives, operation and requirements of the FCF.
-
Conservation assessment and advice. On-ground assessment of the conservation value of each property was undertaken by a conservation advisor, who provides this information to the landowner as well as advice about suitable management actions to assist landowners to develop their proposals.
-
Evaluation. An independent evaluation panel assessed proposals against the CVI, value for money and meeting overall program objectives. A probity adviser ensured transparency and fairness. The first assessments were undertaken in the third quarter of 2007, with subsequent assessments to be made.
-
Recommendations. Recommendations for funding were endorsed by the FCF Steering Committee and submitted to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources for final approval.
-
Offers and agreements. Offers were then made to successful land owners, initiated by a suite of interrelated agreements:
-
The Conservation Covenant is a legal instrument that sets out specific agreements for managing an area for conservation purposes and is attached to the land title and registered with the Tasmanian Land Titles Office. A covenant protects the natural values of the land and may apply to part or all of the property, in perpetuity or for a fixed term. The FCF covenants, designed under the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002, are consistent with other covenanting instruments used in Tasmania.
-
The Nature Conservation Plan describes the management activities to be carried out on the land to manage the forest for conservation purposes.
-
The financial agreement is between the signatory and the Australian Government. It describes the responsibilities of both parties, including a summary of the activities proposed in the Conservation Covenant and the Nature Conservation Plan, and includes a payment schedule.
-
Reporting and evaluation. Management actions are reported and evaluated according to these agreements.
The first round of the FCF is due for completion in early 2008. Some 240 landowners expressed interest in the program when the tender round was open in early 2007. Applications have been evaluated in batches over this time and significant numbers of applications were received. The process is expected to yield up to 100 successful funding proposals.
The FCF has performed as expected, enabling the most cost-effective set of proposals to be selected. The conservation tender approach has elicited proposals with significant variance in relative cost-effectiveness (measured as $/CVI score). This is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Example of variation in value for money
There are a number of key lessons that can be drawn from the FCF:
-
the detailed and transparent metric allowed for robust assessments and contributed to the success of the FCF—its transparency and repeatability provided the FCF with a major advantage over many other vegetation conservation programs
-
consulting experts from several relevant disciplines during the design phase assisted with the performance of the MBI
-
the comprehensive communication and consultation campaign resulted in quality proposals and high levels of engagement by land owners
-
innovative programs like the FCF involve a steep learning curve for all parties involved—a number of delays in implementation had to be managed, including perception issues and expectations of landowners
-
detailed specification of tasks, roles and responsibilities for the third-party organisation delivering the FCF was vital. |
The Tasmanian Forest Conservation Fund was jointly developed by the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) and the Tasmanian Government’s Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW). The aim of the FCF is to protect up to 45,600 hectares of forested private land in Tasmania, including a minimum of 25,000 hectares of old growth forest.
The FCF contains a number of components, including the tender process for conservation covenants, a revolving fund for purchasing land and a component for acquiring forested land in the Mole Creek Karst area. This case study discusses the conservation tender process.
Experts in forest ecology, market-based instruments (MBIs) and program design were consulted during the design of the FCF. A conservation tender approach was adopted for the FCF, recognising:
-
the significant variance in conservation benefits from the different parcels of vegetation and the proposed management actions,
-
the difference in the cost of conservation, including opportunity costs and positive environmental management actions, and
-
the ‘public good’ nature of the project objectives.
The design process also considered the broader policy and legislative environment such as the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) and lessons from programs such as the Private Forest Reserves Program (PFRP) and similar experiences elsewhere in Australia.
A comprehensive metric, the Conservation Value Index (CVI), was developed to assess the relative conservation benefits of individual proposals. The CVI assessed three central aspects of each proposal submitted by landowners:
-
the significance of the proposal’s contribution to the Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserves system
-
the service the proposal provides to conservation, as well as current conditions of the vegetation and risks, and
-
the security of the proposal in terms of the length and level of agreement over the proposal area.
Detailed criteria were established for calculating the CVI to enable proposals to be compared. Criteria included:
-
forest priority—the relative preferences for different forest types
-
structural conditions—the structural form of the forest, derived from Regional Forest Agreement Forest Resource Type assessments
-
current condition of the bid area—based on benchmarked conditions
-
a regional threat index—based on threats from surrounding land uses and conditions
-
reservation status—the current level of reservation for each forest type
-
maintenance—a value representing maintenance of the current condition
-
improvement—the value of improvements attributable to proposed management actions, and
-
security—to ensure conservation values are achieved for a specific period, via a fixed-term agreement (12, 24 or 48 years) or an perpetual covenant.
Each proposal was allocated a score to enable relative comparisons based on conservation benefits. The value for money of bids was determined by dividing the cost of the proposal by the CVI point score (value for money = $(bid)/CVI score). This ensured that the most cost- effective bids were accepted and conservation benefits maximised within the budget.
The delivery of the FCF was contracted to a private-sector third-party consortium with expertise in ecological assessments, GIS, communications, program administration and financial management.
The application process for interested landowners involved a number of systematic phases and milestones to ensure that proposals were compliant with covenanting and conservation management requirements. The process included the following steps.
-
Information provision. Interested land owners were provided with targeted information about the objectives, operation and requirements of the FCF.
-
Conservation assessment and advice. On-ground assessment of the conservation value of each property was undertaken by a conservation advisor, who provides this information to the landowner as well as advice about suitable management actions to assist landowners to develop their proposals.
-
Evaluation. An independent evaluation panel assessed proposals against the CVI, value for money and meeting overall program objectives. A probity adviser ensured transparency and fairness. The first assessments were undertaken in the third quarter of 2007, with subsequent assessments to be made.
-
Recommendations. Recommendations for funding were endorsed by the FCF Steering Committee and submitted to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources for final approval.
-
Offers and agreements. Offers were then made to successful land owners, initiated by a suite of interrelated agreements:
-
The Conservation Covenant is a legal instrument that sets out specific agreements for managing an area for conservation purposes and is attached to the land title and registered with the Tasmanian Land Titles Office. A covenant protects the natural values of the land and may apply to part or all of the property, in perpetuity or for a fixed term. The FCF covenants, designed under the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002, are consistent with other covenanting instruments used in Tasmania.
-
The Nature Conservation Plan describes the management activities to be carried out on the land to manage the forest for conservation purposes.
-
The financial agreement is between the signatory and the Australian Government. It describes the responsibilities of both parties, including a summary of the activities proposed in the Conservation Covenant and the Nature Conservation Plan, and includes a payment schedule.
-
Reporting and evaluation. Management actions are reported and evaluated according to these agreements.
The first round of the FCF is due for completion in early 2008. Some 240 landowners expressed interest in the program when the tender round was open in early 2007. Applications have been evaluated in batches over this time and significant numbers of applications were received. The process is expected to yield up to 100 successful funding proposals.
The FCF has performed as expected, enabling the most cost-effective set of proposals to be selected. The conservation tender approach has elicited proposals with significant variance in relative cost-effectiveness (measured as $/CVI score). This is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Example of variation in value for money
There are a number of key lessons that can be drawn from the FCF:
-
the detailed and transparent metric allowed for robust assessments and contributed to the success of the FCF—its transparency and repeatability provided the FCF with a major advantage over many other vegetation conservation programs
-
consulting experts from several relevant disciplines during the design phase assisted with the performance of the MBI
-
the comprehensive communication and consultation campaign resulted in quality proposals and high levels of engagement by land owners
-
innovative programs like the FCF involve a steep learning curve for all parties involved—a number of delays in implementation had to be managed, including perception issues and expectations of landowners
-
detailed specification of tasks, roles and responsibilities for the third-party organisation delivering the FCF was vital. |
|