Proposed cross-regional NLP application

From John Dalton:

Dear Colleagues,

This to further update on the idea of regional and cross regional applications under NLP Sustainable Practices grant which close 25 Feb.
In general, these are now in the process of being built up from the bottom in each region.

Many consider this approach is best as enables each producer/landcare network in each region to decide what they want to do and prepare an outline/draft application accordingly, then to come together with other networks and stakeholders to determine how best to coordinate the priority activities of each network so as to derive synergies and other efficiencies from collaborating on a regional basis. A gathering of key stakeholders including partnering agencies and the CMA (a regional coordinating committee?) can then prepare a regional application on the understanding that each collaborating network (or any combinations of same as participants might decide) will sign off as the community collaborating in the project (a requirement under NLP guidelines) and will subsequently manage and implement their own portion of the regional NLP project.

Those regions which thereby generate a sound community-based proposal in time for other similarly advanced regions to discuss will then have the opportunity to consolidate their individual regional applications under one umbrella cross-regional application, thereby improving their chances of having their application approved (and those of their constituent region, sub-region & producer/landcare networks).

Obviously, this process of building collaborative structures from the bottom up has some important features, including:

(i) being designed and owned by each local network which is also directly responsible for managing implementation, thereby learning from the experience and becoming increasingly more capable of linking their region’s actual resource managers (landholders) with their natural resource management institutions (e.g. CMA, grower/industry/state/federal agencies);

(ii) networks which come together to collaborate on sub-regional, regional (or cross regional) proposals will better know what each other is doing and the opportunities for further building networks and coordination (e.g. on action research and practical extension such as trainings, field days, visiting experts and marketing)

Just as obviously, on the decision of the stakeholders, this process can be truncated at any point. Should stakeholders at any level (e.g. sub-regional, regional or cross-regional) decide to go it alone (or otherwise fail to deliver on time), each constituent network (e.g. at sub-regional or regional level) are still able to submit their own sound NLP application on their own account.

For example, in one region the CMA and the Working Group (representing producer and landcare networks across the region) are facilitating this process and have set a deadline of 15th Feb for individual networks to submit their draft NLP applications. These are currently being facilitated with CLC and CSO support as each draft application must be individually well prepared and sound (i.e. have been discussed and agreed in principle with participating landholder and local partners including agencies, ag suppliers etc, fully conform with NLP guidelines and include a realistic work program and budget). Participating networks will then come together and, assisted by the CMA and network coordinators, will consolidate their individual applications into a regional application which rationalizes obvious duplications, coordinates agency and other stakeholder contributions (including from the CMA) and identifies synergisms and efficiencies so the overall regional application is very strong, though the individual networks retain primary responsibility for project management and implementation (according to their draft proposal) once the application is approved.

Following project approval it is intended that each network will then prepare detailed monthly work programs (including specifying and allocating responsibilities for activities, tasks, budgets and monitoring and reporting) to guide implementation management. At this point preliminary trainings may be appropriate to standardize work programming, monitoring and reporting and build project management capacity of networks.

One major issue most common to this “collaboration and consolidation” approach to preparing a regional NLP application is how to fully address the inevitably competing demands of individual networks for NLP investment in facilitation & coordination support).

This issue is the direct result of previously inadequate investment in community engagement and capacity building (on the mistaken belief that either ce/cb was a free service the volunteer community would continuously provide at zero cost or regional NRM was a public works program which could be implemented ‘by administration’). Fortunately, NHT experience and various more recent reviews (e.g. Keogh) clarified that investment in ce/cb is fundamental to achieving effective improvement in regional NRM.

Hence, faced with the challenge of rationalizing individual network requirements for investment in ce/cb support under NLP while consolidating individual network applications into one regional or even cross-regional application, it is probably worth considering if this rationalization is better done by local stakeholders i.e. the collaborating networks, agencies and the CMA in each region (possibly operating as a regional coordinating committee) or by a state-level NLP assessment panel compelled to allocate limited NLP funds among many competing NLP applications and thereby deciding the “winners” and “losers” within each region!

Please don’t hesitate to call as am keen to discuss and assist in any way possible!

Regards

John

Good resource management is good business!

John Dalton
NSW State Landcare Coordinator
National Landcare Program, Dept. Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry
tel: 6391 3787 mob: 0428 330 114
mail: c/-RLPB State Council, 161 Kite Street ORANGE NSW 2800