agriculture.vic.gov.auagriculture.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/...report-… · Web viewWDCAC also made an important contribution toward improving landholder understanding

FINAL REPORT Review of the Role of the Wild Dog Control Advisory Committee and the Governance Arrangements for Implementation of the Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs in Victoria 2014–2019Report prepared for DEDJTR

Marsden Jacob AssociatesFinancial & Economic Consultants

ABN 66 663 324 657ACN 072 233 204

Internet: http://www.marsdenjacob.com.auE-mail: [email protected]

Melbourne office:Postal address: Level 3, 683 Burke Road, CamberwellVictoria 3124 AUSTRALIATelephone: 03 9882 1600Facsimile: 03 9882 1300

Perth office:Level 1, 220 St Georges Terrace, Perth Western Australia, 6000 AUSTRALIATelephone: 08 9324 1785Facsimile: 08 9322 7936

This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services described in the contract or agreement between Marsden Jacob Associates Pty Ltd ACN 072 233 204 (MJA) and the Client. Any findings, conclusions or recommendations only apply to the aforementioned circumstances and no greater reliance should be assumed or drawn by the Client. Furthermore, the report has been prepared solely for use by the Client and Marsden Jacob Associates accepts no responsibility for its use by other parties.

Copyright © Marsden Jacob Associates Pty Ltd 2015

MARSDEN JACOB ASSOCIATES

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

Executive Summary.............................................................................1

1. Background and Terms of Reference..............................................91.1 Objective of this review.......................................................................................91.2 Key tasks.............................................................................................................91.3 Approach and consultation................................................................................111.4 Introduction to Wild Dog Control.......................................................................111.5 Time line of change...........................................................................................131.6 Structure of this report......................................................................................14

2. Evaluating the WDCAC.................................................................162.1 Overview of the WDCAC....................................................................................162.2 Evaluation summary..........................................................................................192.3 Efficacy..............................................................................................................192.4 Strategy and alignment.....................................................................................282.5 Structure and responsibilities............................................................................29

3. Evaluating the Delivery Group......................................................353.1 Overview of the Delivery Group........................................................................353.2 Evaluation of the Delivery Group.......................................................................353.3 Efficacy..............................................................................................................353.4 Strategy and alignment.....................................................................................363.5 Structure and responsibilities............................................................................36

4. Assessment of the Action Plan.....................................................374.1 Achievements and pace of progress against the Action Plan............................374.2 Alignment with the National Action Plan...........................................................404.3 Strengths, gaps and opportunities....................................................................41

5. Opportunities to improve governance and advice..........................445.1 Issues in current model design..........................................................................445.2 Why have strategic advice, communications and representation functions?....445.3 Approach to analysing options..........................................................................455.4 Machinery of Governance..................................................................................455.5 Alternative advice and governance models......................................................465.6 Options for the Delivery Group..........................................................................54

Appendix A. Performance of the Program...........................................56Change in program effort............................................................................................56Change in program outcomes.....................................................................................58Community confidence................................................................................................62

Appendix B. Terms of references.......................................................65

Appendix C. Directions Statement Performance Indicators..................70

Appendix D. Action Plan....................................................................71

Appendix E. Approach and process of this review...............................73

MARSDEN JACOB ASSOCIATES

LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 1: Distribution of Departmental accountabilities..........................................................10Table 2: Distribution of Departmental accountabilities..........................................................18Table 3: Efficacy performance................................................................................................20Table 4: Strategy and alignment............................................................................................28Table 5: Structure and responsibilities performance..............................................................30Table 6: Overview of program responsibilities........................................................................32Table 7: Overall assessment of progress................................................................................37

LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 1: Timeline of key program developments..................................................................14Figure 2: Key institutional responsibilities and relationships of the Wild Dog Program...........19Figure 3: Performance against the WDCAC Directions Statement targets.............................23Figure 4: Summary of current operating model......................................................................33Figure 5: Wild dog program logic............................................................................................43Figure 6: Stylised redesign options.........................................................................................47Figure 7: Change in program effort 2012 - 2015....................................................................56Figure 8: Change in program expenditures............................................................................58Figure 9: Reports and location of dog attacks........................................................................59Figure 10: Number of baits laid..............................................................................................60Figure 11: Traps laid and effectiveness..................................................................................61Figure 12: Cost and labour expended per wild dog destroyed...............................................61Figure 13: CWDC hours contributed to assist the control of wild dogs...................................62Figure 14: Estimated sheep lost before and after the BCP.....................................................63Figure 15: Expected sheep farm expansion............................................................................64Figure 16: Directions Statement Performance Measures........................................................70

Executive Summary Background and contextWild dogs are a significant threat to Victoria’s livestock industry, at an estimated cost of $13–18 million per year. Wild dogs attack livestock, causing death, horrific injury, lost production and social impacts. The damage caused by wild dogs is confronting for land managers and the social impacts associated with wild dog attacks significantly affects the health of land owners and rural communities. The management of wild dogs has been, and continues to be a contentious issue in Victoria. The Victorian Government is committed to working with affected land owners to reduce the economic, social and environmental impacts of wild dogs in Victoria and to meet its responsibilities as a land owner under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994.

In 2015 the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR), in collaboration with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DEWLP), asked for an evaluation of the Wild Dog Control Program, to ensure Victoria’s wild dog management approach remained strategic, effective and appropriate to meet the ever-changing needs of land managers, community members and the environment.

DEDJTR commissioned Marsden Jacob Associates to undertake an evaluation of the Wild Dog Control Advisory Committee (WDCAC) and the governance of the implementation of the Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs in Victoria 2014–2019 (Action Plan), to ensure Victoria’s wild dog management approach remained strategic, effective and appropriate to meet the ever-changing needs of land managers, community members and the environment.

The Wild Dog Control Advisory Committee (WDCAC) was established in 2011 and its second term expired in November 2015, coinciding with this wild dog evaluation commissioned by DEDJTR. The intention of the evaluation was to help shape the delivery of the Program into the future.

The ProgramThe operating environment of the Program has undergone substantial change since 2011 with respect to:

changes within the establishment of the WDCAC, the Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs in Victoria (Action Plan) and the Wild Dog Action Plan Delivery Group (Delivery Group) (see Appendix E); and

Victorian Government changes and associated Ministerial changes; and

machinery of government changes that established new institutional arrangements incorporating numerous Secretary and executive management changes.

The Program, WDCAC and Delivery Group have therefore operated under a period of substantial political and machinery of government change. Taking into consideration these

Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources

Review of the Role of the WDCAC and the Governance Arrangements for Implementations of the Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs in Victoria 2014-19

changes and the changing strategic outlook, a key question for the evaluation to answer was ‘what are the best arrangements for the provision of strategic, high level advice and communication services and mechanisms to ensure delivery against the Action Plan?’

Best arrangements for moving forward strategicallyIn part, WDCAC was established to provide strategic advice to government on wild dog management issues. In providing this advice, WDCAC influenced the design and operation of the Program with varying degrees of success.

Consistent with the Terms of Reference of the Committee to help inform continuous improvement and innovation in wild dog control in Victoria, on the whole, reforms to the Program championed by WDCAC appear to have been successful in enabling and reducing the instances of reported wild dog attacks.

WDCAC made an important contribution to improving communication, both directly and indirectly, between affected individuals and community, and the government. As part of this communication role, WDCAC provided a high level forum where community issues were raised with effect, in terms of engendering action and a response, and also as a mechanism to manage and align attitudes and behaviour of public and private providers.

WDCAC also made an important contribution toward improving landholder understanding of the scale, scope and timing of public management activities. This was important in leveraging more coordinated and aligned private control activity, while also subtly and critically improving public confidence in public control activities and reforms.

Collectively, government appears to have implemented WDCAC’s recommendations, which have contributed to community wellbeing, and has worked toward alleviating what has been described to us by various stakeholders as a sense of ‘helplessness’ and ‘abandonment’.

There is also emerging evidence of improved program outcomes and improved community confidence in the Program. Among others changes there is evidence that:

the number of reported wild dog attacks has declined

there has been a broader use of a wider suite of control tools

there has been an increase in private control of wild dogs

control measures are becoming more targeted and coordinated.

This improvement in confidence centres on affected landholders and is evidenced from a range of indicators including:

positive feedback from WDCAC

positive feedback from landholders at wild dog fora and management zone workshops, particularly in the last 12 months

some evidence of reduced adversarial relationships



improved community participation and cooperation in baiting programs

positive feedback from baiting program participants.

Many stakeholders believed these changes reflect improvements to the:

design and operation of the Program, such as improved access to public land, remote baiting and improved response times

communication and reporting to landholders of public land management activities

engagement with landholders in the design, implementation and timing of management activities at management zone level

landholder practice change programs.

WDCAC is perceived by many to have enabled or helped facilitate these improved outcomes.

However, we note that a challenge in this assessment is the difficulty in clearly establishing causal links between actions and outcomes, and then in separating the impacts of actions by others. This is particularly the case where there was complementary or joint contribution to the outcome by both WDCAC and government.

For example, the Directions Statement developed through WDCAC gave greater clarity of purpose and outcome to the Program, but not all success can be solely attributed to this document.

Moreover, WDCAC’s championing and engendering momentum toward a Catchment Management Authority (CMA) zone management, accountability and engagement model helped facilitate complementary initiatives, some of which were in train by government, particularly:

the establishment of Community Engagement Officers and the Bait Coordinator Program

increased community participation in control measures through management zone arrangements.

While these outcomes are to be lauded, there are concerns that WDCAC has at times been too operationally focused and has had a tendency to get bogged down running or directing activities of the Program independent of the planning process — and thereby stepping beyond its remit.

Over time, however, the bigger picture momentum of WDCAC waned and the generation of new strategic ideas diminished, with the WDCAC becoming more an endorsement vehicle for departmental activities. In addition, some stakeholders indicated potential gaps in confidence in the Program by groups concerned with wildlife and animal welfare issues.

Another challenge is that WDCAC was seen by some stakeholders to be somewhat ‘landholder-centric’ with a reporting focus towards enhancing farm productivity. A key challenge is balancing the representation and skill in the provision of strategic advice. The



previous balance toward landholder representation created gaps in a skills based board in areas such as science, governance and biodiversity conservation among others.

The Delivery GroupThe Delivery Group played an important role during the Coalition Government phase of the Action Plan.

During this phase the Delivery Group was chaired by the Parliamentary Secretary and met frequently to progress and report on issues and activities. More recently and reflecting governance changes, the Group has met less frequently and as a consequence reporting against the Action Plan has diminished.

In terms of efficacy, our key finding is that during 2014, the group was a very effective mechanism to ensure accountability for deliverables under the Action Plan.

We note the Delivery Group has reviewed a substantial amount of program documentation relating to program delivery issues such as operational design and implementation matters (such as bait availability), area management planning, communications (such as feedback on community fora) and, in particular, clarified a range of issues relating to the overlay of associated policy and regulation associated with the environment, animal welfare and chemical use.

The Delivery Group provided an important mechanism for some members to have a stronger connection to the Minister’s office — providing a line of sight both into and out of the office.

Another key observation was the important role the Delivery Group played in giving some sense of ownership of program delivery and outcomes to the Parliamentary Secretary. A number of stakeholders commented that the Chair became a helpful advocate and ‘roving ambassador’ for the program and in doing so became another important mechanism for program liaison with affected communities.

Our view, supported by a majority of those we consulted with, is that recommencing the group would be valuable.

We see a group such as the Delivery Group as being important for the future delivery of the Action Plan, especially given the breadth and scope of the plan and the dispersed accountabilities. In the absence of the group, there is a substantive risk of drift on Action Plan accountabilities and outcomes.

There has however, been a lack of clarity from WDCAC and the wild dog operations group within DELWP, as to the Delivery Group’s role in driving the implementation of the Action Plan. Indeed, the feedback of some stakeholders was that they did not understand the importance or relevance of the Delivery Group.

In part this reflects that under the current Government the group has not met, reflecting the absence of a Chair. However, we do note that as an interim measure a working group



of departmental staff meet informally to continue liaison between DEDJTR and DELWP on issues relating to the program.

If a new advisory board is formed, a key issue will be to appropriately clarify the role of the Delivery Group in delivering the Action Plan.

Assessment of the Action PlanIt is a difficult task to assess the progress of the Action Plan on two fronts. Firstly, the action plan had been in existence for less than one year (less than 15% of the proposed life of the activities and actions) and secondly, the implementation report was last updated in September 2014 in preparation for the November 2014 Delivery Group meeting. Our discussions indicate that there have been a number of areas of progress relating to the Action Plan since the last meeting.

We consider the pace of progress against the Action Plan to be moderate. As it is early in the action plan period (the action plan runs from 2014 to 2019), the vast majority of the activities are ongoing and not many of the outputs have yet been delivered.

In spite of perceived gaps and risks associated with the Action Plan, opportunities exist to improve its purpose. These include a refresh and reassertion of the plan to:

clarify priority areas of action and areas where strategic advice will be sought on a yearly basis

develop and include a program investment logic map to define relationships of outputs to outcomes

agree and establish a process for adding and prioritising new activities and actions

develop performance indicators and establish independent assessment of progress

link measures to project deliverables – in particular zone management plans

include a forward look operating context and assessment of emerging strategic landscape

specify a new operating period for the plan.

There has been limited ownership of the Action Plan by a number of key stakeholders. A concern is that Action Plan is seen by some stakeholders as a DEDJTR document and in some cases not relevant to program delivery. There is also confusion over the relationship between the Action Plan and the Directions Statement. If governance is to be reformed successfully, the vision, purpose, actions and accountabilities must be accepted and understood by all. This is likely best achieved by the development of a new Action Plan.



In regards to the National Wild Dog Action Plan (NWDAP), we see commonality between the two plans and scope for further alignment particularly in relation to measurement and evaluation.

Conclusions and recommendationsMachinery of Government The current one program two-department model (with the split of DEDJTR and DELWP roles and responsibilities) could be maintained with some modification to current governance arrangements. This is not to say there may not be opportunities to centralise policy and operations at some point in the future.

Advisory board Establish a new advisory board based on a new Terms of Reference. And seek expressions of interest for positions on the new advisory board.

There is a need for ‘gap filling’ by the WDCAC taking into consideration the split of strategic policy and operations and the need to balance representation and skill in the provision of strategic advice.

An advisory board can assist:

to drive action when issues fall between cracks

DEDJTR to understand grass roots issues in policy design

DELWP to link operations to strategic priorities and community expectations.

The advisory board could:

retain core functions of strategic advice, representation and communication

report to the DEDJTR through the Lead Deputy Secretary Agriculture, Energy and Resource.

The scope of membership could be altered to include:

an independent Chair

up to three landholder representatives with appropriate wild dog, land management and governance skills

up to three non-landholder representatives — covering skills that are relevant to the areas of strategic advice defined in a new advisory board Terms of Reference. This could include for example strategic issues relating to catchment management, biodiversity conservation, community welfare and response and the science of wild dog management.

consideration could be given to the inclusion of animal welfare advice on an as-needs basis at some point in the future.



Departmental officers should be excluded from membership to avoid accountability and reporting confusions. However, this should not preclude staff from invitations to present on matters agreed between the Chair and the Lead Deputy Secretary.

The advisory board should be supported by the Secretariat to conduct business efficiently with this function provided independently of any policy information provision from departmental policy staff.

Against this background our consultations indicate a range of emerging strategic issues on which advice from an advisory board would also be valuable; these include:

a likely elevation of animal welfare concerns (both relating to the control of wild dogs and affected livestock and native species) — for example, an immediate emergent issue is the sun-setting of Ministerial approval of the 72 hour trap inspection requirement

the need to leverage private investment to fund ongoing and new initiatives. Here we note the likely sun-setting of Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) program funding, the relatively high delivery costs and limited program budget, and an absence of cost recovery (noting there was no expectation in the program of cost recovery) of direct program delivery costs

a risk that the wild dog problem is viewed as having dissipated in some areas as a result of control successes and evidence of a reduction in the number of incident reports

balancing of environmental, animal welfare objectives with farm productivity outcomes; In this evaluation we canvassed and considered a wide range of alternative approaches to the current governance arrangements including:

a variety of machinery of government changes;

abolishing the WDCAC; increasing its responsibilities; or replacing it with other mechanisms — we propose a series of reforms to form a new advisory board; and

abolishing through to changing the Delivery Group — we propose a series of reforms to form a new Delivery Group.

The Terms of Reference could define the scope of activities and an annual work plan of the advisory board should be provided to the Chair. The work plan could clarify that advice is to be both self-generated and where sought, developed in consultation with the department.

There should be a regular cycle of performance review of the Chair and the Committee.

The Action Plan should be updated and where appropriate streamlined to reflect the achievement of past outcomes and current and future needs — this could also provide an opportunity to clarify Directions Statement arrangements and prioritise actions in the Action Plan.

Delivery Group Options for the reform of the Delivery Group include:

continuation through new chairing arrangements



membership with key accountable Divisional officers

the establishment of a mechanism for the inclusion, exclusion and prioritisation of actions in the new Action Plan.

GovernanceGiven the unique characteristics of the wild dog problem there could be substantive risks to the program if governance arrangements were to be radically changed at this point in time. Instead, our suggestion is for modest stepwise reforms and clarification to roles and functions.

Over and above reforms to governance, there is an urgent need to clarify the relationship, hierarchy and content of the key guiding documents relating to the program.



1. Background and Terms of Reference

In this section, the background to the objectives and the Terms of Reference of this evaluation are identified.

1.1 Objective of this reviewThe objectives of this report are to:

review the role, function and governance of the WDCAC as an effective source of providing strategic advice on wild dog management to the Government;

consider Victoria’s adeptness at implementing the Victorian Action Plan in terms of the three action areas (inclusive of 13 specific actions) identified in this plan, considering governance arrangements for implementation including whole of government arrangements, within department arrangements, industry and community participation, as well as the role of the Wild Dog Action Plan Delivery Group; and

consider whether government, industry and the community are working together with appropriate involvement in implementing the Victorian Action Plan.

1.2 Key tasks Keys tasks that we were set by the Project Control Board and how they have been addressed in this document are set out in Table 1.



Table 1: Distribution of Departmental accountabilities

Terms of Reference Tasks How addressed by Marsden Jacob

Task 1: Assessment of the effectiveness of the Committee in providing strategic advice on wild dog management to the Victorian Government in an effective and resource efficient manner to maximise public benefit

This is addressed in Section 2.

Task 2. Identification of any alternative mechanisms to the current Committee model that can provide strategic advice on wild dog management to the Victorian Government in an effective and resource efficient manner to maximise public benefit


Task 3. Recommendations on the most suitable mechanism or arrangement for the Victorian Government to receive strategic advice on wild dog management in an effective and resource efficient manner to maximise public benefit


Task 4. Rate Victoria’s pace and progress of implementing the five-year action plan


Task 5. Determine the role of the Victorian Action Plan in driving wild dog management in the state, including its governance, effectiveness, reporting and continuous improvement mechanisms, as well as alignment to the National Wild Dog Action Plan – May 2014


Task 6. Identify critical gaps, strengths and opportunities for improvement in implementing the Victorian Action Plan


Task 7 Recommend optimal governance arrangements for the implementing of the Victoria Action Plan, including the role and operating conditions of the Wild Dog Action Plan Delivery Group, whole of government arrangements, internal department arrangements, industry and community participation

This is addressed in Sections 3 and 5.

Task 8 Recommends most effective and efficient use and distribution of government and industry and community resources to implement the Victorian Action Plan

This is addressed in Section 5 and summarised in the recommendations in Section 1.

Source: Marsden Jacob Associates



1.3 Approach and consultation Our approach to developing this report and the consultation we have undertaken is provided in appendix E.

1.4 Introduction to Wild Dog ControlWild dogs are a ‘wicked’ public policy problem such that the design and implementation of public and private responses is vexed and the design of institutional settings challenging. This reflects a combination of the scale and scope of the problem, mix of land tenures, its market failure dimensions and mix of public and private benefits.

Wild dogs are pervasive and exist across wide areas of Victoria in and around the boundaries of the Great Dividing Range, nearby valleys and plains and in defined areas in the north west near the Little Desert. Management of wild dogs is difficult and costly and requires specialist skills and often ‘hands on’ activities in remote areas.

The nature of the wild dog problem has a range of ‘market failure’ or missing market dimensions, these include;

non-excludability and non rivalry of dog attacks — the attacks of a wild dog are not restricted to a land tenure or individual landholder and the harm that occurs from dog attacks to one land tenure or landholder does not diminish the harm that can occur to another;

no excludability of key control measures — inaction by land managers to reduce or contain the number of dogs that attack livestock leads to impacts on other land holders and positive control actions by one landholder cannot be solely captured by that individual. Nonetheless there are a suite of private control measures that can be deployed to create excludability. For example, dog proof fencing, maremma, and farm management practices design to reduce the susceptibility of the farm system to attack and enable the private investments of these control to be captured solely by the landholder; and

information asymmetries — gaps in understanding where actions are being undertaken and the effectiveness and efficiency of control measures can affect the incentives to undertake private action.

The outcomes of the program also deliver a mix of private and public benefits:

private — arguably most of the benefits of intervention are private and are in the form of avoided farm productivity losses. Advice from DELWP is that the prevalence of wild dogs is not viewed as an environmental problem; and

public — arguably there can be avoided community welfare and public health costs associated with reducing wild dog impacts. A frequent point made in our consultations was the high level of distress and anxiety caused by wild dogs and spill-over into potential burdens on the social welfare and community health systems.

This evaluation focusses on the role of the WDCAC and Delivery Group in the Program. Prior to the establishment of the Committee in late 2011 and Delivery Group in 2012, there were deep community concerns and dissatisfaction with the Government’s approach to managing the negative impacts of wild dogs. At that time the program operated on a two catchment management region basis with a focus in East Gippsland and the North East. A Committee in each of these regions provided advice to the then DPI Secretary on management issues. The Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


Program was guided by the then Invasive Plants and Animals Branch and operational delivery provided through the Invasive Plants and Animals Operations Branch within Biosecurity Victoria. Wild dogs in the north west of the State were managed through the Good Neighbour Program run by the then Department of Sustainability and Environment and did not form part of the wild dog program.

Our conversations have highlighted the deep community concern over the operation of the program prior to 2011. This was evidenced by frequent negative media and Ministerial correspondence from the public at that time.

Prior to 2011, central community concerns were the perceptions of the operating model where there was among others:

a reliance on trapping as the main control tool;

limited transparency of control activities and measurement thereby reducing the accountability of public service provision; and

limited community engagement between groups of local landholders and public delivery leverage and coordinate joint action.

To some extent these limitations reflected the culture of operation and delivery. Historically, the program had been ‘trap-centric’ with Wild Dog Controllers attempting to trap pre and post incident. Our consultation indicates a view that controllers operated within what was generally perceived as a low transparency, low consultative and low accountability model of delivery. Some of these criticisms reflected their work environment and culture at the time — skilled bush-men, usually operating alone in designated remote areas for long periods and often unseen, with limited landholder interaction and limited recording of activity.

As a result, public operations were viewed by some key stakeholders as opaque and not aligned with, nor sufficiently clear and directed to encourage complementary private land management activities. Indeed, our conversations pointed to a range of impediments to effective private management beyond difficulties in aligning and prioritising public delivery. Examples included access issues to:

public land immediately bordering affected private land in order to undertake control activities to protect private enterprises;

easy access to control technologies including baits; and

information on public program activities and outcomes.

Another issue raised by some stakeholders were perceived cultural barriers that may have fostered a lack community and individual ownership of the problem.

The central theme that emerged in our conversations was a sense of lack of empowerment and indeed abandonment of some landholders. This, when coupled with the nature and impact of the wild dog problem, resulted in considerable grievance and grief. Not only was the wild dog problem for affected farmers a productivity problem reducing farm viability and choice of enterprise, it was also an emotional problem. Wild dog attacks could be small or devastatingly large, they could occur randomly or have an element of seemingly coordinated repeated behaviour — all combining to create something of a siege mentality which could cause psychological distress to livestock producers.

Consequently, wild dog management was a ‘hot’ political issue with the Coalition Government of the day who committed to an array of reforms. Among these and reflecting its significance as a political issue the governance of the Program was modified and became a pilot for the new Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


regional delivery model of DEPI — for example, the WDCAC and the Delivery Group were established.

1.5 Time line of change Our discussions indicate that the key strategic developments that have fundamentally shaped the Program are:

some early strategic thinking by the Department, prompted by national discussions on a move toward not leaving an animal alive in a trap for more than twenty four hours and the development of National Model Codes of Practice for the humane control of pest animals in the early 2000s;

in 2008, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008 were made and DPI commissioned an external literature review on “Welfare outcomes of leg-hold trap use in Victoria” which provided recommendations to promote the adoption of best practice trapping of canids, improve welfare outcomes and foster a culture of continuous improvement;

the WDCAC — the establishment provided support to the Department to enable momentum to move away from reactive toward more proactive management;

the Directions Statement — provided new clarity of the purpose and intent of the program;

the development of a Program communications strategy;

support for a shift in focus from reactive trapping to more wide spread baiting;

renaming of Local Area Control Plans to wild dog management zones;

reporting of program performance at a zone level;

establishment of the Action Plan for the Management of Wild Dogs (Action Plan);

establishment of the Wild Dog Action Plan Delivery Group (Delivery Group);

appointment of Community Engagement Officer;

the establishment of the Baiting Coordinator Program under the AWI funded program; and

changes to regulatory arrangements to allow and enable more wide spread baiting.

A time line of some of these key developments is provided Figure 1 and further detail of individual components are provided in Appendices.



Figure 1: Timeline of key program developments


1.6 Structure of this reportThe remainder of the report has the following structure:

Section 3 — Evaluating the role of the WDCAC;

Section 4 — Opportunities for improved Governance;

Section 5 — Evaluating the role of the Delivery Group; and

Section 6 — Assessment of the Action Plan.

We also provide a number of appendices with supporting documentation:

Context to the program;

Assessment of program performance;

Directions Statement indicators;



A high level summary of Action areas and Actions under the Action Plan for the Management of Wild Dogs; and

Approach of this review.



2. Evaluating the WDCACIn this section we evaluate the structure, effectiveness and responsibilities of the WDCAC.

2.1 Overview of the WDCAC2.1.1 Context Reviewing the WDCAC requires consideration of the context in which the Committee was established in 2011. There is wide spread agreement that the WDCAC was established in response to weaknesses in the earlier program model. Our conversations with Committee point to weakness with the two region model and the operational and policy settings of government that existed at that time. In short major problems were lack of:

communication of the objectives of the Program;

communication, transparency and accountability of public delivery; and

community engagement in the contributing to operational design and the alignment of public and private action.

The program was characterised by low levels of public trust and a reactionary model of delivery. This was evidenced by persistent and growing negative public comment in media and complaint to Ministers. Our conversations reveal a program caught in the day to day of responding to complaints and subsequent loss of capacity to shift to proactive responses.

Additionally, community attitudes were focussed on trapping and not baiting and this had, up until the WDCAC was formed, focused efforts on reactive responses rather than proactive responses.

2.1.2 Activities and actions of the WDCACTo assist in evaluating the WDCAC, this section outlines the activities undertaken by the Committee since its inception in 2011.

Upon commencement, the WDCAC established six working groups (comprising WDAC members and supporting Departmental officers and observers) that undertook reviews of:

the strategic direction of the Program;

the program delivery cycle;

the research, policy, monitoring and evaluation needs of the program;

communications and community involvement;

community action; and

future management and review.

A starting point for the change in strategic focus of the program was the WDCAC working group undertaking a strengths, weaknesses and opportunities assessment of the program. As a result of the review, the WDCAC undertook to develop a simple and clear vision of the program and champion reforms to improve transparency accountability and engagement. This included establishing:Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


the Directions Statement and seeking endorsement of the Statement by the Secretaries of the then DPI and DSE

Our consultations indicate Committee members see this as the signature contribution of the WDCAC. The Directions Statement clarified the objectives of the program and specified a number of outcome and output measures from which success could be measured. An outcome was the Directions Statement underpinned an enhanced the community engagement model.

local area management zones and planning

The WDCAC recommended that Local Area Control Plans (LACPs) be replaced by Wild Dog Management Zones (whilst retaining the boundaries of the LACPs).

The WDCAC specifically requested an additional zone be declared to bring the number from 15 to 16 zones. These zones built on the local area planning communication and delivery measurement previously developed under the concept of LACPs. The inclusion of producers being able to conduct baiting on public land as a component of effective local area management zones required substantial regulatory approval and reform to achieve.

The local area management zones further focussed accountability, involved more localised reporting of operating arrangements, outcomes and outputs. This improved transparency and understanding of public and more recent Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) funded private management activities at a local level.

an engagement model for the development and extension of public delivery services

The WDCAC recommended that the Program move to a more stakeholder focussed engagement model.

The WDCAC members have provided direct one to one engagement with affected landholders on an individual ad-hoc as-needs basis. Our consultation with key stakeholders indicates that the WDCAC agreed with the establishment of a Community Engagement Officer.

Our conversations and review of available documents indicate these three key changes were enabled by the WDCAC via working group strategic assessments. These key steps are broadly recognised within Committee and government as a CMA, or East Gippsland CMA model of local management accountability.

From these developments a range of other initiative and activities have naturally evolved particularly performance reporting and monitoring.

2.1.3 Institutional environmentTo further assist in evaluating the WDCAC, this section outlines the broad institutional environment since 2011.

Under the previous and current government the Minister for Agriculture has policy and direction setting responsibilities for biosecurity including wild dogs. The Minister for Agriculture also is, through DEDJTR responsible for enforcing the noxious weeds and pest animal provisions of the CaLP Act. The Minister for Environment under the previous and current government is responsible for the management on public land, catchment and land management and environmental related policy and direction setting such as wildlife and native species management. The General Order - Administration of Acts (dated 1 January 2015) and its supplements (dated 17 February and 28 September 2015) define the pieces of legislation and Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


the powers and responsibilities of each Minister including the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water. For example:

animal welfare regulation accountabilities under the POCTA Act rest with the Minister for Agriculture;

the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP) rests with the Minister for the Environment Climate Change and Water;

native animal regulation (for example under the Wildlife Act and Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (FFGA)) rests with the Minister for Environment (noting certain sections of the FFGA are the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture); and

agriculture and veterinary chemicals regulation (including the use of regulation rest with the Minister for Agriculture).

We note, however, there has been a number of machinery of government changes and organisational changes within agencies that have affected responsibilities within the program since 2011 (Table 2).

With strategic policy and overall program accountability resting with the Agriculture Portfolio the WDCAC has reported the Secretary of that Portfolio. First to the Secretary of DPI, then to the Secretary of DEPI and now to the Lead Deputy Secretary of the Agriculture, Energy and Resources Group in DEDJTR.

The WDCAC’s primary operating relationship has been with the Biosecurity Division and Branch who maintain the Secretariat and are accountable for strategic advice on the program. Since the machinery of government change to DEPI, operations of the program have been delivered through the DEPI and now DELWP regional model.

Table 2: Distribution of Departmental accountabilities

Strategic Policy Operations

DPI (2011-2013) DSE (2011-2013)

DEPI (2013-2014) DEDJTR (2015-) DELWP (2015-) Source: Marsden Jacob Associates

We make these observations because they are important to understand in the context of how the Committee and Delivery Group commenced and their operating environment. We crystallise these broader governance and functional accountabilities of government and the WDCAC to Wild dog management in Figure 2.



Figure 2: Key institutional responsibilities and relationships of the Wild Dog Program

Source: DEDJTR

2.2 Evaluation summaryWe have evaluated the WDCAC with reference to three key criteria:

efficacy;

strategy and alignment; and

structure and responsibilities.

2.3 EfficacyIn term of efficacy our key findings are:

Effectiveness: the WDCAC has been effective in providing advice and guidance in line with its 2012 and 2014 terms of reference. However, our consultation has revealed concerns



among some stakeholders regarding the focus of this advice and whether it can continue to provide effective strategic advice into the future.

Efficiency: the WDCAC has been efficient in its operation although the Committee outputs and cost effectiveness appears to have fallen in recent times as the WDCAC has shifted to more of a monitoring and endorsement role. The WDCAC has had a positive impact on the efficient operation of the Program, although its contribution to operationalising change within the program is likely to have somewhat matured.

These conclusions are summarised diagrammatically in Table 3.

Table 3: Efficacy performance

Key criteria tests MJA assessment of performance against testsLOW MEDIUM HIGH

Effective delivery against terms of reference

Efficient and timely delivery against terms of reference

Overall assessment against criteria

Source Marsden Jacob

2.3.1 EffectivenessThe objectives of the WDCAC were set out in its initial (2012) terms of reference and then its revised (2014) terms of reference. These terms of reference are contained in Appendix B.

For the purposes of this assessment, we have reviewed the performance of the WDCAC against the terms of reference under three key areas:

strategic advice and guidance;

communication and engagement with key stakeholders in the community; and

the promotion of improved cross tenure co-operation and co-investment by the private sector.

Strategic advice and guidanceThe 2012 and 2014 terms of reference make clear references to the WDCAC providing strategic advice and guidance with a view to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of wild dog management in Victoria and in achieving continuous improvement and innovation in wild dog control in Victoria.

In general, we have concluded that the provision of strategic advice of the WDCAC in the terms of the previous (Coalition) government was effective. The views of the Committee appear to have aligned closely with the concerns of the Minister for Agriculture and the advice was seen as the ‘cut through’ mechanism necessary to re-orientate and improve the accountability of departmental effort and to regain landholder trust. The fact that the three key initiatives of the WDCAC including the Directions Statement, regional zone plans and engagement methodology were endorsed and adopted by both Secretaries, is by definition an indicator of the effectiveness of the provision of advice given the operating context of the Committee at the time.

Moreover, in the view of most non-government members of the WDCAC, one of the key strategic contributions made by the WDCAC was in the development of the Directions Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


Statement and in achieving endorsement of the statement by the Secretary of the Department (DEPI). The reason for this is that, in the view of the Committee at the commencement of its term, there was not a common understanding among landholders or within government of the objectives for the program. The Directions Statement was required to resolve this confusion.

In particular, the Directions Statement asserted:

‘All land managers are working cooperatively together to reduce the incidence of livestock predation’

Additionally, subsequent to the Directions Statement, the WDCAC proposed a number of key values that were to shape structural and cultural change for the program moving forward, including:

effective and sympathetic communications and partnerships with landholders;

Government to have a program coordination (including data and monitoring) and a direct control role;

the program to move to a whole of State focus;

future control with greater input from community and contractors;

broadening the skills base of departmental Wild Dog Controllers;

a flexible structure and delivery arrangements; and

the WDCAC providing a mechanism for stakeholder input to government coordination.

As far as we can ascertain, the Directions Statement was formed collaboratively by the WDCAC and DEPI prior to being endorsed by the Secretary. While the Directions Statement is perceived by the WDCAC to be a committee statement, publically, it was described as being a statement of the program by DEPI. In establishing the Directions Statement, the WDCAC also established a set of supporting actions. Actions broadly included responsibilities for implementing program measurement and project machinery to enable the strategic shift expected by the Directions Statement.

The effectiveness of the Committee in guiding improvements to the Program in Victoria can also be seen at the national level in contributing to the development of the National Wild Dog Action Plan along with Departmental staff and the Victorian Government.

Moreover, the WDCAC proved at the time to be an effective mechanism for Departments to ‘soft land’ some policy and operational decisions by using both Committee advice and representation roles as a mechanism for community authorisation. However, this is not to say this is an appropriate role for an advisory committee per se.

Additionally, our consultation revealed that advice was forthright and formed through deep dive work of sub committees. The WDCAC to their credit commenced with a strategic assessment – identifying key design and implementation strengths and weaknesses.

Our consultation revealed that the WDCAC believes they have made a significant contribution to program outcomes through their actions. We describe and assess improvements in Appendix A based on the performance criteria established in the Directions Statement. The change in key measures is summarised in Figure 3 which indicates that there has been some improvement in key measures underpinning the strategic objectives set by the WDCAC, noting that some of the measures based on analysis of the DogBytes data have not been met and performance in some areas is well behind the target (e.g. cost per dog destroyed).



We note, however, the time period for the measurement of outcomes is short and there are a range of measurement and recording issues within the data. In addition, some stakeholders felt the WDCAC’s perception of its contribution is overstated given that Departments also contributed to the leveraging of program reforms championed by the WDCAC.

Our consultation has revealed that the WDCAC has played an important role in contributing to the improvement in some of these measures through:

developing clearly understood performance measures;

providing advice on the need for more proactive control measures; and

developing a stakeholder and community engagement strategy and framework while also participating in communication with the community.

This indicates that the advice provided by the WDCAC and its role in implementing change has been effective, particularly in the early phases of the Committee. However, consultation also revealed that it is difficult to measure the relative contribution of the WDCAC to the improvement in some of the performance measures.

In part this is because, while the WDCAC’s advice contributed to additional resourcing being allocated to wild dog management, it was the government that made the ultimate decision to increase funding and resourcing. Additionally, while the WDCAC provided strategic advice to recommend a greater focus on baiting, it was DELWP that independently gained valuable financial support from Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) for the Baiting Coordinator Project.



Figure 3: Performance against the WDCAC Directions Statement targets

Targets Outcomes to date

Strategic—our approach will be coordinated, planned and structured

Within two years (2014), baiting programs in each local area will support all reactive control operations.

Increase in number of locations in which trapping and shooting is being conducted where baiting programs exist.

After three years (2015), the number of reported dog attacks each year will be 15 per cent less than the number in the previous year.

Number of reported dog attacks has fallen slightly from 2012/13 to 2014/15, noting that there was a 27% decrease in the number of reported dog attacks between 2013/14 and 2014/15.

Proactive—we will move away from reactive responses

Within one year (2013), the number of baits deployed within the program will rise by 10 per cent.

The number of baits laid has increased by 23 per cent over the two year period 2012/13 to 2014/15 (and by 22 per cent in the first year).

Within one year (2013), the effectiveness of traps set to capture wild dogs will rise by 10 per cent.

The number of dogs captured to traps laid increased by more than 10 per cent – from 20 to 23 per cent.

Cost effective—we will maximise the use of available government resources, investing in projects and programs that deliver the highest returns for the lowest cost

Within two years (2014), the cost per wild dog destroyed will fall by 10 per cent.

Cost and labour expended per dog destroyed has increased by 21 and 25 per cent respectively over the two year period 2012/13 to 2014/15.

Nil-tenure—we will work across land tenures

Within three years (2015), the effort of program partners will increase by 20 per cent.

Increase in the number of hours contributed by partner programs of 27 per cent over the two year period 2012/13 to 2014/15.

Source: Marsden Jacob analysis of information provided by DEWLP.

While the WDCAC has made a positive contribution to the Program via its strategic advice, there are concerns among some stakeholders regarding the focus of the strategic advice. Our conversations point to five key issues:

the focus of the WDCAC on the Directions Statement and its performance measures which appears to have continued to draw the WDCAC to operational matters at the expense of a range of emergent strategic issues and limited the effectiveness of advice to DEDJTR;

the WDCAC has become less focused on self-generated ‘bottom up’ strategic ideas and thinking;



perception that some areas of impact are more represented than others ;

some imbalance in the mix of representation and skill in the provision of strategic advice. In particular the current balance toward landholder representation creates gaps in a skills based board in areas such as science and biodiversity conservation among others; and

the reporting lines of the WDCAC to the Government – there have been concerns by some members of the Committee that machinery of government changes and new reporting lines diluted the currency and level of Committee influence.

The first two of these issues are discussed in more detail below. The latter three are discussed in more detail later in the document.

Focus on the Directions Statement and operational issues

The WDCAC’s continued focus on the Directions statement has led to a range of outcomes that affect the ability to deliver to the stated terms of reference (Appendix B).

In the early days of the Committee, the WDCAC appears to have had a strong operational focus and an intent to shift the strategic direction of the program. At the time this was supported by many stakeholders. Additionally, some stakeholders have argued that upon the establishment of the WDCAC the key strategic problems were associated with the operations and engagement models of the program. That is, the key strategic contribution that the WDCAC could make was to influence changes to the operating model and this by necessity required a focus on program operations.

This focus led to the Directions Statement being centred on a set of performance measures, mostly relating to the operational performance of the program in achieving particular outcomes (e.g. number of baits laid, number of reported dog attacks, number of dogs caught by trap etc.).

However, the WDCAC has become less focused on operational issues over time. The continued focus on program operations has had a number of consequences for the effectiveness of the WDCAC. In particular, a potential criticism of the WDCAC is that it is still too heavily focussed on operational issues and there is a risk that the WDCAC ignores higher level strategic challenges that require attention. A comment of some stakeholders was the tendency for the WDCAC to get ‘bogged down in operational details’ and desire at times to actively intervene in management decisions.

Moreover, through our conversations it has become clear that there are a range of pressing issues that require investigation and strategic advice from community – and which appear to be relatively more important for the WDCAC to focus on under its terms of reference. For example, issues of interest raised in our conversations include:

advice and guidance on transition to more private sector governance and accountability;

changes to trap inspection timing arrangements;

likely sun-setting of AWI community program funding;

emergent need to more broadly consider animal welfare and environmental objectives; and

risk of diminished community participation as the incidence of attacks decline.

An advisory group should focus on providing advice on broad program settings to flexibly respond to these challenges rather than focus on the details of specific implementation.

Of particular concern is that the focus on operational measures is not viewed by a number of stakeholders as being consistent with the current terms of reference and there is less of a need



for a focus by the WDCAC on operational issues now that there has been some improvement in the key performance measures. This is a key issue going forward if the WDCAC is to be retained or reshaped.

Self-generated strategic advice

Our observation is that in the early stages of the WDCAC (2011 to 2013) there was a focus on self-generated strategic advice – that is, thinking and advice that has its genesis in and was internal to the Committee. An indication of this is the three key initiatives discussed in section 2.1.2.

Our consultation and review of documentation has revealed that there has been less self-generated strategic advice over time and much more of an emphasis on providing strategic advice in the form of endorsing government initiated queries. On balance, our conversations indicate a drop off in self-generated strategic advice from Committee in the second half of the Committees term. Moreover, Department officers frequently use the WDCAC to seek endorsement of views or approach in order to achieve a policy soft landing.

There are advantages and disadvantages of this shift in emphasis. One potential advantage is to gain Committee ownership of decisions to reduce the risk of unilateral decision making by the Department which may lead to criticism from the community. A disadvantage is that the shift in emphasis results in the WDCAC failing to provide insightful and useful strategic advice which is a key part of its terms of reference. Additionally, a key risk is that there is an increase in the resource costs to Government of researching and preparing papers as the Government is generating strategic ideas. If this were to occur the Committee could become an unnecessarily high cost mechanism of generating advice.

Our observation is that the shift is emphasis is an area for improvement if a new advisory board is formed.

It is likely the drivers of this shift in strategic thinking reflect among others the:

length of term of the Committee members — Committee members had begun with a suite of ideas and after addressing them early in their tenure have had fewer issues or ideas to raise and have moved from proactive to reactive advice;

machinery of government changes — changes in staffing and accountabilities increased the number of instances in which the endorsement of action was sought; and

authority of the Committee — reflecting the early success of the proactive work of the Committee to cement the operating and reporting model, the Committee became a de-facto authorising environment for program decision making.

Communication and engagement with key stakeholders in the communityThe 2012 and 2014 terms of references state that the WDCAC will undertake a range of activities communicating and engaging with key stakeholders in the community on the Program. In particular, the 2011 terms of reference refers to:

‘considering submissions from stakeholders on issues pertaining to strategic wild dog management;

providing a forum for communication with industry and key stakeholders;

building and maintaining relationships between industry, State Government, interstate and national stakeholders to support a collaborative approach to wild dog management; and



leading the planning and coordination of regular State-wide fora to promote best practice wild dog control’.

Additionally, the 2014 terms of reference lists to the WDCAC tasks to include:

‘contribute to improving stakeholder understanding of wild dog management roles and responsibilities;

build and maintain relationships between community, industry, State Government, and other affected stakeholders and support a collaborative approach to wild dog management; and

engage in communication/engagement activities that promote the objectives of Victoria's Directions Statement and Action Plan for the Management of Wild Dogs in Victoria.’

The WDCAC has played a pivotal role in the improvement of communication between landholders and operational staff, which has contributed to improved community confidence (refer to Box 2 for more details about how community confidence has changed in recent years).This has included activities such as:

a hosting role for community fora;

providing direct one to one communication links to landholders; and

making recommendations on quarterly reporting and program operations (which have improved landholder access to metrics on program performance).

The strategic advice provided by the WDCAC has helped move the engagement model toward more community input in decision making and one on one liaison between government operational staff and landholders. Moreover, our conversations indicate a widespread view that the WDCAC has contributed to a shift in the mind set of some communities in relation to the program.

This shift can be characterised as moving from ‘victim’ to ‘mutual obligation’:

‘victim’ — ‘wild dogs are from public land and are a government problem for the government to fix’; to

‘mutual obligation’ — ‘everyone has a role in managing wild dogs’.

The shift is incremental, ongoing and by no means complete – there will continue to be local community concern and grievance. Additionally, our consultation has revealed that this shift has been a combination of both the WDCAC and government actions. In particular, the program components that have foundationally contributed to this shift in mind set include:

the implementation of the coordinated baiting program (in particular, the Baiting Coordinator Project which began in 2012);

renewed approach to local area planning groups; and

regional fora.

The WDCAC played an important role in improving community engagement by: developing a stakeholder and community engagement strategy and framework; participating in direct communication with the community; providing advice on the need for more proactive control measures; and contributing to the delivery of the community fora. The WDCAC also contributed to more proactive communication and interactions with the community ahead of control activities being implemented and provided community leadership on wild dog issues.



By ‘owning’ some of the key program changes, particularly a vision (through the Directions Statement) and influencing program operations, there has been support and defence of the program by members that has helped mitigate pockets of local grievance and blame. This appears to have also begun to create a virtuous cycle of community consultation, such that respected and leading landholders are more likely to participate in program community engagement because of the likelihood of reduced meeting tension and conflict. It is imperative that this momentum is maintained.

Box 2: Community impacts

There is strong anecdotal evidence and some empirical evidence of improved community confidence in the Program.

This improvement in confidence centres on affected landholders and is evidenced by:

positive feedback from the land owner members of the WDCAC;

positive feedback from landholders at wild dog fora and workshops particularly in the last 12 months;

reduced adversarial relationships; and

improved community participation and cooperation in baiting programs.

Cross tenure co-operation and co-investment by the private sectorThere is evidence of improvements in cross tenure co-operation and co-investment and that the WDCAC has contributed to this outcome.

The implementation of control activities across tenures has improved with an increase in the use of co-ordinated baiting across public and private land. The WDCAC has helped to engender this by communicating the intent and benefits of increasing public land baiting and encouraging co-operation and co-ordination by land holder involved in private control activities.

There is evidence of both increased public and private investment. Our understanding is that the WDCAC has helped leverage more public investment in control activities through: the Directions Statement; general influence over the program; and by helping to improve landholder co-operation and confidence.

2.3.2 EfficiencyWe have examined ‘efficiency’ in terms of the operation of the WDCAC and also the WDCAC’s impact on the operation of the Program.

In terms of the WDCAC’s operation, our analysis of program documents, minutes and feedback from stakeholders is that the WDCAC has been relatively efficient in delivering activities against its terms of reference. Initial progress was relatively slow but work outputs and outcomes hastened as sub-committees advanced. However, with a period of abeyance of the Delivery Group and the shift of the WDCAC to more a monitoring and endorsement role, the Committee outputs have fallen and cost effectiveness appears to have dropped.

Additionally, in conversations we have found the WDCAC operations to be relatively more expensive than other like Committees. This in part reflects: contractual arrangements which Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


should be revisited as a matter of course; the size of the Committee; the Committee’s operating environment and consultative tasks; the level of Departmental participation in the Committee; and the expectation of the Committee for secretariat, analytical and policy support from government.

In terms of its impact on the Program, the WDCAC’s involvement in implementing program changes has had a positive impact on the efficiency of delivery of outputs against the objectives, with evidence that:

effort is more targeted and more coordinated;

there is greater resource flexibility through the use of casuals and contractors; and

there is greater use of proactive control measures.

Timeliness also appears to have improved with:

more proactive communication and interactions with community ahead of control activities; and

the development of seasonally coordinated baiting campaigns.

However, while the focus on implementing program changes appears to have had a positive net impact on Program outcomes, we note that the focus has potentially been at the expense of higher level strategic issues and led to unintended governance issues. This was discussed in the previous section on effectiveness.

2.4 Strategy and alignmentOur key findings are:

the role of the WDCAC has been reasonably clear, although a clearer statement of role and reporting requirements would be beneficial.

the WDCAC and government focus on different vision and strategy statements for wild dog management (the Directions Statement versus Action Plan) impacts on the framing of strategic advice to government.

This is summarised in Table 4.

Table 4: Strategy and alignment


Clear objectives for the WDCAC

The WDCAC alignment with clear agreed theory of action framework



Important components of a well-functioning Committee are that:

the role of the WDCAC is clear and well understood by the WDCAC members; and

strategic advice is provided by the WDCAC with consideration of the government’s current vision and strategic framework for wild dog management.



Our consultation with key government stakeholders and the WDCAC indicate that the role of the WDCAC has been reasonably clear and this is reflected back in the effectiveness of advice discussed in the previous section. However, it is also apparent that the interpretation of ‘strategic advice’ taken by the WDCAC resulted in it becoming heavily involved in operational issues. This requires clarification if a new advisory board is formed.

Additionally, we note that there does not appear to have been a statement of expectation to Committee beyond its broad terms of reference. A useful mechanism to clarify objectives and ensure alignment is for the Secretary to provide guidance to the Committee on priorities for its term and have a mechanism for mid-term performance review and feedback.

In terms of providing strategic to government, it is clear that the WDCAC developed the Directions Statement in the early stages of its tenure as a result of a need to develop a strategic vision for wild dogs in the absence of an appropriate strategic frame provided by government. We also note that, subsequent to the Directions Statement, the WDCAC developed a range of strategies (not documented in Directions Statement) to achieve the key performance indicators.

Subsequent to the Directions Statement, government developed the Action Plan for the management of Wild Dogs in Victoria (Action Plan). However, our consultation revealed that there is a lack of clarity in the respective role of the Directions Statement and the Action Plan. In many ways these documents overlap and there is no clear linking mechanism between them.

The existence of both documents has led to two key issues relating to clarity of objectives for the WDCAC:

differences in view of the guiding strategy document — the WDCAC viewed its Directions Statement as the framing document for strategic direction whereas government holds the view it is the Action Plan; and

differences in view on the definition and focus of strategy and high level thinking — the WDCAC has viewed operational and tactical matters as core to its strategic activities. Given the separation of strategic policy and operations between DEDJTR and DELWP this can create a concern for some government stakeholders that the WDCAC is not self-generating and providing broader high level advice for future issues. This was discussed previously in section 2.3.1.

Indeed, our conversations reveal a spectrum of views around the ownership of and relationships between the Directions Statement and the Action Plan.

One of the fundamental issues is that the WDCAC has a strong sense of ownership of the Directions Statement but not the Action Plan. However, in the view of DEDJTR, the Action Plan supersedes the Directions Statement.

This disconnect has led to there being a lack of a common strategic frame of reference for some of the WDCAC members providing strategic advice to government. In some quarters the Action Plan is viewed as too complex and bureaucratic for the wild dog problem and beyond the requirements of what is seen as a narrower set of operational design and engagement issues. However, the focus on operational issues had leads to a separate set of issues – as discussed in section 2.3.1.

2.5 Structure and responsibilitiesOur key findings are:



there are overlaps in roles and responsibilities of the WDCAC and parts of government, particularly in performance reporting, provision of strategic advice, operational advice and direction, community engagement, and at times program oversight. This overlap is exacerbated by a perceived misalignment of Direction’s Statement and the government’s Action Plan.

the WDCAC has developed an implicit ‘endorsing’ role which has created confusion in the scope of their role.

there are a range of board composition issues that should be considered if a new advisory board is formed, including: ensuring appropriate representation across regions and agricultural communities; and reviewing the need for skills in science, health, governance and environmental management among others.

This is summarised in Table 5.

Table 5: Structure and responsibilities performance


Clarity and appropriateness of roles and responsibilities

Authority and decision making

Skills and representation



There are a range of aspects of structure and responsibilities that we have examined. Our conversations and review of program documentation reveal some explicit and implicit misalignment regarding structure and responsibilities for the program.

There are some critical issues that need to be addressed to ensure that advisory board roles and responsibilities and clarified along with clear authority, decision making and accountability for wild dog management.

Substantial issues include clarifying the;

roles and responsibilities of the advisory board to provide guidance on the nature and scope of strategic and high level advice;

authorising and decision making function of the advisory board; and

appropriate membership mix and skills and expertise of an advisory board taking into account the nature of the strategic advice being considered and the natural trade-offs between conservation, productivity and human health.

These are discussed in more detail below.

Roles and responsibilities of the WDCACThere are some tensions in the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of the WDCAC. A key point of tension is that the WDCAC undertook a range of functions that overlapped with DEDJTR and DELWP, in particular:

performance reporting;Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


provision of strategic advice;

operational advice and direction;

community engagement; and at times

program oversight.

This is illustrated in more detail in Table 6 and Figure 4 which shows the departmental and the WDCAC accountabilities for the Program as we understand them and have been described to us. Feedback from a range of stakeholders indicated that the WDCAC should step back from:

detailed operational advice — it should focus more on emerging short and long term strategic issues;

separate performance reporting — there should be one reporting system within the program; and

a sense of program oversight.

Additionally, the continued focus on operational issues has led to a perception among some stakeholders that the Program is accountable to the WDCAC. This perception is reinforced by the WDCAC review of performance at its quarterly meetings. A further consequence is that, when combined with the three key initiatives, some stakeholders observed that the WDCAC has ‘developed a life of its own’ and appears to have created a form of operational command of the program. This shift to implementing change has also led to the roles and responsibilities of the WDCAC, DEWLP’s operational management of the Program and accountabilities of DEDJTR staff that serviced the WDCAC being blurred.

Importantly, it appears to us that the roles and responsibilities of the WDCAC have been confused by the perceived misalignment of Direction’s Statement and the Action Plan — we sense there a risk that a future in WDCAC focussed on a Directions Statement could perceive DEDJTR as largely irrelevant to the program.

These issues highlight the need for greater clarity around the roles and responsibilities of the WDCAC. In particular, regardless of any changes considered in relation to the WDCAC and program accountabilities, government should clarify the relationships and hierarchy of the Directions Statement and Action Plan and, where appropriate, streamline them to provide clarity over:

strategic planning and advice;

tactical planning and advice; and

operational planning and advice.

If a new advisory board is formed, some guidance should be provided on the expected nature of strategic advice; the boundaries to operational matters; and the expected balance of the dual roles for the provision of advice and representation.

Additionally, one of the key responsibility issues to be resolved is the WDCAC’s role in broad program oversight. This issue should be examined with consideration of a range of factors, including:

the broader future role of the WDCAC or like body; and

the degree to which a body like the WDCAC has the ability to facilitate greater community ownership of wild dog management by taking some ownership over program operations.



Reform of the WDCAC should also consider broader institutional issues which were highlighted to us by stakeholders during consultation.

Table 6: Overview of program responsibilities

Program Component

Department

WDCAC DEDJTR DELWP ParksVictoria

LocalResidents

(AWI)

Field Work: Safe, effective and humane control of wild dog numbers to reduce their impacts Database Inputs: maintenance of a database that provides a state-wide record of wild dog attacks on livestock

Program Oversight: Ensure all parties are meeting responsibilities and continual development of localised plans

? Tracking/Reporting on Targets: Reports of performance against targets to determine progress towards program objectives

Workforce Development: Build a flexible and skilled workforce Operational Improvement: Ensure efficientcurrent operations and research/develop new processes and strategies for wild dog control

? Community Engagement: Promote community investment and leadership and increase community awareness of the program benefits

Stakeholder Management: Ensure continued strategic inputs and feedback from program stakeholders

Policy/Regulatory Development: Investigate how regulatory/policy reform can further benefit the program




Figure 4: Summary of current operating model


Authorising and decision makingOur conversations and review of program documentation reveal a shift in the authorising and decision making environment. The WDCAC’s initial focus appears to have been on providing input into the development of policy and the design of operations. Over time, as its contribution to policy and operations has matured, it evolved to be more of an implicit endorsing forum of policy and operational design decisions. A range of stakeholders indicated that there are concerns this has been an inappropriate application of its advice role and clearly a formal authorisation and decision making role in not consistent with either the 2011 or 2014 terms of reference.

Skills and representationOur consultation indicated that government should consider the requirements for a range of skills related to ensuring the effective provision of strategic advice.

As a matter of course, if an advisory board is to be formed the make-up of the board should reflect the broad spectrum of affected landholders across regions and agricultural sectors. In saying this we recognise that there are a range of issues to consider in board selection and that the role of representation on the committee is subtle and a difficult balance. This is due to:

on the one hand, representation is such that members need to represent their individual views and the views of ‘their constituents’, yet need to have a program wide view bound by Committee decisions; and

on the other hand, a member’s representation role needs to be balanced with the dual role of providing strategic and high level advice.

Additionally, we note that there are benefits from some continuity of membership. We have been reminded through our conversations of the important skills developed by Committee members during their involvement. A number of stakeholders have pointed to the growth in policy knowledge and sophistication of program thinking that emerged within the Committee. Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


Members became more empowered to test and challenge departmental thinking and advice and this can have positive effects on program development and the quality of the contribution of Departments.

There are also broader representation issues that should be considered if a new advisory group is to be formed. For example, the WDCAC’s strategic advice has not always take into consideration all of the relevant issues that would be considered by government in making changes to wild dog policies and programs. In particular, the WDCAC is seen by some to be predominantly landholder-centric with a reporting focus towards enhancing farm productivity.

A key challenge is balancing the representation and skill in the provision of strategic advice across a range of relevant issues. The current balance toward landholder representation creates gaps in a skills based board in areas such as science, health, governance and environmental management among others.



3. Evaluating the Delivery Group 3.1 Overview of the Delivery Group The Delivery Group is comprised of a group of government officials and the Chair of the WDCAC that are accountable for overseeing the delivery of actions under the Action Plan. Until the change of Government in November 2014, the Delivery Group was chaired by the Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Industries. Following the change in government and resulting machinery of government changes there has been a hiatus in re-establishing this forum to discuss and monitor the implementation of the Action Plan. The Delivery Group met again in November 2015 and is in process of establishing new chairing arrangements and mechanism, to review and prioritise actions.

3.2 Evaluation of the Delivery Group The Delivery Group was established in late 2013 (Terms of reference is contained in Appendix B) and met four times during 2014. Between November 2014 and November 2015 Delivery Group did not reconvene. In November 2015 a new terms of reference was established (Terms of reference is contained in Appendix B).

We have reviewed the minutes and papers associated with the group and discussed the operation of the group with key stakeholders. Similar to our evaluation of the WDCAC, we have analysed the Delivery Group with reference to three key criteria:

efficacy;

strategy and alignment; and

structure and responsibilities.

3.3 EfficacyIn terms of efficacy our key finding is that during 2014 the group was a very effective mechanism to ensure accountability for deliverables under the Action Plan.

We note the Delivery Group has reviewed a substantial amount of program documentation relating to program delivery issues such as operational design and implementation matters (such as bait availability), area management planning, communications (such as feedback on community fora) and, in particular, clarified a range of issues relating to the overlay of associated policy and regulation associated with the environment, animal welfare and chemical use.

Conversations with stakeholders highlighted that the Delivery Group provided an important mechanism for some members to have a stronger connection to the Minister’s office — providing a line of sight both into and out of the office. Another key observation was the important role the Group played in giving some sense of ownership of program delivery and outcomes to the Parliamentary Secretary. A number of stakeholders commented that the Chair, through Chairing the Group, became a helpful advocate and ‘roving ambassador’ for the program and in doing so became another important mechanism for program liaison with affected communities.



Our view and supported by a majority of those we consulted with is that recommencing the group would be valuable. We see a group such as the Delivery Group as being important for the future delivery of the Action Plan – especially give the breadth and scope of the plan and the dispersed accountabilities. In the absence of the group, there is a substantive risk of drift on Action Plan accountabilities and outcomes.

3.4 Strategy and alignmentIn terms of strategy and alignment, our key finding is that the Delivery Group has clearly defined its role as being to implement the Action Plan. However, we note that there are issues in the alignment of the Action Plan with other institutions that are discussed elsewhere in this review.

Moreover, a key issue if a new advisory board is formed will be to clarify the status of the Action Plan and to make its relevance clear to other institutions such as the wild dog operations group within DELWP.

3.5 Structure and responsibilitiesA key issue identified from our consultation with stakeholders is that there has been a lack of clarity from the WDCAC and the wild dog operations group within DELWP, as to the role of the Delivery Group in driving the implementation of the Action Plan. Indeed, the feedback of some stakeholders was that they did not understand the importance or relevance of the Delivery Group.

In part this reflects that under the current Government the group has not met, reflecting the absence of a Chair. However, we do note that as an interim measure a working group of departmental staff meet informally to continue liaison between DEDJTR and DELWP on issues relating to the program.

Again, if a new advisory board is formed, a key issue will be to appropriately clarify the role of Delivery Group in delivering the Action Plan.



4. Assessment of the Action PlanIn this section an assessment of the government’s Action Plan is undertaken. This includes identifying:

the progress that has been achieved and the pace of progress;

the actions that are to be completed and why they have not been completed;

the priorities that should be set going forward;

the alignment with the National Action Plan; and

the strengths, gaps and opportunities of the Action Plan and issues that need to be addressed.

4.1 Achievements and pace of progress against the Action Plan

At a broad level we consider the pace of progress against the Action Plan to be moderate. As it is early in the action plan period (the action plan runs from 2014 to 2019), the vast majority of the activities are ongoing and not many of the outputs have yet been delivered.

There are a significant number of actions that have had good progress made and there are already a small number of activities that are at risk of being delayed. We base this assessment on quarterly reporting by DEDJTR against the Action Plan and consultations with stakeholders. The most recently available quarterly report is from the meeting held on 30 September 2014. Table 7 provides a summary assessment of the progress made against each action.

Table 7: Overall assessment of progress

Action Progress Comment

Action Area 1

Ensure continued strategic input and feedback from all stakeholders

Moderate

There has been good progress made with the executive support for the WDCAC and the engagement with the WDCAC Directions Statement, all other sub actions (mainly surrounding stakeholder integration) are progressing as expected.

Promote community leadership and participation in wild dog programs at the local level

High

Good progress has been made in facilitating enhanced community participation in wild dog management. This includes:

fora; baiting co-ordination ; regional planning groups; and feedback functions of the WDCAC.

The facilitation of increased community participation is ongoing.

Ensure all stakeholders, including public land managers, meet their responsibilities for wild

Low DEDJTR is working with stakeholders to increase understanding of and articulate the roles and responsibilities in wild dog management.




dog control

Develop and implement local plans over which all stakeholders have ownership

High

The wild dog management zone plans for 2014/15 have been implemented. There is still ongoing work to help communities set their work plans and assist in achieving their desired outcomes for future periods.

Action Area 2

Proactively manage wild dogs to reduce their impacts

High

There has been very good progress made working with Parks Victoria to create an integrated wild dog management approach. However, there is still additional effort required to work with industry and the community to coordinate a proactive wild dog management approach. There has been good development in the support for proactive approaches for wild dog control, but there needs to be further study completed on the cost-effectiveness of integrated approaches to wild dog management.

Increase the availability of new and existing products, tools and strategies for wild dog management

Moderate

There has been rapid development in the manufacturing, improved supply chain, stewardship and safe use of 1080 baits. However, there has been limited progress addressing regulatory barriers that may impede the implementation of new products as well as the implementation of safeguards. This can be attributed to the progress being contingent on national registration.

Use safe, effective and humane approaches to wild dog management

Moderate

There is continual progress being made to ensure all operations and stakeholders are complying with the appropriate code of practices, operating procedures and environmental best practices. There needs to be more work completed on options relating to 72 hour trap inspection requirement and the use of canid pest injectors, which are dependent upon Ministerial approval.

Increase community understanding of the benefits of wild dog management in Victoria

Moderate

The benefits of the wild dog management program have been consistently presented to the community and stakeholders including through the issue of consistent updates on the program activities and outcomes. These updates include:

newsletters; fora; monthly team meetings; WDMZ work plan meetings; quarterly reports; and Annual reports.

Action Area 3

Improve the mechanisms used to carry out, monitor, evaluate and report on wild dog control, so it is focused, streamlined, timely and efficient

Moderate

There has been reasonable progress in the implementation of the DogBytes database and the development of real-time information tools to support business decisions. There has also been ongoing monitoring of the program outcomes and communication of the program achievements.

Build a flexible and skilled Moderate There has been consistent effort placed into identifying Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources



workforce

the appropriate workforce dimensions and adjusting the current workforce to fit the identified optimum resource mix. This has been done through:

training of existing staff; consulting with stakeholders to determine

areas lacking in the current workforce; employment of casual staff; and Training of field services staff to use as a surge

resource.

Promote innovation, research development and extension

Moderate

There has been a strong commitment of funding from the government enabling the continuation of research and development and there has been a good stream of ideas from the community about gaps in the current program, potential new products and research and development opportunities. There will need to be a continuation of work with research bodies and relevant stakeholder to ensure future innovation and development.

Investigate how legislative, regulatory and policy reform can benefit wild dog management in Victoria

Low

There needs to be further work done to determine exactly how future legislation can support the community management aspect of the program. By contrast, there has been good work determining opportunities to remove existing red tape that inhibits the wild dog program.

Overall Progress

All Actions Moderate

Across the board there has been a natural progression to the activities within the action plan, however there are still some areas where further work needs to be done to ensure the required outputs are met.

High – the outcomes desired within the timeframes have been achieved. Moderate – most of the outcomes desired within the timeframes have been achieved. Low—many of the outcomes desired within the timeframes have not been achieved.

As mentioned, it is a difficult task to assess the progress of the Action Plan on two fronts. Firstly, the action plan had been in existence for less than one year (less than 15% of the proposed life of the activities and actions) and secondly, the implementation report was last updated in September 2014 in preparation for the November 2014 Delivery Group meeting. Our discussions indicate that there have been a number of areas of progress relating to the Action Plan since the last meeting. The updates include:

annual regional fora were held;

on-going DEDJTR quarterly reporting of progress against the Directions Statement;

spring baiting activities occurring through the Baiting Coordinator Project;

landholder training in Agricultural Chemical User Permits and controls measures has occurred;

six monthly review on the progress of the Wild Dog Management Zone Work Plans were completed;

extensive communication activities through program newsletters;



bait distribution days occurred; and

Victoria continues to influence the National Action Plan particularly through the working group on performance measurement design.

These updates will have resulted in the progression of a number of actions and activities within the Action Plan.

Another difficulty of assessing progress against the Action Plan is the lack of clear process during 2015 for the identification and prioritisation of expected activities and outputs.

Indeed, there is risk moving forward that departmental and program activities have or will be included ex post of implementation to the reporting system. As a result, there is a risk of disengagement with the Action Plan if the implementation report becomes an ex-post stocktake of business as usual activity rather than an ex ante planning and ex post review document.

The Delivery Group should revisit the implementation report and:

assess and agree on priority areas;

seek and interrogate work plans from the relevant areas and monitor progress against the work plans;

agree a process for regular review and updating of the prioritisation list.

4.2 Alignment with the National Action PlanThere is a natural philosophical alignment of the broad thrust and direction of the Action Plan and the National Wild Dog Action Plan (NWDAP) given these plans were written in concert.

Our conversations with stakeholders indicate that engagement with the national body has enhanced Victorian relationships and capability and in part the establishment of the WDCAC and the approach of the Directions Statement are, to some extent, the fruits of some early national innovations.

Moreover, the key drivers and authors of the NWDAP have been key contributors to the Victorian program through both DEDJTR and the WDCAC. Some of the WDCAC members are members of the national body driving a national agenda and DEDJTR staff are on the writing panel.

With this background we see commonality on the plans and scope for further alignment particularly in relation to measurement and evaluation. Victorian influence of the Action Plan will be found in the NWDAP as State’s success with the Action Plan becomes more well-known and is seen as a leading model.

An area for progress between the two plans is the development of national metrics for performance. We note a national working group is undertaking this work. The Action Plan is in need of robust metrics and the indicators used by the Directions Statement are a useful point of conversation and analysis.

Moreover, there will be a need align to align Action Plan and Directions Statement metrics with the outcomes of national metric. In the interim, Victoria should progress analysis of control data and continue to improve understanding of what is measured and what can be interpreted from the data. An important issue will be the timeframes and time-series under which trends can be observed and confirmed, given seasonal considerations and the impact of other factors such as bushfires on wild dogs.



4.3 Strengths, gaps and opportunitiesThe Action Plan has a number of strengths and gaps and there are opportunities for further improvement.

4.3.1 StrengthsKey major strengths of the Action Plan are the Plan:

was authorised by the accountable Minister of the day;

is broader in scope than the Directions Statement, providing guidance on, among others, regulatory reform and Research Development and Extension (RD and E);

defines and describes key actions and accountabilities;

sets out intended Government, industry and community stakeholder accountabilities;

has a Delivery Group maintain accountability for actions; and

is a vehicle to influence and align with the NWDAP.

4.3.2 Gaps and perceived weaknessKey major gaps of the Action Plan include, that the Action Plan:

is considered by some key stakeholders to be a DEDJTR document and does not have a strong sense of ownership by other program members – this includes some of the WDCAC members and some key operational and delivery staff;

does not articulate a relationship and hierarchy with the Directions Statement;

is not considered by some members of the WDCAC to have been central to its advice, and communication;

considered by some key stakeholders to be overly complex with too many actions and thereby unworkable;

does not prioritise actions (All three Action Areas are a priority and therefore all actions by implication are a priority);

is perceived by some stakeholders to have not been widely distributed or understood by community;

creates confusion between a strategy and program delivery and tracking document to guide program operational design and innovation;

does not provide a long term vision for program ownership and accountabilities;

does not identify key emerging strategic issues;

does not recognise recent developments and reforms to program operations;

arguably has gaps in accountability given the abeyance of the Delivery Group; and

does not have performance indicators (beyond broad traffic lights).

We note the Directions Statement and its KPIs are provided as appendix to the Action Plan. Some measures listed are:

unrealistic;Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


not consistent with the aims of the program (for example decreasing the costs of wild dog management by 10 percent each year is not consistent with the increasing marginal cost of wild dog management as dog become fewer).

4.3.3 OpportunitiesKey major opportunities for the Action Plan are:

a refresh and reassertion of the plan;

to clarify priority areas of action and areas where strategic advice will be sought on a yearly basis;

to develop and include a program investment logic map to define relationships of outputs to outcomes;

to agree and establish a process for adding and prioritising new activities and actions;

to develop performance indicators and establish independent assessment of progress;

to link measures to project deliverables – in particular zone management plans;

to include a forward look operating context and assessment of emerging strategic landscape; and

to specify a new operating period for the plan.

4.3.4 Strategic settingIn updating the Action Plan, we encourage the departments to consider describing the plan within a strategic context. In our view, a common ‘outcome of objectives’ frame of reference, will be necessary to maximise the usefulness of strategic advice to government.

The Program would benefit from a commonly understood theory of action (program logic) in order to provide greater clarify around the nature of the wild dog problem and how current strategies are going to address issues to deliver benefits. In this context, we developed a program logic in consultation with the Department (Box 3) which we have used to assist in developing the recommendations in section 1. This program logic is based on the current strategic responses.



Box 3: Program logic for wild dogs

The program logic was developed in a facilitated workshop of key departmental staff responsible for the program and associated policy. We note that the ILM flags the Action Plan as a key strategic response. There is a wide array of sub actions listed under the Action Plan and these are provided in further detail in the appendices.

Figure 5: Wild dog program logic

Source: Marsden Jacob facilitated workshop



5. Opportunities to improve governance and advice

In the section we consider options to improve governance and advice on the Program.

5.1 Issues in current model designBuilding on our review of the WDCAC, the Delivery Group and the Action Plan, we are concerned there a number of issues with the current governance model for the Program. These concerns include:

tension in the multiple functions required of the WDCAC, namely strategic and high level advice and consultation and community relationship roles;

lack of clarity on the definition and scope for the WDCAC in relation to its the roles and functions;

no apparent mechanism for direction of the Chair of the WDCAC and also in chair reporting and moderation of Committee member performance;

gaps in skills and representation of the WDCAC membership;

gaps in the current Delivery Group mechanism – there is a risk of insufficient authorisation and independent oversight to drive strategic direction and program accountability; and

confusion over the status, hierarchy and relationship between the Directions Statement and Action Plan.

5.2 Why have strategic advice, communications and representation functions?

Through our consultations, we have concluded there are a number of reasons that an advisory board is required to provide strategic advice to government. These include:

the opportunity to complement Departmental functions relating to efficient and effective operation of the Program by addressing gaps that can emerge through the structural split of functions between departments and the potential for departmental inertia and gaps in program intelligence;

the ‘wickedness’ of the public policy problem and the need for innovative pragmatic but well-designed policy and programs;

the heterogeneity of views both within government and within the private sector regarding desirable outcomes and the best way forward to achieve those; and

the strong likelihood of political sensitivities to any gaps in the efficiency and effectiveness of the program.

Our consultations with a range of stakeholders indicate that these various factors create a high risk environment for the design and operation of the program in the absence of supporting mechanisms. Support is required to effectively identify issues, provide support to networks and to feedback into the community.



5.3 Approach to analysing optionsWe consider governance options for the Program at three levels:

1. machinery of government for efficient and effective delivery of the Action Plan;

2. options for advice and communications functions actioned by the WDCAC; and

3. options for the functions of the Delivery Group.

We assess the options against four criteria:

effectiveness;

efficiency;

risk; and

cost.

5.4 Machinery of Governance In this section options for machinery of governance of the efficient and effective delivery of the Action Plan are outlined and assessed.

Options for machinery range from:

the current split of strategic oversight and operations between DEDJTR and DELWP;

swapping this current split between Departments;

consolidating the program within one Department; to

shifting the program to community ownership potentially through a variety of regional institutions.

5.4.1 Departmental options It is widely recognised within the Departments and the WDCAC that there is currently no ‘natural fit’ for the Program within the current machinery of government arrangements. In part this reflects the current functions of the departments and the responsibilities and delegations of Ministers. We note some substantive changes to machinery of government would have implications for delegations, accountabilities and lines of reporting to responsible Ministers under the relevant Acts.

We see a range of pros and cons in moving significantly away from the current arrangements.

Presently, strategic policy is the responsibility of DEDJTR while operations are run through DELWP. Our conversations reveal that there would be concerns if operations were to move to DEDJTR given, among others, risks of:

management challenges to integrate an effective regional operational model for the program; and the

loss of program significance under the larger DEDJTR.

This is not to say these risks could not be mitigated with additional institutional design and refinement of delivery arrangements.



There were fewer stakeholders concerns with the option of shifting the program entirely under DELWP which is viewed as the public land manager that can fill gaps in operations from other elements of public land management — an issue that was previously perceived to be of strategic concern.

While there could be advantages in bringing together strategic policy and operations (such as program synergies and improving practical insight to policy design and vice versa potentially leveraging more innovative reform to practices), a number of stakeholders pointed to potential risks. One potential risk is departmental internalisation of policy design in relation to environmental policy and productivity outcomes. Additionally, with animal welfare policy within the Agriculture portfolio and the strong linkage of the wild dog problem to farmers, there would be a need for appropriate DEDJTR representation on a DELWP led program.

5.4.2 Shift to Community ownershipOur conversations indicate that, broadly speaking, an aspiration should be for more community ownership of the program. However, there were mixed views on the extent to which the community should take further ownership and the institutions through which this might be achieved. Spectrums of ownership ranged from more joint partnership to full autonomy. Institutions ranged from use of CMA and landholder networks to a new regional body.

An area of discussion by stakeholders was practicality and feasibility of community ownership models given:

the overlay of responsibilities of the government for public land management;

there are concerns that regional institutions like CMAs and Landcare are currently not appropriately structured to take on ownership of the wild dog program. (In our view substantial institutional changes beyond the scope of this report, given there are likely other land service issues that would also need to be considered) would be required for the program to be successful shifted to CMAs);

the likely transaction costs, overlap and governance design issues in establishing new regional institutions with the capacity to effectively manage the program.

Our judgement is that these community ownership models are not feasible at this stage of the program. The potential use of regional institutions is discussed more in section .

5.5 Alternative advice and governance models We have considered a wide spectrum of options for an advisory board to provide advice, communication and representation.

Options range from:

No board;

maintaining and/or reforming the current board;

establishing new mechanisms by separating functions relating to strategic advice and communication and representation.

In our assessment there are two viable options to revise the current arrangements for the WDCAC, discussed in detail below.

1. reform the WDCAC ; andDepartment of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


2. replace the WDCAC with two new mechanisms for gathering strategic advice and managing communications and relationships.

Our preferred model is to reform the WDCAC. Our view is that many of the issues relating to the efficiency and effectiveness of the WDCAC can be addressed by reforming the WDCAC in a way that is also cost effective. In addition, our preference is influenced by our assessment that there is a high risk to the program by abolishing the WDCAC and not undertaking changes to its core Terms of Reference.

Our rationale for this assessment is provided below.

Our conversations indicate a range of alternative options for the WDCAC are on the mind of stakeholders. We summarise our understanding of the preferences for these models in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Stylised redesign options

WDCAC

Departments

Up Ante More of the Same

AbolishReset/Reinvigorate

5.5.1 Ceasing adviceOne option is to abolish the WDCAC.

Some of the draw backs of receiving advice from the WDCAC would be avoided, resulting in the following key advantages:

lower program administration costs;

avoided staff costs providing secretarial, policy, scientific, program information as well as support; and

clearer program management authority and accountability.

However, under this model positive elements of the WDCAC’s operation would be lost which would result in a number of key disadvantages including a loss of;

strategic insights;Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


positive feedback loops to the community; and

stakeholder knowledge of program operations.

On balance we think abolishing the WDCAC in the absence of any alternative mechanism to replace elements of its functions would be a high risk to the government.

5.5.2 Options for continuing the WDCAC Within the option of continuing with the WDCAC there are a number of variants. These are discussed in turn below:

Up ante

Under this model existing representation of the WDCAC is retained and the Committee increases its influence and contribution to operational design and implementation. This model appears to be strongly favoured by some the WDCAC members but is not favoured by key government stakeholders.

Key advantages of this model are:

community authorisation of program activity; and

close connection of policy and on-ground needs and practicalities.

Key disadvantages are:

impinging decision rights of Ministers and the balancing and other public priorities;

potential disconnection from broader strategic policy;

micro-management of program operations leading to confused management roles and responsibilities;

a high level of support required to provide secretariat services to a committee and working groups; and

confusion of accountabilities and conflicts of interest for participating departmental staff.

We consider this to be a high risk model under current governance arrangements.

More of same

Under this model existing representation of the WDCAC is retained and the Committee continues business as usual. This model appears to be weakly favoured by some members of the Committee and not favoured by key government stakeholders.





a continued gap in the connection of the Committee to broader strategic policy;

a risk of micro management of program operations leading to confused management roles and responsibilities;



gaps in skills, expertise and representation to address emerging strategic challenges;

relatively high operating costs given the draw of policy resources to service the Committee; and

confusion of accountabilities and conflicts of interest for participating departmental staff.

We consider this to be a moderate risk model under current governance arrangements. It was widely recognised in our conversations that a refresh of committee membership would be timely in order to broaden representation and facilitate the injection of new ideas.

Reset and reinvigorate Committee

Under this model the WDCAC is retained and the terms of references are modified to incorporate broader representation and clearer specification of roles and accountabilities. This model appears to be moderately favoured by some members of the Committee and favoured by key government stakeholders.


lower costs of operation – given ceasing of policy support;

avoided confusion of accountabilities and conflicts of interest for participating departmental staff;

community authorisation of program activity;

closer connection of policy setting context and information and on-ground needs and practicalities. (Under the reforms we envisage, this connection would remain but policy services would be limited to informing and contextualising advice); and

more skills in some areas to address emerging strategic issues.


a continued gap in the connection of the Committee to broader strategic policy;

a risk of micro management of program operations leading to confused management roles and responsibilities; and

gaps in skills, expertise and representation to address emerging strategic challenges.

We consider this to be a moderate risk model under current governance arrangements. It was generally widely recognised in our conversations that at a minimum it is timely to refresh committee membership in order to broaden representation and facilitate the injection of new ideas.

New mechanisms

There a wide range of possible alternative mechanisms to the WDCAC. These range from:

splitting advice and communication and representation functions and creating a new institution for each;

establishing bespoke expert panels;

using existing fora as alternative mechanisms.

In each case the mechanisms could be established formally with a regular cycle of interface with the departments or alternatively be formed and used on an ad-hoc basis.Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


Operating these groups formally with a regular cycle of interaction with departments would improve continuity of information and advice but by their nature create additional costs. These would include high transaction costs for the Government to service and maintain their operations.

On the other hand, operating the groups on an ad-hoc or as-needs basis would reduce their costs of operation. Arguably, the advice may be provided more efficiently and effectively as it is targeted and potentially timely. However, blind spots can emerge without regular contact, particularly when there are rapid changes in the operating environment of the program.

New Committees and Expert Panels

We have explored the establishment of specific skilled based committees and expert panels to separately provide functions that were required of the WDCAC.

Splitting functions — has merit as it avoids confusion and tension between advice and communication and representation roles. However, there are additional costs associated with multiple institutions.

A well designed advisory board can be skill based as well as be representative. However, care is required to manage the risks associated with multiple functions.

Expert panels have the advantage of providing more targeted and authoritative advice but are more likely to suffer from a perception of not being sufficiently inclusive and representative of community views.

Regional fora

There are a number of options to use existing or new community fora as mechanisms for gathering strategic advice.

These include using community and zone planning fora as the vehicle for gathering strategic advice and providing community representation of issues.

These fora already provide these functions but currently community fora are supported by the WDCAC and zone planning fora attended by Committee members. The advantage of these approaches both formal and ad hoc is that they could be a relatively low cost way of gathering information. Fora have been at times a useful mechanism for enabling grass root community concerns and pressures to raised — effectively acting as a venting mechanism.

Using fora as the primary mechanism however has a number of draw backs. These include:

undermining the current role of the WDCAC for line of sight on political and pressure point issues.

a risk that strategic advice and community representation will be blurred or affected by the grass roots politicisation and venting by attendees;

delays and gaps in the gathering of strategic advice and community input; and

gaps in some skills needed to address emerging strategic issues.

There are substantial risks that emergent program issues do not align with an annual cycle of consultations. This has the potential to raise issues that departmental staff were previously unaware of and to create a disconnection with community. Some of this risk could be mitigated



with strong intelligence from regional staff. However, placing this responsibility on staff would most likely compromise their emerging role as a trusted advisor.

Using local community planning groups to be the broader program consultative mechanism also has drawbacks. Most of our consultation indicated this is unlikely to be feasible given the role would most likely:

place extra burdens on the groups that would come with the role;

distract local groups from their primary function; and

require additional resources and effort for strategic policy to interface and communicate, with the groups.

CMA and Landcare

The potential for establishing a CMA like program implementation model has led some stakeholders to consider that program delivery could fit under relevant CMAs or Landcare. This has been broadly described to us as CMAs being responsible for the provision of operational services — where the CMA would contract services to the State and be responsible for the day to day management of operational staff and on ground activities.

In a broad sense, these models appear to be strongly opposed by the Committee and weakly favoured by key government stakeholders.


perceived closer connection of program to community;




the practicalities and costs of administrative and authorising mechanisms;

risk of micro management of program operations leading to confused management roles and responsibilities; and

gaps in skills and representation to address emerging strategic challenges.

We consider this to be a high risk model under current program conditions. There is a significant risk under this model that segments of the community would view this very unfavourably as a substantial diminishing of Government commitment to the program and would put at risk many aspects of the program that are currently working well.

Our conversations with stakeholders indicate most feel a CMA model would be difficult to implement given its current structure and institutional responsibilities, and delivery would ultimately be affected by other CMA priorities. We note a similar model operates in New South Wales (NSW) under the local land board model. However, in NSW this was an across the board change to the model for the provision of private and public land services. Unless a similar across the board change was made in Victoria, we do not a view the shift of the wild dog program only to CMAs, in their current form, as being feasible.

We do not believe a CMA delivery model is currently feasible. CMAs do not have an operational role on public land and do not currently recognise the significance of the wild dog problem across the program.



There was no support for a Landcare delivery model in our stakeholder consultation. Landcare was viewed as not sufficiently robust and not having the institutional settings and capacity to fulfil the role.

As with the delivery model, similar concerns and issues were raised by many stakeholders for a CMA or Landcare strategic advice and communications role. As such we do not believe that CMAs or the Landcare network would be an appropriate mechanism for undertaking the WDCAC functions.

Regional hierarchy

A variant of the regional and local fora model is to establish a relationship and hierarchy of representation between the local management zone groups and the regional fora. For example, representatives from each local management group could aggregate to form a State wide group.

However, our assessment is that there are likely to be high costs in establishing such a model and our conversations indicated it would be difficult to maintain continuity of membership of landholders taking into account time pressures and other commitments. It is also likely that, given the large number of local planning groups, a regional forum made up of members of those same groups would be large and unwieldy.

This limitation could be reduced by forming several regional fora. However, this would create another layer of institution in addition to a State-wide Forum. There is also a risk associated with this change affecting the role and function of the zone management groups. In particular, the groups could become a forum for politicisation of the program and detract from local planning solutions.

5.5.3 Option considerationsOn balance, we believe there is merit in ‘resetting and reinvigorating’ the advisory committee model by creating a skill and expertise based Board (including appropriately skilled landholders) to provide strategic advice and provide communication and liaison functions.

Related issues are the form, structure and reporting arrangements for an advisory committee. Our analysis and consultations have highlighted a number of priorities. These include:

retaining a mechanism for the provision of strategic and high level advice, communication and liaison;

retaining landholder representation;

broadening the skills and expertise base of the advice;

broadening the scope of strategic advice;

minimising bureaucracy associated with provision of advice;

avoiding unnecessary transaction costs of establishment and maintenance;

minimising risks of politicisation; and

clarifying role and mechanisms to facilitate the provision of strategic advice and communication.

Our assessment and indeed consultations indicate a preference for continued program evolution as set under the previous terms of the WDCAC.



We support the requirement that the Chair be skills and expertise based and independent of other Board members and stakeholders including landholders, Departments and industry.

At this point in our analysis we are not convinced of a move to a solely skills based board that excludes appropriately skilled landholder representation. There are substantive risks of deterioration in relationships and greater difficulties with program implementation if a skills based Board was established without landholder representation. Nonetheless, landholder representation should also be skills based with members able to demonstrate an appropriate understanding and expertise in wild dog management, catchment management, practice change, communication and best practice governance.

We support retaining an advisory body but reforming its terms of reference to:

a fixed term of the Board of 3 years with the option of review, renewal or cessation at the end of its term or earlier.

include member’s terms of office set at a duration of no more than three years and a staged term mechanism to refresh membership;

include skill based landowner representation;

provide for appropriate skills and expertise including community health, catchment management, and biodiversity conservation, and wild dog research expertise;

reduce the number of landholder representatives to accommodate other changes in representation. (In our view the Board size should be constrained to a workable level such as up to three landholder representatives with appropriate wild dog, land management and governance skills);

include up to three non-landholder representatives — covering skills that are relevant to the areas of strategic advice to be provided.

include the provision of specialist advice such as animal welfare advice on an as-needs basis at some point in the future;

departmental officers should be excluded from membership to avoid accountability and reporting confusions;

establish clear communication and community relationship accountabilities for running and reporting back on annual regional fora;

clarify observer status and accountability governance of all departmental officers;

continue to report to the DEDJTR through the Lead Deputy Secretary.

The Department should provide a secretariat to assist with the organisation of meetings and documentation of its outcomes. The departments should refrain from preparing policy or operation design related papers and endorsement papers so that the Board is self-sustaining and operate with an idea generating forum rather than a policy development and endorsement forum.

The Terms of Reference should expressly define the scope and nature of strategic advice and should expressly preclude the Board from engaging in operational matters.

An annual work plan should be prepared by DEDJTR for the Board setting out the priorities for the year and should be provided to the Chair. We suggest the Lead Deputy Secretary meet formally with the Chair to discuss the Boards outcomes against the work plan and general performance of Board annually.



Additionally, it could be useful for the Board to host a State Wide Forum and report on outcomes from the forum.

Further it could be useful for DEDJTR to consider the value of the advisory body being given some opportunity to provide an arms-length and broader annual assessment of program performance for example:

an annual strategic assessment of whole of program performance to the Lead Deputy Secretary. (Here we believe this should be an assessment across all areas of the Action Plan and not narrowly operations performance relating to the Directions Statement);

a report on the outcomes of the advisory body led Community fora to the accountable Lead Deputy Secretary; and

an annual strategic priorities report on the Action Plan.

5.5.4 Effective and efficient use of resourcesOur analysis indicates the efficiency and effectiveness of resources will be improved by making reforms to a new advisory board.

We have selected a reform option that has the highest likely effectiveness and efficiency, relative low cost and low risk. By definition this results in selecting the most likely cost effective solution.

Under proposed reforms there will be a:

marked reduction in the cost of operating the Board through the negotiation of a new contract with a new independent Chair;

marked reduction in staff costs associated with servicing the Board — this includes:

reducing secretariat services to those required only to enable functioning to meet its terms of reference; and

ceasing policy services to support the Board deliberations.

range of costs that are avoided that are present in the other options – including: avoided institutional design, transition and on-going costs; and avoided loss of efficiency and effectiveness. There would also be increased risk with the other options.

5.6 Options for the Delivery Group As discussed in section 3, our conversations and analysis of material indicate that the Delivery Group has been a valuable vehicle for achieving accountabilities and deliverables under the Action Plan.

Three broad options are:

cease the Delivery Group;

reform the Delivery Group; and

replace the Delivery Group with a less senior and more informal inter-departmental consultative mechanism.

Our preferred option is to reform the Delivery Group this is discussed in further detail below.



5.6.1 Cease the Delivery Group Our assessment (and reflected in the views of stakeholders) is there is a need for an accountable Delivery Group. An option of ceasing the Delivery Group is not recommended since it would: diminish accountabilities; reduce the status of a refreshed Action Plan; and likely result in drift against the Action Plan.

5.6.2 Reform the Delivery GroupUnder the current machinery arrangements, we see value for the Delivery Group to continue but modified slightly to adjust for changes proposed for the WDCAC. Our view is that the Delivery Group should be reformed as a matter of priority to retain momentum of the Action Plan and we support the improvements set in train at the November meeting of the Delivery Group to establish new chairing arrangements and mechanisms for assessing and prioritising actions under the Action Plan.

Given the split of accountabilities across Government of the Action Plan there is likely to be value in retaining an independent Chair. The independent chair should not have accountabilities for the program.

We have mixed views on the need for the Parliamentary Secretary to Chair the Group — we have not seen a compelling case under current circumstances for this to continue. A risk with the Parliamentary Secretary model is the gap that can emerge when Parliamentary arrangements change. Instead, the independent chair could be an emeritus community individual.

As an alternative to an independent Chair, the role could be transferred to the departments and undertaken by departmental senior executives.

Regardless of the form of Chair, the representation on the Delivery Group should be senior officers with appropriate divisional accountability. This enables senior ownership and high level accountability but also enables efficiencies by aligning Action Plan reporting with divisional reporting mechanisms. There are also likely to be efficiencies in decision making as the senior executives will have appropriate decision rights in meetings.

5.6.3 Replace the Delivery GroupThe Delivery Group could be replaced with a less senior and more informal consultative mechanism to check progress and outcomes against the Action Plan. Replacing the Group with this new forum would reduce the costs of program by reducing the time and effort required of senior staff. However, such a change would diminish the significance of the Action Plan and ultimately reduce the accountability of staff to it. As we understand it, the Delivery Group was an effective mechanism as there was an appropriate level of authorisation present to make decisions and enforce delivery accountabilities. We do not support replacing the Delivery Group and believe it would create unacceptable risks to the enhancing and delivering against the Action Plan.



Appendix A. Performance of the ProgramIn this section the performance of the Program is assessed at a broad level. A more detailed assessment is being undertaken as part of the Program evaluation.

The data in this appendix is created from data provided to us from 15 November 2014 meeting minutes (Attachment 5.1 of the Minutes — the quarterly report against the Directions Statement) of the WDCAC. Our aggregate estimates of the performance indicators are calculated from unit record data in the Quarterly report.

Change in program effortImproved quantum of activityAs discussed earlier the shift in program focus from reactive public service provision toward more proactive public service provision and improved community engagement has:

increased community baiting;

increased DELWP ground baiting; and

reduced DELWP trapping.

This is illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Change in program effort 2012 - 2015

Source: Marsden Jacob estimates based on DEDJTR and DELWP data

Improved targeting of effortOur conversations indicate that while the level of control has increased the strategic targeting of wild control measures has significantly improved. Although reactive control continues in response to incident reports the timing and location of proactive baiting and trapping has



become more targeted and more importantly better communicated and public and private control activities more aligned and coordinated.

This includes:

an increasing shift in the areas of baiting to better target the source of wild dogs;

seasonally planned community baiting programs to align timing of baiting to better reflect seasonal conditions on wild dog risk, breeding cycles and bait lifespan; and

improved timing and duration of monthly baiting cycles to better reflect community needs.

Key mechanisms to lever this shift have been:

zone management planning;

community consultation on the plans and public control activities; and

improved private access to baits (particularly fresh meat baits) including accreditation, training and bait provision.

The Baiting Coordinator Project (BCP) has been a key project delivery vehicle for these mechanisms. It has been estimated that over the life of the program:

17 community baiting groups have been formed;

147 landholders participated in the baiting programs covering 120,000 hectares; and

participants laid 60,000 baits in areas where previously there had been little or no community baiting on private land.

Since its inception in 2012, the BCP has enabled;

119 members to complete AgVet Course (ACUP) training;

147 members to receive 1080 endorsement;

95 members to receive trap training; and

Geographic Information System mapping products to be provided to better capture and record community control efforts.

While the program has shifted to a State wide focus our conversations indicate progress on the initiatives is more advanced in some control regions than others. In particular, concerns have been highlighted in some conversations that there remains a substantial gap in some aspects of program delivery such as recording and monitoring program activities in the north west of the State.

Improved workforce flexibility and cultureAnother critical component of improved delivery has been improvements to the workforce undertaking the public control measures. These changes include:

increasing the use of casual staff to increase the capacity to provide surge, seasonal increases in activity and targeted local activity;

improving workplace arrangements — enabling greater use of proactive control measures and improving transparency of operations in a more timely and efficient manner; and

improving capabilities – through training in new control technologies and improving communication methods and skills.



Our conversations indicate that while there have been tangible anecdotal improvements in the Wild Dog Controller workforce, there is still considerable scope for further improvement. This includes continuing to build trust relationships with landholders, improving proactive communication and negotiation, improving transparency of workplace activities and performance.

Improvements have also occurred in the effort directed at broader community relationship management and coordination. As noted earlier a major improvement in the effectiveness of wild dog control measures lies in the increased focus of operational staff on community engagement together with the appointment of the Community Engagement Manager. The AWI staff have played a major role in improving community engagement and communication. Across the board, many stakeholders indicated that these appointments have had a profound effect on organisational and general program performance by improving program:

transparency; and

capacity to negotiate, adjust and target public and private effort.

Increased program expendituresReflecting the changes in program effort described above, data provided by DEDJTR indicate that program expenditures have increased from close to $4.5 million in 2012/13 to just under $5 million in 2014/15.

Figure 8: Change in program expenditures

* Community participation is tracked in hours and a hourly rate of $38 per hour has been applied to monetise the value community participation. The hourly rate of $38 has been sourced from the ABS as the average hourly wage of a public administrator (NSW)

Change in program outcomesWe note that the frame of reference of the WDCAC has been actions underpinning the Directions Statement more than the Action Plan per se.

The WDCAC has created a list of quantitative objectives for the control of wild dogs across Victoria. These objectives have been grouped under the following four broad aims:

have a strategic approach that is coordinated, planned and structured;Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


be proactive and move away from reactive responses to attacks;

provide a cost-effective service that maximise the available government resources; and

ensure that work is carried out across all land tenures.

Within each aim there are a range of objectives which have been detailed further below. There has been annual data collected from the beginning of 2012/13 until the end of 2014/15 and there is also quarterly data available for 2013/14 and 2014/15. This information has been collected in the field and can be used to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the WDCAC meeting the specified objectives.

Strategic Objectives

Objective 1: Within 2 years (2014) all reactive control operations are supported by baiting programs in each LACP

The support of baiting programs provided to reactive control operations have been measured through records of the number of locations in which trapping and shooting is being conducted where baiting programs also exist.

This information is not currently tracked and further investigation and consultation between DEDJTR and the WDCAC is required about how the information is to be collected.

Objective 2: After 3 years (2015) the number of reported dog attacks each year is 15% less than the number in previous years

Incidents of dog attacks have been recorded since 2012/13 including details about the location and livestock involved in the attacks. This information is shown below in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Reports and location of dog attacks

There has been a slight decrease in the number of reported dog attacks between 2012/13 (607 reported attacks) to 2014/15 (591 reported attacks). This equates to a 3% drop across the two year period. The number of attacks in 2013/14 was 807.

Comparing the trends of the reported wild dog attacks to the number of properties affected by the wild dog attacks it shows that the dogs are affecting more properties than in previous years. In fact, the average number of attacks per property has decreased from 2.8 attacks per property per year in 2012/13 to 2.5 attacks per property per year in 2014-15.



Proactive Targets

Objective 3: Within 1 year (2013) there will be an increase of 10% in baits deployed within the program

Baits were deployed by DEPI as well as the local residents and can be placed on the ground or dropped through aerial baiting. The total number of baits laid by both DEPI and the local community is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Number of baits laid

There has been a continual climb in the number of baits laid between 2012/13 (45,066 baits laid) and 2014/15 (55,614 baits laid). On an annualised basis between 2012/13 and 2014/15 this equates to an 11% increase per annum, greater than the targeted increase of 10% per annum. The exact increased have been 22.0% between 2012/13 and 2013/14, and 1.1% between 2013/14 and 2014/15, this equates to a 23% growth over the two year period.

The overall 23% increase has been driven by both DEPI and the local residents increasing their baiting of the regions. Over the two year period the local residents have increased their baiting by 25%, while DEPI have increased their baiting by 21%. Both of these rates are above the desired increased baiting rate of 10% per annum.

Objective 4: Within 1 year (2013) there will be an increase of 10% in the effectiveness of traps set to capture wild dogs

The effectiveness of traps analyses the capture rate of the traps that are set across the regions (i.e. the number of dogs captured for the number of traps laid). Figure 11 highlights the effectiveness of the traps laid and contrasts the effectiveness with the total number of traps that were laid during the year.



Figure 11: Traps laid and effectiveness

The effectiveness of the traps laid varies between the years, but has increased for the 2014/15 period. This suggests that overall there will have been an increase in the trap effectiveness (up to 23% from 20%). The increase in effectiveness of the traps in 2014/15 does coincide with a decrease in the total number of traps set. Conversely, in 2013/14 there was a decrease in trap effectiveness when there was an increase in the number of traps set. This suggests that a more targeted approach to trap setting (as in 2014/15 with fewer traps across the region) can have a greater effectiveness for wild dog capture.

Cost Effectiveness TargetsObjective 5: Within 2 years (2014) there will be a 10% decrease in the cost per wild dog destroyed

The destruction of wild dogs can be classified as dogs that have been shot, dogs that have been dispatched or pelts that have been submitted. Figure 12 highlights the cost and labour that was been expended per dog that was destroyed.

Figure 12: Cost and labour expended per wild dog destroyed

There has been a continual upward trend in the cost and hours spent per wild dog that has been destroyed. Over the two year period there has been a 21% increase in the cost per wild dog destroyed and a 25% in the labour hours spend per wild dog destroyed. These are both heading Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


in the wrong direction when compared to the desired outcomes for the cost effectiveness target. It should be noted that the number of wild dogs destroyed has remained relatively constant across the period, but the costs and hours invested in the program have been increasing.

Tenure TargetsObjective 6: Within 3 years (2015) there will be a 20% increase in the effort contributed to the program by partners

The effort contributed to the program can be measured by the hours that have been contributed to the program by resources outside of DEPI. The external resources are part of the Community Wild Dog Control (CWDC) group and can be classified as coordinators or participants.

Figure 13: CWDC hours contributed to assist the control of wild dogs

There has been a continual increase in the number of hours contributed to control of wild dogs through partner programs. The number of hours has increased by 26.6% between 2012/13 and 2014/15 (9,703 hours up to 12,290 hours). The desired 20% increase in effort contributed by 2015 has been met by the additional contributions of the CWDC group.

Community confidence There is strong anecdotal evidence and some empirical evidence of improved community confidence in the Program.

This improvement in confidence centres on affected landholders and is evidenced by:

positive feedback from the WDCAC;

positive feedback from landholders at wild dog fora and workshops particularly in the last 12 months;

reduced adversarial relationships; and

improved community participation and cooperation in baiting programs.

In 2014 the BCP undertook surveys of members in a number community groups including

Swifts Creek;

Ensay;Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


Dargo;

Deddick Valley;

Omeo-Benambra; and

Glenaladale.

In total 156 surveys were sent to members with a response rate of 38 per cent.

Community group members estimate there has been a stark reduction in the number of sheep lost since the inception of the BCP in 2012. In particular, the number of sheep lost has fallen from close to 3000 sheep to near 100 (Figure 14)

Figure 14: Estimated sheep lost before and after the BCP

The survey also showed that close to half participating landholders felt they were likely to reintroduce and increase sheep numbers (Figure 15). Over half expected to produce more wool. We note caution in interpreting these survey results as the survey question did not attribute the change to the BCP. There is range of other factors that could significantly affect these decisions with the BCP potentially being a significant enabling factor given the level of claimed decline in sheep loss.



Figure 15: Expected sheep farm expansion



Appendix B. Terms of referencesWDCAC Terms of References

The purpose of the WDCAC is to provide a forum for regular communication between government, industry and the community, and will be expected to provide strategic advice to the Secretary of the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) on how wild dog control can best be implemented across Victoria regardless of land tenure.

2012 Terms of referenceThe 2012 Terms of Reference of the Committee specifies the WDCAC will be to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on policy and strategic matters associated with wild dog control in Victoria, including:

reviewing and advising on the effectiveness and efficiency of wild dog control programs, and recommending cost-effective improvements for the Secretary’s consideration;

providing strategic guidance to inform continuous improvement and innovation in wild dog control in Victoria;

making recommendations on clear roles and responsibilities for all key stakeholders in wild dog management;

recommending priorities for research and development;

providing recommendations on criteria for allocation of any grants, incentives and support to local community-led wild dog control groups;

identifying and promoting opportunities for improved industry co-investment in wild dog management;

considering submissions from stakeholders on issues pertaining to strategic wild dog management;

providing a forum for communication with industry and key stakeholders;

building and maintaining relationships between industry, State Government, interstate and national stakeholders to support a collaborative approach to wild dog management;

leading the planning and coordination of regular State-wide fora to promote best practice wild dog control; and

advising on other matters referred by the Secretary or Department as required.

DPI will have due regard for the Committee’s advice whilst retaining ultimate legal and financial accountability for the Wild Dog Control Program.

2014 Terms of ReferenceThe 2014 Terms of Reference of the Committee specifies the WDCAC will:

provide strategic advice and high level guidance on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of wild dog management and achieving continuous improvement and innovation in wild dog control in Victoria;



contribute to improving stakeholder understanding of wild dog management roles and responsibilities;

identify and promote opportunities for improved cross tenure cooperation and co-investment in wild dog management;

build and maintain relationships between community, industry, State Government, and other affected stakeholders and support a collaborative approach to wild dog management;

engage in communication/engagement activities that promote the objectives of Victoria's Directions Statement and Action Plan for the Management of Wild Dogs in Victoria; and

advise on other matters referred by the Secretary or Department.

Provision of advice needs to be consistent with the Action Plan for the Management of Wild Dogs in Victoria, which details how the Directions Statement for the Wild Dog Management Program for Victoria will be progressed.

The scope of the Committee does not extend to advice on departmental business decisions (for example, investment, workforce management etc.) or the activities of individual staff members.

Composition of BoardThe WDCAC is comprised of:

An independent Chairperson;

Two landholder representatives with knowledge of wild dog problems and control from each of the north east and Gippsland regions;

A landholder representative with knowledge of wild dog problems and control from the north west region;

A representative of the Victorian Farmers Federation;

A representative from the Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) from the affected regions;

A representative from the plantations industry in the affected regions; and

A senior officer from each of DPI, the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and Parks Victoria.

Role of the ChairThe Chairperson is responsible for:

bringing focus and discipline to the proceedings of Committee meetings;

facilitating the achievement of informed and agreed positions;

reporting regularly, or when requested by the Secretary, on the operation of the Committee and/or the results of its deliberations; and

ensuring that the Committee is providing timely high quality advice in a form that satisfies the Secretary.

The Chairperson is the spokesperson for the Committee to the Secretary and the Department, and can represent the Committee at public functions or elsewhere as deemed appropriate by the Secretary.Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


WDAPDG Terms of References

2013 Terms of ReferencePurpose

The Victorian Government is committed to reducing the impacts of wild dogs. The Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs in Victoria (the plan) details how this can be achieved.

Successful delivery of the plan requires actions to be implemented in a collaborative, cohesive way. The Wild Dog Action Plan Delivery Group was formed in November 2013 to provide effective oversight for the implementation of the plan with a focus on the delivery of actions and meeting milestones.

Scope and objectives

The Wild Dog Action Plan Delivery Group will:

a) Clearly define a lead for the delivery of each action within the plan, with clear milestones that need to be met.

b) Ensure that each member of the group will be responsible for the delivery of actions within the plan where they are the lead.

c) Meet quarterly to discuss the progress of, and risks for, each of the actions, with a view to delivering the actions.

d) Elevate matters to the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Primary Industries, the Minister for Agriculture and Food Security, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change and the Environment and Primary Industries Committee (EPIC) of Cabinet for resolution as appropriate.

Membership

The Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Industries, Dr Bill Sykes will chair the group.

The group will comprise senior officers from the departmental divisions of Biosecurity, Regional Services, Environmental Policy and from Parks Victoria and the Chair of the Wild Dog Control Advisory Committee. The Chairperson will be responsible for keeping the Minister for Agriculture and Food Security informed on progress of the plan and will report quarterly to EPIC.

Members will be responsible for delivery of relevant actions in the Plan and for communicating progress to the areas that they represent. Members are accountable for implementing decisions made by the group. Their role may include producing meeting papers on the areas where they are the lead.

Meetings

The Committee will meet quarterly, with the first meetings scheduled for the weeks beginning:

13 January 2014 1 April 2014 11 August 2014



Support

The Department of Environment and Primary Industries will provide Executive Officer support for the delivery group.

Review and Evaluation

The purpose, scope and functions of the group should be reconsidered at the end of 2014 and meetings for the next year set.

At this time, the Action Plan will also be reviewed.

Governance Structure

It is intended that each action of the plan will have a clearly defined lead for delivery (attachment 1 Governance structure of the Wild Dog Action Plan Delivery Group), with clear milestones that need to be met. Each member will be responsible for the delivery of actions where they are the lead.

2015 (October) Terms of Reference – DraftOverview

The Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs in Victoria 2014 – 19 (the Plan) sets out three priority areas for government and stakeholder action over a five year period: strengthen the coordination of wild dog management in Victoria; reduce the negative impacts of wild dogs; and continuously improve how wild dogs are managed in Victoria.

Successful delivery of the Plan requires actions to be implemented in a collaborative and cohesive way. The Wild Dog Action Plan Delivery Group (WDAPDG) was formed in November 2013 to provide effective oversight for the implementation of the Plan with a focus on the delivery of actions and establishing milestones.

Purpose

WDAPDG will advise and report to the Minister for Agriculture on the progress of the delivery of the Plan.

Membership

The Regional Director Gippsland, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) and the Director Biosecurity Assurance, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport & Resources (DEDJTR), will alternate as the chair of the group.

The group will comprise senior officers within DEDJTR, DELWP and Parks Victoria (Attachment 1 – Governance structure).

VacanciesWhere a member is vacant or absent from a meeting, a proxy may attend the meeting on behalf of the member. The chair should be notified ahead of the meeting and it is expected that a proxy will not attend in place of a member for consecutive meetings.



Roles and responsibilities

The role of WDAPDG is to oversee implementation of delivery to:

a) appropriately identify and prioritise actionsb) assign responsibilities to those accountable for actions c) establish milestones for progress reporting and completiond) identify opportunities for collaboratione) assess and document risks associated with action deliveryf) report to the Minister on progress.

Members will be responsible for monitoring and reporting on the delivery of actions in the Plan to which they are assigned responsibility.

ChairpersonThe chairperson is responsible for meeting all reporting requirements of the WDAPDG.

MembersMembers are accountable for implementing decisions made by the group. Members may be required to produce meeting papers on actions for which they are the lead.

Meeting procedures

Meeting frequency

WDAPDG will meet quarterly, or as otherwise determined by the (alternating) chairpersons.

Executive support

The Biosecurity Branch will provide executive support to WDAPDG, including:

a) arranging meetings in consultation with the chairperson and membersb) preparing meeting agenda under the direction of the chairpersonc) circulating agenda papers following consultation with the chairpersond) collating quarterly reports provided by WDAPDG members prior to meetingse) preparing the minutes and briefings as requiredf) assisting the chairperson in preparing correspondence, reports, or any other document of

relevance; andg) maintaining files and records of meetings.

Review and Evaluation

The purpose, scope and functions of WDAPDG will be reviewed annually.



Appendix C. Directions Statement Performance IndicatorsThe Directions Statement was formulated during 2012 by a Sub Committee of the WDCAC for endorsement by the WDCAC and then the Secretaries of DPI and DSE.

Figure 16: Directions Statement Performance Measures



Appendix D. Action PlanThe Action Plan was formulated between July 2013 and late 2013 and endorsed in December 2013. The Action Plan was designed to align with the National Action Plan for Wild Dogs.

The Action Plan identifies three key action areas, focussing on coordinating public and private effort, increasing the quality and depth of public management activities and continuously improving management arrangements (Box 2).

Box 2: Wild Dog Action Plan Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs

Action Area 1: Strengthen coordination of wild dog management

Action 1: Align wild dog management in Victoria with best practice invasive species managementAction 2: Ensure continued strategic input and feedback from all stakeholdersAction 3: Promote community leadership and participation in wild dog programs at the local levelAction 4: Ensure all stakeholders, including public land managers, meet their responsibilities for wild dog controlAction 5: Develop and implement local plans over which all stakeholders have ownershipAction Area 2: Reduce the negative impacts of wild dogs, with the government meeting its responsibility to control wild dogs on public land

Action 6: Proactively manage wild dogs to reduce their impactsAction 7: Increase the availability of new and existing products, tools and strategies for wild dog managementAction 8: Use safe, effective and humane approaches to wild dog managementAction 9: Increase community understanding of the benefits of wild dog management in VictoriaAction Area 3: Continuously improve the way wild dogs are managed

Action 10: Improve the mechanisms used to carry out, monitor, evaluate and report on wild dog control,so it is focused, streamlined, timely and efficientAction 11: Build a flexible and skilled workforceAction 12: Promote innovation, research development and extensionAction 13: Investigate how legislative, regulatory and policy reform can benefit wild dog management in Victoria

Each Action has a number of subcomponents or facilitating sub-actions.

The Action Plan also includes the Directions Statement as Appendix and identifies a range of measures to assess progress of the Program (Figure 16). They focus on measuring the extent to which Wild Dog control has become more:Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources


strategic;

proactive;

cost effective; and

tenure blind.

These include a mix of outcome and output measures. The outcome measures include the number of reported dog attacks, proactive action increases, costs of provision fall and private action increases. Output measures relate to quantifying management activities including among others, number of management, locations, baits laid, traps set and the partial productivity of those measures such as baits taken, number of dogs trapped, and measures of employee and private effort.



Appendix E. Approach and process of this reviewIn this appendix the approach to the review is outlined and list of consultations is provided

ApproachThis review has been progressed in two components:

Component 11. Desktop review of documents relevant to the Committee including, but not limited to, the following:

terms of reference;

meeting agendas and minutes together with any actions, reports and presentations tabled at committee meetings;

advice provided to the Secretary and which pieces of advice were enacted by the department, and whether such advice was incorporated into the wild dog management program and/or taken up by end users;

planning documentation related to communication/engagement activities;

media releases associated with the Committee;

educational material produced;

review/evaluation of any wild dog management activities associated with the Committee;

acquittal of actions undertaken by the Committee against the Victorian Action Plan and supporting documentation; and

operating costs and conditions of the Committee, including resource support.

2. A workshop at the Committee meeting held on 14 October 2015 to gather views on critical gaps, strengths and opportunities for improvement in relation to the Committee’s governance, and general role in wild dog management.

3. Engagement with stakeholders including present and past Committee members, and government department and agency representatives (a list of engagement is provided below).

Component 24. Desktop review of documents relating to the Wild Dog Action Plan Delivery Group as provided by Biosecurity Branch.

5. Engagement with stakeholders including present and past Wild Dog Action Plan Delivery Group members, and government department and agency representatives



Documents

agriculture.vic.gov.auagriculture.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/...report-… · Web viewWDCAC also made an important contribution toward improving landholder understanding