Executive Summary
What the report is about
This project explores the processes involved in developing alliances between a newly established not for profit company, Australian Landcare Management Systems Ltd (ALMS Ltd) and established organisations having the same or parallel charters.

Background
There is widespread recognition of the need to improve environmental management, not least in rural Australia. Notwithstanding this realisation significant environmental problems remain and it is arguable as to whether current organisations, policies, programs and practices are well designed to deal with these problems. Hence it is important that constraints to the evolution of new structures and processes are identified and removed.

Methods used
Separate discussions and presentations were held with fifteen prospective collaborators. As a result of those activities alliances have been formed with four organisations and there is the possibility in (2004) of another four alliances developing over the medium term. Alliances are unlikely with the remaining seven organisations.

Results
The project identified factors enabling and constraining the development of supportive collaborative arrangements between ALMS Ltd and established organisations having the same or parallel charters.

Key factors on the positive side influencing the establishment of collaboration include personal links, the intent and nature of the environment management system being promoted and experience in environment management systems and their support tools.

On the negative side key factors limiting the development of collaborations include differences in goals between possible collaborating parties, institutional factors including policy and funding arrangements and differences in perspectives between the respective organisations.

Implications
Although the relative importance of these factors, both positive and negative, varies considerably between organisations it is their cumulative and interactive nature that renders them potent determinants of collaboration. Relative to other factors however the project findings point in particular to the following three policy and program settings as having a strong influence on collaborative behaviour.

First under the guise of enabling diversity relevant public sector policies and support programs have not clearly established and promoted the essential and desirable features of EMS as they relate to improving natural resource management in the farm sector. This situation has enabled a wide range of activities to be included under the banner of ‘EMS’, hence confusing the market generally for EMS.

The negative implications for ALMS Ltd of this ‘anything goes’ approach have been particularly pronounced given that ALMS Ltd has established clear and precise certification requirements for each category of ALMS membership.

Second the national framework for EMS and related communications intentionally or otherwise positioned EMS primarily as a tool to deliver private benefits to landholders, in particular benefits arising from enhanced market access and /or price premiums for agricultural products. However these market access/price premium benefits generally are now not available; and won’t be at least in the near future. This narrow perception of the benefits of EMS has been underlined by the development of support arrangements based on the judgement that EMS should be primarily driven by ‘industry’, defined by default as agricultural product based organisations and State based farm organisations whose traditional remit understandably has been the protection of sectional interests.

Furthermore, and in part as a consequence of the ‘anything goes’ approach outlined above, the failure of the policy development process to establish the parameters of a nationally recognised approach to certification of land management has constrained the development of a range of public and private drivers for improving land management, ironically not least from the very product markets that have been held as requiring adoption of verifiable environmental management systems.

Funding mechanisms are the third aspect of existing institutional arrangements that impact on the potential for collaborations involving organisations such as ALMS Ltd. In simple terms the inability of ALMS Ltd to contribute funds limited the development of collaborations.

The majority of funds available for supporting improved natural resource management, that is core consolidated revenue funding, are allocated to public sector organisations, in particular to State government departments, through processes that generally are not open to private or community organisations including not for profit companies. This factor alone limits the potential for collaborations between the public and non-public sectors, for in many instances non-public sectors are unable to provide contributing funds for collaborations. Ironically however the impact of this lack of contestability for most funds is heightened by the fact that the majority of influence on expenditure comes from organisations that distribute funds competitively, including Australian Government Departments and Rural Research & Development Corporations. Such competitively let funding is not subject to national competition policy competitive neutrality requirements. Hence, all else being equal, competitively let funding is preferentially let to the public sector organisations that are able to provide capabilities based on their non-contestable funding arrangements and other organisations are marginalized.

Recommendations
The project has demonstrated that organisational diversity and innovation can be reduced by policy and program settings. Adherence to a limited number of simple policy and program guidelines would enable more and more diverse involvement by landholders in environmental management programs.
 

Site map Contact us Feedback Links Disclaimer Privacy Statement