The current debate on same sex marriage in Australia highlights why all organisations need a diversity and inclusion policy.

Why? Because smart organisations understand that their clients are diverse, and it helps to build an authentic brand by promoting diversity in their organisation.

It also helps them to embrace different, innovative ways of thinking and be a good place to work so that talented people will stay.

Diversity and inclusion is no longer a marginal politically correct gesture for organisations.

Mainstream businesses such as Virgin Australia, Medibank, NAB, Rio Tinto and AGL have policies with specific targets that they actively promote. Government is doing it too.

What I’ve found from working with organisations on developing a Diversity and Inclusion Policy is that it’s challenging. And it should be. If you’re doing it well, it should push the organisation to change.

While supporting the YES campaign like Qantas and the AFL isn’t for everyone, a culture of mutual respect, teamwork and diversity definitely should be.

The Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning Victoria’s Diversity and Inclusion Strategy is a good example of a policy hat pushes the organisation to be flexible. It provides for all staff positions to be offered on a part time basis. It means that women and men with family responsibilities don’t have to put career progression on hold while they work part time to look after young children or elderly parents.

Most organisations would find it a challenge to accommodate that sort of flexibility but they should at least consider it because its getting results.

Diversity and Inclusion isn’t limited to targets for female representation on boards, equal rights for LGBTI people and recognising the rights of people with a disability. They promote diversity of culture, religion, gender, gender identity, age, sexual orientation, as well as different experiences, perspectives, knowledge and skills.

And while the policy statement is the product, the most important thing is the conversations among staff, managers and the board when they’re developing it.

I’ve seen organisations just present a draft policy to the board for approval with the attitude that we’re doing it because we have to. The results of this approach are likely to be along the lines of ‘we’re doing OK’, no need to change.

A smarter organisation will guide the conversation, starting with a description of where the organisation fits in its sector and community then presenting alternatives policies that might be considered.

Ask the board, management and staff where on a spectrum of policy positions the organisation should be, and consider what the clients, staff and wider constituency will think.

A good policy describes the organisation’s context and makes a formal commitment to diversity and inclusion setting out:

what the organisation is doing now (what you’ve done and what you’re working on)where it wants to get to (with goals and targets) andhow it’s going to get there (an action plan).

It’s useful to state why the organisation has a diversity and inclusion policy because it varies, and to define the scope of diversity it covers. Some organisations have an advisory committee or council to provide leadership. They can lead measures such as staff pledges and holding events in support of campaigns against racism.

Three well established ways to promote diversity and inclusion:

encourage staff recruitment and referral – use the networks of your staff to target the type changes in staff profileeducate staff about cultural awareness such as special dates and festivals of religions and cultures that are not part of the majorityhave measurable goals in the diversity policy and report on them publicly.

Measuring and reporting is vital. A 2016 survey found that many Australian organisations fail to adopt measurable goals or accountabilities in their diversity and inclusion plans. Only 41 per cent of diversity and inclusion practitioners reported that their organisations measured the outcomes of their D&I initiatives.

Not-for-profit organisations in Australia tend to regard themselves as champions of diversity so assume their practices are good. But research shows that they are generally homogeneous and in the larger organisations (more than 50 staff) very few have a large proportion of women in leadership roles due to unconscious bias.

If your organisation doesn’t have a Diversity and Inclusion Policy or you’re thinking about updating the one you have, give me call. I can help you with a fun and engaging process to that will have an impact.

I can help you with a fun and engaging process to develop a policy that will deliver resultsation.

How do you know if a regulator is good at what they do? That was the question I helped the Department of Health and Human Services Victoria to answer when they asked me to develop a regulator performance oversight strategy.

The department promised to develop the strategy after an unflattering Victorian Auditor General’s audit report in 2015. The report described the health regulators as having a ‘low level of maturity’ and said the department didn’t understand how its regulators were performing. It pointed to a linear accountability structure which meant each regulator reported to their CEO or deputy secretary, to the Secretary and then the Minister. But the senior executive team didn't have an overview. They needed a departmental strategy to monitor their regulators' performance and to drive standards of regulatory practice.

Defining a good regulator

The department has 14 regulators. They cover a lot of things from safe use of legal drugs and poisons, to communicable disease control, radiation safety, and maintaining standards in human services. Each regulator is unique with its own laws to administer, different types of businesses and risks to manage, and different tools. So there wasn't much use for a ‘one size fits all’ approach that looks at measures such as how many prosecutions each year.

The Australian National Audit Office’s definition of a ‘better practice regulator’ offers a more practical approach. It focuses on the outcomes the regulator is designed to achieve and whether. It says a better practice regulator:

has well defined regulatory objectives applies a risk based approach to prioritising activities uses information as a source of intelligenceis transparent and accountable through clear policies actively engages with stakeholders andmonitors and reports on their performance and the effectiveness of their regime.

3 steps to a strategy

When the department asked me to develop the strategy, the first thing I did was talk to the regulators. Over many months we worked collaboratively to build up a picture of each regulator’s functions, the outcomes they were designed to achieve, the practices and tools they use to monitor and promote compliance, and their performance reporting. An essential part of that conversation has to be about identifying opportunities for improvement.

Leadership is crucial if a strategy is ever to be implemented. So early in the project I identified people who have the authority and influence to effect change. In this case that meant the Deputy Secretaries and directors with responsibility for the biggest regulators. Other potential champions with an interest in regulators' practices are the chief legal officer and the head of strategic planning.

Next I had to work out how to engage the department’s executive board, comprised of the Secretary and Deputy Secretaries. That meant researching the board's top priorities so I could shape my proposed strategy in terms of what’s important to them. And I made the strategy look easy, with a set of actions that were easily achievable.

At the centre of the strategy was a new annual report to the board that would give them the information they needed to monitor performance and drive improvements. The regulators already do a lot of public reporting. The department was awash with them. But they lacked a coherent framework in terms of measuring the regulators' performance.

Reports but no information

The department's regulators do four types of public annual reports:

'performance reporting' in annual reports quantifying outputs against budget allocations eg number of licences issues, inpections of cooling towers, calls to food safety hotlinesspecific reports required by their legislation, such as how many people access IVF treatments each year and whether Victoria had safe drinking water

I designed a new annual report to the board that draws on the reporting the regulators are already doing but framed in terms of the elements of a better practice regulator. It would tell the board things like the key activities of each regulator, how their actions are achieving the regulatory objectives, what their stakeholders think of them, staffing, budget and recommended improvements.

Hopefully the new reports will keep the department debating: what are the outcomes each regulator is meant to achieve and are they making a difference?

Amanda Cornwall was engaged under a contract by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2016 to develop the strategy and assist with developing legislative policy.

Shopping for clothes can be complicated. Thinking about the working conditions of the people who made them and impacts on the environment can leave you riddled with doubt. Thankfully Good on You has recently started simple rating scheme for clothing in Australia. They've rated 1,000s of clothing brands based on research by their ‘ethical detectives’, like me.

Recently they asked me to do some research on the major ethical certification schemes in the fashion industry, to take a closer look at what they cover, criticisms, and how GoY should reflect them in their ratings.

The task looked easy at first but I soon realised there’s a lot of grey areas because of the way brands are responding to consumer demand for ethical clothing. Fair Trade, for example, certifies that farm workers who grow cotton are paid a fair (market) price. Big name brands have started making clothes from fabrics that are part fair trade or organic cotton (read more here). Having some fair trade cotton is good but it doesn’t tell you anything about the working conditions of the people who made the items of clothing. The GoY assessors had some interesting discussions about how to recognise these efforts in their ratings.

You don’t need to wade through the detail of how they did it, but if you want to know it’s available on the GoY website. You can also offer feedback and ask questions.

Next time you’re shopping you can quickly answer questions about who made your clothes by a quick check on the Good on You app. And you can read my report on the certification schemes

Image credit to fashionrevolution.org

The tough times in business can be a catalyst for bold decisions says Hilary Dixon, founder of the highly successful recruitment firm Dixon Appointments.

Hilary decided to start her own business when she found herself out of a job because her boss went broke. ‘If I was going to be mucked around I decided it would be me who was doing the mucking around, not someone else’ Hilary told a recent Women’s Table lunch.

Dixon Appointments grew steadily into a $120m business through strategic partnerships and collaborations. ‘A third of my work was through government and then they decided to change the rules to effectively favour international companies.’ She couldn’t compete but when a big company offered her a subcontractor role her independent streak kicked in again. She decided to pull together her own coalition of suppliers including an international company and after tough negotiations she won.

‘The success drove the business ahead in leaps and bounds,’ she says. Business Review Weekly magazine recognised Dixon Appointments as one of Australia’s 100 fastest growing companies. ‘Only three per cent of people who win the BRW Fast 100 awardeach year are women. External approval is very important and I think more women should apply for awards,’ Hilary said.

Five years later government work had grown to make up 75 per cent of the business. Despite having performed beyond expectations the government decided not to select Dixon Appointments in a competitive tender. ‘I literally had staff in counselling. It was devastating.’ This time it prompted her to exit the business, which she did by selling it to her staff.

So what are some lessons Hilary has to share? ‘Don’t panic, think and talk to people, and use your networks. Understand the things that worry you and take a control of them.’ For her type of business cash flow is a big issue so she set up a system so she could check it every morning.

Finally, ‘If you’re tired of hearing people tell you they have the answers, keeping listening because eventually someone will turn up who actually does.’

Hilary spoke at The Women’s Table on 9 September 2015. TWT is a forum to advance women in business for themselves, centred on monthly lunches with inspiring guest speakers. More information here

Thousands of people in Melbourne have made their homes and businesses more comfortable and energy efficient with the help of one. Charities across Victoria receive 25,000 free, nutritious meals each week using surplus food thanks to another. These clever businesses make it look easy but turning a not-for-profit into a thriving business presents some unique challenges.

‘Three years ago we decided to set up a business providing practical advice and great deals on sustainable energy for households, businesses and organisations,’ says Paul Murfitt, CEO of Moreland Energy Foundation.‘We’d been operating since 2000 as a not-for-profit to advocate for local action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we wanted to become less reliant on government funding.'

Positive Chargewas created as a business unit within the Foundation explicitly for the purpose of generating income from fees and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions locally. It’s not a separate entity, which means all the income is invested back into the Foundation.

‘Starting a fee paying business in the midst of an advocacy group definitely presented challenges to staff culture. We had paying customers for the first time, and our staff had to think more like salespeople not just advocates. Now it’s become how we operate, there’s no tension between our purpose and our business,’ he says.

Positive Charge started with a loan from Social Tradersbusiness incubator scheme. ‘They said our business model was strong enough for a loan rather than a grant, which put the pressure on. But it worked out and we’re paying off the loan,’ says Murfitt. ‘The timing has been good because of the boom in solar panels. I’m not sure what we’ll do next to push the boundaries.’

FareShare is a different model. They rely on an army of volunteers, corporate partnerships, sponsorship, philanthropic donations and a network of food donors. Last year FareShare cooked one million meals for Victorian charities using surplus quality food from supermarkets, farmers and other businesses – rescuing a total of 560,000kg of food in one year.

FareShare set up its first dedicated kitchen in 2008 and in 2013 they moved to Australia’s largest charity kitchen. The kitchen is run by 750 regular volunteers, and 6,000 corporate and school volunteers a year. ‘People love coming to work in our kitchen. We had 155 school groups last year and the corporate shifts book out 2 to 3 months ahead of time,’ says FareShare CEO Marcus Godinho.

Funding comes from a mix of philanthropic foundations, businesses, schools and individuals. ‘Most of our income is from corporate philanthropy and sponsorship, individuals and philanthropic grants,’ says Godinho. ‘Our corporate partnerships generate other opportunities, leveraging the FareShare profile and new income. We have to actively manage those relationships, and think about how it might impact us. It’s a challenge I deal with every day,’ he says.

FareShare continues to grow with ambitions to expand further into rural and regional Victoria. ‘Unfortunately more and more people are turning to charities for food. We continue to research the sources of food insecurity with our partner charities as part of our planning,’ says Godinho.

Partnerships between not-for-profits and business are starting to produce innovative products for customers of mainstream businesses too. Trust for Nature entered a unique arrangement with Bank Australia to create a private conservation reserve in Victoria’s Wimmera. The bank promotes the reserve as offsetting impacts on the environment of new homes and cars that their customers purchase with their loans.

Not-for-profits creating clever new businesses is a trend that has a long way to run.

This article is based on a discussion at our not-for-profits CEO forumon 9 September 2015 in Melbourne. The forum meets six times a year, convened by Amanda Cornwall and associates. Photo of potato peelers courtesy of FareShare.

You can do it buying a printer, choosing your loo paper or even engaging a lawyer. Use your dollars to buy products and services that help the environment, provide fair labour conditions and aren’t cruel to animals.

If you think it doesn’t apply to you, you’d be wrong. Every organisation needs a basic supply chain strategy to avoid being associated with bad practices. As values-based companies outperform their competitors, it’s becoming necessary to retain good staff and customer credibility.

And if you're dealing with government and some not-for-profits you'll notice they increasingly require evidence of an ethical supply chain. I came across three examples in my work in the last month.

Government tender requirements

When I was helping a Melbourne law firm with a tender for the Victorian government last month we found a new requirement to detail ethical purchasing practices in the supply chain. It reflects Victorian Labor’s commitment at the 2014 election to use the government’s purchasing power to set high standards for business practices and ‘ensure workplaces are fair and safe.’

A medium size Australian law firm is likely to have fair work conditions for their staff. But you wouldn’t expect them to have paid much attention to the origins of their printers, computers, software and stationery. A quick search of law firm websites shows supply chain policies along the lines of ‘We strive to purchase from suppliers that adhere to fair trade and ethical business principles.’

A vague motherhood statement like this, on its own, is about as convincing as PM Tony Abbot’s comments on the Adam Goodes booing controversy. To meet a basic credibility test you need to be prepared to find out about your suppliers’ labour conditions and environment record.

The Australian Legal Sector Alliance, an industry-led body promoting sustainable practices in the legal sector, is helping firms to improve their practices. They’re developing model procurement policies and draft supplier questionnaires to ‘help [firms] reduce the impacts (and risks) inherent in buying stuff’. A wise firm would recognise supply chain issues as part of risk management, as my client did.

Anti-slavery provisions in Californian law

Tracking and auditing your suppliers is a much bigger issue for manufacturers and retailers of consumer goods. As an assessor for Good on You I’m always on the look out for companies that show they care about the people and places where their goods are made.

Last month I assessed Coleman, an American company famous for it’s camping equipment and owner of Esky®. It’s a subsidiary of Jarden, well known for its home wares and consumer goods. With suppliers from Vietnam, India, China, Mexico and South America they have a global reach.

Jarden's social compliance program says they won’t do business with suppliers who practice human trafficking, slavery, forced labour and child labour. Their Code of Conduct requires suppliers to abide by fair and humane employment practices, provide safe and healthy working conditions, pay the minimum wage and provide annual leave. Jarden conduct audits and random site visits to verify compliance with their standards and to rate the performance of their suppliers.

Coleman's website cites the Californian Transparency in Supply Chains Actwhich requires high turnover companies doing business in California to publish a statement about their efforts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from their direct supply chains. Over 500 companies that are subject to the Act have published statements since 2012, when teh law came into effect according to advocacy group KnowTheChain. Neither Jarden nor Coleman are covered by the law but they seem to want to be in the good company of businesses that are.

Power in numbers

At our not-for-profits CEO forumlast month some environment NGOs started talking about forming an ethical purchasing block. It’s not a new idea - not-for-profits in health and aged care have had sectorwide procurement policies for years. But now even small social justice and environment NGOs are looking for a way get better value for money and ethical supply chains for the sector.

As for your choice of loo paper, the clever folks at Who gives crap produce a product that’s good for the environment and good for your bum. What’s more, they give 50 per cent of profits to WaterAid to build toilets and improve sanitation in the developing world. Now that's what I call a supply chain!

Helping you to make it better

I can help you maximise the impact of your purchasing power and gain the kudos of having a credible procurement and supply chain strategy. As an assessor of good supply chain practice and a former government insider I know what gets results. It might even save you money.

If your supply chain policy needs a check up get in touch with me here

Just when we thought the Great Barrier Reef was safe from UN listing as ‘in danger’ the Queensland auditor general has delivered a scathing report about reef programs. And while the government has been quick to act on most of the recommendations there’s some unfinished business on regulations and implications for the federal government too.

The auditor general describes the Queensland government’s programs to reduce agricultural pollution to the reef as disparate projects across multiple agencies with no clear accountability for their delivery. It found they won’t achieve the government’s goals for reducing pollution to the reef. And it questions the way the government reports on improvements in water quality on the reef, describing the annual Reef Report Card as potentially misleading.

While none of this is particularly new to reef watchers, it’s remarkable because no-one has said it publicly and so comprehensively before.

The report examines the Queensland Government’s programs under successive joint Reef Plan agreements with the federal government since 2003. The goal of reef plan is that by 2020 the quality of water entering the reef from broadscale land use does not have a detrimental impact on the reef. There are specific timed, targets for reducing pollutants such as nitrogen and sediment.

The state government’s programs range from supporting development of industry led better practice management standards, or BMPs, and research and development, through to modelling and monitoring, and regulations on reef water quality and land clearing.

The report found signficant conflicts between improving agricultural production while reducing run-off to the reef. It recommends the programs would be better managed through a single point of responsibility with clear authority for delivering on the environmental imperatives.

The Queensland government promptly adopted the recommendation by establishing a new Office of the Great Barrier Reef within the department of environment with central responsibility for co-ordinating the state's contribution to reef plan. And it’s set up a new Great Barrier Reef Water Science taskforce to advise on the best approach to achieving the targets for reducing agricultural pollution to the reef.

But the government is yet to respond to the report’s findings about the problems caused by poor regulations. It found that the voluntary and self assessed BMP schemes in the grazing and sugar cane industry were not achieving the changes needed to meet the reef targets. The former Queensland government had a policy of not enforcing reef water quality regulations, relying instead on the voluntary schemes. The regulations, introduced in 2010, require sugarcane farmers and graziers in specific high risk reef catchments to limit certain practices and adopt best management practice.

Reducing the use of fertilisers in sugarcane farming is a high priority for the reef because it’s linked to outbreaks of the coral eating Crown of Thorns starfish. Yet according to the report, in the Smartcane BMP program, ‘the balance between producing more, making more money and looking after the environment is tilted towards the former two.' The report concludes there is a ‘lack of clear, appropriate incentives and disincentives in the design of these voluntary BMP programs,’ particularly without a regulatory compliance framework.

The report also found vegetation clearing had increased by an astonishing 229 per cent between 2008-09 and 2012-2014 in the reef catchments regions after changes to state land clearing laws under the former LNP government. Even though Queensland Labor was elected on a policy of restoring land clearing controls it is yet to announce details.

Queensland Natural Resources Minister Mark Lynham told the Courier Mailon 12 June, the day after the report was released, that there would be no rushed changes on vegetation management. “It’s integral to carbon emissions, sediment run-off and biodiversity,” he said. “But it’s also integral to landholders, farmers and their businesses and the jobs they support across the state.”

Minister for the Great Barrier Reef, Steve Miles, has been equally coy about whether the government plans to reactivate the reef water quality regulations.

The report’s findings about the effectivness of the BMPs have implications for the Australian government’s grants programs under the $150m Reef Program and $140m Reef Trust. Decisions about grant applications under those programs rely on the BMPs and often suffer the same ‘imbalance’ in favour of improving farm productivity over the environment.

When I conducted a review of the grants program in 2013 I found most of the regional funding bodies administering the grants had little or no rigorous assessment of the impacts on the reef from farm practice changes that the grants were subsidising. The federal government at the time had set their priorities around getting a majority of farmers on board so meeting the Reef Plan targets weren’t always top priority.

After over $150m was spent on reef water quality grants between 2008 and 2013 little progress has been made in reducing nitrogen flowing into the reef lagoon. The 2008 reef plan had a target of reducing nitrogen by 50 per cent by 2013, but only 10 per cent reduction was achieved. While scientists said at the time that the disappointing results were caused by unprecedented cyclones through the area, the simple fact is that farmers are still using too much fertiliser.

In 2013 I advocated for the federal government to explicitly link the grants to the impact of their farm practice changes on the reef, using competitive tendering for grant applications. Earlier this year the federal government trialled a $5m Reef Tender providing grants to sugar cane farmers in the Wet Tropics region, the highest risk region for Crown of Thorns. The tender, which was funded from Reef Trust, invited farmers to nominate what they were prepared to do to reduce excess nitrogen use and how much they wanted to be paid for it. By assessing applications against specific targets for reducing nitrogen the government was able to identify the most cost effective measures by the applicants.

According to the Environment Department's website a total of $1.4m has been provided in grants to 22 farms under the Reef Tender. There’s no explanation of what happened to the other $3.6m. Perhaps there weren't enough applicants that met the targets? In May the government announced another reef tender for grants to reduce fertiliser run-off from sugar cane farms in the Burdekin region as part of Phase 2 of Reef Trust, which is worth a total of $15m.

The tenders should be revealing the higher risk practices that sugar cane farmers are prepared to adopt when they have the support of a government grant. Hopefully the government will eventually release the results so lessons can be used for the other, bigger reef water quality grants program.

For the past few months I've been a detective for Good on You, tracking down fashion that's good for you and the planet.

I've investigated half a dozen brands like Jack London, Elle McPherson underwear and Nina Ricci. And what I've found is that nothing is as it seems.

Elle doesn't own those brands with her name on them and neither does Nina Ricci. So far I haven't found any brands or companies that have a convincing policy or process to ensure minimum working conditions and pay rates for workers, to exclude child labour, to exclude cruelty to animals or to protect the environment. But I haven't found any evidence that they've done any of these things or broken the law either. It looks to me as though they think it doesn't matter.

The clothing industry is one of the most polluting industries and it kills and injures people who work in it, so what they do is important. You can influence what they do without having to wear sack cloth. And you don't have to spend hours researching your favourite brands.

Good on You is an Australian initiative to 'create a world where consumers’ choices drive businesses to be sustainable and fair.' They've developed an app so when you're in the shop or online you can check how your chosen items rate. To find out more go here

Judging Money magazine's Socially Responsible Bank of the Year awards this year wasn't easy. As the magazine's June issue says 'Australian banks have been rocked by advice scandals, pressured by environmentalists to stop funding coal and accused of funding unscrupulous payday lending.'

So the panel, which I was pleased to join at the invitation of Green Cross director Mara Bun, looked for social responsibility as embedded culture, not just an add on. We asked 'why' and 'how' the applicant banks support social and environmental programs and whether they're taking a leadership position or just keeping up.

What stood out for me is that the big banks - Westpac, NAB and ANZ are now openly incorporating climate change risks into their business, including risk assessments of borrowers, and they’re offering products to support investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Judging the category for Mutuals was just as challenging because of the variety of the initiatives of the three applicants - bankmecu, ING Direct and Community Mutual.

The 2015 Socially Responsible Bank of the Year award went to Westpac, and the Socially Responsible Mutual of the Year is bankmecu. To read more .

Money magazine's annual awards are very influential because its Australia's longest-running, highest-selling and most-read personal finance magazine. Read more here.

A meeting of state environment ministers and officials on 4 May sent a strong message about working collaboratively to achieve ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Christiana Figueres (pictured), executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change addressed the meeting, urging the states and territories to work with the federal government to help deliver a “strong” global agreement at the UN climate change conference in Paris later this year. A communique from the meeting Figueres said “Collaboration between the different levels of government is critical…She urged Australian governments to share the common responsibility of climate change regardless of political parties.”

The meeting was organised by the South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill, and attended by the environment ministers of the Labor states and territories – Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and the deputy chief minister of the ACT. The federal government, Tasmanian and New South Wales governments were represented by senior officers.

The meeting “noted recommendations by the Climate Change Authority for a minimum 2020 reduction target of 19 per cent, rising to 30 per cent by 2025 in order to meet international expectations” according to the communique. They discussed “how they can work together on the establishment of appropriate emissions reduction goals at the state and territory level through the Compact of States and Regions, which requires subnational governments to report their greenhouse gas emissions targets and inventory data.” They will "share information on emission reduction targets and how individual jurisdictions are tracking against these targets.”

The other areas of work agreed at the meeting where increasing uptake of renewable energy, coordinating energy-efficiency schemes and helping communities adapt to climate change.

The communique says the meeting agreed to work collaboratively on “joint policies to drive uptake in renewable energy including large scale solar and wind projects”, and to “harmonise the delivery of energy efficiency schemes to further reduce costs for households and businesses and to improve consistency across states and territories.” It also agreed to “improve information sharing and best practice delivery in adaptation to support community resilience in responding to the impacts of climate change.”

Aligning state energy efficiency incentive schemes makes sense. South Australia, NSW and Victoria all have legislated energy efficiency schemes that oblige energy retailers to help households and businesses save energy. But they all operate with different rules, sectoral coverage, targets and objectives. A Prime Minister’s task group on Energy Efficiency in 2010 recommended a national energy efficiency savings scheme to replace the state schemes to drive a national target and reduce red tape.

The NSW and Victorian governments are currently reviewing their schemes with a view to expand them. The Queensland Labor government is yet to announce details of its election commitment to increase production of renewable energy by investing in renewable energy research and development and facilitating access to the energy grid.

State and territory programs to support uptake of renewable energy have been important in recent years with the uncertainty about the federal Renewable Energy Target. ACT and NSW government funding programs have been successful in supporting uptake of renewable energy by households and business over the past year or so. The Victorian government has announced that it will “establish a $20 million New Energy Jobs Fund to encourage investment in the renewables sector and focus on the development of technology for the generation and storage of clean energy...”. And there’ll more to come as part of the government’s review of the Climate Change Act this year.

The Victorian and Queensland governments have committed to actions in response to the policies of previous governments in those states. The Victoria Labor government for example, moved quickly after it was elected to remove bans on wind farms under state planning policy. The Queensland Labor Policy Platform meanwhile commits to reintroducing “protection of native vegetation cover as the most effective, large-scale means of carbon sequestration.”

on behalf of all states and territories.

State and territory governments working together with the federal government could make a serious impact on Australia's climate change policies if they can move beyond partisan politics. The senior officials group tasked with implementing the agreed actions will have to show great agility.

"Australia in 2030 could once again be the centre for energy intensive industries powered by the cheapest energy sources if we invest in renewable energy" Professor Ross Garnaut told businesses at

the Australian emissions reduction summit on 5 May. "And this will be the basis of our prosperity."

Road to Paris a multi-lane highway

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change told the summit on 6 May that the road to the UN climate change conference in Paris in December is “a broad highway with different lanes.” "Every country can travel in different lanes for their respective speeds, starting point and level of engagement."

But she said “the direction of travel” is clear - a planet with net zero emissions that is providing good living standards for nine billion people in 2050, with restored ecological balance.

Figueres warned of the dangers of the world exceeding 2ºC of warming compared with pre-industrial times and said the “science is clear that there is no space for new coal or unmitigated coal”.

She told the summit that Saudi Arabia is “on board with the challenge of economic diversification that’s required. They understand that they won’t be able to use all of their oil. If Saudi Arabia can do it everyone else can”, she said.

On what instruments each country should use to reduce their emissions, Figueres said “The key is to maintain an open mind. It’s not about confronting each other.” She said “Long term stability is needed at the national level to guide national conversations. The broader the participation the better, to allow a maximum of predictability and stability.”

Environment Minister Greg Hunt told the summit that the Australian government would “make a significant and very constructive contribution to the post 2020 targets.”

Plan to meet current targets

Minister Hunt told the summit the first auction of the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) held last month had a “stunning outcome” and put Australia on track to meet its international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Independent Senator Xenophon agreed that the first auction demonstrated the ERF has value. He said “unambiguously the auction was a success”.

But other speakers questioned whether the $2.55b budget for the Fund would be sufficient given the average price of $14 per tonne. Grant Anderson of Allens said 25 per cent of the ERF budget has been spent on 12 per cent of what’s needed to meet Australia’s (minimum) 2020 target of reducing emissions by 5 percent since 1990. He said “that makes it relatively expensive to purchase emission reductions in Australia.” “There’s no long term strategy.”

A report by carbon analyst RepuTex on 5 May said “we project that the …ERF budget will to be fully exhausted by 2016, leading to considerable investment uncertainty and risk of market collapse.”

There were indications that the next auction will be differnt than the first which was dominated by land sector projects - avoided deforestaion and capturing gas from landfill. Minister Hunt told the summit that electricity generators are “extremely interested in the potential for significantly reducing emissions through the ERF". And Alan Milne, Head of Fuel and Environment at the Qantas Group told the summit that Qantas plans to bid in future ERF auctions for fuel efficiency gains, for example. The projects would not otherwise proceed because they wouldn’t be able to make a business case.

Chloe Munro, Chair of the Clean Energy Regulator said "the next auction isn’t yet scheduled but it won’t be far away." “We’re waiting to see sufficient pent up supply before running the next auction.”

Safeguard mechanism 'like reiki'

The Minister told the summit the government’s proposed safeguard mechanism will ensure that emissions reductions achieved through the ERF are not offset by increases in emissions elsewhere in the economy. The mechanism “will encourage about 140 firms that are the largest emitters not to increase their emissions above historical levels” he said. Those firms account for 53 per cent of Australia’s emissions.

The mechanism will be introduced as a regulation under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, as amended by the Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Act late last year. The Minister told the summit the government is working on baselines with individual firms and sectors based on proposals set out in the government’s consultation paper released in March.

But Kobad Bhavnagari of business analyst Bloomberg told the summit the design of the mechanism provides “no framework for declining baselines over time, so there’s no long term certainty for investors or a pathway for meeting future targets.” And the provision for individual baselines means the government is exposed to special pleading by individual firms.

He said “Australia’s challenge is coal fired power facilities that are middle aged but long lived. There’s no current policy to encourage change.”

Grant Anderson of Allens law firm said a baseline and credit scheme would establish baselines for emitters, and put a cap on emissions, unlike the current scheme. It could require emitters to purchase credits if they can’t reduce their emissions by other means, providing finance for the Emissions Reduction Fund, replacing public funding.

Independent Senator Xenophon, a proponent of a baseline and credit scheme, described the government’s proposal as like reiki massage – ‘hands off’. He said the safeguard mechanism proposal is “weak and ineffective”.

He said he was “furious” when he saw the consultation paper. He felt the government had “not acted in good faith” in terms of undertakings given in the negotiations over the Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Bill last year. He warned that the Senate would disallow any regulation that “doesn’t meet the legislative objective of delivering on Australia’s international obligations.” The regulations are due to be put to the Parliament in October.

Big changes in investment and finance

Matthew Bell of EY told the summit that a 2014 EY study showed how companies are increasingly embedding sustainability considerations into core business. A major factor is a trend to divestment in coal. He said “more than half of the companies surveyed have considered environmental, social and governance risks and there’s been a fundamental change in transparency and reporting.”

Emma Hird, executive director, emissions and environment at Westpac Institutional Bank told the summit Westpac is trying to integrate carbon risk into its decision-making and has published their lending across utilities for the past seven years. That means factors such as “electricity prices, likelihood of a carbon price, and whole of economy views.”

She said Westpac is "pretty honest about the fact it is a work in progress transitioning to a 2ºC economy.” "We don't have all the pieces of information.” On whether they have a date when it will be viable to stop exporting coal and gas she said “We have some signals around future trends which we respond to and we integrate those into our decision-making process."

Westpac, along with other big banks, set targets for lending to the renewable energy sector. They had a target of lending $6bn to clean energy projects by 2017. "We found last year we hit $8bn, three years early” she said. That means "more than 59% of our lending goes to hydro and renewables".

Oliver Yates, CEO of Clean Energy Finance Corporation told the summit green finance banks are a “very effective tool to transition to a clean economy.” “They are working collaboratively around the world and learning from each other”.

The CEFC provide financing solutions for renewable energy, energy efficiency and low emissions technologies. They encourage behaviour change such as encouraging people to build energy-efficient buildings. “The quality of construction in Australia is still extremely poor", he said.

Yates said co-financing is not seeking to replace traditional banks. “Our role is as a catalyst – to underwrite others,” he said. The green financing model is a "concrete example of how governments can support the transition to a cleaner economy and do it in a way that doesn't hurt the taxpayers' pocket".

According to its website in 2013-14 the CEFC had contracted investments of over $900 million in projects of over $3 billion in total value - in its first full year of operation. Its investments are expected to earn an average return of approximately 7 per cent.

Put 5-6 May in your diaries for next year when the Carbon Markets Institute will do it all again.

Most responses to the final Reef 2050 long term plan focussed on the lack of a serious policy on climate change and coal mining. But reef scientists have applauded stronger targets for reducing water pollution and extra funding to achieve them.

The new targets reflect the Queensland Labor government's election promises to cut the amount of nitrogen flowing on to the reef from key catchments by 80% by 2025promised an extra $100m over three years fro programs to improve water quality and environmental sustainability.

And the federal government added another $100m for the programs they've been funding under the joint 2013 federal-Queensland government Reef Plan.

Some progress has been made since 2008 in helping farmers to change farming practices to stop excess chemcials and sediment running off their land. Nitrogen runoff is a big problem because of its link to outbreaks of the coral eating crown of thorns starfish.

But more could have been achieved if regulations introduced by the former Queensland Labor government in 2009 had not been abandoned by the Newman Coalition government in 2012. Queensland government reef scientists warned ealier this year that the reliance on voluntary schemes has proven ineffective.

The new Queensland Labor government, who took office in mid-February 2015 has indicated that new regulations may be introduced to achieve its targets for the Reef.

“I don’t want to pre-empt any discussions but there are a range of levers available, from regulation to education to innovation and we’ll be looking to all of those to make sure it works,” Steven Miles, Queensland’s newly-appointed environment minister and minister for the Great Barrier Reef told Guardian Australia on 17 February.

"I don’t want to disparage previous efforts on this, but we want to really aggressively reduce run-off” he said.

The extra $100m from the Queensland government will doubel the $35m a year that's been spent on programs such as the industry based 'better practice management' standards.

The extra $100m announced by the federal government will go to improving reef water quality as part of the federal government's Reef Trust. Federal environment minister Greg Hunt launched Reef Trust in late 2013 using $40m from the Reef Program which provides subsidies to farmers to help reduce agricultural pollution to the reef among other things.

Reef Trust was supposed to attract new private money from biodiversity offset obligations and philanthropy. But given public senitment about the government's policies on the Reef the only private money going into reef progams is in partnerhips with environment groups such as WWF. And to use payments in lieu of offset obligations requires amendments to federal environment laws which would be unlikely to pass the Senate.

Reef Trust has so far been used for some smaller experimental projects such as a $5m Reef Tender.

The federal government ran the Reef Tender from November 2014 to March 2015 to test whether using a reverse auction or tender for grants to sugar cane farmers would produce different results to general farmer subsidies. By assessing tender applications against specific targets for reducing excess nitrogen use the government would be able to identify the most cost effective measures that sugar farmers are prepared to take.

The tender approach sits in contrast with the general Reef Program water quality grants program, which offer all farmers about $20,000-30,000 to subsidise them adopting better management farming practices, regardless of location and impact on the reef.

I wrote to the federal environment minister in March to ask about the results of Reef Tender and whether it wil lbe expanded with the extra $100m for Reef Trust. I'm still waiting for a response.

oups have the opportunity to provide comments by late April.

The post-2020 targets will be established mid-year and will set Australia's position to the UNFCCC ahead of the Paris conference in December. Other major economies, like the US and Europe, have already flagged ambitious targets in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions.

Commentators have criticised the governmet's approach as being tricky in its accounting, because it references 2005 as the baseline year for target setting. They say the government's proposed target would lead to a rise of global temperature at four degrees rather than keeping it below two degrees, as agreed by the UN.

Australia's final 2020 target will have an impact on Australian businesses because domestic policies need to meet the international commitments.

It will apply to about 140 large businesses with direct emissions of more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2-e.

The proposed mechanism is complicated and like the rest of the Direct Action package, is seen by leading scientists and economists as unlikely to achieve what it sets out to do.

So we've already started work on at least one submission. Let u sknow if you need a hand wih yours. Submissions on both consultation papers are due before the end of April.

The Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Authority recently released a papercanvassing options forregulating cosmetic surgery.

The consultation paper includes a regulatory impact statement setting out the costs and benefits of regulating the highest risk elements of cosmetic surgery - securing informed consent and the responsibilities of doctors for post-operative care when they carry out procedures in their rooms using analgesia or sedation.

These were key issues in the report of the first in Australia, which I wrote as executive officer to the inquiry committee chaired by Merrilyn Walton.

The inquiry found a high level of satisfaction among consumers of cosmetic surgery, and very few complaints registered with health complaints commissions. The professional indemnity insurers found cosmetic surgery was generally a risk for small compensation claims, under $50,000 with few more serious injuries or adverse events.

But things can go badly wrong, and people's lives are put at risk when unlicenced doctors conduct procedures in their rooms which are not licenced premises. The 1999 Inquiry recommended changes to regulations on day procedure centres but successive government's haven't acted on it.

The Board favours stronger guidelines rather than regulations. Let's see what the views of doctors and the public are in coming months. Submissions are due in May 2015.

A roundtable on ‘Investing in biodiversity’ in Melbourne last week was told that leading banks and investors actively support finance for conservation. But rolling changes to state environment laws have created uncertainty which isn’t good for investors.

The event brought together business, government and NGOs with the aim of galvanising investment in conservation in Australia according to the roundtable organiser Amanda Cornwall.

Governments provide the main driver of financial incentives for conservation through regulations protecting native vegetation and threatened species. By requiring developers to offset unavoidable impacts on biodiversity the laws create an incentive for landholders to create biodiversity credits by setting aside land for conservation.

Amanda Cornwall told the roundtable that recent changes to those laws in Victoria and Queensland, and recommended in a 2014 review in NSW, could make investment in biodiversity credits more attractive. ‘Key trends are prioritising conservation at strategic landscape scale, and expanding biodiversity credit registers to facilitate trading’, she said.

But roundtable participants weren’t optimistic that these changes will improve biodiversity markets or make them attractive to investors. And with governments in most states planning further changes in 2015 investors will be deterred by the uncertainty.

Rosemary Bissett of National Australia Bank told the roundtable that banks and investors are more interested in how businesses manage risks.

NAB, the country’s biggest agribusiness lender, has recognised that running down the world’s natural assets such as water, soil and forests is a material risk to the economy and businesses should treat it as a financial risk.

To reflect this NAB has changed its policies so that credit assessments put more weight on the sustainability of customers’ business practices. Eventually, borrowers who manage their natural resources more sustainably might expect to receive a credit rating upgrade.

NAB has signed the Natural Capital Declaration, an international finance sector initiative to integrate natural capital considerations into loans, equity, fixed income and insurance products. It’s developing a method to account for impacts on natural capital that can ultimately apply to a financial institution’s own balance sheet and a disclosure and reporting framework.

Businesses that adopt superior natural asset management are likely to deliver improved productivity. And they can use their leadership to set themselves apart from the competition.

Having sound scientific information on the condition of the landscape and marine environments is crucial to planning and monitoring the success of conservation actions.

Trust for Nature CEO Victoria Marles told the roundtable how they had used the Victorian government’s scientific information and mapping tools to develop a conservation plan for private land in Victoria. The plan provides the first statewide analysis of conservation priorities on private land, which makes up two thirds of the state. TFN has used the plan to engage with philanthropists and landholders.

Unfortunately the environment departments of state and federal governments have lost considerable expertise and staff resources in recent years and it’s not clear if it will be restored.

Wayne Wescott, CEO of Greenfleet advocated finding ways to quantify the multiple environmental benefits of carbon sequestration projects. Australian regulations on biodiversity and carbon credits effectively preclude multiple environmental credits being recognised together because of ‘additionality’ rules. That means landholders and investors have no financial incentive to deliver biodiversity benefits alongside carbon credits even though it requires extra work and expense, and would be better for the environment.

He said the Gold Standard in the voluntary carbon market demonstrates how projects can have multiple, verifiable benefits including improving water quality, biodiversity and carbon offsets.

Last but not least, the roundtable briefly considered financial products that might be useful to raise funds for conservation projects or changes in business practice to manage natural capital risk.

Green bonds or climate bonds are suitable because investors in green bonds expect to hold on for the longer term, and they’re in it for more reasons than return on investment.

Another suggestion was ‘environmental upgrade agreements’ as a model for raising finance to support farmers moving to more sustainable land management practices. EUAs have successfully encouraged retrofitting of commercial buildings in Melbourne and NSW to improve energy and water efficiency, which reduces costs in the long term.

Participants in the roundtable included Department of Environment, Land, Water, and Planning Victoria, bankmecu, Department of Environment Australia, National Australia Bank, Hancock Victorian Plantations, Trust for Nature, Greenfleet Australia, Parks Victoria, CDP, Norton Rose Fulbright, Biosis, Flora and Fauna International, Ashurst, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, Allens Linklaters and Green Collar consulting.

See the full report on the roundtable here

Carbon and Environment Daily asked Amanda about the big trends in conservation and biodiversity laws in last year and what's ot come in 2015. Here's her top five trends.

1. Streamlining multiple environmental offsets policies and approval processes

2. A more proportinate, risk based approach to 'like for like' requirements for offsets

3. More states setting up biodiversity credit registers and improvements in NSW and Victoria

4. A strategic, landscape scale approach to using offsets

5. The growth of biodiversity offset funds

Comments by the Honourable Tony Fitzgerald AC QC about the state of government in Queensland have prompted strong public support in the lead up to the state election on 31 January.

Fitzgerald warned that the current standard of governance in Queensland is on a slippery slope towards corruption and abuse of power. Although he said he wasn't saying its as bad as the Bjelke Petersen days of open corruption and pandering to special interests, he said the same sort of practices are starting to take hold. And he said the Newman government had set a new low standard.

In response The Australia Institute started a petition calling on Queensland policital parties to sign up to a set of accountablity principles articulated by Fitzgerald.

I've reproduced the Fitzgerald Principles here as a reminder that good governance isn't complex.

Govern for the peace, welfare and good government of the State;Make all decisions and take all actions, including public appointments, in the public interest without regard to personal, party political or other immaterial considerations;Treat all people equally without permitting any person or corporation special access or influence; andPromptly and accurately inform the public of its reasons for all significant or potentially controversial decisions and actions.

Our top trends reflect the work we do scanning the political and business landscape for our clients.

1. Business + biodiverity takes off

A raft of international business and biodiversity commitments were made in 2014. Helping to halt the decline of our natural environment is becoming a mainstream part of doing business. And it takes many forms.

In Australia in 2015 we’ll see progress in getting the settings right for private investment in conservation and more resilient landscapes. Reviews of state biodiversity regulations should create new opportunities for private finance in biodiversity markets. And we should see more research on the value of services provided by nature (natural capital) in vulnerable sectors such as diary and water.

2. Action on clmate change

2014 saw global commitments to more decisive action on climate change by governments and communities. Green bonds took off as investors saw a profit from a low carbon economy. As we enter 2015 there’s reason for optimism that the United Nations Climate Change Conference in December will agree a lasting framework.

Meanwhile the Australian the government is due to hold the first auction under its Emissions Reduction Fund by March. And they’ll be working out the details of the all important safeguard mechanism as the year progresses.

3. Our marine environment a battle ground

Sadly the poor condition of the Great Barrier Reef will continue to be in the headlines in 2015. The UN is due to consider (yet again) whether to declare the World Heritage listed Reef as ‘in danger’ in June.

In 2015 we’ll see the Australian government reviewthe system of Commonwealth Marine Reserves created two years ago after years of consultations. And the government is due to decide whether to allow supertrawlers in southern Australian waters. The report of an expert panel concluded fish stocks in the small pelagic fishery are unlikely to be affected. But they recommended a list of actions to avoid impacts on protected species, especially dolphins and seals.

4. What to do about water

Severe drought persisted in much of the country during 2014 reducing production of grains and livestock and creating stressful conditions for farmers. Smart businesses in the resources and industrial sectors are investing in infrastructure to provide recycled water in the future.

In urban areas government policies on ‘city as a catchment’ will take a low profile while the dams in most capital cities remain full. But in regional cities the need for a secure water supply will continue to drive investment in water sensitive infrastructure. And local government will continue to respond to community demand for greener urban streetscapes, water wise buildings and healthier waterways.

5. Recognise Indigenous Australians

The campaign for a referendum on constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians gained widespread support with a quater of a million people pledging their support for Recognise by the end of 2014. Celebrities and political leaders were busting to get in the frame.

As the campaign becomes more popular during 2015 we’ll see more Indigenous culture and campaigns to address racism in sport. We should be talking more about the place of Indigenous people in Australia’s history, and better understand the legacy it left for current generations.

6. Medicare co-payments - its not over

For most of 2014 the government fought to introduce a co-payment for all patients when they see a doctor. As 2015 opens they've jettisoned two proposals, proceeded with a partial copayment on GP services and their relationship with medical groups is in tatters. Yet they’re determined to pursue a copayment on all doctors' services during 2015. So it will be another year of ignoring more effective measures to address rising medical costs and increase revenue.

Watch out for changes to the regulation of private health insurers and pharmacies in the recommendations of the Competition Review, due to report in March. And we're hoping for some improvements in co-ordinated care through the new Public Health Networks which start on 1 July.

7. Disruptive business models

We saw further growth in social enterprises, community co-operatives and new ways of doing business in 2014. Call them disruptive, innovative or simply responsive to community and consumer demand. In 2014 I enjoyed helping Good Cycles get started, contributing to events by Sustainable Table and watching my friends at Eaterprises get going to connect consumers directly to farmers.

In 2015 expect to see growth in renewable energy cooperatives. These community based businesses are popular in the UK and USA but uncommon in Australia, until now. In NSW a government funding program in 2014 saw the number of renewable energy co-operatives take off. The newly elected Victorian Government can expect a call from fledgling co-ops in that state.

Want to know more on any of these topics? Call Amanda on 0432 134 936 or email amandacornwall@bigpond.com

The world’s leading mining companies have significantly improved the extent and sophistication of their biodiversity management in the past ten years according to a recent report for the International Council for Mining and Metals.

The ICMM is made up of 21 of the world’s largest mining and metal producing companies that are committed to leadership on sustainable development, including Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton,

The report found ICMM members have a greater focus on managing their direct impacts on biodiversity, and supporting the conservation of biodiversity not impacted by mining activities. And all members have more specific commitments on biodiversity which are driving the process.

The independent Biodiversity performance reviewreport was jointly commissioned by ICMM and the International Union on the Conservation of Nature. It’s part of a joint agreement which aims to improve f mining companies' performance in biodiversity conservation management.

The review was the subject of discussion at the World Parks Congress in Sydney last month. It was the first time the mining industry had participated in the event.

The report also recommends areas for future collaboration between NGOs and industry to demonstrate positive biodiversity outcomes at a site-level.

The report says ICMM needs to establish with IUCN and its members the business case for addressing emerging issues (biodiversity offsets, ecosystem services and commitments to no-net-loss and net positive impact) and, develop and communicate leadership positions on them.

The report recommends ICMM members work with conservation community to develop a common definition of high biodiversity value areas, minimum requirements for biodiversity risk and impact assessments; how members with differing exposure to biodiversity risks can implement ICMM’s Principle 7 – supporting conservation outcomes over and above direct impact management.

The report also recommends improving the ability of miners to measure biodiversity outcomes and enhancing the capacity of regulators. It says enhancing the capacity of regulators will ensure regulators can support industry to conserve biodiversity.

The report says ‘ICMM members have an opportunity to raise the industry bar in biodiversity management, and reinforce their leadership position. This can be achieved by collaborating with IUCN and other conservation groups to build capacity of regulators in key countries to align with global best practice, for example, through sharing approaches on impact assessments and biodiversity offsets.’ Read the report here

Image courtesy of Rio Tinto

Newly elected Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews announced on Monday that the Office of Living Victoria will be disbanded.

What does that mean for the urban water policy that promised to green the streets of Melbourne and reduce the price of water?

The abolition of OLV was hardly surprising. The Napthine government had already folded the agency back into the Department of Environment and Primary Industries on 1 July in anticipation of a damning Ombudsman’s report. The CEO and head of Office resigned a few weeks later.

The Ombudsman’s report found the two senior managers at OLV had spent vast amounts of public money without following basic procedures to ensure value for money and avoid perceived conflicts of interest.

The report said they’d appointed firms and individuals who were former colleagues without a merit selection process, and the terms for some of the bigger contracts were unusually favourable to the consultants.

The evidence suggested that the senior managers believed they were under no obligation to follow the usual procurement policies.

They justified their conduct on the basis that they had urgent and important reforms to implement. They couldn't be hampered by the contraints of the public service.

But good governance and expeditious action are not mutually exclusive. Good planning, sound financial management, transparency and active risk management are all part of effective leadership.

By adopting a ‘crash through’ approach the leaders of the OLV risked losing the momentum from widespread support for urban water reforms. That’s a shame because it all started so well with bipartisan support and widespread enthusiasm.

The Coalition’s 2010 Living VIctoria water policy was designed to take pressure off drinking water supplies in urban areas by capturing and re-using stormwater, using the concept of ‘city as a catchment’.

Part of the rationale was the Coalition’s policy to never use the desalination plant by the former Labor government. As it turned out, they didn’t need to because it rained during their four years in government.

The policy incorporated a bundle of environment, health, economics and water engineering ideas that are part of the wider ‘integrated water cycle management’ approach. They include greening urban streetscapes, providing water for sports fields and parks, better managing urban waterways, flood management, reducing the cost of supplying drinking water and sewerage services, and restructuring the institutions that deliver those services.

Many local councils have actively embraced the idea of integrated water manaegment because of their popularity with constituents. You can see it in local planning policies (now part of the state planning scheme), in local water plans, in the way councils are managing drainage and flood mitigation, and new underground rainwater storage for watering parks and sports fields.

I convened a roundtable for leaders in local government in December 2013 to talk about the challenges they face in implementing integrated water cycle management. They were enthusiastic about working through what is needed to deliver decentralised water services.

But when I interviewed the participants five months later, in May 2014 they’d clearly lost interest. One after another local government leader told me they thought the OLV had lost traction. They were waiting to see what would happen after the state election in November.

So what now for the bold urban water reforms that OLV was in such a hurry to implement?

There’s little mention of water in the major parties’ policy commitments for the Victorian election. Not surprising given that water has slipped of the public agenda.

Integrated water cycle management won’t disappear though. It’s now part of water policy in most Australian states and territories and the federal government has supported it through grants programs.

Labor is likely to quietly turn on the desalination plant next year but it won’t have much practical effect while the water storages are full. The $50m Living Victoria fund grants program, which is due to expire next year, may be given a new injection of funds. There are still institutional and regulatory reforms to be implemented and new approaches to building and infrastructure to be adopted.

But the initial momentum for the vision of ‘city as catchment’ has been lost.

The lesson from the OLV is that good governance is crucial to success. If you fail to manage public money wisely and actively manage conflicts of interest you lose the credibility of important reforms.

Disclosure statement: Amanda was engaged by the OLV from November 2012 to June 2013 to establish the grants program under the Living Victoria fund and provide advice on governance and reporting obligations.

Image courtesy of the OLV website.

Last week I spent three glorious nights camping at the Hattah Lakes national park, just south of Mildura in Victoria's Mallee country.

We enjoyed a riot of birdlife by day and star filled skies at night.

The shallow freshwater lakes are an oasis in the midst of an arid landscape of red sand dunes, river red gums, black box trees in full bloom and endangered buloke woodlands. The 230 species of birds, I discovered later, include many rare and internationally protected species.

The area is bursting with new life after environmental flooding earlier this year by the Mallee Catchment Management Authority. Its an environmental success story by the CMA, the Murray Darling Basin Authority, the Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries and Parks Victoria.

We'll be going back next autumn.

The CEO of Greenfleet Australia told me the other day that business is booming for small scale, not-for-profit carbon offset providers. How could that be?

Without the carbon tax there's no regulations driving greenhouse gas emitters to purchase carbon credits. The new Emissions Reduction Fund will effectively bypass forestry projects. So how can businesses like Greenfleet be doing well?

Last year the big for-profit forestry based carbon credit providers left the sector or put investments on hold in anticipation of the carbon tax being abolished. Their business model relied on large scale demand driven by regulations that put limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

The government’s Emissions Reduction Fund, agreed by Clive Palmer and others only last week, is very different. It's designed to provide funding for large-scale, lowest-cost emissions reductions over the next five to seven years.

The focus is on helping Australia meet its international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Reforestation projects can’t compete with some other methods that reduce emissions at much lower cost, particularly energy efficiency measures.

But forestry needs to be part of the mix if Australia is to meet its international obligations especcially in the long term.

Climate Works Australia pointed out in Low Carbon Growth Plan for Australia, that it’s costly to establish forests and there are long term biological and financial risks. But carbon forests provide proven carbon sequestration benefits that last for 20 to 100 years. For that reason it was one the biggest contributors to Australia’s emissions reductions (over 40 MtCO2e) over the decade from 2000 to 2010.

With the abolition of the carbon tax people and businesses are going back to looking for voluntary carbon offsets, to offset their own car emissions or energy use. And Greenfleet is now one of a smaller number of businesses around to provide them.

People buying offsets voluntarily, rather than because they have to, look for extra benefits like native forests that offer biodiversity and a not-for-profit ethic. That’s what Greenfleet does.

Greenfleet generates carbon credits from growing trees that are part of biodiverse habitat with a mix of indigenous plants sourced locally. Their clients are mostly companies, individuals and government who want to offset their greenhouse gas emissions from their energy use and transport.

If you’d like to know more take a look at the submissions by Greenfleet Australia and the National Environmental Law Association to the Emissions Reductions Fund green paper here

If you’d like to know more about Australian carbon credits go here

Disclosure: Earlier this year Amanda did some work for Greenfleet on the Emissions Reduction Fund and she was President of NELA at the time of NELA’s submission

Last month I wrote to Victorian MPs on behalf of the Victorian Medicare Action Group to ask their views on the federal government’s proposed $7 GP co-payment and their decision to renege on an agreement to increase federal funding for state run public hospitals from 2017.

The most startling response came from Health Minister David Davis, on behalf of the Victorian Coalition. He's clearly annoyed that we’ve drawn attention to federal issues, accusing VMAG of being a union front and the Labor leadership of being 'treacherous'.

These are important state issues because the GP co-payment would likely result in people avoiding going to the doctor and ending up in hospital emergency departments. With the Abbott government's decision to renege on an agreement to increase hospital funding in the future, the state government will have to find extra funding from elsewhere or cut hospital services.

The Victorian Coalition, like Labor and the Greens told VMAG they don’t support the proposed GP co-payment and no-one's happy about the Abbott government's decision on public hospital funding.

The agreement on hospital funding entered into by the Rudd government in 2011 was that the federal government would increase its share of funding from around 38 per cent to 45 per cent in 2014 and 50 per cent from 2017.

The ALP response to VMAG appears pleased with the opportunity to bag the Coalition, describing the Abbott government's decision as 'cuts to Victorian hospital funding [that] are going to have a devastating effect on Victoria’s health system’.

But Labor is far from blameless on federal cuts to hospital funding. It was a federal Labor government that tried to cut $107m in hospital funding to Victoria in 2012-13 despite the much lauded agreement to increase its share of funding for hospitals.

See the report I prepared for VMAG detailing the responses and giving some analysis here or send me an email if you'd like me to send you a copy.

VMAG is apolitical and has been around since 1990 promoting universal access to health care under Medicare. For more information go here

Last year I participated in a unique international workshop in Berlin on "Challenging futures of biodiversity offsets and banking". About 30 people from governments, corporates and NGOs talked about voluntary and regulated offset schemes in Europe, the USA and Africa. I was pleased to showcase how Australia was trialling carbon and biodiversity offsets.

If you’re interested in biodiversity offsets Marianne Darbi, based in Dresden, Germany has started a Biodiversity Offsets Blog, a platform for information and exchange on biodiversity offsets and the mitigation hierarchy. Its available here.

The blog is based on Marianne's PhD research and experience, and she's hoping the insights she’ll gain from it will feed into her dissertation. She invites posts, reviews, photographs, comment and discussion. Subscribe here

Environment Minister Greg Hunt's Reef 2050 plan has had a mixed response so far because it's said to lack any bold new initiatives. But there's a few ideas that might have a big impact where it matters.

One of the most important things we can do to save the reef is to reduce fertiliser runoff, mostly from sugar cane farms. Outbreaks of the crown of thorns starfish are killing massive areas of coral and the starfish thrives on the nitrogen in the fertilisers.

What's more, if the starfish can be stopped the coral will recover enough to help the reef cope with the damaging impacts of climate change.

For the past ten years governments, farmers and scientists have been devising new farming practices that reduce pollution to the reef. There's been some promising results, but farmers are basically still using excess fertiliser.

Last year I did some analysis for WWF-Australia on the government's $200m Reef Rescue program, which provides grants to farmers to subsidise new farm management practices. I recommended that the government target practices and locations that get the best results for the reef. The way to do it is to get farmers to lodge competitive tenders for grants instead of offering standard grants to all farmers, and then select the tenders that get the best results at the lowest price.

Now the Minister has announced a $5m Reef Tender as part of Reef 2050 targeting fertiliser use by sugar cane farmers in the Wet Tropics region, the highest risk area for the crown of thorns. Under Reef Tender farmers choose the actions they want to adopt and set the price they want to be paid. With the help of CSIRO the government will then select the tenders that offer the best results for the reef.

Reef Tender is small compared to the total $200m for Reef Rescue. But I'm hopeful it'll highlight the higher risk changes in farming practice that governments should be subsidising and those that farmers should adopt anyway because they improve their productivity.

Councillors and senior managers from local councils across Melbourne and regional cities met with the heads of Victorian planning and water agencies to talk about the challenges of implementing whole of water cycle management in December 2013.

The roundtable was a break through event for local government and an oportunity for the government to hear the practical issues they were facing. Amanda convened the event leveraging her networks and shaping the key issues in the lead up to ensure it got results.

The event was convened by National Environmental Law Association and hosted by Office of Living Victoria. Read the notes from the roundtable here.