Ecoinvestment in Tumut Shire, Australia

Indicator: Ecoinvestment

| Indicator description | Complete list of Indicators |

What the results tell us for Tumut

The data show ecoinvestment in Tumut Shire has been directed primarily to

catchment management, and
preserving grassy white box woodlands.

Projects funded under the Natural Heritage Trust for Tumut for the period 1997–98 to 1999–2000 amounted to $921 329 of which $298 857 (see Table 1), was invested in catchment management. Noteworthy also is that $321 050 has been invested in conjunction with other Shires in preserving grassy white box woodlands. A further $284 042 has been directed to farm forestry in the mid-Murrumbidgee area.

This is the first year that the State of the Environment Report has included quantified information about investment in the environment across the Australian Capital Region. The information available is limited—there are, for example, no data in respect of investment in environmentally related services such as sewage treatment in Tumut Shire or by ecologically sustainable enterprises. Nor are there benchmarks against which to judge the adequacy of the investment. Accordingly, the conclusions that can be drawn are also limited. We would like to develop data sources for the indicator further for the next comprehensive State of the Environment Report.

Table 1. Ecoinvestment in Tumut Shire by Natural Heritage Trust, 1997–98 to 1999–2000
Title	Application Title*	Organisation Name	$ Expenditure
Title	Application Title*	Organisation Name	1997–98	1998–99	1999–2000
Bushcare	Bunnabuckbuck Erosions Control and Wildlife Habitat Stage II	Gilmore Landcare Group	0	0	7800
Bushcare	Gilmore Erosion Control and Wildlife Habitat Project	Gilmore Landcare Group	0	9580	0
Farm Forestry Program	Murrumbidgee Farm Forestry - Mid-Catchment Farm Forestry	State Forests of NSW	112 960	0	0
Farm Forestry Program	Murrumbidgee Mid Catchment Farm Forestry	Murray Regional Development Board	0	55 832	115 250
Murray-Darling 2001	Implementation of the Tarcutta Creek Catchment Riverine Corridor Management and Works Manual	Tarcutta Creek Catchment Committee Inc.	0	0	20 650
Murray-Darling 2001	Planning Facilitator and Cost Benefit Analysis - Tarcutta Catchment	Tarcutta Creek Catchment Committee Inc.	30 908	28 781	18 739
Murray-Darling 2001	Tarcutta Creek Catchment Gully Management	Tarcutta Creek Catchment Committee Inc.	0	0	19 200
Murray-Darling 2001	Upper Billabong Land and Water Management Plan Implementation	Holbrook Trees on Farms Landcare Group Inc.	0	0	30 700
National Landcare Program	Coordinator for Tumut Adelong Region Catchment Management Group	Tumut-Adelong Region Catchment Management Group Inc.	48 234	0	101 645
Bushcare	Grassy White Box * Woodlands Taking Action Now	Community Solutions	0	138 400	182 650
Total			192102	232593	496634

* signifies a project covering more than one Shire

About the data

The data for ecoinvestment in Table 1 have been provided by Environment Australia based on projects funded under the Natural Heritage Trust Program. Initiatives funded from other sources such as State or Local Government, or private sector initiatives have not been included this year. The next comprehensive State of the Environment report will seek to be more encompassing.

Natural Heritage Trust data. To the extent that the database allows, investments havebeen allocated to the Shire in which the project is located. Where a project applies to more than one Shire, it is indicated by an asterisk (*). Projects significant for the Australian Capital Region overall as well as other regions are included in the chapteron the Region.

The database from which Table 1 is derived shows projects by latitude and longitude, and also by map reference. Many projects, however, by their nature do not fit readily within a particular jurisdiction (or jurisdictions). Accordingly, their attribution is on a 'best endeavours' basis.

Description: What does 'ecoinvestment' measure?

Which data are collected?

annual expenditure and sources of funds spent by individuals, business, communities and the government on preventing and repairing identified environmental problems
annual expenditure on research and development of industries and businesses based on ESD principles

Why do we report this indicator?

In many environmental sector past management practices have sometimes resulted in a range of environmental problems. Examples include dryland salinity, water contamination, air pollution, and pest control just to name a few. The amount of money the community is willing to spend on repairing some of the damage, or preventing future damage, is an indicator of the response by the community to the need to maintain and restore environmental quality.

Money can be spent on maintaining and restoring land quality, water quality, air quality, and biodiversity. Total annual expenditure in each of these four sectors should be disaggregated into expenditure against specific problems, so that it is clear whether funds are spent on prevention or on rehabilitation.

Restoration strategies can include:

education
monitoring
research
on-ground works
developing management plans.

Where appropriate, expenditure should be further disaggregated into expenditure against each of these strategies.