State of the Environment

2001

Natural and Cultural Heritage Theme Report

Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 (Theme Report)
Lead Author: Jane Lennon, Jane Lennon and Associates Pty Ltd, Authors
Published by CSIRO on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2001
ISBN 0 643 06752 3

State of government protection and funding of heritage places (continued)

Government funding of heritage research and conservation

While work leading to the conservation of heritage places is funded by individuals and the private sector, a large proportion of funding - probably the majority - comes from governments. Governments fund their own management and conservation of reserves and government property, as well as providing for general heritage funding (such as the Commonwealth and State/Territory grants programs and the Natural Heritage Trust) for the conservation of heritage places.

It is difficult, given the different and often non-specific reporting formats for government funding, to consistently separate the funds provided specifically for maintaining heritage values from the overall funds provided to heritage and land-management agencies. Not all agencies report separately on conservation and protection programs, and it is difficult to be certain that, for example, field staffing levels are not, in part, resources to maintain values, or that interpretation programs do not fulfil the same role. Even in the case of special grant programs, the ratio of funds expended on direct conservation works to funds expended on administrative, research or infrastructure support is difficult to determine, and generally all these activities usually lead to a conservation outcome.

Natural heritage places funding

The Natural Heritage Trust was the major funding initiative by the Commonwealth Government in the natural environmental field during the review period. The Natural Heritage Trust is a six-year program that commenced in 1996, utilising $1.5 billion and focusing on five key environmental themes: land, vegetation, rivers, coasts and marine, and biodiversity. It provides funding for environmental activities at a community level, a regional level, a State/Territory level, and a national level.

The program addresses a range of agricultural and natural resource management issues through 20 separate funding programs, but it is not possible to easily determine how much of the $280 million allocated through, for example, the Landcare program is actually expended in protecting or recovering assessed heritage values, as opposed to general environmental improvement. The same applies to other Natural Heritage Trust programs, such as weed and feral animal control, and land and water quality audits. The National Reserve System Program, which committed $85 million in a series of cooperative programs aimed at developing the National Reserve System, was discussed earlier in this section.

The management of World Heritage properties has involved a substantial funding commitment. Table 23 records the level of Commonwealth funding provided between 1994-95 and 1999-2000. It shows fluctuating levels, with significantly increased funding for most properties but a substantial drop in funding for the Wet Tropics of Queensland (from over $6 m to less than $4 m). This drop is magnified if the cessation of the Daintree Rescue Program (operating within the Wet Tropics) is taken into account, as funding for this program is not represented at all in the 1999-2000 budget. However, it is impossible to analyse from the available information what the 'normal' level of funding would be, so the trend cannot be assessed as positive or negative.

Table 23: Commonwealth World Heritage management funding, 1994-95 to 1999-2000.A
[NCH Indicators G.5 and G.6 (World Heritage)]
Property 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000
Australian Fossil
Mammal Sites 		303 189 185 000 415 000 712 000 593 500 812 913
Central Eastern
Rainforest Reserves 		360 000 175 000 280 000 1 319 000 1 385 000 732 000
Fraser Island 300 700 317 150 700 000 950 000 70 000 662 500
Kakadu 9 907 260 8 204 614B 7 080 080 7 229 856 13 638 539C 10 595 882C
Lord Howe Island 234 114 60 000 360 000 435 925 484 500 453 400
Shark Bay 210 000 169 000 491 630 674 480 534 350 490 250
Tasmanian Wilderness 5 101 000 5 177 000 5 260 000 7 350 000 7 005 000 5 770 000
Wet Tropics 6 195 000 4 060 000 4 689 000 5 376 000 3 446 000 3 752 500
Willandra Lakes 420 245 122 375 2 510 000 2 497 329 848 850 340 000
Uluru-Kata Tjuta 4 855 419 4 064 999B 2 119 241 1 831 210 3 572 810C 3 986 287C
Total 27 886 927 22 535 138 23 904 951 28 375 800 31 579 049 27 696 732
One-off itemsD 4 068 000 5 428 000 3 584 000 4 500 000 100 000 16 650

A Includes funding from all Commonwealth sources (NHT, Bill 1 and Bill 2. Correct as at 30.9.2000.)
B Includes additional capital works for Cultural Centres.
C Includes additional capital works on visitor infrastructure because of Sydney Olympic Games.
D One-off funding items:
1994-95, Daintree Rescue Program (DRP) ($4 068 000)
1995-96, DRP ($4 428 000) and Willandra Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) ($1 000 000)
1996-97, DRP ($1 584 000) and Willandra SAP ($2 000 000)
1997-98, DRP ($1 500 000), Willandra SAP ($2 000 000) and Dugong conservation ($1 000 000)
1998-99, Cassowary recovery strategy ($100 000)
1999-2000, NHT mid-term strategy ($16 650).

Source: Australian and World Heritage Group, Environment Australia.

In the reporting period management plans have been finalised for all World Heritage properties, including those with private property owners at Willandra Lakes and the Wet Tropics of Queensland. A strategic planning framework was prepared for the Central Eastern Rainforests Reserve which has 57 discrete areas within the inscribed property. A management plan will need to be prepared for the recently-listed Greater Blue Mountains Area.

Commonwealth-State management arrangements for the four properties (Lord Howe Island, Shark Bay, Fraser Island, and Australian Fossil Mammal Sites) listed as under negotiation in the 1996 State of Environment report have been finalised.

While it is difficult to estimate the total annual expenditure in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA), some of the main per annum components include:

Indigenous heritage places funding

During the reporting period there appears to have been an increase in funding from a range of sources. However, it proved to be difficult to differentiate between funding for site works and research, and for other aspects of Indigenous heritage relating to the needs of Indigenous communities. There is an increasing reluctance of Indigenous communities to become involved in some areas of research, and probably a declining amount of pure archaeological research. This reflects the fact that approval for Indigenous heritage funding has become reliant in more recent years on the approval of representative communities, and that research projects now have to be supported by a custodial group to proceed, whereas in the past consultation was not as much an issue. On the other hand, some very innovative work with communities on community-directed archaeological work has been carried out during the reporting period. The work on land rights claims and Native Title has increased, with consequent holistic research into the use and existence of heritage places. This has increased our knowledge of Indigenous heritage places in the landscape.

Attitudes towards funding for research on Indigenous cultural heritage also vary across the Indigenous organisations surveyed. In some cases, Indigenous communities feel little need for research to be undertaken in their area. In these cases the organisations tend to seek funds for conservation or educational programs that relate to cultural heritage. Where communities do encourage research of a theoretical nature, they express a strong desire to maintain control over the process, as is shown by the increasing number of Indigenous organisations that are establishing protocols for this purpose.

In other cases, communities see that an increasing knowledge of cultural heritage is crucial to their survival. Research can fulfil several purposes in these cases. It can be used in 'connection reports' for Native Title claims and other processes entered into for gaining control over land. The information gained from the research can also be used to educate the young and increase community cultural awareness. Another outcome can be the incorporation of the research findings into heritage tours or walks for tourists. In all these cases, encouraging academic involvement in research is a tool used by a community to strengthen the presentation of its identity, usually to the outside world.

Table 24 indicates the available information on funding, most of which represents Commonwealth activity. Few States responded with information on their funding programs. While this data is incomplete, it does illustrate inconsistent levels of funding through the reporting period which makes planning and skills retention difficult. A substantial increase in funding for Indigenous heritage research was provided in the year 1999-2000, following a substantial drop in the preceding three years from the 1995-96 level.

Table 24: Number and amount of funding for Indigenous cultural heritage projects.
[NCH Indicators IA 1.1 and IA 1.2 (Number and Level of Funding for Indigenous Cultural Heritage/Archaeological Projects)]
Year Region 95-96 96- 97 97-98 98-99 99-2000 Total
No. $ No. $ No. $ No. $ No. $ No. $
AIATSIS (org) National 8 127 748 2 33 704 4 59 252 1 10 933 8 140 210 23 371 847
AIATSIS (ind) National 17 208 320 6 122 410 10 97 539 2 27 730 8 133 162 43 589 161
Australian Research Council National 0 nd 0 nd 5 358 678 9 485 334 9 548 972 23 1 392 984
ATSIC (Nat) National nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1 42 898 1 42 898
ATSIC (Reg)   nd nd nd nd nd nd 5 95 457 1 31 300 6 126 757
EA - National Estate Grants Program (nat) National 1 25 000 4 155 200 0 nd 6 238 256 0 nd 11 418 456
EA - National Estate Grants Program (state) National 20 434 850 5 111 506 0 nd 0 nd 0 nd 25 546 356
EA - Community Heritage Protection Program National 0 nd 0 nd 0 nd 0 nd 5 206 942 5 206 942
DISR - RTGPA National 1 35 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 35 500
Aboriginal Grants ACT 0 nd 0 nd 0 nd 1 10 000 0 nd 1 10 000
Aboriginal GrantsB NT 1 11 400 1 11 400 1 11 400 1 11 400 1 11 400
 5 57 000
Dhimurru NT 0 nd 1 12 000 0 nd 1 50 000 0 nd 2 62 000
Queensland Coastcare Qld 1 11 000 2 32 600 1 31 100 3 46 134 0 nd 7 120 834
Queensland Community History Grants Qld 0 nd 1 10 000 1 10 200 7 76 000 5 86 000 14 182 200
TOTAL   49 853 818 22 488 820 22 568 169 36 1 051 244 38 1 200 884 168 4 162 935

A $4 042 471 was spent on Indigenous tourism projects by DISR (and its predecessors) from 1992-93 to 1999-2000, but only one project appears to have had an archaeological component.
B This is an average amount per year over the five-year period.
nd No data available.

Source: Australian Heritage Commission.

In 1999-2000, only 24% of the total budget of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies was spent on their research function, compared to 41% on their archives, production and library functions. This figure for research is inflated by the inclusion of the grants program. If this is taken out, and only research carried out by Institute staff themselves is taken into account, the proportion of the total budget spent is only 16%. Table 24 also shows that the source of the largest funds was the Australian Research Grants to universities; and that the previous level of National Estate Grants Program funds has not been maintained by the replacement Community Heritage Protection Program. However, the Natural Heritage Trust allocated $6 million to the Indigenous Protected Area Program from its $1.5 billion program.

Where cultural heritage funding is sought by Indigenous organisations through the Natural Heritage Trust, it is for 'conservation protection or educative works' that relate to cultural heritage sites, rather than for more academic research. The funding is for fencing-off sites, rehabilitation of habitat, developing heritage trails or interpretative panels, or housing cultural heritage material. This means that the funding from the Natural Heritage Trust for Indigenous projects does not appear in Table 24.

Historic heritage places funding

During the reporting period, the Commonwealth provided over $132 million for programs which in whole or part were aimed at historic heritage place conservation (although some programs, such as the National Estate Grants Program, also included substantial natural and Indigenous heritage funding). This is outlined in Table 25.

Table 25: Major Commonwealth Government cultural heritage funding programs 1996-2000.
[NCH indicators G.5 and G.6 (Commonwealth)]
Program Recipients (1996-2000) ($)
Private
owner		 Community/
NGO		 Local
Government		 State
Government agencies		 Commonwealth Government
agencies
Federation FundA nil 28 089 000 9 111 000 15 000 000 46 000 000
Cultural Heritage Projects ProgramB 942 103 1 679 610 634 385 260 000 na
National Estate Grants ProgramC na 5 231 617 1 641 244 2 341 634 55 487
Tax Incentives for Heritage ConservationD 9 500 000 na na na na
Heritage Properties Restoration ProgramE na na na 7 100 000 na
Grants in Aid to National TrustF na 3 973 000 na na na
Voluntary Cultural Heritage OrganisationsF na 479 000 na na na
Commemoration of Historic Events Famous People na 252 485 15 480 5 175 8 058
Total $10 442 103 $39 704 712 $11 402 109 $24 706 809 $46 063 545

A This program was a one-off budget commitment in 1998-99.
B This program commenced operation in 1999-2000, replacing the National Estate Grants Program.
C This program funded only one third historic projects.
D This program ceased in 2000.
E This program transferred from DCITA ceased in 1999-2000.
F The assistance provided under these two programs was not directly for maintaining heritage values, but rather to support community-based not-for-profit organisations in their efforts to do this.
na Not applicable.

Source: Historic Environment Section, Australian Heritage Commission.

By far the largest of these funding programs, the Centenary of Federation Fund (74% of the total expenditure) was a one-off budget allocation, and only a proportion of the funding was for direct heritage conservation because the Fund included substantial infrastructure and public presentation development funding. Much Centenary of Federation funding was for museum development, including the construction of the National Museum of Australia on Acton Peninsula in Canberra.

Federation fund project logo
The new National Museum of Australia in Canberra, ACT, was created around the themes of land, people and nation

The new National Museum of Australia in Canberra, ACT, was created around the themes of land, people and nation.

Source: George Serras/National Museum of Australia (2001)

Naval Brigade Stores, Kangaroo Point, Brisbane, Queensland

Naval Brigade Stores, Kangaroo Point, Brisbane, Qld.
Two stores were built in 1886-87 for the Queensland colonial navy and were taken over by the Commonwealth after Federation. One stores building burnt down and the surviving store was recently restored with Centenary of Federation funding.

Source: Mike Pearson (2000)

The National Estate Grants Program (NEGP), which had for over two decades been the primary Commonwealth heritage funding program, was wound down from its last full year of operation in 1995-96, before the replacement Cultural Heritage Projects Program commenced in 2000. The State/Territory component of the National Estate Grants Program was not replaced in the new Cultural Heritage Projects Program. In the intervening three years a substantial gap was left in funding opportunities for heritage studies and conservation. Another consequence of the loss of the National Estate Grants Program was the subsequent lack of funding for local and community projects, for thematic studies, and for studies relating to planning policy development and general assistance (e.g. heritage advisers). Government policy under the new scheme has been that funding should go to places of national importance and should be focused on 'bricks and mortar'. This approach is likely to lead to a substantial gap in the funding for local heritage places and for historic heritage research and planning.

When the amount of funding in relation to both Indigenous and historic heritage places is compared to that provided for the natural environment through the Natural Heritage Trust, it would suggest reluctance on the part of the Commonwealth to pursue a leadership role in the cultural heritage area.

Historic shipwreck funding is provided jointly by the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. Table 26 indicates the level of funding for shipwrecks.

Table 26: Funding ($) provided for the protection and management of historic shipwrecks, 1995-2000.
[NCH indicators G.5 and G.6 (Shipwrecks)]
  Commonwealth funding State/Territory funding Total
NSW 305 753 855 839 1 161 592
Qld 270 003 3 740 600A 4 010 603
WA 293 710 1 445 037 1 738 747
Vic. 323 971 938 000 1 261 971
SA 245 480 500 000 745 480
Tas. 246 800 208 000 454 800
NT 218 329 NA 218 329
Norfolk Island 16 200 0 16 200
AIMAB 66 850 NA 66 850
Commonwealth 51 436 NA 51 436
Totals 2 038 532 7 697 476 9 726 008

A Queensland figures were inflated because of the specific Pandora Foundation funds for the new Museum of Tropical Queensland in Townsville.
B Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology.
NA Not available.

Source: Historic Environment Section, Australian Heritage Commission.

As a category of heritage place, historic shipwrecks were well resourced in comparison with Indigenous sites over the reporting period.

Funding programs in the States and Territories vary considerably in size

The States and Territories allocate funds for historic heritage place conservation. This is outlined in Table 27.

Table 27: State and Territory heritage funding ($), 1995-2000A.
[NCH indicator G.5 and G.6 (States and Territories)]
  1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Total 1995-2000
NSW Heritage Office
Grants program 2 200 000 337 000 1 710 000 3 494 000 3 544 000 11 285 000
Queensland EPA
Heritage grants 220 000 143 000 180 046 168 711   711 757
Community history grants 41 478 25 650 31 020 30 000   128 148
Indigenous community grants   195 785 231 215 308 076   735 076
Heritage TrailsB         110 000 000 110 000 000
SA Dept of Environment and Heritage
State heritage fund 243 000 365 000 552 000 497 000 582 000 2 239 000
SA History Trust Museums program 100 000 100 000 100 000 100 000   400 000
ACT Heritage
Overall funding       983 000 1 250 000 2 233 000
Grants         183 000 183 000
Parks Victoria
Heritage conservation 97 000 58 000 133 000 178 000 94 000 560 000
Heritage labour and costs (est.)   3 400 000 3 600 000 3 700 000 4 000 000 14 700 000
Heritage Victoria
Assistance       384 160   384 160
Local government heritage studies     200 000 545 000   745 000
Local Government heritage advisors     177 000 240 000   417 000
Heritage Council WA
Conservation incentive   51 012 105 000     156 012
Heritage grants     1 000 000 950 000 858 000 2 808 000
Cossack Fund     56 800   94 000 150 800
Dalgety House     3 000 10 000 73 000 86 000
Totals 2 901 478 4 675 447 8 079 081 11 587 947 120 678 000 147 921 953

A Blanks indicate the absence of information, not the absence of funding.
B A $110 million program, provided 50/50 by Commonwealth and Queensland, commencing in 2000 for three years for 32 nominated projects.

Source: Historic Environment Section, Australian Heritage Commission.

In New South Wales, a Heritage Assistance Program (HAP) and a new 'Heritage 2001' program are supported by interest on funds invested in the Heritage Conservation Fund. While this provides a constant source of funding, the level of funding is clearly dependent on interest levels which, in recent times, have been low. In 1997 an additional fund, the $30 million program, was added to the existing Heritage Assistance Program. The objective of the new program is to support the conservation of major heritage items listed on the State Heritage Register. In 1999 a new Heritage Incentive Fund was created by amendments to the Heritage Act 1977 to provide assistance in the form of the payment of land tax, duty or council rates for the owners of heritage items that are the subject of heritage agreements with the Minister. No money has yet been paid into this fund.

Newcastle NSW Convict Lumber Yard Archaeological Site of the 1814-50 convict establishment

Newcastle NSW Convict Lumber Yard Archaeological Site of the 1814-50 convict establishment.
This site was excavated and building outlines marked with metal structures. It is an additional tourism attraction in this regional town. The Customs House is in the background.

Source: Mike Pearson (2000)

In Tasmania, the Tasmanian Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 provides for a heritage trust fund to be used exclusively for conservation funding. In February 2000 the fund received its first allocation of funds (amount not stated). A grants program is currently in operation.

In Victoria the establishment of a $5 million annual Public Heritage Fund in 1999 provided a substantial boost to the ability of state and local government agencies to undertake economically valuable heritage conservation works.

In Western Australia during the last five years, the operating funds and human resources of the Heritage Council have remained virtually static. Since 1994 the Western Australian Lotteries Commission has allocated approximately $1 million annually to a heritage funding program to places of community value.

In South Australia there has been no significant change in state funding other than a one-off injection of $300 000 into the State Heritage Fund and access to capital works funding for heritage properties owned by the Department of Environment and Heritage. However the loss of the state component of the National Estate Grants Program had a major impact on both state and voluntary organisations and put a greater burden on the State Heritage Fund's grants program for private citizens.

Incentives for private owners, including non-tax paying entities

The importance of heritage advisors to local heritage conservation has been recognised by their spread across local government areas as shown in Table 30, and their role in educating private owners of heritage. The importance of incentives in changing public opinion or owner attitudes to heritage listing has not been studied for this report. It needs to be raised when looking at the condition of churches for example. The effectiveness of a heritage fund, such as that in New South Wales, or funds that can be accessed at low interest rates and added to through tax-deductible donations, should be examined for the next reporting period.

Conclusion and implications regarding heritage funding for research and conservation