• Change text size
• Skip to content

• About us
• Contact us

Search

• Home
  • Atmosphere
  • Biodiversity
  • Coasts and marine
  • Heritage
  • Human settlements
  • Land
  • Living sustainably
  • Parks Australia
  • Water
  • EPBC Act

• SoE
  • About SoE reporting

• SoE 2011
  • SoE 2011 report
  • SoE 2011 in brief
  • Supplementary material

• SoE 2011 report
  • Summary, including Headlines
  • 1 - Approach
  • 2 - Drivers
  • 3 - Atmosphere
  • 4 - Inland water
  • 5 - Land
  • 6 - Marine environment
  • 7 - Antarctic environment
  • 8 - Biodiversity
  • 9 - Heritage
  • 10 - Built environment
  • 11 - Coasts
  • 12 - Future reporting
  • Appendixes

• • SoE 2006
    • SoE 2006 report
    • SoE 2006 at a glance
    • Theme commentaries
    • Integrative commentaties
    • Current or emerging issues
    • Technical reports
    • Data Reporting System
  • SoE 2001
    • Report
    • Key findings
    • Fact sheets
    • Theme reports
    • Technical papers
  • SoE 1996
    • SoE 1996 report
    • Key findings brochure
    • Technical papers
  • Themes
    • Drivers
    • Atmosphere
    • Inland water
    • Land
    • Marine environment
    • Antarctic environment
    • Biodiversity
    • Heritage
    • Built environment
    • Coasts
  • Publications

9 Heritage

• Chapter contents
• Download chapter
• Supplementary material

• Next
• Previous

4.3 Inputs

Inputs to heritage management can be assessed by considering the financial, human and other resources that are available for management programs to address pressures and risks to heritage values.

4.3.1 Financial resources

Sound management practices in the heritage system are ultimately determined by available resources, especially funding. It is appropriate that resources are allocated by government because heritage is a public good.

Heritage Victoria has considered the basis for heritage valuation from a cost–benefit perspective:

The economic case for government intervention in heritage lies in the communitywide nature of many of these benefits. The aesthetic quality of a building's heritage facade, for example, will be of value to passers-by as well as to the building's owner. Gard'ner,⁸⁴ p.2

The intangible nature of many of the benefits associated with heritage means they cannot be captured by the market. As a result they cannot be valued using normal market valuation (pricing) techniques. Gard'ner,⁸⁴ p.3.

The issues of who pays for heritage conservation and who is responsible (the owner, community or government) is contentious. Many heritage places are privately owned and their cultural benefits are shared by their owners and the community, so it is reasonable that the owners contribute some resources and the government contributes other resources, either directly with funding or indirectly through incentives. However, in reality, public funding for heritage in Australia is very low. Comparison with international data suggests that the low level of funding allocated for Australian heritage may be compounded by the extent of the heritage resource and by the relative ability of owners and governments to provide resources for its conservation (Box 9.25).

Heritage is available to all, but funded by some. The Productivity Commission made an important distinction between the respective roles and responsibilities of government and private sector owners of heritage places:

Governments are the custodians of the vast majority of the most significant or 'iconic' heritage places. They also own a very large number of less significant places.

There is significant scope for governments to improve how they identify and fund the conservation of government-owned places.

and

For many private owners, the current use and enjoyment of their property are consistent with, indeed require, maintaining its heritage attributes.

…the wider cultural benefits of the place are provided to their community with little added costs, apart from the extra administrative cost involved with government identification, assessment and listing. Productivity Commission,⁹⁰ p. xxviii

Although many of the Productivity Commission's findings and recommendations have been disputed, the above citations highlight the important role of government in providing the resource capacity for heritage conservation and the major contribution already made by private owners—a contribution that deserves greater support and improved incentives (Boxes 9.26 and 9.27).

In 2011, federal funding for heritage at the national level was dramatically cut from $34 242 000 in 2010–11 to $26 675 000 in 2011–12: a reduction of more than 22%. The heritage budget for DSEWPaC will be reduced by more than 31%, limiting the extent and effectiveness of current programs and leading inevitably to lack of federal leadership in managing Australian heritage. These cuts require downscaling of fundamental elements of the EPBC Act model for heritage management, such as National Heritage List assessments, and leave little or no ability to instigate effective monitoring or evaluation. The resulting reduction in staff support and other resources will also reduce the effectiveness of groups that rely on federal support, such as the Australian Heritage Council, the Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand, and the Australian World Heritage Advisory Committee.

Australian and state budget allocations and project grants for natural heritage are modest and not proportional to the scale of the resources and their natural and ecosystem service value. Cultural heritage is even more poorly funded:

There is a stark contrast between the funding provided by governments in Australia for the conservation of natural and historic heritage. For example, the $2.7 billion Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) represents the biggest financial commitment to environmental action by any Australian government. Yet the Act which established the Trust in 1997 specifically excluded historic heritage from being considered … Lennon,⁵³ p. 25

In 2007, Heritage Victoria commissioned a useful review of the Victorian heritage grants scheme.⁹² The review report notes that the grant allocation criteria accept that appropriately recognised heritage places are equally valuable and deserve to be protected, so there is no prioritisation of grant applications based on subjective assessment of comparative heritage value. As a result, the growing demand and reducing pool of funding has tended to reduce the amount provided by individual grants. While understandable, this has arguably resulted in larger and more iconic places not receiving funding, or not having optimal works programs.

There is a strong case for establishing a national cultural heritage funding program, equivalent to the Natural Heritage Trust or Caring for our Country initiatives.⁵³

The natural and cultural heritage indicators used in the 2001 and 2006 SoE reports included a series of financial and human input measures. Unfortunately, comparable trend data for financial and human inputs are not easily gathered because the relevant information is often amalgamated within larger agency figures or affected by administrative changes. For some jurisdictions, only partial information is available.

Natural and cultural heritage indicator 9 considers funding provided to heritage and other agencies for natural heritage places

Funding for survey and assessment of natural values appears to be declining. Reservation of lands with conservation value continues to depend on public sector budget allocations and opportunistic acquisition. However, additional land continues to be reserved without proportional increases in public sector resourcing. The sparse, partial figures available indicate that operational funding for Australian reserved land management may have increased in amount between 2006 and 2011 but may have declined relative to the dollar value and extent of managed lands.^q The majority of Australian parks appear to lack adequate resources to address major emerging pressures, and conservation programs are constrained by available resources. These limitations affect the values of cultural places within reserved lands, as well as natural values.

Nevertheless, some specific public sector funding programs such as National Heritage Trust 2, Caring for our Country and the Jobs Fund initiative have made major positive contributions to particular natural heritage programs (see Table 9.2). However, there are currently no similar forward commitments for ongoing public sector funding of heritage conservation at this scale.

Table 9.2 World Heritage area funding ($) from the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) and Caring for our Country, 2006–07 to 2010–11

Figures are based on approvals per financial year and include funding delivered through regional natural resource management bodies and, in some cases, funding for cultural heritage. No funding to Australian Government–managed World Heritage areas is included (i.e. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Kakadu National Park, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park).
– = no data available Source: Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2011
Funding source	NHT2		Caring for our Country
State	2006–07	2007–08	2008–09	2009–10	2010–11	Total
Queensland	3 663 139	3 350 232	2 924 000	5 496 810	2 458 600	17 892 781
New South Wales	709 168	796 875	1 153 397	2 055 451	2 182 200	6 897 091
Tasmania	3 469 500	5 015 500	5 170 000	8 329 855	4 003 982	25 988 837
South Australia	110 000	74 250	–	–	135 000	319 250
Western Australia	283 503	465 230	425 346	299 700	822 530	2 296 309
Commonwealth	1 200 000	500 000	–	–	–	1 700 000
Total	9 435 310	10 202 087	9 672 743	16 181 816	9 602 312	55 094 268

Natural and cultural heritage indicator 10 considers funding provided to heritage and other agencies for historic heritage places

Funding for surveying and assessing historic values is difficult to measure on a national basis, but is declining for the National Heritage List. Although the dollar amount has increased, when adjusted for inflation and the number of listed places, the available funding for historic heritage decreased between 2006 and 2011.

Many Australian historic sites in public ownership lack adequate resources to address major conservation priorities. Private owners of historic sites do not receive incentives that are proportional to the public value of the places they own and manage. Grant funding, though substantial during the Jobs Fund initiative, is now in decline.

Natural and cultural heritage indicator 11 considers funding provided to heritage and other agencies for Indigenous heritage places

Resources for listing and protecting Indigenous heritage places are inadequate, and their allocation is often a post-event reaction to adverse impacts. Insufficient attention is paid to intangible values and effective means of protection other than listing or reservation.

Australia's listed Indigenous sites do not allocate adequate resources to address major conservation priorities, nor do land-management programs such as Caring for our Country. Conservation programs for intangible heritage are severely constrained by limits on available resources.

Funding for heritage: Jobs Fund (heritage projects)

In April 2009, the Prime Minister announced a $650-million economic stimulus package (the Jobs Fund), to support local jobs, build skills and improve facilities in local communities. This included $60 million for heritage projects.⁹⁴ The Jobs Fund program is by far the largest public sector funding initiative for heritage during the SoE 2011 reporting period. Funding of $58.2 million across 2008–09 and 2009–10 was approved for 191 projects (Figures 9.16 and 9.17).⁹⁵

 

An assessment process identified which projects met Jobs Fund 'gateway' and heritage criteria, and independent expert assessment review was provided by the Australian Heritage Council and the minister's Heritage Working Group. Approximately 180 further projects (with a value of $173 million) were assessed as suitable, but were not funded.

In addition to achieving some outstanding heritage outcomes (Box 9.28), the heritage component of the Jobs Fund created 2423 jobs, 231 work experience positions and 116 traineeships. Thirteen projects were located in Indigenous communities or had particular focus on Indigenous employment, contributing to Closing the Gap targets through economic stimulus.

Like previous major funding programs (such as the Bicentennial and Centenary of Federation funding programs leading up to 1988 and 2001), the Jobs Fund represents a 'spike' in funding levels for heritage conservation. Such spikes are typically interspaced with lean periods. This funding pattern may contribute to cyclical patterns observed in the condition and integrity of our heritage (see Section 2.2.7).

4.3.2 Human resources

Human resource inputs for heritage include the knowledge and skills of staff employed in reserves and cultural sites; heritage advisers and regulators; and private sector owners, managers and volunteers.

Natural and cultural heritage indicator 17 considers the number and distribution of professional heritage-related courses, enrolments and graduates

Conservation of the vast array of culturally significant buildings and places in Australia and New Zealand relies on a body of heritage professionals and tradespeople with relevant specialist skills. These skills are acquired through both formal and 'on the job' training. The number of practitioners with these skills has declined in recent years and the population of appropriately skilled practitioners is ageing–leading to a looming crisis in cultural heritage conservation. Godden Mackay Logan,²¹ p. 131

There was a net increase in the number of professional heritage-related courses between 2006 and 2011. However, available courses are concentrated in eastern Australia and major cities. The focus for courses is on general professional heritage management, whereas opportunities for more specific training in heritage trades have declined (Table 9.3).²¹

Table 9.3 Professional historic heritage training courses offered in Australia (degree, diploma, certificate and short courses), 2010

State	Physical conservation	Recording	Management	Consultation	Interpretation	Archaeology	Historic landscape management	Legislation and policy	Total
ACT = Australian Capital Territory; NSW = New South Wales; NT = Northern Territory; Qld = Queensland; SA = South Australia; Tas = Tasmania; Vic = Victoria; WA = Western Australia Source: Godden Mackay Logan21
ACT	4	6	11	1	6	8	7	8	51
NSW	3	9	4		1	2		5	24
NT					1				1
Qld			3			4		2	9
SA		10	12		8	15		12	57
Tas					1				1
Vic	10	8	10	4	5	1	2	8	48
WA			4		5	3		4	16
	17	33	44	5	27	33	9	39	207

Practice standards in heritage professional practice and trades practice rely on skilled practitioners. A particularly challenging problem for practice standards in historic heritage is an apparent skills erosion (Box 9.29).

Natural and cultural heritage indicator 18 considers membership of selected peak professional heritage associations

Comprehensive, reliable longitudinal data are not available for peak professional associations across the heritage sector. Surrogate data (such as membership of Australia ICOMOS) suggest a substantial increase in membership of professional heritage associations of around 20% between 2006 and 2011 (Figure 9.18).

Natural and cultural heritage indicator 19 considers the number of volunteers trained by heritage organisations and institutions

Comprehensive, reliable longitudinal data are not available for the heritage volunteer sector. Surrogate data indicate that volunteer participation has declined. For example, information provided by the Australian Council of National Trusts shows some variation from state to state, but overall a general decrease of 2.7% over 2006-2011 and a decrease of 14.1% since 1998. Actual membership numbers and participation in heritage training or conservation activities may vary depending on state-specific processes for managing membership records, particular advocacy campaigns or membership drives. While National Trust membership can be regarded as indicative only, the figures suggest that, despite some growth in numbers between 2006 and 2008, volunteerism in the heritage sector may generally be declining (Figure 9.19).

However, there are many positive stories about contributions made to heritage conservation by volunteers (Box 9.30).

Natural and cultural heritage indicator 20 considers the number of people working in Indigenous organisations, number of Indigenous enrolments in university heritage courses, number of Indigenous people employed by agencies involved in Indigenous programs and management of Indigenous heritage

Insufficient data are available to provide an accurate assessment of this indicator.

Natural and cultural heritage indicator 21 considers the number of local government heritage advisers

Insufficient data are available to provide an accurate assessment of this indicator.

Natural and cultural heritage indicator 22 considers the number of professional heritage employees in government agencies

Anecdotal evidence suggests that national parks in Australia suffer from a systemic lack of direct resourcing. Budgets and grant programs are never regarded as sufficient to achieve basic values management and respond to emerging issues. The implications include loss of skilled staff, and management having to omit some activities and programs, leading to further pressures and impacts.

At the national level, Australian Government departmental funding was reduced from $15 million to $13 million between 2006-07 and 2011-12.⁹⁷This reduction is even greater when adjusted to reflect actual employment costs, and has resulted in a drop in heritage staffing levels. The reduction adversely affects listing programs, and reduces capacity for delivery of advice, proactive planning and reactive monitoring of heritage places.⁶⁸

At the state level, comparable trend data for staffing levels within heritage agencies are not available: the relevant information is subsumed within summary figures for larger agencies, or compromised by changes to government structures or differences between jurisdictions. However, a snapshot view as at June 2011 (Table 9.4) shows significant variation in staffing levels between jurisdictions, even taking anomalies into account and adjusting for population or numbers of places listed on state heritage registers. There is an obvious correlation between higher staffing levels and a greater number of listed places; it is not clear whether this correlation occurs because greater staff resourcing enables more places to be assessed, or because greater numbers of listed places require more regulators, or both.

Table 9.4 State and territory heritage office full-time equivalent (FTE) staff numbers, June 2011

Jurisdiction	FTEs internal	FTEs external	FTEs total	Population (million)	FTE/million people	Number of places on state register	Number of places on state register/FTE	Notes
ACT = Australian Capital Territory; NSW = New South Wales; NT = Northern Territory; Qld = Queensland; SA = South Australia; Tas = Tasmania; Vic = Victoria; WA = Western Australia Source: Heritage Victoria, gathered on behalf of Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand, unpublished
ACT	12.0	0.0	12.0	0.36	33.3	470	39.2	Includes Indigenous heritage
NSW	35.0	2.0	37.0	7.24	5.1	1 570	42.4
NT	7.0	0.0	7.0	0.23	30.4	250	35.7	Includes Indigenous heritage
Qld	25.0	11.6	36.6	4.52	8.1	1 670	45.6
SA	16.9	0.0	16.9	1.64	10.3	2 210	130.8
Tas	16.5	0.0	16.5	0.51	32.4	5 520	334.6
Vic	42.2	0.0	42.2	5.55	7.6	2 240	53.1
WA	28.3	0.0	28.3	2.30	12.3	1 300	45.9
Total	182.9	13.6	196.5	22.35		21 160		Excludes Australian Government
Mean	22.9	1.7	24.6	-	17.4	-	107.7

Along with national and state heritage staff, local heritage advisers are highly valued (Box 9.31).

• Back to top

• Next
• Previous