Bushfire recovery programs

Amounts: The program offered funding to assist and support bushfire-impacted Aboriginal communities to clean-up and dispose of bushfire waste and install deterrence infrastructure (fencing, gates, bollards and signage) to prevent future illegal dumping on Aboriginal lands.

Eligible bodies: Eligible bodies were Local Aboriginal Land Councils and other Aboriginal land managers (Aboriginal Organisations or Corporations) conducting clean-up projects from the 2019-20 summer bushfires, which are not eligible for the initial government-funded bushfire clean-up program. 

Contact: Email RecoveryandResiliencePrograms@epa.nsw.gov.au

Status: The program is completed.

Managed by: NSW Environment Protection Authority. This program was funded under the joint Commonwealth-State Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements.

Amounts: The program was administered in two phases and provided up to $2.11 million in funding to public land managers to effectively deal with the full extent of dumped bushfire waste in their region.

• Phase 1 – Data Collection Initiative (closed): Scoping the extent of bushfire dumping. Eligible applicants were provided with a designated consultant to scope the extent of bushfire dumping in their region. This information could be used to inform grant funding applications in Phase 2.
• Phase 2 – Clean-up, disposal and prevention (closed): Applicants are awarded funds to clean-up and dispose of dumped bushfire waste and to implement dumping prevention measures.

Contact: 131 555 or RecoveryandResiliencePrograms@epa.nsw.gov.au

Status: The program is completed.

Managed by: NSW Environment Protection Authority

Amounts: This program provides up to $22.4 million in two phases.

• Phase 1 – Impact Assessments
  Councils that opted in to the program were provided with consultants to assess, quantify and report on the impacts that receiving bushfire waste has had on their landfill.
• Phase 2 – Landfill Infrastructure Projects 
  $22.1 million in funding awarded to 15 councils for 26 Landfill Infrastructure Projects that restore or improve council landfills.

Eligible bodies: NSW councils that have received waste generated by the 2019–20 bushfires at their landfill.

Contact: 131 555 or RecoveryandResiliencePrograms@epa.nsw.gov.au

Status: Phase 1 is completed and successful applicants for Phase 2 have been announced.

Managed by: NSW Environment Protection Authority

Amounts: The program provides funding of up to $2 million in grants for council projects that collect and recycle the metal components of burnt rural fencing materials from bushfire affected rural landholders.

Contact: 131 555 or RecoveryandResiliencePrograms@epa.nsw.gov.au

Status: The program is completed.

Managed by: NSW Environment Protection Authority.

Amounts: $31.7 million in funding provided for Bushfire-generated green waste grants over Stream A and B. 

• Funding Stream A – Data collection initiative
  Provided a flat fee of $10,000 to assess and document the extent of bushfire-generated green waste within your jurisdiction. Additional funding of up to $20,000 per LGA will be considered in cases where:
  1. Councils received Stream A funding and the $10,000 was not sufficient to complete the assessment; or
  2. Councils did not receive Stream A funding and have still carried out a green waste assessment in order to apply for Stream B funding.
• Funding Stream B – Clean-up and processing grants
• $31.5 million in grants provided to 15 councils to fund clean-up, processing and beneficial reuse of green waste generated by the 2019–20 bushfires.

Contact: 131 555 or RecoveryandResiliancePrograms@epa.nsw.gov.au

Status: The program is completed.

Managed by: NSW Environment Protection Authority. This program was funded under the joint Commonwealth-State Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements.

Design

• The program was co-designed with consideration of cultural appropriateness, with input from Aboriginal people. This improved the chosen delivery model, which differed from the other bushfire recovery programs (i.e., not a grant) and ensured flexibility of scope, timelines and approach.
• The program aimed to respect and incorporate local traditional knowledges. This was evident during the initial scoping meetings, which happened on Country with Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) and community members, ensuring aspirations of the community were met.
• The close collaboration between delivery partners and local communities enabled the successful implementation of the program, this was achieved through a focus on relationship building and open communication. This also contributed to upholding principles of shared decision making.

Value for money

• $20M of grant funding was allocated to ALP, which supported 23 LALCs to deliver on-Country projects across 2 rounds.
• There were sufficient funds in the program to be able to adequately address all eligible LALCs, which is evidenced through the second round of works.

Outcomes

• Successful bushfire clean up, ensuring Aboriginal land managers and their communities were not left with significant deficits because of fire damage to their land and infrastructure.
• EPA successfully built relationships with LALCs and increased EPA’s recognition across regional NSW.
• The program provided employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community members.
• The program provided employment opportunities for Indigenous organisations, which positively contributes to the economic development of regional Aboriginal communities.
• Non-Indigenous staff and project members learned and respected Aboriginal ways of knowing, being and doing.

What helped

• Contractors that had a higher percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff members and/or had experience doing work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, communities and organisations.
• Building strong and meaningful relationships with LALCs and Aboriginal communities created a foundation of trust and respect, which encouraged collaboration across all parties.

Challenges

• Whilst EPA aims to ensure staff on Aboriginal specific programs have experience working with Aboriginal people and/or communities, there were limited formal processes or policies to ensure cultural safety of those involved. This means the large responsibility of cultural appropriateness and safety of programs sat with a few key individuals.

Design

• The program design responded successfully to the needs of disaster-impacted communities. Key stakeholders were engaged appropriately to clarify local needs and the program was then designed appropriately to meet these.
• Program processes successfully supported its delivery. Program objectives, eligibility requirements, guidance on how to apply, and processes for seeking and receiving feedback on unsuccessful applications were clear and accessible. The Terms of Reference for the Technical Review Committee also supported the consistent and timely assessment of applications.

Value for money

• All grantees fully completed their projects.
• The program realised a range of relevant outputs, including new waste management sites and deterrence and management infrastructure in national parks and other known illegal dumping sites.
• Combined use of the disaster declared council areas as an eligibility criterion and the needs assessments funded through Phase 1 of the program ensured that resources were directed where they were most needed.

Outcomes

• Eighty-six percent of grantees reported reduced or eliminated illegal dumping in their area through participation in the program.
• Seventy-one percent of grantees reported that the program helped them successfully clean up illegally dumped waste.
• Two grantees achieved zero dumping through their participation in the program.
• Provided impacted areas with additional infrastructure, knowledge, and capabilities to respond to future disaster-generated illegal dumping.
• Improved conditions for tourism operators to restart operations in impacted areas.
• Eighty-six percent of funded projects directly generated employment for local labour and contractors.

What helped

• Funding for needs assessments (Phase 1) enabled grantees to accurately assess their local needs and propose fit-for-purpose projects.
• The availability of EPA staff to assist grantees enabled them to complete their applications successfully and implement their projects successfully.
• The commitment of the EPA to adaptive management facilitated the successful completion of projects by allowing grantees to adapt their projects to changing conditions and external factors.

Challenges

• Council resource and/or capacity constraints may have hindered the ability of some councils to apply for program funding and undertake funded works.
• Length of time between submission of application and its confirmation as successful.
• Additional disaster events hindering the delivery of funded projects.
• Delays in formal program announcements reduced timeliness of support provided.

Design

• The EPA were well placed to understand the needs of councils as a result of accepting bushfire-generated waste. The EPA drew on existing relationships with stakeholders and undertook considerable consultation activities to understand the post-bushfire waste needs of councils. These relationships and activities led to the identification of the need to support councils to manage landfills that were ill-equipped to deal with the quantity of bushfire-generated waste.
• The program criteria was broad to ensure the wide range of impacts relating to accepting bushfire generated waste could be accommodated.
• Program processes were appropriately designed to support the delivery of the program. Communication processes with applicants were clear and the information provided to them was comprehensive and accessible. Fit-for-purpose governance arrangements were established, and existing systems and processes, and the DPE grant framework and guidelines, were effectively leveraged to deliver the program. These actions supported the successful delivery of the program.

Value for money

• $22M of grant funding has been allocated to 15 councils to deliver 26 projects. 12 have been completed with the program due to be completed in 2025.
• The use of the disaster declared council areas as an eligibility criterion coupled with the funding made available in Phase 1 to undertake thorough needs assessments meant that the program maximised the likelihood that resources would be directed to locations in greatest need.
• Grantees found the use of SmartyGrants and the possibility of seeking extensions from the program to be user-friendly and essential to enabling timely delivery of projects.

Outcomes

• Projects have offset the impacts of bushfire waste disposal and assisted councils to achieve a better state of preparedness for future disaster events.
• Numerous environmental outcomes have been delivered including reduced erosion, sedimentation and leachate issues, reduced airborne litter and dust, reduced need for virgin extracted natural material and improved environmental legislative performance.
• The program also contributed to individuals and institutions improving their capability in grants program administration, building understanding of preparedness, and through access to training opportunities. 

What helped

• The Bushfire Impact Assessment reports improved council’s understanding of their own needs as well as providing a valuable resource to support their Phase 2 applications.
• The EPA were responsive and consistently looked for ways to support grantees including visiting sites to meet in person. This built report and deepened both parties understanding of the projects and the challenges.

Challenges

• Program timelines have presented challenges where projects have required approvals from beyond the EPA.
• Approval delays were further exacerbated by repeat natural disaster events, availability of contractors and supplies, formal announcement delays, and COVID.

Design

• The program design was suitably flexible, allowing grantees to adapt their projects to changing needs and on-ground realities.
• Program processes and governance arrangements were fit-for-purpose. Grantees assessed program objectives, communications, and reporting requirements positively.
• The program design was mostly appropriate, though there were some unanticipated challenges such as entangled fencing waste.

Value for money

• All grantees completed their projects.
• 154.7 tonnes of fencing were collected from 109 landholders.
• Ninety-seven percent of fencing collected was recycled, diverting it from landfill.
• All councils that applied for the program completed their planned works.

Outcomes

• Cleaned up fencing waste in six council regions, with the right waste going to the right place (97% recycled).
• Contributed to preventing debris washing down rivers and creeks during future flood events, reducing illegal dumping and avoided land contamination.
• Contributed to making it easier to recycle fence waste in remote locations.
• Provided opportunities for local employment.
• Improved council and contractor preparedness for future disasters.
• Increased awareness and understanding of the services offered by agencies including the EPA among serviced communities.

What helped

• Clear grant criteria.
• Collaboration between EPA staff and councils contributed to the flexible and timely delivery of the program. 

Challenges

• Additional flood events impacted timely delivery.

Design

• The program was designed appropriately to address the needs of communities by contributing to the removal bushfire-generated green waste, a key contributor to safety risks and a cause of emotional distress.
• Program processes successfully supported its delivery. Program objectives, eligibility requirements, guidance on how to apply were clear and accessible. The Terms of Reference for the Technical Review Committee also supported the consistent and timely assessment of applications.
• Flexible application guidelines allowed a range of applicants to apply for funding.

Value for money

• $28.3M of grant funding allocated to 15 councils to process 120.014 tonnes of bushfire-generated green waste.
• In some instances, the program output in mulch from reused green waste exceeded expectations because of vegetation regrowth.
• Combined use of the disaster declared council areas as an eligibility criterion and the needs assessments funded through Stream A of the program ensured that resources were directed where they were most needed.
• Program staff were available and flexible, allowing projects to adapt to changing local conditions and stakeholder needs, including in ways that had not been originally foreseen by the program.

Outcomes

• Almost all green waste was diverted from landfill into beneficial local uses, ranging from mulching across terrestrial and riparian areas, the placement of logs for environmental protection (e.g., erosion control), habitat enhancement, etc.
• Improved air quality from reduced green waste pile burning and return of fauna to impacted areas.
• Local jobs created among contractors, councils, and sub-contractors, including among Aboriginal workers.
• Reducing financial stress among residents and councils through provision of free green materials.
• Strengthening of participation with Aboriginal stakeholders.
• Improved capacity among councils and residents to effectively manage green waste.
• Improved mental health for residents by removing a physical reminder of the trauma associated with the bushfires.

What helped

• Leveraging existing EPA processes for similar grant programs to deliver the program effectively and efficiently.
• Funding for needs assessments (Stream A) enabled grantees to accurately assess their local needs and propose fit-for-purpose projects.
• The commitment of the EPA to adaptive management facilitated the successful completion of projects by allowing grantees to adapt their projects to changing conditions and external factors.

Challenges

• Council resource and/or capacity constraints may have hindered the ability of some councils to apply for program funding and undertake funded works.
• EPA staff resources were sometimes stretched, though they were still able to provide thorough and timely support to grantees.
• Additional flood events impacted timely delivery.