Lantana (Lantana camara L.)

3.3 Goal 3: Increase capability and willingness to manage lantana

Desired long-term outcome:

The strategic actions to achieve this, and the action level and responsible partners for each action, are shown in Table 5

Objectives	Strategic actions		Action levela	Responsibility
3.1 Develop cooperative management frameworks to deliver the objectives of the strategic plan	Incorporate strategic plan priorities into state, territory, regional, catchment and local-level management plans Encourage consistency of objectives at each planning level by using: regulatory and planning instruments incentives to encourage participation links to catchment and local vegetation management plans	2		State and territory agencies, local government, conservation and NRM groups, land managers
	Incorporate the actions from catchment and local lantana management plans into individual property management plans	2		Local government, land managers
3.2 Engage and support the community	Build community capability by providing best-practice management information	2		State and territory agencies, local government, conservation and NRM groups
	Involve the community, including Indigenous groups, in the implementation of management strategies at all levels	1
3.3 Maintain the effectiveness and relevance of the strategic plan	Facilitate monitoring, evaluation and review of national strategic plan as required by current AWC policy	2		AWC
	Implement (as a minimum) a phase 3-level monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) strategy	1		State and territory agencies
3.4 Seek ongoing allocation of resources for delivery of the strategic plan	Communicate the Lantana Strategic Plan 2012–17 goals and objectives to all stakeholder groups and their members	1		State and territory agencies, local government, conservation and NRM groups
	Use strategic decision-support tools to ensure existing resources are allocated to areas of highest priority	2

a The Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) applied three action levels that reflect jurisdictional commitment to implementing actions:

Level 1 = Highly beneficial as a national action that is critical to success of the WoNS revised strategic plan and all relevant AWC jurisdictions have committed resources to implementing this action.

OR

Highly beneficial to a particular jurisdiction and the responsible party/ies have committed resources to implement this action.

Level 3 = Desirable and still beneficial to improving uptake and efficiency of on-ground action, but not critical to success.

4 Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement framework

This strategic plan is subject to a five-year review; however, mechanisms must also be put in place to allow the goals and actions to be evaluated throughout this period. This enables ongoing assessment of progress towards intermediate and long-term outcomes, and, ultimately, helps to determine the effectiveness of individual actions. It also helps to identify program improvements, and provides evidence to stakeholders and funding bodies that they are getting value from their investment.

Individual jurisdictions and/or organisations responsible for weed management and conservation will need to develop their own monitoring strategies. They should, where possible, coordinate actions to implement this plan, and monitor and evaluate progress towards its goals in conjunction with existing state, regional or local plans. While individual actions should be monitored at the jurisdictional level, data or evidence collected as a part of state, regional and local activities or plans should be provided to the AWC and collated so that it can be assessed each year within the national context. This will help to build a comprehensive overview of the plan’s delivery. Table 6 lists key evaluation questions that should be assessed by the AWC each year at the national level to ensure progress against strategy goals, and which should be used to provide the basis for an annual report to the AWC.

This monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) framework lists the basic reporting information that should be collected for the life of the strategic plan—including during phase 3 delivery (see Appendix 1). This will ensure that sufficient data is collected to identify successes and failures, and provide the opportunity for improvement where outcomes are not being achieved. Annual MERI plans may be developed to follow activities in more detail.

Although performance indicators or other ways of measuring progress are not provided in this strategic plan, a scoring system could be appropriate.

A generic program logic model (Appendix 3) was developed by WoNS coordinators in 2010. This shows the relationship between strategic actions and the objectives and goals they achieve. The program logic is one way to communicate the links between activities, their intermediate and long-term outcomes, and the vision of the strategic plan.

WoNS:		Jurisdiction:		Date:
Goal	Key evaluation questions		Data or evidence required	Consider
1 Prevent new infestations from establishing	To what extent have new infestations been prevented from establishing?		1.1 National distribution data: Has the national distribution map been reviewed and/or updated? Has the Priority Management Action spreadsheet been updated?	Are these documents publicly available? Have stakeholders been advised of any changes? Where is this data or information stored? Does this information capture national priorities?
			1.2 New infestations: Number of new infestations recorded Percentage of known infestations actively controlled	Are any new infestations occurring in areas identified as a high priority in the national strategy? How were infestations detected (passive or active surveillance, community reporting etc.)? Have high-risk pathways been adequately identified? Have threats been minimised?
			1.3 Eradication and containment programs: Percentage of eradication and/or containment programs being maintained	What percentage of programs identified in the national strategy are being actively managed? Is there a plan in place for ongoing management? How is progress being monitored and reported to stakeholders? (Examples using case studies can be included)
			1.4 Legislation: Legislation or policy changes for this species Legislative change has been identified by stakeholders	What legislative changes have been made? Are minimum requirements being maintained (e.g. ban on sale, trade, movement? Is control required throughout or in part of the jurisdiction? Is compliance actively enforced?
				Score:

Table 6 continued
WoNS:		Jurisdiction:		Date:
Goal	Key evaluation questions		Data or evidence required	Consider
2 Strategically manage existing infestations	To what extent is integrated weed management effectively managing core infestations?		2.1 Integrated weed management: Effectiveness of integrated weed management programs	Are existing tools providing adequate control of WoNS? Have new advances or technologies been developed and are they incorporated into best-practice management information? Are there barriers to adoption of best-practice management? Are research programs addressing any observed gaps (e.g. herbicide trials, biocontrol, restoration requirements post-control)?
	To what extent are assets being protected through strategic management?		2.2 Asset protection: Number of priority assets identified as ‘at risk’ from WoNS Percentage of priority assets being protected (e.g. assessed against relevant threat abatement plans) Percentage of state and regional invasive species plans that identify priority assets at risk from WoNS	Methods by which assets are being protected (e.g. targeted annual spray programs, high-risk pathway surveillance, strategic plans) Are long-term monitoring programs in place to detect change? To what extent is management leading to an improvement in asset condition? (Response should include status report on progress towards asset-protection programs)
				Score:
3 Increase capability and commitment to manage WoNS	To what extent has the capability and commitment to manage WoNS increased?		3.1 Community engagement and awareness: What is the status of best-practice information? Are partnerships being maintained to ensure collaboration on WoNS? Number and type of media activities	Is best-practice information up to date and readily available? Is this information and/or advice being targeted to priority regions? Is training being delivered to meet the needs of weed managers (including the community)? Are networks and groups being supported (e.g. through dissemination of research outcomes, funding opportunities, control options etc.)? Has awareness and engagement in WoNS management been raised effectively?
			3.2 Resourcing: From what sources are programs being funded?	Number of projects funded by Australian Government, jurisdictions, industry, etc.
			3.3 Policy and planning: Are the objectives of the strategy being integrated into Australian Government/state/regional plans, policies and programs? Has cross-border collaboration occurred?	How are priorities reflected in planning and policy approaches (e.g. weed risk assessments, invasive species plans, asset-protection plans, district plans, weed spread prevention activities, management programs, incentive programs, state working groups)? How are national priorities being maintained (e.g. containment lines, eradication targets, training and awareness raising, research projects)?
				Score:
Continuous improvement	Are there any unexpected outcomes that have been identified through implementation of strategy?		Barriers: Have any other management issues or impediments been identified?

Scoring:

2: No progress has been made against this goal

3: Limited progress is being made against this goal

4: Reasonable progress is being made against this goal