Local Government & Shires Associations of NSW

Ten years after the Local Government & Shires Associations of NSW (LGSA) first conducted its “Excellence in the Environment Awards” in 1998 (previously, from 1994, the “Energy Efficiency Award scheme” – see History below) a review has been conducted to determine what changes might be made to ensure the awards remain relevant to Councils.

Key objectives of the review included maintaining:

• Relevance for Councils

• Appeal for sponsors

• Participation of volunteer judges

• Attraction of the presentation ceremony

For more information see Appendix I: Review Outline – Scope & Process – 11/2/09.

[Contents]

2. History

2.1 1994 ~ 1997

Conceived as an ‘Energy Efficiency Award scheme’ many of the early winners were recognized for solar energy initiatives.

2.2 1998 ~ 2008

In 1998 the award was expanded to five categories, broadening the scope of Council projects receiving recognition. As the following item reports, the new 1998 award categories were Built Environment, Natural Environment, Waste Management, Energy Efficiency & Greenhouse, and Local Sustainability / Local Agenda 21.

“The NSW Local Government and Shires Associations have successfully run an Energy Efficiency Award scheme for the past four years. This year the awards are being broadened to cover other environmental management initiatives undertaken by councils.

The four award categories are built environment, natural environment, waste management and energy efficiency and greenhouse. In addition to these categories, there is a special prize for Local Sustainability/Local Agenda 21, which will be awarded to the council which demonstrates the greatest commitment to achieving a sustainable future. This award is a joint initiative between the Associations and Environs Australia.

Entries for the awards close 2 October 1998. Awards will be presented at a dinner and ceremony to be held on 19 November 1998 at the Taronga Zoo Convention Centre.”

Debra Rae, LGSA

Source: Local Environs - Vol. 9, No. 3, September 1998, P.12 [Official Newsletter of Environs Australia - the Local Government Environment Network] http://www.environs.org.au/site/local_environs/1998/V9No3-98.pdf

The ‘Environment Awards’ expanded from five categories in 1998 ... to 10 categories with 75 entries in 2005 ... and 12 categories with 62 entries in 2008.

2.3 2008

The 2008 “Excellence in the Environment Awards” categories were:

• Biodiversity Management

• Climate Change Adaptation/Mitigation

• Community Sharps Waste Management

• Energy and Water Management (judged separately by County Energy)

• Energy and Water Savings

• Environmental Education

• Local Sustainability

• Natural Resource Management Integration

• Stormwater and Urban Waterways

• Sustainable Design, Planning and Building

• Sustainable Purchasing

• Waste Management

Categories, descriptions, and sponsors for 2008 are provided in Appendix II: Categories / Sponsors / Descriptions – 2008.

[Contents]

3. Consultation

3.1 LGSA ~ Environment Team

Initial consultation involved a meeting with LGSA’s Environment Team on 26 February 2009. Notes from that meeting, outlining the discussion and suggestions made, are provided in Appendix III: Notes – Meeting with LGSA Staff – 26/2/09.

Several preliminary recommendations resulted from that meeting. These included:

3.2.1 Timing

As a result of, and in response to, comments and suggestions offered during the abovementioned meeting, a number of aspects of the Environment Awards clearly needed revising. Correspondence from LGSA’s Environment Strategy Manager, Robert Verhey, on 3 March 2009 indicated that the most time-critical for the 2009 Awards were the categories ... and their associated ‘descriptions’ and ‘sponsors’.

Subsequent discussion indicated that, due to time constraints imposed by the upcoming 2009 Awards, implementation of some of the Review’s final recommendations would need to wait until 2010. The review proceeded on this basis – that some recommendations could be implemented for the 2009 Awards, and that others could be implemented for the 2010 Awards.

3.2.2 Categories, Descriptions, Sponsors

Recommended new categories, descriptions, and sponsors, are shown in Appendix IV: Categories / Descriptions / Sponsors – Proposed – 1/4/09.

Consultation by Robert with his LGSA Environment Team colleagues, and with past and proposed new sponsors, resulted in a slightly modified version of the abovementioned being adopted for the 2009 Awards, as shown in Appendix V: Categories / Descriptions / Sponsors – Adopted for 2009 – 4/6/09.

Proposed changes not adopted for the 2009 Awards have been recommended for implementation in 2010 (see Recommendations).

3.3 LGSA ~ Diana Mounter & Rebecca Jones ~ Web-based Entry-form & On-line Surveys

At an initial meeting on 26 March 2009 with Diana Mounter (Design & Development Co-ordinator) and Rebecca Jones (USSA Senior Projects Officer) – also attended by Robert Verhey and Meg Fisher (Manager Events and Protocol) – valuable suggestions and advice were received about conducting on-line surveys and improving the on-line form-based awards entry system.

Two alternative providers were suggested for do-it-yourself on-line surveys – SurveyMonkey <www.surveymonkey.com> and Wufoo <http://wufoo.com>.

Wufoo was also suggested for improving the on-line entry system. The benefits and limitations of its do-it-yourself approach were compared with the quality, cost, and questionable convenience of outsourcing construction/maintenance of the entry system / website to a commercial organization (possibly on a partnership basis). Considered examples were the LGSA’s Cultural Awards <http://culturalawards2009.lgsa.org.au> and Digital Eskimo <http://digitaleskimo.net>.

Subsequent investigation and experimentation indicated SurveyMonkey would be the most appropriate to use for the surveys (of councils, and judges). And Wufoo was determined to be the most appropriate means of introducing more sophisticated features to the existing on-line entry system, without disrupting the timetable for the 2009 Awards. However, in the longer term a more elaborate (and consequently more expensive) entry system and website should be considered for the Environment Awards.

LGSA consequently subscribed to SurveyMonkey, complementing its existing Wufoo subscription.

SurveyMonkey was used to design, conduct, and analyse the surveys described in Councils ~ Survey and Judges ~ Survey below.

Wufoo was used to redesign the entry form as described in Entry Form below.

3.4 GEMS ~ Julie McGraw

Julie McGraw (General Manager Event Services, GEMS) organizes the Environment Awards ‘Finalists Forum’ and ‘Presentation Ceremony’ each year for LGSA. Julie was consulted on 25 March 2009 regarding the ‘Councils Survey’ content to ensure it included sufficient, appropriate, and relevant questions for councils about the Awards Ceremony.

Julie’s contribution was very helpful in that it expanded the survey to include questions about the Finalists Forum in addition to those already prepared about the Presentation Ceremony.

3.5 Councils ~ Survey

Fifty-six respondents completed the “Environment Awards 10 Year Review Survey of Councils”. Of the 200+ council representatives advised about the survey and encouraged to respond, 56 responses represents a healthy 25-30 per cent.

A summary of responses is provided in Appendix VI: Survey of Councils – Questions & Results (Summary).

A more detailed look can be undertaken – by those authorized to do so – by logging-in to SurveyMonkey via:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr_pass.aspx?sm=aKAxbEwjaHFwbT5ge%2f524HXVk00M3yey5mkfnl%2fP0mA%3d

To maintain the anonymity of respondents, log-in details for the above have only been provided to LGSA’s Robert Verhey, who has also received a full set of results in a separately provided Excel file [SurveyCouncilsResultsFullExpandedExcelSheet_1.xls].

The most significant overall conclusions and representative individual comments are provided (anonymously) below.

Q. What do you like MOST about the Environment Awards? [43 responses]

A. “Ability to promote high-quality work both externally and within Council. Enhance stability and persuasiveness with senior management and staff have been a clear result.”

A. “It was a great way of confirming that the program being implemented was in line with best practice”

A. “it gives us the chance to benchmark our approaches to environmental improvement within our respective lgas and this helps gain feedback and interest from our councillors and the community”

Q. What do you like LEAST about the Environment Awards? [40 responses]

A. “Apparent lack of category for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Value (ACHV) projects. Often ACHV is part of, or is closely linked to, the natural environment however, the structure of the categories tends to overlook ACHV in my opinion.”

A. “Award event in Sydney”

A. “The time it takes to put together the award submission”

A. “It tends to sometimes be the same councils winning. It is hard to compare council's when they are representing completely different demographics for eg. socio-economic status of population.

The awards have very little weight outside the local government arena.”

A. “There are a number of projects I am aware of which would be difficult to fit into any of the existing categories. For instance cooperative programs with other agencies don't appear to fit very well.”

A. “The bar for awards is pathetically low. For example the Council that won the sustainability award last year submitted such amazing achievements as having their car fleet changed to 4 cylinders, the use of LCD monitors. This is really just embarrassing and makes local government look hopeless.”

A. “Not publicised widely as perhaps possible beyond environmental & planning staff.”

Q. Do you think LGSA should continue to conduct its annual Environment Awards? [Yes = 85% (ie. 40 of 47 responses)]

A. “Definitely should continue, they are invaluable as a source of information, inspiration and motivation.”

A. “As many projects are longer than a year, I think it would be better to have the awards every second year. Even if the project period is only for a year, it ensures that the project has been fully evaluated.”

Q. Did you have any difficulty preparing your entry (including the categories, descriptions, &/or questions)? [Yes = 31% (ie. 13 of 42 responses)]

A. “Always rushed for time. as we dont have allocated staff to do awards or grants. Fitting projects into categories sometimes prove difficult”

A. “On line entry was a little clunky if you were in a hurry i.e. some of the on-lines tell you when you've done something wrong rather than accept it - particularly in formatting (minor issue only)”

Q. Do you have any suggestions regarding the entry process (including entry format & method of submission)? [Yes = 23% (ie. 10 of 43 responses)]

A. “... perhaps a wild card category for projects that have some clear benefits but do not fit specific categories.”

A. “A preliminary expression of interest of no more than one page as a first hurdle to pass before being invited to place a fully worked up entry would save time and resources. It would still be important to acknowledge those first stage projects in some way by either listing them at the awards or publishing them on the website as being a first stage entrant.”

A. “Format of entry is difficult to include all information relating to the submission. The online survey does not allow easy access for transferring information from Word.”

Q. Would you enter again? [No = 5% (ie. 2 of 43 responses)]

A. “No feedback received on previous unsuccessful entry despite numerous requests. Not worth putting effort to compiling another entry without information as to what elements need to be addressed for future entries.”

A. “Our project never seems to be good enough no matter how good the results are...”

Q. When do you think the Presentation Ceremony should be held? [34 responses]

A. Weekday: AM = 65% ; PM = 29% ; Evening = 21%

Note: Several comments throughout the survey expressed an interest in the Presentation Ceremony being held at night (perceived as a ‘reward’ for hard work?) and that the location of the Awards in Sydney is a barrier to attendance by some distant councils.

Q. Would you attend again? [35 responses]

A. Yes = 100%

Q. Do you have any suggestions regarding the way the Presentation Ceremony is conducted? [Yes = 18% (ie. 6 of 33 responses)]

A. “dont have it in Sydney”

A. “There are a lot of award categories to get through, perhaps dividing some between the actual workshop presentations might be useful to split up the presentation time??

Still not sure about the hour of the day timing - should it start in the afternoon with networking drinks or supper served afterwards??”

Q. Have you ever attended an LGSA Environment Awards "Finalists Forum" (held in conjunction with the Presentation Ceremony to showcase projects of finalist councils)? [No = 57% (ie. 26 of 46 responses)]

A. “To far to travel, especially if not directly involved.”

A. “Wasn't selected”

Q. When do you think the Finalists Forum should be held? [19 responses]

A. Weekday: AM = 73% ; PM = 37% ; Evening = 0%

Q. Would you attend again? [19 responses]

A. Yes = 100%

Q. Do you have any suggestions regarding the way the Finalists Forum is conducted? [Yes = 11% (ie. 2 of 18 responses)]

A. “More opportunities to hear about projects (was difficult to choose between the two streams because each stream was a mix of areas of interest)”

A. “Make sure of guest numbers and provide appropriate sized rooms”

A. “These are what set the LGSA awards apart from the more traditional / formal conference and award presentations. It's how to make these work more usefully for those interested in finding out more about specific projects! I'm not sure what the solution might be but I'm happy to have another chin-way or brainstorm later if it helps!!”

A. “It would be helpful to receive an outline of all finalists projects and contact names within their organisation - this would assist with follow ups and requesting further information in the future”

Q. Any other comments you might have that assist us in improving the Environment Awards would be most appreciated ... [14 responses]

A. “Maybe have the presentations in the regions (every second year)?

Could even include a site visit in the afternoon of a project in local area?

Keep them going - no particular view about how they are run, present format is good but as with many things there is always room for improvement.”

A. “Please ensure that feedback mechanisms are addressed to encourage future entries.

Please provide me some feedback on last years unsuccessful entry!”

A. “I still feel the LGSA awards are one of the more / most pre-eminent for Councils but admittedly there are so many opportunities if time and projects allow to submit nominations to too many other award events. Maybe a prominent keynote speaker at the beginning could help get people along at the beginning or some higher level of Ministerial input / involvement - can they speak about relevant local govt "stuff" while they're attending?? Not sure but I hope this helps.”

A. “I'm begging you, please make sure that old entries don't get recycled and that winners are actually are worthy. It makes sense to me that for some years no-one wins.”

A. “I love the Awards, what they represent, and that they exist to celebrate environmental excellence. Mediocrity will only be changed if the extraordinary is shown as possible. Then the extraordinary can become normal practice for those who otherwise would not have the capacity to develop these approaches without someone else doing the ground breaking first”

A. “Raising awareness amongst Councillors about the awards would be great - if Councillors can gain good publicity with such an award, environmental projects are more likely to get Council budgets in tough economic climates”

A. “keep up the good work. we know how much effort goes into these events and we appreciate the work done by your group”

3.6 Judges ~ Survey

Twenty-eight respondents completed the “Environment Awards 10 Year Review Survey of Judges”. Of the 60 or so past and present judges advised about the survey and encouraged to respond, 28 responses represents a very pleasing nearly 50 per cent.

A summary of responses is provided in Appendix VII: Survey of Judges – Questions & Results (Summary).

A more detailed look can be undertaken – by those authorized to do so – by logging-in to SurveyMonkey via:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=JnJ53xEeNWr9RQJIZ7L6frIZpsfiywbChUehyTWkE7c_3d

The most significant overall conclusions and representative individual comments are provided (anonymously) below.

Q. Did you have any difficulty with the judging process? [Yes = 31% (ie. 8 of 26 responses)]

A. “- Repetition in some of the questions.

- Different amounts of supporting material sent can make comparisons of projects difficult”

A. “The way the entry forms are structured and presented (great slabs of text!) makes it difficult to assess.”

A. “I didn't like having to print out all the applications. There were 3 judges however one was not prepared therefore it compromised the process.”

A. “Unclear judging criteria.

Insufficient applications in some categories.

Some issues with applicants applying for a particular award category but suitable for another.”

A. “The last year judging was done via email due to difficulty in getting a meeting date, this was not as good as previous years where there was opportunity to discuss the entries face to face”

A. “In the major sustainability award I dont think there is a shared view of the intent or criteria. My reading of this award is that it rewards overall integration of sustainability into Councils. Other judges seem wedded to the notion of good projects or processes.[especially in 2008. Applicants seem unclear as well. This is the major award and everyone needs to be clear about what it is for and the criteria on which the award is given”

Q. What did you like MOST about judging the Environment Awards? [26 responses]

A. “Reading about the great things going on in councils. Also enjoyed the panels which provided an opportunity for judges to share perspectives. Where a panel did not meet there was less satisfaction as a judge that the right decision had been reached.”

A. “Getting to see the breadth of activity being undertaken in local government. Having an opportunity to reflect on where 'best practice' sits within the environmental education sector - and discuss this with other judges. Being a part of a process that recognises excellence.”

A. “Having the opportunity to view some of the innovative work being undertaken by councils.”

A. “The opportunity to learn more about the number and diversity of programs around the State, discussing the programs with other judges and attending the awards.”

A. “Opportunity to contribute a factually-based judgment to a deserving winner.”

A. “Good to get a view of what was happening on the ground particularly where we have funded the programs”

A. “The time frame and criteria were clear- it seemed well organised”

Q. What did you like LEAST about judging the Environment Awards? [24 responses]

A. “Assigning scores - however I do believe that this may still need to be a necessary component of the process to ensure that each criteria is given due consideration.”

A. “Time constraint”

A. “reading the entry forms (great slabs of text!)”

A. “Lack of briefing for judges especially on the criteria.”

A. “There has often been discussion about the 'purpose' of an award: is it to judge projects against a standard (i.e. best practice), or is it to provide encouragement and reinforcement based on a more relative and subjective judgment. Although this is a minor issue, it can influence the way each judge approaches the process and the way in which the awards themselves are interpreted, i.e. what is excellence? I am not advocating a specific position, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but I think it is useful to consider and discuss in the context of a review.”

A. “The lack of involvement of many Regional Councils in the Awards. I do understand that the Regional Councils do not have as much disposable income as City Councils to invest in some of the Projects BUT there are many Projects that they can get involved in that actually save them money, but still do not put in entries to the Awards.”

A. “Nil”

A. “The poor quality of some entries which did not truly showcase the activities or outcomes of the project they were supposed to be promoting - sometimes a mismatch between what I personally knew about a project and how it was described in the awards submission”

A. “Lack of clarity [applicants and judges] about what the award is for and why

Those judges who have not done their homework and arrive at the meeting still not having read all the applications and submitted scores etc. If a judge does this then they should not be involved again. I know this is harsh because all of us are giving our time, but it makes a mockery of the process if people are not prepared. It also means that others who have put in the work are forced to spend more time in a flawed process.”

Q. Please examine the following list of proposed new category headings and indicate for each whether you think the scope is "Too Narrow", "About Right", or "Too Broad" ... [26 responses]

Overall there was a high level of support for the proposed new categories:

A. Energy Saving & Climate Protection: About Right = 54%

A. Waste Avoidance: About Right = 75%

A. Water Conservation: About Right = 79%

A. Environment Protection & Restoration: About Right = 71%

A. Biodiversity Protection & Enhancement: About Right = 92%

A. Communication & Empowerment: About Right = 76%

A. Local Sustainability: About Right = 84%

However a few specific comments are worthy of note:

A. “Energy Saving & Climate Protection - preamble emphasises energy saving over other types of initiatives.

Water Conservation - should also reference water savings for NRM.

Env Prot and Rest - "waterway and riparian corridor" dot point should also reference floodplain planning.

Biod Protection and Enhance - cross reference to planning integration?”

A. “The Environmental Protection & Restoration category just seems a bit of a strange mix. It includes both strategic planning activities (integrating NRM into land use and corporate planning) and on-ground restoration works. i think this would be difficult to judge. You should be comparing apples with apples, not apples with oranges.

Weeds needs to be included in the Biodiversity category.”

A. “Energy Saving and Climate Protection could include mitigation

Communication & Empowerment should include Education”

A. “The application form is also very important in indicating the what types of projects are accepted/suitable for category types.

An indication of the weighting factor for components of the application is also important for the applicants and the judges and provides transparency of process.

Grammer and order of dot points in category descriptions should be reviewed. EG should the climate change adaption dot point be before the 2 energy dot points?

Improve the clarity of past works in the local sustainability award category.”

A. “For Water Conservation, there are many Regional Councils that are also responsible for the Water Supply to the community, so it could include a component for the Supply. Many Regional Councils are also responsible for Waste Water Treatment and therefore a component for the Award to look at Treatment Systems and what they do with their treated water from these Treatment Plants.”

A. “Community sharps management has some synergy with waste avoidance and resource recovery in that the presence of sharps in waste and recycling is undesirable and potentially reduces productivity but 'waste management' is arguably a more appropriate term to cover OHS & public safety issues, EPR (shared responsibility), and the need to handle sharps correctly, rather than 'avoid' them”

A. “I don't think these categories necessarily encourage innovative strategic town Planning. They do tick off the onground works and management planning type projects and maybe even where an environment section gets involved in a specific element of a planning instrument however enormous gains can be made through the planning elements of planning instruments or development masterplans.

Further, What is Environment protection and restoration if it is not referring to Biodiversity, I assume it is referring to waterways in which case why not say waterways.”

Q. Are there any environmental issues you feel are not adequately covered by the above list of proposed new category headings? [Yes = 39% (ie. 10 of 26 responses)]

A. “Transport”

A. “Weed management needs to be more explicitly mentioned in the Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement category.”

A. “Sustainable Procurement. While I recognise there are possibly 3-4 categories where procurement could theoretically fit, I fear that in each of these categories it would be competing with applications far more targeted towards the topic and so not really get a serious look-in. I generally support the move towards more overarching award categories, and I hesitate to suggest reinserting a dedicated procurement award but, the proposed list risks procurement falling through the cracks (and never being recognised). Yet the research from councils is increasingly telling us that they want to better incorporate procurement into their sustainability activities. So it would be good for us to encourage this by making it a bit more explicit for the next few years and including the word 'procurement' somewhere.

What about a new category for "Organisational Systems and Procurement"? This could include environmental plans and strategies, system changes, etc. Just looking at the proposed list, where would I put a new Sustainability Strategy for Council? Or a new EMS?”

A. “Maybe consider a sustainability staff development section - demonstrated inclusion and up-dating, up-skilling all staff in relation to enviro management.”

A. “Environmental Education”

A. “Aboriginal heritage conservation, weeds mgt, air quality/noise issues may be covered in above list or other awards but not sure”

A. “sustainable building design (new or retrofits) - are eco friendly, green credentials, small footprint (may include houses retrofitted to educate residents on how to do at home)”

Q. From the entire matrix below, please indicate which single choice represents your most preferred method of entry format/content/dissemination. Base your answer on which would be most helpful to you as a judge ..... [26 Responses]

Result:

A. Multimedia (text/pictures/video etc) / via website = 10 Responses

A. Text + Pictures / via email attachment (eg. Word or PowerPoint) = 9 Responses

Comments:

A. “Anything that is electronic via email/web is fine. The only problem with some email attachments is the program necessary to read them. Sometimes I do judging work from home, and/or non office computers, so simple basic software requirements would be good.”

A. “Issues in regional areas where we only have access to dial-up at this stage - real problems with accessing and downloading large files, attachments and viewing video on-line”

Q. Please rate the following according to how helpful they were to you as a judge ..... [26 responses]

Results:

A. Judging panel meeting: Very Helpful 68% + Helpful 20% = 88%

A. Scoresheet: Very Helpful 64% + Helpful 28% = 92%

A. Supporting material: Very Helpful 36% + Helpful 52% = 88%

A. Email discussion: Very Helpful 17% + Helpful 38% = 55%

Comments:

A. “I strongly support the panel meeting. Having resisted at first because I thought it was not necessary, and agreeing at the insistance of fellow judges, in hindsight I think it was very important - if only to achieve genuine consensus.”

A. “I would still continue to emphasise that the application form is the main focus and it needs to stand up without supporting information. That emphasises clear communication of aims, objectives, outcomes, development process, research and evaluation etc. These are the things I look for to assess excellence. If you are going to start putting more weight on supporting materials, it will be important to think about how you can make this consistent (both in terms of judge interpretation and across applications)”

A. “I have a problem with distance and time getting to a meeting in Sydney, so the electronic communication and teleconference works far better for me.”

A. “small number of applications so there was no need for discussion with other panel members”

A. “I think the model that encompasses individual scoring, collation of these scores and a face to face meeting is essential for major categories”

Q. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the decision-making process? [Yes = 32% (ie. 8 of 25 responses)]

A. “improve judging criteria to make it more measurable and relevant.”

A. “clarify the purpose of an award and other gradings - so that judges are constrained in how they position the award (see comment on standard judgement vs relative judgement) and then use high/commendations. In past years I feel there were a lot of these awarded and it seemed to be only the case with the education category, and may risk devaluing the achievement and possibly the standard of an overall award.”

A. “I can't think of anything off the top of my head except the idea of presentations by finalists to the judges similar to the National LG Awards????”

A. “The difficulty comes when trying to compare apples with oranges and therefore the bias of the judging panel towards the more tangible and short term outcomes often may result. Projects that seek to implement change over longer timeframes with less immediately tangible results may in fact be the project that over time is the more sustainable. More focus will be needed on the judging criteria as the new more general categories will likely encourage greater diversity in each category”

Q. Do you think sponsoring organisations should have a representative on the judging panel? [25 responses]

A. Yes, but only if the representative has expertise in the area = 76%

Q. Have you been happy that the final determination of Award winners (including those commended) is an accurate representation of the consensus of the judges? [25 responses]

A. Yes = 96%

Q. Do you think LGSA should continue to conduct its annual Environment Awards? [25 responses]

A. Yes = 100%

Q. Would you like to be contacted with news about the Environment Awards at the time they are being promoted to NSW Councils? [25 responses]

A. Yes, I could promote the Awards to local government members of my networks! = 80%

Q. Any other comments you might have that assist us in improving the Environment Awards would be most appreciated ... [11 responses]

A. “Given the recent sad passing of Louise Petchell, I wonder if an award named after her could possibly be created. She did work on a wide variety of environmental issues but I think climate change and local sustainability are 2 key areas that could be considered.”

A. “Happy to chat further if helpful.”

A. “the LGSA awards are the only awards of this type directly focusing on councils and their environmental work. as such these awards are leading change and recognising innovation and application of a high standard. the improvement in entries over the years is a testament to the effectiveness of the awards program. a lot of councils receive NSW Environmental Trust funding and from other sources for projects and this awards program provides a platform to showcase the outcomes and achievements particularly in the restoration and rehabilitation areas, waste, environmental education etc.”

A. “Please consider a focus on inclusion, action, and not just policy........it's absolutely vital....and measuring improvements, outcomes etc - something we all need to do so much better, so that we can state a case and keep things moving forward.”

A. “Always a challenge - but find some way to get new councils to apply!”

A. “I am a strong advocate of the awards and firmly believe they must continue. The number of applicants is always some concern with a number of great councils and good projects not submitting. I think there needs to be a review of the marketing of the awards and different ways of pushing for entries”

A. “Thank for the opportunity to comment”

[Contents]

4. Entry Form

Following the initial meeting with LGSA’s Design & Development Co-ordinator, Diana Mounter, as previously described in 3.3 above, a further meeting with Diana was held on 23 April 2009. From her experience using Wufoo, a number of useful and limiting features were explained which helped during redesign of the (2008) entry form for 2009.

A copy of the 2008 (Word document) entry form is provided in Appendix VIII: Entry Form – 2008.

A copy of the 2009 (Wufoo web-based) entry form is provided in Appendix IX: Entry Form – 2009.

Early indications suggest that the use of Wufoo for the 2009 entry system will improve the ease of entry by councils, the method of collating entry submissions, and the task of co-ordinating entry distribution to judges for each of the various judging panels.

[Contents]

5. Recommendations

As indicated in 3.2.1 above, due to time constraints imposed by the Awards timetable, some recommendations have already been adopted and implemented for the 2009 Awards, and others are recommended for implementation in 2010.

For the recommendations below, those implemented in 2009 are shown in blue, those for 2010 are shown in red, and to indicate implementation differences or additions to the original recommendations modifications are shown in green.

5.1 Categories

· Rationalise Categories .....

o Fewer categories covering broader issues

o No overlap of categories or neglected issues

o Establish connections/linkages/webbing between categories

o Differentiate Country Energy’s separately judged ‘Energy and Water Management’ award

o Elevate status of ‘Local Sustainability’ award category

o Introduce a tiered system of awards representing ‘pathways to sustainability’

o Relate local sustainability activities to global sustainability

Recommendation 1 ~ Categories

Categories should be revised and rationalised. A 3-tiered system of awards (Bronze, Silver, Gold) should be introduced representing ‘pathways to sustainability’. Recommended categories are as per Appendix IV.

A modified version of the categories recommended in Appendix IV was adopted for 2009, as follows:

Bronze:

* Biodiversity Protection & Enhancement

* Communication, Education & Empowerment

* Community Sharps Management

* Energy Saving & Climate Protection

* Environment Protection & Restoration

* Sustainable Procurement

* Waste Avoidance

* Water Conservation

Silver:

* Local Sustainability

Gold:

* Contribution to Global Sustainability

Judged Separately:

* Country Energy’s Energy and Water Management

The modified category list should be re-considered after the 2009 awards to decide if it should be retained for 2010, or whether it should revert to the original (or some other) recommendation.

5.2 Descriptions

· Revise Descriptions .....

o Consistent with newly rationalised categories

o Bring up-to-date with current environmental objectives and practices

o Accommodate subsumed categories

o Describe new categories

o Minimise overlap and differentiate between categories

o Differentiate between ‘Bronze’, ‘Silver’, and ‘Gold’ tiers

o Introduce ‘Contribution to Global Sustainability’ award category

Recommendation 2 ~ Descriptions

Recommended category descriptions are as per Appendix IV.

Modified category descriptions (adapted and adopted for 2009) are as per Appendix V.

The modified category descriptions should be re-considered after the 2009 awards to decide if they should be retained for 2010, or whether they should revert to the original (or some other) recommendation.

5.3 Sponsors

· Identify Sponsors .....

o From existing and potentially new sponsoring organizations

o With environmental credibility

o Suitable for newly rationalised categories and revised descriptions

o Potentially interested in sponsoring gold ‘Contribution to Global Sustainability’ award category

o To increase base of sponsorship support

Recommendations 3 ~ Sponsors

Recommended category sponsors are as per Appendix IV.

Modified category sponsors (attracted for 2009) are as per Appendix V.

The modified category sponsors should be re-considered after the 2009 awards to decide if they should be retained for 2010, or whether they should revert to the original (or some other) recommendation.

5.4 Entry Form & Supporting Material

· Redesign Entry Form and On-line Entry System .....

o For easy of use by council entrants

o Incorporating newly rationalised categories

o Differentiating between ‘Bronze’, ‘Silver’, and ‘Gold’ tiers

o To be entirely electronic

o To facilitate easier collation and distribution to judges

· Better Define Supporting Material Guidelines .....

o To be entirely electronic

o Encouraging web links to supporting material

o Enabling electronic multimedia as supporting material

o Discouraging hardcopy supporting material

o To facilitate easier distribution to judges

o To enable adequate consideration by judges in conjunction with entry form text

Recommendation 4 ~ Entry Form & Supporting Material

The previously used Word-document on-line entry form (and e-mail delivery system), as per copy shown in Appendix VIII, should be abandoned in favour of the newly created web-based Wufoo entry form (with document storage and access system), as per copy shown in Appendix IX and ‘live’ on-line (for 2009 Awards) at:

https://lgsa.wufoo.com/forms/environment-awards-entry-form-2009/

5.5 Judging Process & Panel Meetings

· Facilitate Ease and Accuracy of Judging Process .....

o To maintain volunteer judges’ participation and enthusiasm

o Create an environment conducive to producing a positive judging experience

o Elicit high quality contribution to decision-making process

o Leading to well-considered decisions

o Ensuring confidence in judging process and outcomes

Recommendation 5 ~ Judging Process & Panel Meetings

Provide judges with as much support and information as possible, without burdening them, by:

· more efficiently providing the entry forms and supporting material

· allowing as much time as possible for each stage of the judging process

· providing entries in an easy-to-consume format

· better explaining the judging criteria, especially to new judges

· conducting face-to-face judging panel meetings wherever possible.

5.6 Presentation Ceremony & Finalists Forum

Recommendation 6 ~ Presentation Ceremony & Finalists Forum

Given the high degree of satisfaction with the current arrangements for the Presentation Ceremony and Finalists Forum, indicated in the results of the ‘Councils’ survey in 3.5 above, little if any change should be made to the current format.

5.7 Identity

· Renew Identity of Environment Awards .....

o Introduce the concept of ‘pathways to sustainability’ via a 3-tiered system of Bronze, Silver, Gold awards

o Establish ‘pathways to sustainability’ from (bronze category) local issues, through (silver category) local sustainability, to (gold category) global sustainability.

o Elevate status of ‘Local Sustainability’ award category

o Relate local sustainability activities to global sustainability

o Identify different new ways to broaden the appeal of the awards

Recommendation 7 ~ Identity

· Introduce a 3-tiered system of awards representing ‘Pathways to Sustainability’.

· Promote each of the Bronze (local issues) categories as contributing to the ‘Pathways to Sustainability’ and as pre-requisites to the Silver “Local Sustainability” category.

· Develop Gold “Contribution to Global Sustainability” category description and judging criteria for introduction in 2010.

· Consider introducing different new types of award categories. For example, ‘sustainability champion’ (or similar) for individuals – perhaps named in honour of a former ‘champion’.

5.8 Promotion

· Expand Promotion of Environment Awards .....

o Attract more entries from a broader range of councils

o Elicit increasingly higher quality entries

o Maintain appeal to sponsors, councils, and judges

o Highlight the work of council entrants and award winners

o Showcase best practice environmental projects by councils

Recommendation 8 ~ Promotion

Establish attractive, interesting, and informative website for the Environment Awards. The site should be a focal point for the awards and should showcase past entries and winning projects. LGSA’s Cultural Awards provide a model that may be worth emulating <http://culturalawards2009.lgsa.org.au/>.

5.9 Feedback

In response to comments from a previous entrant .....

Recommendation 9 ~ Feedback

The current system whereby feedback on an entry is only provided if requested by an entrant (after the awards have been judged and presented) should be reviewed internally by LGSA to decide if a more proactive approach is warranted, given the extra (post-awards) co-ordination and administration required to do so.

It should be noted that no other complaints about feedback were received during the review, and that the compulsion to provide feedback – especially if it is to be made public – may stifle discussion and limit comment by judges at judging panel meetings, and/or sanitise meeting notes taken for that purpose.

5.10 Actions

The recommendations above are of a high level and as such do not represent an exhaustive list of actions that could be undertaken to improve the Environment Awards.

Recommendation 10 ~ Actions

An action list should be drawn-up from the comments and suggestions documented throughout the report and used in conjunction with the review’s recommendations.

5.11 Surveys

Recommendation 11 ~ Surveys

‘Councils’ and ‘Judges’ survey results, provided in 3.5 and 3.6 above, should be reconsidered after the 2009 Awards for any further changes that may be desirable prior to the launch of the 2010 Awards.

5.12 Recommendations

Recommendation 12 ~ Recommendations

· Recommendations shown in blue above, which indicates they were adopted and implemented in 2009, should be re-considered after the 2009 awards to decide if they should be retained or revised for 2010.

· Modifications shown in green above, which indicates they were changed from an original recommendation, should be re-considered after the 2009 awards to decide if they should be retained for 2010, or whether they should revert to the original (or some other) recommendation.

· Recommendations shown in red above need to be considered and (if adopted) implemented for the 2010 Awards.

[Contents]

Appendix I:

Review Outline – Scope & Process – 11/2/09

[As supplied by Robert Verhey, Strategy Manager – Environment, LGSA]

Environment Awards review (Draft 11 Feb 09)

A. Scope

Here's what might be investigated by Peter, with the possible methodology in italics (please note two surveys, proposed, * and **, not suggesting several):

1. Sponsorship and categories, potential additional categories and coalescence

Desktop / web research,
Consultation with Env Team and sponsors
Early report on this to allow call for sponsors as per usual (March)

2. Entries: format (including attachments), potential for on-line entries and automatic collation (may include purchase of commercial software), potential for higher volume of entries esp from rural and western councils, publicity pre and post awards (web, media).

Consultation with Diana
On-line survey * of past and potential entrants
Web research of other award / entry-based initiatives (Eureka, UN, KAB etc)

3. Judging Process: judging criteria, process, potential for greater access to attachments, format

Consultation with judges (survey ** or one-to-one)
Web research of other competitive awards and grant programs (eg Environmental Trust)

4. Awards Event: Format (showcase / ceremony), time (eg, am/pm/evening), Keynote speaker, catering, venues/locations

Consultation with Gems
Consultation with environment team
On-line survey * of attendees of past awards events

B. Process of Review

1. Investigation / review (as per above) and report (February / March)
2. Redesign elements as required (April)

3. Implementation of necessary changes including testing as required (May)

4. Announcement of revised awards open (Late June).

Note: while Peter will be overseeing the review process, input from Env team and other LGSA / Gems staff is ideally anticipated

Specific deliverables:

§ Meeting with environment team re variety of issues (Feb)

§ Meeting with Gems re event issues (Feb / March)

§ Meeting with Diana Mounter re entry form / web issues (Feb, March)

§ Early report on potential sponsors (early March)

§ Preparation, communication / dissemination and analysis of on-line survey to award entrants (with assistance from LGSA) (March / April)

§ Preparation, communication / dissemination and analysis of survey of judges (email or on-line) (March / April)

§ Desktop / on-line research into sponsors, relevant awards / grant programs (Feb / March / April)

§ Report on outcomes / recommendations and testing / implementation where appropriate (Late April, May)

Remuneration

§ Total remuneration $5,000 plus GST

§ Two equal instalments, one at commencement (February 2009), one at end (May 2009)

§ Payment will be on receipt of invoice

[Contents]

Appendix II: Categories / Sponsors / Descriptions – 2008

Category	Sponsors	Description
Sustainable Design, Planning and Building	Landcom	Covers initiatives in managing for a sustainable built environment including sustainable urban design and transport, the incorporation of ESD principles into planning policies and development projects and policies demonstrating sustainable built environment principles.
Energy and Water Savings	DECC	This award recognises an outstanding initiative undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council that has resulted in significant savings in energy and/or water (preferably both). The winner of this award will be able to demonstrate - actual or forecast - the amount of water, energy or greenhouse gas emissions saved per year.
Climate Change Adaptation/Mitigation	DECC	Awarded to the councils which have developed programs and policies to address the impacts of climate change and to mitigate the further impact of their operations on climate change
Sustainable Purchasing	DECC	This award recognises councils which have developed and implemented (or are in the process of implementing) sustainable purchasing and procurement policies and processes for goods and services.
Waste Management	WSN Environmental Solutions	Covers initiatives for the effective recovery and management of recyclables and solid wastes (general wastes, garden organics, clean-up, parks gardens etc) generated and collected from householders and or managed through Council facilities. This includes council's waste minimisation and management plans, purchasing policies, education and training programs, and new infrastructure and technologies adopted to improve recycling and resource recovery for sustainable outcomes.
Environmental Education	Our Environment It’s a Living Thing (DECC)	Covers initiatives which inform the community and increase peoples' capacity to be active participants in moving society towards sustainability. Such initiatives could include environmental education activities for schools, community groups or industry/business. Initiatives could form a component of a broader sustainability strategy, or focus on specific environmental issues.
Local Sustainability	Country Energy	A special award covering council initiatives to implement Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) and strive for a sustainable future for their local community. Such initiatives can include Local Agenda 21 programs, whole-of-council Environmental Management Systems, Environmental Management Plans and/or other projects which demonstrate a whole-of-council commitment to sustainability principles.
Community Sharps Waste Management	NSW Health	An award for councils who have put in place ongoing and/or trial collection systems and community education programs (including programs in partnership with State agencies, pharmacies, community groups and other stakeholders) for community sharps waste generated in households and public places.
Stormwater and Urban Waterways	Sydney Metro CMA	Recognises waterway and riparian corridor restoration and rehabilitation projects and stormwater improvement programs in an urban environment that have improved the health and amenity of the waterway. Projects should ideally show how outcomes for stormwater, water quality, biodiversity and infrastructure have been considered using an integrated approach.
Biodiversity Management	NPWS (DECC)	Recognises initiatives in conserving and enhancing biodiversity on public and private land in urban and rural areas. This includes community involvement in protecting and conserving natural environments and wildlife habitat, rehabilitating and restoring degraded areas, and the improvement of wetlands management.
Natural Resource Management Integration	Sydney Metropolitan CMA	This award recognises exceptional current Natural Resource Management (NRM) undertaken by a NSW local government that has resulted from the integration of NRM principles into either/both land -use planning or management planning processes. The winner of this award will be able to demonstrate the consideration of NRM priorities (e.g. Catchment Action Plan) in strategic planning and how NRM manifests in land-use and management plans. Evidence of the implementation of these plans to meet NRM outcomes is expected.
Energy and Water Management	Country Energy	This award recognises a stand-out council that has adopted an holistic approach to energy and water management. The winner will be recognised as a benchmark for their resource management programs and measures to reduce costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Nominations are not required for this award. The finalists and winner will be selected based on their responses to the Country Energy-commissioned benchmarking study undertaken in late 2005. The research study covered all aspects of energy and water management, as well as providing confidential information about each council's rating, compared to other councils.

[Contents]

Appendix III:

Notes – Meeting with LGSA Staff – 26/2/09

Present: Amy Lovesey, Geoff Hudson, Jeff Bell, Kirsty McIntyre, Niki Carey, Seb Crawford, Sue Martin, Bob Verhey, Peter Hopper [+ Rebecca Jones comments via Niki, & Catriona McKenzie comments via e-mail at end]

Special Interests

Niki = Surveys ; Dianna = Web ; GEMS = Conference

Suggestions

Multimedia:

Utilise new technologies from entry through to presentations (Rebecca).
Examples; video, Playstory (like Powerpoint), or Powerpoint (Jeff).
Receive multimedia entries as an option, or instead of, text entries (Geoff).

Entries:

Questions – too much overlap leads to lots of repetition in answers.
Review questions in all categories (separate or common?).
No more hardcopy!! (Kirsty & All).
Require brief outline + allow anything else they want to submit (Bob, Seb, Jeff).

Judging:

Face to face meetings are the most desirable.
Enable judges to contact entrants (eg. at designated time / during judging panel meeting).

Categories:

Need to incorporate “sustainability” (question) into all categories …
… and “innovation”.
“Intergenerational Stewardship” - Seb, can you provide a brief outline on what you had in mind?

Sustainability Award:

Does this title need to change? For example, to “Corporate Governance” ….
Then all categories could be judged on Sustainability.
Refer to ‘Rebecca Brown – 6 steps’ [can someone direct me to info on this?] and ‘ICLEI – five steps/milestones’.

Other Award Examples to consider:

Cultural Awards (LGSA).
Banksia Awards.

New Categories:

Weeds
Transport
Communication (of project) – Dept of LG being a potential sponsor
Corporate Sustainability Planning
‘Peoples Choice’ (judged from winners on presentation day)
Air
See following (suggested) “Current Categories | Future Categories” table …..

AppleMark

From: Catriona McKenzie – Thursday 26 February 2009 9:06 AM

To: Bob

Sorry I havent yet given you any feedback from the awards. I guess the main issues i'd highlight which you are probably aware of are:

Promotion of the Awards needs increasing

Suggest different way of collecting information to make it a bit more entertaining - video entries & these can be put on website plus played at the ceremony.

Suggest hosting the awards in conjunction with another event as people dont just go to awards.

Suggest location at Blue Mountains or somewhere more accessible to rural/regional people.

Suggest council meets strict requirements (eg answer yes/no survey??) before putting in an application to reduce the amount of information they have to submit. Eg. Have only up to 4 selection criteria to address.

Redefine award categories. The categories shouldnt be based on NRM topics but NRM/environmental outcomes ?? Afterall this is what the federal govt is after - eg Caring for Country.

I hope this helps

Kind Regards,

Catriona

[Contents]

Appendix IV: Categories / Descriptions / Sponsors – Proposed – 1/4/09

Category

Description

Sponsors

Bronze ~ Pathways to Sustainability

Energy Saving & Climate Protection

This award recognises outstanding initiatives undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council that have resulted in significant energy savings. The winner of this award will be able to demonstrate - actual or forecast - the amount of energy & greenhouse gas emissions saved per year.

The award incorporates, but is not limited to:

• energy saving & climate protection initiatives in managing for a sustainable built environment including sustainable urban design and transport.

• councils who have developed and implemented (or are in the process of implementing) sustainable purchasing and procurement policies and processes for goods and services which save energy and/or protect the climate.

• councils who have developed programs and policies to mitigate the impact of their operations on climate change and adapt to its consequences.

Existing:

· DECC

· Country Energy

· Landcom

Potential New:

· Ministry of Transport / Transport Info

· RTA

Waste Avoidance

This award recognises outstanding initiatives undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council that have resulted in significant waste avoidance. The winner of this award will be able to demonstrate - actual or forecast - the amount of waste avoided per year.

The award incorporates, but is not limited to:

• initiatives to effectively recover and manage recyclables and solid wastes (general wastes, garden organics, clean-up, parks gardens etc) generated and collected from householders and/or managed through Council facilities. This includes council's waste minimisation and management plans, purchasing policies, education and training programs, and new infrastructure and technologies adopted to improve recycling and resource recovery for sustainable outcomes.

• councils who have put in place ongoing and/or trial collection systems and community education programs (including programs in partnership with State agencies, pharmacies, community groups and other stakeholders) for community sharps waste generated in households and public places.

• councils who have developed and implemented (or are in the process of implementing) sustainable purchasing and procurement policies and processes for goods and services which avoid waste.

• initiatives which address: zero waste, hazardous waste, extended producer responsibility etc.

Existing:

· WSN Environmental Solutions

· NSW Health

Potential New:

· Sims Metal Management

Water Conservation

This award recognises outstanding initiatives undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council that have resulted in significant water savings. The winner of this award will be able to demonstrate - actual or forecast - the amount of water saved per year.

The award incorporates, but is not limited to:

• water conservation initiatives in managing for a sustainable built environment.

• councils who have developed and implemented (or are in the process of implementing) sustainable purchasing and procurement policies and processes for goods and services which conserve water.

Existing:

· Landcom

· DECC

· Country Energy

Potential New:

· Sydney Water

· Sydney Catchment Authority

Environment Protection & Restoration

This award recognises outstanding initiatives undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council to bring about an improvement in environmental quality. It also recognises exceptional current Natural Resource Management (NRM) initiatives.

The award incorporates, but is not limited to:

• programs to integrate NRM principles into either/both land-use planning or management planning processes. This may include the consideration of NRM priorities (eg. Catchment Action Plan) in strategic planning and how NRM manifests in land-use and management plans. Evidence of the implementation of these plans to meet NRM outcomes is expected.

• waterway and riparian corridor restoration and rehabilitation projects and stormwater improvement programs in an urban environment that have improved the health and amenity of the waterway. Projects should ideally show how outcomes for stormwater, water quality, biodiversity and infrastructure have been considered using an integrated approach.

• projects which reduce pollution, reduce the impacts of pollution, and/or remediate land.

• programs to regulate and enforce environmental protection and improvement.

Existing:

· Sydney Metro CMA

· DECC

Potential New:

· Landcare

· Greening Australia

Biodiversity Protection & Enhancement

This award recognises outstanding initiatives undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council to conserve, protect, and enhance biodiversity on public and/or private land in urban and/or rural areas.

The award incorporates, but is not limited to:

• community involvement in protecting, conserving, and enhancing natural environments and wildlife habitat, rehabilitating and restoring degraded areas, and the improvement of wetlands management.

• bushcare and similar restoration programs.

• habitat and corridor protection and enhancement.

• protection of endangered and protected species and their habitats.

Existing:

· NPWS (DECC)

Potential New:

· Greening Australia

· Landcare

Communication & Empowerment

This award recognises outstanding initiatives undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council that have informed the community and increased peoples' capacity to be active participants in moving society towards sustainability. Initiatives could form a component of a broader sustainability strategy, or focus on specific environmental issues.

The award incorporates, but is not limited to:

• environmental education programs, resources, and activities for schools, community groups or industry/business.

• initiatives which address: community consultation – committees, processes, etc.

Existing:

· Our Environment It’s a Living Thing (DECC)

Potential New:

· Dept of Local Government

· Social Change Media (in kind?)

· SMH

Country Energy Award ~ Judged Separately

Country Energy’s Energy and Water Management

This award recognises a stand-out council that has adopted an holistic approach to energy and water management. The winner will be recognised as a benchmark for their resource management programs and measures to reduce costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

Nominations are not required for this award. The finalists and winner will be selected based on their responses to the Country Energy-commissioned benchmarking study undertaken in late 2005. The research study covered all aspects of energy and water management, as well as providing confidential information about each council's rating, compared to other councils.

Existing:

· Country Energy

Potential New:

Silver ~ Local Sustainability

Local Sustainability

This prestigious award recognises outstanding initiatives undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council to implement Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) and strive for a sustainable future for their local community. The commitment to local sustainability demonstrated by councils entering this category makes entry in all bronze categories a pre-requisite (prior years may be included).

The award incorporates, but is not limited to:

• Local Agenda 21 programs.

• whole-of-council Environmental Management Systems, Environmental Management Plans, and/or other projects which demonstrate a whole-of-council commitment to sustainability principles.

• initiatives in managing for a sustainable environment including the incorporation of ESD principles into planning policies and development projects and policies demonstrating sustainability principles.

Existing:

· Country Energy

· Landcom

· DECC

Potential New:

· Maddocks

Gold ~ Contribution to Global Sustainability

Contribution to Global Sustainability

[Introduce in 2009 / develop for 2010] This special award recognises the NSW local government council that is making the greatest contribution to Global Sustainability. The winner of this award will be the council with the smallest ‘Ecological Footprint’ of competing councils. Entering the Local Sustainability category is a pre-requisite. Entrants collect data from residential constituents as per Bayside City Council’s “Ecological Footprint” undertaking.

See: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/environment_measuring_your_eco_footprint.htm

Also see: http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/globalfootprint/index.asp

Additional data collection requirements will be introduced in 2010 – developed with the support of sponsors – to reflect the variety of constituent-types in local government areas.

See: http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/calculators/default.asp

Existing:

· DECC

· Country Energy

Potential New:

· Dept of Climate Change (Aust Govt) &/or

· Dept of Environment (Aust Govt)

· UNEP

[Contents]

Appendix V: Categories / Descriptions / Sponsors – Adopted for 2009 – 4/6/09

Category	Description	Proposed Sponsors
Bronze ~ Pathways to Sustainability
Energy Saving & Climate Protection	This award recognises outstanding initiatives undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council that have resulted in significant energy savings. The winner of this award will be able to demonstrate - actual or forecast - the amount of energy & greenhouse gas emissions saved per year. The award incorporates, but is not limited to: · energy saving & climate protection initiatives in managing for a sustainable built environment including sustainable urban design and transport. · councils who have developed programs and policies to mitigate the impact of their operations on climate change and adapt to its consequences.	· DECC · Country Energy · Landcom
Waste Avoidance	This award recognises outstanding initiatives undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council that have resulted in significant waste avoidance. The winner of this award will be able to demonstrate - actual or forecast - the amount of waste avoided per year. The award incorporates, but is not limited to: · initiatives to effectively recover and manage recyclables and solid wastes (general wastes, garden organics, clean-up, parks gardens etc) generated and collected from householders and/or managed through Council facilities. This includes council's waste minimisation and management plans, education and training programs, and new infrastructure and technologies adopted to improve recycling and resource recovery for sustainable outcomes. · initiatives which address: zero waste, hazardous waste, extended producer responsibility etc.	· WSN Environmental Solutions
Community Sharps Management Award	An award for councils who have put in place ongoing and/or trial collection systems and community education programs (including programs in partnership with State agencies, pharmacies, community groups and other stakeholders) for community sharps waste generated in households and public places.	· NSW Health
Water Conservation	This award recognises outstanding initiatives undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council that have resulted in significant water savings. The winner of this award will be able to demonstrate - actual or forecast - the amount of water saved per year. The award incorporates, but is not limited to: · water conservation initiatives in managing for a sustainable built environment.	· Landcom · DECC
Sustainable Procurement	This award recognises councils who have developed and implemented (or are in the process of implementing) sustainable purchasing and procurement policies and processes for goods and services which address any or all of the following · Save energy and/or protect the climate. · Conserve water · Conserve energy · Enhance biodiversity · Reduce waste	· DECC
Environmental Protection & Restoration	This award recognises outstanding initiatives undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council to bring about an improvement in environmental quality. It also recognises exceptional current Natural Resource Management (NRM) initiatives. The award incorporates, but is not limited to: · programs to integrate NRM principles into either/both land-use planning or management planning processes. This may include the consideration of NRM priorities (eg. Catchment Action Plan) in strategic planning and how NRM manifests in land-use and management plans. Evidence of the implementation of these plans to meet NRM outcomes is expected. · waterway and riparian corridor restoration and rehabilitation projects and stormwater improvement programs in an urban environment that have improved the health and amenity of the waterway. Projects should ideally show how outcomes for stormwater, water quality, biodiversity and infrastructure have been considered using an integrated approach. · projects which reduce pollution, reduce the impacts of pollution, and/or remediate land. · programs to regulate and enforce environmental protection and improvement.	· Sydney Metro CMA · DECC
Biodiversity Protection & Enhancement	This award recognises outstanding initiatives undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council to conserve, protect, and enhance biodiversity on public and/or private land in urban and/or rural areas. The award incorporates, but is not limited to: · community involvement in protecting, conserving, and enhancing natural environments and wildlife habitat, rehabilitating and restoring degraded areas, and the improvement of wetlands management · bushcare and similar restoration programs. · habitat and corridor protection and enhancement. · protection of endangered and protected species and their habitats.	· NPWS (DECC)
Communication, Education & Empowerment	This award recognises outstanding initiatives undertaken in the last 12 months by a NSW local government council that have informed the community and increased peoples' capacity to be active participants in moving society towards sustainability. Initiatives could form a component of a broader sustainability strategy, or focus on specific environmental issues. The award incorporates, but is not limited to: · environmental education programs, resources, and activities for schools, community groups or industry/business. · initiatives which address: community consultation – committees, processes, etc.	· Our Environment It’s a Living Thing (DECC)
Country Energy Award ~ Judged Separately
Country Energy’s Energy and Water Management	This award recognises a stand-out council that has adopted an holistic approach to energy and water management. The winner will be recognised as a benchmark for their resource management programs and measures to reduce costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Nominations are not required for this award. The finalists and winner will be selected based on their responses to the Country Energy-commissioned benchmarking study undertaken in late 2005. The research study covered all aspects of energy and water management, as well as providing confidential information about each council's rating, compared to other councils.	· Country Energy
Silver ~ Local Sustainability
Local Sustainability	This prestigious award recognises outstanding achievement by a NSW local government council to implement Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) and strive for a sustainable future for their local community. The commitment to local sustainability demonstrated by councils entering this category makes entry in at least 3 bronze categories a pre-requisite in the current or previous years (note: prior years may be included). The award incorporates, but is not limited to: · Local Agenda 21 programs. · Whole-of-council Environmental Management Systems, Environmental Management Plans, and/or other projects which demonstrate a whole-of-council commitment to sustainability principles. · Initiatives in managing for a sustainable environment including the incorporation of ESD principles into planning policies and development projects and policies demonstrating sustainability principles.	· Country Energy · DECC · Maddocks · LGSS (Future Plus)