2018-06-27 SM - Attachment 1 to Item 2 - Directions Paper Transforming Queensland's Recycling & Waste Industry

integration of the Strategy settings with other whole-of-government policy settings and strategies, and greater
coordination across the responsible departments and agencies could be improved.

3.3 Implementation of the Strategy
4.    The implementation of the Strategy was hindered when action plans did not eventuate as intended

There are several issues with reliance on voluntary action plans to implement the Strategy:

 All stakeholders expressed dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of voluntary action plans as the implementation
  mechanism for the Strategy. Stakeholder feedback included:
      disappointment with the perceived lack of clarity around the specific roles and responsibilities of stakeholders
       in developing the plans, and lack of guidance materials on action plan development
      misunderstandings about whether individual entities (e.g. councils) were each responsible for achieving the
       targets stipulated in the Strategy
      concerns about the lack of visibility given by government to action plans that were developed.
 Industry stakeholders called for a more flexible approach, noting that there was little value to some companies
  in developing a separate action plan since waste and resource recovery initiatives were already being
  implemented through environmental management plans and other plans.
 The cycle of developing multiple voluntary action plans as intended could place a significant time and resource
  burden on the Queensland Government, as it would require multiple meetings and discussions with each sector
  or organisation to negotiate and agree on the actions, roles and responsibilities of each party. Further, as the
  needs of each sector/organisation are different, the process would require careful management to ensure that
  the government’s efforts are not spread too thinly across multiple action plans.

5. There is no formal mechanism in place to provide implementation oversight and to support coordination and
   engagement with stakeholders

Although the Strategy was developed using an industry-led approach with a strong emphasis on shared
responsibility, the department has sole responsibility for overseeing its implementation. There is no governance
structure in place to provide Strategy implementation oversight, or to facilitate and support broader coordination
and engagement with stakeholders.

To improve implementation of the Strategy, consideration should be given to establishing a high-level Strategy
advisory group, ideally comprised of representatives from state and local governments and the waste and resource
recovery industry. This group would enable stakeholders to participate in the Strategy implementation process at
the highest level and would also contribute to strengthening the working relationships between the department and
various stakeholders. Similar groups are often successfully established by the department at the project level to
guide implementation of specific projects or initiatives (e.g. CRS Implementation Advisory Group).

3.4 Monitoring and evaluation of the Strategy
6.    The Strategy lacks a formal monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework

‘Monitoring’ typically involves tracking the achievement of activities and outputs, and to a lesser degree,
intermediate outcomes. In contrast, evaluation (such as this review) takes place at specific moments, and permits a
strategy’s progress (at the outcome and impact levels) to be assessed over a longer period of time. A good
monitoring and evaluation framework should clearly outline how each activity and expected outcome relates to and
facilitates the achievement of each objective, and how objectives relate to each other and the ultimate goal. High
quality data should also be available to support an effective monitoring and evaluation framework.

The monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework is described in the “How will progress be measured?” chapter
of the Strategy. It consists solely of a set of five outcome-based measures or indicators linked to source streams.
There is insufficient implementation details in the Strategy (e.g. activities, outputs, intermediate outcomes) which
likely hindered the development of a contemporary monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework. Other short-
comings of the monitoring and evaluation framework include the following:

 The performance indicators were not defined, even though they carry unique meanings that differ from their
  common or ordinary definitions. For example, the term ‘recycling' as used in the Strategy encompasses all the

                                                           9




                                                                                                                          | 33