Same thing happens in our industry, Liz. Normally I need to prepare a (not more than) 1 page synopsis in layman's terms what we are setting out to achieve. The more deailed a report is though, the more the reader will tend just to gravitate to a price, then rely on an interpretation of a discussion. It's quite a challenge getting the right message across, particulalry in the commericla sector when evironmental reporting is commonly seen by proprty developers as a diversion.

Jenny Lewis asks a great question about prescriptivity and ongoing management activities. I think that if we consider our work like buying a new car, we may be able to get repeat business. If you get it serviced regulalry (and by the manufacturer) anything that goes wrong, ought to be fixed. If you provided a guaranteed outcome of your reports, subject to you being continually engaged, you may be lucky enough to be offered a continuous contract?

If all ecologists tended to provide services on this basis, then there may be more money in it all, for all?

Martin - you are SO right about the need for simplicity.

Too many ecologists (me included) find it difficult to leave the unnecessary detail out and concentrate only on the things that need to be done and how they are to be done. The absolute worst management plan I have ever seen is as thick as the Sydney telephone book (no exaggeration) and is full of internal inconsistencies and general madness. I would say it is worthless except that the client paid a very large amount of money for it and then a whole lot of other money to others on top of that to try and interpret and implement it.

As well as the guff that we ecologists can't seem to let go of, I try and put a diagram into my plans that contains enough information for a competent land manager to work from and not get into trouble or damage the land.

A test for its success that I use is to give the single page to someone unfamiliar with the project and see if they can interpret it back to you in a sensible manner.

Ensuring appropriate ongoing ecological management is an important role for ecological consultants. Usually the only way that this can be done is through some sort of management plan, which is normally either a commitment by a development proponent or a legal requirement forming part of a development consent.

I have assessed and prepared many management plans for land. They come with many names including vegetation MP, ecological MP, wetland MP, Koala MP, fauna monitoring plan, habitat MP, restoration plan, bush fire MP, or land MP. They have many different purposes and forms, and come in all shapes and sizes. Very confusing!

Some organisations have guidelines around to explain what is expected of such a plan, including Hornsby Council, NSW Department of Water and Energy, and Brisbane City Council. However, most of these are for specific purposes and will not be applicable generally.

Some general tips for what should be included in management plans are included in an article I wrote for Ecological Management and Restoration Vol 1(3): 185 - 194 with the title "What makes a good natural resource management plan". A copy of this can be viewed on the Land & Environment Planning website at the following link:

We also get asked to prepare FMPs for jobs which has skated the razors edge of SIS or No SIS on the basis of recommendations to avoid the significant impact. Council like them I think as they form neat conditions of consent they can sign off on, however, as Jenny notes, they may at best get the initial kick in, and then die with the change of ownership and lack of compliance enforcement by local and State govt.

I find the same problem with SEPP 44 Koala Plans of Management. A long and frustrating hurdle run to get approved, and then I drive past the site a year later, and the trees are dying and/or gone, no new replantings, colorbond fences with no gaps, and dogs. One arm of Council appears ignorant of the constraints on the land when approving future houses on Lots designated to retain trees, etc, and then the other arm doens't want to take Billy Battler to court over a tree, a fence or a dog. Furthermore, due to a court ruling, they arent keen on retaining trees which eventually pose a potential threat to life and property should it fall (after surviving soil compaction, root cutting, etc during construction).

 With KPoM's, we now require a Landscape or Vegetation Mgt Plan to also be prepared and submitted with the DA so DoP see it and require its implementation as a condition of their consent. Still watching for those approved jobs to begin developing to see the LMP and KPM provisions implemented, but I find unless you keep reminding (in writing) the powers that be that these plans exist, and they need monitoring, the enthusiam dies away. It may look like yr chasing work, but at least I can lie straight in bed at night.

So bottom line, I think we need to play a major role to the end, as we are in effect managers and the experts in regards to what the outcome is to be, and how it is to be achieved. Ethically I believe its important to follow thru, and we've all seen the developers quick fix, sell out and walk away mgt plans.

Preparing portions of LMPs and VMPs in regards to costings is very difficult if not yr field, and the best thing to do is simply subcontract that part, ring around, or Google. To keep them paying, I find bond lodged with Council with portions refunded at various stages (ie construction certificate, Subdivision certificate, etc) matched with milestones, work well  - so long as Council follows up and actually gets the money first! Hence you can fund works for 5yrs no worries - including monitoring reports to check compliance for Council, and ensure works are done to get their money back, or its defaulted to pay for the work to be done properly.

Judie Rawling or Mark Couton would be the best to answer this question.

As consultants we're often asked to prepare Vegetation/Bushland/Flora and Fauna Management Plans - usually at the request of council (or because we've recommended it in the impact assessment). Some clients are reluctant to commit to ongoing management, particularly if they are onselling subdivided lots or similar (and thus won't own the land they are expected to manage). Often these plans are written with the best intentions and then spend their lives collecting dust on a shelf somewhere because no follow up occurs (because councils and other determining bodies have limited funds).

What do people see as the role of the ecological consultant when it comes to preparing these management plans? Should we be preparing them at all, or is it best left up to the developer to negotiate a contract with a bush regeneration firm in order to fulfil their consent conditions?

If consultants are to prepare these plans, how prescriptive should they be?

And finally, how do we address the sticky issue of costing and ongoing payment for management activities that may be carried out years after the developer has moved onto other projects? Should we get involved in the money side of things at all?