Recfishwest Policy
A Development Levy For WA.

PREAMBLE :- Throughout the 1990's governments have increasingly moved to apply the user pays principle to community or government supplied goods and services. The application of this principle to common property natural resource access such as recreational fishing or to make use of National Parks has met with resistance and a potentially significant political cost.

None the less, as populations increase, the delicate terrestrial and marine environments of Western Australia are put under increasing pressure through urban, industrial or rural development and subdivision. The areas which are undeveloped become, by definition, more valuable and in need of more intensive protection and/or management. This management has a significant cost which is becoming increasingly difficult to recover from the community, leading to an increasing dilemma for strategic natural resource management.

Specifically, Recfishwest has received many inquiries over the past year expressing concern from fishers about the prospect of a general saltwater fishing license being imposed as part of the user pays principle. Recfishwest has looked at this prospect with a wide field of vision, knowing that revenue must be raised in order for proper and effective management of the state's fish and other natural resources to continue.

As an organisation we have looked at the broader picture because of our Constitutional charter and intimate knowledge of development, conservation, environmental sustainable development issues, pollution, fishing pressure caused by a growing population, dwindling fish stocks and other management issues.

Recfishwest, on behalf of the 700,000 recreational fishers in Western Australia is proposing a visionary and equitable solution to the management and funding difficulties associated with strategic natural resource management. Recfishwest is proposing that a levy of 1% to 1.5% of the overall cost be imposed on all new developments within 3 kilometres of the state's coastline, rivers and estuaries and those in close proximity to designated streams or inland waterways.

This revenue could be vested in a Trust or other like body with wide representation (see controlling body) and then distributed on a "proposal for grants" process to community organisations, government agencies and other groups who have demonstrated their bona fides. (see Distribution Process).

BACKGROUND :- This levy provides a WIN for the government of the day, a WIN for the local communities and taxpayers, and a WIN for the developers either in terms of them recognising the downstream community benefit of a development which would be enhanced if a process is established for the levy to become tax deductible.

For example, if there is a toxic spill or an algae bloom that needs immediate attention, the current process is to combat it using taxpayers funds which is a drain on other high priority areas such as Education, Hospitals and Law and Order. The proposed Fund could be used to clean-up the problem immediately with resultant low cost and also impact on the community. If there exists a claim for compensation then that avenue can be followed-up in due course for reimbursement of costs back into the Fund.

As another example of the diversity of the Fund, say the Exmouth Lawn bowls club needs an extra green, it can apply for the project to be covered by the Fund against inputs from developments in the immediate area. If there is an identified need for specific marine research into Leafy Sea Dragons or scale fish species, or sand dune restoration, these projects could be covered by the proposed Fund. A set of formal guidelines would be developed in conjunction with this section of the Fund.

INCOME - (Option 1)

In order for the Fund to be able to deliver tangible outcomes to the community in a direct and inter-generational sense, a well defined and identifiable income stream must be made available.

The levy is applied on the estimated capital works benefit which is derived from the development. For example, a $300 million dollar development may only have a direct cost to the developed of $150 million. The levy would apply to the full $300 million development.

All new developments in the described area would be subject to the levy. These would include residential improvements such as adding a second story or building a swimming pool that currently require local government approval.

The disadvantage of this option is that income is variable and would depend on an accurate assessment of final capital value and relies upon dynamic economic conditions which largely drive new developments.

RECURRENT INCOME :- (Option 2)

It is a key ingredient of the proposed fund that it has a stream of recurrent income so that its financial base is secure.

As an example a development for a $200m canal development in Mandurah is planned. Once all EIS issues, planning processes and regulatory controls have been met and approval is given, the developer immediately must pay to the Fund the full amount of the set community development levy based on the gross project development cost. As the lots are sold and begin to incur Local Government rates, the appropriate council includes the 1% or 1 1/2% development levy on the owners, the revenue is then forwarded to the Levy Trust. The levy is struck on the gross rate bill of the individual premises be they residential, commercial or industrial. Similar levies are currently used by local government for promotions such as tourism development.

As another example, say a new marina is being built at a cost of $300m. The developer pays the set Community development levy before building starts but after all processes have been complied with. Recurrent income here is derived from the levy being imposed on all owners, lessees and others based on the gross annual turnover of those businesses, and for the residential component, the levy based on the individual gross rate bill for that premise.

The advantage of this option is that budgeting can be more easily determined with recurrent funding and an accurate estimate of final capital worth is less important as the levy will self adjust over time and increase as values increase. The administrative processes can be worked out at the local government and state planning level.

It is important to point out that the need for increased management of areas not developed increases with each successive development. The community is increasingly recognising the need for good strategic planning of community owned natural resources to protect and preserve them for future generations.

CONTROLLING BODY :- The Community Development Levy Trust could comprise one representative only of each of the government agencies that have a direct interest in the coastal or river systems of the state.

Community Development Levy Trust Board

• Chairman Ð Independent and expertise based

Government representatives

• Fisheries WA or CALM (can be rotating position),
• DEP,
• Department Commerce and Trade or DRD (can be rotating position),
• Department of Planning or DOLA (can be rotating position),
• Waters and Rivers Commission.
• WA Municipal Association representing Local Government

Peak representative bodies

• Recfishwest,
• WAFIC,
• Conservation Council
• 3 community representatives recognised for their longstanding contribution to Western Australia and who have no ties to or membership of any of the organisations or groups on the Trust.

The terms and succession planning for these representatives can be set in the Operating Guidelines of the Trust. Eg, community representatives must be elected every three years.

DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM TRUST FUND

This controlling body is vested with the responsibility of the day to day operations of the Trust Fund. Although much of the funding would be prescriptive to various agencies, good governance and fiscal responsibility would ensure that the controlling body kept a close watch to ensure that there was maximum community return from the allocated Funds.

Option 1 To prioritise and facilitate the disbursement to government agencies of 55% of the annual income from the Fund on a descriptive basis (eg 15% FWA, CALM, Water and Rivers and 10% DEP.

Ten per cent of the fund would be preserved for local projects (see below). Thirty five per cent would be available as contested funds for transport, tourism and community groups to be allocated on the strength of their submissions.

Option 2 Prescribe 15% allocation of funds to FWA, CALM, W and R, 10% to DEP and 10% as contested government funds (where the insurance money for disasters also sits).

Ten per cent of the fund would be preserved for local projects (see below). Twenty five per cent would be available as contested funds for transport, tourism and community groups to be allocated on the strength of their submissions.

GRANT COMMITTEE :- The main function of this committee is to distribute funds according to the priority of applications coming in from the public and community sector and to decide on the level of financial assistance to be approved. This committee has access to 35-45% of the Trust's funds for distribution.

Ten per cent of the total funds shall be deemed to be allocated into the region from which the development originated (as per the Development Commission boundaries) and should be used for the benefit of the region from which the funds were generated.

The decision of this committee shall be supported by the Controlling Body provided they conform with sound business practice and the operating guidelines for the committee.

The grant committee should be made up of:

• Chair elected from controlling body
• Regional Development Commission (to co-ordinate regional submissions),
• WA Municipal Association,
• Recfishwest,
• WAFIC
• Conservation Council.
• 3 from the community (but independent of those community members sitting on the Controlling Body)

DISTRIBUTION PROCESS :- The spilt of the income from the Trust Fund should be based on the allocation process outlined above (subject the adoption of the preferred options) in order for the community and its organisations to have a direct benefit from the Fund.

The Controlling Body must ensure a level of funds is retained in order to provide for extraneous emergencies such as toxic spills, algae blooms or other such emergencies that impact directly on the marine or aquatic environment, so that remedial action can be taken immediately. Otherwise all other funds available should be distributed as outlined above (Controlling Body and Grant Committee processes)

DECISION PROCESS :- All decisions made by the Controlling Body or the Grant Committee shall be by consensus.

CONCLUSION :- Recfishwest believes this proposed levy policy will provide structures and services to the community that they would otherwise never attain. It puts the onus of responsibility for community service obligations onto developers but in an equitable and transparent manner.

Currently, developers can build a major facility, take their profits on the sale of the facility and move onto the next project without having any direct responsibility for the consequences of the development. v Impacts can include pollution of rivers and waterways via fertilizers used on the residential premises they've built or toxic, oil and other spills into the marine environment.

The levy ensures that developments have a continuing benefit to the quality of life for the people of Western Australia and the continued quality of our marine and aquatic environments. The Fund over time will grow to such an extent that some of the current state government budget allocations to its various agencies may be able to be re-directed into priority areas such as Hospitals, Education and Police, without any detrimental effect on the operation of those agencies benefiting from the Fund.

Recfishwest as an organisation are aware of the work still needed to be applied to this Policy Outline but it is just in its conceptual stage and needs refinement to cover specific areas of concern regarding the operation of the Fund, its limitations, and its Operating Guidelines.

Recfishwest would like to be involved in development with senior policy planners within government so that the benefits and operational details of this Proposed Policy Outline can be adopted.



This page last updated on 30 December 2003.