There was an evident need to co-deliver the two large NRM programs-the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP):

• the core NRM objectives of DEH and DAFF- environmental protection and sustainable agriculture-fit logically together
• both programs incorporate regional delivery of NRM and deal with similar stakeholders
• the NHT is appropriated to DEH and the NAP is appropriated to DAFF, but both departments are involved in the program delivery.

Given the links between the NHT and the NAP, a joint team of more than 100 employees from the two departments was established in 2002 to co-deliver the programs.

DEH and DAFF employees work side by side within joint sections and are fully integrated within the team and equally split across the buildings of the two departments. DEH employees report to DAFF managers and vice versa.

A joint team model was chosen because:

• the NRM objectives of the two departments were closely linked
• there was a need to share control equally in regard to the two programs with no lead agency
• the relationship between DEH and DAFF was such that a joint team could be considered.

The policy areas of the two departments remain separate to preserve the policy ownership and the beneficial tension that exists in NRM policy development. Policy areas are regularly included in meetings of NRM executive. Protocols for engagement between the policy and program areas are outlined in the NRM Business Plan.

Due to the political desire for more integrated natural resource management delivery and the willingness of senior employees in DEH and DAFF to collaborate, the creation of a joint team was possible. The level of integration could not have been as effective if run through a less integrated model-for example, through an interdepartmental committee process or a more hierarchical model.

The team has found that joint delivery does create complexities and administrative difficulties but is a worthwhile investment. Despite any complexities, an integrated approach to the delivery of programs is still more efficient than separate processes.

The team has a specific timeframe to deliver the programs-seven years. This helps to keep the project focused and does not provide an indefinite life for the initiative.

Joining the program areas of the departments but not the policy areas has maintained the benefits of separate policy development processes. Different values, objectives, constituencies and healthy policy tensions are retained. The risk in this approach is that policy development is separated from program delivery, and that national policies may not be strongly reflected in regional delivery activities. The development of protocols for engagement between policy and program areas is important.

Combining more than 100 employees from two departments created a number of cultural challenges, including:

• the need for employees to consider themselves as part of a truly joined initiative, while at the same time maintaining links to their home departments
• need for employees to consider and present themselves as Australian government employees rather than DEH or DAFF employees, especially when dealing with clients
• sections made up of both DEH and DAFF employees, with DEH employees reporting to DAFF managers, and vice versa
• two different personnel systems, certified agreements, performance reporting, pay scales etc. mean employees in the same section are operating under different conditions.

Cultural integration has been a specific focus in the development of the team. Leadership from both departments is committed to establishing good working relationships at all levels to make the joint approach work properly.

A number of initiatives have been implemented to create the cultural shift to a joint team:

• the team is co-located, helping employees to integrate
• team-building activities have been conducted- for example, cross-program/ agency training and information expo
• processes have been established (such as approval of leave by employees from the other agency) to simplify management.

Institutionalising cultural change has been successful because of the commitment and support from all levels-particularly from ministers and secretaries. Having a common purpose has helped to override any cultural challenges.

The importance of effective personal relationships cannot be overstated. The team's efforts at building these is seen as a key factor in the success of the initiative.

Development of the team's culture was assisted by cultural change and cross-agency awareness training being included up-front as part of team induction.

Some members of the joint team view cultural differences and tensions as more of a perception than a reality, but agree that there is value in addressing the perception.

Despite efforts to integrate the team, there are still some cultural differences, especially in interpreting the original intentions of the two programs. Ongoing awareness training is provided to reinforce the core objectives of the team.

Working under different conditions is an element that employees have just had to accept and it has been less of an issue than was perceived.

Working in a whole of government team can be demanding for employees. There can be:

• reduced ownership of issues
• greater complexity and uncertainty
• greater time pressures.

The team has actively recruited people who are suited to whole of government work. They have focused on employing people who:

• have good communication skills
• work well in teams
• are able to deal with uncertainty and fluctuating situations
• respond well to pressure.

Not everyone can work easily in a joint environment -there is a need for people who are flexible and accept diversity, and can cope with constant change, confusion and ambiguity.

The incentive for working in such an environment is that the task itself is attractive- providing career development and recognition.

Many of the IT systems of DEH and DAFF were incompatible at commencement of the joint team-for example, finance, personnel and email systems.

This created difficulties for program managers, who had to overcome the administrative problems of developing a joint team at the same time as delivering on their program responsibilities.

These systems have been gradually aligned. The process has been slow but many of the initial barriers have been overcome.

Secretaries of both departments are committed to development of an integrated financial management system.

It is beneficial to establish uniform, seamless IT, finance, personnel and email systems up-front, and to factor in the costs of IT infrastructure support to the cost of the whole program. (This would not have been practically possible in this case, however, given the timing imperatives to create the joint team.)

The two programs are delivered jointly but are appropriated to different departments-the NHT to DEH and the NAP to DAFF. This creates a situation where:

• there is a need for reciprocal cross-agency delegations to authorise expenditure
• the two programs are run through different financial accounting systems
• there is a duplication of administrative processes-for example, reporting to the Senate.

Cross-agency delegations have been established, and there are joint financial decision-making structures at departmental and ministerial levels.

Accounting for the team is done through a joint governance area, rather than through the separate departmental finance areas.

It is still necessary to have one department ultimately accountable, but both agencies need to be involved.

Cross-agency delegation is a simple process and does not have any legal impediments.

The key barrier to overcome in relation to delegations is a cultural one-resistance to delegating to employees from another department.

It would have been beneficial to align many of the systems at the outset of the team, rather than in an iterative process.

Provision of cross-agency responsibility has the additional benefit of increasing learning and aiding the development of a joint culture.

Ministers are ultimately responsible for financial decisions that are based on agreed approaches.

Establishment of guidelines and frameworks within which devolution of management and financial decisions can occur assists in finding the balance between the aim of empowering community stakeholders and maintaining accountability to the Australian Government.

A joined-up approach to natural resource management results in a unified, integrated voice of government to clients. Delivery of the NHT and NAP is simplified in a move towards more seamless government. Single processes and structures are set up between the Australian Government and community stakeholders, creating more direct lines of contact and interaction.

Employees need to understand the objectives of both DEH and DAFF in order to effectively represent the two organisations.

Importantly, the team has found that it is necessary to articulate and sell the rationale for the whole of government approach to all players and stakeholders. This increases understanding of the intentions, desired outcomes and potential benefits of the approach, and thus improves the likelihood of it being embraced and adopted by all relevant stakeholders.

A community-based approach is used to develop, implement and manage both the NHT and NAP at the regional level. Decision making is devolved to regional groups who establish their own targets and priorities. These are set within frameworks agreed through multilateral and bilateral mechanisms.

Much of the initial NAP and NHT funding has been directed towards building the capacity of regions to develop and deliver integrated regional natural resource management plans.

A network of facilitators and coordinators is also being established to assist in delivering the programs and providing a link between the Australian Government and regional communities.

The joint team has found that when setting up processes with a large community focus it is important to consider the impact on the community (e.g. consulting multiple times).

Trying to impose a communitybased approach when the community is not ready for it also has costs for government. Significant time and resources need to be dedicated to building relationships to ensure that communities are willing and able to engage to the level required.