THE best time to fix your roof is when the sun is shining, former US president John F Kennedy once reportedly remarked.

Likewise, the best time to be working on drought “is when you’re not in drought,” Brent Finlay, chair of the Future Drought Fund, observed in an update on the fund’s peformance with Beef Central this week.

In keeping with that logic the Future Drought Fund was established by the previous Federal Government at the height of the last El Nino-influenced drought in 2018-19 with a view to helping farmers prepare for future droughts and to build resilience in landscapes and rural communities.

Drawing from an overall $5 billion fund, the FDF was set up to provide $100 million in funding each year for specific projects and programs across Australia to support those aims.

For many rural producers drought has thankfully been in the rear view mirror for much of the past three years courtesy of three successive wetter-than-average La Nina-boosted seasons.

However, the re-emergence of a drier El Nino pattern heading into this summer, and Bureau of Meteorology data showing that Australia has just experienced its driest September on record, has quickly returned the ‘D’ word back to front-of-mind focus in many parts of Australia.

So what has the Future Drought Fund achieved over the past three years, and has it been effective in preparing Australian farmers and rural communities for the dry conditions again taking hold?

A recent Productivity Commission review looked into that question, drawing on submissions and consultation with producers, lobby groups and government organisations.

Its report late last month showed that since its commencement in 2020, the FDF has rolled out 19 major programs, with funding at varying stages, each highlighted in the table below:

Funding allocated as at 30 June 2022.

Over that time $420 million has been invested into FDF programs.

Solid foundation

How successful the Fund has been in building drought resilience so far is “unknown,” the report said, given that its programs are still at different stages of delivery, with some yet to be rolled out.

Ultimately the question can’t be answered until tested by drought conditions – which seasonal outlooks suggest is soon to happen.

But drawing upon fund reporting so far and extensive consultations with stakeholders,the Productivity Commission report observed that “many spoke positively about the outcomes being achieved under the Fund”.

The Productivity Commission review also stated that the FDF “is establishing a solid foundation for building drought resilience”.

Recommendations for improvement

But it also said areas of improvement are needed, including greater clarity and accountability around regional drought resilience plans.

It also recommended a two-year funding extension for the eight Drought Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hubs – with further funding beyond that contingent on a mid-term performance review.

It said the Department should publish a statement of expectations for the Hubs program, clarifying their roles and responsibilities and confirming their focus.

Removing the legislated role of the Regional Investment Corporation (RIC) was also among its recommendations.

“Due to the time and costs involved in the process, the RIC board’s advisory role is unlikely to be adding value to the FDF,” the report said.

The Productivity Commission report also recommended stronger measures to ensure outcomes that benefit the wider Australian community, and not only individual businesses or industries.

“The Australian Government must confirm that the FDF only invests in drought resilience activities that are plausibly expected to lead to the Australian community being better off overall”.

But it also acknowledged that determining whether the overall community is better off overall “is not simple”.

“The costs and benefits of resilience activities are difficult to measure, in part because the concept of resilience is not easily defined.

“In some cases, the costs and expected benefits of an activity might be reasonably clear. For example, farm business planning should contribute to more profitable and productive farms – an outcome that can be readily measured.

“In other cases, such as building natural capital and community capacity, benefits may be dispersed and less easily measured.

“In all instances, there is also the challenge of finding a plausible causal link between the FDF investment and any improvement in resilience.”

FDF chair Brent Finlay told Beef Central this week that the Productivity Commission’s recommendations were welcome.

“We’re spending a lot of money so it is appropriate that those checks and balances are in place,” he said.

The FDF will be starting a new funding plan which comes into effect on July 1 next year, which will be preceded by a six-week public consultation process.

Asked how he believes the FDF is making an effective difference, he pointed to figures showing that more than 6500 farmers across Australia have now accessed direct support through the Fund to improve business and risk management skills.

2,211 stakeholder groups and individuals had been engaged in the regional planning process, with eight Drought resilience Adoption and Innovation Hubs now operating, incorporating Hub Member organisations and Network Partners, and 150 projects underway to support development, trial, demonstration, extension of drought resilience practices.

He said the committee continues to take submissions on ideas for future projects, with people able to have their say directly via the Future Drought Fund website.

For more information visit the Future Drought Fund website here