EWKR originated from a need for better research and knowledge to support delivery of the Basin plan and associated research and knowledge needs.
EWKR commenced in July 2014, took longer than scheduled to get all the consultation done in Phase 1 to inform identification of priority research questions. In 2015-16 foundation/conceptualisation research was undertaken to further refine the research questions, in 2016-17 all themes commenced on-ground research and data collection (Waterbirds commenced in 2015-16).
Unlike LTIM, EWKR aimed to respond to basin wide stakeholders – not just CEWO – the project has not been able to cover everything identified during the consultation, we had to prioritise to come within allocated funding.
EWKR was designed and commenced implementation when it was not part of the CEWO, so it was not designed to directly respond to the needs of only CEWO water managers, it was Basin wide across all Jurisdictions. EWKR is therefore less embedded compared to LTIM as part of the CEWO adaptive management framework. Improvements should be made to link EWKR and LTIM in future so research is better utilised as part of monitoring and evaluating CEWO e-water.
Improving the science available to better inform e-water delivery and management is the main objective of EWKR. At the conclusion of Phase 1 consultation a long list of knowledge gaps was derived and consolidated into priority research questions with four themes emerging – waterbirds, vegetation, fish and food webs.
Allocated $10 million over 5 years – research collaboration program. There was an expansion of interest after the research questions were set – this lead to an increase in consultation. This was a positive but also an issue in regards to managing the vast and diverse experiences, needs and expectations.
EWKR has a Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) – wanted a really strong logic and rational. Having the SAG has been very positive as it has assisted the research teams to be more focused. Overall the SAG has been a very positive tool for CEWO as it has provided the independent scientific input to the project and ensured that the science is robust and credible.
Within the priority questions lots of other questions emerged so had to go through a process of refining the questions – drill down to what was really achievable. SAG recommended the ‘conceptualisation phase’ to further refine the questions and provide a stronger logic and rationale for the priority research.
The SAG met once a year and provided advice – are supplied with ½ yearly research plans which they review. Also involved in the mid-term review.
Four themes across four sites (Lower Murray, Upper Murray, Mac Marshes and Narran Lakes/lower Balonne) – but research is not being undertaken at all sites as originally intended – needed to be flexible to respond to where it was best to do the research – e.g. fish in the Ovens River due to needing a mix of habitats. For example the birds, had to go to where they are breeding.
Primary stakeholders are water managers, project is less engaged with some broader stakeholders ie community– some water managers have been less engaged due to timing it has taken, but stakeholders continue to remain involved in the project as they can appreciate the benefits which is positive and as results start to emerge from the project it will be more useful to water managers.
As with many projects of this size and similar to LTIM, the issues around up-scaling are similar and being able to apply/infer research findings to whole of basin – expectations are needed to be managed.
Communications component – used for communication and engagement but the program doesn’t have a specific knowledge broker. Could see that a knowledge broker role would enhance the outcomes of the project and facilitating people across many fields working together and sharing knowledge, and even could have led to forming other collaborations.
Over the next 6 months will be focusing on knowledge adoption – communications and engagement with managers to shape how best to ‘package’ research knowledge so it is easily accessible, available and relevant to e-water and water managers. A review of DST’s in Phase 1 strongly recommended that EWKR not develop a DST and that most water managers are getting their science from peers, from talking to scientist and being able to use information that is available for them to apply to their area or situation. It will be a balance between site specific needs with the wider needs and this will be a challenge to address i.e. finding a balance to making the research relevant to a wide range of water management needs.
As EKWR was less embedded in CEWO initially the research wasn’t designed around the WDT needs – however EWKR needs to respond to the monitoring being done by LTIM and be part of the adaptive management of CEWO environmental water. The LTIM annual workshop or other combined workshops between WDT, LTIM and EWKR providers would be great to document learnings and knowledge gaps and shape future research as well as responding to ad hoc and emerging issues. Monitoring and research needs to be delivered in an integrated manner – whilst currently there are some difficulties/obstacles in terms of contracts there are also significant positives in the fact that there is overlap between LTIM and EWKR with regards to providers, sites and ecological focus. More could be done in this space to improve integration. Work on EWKR fish and veg and food webs are interacting with LTIM i.e. utilising and sharing data, doing field work together, sharing models.
BH: re the evaluation plan – who is driving it? Helen Watts undertook the Phase 1 review – but most of the report needs to be interpreted in terms of the timing and context setting. For example project management was identified for improvement – this reflects the leadership at MDFRC at the time and therefore CEWO had a lot more involvement than intended – this has eased a bit in the past 6 months – project management, efficiencies and effectiveness will be better now – and with clearer roles and responsibilities as the project has developed.
Project sub-committee includes reps from CEWO, MDBA, and jurisdictions – helped in phase 1 consultations. Good representation from the states – part of their role is to disseminate information.
With regards to capturing adaptive management – there is no formal line of sight, so documenting outcomes requires the coordinators to document those decisions – captured only broadly.
BH: is the evaluation plan useful? Need to pay more attention to the plan on a regular basis – tend to do it on the go – no single person is assigned to oversee its application. Need to track this better and keep it on hand all the time.
Interaction with LTIM
Limited to date, seeing more interaction with the on-ground research – an inventory of knowledge gaps/emergent issues from LTIM would be useful that could inform research – having interaction with LTIM is highly desirable and could be improved in future to improve adaptive management of CEWO e-water.
Lots of opportunity – RipRap, EWKR stories, research publications, face to face interactions, networking and relationships – all build trust. Need to be able to call on researchers to have input to these.
Future planning comments:
Key lessons – maintaining contacts and relationships which in turn build trust – this is essential.
Integrate monitoring and research better in the future – monitoring outcomes (trends) are informing research (processes)
Create the space and time to have the communications between LTIM, EWKR and WDT and funding to support this adequately.
Chris Pulkkinen, Jo Kneebone, Di Mead, Andy Lowes (MDBA) – 25 January
BH: what do you know about LTIM, was it used in the recent evaluation report, and what types of interactions are there between CEWO and MDBA?
CP: There is good officer to officer level interaction with those that run the program – not the planning aspect – but they do provide good information.
CP: Paul and Sam are a great source of information – good interaction.
CP: Relied heavily on 20 LTIM reports, fish (Selected Area evaluation reports 2013-2016), one vegetation (Basin-scale evaluation Capon and Campbell 2017) and one asset report (Gawne et al. 2013 Logic and Rational report) for input to the evaluation report. The individual reports are very dense and very hard to access the information we need – but these have improved recently with a front end table that summarises key findings – much easier to interpret. Well defined in terms of linkages to BEWS.
CP: Relied on the data assessment done by the authors – so a really valuable source of information (DN: capture point).
CP: Agree – reporting needs some work. The area scale evaluation of the CEW contribution analysis is tricky (DN: capture point)
JK: Need to give some though re context it sits – funny space in terms of line of sight to basin scale outcomes – but this doesn’t come out at the basin scale assessment – informs local scale and overlaps with states assess scale assessment – answers question of did a watering event work or not – were the risks managed. Also have conditions change – BEWS is basin outcomes from LTWP (not all finalized yet) – but see LTIM sitting in this space (DN: capture point – not as aware of basin scale evaluation reports).
JK: How does TLM fit with all the programs – needs to align better with Basin Plan. Unpacking this through to 2020 and focus on basin scale for LTIM.
BH: what’s doable in 5 years?
DM: we grapple with what is basin scale and how to do integration to basin scale (DN: capture point), how do we make sense from local scale findings:
Anecdotes of single watering events
More case studies
Temporal and spatial tracking of trends in change at significant sites.
JK: Capture of learnings - adaptive management – really needs to capture this and have it accessible across institutions (DN: capture point).
JK: re basin scale need closer alignment between CEWO/MDBA and basin scale evaluation – need to agree between the projects what should be used and each contributing.
CP: Met with Paul and Sam recently to start discussion on this. Also needs to happen at the asset scale – joint venture – these are clearer – have longer term data and trends against site specific objectives, Need to ask jurisdictions what other sites/objectives/fish, bird, vegetation stories they have – how contribute to basin scale condition.
Joint program – joint venture M&E – overall evaluation of Basin Plan – not easy but some elements working well.
