Lake Eyre Basin Rivers Assessment Implementation Plan Project: Milestone 3 Report Governance arrangements for the lebra

Technical leadership option

Quintessential characteristic

This option is based on the premise that the LEBRA is essentially a technical assessment and is most efficiently undertaken by the range of technical experts qualified to carry out what amounts to a wide range of disciplinary and interdisciplinary activities and challenges.

Coordination hub

This option looks to the SAP to act as the central hub to oversee and administer the LEBRA on behalf of the LEBMF. The SAP should be directly accountable to the LEBMF via the Secretariat.

Delegations

Under this option, the SAP participants would lever internal resources, directing to the extent possible technical staff of the SAP representatives organisations to undertake the assessment. Gaps in expertise would be filled by contracting to third part research organisations. Coordination would be provided either by one agency on behalf of the others, or through an externally contracted coordinator.

Variation

Rather than utilise its members own internal resources, the SAP would simply act as an oversight group and fully contract specific assessment activities to external providers, including agencies linked to participating governments.

Reporting requirements

The SAP would present the Assessment report to the LEBMF, taking into account the views of the CAC and the SOG.

Role of SAP

The SAP would not be able to remain independent of the process as it would be directly involved in undertaking the LEBRA or overseeing its implementation. That said, it would have a central role in:

• 
  drafting the terms of reference for the performance of the LEBRA, including its methodology and reporting arrangements;
  
• 
  delegating roles to technical experts to carry out the LEBRA;
  
• 
  drafting reports of the LEBRA;
  
• 
  reporting to the LEBMF on completion of the LEBRA;
  
• 
  stimulating ongoing research and monitoring responses as identified by the LEBRA.
  

NRM group role

The SAP under this option would be encouraged to utilise and or supplement the on-ground expertise and activities of the three regional NRM groups. These groups would participate in undertaking the assessment as well as stimulating responses to the findings through their networks.

Scientific review and quality assurance

As the SAP is not deemed to be independent under this option, peer review by non-participating research groups would be required.

Links

In establishing the assessment team, the SAP would seek to use the best available internal expertise to undertake each component of the LEBRA. External links would apply where such expertise does not exist internally, or is otherwise unavailable.

As with all options, this option would seek to involve community and industry level participants in the assessment process so as to shorten the span between investigation, findings and responses. Preferably these groups would have a role in the interpretation of the findings, particularly in the context of required management responses.

Specific target links will be identified when a preferred option has been selected for implementation.

R&D issues

The identification of R&D issues needs to be written into the terms-of-reference for the LEBRA. The SAP and other external scientific peer reviewers should also consider R&D implications of draft and final LEBRA reports.

Limitations

This option has the appearance of a technocratic, ivory-tower approach, no matter how collaborative or participatory the processes adopted by the SAP may be. It is the option most vulnerable to complaints of conflicts of interest. Members of the SAP are extremely busy on other matters in their professional life, and the commitment to undertake the LEBRA may be too great.

Collaborative assessment option

Quintessential characteristic

This option is based on the premise that the broader the involvement in the LEBRA, the more likely it is to simulate the range of responses relevant to its findings. The option seeks to utilise the full range of existing participants under the LEBIA within a coordinated framework. The option includes the advantages of most other options, and most easily addresses the limitations.

Coordination hub

This option looks to the CAC and SOG to form a LEBRA Oversight Group LEBRAOG) comprising representatives of each of the two bodies. This Group would act as the central hub to oversee and administer the LEBRA on behalf of the LEBMF. The LEBROAG should be directly accountable to the LEBMF.

Delegations

Under this option, the LEBROAG participants would lever the internal resources of all participating parties other than those associated with the SAP members. Gaps in expertise would be filled by contracting to third party research organisations. Coordination would be provided either by one agency on behalf of the others, or through an externally contracted coordinator.

Variation

Rather than utilise the internal resources of member organisations, the LEBRAOG would fully contract specific assessment activities to external providers, including agencies linked to participating governments.

Reporting requirements

The LEBRAOG would present the Assessment report to the LEBMF, taking into account the views of constituent government partners, the SAP and the SOG. The LEBRAOG would disband following acceptance of the report.

Role of SAP

The SAP would remain independent of the process, providing advice to the CAC in relation to:

• 
  the terms of reference for the performance of the LEBRA, including its methodology and reporting arrangements;
  
• 
  the capacity of the team proposed by the LEBRAOG to carry out the LEBRA;
  
• 
  draft reports of the LEBRA;
  
• 
  the LEBRAOG’s report and recommendations to the LEBMF on completion of the LEBRA;
  
• 
  stimulating ongoing research and monitoring responses as identified by the LEBRA.
  

Members of the SAP would not be eligible to undertake any part of the assessment under this option unless there was no other option, in which case participating members would not be involved in providing formal advice or reviewing material in relation to the LEBRA.

NRM group role

The LEBRAOG under this option would be encouraged to utilise and or supplement the on-ground expertise and activities of the three regional NRM groups. These groups would participate in undertaking the assessment as well as stimulating responses to the findings through their networks.

Scientific review and quality assurance

As the SAP is deemed to be independent under this option, it would take the lead in coordinating a response to drafts and findings of the assessment. The SAP could if it deemed so necessary seek further peer review of any or all aspects of the LEBRA.

Links

In establishing the assessment team, the LEBRAOG would seek to use the best available internal expertise to undertake each component of the LEBRA. External links would apply where such expertise does not exist internally, or is otherwise unavailable.

As with all options, this option would seek to involve community and industry level participants in the assessment process so as to shorten the span between investigation, findings and responses. Preferably these groups would have a role in the interpretation of the findings, particularly in the context of required management responses.

Specific target links will be identified when a preferred option has been selected for implementation.

R&D issues

The identification of R&D issues needs to be written into the terms-of-reference for the LEBRA. The SAP and other external scientific peer reviewers should also consider R&D implications of draft and final LEBRA reports.

Limitations

This option establishes yet another structure, albeit temporarily (for the life of an assessment), under the LEBIA and may appear cumbersome.