Commonwealth Long-Term Intervention Monitoring Project: Stage 1 Mid-Term Review and Evaluation

4.3Adaptive management

4.3.1General

The fourth LTIM objective is ‘to support the adaptive management of Commonwealth environmental water’. Arguably, the most important part of the LTIM Project leading to adaption of the management of Commonwealth environmental water has been the very close working relationships established between the seven Selected Area teams and the three CEWO Delivery Teams. We have outlined above how this is working very well.

The three CEWO Water Delivery Teams (Northern Basin, Central Basin and Southern Basin) all told us that their close interaction with the relevant Selected Area teams was providing practical scientific information and advice on the relationships between various flow components and possible ecological outcomes in a timely manner (and mostly well ahead of formal reporting). This had resulted in improved decision-making regarding particular environmental watering events.

Webb et al. (2017) identified two particular advantages in the management of environmental water that flow from these science-manager partnerships. ‘First, researchers have better access to ongoing and up-to-date information on forecasted flows from the water and catchment management authorities to target sampling periods. Second, practitioners see field verification of management intentions.’

It should be noted that there are two aspects of adaptive management within the LTIM project. The first, improving environmental water management has been covered above. The other is the adaption that has occurred with the management of the LTIM Project, and this has been significant and most impressive. We have discussed earlier the transformation from a very ‘top down’, perhaps ‘command and control’, Project at the start, to a more collaborative Project. This has not occurred without some angst and with considerable adaption by all parties. We believe there would be considerable advantage if this journey was written up and published so that the legacy is not lost.

4.3.2Findings

Capture of the relevant learning’s

Information relating to the relevant learning’s that are contributing to adaptive management of the Commonwealth’s environmental watering is being reported at three levels:

• 
  The individual Selected Area teams are required to provide a section in their annual evaluation report and Quarterly reports where relevant adaptive management information has been generated and recorded;
  
• 
  The CEWO process – annual water planning process, portfolio management plans, and acquittal reports;
  
• 
  The annual Basin Matters Synthesis Report also attempts to synthesize information from the Selected Area annual reports. The 2015-16 Synthesis Report (Gawne et al. 2017, Section 4) captures many of the science learning’s related to flow-biota relationships, namely: the way timing of water delivery affects the outcomes for biota; the importance of rate of fall for vegetation; the variation in the spawning response of flow-cued spawners (e.g. golden perch) to freshes; and the importance of variable water regimes in maintaining (and restoring) biodiversity (vegetation, waterbirds) at both wetland and landscape scales.
  

Our review found that while there is considerable attention on the generation and use of adaptive management learning’s each year by the Selected Area and Basin Matters teams, this could be done more systematically. We have identified two changes that could improve the situation:

• 
  First, the many informal and formal discussions that lead to changes in water delivery need to be captured and added to an accessible and searchable archive system so they are not lost and can be called upon at a later time by multiple users; and
  
• 
  Second, there appears to be no report that consolidates these learning at an appropriate scale, nor is the way this increased knowledge is changing the way in which the CEWO delivery teams are delivering environmental water being adequately captured, although this may in part be captured in acquittal reporting.
  

We suggest that the adaptive management outcomes are central to showcasing the long-term success of the LTIM Project. Therefore, a mechanism by which the learning’s are accessible to managers and the public is needed (see Sections 5.7 and 5.8 for more discussion).

5Possible modifications to the Project

Before addressing some possible modifications aimed at improving the LTIM Project, we believe it important to reiterate our earlier conclusion that this Project is world-leading in its scope, both spatially (the entire Murray-Darling Basin) and temporally (5 years), objectives and budget (over $30 million over 5 years). It is a highly ambitious project that it is seeking to achieve an outcome – assessment of the effectiveness of Commonwealth environmental water delivery in achieving local and Basin-scale ecological outcomes – that has never been attempted before anywhere in the world.

5.1Program structure

The LTIM Project structure is sound and does not need to be fundamentally changed. There are, however, a number of modifications that could be made over the next few months and in future iterations that would strengthen the Project.

First, the LTIM objectives and key evaluation questions need to be reviewed. The LTIM Outcome Framework (CEWO 2013) was developed prior to the completion of the BEWS and as such there is a misalignment between the four Basin Matters in the BEWS (hydrology and connectivity, fish, vegetation and waterbirds) and the Basin Matters monitored under LTIM, in that waterbirds are not monitored as part of the LTIM Project. Additionally, the watering objectives underpinning the watering actions are in general not SMART.

Second, while collaboration between the Selected Area teams and the Basin Matters team has improved, more still needs to be done in the final two years of the Project to cement this necessary collaborative approach. We have recommended that consideration be given to the establishment of a Project Steering Committee to assist with improving Project coordination and collaboration (see Section 5.3 below).

Third, we noted above our surprise that there was no single manager of this LTIM Project, with the management largely with the CEWO Aquatic Ecosystems & Science Section, but also involving the three CEWO Delivery Teams. While this aspect is not part of our terms of reference, we urge CEWO to review whether this is the most efficient and effective way to run this very important and complex project, and whether there is a need for an identifiable single Program Manager and a Science Manager.

Fourth, the LTIM Project lacks a clearly defined Program Evaluation Strategy as part of its MERI process to assist in assessing the efficiency, effectiveness, relevance and sustainability of the Project. The CEWO should urgently develop such a strategy and could consider using the evaluation strategy being used by the Murray-Darling Basin Environmental Water Knowledge and Research (MDB EWKR) project (Hodge et al. 2015) as a guide.