Implementation of the Monitoring Evaluation and Reporting and Improvement Framework – Commonwealth Environmental Water response to stakeholder submissions

Summary of Submissions

There was broad recognition that MERI is critical to effectively manage Commonwealth environmental water and promote wider community understanding of environmental watering. Some responses noted the need for the MERI program to be adequately resourced.

In relation to the scope of MERI for the use of Commonwealth environmental water, some respondents suggested broadening it to include socio-economic responses in addition to environmental responses. There was general support for continued annual reporting and some alternative reporting mediums were suggested to effectively communicate messages to a range of audiences.

Commonwealth Environmental Water response

Commonwealth Environmental Water recognises the need for timely and effective MERI to support accountability and transparency in decision making. The development of the MERI framework is a demonstration of our commitment to support these principles. The focus of this MERI framework is ecological response to the use of Commonwealth environmental water. We recognise the need for monitoring and evaluation to address socio-economic matters relating to Basin Plan reforms. These matters are being addressed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) under Section 12 of the proposed Basin Plan.

Summary of Submissions

Responses noted a lack of development of evaluation and improvement components of the proposed framework. It was suggested that evaluation should be determined through development and consideration of specific evaluation questions. Improvement should capture learnings, provide information to stakeholders and include avenues for other local groups / individuals to provide feedback to Commonwealth Environmental Water on monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement activities.

Commonwealth Environmental Water response

The revised framework provides a clearer articulation of the proposed approach to adaptive management with reference to the Australian Government's Natural Resource Management MERI Framework. Adopting the MERI approach embeds improvement as a core activity of the Commonwealth environmental water program with operational and intervention monitoring used to inform decisions about the management of environmental water. Details of each element in the adaptive management cycle will be developed as the framework continues to be implemented.

Summary of Submissions

Some submissions raised concerns about a lack of clarity in relation to the roles and responsibilities of Commonwealth Environmental Water and others (including the MDBA and states) in relation to MERI for the use of Commonwealth environmental water. There was some concern about potential duplicative monitoring and evaluation and reporting between jurisdictions.

Commonwealth Environmental Water response

Commonwealth Environmental Water recognises the need for clearly articulated roles in implementing an efficient and effective MERI program. In the revised framework we have sought to better describe our role and how we will seek to work with others. The MERI framework is underpinned by the principle that monitoring, evaluation and reporting activities for the use of Commonwealth environmental water will complement, not duplicate or replace, existing and planned activities. Section 3.3 of the framework also establishes a commitment to work cooperatively on MERI and align MERI activities at the Basin, regional and local levels.

A figure illustrating the relationships between Commonwealth Environmental Water and others in relation to MERI activities has been included in the framework. Schedule 10 of the proposed Basin Plan also clearly identifies the relevant roles in relation to implementing monitoring and evaluation for the Basin Plan. Specific details around roles and responsibilities will be clarified as MERI for Commonwealth environmental water continues to be implemented.

Summary of Submissions

There were a range of views relating to responsibilities for funding MERI activities associated with the use of Commonwealth environmental water. Respondents suggested that the approach to working with others needed to be more detailed and transparent.

Commonwealth Environmental Water response

Commonwealth Environmental Water recognises the need to work effectively with others in implementing MERI and seeks that costs of these activities be shared in a manner that reflects the responsibilities of jurisdictions, as well as the distribution of benefits that result from Commonwealth environmental watering and associated MERI activities.

Where there is a common interest identified with other groups and costs need to be considered, the cost sharing principles stated in the Commonwealth Environmental Water Business Plan will guide our approach to negotiating costs on a case-by-case basis.

Summary of Submissions

Respondents sought greater clarity of the program logic, including the objectives for the use of Commonwealth environmental water. This included defining program logic, so that it provided a clearer rationale for how activities under a program, and associated monitoring, contribute to meeting long-term program objectives.

Suggestions for further development and implementation of MERI included review of monitoring timeframes, alignment with MDBA approaches, expansion of foundational activities, stakeholder collaboration and establishment of a collaborative group that includes scientists and Commonwealth Environmental Water that is specifically focussed on MERI.

Commonwealth Environmental Water response

The role of the program logic in relation to planning and management of environmental water has been clarified, and the concept of program logic has been more fully explained with clear reference to the Australian Government's Natural Resource Management MERI Framework. The approach to Commonwealth environmental watering will be adapted and improved over time with experience and new knowledge. For this reason, a detailed program logic is not defined as part of the MERI framework. Instead, a program logic approach is being implemented through the planning documents that guide use of Commonwealth environmental water.

MERI will be implemented to align with the three levels of planning associated with the use of Commonwealth environmental water (Basin Plan, long term portfolio management strategy and annual water use options) and will include operational, intervention and program level monitoring. An outline of this approach is set out in the framework and shows how outcomes over the immediate, intermediate and long-term timeframes will be established through planning, to contribute to the goal of protecting and restoring environmental assets of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Summary of Submissions

The proposed guiding principles were generally supported, however respondents suggested additional principles, provision of more detail, and inclusion of key definitions (such as reasonable cost, adaptive management, shared responsibility, risk based approach and evaluation). Alignment with MDBA's proposed Basin Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Program principles was also considered important.

Commonwealth Environmental Water response

Commonwealth Environmental Water has revised the guiding principles for implementing MERI to include those in the proposed Basin Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Program and provide clarity on issues raised by stakeholders. Key definitions, such as cost sharing principles and partners, have been incorporated into the revised principles.

Summary of Submissions

There were a number of views expressed in relation to the proposed indicator site approach, including consistency with the proposed hydrological indicator sites detailed in the proposed Basin Plan. It was suggested that broader non-site specific monitoring should be included to capture flow on effects to test program logic.

Commonwealth Environmental Water response

To effectively understand the ecological benefits attributable to Commonwealth environmental water there is a need to identify the ecological responses to this water.

It is not practical or cost-effective to undertake detailed monitoring everywhere, so it is proposed to focus intensive intervention monitoring at selected areas. Intensive monitoring will allow assessment of sequences of watering events over a number of years to be considered, and enable reporting of progress towards achieving the ecological objectives of the Basin Plan. The intention is to enter into longer term arrangements in most cases so that there is assurance about the availability of results into the future.

To complement intensive intervention monitoring at selected areas, short term, targeted intervention monitoring of specific watering actions will also be undertaken to understand specific ecological responses. Further, to ensure representativeness and to support the assessment of Basin-wide outcomes, intensive intervention monitoring will be linked to program (broad scale) monitoring, which it is anticipated will be led by the MDBA.