NAMOI CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY MONITORING ... › __data › assets › pdf_file › 0007 ›...

1

NAMOI CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

MONITORING, EVALUATION, REPORTING AND IMPROVEMENT

(MERI) STRATEGY

July 2012

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 2. Purpose, Scope and Drivers of the Namoi CMA MERI Strategy ........................................ 3 3. Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) ............................................. 5

3.1 Meaning of MERI ......................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Principles of Namoi CMA MERI ................................................................................... 5

4 Namoi CMA MERI Framework ........................................................................................... 8 4.1 Monitoring.................................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Evaluation.................................................................................................................... 8 4.3 Reporting ..................................................................................................................... 9 4.4 Improvement (Adaptive Management and Organisational Learning)...........................10 4.5 Supporting Systems and resources ............................................................................12

5. The review of CAP and the MERI Strategy.......................................................................13 Appendix 1 Target Relationships: CAP, State, & CFOC .......................................................15 Appendix 2 Program Logics .................................................................................................16 Appendix 3 Key Evaluation Questions & Performance Indicators .........................................28 Appendix 4 MERI Working Group Terms of Reference.........................................................39 References...........................................................................................................................40

3

1. Introduction The Namoi Catchment Management Authority (Namoi CMA) Environmental Policy, determined by the Board, sets a vision of:

“Vibrant Communities and Landscapes for the Future” .

Within this vision, the Namoi CMA is works to meet the targets and commitments identified in the Namoi Catchment Action Plan (CAP).

The Namoi CMA prepared a CAP in 2005, and an update in 2010 as part of its legislative requirements. The CAP is the strategic framework that will guide natural resource management direction in the Namoi Catchment over the next ten years but is reviewed annually with major updates occurring every 5 years.

The Namoi CAP (2010-2020) has been developed based on a preliminary resilience assessment of the Namoi Catchment which analysed socio-ecological systems, identified critical underpinning assets of any known or suspected thresholds in relation to these assets. CAP targets have been developed to maintain or increase distance from critical thresholds. This MERI Strategy has been reviewed and updated in light of the new CAP.

The MERI Strategy is an overarching document that describes what the Namoi CMA MERI Program consists of along with some of its philosophy and drivers. This is a static document that includes the context and objectives for the Namoi CMA MERI Program. This strategy also provides the overall guide for how the MERI Program components are integrated across the CMA. The aim of the Program is to further develop and emphasis on adaptive management and to enhance continuous improvement.

2. Purpose, Scope and Drivers of the Namoi CMA MERI Strategy

The Namoi CMA MERI Strategy is an overarching framework that will guide how to collate, analyse, report and improve on the progress of Namoi CMA towards achieving CAP targets.

There are statutory and obligatory reporting requirements that drive a need to document and communicate the achieved natural resource outcomes resulting from the Namoi CAP. Namoi CMA’s commitment to accountability adaptive management and achieving outcomes also requires an ongoing commitment to MERI. The Strategy provides approaches to assess the impact, appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency and legacy of policies and programs and a process to promote accountability and the opportunity to improve program design and delivery.

The purpose of this document is to provide a concise and relatively static description of the underlying philosophy, context, drivers and objectives for the Namoi CMA MERI Program. The aim is to further develop the MERI program with particular emphasis on adaptive management and driving continuous improvement (not just meeting statutory reporting requirements) in line with the approach outlined by the NRC.

Appendix 2 and 3 contains the finer-scale details of Program Logics and Key Evaluation Questions and identified Performance Indicators intended to inform answering these questions as part of planning for monitoring and evaluation.

The factors which drive any evaluation need to be understood as the reason for the evaluation will assist in determining matters such as timing, stakeholders, and evaluation type e.g. an evaluation needed for accountability reporting will require a different evaluation than for program improvement purposes.

4

Namoi CMA has identified a number of drivers for the MERI Strategy and program at a CAP scale including:

1. Internal drivers:

• the ability to measure and report performance against desired outcomes as per the Program Logic Tables;

• the necessity to use monitoring, evaluation, research and other evidence findings to assist in strategic investment decisions;

• the need to coordinate data collection from all programs under the CAP;

• the requirement to provide performance information to inform the annual planning cycle for the investment plan and to improve and refine the CAP;

• to effectively manage reporting processes; and

• in particular, to drive effective organisational learning and adaptive management

2. External drivers:

� NSW Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003

The NSW CMA Act (2003) requires that all CMAs conduct regular reviews of their CAP. It also requires that there is an audit of the CAP every 5 years by the NRC or and independent audit panel. Furthermore the Act requires annual reports to the Minister that include information on progress towards targets and management actions and compliance with the State Standard.

� State wide NRM Standard and Targets

On recommendation of the Natural Resources Commission (NRC), the NSW Government has adopted the State-wide Standard for Quality Natural Resource Management (NRC, 2005). The audit process that the NRC will undertake informs an ongoing audit process of the Namoi CMA’s compliance with the State Standard and an assessment of the CAP implementation prior to the mid-term and end of term reviews. While not confirmed, this is likely to include a review of the logic that underpins the CAP. The NRC is currently reviewing the State-wide Targets with a report pending (2012).

� Other Policies

There are a number of other State and Federal agency policies and reports that will also be considered when designing and implementing elements of the MERI Program. These include:

• The NSW Whole of Government MER Strategy (2010)

• The Australian Government Caring for our Country MERI Strategy (2010)

• The Australian National Audit Office report on NHT and NAP (ANAO, 2008)

Namoi CMA’s CAP targets (2010) and how they relate to both the NSW State Wide Targets and the National Caring for our Country Targets can be seen in Appendix 1 .

5

3. Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvemen t (MERI)

3.1 Meaning of MERI

MERI describes the four activities that can be involved in assessing the state and trend of assets and program rigour to achieve planned immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes through the systematic and objective appraisal of the impact, efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness of policies and programs towards reaching identified outcomes.

This MERI strategy provides Namoi CMA with the means to drive adaptive management and promote accountability of NRM activities across the Catchment. To achieve this, there are four components to be considered:

1. Monitoring is an ongoing process of collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data and information which describes what is happening over the monitoring period. Monitoring data can be derived from either existing information sources or from new monitoring programs. Ideally, monitoring data comes from the most effective , efficient and appropriate sources as per the Principles outlined in section 3.2.

2. Evaluation in its broadest sense is the systematic investigation of the value or worth of a program. Evaluation is carried out by addressing specific Key Evaluation Questions, which are applied to address the level of impact, the appropriateness, efficiency and effectiveness of the program;

• Impact addresses the level to which the program achieved its outcomes

• appropriateness addresses questions related to the suitability of a program in achieving the desired outcomes; or suitability of projects or interventions in achieving desired outcomes

• efficiency addresses questions related to how well the program was implemented i.e. what was achieved for the inputs; and

• effectiveness addresses questions related to whether the desired program outcomes were achieved.

3. Reporting is the communication of the results and findings of an evaluation, research analysis or other investigation.

4. Improvement is the process of using the results and findings of an evaluation to make future programs better. Improvement is attempted at each level of the Triple Loop learning paradigm.

3.2 Principles of Namoi CMA MERI

A MERI program consists of different types of evaluation associated with each program type, i.e. with the project, program and CAP evaluations. The evaluations will require the collection, analysis, use and communication of a wide range of information from many sources. Research, data analysis and other forms of evidence also form a large part of the decisions made as part of the adaptive management cycle. Considerations must also be given to financial, ethical and practical issues. Namoi CMA has adopted a set of principles as suggested by the NSW Natural Resources Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Strategy (2010-15) which is also linked to the Caring for Our Country MERI Strategy (2010).

6

The following principles are applied by the Namoi CMA:

3.2.1 Link the performance information to other planning scales

This involves the strategic planning and integration of the MERI program across the whole of Namoi CMA business cycle. For example, the early analysis of program logic will help to identify the opportunities to plan strategic evaluations. Where technically valid there is the potential for evaluation information to inform other evaluations.

3.2.2 Complement and consolidate relevant existing systems

Where feasible, a MERI system should integrate and complement relevant existing evaluation requirements. This integration includes cooperation and collaboration with State-wide (Whole of NSW Government) so that data is shared across agencies. This ensures a consistent approach that not only assists capacity building but also enables more efficient use of evaluation information.

3.2.3 Be Cost-effective

The benefits of the information gained from the monitoring and evaluation system must outweigh the costs of developing and implementing the system. This is particularly important given the limited resources available for NRM and the public good outcomes to be achieved.

3.2.4 The MERI system must be relevant to CAP targets

The monitoring programs, evaluation design, and the selection of performance indicators, must be relevant to the targets of the plan and the type of evaluation to be undertaken. If the design is not relevant it will be difficult for a CMA to make judgements on performance against the CAP. Program and project evaluations must also ensure that the monitoring implemented will satisfy the evaluation questions.

3.2.5 Apply ethical practices to MERI

In the context of MERI, ethics covers issues such as informed consent, appropriate behaviour, and storage and retrieval of study data. Ethical issues should be considered at the beginning of any evaluation and throughout all phases of the evaluation, whether you are the commissioner of the evaluation, the person who is undertaking the evaluation or a person participating in the evaluation.

3.2.6 Make evaluations manageable and flexible

The complexity of NRM MERI frameworks will be made manageable by adapting current information to meet the needs of Namoi CMA, focusing on the most critical information pathways, and seeking expert advice where required. Practical application of the theories of MERI is the best way forward through this complex process. NRM is an evolving discipline and Namoi CMA’s approach is based on current best practice. Issues that need to be addressed to ensure appropriate management of our natural resources change with time, hence it is expected that over the longer term some of the indicators chosen may also change.

3.2.7 Develop MERI systems in partnership

Partnership approaches will greatly benefit MERI capacity building and management of expectations for MERI. In addition, the sources of data to meet the evaluation and analysis needs are likely to come from a variety of collaborators. As the MERI Program and the CAP are both long-term it is essential that these partnerships are also seen as long term. Namoi CMA will collaborate in MERI system development where appropriate or possible.

7

3.2.8 Use practical and objective verification

The MERI system must be based on sound information and processes so that there is confidence in its findings, its approach is transparent, and so that it is practical to implement and the processes repeatable.

3.2.10 Consistency with the NRC state-wide standard

Namoi CMA is required to apply the elements of the State-wide Standard for Quality Natural Resource Management (NRC, 2005) in all aspects of its business, including the MERI Program. The MERI program has been designed to meet the NRC standard.

3.2.11 Link to the adaptive management cycle and organisational learning

Namoi CMA has a genuine commitment to adaptive management and continuous organisational learning. Adaptive management is an important part of a resilience approach. It allows the re-testing and checking of results and assumptions as new information comes to light. It also allows the tracking progress against thresholds and provides the opportunity to review interventions if they are proving ineffectual, or revise thresholds if they are found to be in error. Monitoring and evaluation are the building blocks of adaptive management, providing the data and information to inform improved practice and management. To this end, Namoi CMA is adopting a Triple Loop Learning approach to the “Improvement” component of MERI.

3.2.12 Understanding the program logic

Program logic is the rationale behind a program, that is, an analytical tool that assists with understanding how the expected cause-and-effect relationships between program activities, outputs, intermediate outcomes, and longer term desired outcomes. Program logic shows a sequence of expected consequences, not just a sequence of events. Clear program logic shows the longer term outcomes (20-50 years) rather than depicting the shorter term outcomes seen for example in an investment cycle and provides a theory of change that can be tested. Furthermore, program logic can assist in determining when and what to evaluate so that MERI resources are used effectively and efficiently.

The Namoi CMA has presented the results hierarchy as program logic tables in Appendix 2 .

Program logic tables can be used through the evaluation process to inform:

• Development of evaluation questions

• What processes need to be examined for each type of evaluation

• Information needs

• Performance indicators

3.2.13 Determining information requirements

Determination of the information requirements are predominantly driven by the CAP. Additional evaluation needs will be based on key evaluation questions and judgements will in turn be made about each individual program. Namoi CMA’s business management systems, including the spatial Land Management Data Base are used to support the information management needs of the MERI program.

3.2.14 Communicating and using the findings

The communication and use of findings from evaluations, research and other evidence will be based on the determination of context. That is, information will be reported in the required format to stakeholders. The information will support adaptive management of the program

8

that has been established and responses to evaluations or other recommendations will be recorded in the Adaptive Management Register in the aim to show full accountability and to build on organisational learning. More detail can be seen in section 4.3 Reporting.

4 Namoi CMA MERI Framework

Namoi CMA’s MERI Framework is made up of several interrelated components, these being:

• Monitoring

• Evaluation

• Reporting

• Improvement, Adaptive Management & Organisational Learning

• Supporting systems and resources

4.1 Monitoring

Namoi CMA recognises the importance of having an active and effective monitoring program to provide data and information to inform their whole management cycle. The annual monitoring program is considered to be an integral component of Namoi CMA operations and addresses all Namoi CMA activities and programs under each Annual Investment Program. In this way, all activities are monitored the data from which informs evaluations, research findings and are incorporate along with other evidence sources so that adaptive management can be addressed where appropriate. The underlying philosophy for implementing a monitoring program is to gather information that will guide and support Namoi CMA’s adaptive management as the CAP is implemented.

4.2 Evaluation Evaluations are performed at a number of scales and timeframes, the findings of which are reported to the identified stakeholders and funders. For example, Program Evaluations are performed on all annual programs at the mid year and end of year points, the results of which are communicated initially internally with the Inner Executive and the Board and then to funders where appropriate or required. Results and recommendations from these evaluations are recorded in the Adaptive Management Register inclusive of deciding upon and recording Namoi CMA response to each recommendation as it is acted upon in an attempt to achieve fully documented adaptive management. Namoi CMA uses an approach to identify areas for targeted evaluation so that the most important or pressing evaluations are prioritise. As such areas with higher uncertainty, with known knowledge gaps and areas of higher risk (for example projects in highly variable settings such as aquatic systems) will be prioritised first for evaluation. Evaluations are also carried out at the CAP target level with analysing our progress towards resource condition targets and qualifying Namoi CMAs contribution to this progress. These evaluations are planned and implemented on an annual basis with one major evaluation on a chosen Catchment target being performed each year. CAP targets to be evaluated are prioritised on an annual basis. Evaluations and research are viewed as the way of making sense of the monitoring data collected and or/sourced from other bodies.

The Namoi CMA will distinguish the evaluations it undertakes at a whole of CAP, project and program scale in the following way:

• Project evaluation is used to describe evaluation at the individual project level. The data collected at project sites will also inform the program and CAP level evaluations.

9

• Program evaluation (or reaction/output evaluation) can be used to describe evaluation at a program level. It is used to describe evaluations that the Namoi CMA may undertake on their systems and processes and measure progress toward outcomes. If strategically selected, the evaluations will not only enhance the delivery of the program, but will inform the CAP evaluation. This evaluation is strongly influenced by the Program Evaluations and is also supported by a mid-term IP evaluation.

• The term CAP evaluation (or Impact) is used to describe the 5 year (mid-term) and 10 year evaluations of progress towards the management and Catchment Targets within the CAP. These evaluations need to consider the contribution of the Namoi CMA’s investments towards the targets. Large scale resource condition trends what will be measured to track progress relative to thresholds of potential concern will also be monitored and evaluated

• Audits will be used by Namoi CMA to inform a program evaluation on individual incentives through a risk based approach. Namoi CMA also conducts organisational audits to monitor efficiencies and highlight potential improvements

Recommendations from Evaluations and Audits are recorded in the Adaptive Management Register along with the intended and implemented Namoi CMA responses.

4.3 Reporting Namoi CMA is committed to communicating MERI findings with stakeholders, the broader community, of our funders as part of a commitment to a whole of Government and whole of community approach to NRM in the Namoi. Communications are made for a variety of purposes including:

• Evaluation results to funding bodies, program participants, the Catchment Community and internal staff

• Evaluation recommendations to staff and board for adaptive management purposes • Evaluation and monitoring data analysis to the Catchment community, our funding

bodies and for coordinated resource condition reporting endeavours such as the National Regional Environmental Accounts and NSW State of Environment reporting and

• Output/activity level data for the NSW Program Performance Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (PP MER).

• Conference papers and presentations to share findings on MERI theory, evaluation results and resource condition monitoring

Communication methods:

• Website and Intranet • Internal communications via the MERI Working Group • Conference papers and presentations • Provision of reports and recommendations via email, mail, web transfer • Intergovernmental communications via meeting attendance (such as the MER

Officers forum, NSW State MER forums), phone calls, papers and responses to policy etc

The identified audiences for Namoi CMA reporting include:

• Landholders and stakeholders • internal reporting such as the Senior Management Team and the Board • Natural Resource Commission and associated auditing bodies • State government and its agencies (including State of the Catchment, Native

Vegetation Reporting and Catchment Action NSW reporting) • Federal Government (including Murray Darling Basin Commission, Bureau of

Meteorology, Caring for Our Country

10

• Other national bodies under specific projects such as the National Regional Environmental Accounts Pilot.

Currently, reports are generated for each evaluation and research project and are the primary source of sharing evaluation results and progress towards targets. These are used internally by Staff and Board and also shared with partners and stakeholders as appropriate. Other reports such as output reporting, financial and progress reporting are performed as part of requirements as per Namoi CMAs funding obligations under each Annual Investment Plan. Reporting under this MERI Strategy is undertaken to achieve the following aims:

1. Maximise recognition and use of our datasets, research information and other evidence sources

2. progress the potential spatial reporting of resource condition or progress toward targets

3. innovate to improve reporting mechanisms to have easily generated and well communicated reports suitable to a range of audiences

4. ensure that reporting products are multipurpose wherever possible These aims swill be achieved by: 1. Consultation with internal and external stakeholders and end users to ensure reports

are fit for purpose; and 2. Maintaining databases and internal systems so that data is appropriate, relevant and

reliable for reporting; and 3. Engaging or participating in pilots and trials that help drive innovation for the

communication of NRM data e.g. National Regional Environmental Accounts and State of the Catchment Reporting

4. Identifying target audience and most appropriated reporting format will be done on an ongoing basis in accordance with the NCMA Engagement and Communications Framework

4.4 Improvement (Adaptive Management and Organisational Learning)

Adaptive management is key to the 2010 CAP and resilience thinking approach. Following on from the design and implementation of the 2008 MERI Strategy, the NCMA’s adaptive management approach has matured. As a result, Namoi CMA has adopted a “Triple Loop Learning” approach to further to prioritise, track and improve our efficiency, effectiveness, and governance systems.

As a learning organisation, Namoi CMA is committed to the following 5 features:

1. systematic problem solving

2. experimentation and the testing of new knowledge

3. learning from experience

4. learning from others, and

5. shared knowledge and knowledge-spreading mechanisms

This has implications for a whole range of organisational change, for example cultural change, leadership, staff training etc. In the future Namoi CMA will consider the development of an Adaptive Management Strategy which includes MERI as one of its key elements.

11

Namoi CMA has a considerable knowledge base resulting from commissioned science and research along with information available through an effective partnership program with other research institutions and other government agencies. Namoi CMA is also committed to providing evidence of organisational learning and adaptive management as we progress for the purposes of both maintaining a learning culture as well as satisfying governance requirements placed upon the organisation such as Natural Resource Commission audits. The development of an Adaptive Management Register is an example of how Namoi CMA synthesises new knowledge and recommendations ensuing from research or evaluation, Namoi CMA intended responses to and the actions made against each of these recommendations. In this way Namoi CMA is effectively managing and recording adaptive management. As another example, Namoi CMA Board, through its Strategy, Policy and Investment Committee, oversee the review and adaptive management of the CAP at a strategic level.

Namoi CMA requires innovative solutions to the constantly changing legal, political, economic and social environment. To this end, Namoi CMA requires a comprehensive conceptual framework for understanding organisation culture, which is shown in Figure 1 .

Figure 1: The basic components of organisational le arning (Adapted from Gilson, Dunleavy & Tinkler)

1. Knowledge management: Knowledge management is the process by which knowledge is first identified as such (rather than being ‘noise’, unreliable or only relevant some of the time) and then collected, stored and used. The quality of the knowledge therefore must be rated in some way so that those accessing the knowledge can make judgements on its reliability prior to implementation.

12

2. Organisational learning systems and motivation: For Namoi CMA to progress toward being a more successful learning organisation there are several strategies that are required including:

• Having a learning approach (as emphasised in this Strategy) and a high level of engagement with the policy making across the organisation (i.e. MERI Working Group and Inner Executive);

• Effective feedback systems e.g. from accounting and control processes which give helpful and prompt information to understand the effects of action, and thus support learning and decision-making. The effective implementation and use of information technology plays a strong role in knowledge sharing and mutual awareness;

• An organisational structure that enables learning and flexibility to accommodate shifts and adaptation to the new knowledge. The relationships between organisational units need to feed mutual adjustment and adaptation. This requires ‘innovators’ to keep bringing in new ideas;

• A willingness and ability to learn with and from other organisations and companies;

• Reward systems for staff emphasising the value of learning and other mechanisms and employee relationships which encourage and support self development; and

• Organisational aspirations and the willingness to adjust these aspiration levels as a response to new environmental pressures (i.e. both adaptive increases in aspiration as well as reductive of aspirations where needed).

3. Single-loop learning

Single-Loop learning is about efficiency, are we doing our business in the right way? Could we implement things in a more productive way doing it in a cheaper way or using alternative methods of approaches of the same objectives? monitoring data is essential to first answer the question i.e. have management actions have achieved the outcomes and which management actions worked best.

4. Double-Loop learning

Double-Loop learning is more about effectiveness, are our outputs achieving desired outcomes. E.g. Program Evaluations attempt to elicit if we can do our business better. This is where we look at evaluations results and align what we do according to the new evidence that comes to light .

5. Strategic or Triple-Loop learning

Triple-Loop learning is about governance: Are we asking the right questions? Triple loop learning looks beyond what an organisation is currently doing and looks at the vision of what it could be doing (see Figure 2). This is the space where Namoi CMA might chose an alternative strategic position rather than with one that has been historically or conventionally accepted. An example of where this has already been achieved by Namoi CMA is the 2010 CAP upgrade based on a Resilience Assessment rather than using existing NRM paradigms.

4.5 Supporting Systems and resources

1. Information Management Systems

A key task in the collection of data of any type is the identification and implementation of appropriate information systems. Namoi CMA aims to have a fully integrated one stop, and spatially referenced data storage system that can be accessed by all offices of the

13

organisation. Information and data is fed in through the Information management team and when evaluations or research are being undertaken or when data is shared with others is directed as such by the creation and signing by both parties of standard Data Sharing Licence Agreements. These agreements are time bound and dictate as to the uses that the particular data can be utilised and how the data is to be referenced in publications. Particular reference is to be made to the funding providers of the original data source such as the Australian Government Caring for our Country program etc.

Namoi CMA is in the process of building a fully integrated CAP Evidence Library which will include all information from internal and external sources for the purpose of organisational learning and tracking decisions based on our information systems, research and data analysis .

2. MERI Planning

Planning for MERI activities is undertaken for each program and project level MERI detailed in a MERI schedule of each Contract Agreement which outlines both Namoi CMA Staff and Contractor duties and roles. The monitoring data collected is used for annual and mid-term program evaluations which in turn along with other research and evidence sources inform larger CAP target evaluations. MERI planning reflects the scope, complexity and budget for the evaluation process and identifies new research or evidence needs. Project level monitoring details can be viewed in the Namoi CMA contract Schedule 7 where details of expected monitoring tools and frequency of collection can be viewed. Guidance for staff is provided in the Project Monitoring Guidelines document (2011).

3. MERI Tools

These tools consist of monitoring protocols, templates, procedures, evaluation reports, report cards, conceptual models, Program Logic hierarchies, and research and evaluation evidence. The resources are stored in and accessed via a Monitoring Database. Evaluation reports, research reports and monitoring protocols are stored under the Namoi CMA document control system (Objective). These resources will also be under continual review and the development of new resources would be carried out as required. A CAP Evidence Library is also under development at the time of drafting this strategy.

4. MERI Working Group

The MERI Working Group consists of members from each section of Namoi CMA. The purpose of the group is to integrate, agree and communicate MERI processes, information management and resources for the overarching MERI Program. The Terms of Reference for the group can be found in Appendix 5.

5. The Review of CAP and the MERI Strategy

The CAP is written for a ten year period but must be able to evolve and change as the Catchment evolves and changes and as information and our understanding improves. The CAP is therefore reviewed annually with a major review every 5 years. Triggers for resubmission of the CAP for approval by the Minister have been identified based on the scale of change as detailed in the CAP. This MERI Strategy must also be reviewed and adapted so that the impact of new activities arising from the new CAP is monitored, reviewed and reported on. In this way, subsequent CAP reviews can be informed and improvements made in accordance with the findings and data issuing from this MERI Strategy, effectively closing the adaptive management loop. The aim is to build on the MERI program with particular emphasis on adaptive management and driving continuous improvement. Namoi CMA will explore the options for an Adaptive Management Strategy in the future.

Since the first CAP approval in 2007 there have been substantial shifts in community knowledge, expectations and attitudes towards environmental and natural resource management issues. In 2010 the Namoi CMA participated in a Pilot CAP Review process

14

and as a result there is a new 2010 CAP based on the ‘resilience’ conceptual framework that will drive the strategic direction of NRM for the Namoi Catchment until 2020. Consequently it is necessary for the MERI Strategy to be realigned with the CAP annually where necessary and every 5 years for major updates. The MERI Strategy has been revised to reflect the 2010 CAP.

For Further information contact Bronwyn Witts, Namoi CMA MERI Co-ordinator, by email [email protected] or by phone 02 6764 5908 or mobile 0427 105 581

15

Appendix 1 Target Relationships: CAP, State, & CFOC

16

Appendix 2 Program Logics Explanatory note for Program Logic Models These high level Program Logics have been developed directly from the Catchment Targets of the Namoi CAP. CAP targets have been derived from an analysis of the socio-ecological systems in the Namoi, identification of the underlying assets, and thus any known or suspected thresholds in relation to that asset. CAP targets are designed to maintain or increase distance from critical thresholds. There is one Program Logic per Catchment Target of each theme. The Actions on the left side of the model are taken directly from the CAP under each theme and are the broad activities that a range of partners can undertake to achieve the relevant Catchment Target. The program logic models show a cause and effect flow across the page from left to right indicating the broad outputs, outcomes and expected long term changes that are intended by the Actions under each target. Also included in the model are the Assumptions around the identified threshold and resultant Catchment Target. Finally, other external influences on the ability of Namoi CMA and the Catchment community to achieve the target are acknowledged on the model. These Program Logics are high level and broad. The more specific activities and outputs are defined are heavily influenced by Annual Investment Planning and the activities undertaken by partners and stakeholders, however, it is assumed that these annual activities and outputs sit under the broader activities and outputs as identified in the CAP and on these Program Logic models, therefore the cause and effect representation in the Program Logics remain relevant. The Legend overleaf gives further detail on how to make sense of these logics. The Program Logics were used to help develop the Key Evaluation Questions and Performance indicators in the tables of Appendix 3.

18

Program Logic People Theme

BenefitVibrant communities & landscapes for the future

Change in system (impacts)� Social wellbeing

stabilised & improved

Change in state (outcomes)Community involved in successful natural resource management decision making and biophysical thresholds are not crossed.

Community-wide effects feedbacks / spillovers� Social changes� Value changes- shift in what system community desires� Industry change spillover (mining increase causing secondary

business changes)� Community reaction to crossing of biophysical thresholds

Actions (inputs)53: Invest in understanding & defining social wellbeing in the Namoi Catchment54 Develop a robust set of indicators to measure social wellbeing55: Develop Social-Ecological sub-region boundaries (Tablelands, Slopes and Plains) & engage Communities & science in a resilience assessment at this scale56: Develop knowledge products that provide for & assist in balanced (social, economic and environmental) decision making57: Engage with the community & encourage debate about system shocks, drivers, critical thresholds & interventions58: Engage with stakeholders & natural resource managers to improve understanding of targets, thresholds & interventions59: Improve access to country for the Aboriginal Community

Reactions (outputs)� Improved understanding of

social wellbeing in the Namoi Catchment

� Balanced decision making in terms of social, economic & environmental issues

� Community engaged in resilience theory (shocks, drivers, critical thresholds & interventions)

� Community ready to implement interventions to avoid reaching thresholds

� Access to country for Aboriginal Community improved

Other related actions/pressures� alternative knowledge paradigms resulting in

Catchment Community not working towards the same goal eg climate change opinion, MDB, production v conservation paradigms

� proximity of other biophysical assets to thresholds

Other external influences� Climate change� Mining / landuse issues� Market pressure influences� Political issues e.g. MDB Plan

outcomes � Proximity of other biophysical

assets to thresholds

Catchment Target People 1: Natural resource managem ent decisions contribute to social wellbeing

People are defined as: “the social & economic elements of the Catchment in relation to how they are underpinned by natural resources, an asset for increasing resilience & a driver of a system changes”

People Critical Thresholds: No clearly defined threshold relating to people, rather a focus on generalities of building resilient social capital by increasing adaptive capacity & sustaining or improving wellbeing are considered important priorities

Assumptions for this Program Logic:

� That NCMA and NSW Government has sufficient sway to influence social wellbeing

� That Social wellbeing can help the Catchment Community to stop other identified biophysical thresholds being crossed

� That no other biophysical thresholds are crossed, t hereby influencing the catchments ability to increase or m aintain social wellbeing

20

Program Logic Landscape Theme

BenefitVibrant communities & landscapes

for the future

Change in system

(impacts)Soil health improved

Change in state

(outcomes)Groundcover is at least 70%

Actions (inputs)

25: Invest in methodologies to establish groundcover

baselines at the Catchment Scale to allow monitoring of

catchment & sub-catchment scale groundcover levels

26: Invest in understanding interactions between

improving groundcover & potential impacts on surface

water runoff & groundcover recharge

27: Increase the area of private & public land to be

managed for 70% groundcover by investing in

education, extension & community engagement in soil

health outcomes

28: Invest in changed land management practises on

sodic & high value soils at risk from declining soil

organic matter or soil structures to improve ground cover

and soil health

29: Increase existing land manager levels of awareness

& understanding of salinity risks, monitoring & adaptive

management & continue to invest in knowledge that will

provide information about the dynamics of salinity in the

Catchment


managed in accordance with formal best management

practice

Reactions (outputs)

Current groundcover known at catch/sub-

catchment scale and ongoing monitoring

enabled

Interactions between improved groundcover

& surface water runoff & groundwater

recharge better understood

Land being managed for 70% groundcover

Community engaged & understand soil health

outcomes

Sodic & high value soils have improved soil

health and are less prone to erosion risk

Land managers understand salinity risks and

better understand the dynamics of salinity in

the catchment and are ready to adapt

Best management practice widely used on

private & public land

Catchment Target Land : By 2020 there is an improvement in soil health as measured by an

increase in groundcover at the paddock, sub-catchment & catchment scalesLand Critical Threshold

1. Groundcover is at least 70%

“Land” is defined as

“healthy soils &

functional landscapes

that are managed in a

way that maintains

optimal choices for

future generations”

Assumptions for this Program Logic:That the threshold of 70% groundcover is correct to maintain soil health

That 70 % groundcover is achievable

That maintaining groundcover can help the Catchment from crossing other identified

thresholds

That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing

the Catchment’s ability to increase or maintain groundcover

Community-wide effects feedbacks / spilloversSocial changes

Value changes- shift in what system community desires

Industry change spillover (mining increase causing secondary

business changes)

Community reaction to crossing of biophysical thresholds

Other related actions/pressuresalternative knowledge paradigms resulting in

Catchment Community not working towards

the same goal eg climate change opinion,

MDB, production v conservation paradigms

proximity of other biophysical assets to

thresholds

Other external influencesClimate change

Mining / landuse issues

Market pressure influences

Political issues e.g. MDB Plan

outcomes

Proximity of other biophysical


21

Program Logics Biodiversity

BenefitVibrant communities &

landscapes for the future

Change in system

(impacts)Native vegetation

extent maintained or

increased across the

Namoi Catchment

Change in state

(outcomes)Native woody

vegetation cover

does not drop

below thresholds &

is increased

More habitat for

native plants &

animals

INS &

regeneration

capacity thresholds

established &

understood

Community

engaged in the

protection of native

woody vegetation

for increased extent

Actions (inputs)1: Increase the area of private & public land to be

managed for maintenance and improvement of native

woody vegetation extent in sub-catchments approaching

either the 70% or 30% thresholds

2: Encourage planning Authorities to take account of this

target & thresholds when approving any land use change

3: Ensure that proximity to critical thresholds is

considered in the negotiation of Property Vegetation

Plans to avoid any reduction in woody vegetation extent

in priority sub-catchments


managed in accordance with the NSW State Biodiversity

Strategy requirements

5: Complete State & Transition models to explore

invasive native scrub dynamics & interaction with woody

vegetation thresholds


managed for maintenance of priority Regional Vegetation

Community extent including improving condition

7: Ensure that proximity to critical thresholds is

considered in the negotiation of Property Vegetation

Plans to avoid any reduction in Priority Regional

Vegetation Community extent

8: Complete State & Transition models for priority

ecosystems that establish thresholds of regeneration

capacity

9: Invest in education, extension & community

engagement to facilitate improved understanding of the

importance of woody vegetation to biodiversity

Reactions (outputs)Land managed to improve/

maintain native woody

vegetation extent in prioritised

areas

Planning Authorities taking plan

into account for decision making

PVPs are not contributing to

native vegetation cover loss in

priority sub-catchments or to

Priority RVCs

State & transition models for INS

& priority ecosystems developed

Investments made so that RVCs

maintained for condition

Land being managed in

accordance with the NSW State

Biodiversity Strategy

Community aware and

understand the importance of

woody vegetation for biodiversity

Catchment Target Biodiversity 1: By 2020 there is an increase in native vegetation

extent & vegetation does not decrease to less than 70% in less cleared sub-catchments

& 30% in over cleared sub-catchments & no further Regional Vegetation Community

decreases to less than 30% extent as identified by 2010 baseline

Biodiversity Critical Thresholds:1.Woody vegetation cover at 30% in cleared sub-

catchments

2. Woody vegetation cover at 70% in intact sub-

catchments

3. 61% of Regional Vegetation Communities

maintain 30% extent

4. Population size of individual threatened species

5. Habitat area for individual threatened species of

population

6. Area of endangered or vulnerable community

7. Presence of individual invasive species

8. Population extent of individual invasive species

Biodiversity is defined as:

“The variety of all life

forms: different plants,

animals, the genes they

contain and the

ecosystems in which

they live”

Assumptions for this Program Logic:That the thresholds around 30 & 70% woody vegetation are correct

That we can maintain or increase woody vegetation cover successfully so that general biodiversity can be increased/

maintained

That biodiversity is responsive to woody vegetation cover change

That maintaining 61% of RVCs above 30% extent remaining is enough ecosystem diversity to maintain current biodiversity

That maintaining vegetation extent can help the Catchment from crossing other identified thresholds

That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the Catchment’s ability to

increase or maintain vegetation extent



Industry change spillover (mining increase causing

secondary business changes)

Community reaction to crossing of biophysical

thresholdsOther related actions/pressuresalternative knowledge paradigms resulting

in Catchment Community not working

towards the same goal eg climate change

opinion, MDB, production v conservation

paradigms


thresholds





outcomes



23



Change in system

(impacts)Viable threatened

species/populations/

communities protected

Change in state

(outcomes)Knowledge of linkages between

RVCs and threatened species

known & applied by Catchment

Community

Individual species with stable

populations

Catchment community involved

and engaged in maintaining RVC

extent and condition to protect

threatened species &

populations

Actions (inputs)15: Survey threatened species and draw linkages

between Regional Vegetation Communities or other

appropriate predictors of occurrence & species

distribution

16: Apply resilience thinking concepts to individual

species by exploring individual species thresholds

regarding population sizes & habitat size

17: Decrease threatening processes where

intervention will directly improve recovery in line with

revised Priority Action Statements & Threat

Abatement Plans


managed in accordance with the NSW State

Biodiversity Strategy requirements

19: Invest in education, extension and community

engagement to facilitate improved understanding of

viable threatened species, populations and ecological

communities

Reactions (outputs)Linkages between RVCs and threatened

species surveyed & clarified

Resilience thinking concepts applied to

individual species

Interventions made to decrease

threatening processes

Area of land managed in accordance with

NSW State Biodiversity Strategy

increased

Catchment community educated and

engaged in what viable threatened

species, populations and ecological

communities are

Catchment Target Biodiversity 3: By 2020 contribute to the recovery of

priority viable threatened species, populations & communities





contain and the

ecosystems in which

they live”

Biodiversity Critical Thresholds:1. Woody vegetation cover at 30% in cleared sub-

catchments

2. Woody vegetation cover at 70% in intact sub-

catchments

3. 61% of Regional Vegetation Communities maintain 30%

extent


5. Habitat area for individual threatened species of

population




Assumptions for this Program Logic:That we can find out the population size threshold or habitat area threshold for each viable threatened

species or community

That there is sufficient habitat area remaining for each viable threatened species/community

That RVCs contribute significantly to the sustainability of viable threatened species, populations or

communities

That the skills, information and funding are available to achieve the recovery of priority viable threatened

species/populations/ communities

That maintaining or recovering viable threatened species/populations/communities can help the

Catchment from crossing other identified thresholds

That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the Catchment’s

ability to increase or maintain viable threatened species/populations/communities





Community reaction to crossing of biophysical thresholdsOther related actions/pressuresalternative knowledge paradigms resulting




paradigms


thresholds





outcomes



24


for the future

Change in system

(impacts)No new invasive

species of plant or

animal entering /

establishing in the

Catchment

Key emerging pests are

contained so that they

do not spread

Change in state

(outcomes)

Key emerging weeds are

contained or eradicated

Early warning procedures

and emergency response to

new pest species well

established

Actions (inputs)20: Identify & assess level of threat of new

invasive plants & animals entering or becoming

established in the Catchment

21: Establish or link with networks of land & water

managers, invasive species experts &

stakeholders to establish priority listings & early

warning procedures for new invasive plants &

animals entering the Catchment

22: Increase the area of private & public land &

water where strategic control measures are

implemented to limit the spread of key emerging

invasive plants & animals

23: Reduce widespread invasive species below

critical levels at sites where threatened species or

endangered ecological communities are impacted

in areas where this is technically, logistically &

economically feasible to do so (in line with Threat

Abatement Plans & NSW Biodiversity priorities for

widespread weeds where applicable)


engagement to facilitate improved understanding

of potential new invasive species

Reactions (outputs)Threats of new invasive plant and

animals identified and assessed

Networks of managers and specialists

linked and early warning procedures

strengthened

Strategic control measures

implemented to limit spread of key

emerging invasive species

Threatened species or endangered

ecological communities protected from

widespread invasive species where

technically, logistically & economically

feasible and invasive species are the

key threat

Community educated in and

understand potential new invasive

species

Catchment Target Biodiversity 4: By 2020 no new invasive species are established in

the Catchment & the spread of key emerging invasive plants & animals is limited





contain and the

ecosystems in which

they live”

Biodiversity Critical Thresholds:1. Woody vegetation cover at 30% in cleared sub-catchments

2. Woody vegetation cover at 70% in intact sub-catchments

3. 61% of Regional Vegetation Communities maintain 30%

extent


5. Habitat area for individual threatened species of population




Assumptions for this Program Logic:That the threshold is presence or absence of individual invasive species

That there is sufficient funding and willingness to remove emerging invasive species

That excluding new invasive species and containing the spread of key emerging invasive species can help

the Catchment from crossing other identified thresholds

That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the Catchment’s

ability to excluding new invasive species and containing the spread of key emerging invasive

species






thresholds

Other related actions/pressuresalternative knowledge paradigms resulting




paradigms


thresholds





outcomes



25

Program Logic Water

26



Change in system

(impacts)Groundwater systems

supporting Groundwater

Dependent Ecosystems

and designated beneficial

uses maintained

Change in state

(outcomes)

Catchment community and

government have effective

tools and are working

towards improved aquifer

health using best practices

resource management

techniques

Communities have reliable

water for people &

industries

Groundwater Dependent

Ecosystems extent and

condition maintained or

improved

Community engaged and

better informed about

groundwater health,

thresholds & priorities so

that community are working

towards better groundwater

health and avoiding

crossing thresholds

Actions (inputs)41: Invest in understanding of groundwater aquifers,

recharge & likely impacts of climate variability including

supporting the Namoi Water Study

42: Model aquifers across the Catchment & map those

areas of the Catchment vulnerable to systems changes

such that groundwater supplies will become unreliable

due to climate variability or impacts of resource

management

43: Model aquifers across the Catchment to identify

those people & industries that are currently relying on

possibly disconnected aquifers that have no likelihood

of recharge

44: Build adaptive capacity to reduce reliance on

disconnected aquifers or those aquifers unlikely to

remain reliable under climate variability scenarios

45: Investigate & support improved management of

semi-connected (either to surface water or other

aquifers) alluvial aquifers to ensure that extraction does

not cause disconnection

46: Invest in understanding the suggested 30m

threshold relating to groundwater dependent

ecosystems, particularly terrestrial vegetation


engagement to facilitate improved understanding of

groundwater health thresholds & priorities

Reactions (outputs)Understanding of groundwater

aquifers recharge and likely

impacts of climate variability

improved

Aquifers modelled, mapped &

better understood

People & industries relying on

aquifers that are at risk

identified

People adapting to reduce

reliance on at risk aquifers

Improved knowledge of

improved management

techniques to reduce risk of

disconnection

Knowledge around

Groundwater Dependent

Ecosystems improved &

groundwater thresholds

reviewed as required

Community engaged and

education & extension

programs run

Catchment Target Water 2: By 2020 there is an improvement in the ability of

groundwater systems to support groundwater dependent ecosystems &

designated beneficial uses

Water Critical Thresholds1. Surface water flow quantity is at 66% of natural (pre-

development) condition with a sensitivity to natural

frequency & duration

2. Geomorphic condition is good (against benchmark

condition)

3. Recruitment of riparian vegetation is higher than

attrition of individual trees, shrubs or groundcover species

4. Agricultural & urban supply aquifers do not cross

into lower levels of beneficial use regarding quality

5. Alluvial aquifers are not drawn down below long

term historical maximum drawdown levels

6. Groundwater is within 30m of surface where there

are identified groundwater dependent ecosystems

7. Wetland is not drained, dammed or otherwise

physically modified

Water is defined as “Surface &

groundwater systems consist of

the riverine zone made up of

stream bed & banks, wetlands &

floodplains together with

aquifers, both confined &

unconfined. It also includes

riparian vegetation, aquatic biota

& water quality & covers access

to water, both for people &

environmental values”

Assumptions for this Program Logic:That we know how to avoid aquifers crossing to lower levels of beneficial use

That beneficial use is sensitive enough to determine aquifer condition and threshold is correct

That long term maximum drawdown levels is sensitive enough and does not already exceed the threshold for aquifers

That 30m is the right depth to groundwater level to support Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

That it is possible to maintain 30m groundwater height

That improving groundwater system condition can help the Catchment from crossing other identified thresholds

That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the Catchment’s ability to

improve groundwater system condition






thresholds

Other related actions/pressuresalternative knowledge paradigms

resulting in Catchment Community not

working towards the same goal eg

climate change opinion, MDB, production

v conservation paradigms


thresholds





outcomes



27


for the future

Change in system

(impacts)Regionally important

wetland extent and

condition maintained and

improved

Change in state

(outcomes)Wetlands recognised and

managed so that threshold is

not breached

Wetlands are receiving

enough water

Community knows and

understands to importance

and function of wetland heath

and working towards better

wetland management

&maintaining wetland health

Floodplain functionality is

improved such that wetland

health is maintained or

improved

Actions (inputs)48: Invest in data collection & analysis to establish where

sub-catchment extraction is over 33% of natural flow &

impacting on wetland health

49: Support restructure, water efficiency programs, water

planning & implementation programs & investment in

reductions in water entitlement & allocations where

extraction is over 33% of natural flow on a sub-catchment

basis & impacting on wetland health

50: Invest in implementing the actions of the Wee Waa

Floodplain plan as a priority for floodplain functional

contributions to wetland health

51: Support valley-wide floodplain planning as a priority in

improving floodplains function contribution to wetland

health


engagement to facilitate improved management &

understanding of the importance of wetlands

Reactions (outputs)Data collected & analysed and

sub catchments with extraction

>33% natural flow impacting on

wetland health identified

Water efficiency (restructure)

programs invested in

Actions of Wee Waa Floodplain

plan implemented

Valley-wide floodplain planning

supported

Education, extension &

community engagement invested

in to improve understanding &

management of wetlands

Catchment Target Water 3: By 2020 there is an improvement in the condition of

regionally important wetlands & the extent of those wetlands is maintained

Water Critical Thresholds1. Surface water flow quantity is at 66% of natural (pre-development)

condition with a sensitivity to natural frequency & duration

2. Geomorphic condition is good (against benchmark condition)

3. Recruitment of riparian vegetation is higher than attrition of

individual trees, shrubs or groundcover species

4. Agricultural & urban supply aquifers do not cross into lower levels

of beneficial use regarding quality

5. Alluvial aquifers are not drawn down below long term historical

maximum drawdown levels

6. Groundwater is within 30m of surface where there are identified

groundwater dependent ecosystems

7. Wetland is not drained, dammed or otherwise physically

modified

Water is defined as: “Surface &

groundwater systems consist of

the riverine zone made up of

stream bed & banks, wetlands &

floodplains together with aquifers,

both confined & unconfined. It

also includes riparian vegetation,

aquatic biota & water quality &

covers access to water, both for

people & environmental values”

Assumptions for this Program Logic:That the wetland threshold is correct

That we can halt the draining, damming or physical modification of wetlands

That improving wetland extent & condition can help the Catchment from crossing other identified

thresholds

That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the

Catchment’s ability to improve wetland extent & condition





Community reaction to crossing of biophysical thresholds

Other related actions/pressuresalternative knowledge paradigms resulting




paradigms


thresholds





outcomes



28

Appendix 3 Key Evaluation Questions & Performance I ndicators

From the Program Logics in Appendix 3, the following Key Evaluation Questions and Performance indicators have been developed. First, Evaluation types were identified. Evaluations are conducted at the following levels:

1. Program level: Evaluations are carried out on each program of each Annual Investment Program. Annual programs are designed to sit under the broad CAP Actions of a Catchment target. Given the programs change from year to year, the Key Evaluation questions identified are broad enough to capture the actual activities (cause) and outputs (effects) that sit under the Target. 2. Catchment Target Outcome level: at this level more specific Key Evaluation Questions have been identified as they are related to the specific outcomes of the Catchment target as identified in the relevant Program Logic. The Performance indicators are the measures that we would use to answer these questions. 3. Catchment Target Change in system: This is the level where the Key Evaluation Question is centred around the threshold identified. The question in this case is not necessarily answered by evaluations alone but also answered through analysis of research, monitoring data and other evidence sources.

Key evaluation questions and performance indicators have been identified for the questions at each evaluation level. These questions will guide the monitoring programs, aid in research decisions and prioritisation and advice on the evidence source required.

29

Biodiversity 1: By 2020 there is an increase in nat ive vegetation extent & vegetation does not decreas e to less than 70% in less cleared sub-catchments & 30% in over cleared sub-catchments & n o further Regional Vegetation Community decreases t o less than 30% extent as identified by 2010 baseline

Evaluation Type Key Evaluation Questions Performanc e Indicators Assumptions Program (Reactions/outputs)

Have the programs been efficient? What has been achieved?

• #state & transition models

developed • # ha managed to

improve/maintain native woody vegetation extent

• # ha protected to maintain RVC condition

• # PVPs developed that overtly taking CAP into consideration

• # community awareness campaigns/events directly related to woody vegetation

• Ha under conservation management in line with Biodiversity Strategy (i.e. mapped prioritised areas)

• # plans & strategies with CAP embedded or mentioned

Catchment Target Outcome (change in state)

Have the programs been effective? (Has native woody veg been maintained above threshold? Is the community engaged in protection of native woody vegetation?) Have the programs been appropriate?

• Proximity to threshold (catchment and sub-catchment

• Community awareness & understanding of native woody vegetation extent

CAP Target Change in system (impacts)

To what extent has native vegetation been maintained?

• Individual RVC extent • Change in woody NV extent by

sub-catchment and catchment

• That the thresholds around 30 & 70% woody

vegetation are correct • That we can maintain or increase woody

vegetation cover successfully so that general biodiversity can be increased/maintained

• That biodiversity is responsive to woody vegetation cover change

• That maintaining 61% of RVCs above 30% extent remaining is enough ecosystem diversity to maintain current biodiversity

• That maintaining vegetation extent can help the Catchment from crossing other identified thresholds

• That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the Catchment’s ability to increase or maintain vegetation extent

30

Catchment Target Biodiversity 2: By 2020 maintain s ustainable populations of a range of native fauna s pecies by ensuring that no further Regional Vegetation Community decreases to less tha n 30% extent as identified by 2010 baseline



• # ha priority RVCs protected • # PVPs developed that overtly

taking CAP into consideration • # community awareness

campaigns/events directly related to woody vegetation


Have the programs been effective? (Have remaining RVCs been maintained above 30% threshold? Is the community engaged in protection of native woody vegetation?) Have the programs been appropriate?

• RVC condition • Specific fauna population

sustainability • Community awareness &

understanding


To what extent have sustainable populations been maintained?

• Individual RVC extent

• That 61% of current RVCs maintains

enough ecosystem diversity to support fauna populations and biodiversity

• That maintaining RVC extent can help the Catchment from crossing other identified thresholds

• That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the Catchment’s ability to increase or maintain RVC extent

31

Catchment Target Biodiversity 3: By 2020 contribute to the recovery of priority viable threatened spec ies, populations & communities



• Report on RVCs & TS • # individual TS with resilience

thinking concepts applied (# reports)

• Ha under management to directly decrease threatening processes

• # community events linked to target


Have the programs been effective? (Have remaining RVCs been maintained above 30% threshold? Is the community engaged in protection of native woody vegetation?) Have the programs been appropriate?

• #/ha area RVCs managed for viable TS protection

• # individual species with stable populations

• Community awareness & understanding RVC/ fauna population linkage


To what extent have sustainable populations been maintained?

• # threatened species/populations/communities lost to catchment

• # EECs lost to catchment

• That we can find out the population size

threshold or habitat area threshold for each viable threatened species or community

• That there is sufficient habitat area remaining for each viable threatened species/community

• That RVCs contribute significantly to the sustainability of viable threatened species, populations or communities

• That the skills, information and funding are available to achieve the recovery of priority viable threatened species/populations/ communities

• That maintaining or recovering viable threatened species/populations/communities can help the Catchment from crossing other identified thresholds

• That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the Catchment’s ability to increase or maintain viable threatened species/populations/communities

32

Catchment Target Biodiversity 4: By 2020 no new inv asive species are established in the Catchment & th e spread of key emerging invasive plants & animals is limited



• Threats identified & assessed (report)

• Early warning procedures developed (report)

• Strategic control measures implemented

• # ha managed directly aimed at protecting TS or EECs from widespread invasive species

• # community awareness & education events


Have the programs been effective? (Have any new invasive species been established? Is the community engaged in early warning system for new invasive species?) Have the programs been appropriate?

• # threatened species with sustainable populations

• Presence/absence of key emerging weeds

• Early warning procedures in place


To what extent have new invasive species been avoided and have key emerging pests been contained?

• # new invasive species • Ha of emerging pests

• That the threshold is presence or absence of

individual invasive species • That there is sufficient funding and

willingness to remove emerging invasive species

• That excluding new invasive species and containing the spread of key emerging invasive species can help the Catchment from crossing other identified thresholds

• That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the Catchment’s ability to excluding new invasive species and containing the spread of key emerging invasive species

33

Catchment Target Land: By 2020 there is an improvem ent in soil health as measured by an increase in gr oundcover at the paddock, sub-catchment & catchment scales

Evaluation Type Key Evaluation Questions Performanc e Indicators Assumptions

Program (Reactions/outputs)


• Ha managed for improved groundcover

• # reports on interactions between groundcover, surface water and groundwater recharge

• Project site groundcover % Catchment Target Outcome (change in state)

Have the programs been effective (was groundcover % increased?)? Have the programs been appropriate?

• % groundcover change (project site, sub catchment & catchment scales


To what extent has soil health improved?

• Sodicity • Salinity • Erosion risk

• That the threshold of 70% groundcover is correct to maintain soil health

• That 70 % groundcover is achievable • That maintaining groundcover can help

the Catchment from crossing other identified thresholds

• That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the Catchment’s ability to increase or maintain groundcover

34

Catchment Target Water 1: By 2020 there is an impr ovement in the condition of those riverine ecosyste ms that have not crossed defined geomorphic thresholds as at the 2010 baseline



•Priority sub catchments identified (1 report) • # river reaches exceeding threshold which are managed better?? • Report on role of farm dams •# community events run to increase knowledge on role of farm dams •# awareness & education activities to increase community adaptive capacity in ‘at risk’ sub catchments •Km river reach invested in for improved geomorphic condition •Ha Riparian vegetation invested in for improved condition/extent •# actions of Wee Waa Floodplain Plan invested in •# community engagement, education & extension events on riparian health thresholds & priorities held •# or efficacy of collaborative initiatives undertaken to support floodplain plan implementation


Have the programs been effective? (Has surface water flow been maintained at 66% natural flow? Has good geomorphic condition been maintained? Has the recruitment of riparian vegetation been higher than attrition?) Have the programs been appropriate?

• # river reaches in good condition compared to 2010 baseline • Ha riparian vegetation extent • Riparian vegetation condition • Flow duration & frequency • Community awareness and activity to maintain buffer from identified thresholds


To what extent has riverine geomorphic condition been improved?

• # riverine ecosystems in good condition compared to 2010 baseline

• That the 66% water flow is correct threshold • That we can determine what flow 66%

natural flow is

• That good geomorphic condition is the correct threshold

• That we can maintain good geomorphic condition

• That we can recruit sufficient riparian vegetation to counteract attrition

• That improving riverine ecosystem condition can help the Catchment from crossing other identified thresholds

• That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the Catchment’s ability to improve riverine ecosystem condition

35

Catchment Target Water 2: By 2020 there is an impro vement in the ability of groundwater systems to sup port groundwater dependent ecosystems & designated beneficial uses



• % of aquifers modelled • Report on people/industries with

aquifers at risk identified • # Adaptive capacity

events/activities completed • # Knowledge activities for

improved aquifer management Catchment Target Outcome (change in state)

Have the programs been effective (has catchment community & government effective tools to improve aquifer health? Do communities have reliable water for people & industries? Has GDE extent and condition improved? Is the community better informed about groundwater health, thresholds & priorities? )? Have the programs been appropriate?

• # tools • % communities with reliable water • GDE extent & condition • Community knowledge re

groundwater health, thresholds & priorities

• # aquifers with changed beneficial uses


To what extent have groundwater systems supported GDEs and beneficial uses?

• # aquifers with changed beneficial uses

• GDE extent & condition

• That we know how to avoid aquifers crossing to lower levels of beneficial use

• That beneficial use is sensitive enough to determine aquifer condition and threshold is correct

• That long term maximum drawdown levels is sensitive enough and does not already exceed the threshold for aquifers

• That 30m is the right depth to groundwater level to support Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

• That it is possible to maintain 30m groundwater height

• That improving groundwater system condition can help the Catchment from crossing other identified thresholds

• That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the Catchment’s ability to improve groundwater system condition

36

Catchment Target Water 3: By 2020 there is an impro vement in the condition of regionally important wet lands & the extent of those wetlands is maintained



• Report on sub catchment natural flow impacting on wetland health

• # water reform restructure programs

• # Wee Waa Floodplain Plan actions implemented

• # valley wide floodplain plans supported

• # education, extension & community events on wetlands held


Have the programs been effective? (Have the condition of regionally important wetlands & extent of wetlands been improved?) Have the programs been appropriate?

• Wetland extent • Wetland condition • No wetlands are removed or

significantly altered • Water supplied to wetlands


To what extent has wetland extent & condition been improved?

• Wetland extent • Wetland condition

• That the wetland threshold is correct • That we can halt the draining, damming

or physical modification of wetlands • That improving wetland extent &

condition can help the Catchment from crossing other identified thresholds

• That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the Catchment’s ability to improve wetland extent & condition

37

Catchment Target People 1: Natural resource managem ent decisions contribute to social wellbeing



• # reports social wellbeing • # models developed for balanced

decision making • # engagement activities to engage

in resilience theory • # events/projects to improve

access to country


Have the programs been effective (Are community involved in successful natural resource management decisions? Have any thresholds been crossed)? Have the programs been appropriate?

• Proximity to biophysical thresholds


To what extent are natural resource management decisions contributing to social wellbeing?

• Social wellbeing as measured by : satisfaction, standard of living, health personal relationships future security, sense of achievement in life, community connectedness, safety

• That NCMA and NSW Government has sufficient sway to influence social wellbeing

• That Social wellbeing can help the Catchment Community to stop other identified biophysical thresholds being crossed

• That no other biophysical thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the catchments ability to increase or maintain social wellbeing

38

Catchment Target People 2: There is an increase in the adaptive capacity of the Catchment Community



• # activities to achieve shared understanding of targets, drivers thresholds & adaptive capacity interventions

• Indicators developed • Stakeholder engagement /

partnerships developed • Communities that have or are at

risk of crossing identified thresholds

• Information shared (# engagement/awareness activities)

• # knowledge reports developed and communicated with community

• # education, knowledge & skills events run (including schools)


Have the programs been effective (Are community involved in successful natural resource management decisions? Have any thresholds been crossed)? Have the programs been appropriate?

• Self efficacy • Community efficacy • People adapting, transforming or leaving


To what extent are natural resource management decisions contributing to social wellbeing?

• Self & community efficacy • Social wellbeing • Biological thresholds not being crossed

• That a threshold around adaptive capacity exists

• That NCMA and NSW Government has sufficient influence to influence adaptive capacity

• That improving riverine ecosystem condition can help the Catchment from crossing other identified thresholds

• That no other biophysical or people thresholds are crossed, thereby influencing the Catchment’s ability to improve riverine ecosystem condition

39

Appendix 4 MERI Working Group Terms of Reference

MERI Working Group Terms of Reference The MERI WG consists of:

� Business Manager � Operations Manager � Strategic Planning Manager � MERI Catchment Coordinator � Information Management Officer � Project/Catchment Officer

This group will meet on an as needs basis determined by the members of the group. The purpose of the group is as follows: 1. Act as a forum for current MERI issues across the organisation with members of all sections represented 2. Act as a conduit to discuss MERI resources across the organisation 3. To aid in data management processes across the CMA such that all databases are streamlined, integrated and all encompassing with data entry and retrieval being minimised as much as possible. 4. Aligning internal reporting with external reporting 5. Overseeing reporting to inner executive how it can be collected and controlled 6. Protocols and processes for data management 7. Recommendations to be made to Inner Executive in or out of session depending on urgency

40

References Christopher Gilson, Patrick Dunleavy & Jane Tinkler “Organisational Learning in Government Sector

Organizations: Literature Review” report to the National Audit Office form LSE Public Policy Group

Namoi Catchment Management Authority Namoi Catchment Action Plan 2010-2020 (Pending

Ministerial Approval)

Namoi Catchment Management Authority 2012 Communication & Engagement Strategy

Namoi Catchment Management Authority 2007 Risk Management Framework/Risk Register

Caring for Our Country MERI Strategy 2010

NSW Natural Resources Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Strategy (2010-15)

Natural Resources Commission 2005 Standard for Quality Natural Resource Management. NSW

Government, September 2005.

Catchment Management Authority Act 2003

Auditor-General Act (1996)

The Namoi Catchment Management Authority Communication & Engagement Strategy can be found

on the Namoi Catchment Management Authority website www.namoi.cma.nsw.gov.au.

NAMOI CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY MONITORING ... › __data › assets › pdf_file › 0007 ›...

Documents

Transcript of NAMOI CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY MONITORING ... › __data › assets › pdf_file › 0007 ›...