6.1
One of the core purposes of the Basin Plan is to maintain or improve the health of environmental systems in the Murray‑Darling Basin (basin). To this end, the Basin Plan places water aside to be used by governments for 'watering' environmental sites when required.
6.2
This chapter outlines environmental watering governance arrangements and examines key issues raised during the inquiry. The chapter summarises concerns regarding the complexity of arrangements; quality of information being provided by agencies; adequacy of environmental flows; accountability for and evaluation of environmental watering decisions; and potential research and funding gaps.
Current environmental watering arrangements
6.3
The Basin Plan allocates specific 'environmental water' to Commonwealth and state government 'environmental water holders' across the basin. These water holders make decisions about when, where, and how much water will be released to improve the health of rivers, wetlands, and floodplains.
6.4
Planning and delivery of environmental water requires participation from multiple agencies at both Commonwealth and state levels. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Office (CEWO) has no independent capacity to deliver water, therefore it must work within state regulatory, licensing, and operational frameworks to ensure that water is provided from the Commonwealth's accounts to support the CEWO's environmental objectives. The CEWO works in partnership with state environmental water holders, river operators, land holders, and irrigation infrastructure operators to deliver environmental water.
6.5
According to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), planning for and delivery of environmental water:
…is an emerging practice in the overall context of basin water management and one that is challenging the boundaries of existing river operations. It is also relatively early days in the institutional arrangements for environmental water policy and management within the Commonwealth.
6.6
In terms of which agency is responsible for accounting for environmental water, the MDBA explained that basin states and the MDBA hold information on storage volumes, river flows, and water orders for the systems they are responsible for. The MDBA holds bulk water account information on how much of the total water available in the River Murray System belongs to each state. Basin states hold water account information at the retail scale for water entitlement holders, including the amount of environmental water available under entitlements held by the respective environmental water holders in each state. Basin states determine the amount of environmental water used in environmental watering events and provide this information to environmental water holders. In addition to the collection of consumptive water usage data, the MDBA receives environmental usage data from the states; the CEWO also receives environmental usage data from the states as part of its management of its water holdings. The Bureau of Meteorology produces a National Water Account which provides general commentary on environmental water use in the basin.
Complexity of watering arrangements
6.7
The committee heard concerns that the complexity of environmental watering arrangements can be confusing for some stakeholders, as it can sometimes be difficult to understand the intricacies of the agencies and planning documents involved. For example, the NSW Irrigators' Council submitted:
The overarching objectives for delivering environmental water are outlined in the Basin Plan…which are then built on through the basin-wide environmental watering strategy. The principal arrangement at the state level to guide the management of water for the environment over the longer term is Long-term Water Plans (LTWP). The LTWPs [are] required to identify priority assets and ecosystems functions and their watering requirements for each water course. This multiplicity of plans and agencies responsible is a major cause of confusion. Often it is impossible to clearly distinguish which plan is being is being implemented and by whom.
6.8
The Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association argued that the environmental watering arrangements are undermining transparency and accountability:
The challenge is that often, there are multiple documents that must be read or considered when understanding what the plan is and how it is being implemented. This means it is easy for one aspect to be overlooked. This can be highlighted by the decisions around environmental water use, which incorporate multiple levels of planning, across state and Commonwealth agencies and objectives which at best guide but can also dictate decisions and how they are made. This can be difficult to follow and understand why a water action was undertaken or why not.
6.9
The Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association provided a diagram of the government agencies involved in environmental watering in its region, which it submitted shows the duplication of five-year and annual environmental watering plans by various agencies and levels of government:
6.10
The Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association argued that duplication of plans, particularly annual and five-year plans, is inefficient and costly:
There are now four-levels of involvement across different temporal and timescales, yet duplication particularly at a five-year and annual priority is evident. With a trend toward user-pays system, we are increasingly concerned with not only the additional regulation and excessive planning cycles but also the costs associated with water management and clarity around roles and responsibilities under the Basin Plan.
6.11
The Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association argued that inconsistency across systems and states is also undermining transparency of environmental water accounts, telling the committee that:
[W]ith differing state-based rules often entitlements and the accuracy of measurement is not comparable. It's also often unclear, if and how, environmental water is accounted for in the data. For example, in the Gwydir, monthly resource assessments provide an update of water holdings by category and break this down for held environmental water…this is not being updated via [the NSW] WaterInsights portal visually and adjusted for use…the water register still does not separate productive or environmental water allocation or use, meaning depending on the source investigated, the results of how much water is allocation and or how much water is used, maybe different.
6.12
Similarly, the NSW Irrigators' Council argued that 'the level of complexity and bureaucracy involved in any environmental watering project is too burdensome, lacks transparency, and impedes achieving desired objectives'.
6.13
The MDBA explained that the current environmental watering arrangements are intended to capture local and basin-wide objectives at a range of scales:
[C]oordination and delivery of environmental water throughout the basin includes inputs from a range of agencies…The number of planning mechanisms are designed to ensure planning occurs at multiple spatial and temporal scales and in a way that ensures complementarity between local delivery plans and basin scale objectives and priorities. While agencies have their own environmental watering objectives, there are forums and frameworks in place to ensure that individual environmental watering actions contribute to local, state and basin-scale outcomes where possible. For example, state reporting requirements ensure watering activities align with MDBA's basin scale annual watering priorities.
6.14
However, in its submission to the inquiry, the CEWO acknowledged that more could be done to:
…increase transparency about the roles and responsibilities in the Basin Plan among those involved in environmental water management and to grow and expand our partnerships.
6.15
The Queensland Government advised that basin governments are aware of issues raised by previous reviews of the Basin Plan and that the issues, including 'sub-optimal coordination of cross border environmental watering', are being addressed through several initiatives such as the Northern Basin Environmental Watering Group.
Communicating clear objectives and outcomes
6.16
A range of inquiry participants identified that there is generally poor understanding of environmental watering in the community, particularly the purpose and outcomes of watering events, and that this can sometimes be attributed to poor communication by governments. Stakeholders argued that there is either a lack of adequate information being provided, or when information is provided, it is difficult to understand. Submitters argued that the CEWO in particular could improve its communications on local level targets, objectives, releases, and outcomes achieved.
6.17
For example, the NSW Irrigators' Council argued that 'every environmental watering event should have a clear and measurable scope (spatial and temporal) and objectives, with transparency and accountability against those objectives'. Likewise, Cotton Australia argued there should be well-designed and clear catchment plans that are effectively communicated to stakeholders. This would enable people to understand during and after watering events what was trying to be achieved, how it was planned to be achieved, how it was actioned, and what was actually achieved.
6.18
In terms of setting objectives and clearly communicating these to the public, some stakeholders argued that Commonwealth and state agencies should coordinate and streamline communications where possible. The committee heard that monitoring and reporting also needs to be enhanced, simplified, and consolidated across state and Commonwealth agencies.
6.19
The committee received evidence that, as the basin's environment has significantly changed over time, it is important for watering plans to be specific about which type of environment governments are hoping to recreate. Professor Peter Gell explained to the committee:
[T]he royal commission of 1902 said that the system was already seriously polluted. So we have a system that has changed for over 140 years. It's universal change. Every wetland we've worked on is different to what it was 200 years ago…Because of shifting baselines, we think we know what the system is like from when we remembered it 15 to 20 years ago. The changes have been due to drought and water uptake…Yes, the system needs water in places, but…in fact, many of the wetlands of the basin have far too much water. We are taking cores right up and down the system, and 75 per cent of wetlands only started accumulating sediment from 1920 when the system was regulated, when they became permanent for the first time. We know the long-term records. It's over 5,000 years old, but 75 per cent of permanent wetlands are less than 100 years old and probably less than 80 years old. They were intermittent before that.
6.20
The committee heard that poor watering decisions and poor transparency had resulted in considerable mistrust of government agencies in some communities. For example, according to the NSW Irrigators' Council, that some areas had been flooded with environmental water even though there was 'no known history of being naturally flooded by nearby rivers'.
6.21
In one region, NSW Farmers told the committee, the local community had been advised that a particular area would not be flooded again, yet a few months later, the opposite occurred:
The comment was made from the crowd: 'Are you going to flood the Barmah Choke once again in years of extreme drought?' They said, 'No; after last year, we won't do it again.' And then, the following year, guess what happened again. I go back to trust, which you were talking about a lot earlier. When you have an official come and make a statement like that in front of, I'm guessing, 100 to 150 people and then six months later they see that happen, you don't wonder why trust is at an all-time low… The communication from these authorities is deplorable. People go down the river for a fish and they say, 'Jeez, the river's high,' and they know straight away that it's spilling over the Barmah Choke into the Barmah Forest.
6.22
For controversial decisions which allow environments to be watered at specific times of the year in specific locations, the NSW Irrigators' Council argued that the rationale should be made clearer to prevent further mistrust of governments.
6.23
Additionally, the committee heard that the various environmental water holders could improve their public communications to provide insight into whether and why certain allocations may or may not be used. For example, the Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association argued that there may be good reasons why environmental water holders decide not to use water in a particular circumstance. Furthermore, understanding these reasons would assist independent analysis of the differences between observed flows versus expected flows.
Resourcing and format of communications
6.24
Some submitters questioned whether the CEWO had adequate resourcing to carry out its public communication role. For example, the National Irrigators' Council submitted:
[W]ith the resources it has available, the CEWO is not able to undertake the extensive public information and communication necessary to educate the community either about the things the CEWH is doing or even the reason they are being done…Education and clear easily accessible information would assist in understanding what is and what is not environmental water flows. In the current drought crisis, the volume of flows down river in the Murray can be very sensitive and a source of reliable information would be useful in informing people in broad terms where, and for what purpose, those quantities are released. NIC has raised the need for a more proactive presence from the CEWO in the media and on-line in the past. For this purpose, we strongly recommend that they are provided with more resources and the licence to undertake the work to support a more balanced narrative.
6.25
The Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association pointed out that meeting the information needs of a diverse array of stakeholders with differing backgrounds and interests in water will remain an ongoing challenge. The Association stressed the importance of the CEWO using local engagement officers as a two-way conduit to the community.
6.26
Simple updates from the CEWO were also reported to be effective for communicating environmental watering outcomes to stakeholders:
The CEWO has initiated key water action updates, which provides insight and information into water deliveries. These are useful to provide updates of specific events, rather than the reading of detailed planning documentation which is provided by both the Commonwealth and state agencies…[these] are often rather complex to understand. Furthermore, the establishment of the FLOW-MER as a communication and information tool, provides an independent communication option on environmental outcomes. However, agency communication is often not timely during an event. Particularly if it is a negative outcome.
Adequacy of environmental watering
6.27
Some contributors to the inquiry expressed concerns about the adequacy of environmental watering in the basin. For example, the Australian Academy of Science (Academy) argued that the objectives of the Basin Plan and the Water Act 2007 were intended to increase water for the environment; however, 'serious deficiencies' in governance and management have eroded the intent and implementation of the framework.
6.28
The Academy drew the committee's attention to its investigation report into the factors which led to the mass fish deaths near Menindee, NSW, in December 2018, early January 2019, and late January 2019. The report identified that the root cause of the fish kills, 'is that there is not enough water in the Darling system to avoid catastrophic decline of condition through dry periods'. The Academy attributed this to 'excess upstream diversion of water for irrigation', combined with 'severe but not unprecedented drought' and 'insufficient releases of water from Menindee Lakes'.
6.29
Other contributors to the inquiry argued that there are insufficient environmental flows being achieved when compared to the needs of the basin. For example, Dr Matthew Colloff et al assessed environmental watering in the basin between 2012 and 2019 (that is, since the commencement of the plan) and found that:
only a small portion of wetlands were delivered environmental water;
only a small volume of water was delivered;
many events were sub-optimal to achieve benefits;
there was a shortfall between the watering expectations of plans and what was actually achieved; and
there is a mismatch between watering priorities and what is realistically able to be achieved.
6.30
Dr Colloff advised the committee that, since the Basin Plan had commenced, the actual amount of additional water that has been released to the environment each year on average was only 590 gigalitres:
If you're talking here about volumes of water returned to the environment, let's be clear: the vast majority of the Australian population probably believe that a number somewhere between 2,000 and 2,750 gigalitres is being returned to the environment. That is simply not true. The amount of water that was returned to the environment, on average, per annum between 2012-13 and 2018-19 was 1,905 gigalitres. However, if you take into account the environmental water that was being released already, before the Basin Plan came into effect, that was an average of 1,315 gigalitres. That means that the mean additional environmental water since the Basin Plan commenced was only 590 gigalitres.
6.31
Professor Grafton characterised current environmental watering flows as 'watering the petunias':
In terms of what we have achieved and what we haven't achieved…we are…watering petunias…The point about it is that water is being directed to particular assets within the basin. They're a very, very small number of assets relative to the size of the basin and relative to the need…
6.32
Professor Grafton argued that past reviews have established over extraction is a major concern:
If we want to look at what is happening in the basin, again, we don't have to go back into the distant past. We can of course go back to Menindee Lakes, to the Lower Darling and to the fish kills that happened in December 2018 and January 2019. Those were reviewed extensively. We know there are failures in the context of getting water into those stream systems simply because we're extracting too much.
6.33
The declining state of the basin was also highlighted by Dr Anne Jensen, who pointed out that in addition to mass fish kills, there are declining waterbird populations, a significant number of dead eucalypts along more than 700 km of floodplains in the Murray Valley, and the Murray Mouth is still being dredged to prevent closure due to insufficient outflows to counter the coastal sand inflows.
6.34
According to the National Parks Association of NSW, the Commonwealth has not achieved sufficient environmental water flows to meet its statutory and international obligations. The Association highlighted that this can be seen in the failure to protect internationally significant wetland systems, such as the Macquarie Marshes, and in the continued decline of indigenous, migratory, and threatened wetland-dependant species across the basin.
6.35
Dr Jensen expressed concerns that none of the Basin Plan's seven intermediate targets for no loss or degradation, were met from 22 November 2012 to 30 June 2019 (that is, in flows, connectivity, assets, functions, the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth regime, and the condition and recruitment of native species).
6.36
Dr Jane Doolan, Commissioner, Productivity Commission, explained that time is needed to let Basin Plan absorb into state water arrangements:
[T]e Basin Plan's success relies on its implementation and absorption into state water management arrangements and the management arrangements for the shared resource along the river Murray. It's not just a project where, bang, it happens; it's actually got to change those relationships. Some of those relationships are about planning, the balance and where the water is, but some are also about the river operational rules, and they interact...you might implement the SDLs, yes, but actually optimising how that's delivered on the ground to get you to better environmental outcomes will be a longer process…
6.37
Likewise, the Queensland Government emphasised that expectations of environmental improvements under the plan should be long-term:
[M]any key environmental Basin Plan outcomes are also long-term in nature, in some cases intergenerational, and expectations of significant measurable improvements in ecosystem health in the short term, prior to full implementation, are entirely unreasonable.
Monitoring and evaluating outcomes of environmental watering decisions
6.38
Several inquiry participants argued that accountability for environmental watering decisions could be strengthened by using a framework that appropriately measures ecological outcomes and facilitates evaluation of the decisions of environmental water holders. For example, the National Irrigators' Council argued that effective monitoring of environmental health involves more than just measuring flow targets:
Perhaps the key problem with monitoring progress on the Basin Plan is that so many of the indicators are simplistic flow targets which do not guarantee positive environmental outcomes. The health of the river system and its environment is dependent on factors far more complex than flow metrics…
6.39
The NSW Irrigators' Council was similarly concerned at the current focus on volumes rather than ecological outcomes:
We have always held the view that the…focus on volumetric outcomes rather than well-defined and measurable ecological outcomes is a major weakness in the whole environmental watering approach for the Basin. This undoubtedly makes it difficult to effectively communicate outcomes to the stakeholders, because the most visual result that the community sees is the environmental degradation of river systems and their flora and fauna...
6.40
The Mayor of Griffith City Council, Councillor John Dal Broi, was concerned by the lack of transparency by the MDBA, CEWH, and state government departments 'in terms of what measures are or should be in place to demonstrate the effectiveness of its environmental water allocations and time of flows across the basin'.
6.41
Similarly, the Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association argued that environmental water managers lack accountability for their decisions:
A key challenge in assessing effectiveness is the time-lag for environmental outcomes but also the lack of accountability [for decisions] when outcomes are not achieved. For example, when anyone in business makes a mistake that costs money, this impacts their profitability. There does not appear to be an equivalent measure of accountability for environmental managers and their use of environmental water. Whilst the evaluation of the plan may provide evidence of progress and improvement or not, this does not evaluate the decisions by environmental water managers to utilise their portfolios. Other than stakeholder interest, there appears to not be any systemic oversight about decisions to use water within the plan evaluation requirements.
6.42
Likewise, Mrs Jan Beer drew attention to the Productivity Commission's report which identified that there is no unifying framework to present individual or localised findings on the outcomes and effectiveness of environmental watering decisions in the context of the plan as a whole.
6.43
The NSW Irrigators' Council emphasised that, with the movement of large volumes of consumptive water to environmental water, it is important that environmental watering benefits can be demonstrated and accounted for. The committee received numerous other calls for improved communication from the CEWO and its partners on the successes, failures, and limitations of environmental watering as they occur.
6.44
Dr Anne Jensen was concerned about the impact of loss of funding on the adequacy of environmental monitoring:
The withdrawal of New South Wales' funding from the MDBA in 2013 brought an abrupt end to the sound, science-based Sustainable Rivers Audit, which had just established a comprehensive baseline condition assessment across 23 sub-catchments and had reported twice on relative condition. The monitoring was stopped just as recovery was setting in after the life-giving floods of 2010-12, so no monitoring was undertaken at basin scale to measure recovery in response to the floods. The last SRA report had 20 out of 23 sub-catchments in poor or very poor condition but basin‑wide monitoring was not continued to determine the extent of any recovery post-flood. The loss of funding for the SRA has removed independent, basin-scale monitoring of basin condition which would demonstrate whether the plan targets are being met, particularly whether the target of 'no further decline' by June 2019 is being met or not.
6.45
According to the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training (NCGRT), there is uncertainty about how to deliver environmental water to achieve the best environmental and socioeconomic outcomes and how to monitor and evaluate the success of the Basin Plan. The NCGRT argued that this uncertainty was due to gaps in science, particularly around climate change, surface and groundwater connectivity, recharge rates, and water quality. The NCGRT expressed concerns that, despite its importance to ensuring accuracy in SDLs, water research and development funding in Australia are at their lowest levels since the 1980s. The NCGRT emphasised the need for a major, large scale, long-term national research strategy for the basin.
6.46
The CEWO's Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement Framework outlines how monitoring and evaluation of environmental watering is conducted and gives effect to the relevant provisions of the Basin Plan. Broadly, the framework requires 'operational monitoring' and long- and short‑term 'intervention monitoring':
Operational monitoring occurs for every watering action. The CEWO collects on-ground data about the environmental water delivery action such as volumes, timing, duration, location, flow rates and river heights. Much of this information is provided to the CEWO from State Waterway managers.
Intervention monitoring assists the CEWO to understand the environmental response to watering actions. Long- and short-term intervention monitoring is contracted directly with research institutions, contractors, and federal and state government agencies.
6.47
The Basin Plan places responsibility for environmental monitoring and evaluation activities on other agencies as well. Basin states are required to monitor and report on the changes in environmental health over time at a wetland and catchment scale. The MDBA is required to monitor and report on changes in environmental health at a basin-scale.
6.48
The CEWO advised that while ecological monitoring has already shown some positive benefits, some benefits may take many years to be seen:
…the results of watering are being documented through ecological monitoring. To date, the CEWO has committed over $55.4 million to monitoring, evaluation and research through to 2022-23, to help manage the use of Commonwealth environmental water and to demonstrate environmental outcomes. Environmental watering has shown significant environmental benefits for river systems as a whole, but also for the fish, birds, frogs and vegetation that rely on the rivers and wetlands. While the full results of environmental watering across the basin will take many years to be realised, monitoring to date has shown that Commonwealth environmental water is contributing towards a range of environmental objectives…
6.49
In a similar vein, the Queensland Government argued that more time is needed to see the benefits of what has been achieved through the Basin Plan:
[M]any key environmental Basin Plan outcomes are…long-term in nature, in some cases intergenerational, and expectations of significant measurable improvements in ecosystem health in the short term, prior to full implementation, are entirely unreasonable.
6.50
The MDBA acknowledged that there are opportunities to improve monitoring, evaluation and reporting of environmental watering outcomes and advised that these are being explored.
Complementary measures
6.51
The committee heard concerns that poorer environmental outcomes would be achieved with watering, if complementary measures, such as carp control were not also implemented. For example, Mr Andrew Leahy, Water Council Chairman, Victorian Farmers Federation, explained:
A wetland may receive water, but this doesn't matter if you've got feral pigs that destroy the native grasses or carp that push out native species. It's just like irrigating a crop but not fertilising it or managing pests. If a farmer did this, they would be labelled a poor farmer. Yet, the government do this year after year.
6.52
Dr Peter Gell raised similar concerns and argued that complementary measures and a longer-term strategy is vital to achieving a meaningful positive environmental response:
[M]y fear is that we're going to spend $13 billion on Australia's largest environmental program, and, by not addressing some of these complementary issues, we will get a shallow response…We've published a paper on 10 supplementary measures, which you could do in addition to water recovery—or, in some places, instead—to reduce the impact on water users and producers. I suggest we need to have a much longer program. We need to have a 50-year vision…
6.53
The Queensland Government acknowledged that, 'a number of non-water management issues, such as land use and pest species impacts…rely on complementary Natural Resource Management measures to fully deliver significant on-ground improvements in aquatic ecosystem health'.
Watering in a drying climate
6.54
Some stakeholders expressed concerns about how environmental watering will be used to achieve outcomes in a drying climate. For example, Dr Colloff questioned how the MDBA and the CEWO plan to address what can practically be achieved with reduced flows, particularly with some systems—for example, the Lachlan, the Gwydir, the Macquarie Marshes and Narran Lakes—already struggling.
6.55
Professor Grafton argued that the Basin Plan needs to be adapted in order to provide positive environmental outcomes:
…it should be improved upon so that we can get better outcomes…Clearly sending water downstream to particular places is going to help. The point about it is that it's not adequate, it's not sufficient…as the expected drying trend of the 2020s and the 2030s continues, and it is already happening, we are going to get worse and worse outcomes. And the Basin Plan, in terms of how much has been allocated for the environment, will be inadequate. It is inadequate today, in 2020, and it will certainly be grossly inadequate in 10 years' time. That's the problem. That's why we need to do something about it.
6.56
Climate variation is considered further in Chapter 9.
Committee view and recommendations
6.57
The committee acknowledges concerns that the complexity of environmental watering arrangements in the Murray-Darling basin can be confusing for stakeholders. The committee heard from irrigator associations that it can be difficult to understand the intricacies of agencies and planning documents involved. The committee was provided with at least one example where the watering plans of state and Commonwealth governments appear to duplicate each other. The committee also received evidence on inconsistencies in the way that environmental watering data is presented by governments.
6.58
The committee notes that environmental watering agencies already provide significant information relevant to their jurisdiction, responsibilities, and operations to the public. However, the committee considers that there may be opportunities to present this public information in a way that better reflects the multijurisdictional institutional framework and division of roles under the Basin Plan, and thereby facilitate improved public understanding of the operation of what is one of Australia’s most important environmental and social reforms. Improving transparency on how environmental watering plans and government agencies across jurisdictions interact will not only assist stakeholders, it will also help to identify potential inefficiencies and facilitate accountability of governments.
6.59
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office work with state counterparts to build a roadmap that provides public clarification on the interactions between Commonwealth and state environmental watering agencies, particularly clarification on how environmental watering planning documents interact at different government levels.
6.60
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office work with state counterparts and use the roadmap from the previous recommendation to address any duplications or inefficiencies between Commonwealth and state environmental watering plans.
6.61
Evidence to the inquiry indicates there is generally poor understanding of environmental watering requirements of the Basin Plan, particularly the purpose and outcomes of watering events. In some instances, this can be attributed to poor communication by some of the government agencies involved. The committee heard that the reasons behind environmental watering decisions are not always made clear by environmental watering agencies. The committee received calls for improved communication from the CEWO and its state counterparts on the successes, failures, and limitations of environmental watering events as they occur.
6.62
The committee acknowledges that the CEWO already provides key water updates as well as more detailed information on watering events when it is reasonably available. The committee agrees that the communication updates of the CEWO could be improved by providing concise and timely updates for future watering events which outline objectives for the event, provide updates during the event, and explain whether objectives were met shortly after the event.
6.63
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office (CEWO) review its communication practices for whether the standard for public updates could be improved. The CEWO’s communications should provide concise and timely public information on the objectives and reasons behind each environmental watering decision before the event occurs, public updates during watering events, and identify whether objectives were met after each environmental watering event.
6.64
A range of stakeholders, including irrigators, local community advocates, and research organisations, raised concerns there is uncertainty around how best to deliver environmental water to achieve outcomes and how to monitor and evaluate 'success'. The committee heard concerns that current research programs are uncoordinated and do not guarantee an effective response to priority needs.
6.65
Stakeholders suggested that accountability of environmental watering decisions could be strengthened by implementing a framework consisting of measurable ecological outcomes, thus facilitating evaluation of the decisions of environmental water holders. The committee acknowledges the CEWO’s monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement framework provides high-level guidance for immediate, short- and long-term efforts. However, the committee agrees that the decisions of environmental water holders, and the measurable framework against which these decisions are evaluated, could be made more accessible.
6.66
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state counterparts to review existing evaluation mechanisms for Basin Plan environmental watering decisions and identify whether the decisions of environmental water holders, and the measurable ecological outcomes framework against which these decisions are evaluated, could be made more accessible.
Next chapter
6.67
The next section of this report examines issues relating to Indigenous basin communities.