monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the Basin Plan. Together, these frameworks establish some guiding principles for best practice MERI in the context of environmental water. Consistent methods that enable synthesis of outcomes across different time scales (immediate, intermediate and longterm) and spatial scales (site, catchment and basin). Partnerships that are collaborative, complementary and (where possible) build on existing programs. Multiple lines of quantitative and qualitative evidence, including the best available scientific, local and cultural knowledge. Efficient and costeffective approaches that provide timely and relevant results. Meaningful evaluation, open access to information and feedback loops to facilitate transparent reporting and genuine adaptive management. The following sections discuss the extent to which this guidance is being put into practice. Monitoring and evaluation must focus on outcomes, not just flows The NWI is clear that the focus of monitoring and evaluation should be on environmental and other public benefit Consistent with the principles outlined above, this means outcomes. looking not only at the immediate hydrological results from flows, but also at the intermediate and longerterm ecological responses, at both local and basin scales. Ecological complexity makes monitoring environmental outcomes inherently difficult. Flow scenarios can be hard to replicate, responses take time to become evident, and it can be difficult to distinguish the contribution of environmental flows from other flows and waterway management issues. The costs involved in monitoring mean that effort must be commensurate with the risk to, and value of, these outcomes to the community. Jurisdictions such as Tasmania and the Northern Territory, which have not identified any overallocation, generally face a lower level of risk to their water resources. As a result, they have had less need to monitor the outcomes of flow delivery than jurisdictions with water resources that are under stress. Western Australia has focused its monitoring effort on highvalue locations that are under pressure, such as the Gnangara, Jandakot and Pilbara groundwater areas. A greater focus in such areas is appropriate, but even in locations where the risk is low, some monitoring of outcomes is needed to ensure planning arrangements remain sufficient to maintain the desired benefits over time. In higherrisk areas with shared water resources, such as the MDB, monitoring of outcomes is critical to ensure these resources are being managed sustainably. Where governments have sought to address overallocation and overuse by moving water from the consumptive pool to the environment, monitoring is particularly important to ensure that the water is used as effectively as possible and assess whether the costs have been justified.
monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the Basin Plan. Together, these frameworks establish some guiding principles for best practice MERI in the context of environmental water. Consistent methods that enable synthesis of outcomes across different time scales (immediate, intermediate and longterm) and spatial scales (site, catchment and basin). Partnerships that are collaborative, complementary and (where possible) build on existing programs. Multiple lines of quantitative and qualitative evidence, including the best available scientific, local and cultural knowledge. Efficient and costeffective approaches that provide timely and relevant results. Meaningful evaluation, open access to information and feedback loops to facilitate transparent reporting and genuine adaptive management. The following sections discuss the extent to which this guidance is being put into practice. Monitoring and evaluation must focus on outcomes, not just flows The NWI is clear that the focus of monitoring and evaluation should be on environmental and other public benefit outcomes. Consistent with the principles outlined above, this means looking not only at the immediate hydrological results from flows, but also at the intermediate and longerterm ecological responses, at both local and basin scales. Ecological complexity makes monitoring environmental outcomes inherently difficult. Flow scenarios can be hard to replicate, responses take time to become evident, and it can be difficult to distinguish the contribution of environmental flows from other flows and waterway management issues. The costs involved in monitoring mean that effort must be commensurate with the risk to, and value of, these outcomes to the community. Jurisdictions such as Tasmania and the Northern Territory, which have not identified any overallocation, generally face a lower level of risk to their water resources. As a result, they have had less need to monitor the outcomes of flow delivery than jurisdictions with water resources that are under stress. Western Australia has focused its monitoring effort on highvalue locations that are under pressure, such as the Gnangara, Jandakot and Pilbara groundwater areas. A greater focus in such areas is appropriate, but even in locations where the risk is low, some monitoring of outcomes is needed to ensure planning arrangements remain sufficient to maintain the desired benefits over time. In higherrisk areas with shared water resources, such as the MDB, monitoring of outcomes is critical to ensure these resources are being managed sustainably. Where governments have sought to address overallocation and overuse by moving water from the consumptive pool to the environment, monitoring is particularly important to ensure that the water is used as effectively as possible and assess whether the costs have been justified.
water-reform-draft.docx