Executive Summary
This report presents the final evaluation of the implementation of Stream 2 of the Regional Natural Resource Management Planning for Climate Change Fund.
1.1. Background
The Australian Government’s Regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) Planning for Climate Change Fund (NRM Fund) provided $43.9 million over five years to improve regional planning for climate change and help guide the location of carbon and biodiversity activities.
The NRM Fund was administered by the Australian Government Department of the Environment[1] (the Department) and delivered through two streams: Stream 1 ($28.9 million) to support regional NRM organisations to revise existing regional plans; and Stream 2 ($15 million) to produce regional level climate change information and provide guidance on the integration of that information into regional NRM and land use planning.
The objective of Stream 2 of the NRM Fund was to improve the capacity of regional NRM organisations to plan for climate change by improving the quality and accessibility of regionally relevant information on climate change impacts and potential adaptation responses.The Stream 2 program was delivered through eight regional projects and two national projects (‘Stream 2 projects’):
· a ‘National Projections’ project lead by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) to deliver regionalised climate projections,
· eight ‘climate impacts and adaptation’ projects (Monsoonal North, Murray Basin, Wet Tropics, Central Slopes, Southern and South Western Flatlands, Southern Slopes, East Coast and Rangelands) delivered to eight NRM ‘clusters’ based on existing regional NRM boundaries, and
· a national ‘impacts and adaptation’ project (the ‘AdaptNRM’ project).
A NRM Information Management Project with Griffith University has also been supported with NRM funding to enhance the Terra Nova web portal as the repository of Stream 2 published material. Clear Horizon Consulting was engaged by the Department to provide monitoring and evaluation (M&E) support for the program and to undertake a mid-term evaluation (2014) and a final evaluation (2016).
See Section 2 for more detail on the Stream 2 projects.
1.2. Stream 2 final evaluation
This final evaluation covers the entire program timeframe (from 2013 to 2016) and the investment of $15 million. The purpose of this final evaluation is to demonstrate the achievements of Stream 2, share learning, and contribute to the knowledge base for research and investment in climate change science and NRM planning.
This final evaluation was prepared by drawing on multiple data sources including: a series of 36 semi-structured phone interviews[2]; annual project reporting (between 2013 and 2016), Stream 1 regional reporting (39 NRM regions); NRM planning documentation (16 NRM regions); departmental records; and project documentation and resources. The evaluation findings are presented below.
1.3. Final evaluation findings
Stream 2 has effectively met its overarching objective of delivering regionally-relevant climate change information and support to NRM regions via eight cluster projects, the National Projections project and the national impacts and adaption project (AdaptNRM). This was supported by fit-for-purpose, regionally-specific engagement. The findings presented below focus on what and how information has been delivered, the support given to enable planners to integrate climate science into NRM planning and the relationships and linkages that have developed as a result, and the legacy that is likely to remain from the program.
Delivery of information to assist climate adaptation by regional NRM bodies
NRM regions can now approach climate adaptation planning with more confidence – knowing they have access to scientifically-credible climate information and resources.
At the end of Stream 2 in 2016 regionally-relevant, high quality climate change impacts and adaptation information is more accessible to NRM regions than at the beginning of the program. A total of 958 NRM climate research and planning products[3] have been delivered by the ten projects including 183 next generation climate change projections products. More than 268 engagement activities have been delivered across ten projects to support the use and application of climate change research and science in the NRM planning process. Through web access, up-to-date regionally relevant climate change information is more accessible to NRM organisations and stakeholders than previously.
Integrating climate science into NRM planning
Most NRM regions are using the climate science from Stream 2 of the Regional Natural Resource Management Planning for Climate Change Fund for their planning.
Uptake and application of Stream 2 products by NRM regions is widespread with around three quarters of the NRM regions specifying examples of using Stream 2 outputs in the planning process. Climate science outputs developed by Stream 2 have been used as technical inputs into NRM planning (e.g. use of the Agricultural Production Systems Simulator [APSIM] by Northern Tablelands in the Central Slopes cluster). Significantly, there was evidence that Stream 2 science products have influenced the planning frameworks adopted and used by NRM organisations in some regions to guide their thinking about how to plan for climate change. For instance, the Adaptation Pathways approach further developed by the Southern Slopes project was used by the Corangamite CMA and in East Gippsland CMA in Victoria to guide spatial NRM planning.
Stream 2 has had a marked influence on the NRM planning process as well as delivering products and resources to support regional NRM planning. Where Stream 2 has had a positive effect on planning capacity within NRM organisations, there tends to also be strong linkages, ties and geographical proximity to the Stream 2 project teams.
Interactions between researchers and planners
The relationships between researchers and NRM planners – developed through many types of interaction – led to enhanced capacity and understanding amongst both the science and NRM communities.
A range of engagement and delivery approaches were used by Stream 2 projects to understand and respond to the planning needs of NRM regions. For the most part, this has supported the delivery of products and support to NRM regions that has been well received, relevant and fit-for-purpose. Multiple modes of engagement were often necessary to ensure coverage across socially diverse and geographically wide-spread cluster areas. User uptake of information was supported in regions and clusters where there was a common and widely-accepted focus (e.g. agriculture) and existing networks (e.g. where there were well-established industries and linkages). The devolved funding agreements set up by the Department enabled Stream 2 projects to tailor their engagement activities and processes to the specific clusters with which they were working.
By and large the cluster approach taken in Stream 2 has led to inter-regional learning and connections across NRM groups that would not have otherwise been established. This was strongest in clusters where: (i) inter-regional forums were established and brokered by the project teams, and (ii) existing inter-regional forums existed (i.e. Victoria and South Western Australia). While the cluster model has facilitated inter-regional learning in most clusters, in others it has reinforced existing geographical and institutional divisions across state boundaries. For instance, in the Southern and South-Western Flatlands cluster, the South Australian NRM regions (Eyre Peninsula, Northern and Yorke, Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges and Kangaroo Island) are geographically split from the Western Australian based project team and NRM regions (Northern Agricultural, Wheatbelt, Perth, South West and South Coast). This split was exacerbated by repeated staff turnover in the liaison point between the Perth-based project team and the South Australian NRM planners. Ultimately, inter-regional learning in this cluster was compromised as a result of these factors, which relate to both the design of the cluster model as well as project implementation (staff turnover).
Stream 2 has not fully realised considerable opportunities for greater program coordination and increased efficiencies across project and cluster boundaries. This is due largely to the fact that the program did not mandate or build any formal structures for information sharing into the program. Coordination across clusters could have been strengthened for example if the Department had established a centralised program coordination role with clear responsibilities for encouraging and supporting opportunities for information sharing.
The legacy of Stream 2
While there is uncertainty and considerable challenges ahead in regional planning for climate change the outcomes of the program are likely to be enduring well beyond the timeframe of delivery.
Reflecting the outcomes of the program, the legacy of Stream 2 includes significant advances by regional bodies in their ability to adaptively plan for climate change and the embedding of new information and knowledge into regional planning processes. As regional NRM organisations adaptively plan for climate change they will have improved access to responsive, adaptive tools and frameworks (such as the adaptation pathways approach), research outputs, online resources and platforms (such as the Climate Change in Australia website and the Terra Nova platform), as well as improved networks and relationships between researchers, planners and NRM representatives.
While scientists, researchers and NRM managers and planners will continue to derive benefits from the outcomes achieved by the program there are a range of challenges and constraints, which will affect the legacy of the program. These include:
· the cluster model was designed purely for Stream 2 and has no longevity beyond the project timeframe (2013 – 2016), though it potentially has applicability for future federal NRM investment and programming
· lack of ongoing funding to support the application of the Climate Change in Australia website beyond the possibility of short-term basic maintenance through a project under the Australian Government National Environmental Science Programme (NESP)
· staff turnover and organisational restructuring within regional bodies resulting in a loss of corporate knowledge and capacity built through the program
· low levels of awareness about Stream 2 within the Department and at a state level among relevant agencies and departments
· absence of formal structures or resources to sustain linkages between researchers and planners.
Ultimately the responsibility for implementing NRM plans lies with a diverse range of state, regional and local, community stakeholders who operate within the networks facilitated by regional NRM bodies. As these stakeholders begin to implement NRM planning for climate change, the influence that the program has had on NRM organisations’ ability to adaptively plan and manage climate change impacts will become increasingly apparent.
1.4. Key learnings from Stream 2
Based on the findings of this evaluation, a number of learnings for any future Australian Government investment in climate change impacts, adaptation research and NRM planning have been identified. Applying the learnings will necessitate coordination and support from other sectors such as regional NRM bodies and researchers.
The ‘impact’ of Stream 2 was largely on the NRM planning process. The update of NRM plans was a benefit of Stream 2 but the lasting value of this program will be the influence on the regional NRM planning process more generally. In this regard, the program’s impact is influenced by state policy frameworks that determine the role of NRM plans. Enhanced linkages and relationships between planners and researchers are critical in supporting the program’s contribution to the regional NRM planning process.
Learnings for consideration in future investments are outlined below.
· Recognise the role of engagement in supporting science translation. Investment in climate adaptation at the science to policy and management interface must explicitly address the need for engagement between the producers and users of science. This can be done by simply requiring a percentage of funds or grants devoted to supporting science translation to be apportioned specifically to engagement activities. Early and sustained engagement between the producers and users of science is critical to support uptake.
· Bridging the climate science and practitioner gap is necessarily challenging. Researchers and NRM practitioners operate with different worldviews in different systems. The process of bringing scientists and practitioners together is a dynamic process which requires adaptive, flexible approaches in procurement, programming, project management and evaluation.
· Investment in science and NRM at a national scale requires sufficiently resourced coordination. To fully realise the benefits from a program of this scale - such as cross-cluster learning - it is necessary to adequately fund program coordination beyond a formal administrative capacity.
· Take institutional considerations into account in further applications of the cluster model. Stream 2 has proven to be an effective trial of the cluster model for delivering NRM investment nationally. There have been significant benefits in delivering the approach on bio-climatic factors. However institutional factors, including state and institutional boundaries, should be more fully considered to maximise the benefits of this approach. This was most acutely demonstrated in a geographical split between South Australia and Western Australia in the Southern and South-Western Flatlands cluster.
· Provide sufficient flexibility in contracting arrangements in any future funding program for climate change adaptation. This program has demonstrated that program design doesn’t need to be prescriptive to effectively deliver outcomes. Indeed, it is arguable that, in order to be effective, climate adaptation investment needs to be sufficiently flexible and responsive to emergent needs, priorities and values.
· Carefully consider the sequencing in designing future NRM science and planning investment. The concurrent delivery of Streams 1 and 2 presented considerable challenges as well as opportunities for projects in achieving the objectives of the NRM Fund. In some regions, NRM plans were updated with Stream 1 funding prior to receiving updated science and research information through Stream 2. This concurrent timing created difficulties but also opportunities for the program as researchers and NRM representatives were required to engage with one another in ways that would not otherwise have been possible.
Stream 2 – Final Evaluation
Final Report Clear Horizon Consulting 2
[1] There have been a number of agencies responsible for the administration of the program since its inception due to administrative arrangement order changes including the Department of Environment, the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) and the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIICCSRTE).
[2] Interviews were undertaken with regional NRM representatives (n=20), Stream 2 project representatives (n=13) and the Department of Environment representatives (n=3).
[3] Including interim, draft and final products delivered by Stream 2.