coastal vulnerability and risk assessment program coordination · reference: status: 3 march 2010...
TRANSCRIPT
Report
Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program Coordination
11 JUNE 2010
Prepared for
Northern Agricultural Catchments Council
PO Box 7168 Geraldton WA 6530
42907394
CVRAP Coordination
c:\documents and settings\cpc\my documents\chiara work docs\coastal and marine 2006-2008\projects\nacc projects 2008-2009\risk assessment study\project management and facilitation\final report\cvrap urs_final report.doc
Project Manager:
…………………………… Vicki Williams Associate Social Scientist
URS Australia Pty Ltd
Level 3, 20 Terrace Road East Perth WA 6004 Australia T: 61 8 9326 0100 F: 61 8 9326 0296
Project Director:
…………………………… Dr Don Burnside Principal Natural Resources Scientist
Author:
…………………………… Vicki Williams Associate Social Scientist
Reviewer:
…………………………… Dr Don Burnside Principal Natural Resources Scientist
Date: Reference: Status:
3 March 2010 42907394/S0102/02 Final
Document copyright of URS Australia Pty Limited.
This report is submitted on the basis that it remains commercial-in-confidence. The contents of this
report are and remain the intellectual property of URS and are not to be provided or disclosed to third
parties without the prior written consent of URS. No use of the contents, concepts, designs, drawings,
specifications, plans etc. included in this report is permitted unless and until they are the subject of a
written contract between URS Australia and the addressee of this report. URS Australia accepts no
liability of any kind for any unauthorised use of the contents of this report and URS reserves the right
to seek compensation for any such unauthorised use.
Document delivery
URS Australia provides this document in either printed format, electronic format or both. URS
considers the printed version to be binding. The electronic format is provided for the client‘s
convenience and URS requests that the client ensures the integrity of this electronic information is
maintained. Storage of this electronic information should at a minimum comply with the requirements
of the Commonwealth Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) 2000.
Where an electronic only version is provided to the client, a signed hard copy of this document is held
on file by URS and a copy will be provided if requested.
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................. vi
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Brief ...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Approach ............................................................................................. 2
1.3.1 Consultation ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 2
1.3.3 Expert review .................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Structure of Report .......................................................................................... 3
2 Review of Program Elements ........................................................................... 4
2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Program Framework ........................................................................................ 4
2.2.1 Program Logic .................................................................................................................. 4
2.2.2 Program objectives .......................................................................................................... 4
2.2.3 Program study area ......................................................................................................... 6
2.2.4 Initial focus on the Geraldton-Greenough Coast ......................................................... 6
2.2.5 Information requirements ............................................................................................... 7
2.3 Program Implementation ................................................................................. 7
2.4 Approaches to Vulnerability and Risk Assessment....................................... 7
2.5 Vulnerability assessment in Australia ............................................................ 9
2.6 CVRAP Program overview ............................................................................. 12
2.6.1 Clarifying the Vision ......................................................................................................12
2.6.2 The need for monitoring and review ............................................................................12
2.6.3 Rationale for selecting the initial CVRAP area ...........................................................12
2.6.4 Defining the “coast” ......................................................................................................13
2.7 Individual projects review .............................................................................. 13
2.7.1 Project 1 - Information Sources and Gap Analysis ....................................................13
2.7.2 Project 2 - Sediment Budgets - Character and Distribution ......................................14
2.7.3 Project 3 - Beach Watch ................................................................................................14
2.7.4 Project 4 - Function at Risk (Ecosystems Services) ..................................................15
2.7.5 Project 5 - Functions at Risk (Socio-Economic Framework) ....................................19
2.7.6 Project 6 - Strategy Development and Implementation .............................................20
2.8 Suggested additional projects in CVRAP ..................................................... 21
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 ii
2.8.1 Project 7 – Assessment of the structure and function of coastal infrastructure ..................................................................................................................22
2.8.2 Project 8 - Information storage, analysis and retrieval ..............................................26
2.8.3 Project 9 – Shared risks assessment ..........................................................................28
2.8.4 Project 10 - Community awareness and engagement ...............................................30
3 Program Partners - Existing and Potential ................................................... 32
3.1 Consultation ................................................................................................... 32
3.2 Existing Partners ............................................................................................ 32
3.3 Potential Partners ........................................................................................... 33
4 Governance of the CVRAP ............................................................................. 37
4.1 Structures and functions ............................................................................... 37
4.1.1 Coordination ...................................................................................................................37
4.1.2 Organisational Structure ...............................................................................................39
4.2 Funding Sources ............................................................................................ 41
4.2.1 Committed funds ...........................................................................................................41
4.2.2 Funding constraints ......................................................................................................41
4.2.3 Opportunities for further funds ....................................................................................41
4.3 Developing a business case for CVRAP ....................................................... 42
4.3.1 Mid West Regional Grants Scheme .............................................................................42
4.3.2 Business Case Framework ...........................................................................................43
5 Communications and Stakeholder Engagement .......................................... 45
6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 46
7 References ....................................................................................................... 47
8 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 49
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 iii
Tables
Table 2-1 Coastal vulnerability assessment process ........................................................................ 9
Table 2-2 Ecosystem Services Project Resource Requirements ................................................... 18
Table 2-3 NCCOE Impact Assessment Interaction Matrix .............................................................. 26
Table 2-4 Coastal information resources ........................................................................................ 27
Table 3-1 Key stakeholders in coastal management ...................................................................... 33
Table 4-1 Simple Matrix for Program Coordination ......................................................................... 39
Table H-1 Communication Type Checklist (Detail) .......................................................................... 85
Figures
Figure 2-1 Program Logic for the CVRAP .......................................................................................... 5
Figure 2-2 Coastal regions in WA (Source: Eliot and Nutt, 2009) ...................................................... 6
Figure 2-3 Definition of vulnerability of natural and socio-economic systems (Source: Abuodha and Woodroffe, 2006) .............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2-4 Initial assessment and detailed analysis (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008:21) .......... 11
Appendices
Appendix A Consultation Schedule
Appendix B Draft Letters to Primary Stakeholders
Appendix C Draft Letter to Secondary Stakeholders (Involve)
Appendix D Draft Letter to Secondary Stakeholders (Inform)
Appendix E Terms of Reference - Joint Steering Group
Appendix F Terms of Reference - Technical Advisory Group
Appendix G Project Briefing - Ecosystems Services
Appendix H Communications and Stakeholder Engagement Plan
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 iv
Abbreviations
Abbreviation Description
BCMI Batavia Coast Maritime Institute
CoGG City of Geraldton-Greenough
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
CVRAP Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program
DAF Department of Agriculture and Food
DCC Department of Climate Change
DEC Department of Environment and Conservation
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DoF Department of Fisheries
DoP Department of Planning
DoT Department of Transport
GGCCS Geraldton-Greenough Coastal Communities Study
GPA Geraldton Port Authority
GUC Geraldton Universities Centre
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
JSG Joint Steering Group (CVRAP)
KAPVA Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices, Values and Aspirations
NACC Northern Agricultural Catchments Council
NAR Northern Agricultural Region
NCCOE National Committee on Coastal and Ocean Engineering
NCVA National Coastal Vulnerability Assessment
OPR Oakajee Port and Rail
PASS Potential acid sulphate soils
TAG Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
WALIS Western Australian Land Information System
WAMSI Western Australian Marine Science Institute
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 v
Acknowledgements
URS gratefully acknowledges the assistance and input of the CVRAP Technical Advisory Group for
providing valuable information and for their comments on interim and final reports. Specifically, URS
would like to acknowledge:
Chiara Danese, Coastal Project Coordinator, NACC
Katherine Atkinson, Investment Plan Officer, NACC
Alan Bradley, CEO, Northern Agricultural Catchments Council
Ashley Robb, Northern Agricultural Catchments Council
Tony Brun, CEO, City of Geraldton-Greenough
Peter Klein, CEO, Geraldton Port Authority
Vivienne Panizza, Team Leader Climate Change and Coastal Planning, Department of Planning
Mark Chadwick, City of Geraldton-Greenough
Lucya Rocevich, Department of Transport
Nikki Pursell, Department of Planning
Sue Mischke, Geraldton Port Authority
Ian Eliot (Damara Pty Ltd
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 vi
Executive Summary
Coastal ecosystems are already under substantial pressure from a range of non-climate stressors
related to urban development and housing and the economic and recreational uses of coastal
resources notably for agriculture, fisheries and transport ... Climate change will add to these existing
pressures, compounding their impacts in possibly complex and diverse ways which may be difficult to
predict, track and manage.
Commonwealth of Australia, 2009: 51
The challenge of climate change
The impact(s) of climate change is a central concern for governments and communities alike and has
been generating considerable interests over the past decade. The Australian Government has
invested considerable resources into preparing for the likely effects of climate change events such as
sea level rise, changing climate patterns, increased likelihood of extreme weather events and
secondary effects such as increased flooding and drought frequencies. At a local and regional level,
Local Governments across Western Australia are beginning to undertake assessments of potential
impacts on their communities. For example, the Town of Cottesloe, City of Mandurah, City of Stirling
and Shire of Murchison are some of the Local Governments in WA that have undertaken climate
change risk assessments and/or coastal vulnerability studies in recent years.
The Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program (CVRAP)
In the Geraldton region similar issues with the effects of climate change are faced. This is
compounded with a rapidly increasing population and a subsequent increase in residential and
commercial development. The Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program (CVRAP)
emerged from an acknowledgement that the pressures being placed on the coastline of Geraldton
from such factors as climate change (and associated sea-level rise), expanding urban development,
natural and engineered changes to the coast and increased recreational and commercial use of the
coastal resources required attention. Erosion of parts of the shore are already threatening property
and infrastructure as well as having a detrimental effect on inshore habitats.
Partners in CVRAP
The Northern Agricultural Catchments Council (NACC) partnered with the City of Geraldton-
Greenough, the Geraldton Port Authority (GPA), the Department of Planning (DoP) and the
Department of Transport (DoT) in developing the CVRAP. This multi-agency approach represents a
departure from common climate change assessment approaches. More often than not it has been the
Local Government leading, often without direct support from State agencies or from industry. The
approach taken in the Northern Agricultural Region is to be applauded although it does present some
challenges in terms of governance that other approaches have not had to contend with as discussed
below.
The Scope of CVRAP
At present the scope of the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program extends from the
mouth of the Greenough River to the south through to Buller River to the north with an aim of ensuring
future planning processes for the coast take account of:
1. Challenges brought about by climate change impacts (e.g. sea level rise);
2. Potential risks to existing coastal infrastructure;
CVRAP Coordination
Executive Summary
42907394/S0102/02 vii
3. Integration of future climate scenarios within a sound planning process;
4. Valuing and protecting coastal biodiversity; and
5. Appropriate set-backs to coastal development.
To achieve these aims the CVRAP partners designed a series of six projects to provide a site-specific
assessment of coastal vulnerability:
1. Information sources and gap analysis (completed);
2. Sediment budgets (current);
3. Beach Watch;
4. Ecosystems Services;
5. Socio-economic framework; and
6. Strategy development and Implementation.
These projects are discussed in the body of the report (Section 2).
The CVRAP Coordination Project
URS Australia Pty Limited was contracted to the Northern Agricultural Catchments Council to provide
coordination services to the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program. The aim of the
coordination project was to facilitate the development of the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk
Assessment Program (CVRAP) in order to contribute towards its successful completion in the most
efficient and scientific manner. To achieve this aim URS conducted a literature and document review,
facilitated a series of workshops with Program partners, undertook a program of consultation with
existing and potential stakeholders and prepared this report.
Project requirements
The project addressed the following requirements.
1. Provide further refinement of the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program to:
a) Ensure adherence to standards and alignment with Program partners‘ common vision,
objectives and expected outcomes;
b) Identify gaps and recommend changes and/or new projects to meet Program goals; and
c) Provide an innovative and well-structured framework that may be used as a template for
Integrated Risk Assessment and Management of other coastal areas of Western Australia.
2. Facilitate an agreement of the roles between Program partners and review responsibilities and
roles to ensure all partners have trust in the Program‘s capability to deliver value for their
investment and to improve the Program‘s success;
3. Identify and engage new stakeholders and increase their understanding of the Program goals and
objectives in order to contribute with data, in-kind resources and cash towards successful
implementation of the Program;
4. Provide guidance and tools to the Program partners in order to foster and encourage self-
management of the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program over the next 4 to 5 years.
This means building understanding, governance structures, information management systems, and
securing a commitment from each Program partners to manage the projects beyond the life of the
current Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program Coordinator Project; and
5. Ensure that the community is kept informed about the progress of the Program.
CVRAP Coordination
Executive Summary
42907394/S0102/02 viii
Program Review
It was clear when reviewing the documentation for this CVRAP that a significant level of academic and
intellectual rigour had been dedicated to the Program in its inception. Given that coastal vulnerability
and risk assessment was (and continues to be) an emerging concept there was little consensus on
which approach would provide the greatest benefit. The Northern Agricultural Region CVRAP has
nonetheless drafted a suite of projects that will gather and assess a range of data and information to
enable a thorough risk assessment and should propose strategies for adaptation that can be adopted
at the local and state level.
Technical experts at URS have undertaken a review of the six project briefs and provide comment on
their alignment with the Program‘s objectives and outcomes and to provide recommendations as to
additional projects that might be considered to further the effectiveness of the Program. An additional
four projects have been suggested for consideration. These are:
Assessment of the structure and function of coastal infrastructure (Section 2.8.1);
Information storage, analysis and retrieval (Section 2.8.2);
Shared risks assessment (Section 2.8.3); and
Community awareness and engagement (Section 2.8.4).
Consultation
The CVRAP is currently being implemented by the five Program partners, being Northern Agricultural
Catchments Council, City of Geraldton-Greenough, Department of Planning, Department of Transport
and Geraldton Port Authority. Each of these agencies/organisations was consulted as part of the
Coordination Project. One key discussion point in each of these consultations was a desire to expand
the number of primary stakeholders beyond this core group. Additional stakeholders that might be
involved in the CVRAP were identified as:
Batavia Coast Marine Institute;
CSIRO;
Department of Agriculture and Food;
Department of Environment and Conservation;
Department of Fisheries;
Geraldton Universities Centre;
Local Government Shires of Irwin, Chapman Valley, Dandaragan, Coorow, Gingin;
Mid West Chamber of Commerce and Industry;
Mid West Development Commission;
Oakajee Port and Rail;
Western Australian Marine Science Institution; and
Western Australian Land Information System.
These organisations were approached to ascertain their level of knowledge and awareness of the
CVRAP and their ability and interest in becoming involved in the Program in some capacity.
Generally, these stakeholders were interested in the work of the Program and to maintain the
momentum gained through the initial approach URS drafted a series of letters to inviting these
stakeholders to participate in the CVRAP. The invitations have been differentiated based upon the
level of engagement that each stakeholder is anticipated to have. At the highest level are those
stakeholders who could potentially become new Program partners, below these are those who might
CVRAP Coordination
Executive Summary
42907394/S0102/02 ix
become involved in the Program through the provision of technical advice and/or funding, and those
that may have an interest in or could benefit from the data that emerges from the project activities.
It is recommended that these stakeholders be introduced to the CVRAP via the letters of invitation so
that ongoing dialogue can develop. As with all multi-sector/multi-agency programs the important first
step is in establishing relationships of interest which can be built upon into the future.
Governance
As noted previously the process of assessing coastal vulnerability to climate change is a complex
task. Direction is being provided by the Australian Government who offer a number of publications
and guidelines assisting organisations conducting assessments and who also offer some funding to
carry out the works. However, the assessments themselves are more often than not lead by Local
Government (with some assistance provided by State Agencies). The approach taken in the Northern
Agricultural Region is slightly different in that a number of public and private organizations have come
together to develop and implement a coastal vulnerability and risk assessment program. This
multiple-organisation approach brings with it unique challenges not faced by others undertaking the
same task, notably in the area of governance.
This coordination project has investigated the existing governance structures of the CVRAP and
makes some recommendations in going forward. In short, it has recommended that a Joint Steering
Group (JSG) be established to act as the coordinating instrument for inter-organisational efforts and
to provide the necessary oversight to all aspects associated with the Program. Supporting the JSG
would be a Technical Advisory group (TAG) to provide guidance and advice on technical and
operational aspects of the Program. Draft Terms of Reference for both groups have been provided in
Appendix E and Appendix F.
Funding
In the current environment of fiscal restraint, gaining access to long-term funding has become more
difficult, resulting in projects either being under-resourced or, worse, unrealised. The existing and
proposed projects of the CVRAP are resource intensive as is the provision of coordination/project
management of the CVRAP. To date the two projects of the CVRAP that have commenced have
required funding of approximately $300,000 plus in-kind resources. While no detailed costings have
been prepared for the remaining (defined and proposed) projects they are likely to require upwards of
$500,000 to complete, and certainly more if the projects investigating near-shore marine processes
will be using LiDAR technology.
Discussions with existing and potential Program partners confirmed that the ability to provide financial
and human (in-kind) resources was limited even though organisations see the benefit of the CVRAP.
Government agencies are currently constrained by the budget process and recent cut-backs to budget
allocations. In many cases organisations have to fund additional works from existing funding sources.
The end result is that funding for programs such as CVRAP cannot rely on direct contributions from
Program partners.
Some funding sources have been identified but will be dependent upon the CVRAP building a strong
business case in support of any application. Given that climate change currently has a high profile
(politically and socially) it would be prudent to put together a business case for the entire Program
CVRAP Coordination
Executive Summary
42907394/S0102/02 x
including all existing and proposed Projects while interest is high. The report offers some guidance in
developing a business case and it is recommended as an urgent task for the JSG.
Community Awareness and Engagement
A Communications and Stakeholder Engagement Plan (CSEP) has been prepared for the Joint
Steering Group. The aims of the CSEP are to:
outline the objectives for communication and stakeholder engagement for the CVRAP;
define the communication and stakeholder engagement strategic approach of the CVRAP;
define the development of communication and the key messages;
identify the stakeholder groups (key audiences);
identify the channels of communications for these stakeholders;
define the communication outcomes; and
define the means of monitoring feedback and evaluating the success of communications.
Conclusion
The CVRAP is a timely and important initiative whose results will inform decision-making with respect
of land-use planning and development; infrastructure planning and construction; and recreational and
commercial activities. There is no doubt that a considerable investment is required not only of
financial resources but also in terms of human resources and time commitment. However, the results
of the CVRAP and its component projects are necessary for managing the future potential impacts of
climate change.
This investigation has identified three crucial elements to taking the CVRAP forward.
Leadership: The Program will flounder without strong leadership and direction. Currently NACC are
successfully providing the coordination role with limited funds and other resources. Whether this
remains the ideal location for coordination of the CVRAP is a matter for the Joint Steering Group to
determine although it is considered that the City of Geraldton-Greenough would be the most
appropriate organisation to take over the role should NACC be unavailable. Having a robust
governance structure will be essential to achieving the Program objectives.
Commitment: It is evident that existing Program partners have a strong commitment to the Program
and each will be gaining some individual benefit/use from their participation. The impacts of climate
change on coastal processes are also a concern of other government agencies and organisations not
yet involved. Gaining the buy-in of this expanded group of stakeholders should be seen as a crucial
task particularly for the Joint Steering Group. Expanding the partnership should grant access to a
wider resource base (either in-kind or financial) and will contribute to the Program being implemented
in its entirety.
Relationships: As with all multi-sector/multi-agency programs the important first step is in
establishing relationships of interest which can be built upon into the future. Good and positive
relationships exist between current Program Partners and this has contributed to the Program moving
from idea to implementation. Establishing good and positive relationships with other organisations will
assist in building and maintaining the momentum to take the Program forward. Already relationships
with organisations such as the CSIRO and Department of Fisheries have formed and should be
supported. Linking with other identified key stakeholders should be seen as a priority for the Joint
Steering Group to expand the partnership across a wider array of organisations and agencies.
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 1
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program (CVRAP) emerged from the
acknowledgement that the pressures being placed on the coastline of Geraldton from such factors as
climate change, expanding urban development, natural and engineered changes and increased
recreational and commercial use of the coastal resources required attention. The pressures were
particularly evident in and around the coastal foreshores and reserves within the City of Geraldton-
Greenough (CoGG) local government area. Erosion of parts of the shore is already threatening
property and infrastructure as well as having a detrimental effect on inshore habitats.
The Northern Agricultural Catchments Council (NACC) has partnered with the City of Geraldton-
Greenough, Geraldton Port Authority (GPA), Department of Planning (DoP) and Department of
Transport (DoT) in developing the CVRAP. At present the scope of the Program extends from the
mouth of the Greenough River to the south through to Buller River to the north with an aim of ensuring
future planning processes for the coast take account of:
1. challenges brought about by climate change impacts (e.g. sea level rise);
2. potential risks to existing coastal infrastructure;
3. integration of future climate scenarios within a sound planning process;
4. valuing and protecting coastal biodiversity; and
5. appropriate set-backs to coastal development.
To achieve these aims the CVRAP partners designed a series of projects to provide a site-specific
assessment of coastal vulnerability.
1.2 Project Brief
URS Australia Pty Limited (hereafter ―URS‖) has been contracted to the Northern Agricultural
Catchments Council to provide coordination services to the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk
Assessment Program. The aim of the coordination project was to facilitate the development of the
Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program (CVRAP) in order to contribute towards its
successful completion in the most efficient and scientific manner.
Key tasks of this coordination project were to:
1. Clarify the Program‘s vision, roles, commitments and understanding of the process in consultation
with Program partners;
2. Identify further resources and potential stakeholders for the implementation of the Program;
3. Ensure the frameworks and methodology used in the Program provide information that is trusted,
and will be useful for decision-making;
4. Build Program partner‘s capacity to i) successfully integrate research into the Program, and ii)
integrate the Program‘s outcomes into planning and management polices and processes; and
5. Manage the regular communications, meetings and negotiations to achieve these aims.
Specifically, the project sought the following objectives:
1. Provide further refinement of the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program to:
a) Ensure adherence to standards and alignment with Program partners‘ common vision,
objectives and expected outcomes;
b) Identify gaps and recommend changes and/or new projects to meet Program goals; and
CVRAP Coordination
1 Introduction
42907394/S0102/02 2
c) Provide an innovative and well-structured framework that may be used as a template for
Integrated Risk Assessment and Management of other coastal areas of Western Australia.
2. Facilitate an agreement of the roles between Program partners and review responsibilities and
roles to ensure all partners have trust in the Program‘s capability to deliver value for their
investment and to improve the Program‘s success;
3. Identify and engage new stakeholders and increase their understanding of the Program goals and
objectives in order to contribute with data, in-kind resources and cash towards successful
implementation of the Program;
4. Provide guidance and tools to the Program partners in order to foster and encourage self-
management of the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program over the next 4 to 5 years.
This means building understanding, governance structures, information management systems, and
securing a commitment from each Program partners to manage the projects beyond the life of the
current Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program Coordinator Project; and
5. Provide mechanisms to ensure that the community is kept informed about the progress of the
Program.
1.3 Project Approach
1.3.1 Consultation
An inception meeting was held between the CVRAP Project Team and URS in Geraldton on 1
December 2009. The purpose of this initial meeting was to introduce the URS Team to the
representatives of the Program partners and to familiarise URS with the components of the CVRAP.
URS facilitated a workshop with Program partners to work through opportunities and constraints for
the continuation and expansion of the CVRAP. This was also held in Geraldton on 14 December
2009.
At the project inception meeting, several key stakeholders not yet engaged with the CVRAP were
identified. Invitations were extended to these additional stakeholders to attend a workshop on 15
December 2009. Representatives from a number of government agencies, academic institutions,
local government and CSIRO attended.
In addition, URS has conducted a number of face-to-face and telephone interviews with senior officers
within the Program partner organisations and with other stakeholders relevant to the CVRAP (see
Appendix A).
1.3.2 Literature Review
One of the central activities of this project was directed at investigating the governance arrangements
of the Program in order to make recommendations for the ongoing development and implementation
of the Program. It is vitally important for the future of the CVRAP that robust governance
arrangements are established, monitored and continually updated.
A literature review of governance in natural resource management more broadly, and coastal
vulnerability specifically was undertaken to build on URS‘ existing knowledge and expertise in this
area. This literature review has identified best practice in managing multi-agency/multi-sectoral
programs and has led to the recommendations made in this report.
CVRAP Coordination
1 Introduction
42907394/S0102/02 3
1.3.3 Expert review
A second component of this coordination project was a review of the Program Framework and the
existing projects that comprise it. This review was led by a URS Principal Marine Ecologist with
extensive experience in the Geraldton-Greenough area (Dr Fred Wells), with support from a URS
Principal Natural Resource Scientist (Dr Don Burnside). Each of the six existing project briefs was
reviewed to:
confirm that each project‘s objectives were aligned with the Program‘s vision, aims and objectives;
identify connections and dependencies among the projects;
identify information such as timescales, resources required and potential partnerships are
identified; and
note additional projects that might be added to the Program if required to achieve the Program‘s
vision, aims and objectives.
1.4 Structure of Report
This report is the culmination of activities undertaken to deliver on the project objectives as noted in
Section 1.2. The following describes the structure of the remainder of the report.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the project requirements as contained within the project brief. This
is followed by a review of the CVRAP Framework and existing Project briefs. We also identify
several additional projects that may be pursued by the Program partners as initial projects are
completed. These additional projects have been recommended to guide the Program towards
achieving its objectives.
Chapter 3 describes the consultation processes undertaken for this project to re-confirm the
commitment of the existing partners‘ and to investigate the potential for the entry of new
partners into the Program.
Chapter 4 is concerned with governance. This chapter introduces roles the various oversight groups
that should provide clarity as to the roles and responsibilities of partners to the Program. This
Chapter also describes funding opportunities that might be pursued to further develop the
existing unfunded projects as well as other projects that may emerge into the future.
Finally Chapter 5 describes an approach to stakeholder engagement and communication to ensure
that information is transmitted to those who have an interest in the activities and outcomes of
the Program.
The consultation schedule, Terms of Reference for governance structures and a range of other
supporting documents are presented in the Appendices.
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 4
2
2 Review of Program Elements
2.1 Overview
The Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program (CVRAP) Framework and individual project
briefs for each of the defined projects (i.e. Projects 1 - 3, 5) were provided by the Coastal and Marine
Program Leader to the URS Team for review. No project brief was available for review for Project 4
or Project 6 nor for the more recent addition of Project 7 (Infrastructure Assessment).
2.2 Program Framework
The Program Framework developed for the CVRAP in the Northern Agricultural Region (NAR) of
Western Australia recognises that the Northern Agricultural Region is already experiencing substantial
difficulty with coastal processes such as erosion, and considerable sums of money are being invested
in combating the problems. With predictions of global warming, accompanying sea level rise, more
severe storms, increasing development of infrastructure in nearshore areas, etc., these problems will
only increase. The Northern Agricultural Catchment Council (NACC) prepared the Coastal
Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program as a basis for the development of planning strategies in
the NAR. The Program is well considered and timely.
2.2.1 Program Logic
Figure 2-1 provides a diagrammatic representation of the Program Logic for the CVRAP. Using this
type of Program Logic model provides a systematic, visual way to present a planned program with its
underlying assumptions and theoretical framework. It is a picture of why and how a program will work.
The Program Logic shows the inter-relationships and causal links between the various components of
the Program.
2.2.2 Program objectives
The primary objectives of the CVRAP have been identified as providing:
1. a central framework for analysing the nearshore coast;
2. a link between offshore and onshore analysis;
3. improved community awareness and understanding of the coast; and
4. a foundation for future planning and adaptation decisions1.
1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines adaptation as the "adjustment in natural or human systems in
response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities" (IPCC, 2007)
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 5
Figure 2-1 Program Logic for the CVRAP
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 6
2.2.3 Program study area
The study area has been defined as ‗the coastal strip of the entire NACC region from the Shire of
Gingin to the Shire of Northampton‘ (as shown in Figure 2-2). The original intent, given the size of the
study area, was to take a ‗first pass‘ broad scale assessment for the entire region followed by ‗second
pass‘ detailed local studies (as noted in CVRAP Framework, p. 1). The Program, as defined, sought
to extend the Batavia Coast Strategy (2001) which identified sediment compartments and coastal
management problems along the coast between Port Denison in the south to the northern boundary of
the Shire of Northampton.
The CVRAP utilises the coastal compartment and sediment cell concepts to delineate assessment of
vulnerability to coastal hazards, climate change and sea level rise. It would appear from the WALIS
map (see Figure 2-2) that there are two regions and four compartments in the whole of NACC.
Figure 2-2 Coastal regions in WA (Source: Eliot and Nutt, 2009)
2.2.4 Initial focus on the Geraldton-Greenough Coast
An important point to note is that the initial projects (as described in Section 2.7) have focused on the
area between Greenough River and Buller River. This has been a conscious decision of the Program
Partners to allocate the limited resources available on that area with the greatest amount of public and
private coastal investment. The intention is for the development of an effective methodology that can
then be applied in other areas of the NAR coast should additional funding be secured. It also
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 7
addresses the specific information needs of the City of Geraldton-Greenough and the Geraldton Port
Authority, whose interests are confined to the coastal area immediately north and south of the City.
2.2.5 Information requirements
The Program seeks to gather information in order to:
define offshore as well as alongshore sediment cells;
develop an increased understanding of sediment movement between the Greenough River and
Buller River;
identify problem areas and possible linkages between them; and
determine different coastal (morpho-dynamic) settings in which environmental change is taking
place and determine which different conceptual and numerical models need to be applied to
understand further change.
This information is fundamental to the assessment and implementation of shore stabilisation
measures. They establish the physical framework in which ecosystem services and the impacts of
current and projected shoreline movement on coastal infrastructure may be determined and
management priorities set and considered.
2.3 Program Implementation
To commence this Program NACC has partnered with the Departments of Planning (DoP) and
Transport (DoT), the City of Geraldton Greenough (CoGG) and the Geraldton Port Authority (GPA).
As the program develops, it is important that there is involvement by additional agencies with a stake
in coastal processes, and coastal land use and development, and with a geographic focus beyond the
Geraldton-Greenough area.
A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was established at the initiation of the Program. The TAG was
comprised of mid-level managers from the Partner organisations and was supported administratively
by the NACC. The role of the TAG is to develop and oversee individual projects, provide technical
advice, facilitate access to information and provide quality assurance of project deliverables.
The group has met in Geraldton on an irregular basis since the Program‘s implementation in early
2009.
2.4 Approaches to Vulnerability and Risk Assessment
Vulnerability ….
The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate
change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character,
magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive
capacity (IPCC, 2001).
Vulnerability is a function of exposure to climate factors, sensitivity to change and capacity to adapt to
that change (Allen Consulting Group, 2005). Klein and Nicholls (1999, cited in Abuodha and
Woodroffe, 2006) have provided a useful framework for thinking about the vulnerability of coastal
zones (see Figure 2-3). This framework emphasises the inter-dependence of the natural system and
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 8
the socio-economic-system and how each is impacted by climate change (sea-level rise) and other
climatic and non-climatic stresses. In this rendering, adaptive capacity will be either autonomous or
planned or both.
Figure 2-3 Definition of vulnerability of natural and socio-economic systems (Source: Abuodha and Woodroffe, 2006)
Many international approaches for assessing vulnerability of a coast to climate change impacts have
developed since the release of the IPCC Common Methodology for vulnerability assessment in 1991.
Approaches have included indices-based assessment such as the Coastal Vulnerability Index, Social
Vulnerability Index, Sensitivity Index and the like; Simulation of CLIMate Change Risks and Adaptation
Initiatives (SimCLIM) and Synthesis and Upscaling of Sea-level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Studies
(SURVAS) (Abuodha and Woodroffe, 2006; Dolan and Walker, 2004; Kay and Travers, 2008).
From the literature it has been possible to identify the generally accepted objectives for coastal
vulnerability assessment. These are:
to identify the current status of coastal areas and vulnerability due to existing coastal hazards;
to identify future vulnerability of coastal areas due to climate change;
to develop processes to monitor, adapt to, prevent and/or mitigate impacts arising from climate
change; and
to adopt a flexible approach to take account of variability in physical and biological conditions; and
differences in social, economic and cultural factors.
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 9
While many approaches are available to prepare a coastal vulnerability assessment they will often
comprise the following steps. The process outlined above in Table 2-1 has been used to guide the
review of the CVRAP undertaken for this project.
Table 2-1 Coastal vulnerability assessment process
Key Steps
Es
tab
lish
th
e C
on
tex
t
1. Defining the scope of the
assessment and the study area
2. Establishing the present
situation
Documenting the study area‘s environmental resources
Identifying environmental and socio-economic forcing factors and processes of change in the existing environment
Developing an understanding of natural variability and effects of human interference in the absence of climate change
3. Determining predicted climate
change scenario
Usually based on broad regional climate change
Inclusion of local and site-specific information
Estimated temperature changes, sea level rises, rainfall, extreme events, etc
4. Documenting existing
responses to current changes
Government/Management responses (technical, engineering, educational, policy-based)
5. Identifying information gaps Recognising uncertainty
Include identifying/prioritising future research needs
Ass
es
sin
g
Vu
lne
rab
ilit
y a
nd
Ris
k
6. Assessing vulnerability to
climate change
Vulnerability to current environmental and socio-economic forcing factors
Predicted vulnerability to climate change scenario
Vulnerability with respect to natural, socio-economic and cultural resources/attributes
Assessing likelihood and consequences
7. Assessing the significance of
changes
Due to current forcing factors
Due to climate change
Ad
dre
ss
ing
Ris
ks
8. Determining future responses to
anticipated changes
Due to environmental and socio-economic forcing factors
Due to climate change
Strategies to minimise risks and costs that are cost effective, technically and environmentally sound
Incorporate into coastal management policy and actioned in management plans
Mo
nit
or
an
d
Rev
iew
9. Determining requirements for
monitoring hazards and their
changes
Simple yet meaningful monitoring tools
Results easily applied to coastal management processes
2.5 Vulnerability assessment in Australia
The Commonwealth Department of Climate Change (DCC) released the National Climate Change
Adaptation Framework which was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in
2007. The Framework covers a range of cooperative actions between all Australian governments to
begin to address key demands from business and the community for targeted information on climate
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 10
change impacts and adaptation options. This has resulted in implementation of the National Coastal
Vulnerability Assessment (NCVA).
Sharples et al. (2008) describe the ‗three pass‘ assessment approach to coastal vulnerability. The
NCVA represents a ‗first pass‘ that provides an initial assessment of the future implications of climate
change for nationally significant aspects of Australia‘s coast, with a particular focus on coastal
settlements and ecosystems; identifies areas at high risk to climate change impacts; and identifies key
barriers or impediments that hinder effective responses to minimise the impacts of climate change in
the coastal zone (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). In the ‗second pass‘ the focus of the study is on
―regional variations in exposure to the drivers of coastal change‖ (Sharples et al. 2008: 3). The ‗third
pass‘ assessment is site-specific and ―measures, maps and assesses as many relevant fundamental,
regionally and locally-variable sensitivity and exposure factors pertaining to a site as are required or
practical to produce an (ideally) detailed model of how that particular shoreline is likely to respond to
coastal hazards such as sea-level rise‖ (Sharples et al. 2008: 3).
The six initial projects of the CVRAP are consistent with a ‗third pass‘ assessment. They will provide
detail of the context within which any future vulnerability or risk assessment can be made. This ‗third
pass‘ assessment will identify likely impacts at specific locations with specific local conditions thus
enabling planning decisions to take account of the potential impacts of such things as sea-level rise at
particular sites. This will provide locally-relevant information that is applicable at the Local
Government scale.
Guidance for assessing the risks associated with climate change impacts has been provided by the
Commonwealth Department of Climate Change (DCC) in the publication Climate change impacts and
risk management: A guide for business and government (2008). As the name suggests this approach
has been developed to assist Australian public and private sector organisations to adapt to climate
change. This specific purpose means that the Guide is prescriptive, that is, it prescribes a particular
approach to achieving the level of adaptation required. The Guide is consistent with the Australian
and New Zealand Standard for Risk Management, AS/NZS 4360:2004, which is widely used in the
public and private sectors to guide strategic, operational and other forms of risk management.
Figure 2-4 below is taken from the Climate change impacts and risk management Guide and shows
the risk management approach advocated by the DCC.
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 11
Figure 2-4 Initial assessment and detailed analysis (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008:21)
This approach is consistent with the process outlined in Table 2-1 but is organisation-specific.
Organisations using this approach are asked to understand the causal links between climate change
and the risks as they affect their organisation. Current projects of the CVRAP are working towards
establishing the context and identifying the risks. To some extent there will be on-going assessment
and evaluation of the risks although these actions are not specifically highlighted in existing Project
Briefs. A proposed Project 9 is recommended in Section 2.8.3 that will, if implemented, bring together
data and information gathered from existing projects to provide an overall analysis and evaluation of
the shared risks to coastal values, uses and users.
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 12
As the CVRAP is a partnership model it would not be possible to simply apply the Risk Management
model, rather an adapted coastal vulnerability and risk assessment approach is more likely to satisfy
the broader needs of the various Program partners. It may be more appropriate if organisations
develop their own risk management analyses that will attend to their specific needs. However, it will
be beneficial that, wherever possible, the approach adopted in the CVRAP should be mindful of the
risk needs of the Program partners.
2.6 CVRAP Program overview
To date, Program development has benefited from multi-disciplinary technical expertise (Dr Ian Elliot,
Assoc Prof Lindsay Collins, members of the Technical Advisory Group) and community based
monitoring groups. This multi-disciplinary approach is consistent with current natural resource
management philosophy, and is welcomed.
2.6.1 Clarifying the Vision
From the Program Framework documentation it is possible to articulate a vision for the CVRAP as
being:
Coastal biodiversity in the Northern Agricultural Region is protected and valued with coastal risks
associated with climate change impacts minimised through sound land-use and infrastructure
planning.
This is consistent with the views of Program partners interviewed during this coordination project.
2.6.2 The need for monitoring and review
Organising a Program with diverse aspects and a variety of stakeholders inevitably presents
challenges in ensuring that all parts of the Program complement each other, overlaps are minimised,
gaps are identified and addressed, synergies between the parts are captured, and the various
stakeholder needs are met. It will be essential that some form of monitoring and review is conducted
and this could be a role for the proposed Technical Advisory Group reporting to the Joint Steering
Group (see Section 4.1.2).
2.6.3 Rationale for selecting the initial CVRAP area
While the overall study area has been identified as the NAR coast – lying between the Shire of Gingin
to the south to the Shire of Northampton to the north – the initial focus of projects is on the region
between the Greenough River and the Buller River. The assumption is that this focus recognises that
with the bulk of the human population, and the major port located along this stretch of coastline, it is
here where issues will first arise. However, the Framework has not clearly articulated the reasons for
the narrowing of focus. As the Program progresses there will be a need to explore expansion of the
scope to the wider NAR to ensure capture of data and information along the coastal zone. This
expanded scope will require collaboration with local governments from across the NAR.
It has been suggested that there is still no understanding of the natural variability scenario versus the
climate change scenario along the coastal area within the current Program scope. Sound planning
and management of the coastal zone in a future that is affected by a changing climate requires
knowledge on how relevant geophysical parameters are likely to vary. For the coastal zone, such
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 13
parameters include sea levels, frequency of severe weather conditions, rainfall, wind and wave
dynamics and their subsequent impacts on erosion and flooding (see for example Hennessy et al
2004). Ideally this would be known prior to commencing projects four through ten as it would place
some boundaries around what may be at risk and over what extent that risk occurs. One approach
would be to present these scenarios as simple spatial overlays that can be integrated with local
contextual knowledge regarding infrastructure, networks and systems that are likely to be exposed
and adversely affected by climate change.
2.6.4 Defining the “coast”
A clear definition of ―coastal‖ is lacking in the documentation. As the word has different meanings for
different people, the extent of ―coastal‖ both onshore and into the sea may need to be clearly spelled
out. It is noted that the OECD has suggested that the boundaries of the coastal zone should extend
as far inland and as far seaward as necessary for appropriate management. From the literature there
appears to be agreement that the term ―coastal‖ relates to the land-sea interface but how far inland
and how far seaward the zone extends is contested. The Commonwealth Coastal Policy considers
the boundaries of the coastal zone to extend as far inland and as far seaward as necessary to achieve
the Coastal Policy objectives, with a primary focus on the land-sea interface (from Commonwealth of
Australia, May 1995, The Commonwealth Coastal Policy).
However, effects on the landward side of the coast will be influenced by the height above sea level.
For example, sea level rise is likely to have a greater impact around river mouths, along river flood
plains and alluvial plains and in low lying coastal areas. Given this, it may be appropriate for individual
projects to specify or delineate the boundaries of the coastal zone according to height above sea level.
2.7 Individual projects review
This initial review looks at project briefs for Project 1 through 6.
2.7.1 Project 1 - Information Sources and Gap Analysis
Project 1 (Information Sources and Gap Analysis) has been completed. Oceanica Consulting Pty
Ltd (2009) has prepared a sound document outlining the available background information and
highlights data gaps and other shortcomings in information available. The study identified a wealth of
coastal information available for the Northern Agricultural Region. In total 456 reports were identified
of which 103 where considered highly relevant to coastal hazard assessment. Additionally, 662
coastal datasets were identified.
The study has identified gaps in information sources and makes recommendations for further studies
in respect of vulnerability mapping, coastal engineering works, topography, shoreline planform, coastal
geology, geomorphology and geotechnical, meteorologic and oceanographic, and benthic habitats.
Some of these will be picked up in existing projects already identified by the CVRAP.
As at December 2009 the Oceanica report has been reviewed by the TAG with comments provided
back to the Consultant. Those consulted by URS for the coordination project considered that the
Oceanica review and analysis is generally adequate to guide future project identification and
development. This report could be made publicly available as a resource for others with an interest in
coastal processes and management in the region (also see Project 8 on page 26 regarding proposed
future project for information systems). In fact, the Oceanica study itself recommends that the
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 14
information collected as part of that study (i.e. EndNote database and metadata table be distributed to
all relevant state and local governments). Further, Oceanica recommend that an appropriate
government authority take ownership of the databases and continually update them as new
information becomes available (Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, 2009: 29)
2.7.2 Project 2 - Sediment Budgets - Character and Distribution
Project 2 (Sediment Budgets – Character and Distribution) is being considered in two stages. The
first stage is currently being undertaken by Worley Parsons and is aimed at providing knowledge on
coastal processes and sediment movement. The primary objectives are to provide a scientific basis
for the selection and implementation of options for stabilising beaches and protecting the coastal
assets over the next ten to 20 years; and to contribute information to the Geraldton Port Authority to
meet their Ministerial environmental conditions. The Project involves a desktop study, numerical
modelling, wave climate assessment, shoreline evolution modelling, review of infrastructure and
coastal vulnerability; and a description of coastal management options. The project will provide
recommendations on current monitoring processes and future monitoring programs which will assist
the Geraldton Port Authority in determining their sand by-passing requirements and the City of
Geraldton-Greenough in their coastal maintenance and management programs.
Stage 2 of this project has recently been awarded to a team from Curtin University headed by
Associate Professor Lindsay Collins. This Stage 2 project will study the sediment pathways and
budget within the Geraldton embayments between the Greenough River and Buller River. This project
will provide information on the sources and pathways of sand to assist in the long-term management
of the coastline particularly in regard to planning decisions and adaptation measures. The project has
been funded ($100,000) primarily by the Department of Transport to 30 June 2010.
This is a very important project for the funders, in that coastal management (shifting sand to the north
of the port, repair of damage to coastal facilities) is already costing about $500,000 per year, with
anecdotal advice being that coastal maintenance is not keeping up with the requirement. In particular,
the City of Geraldton-Greenough and the Geraldton Port Authority have a critical stake in the results of
the work, in that they are looking for information that will enable them to improve the effectiveness of
their current maintenance investments.
There is some suggestion from those consulted that this project, although it will deliver findings of
value, has inadequate scope and investment to address adequately the key questions about sediment
movement and management in the study area. Further, based on comments at Workshop 2, it is likely
that the project may throw up new questions that will require further research work. Finally, it will be
important that the reports from Phases 1 and 2 are subject to rigorous peer-review from qualified
people.
Outputs from both stages of Project 2 will inform the Shared Risks Assessment as described in Project
9 (see Section 2.8.3).
2.7.3 Project 3 - Beach Watch
Project 3 (Beach Watch) aims to involve the Geraldton community in the collection and supply of
information regarding shoreline movement and coastal change. Interested members of the community
will be asked to measure and photographically monitor coastal change on a beach of particular
interest, enter the information into a web-based database for analysis and creation of a time-series
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 15
dataset. This project, if implemented successfully will build wider community awareness of coastal
processes and coastal change and will empower community members to actively engage in the
management of natural resources. Further, an important aspect of this project is the longitudinal data
it could provide to those who will be responsible for coastal management into the future. The
Department of Transport may be able to advise on the type of data that will be useful to collect.
As at December 2009 a methodology was to be developed for this project and is expected in early
2010. It will be important that this methodology is targeted to the receiving audience‘s capacity to
ensure that it is accessible and easily understood. A training package may also need to be
considered to ensure consistency in data collection and reporting. A note of caution is offered - while
the data and information collected will be useful there is a question as to its scientific validity for the
purposes of coastal planning and management. This recognition should be factored into
methodological design.
Good practice in vulnerability assessments requires investigation and analysis in multiple disciplines,
including physical and social sciences and engineering and utilise as much local expertise as possible.
The importance of involving the wider community in coastal vulnerability assessments is perhaps best
captured in the following statements taken from the Victoria Coastal Strategy 2008:
Research has demonstrated that the health and wellbeing of Victoria's coastal environment is
enhanced if the community is aware of, understands, and appreciates coastal ecosystems and coastal
cultural heritage.
Education is central to understanding Victoria's coastal environment. Coastal education occurs in a
variety of places - within the school curriculum, through specialised marine science programs, and
over summer along the coastline through volunteer and community group activities.
A more informed community is more likely to be involved in decision-making processes and
conservation projects. Volunteers and community groups are integral to coastal management by
participating in conservation projects and amenity works, management planning, habitat monitoring,
and the delivery of education programs.
Involving community members in the collection of data should increase community awareness of the
issues, build appreciation for coastal ecosystems, encourage a culture of coastal protection and
ultimately lead to the behavioural changes required to adapt to the consequences of climate change
such as coastal erosion.
However, there are methodological risks. Given that an important aspect of this project is the
longitudinal data it could provide, it is critical that there is methodological consistency between
observers and through time. As well as the attention to training referred to above, frequent checks on
how observations are being made and recorded need to be included in the project scope to ensure
that the data are valid and reliable. The methodological issues, and long-term commitment to data
collection by the community need to assessed critically as part of the project roll-out.
2.7.4 Project 4 - Function at Risk (Ecosystems Services)
Project 4 (Ecosystems Services). A presentation was delivered to the TAG on 20 January 2010 by
the current Coastal Project Officer (NACC) proposing a potential project brief for the Ecosystems
Services Project (see Appendix G). The presentation and briefing document aimed to improve
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 16
awareness within the TAG about the benefits of undertaking ecosystem services projects, and
described a similar study undertaken by Simone Maynard of SEQ Catchments in South East
Queensland. The Queensland study developed what is called the „SEQ Ecosystem Services
Framework‟ based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment established by United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP).
Benefits of the Queensland project were identified as providing an understanding of ecosystem
functions and services that provides a broader understanding to decision makers of how the
biophysical environment contributes to community wellbeing, allowing communities to have a more
logical and meaningful connection with their environment. This creates a common language where
ecosystem services can be used as a decision making tool which communities can better understand.
More specific benefits are as follows.
Assists decision makers to identify losses and benefits of further development and areas where
offsets to development might apply.
Assists decision makers to identify areas with relatively low service value that may be more
preferable for development.
Helps in assessing the sustainability of current and future strategic regional plans by identifying
ecosystem services that could potentially be lost or protected.
Helps to identify strategic locations and areas of significant value for protection, rehabilitation and
restoration, helping to avoid the negative impacts associated with ‗tyranny of small decisions‘ type
management approaches.
Assists natural resource and land managers to maintain ecosystem function and service provision
over time, for the social and economic wellbeing of their communities.
Any data collected through the Ecosystems Services project, when overlayed with areas indicating
climate change vulnerability, should provide planners and managers information on which ecosystems
services may be at risk and thus help to identify risk to community wellbeing. The project data will then
act as an input to the proposed Project 9 (Shared Risk Assessment).
The Project Brief noted the resources required in taking this project forward and these are listed in
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 17
Table 2-2. Note that technical expertise is sought from multiple agencies which may be facilitated by
the JSG.
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 18
Table 2-2 Ecosystem Services Project Resource Requirements
Resources Northern Agricultural region
Policy Setting Dongara-Cape Burney Coastal Strategy
City of Geraldton-Greenough Strategic Plan
NACC Regional NRM Strategy
Regional Planning Committee Strategic Objectives
Driver Research student
Stakeholder staff
Consultant
Program Coordinator
Cartographers NACC / CoGG/ DoP / GPA
Working Group NACC / CoGG/ DoP / GPA
Technical Group DEC / DoF / DoW / DAFWA / CSIRO / Universities
Data Sets Regional Agencies
CSIRO (funding)
Funding Working Group / CSIRO
At a workshop held in mid-December 2009 the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation (CSIRO) expressed an interest in supporting this Project noting the Project‘s relevance
to organisations such as the Geraldton Port Authority and City of Geraldton-Greenough (along with
other Local Government Authorities in the NAR). The ability to link with the CSIRO represents an
opportunity for the CVRAP to broaden its partner base and to gain access to a highly respected group
of researchers with a national and global presence.
This will be an important project and consideration should be given to pursuing opportunities to partner
with and/or secure funding from other relevant organisations as soon as practicable. Ideally this would
be a role for the higher level Joint Steering Group but as the Coastal Project Officer has an already
existing knowledge-base it would be worthwhile to investigate options for incorporating the
development of a project brief into his existing work priorities. Some funding may be required for this
to happen. Based upon consultations with existing Program Partners it is recommended that this
project focus upon narrower region (i.e. Greenough to Buller Rivers) to make it relevant to existing
Program Partners (notably CoGG) and will provide a model for future application in other geographic
locations.
Initially, this project will, like Project 1, be compiling literature. In doing this, it is essential that one
database for the overall Program is developed and maintained, so the several components do not go
in different directions. Also, the goals need to be clearly separated. For example, the Oceanica report
provides a list of topics that the review covers, and fisheries are not included. Some fisheries
information appears in the literature list, but is incomplete. Project 4 clearly will need to include both
recreational and commercial fisheries in a consideration of ecosystem services.
There was general acceptance that the project as presented to the TAG in January 2010 will provide
benefit and should be pursued. Both this Project and Project 5 (following) will provide inputs to the
Shared Risks Assessment (proposed Project 9) which will more directly assess the effects of coastal
processes on socio-economic factors, ecosystems services and infrastructure.
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 19
2.7.5 Project 5 - Functions at Risk (Socio-Economic Framework)
Project 5 (Socio-Economic Framework). The location of most of Greater Geraldton‘s population
within two kilometres of the high water mark, the importance of the port and the fishing industry in the
city‘s economy, and the maritime focus of the community‘s recreational activities highlight a very close
relationship between coast and people in Geraldton. It follows that determining the inter-dependency
between socio-economic functions and the coastal environment in the Greater Geraldton area is
important in managing threats to the coastal systems, especially the impacts of predicted climate
change on the environment. This is becoming more important given the projections for rapid growth in
the city‘s population over coming years.
The objective of the project should be to gain comprehensive understanding of the Greater Geraldton
community‘s interaction with the coastal zone (assumed to be from the high water mark to 1.5 km
inland) as it is currently, and as projected, as a guide to identifying opportunities and constraints in
coastal management. Suggested specific objectives are as follows.
a) Describe and map the current human activities in the coastal zone – land tenure, estimated
resident population, industry activities (port, fishing, tourism, commercial, retail etc) and
recreation activities (swimming, beach combing, bike riding, beach fishing, boat launching etc).
b) Describe and map anticipated developments within the coastal zone – changes in land tenure,
new residential developments planned or predicted, new commercial and industrial activities
planned or predicted, changing patterns in recreation activities in the coastal zone.
c) Obtain community views on the values (economic, social, environmental etc) attached to the
coastal zone, their perception of the coastal issues (bio-physical and management), their
suggestions for coastal management, and suggested responsibilities for action.
d) Analyse the collated information for the overall social and economic drivers in the area that are
dependent on the biophysical resources of the coastal zone, and the trends in these drivers that
will have an impact on the coastal zone values, both positive and negative.
e) Analyse the collated information at a fine spatial scale (by dividing the coastal zone into many
discrete sub-zones) in defining the relationship between the capability of coastal assets
(developed in other projects) and the current and projected human activities in each sub-zone.
Based on derived indicators of vulnerability, highlight the ‗hot spots‘ where human activities are
poorly aligned with coastal capability.
f) Assess the overall cost (monetary and contribution-in-kind) of coastal management in the area
now, both in planning, and on-ground services.
g) Identify priorities for investment in activities that will enhance positive trends, and address
negative trends.
Some of the work suggested above is already underway. The NACC has commissioned the
Geraldton-Greenough Coastal Communities Study (GGCCS) which will contribute important
information into Project 5, in respect of Objectives c) and d). The Coastal Communities Study was
timed for completion on 31 December 2009. That study which is being undertaken by Beckwith
Environmental Planning will provide data on the baseline condition of the community and decision
maker knowledge, attitudes, practices, values and aspirations (KAPVA) relating to coastal
management issues such as climate change, sea level rise, coastal development and other human
related pressures.
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 20
The aims of the GGCCS are to:
a) develop a shared understanding between community and decision-maker knowledge, attitudes,
practices, values and aspirations (KAPVA) related to coastal issues;
b) legitimise and form the basis of joint educative and social marketing strategies for improved
coastal zone planning and management and sustainable community behaviour within the study
area; and
c) contribute towards the development of social indicators used to evaluate the effectiveness of
educative and social marketing strategies, and monitor change towards sustainable community
behaviour within the coastal zone.
It is critical that the findings and recommendations from this study are incorporated into the CVRAP,
and inform the work done in Project 5.
Of the tasks shown in the Project 5 Brief (provided to URS), the activities listed in Task 1 address
Objectives a) and b), although a tighter focus is recommended on the activities within the Coastal
Zone itself, as opposed to a more general aggregation of socio-economic data for City and Region.
Obtaining information on the costs (monetary and in-kind) of the current investment of the
management of the coastal zone needs to be added to the activities in this task, which in turn will
contribute to the business case for further investment in the CVRAP. Being able to provide all of this
information on a web site will be important in ensuring it is used by decision makers. The need for a
greatly improved information and storage retrieval system for coastal information was recommended
in Workshop 2 of the Coordination Project.
Tasks 2 and 3 address Objectives d) and e) in developing an assessment of the relationship between
the capability of coastal assets and the current and projected human activities at a fine spatial scale,
using the NCCOE impact assessment matrix. As stated in the Brief, this should allow development of
indicators of relative vulnerability (by combining measures of human use, and coastal capability) to be
applied that will highlight areas for special attention.
2.7.6 Project 6 - Strategy Development and Implementation
Project 6 (Strategy Development and Implementation) has yet to be defined. The Program
documentation notes that
“All the projects above are to provide an integrated program to identify coastal hazards and risks and
recommend actions for their mitigation or avoidance. In particular, the sediment budget, the Gap
Analysis and the Socio-economic framework are intended to contribute fundamental information for
detailed assessment of risks due to projected climate change and sea-level rise in the area of interest,
as a well as preparation of appropriate strategies for risk mitigation or avoidance. This last project
(Project 6) is intended to provide a strategy for implementation by the community through Local and
State Government agencies and should be prepared in close consultation with the responsible
management agencies and potentially affected community groups”.
An intermediate outcome of the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program will be a
comprehensive Coastal Management Strategy for the Greater Geraldton Region (Cape Burnie to
Buller River).
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 21
Strategic planning will be informed ‗internally‘ by the outputs from existing and planned projects within
CVRAP. It also needs to be informed ‗externally‘ by other regional, city and industry strategies for
development, land use and management and logistics that will have an impact on the coast. Finally,
project activities that develop stakeholder and general community awareness (e.g. Project 3) will
create a desire amongst these groups to become involved on strategic planning.
One key challenge facing programs aiming to apply scientific knowledge and technology in the coastal
zone is to connect that knowledge to action. The Program must promote the generation of knowledge
to allow for specific decision-making to improve management of coastal areas, but also encourage a
cultural change that will translate into behavioural change.
The Logic developed for the Program (see Figure 2-1) shows the central role that the strategic
planning undertaken in Project 6 will play in guiding future investment in Program activities and coastal
management, and action plans for the community and different sectoral groups (e.g. the development
industry, the GPA, and managers of public infrastructure).
There will be several components in developing, maintaining and implementing a strategy to address
coastal vulnerability. The JSG as proposed in this report will take the lead role in directing the strategy
development and implementation considerations for the CVRAP.
Strategic planning
Following the shared risk assessment (see Project 9), shared, strategic directions for the study area
need to be defined to address these shared risks. As shown in the Program Logic (Figure 2-1), some
of these strategic directions will deal with avoiding impacts (as in revising planning rules for further
development), others will deal with mitigating potential impacts (as in re-enforcing or improving
existing coastal infrastructure), while a third direction will address actions that encourage community
engagement and involvement in managing the risks.
On-going commitment to Strategy revision
Strategic planning is a dynamic process, with the need to review and amend strategies and actions as
new information on coastal assets and threats to those assets becomes available, and as human
activities in the Greater Geraldton area change. Ensuring a capacity for on-going review and
upgrading of the overall strategy will be essential, as will the need to link the coastal strategy
Strategy implementation
Implementation of separate agreed strategic directions and associated actions will normally be led by
the agency or organisation with the most at stake in each action. While CVRAP governance may
continue to provide oversight of implementation, it is unlikely that there will be a direct hands-on role.
Similarly, the business cases for investment in the actions, and the resources required will be the
responsibility of individual organisations, rather than CVRAP as a program. This transition from
CVRAP activities through to implementation is reflected in the Program Logic developed for coastal
management, as shown in Figure 2-1.
2.8 Suggested additional projects in CVRAP
URS is required to suggest additional projects for inclusion in CVRAP. In addition to the as yet
undefined Infrastructure Project four others have been identified as part of the process of developing
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 22
the Program Logic for the Coastal Vulnerability Risk Assessment Program (CVRAP). Some of these
will need to be developed within CVRAP itself, with others being undertaken by particular agencies or
sectoral interests.
2.8.1 Project 7 – Assessment of the structure and function of coastal infrastructure
In line with current best practice in coastal vulnerability assessment, after completion of an overall risk
assessment (see Project 9), there will be a need to assess the status of existing coastal protection and
other infrastructure and the needs for coastal engineering, given the risk profile developed. Also of
note is a recommendation within the Oceanica Study (Project 1) which recommends that a monetary
assessment of housing and infrastructure be included in the CVRAP.
We anticipate this project with two components:
a) map and describe the coastal protection infrastructure for the study area; and
b) map and describe other infrastructure vulnerable to climate change impacts (e.g. sea level rise,
inundation, erosion, storm surges, etc).
Coastal Protection Infrastructure
Coastal protection works can consist of ―hard‖ structures that can be either defensive or offensive.
Defensive structures are made of resistant materials such as clay and rock or artificial elements like
concrete and are used to consolidate the present position of the coastline and to protect it in the event
of extreme waves and tides. Examples are dikes and dune revetments. These structures normally do
not interfere with natural processes, until an extreme condition occurs. In that case, its protective
function is activated and it starts to affect the coastal processes. Offensive structures are designed
to actively affect the coastal processes, in order to improve conditions for any or all of the coastal
activities. They are, therefore, constructed of artificial materials which can withstand the forces of
nature. Examples are break-waters and groynes. This type of structure is more likely to have a large
impact on the coastal system. Whilst revetments halt landward migration of the shoreline, they usually
adversely impact the adjoining land and foreshore, including:
lowering of the sand levels of the beach directly offshore of a revetment, often resulting in the loss
of a useable beach;
inability of sand to build-up seaward of a revetment due to the reflection of wave or tidal energy off
the structure;
accelerated erosion at the terminal ends of a revetment, resulting in significant scour pockets on
adjoining land which encourage the construction of further revetments to mitigate the accelerated
erosion; and
loss or degradation of coastal resources and habitat.
The other form of coastal protection involves what are called ―soft‖ works. Included in this category
are the ―sacrificial‖ structures, often consisting of natural materials such as sand and gravel that are
used as a buffer to protect coastal areas from erosion. These structures least interfere with the
natural processes or may even take part in it such as beach nourishment which replace lost sediment
and reinstate a buffer zone. By way of example, the Geraldton Port Authority is currently shifting
approximately 12,000m3 of sand in sand by-passing campaigns in late-Summer and early-Winter from
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 23
Pages Beach to the foreshore north of Batavia Coast Marina (Source: GPA Geraldton Northern
Beaches Stabilisation Programme 2006, Revision A).
A rise in the sea level is likely to see a gradual decline in the performance of existing coastal
protection infrastructure with overtopping and damage to some structures. This part of the project
requires mapping and assessing the condition of existing coastal protection infrastructure, plotted
against high risk areas.
Project 2 of the CVRAP includes a coastal processes study undertaken by WorleyParsons Services
Pty Limited. This study will comprise a literature review, examination of historical data (e.g. aerial
photographs and other records) and modelling to provide a better understanding of the impacts of
various coastal infrastructure on sediment transport processes and the coastal environment as a
whole. In particular, the study is focusing on ports, groynes, dredged areas and marinas, and will
draw on published literature from elsewhere to substantiate recommendations. Outcomes from this
study will need to be assessed prior to finalising the methodology for the proposed Infrastructure
Assessment project.
The Oceanica Study has identified three major studies of coastal engineering works in the NAR. They
recommend that further studies be undertaken to ―establish an inventory of existing coastal structures,
and undertake an assessment of their condition, effectiveness and maintenance schedule‖. Oceanica
(2009: 24) suggest the following implementation methodology:
identify locations, design conditions, dates of construction, and types of coastal structures;
compile a history of artificial beach nourishment, sand removal or bypassing activities;
conduct an engineering inspection of all coastal defence structures (inspection to include a
description of the purpose and area of influence of each structure);
describe the possible impacts on coastal processes and shoreline position resulting from structures
and nourishment/removal/bypassing activities;
assess the effectiveness of present structures for protective/recreational use; and
make recommendations on installation, upgrades, maintenance and removal of coastal structures.
URS supports this recommendation. Some consideration should also be given to the proposed
Oakajee Port development. As Oakajee Port and Rail OPR) will be commissioning a number of
studies there is an opportunity to share information and methodological frameworks to promote
consistency in data collection between the CVRAP and Oakajee studies.
Coastal Infrastructure
Given the concentration of infrastructure along the coastal strip there is likely to be a significant
number of various infrastructures that are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The types of
impacts possible have been identified by the National Committee on Coastal and Ocean Engineering
(NCCOE) (2004) as including:
beach erosion;
shoreline recession (long term change due to waves or sediment budget);
unstable creek or lake entrances;
wind blown sand (if it affects buildings or infrastructure);
coastal inundation;
slope, cliff or bluff instability (not assessed – see below);
stormwater erosion;
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 24
climate change, including sea level, changes to waves, wind and rainfall;
tsunami;
seawater ingress into groundwater table causing displacement of fresh water; and
potential acid sulphate soils (PASS).
In consultations with key stakeholders in the region some concerns were raised regarding several of
these hazards. It was noted that a high level of beach erosion had been evident even where there
had been no significant storm events. Wind blown sand has also been identified as a potential major
hazard for the Brand Highway with some suggestions that re-alignment of the highway may be
required in as little as ten years because of migration of the Southgate dunes. Forward planning will
be enhanced if up-to-date studies of infrastructure are completed.
Coastal infrastructure other than that concerned with providing protection can be considered in the
following categories:
water (storage reservoirs, waterways, reticulated sewage systems, trunk sewers and treatment
plants, drainage assets);
power (power generation and transmission, gas/oil distribution networks);
telecommunications (fixed line and mobile network);
transport (roads, rail, bridges, ports); and
buildings and structures (residential, commercial, and industrial buildings).
The National Committee on Coastal and Ocean Engineering (NCCOE) provide a useful framework in
the Guidelines for Responding to the Effects of Climate Change in Coastal and Ocean Engineering
(2004). The framework lists six key environmental variables applicable to coastal engineering and
subject to change and 13 secondary variables to describe the processes that will be affected by
changes in the key variables. These are shown in
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 25
Table 2-3 below. These guidelines should inform the development of the proposed Infrastructure
Assessment project.
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 26
Table 2-3 NCCOE Impact Assessment Interaction Matrix
Key Variables
Secondary Variables
Mean Sea Level
K1
Ocean Currents &
Temperature K2
Wind Climate
K3
Wave Climate
K4
Rainfall / Runoff
K5
Air Temperature
K6
Local Sea Level S1
Local Currents S2
Local Winds S3
Local Waves S4
Effects on Structures S5
Groundwater S6
Coastal Flooding S7
Beach Response S8
Foreshore Stability S9
Sediment Transport S10
Hydraulics of Estuaries S11
Quality of Coastal Waters S12
Ecology S13
2.8.2 Project 8 - Information storage, analysis and retrieval
Project 1 of the CVRAP has shown the large amount of available data relevant to coastal hazards and
natural resource management in the NAR. That this information is spread across a wide range of data
custodians is an issue and has led, in some instances, to duplication of effort and studies (Oceanica
Consulting Pty Ltd, 2009: 29). A common theme through the consultation processes conducted for
this project was that knowledge and information sharing between all parties is vital. Enabling access
to research data in coastal management is essential for delivering effective management of the
coastal zone in the NAR. Organisations with an interest in coastal management (e.g. state
government agencies, local government, land developers, industry groups and community groups)
require access to the latest information and research to inform decision-making. Access to
information and resources requires coordinated efforts to streamline portals for distribution by the
State and Local Governments, researchers and other data managers. A number of information
systems have been established elsewhere in Australia that might provide a useful basis for a uniquely
Western Australian model. Examples of these are listed below in Table 2-4.
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 27
Table 2-4 Coastal information resources
Owner Website Overview
CoastInfo Department of Environment and Resource Management, Queensland
http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/coast_and_oceans/coastinfo/index.html
Provides a wide range of web-based information available locally, nationally and internationally to help those involved in planning and managing Queensland's coastal assets
Coastal Habitat Resources Information System (CHRIS)
Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Queensland
http://chrisweb.dpi.qld.gov.au/CHRIS/default.htm?welcome.asp~mainFrame
A resource centre for Queensland coastal fish habitat, fisheries resources and environmental datasets (layers)
Community Access to Natural Resources Information (CANRI)
NSW Natural Resources Information Management Strategy
http://www.canri.nsw.gov.au/index.html The CANRI Program is an initiative of the NSW Natural Resources Information Management Strategy (NRIMS). A key action of the Strategy is to establish and develop access to core and priority natural resource data via the CANRI
framework. CANRI agencies combined records a broad range of data priorities from its stakeholders in the NSW Natural Resources Data Inventory.
Shared Land Information Platform (SLIP)
Landgate, WA https://www2.landgate.wa.gov.au/interragatorplus/
SLIP will simplify access to the Government's land and geographic information, and promote better integration across Government as well as facilitate improvement of business processes and systems that use land information across networked government.
WA Marine WAMSI (Western Australian Marine Science Institution) and WASTAC (Western Australian Satellite Technology and Applications Consortium
http://www.wamarine.org/ The aim of the website is to provide a central point to search, browse and access Western Australian marine research data. All WAMSI research data will be available here and any other marine data that people or organisations would like to catalogue and/or make accessible through iVEC resources.
CVRAP Coordination
Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 28
It was generally agreed that a database of metadata (information about the origin and attributes of
data that allows users to find, understand, process, and reuse data and data products) would be a
useful starting point. That is, data would remain with the custodians, but details of the data content
could be stored and made available to interested parties. Keeping such metadata up to date will be a
time-consuming and resource intensive process which could be an onerous task for whomever takes
on the responsibility for it. In the first instance it would be recommended that the CVRAP Steering
Group investigate opportunities for collaboration with the Western Australian Land Information System
(WALIS) Marine Group‘s data management systems to see where synergies between the
organisations‘ information needs correspond.
Whatever the type of approach pursued it should consider the following (Kelly, n.d.; Queensland
Government, 2009).
Make the coastal information available and accessible across all levels of government, the private
sector and the community (given any confidentiality restrictions);
Coordinate and integrate information management relating to coastal resources to assist in
achieving coastal management outcomes;
Give priority to research projects relating to coastal regions or areas on the coast subject to
management challenges or resource pressure;
Coordinate research programs, data and information collection and integrate with coastal
management programs;
Properly catalogue data with a description of the data‘s characteristics (metadata) and coordinate
the capture and management of information;
Gather the support of senior people in government and industry to strengthen the business case for
the project; and
Systematically monitor impacts on coastal resources and their values from human use to ensure
that long-term impacts are managed in an ecologically sustainable manner, and to improve future
decisions .
2.8.3 Project 9 – Shared risks assessment
The first task in strategic planning (Project 6) will involve collating all of the data collected through the
completed projects to undertake an overall vulnerability and risk assessment across all areas between
the mouth of the Greenough River and Buller River. This risk assessment will deal with ‗shared risks‘
– that is risks that apply to all coastal values, uses and users. In the context of the study area, these
will include possible events that will have an impact on shared objectives for the area. Further more
detailed risk assessment will need to deal with individual land use-specific risks, and will need to be
undertaken by the organisations with special interests in each value and/or land use.
Assessing the risks
The ‗shared risk‘ assessment can be undertaken following the model provided in the Australian
Government‘s Climate change impacts and risk management: A guide for business and government
(2008). This workshop based approach involves firstly identifying the ‗shared risks‘ and then in taking
each risk in turn:
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 29
identify any existing controls (features of the environment, natural and man made structures and
mechanisms, procedures and other factors) that are already in place and tend to mitigate the risk2;
describe the consequences the risk would have if it was to arise, given the controls, and in each of
the scenarios under consideration;
describe the likelihood of suffering that level of consequence, again given the controls, in each of
the scenarios under consideration;
assign an initial priority in each scenario based on the likelihood and consequence of the risk; and
where two or more scenarios are being considered, consider adjusting the priority in recognition
that some scenarios are less likely to occur than others (Australian Greenhouse Office, Department
of the Environment and Heritage 2006: 44)
An adaptation of this type of approach was applied in the Town of Cottesloe by Coastal Zone
Management Pty Ltd. The main aim of the Cottesloe Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
Project was to establish potential risk to existing key coastal infrastructure under a range of future
climate scenarios. The final report notes some limitations in the Commonwealth‘s guidelines and
presents some mitigation strategies that were adopted at the project level to overcome the constraints.
These limitations and mitigation strategies should be heeded when developing the risk assessment
project for the CVRAP.
Quantifying the risks
The risks can be quantified using a simple cost benefit approach. Direct costs might include:
construction of coastal protection infrastructure such as sea walls, groynes, beach or dune
nourishment;
changes to existing buildings to strengthen foundations or protect against inundation;
raising buildings and services including access roads to elevations above the risk level; and
loss of otherwise serviceable structures or infrastructure and usable land if retreat is chosen.
Costs can be minimised if changes are part of a normal replacement or upgrade cycle where
expenditure would be incurred anyway. Other costs may also be incurred, and these may accrue to
the community, not just the properties directly affected by coastal risks.
The costs can also include:
loss of useable beaches or public access to the waterfront;
loss of amenity of coastal areas as a result of highly modified landforms, isolation of the coast via
barriers or degraded waterfront environment;
long term maintenance, replacement or upgrading costs for protection works as sea level continues
to rise; and
loss of valued ecosystems, species, landforms or ecosystem services, among which are protection
from storms and future erosion, water quality, fish breeding etc.
Identification of some of the potential areas where costs could be incurred (in terms of loss) should be
identified through the Socio-Economic Study (Project 5) and Ecosystems Services study (Project 4).
The Commonwealth‘s Climate Change Risks to Australia‟s Coast (Commonwealth of Australia 2009:
49) publication suggests the use of high resolution Digital Elevation Models (DEMs - based on LiDAR -
Light Detection And Ranging) to increase the accuracy of the inundation modelling and hence the
2 These will have been identified in the proposed Project 7.
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 30
estimation of risk to physical infrastructure. They add that bathymetric data or elevation data for the
seabed for near shore areas would enable a more informed assessment of how sea-level rise may
affect inundation patterns through changing wave directions and energy. This, they suggest, will be
important in understanding how risk to physical and natural assets will change at regional scales.
Note that the Departments of Planning and Transport are undertaking a project to assess coastal
vulnerability with the collection of data over an area of coastline between Two Rocks (northern
boundary of the Perth metropolitan region) and Cape Naturaliste. The data are being collected by
performing a LiDAR hydrographic survey. Extending this survey to include the NAR and Geraldton
more specifically would benefit the CVRAP greatly, but the considerable expense would need to be
justified by a sound appreciation of the risks.
Adaptive Responses
Once the risks are identified then it will be possible to articulate some of the adaptive response
available. These could include such responses as those described below.
Planning controls for new development, which deal with:
— Building setbacks;
— Minimum floor levels;
— Appropriate engineering assessments;
— Appropriate construction techniques (eg piled buildings, flood resistant materials); or
— A development embargo in some locations.
Physical works such as seawalls, groynes, dune management or sand nourishment, offshore
breakwaters and/or surfing reefs, temporary or permanent flood barriers, reconstruction or
realignment of public infrastructure (e.g. roads, other services above flood levels).
Providing community education and information to improve awareness and ability to cope (See
Project 10).
Ongoing monitoring, analysis and review of findings.
Additional data collection or studies.
It would be expected that responsibility for implementation of adaptive responses would fall to the
agencies/organisations responsible. For example, the Department of Planning would take
responsibility for amending policies and guidelines relating to floor levels while the City of Geraldton-
Greenough may be responsible for determining minimum floor levels.
2.8.4 Project 10 - Community awareness and engagement
Given that a large (and growing) percentage of the population of the Northern Agricultural region
resides within the coastal zone, attention should be directed towards building general community
awareness about coastal vulnerability and the hazards they may be facing into the future. The Beach
Watch Project 3 (Section 2.7.3) provides one opportunity to involve community members in coastal
management issues. This is likely to attract those with an interest in the area and satisfies Dolan and
Walker‘s (2004) advocacy for community-based research to allow for scientific knowledge to be
framed in a local context. They state that ―traditional knowledge can ‗ground-truth‘ scientific research
and allows for better examination of how global changes will be expressed and interpreted locally‖.
The object of this proposed Project 10 is to broaden the engagement to others in the community who
are yet to have this level of interest. Targeting the broader community, rather than those most likely to
CVRAP Coordination
2 Review of Program Elements
42907394/S0102/02 31
be impacted by climate change effects, is important given the central role that the coast has for much
of the Geraldton population. The rationale for the proposed project is an understanding that
behavioural change can only emerge through increased awareness of the issues. Members of the
general community are recreational users on the coastal zone as well as being part of commercial
enterprises, businesses and industry that profit from access to and use of the coastal assets.
Engaging the community in responsive environmental care can change attitudes towards coastal
management and encourage better use of coastal assets.
As the Climate Change Risks to Australia‟s Coast makes clear ―Adaptation strategies … will require
the engagement and support of the broader community‖ (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009: 151).
Further, ―wide sharing of information on risks, risk allocation, adaptation options and responsibilities
will facilitate informed engagement in the difficult decisions that some communities will need to make
in the medium-term‖ (ibid.).
Although listed in the Program Logic (Figure 2-1) as a discrete project occurring at a particular point in
time, the community awareness project should be an ongoing component of the CVRAP throughout its
life. An education and awareness raising project is not necessarily resource intensive. Dissemination
of information can be achieved through websites (e.g. NACC, CoGG, GPA, etc), via posters and
displays in public places (e.g. schools, public libraries, shopping centres, beachside venues, etc) as
well through state government agencies.
The community awareness and engagement project can be expanded as more resources become
available. NACC is already making information available on its website as is the City of Geraldton-
Greenough. To reach a broader audience it would be beneficial to develop a program of
presentations to community-based groups including schools on topics such as:
the value of the coast;
coastal vulnerability;
impacts of climate change; and
environmentally sensitive ways of living.
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 32
3
3 Program Partners - Existing and Potential
3.1 Consultation
URS has met with a majority of the primary stakeholders either on a one-to-one basis or in a workshop
setting.
An initial project inception meeting was held between URS and representatives of the existing
Program partners (i.e. Northern Agricultural Catchments Council, Department of Planning, Department
of Transport, Geraldton Port Authority and City of Geraldton-Greenough). This first meeting gave an
opportunity for URS to meet with the Partner agencies and to gather information about the
development and status of the Program and projects. At this meeting other potential stakeholders
were identified for follow up consultation.
3.2 Existing Partners
URS has met with each of the existing Program partners on a one-to-one basis and in a workshop
situation to discuss their current and continuing involvement on the CVRAP. The workshop was
conducted on 14 December 2009 to bring CVRAP Partners together to:
Provide an update on the Program activities;
Discuss agency specific coastal management issues and alignment with the Program;
Discuss direction and roles/responsibilities;
Define agency commitments;
Discuss role/structure of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) (see Section 4);
Discuss location of Program Coordination, Reporting and Dissemination (see Section 4); and
Identify other stakeholders to be engaged and on-going funding opportunities.
Each workshop participant was asked to describe the coastal issues specific to their organisation and
these are summarised below:
NACC‘s core business is focused upon working with community groups to make improvements in
natural resource management.
The Geraldton Port Authority‘s focus is upon the area of impact immediately adjacent to the Port
which includes the fishing boat harbour. By association the GPA is concerned with impacts upon
the fishing industry. GPA has some interest in developments at Oakajee as they will likely be
responsible for administration of the Oakajee Port when completed. Thus the area of interest could
extend into the Shire of Chapman Valley (and other shires to the south for other reasons).
The City of Geraldton-Greenough (CoGG) provides the community perspective and is concerned
with impacts on land use, planning and tourism predominantly. There is a sense of urgency around
protection of the northern beaches particularly as there is a projected substantial population
increase which will put pressure on residential land resources along the coast, and lead to higher
recreational use of the coastal region.
The Department of Transport (DoT) sees its role on the CVRAP as one of technical advice
provision and has been a major contributor of funding to date. As the agency responsible for
strategic transport planning the DoT has an interest in marine environment protection and coastal
facilities as well as roads and railways affected by climate change impacts.
The Department of Planning (DoP) will be a major user of the products of research undertaken in
the CVRAP particularly to inform land use and development planning, policy and guidelines in the
region.
CVRAP Coordination
3 Program Partners - Existing and Potential
42907394/S0102/02 33
At the workshop participants noted other projects that their organisations were engaged in or that they
were aware of that might be complementary to the CVRAP. This sharing of information will be
essential to maintain as the Program proceeds as it will not only add to the wealth of coastal
knowledge gathered but will also reduce duplication of effort. Some of the complementary projects
include:
CoGG has commissioned a study of Climate Change (AECOM) which included a risk assessment.
CoGG developing Biodiversity Strategy which will include vegetation surveys
The Mid West Region of Councils is also undertaking a Climate Change study and risk assessment
specific to local government.
GPA has access to large amount of ocean wave data that can be shared. CoGG would benefit
from provision of monitoring data from GPA specifically that relating to wave energy (long period
wave, 45-90secs)
WAMSI project that investigated large scale sea level rise, storm and weather patterns.
DoP has contracted Ian Eliot to undertake a study on coastal landforms (Dongara to Greenough)
and sand dune stability which will provide analysis of risks and opportunities for development.
DoP contracted EcoScape to undertake a visual landscape assessment to inform design guidelines
for protection of visual amenity
Other stakeholders were identified at this workshop and were invited to attend a second workshop
held on 15 December 2009.
3.3 Potential Partners
The key stakeholders identified in early discussions with the Program partners and following some
preliminary research by URS are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Key stakeholders in coastal management
Organisation Focus
Batavia Coast Marine Institute
The Batavia Coast Maritime Institute is a state of the art training, research and development facility located in Geraldton.
The focus of the BCMI is on fisheries management and aquaculture but undertake some water quality monitoring.
CSIRO The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is Australia's national science agency.
A number of divisions within the organisation research into coastal issues including Marine and Atmospheric Research.
Department of Agriculture and Food
The Department of Agriculture and Food assists the State's Agriculture, Food and Fibre sectors to be sustainable and profitable, with a clear focus on export-led growth.
The Natural Resource Management Program (NRM) is identifying risks and promoting the adoption of practices that better manage the impacts of agri-business on the environment, including the coastal environment. May be potential for links in monitoring and research activities.
CVRAP Coordination
3 Program Partners - Existing and Potential
42907394/S0102/02 34
Organisation Focus
Department of Environment and Conservation
The department has the lead responsibility for protecting and conserving the State‘s environment including managing the State‘s national parks, marine parks, conservation parks, State forests and timber reserves, nature reserves, marine nature reserves and marine management areas. Links might be pursued with the Environmental Management Branch.
The Office of Climate Change is located within the DEC and is responsible for the whole of Government coordination of policy and strategy regarding the economic, environmental and social impacts of climate change.
Department of Fisheries The Department of Fisheries manages Western Australia's fish, marine and aquatic resources.
Climate change poses both challenges and opportunities for the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Developing and implementing an effective, strategic framework to enhance adaptive capacity and mitigate against further climate change, requires a coordinated approach in partnership with other government agencies and stakeholders (Annual Report 2008/09).
May be potential for linkages to be made with regard to mutually beneficial monitoring and research activities.
Geraldton Universities Centre
Partners with University of Western Australia, Edith Cowan University and Curtin University of Technology to offer university education to students in Geraldton.
Potential for links to be made to attract post-graduate researchers to the Northern Agricultural Region on studies relevant to the CVRAP.
Local Government Shires of Irwin, Chapman Valley, Dandaragan, Coorow, Gingin will have similar planning issues as experienced by the CoGG given that each has a coastal zone.
Opportunities for expanding the Program along the coastal strip will benefit from collaboration with local governments.
Mid West Chamber of Commerce and Industry
The MWCCI seeks to develop, promote and protect the interests of trade, commerce and industry in the Mid West of Western Australia.
As a representative body for industry and commerce the MWCCI provides an avenue into forming strategic relationships with industries with an interest in the coastal environment. This may include land development or fisheries based industries.
Mid West Development Commission
The MWDC is a State Government statutory authority concerned with encouraging the sustainable development of the Mid West region.
The Commission promotes and assists eligible groups to access State and Federal Government funding programs including funding from the Mid West Regional Development Scheme.
Oakajee Port and Rail Oakajee Port and Rail was established in September 2007 as a joint venture between Murchison Metals Ltd, Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd and Crosslands Resources Ltd. OPR was established to design, develop, construct and operate new rail and deepwater port infrastructure to facilitate the export of expanded production from mines in the mid-west region.
A broad range of environmental and social studies will be conducted as part of the ongoing approvals processes. Opportunities exist for information sharing.
Western Australian Marine Science Institution
A collaboration of State, federal, industry and academic organisations working together to provide independent marine research covering climate change, marine life, ocean geology, weather patterns, storms, large scale ocean movements, fishing, coral reefs, medical compounds, biodiversity and social issues.
Each of the above organisations were invited to attend a workshop in Geraldton on 15 December
2009. Organisations represented at the workshop were Department of Fisheries, Department of
CVRAP Coordination
3 Program Partners - Existing and Potential
42907394/S0102/02 35
Environment and Conservation, Department of Agriculture and Food, Batavia Coast Maritime Institute,
Shire of Chapman Valley and CSIRO (Geraldton Universities Centre were an apology).
The purpose of the workshop was to:
Broaden stakeholder engagement on the CVRAP;
Explain the framework to stakeholders;
Secure resources/commitment; and
Facilitate shared ownership of the CVRAP.
After being given an overview of the Program Framework and individual projects the participants
discussed coastal issues from their organisation‘s perspective and were asked their views on the
CVRAP. The key points that emerged from this free-flowing discussion are noted below:
Access to sources information and data from the many studies that are undertaken each year
would benefit most organisations. General agreement that a single organisation holding a meta-
data database would be useful although there was acknowledgement that such a system could be
costly to establish and maintain.
CSIRO is keen to partner with other organisations to undertake research that is mutually beneficial.
The Ecosystems Services project was identified as one project where collaboration might be
achieved. However, CSIRO is not a funding body and would need to acquire funding from another
source to provide research services. It was noted that having CSIRO ‗on-board‘ would strengthen
any budget/grant bid put forward by the CVRAP.
When asked whether they saw a role for their organisation the BCMI, Department of Fisheries and
Department of Environment and Conservation expressed an interest in working in some capacity
on the CVRAP where mutual benefit could be gained.
To maintain the momentum gained in through the workshop process URS has drafted a series of
letters to key stakeholders inviting their participation in the CVRAP. The invitations have been
differentiated based upon the level of engagement that each stakeholder is anticipated to have. At the
highest level are those stakeholders who could potentially become new Program partners. These
include (see letter in Appendix B):
Department of Fisheries (Stuart Smith, CEO)
Department of Environment and Conservation (Keiran McNamara, Director General)
Batavia Coast Maritime Institute (Dr Suresh Job, CEO)
Shire of Chapman Valley (Dirk Sellenger, CEO)
CSIRO (Dr Russ Babcock)
Two groups of secondary stakeholders have also been identified. On the one hand are those who
might become involved in the Program through the provision of technical advice and/or funding. The
groups might be involved at either the Joint Steering Group (JSG) or TAG levels depending upon their
contribution. These secondary stakeholders are (see letter in Appendix C):
Department of Agriculture and Food3; (Rob Delane, Director General)
Geraldton Universities Centre (Meredith Wills, CEO) (JSG)
Mid-West CCI (JSG)
Department of Regional Development and Lands (JSG)
3 Those stakeholders in italics have been interviewed as part of this project and are therefore aware of the CVRAP. Other
organisations have been approached but URS was unable to secure an interview with any personnel.
CVRAP Coordination
3 Program Partners - Existing and Potential
42907394/S0102/02 36
Iron Ore Alliance (JSG)
Western Australian Land Information System (WALIS) (JSG)
MWDC (JSG)
Department of Water (TAG)
Urban Development Institute of Australia (TAG)
WAMSI (TAG)
Western Australian Land Information System (WALIS)
OPR (v) (JSG and TAG)
Other Shires in NAR (JSG and TAG)
Other stakeholders in the secondary category are those that may have an interest in or could benefit
from the data that emerges from the project activities. These are (see letter in Appendix D):
WA Local Government Association;
Office of Climate Change, Department of Environment and Conservation; and
Tourism WA.
It is recommended that these stakeholders be introduced to the CVRAP via the letters of invitation so
that ongoing dialogue can develop. As with all multi-sector/multi-agency programs the important first
step is in establishing relationships of interest which can be built upon into the future.
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 37
4
4 Governance of the CVRAP
4.1 Structures and functions
Natural resource management addresses issues where it is often unclear where responsibilities lie.
Generally, responsibilities will rest with, or be shared across three levels of government, in the non-
government sector or with groups of individuals in the community. Problem-solving capacity is also
widely dispersed and few decision-makers can accomplish their goals in isolation. In this setting
natural resource governance requires greater interaction among diverse actors from different
territories, at multiple governance scales and cognisant of the pressures of an informed citizenry eager
for a greater say in decisions that affect their lives.
This is the context within which the CVRAP operates and its effective management is dependent upon
an acknowledgement of the complexities and uncertainties inherent in environmental management
initiatives.
4.1.1 Coordination
At the workshop held with representatives of the existing Program partners the question of
coordination was raised. The purpose of this was to explore options for locating the Program
Coordination role in an organisation other than NACC if that were considered to be more appropriate.
An estimate of the resources required to coordinate the Program include the costs of 1 Full Time
Employee (FTE), and the additional costs of travel, administration, marketing and other coordination
activities.
The primary functions of Program coordination were suggested as comprising:
Strategy development and implementation (see discussion on strategic planning requirements at
Page 21).
Coordination of projects and identification of current and future needs;
(Meta) data custodianship;
Data awareness/knowledge management;
Building community awareness and engagement;
Monitoring of project outputs/outcomes and overall Program effectiveness/impact;
Securing resources (financial/in-kind);
Establishing and maintaining partnerships/relationships; and
To be able to carry out these functions an organisation would require:
Understanding of the complexity of the coastal zone;
Project management skills and ability to deliver;
Sufficient links and networks (the ability to forge cooperative relationships with other relevant
bodies);
Level of influence to engage other organisations;
Independence;
Willingness; and
Available Resources.
Based upon these criteria the following organisations were suggested as potential locations for the
Program Coordination role: NACC, City of Geraldton-Greenough (CoGG), and the Mid West
Development Commission (MWDC). Discussions at the workshop deliberated on the strengths and
weaknesses of each of the identified organisations.
CVRAP Coordination
4 Governance of the CVRAP
42907394/S0102/02 38
The City of Geraldton-Greenough
The City of Geraldton-Greenough has a primary focus on statutory planning and development issues
although is strongly concerned with the coastal environment. The CoGG is representative of the local
community and can provide that community-centred input. Locating the CVRAP coordination within
the CoGG would provide some permanence to the Program as the City‘s future is not dependent upon
unstable funding sources. There is a skill-base already existing within the CoGG and the technical
expertise to undertake project management with a specific focus on coastal issues is available. Being
a large local government body, the CoGG has established strong links with many State Government
agencies as well as industries in the Geraldton region. However, given their role in planning decisions
the CoGG may not be considered by all stakeholders as having a high level of independence although
this should not hamper efforts to implement the CVRAP. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly,
in discussions with URS the CEO stated that the CoGG did not have sufficient existing resources to
provide for the coordination and project management of the CVRAP.
Mid West Development Commission
URS met with the CEO of the Mid West Development Commission subsequent to the two workshops
held in Geraldton. To date the MWDC has had no involvement on the CVRAP. During the interview
the CEO indicated qualified support for the Program and suggested that the MWDC may be able to
assist in accessing resources. The MWDC is focused upon economic development in the Mid West
Region and manages, and assists with the management of, a number of economic and community
based projects. Its strong links with State Government gives the MWDC a level of influence not
available to all other organisations. Like the CoGG, the MWDC could provide a degree of
permanence to the CVRAP dependent upon resourcing issues. Knowledge of coastal issues and/or
climate change is lacking within the MWDC. Resources generally is an issue as MWDC have limited
staffing numbers and no capacity to take on the role of CVRAP coordination.
Northern Agricultural Catchments Council
As a not-for-profit organisation, the Northern Agricultural Catchments Council was considered by the
workshop participants as exhibiting the greatest perception of independence. With a focus on natural
resource management the NACC have the technical knowledge of coastal issues and staff with the
requisite project management skills required of the CVRAP. Like the CoGG and MWDC resourcing is
a major issue, even more so, as current funding is limited to four years. NACC has strong links with
other NRM bodies and has developed good relationships with research institutions as well as many
government agencies. With respect to the CVRAP the most important factor in favour of continuing
NACC‘s role as Program coordinator is the expressed willingness to do so.
Based upon these discussions the following simple matrix was devised to make an assessment of the
suitability of the three organisations. The results are presented in Table 4-1 below.
CVRAP Coordination
4 Governance of the CVRAP
42907394/S0102/02 39
Table 4-1 Simple Matrix for Program Coordination
Criteria NACC CoGG MWDC
Understanding
Project Management
Links and Networks
Influence
Independence
Willingness
Resources
The greater the number of , means the higher the ranking of suitability on that criterion
This simple assessment suggests that the NACC is the most appropriate location for the coordination
of the CVRAP into the future as it was defined during the workshop. As the NACC relies primarily on
the Commonwealth for funding it may be necessary to investigate the potential for partner
organisations to contribute financially or at a minimum with in-kind contributions (human resources) to
the coordination of the CVRAP to ensure that essential coordination services continue.
URS understands that NACC has subsequently agreed to undertake the role, but due to the current
funding arrangements under the Caring for Our Country Program NACC is not in the position to
commit any cash towards the coordinator position.
Limited Coordination Role
Some consideration should be given to have a more limited coordination role. This could be achieved
if agencies/organisations took the lead on individual projects more fully. The Program Coordinator
would then be responsible for bringing together the various Program Partners to share information and
report on progress. The more detailed project functions would be taken by the lead agency. This
approach would allow the project leads to develop the expertise in the particular project area and
expand the organisational capacity and knowledge base. It also ensures stronger accountability
mechanisms for lead agencies as they are responsible for delivering on project outcomes.
Even with a more limited role NACC would be well-placed to ‗host‘ this function in the absence of other
groups. Funding for the provision of Program coordination functions is the responsibility of all
Partners, and as such, all partners should contribute to the costs involved which are likely to be low for
the more limited role.
Should the number and extent of Program Partners change (i.e. new stakeholders become involved) it
would be worthwhile to revisit the location of the coordination function.
4.1.2 Organisational Structure
The existing organisational structure for the NACC was loosely based around a Technical Advisory
Group that was meeting irregularly and had experienced a high level of proxy attendance. It is
CVRAP Coordination
4 Governance of the CVRAP
42907394/S0102/02 40
proposed that the CVRAP adopt a two-tiered structure which enables high-level strategic direction
provided through a Joint Steering Group to a more operational Technical Advisory Group.
This two-tiered approach separates the high level decision making and strategic planning from the
operational and technical aspects of the Program and recognises that different skills sets are required
for each role.
Joint Steering Group (JSG)
The primary task of the Joint Steering Group is to provide direction for inter-organisational efforts and
oversight to all aspects associated with the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program. The
specific functions of the JSG would be to:
approve the CVRAP plan and documentation framework;
to provide directions as required to the Technical Advisory Group;
to endorse new CVRAP projects;
review conclusions and recommendations of individual projects;
sign off on key messages;
dissemination of information within individual agencies/organisations as appropriate;
secure political support for CVRAP and for coastal management imperatives identified through the
Program; and
commission evaluations of CVRAP as required.
Terms of Reference
Terms of Reference have been drafted to guide the operations of the Joint Steering Group. These are
provided at Appendix E.
The Terms of Reference suggest the JSG meet every three months to provide the oversight role
envisaged. Out of session discussions and decision-making could occur through email contact
between the members and between the JSG and the TAG.
Regional Planning Committee (RPC)
The State Government has recently commenced the establishment of Regional Planning Committees
whose function includes making recommendations to Government on the region‘s infrastructure
priorities. Two Committees are expected to be established in the Gascoyne and Mid-West Region. It
will be important for the JSG to establish links to these Committees (whose membership will likely
include representatives from the Program partner organisations) to ensure that coastal management
issues form part of the discussions of the RPC.
Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
The primary role of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) is to provide guidance and advice on
technical aspects of the CVRAP. The specific functions of the TAG are to:
define and evaluate different options for understanding and assessing coastal vulnerability in the
NAR;
develop project briefs for review and endorsement by the Joint Steering Group;
coordinate the timing and prioritisation of projects;
facilitate the delivery of project and Program update reports to the JSG outlining key technical
considerations and recommendations for areas relevant to the CVRAP;
CVRAP Coordination
4 Governance of the CVRAP
42907394/S0102/02 41
provide and/or secure the necessary technical advice to implement the CVRAP;
provide access to information and data that may further the knowledge of coastal processes
required to implement the CVRAP;
peer review the findings of technical reports and perform a general quality assurance role;
participate in any wider stakeholder seminars/workshops; and
supervise the storage and retrieval of all data and information relevant to the CVRAP.
Terms of Reference
Terms of Reference have been drafted to guide the operations of the Technical Advisory Group.
These are provided at Appendix F. The Terms of Reference suggest the TAG meet every two
months. This will allow for reporting of progress on individual projects and sharing of information
across the group. Out of session discussions could be had via email between the TAG members.
4.2 Funding Sources
4.2.1 Committed funds
In the current environment of fiscal restraint gaining access to long-term funding has become more
difficult, resulting in projects either being under-resourced or, worse, unrealised. The existing and
proposed projects of the CVRAP are resource intensive as is the provision of coordination/project
management of the CVRAP. To date the two projects of the CVRAP that have commenced have
required funding of approximately $300,000 plus in-kind resources. While no detailed costings have
been prepared for the remaining (defined and proposed) projects they are likely to require upwards of
$500,000 to complete, and certainly more if the projects investigating near-shore marine processes
will be using LiDAR technology.
4.2.2 Funding constraints
Discussions with existing and potential Program partners confirmed that the ability to provide financial
and human (in-kind) resources was limited even though organisations saw the benefit of the CVRAP.
Government agencies were constrained by the budget process and recent cut-backs to budget
allocations. In many cases organisations are having to fund additional works from existing funding
sources. The end result is that funding for programs such as CVRAP cannot rely solely on direct
contributions from Program partners.
However, to secure CVRAP‘s immediate future, Program partners should show their commitment to
the Program (as either dollars or as in-kind support from staff) within their own planning and budgeting
processes.
4.2.3 Opportunities for further funds
Opportunities may exist where funding allocated for one purpose is not fully expended. This was
raised by GPA who suggested that there may be potential to redirect un-spent funds allocated to
coastal erosion mitigation actions (e.g. sand bypassing) towards projects that are aimed addressing
the causes of the erosion. This option should be followed up within the Joint Steering Group
meetings.
CVRAP Coordination
4 Governance of the CVRAP
42907394/S0102/02 42
A source of funding not yet explored but suggested at the Workshop attended by Program partners
involves the CoGG levying surcharges on new land development applications along the coastal strip
or investigating the ability to apply differentiated rates on land owners. As above, this option could be
explored in the Joint Steering Group meetings.
Discussions with the Mid West Development Commission were encouraging with regard to funding.
The MWDC promotes and assists eligible groups to access State and Federal Government funding
programs including funding from the Mid West Regional Development Scheme. The CEO of MWDC
suggested that a business case could be developed for the CVRAP that would satisfy the
requirements of the Royalties for Regions Scheme of the State Government administered in the Mid
West by the MWDC. See Section 4.3 for a discussion of the Mid West Regional Grants Scheme.
The Commonwealth Government is also a source of funding that could be explored. Recently the
Batavia Regional Organisation of Councils (which includes the City of Geraldton-Greenough) received
$86,000 from the Local Adaptation Pathways Program4. The funding was provided for the
development of a regionally specific climate change adaptation plan. While the funding is available to
Local Government authorities there may be opportunities for the CoGG to make a submission that
would deliver positive outcomes for the CVRAP as well as the City.
4.3 Developing a business case for CVRAP
Given that climate change currently has a high profile (politically and socially) it would be prudent to
put together a strong business case for the entire Program including all existing and proposed Projects
to improve the likelihood of gaining funding. URS recommends this as a matter of some priority.
Some guidance on preparing a business case is outlined below.
4.3.1 Mid West Regional Grants Scheme
The following information (in italics below) has been extracted from the MWRGS Guidelines available
from the Mid West Development Commission website (http://mwdc.wa.gov.au/assets/
rgs%20mwdc%20guidelines%20round%202.pdf). Regardless of where funding is being sought from,
a business case would benefit from referring to the MWRGS requirements as they make reference to
regional priorities and reflect good practice in business case development.
Funding is available to assist the development of infrastructure, services and community projects,
including the provision of headworks, and to assist in the broad development of the community,
including the establishment of services and programs. Funding is intended to support the development
of resilient communities and contribute to regional areas being vibrant and interesting places in which
to live.
The Scheme is administered by the Mid West Development Commission as part of the Royalties for
Regions Program. Royalties for Regions is a State Government program designed to promote long-
term development in Western Australia‟s regions. It aims to help local communities grow and prosper
through the promotion of local decision-making and is specifically designed to help regions attract the
resources needed to support development. The Scheme‟s broad objectives are to:
a) Increase capacity for local strategic planning and decision-making.
1. Retain and build the benefits of regional communities.
4 See http://whitepaper.climatechange.gov.au/impacts/localgovernment/index.html
CVRAP Coordination
4 Governance of the CVRAP
42907394/S0102/02 43
2. Promote relevant and accessible local services.
3. Assist communities to plan for a sustainable economic and social future.
4. Enable communities to expand social and economic opportunities.
5. Assist regional communities to prosper through increased employment opportunities, business and
industry development opportunities, and improved local services.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR ACCESS TO THE SCHEME
1. The project must demonstrate that it will result in a positive economic, social and/or environmental
return (e.g. employment growth, population increase, improve education and information
technology links, improve facilities) to the Mid West Region.
2. The project must fit within the framework of the Mid West Development Commission‟s Strategic
Plan (available on the Commission‟s website) or other nominated regional planning documents.
3. Applicants should demonstrate a high level of financial commitment to the project, either through
sourcing other project funding and/or a direct financial contribution.
4. The project should have the support of local government/s and/or other key regional stakeholders.
5. The project should promote partnerships (i.e. between the community/business sector and
government; or across various levels of government).
6. The project should reflect a commitment to local decision-making and planning.
7. The project should demonstrate its capacity for meeting ongoing operating and maintenance costs.
8. The proponent should demonstrate that detailed project planning has been completed (including all
approvals being in place or achievable in a short timeframe), the project is ready to proceed and
that it can be completed in a timely manner. (Note: This criterion will not preclude applications for
feasibility studies and business planning.)
4.3.2 Business Case Framework
Preparing a business case is an integral part of the planning and resource raising process for many
projects. As the cost and complexity of the CVRAP increases so too does the need for a strong
business case for each investment. The purpose is to outline the rationale for undertaking the
Program, to define the parameters and management factors involved in the Program itself and to
assist potential funders in understanding the social, environmental and economic benefit of the
Program. A business case should provide detail on the Program to enable funders to determine the
merit in providing the funding requested. In brief the business case should include the following
sections.
Background
Building the business case requires that the issue is clearly identified. These issues have already
been articulated in the CVRAP Framework where it is recognised that coastal communities with on-
going development and population growth are very likely to have increased risk from sea-level rises,
increases in severity of storms and coastal flooding.
Describe the present condition, and the changes and trends evident:
A needs assessment for coastal vulnerability
Sea-level rise to date;
Projections for climate change impacts (e.g. SLR, storm events, extreme weather, etc);
CVRAP Coordination
4 Governance of the CVRAP
42907394/S0102/02 44
Infrastructure (residential, utilities, commercial, industrial, transport, etc) vulnerable to the effects of
climate change;
Population growth forecasts and the demand for housing in the NAR and Geraldton;
Costs of maintenance incurred presently (identified as approx $500,000 p.a. by GPA and CoGG),
which over a 20 year period, represent a net present cost of $6 million (using 5% annual discount
rate); and
Opportunities for improved communication within and between agencies, and the communities they
serve.
The CVRAP
A section describing the components of the CVRAP, particularly the objectives being sought must be
described. What, precisely, will be achieved by completing the project? A project work plan should be
included to give funders an outline of timeframes and deliverables achieved.
Details of Program Partners and other collaborators with a vested interest in the project and who are
contributing significantly to its success will be essential. As noted by the MWDC above,
demonstration of financial commitment to a project by the applicant and its partners is viewed
favourably.
Of particular importance is showing the governance and organisational arrangements in place
particularly the unique and well-established role of the JSG and TAG. Increasingly government
funding is contingent upon organisations demonstrating the capacity to provide appropriate oversight
to the project and an ability to monitor and evaluate the Program outputs and outcomes.
Anticipated Benefits
There are clear and obvious benefits to the community, State, and Commonwealth in implementing
the CVRAP and its projects. These benefits should be aligned with strategic directions at all three
levels and link with ecologically sustainable development (ESD) objectives. That is, the benefits
should be articulated in terms of their environmental, social and economic worth. A case could be
made that counters the costs of maintaining the coast and infrastructure with the cost of contributing to
the Program. Some preliminary costings would need to be collected from the Program partners.
Given that the CVRAP will provide decision-makers with an accurate understanding of coastal
processes it might be possible to develop a business case that provides an estimate of the cost of
siting coastal protection infrastructure inappropriately if the data were not available.
Links to Funder’s Objectives/Strategic Alignment
Depending upon the funding source the business case should make direct links to the funders
strategic objectives.
Evidence of wider support
Gaining broad stakeholder buy-in is important as it provides evidence of wider support for the
Program. Letters of support from the stakeholders identified in earlier sections of this report will add to
the credibility of any funding application.
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 45
5
5 Communications and Stakeholder Engagement
A Communications and Stakeholder Engagement Plan (CSEP) has been drafted for review by the
Joint Steering Group and is provided at Appendix H.
The aims of the CSEP are to:
outline the objectives for communication and stakeholder engagement for the CVRAP;
define the communication and stakeholder engagement strategic approach of the CVRAP;
define the development of communication and the key messages;
identify the stakeholder groups (key audiences);
identify the channels of communications for these stakeholders;
define the communication outcomes; and
define the means of monitoring feedback and evaluating the success of communications.
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 46
6
6 Conclusions
The CVRAP is a timely and important initiative whose results will inform decision-making with respect
of land-use planning and development; infrastructure planning and construction; and recreational and
commercial activities. There is no doubt that a considerable investment is required not only of
financial resources but also in terms of human resources and time commitment. However, the results
of the CVRAP and its component projects are necessary for managing the future potential impacts of
climate change.
This investigation has identified three crucial elements to taking the CVRAP forward.
Leadership: The Program will flounder without strong leadership and direction. Currently NACC are
successfully providing the coordination role with limited funds and other resources. Whether this
remains the ideal location for coordination of the CVRAP is a matter for the Joint Steering Group to
determine although it is considered that the City of Geraldton-Greenough would be the most
appropriate organisation to take over the role should NACC be unavailable. Having a robust
governance structure will be essential to achieving the Program objectives.
Commitment: It is evident that existing Program partners have a strong commitment to the Program
and each will be gaining some individual benefit/use from their participation. The impacts of climate
change on coastal processes are also a concern of other government agencies and organisations not
yet involved. Gaining the buy-in of this expanded group of stakeholders should be seen as a crucial
task particularly for the Joint Steering Group. Expanding the partnership should grant access to a
wider resource base (either in-kind or financial) and will contribute to the Program being implemented
in its entirety.
Relationships: As with all multi-sector/multi-agency programs the important first step is in
establishing relationships of interest which can be built upon into the future. Good and positive
relationships exist between current Program Partners and this has contributed to the Program moving
from idea to implementation. Establishing good and positive relationships with other organisations will
assist in building and maintaining the momentum to take the Program forward. Already relationships
with organisations such as the CSIRO and Department of Fisheries have formed and should be
supported. Linking with other identified key stakeholders should be seen as a priority for the Joint
Steering Group to expand the partnership across a wider array of organisations and agencies.
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 47
7
7 References
Abuodha, P.A., & Woodroffe, C.D., 2006, International Assessments of the Vulnerability of the Coastal Zone to Climate Change, including an Australian Perspective, Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, 69 pp
Coastal Zone Management, 2008, Cottesloe Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Project, Report prepared for the Town of Cottesloe, available online at http://www.cottesloe.wa.gov.au/?p=942
Commonwealth of Australia, 2006, Climate Change Impacts & Risk Management - A Guide for Business and Government, Australian Greenhouse Office, in the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra
Commonwealth of Australia, 2009, Climate Change Risks to Australia‘s Coast: A First Pass National Assessment, Department of Climate Change, Canberra
Dolan, A.H. and I.J. Walker, 2004, ‗Understanding vulnerability of coastal communities to climate change related risks‘, Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 39
Eliot, I. and C. Nutt, 2009, ‗WA Coastal Compartments: A Geological Framework for Mrine and Coastal Management‘, Presentation delivered to the Marine Group Workshop at the WALIS Forum, November 2009, retrieved from http://www.walis.wa.gov.au/projects/WALIS_Marine_Group/images/marine-workshop-presentations/02_IanEliot%20ChrisNutt%20Coastal%20Compartments.ppt. on12 January 2010
Griffith, R., J. Davidson, and M. Lockwood, 2009, NRM Governance for change: Revisiting „good' governance through an adaptive lens , Report to Land and Water Australia, University of Tasmania, Hobart
Harvey, N. and C.D. Woodroffe, 2008, Australian approaches to coastal vulnerability assessment, Sustainability Science, Volume 3, Number 1 / April, 2008
Hennessy, K. J., C.M. Page, K.L, Mcinnes, R.N. Jones, J.M. Bathols, D. Collins, and D. Jones, 2004, Climate change in New South Wales. Part 1, Past climate variability and projected changes in average climate. Consultancy report for the New South Wales Greenhouse Office. Aspendale: CSIRO Atmospheric Research. 46 p. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-rint/open/hennessy_2004b.pdf
IPCC, 2001a, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contribution of the Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Organisation and United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [J. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. van der Linden, and D. Xiaosu (eds)], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 944 pp.
IPCC, 2001b, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Organisation and United Nations Environment Programme, [J. McCarthy, O. Canziani, N. Leary, D. Dokken and K. White (eds)], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1032 pp.
IPCC, 2001c, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Organisation and United Nations Environment Programme, [B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart and J. Pan (eds)], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 700 pp.
IPCC, 2001d, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Summary for Policymakers, A report of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
CVRAP Coordination
7 References
42907394/S0102/02 48
Change, World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme, IPPC: Nairobi, p 98; and IPCC 2002e, Climate Change 2001. Synthesis Report, Contributions of Working Groups I, II and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Organisation and United Nations Environment Programme, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,397 pp.
IPCC, 2007, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1000 pp.
Kay, R.C. and A. Travers, 2008, Coastal Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment: Compendium of Coastal Resources - Tools & Methodologies, available online at http://www.coastalmanagement.com/main/images/stories/files/coastal_vulnerability_and_adaptation_assessment.pdf , Retrieved 22 December 2009
Kelly, P. n.d., Community Access to Natural Resources Information, NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation, Retrieved from http://www.regional.org.au/au/gia/20/655kelly.htm on 11 January 2010
Klein, R.J.T. and Nicholls, R.J., 1999. Assessment of coastal vulnerability to climate change. Ambio, 28(2), pp.182-187
National Committee on Coastal and Ocean Engineering [NCCOE], 2004, Guidelines for Responding to the Effects of Climate Change in Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Engineers Australia
Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, 2009, Coastal Hazards of the Northern Agricultural Region: Review of Information Sources and Gap Analysis, Report No. 796_005/1 prepared for the Northern Agricultural Catchments Council, November 2009
Queensland Government,2009, Draft Queensland Coastal Plan: Draft State Policy Guideline Coastal Management, The State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Resource Management)
SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd and Water Resource Laboratory, 2009, Climate change impacts On Clarence coastal areas – Final Report, Report prepared for Clarence City Council April 2009 available online at http://www.ccc.tas.gov.au/, Clarence City Council, Tasmania
Sharples C, C. Attwater and J. Carley, 2008, Three Pass Assessment Approach to Coastal Risk Management, Coast to Coast conference, Darwin 18–22 Aug 2008, available online at http://www.coast2coast.org.au/PresentationPDFs/Sharples3.pdf
The Allen Consulting Group, 2005, Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability – Final Report, Report prepared for the Australian Greenhouse Office, January 2005
Van Dam, R.A., 1999, Coastal Vulnerability Assessment: Assessing the vulnerability to climate change and sea level rise, February 1999, retrieved from http://environment.gov.au/ssd/ publications/ir/pubs/ir313.pdf , 22 December 2009
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02 49
8
8 Limitations
URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care and
thoroughness of the consulting profession for the use of the Northern Agricultural Catchments Council
(NACC) and only those third parties who have been authorised in writing by URS to rely on the report.
It is based on generally accepted practices and standards at the time it was prepared. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. It is
prepared in accordance with the scope of work and for the purpose outlined in the Proposal dated 6
October 2009.
The methodology adopted and sources of information used by URS are outlined in this report. URS
has made no independent verification of this information beyond the agreed scope of works and URS
assumes no responsibility for any inaccuracies or omissions. No indications were found during our
investigations that information contained in this report as provided to URS was false.
This report was prepared between December 2009 and March 2010 and is based on the conditions
encountered and information reviewed at the time of preparation. URS disclaims responsibility for any
changes that may have occurred after this time.
This report should be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report in any
other context or for any other purpose or by third parties. This report does not purport to give legal
advice. Legal advice can only be given by qualified legal practitioners.
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02
A
Appendix A Consultation Schedule
Name Position Organisation
Dr Michael Cheah Batavia Coast Maritime Institute
Tony Brun CEO City of Geraldton-Greenough
Mark Chadwick City of Geraldton-Greenough
Andrew Outhwaite City of Geraldton-Greenough
Kim Trotter City of Geraldton-Greenough
Dr Russ Babcock CSIRO
Paul Findlater Department of Agriculture and Food
Rory Chapple Department of Environment and Conservation
Rob Bogumil Department of Fisheries
Nikki Pursell Department of Planning
Charlie Bicknell Department of Planning
Vivienne Panizza Team Leader Climate Change and
Coastal Planning
Department of Planning
Lucya Rocevich Department of Transport
Peter Klein CEO Geraldton Port Authority
Sue Mischke Geraldton Port Authority
Peter Duplex Geraldton Port Authority
Mark Logue Geraldton Port Authority
Meredith Wills Director Geraldton Universities Centre
Bill Headley CEO Mid-West Chamber of Commerce
and Industry
Steve Douglas CEO Mid-West Development
Commission
Chiara Danese Coastal Project Coordinator NACC
Alan Bradley CEO NACC
Ashley Robb NACC
Peter Spalding Regional Manager Oakajee Port and Rail
Katherine Jackson Shire of Chapman Valley
Jenny Lana-Smith Project Officer WALIS
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02
B
Appendix B Draft Letters to Primary Stakeholders
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix B
42907394/S0102/02
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix B
42907394/S0102/02
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02
C
Appendix C Draft Letter to Secondary Stakeholders (Involve)
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix C
42907394/S0102/02
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix C
42907394/S0102/02
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02
D
Appendix D Draft Letter to Secondary Stakeholders (Inform)
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix D
42907394/S0102/02
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix D
42907394/S0102/02
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02
E
Appendix E Terms of Reference - Joint Steering Group
Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program Joint Steering Group Terms of Reference
Version No: 0.A 05 January 2010
Copy: Uncontrolled
Background
The coast of the Northern Agricultural Region is under pressure from rapidly expanding urban
development as well as increased commercial and recreational use. For example, current erosion of
some parts of the shore is threatening (and affecting) property and infrastructure in foreshore
reserves, and inshore habitats have been significantly affected by natural and engineered changes
taking place. Additionally, further decline in resilience of the natural coastal and marine resources, with
enhanced erosion and instability have been identified as potential impacts of projected climate change
and sea-level rise.
Shore stabilisation measures applied along the coast are commonly and frequently subject to
recurrent maintenance work and reconstruction, at substantial cost to managers. The problems
currently experienced and projected to occur into the future raise questions concerning the adequacy
of existing planning and design guidelines and their application to all parts of the coast. A
comprehensive understanding of the combined extent of these problems and the degree to which the
problems are inter-related is fundamental to future risk management of natural resources and industry
and urban developments in the region.
In light of this, the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program (CVRAP) has been developed
with an aim to ensure planning processes for the coast and State Waters deals with future challenges
such as sea level rise scenarios and climate change impacts; protects and values coastal biodiversity;
considers potential risks to existing key coastal infrastructures under a range of future climate
scenarios; and adopts guidelines for appropriate set-backs to coastal development.
Further development and implementation of the CVRAP will entail a broad collaboration between a
number of key stakeholders including State Government agencies and authorities, local governments,
Natural Resource Management groups, non-government agencies, private industry, and community
groups. This Joint Steering Group has been established to provide oversight to the Program.
Joint Steering Group Charter
To develop policies, strategies and procedures for CVRAP activities.
To promote the development of collaborative coastal research and planning. ;
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix E
42907394/S0102/02
To co-ordinate funding strategies for CVRAP, and be accountable to funding agencies..
To identify new partners for CVRAP.
To promote the use of CVRAP information by partners and other organisations.
To maintain liaison with other interested parties.
Functions
The primary role of the Joint Steering Group (JSG) is to oversee all aspects associated with the
Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program. The specific functions of the JSG are:
Approve the CVRAP plan and documentation framework.
To provide directions as required to the Technical Advisory Group.
To endorse new CVRAP projects.
Review conclusions and recommendations of individual projects.
Sign off on key messages.
Dissemination of information within individual agencies/organisations as appropriate.
Secure political support for CVRAP and for coastal management imperatives identified through the
Program.
Commission evaluations of CVRAP as required.
Approach
The CVRAP operates on a collaborative model where key stakeholders with an interest in coastal
matters in the Northern Agricultural Region come together to devise projects aimed at progressing the
overall Program. Program partners include State Government agencies and authorities, local
governments, Natural Resource Management groups, non-government agencies, private industry, and
community groups. Attachment 1 provides a list of current Program Partners.
Role of individual members
The role of the individual members of the Joint Steering Group includes:
understand the strategic implications and outcomes of projects being pursued through the CVRAP;
represent their own organisation‘s interests and requirements in coastal management;
appreciate the significance of the Program and projects for all major stakeholders
as required, secure political and financial support for the Program and implementation of suggested
actions.
be an advocate for the Program outcomes within their own organisation and with third parties
be committed to, and actively involved in pursuing the Program outcomes
Membership
The JSG will consist of between 4 to 10 members representing partner organisations with a quorum of
50 per cent of serving members needed to make a decision.
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix E
42907394/S0102/02
When selecting a member, each relevant Partner organisation will have regard for:
(a) the skills and experience that the CVRAP requires;
(b) the need for a reasonable level of continuity of membership; and
(c) the ability to represent the views and interests of their own organisation and participants in its
sector.
The Committee will be chaired by the Northern Agricultural Catchments Council. The Chair will be
responsible for:
Scheduling meetings and advising the Secretariat to notify committee members;
Inviting specialists to attend meetings when required by the committee;
Guiding the meeting according to the agenda and time available;
Ensuring all discussion items end with a decision, action or definite outcome;
Reviewing and approving the draft minutes before distribution;
Representing, as required, the CVRAP in meetings with partner organisations and other parties;
and
Representing the CVRAP in contacts with the media.
Proxies will be nominated by members of the JSG to attend in their absence.
The Chairperson of the TAG will attend JSG meetings to present a verbal report (supported by notes)
on CVRAP activities since the last meeting
The Chairperson of the JSG may attend TAG meetings ex-officio.
Secretariat Support
The TAG will be serviced by a special secretariat, initially provided by the Northern Agricultural
Catchments Council, that will perform an administrative role including:
1. Coordinating JSG meetings and recording minutes and actions;
2. Ensuring information exchange between the JSG and the TAG;
3. Compiling and distributing meeting papers; and
4. General facilitation role and other roles as required.
Resource support for secretariat functions is sought from Program partners.
Meetings
Frequency
The JSG will meet three-monthly at a regular time convenient to all members.
Committee meetings may, where required, be held electronically via tele- or video-conferencing to
allow for geographically distant members to participate in all meetings. A resolution passed at that
meeting is deemed to have been passed at a meeting of the Committee members present at the same
place and held on the day on which and at which the meeting was held.
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix E
42907394/S0102/02
Documentation and Minutes
Prior to meetings the Secretariat will be responsible for:
Obtaining an update on project activities within the CVRAP;
Preparing agendas and issuing notices for meetings, and ensuring all necessary documents
requiring discussion or comment are attached to the agenda.
Distributing the Agenda one week prior to the meeting.
Taking notes of proceedings and preparing minutes of meeting.
Distributing the minutes to all committee members one week after the meeting and be made
available to all staff.
The minutes shall be checked by the Chair and accepted by committee members as a true and
accurate record at the commencement of the next meeting.
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix E
42907394/S0102/02
Attachment 1
Members of the Joint Steering Group as at January 2010
Alan Bradley (Chair), Northern Agricultural Catchments Council
Tony Brun, CEO, City of Geraldton-Greenough
Peter Klein, CEO, Geraldton Port Authority
Vivienne Panizza, Team Leader Climate Change and Coastal Planning, Department of Planning
Charlie Bicknell, Senior Coastal Engineer, Department of Transport
The Joint Steering Group may co-opt the assistance of relevant officers from Program Partner
organisations or from the Technical Advisory Group to work on priority areas relevant to the Program‘s
development (e.g. research, project brief development, information systems and information
dissemination)
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02
F
Appendix F Terms of Reference - Technical Advisory Group
Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program Technical Advisory Group Terms of Reference
Version No: 0.A 05 January 2010
Copy: Uncontrolled
Background
The coast of the Northern Agricultural Region is under pressure from rapidly expanding urban
development as well as increased commercial and recreational use. For example, current erosion of
some parts of the shore is threatening (and affecting) property and infrastructure in foreshore
reserves, and inshore habitats have been significantly affected by natural and engineered changes
taking place. Additionally, further decline in resilience of the natural coastal and marine resources, with
enhanced erosion and instability have been identified as potential impacts of projected climate change
and sea-level rise.
Shore stabilisation measures applied along the coast are commonly and frequently subject to
recurrent maintenance work and reconstruction, at substantial cost to managers. The problems
currently experienced and projected to occur into the future raise questions concerning the adequacy
of existing planning and design guidelines and their application to all parts of the coast. A
comprehensive understanding of the combined extent of these problems and the degree to which the
problems are inter-related is fundamental to future risk management of natural resources and industry
and urban developments in the region.
In light of this, the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program (CVRAP) has been developed
with an aim to ensure planning processes for the coast and State Waters deals with future challenges
such as sea level rise scenarios and climate change impacts; protects and values coastal biodiversity;
considers potential risks to existing key coastal infrastructures under a range of future climate
scenarios; and adopts guidelines for appropriate set-backs to coastal development.
Further development and implementation of the CVRAP will entail a broad collaboration between a
number of key stakeholders including State Government agencies and authorities, local governments,
Natural Resource Management groups, non-government agencies, private industry, and community
groups. A Joint Steering Group (JSG) has been established to provide oversight to the Program and
will be supported with input from this Technical Advisory Group (TAG).
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix F
42907394/S0102/02
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Charter
To contribute to collaborative coastal research and planning.
To act on directions from the Joint Steering Group
To provide technical advice to ensure that projects deliver on CVRAP objectives.
To liaise and communicate issues to the Joint Steering Group and to Program partner
organisations.
Functions
The primary role of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) is to provide guidance and advice on
technical aspects of the CVRAP. The specific functions of the TAG are to:
define and evaluate different options for understanding and assessing coastal vulnerability in the
NAR.
develop project briefs for review and endorsement by the Joint Steering Group.
coordinate the timing and prioritisation of individual projects.
deliver and/or provide oversight of CVRAP activities and projects.
facilitate the delivery of project and Program update reports to the JSG outlining key technical
considerations and recommendations for areas relevant to the CVRAP.
provide and/or secure the necessary technical advice to implement the CVRAP.
provide access to information and data that may further the knowledge of coastal processes
required to implement the CVRAP.
peer review the findings of technical reports and perform a general quality assurance role.
participate in any wider stakeholder seminars/workshops.
supervise the storage and retrieval of all data and information relevant to the CVRAP.
Approach
The CVRAP operates on a collaborative model where key stakeholders with an interest in coastal
matters in the Northern Agricultural Region come together to devise projects aimed at progressing the
overall Program. Program partners include State Government agencies and authorities, local
governments, Natural Resource Management groups, non-government agencies, private industry, and
community groups. Attachment 1 provides a list of current Program Partners.
Role of individual members
The role of the individual members of the Technical Advisory Group includes:
maintain technical knowledge and expertise to support the functions of the TAG;
represent their own organisation‘s interests and requirements in coastal management;
appreciate the significance of the Program and projects for other major stakeholders;
be genuinely interested in the Program and the outcomes being pursued;
be an advocate for the Program outcomes within their own organisation and with third parties;
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix F
42907394/S0102/02
be committed to, and actively involved in pursuing the Program outcomes.
Membership
The TAG will consist of between four and twelve technical and policy experts from within governments
(state and local), industry, NRM, and the scientific/technical community, with a Chair appointed by the
Joint Steering Group.
Membership shall include:
At least one member from each of the Program partner organisations (See Appendix 1);
Members with expertise/knowledge in coastal processes;
Members with expertise/knowledge of issues relevant to the marine environment;
Members with expertise/knowledge of coastal and marine engineering;
Members with expertise/knowledge of issues relevant to land development and planning;
Members with expertise/knowledge of issues relevant to local government decision-making;
In deciding the make-up of the TAG a balance of skills will be sought. All members will ensure that
they can be represented by a proxy if they are unable to attend meetings.
The Chairperson of the JSG may attend TAG meetings ex officio.
The TAG may invite others with relevant expertise to attend meetings from time to time.
Secretariat Support
The TAG will be serviced by a special secretariat, initially provided by the Northern Agricultural
Catchments Council, that will perform an administrative role including:
1. Coordinating TAG meetings and recording minutes and actions;
2. Ensuring information exchange between the JSG and the TAG;
3. Compiling and distributing meeting papers; ;
4. Induction of new members;
5. Initiating actions agreed at each meeting;
6. Maintaining media contact as advised by the TAG; and
7. General facilitation role and other roles as required.
The Chairperson of the TAG will attend JSG meetings to present a verbal report (supported by notes)
on CVRAP activities since the last meeting
Meetings
The TAG will meet on a bi-monthly basis or more or less frequently as determined by the Chair, and/or
as required by the JSG.
A quorum will be half plus one member.
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix F
42907394/S0102/02
Sub -groups working on specific tasks may be established.
Substitution of membership is allowable with the prior permission of the Chair.
In the absence of the Chair of the TAG, the Chair will appoint an acting Chairperson who will be a
member of the TAG.
Members will notify the secretariat within a reasonable time frame if they are unable to attend a
meeting, and advise the name of a proxy to attend in their place.
If a member is absent for more than three meetings without approval of the Chair, their position may
be considered vacant.
Minutes of the meeting will be recorded and circulated to members within ten working days of the
meeting.
With the approval of the Chair, attendance at TAG meetings may be conducted electronically via tele-
or video-conferencing to allow for geographically distant members to participate in all meetings.
Documentation and Minutes
Prior to meetings the Secretariat will be responsible for:
If required, obtaining an update of project activities within CVRAP;
Preparing agendas and issuing notices for meetings, and ensuring all necessary documents
requiring discussion or comment are attached to the agenda.;
Distributing the Agenda one week prior to the meeting;
Taking notes of proceedings and preparing minutes of meeting;
Distributing the minutes to all committee members one week after the meeting and be made
available to all staff;
The minutes shall be checked by the Chair and accepted by committee members as a true and
accurate of the next meeting.
Duration
The TAG will continue to support the CVRAP until such time as the Program is deemed to have
achieved its objective, or on the decision of the Joint Steering Group and will disband at that point.
Participation in good faith
The primary role of the TAG is the provision of independent technical and policy advice. Members are
therefore expected to participate without prejudice to the policy outcome. Members of the TAG are
required to act in good faith and on a ‗no surprises‘ basis.
Information prepared for the TAG or by the TAG will be of interest to Program partners and other
relevant organisations and wider stakeholders. Where information has been made available to
members, they may only circulate it outside the JSG and TAG where prior approval has been obtained
from a properly constituted meeting of the TAG.
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix F
42907394/S0102/02
Project Management
Projects developed through the TAG will be project managed, where appropriate, by the Northern
Agricultural Catchments Council. All contract and financial documentation associated with individual
CVRAP projects will be maintained by the NACC with copies provided to all relevant Program partners
through the TAG.
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix F
42907394/S0102/02
Attachment 1
Members of the Technical Advisory Group as at 1 January 2010
Mark Chadwick City of Geraldton-Greenough
Chiara Danese (Chair) Northern Agricultural Catchments Council
Lucya Rocevich Department of Transport
Nikki Pursell Department of Planning
Sue Mischke Geraldton Port Authority
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02
G
Appendix G Project Briefing - Ecosystems Services
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix G
42907394/S0102/02
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix G
42907394/S0102/02
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix G
42907394/S0102/02
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix G
42907394/S0102/02
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02
H
Appendix H Communications and Stakeholder Engagement Plan
Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program for the Northern Agricultural Region
Communications & Stakeholder Engagement
Plan
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix H
42907394/S0102/02
Amendment Record
Issue
Status
Version Date Actioned By Description
Draft 1.0 21 December 2009 Vicki Williams 1st draft for review
Glossary
Abbreviation Description
BCMI Batavia Coast Maritime Institute
CoGG City of Geraldton-Greenough
CVRAP Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program
DAF Department of Agriculture and Food
DEC Department of Environment and Conservation
DoF Department of Fisheries
DoP Department of Planning
DoT Department of Transport
GPA Geraldton Port Authority
GUC Geraldton Universities Centre
NACC Northern Agricultural Catchments Council
OPR Oakajee Port and Rail
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix H
42907394/S0102/02
H.1 Executive Summary
This Communications and Stakeholder Engagement Plan (CSEP) has been produced as a joint plan
between the Program Partners of the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program (CVRAP).
The CVRAP entails a major collaborative effort by multiple government and private agencies and
organisations. The management of the collaboration and the engagement of stakeholders will only be
achieved if underpinned by effective communications where timely, clear messages are delivered by
appropriate means to the key stakeholders in a planned and systematic manner.
The objective for communications and stakeholder engagement in the CVRAP is to engage all
stakeholders to the degree required by the level to which the Program will affect them. The
appropriate degree of engagement varies according to their involvement in coastal management.
All identified stakeholders of the CVRAP will be communicated with and their feedback collected.
Communications will be as far as possible relevant to particular groups and will include elements of
‗what‘s in it for me‘ to ensure ownership of the Program and their outcomes. In this way, stakeholders
will move through the process of awareness to commitment.
In addition to the specific projects, there will be a series of generic communications available about
CVRAP.
H.2 Introduction
H.2.1 Purpose
This document describes and defines the Communications and Stakeholder Engagement Plan for the
Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program in the Northern Agricultural Region.
H.2.2 Aim
The aims of the document are to:
outline the objectives for communication and stakeholder engagement for the CVRAP;
define the communication and stakeholder engagement strategic approach of the CVRAP;
define the development of communication and the key messages;
identify the stakeholder groups (key audiences);
identify the channels of communications for these stakeholders;
define the communication outcomes; and
define the means of monitoring feedback and evaluating the success of communications.
H.2.3 Scope
The Northern Agricultural Catchments Council (NACC) has produced this plan jointly with the City of
Geraldton-Greenough (CoGG), the Geraldton Port Authority (GPA), and the Departments of Planning
(DoP) and Transport (DoT). It covers the overall Communications and Stakeholder Engagement Plan
for CVRAP within the Northern Agricultural Region Coastal Community and will provide the foundation
for project-level communications.
H.3 Objectives of the Plan
The CVRAP is a five-year program that aims to build a comprehensive understanding of the combined
extent of the problems evident along the coastal strip between the Shire of Gingin and the Shire of
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix H
42907394/S0102/02
Northampton. The program has evolved as a result of an acknowledgement of the impacts caused by
rapidly expanding urban development along with increased commercial and recreational activity on the
coastal strip. To develop a future risk management framework will require a collaborative multi-
sectoral approach to decision-making and coastal management. It is therefore important that the
communication of the program describes and emphasises the benefits of an integrated approach to
achieve long-term protection of, and improvement to the coastal assets of the Northern Agricultural
Region.
The key objectives of CVRAP Communications and Stakeholder Engagement Plan will be to:
raise awareness of CVRAP, particularly with reference to the benefits for the community and the
environment;
to gain support for the Program through highlighting its benefits to those with an interest in the NAR
coastal strip;
inform Program Partners of the current and future requirements for participation;
ensure that CVRAP is seen as a knowledge improvement program that enables a greater
understanding of the issues affecting the coast and links to coastal management decision-making
processes;
ensure communications around the key messages are consistent and that stakeholders have
clarity around the different elements of CVRAP, its implementation and what is required of them;
ensure that stakeholders are listened to and that they have appropriate channels to feedback their
ideas and concerns, raise issues, ask questions and find out more information
H.4 The Strategic Approach
H.4.1 The Path to Commitment
CVRAP communications and stakeholder engagement will be focused on the effective engagement of
stakeholders whose area of interest and influence extends across the Northern Agricultural Region
(NAR). The graph below shows the three types of engagement that differing stakeholder groups will
be placed on the curve depending on their role and involvement in CVRAP.
This CSEP is aimed at taking stakeholders to the required levels of engagement in order to create the
conditions for successful implementation of CVRAP.
These are:
A GENERAL AWARENESS element which will take stakeholders to a general level of awareness
of CVRAP and its benefits
An INVOLVEMENT element for those affected by CVRAP, which will take them further up the
curve, from awareness to involvement
A COMMITMENT element for key stakeholders which will take them to full commitment at the top
of the curve, that is, they are actively involved in Program delivery
The level at which stakeholders will be engaged will be determined by their information needs. For
some maintaining an awareness of the Program and project outputs will be a sufficient level of
engagement. Others, however, may need to move from awareness to involvement. This will be the
case particularly with those stakeholders who are identified as being able to contribute to Program
development and implementation.
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix H
42907394/S0102/02
The time needed to move groups through the stages of the engagement curve will vary.
Communicating the right message at the right time to the right people will be critical in ensuring that
the required level of program understanding, support and engagement is achieved.
H.5 Key Messages
There is a need to ensure that the key objectives of the CVRAP Communications and Stakeholder
Engagement Plan are realised by reinforcing the objectives through a series of key and consistent
messages for each of the stages of stakeholder engagement.
In the context of the proposed approach to engagement described above, these key messages can be
expressed as answers to the following questions:
H.5.1 Awareness
General awareness for all stakeholders
What is the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program?
Why is it being implemented?
What does it hope to achieve?
Who will it affect?
How is it going to be implemented?
What are the times frames?
What will be the benefits?
How can I find out more?
How can I become involved?
H.5.2 Involvement
Specific messages for those that are involved in projects in CVRAP:
What is the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program?
Why is it being implemented?
What is our role in implementation?
When is it going to happen?
How can we prepare?
Awareness
Involvement
Commitment
Time
Level of
Eng
ag
em
ent
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix H
42907394/S0102/02
Who will be affected?
What will it mean for those affected?
Who will responsible for what?
Are there any risks?
How can I contribute to the Program?
H.5.3 Commitment
Messages to engage the key stakeholders within Northern Agricultural Coastal Community
Why should I (we) make the Program one of our priorities in the region?
Why should we support the Program?
What is the impact of the Program on the organisation?
How will the Program affect the way that we go about our business?
Are there any risks?
How will it affect me?
H.5.4 Production of Materials
At a program level the messages based on the above will take the following steps:-
Draft material produced by Program Partners and collated by the Program Coordinator
Material distributed for comment to Joint Steering Committee and targeted champions by the
Program Coordinator.
Program Partners to provide quality assurance of material
Final draft material distributed to Communications leads for distribution
At a project level
Draft material produced by project champions and collated by the Program Coordinator
Material distributed for comment to project managers and coastal champions.
Project manager to provide quality assurance of material
Final draft material distributed to Communications leads and champions for distribution
H.5.5 Key Messages
The table below provides an overview of the key areas to be incorporated into the awareness,
involvement and commitment themes. These will be tailored according to the audience.
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix H
42907394/S0102/02
CVRAP Key Messages Awareness, Involvement & Commitment Areas
1. Will provide a central framework for
understanding the near-shore coast Consistency for information gathering;
Defines appropriate models for Vulnerability Assessment;
Define model for other regions.
2. Will provide a link between offshore
and onshore analysis Improve understanding of biophysical environment;
Encourage information sharing.
3. Will improve community awareness and understanding of the coast
Encourage behavioural change in coastal use;
Empowering community decision-making;
Involve community in coastal strategies;
Aligned with Local Priorities & Needs
4. Will provide the foundation for future
planning and adaptation decisions Increased efficiency and effectiveness,
Increased integrity in planning decisions,
Provides certainty;
Consistency through standardisation
5. Will ensure the right information about
coastal processes is available to the right people, at the right time
Improved knowledge management
More information available to decision-makers
H.5.6 Key media for communications
Suggested regular communications are below:
a) Website (NACC principally but other Program Partners also)
— Purpose: To incorporate all materials for CVRAP and link to other coastal vulnerability studies
nationally and internationally.
— When: As soon as practicable
b) Generic CVRAP newsletter (NACC)
— Purpose: Ongoing update.
— When: As soon as practicable then as and when necessary
c) Project level (Program Partner/Project Manager)
— Communications must be part of the project planning and delivery. Individual project managers
should the communications strategy for each project.
d) Generic CVRAP presentations and papers
— To be considered as part of the project level communications.
H.6 Key Audiences
H.6.1 Governance
Error! Reference source not found. below represents the governance structure for the CVRAP. At
present the Joint Steering Group is comprised of the five Program Partners defined in Section H.2.3
being NACC, City of Geraldton-Greenough, Geraldton Port Authority, Department of Planning and
Department of Transport.
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix H
42907394/S0102/02
Figure H-1 Governance Structure
H.6.2 Internal Stakeholders:
This group of stakeholders are directly impacted by this strategy and are identified as follows:
Existing CVRAP Program Partners (CoGG, GPA, DoP, DoT, NACC);
Existing CVRAP Supporters (DoF, DEC, BCMI, CUG, CSIRO)
H.6.3 External Stakeholders
These stakeholders play a role in one or more of the following - directing, assisting, implementing,
monitoring and controlling – they are referred to as external stakeholders and are:
New/potential CVRAP Partners (including Local Government, industry bodies, State Government
agencies, non-government agencies);
Program Consultants;
Project Consultants;
Community environmental groups;
Individual community members.
H.6.4 Communication Responsibilities
A number of people will be involved in the development of the communications.
Joint Steering Group
— Production of content for overarching messages regarding CVRAP;
— Sign off on key messages;
— Dissemination of information within individual agencies/organisations as appropriate.
CVRAP Coordinator:
— Advice on information collected and available;
— Circulation of Communications material; and
Joint Steering Committee
Program Coordinator
Technical Advisory Group Program Consultants
Program Consultants
Project Working Groups
Executive Support
Project Consultants
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix H
42907394/S0102/02
— Point of contact for feedback to Program Partners.
Technical Advisory Group
— Collation and provider of project level detail information;
— Quality assurance of communications before circulation.
Coastal Advisory Group
— Support to the CVRAP Communications strategy through provision of linkages to external
stakeholders.
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02
Table H-1 Communication Type Checklist (Detail)
Audience(s) Information
Requirements Key Messages to be Formulated Channels/ Mechanisms Resp.
Internal Stakeholders
Existing Program Partners
Retain commitment to the Program implementation
Project outcomes
Define Success criteria
Why should I (we) make the Program
one of our priorities in the region?
Why should we support the Program?
What is the impact of the Program on the
organisation?
How will the Program affect the way that we go about our business?
Are there any risks?
How will it affect me?
Progress feedback
Personal interaction
Terms of Reference
Consultative workshops
Specific briefing sessions
JSC Meetings
TAG Meetings
JSC Members
TAG
Program Coordinator
Existing Program
Supporters
Involve Program
supporters in Program
implementation.
Business planning
What is the Coastal Vulnerability and
Risk Assessment Program?
Why is it being implemented?
What is our role in implementation?
When is it going to happen?
How can we prepare?
Who will be affected?
What will it mean for those affected?
Who will responsible for what?
Are there any risks?
Progress feedback
Personal interaction
Terms of Reference
Consultative workshops
Specific briefing sessions
JSC Meetings
TAG Meetings (expanded)
JSC Members
TAG
Program Coordinator
Executive Officers
and Administrators
Ongoing workload
planning
What is the future of CVRAP?
What role is there for me in the future
plans?
Personal interaction Program Coordinator
JSC Members
External Stakeholders
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix H
42907394/S0102/02
New/potential
Program Supporters
Improve awareness of
Program and encourage
involvement in, and
commitment to Program
What is the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program?
Why is it being implemented?
When is it going to happen?
Is there a role for our organisation?
Who will be affected?
What will it mean for those affected?
Who will be responsible for what?
Are there any risks?
CVRAP (Marketing)
Personal communications
NACC website
JSC Members
Program Coordinator
Local Government Improve awareness of
Program and encourage
involvement in, and
commitment to Program
What is the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program?
Why is it being implemented?
What will it mean for us?
Is there a role for Local Government?
Are there any risks?
Presentations to Local
Government
JSC Members
Academic Sector Improve awareness of
the Program and
encourage collaboration
What is the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program?
Why is it being implemented?
Are there opportunities for collaboration?
Who will be responsible for what?
Are there any risks?
Personal communications JSC Members
Program Coordinator
TAG
Wider Coastal
Community
Improve awareness of
Program
Progress, benefits, results reporting
Projects involving community input
NACC Newsletter
NACC website
CoGG website
CoGG Newsletter
Program Coordinator
Funding bodies (e.g.
Caring for our
Country)
How does the CVRAP
contribute to the
State/Commonwealth?
Progress, benefits, results reporting
Business models
Specific briefing sessions Program Coordinator
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix H
42907394/S0102/02
Implementation Strategies and Plans
General Community
General community Improve awareness of the program
What is the Coastal Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Program?
Why is it being implemented?
What is our role in implementation?
When is it going to happen?
How can we prepare?
Who will be affected?
What will it mean for those affected?
Who will responsible for what?
Are there any risks?
NACC Newsletter
NACC website
CoGG website
CoGG Newsletter
GPA Newsletter
GPA Website
JSC Members
Program Coordinator
CVRAP Coordination
42907394/S0102/02
H.7 Communication Outcomes
The table below identifies the target audiences (stakeholder groups) for communication and
engagement and the state of engagement required for each group. Communications will focus on
these groups; identifying champions, promoting the benefits and providing current and relevant
information to target groups. The required outcomes of the three elements of the strategy for the
defined stakeholder groups are as follows:
Target audiences Awareness Involvement Commitment Coastal Community Are aware
Feel informed
Understand the ―big picture‖ of CVRAP
Appreciate the need for data collection
Understand the need for coastal protection
Understand benefits from improved decisions
Program Supporters Are aware
Feel informed
Understand the ―big picture‖ of CVRAP
Appreciate the need for data collection
Understand the need for coastal protection
Show a positive attitude
Understand benefits from improved decisions
Are confident that the Program will deliver relevant information and data over 5 years
Are aware of complementary initiatives and how this Program may feed into those (and vice versa)
Have realistic expectations of the benefits
Are clear about their role, what they have to do, and (broadly) when
Feel a part of the overall process
Know how to access data and information about the project
Are enthusiastic
Are supportive
Actively endorse when appropriate
Are positive about working in different ways
Feel actively engaged in the Program
Understand how to use products from Program
Program Partners. Are aware
Are aware
Feel informed
Understand the ―big picture‖ of CVRAP
Appreciate the need for data collection
Understand the need for coastal protection
Show a positive attitude
Understand benefits from improved decisions
Are confident that the Program will deliver relevant information and data over 5 years
Are aware of complementary initiatives and how this Program may feed into those (and vice versa)
Have realistic expectations of the benefits
Are clear about their role, what they have to do, and (broadly) when
Feel a part of the overall process
Know how to access data and information about the project
Are enthusiastic
Are supportive
Pro-actively endorse when appropriate
Are working in different ways where appropriate
Are fully engaged
Are actively leading
Have assigned the Program a high priority
Behave as champions
Are empowered
Understand how to use products from Program
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix H
42907394/S0102/02
H.7.1 Engagement Approach
The success of CVRAP will be dependent on Program Partners and Supporters being active
participants within the program. In light of this, there is a requirement to ensure that there is
involvement and engagement at every stage of project implementation. This next section outlines, in
more detail, the approach to ensure this participation occurs and highlights the type of activities they
will be required to undertake.
H.7.2 Joint Steering Group
Participation of primary stakeholders in the CVRAP is crucial because these stakeholders will be
required to:
support the development and validation of new projects that may emerge as a result of Program
actions;
ensure a consistent identification of project requirements;
provide the governance necessary to enable decision-making;
maximise the benefits of the CVRAP to improve coastal management by marketing information to
decision-makers; and
provide a technical, organisation-specific perspective in the overall governance of the program.
The Joint Steering Group consists of members drawn from various organisations in the NAR. There is
an expectation that members to the Joint Steering Committee will be of senior level able to speak for,
and be able to make decisions on behalf of their organisations or agencies. The current members
are:-
Allen Bradley
Vivienne Panizza
Charlie Bicknell
Peter Klein
Tony Brun
H.7.3 Technical Advisory Group
This group will provide the technical expertise needed to review data gathered and to provide direction
for future projects in the CVRAP. Specifically the group will provide:
advice on strategic matters;
assistance with the implementation of projects wherever appropriate; technical advice; and
access to data where it is held within each individual organisation.
H.7.4 Coastal Advisory Group
In order to increase community awareness there will be a need for a Coastal Advisory Group.
Members will be recruited from the community of people living in the region together with
representatives from adjoining NRM bodies familiar with the types of problems currently being
experienced with use and management of the coast.
The main function of the Coastal Advisory Group will be to:
Identify historical accounts of coastal condition;
support the CVRAP Coordinator in delivering the programme;
assist the Technical Advisory Group (e.g. suggest courses of action for remediation based upon
community knowledge); and
review project outcomes.
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix H
42907394/S0102/02
H.8 Communications Evaluation Approach
Following the completion of individual projects the relevant Project Managers will evaluate the
communication activities undertaken to assess the success of each activity, and provide an
assessment of how far the stakeholder groups have moved towards the desired objectives. This will
enable activities to focus on those that are proving more effective, showing the acceptance of the
program and an indication of how groups are positively moving through the engagement curve. It
should be noted that the level of evaluation will vary with each project.
Evaluation feedback mechanisms should be simple to ensure sufficient comments are received in
order to:
help steer the content of future communications
capture the needs of the audience
ensure the information being communicated is being received by the targeted group
check that the information being communicated is understood by the targeted group
help identify solutions to problems
gauge resistance
ensure expectations are being managed
This could be undertaken through a number of routes including:
telephone or e-mail surveys
feedback from staff (de-brief events, use of stakeholder analysis, informal and verbal feedback
etc.)
actual attendance at events, and numbers of requests for further information
willingness and enthusiasm for further involvement (number of requests for and formal expression
of interest in involvement)
open channels – e.g. generic email and/or intranet contact for people to provide feedback and
ideas at any time
use of key stakeholders for feedback through their regular contacts
Effective listening will be vital. To be successful communications must be two-way and feedback must
be given quickly, professionally and efficiently.
As part of the overall evaluation this Communication and Stakeholder Engagement Plan should be
reviewed annually.
CVRAP Coordination
Appendix H
42907394/S0102/02
Attachment: Risks and Issues
Risks / Issues Impact Likelihood Mitigating Action Responsibility
Time frame for implementation is undefined
Unable to facilitate project commencement
Unlikely Ensure that agreed timetable is disseminated to all affected parties
Program Coordinator
Not all communications channelled through the correct team – too many points of contact
Uncoordinated and unprofessional image with Incorrect or confusing messages
Likely Correct channels for approval and co-ordination to be clearly set out and communicated
Program Coordinator
Language is too technical/project management based
Confusing messages which alienate target audiences
Likely Tailor message to suit audience
TAG
Balancing general and specific communications
Confusing messages which alienate target audiences
Likely Maintain a source of generic material which provides the national and international context with local developments and achievements headlined
Program Coordinator
Resources do not become available to participate in communication networks/teams
Opportunity for co-ordination and the sharing of good practice are reduced
Possible Provide a range of alternative network opportunities – such as telephone conferences; newsletter; email network; web-based communications site
JSC
There is ambiguity around stakeholder management and communication roles and responsibilities
A stakeholder management and communication void develops
Possible Ensure each Project provides a communications & Stakeholder engagement plan
Project Managers
URS Australia Pty Ltd
Level 3, 20 Terrace Road
East Perth WA 6004
Australia
T: 61 8 9326 0100
F: 61 8 9326 0296
www.ap.urscorp.com