final evaluation report summary to...re review a practice pa for the resea etailed in th – july 2...

S c i e n c e t o S o l u t i o n s ‐ F i n a l E v a l u a t i o n R e p o r t S u m m a r y – J u l y 2 0 1 5

Final Evaluation Report Summary

July 2015

S c i

EXECU The ScieAssociat The objeResourcprocesseimpleme The progguidanceStage On Since thintervencontent

STAGE O Figure 1project:

Figure 1‐ T(A full set

BACKGR Stage onpurposeembeddof previoabove. LiteratuchallengfoundatResearc

e n c e t o S

UTIVE SU

ence to Soluttion (LGA) an

ective of the e Managemes. The aim ientation acti

gram advance to managene‐ ‘Researc

en, the LGA ntions that wof an updat

ONE‐ RESEA

below depic

Tasks for Stage of deliverables

ROUND AN

ne began wite was to syntding climate rous research

re review finges identifiedion for the rch Method’.

S o l u t i o n s

UMMARY

tions Programnd the Depar

project is toent (NRM) as to enhanceivities to bui

ces previous e climate riskh and Engag

has analysedwill be underted funding a

ARCH AND

cts the tasks

One‐ Researchs can be found o

ND GOOD PR

th a detailedthesise previrisk considerh outputs. Ele

ndings are oud in the literaesearch met

‐ F i n a l E

Y

m (the progrrtment of En

o embed climnd Regional e consideratld resilience

work undertk more effectement’ was

d the results taken in stagagreement be

ENGAGEM

that were u

h & Engagemenon the LGA We

RACTICE

literature reous researchrations into sements inco

utlined in theature reviewthodology ap

E v a l u a t i o

ram) is a partvironment, W

mate risk conDevelopmenion of climatto the likely

taken by thetively. The pundertaken

of the reseage two of theetween the

ENT

ndertaken in

nt ebpage: www.lg

eview and thh on barriersstrategic andrporated int

e ‘Backgrounw formed thepproach. The

n R e p o r t

tnership betwWater and N

siderations int Australia (te related risy impacts of c

e LGA to provrogram is befrom Decem

arch and enge project. TheLGA and DEW

n the researc

ga.sa.gov.au/go

he developms and to evalud operationao the literatu

nd and Good hypothesis e method is d

S u m m a r y

ween the LoNatural Resou

nto existing (RDA) strategsks in planninclimate chan

vide tools, reeing deliveredmber 2013 un

gagement to e findings haWNR for stag

ch and engag

otoclimatechang

ent of fourteuate the sucl planning prure review a

d Practice Pafor the reseadetailed in th

– J u l y 2

ocal Governmurces (DEWN

Council, Natgic and operng and nge.

esources andd in two stagntil July 2014

develop speave shaped tge two activi

gement stag

ge)

een case studcess/ failurerocesses as are shown in

aper’. The gaarch and washe ‘Framewo

0 1 5

P a g e | 2

ment NR).

tural rational

d ges. 4.

ecific he ities.

e of the

dies. The of a result figure 1

ps and s the ork for


P a g e | 3

FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH The objective of the research was to gather detailed information on barriers, where they occur in specific strategic and operational processes of Councils, NRMs and RDAs, and who is responsible for carrying out the tasks or making the decisions that perpetuate the barriers (termed ‘actors’). The research was also focused on identifying linkages between the barriers, tasks and decision making and analysing how they interact. The engagement was undertaken with 128 staff from 42 Councils (both metropolitan and regional) across four Council functional areas, four NRMs and three RDAs. The Council functions were chosen based on the impact (or level of risk/ disruption) that climatic changes would have on the continuing operation of these functions. The risk information was provided by literature review findings and outcomes of previous LGA climate risk initiatives, such as the LGA Mutual Liability Scheme Climate Adaptation Program (MLSCAP). The functions were identified as: Environment/Sustainability Planning Engineering/Public Works Corporate Services

The engagement centred on barriers and enablers that transpire as part of conducting vital strategic and operational planning processes within the individual target groups. Vital processes and subsequent strategic/ operational documents were identified as: Environmental Management Strategy Five Year Planning Strategy Asset Management Plan Ten Year Business Plan Natural Resource Management Plan RDA Action Plan

The approach incorporated a range of engagement techniques (see figure 1) and was successful in providing a framework to: Identify barriers specific to the processes Fully understand the nature of barriers and how they play out Key decision makers and tasks of concern Linkages between the barriers

FINAL EVALUATION REPORT The ‘Final Evaluation Report’ contains a detailed interpretation of:

Opportunities to intervene to enhance tasks and decisions making in existing processes Barriers (causes, linkages and a holistic approach to tackling them) Key tasks and decision makers perpetuating the barriers (actors) Proven enablers from analysis of exemplar projects An overview of embedding activities in the target groups and an understanding of why they

have succeeded/failed


P a g e | 4

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAGE ONE The recommendations from Stage One are shown in table 1 below. A reasoned justification and full details of the recommendations can be found in section 6 of the Final Evaluation Report. A summary of finding and discussion can be found in the Summary of Findings and Discussion Paper (overleaf).

Table 1‐ Recommendations

PRIORITY 1‐ Tackling Primary Barriers

1 Develop a Climate Risk Management & Decision Making Training Course for Elected/ Board/

Advisory Members in collaboration with target group managers

2 Develop function specific Risk Management Training for managers of impacted functions in

collaboration with professional/ peak bodies

3 Develop A strategic approach to engagement & communication

4 Develop a cross sectorial Media Strategy

PRIORITY 2‐ Tackling Secondary Barriers

5 Develop a set of Guidance Notes that collate all current policy, strategy & legislation pertaining

to the target groups

6 Develop Climate Adaptation Planning Guidelines that are specific to target groups,

demonstrating the applicability of adaptation tools and methods

7 Undertake a Gap Analysis of current policy, strategy and legislation pertaining to the target

groups and make reform recommendations

PRIORITY 3‐ Addressing Process Specific Barriers

8 Partner with a Council to develop a robust approach to Business Plan Development

9 Partner with an RDA to develop guidelines for procuring/ appointing Technical Advisory

Members

10 Partner with Regions to identify opportunities for implementation activities

S c i

OUTP The Finamethodcapacity This is imadaptatikey strat This dochow theof the Sc

1 CommoThese wcoding rin figure

Figure 2‐ C

A barrieunderstamaking t Figure 3developprocesse

e n c e t o S

PUTS AND

al Evaluations, tools and ty amongst en

mpeding undion actions. tegic and op

cument descey have beencience to Sol

BARRIERS

n barrier thewere used in tresponses. The 2 below:

Coding Classific

rs diagnosticand the barrthe decision

demonstrating specific ies.

S o l u t i o n s

D DISCUS

Report conctechniques and users.

derstanding, It is also prevperational pro

ribes the keyn utilised to dlutions progr

emes were idthe developmhe common

cations

c tool was usriers, where ts.

tes the areasintervention

‐ F i n a l E

SSION SU

cludes that davailable for

planning, deventing the eocesses acro

y methods andetermine thram.

dentified in tment of the barriers and

sed in the resthey occur in

s that the ress to tackle ba

E v a l u a t i o

UMMAR

despite the eclimate ada

ecision makineffective emoss the targe

nd outputs ohe priority ac

the paper as research andd definitions

search to pron the decisio

search strivearriers prese

n R e p o r t

RY

extensive arrptation plan

ng and implembedding of ct groups.

of the researctions and re

relating sped engagemebased on the

ovide the deon‐making pr

ed to investigent in the str

S u m m a r y

ay of prograning, there is

ementation oclimate risk c

ch and proviecommendat

cifically to clnt method aemes used in

pth of informocess and th

gate, and theategic and o

– J u l y 2

ms, projectss still a gap i

of climate consideratio

ides a discustions for stag

limate adaptand as a basisn coding are

mation to fuhe actors inv

e linkages in operational

0 1 5

P a g e | 5

s, n

ns into

ssion for ge two

tation. s for shown

lly volved in

terms of

S c i

The actoaspects barriers

The targbarriers and in im When coNRM tarRDA targfailures research

Figure

e n c e t o S

ors influenceof decision m.

get groups hato embeddimplementing

omparing resrget group (wget group (wand learningh) through th

e 3‐ Elements o

S o l u t i o n s

e on the procmaking and p

ave had varyng climate rig adaptation

sponses fromwho have exwho don't havgs of practicahe responses

of the Research

‐ F i n a l E

cesses triggepractices tha

ying degrees isk considera actions.

m the Enviroperience), wve as much eal attempts ts.

and Engageme

E v a l u a t i o

r the barrierat may be ca

of experiencations into st

nment/Sustawith those froexperience) to ameliorate

ent

n R e p o r t

rs. The diagnusing barrier

ce in identifytrategic and

ainability funom the remait has been pe barriers (ba

S u m m a r y

ostic then asrs and the lin

ying and endoperational

nctional areaining Councipossible to trased on outc

– J u l y 2

ssists in explnkages betw

deavoring to planning pro

a of Council ail functions arack the succcomes of pre

0 1 5

P a g e | 6

oring een the

tackle ocesses,

and the and the cesses, evious

S c i

This insiorder in The clasfact thattackled.

Overall pand procwere cit The barrand reguthe Coutarget gr This is reranked ddistribut For the Pcited bainformaleadersh

Chart 1‐ O

e n c e t o S

ght has allow which barriesification of t one barrier

1.1 BAR

percentages cess mappinted by respon

riers leadershulatory framncil functionroup.

epresented idid change ption across t

Planning funrrier. For thetion and knohip and mand

Overall Percenta

S o l u t i o n s

wed for the iers must be the barrier dr cannot be e

RRIERS OUT

for barrier tg are shownndents as pa

hip and manmeworks domns of Planning

n the overalper function/he target gro

nctional areae Engineeringowledge wasdate was the

ages‐Barriers

‐ F i n a l E

dentificationtackled befodoes not relaeliminated w

TPUTS

themes as idn in chart 1. Tart of the sur

ndate, lack ofminated the og, Engineerin

l percentage/target groupoups is demo

, inadequateg/Public Wothe highest e highest cite

E v a l u a t i o

n of primary,ore success inate to the mawithout anoth

entified throThe percentarvey, 1:1 inte

f informationoutputs. Thesng/Public Wo

es shown in cp. The disparonstrated in

e planning anorks functioncited barrieed barrier.

n R e p o r t

, secondary an tackling otagnitude of aher (intrinsic

ough the survages show therviews and f

n and knowlese barriers works and Cor

chart 1. Howrity in rankinchart 2.

nd regulatoryal area and tr. For the Co

S u m m a r y

and tertiary her barriers a specific barally linked) b

vey, 1:1 intehe frequencyfocus groups

edge and inawere ranked rporate Servi

wever, the ordg of the barr

y frameworkthe RDA targrporate Serv

– J u l y 2

barriers (i.e.can be achierrier, moreobarrier alrea

rviews, focuy that the bas.

adequate plain the top thices, plus the

der they weriers and the

ks was the higet group, lacvices functio

0 1 5

P a g e | 7

the eved). ver the dy being

s groups rriers

anning hree for e RDA

re e

ighest ck of nal area,

S c i

This resugroup, w

Figure 4‐ L

In additiregulatoimpetus The top leadersh

The NRMand lead

Values

e n c e t o S

ult aligns witwhich demon

Linkages betwe

ion, without ory framewos to enhance

barrier for thip and mand

M target grodership and m

s and beliefs

S o l u t i o n s

th the findingnstrate a dire

een the Barriers

a change in rks (and prioor modify th

he Environmdate and ina

up identifiedmandate.

s = primary b

‐ F i n a l E

gs of the proect interplay

s

mandate thaoritisation ofhe framewor

ment/Sustainadequate pla

d communica

barrier

E v a l u a t i o

ocess mappiny between th

at is supportf issues withirks.

ability functanning and re

ation as their

n R e p o r t

ng for these e three barr

tive of tacklinn these fram

ional area wegulatory fra

r top barrier,

S u m m a r y

functions aniers.

ng climate rismeworks) the

as values anameworks.

, followed by

– J u l y 2

nd the RDA ta

sk, the plannere will be no

nd beliefs foll

y values and

0 1 5

P a g e | 8

arget

ning and o

lowed by

beliefs

S c i

Chart 2‐ O

The barrareas ofbeliefs a

The barrSustainafor RDAsspecific

Lack o

Leader

Inadeq

Comm

e n c e t o S

Overall Ranking

riers identifief Council, andand commun

rier political ability, Engins and the Platarget group

of informatio

rship and ma

quate planni

munication =

S o l u t i o n s

of Barriers

ed by the Plad the RDA foication.

cycles did noeering/Publianning functps (NRMs and

on and know

andate =sec

ing and regu

primary bar

‐ F i n a l E

anning, Enginocus group ha

ot rank in theic Works or Cional area ofd RDAs) and

wledge = seco

ondary barr

ulatory frame

rrier

E v a l u a t i o

neering/Pubave therefor

e top five forCorporate Sef Council. Pothe Council

ondary barri

rier

eworks = sec

n R e p o r t

lic Works anre been ident

r the functioervices. It didlitical cycles function of P

er

condary bar

S u m m a r y

d Corporatetified as seco

nal areas of d rank fourthmoderately Planning.

rier

– J u l y 2

e Services funondary to va

Environmenh for NRMs aaffected bot

0 1 5

P a g e | 9

nctional alues and

nt/ and fifth th region

S c i

The comcontribugovernmregionalGovernm The procresult ofregulatocycles ha

The barrEnvironmmaps foleadersh Althougpresent lack of rfunding

Politic

Risk as

Legal l

Resour

e n c e t o S

mpetition betute to a fluctment and thel level. Councment Plannin

cess map forf a lack of cleory framewoas therefore

riers risk assement/Sustair these functhip and mand

h the barrierin moderateesources bacfrom being m

cal cycles = t

ssessment =

iability = ter

rces = tertia

S o l u t i o n s

tween politicuating and ue way in whiccils are requng Policy, it s

r the Planninearly definedrks, to ensurbeen identif

essment andnability, Plantions show bdate and ina

r resources we amounts acck to a rangemade availab

ertiary barri

tertiary bar

rtiary barrier

ry barrier

‐ F i n a l E

cal parties anunclear politich NRM Boaired to set pseems they a

ng functionald priorities (mre adequate fied as a tert

d legal liabilitnning and Coboth barriersadequate pla

was highly citcross the fune of other issble.

ier

rier

r

E v a l u a t i o

nd the compical directionrds currentlylanning prioare also bein

area indicatmandate) analignment wtiary barrier.

ty registeredorporate Servs being tertiaanning and re

ted in the ininctions and tsues that we

n R e p o r t

eting interesn, and it is higy operate arerities in aligng affected by

tes that issued poor leadewith State pro

d in small amvices functioary to a lack oegulatory fra

itial responsetarget groupsre preventin

S u m m a r y

sts of individghly likely the influencingnment with ty political cy

es caused byership and plocesses. The

ounts for thonal areas of of informatioameworks.

es, after cods. It has beenng adequate

– J u l y 2

P

dual NRM Bohat orientatiog policy at ththe State ycles.

y political cyclanning and e barrier polit

e Council. Theon and know

ding it was onn possible toservice level

0 1 5

P a g e | 10

ards on of e

cles is a

tical

e process wledge,

nly o link a ls and

S c i

Figure 5has the ideal situ

Figure 5‐ I

Once onunderstacan then

e n c e t o S

demonstratpotential to uation wher

Ideal Model for

n board, the anding and un be tackled

S o l u t i o n s

tes how the create a primeby the issue

r Tackling Barrie

likelihood ofusing the infofollowed by

‐ F i n a l E

barrier themmary (1), seces can be ho

ers

f them beingormation in the tertiary

E v a l u a t i o

mes interact. condary (2) oolistically con

g perceptive decision mabarriers (pre

n R e p o r t

The key beloor tertiary (3nsidered and

or receptiveking is more eferably) in t

S u m m a r y

ow shows wh) barrier. It dsystematica

to new infolikely. The sthe order sho

– J u l y 2

P

hether the thdemonstrateally tackled:

rmation, secondary baown in the m

0 1 5

P a g e | 11

heme s an

arriers model.

S c i

2

The proc

The procfunction The proc

2.1

From thlevels ofthe proc

ExampleAdvisory

Exampleand Conthe procof the baRDA staf

These

These

These

e n c e t o S

PROCESS M

cess maps adDecision MaIntervention cesses were n/target grou

cesses are: Environmen5 Year PlannAsset Manag10 Year BusiNatural ResoRDA Action

ACTORS

e process mf influence incesses.

es of primaryy Board Mem

es of contribnsultants invocess mappingarriers identff.

2.2 ACT

actors = prim

actors = con

actors = sub

S o l u t i o n s

MAPS

dd a level of akers (actorsn Points whe

chosen baseup.

ntal Managemning Strategygement Planiness Plan ource ManagPlan

apping, it wan decision ma

y actors inclumbers, along

utory actors olved in stratg had very littified as part

TORS OUTPU

mary actors

ntributory ac

bsidiary acto

‐ F i n a l E

detail to the) perpetuatinre strategies

ed on the str

ment Strategy n

gement Plan

as evident thaking at criti

ude Council Ewith Counci

include Coutegic and opttle influenceof the resea

UTS

ctors

ors

E v a l u a t i o

e data on barng the barries can be app

rategic and o

gy

n

hat the actorcal points (o

Elected Memil NRM and R

uncil, NRM anperational plae in decisionarch. The ma

n R e p o r t

rriers in termers lied to enhan

operational im

rs involved inor interventio

mbers, NRM BRDA Chief Ex

nd RDA Mananning proce making, andin subsidiary

S u m m a r y

ms of identify

nce the proc

mportance to

n the processon points) ide

Board Membecutive Offic

agers, Goveresses. Some d could not by actors were

– J u l y 2

P

ying the follo

cesses

o the

ses had varyientified for e

bers and RDAcers.

rnment Stakactors identbe linked bace Council, NR

0 1 5

P a g e | 12

owing:

ing each of

A

eholders ified in ck to any RM and

S c i

Overall pin chart

Chart 3‐ O

The top Elected/NRM anEnvironmand the For the PExecutividentifie(apart fr For the NGovernm

e n c e t o S

percentages 3.

Overall Percenta

three barrie

/Board/Advisd RDA targement/SustaiRDA target g

Planning funve. In the cased as primaryrom stated a

NRM target ment and Co

S o l u t i o n s

for decision

ages‐ Actors

ers for each f

sory Panel Mt groups. Exenability, Enggroup but no

nction of Couse of the Engy actors. Howbove).

group, Execuommunity Sta

‐ F i n a l E

n makers (act

function/targ

Members werecutive Officineering/Pubot the Planni

uncil, Managegineering/Puwever, Mana

utives and Makeholders b

E v a l u a t i o

tors) identifi

get group are

re identified cers were ideblic Works ang function

ers were ideblic Works fuagers were m

Managers webeing identifi

n R e p o r t

ed through t

e shown in c

as primary aentified as prnd Corporator the NRM

entified as prunction, Execmostly catego

re identifiedied as prima

S u m m a r y

the process m

hart 4.

actors for all rimary actorse Services futarget group

imary actorscutives and Morised as con

as contributry actors.

– J u l y 2

P

mapping are

Council funcs for the unctions of Cp.

s in place of tManagers wntributory ac

tory actors, w

0 1 5

P a g e | 13

shown

ctions

Council

the ere ctors

with

S c i

This supextent, tvalues aStakeho

Chart 4‐ O

Staff froactors. Placking iNatural

e n c e t o S

pports the linthe RDA targnd beliefs of

olders involve

Overall Ranking

om across theProject Partnn the procesResource M

S o l u t i o n s

nkages identiget group anf the NRM Boed in their pr

of Actors/Deci

e functions/tners were idess but is a keanagement)

‐ F i n a l E

fied in the bd Planning fuoard with throcesses, and

sion Makers

target groupentified as coy part of it (i.

E v a l u a t i o

barriers data,unctional areose of a rangd that this is

ps were identontributory ai.e. Environm

n R e p o r t

, that the NRea of Councige of Governcausing a br

tified as a miactors when ment/Sustain

S u m m a r y

RM target grol) is grapplinnment and Creakdown in

ix of contribucross agency

nability, Asse

– J u l y 2

P

oup (and to sg to reconcil

Community communica

utory and suy cooperatioet Manageme

0 1 5

P a g e | 14

some le the

tion.

ubsidiary on is ent and

S c i

Figure 6

Figure 6‐ C

2.2 Betweenpoints aactors to Althougprocesse The comaddress

e n c e t o S

shows the c

Categorisation

INTERVENTI

n seven and re charactero influence t

h the proceses. The comm

mmonalities athe issues, a

S o l u t i o n s

categorisatio

of Actors

ION POINTS

nine interverised as pointhe outcome

sses are diffemon tasks ar

allow for a mand for outp

‐ F i n a l E

on for each ta

ntion pointsts within theof tasks or d

erent, there wre also where

multi‐disciplinuts to be ma

E v a l u a t i o

arget group:

s were identie processes wdecision mak

were many ce a large pro

nary approacaximised.

n R e p o r t

fied for eachwhere interaking.

common eleoportion of o

ch to be take

S u m m a r y

h of the procction can oc

ments (or taverall barrie

en to develop

– J u l y 2

P

cesses. Intervccur with eac

sks) across aers were reco

ping interven

0 1 5

P a g e | 15

vention ch of the

all of the orded.

ntions to

S c i

In additiprocessenecessit

Outputsthat actiimplemedevelopinterven

2.3

This sectidentifieThe sectresearch

These t

These

These

e n c e t o S

ion to the opes that weretates the dev

s suggest thaions should bented and fument to tackntions.

INTERVENTI

tion provideed through thtions below ih, which are

tasks = optim

tasks = spec

tasks = resid

S o l u t i o n s

ptimum intere also attribuvelopment of

t efforts shobe taken earunctioning efkle outstand

ION POINTS

s a descriptiohe process mincorporate shown in fig

mum interve

cific interven

dual interven

‐ F i n a l E

rvention pointed to a numf targeted in

ould be concerly on in the pffectively. Inting issues th

OUTPUTS

on of the opmapping for einserts fromgure 10.

ention points

ntion points

ntion points

E v a l u a t i o

nts, there wember of reconterventions

entrated on process to reterventions shat have not

ptimum, speceach functio the full set o

s

s

n R e p o r t

ere also taskrded barrierto tackle the

tasks prior teduce issuesshould only tbeen resolve

cific and residn/target groof process m

S u m m a r y

ks particular ts. The naturee barriers ide

o draft plan in getting thtake place afed through p

dual intervenup process t

maps underta

– J u l y 2

P

to individuale of the taskentified.

developmenhe plan endofter draft plaprevious

ntion points that was mapaken as part

0 1 5

P a g e | 16

l ks

nt, and orsed, an

pped. of the

S c i

Figure 7the funcas demoin all six

Figure 7‐ O

e n c e t o S

2.3.1 OPTIM

shows the octions/targetonstrated by processes:

Optimum Interv

S o l u t i o n s

MUM INTERV

optimum intet groups. Optthe arrows.

vention Points

‐ F i n a l E

VENTION PO

ervention potimum intervEach colour

E v a l u a t i o

OINTS

oints identifievention poinr relates to co

n R e p o r t

ed for each onts are charaommon task

S u m m a r y

of the procescterised by ts/activities t

– J u l y 2

P

sses mappedtheir commothat are unde

0 1 5

P a g e | 17

d within onalities, ertaken

S c i

This bacfunctionassistan

Plannersfrom StaStrategic Frustratin these Manageas key toimprove

If policy informatthe Asse

It was flaexternalyear cyc In contraalign witsection 2

e n c e t o S

cks up the finnal group. Hoce was not r

s, along withate Governmc Plans that

ions were al functions toers in these fuo breaking ded cross‐ fun

guidance ontion (regulatet Managem

agged that itl consultatiocle of plan m

ast to the otth the optim2.3.2 and fig

S o l u t i o n s

ndings from towever, this required with

h Engineers rment and a laare in alignm

so expressedo tackle climaunctions thaown the siloctional inter

n climate risktions, policieent Plan.

t is particulan and that thaking that cu

her processeum intervengure 8 below

‐ F i n a l E

the barriers awas the onlyh the setting

eported signck of commu

ment with the

d in relation ate related ist they have as that exist inal consulta

k is absent ors and proced

rly importanhemes and gurrently exist

es mapped, antion points i).

E v a l u a t i o

and actors oy function wg of priorities

nificant issueunication ane State Gove

to the lack ossues as parta responsibin Councils, ation.

r does not tadures), clima

nt for the Busgoals are devts.

a significant identified, bu

n R e p o r t

outputs for thhere the pros and a strate

es with regard guidance fernment visio

of understant of the proclity to considand this can

ake into accoate risk consi

siness Plan thveloped colla

amount of tut with the s

S u m m a r y

he Environmocess mappinegic direction

d to a lack ofor Councils ion.

ding and owesses mappeder climate ronly be achie

ount all of theiderations w

hat there is saboratively b

he barriers idspecific interv

– J u l y 2

P

ent/ Sustainng indicated n.

of strategic din developin

wnership of Med. Persuadirelated issueeved throug

e relevant will not be bu

strong internbecause of th

dentified didvention poin

0 1 5

P a g e | 18

nability

irection g

Managers ng s is seen h

ilt into

nal and he 10

d not nts (see

S c i

This resuvalidatio

It is cleain the cldealing w This targpercentasection 2 The procfurther cspecific

For the 1intervenSpecific develop

e n c e t o S

ult aligns witon that comm

r from the bimate adaptwith climate

get group (inage of barrie2.3.2 below)

cess mappinconfounded advice requi

2.3.2 SPECI

10 Year Busintion points tinterventionment of targ

S o l u t i o n s

th barrier anmunication is

barrier and pation space e related issu

n alignment wers in relation).

g has identifby a lack of ired to devel

FIC INTERVE

ness Plan anthat were linn points are cgeted interve

‐ F i n a l E

d actor outps the major i

rocess mappand that theues.

with the Corpn to a specifi

fied that issusuitable canop robust RD

ENTION POIN

nd the Regionnked to a higcharacterisedentions to ta

E v a l u a t i o

puts for the Nimpediment

ping outputs ere is a lack o

porate Serviic interventio

ues relating tdidates to seDA policies i

NTS

nal Developmh percentagd as tasks spackle the issu

n R e p o r t

NRM target gbeing faced

that RDA’s aof experience

ces functionon point in t

to a lack of eerve on techn relation to

ment Action e of barrierspecific to an iues identified

S u m m a r y

group, and pby NRM staf

are strugglinge within the

) also registehe RDA Actio

xperience innical panels climate risk

Plan, there w identified inindividual prd.

– J u l y 2

P

provides furthff.

g to define ttarget group

ered a high on Plan proc

n the sector aand to provi

k.

were specificn the processrocess, requi

0 1 5

P a g e | 19

her

heir role p in

cess (see

are ide the

c ses. ring the

S c i

Specific Figure 8the spec

Figure 8‐ S

In juxtapoutdate A high pdevelopdevelopto ensurthat all i With reggetting tAdvisory

e n c e t o S

intervention is a snapshocific interven

Specific Interve

position, thed content do

percentage oing the Busining themes are that thereissues are su

gard to the Rthe right mixy Panel. This

S o l u t i o n s

n points wereot of the ovention points w

ention Points

length of timoes hinder em

f barriers weness Plan, wand goals fore is a thorougbsumed (an

Regional Devx of advisors is a fundam

‐ F i n a l E

e identified ferall process were early o

me betweenmbedding an

ere associatehich suggestr the processgh review of d aligned) w

velopment Acto guide theental issue t

E v a l u a t i o

for the 10 Yemap (collaten in these pr

reviews of tnd planning

ed with the rts that this tas (identified all other Co

within the Bus

ction Plan, the progressionthat has repe

n R e p o r t

ear Business ed for all of trocesses.

this documenand impleme

review of othask is currentas an optimuuncil strategsiness Plan.

he major chan of the planercussions fo

S u m m a r y

Plan and thehe processe

nt is a majorentation acti

her strategic tly not well eum interventic and opera

allenge to thand to sit on

or all precedi

– J u l y 2

P

e RDA Actions) that demo

r barrier in itsivities.

plans as parexecuted. Astion) it is alsational plans

e process han the Techning tasks.

0 1 5

P a g e | 20

n Plan. onstrates

self, as

rt of s part of o crucial and

as been cal

S c i

Residuaresearchanticipaearly staendorse

Figure 9have ma(largely)optimum Linkagesthe reasbarriers the proc

e n c e t o S

2.3.3 RESID

l interventioh suggests thted and prevages of the pement, imple

shows the rany common) with commm interventio

s in the barrisoning behinneed to be acess.

S o l u t i o n s

DUAL INTERV

n points are hat the barrievented by enprocess (idenementation a

residual intern elements. Ton elementson point, the

iers identified the ideal maddressed ea

‐ F i n a l E

VENTION PO

any that occers recordednsuring a higtified as optand monitori

rvention poiThe commons of the optimere will be no

d for both thmodel for tacarly on in the

E v a l u a t i o

INTS

cur after thed after draft ph level of entimum interving and evalu

nts identifiedn elements omum interveo need to int

he common ckling barriere process to

n R e p o r t

draft plan hplan stage ingagement avention pointuation in the

d for all procof the residuaention pointstervene at th

and residualrs (depicted ameliorate i

S u m m a r y

as been devn all of the prnd strategic ts). This will e latter stage

cesses. The ral interventios in that by inhe residual in

barriers cleain figure 5), issues occurr

– J u l y 2

P

veloped. The rocesses canalignment inalleviate issues of the proc

residual barron points aligntervening antervention p

arly demonsi.e. that primring further a

0 1 5

P a g e | 21

be n the ues with cess.

iers also gn t the point.

strates mary along in

S c i

Figure 9‐ R

e n c e t o S

Residual Interve

S o l u t i o n s

ention Points

‐ F i n a l E

E v a l u a t i o n R e p o r t S u m m a r y – J u l y 2

P

0 1 5

P a g e | 22


P a g e | 23

Figure 10‐ Full Set of Intervention Points


P a g e | 24

2.4 POTENTIAL FOR RESEARCH BIAS

A full description of the methods used in the research and the steps taken to prevent bias in the research outputs in provided in the ‘Frameworks for Research’ and a full set of assumptions and exclusions is incorporated into the ‘Final Research Report’. A summary of how the potential for bias has been considered mitigated in the research methodology is given below:

2.4.1 BARRIERS It has been recognised that feedback in relation to which barrier is having more or less of an impact on the target groups (discussed in section 1) may be affected by the way the different functions and target groups operate. For example, Engineers rely heavily on standards and guidelines to do their jobs and this may be why lack of information and knowledge is seen as a major barrier within the Engineering/ Public Works function. Consultation with Government and the Community forms the basis on which NRM mandates are developed, so this may be why communication is perceived as a major barrier by NRM staff. The research methodology considers this in that significant effort has been placed on highlighting co‐ dependencies and perceptions that may mask the cause of major issues being experienced within the functions/ target groups. This is to ensure that those barriers designated as ‘primary barriers’ really are the source of major issues being experience across the target groups. However, because of the co‐ dependant nature of barriers, implementing primary interventions will change the dynamics of how secondary and tertiary barriers affect the target groups. The intention is that once primary interventions have been implemented, that the effects on secondary and tertiary barriers will be reviewed and they will be re‐ classified/ re‐order as required.

2.4.2 PROCESS MAPS The same would also apply to the research findings for actors (discussed in section 2.1). If a certain individual or group (such as Elected Members, CEO’s or Government and Community Stakeholders) is preventing a staff member from effectively carrying out their duties, the perception will be that they are primary actors, when it is quite possible that a Manager may be acting on instructions from the CEO and/ or an elected official. To ensure that decision points and decision makers were being correctly identified in the process mapping, decision pathways within the processes were also mapped. This was to ensure that the research was adequately identifying where (and by whom) decisions that perpetuate barriers were actually being made within the processes. The decision pathways allowed for the identification of decision (or touch) points within the processes. In many cases, these points have been highlighted as an optimum intervention points (discussed in sections 2.2 and 2.3). This is because (in part) of the capacity of intervention actions at these points to influence and enhance decisions made by primary actors.


P a g e | 25

It will be important to monitor the effect (within the processes) of better decisions being made by primary actors, to ensure that the decision making of contributory and subsidiary actors also improves. It is acknowledged that contributory actors (in particular) may also require support for decision making to ensure that they don’t become responsible for perpetuating the barriers.

3 SUMMARY OF OUTPUTS The categorisation of barriers into primary, secondary and tertiary barriers, of actors into primary, contributory and subsidiary actors and intervention points into optimum, specific and residual was to provide a mechanism by which to prioritise actions. Primary barriers will be targeted first, as will primary actors, and activities at optimum intervention points. This will ensure that the most fundamental of barrier(s) are tackled first, with the actor(s) who make the majority of decisions, at the stage(s) of the processes where most of the barriers occur. This section clearly articulates the barriers, actors and intervention points (actions) for each function/target group in terms of how activities should be planned to maximise positive outputs from stage two. This information will form the basis of the priority actions and recommendations and the further development of specific activities for stage two of the project.

3.1 ENVIRONMENT/SUSTAINABILITY The research outputs for the Environment/Sustainability functional area identified the following:

Barriers: The highest cited barrier was values and beliefs‐ this has been classified as a primary barrier

The second highest barrier was inadequate planning and regulatory frameworks‐ this has been classified as a secondary barrier

The third highest barrier was leadership and mandate‐ this has also been classified as a secondary barrier

Actors: The actors responsible for perpetuating the majority of barriers identified were Executive Officers and Elected Members‐ these actors have been classified as primary actors

Project Partners also registered as having a moderate level of influence on decision making‐ these have been classified contributory actors

Intervention Points Opportunities for intervention have been identified in relation to: o Internal staff consultation o External consultation

These have been classified as optimum intervention points Table 2‐ Overall Actions Environment/Sustainability


P a g e | 26

3.2 PLANNING

The Planning functional area identified the following:

Barriers: The highest cited barrier was inadequate planning and regulatory frameworks‐ this has been classified as a secondary barrier

The second highest barrier was leadership and mandate‐ this has been classified as a secondary barrier

The third highest barrier was lack of information and knowledge‐ this has also been classified as a secondary barrier

Actors: The actors responsible for perpetuating the majority of barriers identified were Elected Members, Managers of impacted functions across Council and Government Stakeholders‐ these actors have been classified as primary actors

Intervention Points: Opportunities for intervention have been identified in relation to: o Internal staff consultation o External consultation o Prioritisation Consideration of State Government policy

These have been classified as optimum intervention points Table 3‐ Overall Actions Planning

3.3 ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS The Engineering/Public Works functional area identified the following:

Barriers: The highest cited barrier was ‘inadequate planning and regulatory frameworks’‐ this has been classified as a secondary barrier

The second highest barrier was ‘lack of information and knowledge’‐ this has been classified as a secondary barrier

The third highest barrier was ‘leadership and mandate’‐ this has also been classified as a secondary barrier

Actors: The actors responsible for perpetuating the majority of barriers identified were Executive Officers, Managers of impacted functions across Council and Elected Members‐ these actors have been classified as primary actors

Intervention Points: Opportunities for intervention have been identified in relation to: o Developing Strategic Policy Guidance and the Council Strategic

Plan o Internal staff consultation o External stakeholder engagement

These have been classified as optimum intervention points Table 4‐ Overall Actions‐ Engineering/Public Works


P a g e | 27

3.4 CORPORATE SERVICES The Corporate Services functional area identified the following:

Barriers: The highest cited barrier was ‘leadership and mandate’ ‐ this has been classified as a secondary barrier

The second highest barrier was ‘inadequate planning and regulatory frameworks‐ this has been classified as a secondary barrier

The third highest barrier was lack of information and knowledge’‐ this has also been classified as a secondary barrier

Actors: The actors responsible for perpetuating the majority of barriers identified were Executive Officers and Elected Members‐ these actors have been classified as primary actors

In addition, Managers of other impacted functions across Council, and in turn, Corporate Services Managers (Finance and Risk) were also responsible for a high proportion of decisions‐ these have been classified as contributory actors

Intervention Points: Opportunities for intervention have been identified in relation to: o Project Plan development o Community Engagement Plan development o Review of other strategic plans

These have been classified as specific intervention points o The development of themes and goals o Internal staff consultation o External stakeholder consultation

These have been classified as optimum intervention points Table 5‐ Overall Actions Corporate Services

3.5 NRM

The NRM target group identified the following:

Barriers: The highest cited barrier was ‘communication’ ‐ this has been classified as a primary barrier

The second highest barrier was ‘values and beliefs’‐ this has been classified as a primary barrier

The third highest barrier was ’leadership and mandate’ ‐ this has been classified as a secondary barrier

Actors: The actors responsible for perpetuating the majority of barriers identified were Board Members, Government and Community Stakeholders‐ these actors have been classified as primary actors

Intervention Points: Opportunities for intervention have been identified in relation to: o Developing strategic directions o Internal staff consultation o External stakeholder engagement

These have been classified as optimum intervention points Table 6‐ Overall Actions NRM


P a g e | 28

3.6 RDA The RDA target group identified the following:

Barriers: The highest cited barrier was ‘lack of information and knowledge’‐ this has been classified as a secondary barrier

The second highest barrier was ‘Leadership and mandate’‐ this has been classified as a secondary barrier

The third highest barrier was ‘inadequate planning and regulatory frameworks’ ‐ this has been classified as a secondary barrier

Actors: The actors responsible for perpetuating the majority of barriers identified were Executive Officers, Government Stakeholders and Advisory Board Members been classified as primary actors

Intervention Points: Opportunities for intervention have been identified in relation to: o Appointing the Technical Advisory Panel

This has been classified as a specific intervention point o Develop Strategic Directions o Internal Staff Consultation o External stakeholder engagement (via IVA)

These have been classified as optimum intervention points Table 7‐ Overall Actions RDA


P a g e | 29

4 PRIORITY ACTIONS From the barriers, actors and intervention points shown in tables 2‐7, priority actions have been developed, which will be further unpacked to shape the overall recommendations in the next section. The priority actions bring together which primary barriers should be tackled with which actor(s) at which intervention point.

4.1 PRIORITY 1‐ TACKLING PRIMARY BARRIERS

Primary Barrier Primary Actor Optimum Intervention

Values and Beliefs Executive Officers Internal Consultation

Elected Members

Managers Impacted Functions (Plan/EngPW)

Government Stakeholders (Plan/NRM/RDA)

External Engagement

Community Stakeholders (NRM)

Communication Executive Officers Internal Consultation

Managers Impacted Functions (Plan/EngPW)

Internal Consultation

Prioritisation

State Government Alignment

Government Stakeholders (Plan/NRM/RDA)

External Consultation

Community Stakeholders (NRM)

Table 8‐ Priority One Factors

4.2 PRIORITY 2‐ TACKLING SECONDARY BARRIERS

Secondary Barrier Contributory Actor Optimum Intervention

Lack of Information and Knowledge

Managers Impacted Functions (Plan/EngPW/Corp/NRM/RDA)

Internal Consultation

Project Partners Env/Sust/EngPW/NRM/RDA)

Priorities/Strategic Direction

Consultants Priorities/Strategic Direction

Government Stakeholders External Consultation

Leadership and Mandate

Executive Officers Internal Consultation and Priorities/Strategic Direction Managers Impacted Functions

(all)

Elected/Board/Advisory (all)

Inadequate Planning and Regulatory

Executive Officers (all) Internal Consultation and Priorities/Strategic Direction Managers Impacted Functions

(all)


P a g e | 30

Secondary Barrier Contributory Actor Optimum Intervention

Frameworks

Government Stakeholders (relevant)

External Engagement and Priorities/Strategic Direction

Consultants (relevant)

Project Partners (relevant) Table 9‐ Priority Two Factors

4.3 PRIORITY 3‐ ADDRESSING PROCESS SPECIFIC BARRIERS

Secondary Barrier Primary Actor Specific Intervention

Lack of Information and Knowledge (Corporate)

Executive Officers Project Plan Development/Community Engagement Plan Development/Review of Other Strategic Plans

Managers Impacted Functions

Government Stakeholders (relevant)

Consultants (relevant)

Project Partners (relevant)

Lack of Information and Knowledge/Leadership and Mandate (RDA)

Executive Officers Appointing the Technical Advisory Panel Elected Members

Managers

Consultants (relevant) Table 10 – Priority Three Factors

5 PRIORITIY ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section describes the priority actions in terms of the recommendations that have been developed to address them. The discussion incorporates finding on enablers that were identified through the research (which are described in full in the Final Evaluation Report) along with a justification of the choice of barrier, actor and intervention point.

5.1 TACKLING PRIMARY BARRIERS

VALUES AND BELIEFS COMMUNICATION

Priority 1 highlights the necessity of developing intervention actions that tackle the issues identified in relation to the primary barrier themes of values and beliefs and communication. The research has identified that these are primary barriers and should be the priority focus of stage two of the project. Specifically, the research reveals: The primary actors/decision makers perpetuating the primary barriers are:

Executive Officers Elected Members Managers of Impacted Functions Government Stakeholders Community Stakeholders


P a g e | 31

Optimum intervention points have been identified across all processes at:

Internal Consultation External Consultation

An optimum intervention point has been identified for the Five Year Planning Strategy and the

Asset Management Plan at: Prioritisation/Strategic Directions & Consideration of State Government Policy

5.1.1 GAPS IN TRAINING

The research has identified a clear gap in function specific climate risk management training for a) Elected/Board Members/Executive Officers and b) Managers of impacted functions across the target groups. Although initially, the most relevant barrier to associate with training would be a lack of information and knowledge (classified as a secondary barrier), the evidence suggests that the actors identified are not engaging on the issues because they don’t see tackling them as their job, or their values and beliefs are unsupportive of the evidence (values and beliefs). This view is supported by the ideal model for tackling barriers (figure 5). Although attempts have been made (particularly by the Environment/Sustainability functional area of Council and the NRM target group) to communicate the issues and to garner support for action, both across the technical disciplines and with Executive Officers and Elected Officials, they have only been moderately successful (communication). The majority of primary actors identified in the research are still not on board with the issues and are not involved in adaptation activities.

RECOMMENDATION 1 CLIMATE RISK MANAGEMENT AND DECISION MAKING TRAINING FOR ELECTED/BOARD/ADVISORY MEMBERS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS Managers (Councils and NRMs) have indicated that the (generally) unsupportive mind set of senior decision makers and the complexity of the issues being tackled makes communication up the hierarchy to Executive Officers and Elected Officials particularly challenging. It is therefore vital that enhanced support is provided to Managers in communicating the issues to these key decision makers to facilitate a better understanding of climate risk issues. Demonstrating the risks already being faced by the target groups and outlining the obligations already incumbent on them has had demonstrable results in compelling decision makers to challenge their current mind sets and to improve consideration of climate risk in decision making. To achieve meaningful dialogue, existing platforms of coaching and training will need to be exploited:


P a g e | 32

A. The Local Government Amendment Bill 2014 contains the power to make regulations to introduce mandatory training for Council Members, and the LGA has developed training standards.

Climate risk elements should be built into these standards and training delivered at Council Member Inductions, New Members/Mayors and Executives Residential Seminars and Strategic Issues Residential Seminars.

To close the gap in specific climate risk management training, a new course will be required, and attendance secured:

B. The LGA/DEWNR should develop a course that is specific to the climate risks faced by the

target groups and demonstrates how decisions made (by Executives and Elected Officials) have ramifications in the organisations ability to provide a duty of care to their communities and protect from the threat of legal liability.

The research outputs provide a wealth of information on the challenges faced by Managers (across the target groups) and the course should be based on these outputs. The course should also be in collaboration with (and from the perspective of) of Managers operating within the target groups from a range of Councils/NRMs and RDAs across the State.

C. LGA/DEWNR should explore mechanisms to make this course mandatory for Executives and

Elected Officials of the target groups.

RECOMMENDATION 2 FUNCTION SPECIFIC CLIMATE RISK MANAGEMENT TRAINING FOR MANAGERS (OF IMPACTED FUNCTIONS) It is vital that Managers have an understanding of the risks, roles and responsibilities associated with their function and that they are actively incorporating climate risk assessment into their own processes and decision making. This can only be achieved by presenting climate risk impacts from the perspective of the individual disciplines identified in the research and demonstrating its applicability to their current tasks. Environment/Sustainability, Planning, NRM and RDA Managers have indicated that it is extremely difficult to get cross functional engagement in their processes because of a mentality of ‘silo working’. Functions do not understand their roles and responsibilities in minimising climate risk, or the importance of working together to assess a full range of issues and set priorities collectively. To close the gap in function specific climate risk management training for Managers (of impacted functions) new training modules will be required, and endorsement and support of professional/peak bodies will need to be obtained: A. The training modules should be specific to each discipline and be designed to present

information, ideas, and skills that can be easily applied to current practices across impacted functions. Research on intervention points and barriers should be utilised to ensure compatibility with current practices, and the training should demonstrate this.


P a g e | 33

The modules should be developed in collaboration with peak/professional bodies and be designed for incorporation into training programs currently offered. The LGA/DEWNR should work with each body to identify where adaptation tools and climate risk procedures would enhance current teachings. The research outputs should determine the selection of tools and guidance incorporated.

To ensure a collaborative approach to climate risk assessment and decision making: B. An additional multi‐ disciplinary course should be designed that is focused on ameliorating

the current practice of different disciplines operating in a vacuum. The course should be developed and attended by Managers across the functions.

The training should provide a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities across the

functions and of project partners (across the target groups). The teaching should also give an appreciating of the importance of collectively agreeing on priorities and making decisions that cut across remits.

5.1.2 GAPS IN CONSULTATION & COMMUNICATION

The research has exposed the difficulty faced by the target groups in a) communicating with each other and b) communicating with external stakeholders. Although great effort has been undertaken to ensure effective communication, the research has demonstrated a range of fundamental issues relating to consultation and engagement. Building the confidence of Executives, Elected Officials, Project Partners, Government and Community Stakeholders requires good practice across the target groups at all levels. There are a range of best practice standards, such as ‘aip2’ (international standard), the ‘Australian Government Guide to Regulation’ (National Guidance) and ‘Better Together’ (State Guidance) that incorporate principles for engagement. They all reiterate the importance of developing a strategic approach (a plan with clear objectives, milestones and evaluation) to communication. This includes a considered response to press reports on climate risk issues, policies and activities. The research suggests that interactions with stakeholders are currently being managed in an ad hoc manner. This has repercussions for both the target groups and stakeholders as a) important information is not being captured and utilised in decision and policy making and b) important information is not being communicated to stakeholders and expectations are not being met.

RECOMMENDATION 3 DEVELOPING A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION To ensure that a strategic approach is taken to engagement and communication, the target groups must take a more considered and strategic approach: A. A clear set of principles should underpin all communication activities (both internal and

external). The principles should relate to both strategic activities (high level structuring of stakeholder engagement) and operational activities (dealing with stakeholders, planning and execution).


P a g e | 34

The principles should be applied to the optimum intervention points highlighted in the research (Internal/external consultation and prioritisation) and specifically address the communication barriers identified.

B. The principles should be utilised to plan new engagement and to review current/previous

efforts. The research has shown a deficiency in traditional methods of engagement for a topic that is both complex in nature and politically charged.

Activities should therefore include innovative modes of communication, such as social media, citizen’s juries and partnerships for active participation. Activities should be tailored to the audience and relevant to their perspective on the issues. Communication and engagement activities should always be followed up with feedback and evaluation.

RECOMMENDATION 4 KEEPING STAKEHOLDERS INFORMED AND SENDING OUT AN ACCURATE MESSAGE To create trust and to provide a mechanism of timely and accurate flow of information between the target groups and to stakeholders, all processes require a dedicated media and communication plan: A. Raising awareness of the process and the opportunities that it presents is essential to

attracting the necessary support and participation required for effective communication and engagement. Providing feedback on progress and demonstrating how participation has influenced outcomes is crucial in maintaining support/participation.

These elements should form part of an overall strategy developed to advertise:

Goals and opportunities of the process Timing/modes of consultation Outcomes of consultation Progress/delays Responding to queries/press articles

5.2 PRIORITY 2‐ TACKLING SECONDARY BARRIERS

LACK OF INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE LEADERSHIP AND MANDATE INADEQUATE PLANNING AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS

Priority 2 highlights the necessity of supporting practitioners and key decision makers in tackling the barrier themes of lack of information and knowledge, leadership and mandate and inadequate planning and regulatory frameworks. The research has identified these barriers as being intrinsically linked and should be confronted together, once the foundation has been laid through tackling the primary barriers (stated above).


P a g e | 35

Specifically, the research reveals: The contributory actors/decision makers perpetuating the secondary barriers are:

Managers of Impacted Functions Government Stakeholders Community Stakeholders Consultants Project Partners

Optimum intervention points have been identified across all processes at:

Internal Consultation External Consultation Prioritisation/Strategic Directions

5.2.1 INTEGRATING CLIMATE RISK IMPACTS AND TOOLS

While there is a defined approach to undertaking climate risk assessments and to developing climate adaptation plans, there is still a) a lack of understanding of the risks across impacted functions (as defined by the research) and b) gaps in practical guidance. The research has shown that this results in tasks and decision making being undertaken as part of the processes without full consideration of existing guidance, and in ignorance of the range of tools and methods that have been developed to assist in the consideration of climate risk factors that can be applied across the target group processes. Recommendation 2 outlines a method to provide training to increase the understanding of climate risk across the target groups. This recommendation seeks to provide the source material for the training courses by creating a

range of guidance documents that will:

Collate existing policies, strategies and regulations into a series of guidance notes Articulate how adaptation tools that have already been developed by the LGA and other

professional bodies can be used practically as part of existing practices

RECOMMENDATION 5 ENSURING THAT ALL CURRENT POLICIES, STRATEGIES AND LEGISLATION ARE CONSIDERED IN THE PROCESSES

To ensure that the different disciplines are fully aware of existing policies, strategies and regulations: A. The LGA/DEWNR should develop a set of guidance notes that collates existing policies,

strategies and regulations that apply to each of the disciplines that have been identified in the research. The guidance notes should incorporate a full range of climate risk factors.

The notes should be developed in collaboration with peak/professional bodies and be

focused on ensuring that each discipline is aware of their obligations to fully consider and act upon climate risk factors.


P a g e | 36

RECOMMENDATION 6 DEMONSTRATING THE APPLICABILITY OF CLIMATE ADAPTATION TOOLS AND METHODS IN THE PROCESSES To demonstrate how existing climate adaptation tools, techniques and methods that have already been developed by the LGA/DEWNR (and others) can be used practically as part of existing processes:

A. The LGA/DEWNR has developed a range of practices that can be utilised within the

processes to combat a range of barriers identified. There is also a significant body of knowledge that relates to the disciplines that could be incorporated into tasks and decision making.

The LGA/DEWNR should develop a range of function specific guidance documents to relate the knowledge and applicability of adaptation practices to the functions in a language that they can understand, from the perspective of the disciplines in which they work. The guidance should be developed in collaboration with peak/professional bodies with the overarching objective of incorporating adaptation content into the existing curriculums of the peak/professional bodies.

RECOMMENDATION 7 FILLING THE GAPS IN POLICY, STRATEGY AND LEGISLATION To identify gaps in current guidance and to ensure that maladaptation is avoided: A. Building on the collation and dissemination activities undertaken in recommendation 2, the

LGA/DEWNR should assess the suitability/adequacy of current guidance in providing a multi‐disciplinary framework for identifying and considering climate risk across the functions in collaboration with peak/professional bodies.

Recommendations for amendments/additions and updates to existing guidance should be developed and the LGA/DEWNR should liaise with the responsible bodies to achieve the updates.

5.3 PRIORITY 3‐ ADDRESSING PROCESS SPECIFIC BARRIERS Priority 3 relates specifically to the Ten Year Business Plan and RDA Action Plan processes, as the research has indicated that these processes require the development of specific interventions. Specifically, the research reveals: The primary actors/decision makers perpetuating the secondary barriers are:

Executive Officers Corporate Services/Finance/RDA Managers Government Stakeholders Consultants Project Partners


P a g e | 37

Specific intervention points have been identified in the Ten Year Business Plan and RDA Action

Plan processes at: Project Plan Development Community Engagement Plan Development Development/Review of other Strategic Plans Appointing the Technical Advisory Panel

5.3.1 DEVELOPING SPECIFIC INTERVENTIONS Although outputs will be maximised by tackling barriers at optimum intervention points, it is recognised that value that could be gained from also developing interventions specific to individual processes. It is clear from the outputs that there would be a great deal of value in collaborating on the development of a Ten Year Business Plan with a representative Council if timescales align (the plans are only developed once every ten years. There is also a clear opportunity to positively affect the development of the RDA Action Plan to ensure that there is significant expertise on the Technical Advisory Panel, and that the process is steered in the right direction.

RECOMMENDATION 8 SPECIFIC COLLABORATION (ASSISTING IN BUSINESS PLAN DEVELOPMENT)

A. Undertake an investigation to determine the cycle of Council Business Plan development.

Identify (if possible) a process that is aligned to the timescales of Stage Two of the Project. Open a dialogue with the Council to discuss the possibility of collaboration to develop a robust approach to: Project Planning Consultation and Engagement Planning Review of Strategic Plans

RECOMMENDATION 9 SPECIFIC COLLABORATION (ASSISTING IN APPOINTING THE RDA TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL)

A. Undertake an investigation to determine the cycle of RDA Action Plan development. Identify

(if possible) a process that is aligned to the timescales of Stage Two of the Project. Open a dialogue with the RDA region to discuss the possibility of collaboration to develop a robust approach to appointing a Technical Advisory Panel

5.3.2 SUPPORTING CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES

Many of the barriers identified in the research relate to implementation of adaptation actions already contained in completed plans. In addition to the support provided by the preceding recommendations to embed climate risk considerations to avoid issues associated with implementation, it is clear that the target groups also require immediate assistance to implement actions in existing plans.


P a g e | 38

The scope of the research did not extend to an analysis of implementation activities currently underway in the State. However, the findings of the research could be valuable in alleviating some of the implementation issues currently being faced if the LGA/DEWNR developed an understanding of existing implementation issues. While there is a clear process for adaptation planning, and the research undertaken as part of this project has identified where adaptation techniques can be applied across the processes to enhance consideration of climate related risk to reduce issues related to future implementation activities, there is currently no support for the target groups with regard to implementation of current adaptation actions. Research outputs clearly indicate that the target groups are facing difficulty implementing adaptation actions due to the fundamental issue that the research was designed to tackle (i.e., that climate risk considerations are not embedded into strategic and operational planning processes). However, current plans from across the target groups already contain reference to climate change and actions that necessitate immediate implementation. There has been no attempt so far to quantify the progress that is being made in implementation of actions, or to identify the specific issues being faced within the target groups. It is likely that the insights gained on barriers, decision makers and intervention points through the research could assist in ameliorating some of the current barriers being faced and facilitate implementation with minimal extension to research and engagement activities.

RECOMMENDATION 10 SUPPORTING CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES A. The LGA/DEWNR should undertake an inventory of adaptation actions across the completed

plans across the target groups, and develop an inventory of priority actions that have not been implemented due to difficulties related to the barriers or decision makers identified in the research.

Further engagement should be undertaken to define implementation issues. The

LGA/DEWNR should develop approaches to tackling the implementation issues based on the outcomes of the research on enablers for implementation activities detailed in the ‘Background and Good Practice Paper’.

B. The LGA/DEWNR should identify opportunities to work with the target groups to trial

approaches to implementation to demonstrate applicability of implementation tools through partnering in implementation processes, user‐ testing and pilot studies.

final evaluation report summary to...re review a practice pa for the resea etailed in th – july 2...

Documents