RCS Guidelines issued by the Victorian Catchment Management Council guide RCS development.
The guidelines for this RCS:
- Put a greater emphasis on integration of climate change and Traditional Owner priorities.
- Introduce Local Areas as a basis for integration of RCS themes in a way that is relevant to local communities.
- Improve consistency across the state through the use of a web-based format and Outcomes Framework.
Key elements of the approach to RCS development included:
- Findings and recommendations from the final 2013-19 RCS review informed engagement of key partners, to improve ownership and accountability for delivery.
- RCS Steering Committee established to oversee RCS review and renewal.
- Discussion papers developed to frame discussions with stakeholders and inform RCS content.
- Extensive engagement with partner organisations, Traditional Owners and community.
- Priority assets identified for the 2013-19 RCS, reviewed and updated with respect to new knowledge and policy.
More detail under the headers below.
Learnings from RCS 2013-19
In 2019, a final review of RCS 2013-19 was undertaken. The RCS Steering Committee guided the review using a performance-based approach. This review was also informed by a comprehensive analysis of available data and reports, and in consultation with the CMA staff and Board and partner organisations. We engaged partners through interviews, meetings and an online survey. A summit workshop was held with a range of stakeholders to scrutinise draft responses to Key Evaluation Questions and formulate recommendations. The key findings and recommendations of the review are:
| Key findings | Recommendations |
| 1. The RCS has informed the strategic direction of CMA projects and programs and a majority of the NRM works were on RCS priority assets, but few partners report a sense of ownership. | Incorporate shared priorities in the RCS. Improve accountability for RCS implementation by identifying organisations to lead actions. Ask partner organisations to demonstrate their commitment to implementing the RCS. Improve CMA systems and practise to enable rapid reporting of RCS progress and to check-in with partners more regularly to review progress together. |
| 2. Outputs, data and monitoring provided evidence of positive outcomes, which we can reasonably assume, contribute to asset condition. However, it was not possible to assess if, or to what extent, overall asset condition has improved due to a lack of baseline and monitoring data for the review period. | Develop and incorporate in the RCS, a robust approach to MERI (facilitated through the RCS Outcomes Framework). |
| 3. Working with partners leverages more investment and networks. Active engagement of community is essential for landholder uptake of CMA initiatives, leads to improved knowledge, awareness, skills and attitudes and intention to make changes that protect and enhance RCS assets. Some areas for improvement and leverage were identified. | Consider expanding the current MERI approach to include cultural and social objectives. Continually improve our approach to engagement through evaluation and sharing learnings. Build on successful models of partner engagement including the North Central Catchment Partners Forum, MoUs and Partnership Statements. |
| 4. Overall good progress, with most actions complete and some progress made towards most of the SMART objectives and targets. Baseline and follow up assessment/monitoring data was not available in many cases, which made accurate assessment of progress difficult. | Develop and incorporate in the RCS, a robust approach to MERI (facilitated through the RCS Outcomes Framework). |
| 5. If NRM output data from all RCS partner organisations could be shared, the accuracy of evaluation including progress reviews would be improved and it may also improve the coordination of effort and help to identify more opportunities for collaboration. | Investigate the opportunity to develop and maintain a shared NRM database/repository for the region. Consider reviewing the RCS assets and incorporating some with social and cultural values. Consider alternative NRM planning frameworks and associated landscape areas to complement the existing asset-based approach. Consider how the RCS could be structured to both; retain relevance in the policy context and incorporate issues that cut across multiple RCS themes. |
| 6. Since the RCS was first developed there have been various relevant government policies and plans introduced and while the RCS was not updated to incorporate these changes, the CMA and partners have adapted their focus. | Consider the impact of climate change on the implementation of the new RCS and likely adaptations required, with reference to the North Central Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Plan 2015. |
| 7. CMA programs/projects have leveraged significant investment from landholders and other agencies to implement the RCS. | Consider how partnership health, including productivity could be evaluated and improved at project/program levels and through a regular ‘health-check’ of key partnerships. |
| 8. Sustainability of on-ground works are largely dependent upon the commitment of the land manager and on properties where the landholder is more actively engaged, the works are better maintained in the longer term. | Continue ‘Protecting Investment Improving Capacity’ project and NRM Audits to reengage existing landholders and further our understanding of the factors that lead to enduring outcomes. Work with partner organisations to identify opportunities to engage landholders and deliver education and compliance activities to support enduring outcomes. |
Overall approach
The North Central RCS Steering Committee was established to oversee and guide the RCS review and renewal process. The Chair of the CMA Board also chairs the RCS Steering Committee and includes CMA Board members, Community Leaders’ Group members and representatives from key partner organisations (DELWP, Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation, Parks Victoria, Agriculture Victoria, Coliban Water, Goulburn Murray Water). The RCS Steering Committee makes recommendations to the CMA Board. The CMA Board endorsed the approach to RCS renewal, and will endorse the final RCS for submission to the Minister.
- Recommendations from the final review of the 2013-19 RCS (refer above) have informed the RCS renewal process.
- The CMA Board endorsed five papers addressing foundational issues for RCS renewal in 2019.
- Following initial engagement of partners, community and Traditional Owners in early 2020, RCS discussion papers for Land, Water, Biodiversity, Community and Traditional Owners were developed, to frame conversations with stakeholders, obtain feedback and inform RCS content.
Engagement
Engagement of our partner organisations, Traditional Owners and the broader community to inform RCS renewal was largely online due to coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions during 2020-21. Activities were promoted directly via an extensive contact list, as well as The Chat newsletter and social media. A total of 57 workshops/meetings (20 face-to-face and 37 online) were held including:
- Traditional Owners (22)
- Partners (24)
- Landcare Networks (2)
- Community (9)
In addition to this we held, 11 RCS Steering Committee meetings and five sessions with CMA staff. We attended meetings with CMA program steering committees, the CMA Board and its sub-committees to provide updates and obtain feedback throughout the process.
Representative groups/corporations from seven of the region’s Traditional Owners were engaged separately. Addenda to the Traditional Owner Paper were developed to document outcomes, and confirm content for each. Water policy officers and other corporation staff were also invited to participate in partner workshops.
There were three phases of partner engagement, starting with a face-to-face workshop in March 2020, where key threats, challenges and priorities were identified. Then the theme-based discussion papers were drafted and the subsequent online workshops focused on reviewing and discussing the papers. Lastly, focused meetings were held with key partner organisations to discuss lead roles for priority directions and outcomes.
Due to COVID-19 restrictions most community engagement was online. There were two phases of community engagement in 2020, via a dedicated Engage Vic website focused on RCS renewal, and an online community workshop. During the first phase, 79 online surveys were completed and 57 favourite places or priority assets pinned on the interactive map. During the second phase community members could provide comments on a summary of the discussion papers, contribute to an online discussion regarding local priorities or attend an online workshop. During the draft RCS public consultation phase in March 2021, seven drop-in sessions were held across the region, and one online workshop, to provide an opportunity for face-to face community engagement.
Priority assets
The RCS takes an asset-based approach, identifying the region’s highest priority natural assets (waterways, wetlands and biodiversity), including those of international, national, state and regional significance. This enables us to focus our efforts and investment, on protecting and enhancing those assets with the most significant values (ecological, social, cultural and economic), that are under the greatest threat and with the highest likelihood and feasibility of protection and enhancement.
RCS priority assets were first identified for the 2013-19 RCS, as described here:
Initial process to identify assets for the 2013-19 RCS
| Step | Description |
| Community Asset Identification | Ten community meetings were held across the region seeking community nominations on environmental assets that were most valued by the community. These assets were mapped (where possible) and information regarding values and threats were captured in a database. These assets have been described at various scales such as a specific small patch of vegetation or a small section of river up to an entire forest or river system. |
| Expert Stakeholder Workshops | Experts, including agency staff with knowledge of environmental assets, attended workshops and added to the list of assets that were most valued within the region. |
| Asset Review | Assets were aggregated together, where appropriate. All assets identified were rated for their environmental significance and threat to help understand the importance of the asset. Highly significant assets were then rated for feasibility of implementation from a technical and socio-economic perspective. This process was consistent with former Department of Sustainability and Environment’s guidelines ‘Applying the Asset- Based Approach for the development of Regional Catchment Strategies’ and supported by expert review, reference to relevant data and modelling (e.g. threatened species records, Natureprint, and decision support tools (Investment Framework for Environmental Resources (INFFER) assessments) |
| RCS Catchment Assets | RCS priority waterways, wetlands and biodiversity assets were further amalgamated to reflect a scale appropriate for the RCS. |
Given the extensive process undertaken to identify priority assets, the approach for RCS renewal was to review the assets, together with partners and community, considering new knowledge, policy and strategy. This process and the updates made, are described on the Water and Biodiversity theme pages.
