Pronunciation assessment

evidence Discussion Recommendation

INDUSTRY FINDINGS REPORT

12 Water Research Australia Ltd – PhD Project 4504

Table 2 – Summary of strategy case studies

State Scale Area type

Services

considered MCA¹ Costing²

Community engagement

3 Stakeholder

engagement⁴ Desired outcome (A1) Towards a

Botanic Colac VIC Local Brownfield All    Set objectives

(A2) Review of IWCM options for

Fyansford

VIC Local Greenfield All  Recommend option

portfolio

(A3) Total Watermark VIC Local Brownfield

Drainage &

alternative water

 Set targets

(A4) Footscray IWM

Investigation VIC Local Brownfield All   Recommend option

portfolio (A5) SA Water’s Long

Term Plan for Eyre Region

 Approve specific options

(A9) Northern Growth

Area IWCM Plan VIC

Sub-regional Greenfield All    Set objectives &

approve option portfolio

1Was a multi criteria assessment (MCA) used in the decision making process?

2 Were individual option costs calculated?

3 Were specific actions taken to engage with the wider community?

4 Were specific actions taken to engage with other stakeholder organisations?

5 Both Greenfield and Brownfield development areas were considered

IMPROVING PLANNING PROCESSES FOR IUWMINFRASTRUCTURE

Water Research Australia Ltd – PhD Project 4504 13

Process for strategies which cover large areas

Some of the strategy case studies investigated geographically large areas and others small ones.

Water Initiatives for 2050 (A6) focused on its entire region, and Water Forever South West (A7) also had a large geographical area. In these cases studies the organisations divided the region into sub-regions but then used the same methods and stakeholder groups for both scales.

In Water Initiatives for 2050 a large stakeholder group was assembled for the purposes of setting both region-wide objectives and assessment of local scale options. Having such a large group involved in the assessment of local scale projects delayed completion and increased costs. It also meant that stakeholders participated in and influenced meetings which had little relevance to them, and in some cases did not have the technical capabilities to understand.

Water Forever South West had a large scale and many sub-regions which have no water

infrastructure connections between them. This meant that community meetings focused on the larger region and were not targeted to specific sub-regions.

The authors have determined that, in both cases, failing to make sub-regional engagement targeted to local matters impeded the organisations’ ability to efficiently conduct stakeholder engagement, delaying completion and increased costs.

When external stakeholders have decision making authority

In situations where water utilities do not have complete authority to implement strategy recommendations, strategies must influence those with authority, rather than only seeking to determine optimum solutions.

Review of IWCM options for Fyansford (A2) clearly shows how much an IUWM strategy process can vary due to authority of stakeholders. In this case study the water utility did not have full legislative authority over property developers because the Precinct Structure Plan was already in place. In order to encourage developers to implement IUWM a process was devised which was extremely

participatory and visual, and focused on selling a positive vision.

This can be contrasted to the Footscray IWM Investigation (A4) which had a similar geographical boundary size, but used a vastly different process because their purpose was to create an internal position on how to bring alternative water into the area.

Strategies that are designed to meet existing targets

In some cases, such as the Recycled Water Strategy (A8), specific targets were set before the strategy was begun. This meant that the strategy process sought to meet the targets at lowest community cost rather than holistically consider what would achieve overall best community

Strategy recommendation 1: When deciding which strategy processes to use, it is important to consider the desired outcomes. Strategies that are intended to set high level objectives require less technical detail than those that are created to recommend specific projects.

Strategy recommendation 2: When considering localised issues, strategies should be broken into smaller subregions, and engagement for each of these needs to be specifically targeted to local interests.

Strategy recommendation 3: A more participatory process is required in situations where water utilities do not have full authority to implement recommendations. The process used in the Fyansford strategy (A2) is appropriate when attempting to influence developers.

INDUSTRY FINDINGS REPORT

14 Water Research Australia Ltd – PhD Project 4504

outcomes. The authors note that this could potentially lead to prioritising the meeting of targets over actual community benefits, which was the overarching objective of the strategy. On the other hand the process that was used in this case study was therefore simpler as it did not need to consider as many interdependent variables.

As targets can help set strategy direction and simplify strategy processes, but can also cause planners to not take a holistic view of overarching strategy objectives, the authors believe that it may be appropriate to consider all targets as being flexible.

Benefits outside of implementation of recommendations

There are many benefits that can be realised through the creation of an IUWM strategy, even if the strategy recommendations themselves are never implemented. Strategies can be a catalyst for:

 Long term perspectives, and therefore long lead times to consider future challenges (see A7)

 Gathering data and experience which will be helpful for future decision making (A4 and A5)

 Creation of ongoing stakeholder partnerships which foster collaboration, and increase capacity of all parties (A3 and A6)

 Easier access to grant funding, cost sharing and regulatory approval, through having a defined vision (A3 and A8)

 Increased engagement with the community (A5 and A7)

2.1.2 Engagement findings

There are two reasons why stakeholder engagement is important in IUWM strategies. The first is that IUWM strategies are improved by drawing on a variety of knowledge and experience bases.

Secondly, water cycle responsibilities cross organisational boundaries and so strategies often require buy-in from many stakeholders. Therefore planners need to carefully select the appropriate

stakeholder engagement process as this is crucial to the strategy’s success.

Strategy case studies show that: (i) pre-existing stakeholder relationships can benefit strategies; (ii) strategies should begin with alignment of visions; (iii) stakeholders need to know that they have been heard; (iv) financial contributions from stakeholders increase buy-in; and (v) often more than one stage is required, and in such cases a different targeted engagement method is beneficial.

Opportunities that come from pre-existing stakeholder relationships

Historically there has been a lack of communication between stakeholders, such as utilities, local and state government, meaning that they often work independently of one another. Without a working relationship between organisations some IUWM opportunities cannot be realised.

In Towards a Botanic Colac (A1) Barwon Water was able to identify an opportunity for IUWM by leveraging receptiveness from concurrent Colac Otway Shire strategies. Without a strong existing relationship between the two parties, this opportunity may never have been recognised and the strategy never completed.

This demonstrates that having a strong relationship between stakeholders can unlock opportunities that would otherwise not be possible. Relationships therefore should be maintained on an on-going basis to maximise future opportunities and benefits.

Strategy recommendation 4: All targets, aside from basic water service standards, should be flexible. Targets should be able to be altered if a later planning process determines that meeting the target will not result in best community outcomes.

Strategy recommendation 5: When planning and evaluating a strategy it should be realised that there are a variety of benefits that can be gained other than the implementation of

recommendations.

IMPROVING PLANNING PROCESSES FOR IUWMINFRASTRUCTURE

Water Research Australia Ltd – PhD Project 4504 15

Alignment of visions

In order to gain stakeholder buy-in to a strategy it is important to begin by aligning the long term goals of all parties. By doing this it is possible to establish “why” the strategy is being done, in terms of a vision, rather than moving straight onto assessing possible solutions.

Figure 5 – Simplified agenda for stakeholder meetings in Towards a Botanic Colac Towards a Botanic Colac (A1) effectively demonstrated this principle by focusing on the vision in the first two stakeholder meetings before discussing options in the third. This meant that all stakeholders agreed on a vision for Colac and then moved towards this vision together, resulting in a more collaborative approach and more satisfied stakeholders.

Closing the engagement loop

In order to have satisfied stakeholders they need to know how their opinions have impacted on the strategy. This is sometimes referred to as “closing the engagement loop” and demonstrates that the engagement was genuine. If this is not done then it can cause distrust between stakeholders and a future unwillingness to participate in engagement.

Two of the case studies effectively implemented this principle. Water Forever South West (A7)

involved a variety of types of community engagement. After each contact with the community all of the concerns and opinions gathered were documented. Reports were then sent back to relevant

stakeholders addressing their concerns and opinions and explaining what impact they have had on the overall strategy. Water Initiatives for 2050 (A6) involved a similar mechanism for stakeholder organisations.

Financial contributions from stakeholders

In some cases it is difficult to get stakeholder organisations to actively participate in a strategy process. If stakeholders only make “in-kind”, or non-financial contributions, then they have less ownership of the strategy, and therefore have a tendency to be less engaged. It was noted in Water Initiatives for 2050 (A6) that had financial contributions been received from stakeholders then it is likely they would have been more involved in the strategy itself.