Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
We argue that an up-front investment in design of monitoring and
a commitment to meaningful periodic evaluation will yield substantial
longer term benefits by reducing data collection that is of little benefit and
improving the return on investment by improving efficiency and effectiveness
of plan implementation and the plan itself over time. Monitoring and evalu-
ation also provide accountability for invested resources and can provide an
opportunity for further engagement and commitment from community.
Monitoring programmes assess the performance of the plan in relation to
its outputs and objectives. They can guide adjustments to the way actions are
implemented through periodic 'formative' evaluations. They can also inform
less frequent 'summative' evaluations that consider the effectiveness of the
plan as a whole in achieving its objectives and the appropriateness of those
objectives, to determine whether a revision of the plan is needed, and guide
the kinds of changes required.
In addition to learning from experience and adapting to change, evalu-
ations provide a mechanism for accountability. They can show the extent
that those responsible for implementing the plan have done so, and whether
the investment required for making and implementing the plan has been
sufficient and worthwhile. Often the effectiveness of a plan is reliant on the
collaborative input of both government and stakeholder community, and
the benefits can be greatly reduced if one of those parties fails to make their
expected contribution.
Requirements for monitoring, evaluation, and review are incorporated
into water resource planning policy and legislation around the world. In
Australia, the NWI states that water resource plan performance will be
monitored, factoring in knowledge improvements, and regular public reports
will be provided, consistent with the nature and intensity of resource use
(NWI s40). It also states that 'there should be a review process that allows
for changes to be made in light of improved knowledge' (NWI schedule E,
cl4). Consequently, all State government water resource planning legislation
includes requirements for monitoring with a review of plans usually after a
certain period of time - 5 or 10 years. In addition, such legislation usually
prescribes a process for review, which may or may not be similar to the initial
planning process that would have included stakeholder consultation.
Likewise UK guidance documents state that River Basin Management
Plans (RBMPs) and their programmes of measures have to be reviewed after
six years (DEFRA 2006: 56). It specifies that information used in the RBMP
process should be updated to incorporate the most accurate information
including changes in policy and legislation; environmental monitoring
information; updated economic information; and experience gained from the
previous planning cycles (DEFRA 2006: 56). Importantly, it specifies that the
agency should draw upon stakeholders' experience in applying the previous
RBMPs. One way of doing this is through a coordinated consultation process.
Similarly South Africa's
National Water Act
specifies that both the national
water resource strategy and catchment management strategies must be
