Gippsland Lakes Priorities Plan Citation: Gippsland Lakes Coordinating Committee, 2016, Gippsland Lakes Priorities Plan, East Gippsland CMA, Bairnsdale, Victoria. Acknowledgements: The GLCC would like to thank representatives of the following organisations for sharing their insights and experiences in the review of the Gippsland Lakes Environment Fund (GLEF): Australian Marine Mammal Conservation Foundation Australian Platypus Conservancy Baw Baw Shire Council Bug Blitz Trust Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning Dodo Environmental East Gippsland Art Gallery East Gippsland CMA East Gippsland Landcare Network East Gippsland Shire Council Environment Protection Authority, Victoria Gippsland Lakes Ministerial Advisory Council Executive Officers Gippsland Ports Committee of Management Incorporated Greening Australia Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation Monash University Nagle College Parks Victoria PeeKdesigns Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Southern Rural Water Traditional Owner Land Management Board Victoria University West Gippsland CMA The GLCC would also like to acknowledge the contribution of delivery manager agencies in the development of this plan: Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning East Gippsland CMA East Gippsland Shire Council Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation Parks Victoria West Gippsland CMA Wellington Shire Council Photo credit: Maddison Young, Chilly Ducks on Lake Guthridge, Under 13 winner of the 2013 Gippsland Lakes Photo Competition (http://www.loveourlakes.net.au/linking- together/photo-competition/). Table of contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background and objectives .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Development of the priorities plan .............................................................................. 1 2 Review of the GLEF ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Method......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Results: Desktop review ............................................................................................... 3 2.3 Results: Stakeholder interviews ................................................................................... 3 2.4 Outcomes and recommendations ............................................................................... 3 3 Gap analysis ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Method......................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Relevant plans and strategies ............................................................................... 5 3.2.2 Themes .................................................................................................................. 6 3.2.3 Analysis ................................................................................................................. 6 3.3 Results .......................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Priority strategies and actions ..................................................................................... 7 4 Assessing funding applications ........................................................................................... 8 4.1 Eligibility filters ............................................................................................................. 8 4.2 Criteria and scoring .................................................................................................... 10 Appendix 1: Review of the GLEF .............................................................................................. 11 Appendix 2: Gap analysis ......................................................................................................... 20 Abbreviations AMMCF Australian Marine Mammal Conservation Foundation DEDJTR Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, formerly Department of Environment and Primary Industries DoE Department of Environment (Australian Government) EGCMA East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority EPA Environment Protection Authority, Victoria GLaWAC Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation GLCC Gippsland Lakes Coordinating Committee GLEF Gippsland Lakes Environment Fund GLES Gippsland Lakes Environmental Strategy GLMAC Gippsland Lakes Ministerial Advisory Committee (former) GLRSMP Gippsland Lakes Ramsar Site Management Plan GP Gippsland Ports Committee of Management Incorporated KMA Key Management Action (GLES Business Plan) MID Macalister Irrigation District MERI Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement NGO Non-Government Organisation RCT Resource Condition Target RMIT Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology SRW Southern Rural Water TOLMB Traditional Owner Land Management Board VWMS Victorian Waterway Management Strategy WGCMA West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 1 Introduction 1.1 Background and objectives In January 2016, The Victorian Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water announced the membership of the Gippsland Lakes Coordinating Committee (GLCC) and launched the Gippsland Lakes Ramsar Site Management Plan (GLRSMP) (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2015). The GLCC is tasked with making recommendations to the Minister on specific funding priorities for the Gippsland Lakes, guided by the existing regional waterway strategies for East and West Gippsland and the GLRSMP. The objectives of the GLCC (with respect to this priorities plan) are: To maintain or improve the health of the Gippsland Lakes To foster cooperation and coordination between agencies and organisations with an interest in the health of the Gippsland Lakes To promote awareness of and participation by communities in the management of the Gippsland Lakes. To maximise outcomes through leveraging investments. The management of the Gippsland Lakes is complex, with many management plans, strategies and agencies working together to achieve positive outcomes for the environment, community and business. A priorities plan is required to help the GLCC to maximise environmental outcomes for the Lakes by identifying the highest priority management actions for the next five years (2016 – 2021) and providing a transparent framework for allocation of funding. 1.2 Development of the priorities plan The Gippsland Lakes Priorities Plan has been developed with the GLCC and Delivery Managers (managers from DELWP, Parks Victoria, East Gippsland CMA, West Gippsland CMA, East Gippsland Shire, Wellington Shire Council and GLaWAC). The process is illustrated in Figure 1 and started with a review of the Gippsland Lakes Environment Fund (GLEF) to identify existing projects and lessons learned from the past three years of implementation in the Gippsland Lakes. The outputs of the review of the GLEF together with a review of existing plans and strategies were used as inputs to a gap analysis. The gap analysis informed the identification of high level priority actions for the next five years. The GLRSMP contains high level management strategies that could each be addressed through a number of different programs and projects. To this end, a process for transparently and objectively assessing funding applications has been developed. 1 Figure 1: Process for developing the Gippsland Lakes Priorities Plan. 2 2 Review of the GLEF This is a summary of the outcomes of the review of the GLEF, the full review can be found in Appendix 1. 2.1 Method The review of the Gippsland Lakes projects funded through the GLEF was completed to inform the Gippsland Lakes Priorities Plan, identifying gaps in the delivery of the objectives and taking learnings from the process to better inform the Gippsland Lakes Coordinating Committee. This review is not a formal evaluation or acquittal of the GLEF. The review was undertaken as two parts; 1. A desktop review of the GLEF funded programs against the 17 KMAs in the business plan, and their contributions to meeting the objectives of the GLES; and 2. A series of stakeholder interviews with delivery partners in the form of an after action review which asked: What worked well and why? What went wrong and why? What would you do differently next time to improve the process? 2.2 Results: Desktop review The desktop reviewed showed that projects were funded across all four business strategies (Coordination and Planning Strategy, Operational Support Strategy, Ecosystem Monitoring, Investigation and Future Research Strategy and Community / Stakeholder Education, Advocacy and Communication Strategy); and most of the key management actions were addressed, with only a small number of gaps. 2.3 Results: Stakeholder interviews GLEF delivery managers participated in an email / telephone conversation to provide feedback. The general feedback about the program was: What worked well - it was well managed with excellent operational support, the program has a strong