2020-09-14 GC Agenda - Item 7 - Attachment 2 - Independent Scientific Review of Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

    4.2 Effectiveness of the proposed indicators and monitoring methods
A good practice MER checklist was developed based on a number of ‘good MER practice’ reference
documents. Twenty criteria were then used to test the effectiveness of MER planning and design,
monitoring, evaluation and reporting components presented in the Project Plan and MER Plan. .
Sixteen of those criteria were found to be met. Four of the criteria were partly met or unclear, but none of
these raised any significant concerns with the MER plan. Details of the assessment are provided as
Appendix A.
The four criteria that were considered to be partly met or unclear are:
        7       Are the proposed indicators and monitoring methods clearly described? Met for biophysical
                and ecological indicators. Qualitative methods for social indicators could be improved.
        9       If any species are introduced to the site, will provenance records be kept? Unclear.
        15      Are assessment methods identified or described? Met for biophysical and ecological indicators.
                Assessment methods for socio-economic indicators could be improved.
        20      Are processes in place to identify and share learnings into future partnership and beyond?
                Partially met. The partnering process and outcomes should also be evaluated.
Six recommendations are made to improve the MER Plan.
Overall, the review concludes that the MER plan is robust and comprehensive, and the proposed indicators
and monitoring methods likely to be effective. The MER Plan obviously reflects TNC’s experience with
similar oyster restoration projects in Australia and overseas.



5 Recommendations

We offer the following recommendations to Noosa Council and TNC for their consideration in moving
forward with the Bring Back the Fish project. The recommendations were developed in response to the
review findings (Appendix A).


    5.1 Recommendations or suggestions for improvement to the Monitoring &
        Evaluation Plan
Recommendation 1. Resolve conflicting terminology and different versions of MER framework.
There are some inconsistencies in terminology and relationship between the Project Plan and its MER Plan.
This may simply reflect the timing and evolution of both documents. The MER Plan should:
           Clarify the relationship between the MER Plan, the Project Plan and the Partnership Agreement (the
            MER Plan appears to address A1-A4 but not A5 in the Project Plan
           Modify the terminology between the Project Plan and the MER Plan to remove confusion. Table 3
            highlights that that some terms (goals and objectives in particular) are used inconsistently between
            the Project Plan and the MER Plan. There are many versions of project terminology that can be
            adopted. What is desirable is that the Project Plan and MER Plan use a consistent terminology that
            allows the relationship between the Project Plan and the MER plan to be clear and unambiguous.
           Rationalise the multiple versions of goals and objectives that occur in the Project and MER Plan
            (Annex 1, Annex 2 and Figure 6) (refer footnotes below).

Table 3. Suggested changes to terminology




                                                         8