Appendix 1
Summary of criterion scores
Figure 1: 2011 and 2013 comparison of criterion 1 results - status of water planning
Figure1 compares the 2011 and 2013 report card assessments for Criterion 1 – Status of water planning. These
results show an increase in the number of water planning areas with substantive arrangements in place. There
has also been a decrease in the proportion of plans assessed as ‘To some extent’. This trend reflects the
finalisation of several draft plans over the last two years in New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia.
Figure 2: 2011 and 2013 comparison of criterion 2 results – key assessments
Figure 2 compares the 2011 and 2013 report card assessments for Criterion 2 – Key assessments. These
results show that, in general, water planning arrangements continue to be supported by adequate
assessments of the characteristics and values of water resources as part of the plan development
process.
Figure 3: 2011 and 2013 comparison of criterion 3 results – overuse and pathways to sustainable
extraction
Figure 3 compares the 2011 and 2013 report card assessments for Criterion 3 – overuse and pathways to
sustainable extraction. These results show that almost all planning areas examined had limits in place to
manage extractions to agreed levels.
Figure 4: 2011 and 2013 comparison of criterion 4 results – measurable outcomes
Figure 4 compares the 2011 and 2013 report card assessments for Criterion 4 – Clear and measureable
outcomes. Although most planning areas that were assessed had arrangements of some sort in place,
the results show that many were ranked only as ‘To some extent’. This reflects the variable coverage and
quality of outcomes articulated in plans, particularly in terms of measureable environmental, social and
cultural values.
Figure 5: 2011 and 2013 comparison of criterion 5 results – facilitation of trade
Figure 5 compares the 2011 and 2013 report card assessments for Criterion 5 – Trade. These results
show that most planning areas examined had some arrangements in place to support trading of water
entitlements. A large proportion of planning areas have been ranked as ‘To some extent’ or ‘No’ and this
reflects jurisdictional arrangements that are not fully NWI-consistent or present barriers to trade.
Figure 6: 2011 and 2013 comparison of criterion 6 results – inclusion of interception activities
Figure 6 compares the 2011 and 2013 report card assessments for Criterion 6 – Interception. These
results suggest that significant water use continues to occur outside the water planning process.
Although several jurisdictions have introduced new policy and have reformed legislation to improve the
monitoring and management of some intercepting activities, exceptions remain (e.g. extractive
industries, stock and domestic use).
Figure 7: 2011 and 2013 comparison of criterion 7 results – surface-groundwater connectivity
Figure 7 compares the 2011 and 2013 report card assessments for Criterion 7 – Connectivity. These
results show that there has been an improvement in the integrated management of surface water and
groundwater, with more planning areas covered by appropriate management of connectivity. However,
for several planning areas information that identifies and quantifies connectivity is lacking.
Figure 8: 2011 and 2013 comparison of criterion 8 results – environmental water management
Figure 8 compares the 2011 and 2013 report card assessments for Criterion 8 – Environmental water
management. These results show that there has been an increase in the number of planning areas
covered by accountable environmental water management arrangements. While environmental
provisions may be in place, the report card assessments continue to find inadequacies in the associated
monitoring arrangements.
Figure 9: 2011 and 2013 comparison of criterion 9 results – monitoring, compliance and enforcement
Figure 9 compares the 2011 and 2013 report card assessments for Criterion 9 – Monitoring, compliance
and enforcement. While most planning areas are covered by jurisdiction-wide compliance and
enforcement arrangements, there continues to be deficiencies in monitoring programs. In many cases,
monitoring information is not comprehensive, is of poor quality or is unavailable. For plans that were in
draft at the time of assessment or which have only recently commenced, this criterion was considered
‘Not applicable’.
Figure 10: 2011 and 2013 comparison of criterion 10 results – climate change and variability
Figure 10 compares the 2011 and 2013 report card assessments for Criterion 10 – Climate change and
variability. These results show that, in general, planning arrangements continue to include consideration
of the potential impacts of variation in resource availability. Although in many planning areas this is
limited to the historical climate record, there are an increasing number of plans that incorporate
provisions for projected climate change scenarios.
Figure 11: 2011 and 2013 comparison of criterion 11 results – stakeholder engagement
Figure 11 compares the 2011 and 2013 report card assessments for Criterion 11 – Stakeholder
engagement. There has been an increase in the number of areas assessed as having adequate
stakeholder engagement in the water planning process. The 2013 results have been strongly influenced
by the review process undertaken for a large number of plans in New South Wales.
Figure 12: 2011 and 2013 comparison of criterion 12 results – achievement of outcomes
Figure 12 compares the 2011 and 2013 report card assessments for Criterion 12 – Achievement of
outcomes. These results show that there continue to be deficiencies in the evaluation of water planning
outcomes, which is closely related to the inadequacies highlighted by Criterion 9 (Monitoring) and
Criterion 4 (Measurable outcomes). There are several planning areas for which reviews are overdue and
this continues to hinder the evaluation of outcome achievement.
There has been a shift in the number of plans assessed as ‘Unable to assess’ which is related, in part, to
an increase in the Commission’s capacity to access and analyse a greater pool of planning information.
For plans that were in draft at the time of assessment or which have only recently commenced, this
criterion was considered ‘Not applicable’.
The national water planning report card assessment criteria, sub-criteria and standard answers,
developed in consultation with the jurisdictions, are presented below.