Program Logic and Target-Setting for Water Quality Improvement: 
how actions, outcomes and targets were developed

Summary

Program Logic development and target-setting represents the culmination of an extended process that began with gaining knowledge and understanding of Burdekin water quality issues, developing guidelines for land management practice change, establishing the Environmental Values (EVs) of water and determining the Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) required to protect those values. Critical to this journey has been raising awareness amongst key stakeholders of the complexities involved in bringing about water quality improvement and developing a shared vision of what we want to achieve. This journey is reflected in Figure 1.1 and discussed further in this Chapter.

Program logic is the rationale behind a program – what is understood to be the cause-and-effect relationships between program activities, intermediate (short to medium term) and strategic (long term) outcomes and aspirational goals. This chapter describes how the Burdein WQIP Program Logic was developed; through an extended process involving key stakeholders including Government, industry, the scientific community and landholders. The Burdekin WQIP Program Logic portrays a shared vision of what the program is trying to achieve, and how the various elements come together and are mutually supportive.

The Burdekin WQIP Program Logic was developed through a four stage process of workshops and review which is described
in this Chapter. A conceptual diagram of Program Logic is presented in Figure 6.1. Here, Program Logic is likened to a journey that begins by building a strong foundation of knowledge before undertaking on-ground actions that will deliver the interim or intermediate outcomes that we want to achieve. Our investments in on-ground actions bring about raised awareness, attitude and practice change, and lead to improvements in the way a catchment is being managed. Finally, our journey takes us to the strategic, long-term outcomes that we want to achieve, which concern the condition of our natural
resources. Achieving these resource condition outcomes will deliver on our vision for the future.

This chapter also describes the process by which targets were set in order to achieve key outcomes within the Burdekin WQIP Program Logic. Two types of targets are recognised: Management Action Targets (MATs) and Resource Condition Targets (RCTs). MATs are the stepping stones by which improvements in the condition of our natural resources will be measured (e.g. area of land being spelled during the wet-season), while RCTs are indicators by which we gauge whether the overall condition of our natural resources has improved (e.g. reduction in nutrient concentrations and load).

This chapter also describes the use of models that predict soil and nutrient loss from the Burdekin landscape. These
models are important tools that describe the links from the paddock to the end-of-Burdekin catchment. While there is
uncertainty within each link in the set of models used to support target-setting, and in turn still greater uncertainty
in the final outcome, this approach is vastly preferable to previous ad hoc methods of setting targets. Importantly, it can be progressively improved by comparison and refinement through field observations.

Practice change scenarios, based around the Best Management Practice guidelines for water quality in grazing and sugar lands, were modelled by CSIRO to inform the Burdekin WQIP target setting workshop using SedNet/ANNEX and APSIM-Sugarcane for grazing and sugar lands respectively. The Sednet/ANNEX model, developed for Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA), was further modified to better reflect the great diversity of geology, landscape and soils in the Burdekin WQIP region. The improved SedNet/ANNEX model allows better determination of the source areas of sediment and nutrients in grazed lands and indicates that prioritising subcatchments for erosion control will more effectively reduce the suspended sediment load at the end-of-Burdekin catchment.

Extensive engagement with sugarcane farmers led to the identification of five classes of farming systems combining differences in tillage and nitrogen application rates that reflected practices generally being applied in the Lower
Burdekin sugar cane industry. These management classes were subsequently simulated using APSIM-Sugarcane to
provide results for nitrogen loss, partitioned between nitrogen lost in surface runoff and deep drainage, for four different soil types with results showing that total nitrogen losses vary markedly between both soil types and management classes.

Draft targets were subsequently set through a facilitated workshop involving representatives of Government, industry and the scientific community, and landholders. Targets were set against specific outcomes within the Burdekin WQIP Program Logic.