Roadshow 4.2 Where to from here?

Where to from here? Building on our successful collaboration 

Shorter version of this presentation (10 minutes)

Click here to open transcript

Mitch Bouma:

This session is a chance for Jane and Andrew to provide their reflections on how the collaborative co-design approach used by the Geological and Bioregional Assessment Program influenced the program's delivery, the program's success, and strengthened the partnerships between each of the agencies involved and what the future might hold. So I'll also see if we can draw out some of what the challenges were from this collaborative delivery model and how they were overcome. So launching into the questions, perhaps, Jane, can you answer this one first followed by Andrew? So the first question is, can you reflect on how this collaboration has evolved over the past 10 or so years?

Jane Coram:

Well, I've been very privileged to bear witness to this huge body of work, right from when it was at its very inception when it was announced as a government initiative before anyone really knew what a so-called Bioregional Assessment even was. It's been an exciting and a really exacting process to take what was at the time, a political gesture to being a very profound contribution to the science and practice of cumulative impact assessments. At the time, Bioregional Assessments was a highly ambitious program that delivered the world's first really integrated regional scale assessment of the water impacts of coal resource development. It was an enormous human challenge that tested some of the world's most sophisticated supercomputers. The Geological and Bioregional Assessments Program has now taken this work a step further, working with people from regional communities, from different levels of government and from industry, to build a transparent knowledge base to support how decisions are made around future unconventional gas resource developments.

Jane Coram:

This enormous body of work has changed the way we do collaborative science. From day one, it required consultation across communities and governments to establish an understanding of the water dependent assets that were most valued in each region. The program was a courageous step on the part of government, but it also took enormous dedication and intellectual input on the part of the many, many contributors to bring it to completion. It has been a precedent setting program that has challenged us all scientifically and also required high level communications, project management and stakeholder engagement. It has also required tremendous collaboration between the science organisations involved.

Mitch Bouma:

Thanks, Jane. Andrew, your turn. What are your thoughts and your reflections on how the collaboration between our agencies has evolved since you've been involved in the Geological and Bioregional Assessment Program?

Andrew Heap:

Well, right from the beginning, we at Geoscience Australia recognised that it's important to work with our research partners on national scale challenges. It's because the science needed is bigger than any one capacity of one organisation. And this was certainly evident for the Bioregional Assessment and the Geological and Bioregional Assessment Programs. The programs have been transformative in how we do the science, allowing us to do what we do best and that is understanding the geology, the resource assessments, the hydrogeology and the groundwater assessments, while being able to dovetail our work at Geoscience Australia with the complementary side that's been undertaken by the CSIRO to provide that holistic understanding. And I know that for many of my GA colleagues, this collaborative arrangement has allowed them to work really closely with their CSIRO colleagues, many of whom they probably would never have worked with before. And extend and augment their own science as well as their professional networks. And in some cases, some have even made new friends, which is fantastic to see.

Andrew Heap:

I think also, one of the benefits is that we've deepened down the engagement between both our organisations across new discipline areas and we now have a newfound appreciation of the skills and capabilities of each other. And I think that can only be really, really healthy for the future. And I think there's also a newfound sentiment of Goodwill and trust that has resulted from this fantastic collaboration. And I want to commend all of the researchers and government officers in adopting such a collegiate approach that has ensured that the programs have been really successful. So I think importantly, it has allowed us to develop that innovative approach to undertaking our research. And I'm sure we'll continue that into the future.

Mitch Bouma:

Thanks, Andrew. Thank you, Jane. And I know from the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment's perspective, that's the collaboration between all of the agencies involved is greatly valued and is something that we'll be looking forward to using further in the future. So we'll move on to the next question, Jane. Oh, no, sorry, we'll go with Andrew with this one first. Can you describe the major benefits and impact pathways of the collaboration?

Andrew Heap:

Yes. Well, I think I touched a little bit on this in my previous answer, but I guess, to build on that, I would add that as a national science institution, the CSIRO and GA are very well and some would say ideally placed, I guess, to tackle the national challenges that the Australian Government is tasked with addressing. And I think along with the Bureau of Meteorology, our organisations have world leading scientists. There's no shortage of science excellence being done in our respective organisations and bringing all that wonderful corporate knowledge and long history of research to tackle these new challenges in innovative and novel ways. So I think a major benefit has been that we've been able to leverage that expertise and that corporate knowledge in a way that only publicly funded research institutions can. So I guess together over the past decade, we've collaborated really to harness this vast, deep domain knowledge and extent of data and sample holdings that we have and then leverage those innovative techniques and novel ideas that I talked about earlier to develop these new science workflows and analytical approaches.

Andrew Heap:

And I think that can really only be done by big, well funded research institutions that are working towards the same goals so we can achieve the best science outcomes possible when we tackle these sort of vex national challenges. So I guess from my perspective, I think the last 10 years of the BA and GBA Programs has truly been a landmark in terms of environmental studies that will strengthen the environmental safeguards, provide the scientific evidence needed for informed decision making by industry, government, and the communities. And I think we only got to go up from here, I think. Thanks.

Mitch Bouma:

And Jane, your thoughts on the major benefits of the collaborative approach that the Geological and Bioregional Assessment Program took?

Jane Coram:

Well, I absolutely concur with Andrew that one of the real lasting benefits of this collaboration has been the growth in understanding and relationships between the science organisations that have been involved. And I think that's built a really strong basis for future collaborative work, but a few of the really specific breakthroughs and lasting benefits of this collaboration include the program's delivery of open access to data models, workflows and reports. The curated information platform, the map-based BA Explorer and the innovative and interactive GBA Explorer provides an information base for all stakeholders to access data and information and consider it in their decision making. And this is really important in controversial issues like development of resources in regions. And I think that's a real first and it's set a standard for future complex investigations into these difficult decision making questions, as well as that legacy and setting a real benchmark around the transparency of information to underpin decision making.

Jane Coram:

The lasting legacy of the science and the data and the systems that have been developed through this program have helped change the way we think about doing science in the Commonwealth and the obvious lasting legacy of this work is a world leading multidisciplinary approach for assessing cumulative impacts of development on water dependent values, whether they be coal seam gas, or other development challenges. So I think that's really set the standard within Australia and internationally for how we engage with the challenges of understanding what a proposed development might do in a region and both at a geological basis, but also in terms of the broader environmental and social values in the region.

Mitch Bouma:

I know from my perspective and the department's perspective as well, it's really exciting to see some of the really fantastic work that the program's completed and the methodologies that have been developed will be taken forward and adapted in some of the future work that the government is delivering. So from that perspective, it's really nice to see that something excellent is going to come out of this work as we move forward in the future. Unfortunately, that's all the questions we have time for today, but I wholeheartedly thank you, Andrew and Jane. This has been a really, really insightful session. So thank you very much. And we'll move on to the next ending presentation from Grant Nay. So see you later.

Longer version of this presentation (29 minutes)

Click here to open transcript

Mitch Bouma:

This session is a chance for Jane and Andrew to provide their reflections on how the collaborative co-design approach used by the Geological and Bioregional Assessment Program influenced the program's delivery, the program's success, and strengthen the partnerships between each of the agencies involved and what the future might hold. So I'll also see if we can draw out some of what the challenges were from this collaborative delivery model and how they were overcome. So launching into the questions, perhaps, Jane, can you answer this one first followed by Andrew? So the first question is, can you reflect on how this collaboration has evolved over the past 10 or so years?

Jane Coram:

Well, I've been very privileged to bear witness to this huge body of work, right from when it was at its very inception when it was announced as a government initiative before anyone really knew what a so-called bioregional assessment even was. It's been an exciting and a really exacting process to take what was at the time, a political gesture to being a very profound contribution to the science and practice of cumulative impact assessments. At the time, bioregional assessments was a highly ambitious program that delivered the world's first really integrated regional scale assessment of the water impacts of coal resource development. It was an enormous human challenge that tested some of the world's most sophisticated supercomputers. The Geological and Bioregional Assessments Program has now taken this work a step further, working with people from regional communities, from different levels of government and from industry, to build a transparent knowledge base to support how decisions are made around future unconventional gas resource developments.

Jane Coram:

This enormous body of work has changed the way we do collaborative science. From day one, it required consultation across communities and governments to establish an understanding of the water dependent assets that were most valued in each region. The program was a courageous step on the part of government, but it also took enormous dedication and intellectual input on the part of the many, many contributors to bring it to completion. It has been a precedent setting program that has challenged us all scientifically and also required high level communications, project management and stakeholder engagement. It has also required tremendous collaboration between the science organisations involved.

Mitch Bouma:

Thanks, Jane. Andrew, your turn. What are your thoughts and your reflections on how the collaboration between our agencies has evolved since you've been involved in the Geological and Bioregional Assessment Program?

Andrew Heap:

Well, right from the beginning, we at Geoscience Australia recognised that it's an important to work with our research partners on national scale challenges. It's because the science needed is bigger than any one capacity of one organisation. And this was certainly evident for the bioregional assessment and the Geological and Bioregional Assessment Programs. The programs have been transformative in how we do the science, allowing us to do what we do best and that is understanding the geology, the resource assessments, the hydrogeology and the groundwater assessments, while being able to dovetail our work at Geoscience Australia with the complementary site that's been undertaken by the CSIRO to provide that holistic understanding. And I know that for many of my Geo colleagues, this collaborative arrangement has allowed them to work really closely with their CSIRO colleagues, many of whom they probably would never have worked with before. And extend and augment their own science as well as their professional networks. And in some cases, some have even made new friends, which is fantastic to see.

Andrew Heap:

I think also, one of the benefits is that we've deepened down the engagement between both our organisations across new discipline areas and we now have a newfound appreciation of the skills and capabilities of each other. And I think that can only be really, really healthy for the future. And I think there's also a newfound sentiment of Goodwill and trust that has resulted from this fantastic collaboration. And I want to commend all of the researchers and government offices in adopting such a collegiate approach that has ensured that the programs have been really successful. So I think importantly, it has allowed us to develop that innovative approach to undertaking our research. And I'm sure we'll continue that into the future.

Mitch Bouma:

Thanks, Andrew. Thank you, Jane. And I know from the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment's perspective, that's the collaboration between all of the agencies involved is greatly valued and is something that we'll be looking forward to using further in the future. So we'll move on to the next question, Jane. Oh, no, sorry, we'll go with Andrew with this one first. Can you describe the major benefits and impact pathways of the collaboration?

Andrew Heap:

Yes. Well, I think I touched a little bit on this in my previous answer, but I guess, to build on that, I would add that as a national science institution, the CSIRO and GA are very well and some would say ideally placed, I guess, to tackle the national challenges that the Australian government is tasked with addressing. And I can think along with the Bureau of Meteorology, our organisations have world leading scientists. There's no shortage of science excellence being done in our respective organisations and bringing all that wonderful corporate knowledge and long history of research to tackle these new challenges in innovative and novel ways. So I think a major benefit has been that we've been able to leverage that expertise and that corporate knowledge in a way that only publicly funded research institutions can. So I guess together over the past decade, we've collaborated really to harness this vast, deep domain knowledge and extent of data and sample holdings that we have and then leverage those innovative techniques and novel ideas that I talked about earlier to develop these new science workflows and analytical approaches.

Andrew Heap:

And I think that can really only be done by big, well funded research institutions that are working towards the same goals so we can achieve the best science outcomes possible when we tackle these sort of vex national challenges. So I guess from my perspective, I think the last 10 years of the BA and GBA Programs has truly been a landmark in terms of environmental studies that will strengthen the environmental safeguards, provide the scientific evidence needed for informed decision making by industry, government, and the communities. And I think we only got to go up from here, I think. Thanks.

Mitch Bouma:

And Jane, your thoughts on the major benefits of the collaborative approach that the Geological and Bioregional Assessment Program took?

Jane Coram:

Well, I absolutely concur with Andrew that one of the real lasting benefits of this collaboration has been the growth in understanding and relationships between the science organisations that have been involved. And I think that's built a really strong basis for future collaborative work, but a few of the really specific breakthroughs and lasting benefits of this collaboration include the program's delivery of open access to data models, workflows and reports. The curated information platform, the map-based BA Explorer and the innovative and interactive GBA Explorer provides an information base for all stakeholders to access data and information and consider it in their decision making. And this is really important in controversial issues like development of resources in regions. And I think that's a real first and it's set a standard for future complex investigations into these difficult decision making questions, as well as that legacy and setting a real benchmark around the transparency of information to underpin decision making.

Jane Coram:

The lasting legacy of the science and the data and the systems that have been developed through this program have helped change the way we think about doing science in the Commonwealth and the obvious lasting legacy of this work is a world leading multidisciplinary approach for assessing cumulative impacts of development on water dependent values, whether they be coal seam gas, or other development challenges. So I think that's really set the standard within Australia and internationally for how we engage with the challenges of understanding what a proposed development might do in a region and both at a geological basis, but also in terms of the broader environmental and social values in the region.

Mitch Bouma:

Yeah, they’re really important too for our communities and for the environmental regulators to have that level of understand of these matters. So, if I could dive in a little bit more in the specific scientific challenges here, Jane we’ll go with you. Because this is what the Australia’s national science agencies as Geoscience Australia and CSIRO are, what have been the major scientific challenges that you’ve found, both through the program but also with the collaboration approach?

Jane Coram:

Well, the scientific challenges have been many and they have been enormous, and at this point in the program it’s easy to assume that we had a roadmap for doing bioregional assessments. But to start off with, we had no idea what actually the methodology for doing a bioregional assessment might look like. So, even at the outset figuring out what a bioregional assessment might look like was a really big scientific challenge. But, in the implementation of that methodology, just the sheer magnitude of data and people involved has been unprecedented in my working experience. The Bioregional Assessment Program ran thousands of complex simulation models and there was frequently too much data, even for the world’s most powerful supercomputers. The bioregional assessments took six years and 200 experts to assess risks to water resources in regions covering 860,000 square kilometres in central and eastern Australia.

Jane Coram:

Building on that enormity of work, the GBA Program ran for four years and it developed a similarly comprehensive baseline of geological and environmental knowledge in three regions that covered over 166,000 kilometres squared in central Australia. So, just the enormity of the scale, the scientific challenges, the data, the computing challenges are just profound and it really has been an enormous body of work just in almost every aspect you can think of. This monumental research wouldn’t have been possible without an enormous amount of information between scientific disciplines and between science organisations. So, as well as the science challenges of operating across disciplines, it also required relationship building across and within institutions and it required at times difficult conversations because it was challenging. But, the benefit of having those difficult scientific and relationship conversations means that we’re in a really strong position to reap the benefits from the whole program for a very long time to come. And, from this really challenging base, we’ve developed an integrated approach that draws upon the strengths of the different partners and it’s given us a much better understanding of our relative strategies and strengths of each organization, as well as strong one on one relationships between scientists in each organization. They’ve been developed and really strengthened over the past ten years and they will equip us really well to continue to deliver on complex collaborative pieces of work in the future.

Mitch Bouma:

Andrew, from Geoscience Australia’s perspective, what do you see that the major scientific challenges have been?

Andrew Heap:

Well I definitely concur with Jane’s sentiments about the fact that we’ve developed a huge amount of data and information over 10 years of work which is just phenomenal and just completely, you know, blows me away every I see what we’ve produced, it’s fantastic. As a scientist it’s really great to see. That data covers all sorts of areas and diverse geographic and geological regions and a broad range of science disciplines as Jane mentioned. So, I guess perhaps building on that, when you’ve got such a huge amount of science and data that’s been produced as part of the program, while as a scientist you may think that’s fantastic, other people may wonder “what do I do with this information?” So, I think a major challenge with a program of such broad scope is communicating those findings to a broad and typically lay audience. Communicating not only what we did, but more importantly, what we found out and what it means for them. Particularly from the different stakeholder perspectives and delivering that in a way that is meaningful for them. So, it means we need to know what they want, which means talking to them. So, I think one of the most outstanding achievements to address that challenge of both the BA and GBA programs, has been the ability to successfully translate the science, the great, fantastic, world-class science we’ve done, into findings that the stakeholders can understand and are based on their needs.

Andrew Heap:

So, I think an important component of that has been the establishment of the user panels, comprising those stakeholders who have a vested interest in the science outcomes because, of course, they’re the ones that are going to need to use the science or the findings of the science and the techniques that we’ve generated to make decisions on the ground. So around that, I think have our scientists engage with them frequently and directly and, I guess, most importantly, listen to what they needed throughout the program and changing things as we heard them speak about what sort of things they needed to make decisions on and how we could support that through science. So, the approach of using communications specialists to develop a range of communications materials, like factsheets and plain-English summaries of the reports and a user-friendly website has been really really important. We want to publish our scientific papers, but we also want people to use the data and the information for their benefit. I think, given the great uptake we’ve seen so far with the findings, it demonstrates that this model really works and has been very successful and, I think, it’s allowed us to overcome that perennial response that I hear from stakeholders, particularly those from non-technical backgrounds, which is “this is wonderful stuff, but what do I do with it?” So, I really think that it’s been a big challenge, but we’ve cracked it with this program, which is great to see.

Mitch Bouma:

Excellent. Thankyou Andrew and Jane for those responses. We might just – we’ll see how you go – we’ve got a follow up questions here which we’ll see if you can answer. Andrew, we’ll start with you just quickly. How do you think that leveraging the expertise, say in somewhere like the Bureau of Meteorology, helped overcomes some of those particular challenges that we heard about there, say for example, managing complex and a huge amount of data?

Andrew Heap:

Well, definitely, look the Bureau have fantastic capabilities within their organisation, they predict the weather and they tell us the weather forecast, they’ve got to have facilities and capabilities to be able to do that. It’s such a big task and doing that routinely and robustly is really important. So, look I think bringing that sort of perspective to the program has been really important and really inciteful and having that close relationship with them and with CSIRO has really helped Geoscience Australia’s scientists understand the broader perspectives about how their data can be used. You know, quite often we get into our areas of expertise and we delve deep into those subject matters and we don’t always necessarily come up for air every now and then to see; well, are we actually using that to make a difference? So, I think, bringing the different perspectives together and having those robust and healthy conversations, sometimes not agreeing, but always looking towards that end-goal of providing the science that’s needed to make those decisions for the stakeholders is really really been a fantastic component to this program. So, I think, it’s actually, like I said earlier, brought out a level of trust or visibility of what the capabilities and capacities are of the different organisations, but align that with an element of trust and good will and I think that’s been one of the major success stories and helped us overcome those challenges.

Mitch Bouma:

Thanks, Andrew, for that response. I know that from the department’s perspective, having the trusted science from both the Bureau, Geoscience Australia and also CSIRO has really been beneficial, particularly with the users in our user panel groups because we quite constantly hear that, these are the trusted people and we just want to hear what the science has to say. But then, like you say, the next step is what do we do with it? And, you kind of covered that very well. We’ve put a whole range of different communications products out there to support a various range of audiences. So, thankyou for your incites on that.

Mitch Bouma:

We’ll move to the next question now. Andrew again. What do you think are some of the scientific highlights for Geoscience Australia, but maybe also some of your opinions on the highlights for CSIRO?

Andrew Heap:

Well like I said, I’ve been really impressed with the breadth and diversity of some of the science that’s been undertaken as part of both the BA and GBA programs and I came into this relatively late, as part of the GBA program, but I came into the program with the knowledge of the great pedigree that had already been established through the BA program. So, I was really inspired by what I saw and continued to be inspired as we worked through the second part of the program. But, I think I’ve been more impressed at how the great researchers at both GA and CSIRO have been able to bring all that science that they’re doing together into a meaningful way that has been useful to stakeholders, as I mentioned in my previous answer. I mean, we’ve delivered an unprecedented amount of new data and information and you’d expect that from a multi-agency, multidisciplinary, multi-year program.

Andrew Heap:

But I think if I was to pick one highlight, for me it would be about how CSIRO and GA have been able to very effectively coordinate our regional groundwater investigations in the Beetaloo Sub-basin, GBA region. I mean the Beetaloo is potentially a world-class gas basin, as we know, one the Australian Government has deemed as a strategic priority for development under its Gas-fired Recovery plan. So, if developed responsibly, which means looking after the environment, including the water, it has the potential to create many jobs and provide the energy Australia needs for many years. And I think, what I saw was GA and CSIRO working really closely to improve our understanding of the groundwater, including the pathway to replenishing the main regional aquifer, which is used for pastoralists and community water supplies, and it’s an important water source for supporting highly valued environmental assets such as the Mataranka Springs, for instance. So, I guess to address the required knowledge gaps that required the collective expertise both within GA and CSIRO to undertake that multi-faceted study of the groundwater recharge processes and comprised studies of geology, groundwater, hydrogeology, geochemistry. So, for me that’s a fantastic example of where we came together to use our respective scientific expertise to deliver that improved regional groundwater model that we know stakeholders are going to be able to use to develop the Beetaloo without detriment to the region’s groundwater resources.

Mitch Bouma:

Jane, from your perspective what do you see are the scientific highlights from the program for CSIRO?

Jane Coram:

Ok, well, at the highest level the outstanding science highlight of this program has been the application of science to provide critical insights and information to inform decisions around resource development. In CSIRO, in GA, in BoM we’re all motivated by the potential of scient to have impact and benefit for society and this program of work has really been an outstanding example of doing that. A particular highlight for us at CSIRO has been the opportunity to work with regional communities and stakeholders. Through the user panels, our scientists have developed a better understanding of what matters in the regions and how science can be applied to address key knowledge gaps. We’ve also collaborated with Indigenous Rangers at Mataranka and scientists from Charles Darwin University and the Northern Territory Government. And, through this deep collaboration we’ve been able to persist throughout the challenges of COVID, even with Indigenous Rangers keeping sending us water samples from the Mataranka Springs during the lockdown last year.

Jane Coram:

Two particular science highlights from us are the causal network method, which has been used to untangle environmental assessments. So, in the GBA program our team used the hard learned lessons from the Bioregional Assessments program, as well as feedback from users, to develop a whole new way of doing assessments. We’ve untangled the connections between what matters in the environment and the development activities that could cause impacts, and that untangling has allowed us to really look in pieces and then put it all together in terms of what are the cumulative impacts of potential development opportunities on values in the particular regions. The investigation that we’ve undertaken to address the specific knowledge gaps that have been identified by stakeholders in each region, that has included Traditional Owners and members of the regional community, as well as government, industry and other land users. Using that information we’ve been able to develop a comprehensive baseline of information that’s been relevant to helping decision makers from government and industry when they’re assessing development proposals in the future, but also that is relevant and meaningful to all stakeholders in the region.

Jane Coram:

For me too, and many other users, the science highlight has also been the high quality of science communications that’s been developed throughout the program. This has been an outstanding example of how complex scientific concepts can be brought to life with thoughtful communication material, and its so important to ensuring that this body of work does have impact for society. The GBA roadshow will be showcasing some of the investigations, findings and tools developed by the program and all the datasets, all the reports, journal papers and factsheets that have been produced by the GBA Program are now available to the public through the Bioregional Assessments website, the GBA Explore and data.gov.au. And, I really recommend that everyone explores this comprehensive knowledge base because, again, it really is another unprecedented achievement of the program.

Mitch Bouma:

So, one of the things that we are asked constantly by the people that we talk to, both at our user panels and our other engagements, is what happens next. So, we’ll start with you Andrew, where do you see this collaborative partnership, and the results from the program, and that sort of thing, where do you think that’s going next.

Andrew Heap:

Thankyou. As I’ve said in my answers before, the BA and GBA programs have clearly demonstrated that when national science agencies like CSIRO, the BoM and GA work together, we can achieve great things. This includes providing high quality science to address those complex national challenges that are the remit of government, such as the response to resource development and the sustainable management of the environment. I think the science underpinning both BA and GBA programs have demonstrated that those two things don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Andrew Heap:

The Australian Government looks to the future and is exploring opportunities to develop energy sources that this country will need to maintain its position in the world and societal wellbeing, while in the context of transitioning to a lower carbon economy. Now the government recently announced its Gas-Fired Recovery plan, which I mentioned earlier, and under that plan Geoscience Australia is leading what’s termed the Strategic Basins Program, which aims to bring on the development of lower carbon emitting energy sources, such as gas in other prospective basins and we’ll do that through the provision of high-quality science. So, there are immediate opportunities to continue applying the BA and GBA model to undertake that science that is needed to help industry, government and the community to make decisions about responsible resource development, and the sustainable management of the environment for these basins as part of that Gas-Fired Recovery plan. So, we at Geoscience Australia are very keen to make sure that we can continue our close collaboration with our CSIRO friends and colleagues in rolling out that program and I understand that we’re very close at the moment to reaching an agreement on what that will look like. Further, to deepen our engagement, we’ve also recently turned our attention to developing a joint capability statement which has been progressed through several workshops. Again, I commend the scientists in each of the organisations to have the good will and generosity of spirit to make this happen. Based on those two examples in the immediate future I believe this will be a very strong statement of our willingness and ability to work together to undertake the highest quality science on behalf of the Australian Government and for the benefit of all Australian for many, many years to come and I really look forward to being a part of that.

Mitch Bouma:

Thankyou Andrew, for that response. We’ll ask you now Jane. What do you see the outcomes from the program progressing forward to in the future from CSIRO’s perspective?

Jane Coram:

Well, as Andrew has said, I think this enormous body of work has set a very strong precedent for collaborative, multi-disciplinary science to contribute to societal decision making around really complex development issues. I really look forward to continuing to work with our partners GA and the Bureau of Meteorology in other similarly complex and impactful pieces of work.

Jane Coram:

But more broadly, we’re also really excited about how people in regional communities, people in all levels of government and from industry can now use this research and this data going forward in making decisions around future developments from a really, far more informed base that’s ever been possible before.

Mitch Bouma:

I know from my perspective and the department's perspective as well, it's really exciting to see some of the really fantastic work that the program's completed and the methodologies that have been developed will be taken forward and adapted in some of the future work that the government is delivering. So from that perspective, it's really nice to see that something excellent is going to come out of this work as we move forward in the future. Unfortunately, that's all the questions we have time for today, but I wholeheartedly thank you, Andrew and Jane. This has been a really, really insightful session. So thank you very much. And we'll move on to the next ending presentation from Grant Nay. So, see you later.

About the presenters

Jane Coram

CSIRO

Jane is the Director of the Land and Water Business Unit. Her career in natural resources science delivery spans nearly 30 years and has focused on applying scientific solutions to natural resources management challenges, particularly in relation to groundwater and groundwater-dependent ecosystem management. 

Dr Andrew Heap

Geoscience Australia

Dr Andrew Heap is the Chief of the Minerals, Energy and Groundwater Division at Geoscience Australia. Andrew has more than 20 years of professional experience in leading pre-competitive geoscience research within the Australian Government. This includes more than 17 years as a senior leader in Geoscience Australia, with responsibility for energy and mineral resources, carbon capture and storage, marine geoscience and groundwater programs.

Mitchell Bouma 

Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

Mitchell is the Program Manager of the Geological and Bioregional Assessments Program. Mitchell has over 10 years-experience working in the assessment and regulation of resource developments across Australia.

Last updated:
15 November 2021