Riverbank Rehabilitation Project evaluation summary

Background

The Riverbank Rehabilitation Project was established to support recovery from the 2021 and 2022 storm and flood events across eastern NSW. The project was funded by the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements (DRFA).

The project objectives were to:

• deliver targeted riverbank rehabilitation works to protect and enhance environmental, cultural and agricultural values
• support land managers to prepare for, respond to and lessen the impacts of future disaster events
• identify opportunities to streamline the waterway approvals process.  

As part of the Evaluation of the Riverbank Rehabilitation Project Phase 1 Extension and Phase 2, an external evaluation report was conducted by 2rog Consulting.

External evaluation summary

An external project evaluation assessed:

• whether the project’s implementation and impact were appropriate, effective, efficient and likely to deliver public value from the investment
• progress since Phase 1 of the project
• Local Land Services’ readiness to close and handover remaining elements of the project
• lessons for similar disaster recovery and river rehabilitation programs.

The evaluation used a variety of data to inform the findings and recommendations including:

• desktop analysis of project documents including reports, plans and metrics
• four stakeholder workshops with program partners and key stakeholders and pre-workshop surveys
• interviews with Local Land Services staff.

Key evaluation findings

The evaluation focused on 9 key areas.

1. Targeted on-ground works
   • Phase 2 of this project delivered the intended short-term goals, including stabilising high-risk riverbanks, protecting agricultural land and supporting riparian recovery. These sites would likely have not been treated otherwise due to their cost, complexity and risk.
   • The longevity of outcomes depends on ongoing maintenance, monitoring, landholder commitment, and future flood conditions. These aspects cannot be guaranteed beyond the project’s life.
2. Cultural Waterways Program
   • The Cultural Waterways Program improved how cultural values were identified and managed at sites. This influenced the delivery of the project and reduced cultural risk. However, cultural considerations were not consistently considered early enough to influence site selection or investment decisions across the program.
   • Because of limited resources, late implementation and limited participant evidence, the program cannot demonstrate lasting improvements in cultural outcomes at scale.
3. Riverbank and Erosion Advisory Service  
   • The Riverbank and Erosion Advisory Service helped to improve the understanding and confidence of navigating waterway approvals amongst landholders. Despite a reach of around 800 advisory cases across both phases, there is risk that a lack of regional resourcing and expertise will threaten customer support after the project closes. The uptake of waterway works by participating landholders was partial. This was limited by high costs, no funding and challenges with the required approvals.
4. Riverbank management extension and engagement
   • Shifting from state to regionally-led delivery improved the efficiency, proximity to and knowledge of local landholder networks.
   • The way of working delivered high-quality extension products and engagement activities. However, the impacts of this work cannot be assessed directly as the RRP did not survey the landholder’s uptake of practice changes.  
5. Streamlining the waterway approvals process
   • The project found clear evidence of the challenges landholders face when navigating waterway approvals. Although approving agencies understood and agreed on the barriers, no single agency had the authority to change the system. Because of this, no reform around approvals could be delivered.  
6. Unintended outcomes
   • A positive unintended outcome was the economic opportunity created for local and First Nations businesses.
7. Value for money
   • The project delivered good value for money at the site level where high‑risk, high‑cost interventions would not have occurred without public funding.
   • Governance and financial management improved from Phase 1 to Phase 2. The Soil Conservation Service partnership reduced cost and risk. However, funding rules limited broader resilience outcomes that would have delivered more public benefit.  
   • The long‑term value of the high‑cost works depends on landholder maintenance and regional capacity, with no guaranteed way of sustaining these assets.
8. Process
   • The project aligned to Local Land Services’ and DRFA’s strategic objectives, but funding rules narrowed what the project could achieve around broader catchment-scale resilience.
   • The program addressed a clear need for recovery work that was beyond the capacity of individual landholders.  
   • Project planning was logical and improved at site level, but early planning did not fully resolve feasibility, land tenure, landholder readiness, procurement, maintenance, monitoring evaluation and reporting (MER) and governance requirements.
9. Effectiveness of program processes
   • Governance arrangements improved over time and were strong in later stages. Earlier consultation with regions would likely have improved collaboration and cohesion, even within a state‑led delivery model.
   • Adaptive management was a clear strength in Phase 2, with changes being formally endorsed through governance pathways rather than ad hoc decision‑making.
   • The site prioritisation process was technical, systematic and refined over time. However, limited early testing of landholder readiness, access and delivery risk led to repeated site withdrawals, requiring reinvestment in site prioritisation.
   • Project administration supported large-scale delivery and compliance under complex DRFA requirements, with markedly stronger governance, financial control and adaptive management in Phase 2 compared with Phase 1. However, under-staffing, fragmented organisational MER systems, a basic case management system and duplicate mapping processes reduced efficiency and the project’s ability to meaningfully demonstrate outcomes.

Download the full report below.