Land, assets and infrastructure within New South Wales’ (NSW) coastal zone are owned and managed under various arrangements that involve state agencies, local councils, non-government organisations and private parties. Public land within the coastal zone includes national parks and reserves, Crown land and land managed by local councils on behalf of their communities.

The NSW coastal management framework (the framework) under the Coastal Management Act 2016 (the Act) came into effect in 2018, and replaced the coastal management arrangements that had been established under the former Coastal Protection Act 1979. The framework aims to deliver strategic and integrated management, use and development of the coast for the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of the people of NSW. It was created to improve the way state and local government identify and adapt to hazards, and plan for and assess coastal development, to help protect coastal and marine environments.

The impacts of climate change, including sea level rise and extreme weather events, are expected to exacerbate coastal hazards such as coastal erosion and inundation. Urban development and population growth also increase risks to built and natural environments along the coast.

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) oversees and facilitates implementation of the framework. The Minister for Climate Change and Minister for the Environment (the Minister) is responsible for the Act. The NSW Coastal Council, an advisory body, provides advice to the Minister across a range of coastal management functions.

Under the framework, local councils may develop coastal management programs in consultation with their communities and other public authorities to set out risk-based, long-term strategies for managing the coast.

The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) facilitates integration of the framework into the NSW land use planning system, including through the coastal management chapter in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, which sets out targeted planning priorities and development controls for land in the coastal zone.

This audit assessed whether DCCEEW, DPHI and a selection of three local councils are effectively implementing the coastal management framework to manage the NSW coastal environment.

We assessed effectiveness through examining the following audit questions:

• Are DCCEEW and DPHI effectively overseeing and facilitating councils’ implementation of the coastal management framework?
• Have the selected councils effectively developed programs and priorities for coastal management?

The audited councils are City of Coffs Harbour Council, Shoalhaven City Council and Northern Beaches Council. They were selected after an examination of factors relevant to the operational and coastal management context of local councils in the NSW coastal zone.

Since the framework’s inception, state government agencies responsible for its oversight and facilitation have been subject to several machinery of government changes. For ease of reading, reference to DCCEEW or DPHI in this report may also refer to the former entities that were responsible for oversight and facilitation of coastal management.

The coastal management framework is not being effectively implemented to manage the NSW coastal environment. Seven years after the framework came into effect, most local councils are still in the process of developing coastal management programs (CMPs), and are not yet implementing CMPs to address risks and opportunities. DCCEEW is not effectively overseeing and facilitating implementation of the framework by state and local government. As a result, the objectives of the Act – to manage the coast in an ecologically sustainable way for the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of the people of NSW – are not being achieved.

The audited councils are developing CMPs to support coastal management and strategic land use planning. However, the process is taking longer than anticipated. As at April 2025 most of the councils’ CMPs had not yet progressed to the implementation stage. The audited councils have taken steps to integrate coastal management into their integrated planning and reporting, and risk management processes. However, the two audited councils with certified CMPs have faced challenges in integrating the actions identified in their CMPs as part of their integrated planning and reporting, due to uncertainty over long-term funding sources.

There are gaps in DCCEEW’s strategic planning, risk management and performance monitoring in overseeing the framework. It has not comprehensively defined key objectives and accountabilities for framework implementation, and the performance measures it uses to monitor and report on progress are not clearly linked to outcomes and impact. DCCEEW’s work is not informed by strategic risk-based analysis to determine priorities. As a result, DCCEEW cannot demonstrate that the framework is being implemented to effectively manage risks to the use and resilience of the coastal environment now and into the future, including through considering the effects of climate change and promoting sustainable development of the coast.

DCCEEW and DPHI are not effectively addressing challenges to the successful implementation of the framework. This includes gaps in mapping coastal hazards to support framework objectives for managing risks from these hazards. DCCEEW is not effectively facilitating a partnership approach to framework implementation across state and local government, and there is uncertainty over funding for framework implementation, including for future delivery of actions in certified CMPs to manage the coast consistent with the Act’s objectives.

DCCEEW does not have a strategy to oversee implementation of the framework and manage related risks

DCCEEW is responsible for overseeing implementation of the framework in line with the Act. DCCEEW has not developed a strategy for framework implementation that sets out how it will prioritise its activities to meet defined objectives and achieve outcomes within available resources.

DCCEEW has not provided evidence of strategic analysis to inform statewide or regional priorities in relation to CMP development and certification, such as identifying priority locations requiring more timely or targeted engagement with councils due to higher levels of risk, or regions where a higher level of DCCEEW engagement is necessary to expedite CMP progress.

The NSW Government published a ‘Future Directions Statement for the NSW Coastal and Estuary Management Program’ in 2021 which identified priorities and actions for how it would work in partnership with local councils and their communities to manage the coast. These actions were not supported with additional funding, and DCCEEW has not subsequently reassessed priorities and objectives for framework implementation to ensure a strategic approach. DCCEEW has included some relevant actions in internal workplans and other government initiatives and plans, but there is no public reporting on progress. Internal reporting of progress by DCCEEW indicated that some actions were off track for key risk areas across the audit period.

DCCEEW has established an executive-level governance body that brings together the different areas of the Department with a role in coastal management policy and CMP development, but there are gaps in its oversight of strategic risks to framework implementation. It considers risks, challenges and opportunities relating to framework implementation, but it does not have routine oversight of risk documentation, and it does not have adequate systems in place to monitor framework implementation or the delivery of outcomes.

DCCEEW has identified, but not resolved, the risk of insufficient funding to support the development and implementation of CMPs across the State.

The audited councils are developing CMPs under the framework to plan and prioritise coastal management actions

The audited councils are applying the framework to support their coastal management and strategic land use planning. They are working with DCCEEW and DPHI to develop multiple CMPs to cover the coast in their local government areas. Two of the three audited councils have at least one certified CMP in place. However, the process is taking longer than anticipated, and, as at April 2025, most CMPs had not yet been certified and had not progressed to the implementation stage.

While the audited councils have taken steps to integrate coastal management into their integrated planning and reporting and risk management processes, integration of actions within CMPs into long-term financial planning and asset management could be improved. The two audited councils with certified CMPs have faced challenges in doing this, due to uncertainty over sources of funding.

DCCEEW is not effectively facilitating partnerships between state and local government to implement the framework

The framework is intended to deliver a partnership approach to coastal management across state and local government. Local councils must consult with relevant public authorities during CMP development, and public authorities must take CMPs into account if they are relevant to the exercise of their functions.¹ This includes local councils working in partnership with DPHI’s Crown Lands and Public Spaces division and DCCEEW’s National Parks & Wildlife Services division (NPWS) where actions in CMPs relate to Crown land or national parks.

This audit, in line with previous reviews and feedback on the current framework, has identified challenges to engagement between local councils and public authorities that pose risks to the successful implementation of the framework. DCCEEW has not yet implemented effective strategies to manage these risks.

One of the main challenges is that DCCEEW has not clearly defined expectations and accountabilities for state government agencies to support the delivery of outcomes under the framework. This limits shared accountability across state and local government for framework outcomes, and DCCEEW’s ability to oversee the effectiveness of framework implementation.

DCCEEW is not effectively monitoring and evaluating framework implementation, and it has not met its targets relating to the number of certified CMPs

DCCEEW’s performance indicators are not linked to defined objectives and priorities for framework implementation to ensure that the limited resourcing available, including the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program, is being used to address the greatest risks or to deliver the greatest benefit. The key performance indicators that monitor and report on framework implementation relate to the number of CMPs certified, and the number and status of grants awarded under the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program. DCCEEW has not defined how achieving these targets realises the policy objectives of the framework.

Adoption of the framework by local councils is not mandatory. Incentives for councils to have a certified CMP include increased eligibility for NSW Government funding under the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program to support the delivery of coastal management actions, and access to simpler planning approval pathways for some coastal and environmental protection works.

Seven years after the framework came into effect, most local councils with land in the coastal zone do not yet have a certified CMP. Seventeen CMPs, covering sixteen local councils, have been certified by the Minister compared to DCCEEW’s target of 20 by June 2025. This target was reduced from 30 to 20 in 2023–24. DCCEEW has not set a target beyond June 2025.

DCCEEW developed a monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework in 2022 but this has not been implemented.

DCCEEW has not recently reviewed whether the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program is facilitating councils’ implementation of the framework effectively

Local councils may develop one or more CMPs for land within the coastal zone, and may join together to develop a CMP covering multiple local government areas. At April 2025, 16 councils had at least one certified CMP (17 certified CMPs in total). A further 43 CMPs were in development, by 52 of the 55 local councils with land in the NSW coastal zone.

Since 2016, under the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program, DCCEEW has awarded 151 grants totalling over $14.3 million to councils to support CMP development. Councils have also contributed funding directly to CMP development. DCCEEW monitors the progress of CMP development, but it does not have a robust approach to understanding the costs incurred by councils or the reasons for the lack of timely development of CMPs by councils.

Some of the key challenges faced by councils in the timely development of CMPs include:

• the need to engage consultants to support CMP development in accordance with grant funding conditions
• the need to engage with and obtain approvals from other public authorities for some actions within CMPs
• the ability of councils to meet funding contribution requirements to develop CMPs and implement actions following certification.

DCCEEW has not reviewed the efficiency and effectiveness of the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program since 2019 to ensure it delivers a cost-efficient mechanism for funding coastal management actions to achieve framework objectives.

DCCEEW and DPHI are not effectively managing a key gap in framework implementation relating to managing coastal hazard risks

DCCEEW and DPHI have identified risks to delivering policy objectives for managing areas at risk from coastal hazards due to incomplete mapping of the coastal vulnerability area in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (the SEPP). Neither DCCEEW nor DPHI has implemented a clear strategy for managing this gap in framework implementation and related risks.

The Act and the SEPP set out targeted management objectives and controls for managing coastal hazards in areas mapped in the SEPP that are within the coastal vulnerability area. When the framework came into effect in 2018, the NSW Government published mapping for three of the four coastal management areas defined in the Act, but it did not publish data about the coastal vulnerability area. This was on the basis that mapping of coastal vulnerability to a level of detail necessary to apply development controls is best undertaken at the local level by councils.

Under the framework, councils are encouraged, but not required, to apply to integrate local coastal hazard mapping into the SEPP coastal vulnerability area mapping through a planning proposal. DPHI’s Planning division maintains the mapping in the SEPP and has developed a process and guidance to support councils to apply for updates, but in April 2025 only one council had updated the coastal vulnerability area mapping.

Local councils maintain local hazard mapping information and related planning controls that are used in land use planning and development assessments. DPHI has not evaluated whether these are an effective mechanism for managing risks related to land use and development in the coastal zone.

DCCEEW and DPHI provide guidance and support to councils but have not assessed whether this facilitates CMP development effectively

DCCEEW provides guidance and information on how councils can meet the requirements of the Act and the Coastal Management Manual (the Manual) for ministerial certification of a CMP. DPHI’s Planning division gives guidance and information to support the integration of land use planning considerations into CMPs.

However, DCCEEW and DPHI do not have a strategic approach to ensure that resources are directed towards the areas of greatest need or benefit.

DCCEEW has identified opportunities to review requirements and processes, and fill gaps in guidance and information required during CMP development. Some progress has been made, but DCCEEW does not have an approach to address identified opportunities for improvement. DCCEEW has not reviewed the content or application of the Manual since it was published in 2018.

DPHI’s Planning division has identified opportunities to update its resources and guidance on the integration of coastal management into the land use planning system. It has also increased engagement with councils during CMP development. However, DPHI has not formally evaluated whether its resourcing is providing adequate support to councils.

There have been a number of reviews of the framework, including surveys and briefings to government following work undertaken by the NSW Coastal Council, consultant reviews and a statutory review of the Act. As a result, DCCEEW identified opportunities to address risk and improve framework implementation but it has not systematically implemented and monitored them.

¹ The Act defines a public authority as a Minister of the Crown of the State, a State-owned corporation, an electricity supply authority, a public service agency, a local council and any other public or local authority constituted by or under any Act, and it includes any person or body prescribed by the regulations.

By September 2026, DCCEEW should:

1. develop and commence the delivery of an implementation plan for the coastal management framework which includes:

   a) clearly defined and communicated roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for local government and each relevant state government agency (including the divisions of DCCEEW and DPHI responsible for managing national parks and Crown land) to ensure an integrated and coordinated approach to framework implementation

   b) objectives, outcomes, success measures and timeframes for key elements, such as CMP development, coverage of CMPs across the State and high-risk areas, mapping of coastal hazards and emergency action subplans

   c) risk-based analysis of resourcing required and priorities for framework implementation to promote resilience, and alignment with other relevant government priorities, including the State Disaster Mitigation Plan and the NSW Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

   d) a monitoring, evaluation and reporting plan, including public reporting on the progress of framework implementation and related outcomes

2. review and improve the processes and requirements for CMP development and certification
3. evaluate the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program to ensure it is a sufficient and cost-effective mechanism for funding coastal management actions to achieve objectives
4. integrate the delivery of relevant actions in certified CMPs into its National Parks & Wildlife Services division’s asset management, business and financial planning, and risk management processes.

By September 2026, DCCEEW and DPHI should:

5. develop and commence implementation of a plan to ensure coastal vulnerability area mapping in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 supports framework objectives relevant to managing coastal hazards.

By September 2026, DPHI should:

6. integrate the delivery of relevant actions in certified CMPs into its Crown Land and Public Spaces division’s asset management, business and financial planning, and risk management processes.

By September 2026, the audited councils should:

7. routinely monitor and report on progress in developing and implementing CMPs to the council and community
8. integrate the delivery of actions in certified CMPs into their asset management, business and financial planning, and risk management processes.

Coastal management in New South Wales

New South Wales’ (NSW) coast contains beaches, coastal waterways, estuaries (rivers, lakes, lagoons and creeks affected by coastal tides), along with marine protected areas, national parks and Crown land reserves. It is a key economic zone that supports industrial, transport and commercial activity, including commercial ports and tourism.

Around 85% of the State’s population lives within 50 kilometres of the coastline. Coastal management is important in planning for, responding to and recovering from coastal hazards to protect public safety, infrastructure and property.

The longer-term risks of ineffective coastal management are of significance to the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of the State, should damage to the natural environment, public and private infrastructure and private development eventuate.

Coastal management actions include:

• coastal protection works, such as dune reshaping, beach nourishment or protection structures
• maintaining or improving beach, foreshore and waterway access ways and facilities
• foreshore park design, accessibility and facilities, and actions to improve the safety, amenity and enjoyment of people using the coast for recreation
• restoration or enhancement of ecological communities
• management of environmental issues such as soil/sediment contamination, water pollution or unauthorised development
• research, monitoring, data collection and reporting
• developing relationships and partnerships between local councils and other public authorities and landowners (including Aboriginal landowners and claimants, and registered Native Title applicants) on the coast
• building community awareness, engagement and participation in coastal management.

Managing risks relating to coastal hazards

According to the NSW State Disaster Mitigation Plan 2024–2026 (the State Disaster Mitigation Plan), the State’s population is projected to grow to 9.9 million by 2041 with most growth expected in urban centres, particularly on the coast. The State Disaster Mitigation Plan states that these areas are already at high risk of disaster due to the impact of natural hazards on the built environment, and without action climate change could also increase this risk in the future.

Coastal hazards are defined under the Coastal Management Act 2016 (the Act) as beach erosion, shoreline recession, instability of coastal lakes or watercourse entrances, coastal inundation, coastal cliff or slope instability, tidal inundation and erosion, and inundation of foreshores by tidal waters and wave impacts.

Coastal hazards, exacerbated by the impacts of climate change and expected sea level rise, are an ongoing and increasing risk for all coastal communities. Contributing factors to coastal vulnerability and risk include:

• natural processes, such as erosion and inundation
• land use patterns and development decisions
• the impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise and the increased frequency and severity of weather events
• human activities.

The State Disaster Mitigation Plan identifies strategic land use planning as one of the key tools to reduce exposure and vulnerability of people and assets to natural hazards.

Responsibilities for managing public land, assets and infrastructure within the coastal zone in NSW are varied.

There are 55 local councils with land in the coastal zone, also known as coastal councils, which own and control public land under the Local Government Act 1993. Each council must classify its land as either ‘community’ land kept for use by the general public, such as a public park, or ‘operational’ land which helps the council to carry out its functions, or land that may not be open to the general public, such as a works depot or a council garage.

National parks and reserves make up around 49% of the State’s open coastline, including 33% of its beaches and foreshores. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water’s (DCCEEW) National Parks & Wildlife Services division (NPWS) is responsible for managing national parks and reserves along the open coastline, as well as estuaries and river shorelines within the coastal zone. This is done either directly or through joint arrangements with local councils, Aboriginal communities and non-government organisations.

Crown land is public land managed for the benefit of the people of NSW and includes coastal assets such as beaches, headlands, estuaries and waterways, and the seabed and subsoil to three nautical miles off the coast. Many surfing reserves, regional harbours, river entrance breakwaters and holiday parks are on Crown land. The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s (DPHI) Crown Lands and Public Spaces division (Crown Lands) is responsible for overseeing the management of Crown land under the Crown Land Management Act 2016.

Crown land managers can be appointed under the Crown Land Management Act 2016 as responsible for the care, control and management of Crown reserves in accordance with principles set out in the legislation, including environmental protection and conservation of natural resources. According to DPHI, around 40% of Crown land is managed by Crown land managers – around 34% by local councils and six per cent by non-government organisations. The remaining 60% is managed by the Crown Lands division within DPHI.

Roles and responsibilities for managing public assets and infrastructure in the coastal zone vary. Sometimes they will be directly managed by the council or the agency responsible for the land, but at other times there may be specific arrangements for categories of assets and infrastructure. For example, Transport for NSW is responsible for managing roads and waterways, and for the development and delivery of some maritime infrastructure projects that support recreational boating, fishing, tourism, and a range of other recreational and commercial activities.

Some land, assets and infrastructure in the coastal zone are owned, managed or controlled by the Commonwealth Government.

Privately owned land and assets in the coastal zone include homes, businesses, and assets and infrastructure relevant to the delivery of important public services.

The NSW coastal management framework (the framework) sets out the NSW Government’s policy objectives, requirements and expectations for the management of coastal areas and activities by local councils and public authorities. It aims to better equip coastal communities to respond to the dynamic nature of the coast and sustainably manage the coastal environment, including through appropriate land use and development.

This section outlines the reform context, policy objectives and core elements of the framework.

Reform context

Under the previous and current frameworks, local councils have primary responsibility for identifying and managing coastal risks.

From 1979 until 2018, the Coastal Protection Act 1979 and related policies set the strategic policy framework for coastal issues in NSW. This was supported by state planning policies relevant to coastal wetlands, littoral rainforests and coastal protection.

Under the Coastal Protection Act 1979, councils could prepare and implement coastal zone management plans (CZMPs) to address management issues for coastal lakes, estuaries or beaches, dunes and headlands. CZMPs were statutory instruments that identified actions to be implemented by a council, other public authorities or private parties to address priority management issues in the coastal zone, over a set period.

Following a series of NSW Government policy reforms, the Coastal Management Act 2016 (the Act) was passed in 2016. Together with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018, it came into effect on 3 April 2018. It repealed the Coastal Protection Act 1979 and updated and consolidated the three former state planning policies into one integrated policy.

In March 2022, following a process to produce consolidated theme-based planning policies, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 was integrated into chapter 2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021.

Transitional provisions under the Act allowed councils to continue to implement CZMPs certified under the previous framework while they prepared coastal management programs (CMPs) under the new framework. Transitional arrangements were initially in place until 31 December 2021 and were extended by two years to 31 December 2023 to provide councils with more time to transition to the new framework.

Core elements of the framework

Coastal Management Act 2016

The Act is the legislation that underpins the framework and sets out the NSW Government’s policy objectives for coastal management. It aims to manage the NSW coastal environment in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, for the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of the people of the State.²

In summary, the Act:

• defines the NSW coastal zone as being made up of four distinct coastal management areas (see Exhibit 2) and sets out specific management objectives for each area to be considered during CMP development and implementation (see Exhibit 5)
• sets out the purpose of CMPs and provides for a coastal management manual to guide local councils in the preparation and implementation of a CMP
• requires local councils to give effect to their CMPs through some aspects of the integrated planning and reporting framework established in the Local Government Act 1993 and through the preparation of planning proposals and development control plans under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
• provides for public authorities to have regard to CMPs to the extent that they are relevant to exercising their functions, and in particular, to have regard to the coastal management manual, relevant CMPs and the objects of the Act when preparing, developing or reviewing plans of management.

This section outlines the roles and responsibilities of DCCEEW, DPHI and local councils.

Since the framework’s inception, state government agencies responsible for its oversight and facilitation have been subject to several machinery of government changes. For ease of reading, a reference to DCCEEW or DPHI in this report may also refer to the former entities that were responsible for oversight and facilitation of coastal management.

Overseeing and supporting framework implementation (DCCEEW)

Since April 2023, the Minister for Climate Change and Minister for the Environment (the Minister) has been responsible for administering and exercising powers under the Act. Relevant powers include directing a council to prepare a CMP and deciding whether or not to certify draft CMPs submitted by councils.

DCCEEW leads implementation of the framework. The following DCCEEW areas are the focus of this audit:

• the Marine, Coastal, Estuaries & Flood branch, which focuses on program oversight and policy matters, including maintaining the Manual and related guidance
• the Grants branch, which administers the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program
• regional delivery teams, which provide guidance and advice to councils during CMP development and implementation.

These activities are funded primarily through an annual allocation from the NSW Climate Change Fund. The Climate Change Fund is administered by the Climate Change Fund Administration committee on behalf of the Minister, and aims to minimise and mitigate the effects of climate change.

The NSW Government has allocated over $106 million to fund the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program for 2022–23 to 2029–30, for both grants program administration and grant funds. This includes $88 million from the Climate Change Fund. It also allocated $22.5 million over the same period to fund coastal management support, including DCCEEW policy and technical advice, regional coordination and statewide coastal science activities; the NSW Coastal Council; and DPHI administration of the SEPP.

Since 2021–22, DCCEEW has also allocated around $3.28 million per year of operational funding to support coastal management.

Advising the Minister responsible for the Act (NSW Coastal Council)

The NSW Coastal Council is a statutory body established under the Act to advise the Minister on their functions under the Act and on local councils’ compliance with management objectives and the Manual in preparing and reviewing CMPs.

Upon requests from the Minister, the NSW Coastal Council can also conduct performance audits of local councils’ implementation of CMPs.

This audit considered the NSW Coastal Council’s role in the framework, but did not assess its performance, or the performance of DCCEEW’s related secretariat functions.

Supporting integration of land use planning into coastal management (DPHI)

The Minister for Planning and Public Spaces is responsible for administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which contains the framework for NSW’s planning system. This includes requirements relating to state government environmental planning policies dealing with issues that are of importance to the whole State, as well as requirements for local councils to prepare local strategic planning statements and related local environmental plans to set planning rules for their local government area.

DPHI supports the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces in administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the coastal management chapter of the SEPP, and related directions and guidance.

DPHI’s Planning division, a focus of this audit, is the division responsible for overseeing the integration of the planning system into coastal management in NSW.

Developing CMPs under the framework (local councils with input from public authorities, including DCCEEW and DPHI)

Unless there is a ministerial direction, it is optional for local councils in the coastal zone to develop a CMP. As at April 2025, only one council had been directed to prepare a CMP.

When developing a CMP, councils must identify how and when coastal management actions will be implemented. These include actions to be:

• implemented under the integrated planning and reporting framework (relevant to strategic, operational and financial planning) under the Local Government Act 1993
• implemented under environmental planning instruments and development control plans under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
• implemented by public authorities (other than the local council).

These provisions aim to ensure that coastal management planning is integrated with councils’ strategic and asset management planning, and enable more effective community engagement around the best use of local resources for coastal management, and the feasibility and practicality of different options.

During CMP development, councils must consult with their communities and other public authorities with responsibilities for land, assets and infrastructure within the coastal zone. These authorities must agree before a council identifies them as responsible for implementing actions in a CMP, or before including actions that affect their land or assets. Relevant public authorities include NPWS and Crown Lands.

Councils may apply to update mapping of coastal management areas in the SEPP through amendments to their Local Environmental Plans and preparation of a planning proposal under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Councils also have a role in assessing certain development proposals within the coastal zone, and may be a consent authority in certain circumstances.⁴

Implementing CMPs under the framework (local councils with input from public authorities, including DCCEEW and DPHI)

Councils must implement their certified CMPs with regard to the objects of the Act, and through their integrated planning and reporting and land use planning processes.

Public authorities, including NPWS and Crown Lands, must have regard to CMPs to the extent that they are relevant to exercising their functions, and have regard to the coastal management manual, relevant CMPs and the objects of the Act when preparing, developing or reviewing plans of management.

Interactions with other strategies, plans and programs

Other policy frameworks and programs relevant to coastal management, outside the scope of this audit, include:

• the Marine Estate Management Act 2014 and the NSW Marine Estate Management Strategy 2018–2028, led by the Marine Estate Management Authority, which includes representatives from the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, DCCEEW, DPHI and Transport for NSW
• Transport for NSW’s Maritime Infrastructure Delivery Office, which is responsible for the development and delivery of maritime infrastructure across NSW, and supports recreational boating, fishing, tourism, and a range of other recreational and commercial activities
• the NSW State Disaster Mitigation Plan 2024–2026, led by the NSW Reconstruction Authority, which is the NSW Government’s strategy for reducing the risk of natural hazards, including storms and floods, and requires the development of regional Disaster Adaptation Plans
• NSW Government Regional Plans, housing reforms and strategies, including the Housing 2041Strategy, which identifies a need to build greater housing resilience to natural hazards
• DCCEEW’s Floodplain Management Program
• NSW Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 2025–2029, and agency-specific climate change adaptation strategies.

⁴ A consent authority is responsible for assessing and determining development applications within the responsibilities provided to it under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and other relevant legislation.

This audit assessed whether DCCEEW, DPHI and the audited councils are effectively implementing the coastal management framework to manage the NSW coastal environment.

The audit focused on whether DCCEEW and DPHI are effectively overseeing and facilitating councils’ implementation of the framework, and whether the audited councils have effectively developed programs and priorities for coastal management.

This audit report includes consolidated findings and recommendations relating to the audited councils – City of Coffs Harbour Council, Shoalhaven City Council and Northern Beaches Council. The councils were selected based on a range of factors that are relevant to the operational and coastal management of NSW coastal councils. Detailed findings were shared with each of the audited councils during the audit to enable them to consider opportunities for improvement.

The audit has not assessed:

• decisions or advice from state agencies, Ministers or the NSW Coastal Council on whether to certify CMPs
• whether CMPs and plans of management under other legislation, such as the Crown Land Management Act 2016, comply with the Coastal Management Act 2016 and the Manual
• the performance or adequacy of coastal management actions undertaken by local councils and other public authorities to manage the coast and related risks
• land use planning and development decisions and the effectiveness of related plans or controls under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
• the effectiveness of grants administration under the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program
• the merits of NSW Government policy objectives.

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water does not have a strategy for overseeing implementation of the coastal management framework

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the coastal management framework (the framework), and facilitating engagement between state agencies and local councils to support the framework’s whole-of-government objectives. DCCEEW has not developed a strategy for framework implementation, nor has it defined and communicated key objectives to support a strategic and integrated approach across state and local government.

The NSW Government identified priorities for framework implementation in its 2021 ‘Future Directions Statement for the NSW Coastal and Estuary Management Program’ (Future Directions Statement). The Future Directions Statement noted that collaboration between state and local government is fundamental to the delivery of the framework. It outlined 54 actions to be undertaken by the NSW Government to support its delivery of the framework in partnership with councils over the following five years. These actions supported five overarching priorities relating to: delivering outcomes; reviewing legislation and updating guidance; supporting coordination, collaboration and engagement; providing science and information; and funding and financing.

In 2022, the then Department of Planning and Environment identified that there was a significant funding and investment shortfall to deliver on the priorities set out in the Future Directions Statement. It attempted to secure additional funding, but did not receive the full amount. DCCEEW has not subsequently reassessed priorities and objectives for framework implementation to ensure a strategic approach within available resources.

DCCEEW has undertaken work to coordinate framework implementation with other government strategies and initiatives, such as the NSW Marine Estate Management Strategy, the State Disaster Mitigation Plan and the NSW Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. However, the absence of a strategy for framework implementation with clearly defined accountabilities creates risks to the effective coordination and integration of policies and activities across state and local government. Risks include unclear policy expectations, and unclear roles and responsibilities that could result in duplication of work or gaps in accountability for managing relevant risks.

DCCEEW has established a governance body to oversee framework delivery, but there are gaps in its oversight of outcomes, performance and risk

DCCEEW established the Marine, Coast and Estuary Program Board (the Board) in 2020–21 to oversee implementation of the framework. The Board has met regularly since 2021 and brings together executive-level representatives across relevant DCCEEW business units. The Board also has a role in overseeing activities relating to the NSW marine estate.

An operational working group reports to the Board and is a forum for managers across relevant business units in DCCEEW to raise risks and challenges that arise with delivery of the framework.

The Board focuses on framework delivery, including setting workplans, resolving delivery issues or conflicts between teams and stakeholders, and securing resources. However, there are gaps in its oversight of risks to framework implementation and monitoring of outcomes. It does not have routine oversight of risk documentation, and it does not have adequate systems in place to monitor framework implementation or the delivery of outcomes.

While the Board considers risks, challenges and opportunities relating to framework implementation, it has a reactive approach to risk management. For example, the Board does not routinely review risk registers or risk frameworks to ensure that risks relevant to framework implementation are being monitored and managed, and to inform oversight or decision-making relevant to framework implementation.

The Board receives operational updates on framework delivery, including updates on the primary performance metric – the number of CMPs certified – and updates from DCCEEW’s regional coastal and estuary teams on progress in CMP development. However, its minutes do not contain regular reporting against other outcome-based metrics that have been proposed for development, such as the extent of CMP coverage across the State, or the types of CMPs being delivered.

DCCEEW has not provided evidence of strategic analysis to inform statewide or regional priorities in relation to framework implementation

DCCEEW has not developed a risk-based approach to prioritising framework implementation with regard to defined outcomes and objectives. This creates a risk that state and local government resources and funding to implement the framework are not being targeted towards delivering the greatest impact.

The policy objectives of the Coastal Management Act 2016 (the Act) are broad and include ecological, social, cultural and economic factors. DCCEEW has not provided evidence of strategic analysis to inform statewide or regional priorities in relation to CMP development and implementation, such as identifying priority locations requiring more timely or targeted engagement with councils due to higher levels of risk.

DCCEEW has completed foundational work to provide risk-based analysis of coastal hazards, water quality and threats to estuary values. This includes the Coastal Erosion in New South Wales: Statewide Exposure Assessment (2017), the NSW Marine Estate Threat and Risk Assessment Report (2017), the NSW Estuary Tidal Inundation Exposure Assessment (2018), and the NSW Estuary Health Risk Dataset (2019).

The 2021 Future Directions Statement included an action for the NSW Government to develop criteria and publish a process for identifying high priority threats and risks to coastal values of the open coast and estuaries. In April 2025, this action had not yet been delivered.

Local councils, including the audited councils, are determining the scope and priorities for CMP development with varying levels of support from DCCEEW

Councils do not have to develop CMPs unless directed to do so by the Minister responsible for the Act (the Minister). The ministerial power of direction under the Act has been used once to require Newcastle City Council to prepare a CMP for Stockton Beach in 2020. Other councils determine the scope of and priorities for their CMPs with regard to the requirements and guidance in the Act and the Coastal Management Manual.

In some instances, to deliver on ministerial priorities or election commitments, DCCEEW has established a taskforce or committee to facilitate discussions between the council and relevant public authorities. DCCEEW has advised that this model is resource-intensive and cannot be provided for every CMP.

The audited councils have each developed their own approach to prioritising and developing CMPs within their local government area. As at April 2025, the audited councils had ten CMPs in development, and two of the councils had one and two certified CMPs respectively.

Each of the audited councils’ priorities for CMP development differs based on assessments of the unique coastal environments within their local government areas. Factors that have informed the councils’ priorities include the status of relevant coastal zone management plans (CZMPs) certified under the previous framework, the status of floodplain management plans, community priorities and expectations, and whether areas are at high risk of coastal hazards.

DCCEEW has not reassessed whether locations identified as high priority under the previous coastal management framework should continue to be a priority

Under the previous framework, the NSW Government identified priorities for CZMPs to be prepared for 15 locations identified as ‘coastal erosion hotspots’, which are now known as ‘significant open coast hazard locations’. These were locations where five or more houses or a public road were at immediate risk, as identified in a coastal hazard study undertaken in around 2011. One additional location, Stockton Beach, was announced as a significant open coast hazard location in 2019. There is no formal process for a location to be declared a significant open coast hazard location.

DCCEEW has advised these locations remain a high priority under the current framework, and that more recent assessments of locations at high risk of coastal hazards have also informed its priorities. However, DCCEEW has not provided evidence that it has reassessed which areas across the State are at greatest risk, based on the latest available data relating to coastal hazards, to inform priorities for more timely or targeted engagement to support CMP development or CMP implementation.

Most of the significant open coast hazard locations are not yet covered by a certified CMP. Of the 17 CMPs that were certified by April 2025, four relate to significant open coast hazard locations. One, the Stockton Beach CMP, was in the process of being updated.

In June 2025, DCCEEW advised that it had recently completed the NSW Coastal Erosion and Inundation Mapping and Exposure Assessment project that will inform future priorities for framework implementation. The project aims to deliver an updated assessment of potential exposure to both current and potential future hazards associated with coastal erosion, estuarine tidal inundation, and impacts of storm surge and wave runup.

DCCEEW has not adequately defined how state and local government should be working together to deliver framework outcomes

DCCEEW has not adequately defined policy expectations for how local councils and other public authorities should work together to integrate their coastal planning and risk management in delivering framework objectives. This limits shared accountability across state and local government for outcomes, and DCCEEW’s ability to oversee the effectiveness of framework implementation.

The policy objectives of the framework include: promoting integrated and coordinated coastal planning, management and reporting; and ensuring coordination of the policies and activities of government and public authorities relating to the coastal zone and facilitating the proper integration of their management activities. CMPs provide local councils and public authorities with a mechanism to develop joint strategies to manage risks in the coastal zone, including by considering the number, type and condition of their assets in the coastal zone and whether they face hazards and risks.

The framework allocates the responsibility for developing CMPs to local councils to set the long-term strategy for the coordinated management of coastal land in their local government areas.

In addition to DCCEEW, other state agencies have a key role in working with councils to deliver outcomes under the framework, including:

• DPHI’s Planning division, which facilitates integration of coastal management into the land use planning system
• public authorities with responsibility for land, assets and infrastructure in the coastal zone who are consulted by councils during CMP development to negotiate coastal management actions for inclusion in CMPs, and are required to consider CMPs where relevant to the exercise of their functions.

Relevant public authorities include DCCEEW’s National Parks & Wildlife Services division (NPWS) and DPHI’s Crown Lands and Public Spaces division (Crown Lands).

However, this audit has found that expectations and accountabilities for state government agencies to support the delivery of outcomes under the framework are not well defined.

DCCEEW publishes guidance on framework implementation, but this mostly focuses on the role of councils. It provides limited information about how state agencies should be engaging in the framework to deliver outcomes.

DCCEEW has not yet implemented effective mechanisms for managing risks relating to engagement between public authorities and local councils during framework implementation

Since 2022, in response to feedback from reviews and surveys of framework implementation, DCCEEW has identified strategic coordination and interagency engagement within the framework as a key area of focus. However, DCCEEW has not yet implemented effective mechanisms to manage risks relating to coordinating and integrating activities across local councils and relevant public authorities, including state agencies.

DCCEEW took some actions during the audit period aimed at enhancing state agencies’ involvement in framework implementation. This included the establishment of an interagency working group, but DCCEEW has advised that this group is no longer operational as it was not providing benefit. It is unclear whether the mechanisms for consultation that have replaced the interagency working group have improved integration and coordination of public authorities that may be involved in CMP processes.

DCCEEW has identified but not resolved the risk of insufficient funding to support the implementation of CMPs across the State

DCCEEW has identified a key risk relating to insufficient funding within the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program for the development and implementation of CMPs in several briefings, funding proposals and advice to government between 2022 and 2023.

In March 2023, DCCEEW identified that with more than 50 new CMPs expected to be certified over the following three years, current levels of funding would not meet demand to support councils to implement coastal management actions within their certified CMPs.

DCCEEW has taken some steps to secure additional funding to support the implementation of CMPs across the State. The budget allocation for the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program from the NSW Climate Change Fund was $69 million between 2022–23 and 2029–30. An additional $22.3 million over three years, was allocated to support the development and implementation of CMPs in the 2022–23 budget. DCCEEW advised the audit that $21.3 million of this was allocated to the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program. DCCEEW also obtained a $6 million grant under the Australian Government’s Disaster Ready Fund to supplement the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program in 2024 for funding actions in areas subject to coastal hazards. This additional funding is below the amount of funding DCCEEW expects it would require in future years to support implementation of the framework.

DCCEEW tracks the costs of actions within certified CMPs as they progress to implementation. In July 2025, DCCEEW estimated that the total cost of all actions within the 17 certified CMPs is around $341.6 million. The total value of actions that identify the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program as a potential source of funding is $269 million, with council applicants required to contribute one third of the costs based on 2024–25 grant program arrangements (see Exhibit 4). However, DCCEEW has not formally assessed the total cost to councils of implementing actions in CMPs under development. This means that it has not quantified the adequacy of available grant funding or forecast the expected future demand to implement actions as the number of certified CMPs grows. In July 2025, DCCEEW advised that there was around $54 million of funding remaining for the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program.

DCCEEW advised that it is difficult to estimate the costs relating to CMPs that it anticipates will be drafted and certified in coming years, as the actions in a final CMP are not known until it is complete.

DCCEEW is not effectively monitoring and reporting on progress of framework implementation and related outcomes

DCCEEW’s monitoring and reporting does not demonstrate whether framework implementation is delivering on its objectives and intended outcomes.

In June 2022, DCCEEW’s Marine, Coast and Estuary Program Board endorsed a detailed monitoring and evaluation plan to monitor and report on framework implementation and performance. This plan included a program logic that identified short-term, medium-term and long-term outcomes to be delivered and associated metrics to monitor and report on performance, including:

• CMP coverage of coastal properties and estuaries
• the types of coastal management activities being funded
• land use planning control coverage
• the effectiveness of technical support being provided to stakeholders.

This plan has not been implemented. DCCEEW advised the audit that the evaluation metrics developed are complex, and are being reviewed.

DCCEEW provides monthly and annual reports as required under the NSW Climate Change Fund funding arrangements. These reports contain high-level reporting on outputs, but do not detail activities or outcomes, nor do they provide a rationale for delays in the delivery of reportable tasks, overdue risk treatment plans, or address errors in financial reporting data sustained across multiple reporting periods.

Until 2024, DCCEEW reported quarterly to NSW Treasury under the former outcomes budgeting framework against one performance measure: the number of local council CZMPs (under the previous framework) and CMPs certified by the Minister and being implemented, against a 2018–19 baseline. DCCEEW did not link these metrics to the delivery of framework objectives.

In the absence of formal outcome monitoring, DCCEEW uses its internal annual work plan as the primary reporting mechanism to the Board responsible for overseeing outcomes. The absence of formal outcome reporting creates risks to the adequacy of DCCEEW’s oversight of the delivery of intended framework outcomes.

There are gaps in the key performance indicator DCCEEW uses to monitor and report on framework implementation, limiting its ability to assess performance

DCCEEW’s key measure of framework success is the number of certified CMPs. However, as CMPs are not mandatory, delivery against this target relies on the appetite and resources of individual councils, and how effectively DCCEEW and DPHI are incentivising uptake.

In 2021–22, DCCEEW set a target for 30 CMPs or CZMPs to be certified by June 2025. However, in recognition of the slower than anticipated uptake of CMPs, this target was reduced in 2023–24 to 20 CMPs by June 2025. DCCEEW advised the audit that this was updated to reflect the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and natural disasters in local councils.

There are important gaps in DCCEEW’s metric. For example:

• it does not cover broader framework policy objectives
• it does not include expectations for timeliness, or timeframes needed to develop CMPs
• it does not define clearly how certified CZMPs were intended to deliver outcomes under the current framework
• it does not set out any expectations with respect to the coverage of councils or high-risk areas
• it assumes that once a CMP is certified, it is being implemented, without clear monitoring of actions and initiatives within CMPs.

DCCEEW’s target for the number of CMPs certified by June 2025 was not met. It has not set a target beyond June 2025.

DCCEEW’s target for the number of certified coastal management programs has not been met

DCCEEW did not meet its target of 20 coastal management programs (CMPs) certified by June 2025.

As at April 2025, seven years after the coastal management framework (the framework) came into effect, 17 CMPs had been certified, representing 16 local councils with land in the coastal zone. The number of certified CMPs increased from four at the end of 2021–22 to 17 in 2024–25 (Exhibit 6). The 17 certified CMPs relate to 16 councils, and include one joint CMP. Of the 17 certified CMPs, seven relate to estuaries, six relate to the open coast, and four relate to both estuaries and the open coast.

DCCEEW and DPHI are not effectively managing a key gap in framework implementation relating to managing risks from coastal hazards

DCCEEW and DPHI have identified risks to delivering framework objectives relating to areas at risk from coastal hazards due to incomplete mapping of the coastal vulnerability area in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (the SEPP). Reviews and surveys of framework implementation have also identified these risks. DCCEEW has supported the Minister in seeking advice on options for coastal vulnerability mapping from the NSW Coastal Council, most recently in 2024.

Neither DCCEEW nor DPHI have implemented a clear strategy for managing this gap in framework implementation and related risks.

DPHI’s Planning division is responsible for maintaining the currency, accuracy and completeness of spatial mapping of the coastal management areas in the SEPP, and oversees a process for councils to apply to update the SEPP mapping.

As at April 2025, the coastal vulnerability area mapping was largely incomplete. This limits the applicability of the targeted management objectives and development controls intended to manage coastal hazard risks. City of Coffs Harbour Council is the only council that has integrated local hazard mapping into the SEPP mapping. Some councils have commenced work to update the SEPP mapping or identified this as a future action while others have advised DCCEEW and DPHI that they have no intention of doing this.

DPHI has sought feedback from councils on the reasons why the mapping has not been done. Key issues raised by councils include resourcing constraints, a lack of clear incentives, a need for further guidance, a disconnect between council staff with coastal management and land use planning responsibilities, and political risks associated with coastal hazard mapping.

Councils maintain local hazard mapping information and controls that are used in land use planning and development assessments.

The NSW Planning Portal Spatial Viewer mapping layer for the coastal vulnerability area suggests consultation with the relevant council for up-to-date local coastal hazard risk information and controls. Planning directions that apply to planning proposals in the coastal zone (such as to rezone land) and DPHI’s related Coastal Design Guidelines 2023 refer to local hazard mapping and controls as well as the coastal vulnerability area mapping in the SEPP.

DPHI’s Planning division did some analysis of whether coastal councils had planning controls for coastal management or coastal hazards in their Local Environmental Plans and development controls plans in 2024. However, DPHI has not provided evidence that this analysis has been used to evaluate whether existing local hazard mapping and related planning controls are an effective mechanism for managing risks relating to land use and development in the coastal zone.

During the development of their CMPs, all three of the audited councils have identified a need to update local coastal hazard mapping and make related updates to their Local Environmental Plans and development control plans. One council is already undertaking relevant work, but the other two councils have not yet commenced this work. The councils have advised that they will consider integrating (or updating) the SEPP coastal vulnerability area mapping once localised mapping is completed, but there are no clear timeframes for when this will be done.

Between 2021 and 2024, DPHI drafted various plans that included actions to manage risks relating to the incomplete mapping of the coastal vulnerability area in the SEPP, but these plans were not finalised or implemented. In May 2025, DPHI commenced a project to evaluate the existing planning framework for coastal hazard management and identify opportunities for improvement.

DPHI has developed resources to provide guidance on the SEPP but the guidance contains gaps and inconsistencies

In 2018, DPHI published fact sheets on the SEPP and how it is intended to promote the integration of coastal management into the land use planning system. These fact sheets provide:

• an overview of the SEPP, its purpose and the status of coastal management area mapping
• guidance on managing development in the coastal zone, including targeted development controls for the four coastal management areas in the Act and the status of SEPP mapping
• guidance on coastal protection works, including development approval pathways for private landowners and public authorities, and on emergency coastal protection works
• technical mapping information on the criteria and methods used to identify coastal management areas in the SEPP.

In 2020, DPHI published a fact sheet for local councils on how to prepare a planning proposal to integrate local coastal hazard mapping into the coastal vulnerability area mapping in the SEPP.

DPHI’s fact sheets do not clearly define DPHI’s role in administering the SEPP and overseeing uptake of relevant components. Further, these fact sheets contain outdated information and do not reflect current policy requirements and expectations. For example, the fact sheet specific to the coastal vulnerability area refers to an outdated planning circular that is no longer applicable.

In 2021, DPHI issued planning circulars on ‘Planning for coastal hazards’ and ‘Planning certificates: coastal hazards’ that provide guidance on assessing coastal hazards under the SEPP and the Act, and disclosing coastal hazards on planning certificates issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. DPHI drafted updates to these planning circulars in 2024, but they have not yet been finalised and issued.

DPHI could do more to ensure it provides adequate land use planning support to councils developing CMPs

DPHI receives funding from the NSW Climate Change Fund, via DCCEEW, to provide land use planning support to councils in the development of CMPs. This work is done through DPHI’s Planning division. The division’s core activities under the framework include managing the coastal management chapter of the SEPP and providing input for CMPs when land use planning actions or commitments are identified.

DPHI also administers the Coastal Land Protection Scheme⁶ and is responsible for contributing to whole-of-government initiatives relevant to coastal management such as the NSW Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, the State Disaster Mitigation Plan and the NSW Marine Estate Management Strategy.

In 2024, DPHI’s Planning division, in collaboration with DCCEEW, developed guidance on its role in elements of framework implementation. It also set out expectations for staff in relation to managing the SEPP in an induction manual. However, this guidance is not publicly available, and the documented responsibilities and expectations are not clearly communicated to councils and other stakeholders.

DPHI’s responsibilities include reviewing draft CMPs, giving advice on planning-related actions in CMPs, and issuing formal letters to confirm whether it supports actions identified in CMPs.

DPHI maintains a register of requests for land use planning guidance, information and support from councils and other government entities. This register shows that requests for DPHI support increased from three requests in both 2022 and 2023, to 27 in 2024. Requests included seeking advice on CMP planning actions or hazard assessments, discussing planning controls or frameworks, and reviewing draft CMPs.

Since April 2024, DPHI has engaged more actively with DCCEEW to encourage earlier engagement and collaboration on land use planning considerations in CMPs. It has advised that it expects its level of engagement to increase as more councils progress their CMPs towards certification. In June 2025, DPHI advised that it has engaged an additional staff resource to support the Planning division’s activities under the framework.

However, DPHI has not provided evidence that it has undertaken operational or strategic planning to evaluate whether it is providing adequate land use planning support to councils during CMP development, to ensure such considerations are identified early, and are appropriately considered. DPHI advised in February 2025 that relevant operational planning is limited to responding to ad hoc requests for support from councils, due to CMPs being led by councils.

⁶ $3 million fund for land acquisition within the coastal zone.

The audited councils are developing CMPs under the framework to plan and prioritise coastal management actions

The audited councils identify that application of the framework supports their coastal management and strategic land use planning. All are working with DCCEEW and DPHI to prepare multiple CMPs to cover the coast in their local government areas. However, the process is taking longer than anticipated, and in April 2025, most CMPs had not yet been certified and progressed to the implementation stage.

While the audited councils are not required under the framework to report on the progress of CMP development under the integrated planning and reporting (IP&R) framework, good practice would involve councils updating their communities on whether key projects to deliver strategic priorities are being delivered on time and within budget.

Each of the audited councils has identified developing CMPs as a strategic priority, but their level of reporting on the status of CMP development to their communities varies.

The audited councils have taken steps to integrate coastal management into their IP&R framework processes. However, integration of actions within CMPs into long-term financial planning and asset management could be improved. The two audited councils with certified CMPs have faced challenges in doing this, due to uncertainty over sources of funding.

The CMP development process provides insights on coastal management risks, but the audited councils have not yet integrated this with enterprise risk management processes

Councils’ risk management responsibilities are set out in the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 and the Guidelines for Risk Management and Internal Audit issued by the Office of Local Government.

Unmitigated risks could adversely affect a council’s ability to meet strategic and operational goals and actions. They could also impact the council’s finances, operations and reputation. In the context of coastal management, this may include unsafe and deteriorating assets and infrastructure, inappropriate land use planning controls or development decisions that increase land use vulnerability, reputational damage, an increased need for asset renewal and increased costs of maintaining assets if timely interventions do not happen.

The CMP development process provides councils updated information on coastal hazards, potential impacts, risk appetite and thresholds for escalating responses.

Part B of the Coastal Management Manual identifies that the process of developing a CMP provides inputs to risk management generally, including:

• identifying opportunities to reduce exposure to risk from coastal hazards to achieve coastal management objectives, preserve beaches, and maintain public access and amenity
• considering anticipated timing of impacts to infrastructure or asset life
• highlighting priorities for management actions while recognising the inherent uncertainties associated with natural systems, future scenarios and management of the coast
• using this information to support coastal management decisions that make the best use of incomplete knowledge.

This audit observed varying risk management maturity and risk management processes across the audited councils. The audited councils consistently identified risks to assets and services from coastal erosion, sea level rise and inundation, and the impacts of climate change in strategic risk registers. However, there was mixed evidence of integration of risks identified through CMP development processes into enterprise risk management processes, and limited identification of specific actions identified in CMPs within operational risk registers and asset management plans. In some cases, CMPs were listed as a control to coastal management-related risks, when the council had not yet completed the CMP, or identified pathways to fund and implement actions under the CMP.

As CMPs are developed, and as actions are implemented, councils should ensure that their risk ratings and underlying risk information, including hazard mapping, is updated and integrated to ensure risk assessments are accurate and up-to-date to mitigate coastal hazard risks.