Let’s listen to the coastal engineering experts who’ve done the work on Inverloch Beach.
By Trevor Forge
THE “promo” for the Inverloch Foreshore Action Group community engagement session promised we would learn of “a far better, logical and common sense solution … than what Melbourne bureaucrats are dictating”.
Instead we got more of the same dictatorial, bullying, “do-it-our-way” rhetoric about rock walls and rock bags, and a suggestion that beach nourishment was not favoured by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Anyone who attempted to question “the facts” or put an alternative view was quickly shut down.
What was not said was that the IPCC did not favour beach nourishment for at-risk islands and in poorer, low lying countries because beach nourishment might be unaffordable for them as it required replenishment, could be constrained by lack of sand resources and may not have available construction resources.
Nor was it mentioned this commentary was written 24 years ago in an IPCC report dated 2001. (IPCC AR3, WG2, Chapter 17.2.3).
Amazing how facts can be overcome by ill-formed beliefs when facts are not openly presented for discussion or debate.
Despite months and months of data gathering, peer review workshops, presentations to focus groups and signoff by RaSP members (including Bass Coast Shire, Rural Roads Victoria, Parks Victoria and West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority), the recommendations from experienced coastal engineers for the initial work planned for protecting the dunes from further erosion is in danger of being tossed on a pile to accommodate a line of bagged rocks.
No respect given to any further works that might occur.
No insight into how the dunes work as a natural line of defence and have done for centuries.
No understanding of what is planned for raising the height of the beach by four metres or so, or to making the wet sand fencing safe, or protecting the surf club building, or resolving the erosion at the Bunurong Road/Wreck Creek interface.
Nah. We should all just be grateful that a bunch of unqualified people is making the case that thousands of hours of work can be tossed aside on a whim because they have a “solution” driven by one person’s perspective of the issue.
Why is Inverloch being treated with such disdain where discussion based on facts seems to be beyond the capabilities of all parties claiming interests in what’s best for our future?
In fact, that 2001 report by IPCC suggested that for those situations “integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) and enhancing natural resilience (like restoring mangroves or allowing managed retreat) may offer more sustainable long-term solutions for erosion and sea-level rise adaptation”.
We are now in 2025 and have the benefit of extensive global research carried out over the past two decades in many different situations and locations.
DEECA has facilitated a peer-reviewed, adaptive management solution, that when implemented, IPCC might today consider a best practice initiative. (IPCC AR5, WG2, Chapter 5.5.4)
A line of rock bags is not the answer for protecting the dune system.
Please – spend the money and get something done before it’s too late and the funds have to be acquitted and returned to Treasury!
Nor was it mentioned this commentary was written 24 years ago in an IPCC report dated 2001. (IPCC AR3, WG2, Chapter 17.2.3).
Amazing how facts can be overcome by ill-formed beliefs when facts are not openly presented for discussion or debate.
Despite months and months of data gathering, peer review workshops, presentations to focus groups and signoff by RaSP members (including Bass Coast Shire, Rural Roads Victoria, Parks Victoria and West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority), the recommendations from experienced coastal engineers for the initial work planned for protecting the dunes from further erosion is in danger of being tossed on a pile to accommodate a line of bagged rocks.
No respect given to any further works that might occur.
No insight into how the dunes work as a natural line of defence and have done for centuries.
No understanding of what is planned for raising the height of the beach by four metres or so, or to making the wet sand fencing safe, or protecting the surf club building, or resolving the erosion at the Bunurong Road/Wreck Creek interface.
Nah. We should all just be grateful that a bunch of unqualified people is making the case that thousands of hours of work can be tossed aside on a whim because they have a “solution” driven by one person’s perspective of the issue.
Why is Inverloch being treated with such disdain where discussion based on facts seems to be beyond the capabilities of all parties claiming interests in what’s best for our future?
In fact, that 2001 report by IPCC suggested that for those situations “integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) and enhancing natural resilience (like restoring mangroves or allowing managed retreat) may offer more sustainable long-term solutions for erosion and sea-level rise adaptation”.
We are now in 2025 and have the benefit of extensive global research carried out over the past two decades in many different situations and locations.
DEECA has facilitated a peer-reviewed, adaptive management solution, that when implemented, IPCC might today consider a best practice initiative. (IPCC AR5, WG2, Chapter 5.5.4)
A line of rock bags is not the answer for protecting the dune system.
Please – spend the money and get something done before it’s too late and the funds have to be acquitted and returned to Treasury!