Audit Report Lower Murray Darling

Audit Report
Lower Murray Darling

Catchment Management Authority
March 2009
AUDIT REPORT
Lower Murray Darling

Catchment Management Authority
March 2009
Enquiries
Enquiries about this document should be directed to:
Tim Kirby
Phone (02) 8227 4300
E-mail tim.kirby@nrc.nsw.gov.au
Postal address GPO Box 4206, Sydney NSW 2001
List of acronyms
CAP Catchment Action Plan
CMA Catchment Management Authority
DECC Department of Environment and Climate Change
EFA Ecosystem Functional Analysis
LMD Lower Murray Darling
MER Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting
NRC Natural Resources Commission
NRM Natural Resource Management
NSW New South Wales
NVAT Native Vegetation Assessment Tool
PVP Property Vegetation Plan
SA South Australia
This work is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research, news
reporting, criticism and review. Selected passages, table or diagrams may be reproduced for
such purposes provided acknowledgement of the source is included.
Document No. D08/4888
ISBN: 978 1 921050 47 3

Table of Contents
1 Introduction 4
1.1 Focus of the audit 4
1.2 Summary of audit findings 5
1.3 Structure of the report 9
2 Prioritising investments to promote resilient landscapes 11
2.1 Commonly understood definition of resilient landscapes 12
2.2 A system for ranking investment options 13
2.3 Systems that ensure consistent short- and long-term investment priorities 15
3 Delivering projects that contribute to improved landscape function 17
3.1 Documentation of expected long-term outcomes 18
3.2 Successful achievement of project outcomes 18
3.3 Attraction of additional resources 19
3.4 A system to track ongoing achievement of projects 22
4 Community engagement 24
4.1 Identification and analysis of community groups and stakeholders 25
4.2 Appropriate engagement strategies for different community groups and
stakeholders 26
4.3 Communication promoting collaboration, behavioural change and feedback 27
5 Effectively using adaptive management 29
5.1 Adaptive management principles in planning and business systems 30
5.2 Monitoring and evaluation system 30
5.3 Information management systems that support adaptive management 31
Attachment 1 Conclusions, suggested actions and CMA response 33
Attachment 2 About this audit 41
Attachment 3 The CMA and its region 44
Document No: D08/4888 Page: 3 of 45

Status: Final Version: 2.1
Natural Resources Commission Audit Report
Published: March 2009 Lower Murray Darling CMA
1 Introduction
The Natural Resources Commission (NRC) has a statutory role to audit whether the state’s 13
Catchment Action Plans (CAPs) are being implemented effectively – that is, in a way that
complies with the Standard for Quality Natural Resource Management (the Standard) and will help
achieve the state-wide targets.
The NRC has completed audits of seven of these CAPs, one of which was the Lower Murray
Darling CAP. Preparing for and conducting the audits involved significant research,
development and innovation, as natural resource management auditing is a new and
challenging field. We greatly appreciate the patience and cooperation of all the CMAs involved.
We made many refinements to our audit process along the way, and are confident that future
audits will be more efficient and provide a more comprehensive picture of CMAs’ performance
in implementing CAPs.
The conclusions of our audit of the implementation of the Lower Murray Darling CAP, the
actions we suggest Lower Murray Darling CMA take to improve this implementation and a
summary of the CMA’s response to our draft report are provided in full in Attachment 1. The
purpose of this report is to promote greater understanding of Lower Murray Darling CMA’s
performance and to guide the CMA’s Board in continued improvement. The report explains:
the audit conclusions and their significance
how the NRC used the Standard in reaching the conclusions.
The NRC has also used these conclusions, along with those of other audits and additional
information, to prepare a consolidated report to the NSW Government on progress in
implementing CAPs to date. 1
1.1 Focus of the audit

Although a range of government agencies have a role in implementing CAPs, the NRC focused
its first seven audits on the actions of the CMAs. This is because CMAs are the lead agencies
responsible for implementing CAPs.
In addition, while state-wide and CMA-level monitoring and evaluation programs are being
implemented, data from these programs are not yet available. As a result, our initial audits
were not able to test the contribution of CMA actions against accurate measurements of
landscape-scale changes in natural resource condition that help achieve the state-wide targets.
Instead, the audits focused on whether CMA’s planning, project implementation and other
CAP-related activities, and the business systems that guide and support these activities, are
reaching the quality benchmarks set by the Standard.
To do this, we focused on four lines of inquiry:

1. Is the CMA effectively prioritising its investments to promote resilient landscapes that
support the values of its communities?
2. Are the CMA’s vegetation projects contributing to improved landscape function?
1 Natural Resources Commission (2008) Progress report on effective implementation of Catchment

Action Plans – November 2008, NRC, Sydney. Available at www.nrc.nsw.gov.au.

3. Is the CMA actively engaging its communities?

4. Is the CMA effectively using adaptive management?
For each line of inquiry, we assessed not only whether the CMA is doing the activity, but
whether it is doing it effectively – that is, by applying the most relevant elements of the
Standard and achieving the required outcomes of the Standard. The NRC believes a CMA that
is doing each of these four activities in a way that reaches the quality benchmarks set by the
Standard has the greatest chance of achieving multiple NRM outcomes and making the highest
possible contribution towards the state-wide targets.
Finally, in pursuing each of the four lines of inquiry, we focused on CMA projects that use
vegetation to improve landscape function. It was not practical to look at all CMA programs and
projects, given the timeframe for the audits. The NRC considers that focusing on vegetation-
related projects was the best option, as in general these have most potential to contribute to
multiple NRM targets across more than one biophysical theme (for example, improvements in
river health, soil function and native species habitat).
1.2 Summary of audit findings

To conduct the audit, the NRC identified what we would expect to find if the CMA was doing
each of the four activities listed above effectively. For each line of inquiry, we identified three or
four criteria we would expect the CMA to be meeting. We also identified the elements of the
Standard that are most relevant and important to that line of inquiry, and the CMA behaviours
and other outcomes we would expect to find if the CMA is properly applying those elements of
the Standard.
We then assessed the CMA’s performance against these expectations by interviewing a sample
of CMA Board and staff members, landholders and other stakeholders; reviewing a range of
CMA and public documents; and visiting projects.
Finally, we identified the actions the CMA should take to improve its performance in
implementing the CAP in compliance with the Standard.
The sections below summarise the audit findings for the Lower Murray Darling CAP, including
our expectations, our assessment of Lower Murray Darling CMA’s performance against these
expectations, and the actions we suggest the CMA take to improve its performance. As noted
above, the full audit conclusions and suggested actions for Lower Murray Darling CMA are
provided in Attachment 1.
1.2.1 Prioritising investments to promote resilient landscapes

If a CMA is effectively prioritising its investments to promote resilient landscapes that support
the values of its communities, we would expect to find that it has a commonly understood
definition of what constitutes resilient landscapes in its region. For example, its Board members
and staff would be able to consistently explain the main natural resource assets in the region,
and the interactions that characterise healthy landscape function. They would know the main
threats to the assets and landscape function, and the environmental, economic, social and
cultural value the community places on those assets. In addition they would also agree on the
options for action and how these actions promote resilient landscapes.

We would also expect to find that the CMA has a system for ranking investment options that
uses a wide range of information about the assets and threats, and can identify the projects that
will contribute to multiple NRM targets across more than one biophysical theme. This system
would be transparent, consistent and repeatable. In addition, we would expect to find that the
CMA has a system to ensure its short- and long-term investments are consistent with each other
and with the catchment-level targets in the CAP.
Our audit of Lower Murray Darling CMA’s implementation of the CAP found that:
The CMA’s Board members and senior staff were able to provide individual definitions
of resilience but there was no common understanding of what resilient landscapes
should look like for the Lower Murray Darling region. The NRC found no evidence that
such a common understanding had underpinned the CMA’s strategic planning and
target development, and as a result the CMA’s primary message was unclear to some
community groups and stakeholders.
The CMA’s targets and investment programs were based on individual themes (such as
salinity) and did not overtly recognise links between multiple outcomes or impacts on
landscape function. This approach increased the risk that the CMA was not using the
limited investment funds available in the most effective or efficient way to deliver
priority NRM improvements in the region. In addition, the CMA’s process and criteria
for selecting and ranking investment options and finalising its investment plans were not
transparent.
The CMA had a relatively consistent and repeatable system for assessing vegetation
projects.
The CMA did not have a system that ensured short and long-term investment priorities
were consistent with each other and integrated with other planned NRM targets.
The NRC suggests the Lower Murray Darling CMA Board take a range of actions to address the
above issues and so continue to improve the extent to which its implementation of the CAP
complies with the Standard. These actions include:
developing a common conceptual understanding and definition of resilient landscapes in
the region, and involving both Board members and staff in this process
using the CAP review process to further improve the consistency and transparency of its
investment prioritisation process
applying new knowledge to review the CMA’s shorter term targets and projects, and
manage risks to the achievement of long-term targets
developing a process to use evaluations of past project performance to inform investment
decisions.
1.2.2 Delivering projects that contributed to improved landscape function

If a CMA is effectively delivering vegetation projects that contribute to improved landscape
function, we would expect its Board and staff to have a common understanding of how the
short-term outcomes of its projects are expected to lead to long-term improvements in natural
resource condition, and that the expected long-term outcomes are documented. We would also
expect to find that its projects are achieving the expected short-term outcomes, and that the

CMA has a system for identifying opportunities to further leverage the experience of its project
partners to add value to the initial projects.
In addition, we would expect to find that the CMA is attracting additional funding, and in-kind
contributions to match government investments in projects, and that it has systems in place to
monitor and evaluate project outcomes over time.
The NRC’s audit of the implementation of the Lower Murray Darling CAP found that:
Landholders generally understood the longer term outcomes to which their projects were
contributing, but the CMA had not consistently documented the link between project
outputs and their expected long-term outcomes.
The CMA had successfully achieved project outputs and its investments in these projects
should contribute to maintaining the resilience of rangeland and mixed farming
landscapes in the catchment. CMA field staff had worked to build further value from
project investments as opportunities arose.
The CMA had attracted ‘in-kind’ contributions from landholders to match its investments
and had gained additional investment from other partners. However, the CMA could not
demonstrate that it was collecting accurate data and analysing information on this
investment leverage to inform its engagement and collaboration strategies.
The CMA was undertaking some monitoring, but had not yet evaluated the data to
provide an assessment of project achievements at a range of scales.
The NRC suggests the CMA Board take a range of actions to address these issues, including:
ensuring the expected long-term outcomes are recorded in project documentation
developing a strategy to help CMA staff identify and maximise opportunities to add
further value to (or innovate from) project investments
developing a strategic approach to attracting and measuring additional investment that
promotes the CMA’s priorities
appointing a MER officer as soon as possible
establishing an effective system to evaluate and report on how well projects have
contributed to achieving the CMA’s agreed long-term goals.
1.2.3 Effectively engaging its communities

If a CMA is effectively engaging its communities, we would expect it to have identified the key
community groups and stakeholders it should consider in planning and undertaking its work.
We’d expect its Board and staff to have a shared understanding of these groups, including their
knowledge, capacity and values, and the socio-economic and cultural opportunities and threats
they pose to the successful implementation of the CAP.
In addition, we would expect the CMA to be implementing an appropriate engagement strategy

for each key group in its community, which is designed to build trust in the CMA, promote
two-way knowledge sharing, and ultimately achieve outcomes. The CMA would also be
implementing a communication strategy that promotes collaboration, sustainable behavioural
change and feedback. These strategies would be based on its knowledge of the interests,
capacities and values of each group, and their communication preferences.

Our audit found that:

Lower Murray Darling CMA had a good understanding of its communities as it had
identified, documented and developed contacts with a wide range of institutional,
industry and community stakeholders. However, the CMA had not actively taken into
account changes in its region’s socio-economic profile and emerging demographic trends
to support the planning and implementation of NRM outcomes in the region.
The CMA was proactively engaging landholders and had collaborated with other
stakeholders including regional institutions, government agencies and industry groups.
The CMA’s project officers had also actively engaged in a recent Indigenous Land
Managers Forum.
The CMA had a written strategy for communication but was not consistently using this
strategy to assist it in promoting change towards better NRM practices and outcomes.
Internal communication barriers had developed within the CMA, and there were not
sufficient feedback loops to promote shared understanding of priorities and continual
organisational learning. These issues were preventing effective integration of the CMA’s
work and had the potential to affect the CMA’s ongoing ability to engage the community
and stakeholders efficiently and effectively.
analysing the region’s emerging socio-economic trends to identify the community groups
and stakeholders it needs to engage
building on its recent indigenous initiatives to invest, with other government agencies, in
Aboriginal land-management skills
improving communication and feedback loops within the CMA, to promote learning,
clear understanding of the rationale for priorities, and more efficient and effective
engagement with the community and stakeholders.
1.2.4 Effectively using adaptive management

If a CMA is effectively using adaptive management, we would expect it to have documented
how it will apply the principles of adaptive management in its planning and business systems.
We would expect its Board and staff to be able to explain how the CMA uses adaptive
management to promote continuous learning at both an individual and institutional level. They
would also be able to explain the key knowledge gaps and uncertainties related to the assets
and threats in the region, and how the CMA manages these.
In addition, we would expect the CMA to use monitoring and evaluation systems that test the
assumptions underlying its investments in improving landscape function and resilience, and
use appropriate experts to assess the planned and actual outcomes of these investments. There
would also be an organisational focus on applying new knowledge (gained from monitoring
and evaluation or other sources) to increase the effectiveness of investments. Finally, we would
expect the CMA to have and maintain information management systems that support its
adaptive management processes.

Our audit found that:

Lower Murray Darling CMA staff demonstrated an awareness of adaptive management,
but there was little evidence of a shared understanding of how adaptive management
should be incorporated in the CMA’s activities.
The CMA had not systematically or practically applied adaptive management in its
planning and business systems, nor sought structured opportunities to learn from past
successes or failures. This lack of understanding and practical application of adaptive
management was hindering the CMA in evolving its strategies, systems and activities,
including prioritisation, community engagement and project delivery, to support
improved NRM in the region.
Ballarat University was undertaking extensive ecosystem functional analysis monitoring
in the region on behalf of the CMA, but had not yet reported on its work. Individual
CMA project officers were also undertaking monitoring, but the CMA had not evaluated
monitoring data. This reduced the CMA’s ability to adaptively manage its projects and
improve its effectiveness in achieving NRM outcomes over time.
The lack of a MER officer was inhibiting the development of monitoring and evaluation
systems.
The CMA had developed an information management system structured to meet
investor reporting requirements. However, this system was not designed to record and
share the knowledge required by staff to support adaptive management within the CMA.
developing a policy to achieve CMA-wide understanding and active use of adaptive
management
further developing its monitoring and evaluation system, including ensuring
performance and condition data are evaluated and reported from project to catchment
scale, and strengthening links between MER and the CMA’s risk and information
management strategies
redesigning its information management system to improve the recording and transfer of
knowledge within the organisation, and provide evaluated information to meet CMA
operational and Board decision-making needs.
1.3 Structure of the report

The rest of this report explains the audit conclusions and how we used the Standard in reaching
those conclusions in more detail. It is structured around each of the four lines of inquiry as
follows:
Chapter 2 describes our assessment of whether the CMA is effectively prioritising its
investments to promote resilient landscapes that support the values of its communities
Chapter 3 focuses on whether the CMA’s vegetation projects are contributing to
improved landscape function

Chapter 4 discusses our assessment of whether the CMA is effectively engaging its
communities
Chapter 5 looks at whether the CMA is effectively using adaptive management.
The attachments provide the full audit conclusions, suggested actions, the CMA’s response,
more detailed information about the audit, and an overview of the context for the audit
conclusions including a summary of the key features of the Lower Murray Darling region and
CMA.

2 Prioritising investments to promote resilient landscapes

The audit’s first line of inquiry was to assess whether the CMA is effectively prioritising its
investments to promote resilient landscapes that support the values of its communities. This
line of inquiry focused on planning – the first step in the adaptive management cycle. Its aim
was to assess whether the CMA has established the knowledge, understanding, systems and
procedures required to undertake this step effectively, in line with the Standard.
Although the CAP itself documents the priorities in the region, the NRC recommended
approval of each CAP on the basis that the CMA would continue to improve the plan’s quality
and potential to contribute to the state-wide targets. Therefore, the CMA cannot simply spend
its funds in line with the CAP. Rather, it needs to continue to apply the Standard in
implementing the CAP. This will enable it to continually refine its investment priorities as its
knowledge of the landscapes and communities in its region improves, and its understanding of
best-practice NRM evolves.
The NRC identified three criteria that we would expect a CMA to meet in order to effectively
prioritise its investments in compliance with the Standard. These criteria include that the CMA
had:
a commonly understood definition of what constituted resilient landscapes in its region
a system for ranking investment options that took account of factors such as scientific and
local knowledge; socio-economic information; community and investor preferences;
potential for partners to contribute matching funds or in-kind support, and potential to
achieve maximum outcomes, for example, by contributing to multiple NRM targets
across more than one biophysical theme
a system that ensured that its short- and long-term investment priorities are consistent
with each other, and with the catchment-level targets in the CAP.
We identified the elements of the Standard that are most relevant and important for meeting
these criteria. We also identified the behaviours and other outcomes we would expect the CMA
to demonstrate if it is properly using these elements of the Standard, and thus meeting the
criteria to a level of quality consistent with the Standard.
For example, if the CMA is meeting the first criterion (having a commonly understood
definition of what constitutes resilient landscapes in its region) in a way that complies with the
Standard we would expect it to be collecting and using the best available knowledge on the
natural resource assets and threats in its region, and on the economic, social and cultural values
its community places on those assets. We would also expect it to be considering the scales at
which the assets and threats operate, and determining the optimal scale at which to manage
them to achieve multiple NRM benefits and integrated outcomes.
As a result, we would expect to find that its Board members and staff can consistently explain
the main natural resource assets in the region, and the interactions that characterise healthy
landscape function. We would also expect them to understand the main threats to the assets
and landscape function, and the environmental, economic, social and cultural value the
community places on the assets. In addition, they would agree on the options for action to
address the threats and maintain or improve the quality of the assets, and the criteria for
deciding the actions in which the CMA should invest.

Figure 2.1 provides an overview of this assessment framework. The criteria we would expect
the CMA to meet are shown in the left hand column, the most relevant and important elements
of the Standard for meeting these criteria are in the right hand column, and the behaviours and
other outcomes we would expect the CMA to demonstrate if it is using these elements of the
Standard are shown in the centre column.
Figure 2.1: The framework the NRC used to assess whether the CMA was effectively
prioritising investments to promote resilient landscapes
Criteria we would expect Outcomes we would expect Key elements of the

the CMA to meet the CMA to demonstrate Standard
Commonly understood Common understanding of Knowledge of environmental,
definition of what constitutes characteristics of resilience in the region: economic, social and cultural
resilient landscapes in the key assets, their diversity, value and assets, threats and the scales at
region interactions characterising landscape which they variously operate
function
Common understanding of threats to

these assets & to landscape function
Agreement on options for action,

development of targets and investment
criteria Knowledge of assets and
A system that ranks threats; spatial, temporal and
investment options and institutional scales; potential
incorporates the best Shared understanding of transparent, collaborators; risks to actions -
available information and consistent & repeatable system to rank their impacts and
multiple CAP target investment options manageability; monitoring and
achievement evaluation
Systems that ensure short - Shared preparedness to overcome Knowledge of relevant assets
and long-term investments institutional constraints and to and threats; the spatial and
are consistent with each accommodate change while building on temporal scales at which they
other & integrated with current investments operate; risks to actions;
other planned targets monitoring and evaluation
needs
The sections below discuss each criterion, including why it is important and what our audit of
the implementation of the Lower Murray Darling CAP found in relation to it.
2.1 Commonly understood definition of resilient landscapes

NSW’s aspirational goal for natural resource management is resilient landscapes – that is,
“landscapes that are ecologically sustainable, function effectively and support the
environmental, economic, social and cultural values of our communities”. 2 At its simplest, a
CMA’s role is to coordinate investment to improve NRM across its region and deliver outcomes
that make the greatest possible contribution to the achievement of this goal. To do this, the
CMA must have a commonly understood definition of what constitutes resilient landscapes in
2 NRC (2008) Healthy landscapes and communities. NRC, Sydney. Available at www.nrc.nsw.gov.au.

its region – its Board and staff members need a consistent understanding of what the goal
means for the particular landscapes and communities in its region.
The NRC’s audit found the Lower Murray Darling CAP described the CMA’s core approach to
natural resource management in terms of ‘respecting community interests and values and
economic sustainability as an important outcome’. Across the CMA, there was no common
understanding of what resilient landscapes would look like in the Lower Murray Darling
region. Board members and staff were able to provide individual definitions of resilient
landscapes. These ranged from quite simplistic definitions to a more comprehensive
understanding that included economic, social and ecological aspects of resilience.
In the absence of a commonly accepted definition and clear conceptual understanding of

resilient landscapes for the region, there was no evidence that the CMA had based its strategic
planning and target development on a common approach for identifying key assets and threats.
The CMA’s primary message was also unclear to some local community groups and
stakeholders.
The CMA did not demonstrate that it was actively seeking to use and build knowledge to
inform its understanding of landscape function, and its development of catchment targets,
options for action and investment criteria. In addition, the CMA had not transparently
considered (in its Annual Implementation Plan or Investment Strategy) the implications for the
region of the goal of improving the resilience of landscape function.
In respect to the Standard, the CMA:

could not demonstrate a common understanding of characteristics (and their
interactions) of resilience in the region, including identification of key assets and threats
to assets and landscape function (Collection and use of knowledge and Determination of scale)
could not demonstrate that it was recognising and planning for multiple outcomes or that
its target and investment planning had been informed by the concept of resilient
landscapes for the region (Determination of scale and Collection and use of knowledge).
2.2 A system for ranking investment options

Our knowledge of biophysical and natural systems is incomplete and evolving. People’s
interactions with natural systems are also dynamic, and community values evolve over time.
Because of this, CMAs need to continually seek out improvements in knowledge and adjust
their focus accordingly. Their systems for ranking their investment options need to use a wide
range of information – such as scientific and local information on the assets and threats in the
region, as well as information on the values the community places on the assets, and on
potential collaborators and their capacity.
In addition, CMAs have received limited government investment and have an enormous
amount to achieve if we are to realise the goal of resilient landscapes. This means they need to
invest these funds in ways that will make the greatest possible contribution towards as many
catchment-level and state-wide targets as possible. To do this, they need a system for ranking
investment options that takes account of the options’ potential to contribute to multiple targets.

The NRC’s audit found that Lower Murray Darling CMA was not making investment
prioritisation decisions in a transparent manner, and it was not clear that it was taking account
of projects’ potential to contribute to multiple targets when ranking investment options.
The CMA’s processes and criteria for ranking investment options and finalising investment
plans and budgets were not transparent. For instance, the Board’s reasons for approving or
amending funding recommendations made by staff were not clearly communicated to staff.
While the decision-making authority is clearly with the Board, clear feedback about the criteria
used in the decision-making process may improve staff’s future investment ranking
recommendations.
The CMA’s investment programs were based on individual themes and did not specifically
promote multiple outcomes or impacts on landscape function. The CMA Board had adopted a
‘portfolio’ approach to assist it streamline its strategic decision-making, and facilitate effective
use of Board member expertise and knowledge in CMA operations. However, as the portfolios
were also based on individual themes, this approach did not support an integrated
consideration of investments. The CMA needs to ensure it has appropriate processes in place to
make integrated investment decisions across themes that lead to multiple outcomes. (See Box
2.1 for more detail about the CMA’s portfolio approach).
The CMA had continued to develop its CAP since the NRC recommended that the Minister
approve the plan in 2007. However, apart from some re-alignment driven by external funding
programs, it had not re-prioritised its investment programs or assessment criteria since
developing its Catchment Blueprint. It was not clear that the CMA had reviewed the suitability
of these programs and criteria, taking into account changes in community demographics and
values.
The CMA had a consistent and repeatable system for assessing vegetation projects. This system
involved components of the Native Vegetation Assessment Tool (NVAT) (previously known as
the PVP developer), plus other criteria that were part of a regionally developed Environmental
Benefits Index. While the assessment process was relatively clear, CMA staff expressed mixed
views about whether using the NVAT in assessing ‘incentive’ projects was consistent with
delivering on regional priorities.
Some CMA prioritisation decisions made reasonable use of knowledge to rank investments - for
example, the CMA’s decision support tool to prioritise wetland investments. However, the
CMA did not demonstrate that it was strategically prioritising all its investments over time to
address priority assets and threats in the region.

could not demonstrate a transparent system for prioritising investments that was
informed and adjusted as new knowledge became available, particularly at the
investment planning and program level (Collection and use of knowledge and Risk
management)
demonstrated it had a relatively consistent and repeatable system for assessing
vegetation projects, but could not demonstrate it had adequately considered the
appropriateness of using this approach in all cases, to achieve its regional priorities
(Collection and use of knowledge, Determination of scale and Risk management).

2.3 Systems that ensure consistent short- and long-term investment

priorities
The time lapse between changes to the management of natural resources and the improvement
in the function of natural systems can be significant. In the interim, much can change and
CMAs need to accommodate this change without losing focus on the long-term objectives of
their region’s CAP. To do this, CMAs need systems to help them adaptively manage towards
long-term targets as they learn what works and what doesn’t, and as the environmental,
economic, social and cultural landscapes around them change.
The NRC’s audit found that Lower Murray Darling CMA’s Board and staff generally
understood the links between project outputs and long-term targets. However, the CMA did
not have a system to ensure short and long-term investment priorities were consistent with each
other, and were integrated with other planned NRM targets. For example, the CMA’s
increasing involvement in water projects was evolving without an apparent overarching system
of investment prioritisation.
Investor funding conditions (such as short-term expenditure requirements) and reporting

requirements appeared to inhibit the CMA’s capacity to integrate short and long-term
investment priorities, despite a general understanding that the required NRM outcomes will
only be achieved over a longer term.
Without a system to refine and improve the links between short and long-term targets, the
CMA’s investment focus is likely to be unstable and inefficient over time. This is likely to
increase the risk that its investments don’t achieve the expected improvements in landscape
function, or don’t achieve the maximum improvements possible for the available funding.

could not demonstrate that it had a structured process to ensure consistency between
short-term and long-term investment priorities (Collection and use of knowledge and Risk
management).

Box 2.1: Lower Murray Darling CMA’s portfolio approach to support

strategic decision-making
CMA Board members bring expertise from a range of NRM-related fields, and CMAs have
adopted a number of approaches to make the best use of this expertise to strengthen and
promote their work in the region.
Lower Murray Darling CMA has adopted a ‘portfolio’ approach for the Board, which
establishes a number of portfolios across the themes of biodiversity, PVP/rangelands,
salinity/groundwater, water projects, wetlands, local government and governance. It has also
established Board subcommittees to address specific sub-catchments or issues. Each Board
member has primary responsibility for a specific portfolio area and secondary responsibility for
another.
Some of the strengths of this ‘portfolio’ approach are that it:
focuses Board members’ attention on specific NRM areas and creates an opportunity for
the to bring to bear their particular skills and experience in these areas
builds knowledge and understanding, both at the Board and operational levels, of the
issues relating to a portfolio area
streamlines Board-level strategic planning and evaluation of investment proposals.
CMA Board approves Board member portfolios, Chairs and Terms of Reference for
Subcommittees, considers Sub Committee recommendations, and makes final decisions.
Board Member Portfolios Board Subcommittees

E.g. Aboriginal E.g. Water and Salinity,
Communities PVP and projects
Biodiversity Think Tank
PVP/Rangelands Gol Gol Lake and Swamp
Salinity/Groundwater Darling Anabranch E-flows
Water projects Lake Victoria Committee
Wetlands
Local Government
Recommendations to CMA Board
The Board adopted the portfolio approach in 2005, and has since refined and formalised it. The
approach forms part of the CMA’s Strategic Planning Framework.
The next step for the CMA is to better integrate the work of portfolios and subcommittees, so
that decision-making recognises multiple outcomes and impacts of projects on landscape
function. The CMA could use the Standard, in particular the ‘Collection and use of knowledge’ and
‘Determination of scale’ components, to help it establish processes to do this.

3 Delivering projects that contribute to improved

landscape function
The audit’s second line of inquiry assessed whether the CMA’s vegetation projects are
contributing to improved landscape function. CMAs should promote short-term improvements
in the management of natural resources in their regions that will contribute to long-term
improvements in natural resource condition. To understand whether they are pursuing this aim
in a way that meets the quality benchmarks set by the Standard, we assessed whether they were
meeting four criteria. These were that the CMA:
documented the expected long-term outcomes of the projects it invests in
was successfully achieving short-term project outcomes, and maximising further
opportunities to add value
was attracting additional resources to match its funding in projects
had a system to monitor achievement of ongoing project outcomes.
As for all lines of inquiry, we also identified the elements of the Standard that are most relevant
to meeting these criteria effectively, and the behaviours and other outcomes we would expect to
see if the CMA is using those elements of the Standard. These are shown in Figure 3.1.
delivering projects that contribute to improved landscape function
Criteria we would expect Outcomes we would expect the Key elements of the Standard
the CMA to meet CMA to demonstrate
Documentation of expected Common understanding of short and long- Knowledge of the impact of
long-term outcomes term goals, realistic options for action vegetation on landscape function,
(where and what for maximum impact) scale of impact and risk;
and risk management understanding of links between
project outputs and long-term
outcomes
Successful achievement of Resilient landscapes, long-term Knowledge of drivers of landscape

project outcomes and collaborative partnerships, improved function; the integration of multiple
maximisation of opportunities appreciation of natural resource values assets; scale; collaboration;
to add further value community engagement; risk;
monitoring and evaluation
Attraction of additional Efficient investment with documented Knowledge of public and private
resources to match CMA understanding of appropriate sharing of benefits; collaboration; community
funding costs engagement; risk management
Systems to monitor ongoing Understanding of costs of natural resource Knowledge of landscape function
achievement of projects management actions, investor confidence (what/where to monitor); spatial
and new knowledge to inform future and temporal scales; risks to actions;
investments monitoring protocols and
evaluation needs

The sections below discuss each criterion, including why it is important and what our audit of
the implementation of the Lower Murray Darling CAP found in relation to it.
3.1 Documentation of expected long-term outcomes

Natural resource management is a long-term process, and it can take many years to achieve
intended improvements in landscape function. In addition, our knowledge of natural systems
and best practice in managing them continues to evolve, so natural resource managers need to
continually adapt their actions to take account of new knowledge. The documentation of
projects’ expected long-term outcomes is important to help ensure projects stay on track over
time. For example, it can help landholders and CMA field staff in continually managing
towards those outcomes in the longer term as circumstances change.
The NRC’s audit found that Lower Murray Darling CMA had not fully documented the links
between projects’ outputs and expected long-term outcomes, but Board members and staff
could articulate what these links were.
While documentation at the project/contract level was limited to outputs, the audit team found
that landholders also had an understanding of how their project was intended to contribute to
longer term outcomes. For example, at all the project sites we visited, we asked the landholders
and associated CMA project staff why they thought the CMA was supporting the project.
Landholders cited the protection of endangered species, the protection and repair of ‘country’,
and improvements to biodiversity for sustainability.

demonstrated an understanding of the relationships between projects and the expected
long-term outcomes (Determination of scale)
could not demonstrate that it had documented the link between projects’ outputs and the
expected longer term outcomes to support communication with landholders and
stakeholders and promote management actions to achieve long-term outcomes (Risk
management, Collection and use of knowledge and Community engagement).
3.2 Successful achievement of project outcomes

CMAs’ projects need to successfully achieve short-term changes in the way natural resources
are managed in their region to maintain credibility with their communities, and create
confidence in their investors. However, as CMAs often engage with their communities on the
community’s terms (at least initially), they also need to seek opportunities to add greater value
to the projects proposed by landholders or other stakeholders.
The NRC’s audit team inspected six Lower Murray Darling CMA projects, and found that:
all were supported by strong logic assumptions, linking the inputs, outputs and expected
resource condition change
all had achieved project outputs, such as fencing to exclude stock, and
project records accurately reflected what had been done.

The audit team also found that vegetation investments are likely to at least maintain the
resilience of most rangeland and mixed farming landscapes in the region, where approximately
90% of the original vegetation remains uncleared.
Importantly for the Lower Murray Darling context, the resilience of riverine landscapes is
threatened by pressure on water resources over which the CMA has limited control. Boxes 3.1
and 3.2 illustrate the role the CMA has played in investing in projects and coordinating multiple
stakeholders to support resilient landscapes in the region.
The CMA’s staff had worked to build further value from the projects the CMA invested in, as
opportunities arose. For example, staff had worked to join conservation areas on neighbouring
properties to create a larger corridor or conservation zone for more effective impact. The CMA
considers that Board portfolios and subcommittees provide a forum for vetting proposals for
adding further value, but it had not established processes to support staff in identifying and
maximising such opportunities at all scales (eg, at individual project and program levels). None
of the landholders the audit team interviewed indicated that they had formally been part of a
process to share or publicise project outcomes and successes, or to further promote similar
projects to landholders in the catchment.

demonstrated use of field staff expertise and sound and well-researched project
assumptions (Collection and use of knowledge and Determination of scale)
could not demonstrate systems that encouraged/supported staff build further from
project investments using lessons learnt (Information management and Collection and use of
knowledge).
demonstrated engagement with landholders and collaboration with partners to support
successful project delivery (Community engagement and Opportunities for collaboration).
3.3 Attraction of additional resources

To make the most of the small amount of funding CMAs have to invest in their regions, they
need to look for opportunities to attract matching funding. They also need to encourage private
landholders to make ongoing in-kind contributions, as this promotes resource stewardship and
can increase the likelihood of landholders remaining committed to the success of the project
over time.
The NRC’s audit found evidence that Lower Murray Darling CMA had attracted additional
resources at the landholder level through ’in-kind‘ contributions and, in three cases, direct
financial contributions. The CMA had also gained some industry sponsorship and additional
government funding. However, it was unclear whether the CMA’s practice in collaborating
with other organisations and attracting additional resources and funding was opportunistic or
was underpinned by a clear strategic approach. The CMA put the view that its staff numbers
and capacity limited its ability to make use of some sources of available investment and to
participate in collaborative projects.

demonstrated it attracted additional resources to its investments (Opportunities for
collaboration)

could not demonstrate that it was evaluating available data on the value of these
additional resources to help inform investment decisions and collaboration and
engagement strategies (Collaboration, Community engagement and Monitoring, Evaluation
and Reporting).

Box 3.1: Supporting more resilient landscapes by investment and coordination

The NRC’s audit team visited a project that provides an example of how Lower Murray Darling CMA’s
investment and coordination capacity supports the building of resilient landscapes in the region.
The project involved the creation and maintenance of a conservation reserve and a riparian reserve with
no stock grazing on a section of a property adjoining the foreshore of Lake Victoria. After more than a
hundred years of grazing and agricultural experiments, the property was highly eroded and unlikely to
recover without protection over many years.
The project property had biodiversity assets, including Mallee Fowl (Leipoa ocellata) and remnant River
Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), and was located in an area important for water quality and storage
in the Lower Murray Darling catchment. The property adjoined other important biodiversity areas so
that scale benefits to the region through biodiversity corridors might prove possible. Some parts of the
property were de-stocked, although the future land use of these parts had not been decided. The
property also had significant cultural heritage and archaeological sites, including many ancient burials,
and was in a region of importance to local Aboriginal groups.
The property had a complex ownership structure. In addition, there were a range of agencies and
groups interested in the project, each of which had its own perspective. For example, stakeholders
included:
the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation, which was interested in the water quality in
Lake Victoria and had begun to engage the Aboriginal groups in the area
the Western Land Division, which owned the property and was concerned with over grazing
the leaseholder of some of the land, who was interested in finding an ecologically sustainable use,
including a source of income
local Aboriginal groups, who were concerned to preserve the burial sites and protect them from
further degradation, and to restore original biodiversity.
The CMA’s capacity to coordinate the interests of these parties was important to the implementation of
the project. The CMA provided capital to develop a Property Vegetation Plan with the Water
Administration Ministerial Corporation, the Western Land Division and the leaseholder. This plan
provided an initial medium-term focus on fencing and stock control on the property. A nearby
landholder requested a similar Property Vegetation Plan for his property, which provided a further
opportunity for the CMA to achieve the type of scale impact that leads to improved landscape
resilience.
Long-term attention will be required to rehabilitate and recover the highly eroded foreshores of Lake
Victoria

3.4 A system to track ongoing achievement of projects

Long-term projects to encourage resource stewardship need monitoring – particularly given the
significant time lapses between investments and resulting improvements in resource condition,
the gaps in our understanding of how to manage dynamic natural systems, and the
unavoidable flux in social, economic and climatic conditions. Investors require reliable
information that short-term targets have been met, and progress towards longer term objectives
is being made.
The NRC’s audit found that Lower Murray Darling CMA was undertaking some monitoring of
project achievements, but did not have an MER officer and did not have a strategy for
monitoring the ongoing durability of all project-level activities, including the degree to which
landholders were maintaining project investments over the life of incentive agreements.
The audit team found that the CMA was undertaking some monitoring that should allow an
assessment of vegetation condition at both a project and catchment level. For instance, the
biodiversity officer was monitoring vegetation across rangeland projects and some wetland
projects with strong vegetation outcomes.The CMA had not systematically analysed and
evaluated the collected data to enable it to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of future
projects and investments.
The CMA’s monitoring activities are also discussed in section 5.2.

could not demonstrate it was systematically monitoring the durability of project
investments or evaluating and analysing available data to inform decisions and improve
the effectiveness of investments (Monitoring and Evaluation).

Box 3.2: Delivering a project with regional and cross-border benefits
The health of the ephemeral wetlands of the Darling River and its anabranches influences the
quality and quantity of water that flows into the Murray. The task of making better use of these
water resources for improved environmental outcomes in the interests of the various
stakeholders is complex and often costly. It requires building scientific knowledge,
collaboration between the landholders who use the wetlands as their principle source of water,
and coordination between the agencies that make water-sharing decisions and manage
environmental water.
Lower Murray Darling CMA is investing in wetland rehabilitation, including reinstating

wetland wetting and drying regimes. The audit team visited a wetland project that aims to
improve flows between the Darling River and a creek/billabong.
The CMA’s approach to this project included:

identifying and engaging local stakeholders, including Local Government and
landholders, to participate in the activities
prioritising investments to secure better ecological outcomes, given the social and
technical constraints and opportunities
establishing monitoring systems to support adaptive management for the current and
subsequent phases of the project and future similar projects
considering water flows, biodiversity changes and water quality interactions to assist in
developing grazing and water movement rules for future management.
The project was developed as a result of the CMA continuing to build knowledge of key
wetland assets and threats, at both a regional and site scale. Over time, the CMA and the
Murray Wetlands Working Group have invested in studies to increase their and other
stakeholders’ understanding of priority wetlands needing rehabilitation along the Murray and
Darling rivers. 3 The CMA also sees the project as an important pilot project: it aims to use the
project to build further knowledge and techniques to deliver future wetland rehabilitation
projects and to demonstrate solutions to better engage landholders.
Because appropriate water management is essential to the long-term success of these wetland
projects, the CMA needs to continue to collaborate with government agencies responsible for
oversight of water sharing decisions and management of environmental water, to ensure all
stakeholders are working together towards consistent long-term goals.
3 See for instance, the Wilkinson, C and D’Santos, P, 2005 report ‘Wetlands of the Lower
Murray Darling Catchment, NSW, Wetland Rehabilitation project’

4 Community engagement
The NRC’s third line of inquiry was whether the CMA is effectively engaging its communities.
Given that 89 per cent of land in NSW is in private management, it is critical for CMAs to
engage private landholders and other stakeholders who manage the natural resources on this
land. This allows CMAs to access the local knowledge of their communities, and understand the
values placed on the natural resource assets in their region. It also enables them to influence
how natural resources on private land are managed, and to maximise the effectiveness of
government investment in NRM by establishing collaborative partnerships with landholders
and other stakeholders, and strengthening the capacity of their communities.
To assess this line of inquiry, we looked for evidence that the CMA:
had identified the community groups and stakeholders it must consider in planning and
undertaking its work
was implementing engagement strategies appropriate for different community groups
and stakeholders
was implementing a communications strategy that promotes collaboration, sustainable
behaviour change and feedback.
Each of these criteria is shown in Figure 4.1, along with the key elements of the Standard for
meeting it effectively, and the CMA behaviour and other outcomes we would expect to see if
the CMA was using those elements of the Standard.
engaging its communities
Criteria we would expect Outcomes we would expect Key elements of the Standard
the CMA to meet the CMA to demonstrate
Identification of community Shared understanding of regional Knowledge of relevant groups
groups and stakeholders who knowledge and capacity, and of community and networks, economic and
must be considered in values cultural assets and the
planning and undertaking range/diversity of community
work views
Common understanding of cultural and

socio-economic opportunities and threats to
CAP implementation and improving
landscape resilience
Implementation of an
engagement strategy Understanding of meaningful engagement Knowledge of the varying
appropriate for different to build trust in the CMA and promote interests, capacities and values of
community groups and two-way sharing of knowledge and the relevant groups and networks
stakeholders effective achievement of outcomes
Implementation of a Raise profile of CMA and increase both Knowledge of the varying
communication strategy that organisational and individual interests, capacities and values of
promotes collaboration, understanding, capacity and willingness to relevant groups and networks
sustainable behavioural participate in long term outcomes and of their communication
change and feedback preferences

The sections below discuss each criterion in more detail, including why it is important and what
our audit found in relation to it.
4.1 Identification and analysis of community groups and

stakeholders
A CMA’s logical first step in engaging the community is to identify the key community groups
and other stakeholders it must consider in planning and undertaking its work. To be effective, it
also needs to understand these groups – for example, what they know about the natural
resource assets and threats in the region, what is important to them, and to what extent they
have the capacity to participate in NRM designed to improve landscape function. In addition, it
needs to understand how these groups might present opportunities or pose threats to its ability
to effectively implement the CAP and meet the catchment-level targets in the CAP. Developing
and maintaining this kind of understanding requires systematic research and analysis.
The NRC’s audit found that Lower Murray Darling CMA had identified, documented and
developed contacts with a wide range of institutional, industry and community stakeholders
and recognised the need to continue to develop these contacts over time.
The CMA maintained a register of landholder contacts, but that this register was not
consistently used, as individual staff members preferred to draw up their own customised list
of contacts for particular activities. The CMA maintained the register primarily for
communication purposes, and had not yet fully developed it as a strategic tool for analysing
key community groups and stakeholders to inform its strategic engagement approaches.
The CMA had identified community groups and stakeholders during the CAP development
process. However, it had not actively considered changes to the socio-economic profile of its
catchment and emerging demographic trends since then, and the implications of any changes
for its community engagement. Thus there was a risk that it had not identified changes in
community values, and was not strategically targeting emerging population groups to better
support its work in the region. The NRC notes that several sources have reported demographic
changes in town and country regional Australia, declining rural incomes, and growing
Aboriginal communities that have different priorities, goals and capacities to other groups. 4
These changes are likely to have implications for the CMA’s community engagement strategies,
and for how it plans and undertakes it work.

demonstrated it had identified, documented and developed contacts with a wide range of
community groups and stakeholders (Community engagement)
could not demonstrate that it was strategically drawing on available socio-economic
trend information to plan and adapt its approaches to engagement to inform future
4 Taylor, J. and Biddle, N., 2004, Indigenous People in the Murray-Darling Basin: A statistical profile,
Centre for Aboriginal Policy Research Discussion Paper No 264, Centre for Aboriginal Policy
Research, ANU and Taylor, J and Biddle, N, 2008, Locations of Indigenous Population Change: What
Can We Say?, Centre for Aboriginal Policy Research Working Paper, No. 43. These reports draw
on information from 2001 and 2006 ABS data.

strategies and work (Community engagement, Collection and use of knowledge and Risk
management).
4.2 Appropriate engagement strategies for different community

groups and stakeholders
Most regions of NSW include a variety of communities, community groups and other
stakeholders which the CMA should consider in planning and undertaking its work. These
groups have different knowledge and capacity for NRM, and value the region’s natural
resources in different ways. For example, they might include rural communities, farmers and
graziers, urban communities, Landcare groups, mining companies, tourism operators, local
councils, relevant government agencies and other government institutions.
To effectively engage these diverse groups, a CMA needs to use its understanding of each
group to develop an appropriate strategy for productive engagement. This requires strategic
thinking, risk management and processes to identify and fill knowledge gaps.
The NRC’s audit found that Lower Murray Darling CMA was engaging a wide range of groups
and stakeholders.
Its strategy for engaging the local community and landholders included various active events
like holding CMA-organised barbeques and making use of the available field day programs.
The CMA noted that there is a risk that landholders may feel ‘consulted to death’, and
considered the approaches it used were appropriate for engaging with its communities.
The CMA had engaged with some institutional and other stakeholders, including across state
and regional borders. For example, it had worked with the Murray Wetlands Working Group
and a Tri-State NRM Forum group (discussed in Box 4.2). Rather than being the outcome of a
targeted engagement strategy, these collaborations had evolved over time. They resulted from
recognition that the joint areas of work were of growing importance to NRM stakeholders and
managers.
The CMA had undertaken a number of initiatives to engage Aboriginal communities, including
becoming involved in the Indigenous Land Manager’s Forum. It had recently established an
Indigenous Engagement Committee of the Board, and was developing the sub-committee’s
terms of reference. Australian Bureau of Statistics data show that the Lower Murray Darling
region has a high and growing percentage of Aboriginal residents who now manage more than
16% of land in the region. Given this, the NRC considers it appropriate for the CMA to review
the effectiveness of its engagement with Aboriginal communities in the region. The CMA could
build on its current work, and link it to a more strategic and longer term understanding of the
emerging role of Aboriginal communities in NRM in the region.
Lower Murray Darling CMA had deliberately decided on limited engagement with the Broken
Hill urban population. This includes holding occasional industry or community forums and
being involved in educational activities at high schools. The CMA’s current view is that it
achieves greater returns by focusing its engagement activities on other parts of the region. The
CMA will need to monitor the risks associated with this decision, given that 60% of the region’s
population live in Broken Hill, and this community’s views may be relevant for planning NRM
in the region.


demonstrated it had developed and maintained engagement and collaboration with a
wide range of groups and institutional stakeholders (Community engagement and
Collaboration).
4.3 Communication promoting collaboration, behavioural change

and feedback
CMAs are also required to lead their diverse communities in understanding natural resource
management. To do this, they need sophisticated approaches to communicating their
messages, and for hearing and responding to the messages sent by communities. To capture
the attention of diverse stakeholders such as Aboriginal communities, landholders, industry
sectors, and urban and environmental organisations, their communication strategies need to
reflect the varied values of their communities. This broad focus also helps to attract the widest
possible funding and support across the region.
The NRC’s audit found that Lower Murray Darling CMA had a written strategy for
communication, but was not consistently using this strategy to guide it in promoting
behavioural change towards better NRM practices and outcomes.
With landholders, the CMA had communicated through a range of methods, including face-to-
face contact, distributing educational material, sending bi-monthly ‘E-news’ emails, and
advertising and holding CMA practical training days. To date, these approaches appear to have
built NRM capacity with these stakeholders.
The CMA was collecting feedback from groups and stakeholders through questionnaires, and
was both responding to the information gathered and publicising its responses through media
releases.
With limited staff resources, it is essential the CMA optimises its engagement efforts. The audit
team identified some internal barriers to communication within the CMA, and a lack of
sufficient feedback loops to promote shared understanding of priorities and continual
organisational learning. These issues were preventing effective integration of the CMA’s work
and had the potential to adversely affect its ongoing capacity to engage communities and
stakeholders efficiently and effectively.

demonstrated it was communicating to promote collaboration with some stakeholders
(Collaboration)
could not demonstrate it was implementing an appropriate internal communication
strategy to support its staff in effective external communication (Community engagement).

Box 4.1: Working across borders to deliver improved landscapes
Landscape functions are not limited by State borders or regional boundaries, so CMAs have to
coordinate their NRM activities with those of other CMAs and government agencies.
The Lower Murray Darling region is positioned in the south-west corner of NSW, and is
bounded by the State’s borders with Victoria and South Australia. The Darling River runs
through the region and the Murray runs along the border with Victoria. Therefore, effectively
addressing some of the natural resource management issues in the region -- such as managing
water resources and dealing with salinity -- requires a collaborative and cross-border approach
that involves a range of governments, agencies, research organisations, and other stakeholders.
In recognition of this, Lower Murray Darling CMA participates in a Tri-State NRM Forum
Group. The purpose of this group is to collaboratively address common issues in the Lower
Murray regions of NSW, Victoria and South Australia. The group provides a forum for
members to discuss the alignment of programs and investments, and to share information and
lessons learnt. Other members of the group include the South Australian Murray Darling Basin
NRM Board, Mallee CMA (Victoria) and Wimmera CMA (Victoria). The Department of Water
and Energy (NSW), Department of Sustainability and Environment (Victoria), Department of
Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (SA) and the Murray Darling Basin Commission are
also involved in the group’s work.
One common issue the Tri-State NRM Forum Group tackled recently was investigating
floodplain salinity processes on the Murray River floodplain. This work was jointly funded by
the members of the group, and was undertaken in collaboration with research and project
partners. It involved airborne electromagnetic mapping and floodplain vegetation surveys, as
well as developing weir pool manipulation protocols and initiatives to prioritise and
rehabilitate wetlands. The investigation aimed to provide sufficient information to map
scenarios on current and predicted salt loads, and the current and likely future health of
floodplain vegetation communities.
The work is intended to underpin the development of management options aimed at improving
the health of floodplain vegetation and reducing salt storage within floodplain soils, and
strategies for managing post-flood salinity levels. Lower Murray Darling CMA will be able to
make good use of the knowledge gained through the work to review its investment priorities
for the region.

5 Effectively using adaptive management

In the fourth line of inquiry, the NRC assessed whether the CMA was effectively using adaptive
management. It looked at whether the CMA:
had documented the practical application of adaptive management principles to its
planning and business systems
had monitoring and evaluation systems that test its underlying investment assumptions
and used appropriate experts to assess planned and actual achievements
maintained information management systems necessary to support the adaptive
management process.
Each of these criterion is shown in Figure 5.1, together with the elements of the Standard that
are most relevant to meeting it effectively, and the CMA behaviour and other outcomes we
would expect to see if the CMA is using these elements of the Standard.
using adaptive management
Criteria we would Outcomes we would expect the Key elements of the Standard
expect the CMA to meet CMA to demonstrate
Documented practical Common understanding and application of Knowledge of biophysical and

application of adaptive a documented and comprehensive adaptive social systems, the scales at
management principles in the management system to promote continuous which they operate, short and
CMA’s planning and business learning at both institutional and individual long term targets, risk,
systems levels monitoring and information
management needs
Understanding and management of

knowledge gaps and uncertainties
Use of monitoring and Knowledge of assets and their

evaluation systems that test Shared understanding of roles and a focus interaction at various spatial and
the underlying investment on applying new knowledge to increase the temporal scales; potential risks
assumptions and employ effectiveness of investment to improve and impacts; and underlying
appropriate expertise to assess landscape function and resilience investment assumptions
planned and actual
achievements
Knowledge and appreciation of

Maintenance of an information Understanding and use of an information user needs incorporating
management system necessary management system which supports requirements for accountability,
to support adaptive investment decisions, reporting transparency, the maintenance of
management processes requirements and continual improvement data quality and integrity
The sections below discuss each criterion in more detail, including why it is important and what
our audit found in relation to it.

5.1 Adaptive management principles in planning and business

systems
Adaptive management is ‘learning by doing’. It is a structured, iterative process of decision-
making that is intended to gradually reduce uncertainty and improve performance through
monitoring, evaluation and response. It adds transparency and accountability to decision-
making and the allocation of resources, while providing a framework for learning and ongoing
improvement.
At a practical level, it is important that CMAs document within their planning and business
systems how staff can apply adaptive management principles. This will help ensure their staff
and collaborators can readily apply those principles in the many, diverse circumstances in
which they work.
The NRC’s audit found that Lower Murray Darling CMA’s Board and key staff were aware of
the term adaptive management; however, there was little evidence of a shared understanding of
how adaptive management should be applied in the CMA. The CMA did not demonstrate full
understanding of the dependency between monitoring and evaluation and adaptive
management, and there was no evidence that adaptive management was being applied
systematically at an organisational level, even for larger projects.
While the CAP includes a description of adaptive management, the CMA had not documented
how it applies adaptive management in its planning and business systems. The CMA did not
appear to prioritise implementation of adaptive management as an important part of the way it
does business. The CMA had responded to pressure to deliver investments within financial
periods by diverting resources from ‘non-delivery’ processes within the CMA’s business
systems and operations, including processes required to support adaptive management.
As a consequence, projects were not designed to facilitate adaptive management. In addition,

opportunities for systematic learning, particularly at the operational level, were limited, as was
the likelihood that the CMA would learn from past successes and failures in order to increase
its effectiveness in promoting the state-wide targets over time.

could not demonstrate it had a clear and consistent understanding or documented
approach of how the CMA practically applies adaptive management to drive continual
improvement (Collection and use of knowledge and Risk management).
could not demonstrate effective internal communication structures and feedback loops to
build such an understanding (Collection and use of knowledge, Information management and
Risk management).
5.2 Monitoring and evaluation system

To effectively apply adaptive management principles, CMAs’ programs need to be designed
and delivered in ways that facilitate structured learning. For example, investment programs
need to record what changes to defined indicators are expected to result from the management
actions within the program. Only then can CMAs undertake quantitative monitoring of these
actions, and evaluate how successful they were in producing the expected changes.

It is not enough for a CMA to monitor and evaluate whether its projects have delivered the
expected outputs (for example, that the expected quantity of native grasses were planted, or
that the expected kilometres of fencing was installed). It also needs to test whether or not the
assumptions about how each management action would lead to changes in landscape function
were correct and so resulted in these changes (for example, whether fencing or revegetation of a
riparian zone resulted in improved water quality and riverine ecosystem health). In addition, it
needs to use experts with appropriate skills and knowledge in assessing its planned and actual
results. This will allow it to apply new knowledge – gained from the monitoring and evaluation
process and other sources – to increase the effectiveness of ongoing and future projects in
improving landscape function and resilience.
The NRC’s audit found that Lower Murray Darling CMA was undertaking monitoring, but
there was little understanding of the fundamental importance of evaluation and reporting to the
structured and systematic acquisition of new knowledge. The CMA had not appointed an MER
officer, and this was an inhibiting factor in promoting the use of monitoring and evaluation
information.
The CMA had engaged Ballarat University to develop and undertake a monitoring project
using David Tongway’s Landscape Functional Analysis and PVP BioMetrics (with DECC) to
create an Ecosystem Functional Analysis (EFA). The CMA intended to use the monitoring
results to assess improvement or otherwise in condition of vegetation types across most land
uses in the catchment. However, little if any of the data collected by this project had been
released or evaluated at the time of the NRC’s audit. The University had undertaken three
annual EFA surveys, but had not produced a report.
The lack of a fully implemented and effective MER system reduced the CMA’s ability to
evaluate its on-ground investments and adaptively manage its projects to promote more
effective progress towards the state-wide targets over time. The CMA’s capacity to improve its
understanding of landscape function and the risks underlying its investment decisions requires
effective monitoring, evaluation and reporting.

demonstrated it was undertaking some monitoring, but did not have a system for
effective evaluation and reporting to support adaptive management (Monitoring and
evaluation and Risk management).
5.3 Information management systems that support adaptive

management
CMAs need relatively sophisticated information management systems to support adaptive
management. For example, these systems need to keep track of the changes in landscape
function expected as a result of the management actions within a project, and provide ready
access to this and other necessary information when the project is being evaluated and decisions
on improving its effectiveness are being made. These systems also need to keep track of new
knowledge that is derived from the monitoring and evaluation process and other sources, so
this can be used in making decisions.
The audit found that Lower Murray Darling CMA had developed a reporting and information
management system. However, the system was structured to meet investor reporting

requirements as opposed to staff needs, and was not useful for recording the organisational
knowledge required for adaptive management within the CMA.
While the CMA did not have the information systems necessary to support adaptive
management, it did have some of the prerequisites, including datasets and software like
ENREMS, EFA and PADACS. The CMA also maintained project reporting practices that
allowed Board members to track the progress of different projects and their contribution to the
achievement of management targets. In addition to these business systems, the CMA also
managed a number of projects in long-standing project areas that had individually begun
documenting information in a way that would make adaptive management possible.
The NRC audit also found that project information needed to be more systematically collated
and shared within the CMA. A number of staff commented on the existence of information
barriers within the organisation, particularly between administrative and project staff, and that
learning was not systematically recorded or shared.

demonstrated it had developed an information management system to meet investor
reporting requirements (Information management)
could not demonstrate that its information management system was providing useful
information to support internal CMA decision-making and continual improvement
(Information management, Monitoring and evaluation and Collection and use of knowledge).

Attachment 1 Conclusions, suggested actions and CMA response

This Section provides a table summarising conclusions of our audit of the implementation of the Lower Murray Darling CAP, the actions we suggested the
CMA take to improve this implementation and a summary of Lower Murray Darling CMA’s response to these suggested actions. The NRC expects the
CMA Board to monitor the completion of these actions and may review these activities in future audit work.
CONCLUSION SUGGESTED ACTIONS CMA RESPONSE
Line of inquiry #1 - Has Lower Murray Darling CMA effectively prioritised its investments to promote resilient landscapes that support the values of its communities?
Criterion 1.1: whether the CMA had a commonly understood definition of what The NRC suggests that the CMA take Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with the NRC’s
constitutes resilient landscapes in their region. the following actions: suggested action.
CMA Board members and senior staff did not have a common 1. Board and staff contribute to the
The CMA will hold a workshop with Board and staff to
understanding of the characteristics of resilient landscapes in the development of a common
develop a common conceptual understanding and
Lower Murray Darling region. conceptual understanding and
definition of resilient landscapes in the region.
definition of resilient landscapes in
In the absence of a definition and clear conceptual understanding of
the region.
resilience landscapes for the region, there was no evidence that the The CMA will complete this action by December 2009.
Board and staff had based their strategic planning and target
development on a common rationale for identifying key assets and
threats.
Lower Murray Darling CMA has noted the suggested

2. This conceptual understanding and
action and intends to implement it on an ongoing
definition should be used to
basis.
provide a common focus for all
levels of CMA planning and
Note: Following this response, the NRC considers that
decision making.
the CMA Board should monitor the risk that current
CMA planning and decision-making processes are not
able to apply the conceptual understanding as a
common focus.


Criterion 1.2 : whether the CMA had a system that ranked investment options, The NRC suggests that the CMA take Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with the NRC’s
which incorporated the best available information and multiple CAP target the following actions: suggested action and will complete the action by
achievement December 2010.
3. Use the CAP review process as an
The CMA had continued developing its CAP, but except for some opportunity to reassess its
realignment driven by external funding programs, it had not investment prioritisation process
reprioritised its assessment criteria or investment programs since the and benefit from evolving
development of its Blueprint. For this reason its investment program community values.
was not necessarily being informed by and benefiting from changing
community values.
The CMA’s targets and investment programs were based on Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with the NRC’s
4. Develop and document a consistent
individual themes and did not specifically recognise multiple suggested action and will complete the action by
approach to prioritising
December 2010.
outcomes or impacts on landscape function. investments which is transparent
The process and criteria for selecting and ranking investment options and understood by all Board
and the finalisation of the Investment Plan was not transparent. members and operational staff.
The CMA had a relatively consistent and repeatable system for Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with the
5. Review the use of the NVAT for
assessing vegetation projects. However, there was divided opinion suggested action.
incentive vegetation projects to
within the CMA on the use of the Native Vegetation Assessment Tool enable better delivery on regional
(NVAT) (previously known as the PVP developer) for incentive project The CMA has identified that ongoing external
priorities.
assessments, as it was considered by some staff to compromise the development of the NVAT will affect the CMA’s ability
achievement of regional goals. to review the suitability of use of the tool.
The CMA will complete the action by December 2010,

subject to NVAT support.
Note: Following this response, the NRC considers the

CMA Board should monitor the risk that ongoing
development of NVAT will not improve its use for
incentive projects in LMD region.


Criterion 1.3 : whether the CMA had a system that that ensures short and long-term The NRC suggests that the CMA take Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with the NRC’s
investment priorities are consistent with each other and integrated with other the following action: suggested action.
planned NRM targets
6. Establish an effective system to:
The CMA will complete the action by December 2009.
Although the links between outputs and long-term targets were
apply new knowledge to review
generally understood, the CMA did not have a system that ensured
the CMA’s short-term targets The CMA intends to use current Board processes to
short and long-term investment priorities were consistent with each
and projects and to manage risks review short-term targets and projects.
other and integrated with other planned NRM targets.
to the achievement of long-term
Without a system to refine and improve the links between short and targets Note: Following this response, the NRC considers the
long-term targets, the CMA’s investment focus will remain unstable Board should monitor the risk that its current Board
and inefficient and improvements to landscape function are at risk.
evaluate the implementation of
processes are not supporting the effective use of new
projects and inform investment
Investor funding conditions and reporting requirements appear to knowledge or project performance evaluations to better
decisions.
inhibit the CMA’s capacity to integrate short and long-term integrate short-term and long-term investment
investment priorities despite a general understanding that the priorities across NRM targets
required NRM outcomes will generally only be achieved over a
longer-term.
Line of inquiry #2 – Have the Lower Murray Darling CMA’s vegetation projects contributed to improved landscape function?
Criterion 2.1: whether the CMA had documented expected long-term project The NRC suggests that the CMA take Lower Murray CMA agrees with the NRC’s suggested
outcomes the following action: action and will complete it by December 2009.
The CMA demonstrated an understanding of long-term project 7. Document long-term expected
outcomes even through these were not included in all documents. outcomes in project documentation.
Documentation at the project/contract level was limited to outputs.
While there was some evidence that landholders and stakeholders had
an understanding of the longer-term outcomes to which their project
was contributing, clear documentation and communication can assist
them meet broader objectives and adaptively manage their projects.


Criterion 2.2 : whether the CMA successfully achieved project outcomes, and The NRC suggests that the CMA take Lower Murray Darling CMA does not agree with the
maximised opportunities to add further value the following action: suggested action.
The CMA had successfully achieved project outputs and its 8. Develop a strategy to help CMA
The CMA intends to continue with its current
investments in these projects should, at the least, maintain the staff identify and maximise
approach, using its Board committee processes to
resilience of most rangeland and mixed farming landscapes in the opportunities to add value to or
progress new or innovative initiatives.
region. further innovate from project
investments.
CMA field staff had worked to take opportunities to add value to Note: Following this response, the NRC considers the
project investments as they arose. However, the CMA had not CMA Board should monitor the risk that this approach
established processes to support staff to identify and maximise does not adequately support staff to identify and
opportunities at all scales (e.g. individual project and program levels). maximise value-add opportunities at all scales.
Criterion 2.3 whether the CMA’s projects attracted additional resources to match The NRC suggests that the CMA take Lower Murray Darling CMA does not agree with the
CMA funding the following action: NRC’s suggested action.
The CMA had obtained additional resources at the landholder level 9. Develop a strategic approach to
The CMA has advised the NRC that it will continue to
through ‘in-kind’ as well as direct financial contributions. measuring and attracting additional
use its current approaches to attracting and measuring
investment that promotes the
The CMA’s had attracted additional funding from government and additional resources to match government investment
CMA’s priorities and is linked to its
third party sources, and worked on collaborative projects. However it in the region.
communication and engagement
was unclear whether the CMA’s practice in collaborating with other
strategies.
organisations and attracting additional resources and funding was Note: Following this response, the NRC considers that
opportunistic rather than underpinned by a clear strategic approach. the CMA Board should monitor the risk that more
efficient (and effective) investment opportunities are
The CMA stated that staff numbers and capacity limited its ability to
missed without a strategic approach to attracting
be able to take on and deliver against some available sources of third
additional investment.
party funding.
The CMA was collecting some information on in-kind contributions.
However, it, could not demonstrate it was verifying the accuracy of
the data and analysing the information it had on leverage to inform its
engagement and collaboration strategies, and future investment
decisions.


Criterion 2.4 whether the CMA had a system to monitor ongoing achievement of The NRC suggests that the CMA take Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with the NRC’s
project: the following actions: suggested action and has already appointed a MER
officer.
The CMA was undertaking monitoring that should provide an 10. Appoint an MER officer as soon as
assessment of vegetation achievements. However there was no possible.
systematic analysis or evaluation of this collected data so that lessons Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with the NRC’s
11. Establish an effective system to
could be learnt for future projects and investment planning. suggested action. The CMA considers this action is
evaluate and report on how well
addressed by current Board processes.
The CMA had not allocated sufficient staff resources to MER. projects have contributed to
achieving the CMA’s agreed long- The CMA has also already appointed a MER officer to
term goals. support this.
Note: Following this response, the NRC considers that
the CMA Board should monitor the effectiveness of its
current approach, including the adequacy of
resourcing, and the degree that expected DECC
compliance monitoring will effectively lower CMA risk.
Line of inquiry #3 - Has the Lower Murray Darling CMA effectively engaged its communities?
Criterion 3.1 whether the CMA had identified community groups and stakeholders it The NRC suggests that the CMA take Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with the NRC’s
must consider in planning and undertaking work the following action: suggested action.
The CMA had a good understanding of its communities, having 12. Analyse and respond to the region’s
The CMA will complete the analysis and response by
identified, documented and developed contacts with a wide range of emerging socio-economic trends to
December 2009.
institutional, industry and community stakeholders and recognised identify the community groups and
the need to continue to develop these contacts over time. stakeholders the CMA needs to
While the CMA had identified community groups and stakeholders, engage in its planning and work.
analysis and adaptation to changing community demographics
appeared largely informal and consequential rather than as a direct
result of proactively drawing on trend information to better target its
identification of groups and stakeholders.
This situation exposes the CMA to the risk of not effectively
understanding current changes in community values that may
accompany changing catchment demographics, and without a clear
capacity to target different population groups to support NRM
outcomes.


Criterion 3.2 whether the CMA was implementing an engagement strategy The NRC suggests that the CMA take Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with the NRC’s
appropriate for different community groups and stakeholders the following action: suggested action.
The CMA was engaging a wide range of groups and stakeholders. 13. Review the effectiveness of the
The CMA intends to undertake reviews of its
CMA’s engagement strategies.
The CMA’s strategy included making use of available regional field Communication Strategy (covering general
day programs and linking engagement with other community and engagement) and its Indigenous Engagement Strategy
stakeholder events, due to the perceived risk that some parts of the but has not specified when the reviews would be
community felt they had been ‘consulted to death’. completed.
The CMA appears to be effectively engaging with institutional
stakeholders across state and regional borders, but this work has Note: Following this response, the NRC considers that
evolved over time rather than being the outcome of a targeted the CMA Board should monitor the risk that revisions
engagement strategy. to the CMA’s engagement strategies are not completed
in time to support staff undertaking engagement
The CMA’s activities deliberately involved limited engagement with activities.
the Broken Hill population. This approach does have some risk for the
CMA, given the large size of the population in Broken Hill relative to
the rest of the catchment, and the potential relevance of its
community’s views for planning NRM in the region. Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with the NRC’s
14. Build on its recent Indigenous
suggested action.
The CMA had undertaken some engagement with Aboriginal initiatives to invest, with other
communities in the region, and had recently developed Terms of government agencies, in Aboriginal
The CMA intends to implement ongoing plans to build
Reference for an Indigenous Portfolio Subcommittee of the Board. land-management skills.
on its recent initiatives including:
establishing its Indigenous Engagement
Committee
continuing pilot projects with Aboriginal land
managers.


Criterion 3.3 whether the CMA was implementing a communications strategy that The NRC suggests that the CMA take Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with the NRC’s
promotes collaboration, sustainable behavioural change and feedback the following actions: suggested action.
The CMA had a written strategy for communication but was not 15. Review the effectiveness of the
The CMA will review the effectiveness of its
consistently using this strategy to assist it in promoting change towards CMA’s Communication Strategy
Communication Strategy by December 2010.
better NRM practices and outcomes.
The CMA was collecting feedback through its recent questionnaires, Lower Murray Darling CMA notes the NRC’s
was both responding to survey information and publicising its 16. Improve communication and
suggested action.
responses through media releases, and was in the process of collating feedback loops within the CMA to
the most recent feedback. promote learning, clear
The CMA will undertake the action on an ongoing
understanding of rationale for
CMA staff were engaging landholders and individually promoting basis.
priorities and more efficient and
behavioural change where they had influence. effective engagement with the
Note: Following this response, the NRC considers the
With limited staff resources it is essential that the CMA optimise community and stakeholders.
CMA Board needs to assess the risk to effective
engagement. The audit team found that within the CMA, integration of work across the CMA and engagement
communication barriers were preventing effective integration of work with the community, arising from any delay in
across the CMA. undertaking this action.
Line of inquiry #4 - Has the Lower Murray Darling CMA effectively used adaptive management?
Criterion 4.1 whether the CMA had documented the practical application of adaptive The NRC suggests that the CMA take Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with the NRC’s
management principles in its planning and business system the following action: suggested action and will complete this action by
December 2010.
Key staff and Board members had some knowledge of adaptive 17. Develop a policy for CMA-wide
management as a term but had not documented its practical understanding and active use of
application and there was no evidence that the concept was routinely adaptive management. This would
considered. involve building adaptive
management principles, such as
Opportunities for systematic learning, particularly at the organisational
feedback loops and planning for
level, were consequently limited as was the likelihood that the CMA
review and improvement, into
would learn from past successes and failures to increase its
investment and business systems
effectiveness in promoting the state-wide targets over time.
(and could include the MER
Strategy, the Target Review Project
and the proposed Project
Management Framework).


Criterion 4.2 whether the CMA had monitoring and evaluation systems that test The NRC suggests that the CMA take Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with the NRC’s
underlying investment assumptions and employ appropriate expertise to assess the following action: suggested action.
planned and actual achievement
18. Further develop its monitoring and
The CMA MER officer will undertake this evaluation
Staff and Board members were all aware of the need for monitoring but evaluation system, including
and reporting function, on an ongoing basis.
not all realised the fundamental importance of evaluation and ensuring performance and
reporting in ensuring new knowledge is fed appropriately into an condition data is evaluated and
adaptive management approach. reported from project to catchment
scale, and strengthening links
The CMA was not undertaking effective evaluation which undermined
between MER and the CMA’s risk
its ability to improve its understanding of landscape function and risks
and information management
underlying investment decisions.
strategies
The lack of an effective monitoring and evaluation system reduced the
CMA’s ability to evaluate on-ground investments and adaptively
manage its projects to promote more effective progress towards the
state-wide targets over time.
Criterion 4.3 whether the CMA maintained an information management system The NRC suggests that the CMA take Lower Murray Darling CMA agrees with NRC’s
necessary to support adaptive management the following actions: suggested action.
The CMA had developed an information management system 19. Redesign its information
The CMA considers that the new document
structured to meet investor reporting requirements. However, this management system to improve the
management system ‘Objective’ will address the
system was not designed to record and share the knowledge required recording and transfer of
sharing and transfer of information (within and
by staff to support adaptive management within the CMA. knowledge within the organisation
between CMAs).
and provide evaluated information
to meet CMA operational and
The CMA has advised the NRC that they have recently
Board decision-making needs.
undertaken wider staff training in SAP (financial
management) and LMD (spatial information
management system). The CMA also plans to take part
in an inter-agency committee to promote integration of
business systems.

Attachment 2 About this audit
Audit mandate The NRC is required to undertake audits of the effectiveness of the implementation of
Catchment Action Plans (CAPs) in achieving compliance with those state-wide
standards and targets as it considers appropriate. 5
The NSW Government has adopted an aspirational goal to achieve resilient

landscapes that support the values of its communities. 6 It intends to achieve this by
encouraging natural resource managers, such as each Catchment Management
Authority (CMA), to make high quality decisions, focused through a coherent set of
targets. 7 The NSW State Plan 8 establishes the state-wide targets for natural resource
management (NRM).
CMAs have developed CAPs that express how each specific region can contribute to
the aspirational goal and the state-wide targets. The Lower Murray Darling Catchment
Action Plan 9 identifies the key natural resource issues (or themes) that need to be
managed in the region, including community values, salinity, water quality and
quantity, biodiversity and soils and vegetation. Within each of these themes, the
CMA has identified:
catchment targets, for longer-term improvements in resource condition that
will contribute to achievement of the state-wide targets
management targets, which identify shorter-term investment priorities, such as
specific sub-catchments or particular types of projects, that will contribute to
achievement of the resource condition targets.
Audit This audit assessed the effectiveness of Lower Murray Darling CMA in promoting
objective resilient landscapes that support the values of its communities, within the scope of
their CAP.
Lower Murray Darling CMA is now implementing its CAP, through a mix of
programs and projects some of which use vegetation to enhance landscape function,
to lead to the aspirational goal of resilience.
Lines of In order to assess the effectiveness of CMA work, the NRC sought to answer the
inquiry following questions:
1. Is the CMA effectively prioritising its investments to promote resilient landscapes
that support the values of its communities?
2. Are the CMA’s vegetation projects contributing to improved landscape function?
3. Is the CMA effectively engaging its communities?
4. Is the CMA effectively using adaptive management?
The NRC identified that these four key aspects of CMA work should strongly
influence effectiveness in achieving resilient landscapes and promote maximum
improvement for Lower Murray Darling CMA at this stage in their development.
5 Natural Resources Commission Act 2003, Section 13 (c)

6 As recommended by the NRC in Recommendations – State-wide standard and targets, September 2005.
7 Ibid.
8 See Priority E4 in, NSW Government (2006) A new direction for NSW, NSW Government State Plan,
November 2006
9 LMDCMA (2006)

Audit criteria To help answer each line of inquiry, the NRC used the criteria identified below in
Table 1, the audit plan summary.
These criteria address:

expected documentation of the particular key aspect of CMA work
expected implementation of plans and decisions
expected evaluation and reporting of the performance of the CMA work.
The criteria were derived from the elements of each line of inquiry, and from the
general criteria of the Standard and state-wide targets.
The NSW Government adopted the Standard for Quality Natural Resource Management
(the Standard), which identifies seven components that are commonly used to reach
high quality natural resource decisions. CMAs must comply with the Standard 10 ,
using it as a quality assurance standard for all planning and implementation
decisions.
Audit scope As a sample of the entire range of NRM investments, the audit work was focused on
CMA programs and projects that use vegetation to improve landscape function.
The NRC considered this to be the appropriate focus as vegetation remains a key tool
for CMAs to use to achieve integrated NRM outcomes. This is due to a number of
factors, including the lack of certainty in the management framework for other
aspects of NRM such as water.
As most NRM programs and projects contribute to more than one NRM target, the
NRC expects audited projects to also contribute to other targeted outcomes, such as
river health and threatened species. The NRC audit will seek to audit the
effectiveness of these contributions as they arise.
Audit To plan and conduct this audit, the NRC audit team followed the methodologies set
methodology out in the Framework for Auditing the Implementation of Catchment Action Plans, NRC
2007.
In 2007 the NRC developed the Audit Framework 11 to explain its overall approach to
auditing the implementation of CAPs.
Acknowledge The NRC gratefully acknowledges the cooperation and assistance provided by the
ments Lower Murray Darling CMA and landholders in the Lower Murray Darling region.
In particular we wish to thank the Chair, Mark King, General Manager, Paul Dixon,
and other CMA Board members and staff who participated in interviews, provided
information and accompanied the audit team on site inspections across the region.
10 Section 20 (c), Catchment Management Authorities Act, 2003

11 NRC (2007), Framework for Auditing the Implementation of Catchment Action Plans

Table 1. Audit plan summary

Line of Inquiry 1 Is the CMA effectively prioritising its investments to promote resilient landscapes
that support the values of its communities?
This line of inquiry was tested against the following criteria:
Criterion 1.1 The CMA has a commonly understood definition of what constitutes resilient
landscapes in their region.
Criterion 1.2 The CMA has a system that ranks investment options, which incorporates factors
including scientific and local knowledge, socio-economic information, community and
investor preferences, leverage of investment and multiple CAP target achievement.
Criterion 1.3 The CMA has a system that ensures short and long-term investment priorities are
consistent with each other and integrated with other planned NRM targets.
Line of Inquiry 2 Are the CMA’s vegetation projects contributing to improved landscape function?
Criterion 2.1 The CMA has documented expected long-term project outcomes.
Criterion 2.2 The CMA is successfully achieving project outcomes, and maximising opportunities to
add further value.
Criterion 2.3 The projects are attracting additional resources to match CMA funding.
Criterion 2.4 The CMA has a system to monitor ongoing achievements of projects.
Line of Inquiry 3 Is the CMA effectively engaging its communities?
Criterion 3.1 The CMA has identified community groups and stakeholders it must consider in
planning and undertaking work.
Criterion 3.2 The CMA is implementing an engagement strategy appropriate for different
community groups and stakeholders.
Criterion 3.3 The CMA is implementing a communication strategy that promotes collaboration,
sustainable behavioural change and feedback.
Line of Inquiry 4 Is the CMA effectively using adaptive management?
Criterion 4.1 The CMA has documented the practical application of adaptive management principles
in its planning and business systems.
Criterion 4.2 The CMA has monitoring and evaluation systems that test underlying investment
assumptions and employ appropriate expertise to assess planned and actual
achievement.
Criterion 4.3 The CMA maintains an information management system necessary to support adaptive
management processes.

Attachment 3 The CMA and its region

CMAs have a challenging task to encourage communities across their particular regions to
improve how they manage natural resources on private land for the benefit of the landholders,
the broader community and future generations.
This section provides context for the audit by summarising key features of the Lower Murray
Darling region and Lower Murray Darling CMA. This context is important in considering both
the way in which a CMA’s effectiveness should be assessed and the options for improving that
effectiveness.
The region at a glance

The Lower Murray Darling Catchment covers an area of 6.3 million hectares, of which greater
than 90% retains native vegetation.
The catchment has a population of approximately 29,000 of which around 19,000 people live in
Broken Hill. Around 16% of the population is identified as Aboriginal. Socio-economic division
exists between Aboriginal populations and the rest of the population (National Institute of
Economic and Industry Research 1999) and there are areas of social disadvantage within the
catchment (Vinson Report 1999).
The catchment extends from Broken Hill in the north to the Murray River in the south and from
the Murray/Murrumbidgee junction to the South Australian border in the west.
The catchment is categorised into three areas: riverine, rangelands and mixed farming. The
catchment is dominated by a semi-arid climate with highly variable winter dominant rainfall.
Land use includes irrigated and dryland cropping, horticulture, wool and meat production,
water storage (Menindee Lakes and Lake Victoria), mining, tourism, recreational fishing,
forestry and nature conservation.
The catchment is rich in cultural heritage including the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area,
Lake Victoria and Menindee Lakes.
The CMA at a glance

The Lower Murray Darling CMA was established in 2004.
In 2007/08 the CMA invested $9.9 million across the themes of community values, salinity,
water quality and quantity, biodiversity and soils and vegetation.
At the time of the audit, the CMA Board consisted of Mark King (Chair), and five other Board
members. Board members are assigned specific NRM areas of responsibility and are supported
by a small team of CMA staff.
The CMA General Manager and two senior managers lead a staff of around 20. The CMA has
its principal office in Buronga and, until recently, had a Service Delivery Centre in Broken Hill.
Figure A3.1 provides a map illustrating some of the key characteristics of the region and sites
visited by the NRC in its audit.
Figure A3.1: Lower Murray Darling region and sites visited by the NRC


Audit Report Lower Murray Darling

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Audit Report Lower Murray Darling

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Audit Report

Lower Murray Darling

Lower Murray Darling

Phone (02) 8227 4300

Postal address GPO Box 4206, Sydney NSW 2001

Document No. D08/4888

ISBN: 978 1 921050 47 3

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 3 of 45

1.1 Focus of the audit

To do this, we focused on four lines of inquiry:

1 Natural Resources Commission (2008) Progress report on effective implementation of Catchment

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 4 of 45

3. Is the CMA actively engaging its communities?

1.2 Summary of audit findings

1.2.1 Prioritising investments to promote resilient landscapes

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 5 of 45

1.2.2 Delivering projects that contributed to improved landscape function

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 6 of 45

1.2.3 Effectively engaging its communities

In addition, we would expect the CMA to be implementing an appropriate engagement strategy

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 7 of 45

Our audit found that:

1.2.4 Effectively using adaptive management

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 8 of 45

Our audit found that:

1.3 Structure of the report

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 9 of 45

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 10 of 45

2 Prioritising investments to promote resilient landscapes

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 11 of 45

Criteria we would expect Outcomes we would expect Key elements of the

Common understanding of threats to

Agreement on options for action,

2.1 Commonly understood definition of resilient landscapes

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 12 of 45

In the absence of a commonly accepted definition and clear conceptual understanding of

In respect to the Standard, the CMA:

2.2 A system for ranking investment options

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 13 of 45

In respect to the Standard, the CMA:

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 14 of 45

2.3 Systems that ensure consistent short- and long-term investment

Investor funding conditions (such as short-term expenditure requirements) and reporting

In respect to the Standard, the CMA:

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 15 of 45

Box 2.1: Lower Murray Darling CMA’s portfolio approach to support

Board Member Portfolios Board Subcommittees

Recommendations to CMA Board

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 16 of 45

3 Delivering projects that contribute to improved

Successful achievement of Resilient landscapes, long-term Knowledge of drivers of landscape

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 17 of 45

3.1 Documentation of expected long-term outcomes

In respect to the Standard, the CMA:

3.2 Successful achievement of project outcomes

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 18 of 45

In respect to the Standard, the CMA:

3.3 Attraction of additional resources

In respect to the Standard, the CMA:

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 19 of 45

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 20 of 45

Box 3.1: Supporting more resilient landscapes by investment and coordination

Document No: D08/4888 Page: 21 of 45

3.4 A system to track ongoing achievement of projects