objectives is assessed through annual reports from the contracting governments and MDBA. The reports include valley reports for the catchments where an EoVT has been adopted. The Independent Audit Group for Salinity (IAG–Salinity) conducts an independent annual audit of the reports and register entries, and of the performance of the contracting governments and MDBA. A key driver of the BSMS is the principle of ‘capping’ increases in salinity in the MDB by a system of salt credits and debits managed by the participating governments through two major mechanisms. One is joint investment in salt interception schemes (SISs) and associated infrastructure; the other is investment in target setting and monitoring systems at the sites in concert with plans and actions to improve land management practices across the Basin. Victoria has set sub–targets for irrigation areas and upland systems so that it can monitor their effect on the EoVTs. The nine elements of the BSMS are: Developing capacity to implement the strategy Identifying values and assets at risk Setting salinity targets Managing trade–offs with the available within–valley options Implementing salinity and catchment management plans Redesigning farming systems Targeting reforestation and vegetation management Constructing salt interception works Ensuring Basin–wide accountability, monitoring, evaluating and reporting. The BSMS commenced in 2001–02 and is scheduled for completion by 2015. Terms of reference The terms of reference of the IAG–Salinity of the BSMS are in Appendix 1 of this report. A summary of Schedule B, including its provisions concerning the audit of the BSMS, are in Appendix 2. The development of the annual audit and reporting process has been a significant achievement for the BSMS. As set down in the Audit Plan, priority areas for review in this audit included the following: Registers: those Schedule B accountabilities required to be reported to MDBA and to the Ministerial Council, particularly the auditors’ assessment of whether the BSMS salinity registers are a fair and accurate record of the salinity impacts of actions. Reviews: those rolling five–year reviews of register entries that are due to be completed and assessed; however, where the reviews have not been completed within the timeframes set down in Schedule B, some comment should be provided on: the potential for improved estimates, given the available data and the development of analytical tools since the last assessment the relative risks in terms of likelihood and consequence, compared with other salinity assessments that have been, or should be, undertaken by the contracting governments.
Kerang Lakes/Swan Hill SMP. Campaspe West SMP. Woorinen Irrigation District Excision. Based on Site Use Approvals. Of course, each action would retain its identity and sequence in BIGMOD simulations. Only the appearance of the action in the register would change. An additional recommendation for consolidated entries is that the requirement for regular reviews be removed and the need for any further reviews considered as part of the mid-term review of BSMS 2030. The IAG-Salinity has commented more generally and made recommendations on issues affecting the Salinity Registers to be considered in the development of the BSMS 2030 in Section 4. Figure 5: Ranked Register A Credit Entries Figure : Ranked Register A Debit Entries 6. Response to Recommendations from 2012-13 Audit not considered elsewhere All jurisdictions and the MDBA outlined their responses to the recommendations of the 2012-13 audit recommendations. The IAG-Salinity noted that the MDBA and jurisdictions were generally supportive of the intent and direction of the recommendations and that many of the recommendations had been considered as part of the General Review of Salinity Management in the MDB (August 2014). All had been progressed to some extent and all were being further considered in the development of the BSMS 2030.
Appendix 4: Outcome of audit recommendations since BSMS mid-term review in 2008 Table : Outcome of audit recommendations since BSMS mid term review in 2008 Audit year Number of Recommendations / priority Completed Partially completed Continuing Redundant or superseded Remarks 2008-09 9 – high priority 5 – normal priority 9 4 1 All high priority recommendations were completed. Many of the recommendations which related to salinity registers were actioned in a short time. Other recommendations involved development of concepts, and became multi-year tasks. The tasks were fully or partially completed and considered in the development of the draft Basin Plan. 2009-10 11 – high priority 7 – normal priority 13 4 1 Most recommendations were completed, mainly by means of finalising reports. All multi-year tasks were at least progressed via the evolving understanding of the underlying concepts involved. 2010-11 8 2 3 2 1 Most recommendations involved issues addressed by drafting of the Basin Plan or progressing or recurring, tasks. Progress made on most items. 2011-12 5 3 1 1 Finalising the Basin Plan provided completion of some of the recommendations with multi-year tasks. Progress was made on other recommendations while completing the key tasks. 2012-13 7 6 1 Most of the recommendations with multi-year tasks were brought to conclusion. All one-year tasks were also completed. TOTAL 52 33 12 4 3