Some ideas about how audit could help your natural resource program monitoring program, based on our recent experience across Australian NRM programs.

1. How can NRM audit help MER?
Tim Kirby, Sydney

2. How can NRM audit can help MER?
This presentation introduces ideas you could use if you
are considering using audit as a governance tool for
your NRM program, or if you are wondering how NRM
audit can fit in with your monitoring, evaluation and
reporting (MER) process.
Why would you need to fit NRM audit with your MER?
Shouldn’t MER be enough to drive adaptive
management, so NRM programs best meet their
objectives?
e: timkirbysydney@bigpond.com

3. MER is not enough sometimes
While your MER may be the best way to drive adaptive
management and continuous
improvement, sometimes it is not enough to convince
your stakeholders that you are doing a great job.
In particular, some stakeholders are put off by the
scientific uncertainty in MER assessments of
achievements.
NRM audit can give confidence to these stakeholders.
e: timkirbysydney@bigpond.com

4. Particular issues with fit
1. MER will help inform reports, but audit will help
confirm them
2. MER will help improve systems and resilience, but
audit can give confidence about outcomes
3. MER can get bogged in detail but audit will focus
on material
4. Reporting solely with MER can sometimes backfire
and weaken commitment to investing in MER
5. Audit can be used to leverage the value of MER
e: timkirbysydney@bigpond.com

5. MER inform - audit confirm
e: timkirbysydney@bigpond.com
 MER is aimed at informing performance
reporting, both internally and externally.
 It is part of how program management demonstrates
they are doing a good job.
 Audit is about confirming performance reporting.
 It is part of how program funders get confidence that
delegated responsibilities are being undertaken well.

6. Improvement and confidence
e: timkirbysydney@bigpond.com
 MER is aimed at continuous improvement in
efficiency and effectiveness.
 Audit is aimed at giving confidence in how things are
going.
 Some stakeholders need to hear both messages, and
some only need to be given confidence.

7. Detail and ‘material’
e: timkirbysydney@bigpond.com
 MER programs are geared to improvement at
multiple scales, including project detail.
 In the absence of strategic level data, often project
detail is reported.
 This can sometimes create the impression of too
much detail in reporting.
 Audit focusses on what is ‘material’ – ie the stuff that
matters to the audience.
 While this carries a risk of being too ‘shallow’, the
mix of using MER and audit is very complementary.

8. Putting MER funding at risk
e: timkirbysydney@bigpond.com
 Funding for long-term MER programs is always hard
to secure and protect.
 To some stakeholders, scientifically uncertain (early)
data creates the impression that the programs aren’t
working. This begs the question of why they are
receiving funding, that could be used elsewhere.
 Performance reports to stakeholders that relies
heavily on MER data can therefore put the whole
MER program at risk.

9. Again, MER is not enough sometimes
To repeat the message, while your MER may be the
best way to drive adaptive management and
continuous improvement, sometimes it is not enough
to convince your stakeholders that you are doing a
great job.
NRM audit can give confidence to these stakeholders.
MER and NRM audit are a perfect fit.
e: timkirbysydney@bigpond.com

10. Contact details
e: timkirbysydney@bigpond.com
 Environmental Risk Science and Audit (ERSA)
 Tim Kirby, Sydney
 Chartered Accountant (NZ), Certified Internal Auditor
(IIA), Lead Environmental Auditor (RABQSA),
 Masters of Environmental and Business Management
(University of Newcastle), Bachelor of Commerce
(University of Canterbury)
 m: 0433 488 569
 e: timkirbysydney@bigpond.com or
tkirby@riskaudit.com.au