Murray Darling Basin Authority

The challenge

Following the Basin Plan’s commencement, the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) needed a coherent evaluation framework to assess whether the Plan was achieving its environmental, social and economic objectives under the Water Act 2007. The task was to translate the Plan’s Chapters, Schedule 12 “Matters for evaluation and reporting”, and statutory Key Evaluation Questions into a practical, Basin‑wide system of program logic, indicators, data and methods that could guide annual, five‑yearly and ten‑yearly evaluations.

Our approach

The work produced two core technical products: a Basin Plan Evaluation Framework and Plan, and a detailed Basin Plan program logic.

• The Framework and Plan set out the evaluation architecture: key evaluation questions, a unifying program logic, indicator sets, data sources, methods, synthesis processes, reporting cycles and adaptive management arrangements. It embedded Chapter 13 principles (use of program logic, collaboration with Basin States and the Commonwealth, risk‑based monitoring, best available science, and evaluation to support adaptive management) and linked them to concrete evaluation tasks.
• The detailed program logic unpacked how each major element of the Basin Plan (surface and groundwater SDLs, environmental watering plans, water quality and salinity plans, trading rules and enabling activities such as risk management and     critical human water needs) connects activities and outputs to intermediate and long‑term outcomes. For each component it specified indicators, data sources and evaluation questions, and showed how Schedule 12 Matters and section 71 reporting obligations feed into evaluation of implementation efficiency (“bridging the gap”) and effectiveness.

The result

Together, the framework and program logic provide MDBA and Basin States with a single, integrated evaluation spine for the Basin Plan. They clarify what success looks like across strategic integration, environmental outcomes, and social and economic outcomes; what evidence is needed; how it should be analysed; and how findings should inform adaptive management and future Basin Plan revisions. The approach has enabled more consistent, transparent evaluations of Basin Plan implementation and effectiveness, and created a durable structure that can be refined as knowledge, data and policy evolve.

‍