A future with less water: The case of Australia s Murray-Darling Basin Aug 23, Tim Stubbs, Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, Australia

Transcription

1 Tim Stubbs, Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, Australia For over 100 years Australians have argued over the waters of the Murray-Darling Basin. We now have our best ever chance to use science and economics combined with serious funding from government to make the changes we need to make. However if we don t take into account the role of individuals and communities in this change we ll still be arguing for the next 100 years. Effects of a shallow water table MDBA/Arthur Mostead The Murray-Darling Basin is Australia s largest catchment, covering over 1 million square kilometres. Irrigation and dryland farming within the Basin produce 40% of Australia s food and fibre production for domestic and international markets. Like many countries around the world, Australians have taken our ability to manage and remove water from the system too far and not left enough in the Murray-Darling to sustain a healthy river. A healthy river provides water to the floodplains and wetlands which in turn provide the carbon and nutrients that run the system. Without a healthy river it s hard to sustain healthy industries and, in the long term, healthy communities. Understanding the dilemma, in 2004 Australian governments (both state and federal) agreed to a National Water Initiative (NWI). This was a groundbreaking document providing a blueprint for water reform. New legislation was subsequently passed to put the NWI into action. Successive federal governments have committed large amounts of money to implement the reform: A$8.9 billion is currently allocated to the task. Global Water Forum 1

2 So it seems all the hard work has been done. Governments have agreed on objectives, legislation is in place, and there s significant money to implement changes. Has reform followed? Although some good progress has been made, unfortunately 3 years down the track we are still a long way from having the water required for a healthy river. Irrigators are frustrated and anxious about an uncertain future. Regional communities feel isolated and feel that decisions involving their lives and futures are being made without them having a say. The lower lakes into which the Murray flows before reaching the sea are below sea level and the river mouth is only kept open by dredging. With so many of the critical and difficult parts of the puzzle already in place, how have things gotten so far off track? Some 3 years after the process started, there are still no official numbers on how much water needs to go to the environment. But this hasn t stopped over $4.4 billion (already) being committed to irrigation infrastructure projects. It puzzles me that we can spend huge amounts of money on irrigation infrastructure (pipes and pumps) without knowing how much water will be available for pumping. In the absence of information from government, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, worked with myself and a group of scientists, economists and social scientists to undertake an analysis of water in the Basin. The results suggest that there needs to be a further reduction of about 30% in long-term average surface water extractions across the Basin to give a high probability of achieving a healthy river system. Global Water Forum 2

3 All 18 catchments across the Basin will need to make a contribution, but some will have to contribute more than others. This is because some catchments are more overallocated than others and also because the economic efficiency of water use in some catchments produces greater economic benefits than water used in others. Edward River flowing through Barwah-Millewa Economic modelling undertaken as part of this Forest MDBA/Arthur Mostead analysis suggests that the economic and social impacts of these reforms can be minimised if water is acquired from the least productive uses. The Wentworth analysis modelling suggests that, in most catchments, the required reduction in diversions is less than 10%. However, in two catchments the reductions might be much more, up to 40% and 65%. The modelling also shows that if the water does come from the least productive uses, in most catchments the reduction in profits would be less than 3%. In the two catchments mentioned above that had the largest reductions in diversions, the reductions in profits (12% to 25%), although still significant, are appreciably less than the size of the reductions in diversions (40% and 65%). These are not recommendations; they are independent estimates of what is likely to happen. The Wentworth analysis shows that for some individuals and communities of the Basin the changes will be huge. Prior to the release of this work the size of the reform was not generally recognised. Changes of such a scale will transform irrigated agriculture in the Basin. There will be winners and there will be losers. Unfortunately the government has not yet published any numbers on the size of the Global Water Forum 3

4 reductions in extractions or where in the Basin they might occur. Without this information communities are being asked to make decisions about their future in the dark. The money that could potentially be available to help them make these decisions and invest in change is already being spent on pipes and pumps. This lack of information and communication shows that even though the physical components of water reform are in place we have forgotten the key component, people. Water reform is all about people. It is about people using less water, making decisions about their futures, and changing their livelihoods. Without any form of support or plan for the future, individuals and communities will struggle to make courageous and proactive decisions, about providing water for the environment while ensuring there is a vibrant and robust irrigation industry. In a situation where there is a lack of information, support, and leadership, communities are much more likely to retreat and defend the present practices as the only way forward (better the devil you know). If used wisely the money currently allocated for irrigation infrastructure could be used to provide skilled support and resources to help impacted communities. With these resources there is a greater chance that communities will be able to take the opportunity to diversify their economic base and attract new industries that complement what will still be a vibrant irrigation industry. Australia is at the crossroads. If we are honest and courageous we can use the money available to undertake water reform and deliver a vibrant and sustainable future for irrigation, for regional communities, and for the environment. If we get it wrong, it will provide a valuable forensic study for the rest of the world but it will be a mistake Australians will regret for generations to come. Global Water Forum 4

5 Tim Stubbs is an engineer with the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists who recently published the document Sustainable Diversions in the Murray-Darling Basin. Tim is also completing a book which captures people s stories of change as irrigation in Australia is slowly reformed. The views expressed in this article belong to the individual authors and do not represent the views of the Global Water Forum, the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance, UNESCO, the Australian National University, or any of the institutions to which the authors are associated. Please see the Global Water Forum terms and conditions here. Global Water Forum 5