Download 2011 Biennial Assessment of the National Water Initiative submission

ANU COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, BIOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr Karen Hussey
Senior Lecturer
The Fenner School of Environment and Society
& Co-Chair, ANU Water Initiative
Hancock Building #43
Canberra ACT 0200 Australia
T: +61 2 6125 5111
F: +61 2 6125 0651
E: [email protected]
www.anu.edu.au
The 2011 Biennial Assessment
National Water Commission
95 Northbourne Avenue
CANBERRA ACT 2600
By e-mail: [email protected]
8 January 2011
Dear Madam/Sir,
Submission on the 2011 Biennial Assessment of the National Water Initiative
We write - belatedly - with a submission on the Discussion Paper for the National Water Initiative
(NWI)’s 2011 Biennial Assessment of Progress in Implementation.
Our submission draws on our research and case studies, and briefly focuses on five key issues,
namely: integrated governance; more extensive water planning; integration of climate, energy and
water policies; the need for more sophisticated climate change adaptation; and conservation of
freshwater ecosystems. The issues we raise address a number of aspects of the objectives and
questions asked in the Discussion Paper.
Our submission is predicated on our view that if the NWI was fully implemented there would be a
substantial improvement in management of freshwater resources and ecosystems in Australia.
However our research suggests that state and federal government implementation of NWI policies is
proving inadequate as demonstrated by their failure to maintain the ecological character of Ramsar
wetlands along the River Murray (Pittock et al., 2010). It is our view that further, major institutional
reform is required if the NWI is to achieve its objectives.
1. Integrated governance
There is considerable Australian and international evidence that effective water policy reform
requires leadership, a legal mandate, horizontal and vertical institutional integration, and
independent and accountability mechanisms (Connell, 2007; Huitema and Meijerink, 2009; Hussey
and Dovers, 2007; Pittock, 2009; Ross and Dovers, 2008). The NWI itself is an example of vertical
1
integration, and the Commission provides one largely independent accountability mechanism,
however other key attributes of successful policy reform are missing.
As an intergovernmental agreement the NWI lacks a strong legal mandate required to hold the states
more accountable. It is our view that the NWI’s legal mandate should be strengthened through
federal legislation based on the foreign affairs power to implement Australia’s obligations under
treaties to conserve wetlands and biodiversity, and respond to climate change, similarly to the Water
Act (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008; Pittock et al., 2010). Stronger enforcement provisions are
also required. Here Australia could learn from the European Union’s Water Framework Directive
where in the worst instances of non-compliance can result in third parties or the European
Commission taking member states to the European Court of Justice for enforcement (EC, 2001).
Incentives for compliance are another key element that the NWI has missed since tranche payments
under the National Competition Policy ended (Connell, 2007; Pittock and Connell, 2010). Further,
at the catchment scale, consistent and independent funding of a portion of the budget of
management agencies is essential for leveraging adequate resources for implementation (Pittock,
2009). Consequently we recommend that the assessment consider the reintroduction of: a) national,
performance-based incentive payments, and b) catchment management levies to sustain catchment
management agencies.
This simple summary of a number of examples of more effective institutional reform indicates that
while difficult, institutional change is possible and should be considered by Australia’s
governments.
2. Water planning
In our view water planning has been a key NWI measure poorly implemented by the states, and we
believe that the Federal Government should have an approval and a call in power (similar to that
proposed for the Murray-Darling Basin in the Water Act) to ensure that each relevant water
catchment has an adequate water management plan.
The excessive flexibility in the NWI’s section 38 is a major barrier to systematic and effective water
planning and should be reviewed: ―The relevant State or Territory will determine whether a plan is
prepared, what area it should cover, the level of detail required, its duration or frequency of review,
and the amount of resources devoted to its preparation based on an assessment of the level of
development of water systems, projected future consumptive demand and the risks of not having a
detailed plan.‖ The suspension of water plans by NSW in 2006 and Victoria in 2007, and also the
lack of revision of Victorian plans before 2019 are all examples of an inadequate system (Pittock
and Connell, 2010; Pittock et al., 2010).
As an example, it is most incongruous that the major river flowing through the nation’s capital – the
Murrumbidgee River - is among those least well conserved by application of national policies for
sustainable management of water. Problems of ad hoc management and gaps between the
jurisdictions are evident in managing the river. Specifically, Snowy Hydro operates under
entitlements outside mainstream water management. Environmental flows promised from
Tantangara Dam under the 2002 Snowy Deed of Implementation for ―Snowy Montane Rivers‖ have
not eventuated. The recently approved Murrumbidgee to Googong water transfer will operate under
ACT water legislation for environmental flows even though the ACT has no control over river flows
entering the ACT from NSW tens of metres upstream of the pump station. Upstream of Burrunjuck
2
Dam there is no water sharing plan even though this is clearly necessary given the changing demand
for water for hydropower, irrigation and urban development in this catchment. This situation does
not reflect ―clear and nationally-compatible characteristics for secure water access entitlements‖,
―transparent, statutory-based water planning‖, or ―statutory provision for environmental and other
public benefit outcomes, and improved environmental management practices‖ as required under the
NWI (s. 23). Section 36 of the Initiative requires that ―statutory water plans will be prepared for
surface water ... management units in which entitlements are issued.‖ This example of inadequate
management should spur Australian governments to revise and enhance the NWI to eliminate
loopholes and achieve more systematic water planning.
3. Integration of climate, energy and water policies
Since the establishment of the NWI in 2004 understanding of the direct impacts of climate change
and of the impacts on water resources of climate change response measures has increased greatly.
We consider that the NWI now needs to be revised to reflect these new understandings and ensure
that the links between climate change, energy and water are actively managed (Pittock, in press;
Proust, 2007; Smart and Aspinall, 2009).
Under the NWI climate change is rightly envisaged as directly impacting on water variability and
supply, and responses are proposed in terms of water demand management and allocations. Previous
institutional failures are being addressed, such as conjunctive management of surface and ground
waters. Action to address other inflow interception activities such as farm dams and forest
plantations has been proposed through regulation, extending water entitlement regimes and markets
but implementation is lacking (CSIRO, 2008; MDBA, 2010; Sinclair Knight Merz et al., 2010).
These limited measures, while necessary, have two conceptual failings. First, all current
assessments of these risks are based on existing policies and trends rather than the accelerated
change that is inevitable with new climate change policies, for instance, estimate of inflow losses
due to plantations are based on current forestry policies (CSIRO, 2008; Sinclair Knight Merz et al.,
2010) and not the much larger area likely to be afforested under carbon sequestration emissions
(ALP, 2010; LPA, 2010). Second, current measures fail to appreciate the inevitable emergence of
new technologies and rapid expansion of threats to water resources as climate change policies alter
regulatory and market incentives. Coal seam gas extraction is a prominent example. Dramatic
changes in water use associated with geothermal, solar, wind and hydropower are also likely (Evans
et al., 2009; Glennon and Reeves, 2010; Inhaber, 2004; Pittock, 2010), and the NWI must be revised
to enable such changes in water use to be identified early and progressively, and have management
measures incorporated into national water institutions. A number of policy measures to do this are
currently the focus of projects under the ANU Water Initiative and will soon be published as
contributions to your deliberations. It is clear that sectoral policy making by Australia’s
governments is resulting in energy and climate policies that do not consider the perverse impacts on
water demand, and institutional reforms are required to optimize benefits for society across these
sectors. An immediate step for the NWI would be more rigorous measures to include water use in
mining and energy generation in the water entitlement and pricing regimes to restrict extractions,
pay for sustainable management and enable water entitlement to move to the highest value uses
(Smart and Aspinall, 2009).
3
4. Climate change adaptation
Measures to respond to climate change impacts were considered in the NWI, but in terms of
conservation of freshwater biodiversity the focus has largely been on water allocations, in particular,
environmental flows. Environmental flows are essential and have been inadequate in water volumes
and implementation (Pittock et al., 2010). However there is more to conservation and adaptation of
freshwater ecosystems than provision of environmental flows: relying on this measure alone is
highly risky and ignores a suite of complementary measures that could spread risk and greatly aid
adaptation. We advocate revision of the NWI to view freshwater ecosystems on a spectrum of freeflowing to highly regulated rivers, to identify and apply different adaptation measures for the
conservation and adaptation of these systems (Pittock and Finlayson, in press). A focus on
conserving and restoring connectivity of freshwater ecosystems is particularly important, and should
involve measures like reservation of remaining free-flowing rivers and riparian restoration
programs. Further, enhanced measures to conserve refugia within freshwater ecosystems, such as
gaining river reaches, should be considered in addition to large, (semi-) terminal floodplain
wetlands (Pittock and Finlayson, in press).
A vital measure that should be added to the NWI is provision for periodic relicensing of all water
infrastructure, similar to the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s process for hydropower
dams (Pittock and Hartmann, in press). As climate and hydrology change, and as the technology and
use of water infrastructure evolves it is essential that these structures are reviewed periodically to
ensure that they are safe, that benefits to society are optimized, and that all current safety, social and
environmental measures are applied to their operations.
5. Conservation of freshwater ecosystems
One of the major failings of NWI implementation to date is measures for the conservation of
freshwater ecosystems. By comparison to the terrestrial and marine biomes, Australia has
comprehensively failed to categorise freshwater ecosystems, identify high conservation value sites,
and implement measures for comprehensive, adequate and representative conservation of this biota
(as we are obliged to do under the Convention on Biological Diversity and Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands; Nevill, 2007; Pittock, 2008). Such conservation measures should be a priority in a revised
NWI.
6. Conclusion
In our comments above we call on Australia’s governments to revise the National Water Initiative
to: increase incentive and enforcement measures; make water planning more systematic, better
integrate sectoral policies, and enhance climate change adaptation and freshwater conservation
measures. It is unlikely that consensus would be reached between the federal, state and territory
jurisdictions on all these measures. It is our view that the Federal Government should move beyond
a lowest common denominator position on reform of the National Water Initiative. Providing
incentives will be an important strategy to gain greater state compliance. We also call on the Federal
Government to override objections by recalcitrant state governments where necessary. We consider
that under the foreign affairs power of the constitution the Federal Government should more fully
exercise its sweeping mandates to regulate for more sustainable management of water under the
4
conventions on climate change, biodiversity and wetlands (Pittock et al., 2010). The NWI need a
stronger legislative underpinning.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Karen Hussey
Senior Lecturer,
Fenner School of Environment and Society
College of Medicine, Biology and Environment,
& Co-Chair ANU Water Initiative
Mr Jamie Pittock
Director of International Programs,
UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and
Transboundary Water Governance
Crawford School of Economics and Government
Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200
Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200
References:
ALP, (2010) Carbon farming fact sheet. Australia Labor Party, Canberra.
Commonwealth of Australia, (2008) Water Act 2007, in: Attorney-General's Department (Ed.), Act No. 137
as amended. Commonwealth of Australia,, Canberra.
Connell, D. (2007) Water politics in the Murray-Darling Basin. The Federation Press, Leichardt.
CSIRO, (2008) Water availability in the Murray-Darling Basin. A report from CSIRO to the Australian
Government. CSIRO, Canberra.
EC, (2001) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000
establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. European Commission,
Brussels.
Evans, A., Strezov, V., Evans, T.J. (2009) Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy
technologies. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 13, 1082-1088.
Glennon, R., Reeves, A.M. (2010) Solar energy's cloudy future. Arizona Journal of Environmental Law and
Policy 1, 91-137.
Huitema, D., Meijerink, S., (2009) Water policy entrepreneurs. A research companion to water transitions
around the globe. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Hussey, K., Pittock J. (in press) The Energy-Water Nexus: Managing the Links between Energy and Water
for a Sustainable Future, Ecology and Society.
Hussey, K., Dovers, S., (2007) Managing water for Australia : the social and institutional challenges. CSIRO
Publishing, Collingwood.
5
Inhaber, H. (2004) Water use in renewable and conventional electricity production. Energy Sources 26, 309322.
LPA, (2010) The Coalition's direct action plan environment and climate change. Liberal Party of Australia,
Canberra.
MDBA (2010) Guide to the proposed Basin Plan: overview. Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Canberra.
Nevill, J. (2007) Policy failure: Australian freshwater protected area networks. Australasian Journal of
Environmental Management 14, 35-47.
Pittock, J., (2008) Freshwater biodiversity conservation through protected areas: international obligations
and lessons for Australia., Australian Protected Areas Congress 2008, Twin Waters, Queensland, pp. 217220.
Pittock, J. (2009) Lessons for climate change adaptation from better management of rivers. Climate and
Development 1, 194-211.
Pittock, J. (2010) Better management of hydropower in an era of climate change. Water Alternatives 3, 444452.
Pittock, J. (in press) A pale reflection of political reality: Integration of global climate, wetland, and
biodiversity agreements. Climate Law.
Pittock, J., Connell, D. (2010) Australia demonstrates the planet’s future: water and climate in the MurrayDarling Basin. International Journal of Water Resources Development 26, 561 — 578.
Pittock, J., Finlayson, C.M. (in press) Australia's Murray-Darling Basin: freshwater ecosystem conservation
options in an era of climate change. Marine and Freshwater Research.
Pittock, J., Finlayson, C.M., Gardner, A., McKay, C. (2010) Changing character: the Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands and climate change in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Environmental and Planning Law
Journal 27, 401-425.
Pittock, J., Hartmann, J. (in press) Taking a second look: climate change, periodic re-licensing and better
management of old dams. Marine and Freshwater Research.
Proust, K., Dovers, S., Foran, B., Newall, B., Steffan, W. & Troy, P. (2007) Climate, energy and water:
accounting for the links. Land and Water Australia, Canberra.
Ross, A., Dovers, S. (2008) Making the Harder Yards: Environmental Policy Integration in Australia.
Australian Journal of Public Administration 67, 245-260.
Sinclair Knight Merz, CSIRO, Bureau of Rural Sciences (2010) Surface and/or groundwater interception
activities: initial estimates. National Water Commission, Canberra.
Smart, A., Aspinall, A. (2009) Water and the electricity generation industry. Implications of use. National
Water Commission, Canberra.
6