Transcript Slide 1

Water for Society:
securing the common good
Helen Ross and Sally Driml
Orientation





Common good – the good of the
environment and also society
Socio-ecological systems such as MDB are
complex and adaptive – behave in non
linear ways
Avoid a simple view of structural adjustment
in a static situation
Focus on community resilience
Comment on proposed MDB adjustment
strategies
Socio-economic profile and trends
In 2006
 Population 2.1 million (up 3% from 2001)
 Employment 920,000 (up 70,800 from 2001)
 11% workforce in Agriculture, forestry, fisheries (declined
by 13,300 jobs from 2001)
 GV Agricultural Production $15 billion
 GV Irrigated Agricultural Production $5.5 billion
 83% consumptive water use
 area of irrigated land fell 9% from 2001 to 2006
 GV IAP increased slightly from 2001 to 2006
 Decline in rice and cotton in particular during drought
Trends in social characteristics

Increase in proportion of people in older age
group, largest decline in 25-34 yrs group
 Number residents in very remote areas fell 3.2%
 Index of relative socio-economic disadvantage
shows bi-modal pattern, with peaks in
 most advantaged – centred on cities and
towns
 second-most disadvantaged
 68% population in SLAs with index value
lower than national average
Guide proposals and projected
socio-economic impacts
 MDBA
made a judgement that SDL over
4,000 GL/y would not be able to ‘optimise
economic, social and environmental
outcomes’
 3000 GL/y scenario


GV IAP reduce by $805 million annually
(13%)
Basin-wide loose 800 jobs (0.1%)
 More
research has been commissioned
Proposed MDB adjustment
strategies
 Water
trading by individuals, with ancillary
measures should there be insufficient
willing sellers
 Water resource planning (under state
instruments)
 Provision for structural adjustment
assistance
 Transitional arrangements
 9 years to full implementation
Adjustment issues
 Buy
back means that focus is on indirect
and community impacts
 No standard approach to regional
adjustment
 Little evaluation of past adjustment efforts
 Old model- impose on community
 Old model – pick winners
Social consequences of reduced
water for extraction
Individual irrigators’ choices (water trading)
Aggregated consequences for agriculture
Supply chain consequences
Consequences for non-farm individuals and communities
Balanced against individual and community consequences
of more water in the river system
(Ross and Hassall et al. for Living Murray Project, 2003)
Water
Waterresource
resource
change
change
Increased
volume in river
Environmental
changes
Quality of life
benefits
eg scenic amenity, fish
recoveries, water depth,
flora and fauna changes,
ecosystem recoveries
eg wetlands
Attraction of
‘lifestyle’ residents
Within region
Beyond region
Economic
decline/recovery
Social impacts on
individuals and
communities
Town growth or
decline.
Demographic
profiles affecting
• Business viability
• Social resources
•Viability of
services
•Social activities eg
viability of
sporting and leisure
organisations
Increased attractiveness
of towns and rural
Economic
opportunities
Seasonal and
level variations
Subsistence
Tourism and recreation
related businesses
Employment effects (by skill level) Effects on small business viability
On-farm effects
(irrigators)
Reduction
available for
extraction
(varies by
stream and
within stream in
some cases)
• By type of crop
(flowers, vines,
fruit etc
• By scale and
capitalisation of
property (small,
large etc)
• By characteristics
of farmer (age /
life-cycle
stage,
education / skill
level)
Farmer
responses
• Sell up and
retire
• Buy more land
• Invest in water
efficiencies
• Plant less crop
• Change
crop/operation
• Buy water on the
market
Social impact scoping model
Aggregated
consequences
(farms)
• Fewer, larger
farms
• Changed farmer
demographics,
skill levels
• Changed set of
crops/ operations
in area
• Changed profit
Supply chain
consequences
• For input and service
industries (often small
businesses) eg
irrigation supplies up,
other supplies down
• For transport
industries (often cropspecific)
• For packing and
processing industries
(often large
employers, usually
crop-specific)
Concentrations of
socio-economic
groups eg retirees,
low income
families.
Personal and
community
identity, sense of
place.
Psychological and
health impacts eg
stress levels.
Quality of life
Hassall et al. 2003
e.g. Wine grapes
On-farm effects
 Reduced water available for irrigation during peak
season
 Higher cost of water for those who have not bought
high-security entitlements?
Farmer response options
1: Expend to improve water use efficiency (decrease in
wealth or increase in debt); maintain or improve
production levels
2: Irrigate favourable varieties of wine grapes; reducing
wine grape crop production, potentially leading to
reduced income,
3: Buy more water and/or land to maintain level of
production and income (decrease in wealth or increase in
debt);
4: sell water allocation on the permanent or temporary
market and then sell land, potentially stays out of
production
Aggregated consequences
Farming
 Few, larger farms, employ fewer people, more farmer effort
 loss of skilled labour, relocation of people outside area
 Reduced crop, potential for price rises
Aggregating to
1: Increase in business for irrigation suppliers and engineers,
reduced demand for other farm purchases
2: Reduced transport industries, reduced product for processing
(often large employers)
3: Decline in opportunities for professional workforce and in
viticulture education
4: Reduced retail spending......all leading to.......
5: impacts on towns, farm supply and retail businesses –
greatest effects on towns with high reliance on seasonal labour,
processing industry, agricultural suppliers
6: Demographic changes, loss of professionals, property
values, community activities (bonding), psychological stress
Resilience analysis
(examples – anonymous
locations)
High resilience areas:
Economically diverse, tiers of activity, agriculturally
diverse, support services high; main issues re water:
water storages – health (algae), fluctuating water level
Low resilience areas:
Land of marginal suitability for production (drained), high
dependence on water, water leaving area through
trading, limited dryland farming opportunities, smaller
less viable farm sizes, smaller communities, absence of
processing industries or single-crop dependent.
Benefitting stakeholders and areas
 Areas


close to rivers
Tourism and recreation – water and wildlife
based
Increase in lifestyle residency
 Aboriginal
people
 Commercial and recreational fishers
(Hassall et al. 2003)
Social resilience – what should we
consider?
 Resilience
- the ability of a community or
other social unit to recover from a
disturbance, and possibly transform to a
new state.
 What attributes should be fostered to
support communities, industries and their
regions?
Index of Vulnerability
Very low – dark blue
Low – mid blue
Moderate – green
High – amber
Very high - red
(ABARE-BRS 2010)
Six attributes of social resilience
– place connections
 Knowledge skills and learning
 Community networks
 Engaged governance
 Diverse and innovative economy
 Community infrastructure
 People
(Ross et al, Gooch et al)
Conclusions





Need to manage the whole system (nested
scales, complex, adaptive)
Need a more sophisticated understanding of the
socio-ecological system, ongoing internal and
external change
Need a good understanding of the key elements
for community resilience – then foster strengths
Communities and regions need this information
Need collaborative planning processes