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 83% consumptive water use area of irrigated land fell 9% from 2001 to 2006 area of irrigated land fell 9% from 2001 to 2006 GV IAP increased slightly from 2001 to 2006 GV IAP increased slightly from 2001 to 2006 Decline in rice and cotton in particular during drought 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 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 most advantaged – centred on cities and towns second-most disadvantaged second-most disadvantaged 68% population in SLAs with index value lower than national average 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%) GV IAP reduce by $805 million annually (13%) Basin-wide loose 800 jobs (0.1%) 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)

On-farm effects (irrigators) 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) Environmental changes eg scenic amenity, fish recoveries, water depth, flora and fauna changes, ecosystem recoveries eg wetlands Water resource change Increased volume in river Seasonal and level variations Reduction available for extraction (varies by stream and within stream in some cases) Farmer responses Sell up and retire Buy more land Invest in water efficiencies Plant less crop Change crop/operation Buy water on the market 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 crop- specific) For packing and processing industries (often large employers, usually crop-specific) 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 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 Employment effects (by skill level) Effects on small businessviability Quality of life benefits Within region Beyond region Economic opportunities Subsistence Tourism and recreation related businesses Attraction of ‘lifestyle’residents Increased attractiveness of towns and rural On-farm effects (irrigators) By type of crop By scale and capitalisation of property By characteristics of farmer - Environmental changes eg scenic amenity, fish recoveries, water depth, flora and fauna changes, ecosystem recoveries eg wetlands Water resource change Increased volume in river Seasonal and level variations Reduction available for extraction Farmer responses Sell up and retire Buy more land Invest in water efficiencies Plant less crop Change crop/operation Buy water on the market 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) For transport industries (often crop- specific) For packing and processing industries (often large employers, usually crop-specific) 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 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 Employment effects (by skill level) Effects on small businessviability Quality of life benefits Within region Beyond region Economic opportunities Subsistence Tourism and recreation related businesses Attraction of ‘lifestyle’residents Increased attractiveness of towns and rural Social impact scoping model 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 : 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 Tourism and recreation – water and wildlife based Increase in lifestyle residency 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  People – place connections  Knowledge skills and learning  Community networks  Engaged governance  Diverse and innovative economy  Community infrastructure (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