1. Managing Salinity with Markets, Plants and Engineering (How do we move policy forward?) David Pannell This copy of slides has all photos removed to reduce file size

2. Degree of threat varies  Salt scald  Suitable for salt-tolerant plants  Completely unaffected

3. Values at threat vary  Agricultural land  Infrastructure  Threatened species, wetlands  Water

4. Responsiveness varies  Required intensity of management varies (but is generally high) Myth: increase water use of annuals National Land & Water Resource Audit

5. Cost of management varies  Perennials profitable in some areas  Unprofitable at high scale in most  Water efficient irrigation technologies available  Pumping is expensive Myth: farmers can & will change land use sufficiently with existing options

6. Put it all together...  Small areas have high priotity  high threat  high value  higher responsiveness to management  low cost  Some have moderate priority  Most have relatively low priority

7. Prioritising funds  We cannot buy a comprehensive solution  Focus $ support tightly onto high priority areas (or in ways that get high leverage)  Some catchments warrant few $  Investment framework Myth: Sharing the money around evenly is “fair”

8. ICM  Integrated  Fine  Catchment  Many situations require local management  e.g. many farm problems, country towns  Management (Planning)  Planning doesn’t get you adoption  What is the incentive? Myth: ICM

9. Protecting an environmental asset Diversion drain Lake Toolibin Lake Tarbilin Pumps

11. If not ICM then what?  Identify assets to protect  Analyse best method to protect them  May be local, catchment scale or in between  Consider “living with” salinity  Compare with other catchments  Prioritise at level above catchment  Concentrate funds to create incentive

12. “Living with salinity” options  Water resources: desalination  Built infrastructure: repair (Merredin townsite)

13. Servicing the majority  Develop and promote technologies for salinity prevention (leverage)

14. Servicing the majority  Develop and promote methods for “living with” salinity

15. Which technologies?  Need a wide diversity  They need to be profitable  Existing suite inadequate  Different methods suit different situations/different problems

17. Policy approaches  Policy instruments to encourage change on private land  market-based instruments (NAP)  subsidies (NHT)  extension, information (Landcare)  regulation  Direct works (e.g. on public land)  Technology development & industry development

19. Recommendations 1  Adopt a framework to assess and target salinity investments  Reverse the planning approach: asset based, not catchment based  Prioritise at state or national scale, not only catchment scale  Modify role of catchment planning groups

20. Recommendations 2  Allow time and resources for analysis of options. Provide technical support.  Adopt targets which come from analysis, not from desires  Include options for “living with salinity” in the analysis

21. Recommendations 3  De-emphasise policy instruments to achieve land-use change (including market-based instruments)  Recognise direct govt action (fully funded works, purchase water)  Change the nature of extension & communication  Promote properly evaluated technologies

22. Recommendations 4  Allocate 10-15% of salinity budget to technology development and industry development  Plants (CRC)  Engineering (CSIRO)  Keep an open mind and expect it to need to be changed

23. http://welcome.to/seanews Acknowledgements Select Committee on Salinity Tom Hatton, David Bennett Grains Research and Development Corp.