Planning for Change:Understanding the Murray-Darling Basin

‘Beyond the Count’ ABS conference

Jim Donaldson

4 March 2011

Aim of presentation

• To provide a taste of how Census data has been used to make a difference in water resource planning in the Murray-Darling Basin

– discuss some of the challenges involved: policy and information

The Murray-Darling Basin

The Murray-Darling Basin

Murray-Darling Basin

• 14% of Australia (size of Spain & France)

• Directly supports 3 million people

• Feeds approximately 20 million people

• Significant environmental values

• Australia’s three longest rivers

• 40% Australia’s farmers

• Gross value of agricultural production $15b (40% Australia) – irrigation: $5.5b (15%)

• Agricultural exports earn $9b/year

• Home to 34 major Indigenous groups

7

Hydrology of the Basin

Growth in Basin diversions

8

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Agriculture Mining Manufacturing Otherindustries

Households Water supplyindustry

GL

Consumptive water use

Current Trend

Total Water (GL) Water Use (GL)

Historical Climate 23,417 11,327 (48%)

2030 Median Climate 20,936 10,876 (52%)

2030 Dry Extreme 15,524 8,962 (58%)

(CSIRO Water Availability – 2008)

Ecosystem Health Assessments by Valley, 2004-07

The need for water reform

• Return extraction of water to a more sustainable level

• Support ecological health of the Basin

• Build a more certain future for communities

• Sustain economic output over long term

• Manage water resources for future generations

12

2007 Water Act&

Murray-Darling Basin Authority

1901Constitution

Building on past reform

13

1914River Murray Commission

1987Murray-Darling

Basin Commission

1990’s Cap on

Diversions &Water markets

2008COAG

Agreement

2004 National Water

Initiative&

The Living Murray

2010 Guide to the

proposed Basin Plan

What’s the issue?

• Rebalancing water use in the MDB– What’s the right balance?

• Trade-offs: optimise economic, social and environmental outcomes – Measuring the benefits and the costs – Water Act sets environmental thresholds

How much additional water does the

environment need?

The planning process

15

What are the potential impacts on the

community?

How to manage the transition?

What are the sustainable diversion

limit proposals?

What we were asked to do

• Describe social and economic circumstances of Basin communities dependent on Basin water resources

• Assess the likely economic and social implications of setting SDLs and developing the Basin Plan

– Inform setting of SDLs: OPTIMISE outcomes– Report on implications to government

Socio-economic assessments

16 studies undertaken:• Baseline socio-economic circumstances**• Review of structural adjustment pressures• Economic modelling and analysis• Local community profiles and assessments• Indicators of community vulnerability**• Effects of SDLs on Indigenous people• Assessment of benefits• Responses of financial institutions to changes• Cost benefit analysis

17

Socio-economic context report

• Description of Basin communities

• Baseline

• Data store

• Community profiles

• Monitoring and evaluation

Rural population trendsPercent of population living outside the State capital city,

for Murray-Darling Basin states (1901 - 2006)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2006

Year

Per

cent

of

Sta

te p

opul

atio

n

NSW

Vic.

Qld

SA

Source: ABS Australian Historical Population Statistics, cat. no. 3105.0.65.001

Population Projections - Basin

Population trends 2001-06

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

Major cities Inner regional Outer regional Remote Very remote

Per centPer cent

Population change by region

East Mt Lofty Ranges

Campaspe

Condamine-Balonne

Murrumbidgee

Goulburn-Broken

Murray

Ovens

Loddon-Avoca

Border Rivers

Macquarie-Castlereagh

Namoi

Lachlan

Wimmera

Moonie

Gw ydir

Warrego

Paroo

Barw on-Darling

-15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Population change, 2001-2006, Sustainable Yield Regions

Source: ABS Estimated Resident Population, data available on request

(%)

Indigenous population change

Population change 2006 - 2001, by Indigenous status and remoteness, Murray-Darling Basin

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

Canberra

Inner Regional

Outer Regional

Remote

Very Remote

Total Murray-Darling Basin

Percent Change (%)

Non-Indigenous population Indigenous populationSource: ABS Census of population and housing 2006 and 2001

Population Age by Sex

Employment 2001-06

0

30,000

60,000

90,000

120,000

150,000

180,000

0

30,000

60,000

90,000

120,000

150,000

180,000

Persons employedPersons employed

2001 2006

Key trends and messages

• Population is growing in the Basin

• There is a shift from remote to urban

• Employment in the Basin is growing

• Young working population declining

• However, employment in agriculture is declining – Provides some baseline data …

Analysing impacts on community

• Impact of different water reductions

• Impact of reductions on different farming sectors

• Off-farm or flow-on impacts (to business and community)

• Impact of reduction at Basin and regional scales

27

Reports

Community vulnerability

• Project on ‘Indicators of community vulnerability and adaptive capacity across the Murray-Darling Basin’

• Undertaken by ABARES

What is ‘community vulnerability’?

• Vulnerability: the degree to which a community is susceptible to pressures and disturbances, such as climate change or socio-economic processes

• The key questions:– Who is more vulnerable?– Why are particular populations vulnerable? – How do the vulnerabilities of regions compare?

… to reductions in water availability for consumptive purposes across the Basin

Vulnerability

Potential Impact

Vulnerability and its components

The project approach

• Composite indices - a widely accepted method for developing socio-economic indicators to measure change

• Based on a review of the literature related to indicator development using variables from census data sets

• These variables were theoretically derived and statistically verified to represent the constructs being measured

Criteria for indicator development

Parameters Output capability What was used

Scale • Basin and sub-regions

• Census Collection Districts (CCDs) and Statistical Local Areas (SLAs)

• Can be concorded, aggregated and disaggregated to desired scale

Data sources

• Comparable and reliable data that can be used to develop meaningful indicators of the constructs

• ABS Census of Population and Housing

• ABS Agricultural Census

Timescale • Comparable with past and future data collections

• 2006 Census data

Sensitivity

• a measure of how dependent a community is upon the

resource that is changing – e.g. irrigation water

Sensitivity

Components

Farm employment

Agricultural processing and downstream employment

Water dependence

Local economy agricultural dependence

Volume of irrigation water applied on farms

% Agricultural businesses irrigating

Sub-indexIndicators

Adaptive capacity

• Ability or potential of a community to adapt or change its

characteristics or behaviour to cope better with change

Adaptive Capacity

Components

Education levelsHousingIncomeEmploymentAge structureMobility

Local economic diversity

Social capital

Human capital

Economic diversity index

Volunteering ratesWomen in non-routine jobs

Sub-indexIndicators

Community vulnerability

• The degree to which a community is susceptible to pressures and disturbances, such as climate change or socio-economic processes

Vulnerability

Sub-index

Sensitivity

Adaptive capacity

Composite index

Community vulnerability

Murrumbidgee vulnerability

Murrumbidgee sensitivity

Murrumbidgee land use

Why is Coleambally more sensitive?

Coleambally Griffith

Very high proportion of agricultural businesses irrigating Moderate proportion of persons employed in agriculture and downstream agri-industries

High level of agricultural businesses irrigating

Low proportion of employment in agriculture and downstream agri-industries

Murrumbidgee adaptive capacity

Coleambally Griffith

Economic diversityLow economic diversityHuman capital Low level of unemploymentLow proportion of single parent familiesLow proportion of persons aged over 65Moderate proportion of persons aged 15 years and over with no post secondary school qualificationLow level of rented propertiesSocial capital Low proportion of people volunteeringModerate proportion of women in non-routine occupations

Economic diversityHigh economic diversity Human capital Moderate level of unemploymentLow proportion of single parent familiesLow proportion of persons aged over 65High proportion of persons aged 15 year and over with no post secondary school qualificationLow level of rented propertiesSocial capital Low proportion of people volunteeringLow proportion of women in non-routine occupations

Why is Coleambally less adaptive?

Interpreting the output

• Interpret at highest level, highlighting ‘communities’ with high degrees of vulnerability to changes in water access

• Investigate reasons for differences in community vulnerability by examining the underlying variables (e.g. regional comparison example)

• Aggregate results to other ‘geographies’ depending on scope of analysis

• Establish a baseline measure for monitoring

Economic Modelling

• Modelling of economic implications of potential reductions in water availability

– Agricultural sector and regional flow-on effects

– Changes in value of irrigated agriculture

– Regional economy impacts (Gross Regional Product, Employment)

• Data from other sources: e.g. Agricultural Census and surveys, Water Account

Key messages

• Census data is critical to understand the structure, dependencies and changes occurring in communities

• But Census data is insufficient for analysis of effects of water reform

• This brings challenges in ability to match and analyse data – consistency and compatibility

Data issues and challenges

• Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future! (Niels Bohr)

• Currency of data for use in modelling

– 2006 and 2001 data: challenge of looking forward when data is already old

• E.g. 2006 a drought year and face of rural Australia has reportedly changed much in the last 5 years

• Ability to match data from different sources and aggregate / disgregate – Economic data, water data, land use data, social data– E.g. agricultural census / surveys and Pop’n Census

Data issues and challenges

• Ability to cut data flexibly for non-standard geographies

• Ability to do time series analyses • Data is often not available at a regional

scale and / or not frequently enough to meet priority data needs, e.g.– Regular agricultural data– Small area wealth data– Water use data at a regional scale– Water practices and behaviour

Thank you

• ABS

• ABARES

• Particular thanks to Nyree Stenekes from ABARES for information on indicators of community vulnerability

• MDBA team

www.mdba.gov.au