Water for Society: Water for Society: securing the common good securing the common good

Helen Ross and Sally DrimlHelen Ross and Sally Driml

OrientationOrientation Common good – the good of the Common good – the good of the

environment and also societyenvironment and also society Socio-ecological systems such as MDB are Socio-ecological systems such as MDB are

complex and adaptive – behave in non complex and adaptive – behave in non linear wayslinear ways

Avoid a simple view of structural adjustment Avoid a simple view of structural adjustment in a static situationin a static situation

Focus on community resilienceFocus on community resilience Comment on proposed MDB adjustment Comment on proposed MDB adjustment

strategies strategies

Socio-economic profile and trendsSocio-economic profile and trends

In 2006In 2006 Population 2.1 million (up 3% from 2001)Population 2.1 million (up 3% from 2001) Employment 920,000 (up 70,800 from 2001)Employment 920,000 (up 70,800 from 2001) 11% workforce in Agriculture, forestry, fisheries (declined 11% workforce in Agriculture, forestry, fisheries (declined

by 13,300 jobs from 2001)by 13,300 jobs from 2001) GV Agricultural Production $15 billionGV Agricultural Production $15 billion GV Irrigated Agricultural Production $5.5 billionGV Irrigated Agricultural Production $5.5 billion

83% consumptive water use83% 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 2006GV 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 characteristicsTrends in social characteristics

Increase in proportion of people in older age Increase in proportion of people in older age group, largest decline in 25-34 yrs groupgroup, largest decline in 25-34 yrs group

Number residents in very remote areas fell 3.2%Number residents in very remote areas fell 3.2% Index of relative socio-economic disadvantage Index of relative socio-economic disadvantage

shows bi-modal pattern, with peaks in shows bi-modal pattern, with peaks in most advantaged – centred on cities and most advantaged – centred on cities and

townstowns second-most disadvantagedsecond-most disadvantaged 68% population in SLAs with index value 68% population in SLAs with index value

lower than national averagelower than national average

Guide proposals and projected Guide proposals and projected socio-economic impactssocio-economic impacts

MDBA made a judgement that SDL over MDBA made a judgement that SDL over 4,000 GL/y would not be able to ‘optimise 4,000 GL/y would not be able to ‘optimise economic, social and environmental economic, social and environmental outcomes’outcomes’

3000 GL/y scenario3000 GL/y scenario GV IAP reduce by $805 million annually GV IAP reduce by $805 million annually

(13%)(13%) Basin-wide loose 800 jobs (0.1%)Basin-wide loose 800 jobs (0.1%)

More research has been commissionedMore research has been commissioned

Proposed MDB adjustment Proposed MDB adjustment strategiesstrategies

Water trading by individuals, with ancillary Water trading by individuals, with ancillary measures should there be insufficient measures should there be insufficient willing sellerswilling sellers

Water resource planning (under state Water resource planning (under state instruments)instruments)

Provision for structural adjustment Provision for structural adjustment assistanceassistance

Transitional arrangementsTransitional arrangements 9 years to full implementation 9 years to full implementation

Adjustment issuesAdjustment issues

Buy back means that focus is on indirect Buy back means that focus is on indirect and community impactsand community impacts

No standard approach to regional No standard approach to regional adjustmentadjustment

Little evaluation of past adjustment effortsLittle evaluation of past adjustment efforts Old model- impose on communityOld model- impose on community Old model – pick winnersOld model – pick winners

Social consequences of reduced Social consequences of reduced water for extractionwater for extraction

Individual irrigators’ choices (water trading)Individual irrigators’ choices (water trading)

Aggregated consequences for agricultureAggregated consequences for agriculture

Supply chain consequencesSupply chain consequences

Consequences for non-farm individuals and communitiesConsequences for non-farm individuals and communities

Balanced against individual and community consequences Balanced against individual and community consequences of more water in the river systemof more water in the river system

(Ross and Hassall et al. for Living Murray Project, 2003)(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/recoverySocial impacts on individuals and

communitiesTown 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 business viability

Quality of lifebenefits

Within regionBeyond region

Economic opportunities

SubsistenceTourism 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/recoverySocial impacts on individuals and

communitiesTown 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 business viability

Quality of lifebenefits

Within regionBeyond region

Economic opportunities

SubsistenceTourism 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 grapese.g. Wine grapesOn-farm effectsOn-farm effects Reduced water available for irrigation during peak Reduced water available for irrigation during peak

seasonseason Higher cost of water for those who have not bought Higher cost of water for those who have not bought

high-security entitlements?high-security entitlements?

Farmer response options1: 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 consequencesAggregated consequencesFarmingFarming Few, larger farms, employ fewer people, more farmer effortFew, larger farms, employ fewer people, more farmer effort loss of skilled labour, relocation of people outside arealoss of skilled labour, relocation of people outside area Reduced crop, potential for price risesReduced 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 analysisResilience analysis(examples – anonymous (examples – anonymous

locations)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 areasBenefitting stakeholders and areas

Areas close to riversAreas close to rivers Tourism and recreation – water and wildlife Tourism and recreation – water and wildlife

basedbased Increase in lifestyle residencyIncrease in lifestyle residency

Aboriginal peopleAboriginal people Commercial and recreational fishersCommercial and recreational fishers

(Hassall et al. 2003)(Hassall et al. 2003)

Social resilience – what should we Social resilience – what should we consider?consider?

Resilience - the ability of a community or Resilience - the ability of a community or other social unit to recover from a other social unit to recover from a disturbance, and possibly transform to a disturbance, and possibly transform to a new state.new state.

What attributes should be fostered to What attributes should be fostered to support communities, industries and their support communities, industries and their regions?regions?

Index of VulnerabilityIndex of Vulnerability

Very low – dark blue

Low – mid blue

Moderate – green

High – amber

Very high - red

(ABARE-BRS 2010)

Six attributes of social resilienceSix attributes of social resilience

People – place connectionsPeople – place connections Knowledge skills and learningKnowledge skills and learning Community networksCommunity networks Engaged governanceEngaged governance Diverse and innovative economyDiverse and innovative economy Community infrastructureCommunity infrastructure

(Ross et al, Gooch et al)(Ross et al, Gooch et al)

ConclusionsConclusions

Need to manage the whole system (nested Need to manage the whole system (nested scales, complex, adaptive)scales, complex, adaptive)

Need a more sophisticated understanding of the Need a more sophisticated understanding of the socio-ecological system, ongoing internal and socio-ecological system, ongoing internal and external changeexternal change

Need a good understanding of the key elements Need a good understanding of the key elements for community resilience – then foster strengthsfor community resilience – then foster strengths

Communities and regions need this informationCommunities and regions need this information Need collaborative planning processesNeed collaborative planning processes