Upload
amie-fox
View
224
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Water, land and biodiversity management: some social research perspectives
Professor Allan Curtis and Ms Gillian Earl
Overview
The social dimension• Water reform• Changing structure of
rural Victoria• A duty of care for
biodiversity conservation• Challenging the asset-
based approach to NRM
Source Murray-Darling Basin Commission (2008) Annual Report 2007-08 Figure 2.1http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/annual_reports/AR_2007-08/objective2_s2_1.htm
The contemporary context
In a severe drought with record low inflows to the Murray
Murray River is highly stressed and on average, the median river flow at the Murray mouth is only 27% natural outflow
Three-fold reduction in medium-sized flood events
Key environmental assets are degrading quickly: red gum forests; Coorong; wetlands along the Murray
Calls from environmental groups and scientists to make further cuts to water allocations for irrigated agriculture
Climate change means it is unlikely that previous patterns are a reliable indicator of future water availability
Dead red gum floodplain forests and salinised and acidified creek,
Bottle Bend NSW, April 2007. ©Murray Wetlands
Working Group
Water reform: how did it come to this?
Poor government and failure of governance of water industry• Government’s not prepared to adopt a “rational” approach
to structural adjustment• poor governance of water industry
– need agreement of all states to achieve reform– CAP (1995) ignored issue of sleepers/ dozers and irrigation expanded
20%– No capacity to enforce breaches of the CAP– failure to put an effective “fire wall” between suppliers and purchasers
of irrigation water– failure to invest in irrigation supply systems
Drought and climate change the last straw
Water reform: moving forward
• Purchase of water entitlements makes sense, but must have a functioning market (unbundling incomplete in Vic)
• Infrastructure upgrades make sense and will cushion impacts of adjustment, but must ensure problems not repeated
• Acknowledge that urban water use is legitimate and that there have been inter-valley transfers in the past, but circumstances have changed and we:
– probably need to take Adelaide “off the river”– diverting water from the Murray to Melbourne should be our last resort
• Confront the myth that we will “run out of food” in Australia
• Avoid temptation to view groundwater as a separate resource
• Consider opportunities to negotiate closure of irrigation districts
Changing social context in rural areas
Era of rapid change in almost all regions• Large turnover in property ownership• Influx of new owners and non-farmers• Most new owners come from outside district• Many absentee owners
Why do we have these trends • Kids less interested in farming and life in rural areas and attracted
by opportunities for work, education and social life in cities• Aged farmers approaching retirement• Cost-price squeeze pushing amalgamation of properties• Subdivision a way of unlocking asset values• Cashed up retirees wanting to live in rural areas• Internet allowing people to work from home• Freeways and better roads• Speculation in rural land• Lax planning rules
New and longer-term owners
TopicCorangamite 2006
New property owners (19%)
Longer-term property owners
(81%)
Farmer as occupation 23% 61%
Median area managed 44 ha 160 ha
Median hours farm work 16 hr/week 40 hr/week
Median days paid off-farm work/year
200 days/year 0 days/year
Make an on-property profit
35% 68%
Member of Landcare 24% 37%
Principal place of residence
61% 81%
Median Age 47 years 57 years
“New people came and things changed”
• Rate base expanded• New knowledge, skills and
networks• New enterprises• Greater cultural diversity
Development of rural land in Indigo Shire
One new house on a rural property each week for the past five years
What should we do?
Establish and maintain a discrete urban-rural interface
Invest in revitalising rural and regional centres as attractive, safe places to live
In high value cultural landscapes, step in and purchase subdivisional rights
Stand up to vested interests (farmers as well)
Engage new owners in agriculture
Why do we need one?
• Biodiversity is still declining• Existing statutory legislation and regulation gives
incomplete coverage to biodiversity
Common law duty of care
• Applies to people or property• Requires reasonable care to
be undertaken• Requires foreseeable harm
to be avoided• Does not generally apply to
biodiversity or the environment
Linguistic ambiguity
Duty of Care
• Moral basis • Community standard • Externally imposed• Obligatory• Enshrined in law• Articulated, codified• Specific• Here and now
Stewardship
• Moral basis• Individual standard• Internal, personal• Voluntary• Not enshrined in law• May show in behaviour• Worldly• Forever
Social acceptability
Wimmera & Corangamite regions
• Duty of care as a social norm (54% agree)• Duty of care as a legally defined instrument (36% agree)• Farmers stand out as an important segment of the
community less supportive of duty of care
The assets-based approach to NRM
Identify priority assets for investment of public funds to achieve NRM outcomes
Assumed to be: more strategic
provide more accountabilitymore positive way to engage landholders
Includes emphasis on direct purchase of outcomes by a focus on onground work
Challenging the assets-based approach
Risk of managing assets independently of systems that supports them and life
Provides excuse for limiting public expenditure on NRM (only need to invest in some assets)
Disempowers/ excludes those without priority assets
No evidence direct investment builds long-term commitment
Evidence that investment in social and human capital leads to action and long-term commitment