Managing Salinity with Markets, Plants and Engineering How do we move policy forward

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

• David Pannell

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 doesnt get you adoption
• What is the incentive?

Myth ICM
9
Protecting an environmental asset
Lake Tarbilin
Lake Toolibin
Diversion drain
Pumps
10
(No Transcript)
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

16
(No Transcript)
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

18
(No Transcript)
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.