At a time when the reliability of freshwater resources
has become highly unpredictable, as a result of climate change and increased
droughts frequency, the role of scientific evidence in forecasting the
availability of seasonal water has become more critical. Australia is one of
the driest inhabited continents. Its freshwater availability is highly
variable, which poses unique problems for the management of the nation's
water resources. Under Australia's federal system, water management
challenges have been progressively dealt with through political institutions
that rely on best available science to inform policy development. However,
it could be argued that evidenced-based policy making is an impossible aim
in a highly complex and uncertain political environment: that such a
rational approach would be defeated by competing values and vested interests
across stakeholders. This article demonstrates that, while science has a
fundamental role to play in effective water resource management, the reality
Decision making in water resource management in Australia has long been
driven by the need to adapt to changes in water availability and to respond
to increasing water scarcity. Australia is regarded as the world's driest
continent, much of it flat, and with a legacy of high levels of salinity
buried deep within it (Cullen et al., 2012). Salinity is an inherent feature of the
Australian landscape, which if left unmanaged, has serious implications for
water quality, biodiversity, land productivity and the supply of water
generally (Thompson, 2014). Similarly, a flat continent suggests very low or
no mountain ranges, with no permanent snow or glaciers, and therefore, no
freshwater source other than rivers and aquifers (i.e. receptacles for
groundwater). To compound the problem, Australia's weather is influenced by
a highly variable climate with an annual cycle of wet and dry periods
(Bureau of Meteorology, 2013). It could be argued that given these factors,
science – based decision-making would improve sustainable water management
practices. When the Federal Cth refers to Commonwealth
indicating that the Act is valid Australia wide.
Located in south eastern Australia, the MDB is considered one of the flattest catchments in the world largely comprised of vast low-lying dry plains (Murray-Darling Basin Authority, 2012a). Although the MDB average annual rainfall supplies is in excess of 530 000 GL of freshwater, 90 % evaporates or transpires back into the atmosphere, leaving less than 10 % to drain as run off into rivers, lakes, streams and into groundwater aquifers (MDBA, 2012b). Despite these challenges, the MDB is Australia's agricultural heartland, producing one-third of the nation's food supply. It also plays an important role in ecological diversity and supports a wide range of animals, plants and ecosystems. The MDB covers an area of more that one million square kilometres (about 14 % of Australia's land mass) (MDBA, 2012c) and spans four states (Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia) and the Australian Capital Territory. Good governance and reliable seasonal predictions of water availability for effective use of water is paramount for the MDB.
Historically, a co-operative framework governed water sharing in the MDB (whereby states and Commonwealth governments had to reach consensus, to manage the Basin resources), rather than a constitutional framework to ensure a right of supply (Connell and Grafton, 2011). This co-operative framework was fundamental and crucial to the MDB because it required federal and state governments to agree on an overall plan, with each jurisdiction responsible for its implementation (Connell, 2007). Yet, in the last twenty years, concerns about over-allocated water and the continuing decline of water resources in the river system remains a serious issue, severely affecting not just environment quality but also the security of water entitlements for consumptive users (Scanlon, 2006; Papas, 2007; Connell, 2011). These problems have arisen despite a number of management programmes and joint initiatives between states and the Commonwealth – namely, the National Water Initiative and the Living Murray – that had been implemented expressly to address the highly variable water conditions that characterise the MDB (Papas, 2007, p. 90). These reforms were implemented to ensure the ecological system is restored to good health and retains an optimum level of productivity. However, for these measures to work effectively, inter-jurisdictional arrangements require that each government maintain a shared responsibility as to how the water is managed and allocated (Papas, 2007). This is especially true of Australia's federal system of government, because primary responsibility for water and environmental management rests with state governments (Kildea and Williams, 2010).
Australia's most recent water reform, the Water Act 2007, was introduced in
the context of the most devastating drought in recorded history (Skinner and Langford, 2013, p. 871). The reform occurred within an existing mix of institutional
arrangements, which inherently suggests that reforms have to adapt to a set
of constraints (Skinner and Langford, 2013, p. 872). Yet, the principles of governance
that underpin the
The
The Act also established an independent Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), an agency of the federal government, to prepare a Basin Plan (MDBA, 2007). The aim of this Basin Plan was to apply best available science to define an environmentally sustainable level of take and to reduce over-allocated water entitlements that threatened water security (Skinner and Langford, 2013). That is, the Basin Plan was to set enforceable limits on the quantity of water (both surface and groundwater) – known as sustainable diversion limits (SDLs) – that could be extracted from the Basin as a whole, without compromising key environmental assets and ecosystem functions. This is the amount of water, expressed as the long-term average annual volume, that may be taken from a given river or aquifer (Hamstead and O'Keefe, 2008). These limits are central to the Basin Plan in securing the long-term health of the MDB, and come into effect in 2019 (MDBA, 2014).
Hydrologic modelling was used to determine SDL across the Basin (MDBA, 2012a). However, the diversion limits that were initially proposed were systematically contested and provoked considerable community anger. Some academics argue that one of the main issues to provoke strong opposition from water users was whether in developing the Basin Plan, the MDBA was prepared to give future environmental considerations precedence over current social and economic factors (Kildea and Williams, 2011). Their concerns were valid given that in previous decades, water needs for the environment and for irrigation were often treated as mutually exclusive, and served the political purposes of particular interest groups (e.g. Musgrave, 2008; Skinner and Langford, 2013, p. 890). Similarly, the distinctive “battle line” between irrigators and regulators to engage farmers with water regulation was fundamentally weak; the decision–making process was fraught and highly politicised, and this resulted in little progress (Holley and Sinclair, 2012; Doremus and Tarlock, 2008). Consequently, some academics have questioned the reliance of scientific evidence to best inform water resources regulation and facilitate management decision making about socio-economic effects (Liu et al., 2008). Others maintain that given the prevalence of the role of modelling in natural resources and environmental regulation in other countries, policy makers should engage critically with these scientific tools and not neglect their effect as the realm of scientific expertise (Fisher et al., 2010).
Science is considered an essential discipline used to promote policy
formulation and political decision making (Davis et al., 2015, p. 1). As
Frewer and Salter (2002, p. 138) explain, the role of science as an aid to
policy development and to guide complex decision making is based on two
assumptions: ... first, that the advice and, in particular, its predictive
content is accurate and, second, that the public sees the advice as
authoritative and the decisions and policy flowing from that advise as
legitimate.
Another issue worth considering when seeking scientific advice is the notion of uncertainty. Some observers assert that scientists use statements of uncertainty to characterise information that is by nature never “black and white”, or to indicate what they do not yet know (Gibbs et al., 2013). In short, uncertainty is normal in scientific research (Gibbs et al., 2013). However, it could be argued that uncertainty has an adverse impact on complex decision making. For example, uncertainty can play a key role when policy makers attempt to justify one policy over another, particularly when both the level of uncertainty and the political stakes are high (Heazle, 2010, p. 135). Heazle (2010, p. 135) notes that uncertainty strips our ability to proclaim the best course of action on the basis of evidenced-based knowledge alone, while simultaneously granting license to speculate on various policy alternatives for those seeking to frame policy issues. Scientific findings are not exact. Therefore, policy makers like to draw their decisions based on various scenarios (or findings) to guide their policy options. Still, this suggests that the scope for scientific uncertainty is a valid factor that influences decision making. Similarly, Skinner and Langford (2013, p. 888) believes that the effect on constituents, ideological perspective and socio-economic implications also actively contribute to what happens on the ground.
More recently, predictions by Australia's Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) of a “substantial” El Niño event in 2015 for the first time in five years (BoM, 2015) points to the need to adapt to worsening conditions. El Niño periods in Australia are generally associated with warmer temperatures across much of the country, below average rainfall and higher risk of bush fires (The Guardian, 2015). Under such extreme forecasts, the reliability of seasonal water is likely to be even less predictable, further undermining efforts to manage water resources sustainably.
The Basin Plan, which received final approval from Australia's Federal
Minister in 2012, allows the MDBA to amend SDLs up or down within defined
parameters (see
The
In dry periods, it is conceivable that the attitudes of water users and the
community to further reducing their entitlements may well result in wilful
non-compliance with the SDLs, and a lack of cooperation. Indeed, governments
have been found to struggle to provide an effective and comprehensive
compliance and enforcement regime for water (Holley and Sinclair, 2012, p. 149).
In addition, the national policy in relation to the risks and costs of
future reductions in water entitlements is currently assigned to
water-entitlement holders, which means that a reductions of water
availability as a result of climate change will not be compensated by the
Australian Government (Gardner et al., 2014, p. 5). Gardner argues that this
policy is significantly unjust, and suggests that economic and environmental
losses from reduced water entitlements could be calculated in pecuniary
terms, for the purpose of determining compensation to water holders who
suffer such losses (Gardner et al., 2014, p. 5). Nonetheless, the Australian
Government has demonstrated some level of engagement with and commitment to
enforcing standards, with the introduction of the
This discussion leads to a question about the long-term implications for
scientific research generally and best science advice more specifically. It
points to two major issues: first, while science-based knowledge can provide
best available hydrological modelling, and the most accurate data, there are
clearly inconsistencies between efforts at reform and on-the-ground outcomes
when mechanisms to monitor compliance are poorly enforced. These
inconsistencies are a major concern given that the Basin Plan outlines
legally binding extraction limits on all Basin states, and that ultimately,
the effectiveness of these overarching SDLs is vital to the management
regime of the MDB under the Federal Government. Secondly, the former Prime
Minister Tony Abbott's The Coalition Government led by the Prime
Minister Tony Abbott was ousted in a dramatic party coup on 14 September
2015. Malcolm Turnbull won the prime ministership from Tony Abbott and
has been sworn in as Australia's new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull recently
announced that science will have a more predominant role in his government (see Department of Industry,
Innovation and Science
At a time when changing weather patterns due to climate change are predicted to affect the hydrological cycle across various regions more than ever, it is important to recognise the value of research efforts that provide the scientific knowledge necessary to drive future preparedness. Australia is about to face the adverse impacts of another El Niño event, which will be compounded by the effects of climate change. In this context, the federal government of Australia should take the long-term view that policy informed by science-based knowledge must transcend both political lines and stakeholders' interests. A good first step in this direction would be to bring science under a single responsible minister and the policy impetus to encourage science to do what it does best – that is, develop sound methodologies for water resource assessments to inform sustainable water management practices.
The role of science in policy making demonstrates that specialist knowledge may or may not influence complex decision making. Despite the idea that governments and organisations across the world consider evidence-based policy a key factor to making sound policy, the reality tends to fall short of this idea. This article has demonstrated that the treatment of uncertainty in specialist advice largely determines how well the advice fits with, or contradicts the policy goals dominated by the political and stakeholder interests. In Australia, as elsewhere, the role of science remains vital in formulating the evidence and forecasting necessary to prepare against unprecedented changes to our climate and our water ways. More than ever, water managers and decision makers need to be well informed about the consequences of poor policy implementation and the dangers of climate change on water resources. The prospect of an El Niño event in Australia suggests that the future of water management will need to adapt to highly variable seasonal precipitations. Science can help prepare for such anticipated changes but decision makers have to be motivated to act accordingly.
Some elements of this article where first developed in one of the papers' prepared by the author, as part of a PhD by publication, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. The author would like to thank the German Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG) and the International Centre for Water Resources and Global Change for the opportunity to present. The author would like to also acknowledge UNESCO's financial support towards her attendance to the conference in Koblenz, Germany (no. 4500282573).