The State Government will provide $25 million over five years for the institute, which will be matched in kind by the CSIRO, the University of South Australia, the University of Adelaide and Flinders University. The institute will provide independent scientific advice on South Australia’s water system, improving the State Government’s ability to forecast threats to water security and develop an integrated approach to water management.

This is an important investment by the State Government in the long term prosperity and sustainability of South Australia, and a great tribute to the vision and persistence of the South Australian Chief Scientist, Dr Ian Chessell.

Written by Paul Dalby, 29 May 2010

• Economic report into biodiversity crisis reveals price of consuming the planet

“You can’t value nature per se, other than to say it’s priceless, and you’re part of nature and you would not exist were you not,” declares the man in charge of the biggest attempt ever to measure nature’s worth.

“But what you can do,” he continues, “is measure the economic value of services that come to you from nature.”

The speaker is Pavan Sukhdev, study leader of the UN’s three year project to measure The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). The project should show us all how expensive the global destruction of the natural world has become and – it is hoped – persuade us to slow down.

Written by Paul Dalby, 23 May 2010

To quote General McMaster in the article:  “It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control. Some problems in the world are not bullet-sizable.”

True.

Ideas, arguments and concepts are more readily tested through dialogue. Poor thinking and specious arguments can be quickly torn apart when a room of questioning minds has the chance to engage with the presenter in a discussion. This is why tutorials are more useful for learning than lectures. t is why scientific papers must pass through the test of peer review before they can be published in scientific journals. It is why debates are more interesting and enlightening that public speeches. And it is why new media is so powerful. Traditional media such as newspapers, television and websites are one way paths for information and ideas.

New media on the other hand, has allowed the audience to talk back, through comments on blogs, videos, audio and so on. Traditional media has caught on. The highest ranking radio shows are talk back. Television is shifting from talking heads, to talking heads with audience interaction. Online news sites allow comments on their articles. This is all very healthy, and is an antidote for the great concentration of media ownership around the world.

Back to PowerPoint. While PowerPoint can be a powerful and useful communication tool, it does not beat conversation. It’s a great way of getting a conversation going if done well, and I’ll seen some fabulous and appalling Powerpoint presentations. But providing sufficient time for the concepts in the presentation to be tested by a thoughtful audience is just as important as the presentation itself.

Written by Paul Dalby on 2 May 2010

The 18 ‘indicator’ assets are:

• Lower Balonne River Floodplain System
• Narran Lakes
• Lower Goulburn River Floodplain
• Gwydir Wetlands
• Booligal Wetlands
• Great Cumbung Swamp
• Lachlan Swamp
• Lower Darling River System
• Macquarie Marshes
• Barmah-Millewa Forest
• The Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth,
• Riverland – Chowilla Floodplain (including Lindsay, Mulcra and Wallpolla Islands)
• Edward-Wakool River System
• Gunbower-Koondrook-Pericoota Forest
• Hattah Lakes
• Lower Murrumbidgee River Floodplain
• Mid Murrumbidgee River Wetlands
• Wimmera River Terminal Wetlands

This is good, IF the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has as its target – regular flows out the end of the Murray Mouth so that the Mouth remains open most of the time, which will also ensure that the most biologically important wetlands in the Murray Darling system – the Coorong and Lower Lakes – are kept healthy. If the Authority accepts that the  Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth are “indicator” assets, the only way the Plan can be seen as a success is if flows out of the Mouth are re-established. The only way this can be achieved is through a major reduction in extractions.

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 April 2010

Mr Matthews said that some of the key requirements were for less-fragmented water science institutions, optimisation of research infrastructure; and better user/provider connectivity.

In South Australia, there have several attempts to achieve this over the last few years, but the formation of a single Water Agency under Minister Paul Caica, and the proposed formation of a single, virtual water research “institute” in South Australia is an exciting new development and should be a huge leap forward in achieving the aspirations outlined by Mr Matthews.

Some of this article is quoted from EnviroInfo. Subscribe

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 April 2010

The Productivity Commission says much can be done to improve the Federal Government’s $3.1 billion Murray-Darling water buyback program in a recent research report.

The buyback and a larger irrigation infrastructure program are being used to recover water for the environment, and ease the transition to the much lower water diversion levels expected under a Basin Plan.

The report raises some concerns about aspects of the design and sequencing of the strategy, noting problems in having commenced the buyback before the Basin Plan is ratified. However, Commissioner Neil Byron said ‘There is still much that can be done to improve the recovery and management of water for the environment in the Basin’.

In particular, the Commission recommends that:

• the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) set ‘sustainable diversion limits’ under the Basin Plan in a way that balances environmental, social and economic tradeoffs (possibly requiring legislative amendment)
• The buyback is occurring before sustainable diversion limits (SDLs) are set under the Basin Plan, and before the liability for policy-induced changes to water availability has been resolved. This is creating uncertainty in the minds of irrigators and affecting the efficiency of the buyback.
• SDLs must be based on scientific assessments of the amount of water that is required to avoid compromising key environmental assets and processes. Good science is a necessary but not sufficient basis for optimising the use of the Basin’s water resources. The value people place on environmental outcomes, the opportunity cost of foregone irrigation, and the role of other inputs, such as land management, must also be considered. If the Water Act 2007 (Cwlth) precludes this approach, it should be amended.
• The same cost effectiveness tests should be applied to all water recovery options. Purchasing water from willing sellers (at appropriate prices) is a cost-effective way of meeting the Government’s liability for policy-induced changes in water availability. Subsidising infrastructure is rarely cost effective in obtaining water for the environment, nor is it likely to be the best way of sustaining irrigation communities.
• Other water products (for example, seasonal allocations and options contracts) are potentially valuable in meeting short-term environmental needs.
• Tenders are sound purchasing mechanisms where active markets for water entitlements do not exist. But where active markets do exist, acquiring water directly from those markets is likely to be more efficient.
• The 4 per cent limit on out-of-area trade of water entitlements should be eliminated as soon as possible. Limits on the amount of entitlements that can be sold to the Commonwealth through the buyback should also be eliminated.
• Using the buyback to achieve distributional goals, system rationalisation or to manage salinity is likely to compromise its efficiency and effectiveness. Other more direct instruments should be used to address these issues.
• Governance arrangements for the recovery and management of water for the environment are fragmented. Greater coordination of water recovery and environmental watering by Basin jurisdictions is required.

The report is available here.

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 April 2010

This is a more effective use of a Hollywood actor’s time and resources than adopting children from Africa…

For more information, visit the Water Credit website.

Written by Paul Dalby on 13 March 2010

When I ask around, even the climate skeptics see the need to shift from out currently energy mix to an alternative, for reasons other than climate change. the majority of Australians support nuclear power as an option. There are powerful vested interests who would like to stop alternatives being developed, but they are not so powerful that a strong government couldn’t push through their concerns. The real problem seems to be that the Federal Government in particular raises so much money from coal royalties that they a terrified of a loss in revenue. So a plan to move Australia’s energy mix forward must address this issue. A solution to the gap in revenue to pay for hospitals, roads and stimulus packages needs to be found that is economically viable and politically acceptable.

Written by Paul Dalby on 5 March 2010

The idea of a community driven plan for the River is a good one.

Alastair and I would love your thoughts.

“I attended the Murray-Darling Basin Authority meeting at Goolwa on Feb 2^nd and it was a total and utter waste of time. Scheduled to last for only two hours, it wasted the first forty five minutes on total trivia – nothing of substance was produced. I left.

The crisis that is the MDB needs action now. The River Murray is rapidly dying from its mouth upwards and twenty of the Basin’s twenty three rivers are listed as being in poor or very poor health. The time for endless consultation, discussion, review and debate is long gone. There is a wartime-like urgency for the MDBA to show leadership and take immediate action to address the long term causes of this crisis – gross over extraction of the Basin’s water, colossal losses associated with 13,000 kms of open channels, outdated, inefficient irrigation practices and dysfunctional/ non existent metering.

But the MDBA does nothing; its priorities are all wrong. It ignores these urgent causes and instead busies itself with trivial ‘community’ meetings that have all the urgency and relevance of a senior citizen’s tea party. It hides behind an endless, comatose bureaucratic process and puts its faith in a ‘Basin Plan’, a de facto code for continuing delay. A convenient escape clause that allows the authority to continue to avoid the hard decisions that are decades overdue. As a distraction, it puts forward obscure projects that address obscure problems and the Rudd government throws vast amounts of money at them, hoping they will go away. But they don’t and large portions of this money disappear into the black hole of bureaucracy, leaving little for the rivers.

The cold reality facing the Basin Plan is that it will be subjected to the same labyrinthine bureaucratic process and years will pass before actual results appear along our rivers, likely to be as late as 2014. These are critical years that our rivers cannot afford to lose.

And the reason for this appalling 40 yr paralysis?

Political parties operate entirely through a prism of self-interest. The Rudd government is paranoid that the solutions required will prove so unpopular they will be unelectable for a decade. So they put their narrow interests first, and nothing is done.

And the answer?

The communities of the Basin must bypass the politicians and bureaucrats and seize the initiative. They must become leaders and visionaries and take control of the Basin’s problems, leaving the politicians follow in their wake.

To do this they must produce a simple plan of action that can be adopted Basin-wide. When it has sufficient support, it should be taken to Canberra. If both major parties approved, the longstanding political paralysis and odium that has prevented progress for 40 years would be removed. Politicians would be relieved from the onerous task of finding solutions to the Basin’s problems. And the communities, the people who know the most about the rivers, would be free to forge ahead with their own remedies.”

Written by Alastair Wood, 8 February 2010

The reason we have a political process is to try to balance all of this information and all of these needs. You will never be able to model it perfectly and come up with THE right answer. We live in a political system where all ideas are contestable, even ideas based on very sound science. This is a good thing. Whenever communities have vested all knowledge and power in a few people – disaster has always ensued.

If scientists want to be influential in this world, they must be:

1. Very honest about what the science says. As we can see from the climate change debate, it does not help the cause of putting across a credible message on science when the results are exaggerated to try and build support for a particular cause. Let the truth tell its own story. In the end civilisations rise and fall on the political process. There is not much you can do to change that. Go along for the ride.

2. Very vocal about what the science says, but more circumspect about what the response should be. Scientists can appear arrogant when they presume that they know the right response. It is important to suggest policy responses and explain what you think the implications are of different approaches, but stick to your knitting and talk about what you know about most of all – the science.

3. Tell your story. People love stories, which is why singing contests, sport, soap operas and crime shows are more popular than shows about science. If you want to reach more people, put a story around what you are trying to say. Corey’s blog-post on  how frogs were disappearing because of the global appetite for frogs legs went viral because it was a interesting story. And the science message got out as a result. Some scientists  complain to me that this is “spin”. True, but not in the sense that you are trying to deceive someone, just that you are trying to get them interested. You are showing respect to your audience by “spinning” the message in an interesting way.

4. I need to hear it at least seven times before I’ve heard it. Putting out one media release, or one article or one presentation and thinking that you’ve done the job of communicating is delusional. Good communicators get their message out lots of times in lots of different ways. When your audience has heard the message so many times they are getting sick of it, (think Kevin Rudd and “working families” or Tony Abbot and “great big Labor tax”) they have finally heard it.

5. Maintain patience and pressure. It is sometimes frustrating that no action occurs even when you think it is obvious that it should. Don’t burn your bridges by taking it out on policy makers in government. You may need to work with them for many years to come, and they are likely to get more powerful over time, not less.  But on the other hand, don’t let up the pressure. Maintain a professional tone to your discussions and presentations in the media. In the end, you will mostly be respected if you keep telling the story about the science. And policy makers can be just as frustrated as you about the lack of action as you are, even if they are not allowed to show it.

I’ll finish this post with a quote from Machievelli, one of the great thinkers on political science, said that “… nothing is more difficult than to introduce a new order. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new…”

True

Written by Paul Dalby on 2 February 2010

Written by Paul Dalby on 19 October 2009

I see researchers becoming more interested in working across disciplines, working collaboratively and solving real world problems, but not for the sake of it, to discover new things and do things previously unimaginable. They still work alone and on narrow fields of intense specialty, because break-throughs are found there also. If trans-disciplinary research is going to become more widely adopted, it needs to demonstrate its value, and there need to be tools individuals can pick up to quickly adopt their current expertise to new problem solving processes.

Mike Seyfang’s blog on design, thinking and science describes nicely how transdisciplinary science is a substantially difference science than traditional science collaboration. It requires new skills. In a podcast linked to on Mike’s blog, Tamath Rainsford argues that for transdisciplinary science to succeed, we need  “specialising generalists”, people who know enough about a discipline to add value to discussions across a number of discipline areas (eg. Wayne Meyer from University of Adelaide can debate eloquently with economics, agronomists, modellers and soil scientists).  She also argues that we need to train scientists with new tools  so that they can more effectively participate in transdisciplinary research, such as soft operations research, systems thinking, heuristics, philosophy, working in teams, communication, risk management, decision making processes.

I have seen scientists training their students in these tools for the last 5-10 years, and the number who are is growing. Hugh Possingham, now at the University of Queensland, trains his students in these tools, as well as games theory. His research group is one of the most successful ecological research teams in Australia.

Mike list some common themes that emerge from his reading and thinking on transdisciplinary research. Mikes learnings are in italic, followed by my comments in normal txt:

• Play – a key ingredient in emergent behaviour, playing around with stuff leads to interesting possibilities and great questions. Who resources this stuff? The challenge fopr me is that I need to grow the business. Play must lead to tangible results reasonably soon, or must not distract (too much) from going to where the resources are
• Expand – pure reductionist thinking and methods have served us well in the scientific method and will continue to do so. While we are busy learning more and more about less and less, we should take time out to expand our horizons from time to time. Agree, but again, who is encouraging, rewarding and resourcing? Is this why large research programs are successful over small, short term projects. They give people the opportunity to experiment and play?
  
• Work at the boundaries – one of the key tenets of Transdisciplinarity is to step outside the comfort zone of a single discipline, go beyond collaboration with other disciplines by working at the boundaries. Warning: will expose one to risk and possibly the need to develop new language. (worth it). I’ve seen some of the most exciting ideas for research invented around a table when two specialists meet for the first time. It is beautiful to watch.
• Embrace Risk – learn to fail cheaply and often. You have described my life.
• Open Co-operation – pass it forward, share. The best minds do this. They are not afraid to give ideas away. Because they know they have too many for one lifetime to resolve.
• Swim up-stream and be counter-cultural. I’m not sure this relates to trans-disciplinary science, but it makes old rebels like Mike and I feel smug saying it.
• Trans-disciplinary does not replace traditional research – is an added component. Let’s be careful about telling over-worked, under-paid scientists that they need to throw away their old models and adopt our new great ideas on how they should be doing research. These are new tools to add to the researchers amoury, along with statistics, gell blocks and coffee.
• Speed the Process of Innovation through prototypes, enabling more breakthrough. I have been slow on the uptake on this. I have been resistant to the idea of investing development funds on research, but perhaps if targeted cleverly, will lead to good returns in terms of new business.

Would love to read responses to these thoughts.

Written by Paul Dalby on 1 October 2009

This makes me think more carefully about the purpose of putting information online. What is “news” and what is “content”. In fact, if I make information available in the way Mike is suggesting, “news” is “content”, so must be carefully constructed so that it makes sense as consumable news and as long term content that has value years from now.

Barry Brook’s blog “Brave New Climate” is a case in point. It is a mix of news and content, but the news remains of interest in the context of the rest of the blog-posts. Over time, he has build up a valuable library of content, and his army of readers and commenters grows at an ever increasing rate.

It also reminds me that communication is about listening as well as talking/writing. By seeing Adelaide Now re-interpret Mike’s original videos, he gets to listen to how others perceive his original content. Too often organisations lock their material down making it difficult for others to re-interpret. Does this mean they are not interested in listening?

Written by Paul Dalby on 17 September 2009

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 September 2009

In July 2007, I posted a link to presentations by Professor David Paton at the University of Adelaide on the “Death of the Coorong“.  David Paton, the leading expert on the Coorong, described the horrible decline of birds, plants, fish and invertebrates in the Coorong system, as a result of years of man-made and natural drought conditions. It should be noted that 90% of waterbirds in the Murray Darling Basin used to live in the Lower Lakes and Coorong. David Paton said the result of continued inaction is likely to be the extinction of some species in the Coorong, and perhaps the compete extinction of the Fairy Tern globally. His student, Dan Rogers presented research on waterbirds in the Coorong in November 2007.  Dan argued for an integrated management system to support policy decisions on managing the Coorong.

In May 2008, I pointed to a series of videos available for download from Catalyst describing the problems of acid sulphate soils and low flows in the Coorong and Lower Lakes. In one of the videos, Mike Young from the University of Adelaide, proposes a different water sharing model for the River Murray that would give the environment a larger share of the water in the system at low flows. In March 2008, I had interviewed Mike Young on the challenges facing the River Murray system and he proposed two key steps to create a “Future-proofed Murray Darling Basin“

1. Replace the current entitlement and allocation regime with a robust one that can be confidently explained as one that will work no matter what the climate scenarios in the future

2. Implement the resultant change in a just a fair manner.

This has not happened yet, and given the pace of reform nationally, is unlikely to happen for some time yet, if at all. This is a complex problem, and it is difficult to trade off the needs of different users of water in the River system, especially when you are not always sure who really needs what water and when.

In a piece of positive news, a recent study by scientists on the Coorong have identified an important number – 300GL. This is the amount of water that needs to flow out at the end of the Murray River to maintain the health of the River. This number is based on an impressive, interdisciplinary and integrated research program called CLLAMMecology, but it gives a simple piece of advice to government. You need 300GL of water flowing out the bottom of the River to maintain the health of the Coorong. The Coorong is a Ramsar wetland, and government has a responsibility to the global community to protect this habitat which supports bird populations that migrate to countries across the northern hemisphere. I suspect 300GL of water out of the bottom of the system will deliver a whole range of other environmental benefits upstream as well. 300GL would be 2% of diversions in an ‘average’ year, and 5% of diversions in years more typical of the last five. Setting such a target would meet Mike Young’s principle of  “entitlement and allocation regime…that can be confidently explained ….that will work no matter what the climate scenarios in the future “.

You can download podcasts and videos from the CLLAMMecology study presentations here.

You can register for the Litfuse feed on your i-tunes or mp3 player: http://feeds.litfuse.com.au/litfuse

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 July 2009

If you are interested in connecting to researchers and innovators in cleantech industries such as renewable energy, recycled materials, water treatment and energy efficiency, you can register to participate in the Linkfest session of the Conference, by contacting me on paul@pauldalby.com

If you are interested in attending and / or would like to receive updates on this event, please register your details online at: www.southaustralia.biz/clevergreen
For more information, please contact 08 8303 2498 or  DTEDCleverGreen@state.sa.gov.au

Written by Paul Dalby on 15 July 2009

The terms of rerference for the inquiry were to

“consider and report to Parliament on the potential application of open content and open source licensing to Victorian Government information”, in particular:

“report on the potential economic benefits and costs to Victoria of maximising access to and use of Government information for
commercial and/or non-commercial purposes….consider whether the use of open source and open content licensing models, including Creative Commons, would enhance the discovery, access and use of Government information… report on the use of information and communication technology to support discovery, access and use of Government information …identify likely risks, impediments and restrictions to open content and open source licensing of Government information”

The Committee has proposed three key recommendations for access to and re-use of Government information.

1) that the Victorian Government develop an Information Management Framework … The default position of the framework should be that all information produced by Victorian Government departments from now on be made available at no or marginal cost.

2) that the Victorian Government make use of the Creative Commons licensing model … for up to 85 per cent of government information and data…. Remaining Victorian Government PSI should either not be released, or released under licences tailored specifically for restricted materials.

3) that the Victorian Government establish an on-line directory, where the public can search for and obtain information… held by the Victorian Government. …people will be able to download information and data directly, or make contact with people in the Victorian Government to discuss access conditions.

The Victoria Government has been a bit of a leader is putting its government data in an online environment, with initiatives such as the Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse and Victorian Resources Online.

The Federal Government is also getting interested in what can be loosely called “Open Government”, in my view thanks to the terrific effort that Kate Lundy is doing to raise the issues and encourage the debate. The Government has recently announced a taskforce to explore Open Government. There is a small amount of funding available from this taskforce:

“The taskforce won’t just be dishing out advice, but will be distributing funds from a $2.45 million pool to support the development of web 2.0 tools and applications which enable engagement between the government and community or support use of government information. The grants will either be in the form of funding for pilots and projects or in the form of prizes for innovative applications…. Those hoping to obtain funds don’t apply directly, but participate in competitions seeking ideas and designs for consideration.”

Government data belongs to the community and citizens in my view, and like the Victorian Government, I believe “The default position… should be that all information produced…. from now on be made available at no or marginal cost”

Written by Paul Dalby on 24 June 2009

The paper describes a scheme in South Africa which sets out to harness private sector investment in water security, “by allowing investors to balance quantitatively their water account based on sound scientific rationale.”

A three-step process is established:

1. reviewing water usage,

2. implementing a reduction strategy,

3. replenish of water to hydrological systems.

In South Africa, private water users can invest in removing weedy plants in the watershed that have a high water demand. By removing these weeds, private water users can “put back” water into the system that is  equivalent to their own water usage. Such a model opens up other clever ideas and will create a market for people who might sell water that they have been able to ‘create’ to those who wish to expand their water use. The trial presents an operational model for the promotion of a water-neutral market in South Africa.

In Australia, rural water users can trade water licenses across a 1 million km2  in the Murray Darling Basin, albeit in an environment where too many water licenses were handed out in the first place. Farmers trade water between each other. As water becomes scarce, some farmers are willing to pay a higher price for water, which attracts other farmers to sell or lease their water. Water trade also occurs between the city and the rural areas – that is, water utilities in the city are able to buy water licenses from farmers further back up the catchment. Another way water is sourced from the watershed is to shut down wetlands – removing their water so that the wetland system dies out, replaced by a terrestrial ecosystem. All of these decisions are made centrally by government and water utilities. Could Australia set up a system that allowed individuals and entrepreneurs to both find water savings and sell them, not just in the watershed, but in cities themselves? Professor Mike Young, Executive Director of the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide has suggested the concept of water neutrality for cities using a different set of language to describe the same thing – a cap on water use in urban areas.

The water neutrality concept could be expanded to allow individual companies, local councils, and government agencies to find new water sources and trade them back into the system. This would require the water network to be opened up to third party suppliers who may be able to supply water from water recycling schemes, local, small scale desalination plants and rainwater harvesting (with quality assurance and the core infrastructure provided by government for an access fee).

In an environment where we have reached the limit of the water resource for human consumption in many areas across the globe, we need to create new institutional frameworks to allow economic growth to continue under conditions of resource constraint. The water neutrality concept, or establishing a cap on net water extractions from a watershed, is an example of a policy setting that allows us to protect our resource base, but encourages everyone to find better and more efficient ways of utilising the available resource.

Written by Paul Dalby on 21 June 2009

“From June 9, 2009 when a householder is seduced into signing across Solar Credits associated with their small scale Solar, Wind or Hydro generation schemes, they will continue to reduce their emissions yet for every deemed megawatt hour (MWh) created, they will displace 5 MWh of accredited Renewable Energy already required under Australian Law. They will be causing a net 4 MWh to be continued to be produced from fossil fuel sources and therefore will cause more greenhouse gas emissions and do more harm to the environment than doing nothing.”

This is the sort of outcome only a cross-agency government committee can come up with. There is enormous goodwill in the Australian population to contribute to lowering carbon emissions. The current policy is either cynically taking advantage of that goodwill, or the committee has become so bound up in the complex issues it has to address, that it has invented a camel when it meant to invent a horse.

A different approach would be to replace the GST with a carbon tax. This could be cost neutral to the Australian economy (in terms of net tax collected – there would obviously be significant costs in shifting policies over), would not unfairly disadvantage our exporters (no carbon tax on exports) and would encourage Australians to buy and manufacture low carbon products. Over time, one would expect that the economy would shift to a lower carbon economy – which would mean the price of carbon would have to rise to maintain the taxation base to the government. There is some brief discussion about this idea here and here.

Written by Paul Dalby on 14 June 2009

54% of Australia’s total land area was managed by agricultural businesses – Tasmania the smallest  (23%)  Queensland the largest (82%). Grazing land accounted for 87% of land managed by agricultural businesses, 8% for cropping and 2% was set aside for conservation.

The most common land management practices undertaken were surface water management (74%), application of fertiliser (62%) and monitoring ground cover in paddocks (54%).

66% of all agricultural businesses reported having native vegetation on their properties, more than half reported rivers or creeks and wetlands were reported by 10% of all agricultural businesses. About half of all agricultural businesses that had such ecological assets on their property reported that they were protecting them.

Nationally 17 million hectares was prepared using zero-till compared with 9 million hectares prepared using one or more cultivation passes. Of all agricultural businesses managing crop residue, the main crop residue management practices undertaken were to leave stubble intact (43%), removal of crop residue by baling or heavy grazing (34%) and ploughing crop residue into the soil (33%). These management practices were used on 90% of all land managed for crop residue in 2007-08.

Of agricultural businesses grazing livestock on crops or pasture, 69% monitor the amount of ground cover in paddocks and 57% of these have established a minimum ground cover level target. By far the most common method undertaken by agricultural businesses for monitoring ground cover was visual estimates, with 96% reporting using this method. This proportion was generally reflected in all states except the Northern Territory where 17% reported using photo monitoring standards (comparison with photos of known ground cover levels) to monitor ground cover.

Is the glass half full or half empty?

On the one hand, this survey does suggest the billions of dollars spent on natural resource management and engagement of farmers in conservation has has an impact, but there are still half of all agricultural businesses in Australia who do not see that protecting ecological assets is part of their business and a similar proportion who are leaving their soils at risk to erosion. While I could not find a comparable earlier survey by the ABS, when I think back to the 1980′s, this survey suggests that there has been a major shift towards improvements in agricultural land management practices. However, there is still plenty of room for improvement. Failure to protect natural resources now such as soil, native vegetation and water will disadvantage the ability of future generations to enjoy the productive benefits of Australia’s agricultural lands.

Do we need to invent a “Landcare” for the 21st Century that picks up the other 50% of landholders and taps into the latest in science and technology? Is the current dry period across southern Australia an impediment to change, or a catalyst?

Written by Paul Dalby on 12 June 2009

Written by Paul Dalby on 6 June 2009

#environmentinst

Written by Paul Dalby on 5 June 2009

Written by Paul Dalby on 26 May 2009

“Last week House Energy and Commerce members approved by 51-6 an amendment to the Waxman-Markey bill offered by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) to create a clean energy bank .  As Greenwire explained, the amendment would “create an autonomous Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) within the Energy Department” that would “provide a suite of financing options, including direct loans, letters of credit, loan guarantees, insurance products and others” for “energy production, transmission, storage and other areas that could reduce greenhouse gases, diversify energy supplies and save energy.”

At the same time as investment in clean technology increases around the world, investment in oil exploration is falling,which may lead to another oil price spike in the medium term.

“…Oil firms must work doubly hard to replace declining fields and to increase output. Yet the oil industry is short of equipment and manpower, thanks to underinvestment in the 1980s and 1990s, when prices were low. As soon as the world economy starts growing again, the theory runs, demand for oil will once again outstrip the industry’s ability to supply it. In other words, the global recession has only interrupted the “supercycle” of which many analysts used to speak, during which the normal boom-and-bust cycle of oil and other commodities would give way to a protracted period of high prices, as ever-growing demand from emerging markets swallowed everything the extractive industries could produce.”

Where does this leave Australia? Weak and vulnerable in my view. The recent Federal Budget was analysed by Professor Barry Brook from the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide. There is little cheer in the budget for entrepreneurs in the clean energy game according to Barry’s analysis, particularly in relation to the flawed design and inadequate targets of the CPRS. And Australia is an economy heavily reliant on energy. It’s a big place with relatively few people, extreme climates, and all of our capaital cities will be reliant on energy-hungry desalination for their water supplies. We are rich in coal, but produce only 60% of our oil consumption, so we rely on imported oil and petroleum products. A spike in energy prices will result in pressure on Australia’s economy, and leave us reliant on imported technology to meet renewable energy targets and needs, much like we rely on imported desalination technology.

I would add a note of optimism. The changes to the research and development (R&D) tax credit scheme will “double the level of assistance currently available to small companies and remove the cap on the amount of R&D expenditure subject to a tax credit. Large companies with more than $20 million annual turnover will receive a 40% R&D tax credit instead of tax deductions, which is a 10% net – benefit – one third higher than the current regime.  Small companies will receive a 45% R&D tax credit, which amounts to a 15% benefit – twice the current level.  Small companies with tax losses will be able to ‘cash out’ their R&D credit when they file their income tax return.”

As a modest investor in commercial R&D myself, this is a great incentive, and one that the Rudd government should be applauded for. Let’s hope it stimulates Australian businesses and entrepreneurs to invest in clean energy. More targeted approaches, such as a national feed in tariff, and a redesigned CPRS system along the lines suggested by Professor Brook would be even better. An increase in oil price would be a much more economically damaging driver of investment by Australian researchers and entrepreneurs in clean energy solutions. A Clean Energy Bank for Australia would be visionary.

Written by Paul Dalby on 24 May 2009