This copy of slides has all photos removed

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

Degree of threat varies · Salt scald · Suitable for salt-tolerant plants · Completely unaffected

Values at threat vary · Agricultural land · Infrastructure · Threatened species, wetlands · Water

Responsiveness varies National Land & Water Resource Audit · Required intensity of management varies (but is generally high) Myth: increase water use of annuals

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

Put it all together. . . · Small areas have high priotity Ñ high threat Ñ high value Ñ higher responsiveness to management Ñ low cost · Some have moderate priority · Most have relatively low priority

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 $ Myth: Sharing the · Investment framework money around evenly is “fair”

ICM · Integrated Myth: ICM Ñ Fine · Catchment Ñ Many situations require local management Ñ e. g. many farm problems, country towns · Management (Planning) Ñ Planning doesn’t get you adoption Ñ What is the incentive?

Protecting an environmental asset Lake Toolibin Diversion drain Pumps Lake Tarbilin

If not ICM then what? · Identify assets to protect · Analyse best method to protect them Ñ 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

“Living with salinity” options · Water resources: desalination · Built infrastructure: repair (Merredin townsite)

Servicing the majority · Develop and promote technologies for salinity prevention (leverage)

Servicing the majority · Develop and promote methods for “living with” salinity

Which technologies? · Need a wide diversity · They need to be profitable · Existing suite inadequate · Different methods suit different situations/different problems

Policy approaches · Policy instruments to encourage change on private land Ñ market-based instruments (NAP) Ñ subsidies (NHT) Ñ extension, information (Landcare) Ñ regulation · Direct works (e. g. on public land) · Technology development & industry development

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

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

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 Ñ Promote properly evaluated technologies

Recommendations 4 · Allocate 10 -15% of salinity budget to technology development and industry development Ñ Plants (CRC) Ñ Engineering (CSIRO) · Keep an open mind and expect it to need to be changed

http: //welcome. to/seanews Acknowledgements Select Committee on Salinity Tom Hatton, David Bennett Grains Research and Development Corp.