Daniel Connell

Australia Demonstrates the Planet's Future: Water and Climate in the Murray-Darling Basin

Australias rivers are among the most variable in the world and this has been a major challenge in catchments such as the Murray–Darling Basin where management has focused on increasing agricultural production while reducing risks from fluctuating water availability. Pressure for development and over-optimistic assessments of available water have resulted in over-allocation and increasing ecological decline, which has been severely exacerbated by record-breaking drought. In recent years, governments have agreed to radical policies such as the National Water Initiative 2004 and allocated substantial funds in response. Implementation is in gridlock, however, as the socio-economic implications have become clearer. Most debate is focused on the draft Murray–Darling Basin Plan due for release in mid-2010 before finalization in 2011. It will be the first Basin-wide plan and is intended to deal with inequities across borders and risks such as climate change and drought. Climate change scenarios for 2030 foresee a range of potential surface water availability outcomes, ranging from a 7% increase to a 37% decrease, yet greater water scarcity is being experienced in the current (2002+) drought with inflows reduced by 70% or more in extreme years. Contradictory policies are hindering the more open adaptation required to manage a drier future.

Australia's Murray-Darling Basin: A Century of Polycentric Experiments in Cross-Border Integration of Water Resources Management

We respond in this article to scholars having identified a theory-practice gap commonly afflicting applications of integrated water resources management (IWRM) internationally, and thus a need for the concept to be recast according to evidence of how integration of fragmented water management efforts actually occurs. The Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) is employed as a longitudinal case study for this purpose, focusing particularly on its cross-border integration challenges. We frame IWRM as the pursuit of coherent collective action by the multiple enterprises (public, private, civic and hybrid) typically constituting the polycentric public industry involved in managing water resources. We look beyond approaches involving overt coordination to other approaches with potential to contribute towards such coherence. We find that Australian governments are no longer able to overtly coordinate the suite of interdependent enterprises relevant to the success of water management efforts in the Basin. Their success in strengthening coherence or integration in these efforts has come to depend increasingly on their ability to devise governance arrangements capable of catalysing (e.g., by fostering conditions supportive of fruitful competitive rivalry or informal collaborations) the kinds of dynamics through which more of the required integration of management efforts emerges on a self-organised basis. Keywords: integrated water resources management, collective action, polycentricity, jurisdictional integrity, Australia, Murray-Darling Basin.

Managing hydroclimatic risks in federal rivers: A diagnostic assessment

Hydroclimatic risks and adaptive capacity are not distributed evenly in large river basins of federal countries, where authority is divided across national and territorial governments. Transboundary river basins are a major test of federal systems of governance because key management roles exist at all levels. This paper examines the evolution and design of interstate water allocation institutions in semi-arid federal rivers prone to drought extremes, climatic variability and intensified competition for scarce water. We conceptualize, categorize and compare federal rivers as social–ecological systems to analyse the relationship between governance arrangements and hydroclimatic risks. A diagnostic approach is used to map over 300 federal rivers and classify the hydroclimatic risks of three semi-arid federal rivers with a long history of interstate allocation tensions: the Colorado River (USA/Mexico), Ebro River (Spain) and Murray–Darling River (Australia). Case studies review the evolution and design of water allocation institutions. Three institutional design trends have emerged: adoption of proportional interstate allocation rules; emergence of multi-layered river basin governance arrangements for planning, conflict resolution and joint monitoring; and new flexibility to adjust historic allocation patterns. Proportional allocation rules apportion water between states based on a share of available water, not a fixed volume or priority. Interstate allocation reform efforts in the Colorado and Murray–Darling rivers indicate that proportional allocation rules are prevalent for upstream states, while downstream states seek reliable deliveries of fixed volumes to increase water security. River basin governance arrangements establish new venues for multilayered planning, monitoring and conflict resolution to balance self governance by users and states with basin-wide coordination. Flexibility to adjust historic allocation agreements, without risk of defection or costly court action, also provides adaptive capacity to manage climatic variability and shifting values. Future research should develop evidence about pathways to adaptive capacity in different classes of federal rivers, while acknowledging limits to transferability and the need for context-sensitive design.

Contrasting Approaches to Water Management in the Murray-Darling Basin

As members of the Council of Australian Governments, which approved the National Water Initiative in June 2004, the six governments with responsibilities in the Murray-Darling Basin agreed to review the MDB Agreement and all their water management arrangements to ensure that they are compliant with the new national policy. The Cap on water extractions in the MDB is the overarching framework for water policy in the central and southern sections of the catchment. By examining how it has been implemented over the past ten years, this article shows that water management in the MDB is non-compliant with the National Water Initiative in both its underlying philosophy and practices.

The evolution and performance of river basin management in the Murray-Darling Basin

We explore bioregional management in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) in Australia through the institutional design characteristics of the MDB River Basin Organization (RBO), the actors and organizations who supported and resisted the establishment of the RBO, and the effectiveness of the RBO. During the last 25 years, there has been a major structural reform in the MDB RBO, which has changed from an interstate coordinating body to an Australian government agency. Responsibility for basin management has been centralized under the leadership of the Australian government, and a comprehensive integrated Basin plan has been adopted. The driving forces for this centralization include national policy to restore river basins to sustainable levels of extraction, state government difficulties in reversing overallocation of water entitlements, the millennium drought and its effects, political expediency on the part of the Australian government and state governments, and a major injection of Australian government funding. The increasing hierarchy and centralization of the MDB RBO does not follow a general trend toward multilevel participative governance of RBOs, but decentralization should not be overstated because of the special circumstances at the time of the centralization and the continuing existence of some decentralized elements, such as catchment water plans, land use planning, and water quality. Further swings in the centralization–decentralization pendulum could occur. The MDB reform has succeeded in rebalancing Basin water allocations, including an allocation for the environment and reduced diversion limits. There are some longer term risks to the implementation of reform, including lack of cooperation by state governments, vertical coordination difficulties, and perceived reductions in the accountability and legitimacy of reform at the local level. If implementation of the Basin plan is diverted or delayed, a new institution, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, can play a major role in securing and coordinating environmental water supplies.

Federal rivers: a critical overview of water governance challenges in federal systems

Sustainable management of rivers, lakes and aquifers is crucial to the wellbeing of people and the environment (MEA 2005). Farms, cultures, industries, cities and nations have been established along the banks of major river systems. Demand for freshwater and other riverine commodities has increased with population growth and economic development, while climate change and extreme events disrupt hydrological processes and water supply. As a consequence, the World Economic Forum (2013) has identified water supply shocks among its top societal risks for the past three years running. Effective governance of fresh water is therefore a foundation of sustainable and equitable societies. In this context, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2012) has identified the global water crisis as a crisis of governance and policy fragmentation. Increasingly, water management challenges involve complex interdependencies between sectors, upstream and downstream jurisdictions and stakeholders at the local, state, national and international levels. These interdependencies pose coordination challenges across political borders – both within and between countries. Federal countries distribute authority between national and state jurisdictions, which complicates water management tradeoffs within river basins shared by multiple territories. This book examines the experience of nine different federal political systems and China in addressing challenges of river basin and water management. Federal river systems (see Figure 1.1) are major basins within or shared by one of the world’s 28 federal countries (Anderson 2008, 2010; Garrick et al. 2013). Shared river basins are a major test of federal systems of governance. Effective management is not the mandate of one level of governance: all levels of governance have key roles, though these will vary from federation to federation. It can be expected that federalism will produce

The evolution of river basin management in the Murray–Darling Basin

Contents 1. The politics of river basin organisations. Institutional design choices, coalitions and consequences Dave Huitema and Sander Meijerink 2. Global water governance and river basin organisations Frank Jaspers and Joyeeta Gupta 3. Cooperative transboundary water governance in Canadas Mackenzie river basin: status and prospects Rob de Loe and Michelle Morris 4. Designing an agency to manage a wicked water problem: the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Denise Lach and Dan Calvert 5. Partnering for success in England: the Westcountry Rivers Trust Hadrian Cook, David Benson and Alex Inman 6. State-founded water boards in industrialized western Germany Frank Huesker and Christoph Bernhardt 7. Emergence, performance and transformation of Portuguese water institutions in the age of river basin organisations Andreas Thiel and Antonio Guerreiro de Brito 8. The politics of establishing catchment management agencies in South Africa: the case of the Breede-Overberg Catchment Management Agency Richard Meissner and Nikki Funke 9. Introducing river basin management in a transitional context - a case study about Ukraine Nina Hagemann and Marco Leidel 10. River basin organisations in Northern Afghanistan: the holy trinity of contemporary water management in practice Jeroen Warner and Vincent Thomas 11. Evolving river basin management in Mongolia? Ines Dombrowsky, Annabelle Houdret and Lena Horlemann 12. Interplay between new basin organisations, pre-existing institutions and emerging environmental networks in the Mae Kuang watershed, northern Thailand Santita Ganjanapan and Louis Lebel 13. The evolution of river basin management in the Murray-Darling Basin Andrew Ross and Daniel Connell 14. Institutional design, politics and performance of river basin organisations Sander Meijerink and Dave Huitema

The Social-Environmental Justice of Groundwater Governance

Groundwater is but one component of the hydrological cycle. It interacts with and is dependent on how the other components of the hydrological cycle are managed. The rationale for sharing or allocating groundwater is guided by the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization. There is no universal theory of justice to which we can appeal, to help us operationalise this principle to the satisfaction of all water uses and users. Often the losers in allocation decisions are marginal communities or disempowered individuals or groups, and the natural environment. This results in the emergence of a variety of social and environmental injustices, especially if the burden falls continuously on the same group or ecosystem. Social – Environmental justice is a useful lens in the arsenal of researchers, policy makers and natural resource managers that can be used to highlight the importance of a systems approach when dealing with common pool resources such as groundwater.

Transboundary water governance

The effective management of water across borders is central to overcoming the challenges of water scarcity. Transboundary management requires water managers to respond to outcomes that result from interactions beyond their borders. This can involve decisions on polluting activities positioned near downstream borders that have impacts experienced outside the jurisdiction, the consequences of a dam for cross-border flows, or how much water should be extracted for irrigation upstream.

The Murray-Darling Basin

The River Murray supplies, on average, more than two-thirds of the Basin’s water resources for irrigation, industrial, stock, domestic and environmental purposes. Around 75% of the water from the River Murray in the State of South Australia is used for primary production, such as water for stock and irrigating crops. An overview of irrigated land within the MDB is given in Figure 3. Overall, agriculture accounts for about 96% of the water consumption in the MDB which provides 41% of Australia’s gross value of agricultural production.