Karen Hussey

The Energy-Water Nexus: Managing the Links between Energy and Water for a Sustainable Future

Water and energy are each recognized as indispensable inputs to modern economies. And, in recent years, driven by the three imperatives of security of supply, sustainability, and economic efficiency, the energy and water sectors have undergone rapid reform. However, it is when water and energy rely on each other that the most complex challenges are posed for policymakers. Despite the links and the urgency in both sectors for security of supply, in existing policy frameworks, energy and water policies are developed largely in isolation from one another—a degree of policy fragmentation that is seeing erroneous developments in both sectors. Examples of the trade-offs between energy and water security include: the proliferation of desalination plants and interbasin transfers to deal with water scarcity; extensive groundwater pumping for water supplies; first- generation biofuels; the proliferation of hydropower plants; decentralized water supply solutions such as rainwater tanks; and even some forms of modern irrigation techniques. Drawing on case studies from Australia, Europe, and the United States, this Special Issue attempts to develop a comprehensive understanding of the links between energy and water, to identify where better-integrated policy and management strategies and solutions are needed or available, and to understand where barriers exist to achieve that integration. In this paper we draw out some of the themes emerging from the Special Issue, and, particularly, where insights might be valuable for policymakers, practitioners, and scientists across the many relevant domains.

Water Resources Planning and Management

Water is an increasingly critical issue at the forefront of global policy change, management and planning. There are growing concerns about water as a renewable resource, its availability for a wide range of users, aquatic ecosystem health, and global issues relating to climate change, water security, water trading and water ethics. There is an urgent need for practitioners to have a sound understanding of the key issues and policy settings underpinning water management. However, there is a dearth of relevant, up-to-date texts that adopt a comprehensive and interdisciplinary focus and which explore both the scientific and hydrological aspects of water, together with the social, institutional, ethical and legal dimensions of water management. This book will address these needs. It provides the most comprehensive reference ever published on water resource issues. It brings together multiple disciplines to understand and help resolve problems of water quality and scarcity. Its many and varied case studies offer local and global perspectivers on sustainable water management, and the ‘foundation’ chapters will be greatly valued by students, researchers and professionals involved in water resources, hydrology, governance and public policy, law, economics, geography and environmental studies.

Australian Climate, Energy and Water Policies: conflicts and synergies

ABSTRACT Responding to the threat of climate change, conserving freshwater ecosystems and securing adequate energy and water supplies are among the greatest challenges facing modern societies. Yet recognition of the interdependencies between climate, energy and water policy—with resulting synergies and trade-offs—remains limited, leaving societies and governments alike vulnerable to the dangers of conflicted or unintended policy outcomes from sectoral decisions. In this paper, we analyse current Australian climate, energy and water policies to identify the risks of perverse outcomes between the three policy sectors. In doing so we categorise the conflicts and synergies between particular energy generation, carbon sequestration and water supply policies to improve understandings of the challenges facing decision makers in Australia and internationally. Four types of interventions are identified that would enable integration and optimisation of policies, namely: better cross-sectoral knowledge to inform decisions; the identification of technologies with co-benefits; markets with broader cross-sectoral participation (including linking water and carbon markets); and better-integrated governance institutions.

Buying back the living Murray: at what price?

In June 2004 the Council of Australian Governments approved the Intergovernmental Agreement on Addressing Water Overallocation and Achieving Environmental Objectives in the Murray-Darling Basin (‘IGMDB’). The IGMDB set out arrangements for a ‘Living Murray’ that includes a budget of

Exploiting Soil-Management Strategies for Climate Mitigation in the European Union: Maximizing "Win-Win" Solutions across Policy Regimes

500 million to return 500 billion litres of water per year to the Murray River by 2009. Unfortunately, two years later and only 11 billion litres have been returned as environmental flows as a result of the initiative. In response, the Australian Government in April 2006 proposed a new scheme to purchase water entitlements from farmers who undertake water-savings measures. We examine this proposal in relation to the general economic principles for the allocation of scarce water. We contend that the latest initiative, although helpful, suffers from two fundamental problems in terms of water pricing. First, the current market price for water entitlements does not include the value of water ‘in situ’, or the benefits it generates separate from its value in consumption. Second, the constraint imposed that water users undertake infrastructure investments when selling their entitlements unnecessarily raises the cost of returning water to the Murray River. We conclude that the latest scheme to achieve the laudable goals of the ‘Living Murray’ is not cost effective and that the ratio of litres of water returned to dollars spent could be much higher if the pricing policies were changed.

The cost of collaboration: how Caring for Our Country has shaped regional Natural Resource Management in an Australian river catchment

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified a number of soil-management strategies that can be implemented to reduce GHG emissions. However, before deciding which of these strategies are most appropriate in any given situation, it is important to investigate how these strategies affect other aspects of sustainable development. For instance, some attempts to sequester carbon in the landscape could alter the soils capacity to filter water. Alternatively, other strategies could unintentionally increase net energy consumption through greater fertilizer use. Focusing specifically on opportunities to implement soil-management strategies in the European Union (EU), we discuss the synergies and trade-offs of those strategies with respect to water resources management and energy security. The focus of the analysis is two-fold: first, we analyze the net benefit of strategies such as crop management, nutrient management, tillage and residue management, water management, and bioenergy vis-a-vis their implications for water resources and energy security; second, we undertake an assessment of the EUs relevant policy frameworks to assess whether the potential synergies from various soil-management strategies are being encouraged or, conversely, where perverse outcomes or trade-offs are likely. Our findings suggest there is much scope to encourage soil-management strategies in Europe that would mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, but these synergies are currently not fully exploited at the EU policy level. We identify a number of options for better policy integration among the Common Agricultural Policy, the Water Framework Directive, and the Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package.

The Opportunities and Challenges of Implementing 'Water Sensitive Urban Design': Lessons form Stormwater Management in Victoria, Australia

Funding arrangements for Natural Resource Management (NRM) in Australia have undergone a number of changes in the last decade, including the transition from the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) to the Caring for Our Country (CfoC) program (recently merged with Landcare to become the National Landcare Programme). It has been suggested that CfoC eroded some of the gains in regional autonomy, community engagement and goodwill made under the NHT. This article presents the results of research conducted with regional NRM bodies and community-based stakeholders in the Upper Murrumbidgee catchment, south-eastern Australia. It explores the impacts of the CfoC grants structure on NRM bodies and communities, and examines the practical responses of resource managers to funding constraints. The research demonstrates that the structure of NRM funding delivery under CfoC played a key role in shaping the strategic and operational activities of regional NRM bodies and community groups. In particular, the short-term, single-issue focus of the program placed pressure on collaborations between regional NRM bodies and other groups, and could inhibit strategic and integrated approaches to NRM. At the same time, however, NRM planners and community stakeholders have actively managed the limitations of the CfoC structure to optimise catchment outcomes for communities and the environment.

A new era for EU-Australia relations? Sustainable development and the challenge of climate change as litmus test.

Responding to pressure on the natural and built environments from population growth, the need for safe and secure water to support resilient and liveable communities, and the need to adapt to increased climate risk and variability, many cities around the world have sought new ways to develop, manage and sustain their urban environments. Indeed, in recent years, three important and related concepts have emerged in relation to cities and urban development: first, the need to design cities so as to minimise the impact of climatic events on populations, infrastructure and the environment; second, the need to optimise human consumption of scarce natural resources, particularly land, water, energy and nutrients; and third, the need to protect and where possible conserve the natural environment in and between cities. Over time, these concepts have evolved into a variety of different concepts, approaches and ‘visions’ to guide future land use development. One such concept is ‘water sensitive urban design’ (WSUD), a term whose definition varies but which is nevertheless now readily accepted internationally as a core aspiration of urban development (Wong and Brown 2011).

Ecologically sustainable development in broader retrospect and prospect: evaluating national framework policies against climate adaptation imperatives

Abstract The election of the Labor government in 2007 appeared to usher in a new era of EU–Australian relations with a greater focus on those areas of agreement between Australia and the EU. This paper therefore explores the potential for closer cooperation between the EU and Australia in the area of sustainable development. It takes climate change as a ‘litmus test’ for the EU–Australia relationship due to the prominence given to the issue by both the EU and Australia and the contentious nature of the issue in relations between the EU and Australia under the previous government. After outlining the major tenets of the ‘new era’ under the Rudd government, those areas of policy divergence and convergence and thus opportunities for closer cooperation are highlighted and the residual issues that could offer opportunities for closer cooperation. It is concluded that these residual issues hinder developments in the relationship, but more signs of a new relationship are seen than previously.

Energy sector transformation: Implications for water governance

This article revisits four Australian framework policies with implications for ecologically sustainable development to consider lessons for climate change adaptation. The competition, disaster resilience, sustainable development and water policies examined underline the difficulty in developing and implementing effective policy frameworks. We find that to succeed, a national policy in this federation needs: a coalition of stakeholders advocating for their implementation; medium to long-term bipartisan support; a focus on a perceived urgent national issue; significant socio-economic benefits; a focus on a limited number of core principles and systemic legislative reform with incremental implementation over many years; the allocation by the federal government of substantial funds for state implementation; requirements to report to the Council of Australian Governments; and support from central government agencies rather than marginalisation in the environment portfolio. These qualities are not inherent in the 1992 National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development and this explains why it is now moribund. These findings suggest that it will be particularly hard to develop and difficult to implement an effective national climate change adaptation policy.