9.1
As a single hydrological system which spans six jurisdictions, it is essential that the management of the Murray-Darling basin (basin) is coordinated and effective, especially in a changing climate. Climate variability is expected to permanently shift the fundamental characteristics and connectivity of the basin. Higher temperatures, reduced rainfall, increased evaporation, reduced river flows, longer droughts, more heatwaves, and more frequent bushfires are predicted. When rainfall does occur, it is expected to be more intense and difficult to manage. This will mean less water available for all users; increased pressure for efficient water use; reduced water quality; river ecosystems under stress; changing, competing water demands across sectors; and growing liveability challenges in regions.
9.2
This chapter explores key concerns relating to climate variations which were raised by inquiry participants. These include the lack of a long-term national strategy for Australian agriculture, food security, and water use; the impact unplanned agriculture may have on the environment and communities in a drying climate; the volumes of floodplain harvesting being permitted by governments without broader analysis of potential downstream impacts; and the adequacy of the approaches of governments to floodplain harvesting. The chapter summarises some of the suggestions provided by stakeholders to enhance climate resilience in the basin, and current work to address challenges arising from climate variation.
National strategy for water use and food security
9.3
In light of potential climate variations, concerns about the lack of long-term national strategy for Australia's water use and food security were raised with the committee. Some contributors were concerned the water system's capacity is not being holistically assessed to ensure that agriculture is being planned in a sustainable way. For example, Mr Christopher Stillard, on behalf of NSW Farmers, was concerned the water market is designed to drive out lower-value crops which then need to be imported from overseas:
If you start pushing water to high-value crops…everything else can't compete. So you have to start importing them because you cannot make a profit out of buying water and growing these crops. It's pretty obvious. We saw that happen with rice. A lot of rice was imported during the drought. We couldn't grow it here because the water wasn't available to us to use. At one stage we were importing wheat from Canada.
9.4
Mr Geoff Moar, Chair, Murray Regional Strategy Group, supported an assessment of Australia's food security and cautioned that high-value crops today may not be high-value in future:
[F]ood security for Australia should be looked at. You go to Europe, and they look at food security in a completely different way to what you're seeing here. What you're seeing here, when you talk about the high-value crops, is they're high-value crops today. But the almond industry is getting 50 per cent less value for their product today compared to what it was two years ago.
9.5
Mr Robert Massina, President, Ricegrowers' Association of Australia, speculated whether a broader evaluation of irrigated food production should be taken to determine the national value of crops:
It is often referred to as water going to its highest-value use…that may be nuts, permanent plantations, cotton or whatever, and market forces will dictate what is grown and what's not. I think we as a nation actually need to be very conscious that we make sure that the important resource that is water is used for the best interests of the environment, our communities and food production. How do you that? Can you tell someone how to farm on their land? That's a big question… I think there are two things. One is the measure of value. Should it be measured purely on a farmgate return basis, or should we look at the broader social and economic value that irrigation provides in the system?'
9.6
Ms Emma Germano, President, Victorian Farmers Federation, pointed out there are practical limitations to determining the 'national value' of particular crops, and that market forces will determine what is grown:
[T]here would be from a practical perspective just about no way to manage that. At the end of the day there are always going to be market forces around what people grow and there are also going to be changing seasons…If the water is available and there is the opportunity for people to use that water for agriculture, we believe that the farmers will be able to make the best decision as to what is worth putting water on and what is not worth putting water on.
9.7
However, Ms Germano argued that Australia's food security underpins its national security and thus should be given greater consideration by governments. Similarly, Mrs Jan Beer, Representative, Upper Goulburn River Catchment Association, criticised the lack of a national long-term strategy for food security and the basin.
9.8
Professor Peter Gell, a Professor of Environmental Science who appeared in a private capacity, also supported a long-term vision for the basin which prepares communities for variations in climate:
[W]e need to recognise that we could have anything between 80 and 150 centimetres higher seas by the turn of the century. We might have as much as 30 to 50 percent less runoff. We have a climate crisis and a sea level crisis in the basin approaching, and we need to be prepared to put in adaptation measures now so that we can prepare for that future. We need to map that future out over the next 10, 20 to 50 years to prepare our communities for what they are inevitably going to face. We're in crisis now, but we ain't seen nothing yet in terms of water resources in the basin. So, instead of fighting over a gigalitre here, we need to diversify what we do and we need to prepare for the next 10, 20 to 50 years.
9.9
Murray Irrigation Limited argued that there should be strategic management of the basin to ensure that Australia is self-sufficient:
[I]nstitutional arrangements through MINCO [Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council] and BOC [Basin Officials Committee] seem slow and hesitant…the absence of strategic management has led to a situation in which export output of food has massively increased, with a corresponding decline in the growth of key staple crops in regions that are much-closer to water storages than many of the export crops. This perverse outcome has been thrown into focus by the COVID-19 pandemic…One of the lessons of COVID is that Australia must be self-sufficient across all types of food.
9.10
The Chief Executive Officer of Murray Irrigation Limited, Mr Philip Endley, argued that if the basin is to meet the challenges of the next decade, it requires an overarching national mission statement which outlines a single set of objectives for environmental protection and food production based on scientific forecasts. Mr Endley argued that there are a number of pathways to provide for such strategic guidance, such as setting up a strategic planning agency; improving on the current institutional arrangements to provide more autonomy to basin agencies and extend their scope; agreement between the Commonwealth and the states to cede powers; and constitutional change.
Unsustainable permanent plantings
9.11
Inquiry participants were concerned that vast numbers of permanent plantings which place considerable stress on the system have been allowed. According to the Lifeblood Alliance, the Victorian Government had itself identified that these plantations require a volume of water that may not be sustainable during dry years:
Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in horticulture plantations, particularly almonds, in New South Wales [NSW], Victoria and South Australia. Thousands of hectares have been planted, many of which are yet to reach maturity, and have required the acquisition of water entitlements and allocations from upstream users. The trees are relatively high water users, requiring 12-15 ML/ha every year. The increase in demand is so acute that the Victorian government analysis shows that in very dry years all the water allocated in the southern connected basin may be required to service the plantations…
9.12
Mr Stillard, on behalf of NSW Farmers, made a similar point, arguing that the system is already stressed and will not be able to deliver the water required:
[O]ver the last 20 years I have driven a fair way below Mildura to fish a couple of times a year…I can't get over how many trees they've planted down there…the bigger the tree goes and the more water you throw at it the bigger the yield you will get…With the number of young almond trees, you've got a river system that's struggling now to feed them the water they demand. If you give them another 10 years and the trees get bigger, they'll require more water. We're seeing that now with the Barmah Choke struggling to supply that amount of water. If you times that by two or three times, it's just not going to be able to deliver.
9.13
Mr John Pettigrew, Chair, Goulburn Valley Environment Group, was also concerned about the ability of the system to deliver water to nut plantations in dry years, as well as the environmental and social damage being caused:
In this, probably the biggest third-party impact isn't going to be the stranded nut people, desperately trying to get water in dry years. The Goulburn River and some of our other rivers here have been the biggest third-party impacts from delivering that water, even now, down through the Goulburn. None of the damage that was mentioned about the Goulburn banks eroding has happened through environmental flows…Our sandbars are covered here. From a social point of view, our community hasn't got access to the river for most of the summer.
9.14
At its hearing in May 2020, Mr Mick Keelty, then Interim Inspector-General, advised the committee that Victoria had placed a moratorium on permanent plantings and that South Australia was considering a similar decision. In September 2020, the NSW Minister for Water, the Hon Melinda Pavey MP, advised that NSW had also agreed with the proposal:
I think the almond industry says in its own recommendations that there are too many plantations. That's a signal itself that the market is getting to a point of saturation. Given that Victoria has put in about 80 per cent of the new plantings and I think South Australia about 15 per cent, I actually don't think there's going to be a market. But, yes, we are happy and signed up to what Lisa Neville proposed at MinCo.
Floodplain harvesting
9.15
The committee also received evidence suggesting that excessive floodplain harvesting is undermining the overall intent of the plan—that is, to reduce extractions and protect the environment. Of relevance to this committee is the lack of holistic assessment of the impacts of floodplain harvesting on the system, and the risk, according to some inquiry participants, that by licensing floodplain harvesting, states may seek to increase sustainable diversion limits (SDLs) despite predictions of a drying climate.
9.16
While floodplain harvesting is mostly unregulated, steps to licence floodplain harvesting have been taken by both the NSW and Queensland Governments. The Queensland Government placed a moratorium on additional floodplain harvesting development in 2000, and has prevented any growth in use since that time by using a combination of authorisations and licences. The NSW Government has been working to license and measure its floodplain harvesting with licences and approvals for all five northern basin valleys, scheduled to be in place by 1 July 2021.
9.17
Queensland committed to full measurement and licensing of the Border rivers and Moonie floodplains by December 2022 and is aiming to have Phase 2 of its measurement program (that is, the implementation of its water balance derivation technique to determine volumes taken) completed by November 2025. Once floodplain harvesting is fully measured and licensed, water limits in Queensland are expected to be revised to capture the best information. In NSW, once licences and measurement devices are in place, the NSW Government will submit updated WRPs to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) to ensure new information and changes in regulation are reflected.
9.18
The introduction of floodplain harvesting licences does not introduce a new form of take, but rather recognises within the existing regulatory frameworks an existing and historical form of take.
Lack of holistic assessment of the impacts of floodplain harvesting
9.19
Some participants were concerned that the impact of floodplain harvesting on the system is not being holistically assessed. For example, Ms Beverley Smiles, President, Inland Rivers Network, argued that, under climate change predictions, flooding is expected to be less regular. Therefore, licensing based on historical levels of take and allowing 500 per cent access will mean that a large portion of floodwater will be able to be captured before it flows downstream.
9.20
Professor Grafton advised that floods are essential for protecting the environment and maintaining flows for downstream communities.
9.21
At the hearing in Deniliquin, Ms Sophie Baldwin, Representative, Southern Connected Basin Communities, explained how floodplain harvesting can negatively impact downstream communities:
It's been said many times that the southern basin isn't affected by this process, and that is not true. When the Darling River has no water flowing down it, the shortfalls of delivery to South Australia are taken from our productive pools. It does affect our irrigation allocation, our reliability and all those things. So that's a serious, serious issue. We have grave concerns for the future. If it is licenced at the current volumes, it will decimate our area…
9.22
Contributors to the inquiry argued that there should be stronger mechanisms in place to protect downstream users and environments. For example, Ms Baldwin proposed that end of system flow targets be established to protect downstream communities:
[Licencing floodplain harvesting] has effectively seen a transfer of productive licenced and metered water in the south taken up to the north. With this licencing regime, if there's no end of system flow target where the Darling hits the Murray, how is the southern basin protected by a licencing regime that has no way to ensure that water will get downstream? Storage up there has increased by 2½ times over the last
20-odd years.
Volume of floodplain harvesting allowed
9.23
Several participants expressed concerns about the volumes of floodplain harvesting being allowed. For example, Ms Maryanne Slattery, a former Director of the MDBA, was concerned that the NSW Government was granting licences without demonstrating how those licences equated to the historic level of take:
It's great that NSW is finally getting to that point of issuing licences. The question is the volumes of licences that are being issued and the accounting rules around that. We share the concerns of many people across the basin that those volumes are excessive and that NSW hasn't provided the evidence to demonstrate that they are limiting those licence volumes to a historic level of take. Once the licences are issued, they will be compensable, which will make it very hard for a future government to claw those licences back.
9.24
Likewise, then interim Inspector-General of Murray-Darling Basin Water Resources, Mr Mick Keelty, questioned how the NSW Government was calculating the amount of floodplain harvesting that can be allowed under retrospective licences if it did not previously measure that particular form of water take.
9.25
Dr John Williams, Honorary Professor of the Water Justice Hub at the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, argued that the NSW Government is essentially accounting for diversions outside of SDLs:
The NSW Government has a process that, in a sense, is trying to deal with the fact that we're taking a whole lot of water out of the system that's not currently accounted for in the SDL. That's a serious problem, and there was an attempt a few days ago to put action through the House to make that legitimate. And I think we've really got a major problem here of how we deal with the SDL in the basin, where we know there's a large amount of water being taken in addition to that SDL.
9.26
In terms of licensing this form of take, Dr Adam Loch, Associate Professor at the Centre for Global Food and Resources, University of Adelaide, warned that the average availability of water in the basin is already less than the existing volume of entitlements that are in place:
[T]here are some simple numbers that we could reflect on in all of this. In the basin today there are 19,300 gigalitres of entitlements on offer across the entire north and south. On average we get anywhere between 7½ thousand and 10,000 gigalitres within the basin to use consumptively, if we're lucky. And as my colleagues have pointed out, that's dropping today and in the future. For anyone to suggest that more entitlements need to be established in the basin, no matter what form they are, is, frankly—and I hate to say this—ludicrous.
9.27
Dr Matthew Colloff, Honorary Senior Lecturer, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, explained that the volume of floodplain harvesting occurring in the basin is still being calculated although early estimates suggest the volumes are considerable:
A number of people are trying to estimate the volume of flood plain harvesting, at the moment—the MDBA, the NSW government and a number of independent researchers, including myself. What is becoming clear is the volume of storages in the northern basin certainly exceeds 1500 gigalitres. The volume of flood plain harvesting in the last major rainfall event, in February, in the northern basin certainly exceeds 1400 gigalitres, probably more because we've yet to account for Queensland catchments. But it is perfectly possible that the volume harvested in a single rainfall event in the northern basin could exceed the annual amount of water returned to the environment in the whole of the basin. That's what we're dealing with.
9.28
According to Mr Richard Beasley SC, who acted as Senior Counsel assisting the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission, that inquiry received evidence the basin's diversion limit is significantly underestimated due to floodplain harvesting:
[T]he MDBA put in an estimate when it originally did the ESLT determination about how much water was being diverted because of floodplain harvesting. I can't remember that figure off the top of my head. There was lots of evidence about this being a significant underestimate—a massive underestimate. In fact, it's likely that the estimate the MDBA had for the basin's floodplain harvesting was actually less than it is in some river valleys alone. As Bret said, that just throws out all the figures. You have to do it again based on that once you've got an accurate estimate.
9.29
Professor Quentin Grafton, Professor of Economics from the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, was concerned that some basin governments' accounting rules actually allow higher volumes of floodplain harvesting to take place:
[I]t's something around 300 billion litres—something along those lines, or a little less than that. But the accounting rules, as far as I understand, would allow five times more to be captured in any given 12-month period. So, that notional amount could have been five times more than that.
9.30
Conversely, the committee heard from other participants that the overall volume of floodplain harvesting is often small, and that implementing a licencing program provides transparency for all stakeholders. The Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association argued that without a licencing system in place, 'this form of take remains unmanaged, unmetered and unaccountable, which is not in the interests of any stakeholder'. The association estimated that approximately 30 per cent of long-term water take was occurring in the region outside of the existing licencing framework and argued that licencing should not be delayed any longer than it already has been:
We must remain focused on moving forward with improving the regulation of floodplain harvesting and overland flows and take every step required to finalise this historic reform as committed to nearly 20-years ago.
9.31
Dr Williams argued that a water accounting audit of floodplain harvesting volumes is essential to achieving the objectives of the Basin Plan:
[W]e desperately need a proper water accounting audit of where the water is…we do not understand the magnitude and nature of the floodplain harvesting that's taking place in the northern tributaries of the Barwon‑Darling…Unless you know your floodplain harvesting number, I don't see how you can make the progress you want.
Impact of floodplain harvesting licensing on SDLs
9.32
Some stakeholders questioned how current volumes of floodplain harvesting would inform licensed volumes and how those licensed volumes would then fit within the Basin Plan framework from a legal and environmental perspective.
9.33
According to evidence from Ms Slattery, an increase to the baseline diversion limit (BDL)—because of more accurate measurement of floodplain harvesting—would correspond with an increase to the SDL. This had been discussed, Ms Slattery explained, between the NSW Government and the MDBA in 2016:
[T]here was a small component of flood plain harvesting in the original baseline diversion limit and sustainable diversional limit in the Basin Plan. The MDBA and NSW, for the first time I became aware, started talking about changing the BDLs and SDLs in late 2016. They said that they were going to increase the volume of flood plain harvesting and increase the BDL and have a corresponding increase in the SDL. Bret Walker, the South Australian royal commissioner, said that was unlawful because the SDL should be based on an environmentally sustainable level of take, not based on a consumptive level…
9.34
In response to questions on notice from the committee, the Department for Agriculture, Water and the Environment advised that the take of water by floodplain harvesting is captured in the Basin Plan baseline diversion limit descriptions for SDL resource units where NSW is implementing floodplain harvesting licensing arrangements. The department explained that NSW will need to reflect floodplain harvesting licensing arrangements in accredited WRPs and ensure all water take remains within the legal limits set by the Basin Plan. According to the department, floodplain harvesting licensing is a matter for NSW under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) and a new regulation would not need to be put to the federal parliament.
9.35
However, Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations and Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations pointed out that WRPs do not address the problem of excessive volumes of unmeasured floodplain harvesting that may be currently occurring.
Suggestions to enhance climate resilience
9.36
Several participants suggested ways to enhance Australia's resilience to climate variability in the basin. These included introducing climate adaption guidelines to ensure consistency between states, improving infrastructure, accelerating current climate change work, updating the Basin Plan earlier than 2026, enhancing groundwater research and modelling, and ensuring that national training and education programs provide sufficient future capability to address challenges.
9.37
Professor Max Finlayson argued that the Basin Plan currently did not have 'sufficient regard for future projections of changes in water availability,' and should set out overarching guidelines or principles for climate adaptation, and for these to be consistent across jurisdictions:
Consistency in this context does not mean adopting a rigid or inflexible approach, but rather focuses on systematic outline of options along with their benefits…and their constraints...In this way we may avoid having an ad hoc collection of discrete and conflicting measures that are inconsistently applied across the river system. Further, maladaptive outcomes could potentially be avoided, or perverse outcomes minimised (for example, will planting large numbers of trees to capture carbon and mitigate climate change have adverse consequences for water quality and quantity in specific locations?).
9.38
The NSW Irrigators' Council argued that investing in infrastructure will ensure the future prosperity of irrigated agriculture:
According to the CSIRO [Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation], by 2070, there is expected to be 40 per cent more months of drought in eastern Australia. It is critical that active preparations are done to ensure the agriculture sector is prepared to not just be resilient to these climatic changes, but to continue to prosper despite them. NSWIC outlined measures that are needed to support irrigated agriculture sector, such as responding and adapting to a changing climate of water availability by investing in innovative infrastructure to enhance water conservation capacity for increased resilience to prolonged dry periods.
9.39
Dr Anne Jensen was of the view that reducing demand and improving agricultural efficiency in the basin should be the norm:
Instead of looking for more water where there is none, the response needs to be to reduce demand to fit the reality of limited water resources, with predicted future reduction due to climate change. It was demonstrated during the Millennium Drought that equivalent production could be achieved with 30 per cent of the water, using more efficient methodologies. This should become the new 'norm' in agricultural production.
9.40
The National Irrigators' Council argued that suitable water storages are also required:
Climate change is reducing run-off into dams, but also producing more extreme weather events including severe storms. That makes appropriate water storage infrastructure even more important for producing the food and fibre Australia relies on, but also for storing water to help to ameliorate some…of the negative environmental impacts of climate change.
9.41
Some participants were concerned that governments are not undertaking climate change work fast enough. Dr Matthew Colloff argued that the environmental objectives that are practical and achievable under climate change will need to be re-evaluated and made operational as part of current and ongoing adaptive management, not when the Basin Plan is reviewed in 2026.
9.42
The National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training (NCGRT) explained that groundwater is a major source of water in the northern basin and an important resource during extended droughts. However, there is a shortage of available good quality usable groundwater and climate change is expected to have major impacts on both surface and groundwater. According to the NCGRT, less rainfall can produce significant reductions in recharge and occur in parallel with surface water reductions. There may also be increased groundwater extraction due to climate changes. As such, the NCGRT argued it is essential that jurisdictions collaborate on integrated surface and groundwater management, with this collaboration supported by improved information.
9.43
The International Association of Hydrogeologists Australia (IAHA) advised that the Basin Plan does not distinguish between good quality available groundwater and total groundwater which has resulted in misleading groundwater SDLs. The IAHA recommended that these SDLs be revised so that different categories of groundwater, based on salinity, are identified.
9.44
The IAHA explained that in almost all of the basin, groundwater and surface water are managed as two independent water resources which results in poor efficiency and unintended environmental issues. According to the IAHA, most state water policies fail to manage surface water–groundwater interaction in a holistic manner, which means that inappropriate development continues to occur in some cases.
9.45
The IAHA advised that there are limitations in the early groundwater models, meaning that there is some uncertainty in the interaction values adopted for the plan. The IAHA argued that technology has advanced significantly and that purpose-built groundwater models are required to produce a more accurate, spatially varying understanding of the degree of interaction.
9.46
The Goyder Institute for Water Research (Goyder Institute) argued that long‑term coordinated research is required: 'In the Murray-Darling Basin there is currently no long‑term, basin-wide, collaborative and coordinated research, knowledge adoption and capacity building program'. The Goyder Institute pointed out that despite challenges from climate change, population growth, and increasing community expectations, water research has decreased and is now at its lowest level since the 1980s. The Goyder Institute drew attention to the Productivity Commission's suggestion that governments, industry, and research institutions work collaboratively to advance knowledge, build capacity, and develop technological and innovative solutions through mechanisms such as Cooperative Research Centres and the Goyder Institute.
9.47
The Goyder Institute has been working with universities to fill this research gap via the proposed and as yet unfunded One Basin Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) and the Centre for Drought Resilience Research. The One Basin CRC aims to develop science-based solutions for critical water challenges, in particular for the agricultural sector and dependent communities. The Centre for Drought Resilience Research aims to support economic, social, and environmental resilience in the agricultural sector and communities. The two initiatives would provide a coordinated, whole-of-basin, and long-term approach to overcoming major challenges.
9.48
The NCGRT highlighted that future challenges will require a skilled workforce. It argued that national education and training programs should aim to ensure sufficient capability and that a supply/demand analysis is required:
[C]rucial research and technical issues can only be tackled with a skilled research and technical workforce. Ensuring we have sufficient capability and capacity to deal with current and future groundwater (and interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary) challenges and risks is vital. This implies ensuring that national education and training programs are also sufficient to meet current and future needs and that the workforce required to tackle the issues are also in place. A labour force and educational provider (supply and demand) analysis is warranted.
Work underway to address the challenges arising from variations in climate
9.49
The Australian Government invested $20 million into a four-year Murray‑Darling Water and Environment Research Program to improve research into climate adaptation; hydrology; and environmental, social, economic, and cultural outcomes. This work complements numerous government and private research programs already in place across the basin. The outcomes from the Basin Climate Resilience Summit hosted by the MDBA in early 2021 will also inform investment and efforts to achieve climate resilience.
9.50
In its December 2020 Basin Plan Evaluation, the MDBA also recommended that basin governments should:
prepare to adapt the Basin Plan in 2026 to incorporate future climate scenarios and trends;
improve existing tools and develop new frameworks for basin-scale management; and
establish and publish an agreed work program.
9.51
The MDBA has also developed a three-phase workplan to guide efforts from 2021 to 2026 towards a sustainable, productive, and resilient Murray-Darling Basin. The workplan provides the foundations for the science, analysis and options to support the 10-year Basin Plan review in 2026. Phase 1 will advance the foundations to mitigate climate change impacts, improve science and knowledge, assess basin-scale vulnerabilities, and identify options for improving basin-scale water management arrangements. These foundations will be used in Phase 2, which will focus effort on climate vulnerabilities and exploring adaptation options with stakeholders. Phase 3 will propose climate adaptation options that need to be incorporated into the 2026 Basin Plan review.
Committee view and recommendations
9.52
Concerns regarding long-term climate impacts in the basin were raised by a diverse range of stakeholders, including irrigators, environmentalists, subject‑matter experts, and local community groups.
9.53
Evidence centred on concerns regarding the impact of permanent, large-scale plantings and the volume of floodplain harvesting being allowed in the basin. Stakeholders questioned whether these activities are sustainable for the system under current and future water availability. The committee considers there is a need for greater understanding of whether the sustainability of these activities has been assessed under potential climate scenarios, and what nationally‑strategic consideration has been given to water use in the basin.
9.54
The committee heard concerns that, as each jurisdiction operates independently, decisions appear to be being made by governments without having consideration for the broader impacts on the basin or downstream users. Some stakeholders were not convinced that the implementation of the Basin Plan and current state regulations are enough to protect the basin and its dependent water users. The committee also notes the repeated and definitive statements from the MDBA that climate variability is taken into account in future planning around the basin.
9.55
In light of predictions of a hotter and drier basin over the coming decades, some questioned how lower water availability might impact Australia's food security. Some stakeholders raised concerns about the risk to the availability of essential crops and the lack of a national strategy for agriculture in the basin in a drying climate. Participants were concerned that Australia could find itself reliant on imports, which could undermine national security. Calls were received for a much longer-term vision for water use and food security. The development of principles for climate adaptation by basin governments was also suggested as a way to mitigate some of the expected challenges. The committee again acknowledges the MDBA's assurance that climate variability is being taken into consideration in future planning.
9.56
Australia's research efforts in preparing for climate resilience were also described as fragmented and short-ranging. While numerous research programs are underway to address climate variability and food security in the basin, the committee understands that ventures to coordinate climate research activities to address current and expected major challenges have so far been unsuccessful.
9.57
The committee acknowledges and welcomes the Australian Government and the MDBA's work to identify challenges and increase resilience. For example, the Australian Government's investment of $20 million into a four-year targeted research program. The MDBA's three-phase plan towards the Basin Plan's review in 2026 also aims to identify and address climate vulnerabilities.
9.58
The committee agrees with submitters that while there appears to be a large number of research initiatives occurring, some of which are coordinated and fairly long-term, there is merit in reviewing whether there is a need to address research gaps specifically in the context of climate variability and food security in the basin. The committee also agrees with submitters that governments should be investing in innovative infrastructure that will assist to conserve water in the basin over coming decades.
9.59
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and Murray-Darling basin states to review whether current research initiatives across governments and the private sector provide a coordinated, whole-of-basin, and long-term approach to overcoming current and future major water-related challenges in the basin.
9.60
The committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate investing in innovative measurement tools and infrastructure to enhance water conservation capacity in the basin.
Senator Slade Brockman
Chair