australian water security

Australian Water Security An evaluation of Australia’s current water security position and a

comparison to its security position in the next ten years.

Prepared by: Brian Doyle

30 October 2015 S40493251

ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving

Brian Doyle - 40493251

2

TABLES OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................3

1.2AustralianContext...........................................................................................................4

2. PROBLEMDEFINITION...............................................................................................5 2.1Currentreality..................................................................................................................5

2.1.1Societal.......................................................................................................................5 2.1.2Commercial................................................................................................................6 2.1.3Political......................................................................................................................7 2.1.4Environment..............................................................................................................8

2.2Futurereality...................................................................................................................9

2.3Desiredreality..................................................................................................................9

2.4Problemidentification...................................................................................................11

3. MANAGEMENTENVIRONMENT–PRESENTTOFUTURE...........................................13

4. PROBLEMCLUSTEREVOLUTION–PRESENTTOFUTURE...........................................17

5. OPTIONSTOALLEVIATETHEPROBLEM–PRESENTTOFUTURE................................18

6. CRITERIAEVALUATIONANDMONITORING..............................................................20

REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................22



3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Global context

Securing a consistent supply of clean, fresh water has been humanities most important issue

throughout history (Gleick, 1996). Considering that water makes up approximately 70% of

the human body it is not surprising that it is called the ‘elixir of life’ (Manabe, 1969) (Ball,

2005). Also, fresh water is precious, for while water covers three quarters of the earth’s

surface, only 1% is fresh water, the balance made up of 2% ice and 97% salt water (Manabe,

1996). Water’s importance can not be understated in that human existence and activity is

predicated on access to water.

Water is not only critical to sustain each individual life, but its “availability in sufficient

quantity and quality has broader implications for global sustainability in the terms of societal

justice, economic vitality and human health” (Hancock, 1993). Also, Kulshrestha (1998)

suggests “that there is a direct relationship between the access to safe water and gross

domestic product (GDP) performance”.

“Water supplies are forecast to be pushed passed sustainable levels by up to 40% by 2030”

(Rzepczynski, 2014). Currently, “approximately 70% of global water is consumed by

agriculture” (Rzepczynski, 2014). Global demand, due to population growth “estimated to

reach 9.2 billion by 2050” (Dadush and Stancil, 2010), is forecast to “increase water

consumption for energy generation by 85% and food production by 50% by 2035”

(Rzepczyski, 2014).

Water security is being impacted by climate change, where the unpredictability and volatility

of weather patterns and rainfall is playing havoc with traditional seasonal patterns, replacing

them with “either a feast or famine in relation to causing floods or droughts” (Abebe, Dlamini

and Doyle, 2015). The United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) has suggested that “this uncertainty and weather volatility could potentially impact

crop yields by up to 25%” (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014) (Abebe et al;

2015).

The critical nature of water security has in recent times flown under the radar while other

humanity related issues take global center stage. Water’s emerging relevance is evident in the



4

World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual risk analysis. In the 2011 Global Risk report (World

Economic Forum, 2011), ‘Water Security’ as a risk, failed to make the top 10 in both the

‘most likelihood to occur’ and ‘most global impact’ categories. However, in the 2015 Global

Risk report (World Economic Forum, 2015), ‘Water Security’ had been renamed and

upgraded to ‘Water Crises’ and rated number eight as a risk ‘most likely to occur’, and ranked

at No. 1 as the risk that would have the ‘most global impact’.

1.2 Australian context

With an area of 7.692 million square kilometers, Australia makes up just five per cent of the

world’s land mass (Australian Government, 2015). Yet in size, Australia is 50% larger than

Europe, it is the smallest of the world’s continents (Australian Government, 2015). In

comparison to the rest of the world, “it is also the lowest, the flattest and (apart from

Antarctica) the driest” (Australian Government, 2015).

Within Australia’s constitutional framework water management is governed by a mix of State

and Commonwealth legislation, in addition to legal, institutional and regulatory frameworks

(Australian Water Commission, 2015). Action to establish a coherent national approach to

water management was not taken until 1994 with the development by the Council of

Australian Governments (COAG) of a national water reform framework (Australian Water

Commission, 2015). COAG’s principle policy agreement, within the Australian Water

Commission framework, is the National Water Initiative (NWI), which was signed at the June

2004 COAG meeting (Australian Water Commission, 2015). The NWI was designed to

establish a cohesive national approach to the measurement, planning, pricing, and trading of

national water resources (Australian Water Commission, 2015).

How Australia deals with water security is a double edge sword as it “involves both

opportunities and risks” (Grey and Sadoff, 2007). Given the complexity and importance of

this problem for Australia, the following sections of this paper will seek to first define the

problem through examining the current reality, a predicted future reality, and a desired reality.

Within this context, an analysis of both the management environments and problem clusters,

now and 10 years into the future will allow management options to be identified. This paper

will seek to identify the changes or evolution required of options to remain relevant to the

problem over the 10-year time line. In addition, the measurement methodologies applied to

option application and performance over the 10-year time line will be also discussed.



5

Background information on water security has been provided in this paper from a global

perspective. This global context provides a foundational understanding to the critical

importance of water security and its potential risk to Australia’s prosperity. It is within this

context that this paper will analyse the water security challenges faced by Australia. Also, this

paper will confine its exploration of Australia’s water security challenges to the macro level.

It is not this paper’s intention to delve into State and Territories specific water policies.

Comments and observations may be made on State and Territory policies from a holistic

perspective, where their contribution or impact are material to national water security policy

and programs.

2. PROBLEM DEFINITION

2.1 Current reality

Australia'saveragetotalannualrainfall 3,700,000GLTotalannualrenewablewaterresource 400,000GLAnnualwaterextracted 70,000GLAnnualwaterconsumption 24,000GLAgriculture 50-70%(Irrigationwateron1%ofagriculturalland)Urban 10-15%(50-100KLperpersonperyear)Manufacturing 2-5%Mining 1-4%Other 15-30%Annualwatertrading(entitlementwater) 2000GLAnnualwatertrading(allocationwater) 2500GL

AUSTRALIANWATERSTATISTICS(IndicativeValues)

Figure 1. Australian Water Statistics (Indicative Values). (Source: Securing Australia’s future in a green economy. Australian Academy of Technology, Sciences and Engineering (ATSE)).

2.1.1 Societal Access to clean and reliable water is critical for Australian society as it underpins all social

and economic activity that contributes to our high standard of living (Australian Academy of

Technology, Sciences and Engineering, 2012). Its availability supports the level of national

health and hygiene enjoyed by Australian’s. Equally important is water’s interdependencies

with energy and food, which again feed into the standard of living that Australian’s have

come to expect (Australian Academy of Technology, Sciences and Engineering, 2012).

However, in the ‘current reality’ water’s critical nature, by enlarge, goes unnoticed by a



6

significant proportion of Australia’s population. The majority of the Australian public enjoys

ready and easy access to water. For urban dwellers, the hardship of droughts is something we

watch on the television nightly news. The closest most urban dwellers come to experiencing

water shortages are the water restrictions put in place by local authorities when storage

capacities fall to unsustainable levels. For the urban dweller that means gardens, lawns and

cars can not be washed as often as they would like, and that an individual’s shower times are

reduced to manage an individual’s water consumption.

To some degree, a cultural legacy is having a negative impact on Australia’s approach to

water management. While Australia is the driest continent on earth with the lowest rainfall,

Australian’s continues to persist with pursuing European aesthetics, in terms of homes and

gardens. The Australian dream is largely still to have a home with a swimming pool framed

by rolling lawns and gardens.

From a societal perspective there is a clear distinction between urban and country citizens in

the attitude and understanding of water security. Country citizens through experience value

water differently from an urban dweller where accessing water has always been achieved by

simply reaching for the nearest tap.

Unfortunately, country citizens are only a small percentage of the total population. As a

result, an informed understanding of the value of water within the context of water security

and the future challenge to maintain Australia’s standard of living against climate change,

population growth, energy and food needs, is generally absent from the minds of the majority

of Australians.

2.1.2 Commercial

Within Australian industry there is a similar disparity of understanding on water security as

with the societal context. Country based industries such as agriculture and live stock growers

are acutely aware of the impact that water availability has to their businesses. Whereas, urban

based industry generally sees water as a business cost to be managed, but readily available

from the local water utility. Only a small percentage of Australian businesses are sufficiently

forward thinking to tackle water security as a critical sustainability issue for their businesses.

The remainder, while they may pursue water efficiency initiatives to drive or manage water



7

cost in their businesses, they are more likely to rely on government initiatives and policy to

drive water security initiates.

2.1.3 Political

Figure 2. Australian Federal Government Water Management Structure

Australia’s water management structure can be characterised as a decentralised model. Water

management in the states and territories is the responsibility of numerous government

agencies, water authorities and water utilities (National Water Markets, 2015). At a local

government level, management lies with a variety of organisations, including local and rural

water utilities and catchment authorities (National Water Markets, 2015).

At a federal level the Australian government influences policy through the following

departments and organisations:

• Department of Agriculture and Water – Federal water responsibility had until recent

weeks been managed by the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the

Arts. As a result of the recent change in Coalition leadership the National party and

Liberal party renegotiated their coalition agreement. A concession made by the

incoming Prime Minister was to transfer water responsibility to a National party

AustralianGovernment

Department ofEnvironment, Water,Heritage and the Arts

Murray DarlingBasin Authority

Bureau ofMeteorology

Australian Competitionand Consumer

Commission (ACCC)

Department ofAgriculture and

Water

ProductivityCommission

National WaterCommission

Responsible for planningBasin management under

Water Act 2007

Responsible for waterinformation to enhance

understanding Australian waterresources

Monitoring compliance withand enhancing water market

and water charge rules

Closed in 2014 - National WaterInitiative (NWI) and provides adviceto COAG and Australian government

on national policy

Water responsibility transferred toNational Party minister is recent

government leadership change as part ofrenegotiating the coalition agreement

State, Territory andLocal Government

Water management in the State andTerritories is the responsibility of

various government agencies, waterauthorities and water utilities

National WaterMarket

Responsible for several watermarkets across water systemsand administrative boundaries



8

minister (Hon Barnaby Joyce MP, Member for New England) under the Department

of Agriculture and Water. On face value this appointment would appear to be one of

self-interest for the National party. No policy statements or changes had been made at

the time of writing this paper to prove or disprove the observation of self-interest.

• Productivity Commission – Responsibility for the National Water Initiative (NWI)

was transferred to the Productivity commission in 2015 with the closure of the

National Water Commission in 2014 (Productivity Commission, 2015). The National

Water Commission’s primary responsibility was the monitoring and auditing of the

water reform policies within the NWI agreed to by states and territories in 2004 as a

way to increase the efficiency of Australia’s water use. NWI audit reports are

published triennially.

• Bureau of Meteorology – Responsible for water information to enhance understanding

of Australia’s water resources.

• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) – Monitoring

compliance with and enhancing water market and water charge rules.

• Murray Darling Basin Authority – Responsible for planning Basin management under

the Water Act 2007, in addition to managing the water entitlements owned by the

federal government.

• National Water Market (NWM) – Consists of several water markets, differentiated by

administrative boundaries and water systems. The NWM ensures that scarce water

resources are utilised to the highest value use.

2.1.4 Environment

The Australian Government’s Department of the Environment recent State of the

Environment (SoE) Report 2011 concluded that Australia’s environment and heritage were in

relatively good shape and in some case improving (Department of the Environment, 2015).

Many of the existing environmental challenges had arisen from past decisions and practices,

“that have left an ongoing legacy of impact” (Department of the Environment, 2015). The

State of the Environment Report (SoE) concluded that “our changing climate, and growing

population and economy, are now confronting Australia with new challenges” (Department of

the Environment, 2015). While the report did not understate the challenges ahead, particularly

regarding water, there were a number of positive indicators. For example, national water

resources are no longer developed without any reference to the needs of the environment

(Department of the Environment, 2015). In addition, Australia is “making progress in



9

lowering per-person water use” as well as “generating more wealth per unit of water or

energy used” (Department of the Environment, 2015).

2.2 Future reality

In establishing a water security ‘future reality’ there is sufficient empirical evidence to argue

either a pessimistic or optimistic case. From an optimistic perspective the positive outcomes

indicated in the 2011 SoE Report would continue and result in another positive SoE Report in

2021 along similar lines with regard to positive outcomes. From a pessimistic perspective,

Australia may engage in similar bad decisions and practices as it did in the past, which

resulted in “an ongoing legacy of impact” (Department of the Environment, 2015). The recent

closure of the National Water Commission and the transfer of NWI responsibilities to the

Productivity Commission, in addition to the transfer of water responsibilities to the

Department of Agriculture under a National Party minister, may or may not be causes for

concern. However, given the importance of water to Australia, the world’s driest continent

and within the context of the unknown impacts from climate change, Illogical government

department and responsibility changes in addition to political self-interest and party political

posturing will likely negatively impact the leadership and action required to secure Australia’s

water future.

2.3 Desired reality

In a ‘desired reality’ it is logical to wish that water access and availability is not a security

issue. In this reality, Australia has established the mitigation, adaptive and resilience

strategies necessary to accommodate the impact of climate change. Governments at all levels

have demonstrated the leadership required to champion water management within industry

and the Australian community. The catalyst for this transformation has been the adoption of

the ‘Green Growth’ (GG) perspective (Australian Academy of Technology, Sciences and

Engineering, 2012). GG was first discussed at the United Nations ‘Earth Summit’ in 1992

(Australian Academy of Technology, Sciences and Engineering, 2012) and promotes “the

idea that positive environmental and social outcomes can be achieved in conjunction with the

pursuit of living standards, prosperity and productivity” (Australian Academy of Technology,

Sciences and Engineering, 2012). To achieve this, “GG provides a framework for sustainable

economic development while addressing environmental, technological and social aspects”

(Australian Academy of Technology, Sciences and Engineering, 2012). Fundamental to the

GG philosophy is that “economic advancement should not come at the cost of natural



10

resources, the environment or social well being” (Australian Academy of Technology,

Sciences and Engineering, 2012).

In this ‘reality’, for Australian water security, a balance between environmental and economic

factors has been achieved through the application of GG concepts to water management

strategies and government policy. These strategies and policies support the development of

new industries, bring innovations to market, and places Australia on the pathway to realising

the opportunities of pursuing a new hybrid economic model where environmental,

commercial and societal needs are integrated.

To support this ‘desired reality’ new hybrid economic model, within the context of water

security, the following actions have been initiated and embraced by all elements of water

management and policy.

• National protocol aligned to GG objectives is established for water management and

policy across all levels of government (Australian Academy of Technology, Sciences

and Engineering, 2012).

• Ongoing analysis of integrated Australian economic and environmental accounts to

manage the relationship and outcomes of economic and social needs to the natural

capital (water) (Australian Academy of Technology, Sciences and Engineering, 2012).

• All water decisions, policies and management to be founded on balanced economic,

environmental and social analysis, underpinned by scientific advice (Australian

Academy of Technology, Sciences and Engineering, 2012).

• All decisions, policies and management is implemented through contestable and

transparent practices (Australian Academy of Technology, Sciences and Engineering,

2012).

• Water innovation funding through a national research and development program to

support the commercialisation of new technologies to increase water efficiency

(Australian Academy of Technology, Sciences and Engineering, 2012).

• A transparent and efficient Australian water market to facilitate the transmission of

water cost and pricing signals to all users to reflect the value of water within the

context of its availability (Australian Academy of Technology, Sciences and

Engineering, 2012).



11

2.4 Problem identification

In seeking clarity to the key problem underpinning Australia’s water security the irony and

paradoxical nature of the present management environment and problem cluster must be

recognised and understood. Constitutionally, the responsibility for water management is

largely with the state governments, territories and local councils. The federal government is

not powerless, but its power is limited and principally restricted to an oversight role. This is

best demonstrated with the introduction of the Murray Darling Basin Authority. The federal

government does not have the legislative power to bring all state government’s and territory

stakeholders on board to the project and was unsuccessful in presenting a compelling

argument to break-down state government self-interest. Accordingly, a project that ideally

should have been a collaborative effort with federal, state government and territory

stakeholders because an exercise of the Federal government entering the water market to buy

back water allocations to the value of $9 billion dollars (The Australian, 2011).

The irony and paradox is that Australia’s water regulatory and management framework is

state and territory based with fixed boarders for a natural resource not constrained by

boarders. For example, the Murray Darling Basin encompasses four states, whereas the Great

Artesian Basin covers three states. In the Murray Darling Basin, management decisions,

practices and withdrawals made in Queensland impact New South Wales, Victoria and South

Australia. Unfortunately, South Australia being the last in line is generally impacted the most.

In recent years there have been numerous occasions when there has been so little water flow

left that the Murray River’s mouth has closed.

In commercial organisational terms Australia’s existing water management structure is silo-

based. The states and territories are silos isolated from the National water perspective who see

themselves have a multitude of local government and water authority silos. Queensland alone

has seventy-seven local councils, each with responsibility to water within their individual

communities.

Accordingly, if the goal is national water security, it is logical to view the existing fragmented

regulatory and management structure as an impediment to optimising Australia’s water

resources for community and industry needs, within the context of the evolving impacts of

climate change. Equally as logical, is the view that an integrated approach to water

management will yield positive outcomes. Whether this is achieved through the federal



12

government taking regulatory control or through a change in consciousness that leads to a

collaborative approach from all stakeholders is less important. Through the process of

problem definition and identification, the core issue is to establish an integrated, collaborative

and structured approach to water management, as opposed to the existing fragmented,

unstructured approach.



13

3. MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENT – PRESENT TO FUTURE

Figure 3. Australian water security management environment - Present

Figure 4. Australian water security management environment - Future

Not surprisingly, the present and future management environments presented in Figures 3 and

4 are representative of the discussion earlier in the problem definition section of this paper.

Figure 3, is a graphical representation demonstrating that all stakeholders are interested in

water security. However, in this representation individual stakeholders are operating in

isolation of other stakeholders. While all stakeholders have a shared goal and are legitimately

WaterSecurity

Community

Energy

TasmanianGovernment

FederalGovernment

Environment

QueenslandGovernment

LocalCouncils

WaterAuthorities

Industry

Agriculture

South AustralianGovernment

New South WalesGovernment

VictorianGovernment

NorthernTerritory

Australan CapitalTerritory

Western AustralianGovernment

WaterSecurity

Community

Energy

TasmanianGovernment

FederalGovernment

Environment

QueenslandGovernment

LocalCouncils

WaterAuthorities

Industry

Agriculture

South AustralianGovernment

New South WalesGovernment

VictorianGovernment

NorthernTerritory

Australan CapitalTerritory

Western AustralianGovernment



14

pursuing a solution in the interest of their own communities and industry, the model is

ineffective and inefficient due to duplication of processes and costs, in addition to the

confrontational nature of the model resulting from the competition between stakeholders for

scarce water resources.

Figure 4 is representative of the management environment 10 years into the future. In this

model the objective and stakeholders are the same, but the operation of management within

the environment and their approach to problem solving has altered. This model is

representative of an integrated and collaborative approach to water security. With this

approach, it is logical to expect that by taking duplication of processes and costs out of the

equation, as well as the confrontational interaction between stakeholders, positive outcomes

with regard to effectiveness and efficiency will result.

In the commercial world the ideas of integration, cost efficiencies, shared knowledge,

collaboration and removing conflict from the negotiation or engagement process is not new.

In theory the same approach can yield positive outcomes for Australia’s water security.

However, in this management environment, whether present or future, the elements of

politics, economic self-interest, and community expectations and demands are ever present. It

is unrealistic to expect these stakeholders drive would disappear in the pursuit of water

security. What can be expected is that all of the elements, problem clusters and motivation

drivers relevant to water security present a compelling argument for change that will

overcome these insular and irrational self-interests for the national good.



15

Figure 5. Australian water security problem cluster - Present

WATERSTOCK

Australian FederalGovernment

Population

Water CostAccuracy

Transparency

Agriculture

Crop Choice

WaterManagement

Wastage

Growth Rate

Usage perPerson

Lifestyleexpectation

Apathy

Party Politics

Self Interest

NationalLeadership

State and TerritoryGovernments

Economic SelfInterest

Inter-StateCompetition

Politics

ClimateChange

Impacts

Rainfall

Temperature

Evaporation

Environment

Biodiversity

Sustainability

Water SystemsArtesian Basin

Technology

Commercial industry& resource mining

WaterWithdrawals

Colateraldamage

UnregulatedWithdrawals

Unauthorisedwithdrawals

Energygeneration

Community

Knowledge

European stylehome & gardens

Water wastage

Industrysustainability

Innovationculture

Capital costs

Developmenttime-lines

Skill levels

History

Pass decisions

Culture

Damagingpractices

Legacy ofmismanagement

Systemscoverage

Variability

Duplication

Inconsistentregulatory regime

Attitude to recycledwater - potable

Swimming poolmentality Water intense

generationtechnology

Water recycling

Process waterwastage

Energy demand

Withdrawals



16

Figure 6. Australian water security problem cluster - Future

WATERSTOCK

Australian FederalGovernment

Population

Water CostAccuracy

Transparency

Agriculture

Crop Choice

WaterManagement

Wastage

Growth Rate

Usage perPerson

Lifestyleexpectation

Apathy

Party Politics

Self Interest

NationalLeadership

State and TerritoryGovernments

Economic SelfInterest

Inter-StateCompetition

Politics

ClimateChange

Impacts

Rainfall

Temperature

Evaporation

Environment

Biodiversity

Sustainability

Water SystemsArtesian Basin

Technology

Commercial industry& resource mining

WaterWithdrawals

Colateraldamage

UnregulatedWithdrawals

Unauthorisedwithdrawals

Energygeneration

Community

Knowledge

European stylehome & gardens

Water wastage

Industrysustainability

Innovationculture

Capital costs

Developmenttime-lines

Skill levels

History

Pass decisions

Culture

Damagingpractices

Legacy ofmismanagement

Systemscoverage

Variability

Duplication

Inconsistentregulatory regime

Attitude to recycledwater - potable

Swimming poolmentality Water intense

generationtechnology

Water recycling

Process waterwastage

Energy demand

Withdrawalvolumes



17

4. PROBLEM CLUSTER EVOLUTION – PRESENT TO FUTURE Figures 5 and 6 represent the problem clusters for Australia’s water security both present and

future. Figure 5 is representative of the problem clusters for the present, associated with

Australia’s water security. Figure 6, the problem clusters for the future, is essentially the same

model. In figure 6 the graphical representation demonstrates that the same problems will exist

in 10-years time as they do now. However, the high-lighted (full colour) elements indicate a

change in impact or contribution to the problem clusters.

In this analysis, I have chosen not to conduct a sensitivity analysis to establish a priority

problem. My rationale for this decision is related to the earlier discussion with regard to an

integrated and collaborative regulatory approach to increasing water security. Within the

problem cluster model (Figure 5) all problems are legitimate in their casual contribution to

Australia’s water security problem. However, on closer examination it will reveal that the

majority of the problem elements are governed by the actions of the Australian Federal

Government and state and territory government problem clusters. For example, the outcomes

for the environment, and the actions of agriculture, commercial industry, energy, water costs

and population are controlled by government regulation. The remaining clusters can act

independently with technology chasing the needs of the other clusters. Climate change is a

cluster on its own, where the Australian government has little if any impact through it

contribution to a global reduction of green house gases. Paradoxically, climate change is the

most important. Australia is seeking water security, but with the severity of climate change

impacts being an unknown quantity, Australia has no defined target to work towards, only

forecasts, each more devastating and catastrophic than the one before it.

In essence, the high-lighted elements of Figure 6 mirrors the theme that has evolved through

the problem definition process and an examination of the management environment in the

present and future. The theme is that water security is an Australia wide problem dealing with

a natural resource that is not contained or constrained by boarders and specific jurisdictions.

Logically, a holistic approach will elicit better outcomes through integration and collaboration

as opposed to the alternative of silo management, duplication and confrontation.



18

For example, in Figure 6 population has ‘Usage per person’ and ‘Attitude to recycled water –

potable’ highlighted as well as others. The high-lighted elements for this problem and for all

the other problems is designed to indicate a positive improvement from the actions taken

against the original problem cluster analysis. It is not the intention nor the scope of this paper

to attempt to quantify these improvements, only to indicate that over the 10-year time-line a

positive outcome has been achieved. In the case of ‘Usage per person’ a collaborative

approach to communication and education by all government stakeholders has reduced the

apathy of the community, increased their knowledge and enhanced the community value of

water, which has resulted in lower usage of water per person. Likewise, a similar program

with changing community attitudes on recycled water will break down the stereotypes and

barriers blocking its use of potable water.

Water security problem clusters in Figure 6, for 10 years into the future are very much a work

in progress. As indicated in the ‘History’ cluster, Australia is still dealing with the legacy of

water decisions and management practices from many years ago. While it is realistic to expect

an improving trend within a 10-year time-line, it is unrealistic to expect miracles overnight.

With a determined and consistent program of collaboration and integration Australia can

establish the water security mitigation, adaptive and resilience strategies to support the

nations ongoing development.

5. OPTIONS TO ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM – PRESENT TO FUTURE Australia has a number of options already in place that can continue to operate and be

enhanced to alleviate the risk to water security. In addition, the adoption of ‘Green Growth’

principles into the government stakeholders’ integrated and collaborative approach will

generate positive outcomes not only in relation to water security, but across a full spectrum of

environmental issues, such as;

• Department of Agriculture and Water – Until recently water responsibility at the

federal level was managed by the Department of Environment. An earlier observation

was made that this appointment was one of political self-interest. Whether that is the

case will unfold in time. Within the scope of achieving water security what department

is responsible is perhaps irrelevant, as long as decisions and management are made in



19

the interest of all Australian stakeholders. Over time key government bodies will need

to adopt a business methodology and rationalise, through take-over, merger, joint

venture, shared equity or whatever. What form this evolution takes is unknown at this

point in time. Ideally, this new collaborative and integrative management structure

will be the best to extract maximum outcomes.

• Productivity Commission – Responsibility for the National Water Initiative (NWI)

reports was transferred to the Productivity Commission in 2015 with the closure of the

National Water Commission in 2014. The National Water Commission’s primary

responsibility was the monitoring and auditing of the water reform policies within the

NWI agreed to by states and territories in 2004 which was to increase the efficiency of

Australia’s water use. NWI audit reports are published triennially. Presently, the NWI

is conducted as a ‘desk-top’ audit of the states and territories compliance to NWI

protocols. While, the NWI has increased the focus and made a positive contribution to

progress, over time resources must be provided to allow for a full and detailed audit

regime across the nation. The logic behind this recommendation is that ‘desk-top’

audits have inherent limitations that can only be addressed only through expanding the

program to a full audit process.

• Bureau of Meteorology – Charged with the responsibility to continue advancement of

water information systems to enhance understanding of Australia’s water resources.

• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) – Resource and provide

with the necessary legislative powers to monitor compliance by enhancing water

market and water charge rules.

• Murray Darling Basin Authority – Responsible for planning Basin management under

the Water Act 2007, in addition to managing the water entitlements owned by the

federal government. Explore the opportunities to expand this program or initiate

similar programs in Australia’s other water systems.

• National Water Market (NWM) – Ensures that scarce water resources are utilised to

the highest value use.

• Green Growth Protocols – Introduce Green Growth protocols into the Australian

regulatory environment. These protocols promote “the idea that positive

environmental and social outcomes can be achieved in conjunction with the pursuit of

living standards, prosperity and productivity” (Australian Academy of Technology,

Sciences and Engineering, 2012).



20

With environmental problems establishing a time frame for action is critical when considering

initiating options. For example, the option of doing nothing is always considered. This may

well relate to waiting to see what will happen with a particular problem because it may well

by resolved on its own accord. Other problems need to have associated issues addressed first

before an option can be acted upon. With the majority of environmental problems, like stand-

up comedy, timing is everything. However, Australia’s challenge in pursuing water security is

unique in its critical nature. Global water supplies “are forecast to be pushed passed

sustainable levels by up to 40% by 2030” (Rzepczynski, 2014). Taking the global situation

into consideration, in addition to Australia being the driest (apart from Antarctica) continent

on earth (Australian Government, 2015), you only have to do the math. Australia does not

have the luxury to wait, action to improve water security must start immediately. Australia is

already playing catch-up, still dealing with legacy management and decision making mistakes

from decades past. Inaction by Australia’s government stakeholders will increase the degree

of difficultly of success and risk of putting Australia at a threshold or tipping point from

which it can not recover from.

6. CRITERIA EVALUATION AND MONITORING An important element of initiating an option is evaluating its application and monitoring its

results. Monitoring is critical as it allows for modifications or changes to the option to

maintain its relevance to the objective. Monitoring is particularly important for programs that

operate over an extended time-line, as the longer the time, the larger the probability that

programs will stray from their objectives.

Through the process of problem definition and identification, the core issue is to establish an

integrated, collaborative and structured approach to water management, as opposed to the

existing fragmented, unstructured approach. The following tools are recommended to evaluate

and monitor the success of Australia’s pursuit of water security:

• Nation Water Initiative (NWI) – Established responsibility for monitoring and auditing all

federal, state and territory government agreed water reform policies. Existing reports are

conducted and published triennially. Australia’s water security is of such importance

reporting and publishing will be conducted biannually. Audit methodology is to be

extended to a full compliance audit from the existing desk-top audit conducted now.



21

• State of the Environment Report – A detailed analysis of the environment conducted by

the Department of the Environment at both a national, state and territory level on a five-

year cycle. Reporting cycle to be changed to a triennially publication.

• National Water Market (NWM) – Existing state based water markets to be rationised and

merged into a single national water market to ensure transparency and contestability. Its

primary purpose is to establish, evaluate and monitor the value of water to ensure that

scarce water resources are utilised to the highest value use.

• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) – Monitoring compliance

with and enhancing water markets and water change regulations.

• Non Government Organisations Environmental Management System – Mandatory

requirements for all commercial industry, agriculture, resource and energy businesses to

operate with an accredited and third party certified management system. A mandatory

requirement of either a Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Non Government Organisation

(NGO) standard or a ISO 14001:2015 Environmental Management System accreditation.

The above recommended methodologies have been selected because of the comprehensive

coverage required in managing an integrated and collaborative water security program. An

important element in selecting these methodologies is that all are based on an audit

methodology. This methodology is founded on a regime of continuous self-assessment and

continuous improvement. In pursuing a complex program over an extended time-line it is

important to adjust the monitoring and evaluation to match changing circumstances. Audit

based monitoring systems are in essence a live management system that grows, develops,

changes, adds to, and evolves as audit results are generated. Audit non-compliances and

corrective actions are the tools used by an audit system to maintain relevance over time.

Accordingly, these recommended systems when applied to evaluating and monitoring the

integration and collaboration program for Australian water security will evolve to achieve

their objectives.



22

REFERENCES Adebe, L., Dlamini, V., & Doyle, B., (2015). Water Security: The Water-Food-Energy-

Climate Nexus. Group Project Proposal: ENVM7523 – Systems Thinking for Sustainability. University of Queensland. March 2015

Australian Academy of Technology, Sciences and Engineering, 2012. Sustainable Water

Management: Securing Australia’s Future in a Green Economy. Retrieved from: http://www.atse.org.au/content/publications/reports/natural-resources/sustainable-water-management.aspx?WebsiteKey=9cfd0302-4b41-4183-a5be-37628c955133

Australian Government, (2015). The Australian Continent. Retrieved from:

http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/the-australian-continent Australian Government, (2015). Australian Water Commission. National Water Initiatives.

Retrieved from: http://www.nwc.gov.au/nwi Australian Government, (2015). National Water Markets. Retrieved from:

http://www.nationalwatermarket.gov.au

Australian Government, (2015). Department of the Environment. State of the Environment Report 2011. Retrieved from: https://www.environment.gov.au/science/soe/2011-report/supplementary

Ball, P. (2005). Water and life: seeking the solution. Nature, 436(7054), 1084-1085. Dadush, U., & Stancil, B. (2010). The world order in 2050. Policy outlook. Gleick, P. H. (1996). Basic water requirements for human activities: Meeting basic needs.

Water international, 21(2), 83-92. Grey, D., & Sadoff, C. W. (2007). Sink or swim? Water security for growth and development.

Water Policy, 9(6), 545. Hancock, T. (1993). Health, human development and the community ecosystem: three

ecological models. Health promotion international, 8(1), 41-47. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change, (2014): Mitigation of Climate

Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Kulshreshtha, S.N (1998). A Global Outlook for Water Resources to the Year 2025. Water

Resources Management 12 (3): 167–184.



23

Manabe, S. (1969). Climate And The Ocean Circulation 1: I. The Atmospheric Circulation And The Hydrology Of The Earth's Surface. Monthly Weather Review, 97(11), 739-774.

Queensland Government, (2015). Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and

Planning. Local Government Directory. Retrieved from: http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/local-government-directory/

Rzepczynski, M. S. (2014). Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds (a review). Book

Reviews, 9(1), 1-1 The Australian, (2011). $9 bn Murray Darling Basin buyback benefits will outweigh costs:

Labor. Retrieved from: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bn-buyback-benefits-will-outweigh-costs-labor/story-fn59niix-1226207562362

World Economic Forum (2011). World Economic Forum – Risk response network – Global

Risks, 2011 World Economic Forum (2015). World Economic Forum – Risk response network – Global

Risks, 2015

australian water security

Documents